Economic Collapse Cannot be Stopped!

Economic Collapse Cannot be Stopped!

Those elites who caused this must pay, their pets who have drained the very life blood out of our nation must also pay, they have come in our home to take what they can, rape and pillage our nation, then when the time is right, return to their homelands with our wealth, they must pay, their nations must pay with blood.

Even If Immigration Continues, The Sailer Strategy Could Still Win It For The GOP In 2050

Even If Immigration Continues, The Sailer Strategy Could Still Win It For The GOP In 2050

By Steve Sailer

The central question about the long-term future of the Republican Party is—does the Republican Party have a future?

The demographic changes unleashed by post-1965 immigration policies inexorably work to benefit Democrats, as Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein pointed out in their National Review cover story Electing a New People back in1997. (Those were the days! After William F. Buckley purged the magazine of patriotic immigration reformers, Brimelow and Rubenstein updated their analysis in the Hudson Institute’s magazine American Outlook in 2000.)

Brimelow and Rubenstein made three points:

  1. a static point: in American politics, race is destiny—the races vote systematically differently and these differences are very slow to change;
  2. a dynamic point: the major parties’ share of the overall vote sways back and forth according to political conditions, and the proportion they get of each race’s vote sways back and forth in parallel (but the differences between the races remain roughly the same);
  3. an immigration point: immigration policy is shifting America’s racial balance toward minorities, and therefore the ability of the Republican Party to win national elections is being steadily reduced.

Brimelow and Rubenstein’s conclusion in 1997: the GOP should move to cut off immigration.

Instead, under George W. Bush, the GOP did exactly the opposite, although Bush’s amnesty efforts ultimately failed.

Nevertheless, the trend that Brimelow and Rubenstein identified was undeniable. Thus, according to the gold standard Census Bureau survey of more than 50,000 households immediately after each election, the non-Hispanic white share of the vote declined slowly from 84.9 percent in 1988 to 79.2 percent in 2004.

Then the white share fell off a cliff, down to 76.3 percent in 2008.

Here are the details:

Share of Votes Cast 2000 2004 2008
Whites 80.7% 79.2% 76.3%
Blacks 11.5% 11.0% 12.1%
Hispanics 5.4% 6.0% 7.4%
Asians 1.8% 2.3% 2.5%
Others 0.6% 1.5% 1.7%

The reason for this sudden slump: turnout. In 2008, minorities surged to the polls to vote for Obama. Simultaneously, white turnout as a share of white adult citizens was down from the level of 2004.

Not surprisingly, the black turnout rate as a share of eligible black voters was up from 60 to 65 percent. But even more interestingly, other minorities, who are less politicized than blacks, were excited by Obama’s candidacy too. Among citizens, Asian turnout was up from 45 to 47 percent of eligible Asian voters, and Hispanic turnout increased from 47 to 50 percent of eligible Hispanic voters.

Here are the details:

Turnout 2000 2004 2008
Whites 61.8% 67.2% 66.1%
Blacks 56.9% 60.3% 65.2%
Hispanics 45.1% 47.2% 49.9%
Asians 43.3% 44.6% 47.0%

The more marginal white voters tend to vote Republican if they get motivated enough to show up at the polls. The opposite is true for the more marginal minority voters—they tend to vote Democratic.

The details:

GOP Share 2000 2004 2008
Whites 54% 58% 55%
Blacks 8% 11% 4%
Hispanics 35% 40% 31%
Asians 41% 44% 35%

At a conceptual level, there are two ways the GOP can stay alive:

Oh, wait, that has been the strategy of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John McCain. How’s that working out, by the way?

But there is an alternative, more obvious strategy that hasn’t been widely discussed:

  • The GOP could raise white turnout and win a larger share of the white vote.

Of course this means the GOP would have to advocate (and then perhaps actually implement) policies that, you know, do something for its natural (white) base.

The obvious example: cutting immigration. This would not merely benefit whites by, for example, reducing workplace competition, but it would also (whaddya know) halt the immigration-driven demographic deterioration in the GOP’s electoral position.

It’s so rational that it apparently can’t be discussed in respectable Beltway circles.

VDARE.COM calls strategy #2 the “Sailer Strategy”.

Even before the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the 2000 election, I pointed out in VDARE.com: GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

“If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171.”

Despite all the subsequent hogwash from Karl Rove about his minority outreach strategy, the plain albeit unreported fact was that the GOP triumphs in 2002 and 2004 followed this game plan. GOP House candidates won 59 percent of the white vote in the 2002 off year election and Bush took 58 percent in the Presidential election of 2004.

