Return of the War Party

Return of the War Party

Patrick J. Buchanan

men go to Tehran
brayed the neoconservatives,
after the success of their propaganda campaign to have
America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war
that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War

Now they are back, in pursuit of
what has always been their great goal: an American war
on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their
collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:

On being chosen by Israel’s
President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s
“Bibi” Netanyahu

“Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and
constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since
the war of independence.”

Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last
week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by
the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon,
analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to
make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon
appeared imminent.

Asked about Iran’s nukes in his
confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta

“From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no
question that they are seeking that capability.”

Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
, a front
spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the

Iranian portfolio
. AIPAC’s top agenda item? A U.S.
collision with Iran.

In the neocon
Weekly Standard,
Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu,
urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the
Palestinians on a back burner. Why?

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in
the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli
withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to
Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.” [The
Path of Realism or the Path of Failure

The campaign to conflate Hamas,
Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist
cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a
nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has
begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling
on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it
destroys us all cannot be far off.

But before we let ourselves be
stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a
few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.

First, last week’s acknowledgement
that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb
does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.

To construct a nuclear device, the
ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be
run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges
to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).

There is no evidence Iran has
either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges
necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any
of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz. And the
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain
full access to Natanz.

And rather than accelerating
production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the
Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle.

Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the
IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to
negotiate with the United States, but without yielding
any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear
power plants.

For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and
India, none of which signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran
clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed
the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What
it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N.
Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and
sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.

Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who
heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus
of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran
does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear
weapons program.

Bottom line: Neither the United
States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran
either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active
program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear
device and has never demonstrated a capacity to
weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.

Why, then, the hype, the hysteria,
the clamor forAction
This Day
It is to divert America from her
true national interests and stampede her into embracing
as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.

None of this is to suggest the
Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and
progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with
nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to
break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter,
defend against or defeat enemies.

But that is no threat to us to
justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that
hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in
hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence
worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran
that has not launched an offensive war against any
nation within the memory of any living American.

Can we Americans say the same?



Patrick J. Buchanan


no introduction
to VDARE.COM readers;
his book
State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from His latest book
is Churchill,
Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its
Empire and the West Lost the World,



Paul Craig Roberts.

Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

By Linda Thom

“Octomom” Nadya Suleman, whose father is an Iraqi immigrant, received in vitro fertilization and delivered octuplets. Professors of ethics and fertility experts buzz about the negative health consequences for the children and there are many. But what about the social and economic costs of 14 children, all under the age of seven, who must be supported by an unmarried woman?

Even raising one child alone is challenging—and one of Ms Suleman’s older children is autistic. The public, monetary outlays will be immense, but the human costs will also be immense.

Right from the start, babies of single mothers are at a disadvantage. Fetal and Perinatal Mortality, United States, 2005” from the Center for Disease Control reads:

“In 2005, 49% of fetal deaths were to unmarried women, as compared with 37% of live births. . . .Marital status may be a marker for the presence or absence of social, emotional, and financial resources.”

Poor, fatherless children are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care and cognitive stimulation. The boys are more likely to commit serious crimes than their peers with a male presence in their lives. The daughters of unmarried women are more likely to be unwed mothers themselves. Archives of literature exist on this topic.

But unfortunately Ms Suleman is just one of the growing numbers of unmarried mothers—and the rising tide of uneducated, Third-World immigrants is a leading cause.

In January, lost amidst all the news about the failing economy, the inauguration and the war in Gaza, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a rather dry press release with the terse headline: Teen Birth Rates Increase in Over Half of States. [PDF]On the second page, one of the bullets reads: “The birth rate for unmarried women increased 7 percent between 2005 and 2006, reaching 50.6 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years. “

The underlying 104 page document “Births: Final Data for 2006” [Births: 2006] contains this stunning statement:

“More than 1.6 million babies were born to unmarried women in 2006, the highest number ever recorded in the United States. The 2006 total (1,641,946 births) was nearly 8 percent greater than in 2005 (1,527,034) and a 20-percent increase from 2002 when the recent steep increases began.”

This is dreadful news. The total number of births in 2006 was 4.3 million, so illegitimate births amounted to 38.5% of the total. Back in 1980, only 665,747 unmarried women gave birth, 18.4% of the total.

These numbers are not estimates. They are actual numbers compiled by the CDC from birth certificates generated at the local level and reported to the respective states and then to the CDC.

Why this huge increase in unwed mothers? The CDC says that the increase in the 80s and early 90s resulted mainly by an increase in the birth rate for unmarried women. In addition, the CDC states in Births: 2006, “the factor in the long-term increase in the number of births was the growth in the number of unmarried women of childbearing age.” [PDF](My emphasis)

The table below shows the percentage of births to unmarried mothers by race and ethnicity for years 1990 through 2006. (CDC, Vol 52, Num 19 and Births: 2006) Birth rates are not broken out by all races and ethnicities for this entire period.

All Races




Native Am























From this, one can see that the proportion of births to unmarried, non-Hispanic white women and the percentage to unmarried, Hispanic women rose the most—by 9.7 and 13.2 percentage points, respectively. Note, however, that the proportion of unmarried Hispanic mothers of newborns is considerably higher than that of non-Hispanic white mothers—almost double in 2006.

According to the CDC, the rate and “the growth in the number of unmarried women of childbearing age” caused the rise in out-of-wedlock births. Below is a table showing the change in all annual births between 1990 and 2006.


All births


NH All

NH White

NH Black

























“Non-Hispanic All” includes other women besides whites and blacks.

The numbers do not add to the total births because some women’s race and ethnicity are unknown and because some women are multiple races and ethnicities. Nevertheless, this table shows that births to non-Hispanic whites and blacks decreased between 1990 and 2006. But births to Hispanic women increased. (Annual Asian/PI births also increased, from 141,635 in 1990 to 241,045 in 2006).

During the same period, 1990 to 2006, births to unmarried women rose dramatically, from 1,165,384 (28% of all births) to 1,641,946 (38.5% of all births). And births to unmarried Hispanic women rose from an annual 299,733 births in 1990 to 518,125 births. In other words, 63% of the increase in births to unmarried women between 1990 and 2006 was to Hispanics. The table below summarizes these changes.

Births to Unwed women

Births to Unwed Hispanic

Hispanic as a % of all

















Who are these Hispanic women? In Births: 2006, Table 14 shows that 63% of Hispanic women were foreign-born, mostly Mexicans (69% of Hispanics) and Central and South Americans (16% of Hispanics).

Significantly, U.S.-born Hispanics have an even higher out-of-wedlock rate than do foreign-born women. For example, the last time the CDC broke out the rates by natality of mother was in Births: 2003. [PDF] In that year, Births: 2003 shows that U.S.-resident women born in Mexico had 41% of their births out of wedlock; Mexican-American women had 48% their births out of wedlock.

Birth rates for unmarried women are calculated by relating the total births to unmarried mothers, regardless of age, to the population of unmarried women aged 15-44 years of age. In 2006, NH-White women 32; all Black women 71.5 and Asian/Pacific Islander women 25.9—and Hispanic women had a birth rate of 106.1. In simple words, Hispanics have more children per woman than do all other groups of women.

How can America reduce the number of illegitimate births? Quit importing uneducated, Third World immigrants.

How can America change the behavior of American-born Hispanic women—often the children of those illegitimacy-prone immigrants? That is a Medusa of a problem.

Linda Thom [email her] is a retiree and refugee from California. She formerly worked as an officer for a major bank and as a budget analyst for the County Administrator of Santa Barbara.

Locust Says

Locust Says:

The peoples of the Western Nations are the strongest people in the world! We have fought the greatest of wars and have always triumphed over evil. Now the time is approaching when together we will unite the free loving nations of Earth and stand against the darkness that threatens to engulf us all. We must stay vigilant and never give in. the Politically correct would have us surrender our right to life, they would allow the Muslim insurrection to dominate us all, they would allow the masses of the Earths poor overwhelm our industrialized nations, I say we stand and fight, we go on the offensive and destroy those who would destroy us! The other civilizations want war, the Sinic (Chinese’s), Latin, Islamic, they all want War lets give it to them! The west is strong and will always remain so. 57% of Mexican in the US believe the Southwest belongs to Mexico. 66% of Mexican in Mexico see the US as an Enemy nation, that is not a small minority of enemies.

I could not help but notice that America, at least in the southwest has become something akin to a large Wal-Mart. The border remains as porous as a sponge, people entering and leaving as they please, overcrowded lines in ever checkout station, and most of all everything is for sale at dirt cheap prices. The graveyards of our fallen soldiers in aisle one, the constitution in aisle two, our education system in aisle three, get their quick they-re nearly sold out, and the birthright of our children in aisle four. An endless mega mart of America, the sellers think nothing of the end result of their sales, they look to the bottom line, family oriented façade that stands for nothing, they may wave an American flag here or there, but its meaning is lost unto them. The dizzying bombardment of advertisements shaped by multicultural perversion, celebrated by the ignorant masses of self-defecating parasites. Draining all surrounding communities of life, spreading the wholesale destruction of existence. Clearing the aisle with the sponge and mop of political correctness, and whitewashing everything with hypocritical progressive hot air. The customers, in true parasitic fashion, like the busy little ants they are, scurry about from aisle to aisle engorging their progressively obsess mass with the blood of True Americans, with little thought of the victim in each transgression. As in every superstore there are no regulations concerning cart-driving behavior, similar to the off road-raging streets of Tijuana. The dirty looks and gross anti-Americanism around every corner. Trickery and deceit lure each victim further down the aisle of no return, leaving each victim bankrupt and devoid self-identity. No identity, no soul, no value, and no origin, everything is made somewhere else, usually in China. Each sector designated a specialty, although this promotes organization, it also promotes separation akin to separate but unequal turn of the century hell holes in the Deep South. Deep in the backwater aisle, crime and thievery are rampant, absolute disregard for order; these parasites at will take what they can to far-off backwater aisle and engorge themselves with the fruits of their contempt for capitalism. Almost daily sales celebrating this holiday and that, no mention of historical reference or name or dates, just exploitation of the soul of history. Their children are taught at birth the pecking order, each one jealous of the others cart. Massive parking lots, overhead lighting and long walks through the noise and oblivion of hell itself, only to be run down by an obese parasite scampering into a parking space. Everyone knows the value of the dollar, don’t ask whose face is on it or why, just spend uncontrollably, bleed your accounts, trim your belts, and fatten your faces. Like a continued plague of locusts, for each parasite leaving, two more are entering promoting the growth of further superstores, like a cancer it spreads throughout the body nation, killing vital organs of healthcare and education, and cutting of circulation to the political brain, depriving it of oxygenation and nourishment it badly needs for continued function. Each parasite has little if no effect on the body, but 12-25 million (illegal aliens) that’s a different story.

