An American Asks: What’s So Bad About The BNP Anyway?

An American Asks: What’s So Bad About The BNP Anyway?

By J. Paige Straley

I’m not a Brit, but as an American and an avid internet observer of the British scene, I have been fascinated to watch the rise of what might be an effective nationalist political party in Britain.

The British National Party, under its leader Nick Griffin, has been touting Britain’s elections for Members of the European Parliament, to be held on June 4, as its breakthrough. It hopes to capture five MEP seats, with the possibility of a few more if all the cards fall its way. (Which seems to be happening, as the extraordinary U.K. House of Commons expenses scandal in Westminster engulfs ever more British MPs of all parties.)

Commenters in the Brit political blogosphere predict anywhere from zero to five seats, with three as the most common guess. Any seats at all will produce public funding for the party, a very substantial boost, and will raise their visibility in Britain.

It’s happened before. Another small party, the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP], whose main plank is to take Britain out of the European Union, was very successful in the last MEP election. But UKIP contests few local elections in Britain. For the upcoming June 4 MEP election, polls show it losing ground. Part of this may be the difference in styles. BNP is a bit scruffy and makes a fuss, while UKIP appears to be much more urbane. Unhappy British voters—particularly former Labor voters—appear to like the fuss.

I know I’m not supposed to like the BNP. Because it openly states that ethnicity matters, the British press and TV treat the BNP as if it is toxic waste. The U.S. Mainstream Media follows suit, when it mentions the party at all. The BNP did rise out of the ashes of a more strident National Front Party, and some of its leaders allegedly have or have had radical links (sort of like Obama and Jeremiah Wright, although Griffin has distanced himself much more effectively). All I can say, at a distance of 3000 miles, what the BNP is actually saying and doing now looks rational, reasonable and pretty darn good to me.

Nationalist politics acknowledge the ethnic dimension of nations. Levelers assert there is no difference between peoples, and happily dilute—even replace—the heritage peoples of the West. Nowhere are they more active than in Britain.

I use the term “Heritage Peoples.” This is intuitively obvious, but let us see what BNP says about being “British”:

“We mean the bonds of culture, race, identity and roots of the native White peoples of the British Isles. We have lived in these islands near on 40,000 years. We were made by these islands, and these islands are our home. When we in the BNP talk about being British, we talk about the native peoples who have lived in these islands since before the Stone Age, and the relatively small numbers of peoples of identical race, such as the Saxons, Vikings and Normans, and the Irish, who have come here and assimilated.”[BNP FAQ, 2007]

Indeed, in an April 23 quote, Griffin himself describes the ethnic quality of Britishness in plain language:

“We don’t subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They’re not. They remain of Pakistani stock,’ he added.

“You can’t say that especially large numbers of people can come from the rest of the world and assume an English identity without denying the English their own identity, and I would say that’s wrong.

“In a very subtle way, it’s a sort of bloodless genocide.'[BNP Updates Language & Concepts Discipline Manual, BNP News, April 27, 2009]

Many whites in Britain appear to be self-haters, and are quite happy to trade Cotswolds country churches for mosques and minarets. So you can imagine the calumny thrown at Griffin over this remark!

Indeed, the “racist” epithet is thrown at BNP every day. BNP replies that it prefers a truly multicultural world where British people are clearly British and peoples from other countries are likewise unmistakable in their provenance. This is not an original policy with BNP, of course—in the second half of the twentieth century colonies of whites throughout the third world were encouraged to pack up and leave.

The BNP’s policies strike me as candid and accessible. Here, for instance, is BNP policy on immigration:

“On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years.

“To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.”[Policies—BNP Website]

Here is a nationalist party that cherishes its Heritage People and states clearly the goal to retain the traditional ethnic balance of their nation. It recognizes the fact of the demographic tsunami—something even sensible observers in the U.S. shrink from doing. The BNP intends to halt the immigrant flood and roll back the replacement of its Heritage Peoples. What’s wrong with that?

Clever use of the internet has partially defused the uniformly negative media coverage of BNP. The BNP site offers fresh material daily, and it pulls no punches with its stories. There is certainly interest in the site. According to Alexa internet ratings, the BNP has far, far more traffic than Conservatives, LibDems, or Labor.

The BNP forces are also masters of the You Tube media. A single Y-T inquiry with key word “BNP” yielded forty pages of listings, albeit there were many dissenting views such as the one with the uncivilized title, “BNP Are C_nts”. Whichever side of the BNP divide you stand on, if you like your material in movie-form, it’s ready for you.

