2010. The Year Whites Lost America?

http://malevolentfreedom.org/

Malevolent

2010, the year we lost it all?

Many demographers believe that this may be the year that minority births outnumber white births in the United States.

According to census estimates, minorities made up about 48% of all births in the U.S. in 2008.

The reasons for this are pretty simple. Whites for the past several decades have slowly trended towards waiting until they are much older than

minorities before considering having children. Whites tend to wait for financial reasons. My personal situation points to the obvious truth. It is

far too expensive to raise a child in the U.S.. When taking into account average housing costs, food, transportation, clothing, healthcare, child care

education, and public college in my region I’m looking at a bill of 236,000. For one child.

So what’s the difference between whites and minorities than? Why would it be any cheaper for minorites to support their children? Once again the answer

is simple. Whites collect about 39% of welfare, yet make up 70% of the overall U.S. population. All minorities combined make up about 30% of the U.S.

population, yet they collect over 60% of welfare money.

What does all this mean? Well, think of it this way. If you are working 40+ hours a week and counting every penny in order to be able to put food on the

table and keep a roof over your families head. While your neighbor is simply waiting on that government check every month. Which one of you would be more

likely to have another child?

Healthcare, food, clothes, rent (maybe even mortage if Obama gets his way) all paid for by YOU the working taxpayer, for the benefit of minorities.

Take into account the fact that over 350,000 births to illegal aliens take place in the U.S. every year, costing an estimated $118 billion, and it’s

not hard to understand why we’re losing our country. Almost 8% of all births in the U.S. are from illegal aliens. The child is born a U.S. citizen,

entitling it to welfare benefits.

According to the census, Hispanic woman average 2.99 children, Black woman 2.13, Asian woman 2.04 and White woman just 1.87 children. These numbers

are pretty clear indicators that whites are very close to losing their future in America and around the world.

What a tragedy it is that White families face today. We all want the very best for our children, and in order to give it to them our costs skyrocket.

The government continues to tax us to death and give the money to foreign invaders. All the while telling us how “tolerant” we should be of other races

and cultures that do nothing but rot our country from the inside out.

I fear for my daughters future.

The Effects Of Racism

MAfreedom

You cant turn on the television or pick up a newspaper these days without somebody insisting that something is Racist. Supposedly the Tea Party attendees are racist, those who would like to see our National border secured are racist, even  scientific references to “Black Holes” in a greeting card are construed as racist. It would seem that racism is all around us.

The dictionary partially defines “Racism” as A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various Human races determine individual or cultural achievement. When you apply this to the animal kingdom- you arrive at the widely accepted notion of “Evolution” or at least “Natural Selection”. This idea of natures differences propelling one faction of a spices above another is taught as fact to children all over this country, and is the subject of countless thesis’s that have been published in numerous scientific journals. The idea of Evolution and Natural Selection not only applies to our furry little friends in the animal world- but to the development of the Human species as well.

So what are the true effects of Racism on the individual? I can only speak for myself in this regard. Each person is free to adopt whatever personal philosophy they choose to live by. This can observed in some, especially if they “Wear Their Politics On Their Sleeve”- and yet with others, it is hidden from view and doesn’t become apparent until after one person gets better acquainted with another.

Myself- I’m with the “Politics On Their Sleeve” crowd. I don’t hide the fact that my interest in my cultures survival define me as a person. Almost every act is dedicated to the idea that I am the product of the sacrifices that those before me made, and its my duty to honor them by perpetuating the ideals that were passed down through tradition to me. I fully believe that I stem from a unique culture, and that culture deserves to stand alone as a distinct entity- and not fall victim to the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism.

But what are the effects of living a lifestyle governed by that doctrine? What has living a life of “Racism” gotten me?

To be absolutely honest- it has pushed me further, and made me become a stronger person than I could have ever imagined myself to be. The philosophy of racism has instilled within me a strong sense of identity. Racism has led me to explore my family’s past, lending to me a sense of “Where Ive Been”- and as the old saying goes- “You Don’t Know Where Your Going- If You Don’t Know Where You’ve Been”. Racism has taught me to honor my family- they are the closest link I have to my history, and it is because of their effort and achievement that I am here today. Believe it or not- racism has taught me the true meaning of “Love”. I used the term True Meaning because it isn’t the type of love motivated by consumerism and greed, but rather by honesty within ones self, and a deep sense of loyalty to those who are close to me.

A life or racism has led me to not only develop myself emotionally- but mentally and physically as well. The constant thirst for knowledge is the hallmark of the Aryan, and I drink its nectar with enthusiasm! I am currently in the process of attaining my degree, and soak up every bit of information that comes my way. This drive to constantly better myself stems from the philosophy of racism- to be the best example of my people that I can be.

The drive to maintain a favorable physicality is also driven by my ideal of racism. Where once I was an out of shape man of about three hundred pounds- I now stand before you trim and tight, driven also by the “Racist” idea of becoming the ultimate example of my Folk. Today, I am leaner, healthier, and better developed- all due to racism.

So- it has been proven by example that a life of “Racism” (as lived by those who actually welcome the label) has led to a stronger person- both in mind, body, and spirit. Racism motivates- it pushes the individual. It instills a sense of pride, belonging, and responsibility that leaves little option than to transform the practitioner of its ideology into the best person they could possibly be.