Upside Down Economics

Upside Down Economics

More news stories on Pandering Politicians

Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate, February 27, 2009


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to “encourage” banks and other lending institutions “to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.”


The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required “innovative or flexible” mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed—and if some people didn’t meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bakers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well.

But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else’s approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other “creative” financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.


Original article

Hate Group Numbers Up by 54% Since 2000

Hate Group Numbers Up by 54% Since 2000

More news stories on Real Hate Speech

Press Release, SPLC, February 26, 2009

The number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000—an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama, according to the “Year in Hate” issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report released today.


Two new factors were introduced to the volatile hate movement in 2008: the faltering economy and the Obama campaign.

“Barack Obama’s election has inflamed racist extremists who see it as another sign that their country is under siege by non-whites,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right. {snip}


Extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the subprime mortgage meltdown. {snip}

{snip} The issue examines the widespread media reporting of a false claim that undocumented immigrants held 5 million bad mortgages and were, therefore, responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.


Original article

(Posted on February 26, 2009)


It’s not that new “hate groups” started, it’s that, over time, the SPLC has an increasingly loose definition of “hate” and “group,” so that each year, more and more existing groups can qualify as “hate groups” in their lexicon.

Also, who is to say that most of these “groups” actually exist? Be, for an example, the CEO of a major conservative national organization, especially one that deals with racial issues in a conservative way, and you’re going to be on everyone’s mail list, and by “everyone,” I mean everyone on the racial right wing. Most of the organizations that the SPLC claims to exist, you’ll never get any mail from. How does the SPLC know they exist when right-wing professional activists have never heard of them? Either the Center is making stuff up, or through several intermediaries they’re having people dress up in funny uniforms.

We know that a certain bent cross group in Florida was led and organized by an FBI informant, including public marches and rallies. Most of their members were probably FBI, too. Meaning no FBI, no bent cross group. The infamous 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four black girls — FBI informants, dressed up in funny uniforms. The reason is obvious — when LBJ wants civil rights laws, when ADL/SPLC want money, all sorts of bombs are going to go off somewhere.

Posted by Question Diversity at 5:36 PM on February 26

And in other news, black-on-white violence continued unabated during the same period.

Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 5:39 PM on February 26

Well, I mean, if that icon of integrity, The Southern Poverty Law Center says that “hate crimes” are up, then who are Americans to question them? The truth is, it is exactly European Americans who should be question them, and questioning them, and questioning them more. However, as individuals it will accomplish nothing, like a fork hitting water. As a united group it would stop these abusers of basically European Americans—cold. That is who they are forvever focused on.

Posted by Bobby at 6:01 PM on February 26

This is soooo depressing. “Hate group” membership should be up by way more than 54%! 80,000%, here we come!

The SPLC has decided to define deviancy down. Where “hate group members” used to mean violent, ignorant thugs like Klansmen and skinheads, today they consider anyone with a valid critique of mass immigration, multiculturalism and/or affirmative action to be a member of a hate group. Gotta keep those contributions flowing in…

Posted by Wally at 6:02 PM on February 26

How many groups are actually individuals?

We had an incident in which a ‘group’ sent questionable mail. When they tracked down the ‘group’, it was one person.

These people define ‘hate group’ as any individual with a computer, a printer, and access to envelopes and a mailbox.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 6:24 PM on February 26

i wonder if that 54% includes any new readers of hate sites like American Renaissance and VDare? i kid. seriously though, considering how groups like $PLC consider anyone who so much as criticizes minorities a hater, then we should have plenty more people who are willing to stand up for America and their white heritage when the next election comes.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:38 PM on February 26

Behold the Gospel according to the SPLC. What is a hate group? Why, any organization that doesn’t agree with the SPLC’s multi-culti, extreme liberal, Whites-are-always-to-blame philosophy, of course!

The gall of this White-bashing, minority-loving gang is just incredible. They act as if the sun rising and sets on their opinions about what constitutes “hate.” That is one of the favorite words of the left wing in this country. It’s greatly aided and abetted by large segments of the news media who parrot the term “hate group” without even a hint of quotes, as if all and sundry were 100 percent agreed as to what it means.

Posted by Wayne Engle at 6:58 PM on February 26

Locust Says:

Has Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, read the minority housing meltdown? If you have not its on this site, or you can read it on

Black: The New Color of Privilege

Black: The New Color of Privilege

More news stories on Black Culture

Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2009


Most Americans, I believe, thought all the race-baiting rhetoric might have finally come to an end. Apparently they were wrong.

Eric Holder says we need to keep on talking about race—having frank conversations.

OK, I’ll take the bait. Let’s talk frankly about race.

During the last presidential election, Barack Obama, the first black presidential candidate nominated by the Democratic Party, won the largest percentage of white voters of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.

Some 43 percent of white votes went to Obama—55 percent going to John McCain. Among younger white voters, 54 percent voted for Obama. To put that in perspective, in the past 30 years, no Democrat presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young white votes.

That suggests to me that white Americans are more than willing to put the racial divide behind them.

But what about blacks?

The sad reality is that 96 percent of black Americans voted for Obama—96 percent!

Where is the evidence of white racism in the presidential vote?

Not only did white Americans vote willingly for a black man for president, they voted for one with no qualifications {snip}.

So when are Barack Obama and Eric Holder and the rest of their divisive, America-hating gang of race hucksters going to give white America a break?

Far from being racist, American culture has so romanticized blackness that American white children now wish they were black. The hideous gangster culture of black hip-hop serves as their soundtrack, their speech riddled with ghetto language and their baggy pants falling off their flat behinds.

Why are white kids envious of blacks?

Maybe, in part, it’s because black is the new color of privilege in America—at least insofar as government is concerned. Blacks and other so-called minority groups get preference in hiring, for contracts, for educational opportunities, for grants, for student aid, for ownership of broadcast outlets and other businesses regulated by government. Yes, we’ve come a long way, baby—from racial preferences for whites to racial preferences for blacks.


If we’re a nation of cowards on matters of race, as Eric Holder suggests, it’s because too few of us are willing to point out the new institutional anti-white racism imposed by government.

[Editor’s Note: Other AR stories and comments on Eric Holder’s “National Cowards” speech are listed here.]

Original article

(Posted on February 26, 2009)

Latinos and Islamic Students Protest Former Rep. Tom Tancredo’s Speech

Latinos and Islamic Students Protest Former Rep.

Tom Tancredo’s Speech

at American U.

More news stories on Race and Universities

Marissa Lang, The Diamondback (University of Maryland), February 25, 2009

More than 400 students from universities across the Washington metropolitan area converged at American University Tuesday night in a peaceful protest, waving signs festooned with a simple message written and occasionally shouted in more than five different languages: “America is multicultural.”

Students from this university, American, George Washington and Georgetown sat in forced silence at American University last night, as American University police officers encircled the room, to oppose former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo’s (R) stand against immigration and America’s “cult of diversity.”


The trip was organized by the Latino Student Union’s advocacy committee, though other students attended. They said they heard about the protest via an announcement sent out by the D.C. Latino Student Partnership, an umbrella organization that organizes and increases communication between Latino groups in the area.


Tancredo was invited to speak at American University by the newly established national organization Youth for Western Civilization—a national right-wing organization that aims to reverse policies perceived as being anti-American—which YWC President Kevin DeAnna said will likely attempt to establish a chapter at this university in the near future.

“We need to announce ourselves as a force,” DeAnna said. “[The turnout] shows that people have been waiting for this kind of a message: that people of the West should get off of their knees.”

Though Tancredo denied being prejudiced against any group, students characterized much of the former congressman’s ideologies as being “ignorant” and “racist.”


Tancredo, who ran for president in 2008, dubbed immigrants’ tendencies to hold on to their own cultures as a destructive force in the “American fabric” that he said needs to change to preserve the union.

“Throughout history, people who are not white Anglo-Saxon have become American by adopting a white Anglo-Saxon culture,” Tancredo said. “Today, this cult of multiculturality emphasizes our differences—things that pull us apart instead of bringing us together.”


Tancredo’s speech singled out both Latinos and Muslims as “problem” cultures that are contributing to the fragmentation of American society.

“We are forcing children to participate in a world that promotes Muslim sensitivities,” he said. “We are losing the relevance of citizenship. Being an American used to mean something. We have every right to be proud of who we are. And this is not something I think we can survive.”

Original article

(Posted on February 26, 2009)


Interesting that Double-T would cite both Mexico and Islam as problem cultures, because they sometimes covertly participate. After 9/11, we found that some of the radical Islamic terrorists got Mexican help to sneak across the border, as the latter can easily pass for the former in a group of them together.

Also, there was a short-lived news mag on the regular Fox over the air network, called “The Pulse” and hosted by Bill O’Reilly at the Fox Cable News Channel. It debuted not longer after 9/11, and their very first segment was done by the great lib Geraldo Rivera, and my mouth dropped to the floor when he exposed these Mexico-Islam links.

I asked someone I knew at the time that we know how these Islamic ne’er-do-wells got into the U.S. from Mexico, they hid with Hispanics and snuck across — but how did they get into Mexico? A country, mind you, that is mostly militarized at its own southern border, and has nativism hard-wired into its Constitution. My theory was that the Mexican government secretly and knowingly let them in, as Mexico was covertly sponsoring terrorist attacks against the U.S. like 9/11. However, Mexico isn’t exactly world-renowned for being a nation of laws, the right amount of money in the right hands can make anything happen or go away.

Glenn Beck Shakes at the thought that We The People are on the verge of Revolution!

Glenn Beck Shakes at the thought that We The People

are on the verge of Revolution!

Glenn Beck Shakes at the thought that We The People are on the verge of Revolution! This is Freedom of Speech at it’s best! As Protected and Guaranteed to me in The US Constitution!

Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist:

The socialist media would never ever report this …….. That is why the media hides Keyes well. They can not allow an intelligent black man walking around talking like this… Please pass it

More from Guy White making sense on Race.

SAT scores matter

The short answer is: yes, they were. Consider the changes in admissions profiles and six-year graduation rates of the classes entering in 1997 and 2001 at SUNY’s 16 baccalaureate institutions. Among this group, nine campuses raised the emphasis they put on the SAT after 1997. This group included two prestigious research universities (Buffalo and Stony Brook) and seven smaller, regional colleges (Brockport, Cortland, New Paltz, Old Westbury, Oneonta, Potsdam and Purchase).