By no means is BNP a wholly electronic communicator. In those area that offer promise, BNP organizers canvas door to door with pamphlets and face-to-face explanations why BNP says, “Britain first!” This year, for the European Parliament election, it has sent out 29 million pieces of mail!

British race-relation quangos and their fellow travelers in government are well-aware of the BNP and Griffin. In December 2004, he was arrested after a covert taping (by a BBC i.e. tax-funded operative) of a speech before a private gathering. BNP and Griffin identify the increasing Muslim population in Britain as one of the chief threats to the country, and in the December 2004 meeting he was captured on tape as suggesting that Islam was a “…wicked and vicious faith.” He knew that he was treading the edge of the draconian Race Relations law, and further said he could possibly get seven years prison for such a statement. Government pursued just that course, charging four counts of “incitement to racial hatred.” Griffin was eventually acquitted on all counts. Not surprisingly, the BNP proposes to abolish all restrictions on free speech, absent only “…common law restrictions on incitement to violence…”

Another grim reminder of official antipathy: BNP membership—that is, membership in a democratic and legal political party—is grounds for local governments to sack police and teachers. In the fall of 2008 the party membership list was leaked, and many such firings occurred.

Is BNP a one-issue anti-immigration party? Widening its scope seems to have been a part of Griffin’s leadership. The issues of EU membership (out now, please), trade (mild protectionism), job protection (part of the immigration and guest worker issue), crime (unshackle police, allow persons to resist an intruder without penalty), defense (small, competent forces, avoid foreign wars), energy (develop alternative fuels and energy, promote advanced nuclear power), environment, education, and health are all covered in the manifesto. All told BNP’s policy seems to be fairly conventional nationalism, bent on internal improvement and de-emphasizing foreign involvement, with an added tinge of social democracy. Voters certainly have a choice—BNP policies are a rather stark contrast to the Lib-Lab-Con party line.

BNP strategy seems to be to build the party in disaffected regions (London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, and Burnley northeast of Liverpool are examples), and let success in electing members to local offices (town and city “councilors”) increase the appeal of their brand. BNP is eager for councilors to render good service to constituents, though of course some do poorly in the event—an artifact of governing versus merely opposing government) Electing local councilors builds the party machinery and provides experience in actual government for members, as well as building a positive picture to combat negative propaganda.

There are no BNP Members of Britain’s Parliament at this time. It takes determination, organization, and grit to make an election-winning party from scratch. But the BNP is making progress:

Total votes in General Elections

1983                14,621

1987                    553

1992                  7,631

1997                35,832

2001                47,129

2007              192,748

Make no mistake, the BNP remains very much a minority party. The ’05 results represent only 0.7% of the total voters, country-wide. But the 2007 Welsh showing was 4.3% of the vote, and in the ’08 London Mayoral contest more than 5% of voters went BNP. The party has discrete areas of strength, and these are where it means to win MEP seats.

The stakes are high for Britain. Shall it retain its traditional identity, or become a collection of synthetic citizens, whose opinion is perhaps better polled as mere consumer preference?

It would be interesting to see a country-wide nationalist political party in the US so straightforward in its platform, and so effective in its party-building effort. If BNP are successful on June 4, it will be a lesson to patriots throughout Europe and the US.

Stay tuned, June 4 will be here before you know it!

Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…African “Refugee” Kidnappers In Virginia

Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…African “Refugee” Kidnappers In Virginia

By Brenda Walker

Immigration policy has brought an array of cultural beliefs and behaviors which few Americans could have imagined before 1965, when Washington flung the doors open.

Case in point: the recent attempt in Roanoke, Virginia, by three young African teens and one citizen to kidnap wives of wealthy American men for ransom.

The kidnap gang consisted of Luke Musa Elbino (age 19, from Sudan), Joshua Kasongo (19, from Rwanda), Mohammed Hussein Guhad (19, from Somalia) and Anthony Eugene Muse (18, of Roanoke), a local who was willing to use his granny’s rural trailer for stashing their victims. [ note: From his photograph, Mr. Muse seems to be a regular African-American, I.E. someone whose ancestors have been in this country since before the Civil War.]

Kasongo is listed as a Roanoke County firefighter (a job Americans won’t do?) and Elbino was a student at a community college. Anthony Muse and Mohammed Guhad were students at Roanoke’s Patrick Henry High School (“Home of the Patriots”!).