However, the Republicans’ relatively strong showings among whites in those two elections were driven much less by any coherent platform intended to benefit the base than by post-9/11 appeals to their patriotism. My analysis of the lost 2002 exit poll results showed that:

“Whites were more interested in foreign-affairs issues than blacks or Hispanics. One out of five whites said the issue that mattered most in determining their votes was either terrorism or Iraq, compared to one out of ten Hispanics, and one out of 25 blacks.”

By 2006, though, the Bush-Rove-McCain Grand Strategy of

  • Invite the World
  • Invade the World
  • In Hock to the World

was running out of gas. And, in 2008, the Housing Bubble inflated by Bush’s 2002 plan to win over Hispanic voters by creating 5.5 million more minority homeowners via debauching traditional credit standards backfired catastrophically.

In 2006 in California, 56 percent of all home purchase mortgage dollars had gone to minorities. And in the subsequent mortgage meltdown, minorities accounted for the great bulk of defaulted dollars in California. A study by economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve of 239,101 mortgages issued in California during the Housing Bubble reported:

“We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.”[ Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California:The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown,by Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 26, 2008]

In other words, the Republican Establishment wasted eight years, while the party’s position was deteriorating demographically because of mass immigration, on minority outreach programs like tacitly encouraging illegal immigration and bad borrowing.

The result of all this cleverness was that the GOP was in even worse shape going into the 2008 election. Add in well-deserved blame for economic collapse and McCain’s themeless and politically correct campaigning, and Obama unsurprisingly won 365-173 in the Electoral College.

As I’ve shown above, McCain’s share of the white vote, 55 percent, was relatively weak, and white turnout was down.

Worse, in terms of the Electoral College, white Republican voters were over-concentrated in Great Plains, Great Basin, and Southern states.

But I’ve built the same kind of Electoral College model as I did in 2000. This time, it shows McCain could have eked out a 271-267 victory if he had gotten just five more percentage points of the white vote in each state—and if whites had showed up at the polls at the same rate as in 2004.

With just those two changes, McCain would have picked up Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

It’s striking that one can even dream up a path to victory for a candidate as feckless as John McCain was in 2008!

Recently, the bloggers Cold Equations and One STDV looked at the Census Bureau’s 2050 population projections, and in effect tried to update the 1997 Brimelow-Rubenstein forecast of the partisan tilt of the playing field in the 2048 and 2052 Presidential elections, assuming the GOP garners the same share of the vote within each race as in this decade. Upon that base, I built a model with a few more factors, such as age and citizenship differences.

The result: If—as in some time-loop nightmare—we just refought the 2008 election over and over, mere demographic change alone would propel the Democrats from 53 percent last year to 59 percent by mid-century.

That is, if the GOP keeps doing what it did in 2008, the country will become a more or less one-party regime—just like the President’s chosen hometown of Chicago. And that might be the best case scenario. Think Detroit. Or New Orleans.

And yet the GOP’s plight is not hopeless. Looking at my statistical model of the 2048-2052 elections: if

  1. the GOP’s share of the white vote grows from 55 percent to 70 percent; and
  2. white turnout returns to the level seen in 1992 (during Ross Perot’s insurgent run),

then, all else being equal, GOP candidates would still win in the middle of the 21st century.  The party would get a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent majority in the popular vote in 2052.

To put that in current perspective, about one third of Obama’s white voters would have had to switch to Republican by 2052.

That certainly wouldn’t be easy.

But does anybody have a better plan? (Other than an immigration moratorium NOW?)

In future columns, I will examine how it can be done.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

ATLANTA BLACKS SHOULD VOTE FOR BLACKS ONLY!

ATLANTA BLACKS SHOULD VOTE FOR BLACKS ONLY!

posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 1:06 PM
Saturday, August 29, 2009
VOTE FOR BORDERS - SHE'S BLACK LIKE YOU!VOTE FOR BORDERS – SHE’S BLACK LIKE YOU!

The race that once pined for a colorblind society sure has a hard time focusing on anything other than pigment these days. In this post-racial period in America, we now are bombarded daily with news stories having to do solely with race and charges of racism. Those who dreamed of never again hearing about race if a black president was elected have awakened to a nightmare of more issues of race than ever! Why is Angry White Dude not surprised?

In Atlanta’s mayoral race, a black advocacy group has sent out a memo calling for the city’s blacks to vote for a black person. Go figure! A group known as the Black Leadership Forum called for blacks to consolidate their support around Lisa Borders, president of the Atlanta City Council and one of several black candidates. The group believes Borders has the best chance to beat Mary Norwood, a white devil who could become the first white devil to be mayor of Atlanta in decades. The memo says:

“For the last 25 years Atlanta has represented the breakthrough for black political empowerment in the South,” read the memo. “In order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout.”