Among the campuses that raised selectivity, the average incoming student’s SAT score increased 4.5 percent (at Cortland) to 13.3 percent (Old Westbury), while high school grade-point averages increased only 2.4 percent to 3.7 percent — a gain in grades almost identical to that at campuses that did not raise their SAT cutoff.

Yet when we look at the graduation rates of those incoming classes, we find remarkable improvements at the increasingly selective campuses. These ranged from 10 percent (at Stony Brook, where the six-year graduation rate went to 59.2 percent from 53.8 percent) to 95 percent (at Old Westbury, which went to 35.9 percent from 18.4 percent).

Most revealingly, graduation rates actually declined at the seven SUNY campuses that did not raise their cutoffs and whose entering students’ SAT scores from 1997 to 2001 were stable or rose only modestly. Even at Binghamton, always the most selective of SUNY’s research universities, the graduation rate declined by 2.8 percent.

The change is even more striking if we compare experiences of three pairs of similar SUNY campuses that, from 1997 to 2001, took sharply divergent paths. First, Stony Brook and Albany, both research universities: over four years, at Stony Brook the average entering freshman SAT score went up 7.9 percent, to 1164, and the graduation rate rose by 10 percent; meanwhile, Albany’s average freshman SAT score increased by only 1.3 percent and its graduation rate fell by 2.7 percent, to 64 percent.

Next, Brockport and Oswego, two urban colleges with about 8,000 students each: Brockport’s average freshman SAT score rose 5.7 percent to 1080, and its graduation rate increased by 18.7 percent, to 58.5 percent. At the same time, Oswego’s freshman SAT average rose by only 3 percent and its graduation rate fell by 1.9 percent, to 52.6 percent.

Finally, Oneonta and Plattsburgh, two small liberal arts colleges with 5,000 students each: Oneonta’s freshman SAT score increased by 6.2 percent, to 1069, and its graduation rate rose 25.3 percent, to 58.9 percent. Plattsburgh’s average freshman SAT score increased by 1.3 percent and its graduation rate fell sharply, by 6.3 percent, to 55.1 percent.

Legacy of Slavery

I just noticed that I began receiving google traffic from the keyword “legacy of slavery”.

If you google the term, my post on the legacy of slavery is #4. It is the only entry I could find on the first page (few people go beyond page 1) that doesn’t take the PC view that whites are the evil of the world and poor, poor blacks can never get over the legacy of being bought from Arab or their fellow African slave-traders (like Barack Obama’s ancestors on the father’s side) by white slave-owners who freed them.

I would like to expand that entry. Anyone who has any ideas as to what to put there, please let me know.

It is our one change to get our views out there to the mainstream audience, including college kids who may be giving class presentations on this topic. Normally, they would just state all the PC garbage and sit down. This is a chance to give them some counter-points to balance out their presentation. Even if they disagree, they might say, “but the other side believes xyz”, which would already be significant progress.

In Defense Of The White Man

Very much worth reading. I got this via

Is this the kind of dialogue Mr. Holder was looking for?

By Selwyn Duke
February 24, 2009

While many believe that prejudice has diminished over time, it’s not really true. Prejudice is much like the wind: Its direction changes, and the sheltered and well-situated may not sense it, but it’s always blowing on some people somewhere. Put literally, every age has its fashionable biases – and unfashionable people.

This was obvious during the presidential inauguration benediction, given by the Reverend Joseph Lowery. While making a supplication to the Lord, he made the following anachronistic plea:

“. . . help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what
is right.”

Well, I wonder if the reverend has ever asked the Lord why He scourged the world with white people in the first place.

It isn’t surprising that caucaphobia is in fashion. You can demonize any person, group or place; all you need do is focus on the object’s failings to the exclusion of its/his accomplishments. It isn’t even hard to do. To bastardize one of Abraham Lincoln’s lines, if you look for the worst in a group, you’re sure to find it. It’s just as with a person. If I repeatedly disseminated your sins and mistakes among the town folk while downplaying your good points, how long would it be before they were chasing you with pitchforks?

So it has been with whites for a long time now. It is not correct to say that history textbooks, documentaries and entertainment inundate us with stories about slavery and civil rights abuses; no, they inundate us with stories about whites’ practice of slavery and abuse of civil rights. There !
are movies such as “Roots” and “Mississippi Burning” but none of note about the Aztecs’ or Shaka Zulu’s domination of neighboring peoples, or the current African slave trade or Zimbabwean “president” Robert Mugabe’s persecution of whites and political opponents. Then, relating the American history guidelines of a prominent textbook publisher, the author of The Language Police, Diane Ravitch, writes:

“European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history.”
This philosophy imbues school textbooks. While featured prominently are the sins of whites, others’ sins are whitewashed. For instance, due to special-interest-group pressure – such as that applied by Moslem activists – examples of slavery perpetrated by non-whites are in short supply or are sanitized. This, despite the fact that Moslem North Africans did at one time capture young boys of both the white and black races, castrate them and sell them into slavery. And this bias is a continuation of decades of anti-white propaganda of the kind embodied in Susan Sontag’s famous 1967 line, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” It’s an idea that has taken hold.

Thus must I mount a defense of the white race. But I want to preface it with a few remarks. First, don’t ask why I undertake such an endeavor. When the president has a preacher talking about the black, brown, yellow, red and white, it’s silly to ask why I speak of race. I’m not initiating such a discussion, I’m responding. I’m not throwing punches, I’m blocking.

Second, because of this – since I’m refuting those who assign blame by highlighting the sins of whites – it’s necessary that I trumpet whites’ accomplishments. Unlike those I’m refuting, however – who often ascribe the evils they feature to something inherent in whites – I don’t claim there is an innate quality in the race that should be credited with all these triumphs. On the contrary, I believe the force primarily responsible for Western civilization’s glories is Christianity, but that is grist for a different day.

It’s not hard to figure out where a defense of whites must start: Slavery. It’s the most odd of issues, in that we all thoroughly agree on the wrongness of it yet it is thoroughly divisive. It is the defining grievance of black America, something that imbues millions of black psyches. As an example, I attended a gathering a few years ago at which there was a certain guest, a rather emotive and outgoing black fellow who was very good at relating every topic of discussion, from the meaningful to the mundane, to America’s slavery. It was as if he could channel Kunta Kinte in every conversation.

Yet the reality of slavery is that, along with prostitution, it is one of the world’s oldest institutions. It is mentioned in the Bible and Koran, and, to the best of my knowledge, every major civilization has practiced it. And, if we’re to believe history and Afrocentrists (and I suppose you cannot believe both), the ancient Egyptians were black (no, they were not!) and enslaved Jews.

Moreover, the Islamic slave trade took at least as many Africans into bondage as did the European variety, and African tribes themselves had slaves and sold them to both civilizations. Additionally, while the word “slave” conjures up the image of a black person in the typical American mind, the term itself is derived from the word “Slav.” This is because great numbers of Slavs were once sold into slavery by conquering peoples. In other words, no group ever cornered the market on slavery – it touched ever corner of the Earth.

Yet, in the history of involuntary servitude, something else should be noted. It is a startling fact:

While whites weren’t the first ones to practice slavery, they were the first ones to abolish it.

Let’s be clear about this. Slavery was accepted. It was the status quo. It was an institution whose origin was shrouded in the mists of time. It was unquestioned.

That is, until Europeans said “No more.”

It was not Asians who effected this bold and unprecedented social change. It was not South Americans. It was not Africans. It was not American Indians. It was not Aborigines. It was Europeans, that cancer of human history, and they were just as white then as they are today. They gave the world change you can really believe in.

People will try to explain away this historical fact, saying that this striking example of man’s humanity to man has nothing to do with race. I will simply reiterate that the why of the matter is a discussion for a different day. For now, I’m content to say that if whites can be demonized without explanation for being one of many groups to enslave Africans, they can be credited without explanation for being the first group to outlaw the enslavement of anyone.

One of the reasons we fixate on slavery that ended more than 150 years ago concerns the effects many believe it has today. This is called the “legacy of slavery,” which, actually, seems not nearly as big a problem as the legacy of obsessing on legacies. Be that as it may, what is the real legacy of slavery?

Well, let’s think about it: Many lament blacks’ economic state in America, claiming it’s part of slavery’s legacy. But where would blacks be were it not for slavery? The answer is Africa, where people’s economic state is far, far worse than that of American blacks.

In other words, there is no reason to agonize over an event – even an evil one –responsible for your presence in a country that has offered its citizens unprecedented rights and standard of living. (Of course, to be precise, most blacks currently in the U.S. would not actually have been worse off absent slavery. This is because they wouldn’t have “been” at all, as ancestors whose procreation led to their existence would never even have met. The big picture is a funny thing, isn’t it?)

The point is that most people who arrived on American shores were driven here by some kind of persecution. Whatever the reason, however, thank God we’re in the land of opportunity and not languishing in a slum in Asia, South America, Africa or Eastern Europe. So, it’s ironic, but that some blacks were brought here in chains yesterday ensured that their descendants wouldn’t have to wear chains today.

Now we come to prejudice, another supposedly characteristic white fault. Yet the truth is quite the opposite. In reality, racial prejudice is probably found least among whites, due to political correctness.

Most white children are raised today with the idea that it’s profoundly immoral to be prejudiced. This isn’t to say there aren’t some Archie Bunker types extant, but they certainly aren’t in fashion. Remember, it was mainly white people who originated, promoted and funded sensitivity-training classes, tolerance programs and multiculturalism (come to think of it, I may start hating white people myself). Now, while I consider these abominations to be worse than what they ostensibly remedy, this brings us to a relevant question: Can you think of another group that has gone to the point of self-flagellation to purge prejudice from its ranks? Heck, with how we beat each other up over this, no one really has to worry at all about whites. We’re all black and blue.

Then we have the matter of white achievement. The vast majority of what makes the lives of all races better today – modern science and medicine; our luxuries; Western art, literature, legal institutions; etc. – is the handiwork of whites. Oh, this is simply a matter of circumstance, of opportunity, of a twist of fate, you say? Perhaps. Again, this is not the time to discuss the ways and whys. Suffice it to say for now that if President Obama (PBUH) can frame matters in terms of race at his inauguration (and in his books and everywhere else, it seems), I can in an article. And if whites can be ridiculed for their transgressions, they can be recognized for their triumphs.