Virginia—the mother of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others—is apparently becoming another unmelting pot of criminal diversity.

The plot began to come apart on April 6, when the Africans tried to muscle their way into the home of George and Audrey Levicki. The gang posed as Red Cross volunteers doing a door-to-door survey. They had phoned to make sure that Mr. Levicki, CEO of Delta Dental of Virginia, was not there. The kidnappers had researched possible victims on the internet to find wealthy people and had driven around the area looking for big expensive houses.

The scheme fell apart when Mrs. Levicki slammed the door shut on one of the Africans as he tried to push his way in. The gang then jumped into a waiting car to escape, but they were noticed by an alert neighbor who followed until police appeared. (Read the original crime report on

As described by the US Attorney’s Office, [PDF]one task of Mohammed Guhad was to assemble various useful items, “including but not limited to duct tape, rope, gloves, disguises and handcuffs”. Elbino used his laptop for victim research and Kasongo was assigned the task of ransom negotiation. Anthony Muse supplied a .32 handgun, but it was not carried during the crime.

The Africans were first charged with breaking and entering, but in time they admitted conspiring to kidnap Audrey Levicki and hold her in a hidden location until her husband ponied up $1-2 million.

The would-be kidnappers had cased another prosperous neighborhood the previous month, but neighbors became suspicious when a carload of young fellows clearly not from the area were taking an undue interest.

An unidentified woman described the gang spying on her with obvious ill intent in March [UPDATED: Three kidnapping suspects plead not guilty, WDBJ7, Roanoke, May 9, 2009].

“She was a target, but never actually approached by the suspects and Friday she shared her thoughts about the plot, the suspects, and her future…

“Back in March, she noticed a car outside her home for two days straight.

News7’s Justin McLeod: How long were they there generally?

Victim: About an hour each day.

News7’s Justin McLeod: And you were telling me you actually looked out the window?

Victim: I pulled the window blind up and clear as day when you look at that from the outside, they saw me see them.

“She called police but it wasn’t until several weeks later that she found out she was part of a kidnapping plot.”

Stupid criminals are still dangerous, just more likely to get caught. And kidnapping is not only a very cruel crime, but one unlikely to be carried off successfully. Curiously, the Africans were smart enough to research potential victims using the internet, but not sufficiently bright to hide their intentions.

When the accused were brought before Judge Michael Urbanski, he commented on the “irony” of the situation:

“Over and over Thursday, the federal judge commented on the irony of the case before him: the children of refugee families who had fled terror and strife in Africa, now accused of a kidnapping plot.” [Emphasis added][Judge denies 3 teens bond in kidnapping case, By Mike Gangloff, Roanoke Times, May 15, 2009]

“Irony”? This situation is not ironic at all. Even when people try to escape violence by leaving the scene, it has become imprinted in their experience. Many bring it with them as immigrants. In a similar way, children of alcoholics can hate booze, but often end up with a drinking problem themselves.

If anything, the case shows the young men brought African values with them. Somalia in particular has been a kidnap center for years and only lately has expanded into seafaring versions, where the activity is called piracy.

Young refugees often appear to accept an American lifestyle. But that acculturation may be style only, a shallow sort of assimilation where the exteriors look right, but there is no deep understanding of the foundational structure, beliefs and responsibility that underlie American freedoms.

Another example of that syndrome: Shirwa Ahmed, the Somali refugee from Minnesota who blew up himself and dozens of others in a suicide bombing in Mogadishu last year. As a young man in Minneapolis, he had friends, dated girls, shot hoops and wore hip-hop clothing. One friend recalled Ahmed condemning suicide bombing as un-Islamic.

But somewhere along the line, Ahmed’s mind became infected with the murderous jihad ideology. Whatever he learned in school and absorbed from American society as a whole, it wasn’t strong enough to defeat in his mind the Islamic agenda of totalitarianism and religious violence. An investigation of his background, The making of a Minnesota suicide bomber [By Richard Meryhew,  Allie Shah And James Walsh, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 6, 2009], is fascinating reading—even if Ahmed was only a “Minnesota” bomber to the MSM.

We don’t know much about the Africans in the Virginia kidnapping, other than they weren’t dropouts and they had no previous arrests. The mug shots look plenty menacing but one series of non-criminal pictures are not.