So- if you were to ask me “What Are The Effects Of Racism”? I would be forced to answer “The development of the individual beyond their wildest dreams. You should look into it”

Are you really a white nationalist?

CarolinaPatriot

I know a lot of people who are white nationalists.  Most of them are damn good people who walk the walk and talk the talk.  Their actions speak louder than any words ever could as to who and what they are, and to be honest, that’s the way it should be.  There are also a lot of people who claim to be white nationalists, they say the right words, yet their actions speak louder than anything they say.  They don’t live by what they’re saying, and people see this, and judge every single one of us by this.  It isn’t something easy to overcome.  Remember, we must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.  I really don’t give a damn about your religious beliefs, nor do I care about your political beliefs, because if you are a white nationalist as you claim, your race should come before anything else.  You can call it a religious or political edict ordained from on high if you like, but that’s the plain, simple truth.  There are those who will be angered by this statement, and take offense, and if you’re one of those, then I have to ask you, are you really a white nationalist?  Do you go out and offend those of your race who’s views aren’t yours?  Do you chastise and criticize them because they don’t share the same exact views as you?  If you do, then you really, really need to ask yourself if you are living by the 14 words.  You see, to me, my race is everything.  Fighting for it, dying for it if needs be, but most importantly, living for my race is what drives me, compels me, and propels me onward.  I have full well studied the risks, I know everything I stand to lose by being who and what I am.  I accept this, and push on, because there are no rewards without risk.  While I can understand that a person has to provide for their family, I understand that people have to make a living, I also understand that there comes a time when it’s put up or shut up.  There comes a time when it’s your turn at the plate, and you can either be hero and hit the game winning home run, or you can be a zero and strike out.  It’s really up to you what you do, as no one can do it for you.  Are you active?  Activism comes in many forms, and there are many ways to help.  While you may not be out in the street protesting and marching, what are you doing to support the cause?  What are you doing to help out your brothers and sisters?  Even if it’s something as simple as making up flyers or signs, are you doing that?  Because if you think posting a few words on the internet and maybe going to the occasional meeting at an undisclosed location is being active, I have bad news for you, you’re wrong.  This is about solidarity, about showing a solid front, and if you aren’t willing to do that, we don’t need you.  Even if you’re sending a good org a few dollars to help out, it’s doing something.  If a brother or a sister have something useful to offer, support them.  If you aren’t willing to help out your own, what good are you?  If this touches a nerve with you, if it angers and offends you, then I’ve done my job.  We don’t need people straddling the fence, we need people who aren’t afraid to do something to help out.  Well, it’s real easy for you to say this, what the hell are you doing?  Well for one thing, I’m writing this.  For another, I’m spending a boat load of money I really don’t have driving all over the south east to attend events, and get out and meet and network with other white nationalists.  This is what it’s going to take to win this.  I know people who used to get and do the same thing, then they got families, and despite all of that, they still support the cause by sending out flyers, and flags, and making things to help the cause.  There’s something for everyone to do, besides sit in mommy and daddies basement and type words on a computer.  I’m still getting out, I’m still being active, and I’m going through a lot of things right now.  I had a family member who I loved dearly recently pass away, and I’ve got 2 grandparents who are terminally ill, and I’m doing everything in power to help them, to support them, and to try to make their last few days, weeks, or months on this earth a bit easier before they cross on to the other side and whatever it is that may await them there.  So you’ll have to forgive me if I haven’t been around as much, as I’ve had a pretty full load here lately.  However, despite these things, I’m still getting out, going to rallies, and next month I’m going to a meet and greet we’re having here in the south east.  For those of you who post on this forum, I’m going to go and post some of the pertinent details when I get done writing this.  I hope to see those who can make it there, but I understand if you don’t make it.  However, you need to make something close to you, or get out and meet people close to you, and organize things so that other people can get involved.  I understand that there are organizations that can’t stand one another in this movement.  I understand that power tripping and egos sometime get in the way, but people, we are coming upon a time when we’ll have to put all the petty childishness aside, and settle our differences like adults.  If we are united, nothing , and I mean nothing can stop us.  Our wills are strong, our cause is right and just, but if we’re divided, we’ll ultimately fail.  Hate me if you want to, but damn it, get off your butts and do something.  It angers me to no end to see the pettiness, and childishness get in the way of progress.  If one of this persons members offends one of your members, don’t run away, and don’t quit, work to resolve the problem.  It may take time, and the words may get heated, making it seem like it’s more trouble than it’s worth, but things worth doing aren’t easy ones.  They’re tough, and to do them, we’ve got to be tough as hell as well.  The way I see it, we can either be a part of the solution, or we can be a part of the problem.  It’s time to wake up people, and realize that the clocks ticking.  We have a person in power who want to limit our freedoms, who wants to take away our rights, and before you know it, it will be to late.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who’s behind it, and before you know it, we’ll have laws like those found in Canada and Germany.  We can just sit there and take it, and be divided, or we can unite and make our voices heard behind a solid wall of brothers and sisters.  However, that decision is ours, and our alone, so what’s it going to be.  Robert Lassiter aka Carolina Patriot

Has Rupert Murdoch Betrayed Glenn Beck and the Tea Party?