Yet, despite all this and more, caucaphobia is still not only accepted but often encouraged. And the hypocrisy is stark. The left admonishes against making even valid generalizations or entertaining intellectual discussions about group differences. And indulging stereotyping – that specter of egalitarian nightmares – can fast earn one pariah status in addition to a place on the unemployment line. Why, even the positive variety is off limits. We cannot say blacks are better athletes, even though the sports arena may bear witness to this; we cannot say Asians are more intelligent, even though they have the highest average I.Q. of any major racial group; we cannot say Latinos are good dancers (not sure about that one). The idea is that such beliefs can lead to stigmatization or resentment or, or . . . whatever the theory du jour may be.

But when the matter is whites, even baseless negative stereotypes aren’t thought cause for alarm. A Reverend Lowery can imply that whites are uniquely flawed and immoral, they can be portrayed as the bane of man, as “the cancer of human history,” and it’s ho-hum.

Yet, are we to believe that such demonization magically becomes harmless when whites are the targets? What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It’s that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized – as Sunnis’ domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans’ enslavement of the Helots proved – it’s foolish to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia. (In fact, whites already suffer the sting of persecution).

Yet, that increasingly-maligned dead white male Ben Franklin knew whereof he spoke when he said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Prejudice is a function of emotion, not logic, and emotion is like darkness, in that it can be blinding. A person who sees only color – and through colored glasses – will have a powerful immunity to facts. Thus, I only expect caucaphobia to intensify.

So what can we do? Well, prayer is always good, so I’ll conclude with one of my own right now. Lord, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will cease the attack, brown will no longer frown, white will be alright – and rhymes will fit the times.

© 2009 Selwyn Duke – All Rights Reserve

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, and he writes regularly for The New American, and Christian Music Perspective.

E-Mail: SelwynDuke at optonline dot net

I turn on the TV just now and the first thing I see is the Wayans Brothers, two young big black men, being robbed by a small white middle-aged man. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember a single criminal in any fiction who wasn’t white and middle aged, looking like your average suburban father.

If by some chance there is a black criminal, he’s always someone very sympathetic, such as John Q. where he’s taken the hospital hostage so that the nasty, uncaring white doctors would be forced to perform a surgery his son requires to survive. Yeah, that’s why most black crime happens! Sure, I believe you!

Every black guy on TV is married and the vast majority looks like he has a graduate degree. Every criminal is white.

And instead of everyone going, “who are they kidding?”, the nation applauds them.

Sexual attraction is a choice, we are told by the High Priests of the Church of Liberal Orthodoxy. Sure. I don’t have to be attracted to a woman because gender is a social construction. I could be attracted to a man, but I made a prejudiced, homophobic choice not to be.

No doubt it was a conscious decision I made at the age of 11-12 to stop chasing after a ball and instead stare at my classmates’ chests. Probably an oppressive decision too. We must always work oppression in there somehow.

I am not a man and Betty Friedan is not a woman. Ok, they may have a point when it comes to her. But nobody else is a woman or a man either. Nobody is born with any sexual desires they cannot control, it’s all a choice.

So after concluding that nobody can be born straight, the High Priests suddenly tell us that some people are born gay.

Say what?!

So people can’t be born with a particular sexuality, they can’t be born male or female, but they could be born gay.


So let me get this. Some of us are born gay and the rest are bisexuals who have a choice of sex partners? But nobody is born straight?

Oh and one more thing: if gender is a social construct, then how is it that people could be “born into a wrong body”, as transsexuals claim about themselves? If nobody is a man and nobody is a woman, then your body doesn’t matter.

If penis, testosterone, male hair pattern, etc don’t make you a man, and it’s all just our social beliefs, why do the transsexuals have to take testosterone-blockers and cut off their penis? Why is it that people can only be born into a wrong body, but never into the right body?

Doesn’t the fact that some people are born into the wrong body prove that the sex of your brain and your body usually match?

Doesn’t this also prove that people with one type of genitals have a differently structured brain than people with another type, and that it’s not all “social construct”?

No doubt all of you heard our racist Attorney-General Eric Holder say that Americans are cowards. One must understand first and foremost that when blacks say that Americans need to be more open about race talk, they mean that black people don’t harass whites enough.

Any black person who doesn’t abuse whites is a “house nigger” and an “Uncle Tom”. Consider for example this poem by Prof. Nikki Giovanni of VA Tech who was chosen by the school eulogized the victims of the massacre by Cho Seung-hui in April 2007. You really should read it. It tells you all you need to know about the “open and frank conversations” that blacks are looking for. If you don’t kill whites, you are a nigger. Pride means murder.

All the “dialogues on race” are nothing more than black people getting the license to harass. Blacks scream and yell at whites during these “dialogues” and whites are supposed to just tolerate it.

When Shaneequa complains that she has herpes and AIDS, are we allowed to tell her to stop having unprotected sex with random men?

When Laquisha complains that she has diabetes are we allowed to tell her that racism doesn’t cause the disease, but stuffing her mouth with hamburgers and sitting on her fat “ghetto” ass instead of working does?

When Roshandra complains that she needs more welfare so that she will never have to work because she has 5 kids, can we tell her that we aren’t responsible for supporting her out-of-wedlock children?

Can we tell Mohammad al-Shareeq, formerly known as Mike Johnson, that the legacy of white slavery is that white people decided to abolish it? That blacks should be grateful to the white man for ending slavery, something nobody else had done before? That Arabs, who originally enslaved blacks, would never have freed them and in fact black slavery remains active in several Arab countries?

When Tyrone complains that he and 32% of all black men spent over a year in prisons are we allowed to point out that the difference in testosterone levels – proven to cause violent behavior – is the same between whites and blacks as between teenagers and middle-aged men?

Are we allowed to say that poverty does not cause crime, but rather it is dysfunctional behavior that causes both crime and poverty?

Are we allowed to ask whether the ghetto is crime-ridden because of the people who live there or because buildings in the projects are tall?

When we talk about the causes of the present economic recession, can we discuss the shakedown in the amount of several trillion dollars that banks were forced to pay to minorities?

Are we allowed to ask why the quality of American universities is being destroyed to accommodate black students who got admitted through affirmative action and are incapable of doing the work (here and here)?

Are we allowed to ask why is it that black kids cannot do as well as white kids no matter how much we spend on schools, even if it is $350 million for a single school?

Can we talk about how small genetic differences can cause massive differences in outcome?

Most importantly, are we allowed to talk about IQ differences? Shouldn’t we know the reason why blacks fail?

Is it a conspiracy that blacks score less well than whites on all tests? Which side is lying about IQ results?

Or is it the environment? Or genetics (here, here and here)?

Is IQ research science or pseudo-science? Who’s trying to suppress real research?

Mr. Holder, can we ask those questions?

Because unless we know whether or not white and black IQ is the same, and what caused the differences, we cannot answer why is it that blacks trail behind whites in school and among corporate management.

Unless we know whether or not blacks commit the same amount of crime, and what caused the differences, we cannot answer why more blacks are arrested.

Unless we know whether or not blacks are more likely to have reckless sexual habits, we cannot answer why blacks are so much more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases.

There is great reason to have an open and honest dialogue about race. But Mr. Holder. Sir. Please understand something. A dialogue must be two-sided. That’s the meaning the word ‘dialogue’. Otherwise, it is just a monologue.

When one side gets to make speeches and the other side needs to agree, clap and repent, it is not dialogue. What you are calling for, Mr. Holder, is to allow black people to engage in uncontrolled screaming against whites for which under different circumstances they would get arrested for harassment, intimidation and disorderly conduct. That is not dialogue. That is not openness. That is abuse.

Mr. Holder, you don’t want more openness. You don’t want us to discuss the very causes of the race problems in this country. You want to tell us what assumptions and presumptions we must start with: whites are always to blame.

Mr. Holder, an open and honest dialogue does not mean giving black people a license to harass whites. It means letting people talk about racial differences in IQ, testosterone and sexual behavior, and the genetic and cultural causes, so that we could find the answers based on facts, logic and science, instead of building a wall that blocks information from reaching the masses.

Mr. Holder, if you truly want open and honest dialogue, tear down this wall. Come out in favor of letting us talk about IQ, testosterone and sexual habits!

Logical Dialogue on Race

This comment by HardLogic deserves it’s own blog entry.

I watched this clip twice, and took some notes the second time. I’d like to respond to a few items that were brought up:

Holder: “…we don’t talk enough about things racial.”

Who is it that’s trying to prevent a frank discussion? I’ll give you a hint; this would be the same group that ends people’s careers whenever they bring up an inconvenient racial fact.

Dyson: “The black church didn’t come into existence because it desired to be separate from the white church.”

Really? Perhaps this is true, but I sincerely doubt it. Either way, the implication is that only white people were separatist, while blacks were too pure to be self-segregating. In effect, you’re undeniably saying here that only white people are racist.

Dyson: “America [needs] to embrace all of its separate colors…to be willing to say, ‘Hey, maybe we didn’t get it right; maybe white supremacy, social injustice, the whole owning of slaves, Jim Crow law, and vicious bigotry have not lived to the best experiment in democracy.’”

Are you kidding me? Are you actually saying that America is presently asserting–to any degree at all–that any of these occurrences you list were good? Did you just step out of 1850? In a country where blacks can be found in positions at every level of society, where slavery has been entirely outlawed, where affirmative action has a strangle-hold on every aspect of our society, where universities and businesses and government agencies have to meet race quotas, where every white person has to walk on eggshells for fear of being accused of racism, where Black History Month and Black Pride and Black this and Black that are not only tolerated but encouraged, where history texts are rewritten to make whites look evil and blacks look noble, where every child undergoes mandatory mental reform by liberal thought police, are you really proposing that America has not embraced the black population? It would be hard for us to give much more favor to blacks than we already have without all being required to perform fellatio on Al Sharpton.

This must be the key to black exploitation of America: living forever in the sins of the past. It’s my understanding that psychologists consider this a dangerous mental state.

Dyson: “…Oscar Grant and the chimp cartoon…”

Yes, Oscar Grant: You assume he was killed because he was black. You assume this because the cop was not black. We both know you would not assume this if the cop were black or Oscar were white. In other words, you only care when a policeman kills someone under tragic circumstances if it can be used to support your own racism. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can sift through ten thousand incidents of police heroism to find just one of police ineptitude and hold it up as proof of universal racism or oppression. One might even go so far as to say that such people try to stereotype all police officers by the actions of only a few of them. As I recall, stereotyping is one of those unacceptable activities minorities are always whining about (except, apparently, when they are doing it).