Yet the Africans thought that violently snatching and imprisoning a woman against her will was a fine way to make some easy money. Did it not occur to any of them that violating Audrey Levicki’s freedom was immoral as well as illegal? Or did her lesser status as a female in African culture make her anguish less important?

No crime is more sociopathic than kidnapping. Murder is more immediately hostile, but at least the outcome is known. With criminal kidnapping, the family is literally tortured by not knowing whether their loved one is dead or alive. Sometimes the victim is murdered—like Mexican teen Silvia Vargas or the Lindbergh baby from an earlier era—but the parents may not learn of the death for years.

Hopefully there will be a trial rather than a plea deal, so we can learn more about psychological backgrounds of the African kidnap gang: whether they were war-damaged refugee children with dangerous imprinting of violence, or were just ordinary thugs from the brutal cultures of Sudan, Rwanda and Somalia.

Either way, importing criminally inclined human time bombs through the misplaced do-gooderism (and self-interestedness) of the Refugee Industry has been a terrible idea.

There is a growing list of victims, like Marilyn Bethell of Aurora, Illinois, who was murdered in 2005 by a young Sudanese refugee whose life in America was one long rap sheet.

More fortunate were the Salt Lake City school kids who survived their run in with a depressed Sudanese refugee who tried to run them down with his car in early May. Still, Salt Lake experienced an earlier deadly refugee rampage in 2007 when an 18-year-old Bosnian, Suleiman Talovic, shot and killed six people at a mall.

It is a really bad idea to welcome psychologically distressed, culturally maladjusted people at any time—and doubly so when there are no jobs to keep them busy. Refugees are high maintenance, and they do not appear to be getting the attention they need.

Either the well-paid refugee experts should help them more, instead of dumping them on the American taxpayer, or Washington should bring in a lot fewer refugees, as in zero.

Or, ideally, both.

Sonia Sotomayor And Obama’s Idea of Justice

Sonia Sotomayor And Obama’s Idea of Justice

By Patrick J. Buchanan

When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court—in Barack Obama’s America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.

Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”

Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.

Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, [YouTube] and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter.

Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.

In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.

Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.

Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.

A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.

Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity. In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.

Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.

What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”

Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.

The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish.

Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”

Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?

Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.

The Truth About ObamACORN

The Truth About ObamACORN

By Michelle Malkin

Left-wing groups in Washington, D.C., are panicked. The New York Times and other Team Obama whitewashers are downplaying the connection between the Obama presidential campaign, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Obama’s old employer Project Vote (ACORN’s nonprofit canvassing arm). Alas, the truth keeps seeping out.

At a closed-door powwow hosted Thursday at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, activists discussed how to combat a relentless stream of corruption charges from ACORN/Project Vote whistleblowers. But it’s too late for a reputation bailout. Former Project Vote official and whistleblower Anita MonCrief has harnessed the Internet to crowd-source a massive cache of documents showing ties between Obama staff members and the supposedly “nonpartisan” ACORN operations.

Last fall, The New York Times abandoned an investigation into whether Obama had shared donor lists with Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization that is prohibited from engaging in political activity. Public editor Clark Hoyt earlier this month called it “the tip that didn’t pan out.” Critics suggested the donor lists could have been compiled through public records. But I have obtained the lists—not only of Obama donors, but also lists of Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry contributors. The records include small donors to the Obama campaign, who are not disclosed in public campaign finance databases. It’s information only a campaign could supply.

MonCrief testified under oath last fall that her then-boss, Karyn Gillette, gave her the Obama donor list and told her the campaign had furnished it. Moreover, e-mail messages between ACORN, Project Vote and other affiliates, including ACORN subsidiary Citizens Services, Inc. (CSI), make explicit references to working on “Obama campaign related projects.” The “list of maxed out Obama donors” is specifically mentioned in staff e-mail. Another message from ACORN/Project Vote official Nathan Henderson-James warns ACORN and affiliated staff to prepare for “conservatives … gearing up a major oppo research project on Obama.”

Henderson-James wrote, “Understand I’m not suggesting that we gear up to defend a candidate’s campaign.” But that, of course, is exactly what the ACORN enterprise did.

Why does this matter? Transparency, tax dollars and electoral integrity. ACORN’s own lawyer Elizabeth Kingsley acknowledged last year that a vast web of tax-exempt ACORN affiliates were shuffling money around—making it almost impossible to track whether campaign rules and tax regulations were being followed. ACORN receives 40 percent of its revenues from taxpayers. Americans deserve to know whether and how much commingling of public money with political projects has occurred over the last four decades—and what role the Obama campaign played in this enterprise.