MAfreedom

Glenn Beck has a dilemma, an epic dilemma. The rising star of quasi-news, who blends current events, history, and opinion into a savory cup of tea is about to come up against a big obstacle—his billionaire boss, Rupert Murdoch. It seems the conservative media mogul and owner of Fox News Corporation is about to dip his crumpet right into Beck’s cup of tea. This tea party is about to get interesting.

Murdoch has announced that he sides squarely with Barack Obama when it comes to amnesty for illegals. Rupert’s organization, the Partnership for a New American Economy, met in New York last week to discuss how they can influence Congress and the American people. Here’s Rupert’s approach:

We’re just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen. I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.

Given that conservatives who identify themselves as patriotic make up the bulk of FOX viewers, and this group of flag-waving, tea party supporting Americans are steadfastly against giving millions of criminals amnesty based solely on the color of their skin, Beck could be facing a mutiny—his or theirs. To them, illegal means just that. So, why haven’t we heard even a peep about this from the Fox talking heads? Hannity, Malkin, Huckabee, no one? Because they are talking heads, not patriots, and certainly not conservatives. But what about Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck is making impressive inroads into the mainstream mindset. His Founders Fridays segment is wildly popular, and he can sell a book better than anyone—even Oprah. But will he abandon the people that lifted him onto his pedestal of conservative ideology, or will he contravene and split Fox News apart?

Beck’s moment of truth is coming. Will he stand against elitists like Rupert Murdoch who want to abandon the American people in favor of cheap labor? Will he stand by and watch as we are overrun from the South, and our culture is consumed? My guess is yes. That’s right. You heard it here first. I predict that in the coming weeks Glenn Beck will start subtly changing the conversation, tilting it towards mass amnesty for Mexicans.

Story courtesy of the hard working staff at RFDAmerica

Rewriting Our History

MAfreedom

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”- Edmund Burke

History is no longer the depiction of events that have already transpired, but instead its become the interpretation of those events presented to you and your children by representatives of this nations educational system.

As our countries true history gets diluted by layers of political correctness and bureaucracy, those who try to inquire about our countries past greatness will have those questions sanitized by those who’s views of our past as well as the vision of our future may be at odds with true historical fact- and maybe detrimental to those who wish to build upon the foundation of that history in an attempt to further our advancement as a civilization.

Currently in Texas, there are votes being cast that will determine what will be displayed as fact in text books used throughout the state. Being one of the countries largest buyers of these books, the standards set by this panel is generally adopted by school districts across the nation as an unintended consequence of their majority.

At the expense of our children’s education- the learning materials provided to them has been politicized to the point of being incomprehensible, even by those well versed in Orwellian Double Speak. Examples like Snow men being changed to “Snow Person” to accommodate those who may object to the gender classification of the term, and Senior Citizen getting changed to “Senior Person” to avoid any connotation regarding national origin- we are committing the highest of crimes by teaching ambiguity in place of fact and allegory instead of straight forward questioning. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if if they knew their importance was in the process of being removed from the pages of history as “All people are created equal” is taught to replace “All men are created equal”.

History, with all its culture and tradition, is being stolen right out from under our noses- hold onto it any way you can. Treasure it. Learn from its root sources, and then pass that knowledge onto future generations of your children. Scrapbook copies of the Declaration Of Independence, The Constitution, and The Gettysburg Address- because one day you may pick up a newly printed copy…and not recognize them.

CHE OBAMA on the march.

They Be Wrong

By Jared Taylor

The great South Carolina classicist and Confederate soldier Basil L. Gildersleeve once joked that the war was fought over a point of grammar: “ ‘United States are,’ said one, ‘United States is,’ said another.” The war did not settle the question, however, and as late as 1909, Ambrose Bierce was still defending the use of “the United States are.” As he put it, “Grammar has not a speaking acquaintance with politics, and patriotic pride is not schoolmaster to syntax.” I wait in vain for neo-Confederates to revive this charming usage.

There is a contemporary battle over language that again pits a political interest against the rules of grammar. In this case, the political interest is feminism which, in these emasculated times, has something like the force of Union sentiment in 1863, so the rules of grammar have crumpled like the Confederates at the Battle of Lookout Mountain.

Until perhaps the 1970s, civilized English-speakers said things like “everyone should try his best.” No one doubted that “his” included both men and women — no one except feminists, that is, who insisted they felt left out. They beefed in their shrill, humorless way, and for a while, there was a clumsy concession to both grammar and politics, in which people said “everyone should do his or her best.” A few people still try to please both camps this way, but the vast majority has abandoned principle, and hardly anyone now winces at such barbarisms as: “A leader must inspire their followers.” “If you have a friend, tell them to come.” “No one did their homework.” And why not something like, “My good friend can help themself to my clothes if they like.”

The English language distinguishes between singular and plural, and “they,” “them,” and “their” are always plural. “He” and “she” are singular, and when sex is not specified, “he” stands for either. If some hoyden claims that “he” excludes her, ask her if she really thinks the expression “he who hesitates is lost” does not apply to women, or that even if man cannot live by bread alone, woman can.

A sentence such as “No one did their homework” actually means something, but not what the ignoramuses and fanatics think it does. It means that no one in one group did the homework assigned to a different group, as in “Everyone did his homework but no one did their homework.” On the other hand, a sentence like “If you have a friend, tell them to come” can never be anything but hopelessly wrong. It is as wrong as “he are sick” or “we is lost” or “she likes themself.”