And about the chimp cartoon, the incident it was referencing was a recent event in which a celebrity chimpanzee named Travis was shot to death by police in Connecticut after having mauled a friend of its owner. It had nothing to do with Obama unless you incorrectly believe Obama wrote the stimulus bill. Don’t you have anything better to do than wander around looking for things at which to take offense? Grow up!

Dyson: “Many black people are used to hearing negative things about themselves every day in the press; many white people are not.”

The negative things in the press about blacks might possibly have something to do with the fact that blacks commit over 50% of the murders in the US, even though they are a mere 13% of the population. It might have something to do with the fact that, compared to whites, blacks are more than twice as likely to commit domestic violence, more than twice as likely to have children out of wedlock, more than eight times as likely to contract AIDS, almost five times more likely to default on student loans, more than five times more likely to go to prison during their lifetimes, et cetera. Somehow, we are told, this is the fault of white people. No one is sure how that can be the case, but it must be, because the alternative would be to hold blacks responsible for their own bad decisions.

Despite what you say, whites do see a lot of negative press about themselves every day: We are told that we are oppressive, even though the nations founded by our race were the first to outlaw slavery. (Slavery is ongoing in many parts of Africa, as it has evidently been since long before white people brought writing there; Niger, for instance, outlawed slaver in 2003, but nearly 8% of the population is still enslaved there. Ghana outlawed child sex-slavery in 1998, but it is still practiced widely.) Even when slavery was legal in the US, 95% of the white population never owned a slave. In order to view America as a nation of former white slave owners, it is necessary to stereotype white people based on the actions of 5% of them, all of whom have been dead for well over a century; still, White people endure this ongoing negative prejudice in the press. White people are portrayed as racist hate-crime perpetrators, even though the vast majority of anti-black hate crime is committed by Latinos and the vast majority of anti-Latino hate crime is committed by blacks.

Dyson: “We love America; that’s why we have a black president.”

If you love America, why does the president’s skin color matter so much to you? Over 95% of black voters voted for Obama. They turned out to vote in all-time record numbers. Explain how this is not racism.

How the Economy Was Lost

How the Economy Was Lost

By Paul Craig Roberts

The American economy has gone away.  It is not coming back until free trade myths are buried six feet under.

America’s 20th century economic success was based on two things.  Free trade was not one of them.  America’s economic success was based on protectionism, which was ensured by the Union victory in the Civil War, and on British indebtedness, which destroyed the British pound as world reserve currency.  Following World War II, the US dollar took the role as reserve currency, a privilege that allows the US to pay its international bills in its own currency.

World War II and socialism together ensured that the US economy dominated the world at the mid 20th century.  The economies of the rest of the world had been destroyed by war or were stifled by socialism.

The ascendant position of the US economy caused the US government to be relaxed about giving away American industries, such as textiles, as bribes to other countries for

cooperating with America’s cold war and foreign policies. For example, Turkey’s US textile quotas were increased in exchange for over-flight rights in the Gulf War, making lost US textile jobs an off-budget war expense.

In contrast, countries such as Japan and Germany used industrial policy to plot their comebacks.  By the late 1970s, Japanese auto makers had the once dominant American auto industry on the ropes.  The first economic act of the “free market” Reagan administration in 1981 was to put quotas on the import of Japanese cars in order to protect Detroit and the United Auto Workers.

Eamonn Fingleton, Pat Choate, and others have described how negligence in Washington DC aided and abetted the erosion of America’s economic position.  What we didn’t give away, we let be taken from us while preaching a “free trade” doctrine at which the rest of the world scoffed.

Fortunately, our adversaries at the time, the Soviet Union and China, had unworkable economic systems that posed no threat to America’s diminishing economic prowess.

The proverbial hit the fan when Soviet, Chinese, and Indian socialism collapsed around 1990, to be followed shortly thereafter by the rise of the high speed Internet.  Suddenly, American and other first world corporations discovered that a massive supply of foreign labor was available at practically free wages.

To get Wall Street analysts and shareholder advocacy groups off their backs, and to boost shareholder returns and management bonuses, American corporations began moving their production for American markets offshore.  Products that were made in Peoria are now made in China.

As offshoring spread, American cities and states lost tax base, and families and communities lost jobs.  The replacement jobs, such as selling the offshored products at Wal-Mart, brought home less pay.

“Free market economists” covered up the damage done to the US economy by preaching a New Economy based on services and innovation.  But it wasn’t long before corporations discovered that the high speed Internet let them offshore a wide range of professional service jobs.  In America, the hardest hit have been software engineers and information technology (IT) workers.

The American corporations quickly learned that by declaring “shortages” of skilled Americans, they could get from Congress H-1b work visas for lower paid foreigners with whom to replace their American work force.  Many US corporations are known for forcing their US employees to train their foreign replacements in exchange for severance pay.

Chasing after shareholder return and “performance bonuses,” US corporations deserted their American workforce.  The consequences can be seen everywhere.  The loss of tax base has threatened the municipal bonds of cities and states and reduced the wealth of individuals who purchased the bonds.  The lost jobs with good pay resulted in the expansion of consumer debt in order to maintain consumption.  As the offshored goods and services are brought back to America to sell, the US trade deficit has exploded to unimaginable heights, calling into question the US dollar as reserve currency and America’s ability to finance its trade deficit.

As the American economy eroded away bit by bit, “free market” ideologues produced endless reassurances that America had pulled a fast one on China, sending China dirty and grimy manufacturing jobs.  Free of these “old economy” jobs, Americans were lulled with promises of riches.  In place of dirty fingernails, American efforts would flow into innovation and entrepreneurship.  In the meantime, the “service economy” of software and communications would provide a leg up for the work force.

Education was the answer to all challenges. This appeased the academics, and they produced no studies that would contradict the propaganda and, thus, curtail the flow of federal government and corporate grants.

The “free market” economists, who provided the propaganda and disinformation to hide the act of destroying the US economy, were well paid.  And as Business Week noted, “outsourcing’s inner circle has deep roots in GE (General Electric) and McKinsey,” a consulting firm.  Indeed, one of McKinsey’s main apologists for offshoring of US jobs, Diana Farrell, is now a member of Obama’s White House National Economic Council.

The pressure of jobs offshoring, together with massive imports, has destroyed the economic prospects for all Americans, except the CEOs who receive “performance” bonuses for moving American jobs offshore or giving them to H-1b work visa holders.  Lowly paid offshored  employees, together with H-1b visas, have curtailed employment for older and more experienced American workers.  Older workers traditionally receive higher pay. However, when the determining factor is minimizing labor costs for the sake of shareholder returns and management bonuses, older workers are unaffordable.  Doing a good job, providing a good service, is no longer the corporation’s function.  Instead, the goal is to minimize labor costs at all cost.

Thus, “free trade” has also destroyed the employment prospects of older workers.  Forced out of their careers, they seek employment as shelf stockers for Wal-Mart.

I have read endless tributes to Wal-Mart from “libertarian economists,” who sing Wal-Mart’s praises for bringing low price goods, 70% of which are made in China, to the American consumer.  What these “economists” do not factor into their analysis is the diminution of American family incomes and government tax base from the loss of the goods producing jobs to China. Ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshoring, while California issues IOUs to pay its bills.  By shifting production offshore, offshoring reduces US GDP.  When the goods and services are brought back to America to be sold, they increase the trade deficit.  As the trade deficit is financed by foreigners acquiring ownership of US assets, the change in ownership means that profits, dividends, capital gains, interest, rents, and tolls leave American pockets for foreign ones.

The demise of America’s productive economy left the US economy dependent on finance, in which the US remained dominant because the dollar is the reserve currency.  With the departure of factories, finance went in new directions.  Mortgages, which were once held in the portfolios of the issuer, were securitized.  Individual mortgage debts were combined into a “security.” The next step was to strip out the interest payments to the mortgages and sell them as derivatives, thus creating a third debt instrument based on the original mortgages.

In pursuit of ever more profits, financial institutions began betting on the success and failure of various debt instruments and by implication on firms.  They bought and sold collateral debt swaps. A buyer pays a premium to a seller for a swap to guarantee an asset’s value. If an asset “insured” by a swap falls in value, the seller of the swap is supposed to make the owner of the swap whole. The purchaser of a swap is not required to own the asset in order to contract for a guarantee of its value. Therefore, as many people could purchase as many swaps as they wished on the same asset. Thus, the total value of the swaps greatly exceeds the value of the assets.  (An excellent explanation of swaps can be found here.)

The next step is for holders of the swaps to short the asset in order to drive down its value and collect the guarantee.  As the issuers of swaps were not required to reserve against them, and as there is no limit to the number of swaps, the payouts can easily exceed the net worth of the issuer.

This was the most shameful and most mindless form of speculation.  Gamblers were betting hands that they could not cover. The US regulators had abandoned their posts.  The American financial institutions abandoned all integrity. As a consequence, American financial institutions and rating agencies are trusted nowhere on earth.

The US government should never have used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to pay off swap bets as it did when it bailed out the insurance company AIG.  This was a stunning waste of a vast sum of money.  The federal government should declare all swap agreements fraudulent contracts, except for a single swap held by the owner of the asset.  Simply wiping out these fraudulent contracts would remove the bulk of the vast overhang of “troubled” assets that threaten financial markets.

The billions of taxpayers’ dollars spent buying up subprime derivatives were also wasted.  The government did not need to spend one dime.  All government needed to do was to suspend the mark-to-market rule.  This simple act would have removed the solvency threat to financial institutions by allowing them to keep the derivatives at book value until financial institutions could ascertain their true values and write them down over time.

Taxpayers, equity owners, and the credit standing of the US government are being ruined by financial shysters who are manipulating  to their own advantage the government’s commitment to mark-to-market and to the “sanctity of contracts.” Multi-trillion dollar “bailouts” and bank nationalization are the result of the government’s inability to respond intelligently.

Two more simple acts would have completed the rescue without costing the taxpayers one dollar:  an announcement from the Federal Reserve that it will be lender of last resort to all depository institutions including money market funds, and an announcement reinstating the uptick rule.

The uptick rule was suspended or repealed a couple of years ago in order to permit hedge funds and shyster speculators to rip-off American equity owners. The rule prevented short-selling any stock that did not move up in price during the previous day.  In other words, speculators could not make money at others’ expense by ganging up on a stock and short-selling it day after day.

As a former Treasury official, I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support.  No bailout or stimulus plan has any hope until the uptick rule is reinstated.

The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen is still present and is blocking any remedy.  Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector.

The Bush and Obama plans total 1.6 trillion dollars, every one of which will have to be borrowed, and no one knows from where.  This huge sum will compromise the value of the US dollar, its role as reserve currency, the ability of the US government to service its debt, and the price level.  These massive costs are pointless and are to no avail as not one step has been taken that would alleviate the crisis.