Remember: Last August, the Obama team admitted its failure to properly disclose $800,000 in payments to CSI—which works hand in hand with Project Vote and the ACORN parent organization. Obama mysteriously reclassified the campaign advance work expenditures as “get-out-the-vote” activities. Nary a peep from electoral integrity watchdogs.

Despite heated denials from Team Obama, the links between ACORN, Project Vote and CSI are inextricable. As Obama himself reminded ACORN leaders after its political action committee endorsed his presidential candidacy in February 2008:

“I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That’s what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That’s the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

As I’ve reported before, the Obama campaign’s “Vote for Change” registration drive, run simultaneously with ACORN/Project Vote, was an all-out scramble to scrape up every last unregistered voter sympathetic to Obama’s big-government vision.

In an e-mail message to whistleblower MonCrief last summer, New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom told the truth: “The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what.” By Oct. 6, 2008, Strom had thrown in the towel in the wake of blistering phone conversations with the Obama campaign. She wrote:

“I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a right-wing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else. … I’d still like to get that file from you when you have a chance to send it. One of these days, the truth is going to come out.”

It’s only just begun.

Then and now, and the short distance between – Jefferson views on RACE!

Then and now, and the short distance between

by The Narrator

The following text was written by Thomas Jefferson two centuries ago. The subject: blacks. His observations and conclusions look surprisingly fresh and modern in both the good and bad sense.

For example the first president of the Banana Republic of North America comes to mind when Jefferson states:

They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory….But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration….He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration.

The existence of rap and hip-hop seems quite natural, as centuries ago it is observed that blacks:

In music…are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved.

Indeed the verdict is still out.

His most profound observation on them, though, is at the heart of why any kind of social/political/religious agreement or mutual understanding with them is impossible. He writes of them:

They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.

Most interesting of all though is Jefferson’s seeming moments of slipping into sentimental leftism that seems a habit of some Whites. For example, of black crime he writes (the very modern looking apologetic):

That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense.

Of course, as their situation has changed much over the past two hundred years while their proclivity towards crime remained unabated, we can see the faulty conclusion of Jefferson’s appraisal. It’s his motivation for writing such that is of interest, though.

In his concluding sentence we can see the all too familiar appeal to religion and a murky notion of “social justice” as Jefferson writes:

The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

Naturally that can also be read as a warning. Still it’s interesting to see Jefferson do what so many in our own time do in coming to a natural conclusion on the obvious differences in the races, yet flirting with the idea that he wishes it were not so and that it will one day, miraculously, go away.

Like so many Whites of modern North America, Thomas Jefferson makes reasonable deductions based on an abundance of study and observations on the undeniable and profound fact of the multitude of differences in the races, yet still wishes to imagine that it will all resolve itself in some egalitarian utopia at some unspecified future date under some mysterious bit of magical circumstance.

The text is interesting not in so much as it represents a mirror image of our thoughts as modern White Americans, but as more of an old home movie of how those thoughts used to look.

Here it is in full.

Views on Negro Slavery
by Thomas Jefferson

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation.

We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never saw even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch.

Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of friendship and general philanthropy, and show how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with the writers of the race among whom he lived and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to enrol him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation.

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint. The same Cato, on a principle of economy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old wagons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless…. The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It was the common practice to expose in the island Esculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like to become tedious. The emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should recover, and first declared that if any person chose to kill rather than expose them, it should be deemed homicide. The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture. Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their masters’ children. Epictetus, Terence, and Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction. Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favour of others. When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right or wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago. Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.

But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude and unshaken fidelity. The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to optical classes, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the Senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different Species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question “What further is to be done with them?” join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.

The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state? It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious pecularities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trarnple on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

For socialism to succeed, capitalism must failThe Obama Plan To Destroy America

For socialism to succeed, capitalism must fail

For socialism to succeed, capitalism must fail, thus the new administration’s agenda