Are questions of grammar only small points, not worth fighting over? No, they chart the course of decline just as surely as legislation or demographics. One of the ways ideologies prevail is by tampering with speech. American cities no longer have bums; they have “the homeless,” as if the wino sleeping in the park had just lost a $300,000 split-level to a tornado. No one is shiftless or lazy anymore; instead he is “downtrodden,” as if someone forced him at gunpoint into a life of loafing. And, of course, there are all the newly invented words for newly invented crimes that didn’t exist a few decades ago: homophobia, sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc. This sort of thing, repeated over and over, shackles the mind.

Conservatives, especially, should not let their speech be pushed around by self-righteous lunatics. They should know that language, like behavior, has rules for right and wrong, and these should almost never be changed. Talk like a man, not like a eunuch. Be on the lookout for an opportunity to drop this sentence into your conversation: “Man, being a mammal, suckles his young.”

Stuff Black people don’t like: Child Support

#284. Child Support

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

It is a well-known fact that Father’s Day is a date that passes without much fanfare in the Black community. With the rate of out-of-wedlock births approaching 75 percent for Black people, absenteeism on the part of the father is an unfortunate reality on not only Father’s Day, but the remaining 364 days of the year as well.

Black people find the usage of birth control an impediment to the motto of “keeping it real” and thus regard the notion of safe sex as any encounter that the CDC won’t keep track of for statistical reasons.

The usage of condoms or other preventative measures to ward off unwanted pregnancies are generally considered nuisances in the Black community (though abortion is an unusually high methodology utilized by Black people for birth control), thus the means more than not produce an unwanted end that Black men abandon.

Child support is a term that rarely crosses the mind of Black males mid-coitus, for the long-term effects of their actions are clouded in the short-term fantasy that whatever comes of the encounter can be raised through the generosity of Black Run America (BRA). The state will take care of their progeny through free lunches, welfare and food stamps, but if these actions fail the route of Michael Oher is an attractive option available to more and more Black males.

But it is child support that must be provided for the unwanted product of a momentary copulatory session, and it is this notion that Black males find untenable and a burden of great significance that must be avoided at all costs:

A deadbeat Chicago dad risked his life Tuesday to avoid paying child support.

Ronald “Boobie” McIntyre broke both of his legs trying to escape the police, who were pursuing him on an arrest warrant for leaving his children in the lurch, NBC Chicago reports.

McIntyre, 35, owes $5979.66 in court-mandated support for his kids.

Chased by police to an apartment building near his home, he jumped out of a third-story window to get away, landing on the ground below.

When police arrived, a woman at the residence told them McIntyre had disappeared.

But during their search of the apartment, a child directed the officers to an open window, which led them to their suspect.

They “looked down and saw McIntyre lying on the ground below,” the sheriff’s office told the Chicago Tribune. “Though it appeared he landed on grass, it was actually artificial turf covering concrete.”

The police ran to McIntyre, but even in his crippled state he shouted expletives at them and tried to wriggle away.

Paternity tests present Black males with much consternation (and their female counterparts as well), for the more they have spread their seed, the more they pay for what they have sowed. Former NFL player Travis Henry produced nine children with nine different women and failed to pay the court-ordered child support. He was jailed for his insubordination, though the fate of legs being broken in an effort to elude police seems pleasant in comparison.

Evander Holyfield wasn’t put in jail for his refusal to pay child support, but he is still fighting at the age of 48 to pay for his brood.

One study shows that the majority of “dead-beat dads” not paying child support is a phenomenon that non-whites partake in 58 percent of the time (Black males 41 percent and Hispanics 17 percent).

Many Black rappers see themselves above paying such monies to care for their unwanted progeny and help out the mothers of their children. Those that do pay find ways to protest the amounts required by courts and attempt to be niggardly with their money.

One idea being discussed is a move to remove the idea of child support from the vernacular of Black men completely:

Professor Frances Goldscheider teaches sociology at Brown, where she came up with the idea that, she says, has made her question some of her deepest, most long-standing beliefs: “While I thought I was a feminist all my life, when I started studying the family and fatherhood in general, I realized that I was really an egalitarian. I want a level playing field in the family for men and women.”

If it were law, a financial abortion would allow a man — one who has specifically said to his partner before intercourse that he doesn’t want to be a father — to void all monetary responsibility for any pregnancy. Without question, the woman could carry the child to term, but she and the law could then never come looking for the dad for child support. It sounds harsh — so much so that Goldscheider admits it will probably never be more than a dream theory — but proponents believe that such a policy could very well make a huge dent in the nation’s scourge of absentee fathers, especially in the African-American community.

“I think it would primarily benefit men who do not want to be fathers,” Goldscheider says, “and that’s mostly those who are not ready, whether financially or whatever. And given the structure of inequality in this country, it should disproportionately benefit young black men.”

Raising children isn’t cheap (though Black Run America does help fit the bill), but to Black people the idea of having and caring for a child seems to be a general nuisance, and that the idea of being burdened with child support is an even greater nuisance:

Many men feel as if they are being entrapped, stigmatized and even criminalized, when it comes to current child support laws. And many black women want their children supported. But because nearly 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, there needs to be a happy medium if the community is to thrive.