If we add to my simple menu of remedies a ban, punishable by instant death, for short selling any national currency, the world can be rescued from the current crisis without years of suffering, violent upheavals and, perhaps, wars.

According to its hopeful but economically ignorant proponents, globalism was supposed to balance risks across national economies and to offset downturns in one part of the world with upturns in other parts.  A global portfolio was a protection against loss, claimed globalism’s purveyors.  In fact, globalism has concentrated the risks, resulting in Wall Street’s greed endangering all the economies of the world. The greed of Wall Street and the negligence of the US government have wrecked the prospects of many nations.  Street riots are already occurring in parts of the world.  On Sunday February 22, the right-wing TV station, Fox “News,” presented a program that predicted riots and disarray in the United States by 2014.

How long will Americans permit “their” government to rip them off for the sake of the financial interests that caused the problem?  Obama’s cabinet and National Economic Council are filled with representatives of the interest groups that caused the problem.  The Obama administration is not a government capable of preventing a catastrophe.

If truth be known, the “banking problem” is the least of our worries.  Our economy faces two much more serious problems.  One is that offshoring and H-1b visas have stopped the growth of family incomes, except, of course, for the super rich.  To keep the economy going, consumers have gone deeper into debt, maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their homes and spending the equity.  Consumers are now so indebted that they cannot increase their spending by taking on more debt.  Thus, whether or not

the banks resume lending is beside the point.

The other serious problem is the status of the US dollar as reserve currency.  This status has allowed the US, now a country heavily dependent on imports just like a third world or lesser-developed country, to pay its international bills in its own currency.  We are able to import $800 billion annually more than we produce, because the foreign countries from whom we import are willing to accept paper for their goods and services.

If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not accept dollars in exchange for real things.  This event would be immensely disruptive to an economy dependent on imports for its energy, its clothes, its shoes, its manufactured products, and its advanced technology products.

If incompetence in Washington, the type of incompetence that produced the current economic crisis, destroys the dollar as reserve currency, the “unipower” will overnight become a third world country, unable to pay for its imports or to sustain its standard of living.

How long can the US government protect the dollar’s value by leasing its gold to bullion dealers who sell it, thereby holding down the gold price? Given the incompetence in Washington and on Wall Street, our best hope is that the rest of the world is even less competent and even in deeper trouble.  In this event, the US dollar might survive as the least valueless of the world’s fiat currencies.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Memo To AG Holder: Maybe Americans Are “Cowards” About Race For A Reason

Memo To AG Holder: Maybe Americans Are

“Cowards” About Race For A Reason

By Marcus Epstein

For all their talk about moving beyond race, liberals sure like to talk about it a lot. Bill Clinton instituted his “National Dialogue on Race.” When the anti-white rantings of Barack Obama’s mentor and Pastor Jeremiah Wright became impossible to ignore, then candidate Obama called for a “conversation about race.” Last week, Eric Holder—the first black attorney general to the first black president—called for a “period of dialogue among the races.” [Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program February 18, 2009]

Nothing new here. But Holder went the added step of calling Americans “essentially a nation of cowards because they live in “race-protected cocoons.” Holder proudly noted that our schools and workplaces have been successfully integrated through forced busing and affirmative action, but complained that the country remains voluntarily socially segregated.”

Apparently, who we choose as friends is now the business of the Justice Department.

The dialogue that Holder, Clinton, and Obama want is really a monologue. The only acceptable way to discuss race is to attribute all racial problems in the United States to “white racism”—past and present, conscious and unconscious. Insofar as there is any conversation, it is for Whites to respond to the complaints of minorities by apologizing for this racism, and to redouble their efforts to purge racism through more government programs.

To his credit, Holder said that we are allowed to have a “legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action“. But he added that it must be “nuanced”, whatever that means.

If anyone improvises away from this “nuanced” script, they will immediately be called a racist, bigot, or some other name. Talk show host Peter Boyles correctly calls the word “racist” a conversation stopper“. Once you are called this, continuing on with the conversation can only have negative consequences.

Just ask John Rocker, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, James Watson, or Charles Murray what type of “conversation” liberals want to have about race when you question their orthodoxy.

As the co-discoverer of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner, James Watson was one of the world’s most respected scientists. That was until he suggested that there was a link between race and intelligence. Watson was universally condemned by the media, racial activists, and even heads of state. Trying to save his reputation, he apologized and retracted his statements, but still was kicked out of his own Cold Harbor Lab.

I don’t really know if Watson is right or wrong. But the reaction from the establishment shows exactly how much of a “conversation” they’re willing to have.

And if they could do this to a Nobel Prize winner, it goes without saying that a young PhD student in psychology or genetics will avoid Watson’s conversation.

Indeed, even on issues much less controversial than racial differences in intelligence are off limits. When David Horowitz tried to run an ad opposing reparations for slavery in dozens of college newspapers, many refused to print it. Those who did were faced with protests and had their print runs destroyed by left wing anti-racist activists.

Nor are non-whites who challenge the liberal orthodoxy on race given a free pass. Protesters have successfully kept African American affirmative action foe Ward Connerly from speaking at a number of colleges, sometimes holding Orwellian signs like Protect Free Speech — Shut Connerly Up!”

You don’t even have to be talking about race to get accused of racism these days. Recently, the New York Post ran a cartoon suggesting the Stimulus Bill was written by a chimp. This clearly had no racial undertones. Instead it was suggesting that the bill was hastily and illogically written. There’s even a scientific theory called theinfinite monkey theorem” that’s premised on the idea of monkeys typing nonsensically at a keyboard. And has anyone heard of Thomas Nast?

Nonetheless the purveyors of anti-racism decided that the real meaning of the cartoon was to compare Obama to a monkey and Al Sharpton and his friends picketed the newspaper holding signs “Shut Down the Post.” Eventually it apologized, with the result that anti-racists have now upped their demands, calling for the cartoonist and his editor to be fired.

Even non-white liberals can get in trouble for the most innocuous comments. Obama delegate Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski was fired from his campaign when she told black children playing in her trees with her own grandchildren quit playing in the tree like monkeys. The Obama campaign called this clearly non-racial statement divisive and unacceptable and kicked her out (they eventually reversed the decision.) In 2005, Columbus, GA mayor Bob Poydasheff apologized to an African American woman who thought it was racist that police officers ate bananas at a Martin Luther King Day parade.

It doesn’t matter how powerful you are. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott became Former Senate Majority Leader when he said a few nice words about Strom Thurmond on his 100th Birthday party. Both liberals and neoconservatives called for his head, and Lott crawled to Black Entertainment Television to apologize and announce his support for affirmative action. Prince Harry made a joke about a friend of his who was non-white, and was disciplined by the army and forced to retake their diversity training.

With the Democratic controlled legislative and executive branch, renewed calls for FCC regulation of “hate speech” and new “hate crime” legislation are designed to put these taboos into law.

If Americans are “cowards” when it comes to talking about race, it’s because they have good reasons for fear.

According to Obama AG Holder:

“If we’re going to ever make progress, we’re going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified.”

I couldn’t agree more. Americans of all races need to stop acting like cowards and challenge the liberal orthodoxy on race—even if it means that Al Sharpton and the New York Times might call them names.

No doubt Holder will defend us.

Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is the founder of the Robert A Taft Club and the executive director of the The American Cause and Team America PAC. A selection of his articles can be seen here. The views he expresses are his own.

Does Alabama Have “A Republican Form Of Government”? Can Western Civilization Be Preserved?

Does Alabama Have “A Republican Form Of

Government”? Can Western Civilization Be Preserved?

By Hugh McInnish

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4.

What kind of government does my state, Alabama, have? This is a question that has darted into my head unbidden at odd moments when I was momentarily crisis-free and had nothing urgently demanding my attention. In particular I have wondered if I and my fellow Alabamians truly live in a “Republic”—as guaranteed by the Constitution. The answer never came, but unbeknownst to me help was on the way.

The weekend of February 6-8 Michael Hart convened in Baltimore a conference to address the astonishingly germane question of “Preserving Western Civilization.” Some dozen speakers were there to address the problem of Western decline from the perspective of their specialties.

The ubiquitous Peter Brimelow was on hand to explain the large contribution immigration is making to the problem. Anyone reading this page will know of Peter’s herculean patriotic efforts in the field of immigration, especially his landmark book Alien Nation, as well as his invention and continued production of this website. (Which Pat Buchanan has rightly called “the indispensable website” on immigration matters.) Remarkably all this work is done while Peter continues to function as a financial journalist. Peter especially emphasized the danger posed by the possibility that Mr. Obama will attempt to implement a “hate speech” law.

It is always exciting to hear what Philippe Rushton has to say. Rushton, together with Arthur Jensen of Berkeley, are the premier workers in the field of IQ and its measurement. In June of 2005 they scored a major coup when they broke through the barrier of political correctness and published the essence of their work in the American Psychological Association’s quarterly journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Their paper was titled Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. [PDF]Remarkably, at this writing neither has been lynched. (One can only hope that this is more than just a delay while their academic nemeses hunt for a suitable rope.)

Rushton and Jensen used ten independent approaches to scientifically examine the evidence of heritability of IQ in individuals, and concluded that it was probably 80 percent heritable, with the other 20 percent due to environment. Finally, they adopted Jensen’s “default hypothesis” that the black-white gap is explainable in the same ratio.

At the Baltimore conference, Rushton explained the heritability of world IQ differences, with emphasis on the evolving use of modern medical imaging techniques to determine brain size, and how brain size, whether measured with a tape measure, by the size of a hat worn, or by an MRI scan, correlates remarkably (and some might say surprisingly) well with IQ.

Lino Graglia is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the prestigious University of Texas Law School. He talked about the great problem of granting citizenship to anyone born in this country. Such newborns are popularly called “anchor babies” and under present rules even an illegal alien mother, just this side of the Rio Grande for the past 24 hours, can give birth to an infant who is a brand-new American citizen. This rule is a great contributor to the explosion of the Hispanic population in the country.

Graglia argued that the present rule is based on an erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment which declares that “All persons born or naturalized within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” I have added the emphasis, because these are the words that he argues are critical to the interpretation of the amendment. He set out in detail why anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and hence are not automatically citizens at birth.

During the Q and A, I queued up behind the microphone. When I reached the front of the line I had a question that was a little off the subject, but the professor was as a captive standing on the podium, and I had possession of the microphone, so I asked my question anyway:

“Does Alabama have a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution?”