By Tom Randall

Date: February 3, 2009 Issue: To some of our liberal friends (we do still have some, to the amazement of some of our conservative friends…lighten up all of you) would balk at the suggestion that the administration is socialist, not merely left-of-center.  Many would also cringe at the suggestion that the administration would continue the destruction of capitalism to reach its ends seems implausible.  To that we would respond with a paraphrase of the old country and western line: “Who are you going to believe, President Obama or your lyin’ eyes?” Capitalism, with its ability to generate wealth, not simply re-distribute poverty, stands as a powerful repudiation of the failures of modern socialism.  While capitalism exists, socialism cannot thrive.  Therefore, socialists must destroy capitalism to succeed.  The most expeditious way to defeat capitalism is to control what sustains it in a modern world: Abundant, affordable energy — the underpinning of the means of production. To see how this administration aims to defeat capitalism that was under siege even in the last administration, we need look no further than a few Obama appointments.  Remember when looking at these appointments, D.C. is an insiders’ town. You have to know how to work within its complexities.  You have to know the back channels.  You have to develop a gut feel of when “yes” means “no” and “no” means “yes.”  Who can do a thing and who cannot.  To wit:

• Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: Dr. Chu is a learned enough man.  He has run Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.  He is a scientist, though his swallowing of global warming theory after simply reading the IPCC report, raises doubts in this area.  He is a Washington neophyte who will be running what many of its employees call the most dysfunctional department in D.C.

• Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar:  Salazar is a three-term congressional back-bencher from Colorado who has barely had time to learn how to get around on the Metro, let alone drive his department.

• Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson: She is the former New Jersey EPA head.  Unfortunately, New Jersey is not the U.S. EPA — an agency still heavily salted with plants left over from the days Carol Browner ran the U.S. EPA and the Bush administration was too politically inept to root out.  And, it is the return of Ms. Browner that makes these three seemingly innocuous appointments so significant.

• White House Energy Czar Carol M. Browner: Browner, former EPA administrator under Bill Clinton and prominent member of Socialist International, did everything she could to hobble the energy industry during her tenure with the agency.  Many who came to the agency during her tenure remain in place.  She is an experienced and skilled Washington operative. While the first three appointees share many of her views, it is Browner who knows better how to run the machinery of government and accomplish her purposes. It will be Browner, ensconced in the West Wing, who will quietly, deftly, behind the scenes, call the shots at Energy, Interior and EPA.

Obama Economic Plan 101 How to destroy Capitalism

The core of Obama’s economic plan is to tax people who are making money.

There is 4 ways Obama is going to tax people so you need to pay close attention here.

1. If you earn more than $97,000.  He has said those who have assets of $250,000 but corrected that statement a week later but with Obama you never know because he says one thing and means it then retracts it if there is an outcry because it is just plain wrong and stupid.

2. Tax capital gains.  Not just businesses but any citizen who has a capital gains.

3.  Tax 401k retirement accounts.

4. Increase the payroll tax

These three items he has repeated time and again.

None of these 3 items help mainstreet USA but harm it. It drives jobs overseas and it prevents any business from reinvestments or engaging in expansion because they would get taxed in addition to the costs of the expansion. Thus they get hit twice.  It will freeze some jobs and eliminate millions more.

Hey listen to Obama himself as he explains how he is going to bring down Capitalism and destroy America.

Fundamental flaw is that economics never have worked bottom up! Why? The poor often waist the money because the amounts given to the poor are not enough to meet their requirements to make them active spenders that would effect the economy. Secondly, there is no benefit to businesses to offer new incinatives because it does not guarantee new business but it does promise to tax that business out of existence.

Obama admits his tax plan hurts the economy but he would still like to tax America to death.

Just to make this clear. Under Obama 401ks will loose value because according to Obama they are part of the greedy Wall Street system. Obama does not care that 401k are tied to the stock market and 401ks are the primary block or group which has capital gains within wall Street.

Thus under Obama, people with 401k will have to pay taxes to save for retirement because they will have to pay the capital gains tax.  Obama from his own mouth if you listen to him wants to raise the capital gains back to 28%  from its current 15% then see if it needs another hike not to exceed 10% more.

In other words according to Obama, It only fair for those who do not work and never pay taxes to have a right to the money of people who do work in the interest of fairness a weath redistrobution plan to take money from people’d 401ks to give it to someone who does not pay taxes and may not have worked in their life. Obama is willing to tax retired people and those who are wanting to retire  with an up to 38% capital gains tax in conjunction to the payroll tax increase of an additional 6% along with taxing people who make more than $97,000.

After all, Obama identified the cut off problem of $97,000 in taxes as a way to punish millionares. The problem is that it punishes those who make more than $97,000. Obama loves to make double talk. But even with his $200,000 to $250,000 cap which keep changing by the day which it is. He says that if people who make more than $97,000 has capital gains and owns property, they get taxed on their income because millionares use a provision in the tax code which is set at that amount.