Whereas in the past, child support was seen as more a moral issue — men who make children should always be responsible for them — it is now more about economics, even if it’s not politically correct to say so. After President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform bill, the government (and tax payers) began aggressively shifting the burden of support to fathers, where many claim it should be.

Yet, in a recent New York Times article on the perilous state of black men (‘Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn,’ March 20, 2006), Georgetown University economist Harry J. Holzer said that after incarceration, “the stricter enforcement of child support” policies is the largest factor in keeping young black men tethered to poverty. By keeping young black men overwhelmed by debt and therefore outside of legal employment, support obligations “amount to a tax on earnings.”

Stuff Black People Don’t Like includes child support, an idea that Black people find repellent and a general burden that warrants jumping out of the third-floor of a building to avoid paying. Child support is offensive to Black people, as the notion that they should care for the by-product of a sexual encounter is draconian and archaic, especially when those who fund Black Run America will constantly be there to pay the bill for their unwanted kids.

And if not, the Michael Oher Act can finally be introduced to Congress.

In Black Run America, Black people must never be held accountable for their actions. Thus, child support is an idea that Black people scoff at and see as just another tactic of white people to forever ensnare them in shackles.

If Black males don’t care about their own children, the obvious should be “why should anyone else?”

“Without A Revolution, Americans Are History.”

By Paul Craig Roberts

The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control.  Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery.  As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times Column, Welcome to the Recovery.

As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has made clear on many occasions, an appearance of recovery was created by over-counting employment and undercounting inflation. Warnings by Williams, Gerald Celente, and myself have gone unheeded, but our warnings recently had echoes from Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff and from David Stockman, who excoriated the Republican Party for becoming big-spending Democrats.

It is encouraging to see a bit of realization that, this time, Washington cannot spend the economy out of recession. The deficits are already too large for the dollar to survive as reserve currency, and deficit spending cannot put Americans back to work in jobs that have been moved offshore.

However, the solutions offered by those who are beginning to recognize that there is a problem are discouraging. Kotlikoff thinks the solution is massive Social Security and Medicare cuts or massive tax increases or hyperinflation to destroy the massive debts.

Perhaps economists lack imagination, or perhaps they don’t want to be cut off from Wall Street and corporate subsidies, but Social Security and Medicare are insufficient at their present levels, especially considering the erosion of private pensions by the dot com, derivative and real estate bubbles. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid 15% of their earnings all their life, would result in starvation and deaths from curable diseases.

Tax increases make even less sense. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of households cannot survive on one job. Both husband and wife work and often one of the partners has two jobs in order to make ends meet. Raising taxes makes it harder to make ends meet—thus more foreclosures, more food stamps, more homelessness. What kind of economist or humane person thinks this is a solution?

Ah, but we will tax the rich. The usual idiocy. The rich have enough money. They will simply stop earning.

Let’s get real.  Here is what the government is likely to do.  Once the Washington idiots realize that the dollar is at risk and that they can no longer finance their wars by borrowing abroad, the government will either levy a tax on private pensions on the grounds that the pensions have accumulated tax-deferred, or the government will require pension fund managers to purchase Treasury debt with our pensions. This will buy the government a bit more time while pension accounts are loaded up with worthless paper.

The last Bush budget deficit (2008) was in the $400-500 billion range, about the size of the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC trade surpluses with the US. Traditionally, these trade surpluses have been recycled to the US and finance the federal budget deficit. In 2009 and 2010 the federal deficit jumped to $1,400 billion, a back-to-back trillion dollar increase. There are not sufficient trade surpluses to finance a deficit this large. From where comes the money?

The answer is from individuals fleeing the stock market into “safe” Treasury bonds and from the bankster bailout, not so much the TARP money as the Federal Reserve’s exchange of bank reserves for questionable financial paper such as subprime derivatives. The banks used their excess reserves to purchase Treasury debt.

These financing maneuvers are one-time tricks. Once people have fled stocks, that movement into Treasuries is over. The opposition to the bankster bailout likely precludes another. So where does the money come from the next time?

The Treasury was able to unload a lot of debt thanks to “the Greek crisis,” which the New York banksters and hedge funds multiplied into “the euro crisis.” The financial press served as a financing arm for the US Treasury by creating panic about European debt and the euro. Central banks and individuals who had taken refuge from the dollar in euros were panicked out of their euros, and they rushed into dollars by purchasing US Treasury debt.

This movement from euros to dollars weakened the alternative reserve currency to the dollar, halted the dollar’s decline, and financed the massive US budget deficit a while longer.

Possibly the game can be replayed with Spanish debt, Irish debt, and whatever unlucky country swept in by the thoughtless expansion of the European Union.

But when no countries remain that can be destabilized by Wall Street investment banksters and hedge funds, what then finances the US budget deficit?

The only remaining financier is the Federal Reserve. When Treasury bonds brought to auction do not sell, the Federal Reserve must purchase them. The Federal Reserve purchases the bonds by creating new demand deposits, or checking accounts, for the Treasury. As the Treasury spends the proceeds of the new debt sales, the US money supply expands by the amount of the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury debt.