Prof. Graglia responded with a brief Shakespearean soliloquy. “Well, let’s see. You elect your legislature. And then there was George Wallace, who called up the Alabama National Guard and stood in the schoolhouse door. Of course Judge Johnson had some things to say about what happened, and Kennedy nationalized the Guard and took it away from him….”

I had walked back to my seat, but when he finished I said: “Well ok, but what’s the answer, yes or no?” A pause, but then came—


The whole room laughed in merriment. I joined them, but of course this is a serious matter, and I think that Graglia is certainly right. Here in Alabama, for example, if we want to adjust slightly a school zone line we have to get permission from the U.S. “Justice Department”. In other words some faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrat in Washington has to grant us permission.

This doesn’t sound much like a sovereign republic to me. And the question is equally applicable to the other states.

The last speaker was Lawrence Auster, noted blogger and author of The Path to National Suicide [PDF] and Huddled Clichés. He discussed the threat of Islam to the West He believes that our absolute commitment to non-discrimination is a great liability, and he proposes a sharp turn away from it. In a clever and compelling stroke, he assumed the role of the American president making an incredibly shocking speech to the nation. In this speech, he proposed enacting constitutional amendments and statutes needed to allow discrimination against Muslims, on the ground that their belief in the Koran, which commands them to kill infidels, i.e., us, is incompatible with our culture. Having made the necessary changes to our legal structure, he would then remove most Muslims from the country.

Auster admitted that for such a proposal to be accepted, we would have to be on a planet different from the one we inhabit today.

Michael Hart put the period to the conference and summed up the threat to the West, giving words of encouragement. Earlier he had given the argument for preserving our civilization, and pointed to the obvious when he said that essentially all the elements of civilization have come from Westerners.

He might well have added that there is no reason to expect that civilization can be maintained without the predominant influence of the West.

An American Completes The “Path To Citizenship” In Mexico. It’s Hard!

An American Completes The “Path To Citizenship” In

Mexico. It’s Hard!

By An American-Mexican Mom

VDARE.COM readers are all too familiar with the “path to citizenship” that was part of the notorious Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty proposals. For an American living in Mexico, the path to Mexican citizenship requires skilled use of a machete

Americans live in Mexico for various reasons. The typical expat living here is retired and supported by savings or Social Security. But there’s also a growing number of younger working-age expat residents, like myself.

With few exceptions all foreign visitors to Mexico and with no exceptions all foreign residents of Mexico, are required to have permission from the Mexican government in the form of a visa.

A large percentage of expats are “snow birds”: they live here only seasonally, returning to the States; the routine is repeated yearly. This kind of foreign resident usually holds a visa called an FM 3 rentista (non working temporary resident alien).

Foreign residents who work in Mexico require a more specialized visa called an FM2 or FM 3 lucrativa“Lucrativa” as in making money. These visas come in the form of a little book similar in size to a passport. Technically, they are to be carried at all times. The working visas are granted to a person for a specific job. (Allan Wall had one of these when he was teaching English in Mexico.) I will explain the importance of this later on.

There is a “path to citizenship” in Mexico. According to the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) an American citizen may apply for Mexican citizenship:

  • after residing in Mexico for five years under an FM 2 visa; or
  • after residing in Mexico for two years with a visa if they are married to a Mexican citizen; or,
  • after residing in Mexico for two years with a visa if they have Mexican-born children; or
  • after making a “significant contribution” (supposedly cultural or scientific but not limited to these)

There’s a long list of documents required in addition to the completed application form and the payment in order to submit a citizenship application.

In 2003, after having lived in Mexico for five years, and with my children then aged 1 and 4 years, I decided that it would be in our best interest to become a Mexican citizen. Accordingly, I applied based on the fact that I have two children born here in Mexico and I had been residing in the country for more than two years.

After our seasonal work had ended, my Mexican husband, the kids and I made the trek to the SRE office in our state capital (five hours on a windy one-lane road each way—with small children) to apply. I had all of the documents in order as well as the proof of payment for the application. In Mexico we pay for all government services ahead of time to prevent bribery (mordida). So even before applying, I was already financially committed.

After a few hours of waiting in a mob scene at the office, my turn came up. I presented all of the documents, the payment, the photographs and even my Mexican-born children in person as was required. My paperwork was received and I was told that it would be sent to Mexico City (a.k.a. “D.F.” for Distrito Federal) and that was it. I asked for a receipt or file number but was told that they “don’t work that way”.

On leaving, both my husband and I realized that they could just throw my file into the garbage can and forget about it. But we were sure that I would be approved. After all, I had been living in Mexico for five years, have Mexican children, a business, employees, pay taxes and abide by the law.

That was in September of 2003.

To make a long story short, my application was eventually disqualified. Part of this was my own fault. When my children were born, the city filled out their birth certificates with the mother’s name (my name) as it appears on my birth certificate. Well, 35 years, one marriage and a divorce later, my birth name was no longer my legal name.

It took nearly one year for SRE to notify me of this discrepancy. Then they claimed that, since my application had taken so long, I would have to start the process over again.

The court order to change my name on the kids’ birth certificates took almost another year. During the time that I was waiting for the court order, I could have reapplied based on residency alone (I was now past 5 years). But the head of the SRE office in our capital city talked me out of it. I later found out that this same person does not want Americans to become Mexican citizens due to our inhumane immigration policy, a popular sentiment among staff at SRE.

I applied again and paid again for citizenship in the spring of 2006. This time I had the children’s birth certificates “exactly correct”, even the seal was clear. (On a past trip I learned how important “exactly correct” is to Mexican beaurocracy. The newly-corrected birth certificates that I had worked so hard for were rejected upon submittal. Everything was spelled correctly, all dates, places, times were perfect but the official at the SRE office told me that because the seal, the ink stamp of our municipality, was not “perfectly clear”—it was slightly blotched—Mexico City wouldn’t accept it. This official further revealed that Mexico City will think they are fake papers! So we were turned away and accomplished nothing. We had many visits to SRE like this.)

Throughout the entire time that my application was considered I was still required to follow immigration law and renew my visa on a yearly basis. I came here to live but instead of working for an employer, I opted to start a business and formed a Mexican corporation. I work for myself but my job is specific and I am highly restricted when it comes to earning a living, even within my own company.

Every year in the spring I must renew my visa. Since I use the office located in my town and there are documents that they already have on file, like my birth certificate (the one that has my birth name on it), and the apostille of the birth certificate- (because a notary in my birth country is considered meaningless and an apostille is proof that the notarized seal on my document is real and not fake) so I don’t have to present them again.

Depending on who’s at the desk at the immigration office, the list of requirements will differ. But the important ones are generally the same: my passport and a copy of every page; the tax registry of my company; the past tax payments of my company; a list of the persons under my employ with proof that they are receiving government benefits; proof of where my business is physically located; a letter from my business offering me the job and the description of the work; a letter from me accepting the position (now they have me writing letters to myself and responding to myself too); the payment for the renewal, and a folder. I guess that’s because they’re too cheap to buy office supplies.

I’ve learned through the years that government officials in Mexico cannot collect money directly. There are special forms that must be filled out and presented at the bank along with the payment deposit itself. The bank stamps your copy or gives a receipt and that is your proof of payment. The information on the form ensures that the payment goes directly to the appropriate government agency, so that bribes can be prevented. But more often than not, the immigration office in my city strongly recommends that all payments are to be made to them in cash. And of course the payment will vary from person to person.

A few rules of thumb when dealing with the local Mexican immigration office: the wealthier they perceive you to be the more you will pay. The more in a hurry you are to receive your visa, the more you will pay. The more trouble you can get into for working without the proper permissions, the more you will pay. The closer you are to Christmas, the more you will pay.

There are things that are supposed to protect you from overpaying, like the sign inside the immigration office clearly stating the amount that each visa costs. But all information is printed in Spanish and there is no help available in English. We are in Mexico, after all. (Few expats who come to live here ever bother to learn the language, so they set themselves up.)

I’m just a poor working stiff so my husband accompanies me each year and we present my requirements, along with the bank-stamped payment form and the folder. My husband, like many Mexicans, gets visibly upset when the subject of mordida-collecting government officials comes up. The guys at immigration know this (it’s a small town) so they reluctantly accept my papers and then take their sweet time. Rarely are we ever in a hurry to receive what we came for.

In 2007, after getting nowhere with SRE in our state capital city, I attempted to contact the head office in the Distrito Federal. Their telephone numbers when dialed rang and rang but nobody ever picked up. In June I hired a lawyer to help me move things along. Based on how far into this process I was, he said that I should have Mexican citizenship within 8 months.

In the meantime I found an area on the SRE website where one can e-mail with questions. I e-mailed a complaint in July of 2007, but received no response. Meanwhile the lawyer went to Mexico City for other clients and asked about my particular case. He was told that my solicitation had gone on for too long and the best thing for me to do would be to start all over again. So we scheduled the trip to Mexico City for late October 2007.

But in September I received a letter from SRE stating that my case could continue. In it, I was instructed to present the following documentation: my passport and two copies of each page, my current FM 3 visa with two copies of each page, a letter stating how many times I exited and entered the country within the last two years, and a set of recent passport-sized photos no more than 30 days old.

As I prepared to go to D.F. accompanied by my lawyer, he gave me the list of documents to bring. Against his advice, I brought a  small rolling suitcase that contained every document they have ever asked for in the past and including my children’s and my husband’s documents and then some. I also brought that letter that I received in September. It came in very handy later on.

While I had remembered all of these documents, I had forgotten those photos that I was supposed to bring. Fortunately, according to my lawyer there was a photo studio that could do it near the SRE offices and we had an hour to kill. When I went to where my lawyer said this place was, it had obviously moved. I asked around and was able to find another one. Upon receiving the photos, I sprinted back to SER. I found the rest of the people in the group—American citizens also accompanying our lawyer to apply for citizenship—seated and visibly upset.

Prior to this day, American citizens residing in Mexico for five years were eligible to apply for citizenship. But they had just found out this was no longer the case. That morning, the office of SRE refused the citizenship applications of scores of people (remember these applicants have already paid the fee, yet were refused) and we watched in horror as tears streamed down faces of people who came from as far away as Tijuana (that’s as far away from the Distrito Federal as you can get and still be in Mexico).

Our lawyer was at the window with one of the attendants. I went up to him with that letter that I received a few weeks prior. I was instructed by the person behind the counter that I could not apply for citizenship. Her assumption was that I was in the same boat as the others. I gave her the letter. With raised eyebrows, she said that she had to show it to her boss.