In other words, If you own stock, or a 401k and own property, you get an income tax increase because Obama wants to punish you because you are successful to give you money to people who are poor.

That is not capitalism that is Communism!  Wealth redistrobution is not a socialist stand but a communist one.  Socialism is where Government owns most things and gives all the entitlements because there is no real priviate sector. Communism is the same but, redistrobutes wealth so that everyone gets the same bite at the apple so to speak. The problem is that its fundamentally flawed because there is always people who are the movers who make money and make new business. Then there is those who refuse to do that. Then you have the dregs who refuse to even work but expect a handout for nothing.

Obama wants to punish people for making money and achieving some kind of success.

Say No to Obama come elelction because an Obama president and a democratic controled congress will destroy capitalism once and for all in this country with their plans of taking money from one group of people to give it to another group of people.  Its just a matter of where they line is drawn.

Obama made the case that the line is to be drawn at $97,000 for most people. Then the rest gets it at $200,000.

Say No to Obama because his economic plan is a disaster for America!

The Obama Plan To Destroy America

The vast majority of Americans even if they oppose Obama think that he has the best interests of America in mind like gentleman in the video above who does a brilliant analysis of the current economic crisis and how it could end in the same type of hyperinflation that wrecked Germany in 1920s and led to the rise of Hitler. My contention is that Obama and Company view the results of the 2008 election as a mandate to destroy capitalism and America as we know it. The way to accomplish this goal is to make bad economic decisions by design and throw the country into poverty and anarchy with the goal of seizing complete political control.

The only problem with this plan is that the opposition may decide to launch a civil war against the Marxist authors of destruction and hang them high. This was happened in Chile in 1973 when an Obama type president attempted to turn that country with deep democratic and capitalist roots into a “People’s Republic.”


February 07, 2009
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
By Nancy Coppock

Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.

The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left’s war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel’s ominous statement, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

According to Discover the

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation… [Emphasis added.]

Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan’s spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to “stimulate” the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to “save the children” only makes a faltering economy worse.

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.

The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.

If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there’s not even the hope of a good paying construction job.

Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d’etat.

As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, “It’s going to get worse before it gets better?” If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response — an unwavering wall of “No!”

Obama is the King of double talk and he knows well how to hide what he really is saying.

But the truth is that for the vast majority of the people is that they will see their taxes go up and they will see jobs losses of the likes not seen since the Great Depression.

Why, Because you can not tax businesses out of business. In 1941, American either suspended or cut taxes on the all US manufacturing business to an all time low of 7%.

It created jobs and even after WWII the manufacturing sector held that 7% for all manufacturing till 1949. It was and still is the greatest economic boom for US manufacturing.

Imagine if that was put back into practice today, Lower manufacturing or new Technology businesses to 7% in addition to other perks.

Fundamentally, you would see a growth in manufacturing jobs! In fact, if the rate was dropped to 5.5% it would offset the benefits of companies using China labor! It would be cheaper to make the goods here in the US!

If you have very high economic boom in conjunction to very high job creation rates it would look like an emerging market.

This could happen in the US. We actually need to cut rates to businesses but temper those cuts with oversight and proper regulation.

The housing markets have to be corrected. That has to be done. Otherwise we will see another collapse of the housing market for the 5th time.

3 of the past reasons along with the current crisis were caused by the exact same reason. Why the leaders have not yet learned from history and the mistakes is beyond me.

1. Anytime a Bank or any lender can buy the note at an Auction which they control, it creates a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest causes preditory agression of the lender against the borrower to gain access to the property for high value than the note when the proptery has a greater market value than the maturity value of the note they hold.

To this end, Banks or other lenders have to be forbidden from ever having the right to buy any property which they had at any time an interest in the note over the borrower. This prevents banks from selling the note to another bank which another bank could foreclose.

2. If a borrower defaults on his responsibility to pay, then the banks foreclose and sell the property to the highest bidder at auction. Since the banks can not buy the real fire sale price of the home is established. Most homes are HUD or FHA which are guaranteed. The only money that the banks get back is the difference between the firesale amount and the default amount of the note.

This was the policy before 1980. President Carter changed the law when the Democrats controlling the all of government pushed this through just before Carter left office.

It fundamentally changed real estate ownership and practice forever.

Thus Obama is more about pushing the same kind of failed idealism of President Carter who was the worst president in American History!