Do goods and services expand by the same amount?  Imports will increase as US jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners, thus worsening the trade deficit.  When the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasury’s new debt issues, the money supply will increase by more than the supply of domestically produced goods and services. Prices are likely to rise.

How high will they rise? The longer money is created in order that government can pay its bills, the more likely hyperinflation will be the result.

The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher?

Whatever the size, the rest of the world will see that the dollar is being printed in such quantities that it cannot serve as reserve currency. At that point wholesale dumping of dollars will result as foreign central banks try to unload a worthless currency.

The collapse of the dollar will drive up the prices of imports and offshored goods on which Americans are dependent. Wal-Mart shoppers will think they have mistakenly gone into Neiman Marcus.

Domestic prices will also explode as a growing money supply chases the supply of goods and services still made in America by Americans.

The dollar as reserve currency cannot survive the conflagration. When the dollar goes the US cannot finance its trade deficit. Therefore, imports will fall sharply, thus adding to domestic inflation and, as the US is energy import-dependent, there will be transportation disruptions that will disrupt work and grocery store deliveries.

Panic will be the order of the day.

Will farms will be raided? Will those trapped in cities resort to riots and looting?

Is this the likely future that “our” government and “our patriotic” corporations have created for us?

To borrow from Lenin, “What can be done?”

Here is what can be done. The wars, which benefit no one but the military-security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion, can be immediately ended. This would reduce the US budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  More hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved by cutting the rest of the military budget, which in its present size, exceeds the budgets of all the serious military powers on earth combined.

US military spending reflects the unaffordable and unattainable crazed neoconservative goal of US Empire and world hegemony. What fool in Washington thinks that China is going to finance US hegemony over China?

The only way that the US will again have an economy is by bringing back the offshored jobs. The loss of these jobs impoverished Americans while producing over-sized gains for Wall Street, shareholders, and corporate executives. These jobs can be brought home where they belong by taxing corporations according to where value is added to their product. If value is added to their goods and services in China, corporations would have a high tax rate. If value is added to their goods and services in the US, corporations would have a low tax rate.

This change in corporate taxation would offset the cheap foreign labor that has sucked jobs out of America, and it would rebuild the ladders of upward mobility that made America an opportunity society.

If the wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.

Obviously, the corporations and Wall Street would use their financial power and campaign contributions to block any legislation that would reduce short-term earnings and bonuses by bringing jobs back to Americans. Americans have no greater enemies than Wall Street and the corporations and their prostitutes in Congress and the White House.

The neocons allied with Israel, who control both parties and much of the media, are strung out on the ecstasy of Empire.

The United States and the welfare of its 300 million people cannot be restored unless the neocons, Wall Street, the corporations, and their servile slaves in Congress and the White House can be defeated.

Without a revolution, Americans are history.

The “Political Structure Doctrine” Yet Another Excuse to be Anti-White

The “Political Structure Doctrine”

Yet Another Excuse to be Anti-White

By Jared Taylor

On August 3, the Supreme Court of the state of California handed down a decision that was widely welcomed by conservatives. In Coral Construction v San Francisco the court found that California’s anti-affirmative-action Proposition 209 was constitutional. Passed at the time of the general election in 1996, ballot initiative 209 amended the state constitution to include a ban on race or sex preferences in “public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The ruling sailed through with a comfortable 6-1 majority, but the lone dissent—by Hispanic justice Carlos Moreno—was unsettling. He wrote that Prop 209 was unconstitutional because it established “a steep hurdle” for non-whites seeking race preferences.

This sounded like special pleading of the most outrageous kind. Why shouldn’t non-whites face “a steep hurdle” if they want to discriminate against whites?

In fact, however, Justice Moreno’s dissent [PDF, P. 35] is a carefully reasoned argument that may actually be right—given the peculiar anti-white premises that are increasingly pervasive in American racial jurisprudence.

Moreno acknowledged that race preferences are controversial. But he pointed out that it was not the court’s job to decide if they were good or bad—only to decide whether the proposition that banned them was constitutional. In deciding that it was not constitutional, he relied on an obscure set of US Supreme Court precedents that have come to be known as the “political structure doctrine.” Like the concept of “disparate impact” , it was conjured up out of the Constitution as part of the tortured jurisprudence on race that goes back at least to the Brown decision of 1954.

First, though, what were the facts in Coral Construction v San Francisco? San Francisco has built race and sex preferences into city contracting for at least the last 26 years. A business owned by a white man can get a contract with the city only if it underbids proposals from favored groups by at least 5 to 10 percent (the percentage varies according to how many favored contractors are bidding). White men also have to pass very strict muster on how many women- and minority-owned subcontractors they will hire, whereas favored groups can subcontract with whomever they like.

San Francisco has been bizarrely thorough about including just about every conceivable non-white in the favored group: not just the usual blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics (in this case everyone from south of the Rio Grande, including Brazilians, but not Spaniards from Spain), but also Arabs, Iranians, and every possible Asian, including Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. In 2005, whites were still a majority of the city at 53 percent, with Asians coming in second at 33 percent. But the city had no intention of scrapping discrimination against whites just because they become a minority.