Twenty minutes later, I was told that I only have to present the documents listed in the letter then my case could move forward. So I gave her the documents and then tried to give her the photos but she refused them, saying they were “not needed”.

I then stepped into the back room where they digitized my fingerprints and signature. I mentioned the photos to the woman behind the desk, and again was told they weren’t needed. Then she showed me her computer where my original photos were displayed. These were the same ones that I submitted four years before with my original citizenship application. I looked much younger for not having been put through constant head games by SRE. Go figure.

In December, I was surprised to receive a phone call from the SRE official in my state capital requesting me to make the trip there in order to present the documents required in that letter from SER back in September. It had been cc’d to him. He must have been made aware of it when I received it in September, yet he was informing me four months later.

In early 2008, I tried my luck at finding out how much longer my application for citizenship would take. I wasn’t surprised to find that my local SRE official knew nothing about my case and that the head office in Mexico City didn’t respond.

So I was pleasantly curious to see another letter from SRE in my mailbox in April 2008. This letter stated that I will need to present (at my local SRE office) my passport with two copies of each page, my current visa along with two copies of every page, a letter stating my exits and entries into the country—all the same stuff they’ve asked me for four times already. I wonder what they do with it? Plus two new things: the complimentary payment to complete my application process—and I would have to pass the newly-required Mexican History exam.

So I scheduled my appointment to present these things and take the exam in late May 2008.

At this point my work visa was only a few weeks away from expiring. So I decided that it would be best to renew it before going to the state capital to present those documents. After all, if I didn’t they’d ask for it again anyway.

This time at the immigration office, we were in a hurry to receive my renewal. I informed them that I had a “family emergency” and that I would need my visa right away so that I could travel. If I had told them the real reason why I needed it, they would have messed with me for sure. It took them two weeks to give me my document despite my “family emergency” but at least I got it back in time.

Now back to the exam:

As of May 2008, SRE didn’t publish potential exam questions. A basic knowledge of the history of Mexico is required for citizenship. The law also states that naturalized citizens must assimilate into Mexican culture and society and in order to do these things, knowledge of Spanish is imperative.

The letter from SER suggested that I study a 5th or 6th grade history textbook, which I did. The test consists of five questions. In order to pass, the applicant must answer four out of the five questions correctly. Applicants are given six attempts at this exam and if they fail all of them, then they must start the application process over. (Remember, applicants have already paid the fee to the Mexican government even before applying.)

I was desperate to pass because I did not want to make repeated trips and have this citizenship ordeal hanging over my head. So I read in Spanish and I read in English all about Mexican history. During many a Google search in English I was unsuccessful at finding what the test questions might be. Then I searched in Spanish and found the information that enabled me to study most effectively.

The website that I stumbled on was a comment section within an unofficial immigration law website that has since disappeared (I’m not joking). Posters were including actual test questions that they were given when they applied for citizenship at SRE in Mexico City and in state capitals. I saw several questions repeated over and again. Some of the SRE offices gave extremely difficult questions. It was obvious that they didn’t want to see applicants pass the exam.

At first I went into panic mode because of the difficulty of the questions. But then I copied and pasted the entire thread into a word document. I went over the entire thing deleting questions that were repeated and answering questions that were unanswered. The exam was obviously not only about Mexican history but it also covered geography and culture—as in T.V., current events, and music. Here are examples of some of the more memorable questions-

  • Who is the legitimate president of Mexico?
  • In which year was IMSS [Mexico’s Social Security] established?
  • Who was Mexico’s first female medical doctor?
  • Who played the character of Cantinflas? (Mexico’s version of Charlie Chaplin, same era)
  • Where are the sweet potato guys, the strawberry-ers the cactus people and the sausage makers from?[These are Mexican regional nicknames]

In the final 36 hours of studying I simply memorized the questions and answers. My Mexican friends and family were amazed at how much trivial information about their country I could recite that they could not. I studied non-stop, even on the bus all the way to my state capital city. Just in case, I programmed a few answers to questions that I couldn’t remember into my Blackberry so that I could refer to them during the exam.

I was ready to cheat. But the official never gave me the chance as he sat right in front of me and chatted on his cell phone the entire time I took the exam. I knew the answers to four of the questions right off the bat, but I answered the fifth incorrectly. However upon grading, the official, with a frown on his face, informed me that I had passed. So he accepted the documents and my payment form along with the passing exam.

Again I received no receipt. I left without proof that I had even been there at all. Let alone studied so hard to jump through yet another hoop they had put in front of me.

(Since I have taken the exam a study guide with 101 potential test questions [PDF] has been published. Now applicants can more easily prepare for this exam. I did not have this luxury.)

Fast forward to November 2008: I was still waiting. SRE offered no help even when I was able to get through to them to ask. The office in Mexico City no longer answered their phones and they did not respond to e-mail. They were trying very hard to discourage me so that I would just drop the entire matter.

But I was persistent. I have a family and our business is in the tourism industry, which is suffering along with the economy. I have been offered other jobs that would enable me to provide for my family at a time. But for a legal foreign resident in Mexico, getting a new job is no easy task.

A foreign visa holder who wants to take a new position with an employer must do the following: submit his work visa and copies; submit his passport and copies; provide proof of where he lives; provide a letter of the job offer from the employer and his acceptance letter; and provide his credentials (university degrees) translated into Spanish. In addition to this, the employer must submit their tax registration documents and last tax payments, and a list of their Mexican employees receiving government benefits as per the law.

Only then do then does Immigration consider allowing the foreign visa holder to take a new position.

Permission is granted only after it is proven that the foreigner is in the country legally and not is not replacing or being given priority over an equally qualified Mexican applicant.

What a concept!

In Mexico there is a federal labor law (called Ley Federal del Trabajo) that states there must be nine Mexican employees for every one foreign employee. As a small business owner, I could tell many hair-raising stories about how the Mexican federal work law negatively affects the growth of the Mexican economy and is especially predatory toward foreign employers, but that’s another article altogether.

In early February 2008 my citizenship application was sent to Immigration’s head office in D.F. so that they could compare it with what they had on file and then submit their opinion to SRE. They did not submit an opinion. My application went into limbo. I had by then resided in Mexico legally for ten years, created dozens of jobs, paid significant taxes, with both my kids in elementary school. But Immigration still had no opinion.

After many weeks, phone calls, e-mails, and tooth pulling, I got things moving with information from a website posted by the Mexican government. It explained that I had defendable rights if I completed all of the obligatory requirements and the government had not properly acted. After many e-mail messages to this website, I finally tried the toll free 800 number. That worked—and it cost me nothing but time. After calling this help line several times a day, I started to make progress.

When it was finally determined that my application was held up at Immigration, I found out that was in charge there. I explained my case to him and he was very sympathetic. Three weeks later he sent a favorable opinion on my case to SRE. That happened right before the Christmas holidays.

This now brings us to the New Year—2009. After many, many more frustrating phone calls in the hopes of moving things along, I made yet another call to SRE in Mexico City early last week. I was pleasantly surprised when, as I started to give my full name in order to leave a message, the woman on the phone completed my name. Then she said: “Your citizenship letter has been signed and forwarded, congratulations you’re a Mexican citizen now”.

Currently my new citizenship documents are sitting in our capital city ready to pick up. I expect to go for them next week. This week is carnival, which means it is very busy there right now.

So this makes me a dual Mexican and American citizen. I hereby refer to myself as an American-Mexican mom.

Reported corporate earnings crash 44% since January

Reported corporate earnings crash 44% since January

Most likely result: A further substantial stock market plunge.

In mid-January, I wrote “Collapse of corporate earnings portends imminent stock market plunge.” At that time, the collapse of corporate earnings was only estimated.

Now the actual reports are out. Since January 1, reported earnings per share have gone from $48 per share to $27 per share. The bulk of that collapse occurred within the last two weeks.

This is an enormous collapse, and it’s having a dramatic effect on price/earnings ratios (also called “valuations”).

For simplicity, let’s assume that the S&P 500 stock index has been at 760 since January 1.

Then, on January 1, the P/E ratio was 760/48 = 15.8.

On February 13, the P/E ratio was 760/27 = 28.1.

To see this graphically, take a look at the following chart. There’s a price/earnings ratio chart at the bottom of this web site’s home page, and it gets updated automatically every Friday. Here’s last Friday’s version of the chart:

S&P 500 Price/Earnings ratio and S&P 500-stock Index as of 20-Feb-2009. <font face=Arial size=-2>(Source: MarketGauge ® by DataView, LLC)</font>
S&P 500 Price/Earnings ratio and S&P 500-stock Index as of 20-Feb-2009. (Source: MarketGauge ® by DataView, LLC)

If you look at the far right side of this chart, where the red circle is, you can see a huge spike in the last week, sending the P/E ratio up to 28.

As I’ve pointed out many times, P/E ratios held steady at around 18 for the entire years 2006-2007. This happened despite the fact that stock prices (shown on the bottom half of the chart) varied wildly.

The only way that this could have happened is if investors purposely held stock prices at the right levels, and that means that the buy/sell algorithms in their computers made decisions based on whether a stock’s price was above or below 18 times earnings. There’s no other reasonable explanation for how P/E could have held steady at 18 for over 2 years.

Now those same buy/sell algorithms have to deal with a collapse in reported corporate earnings, and the only way to do that is for the S&P index to fall to below 500 (and the Dow to fall below 5000).

I do not know any other way to interpret this collapse in reported earnings.

It’s not surprising that the American economy shows the same signs of collapse that we’ve been seeing around the world.

Last week, the world’s attention was drawn to an East European banking crisis, that threatened to create a domino effect that could bring down other European banks.

On Wednesday, that crisis took another step forward, when Ukraine’s national credit rating was cut two levels by Standard & Poor’s to the lowest in Europe, a day after Latvia was downgraded to junk, as eastern Europe’s most debt-laden economies lurch closer to default.

Worldwide trade and transportation have been grinding to a halt, with China’s economy crashing much faster than expected.

Japan's exports collapse in January. <font face=Arial size=-2>(Source: BBC)</font>
Japan’s exports collapse in January. (Source: BBC)

In fresh news on Wednesday, Japan announced that its exports had fallen 46% in January. Demand for Japanese cars in particular fell by 69%. This is part of the general collapse of Asian trade.

As I warned web site readers last week, this continues to be a time of maximum danger. This rapid fall in reported corporate earnings could certainly trigger a larger panic. As I’ve discussed many times on this web site, generational theory predicts that there MUST be a generational stock market panic and crash, the first since 1929. It’s impossible to predict the exact date, but with economies plunging around the world, the mood may be right for a major panic.

(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.) (26-Feb-2009)