Ever since the 1989 US Supreme Court decision of Richmond v Croson, this kind of official discrimination is legal only if a city can prove it is compensating for its own past acts of discrimination. Accordingly, every so often, the city searches itself for discrimination—which it invariably finds. It holds hearings in which non-whites claim that San Francisco froze them out and gave all the business to the white “old boys” network. Despite the preferences that began in 1984, we learn that what may be the most “diversity”-crazed city in the country has been discriminating indiscriminately against Iranians, Egyptians, Uruguayans, Koreans etc. The city is delighted, because such wickedness means it can keep freezing out white men. The most recent such public spectacle—no fewer than 134 people testified—was in 2003.

Coral Construction Company has been fighting this nonsense since 2001, and after nine years of twists and turns, finally got to the California Supreme Court. The city of San Francisco badly wants to keep discriminating against white men, so it made a number of creative arguments against the racial preferences ban, but its most creative was based on the aforementioned “political structure doctrine.” In brief, the doctrine holds that any measure that makes it more difficult for racial minorities to get laws passed in their favor violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and unfairly upsets the “political structure.”

The doctrine is based mainly on two US Supreme Court cases. The first, Hunter v. Erickson was about “fair housing” in Akron, Ohio. In 1964, the city passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination in apartment rentals and house sales. In the 1960s, whites still sometimes acted in their own interests, so the voters of Akron repealed the ordinance and amended the city charter to require a referendum on any new “fair housing” ordinance. It was a classic case of elected representatives acting against the interests of their constituents, but in this case the constituents struck back.

In 1969, the Supreme Court not only reinstated the non-discrimination ordinance but found that the voters of Akron had upset the “political structure” in a way that hurt minorities. It noted that it was only housing ordinances that banned racial and ethnic discrimination that required approval by referendum. Renters with children or dogs, for example, or people who wanted rent control could get ordinances passed by the city in the usual way, without having to clear the additional hurdle of a referendum. Thus, people with dogs could more easily get laws passed in their favor than people who were black. And that, said the court, was unconstitutional.

The other important “political structure” case was Washington v. Seattle School District, which the Supreme Court decided in 1982. In yet another case of government spurning the electorate, the city of Seattle started mandatory school busing to even out the racial balance. Whites didn’t like this, and in 1978 they passed a state initiative that banned busing for racial reasons but permitted it for other reasons, such as alleviating overcrowding or getting special Ed students to special Ed classes.

The US Supreme Court reasoned just as it had in Hunter. The state initiative made things tougher for non-whites than for anyone else who wanted to persuade the district to send them a bus. Blacks who wanted a free ride across town to the white school had to change a state-wide law, not just lobby the school board the way the special Ed kids could. Again, the “political structure” had been changed to their disadvantage.

That, of course, is exactly where Justice Moreno was going in his dissent in the San Francisco case. As he pointed out, Prop 209’s ban on racial preferences amended the state constitution in a way that was explicitly racial. Non-whites (and women) would have to change the constitution to get their preferences back, while other groups could help themselves to public handouts with less effort. Veterans, cripples, poor people, and slow learners can persuade government at all levels to discriminate in their favor without going to the enormous bother of a ballot initiative.

Ergo, Prop 209 put a unique political hurdle in the way of non-whites (and women) who want laws and ordinances passed in their favor, and is therefore unconstitutional under the “political structure doctrine.”

Justice Moreno is not saying that preferences must last forever—only that they should be removed through normal political procedures that do not disadvantage non-whites. If it wanted, the city of San Francisco could abolish its preferential contracting, and might do so if the political balance ever tilts towards a ban. But non-whites should not have to change the constitution in order to keep their preferences or get new ones.

Justice Moreno conceded that there have been some recent US Supreme Court decisions that suggest the court is moving away from the “political structure doctrine.” But he pointed out, correctly, that as long as the Supreme Court has not yet disavowed the doctrine, it is not a state court’s job to try to read its mind. The doctrine is still law. It must be enforced, whatever one thinks of racial preferences.

And in fact the five justices in the majority in the San Francisco case did not ignore the “political structure doctrine.” They just said it did not apply. They argued that in the Hunter and Seattle cases, discrimination against non-whites had been enshrined in ways that upset the “political structure,”and that the doctrine did not cover cases in which a ban on discrimination was so enshrined.  (Needless to say, further complexities mean that San Francisco’s anti-white discrimination is still in place and must be litigated further).

Justice Moreno may well have been right to argue that that the California Supreme Court had no business drawing that distinction. So long as preferences are legal—and the US Supreme Court has said they are legal if they compensate for past discrimination or achieve “diversity”—then all that matters is whether the measure brings an advantage to non-whites—and that can be either a ban on discrimination against them or promotion of discrimination in their favor. It is unconstitutional to tilt the political process in ways that make it harder for the poor dears to get either form of advantage.

In my opinion, from a legal point of view, Justice Moreno is right. Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, American law has been full of pompous jabber about banning racial discrimination, but this has not stopped courts and governments at all levels from discriminating against whites in the name of non-discrimination against everyone else. To judges, non-discrimination does not mean what it means to the rest of us.

Furthermore, the “political structure doctrine” favors only racial, ethnic, and religious groups. For example, if the voters of California amended the state constitution to ban skeet shootings within 100 miles of an elementary school, it would change the political structure for skeet shooters by making it impossible for them to seek relief through city ordinance or state law. But the “political structure doctrine” would be no protection for them because skeet shooters are not a race or a religion. The doctrine itself, with its benefits and protections only for favored groups, is one of those special-treatment hoaxes that are always being perpetrated in the name of equal treatment.

We come now to a delicate question: Did Justice Moreno read the law the way he did only because he is Hispanic and likes preferences for his people?

Maybe—but maybe not. As even this oversimplified account shows, the law is a complex thing, and what can appear to be a minor hallucination, such as the “political structure doctrine”, can be trotted out to justify what would otherwise be clearly seen as blatant discrimination.

When it comes to race, constitutional law is a briar patch of ad hoc doctrines. A Moreno or a Sotomayor or a Kagan can go dowsing for anti-white arguments any time he or she wants. Just because “political structure” was not cited in the San Francisco case, does not mean it will not be decreed to be determinative in the future.

The great legal irony of the 20th century is that American whites institutionalized racial discrimination against themselves at a time when they were the overwhelming majority both on the bench and in Congress.

In doing so, they established a legal tradition that will make it child’s play for any future non-white majority to expand that discrimination into any part of our lives they choose.

What, then, is to be done?

Fortunately, the swine who pass our laws, and appoint and confirm our judges care about only one thing. It is not justice, it is not truth, and it certainly isn’t the country. It is reelection. That means that every so often they have to get our permission to keep making a mess of things.

When enough people stop watching television, and start reading VDARE.COM (and American Renaissance!) the political landscape will change and we can start fixing things.

We could begin by making sure that our rulers no longer think the Constitution is an inexhaustible fund of justifications for discrimination against whites.

Originally published at VDARE.com

Justice Carlos R. Moreno

When he was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California in 2001, Justice Carlos Moreno chose to relinquish his lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court where he had presided over a broad range of complex civil and criminal matters since his appointment in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. On the state’s highest court, he has the opportunity to “really address critical cutting-edge issues involving social policy,” and his service allows him to contribute to “decisions about what direction the law is going to take.”

As an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Moreno reviews on appeal a wide range of civil and criminal cases, which have substantial state and federal constitutional implications. With his appointment to the Supreme Court of California, he became only the third judge of Hispanic heritage to serve in the Court’s nearly 150-year history, and the first in more than a decade. Apart from raising his family, he considers his appointment to the Supreme Court as his proudest accomplishment. “The appointment to California’s highest court is the dream of a lifetime for any lawyer who loves the law.”

Justice Moreno earned his excellent reputation as a jurist through years of service in the judiciary, beginning with his appointment in 1986 to the Municipal Court, Compton Judicial District, by Governor George Deukmejian. In that capacity, he adjudicated criminal matters, with an emphasis on serious felony offenses, and supervised the court’s civil department until 1993, when Governor Pete Wilson elevated him to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where he presided over felony trials. Justice Moreno is unique in that he has been nominated to judgeships by four different appointing executive authorities, two of whom are Democrats, and two who are Republicans. This is a testament to his fairness and impartiality in the view of many observers.

A native of Los Angeles, Justice Moreno attended local public schools before going east to Yale University, from which he graduated in 1970. He realized early in his education that he had a skill which enabled him to navigate through complex procedures as he assisted various relatives in responding to requests for additional information regarding insurance claims and applications for benefits. He was later drawn to the study of law so that he could help others on a larger scale and with a broader range of issues. After graduating from Stanford Law School and being admitted to the Bar in 1975, he served in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. As Deputy City Attorney, he prosecuted criminal and civil consumer protection cases, and handled politically sensitive and legislative matters for the City Attorney. In 1979, he joined the firm of Mori & Ota (now known as Kelley, Drye and Warren) representing the firm’s business clients in its general commercial litigation practice.

Formerly the president of the Mexican American Bar Association, Justice Moreno serves the community in a variety of ways. He has been a member of the California Judges Association, the Presiding Judges Association and the Municipal Court Judges Association of Los Angeles County and was also the president of the Yale Club of Southern California, and a member of the Stanford University Law School Board of Visitors. He currently serves as a director of the Arroyo Vista Family Health Center and the Western Justice Center Foundation.

Justice Moreno was honored with the Criminal Justice Superior Court Judge of the Year Award in 1997, from the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and was presented with the “For God, For Country, and For Yale” Award in 2001, recognizing him as a distinguished alumnus of Yale University. He also received an honorary degree from Southwestern University School of Law in May 2002 for his devotion to the justice system, young people and the community.

When addressing new graduates at Southwestern University School of Law last Spring, Justice Moreno urged his fellow members of the legal profession to take significant steps to ensure that access to justice is foremost in their professional lives. He went on to stress the need to enforce and exercise significant rights, as provided in the Constitution and statutes, to give those rights meaning in actual practice, for all members of society.

Justice Moreno hopes that his appointment to the California Supreme Court “serves as a reminder to everyone that anything is possible in this great country.” He also hopes that during his tenure on the bench he will be able to “improve the quality of equal justice for all by ensuring that access to justice in our state becomes a reality for all.”

Justice Moreno and his wife Christine live in Los Angeles with their two children, Keiko and Nicholas, and their niece, Heather, who suffers from an autistic disorder.

The ABA is honored to include Justice Carlos Moreno in our commemoration of National Hispanic Heritage Month.

Photo Usage:
Permission to use the above photo was granted by Justice Carlos Moreno.