For the last 25 years, corruption has been a common theme under the various black mayors. So has race baiting. The current black mayor said before her election “voting for the white guy would be like going back to being hosed down with water hoses.” So it is no surprise black leaders encourage blacks to vote for blacks….it is what they do. It keeps blacks in office and keeps Atlanta blacks suffering at the hands of high crime, weak economic opportunities and corrupt government.

Ever notice that the mainstream media doesn’t criticize black racism? Kind of like how Hamas and other Muslim terrorist groups are not criticized for hating and killing Israelis or Americans. Maybe it is because the MSM believes blacks and Muslims cannot rise above their monolithic view of the world in terms of race or religion. Whites are held to a much higher standard. We must love, appreciate and honor cultures that often create the majority of the world’s problems. Angry White Dude detests the ghetto culture of many black people. I hate the ignorance, crime and overall problems it creates in the United States. Yet I can support a black man (conservative Michael Williams) to replace Kay Bailout Hutchinson as US Senator if she steps down to run for Governor. Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society was naive. It is impossible to overlook a small percentage of US population creating the majority of violent crimes if their skin color is the same. However, white people as a whole have succeeded in judging a person on their character than any other race. Think not? Did 96% of white voters vote for the white man?

Liberal black leadership has proven to be a disaster in nearly every American city it has occurred. From Detroit to Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham, and Washington, DC, these cities have been rife with corruption under black mayors. A good argument could be made concerning President Obama after his 8 months of bending the Constitution at his will. We cannot even disagree with his 10 year deficit of $14.4 trillion without being labeled racists!

White Americans are tired of the double standard that political correctness imposes on us. We are tired of being painted into a corner while other races and cultures can openly do or say anything without criticism. Just read the memo sent out by the black advocacy group in Atlanta and change “black” to “white.” Any white advocacy group (that would be racist) would be condemned publicly by the MSM and any white politician in reach of a microphone. But this black group? Hah, just another day in the life.

Here’s a great article written about the corruption in Atlanta over the years. It’s a few years old but you’ll get the picture:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis74.html

Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution: Read The Book—Ignore The Pamphlet!

Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution: Read The Book—Ignore The Pamphlet!

By Jared Taylor

Christopher Caldwell, who writes for The Weekly Standard and The Financial Times, has written Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, a marvelously insightful and even courageous book about Muslim immigration to Europe.  Unfortunately, Mr. Caldwell did not stop there. He included a pamphlet’s worth of foolish optimism about immigration to the United States—so foolish that it is hard to believe the same man who so neatly dissects the delusions and weaknesses of Europeans does not realize he is also describing American policy-makers.

Read the book—ignore the pamphlet.

As his title itself makes clear, Caldwell believes Europe is in a revolution in which nothing less that the survival of the West is at stake. In what is the book’s most memorable passage, he asks “whether you can have the same Europe with different people and tells us “the answer is no”.

Caldwell points out that in 1950 there were practically no Muslims in Europe. By 2000 there were an estimated 15 to 17 million, with 5 million in France, 4 million in Germany, and 2 million in Britain. Like immigrants to the United States, they are young, urban, prolific, and crime-prone. Forty percent of the children living in Paris have immigrant parents, and London’s one million Muslims are one eighth of the city’s population. Fifty percent of French prisoners are Muslims. In Turin, immigrants are 10 percent of the population but account for only 0.2 percent of the deaths and 25 percent of the births. Muslims who make it to Europe celebrate by having even more babies than if they had stayed home—a pattern observable with Mexicans in the U.S.

Europe absorbs 1.7 million newcomers every year—roughly as many as twice the number America takes in—and almost all are Muslims. At current rates, by mid-century, a fifth to a third of most European countries will be foreign-born.

As Caldwell points out, “Western Europe became a multiethnic society in a fit of absence of mind“. A defeated Germany got back on its feet quickly and by 1955 needed more labor. Desperately poor Turks signed up for two-year stints as guest workers and kept renewing.

This Third-World influx more or less repeated itself in all the larger European countries, but until the 1970s most Europeans still thought all the foreigners would go home.

They didn’t. Instead, they brought their villages. Caldwell cites amazing statistics: From 1971 to 2000, the number of immigrants living in Germany grew from 3 million to 7.5 million but the number of foreigners in the workforce stayed the same at 2 million. The huge influx consisted of kinfolk, loafers, criminals, invalids, etc. Whole neighborhoods began to look “like a seizure of territory rather than a multicolored enrichment”.

Caldwell argues persuasively that it was a unique set of circumstances that opened the continent to a religion that had been Europe’s sworn enemy for centuries: post-war rebuilding, the Cold War compulsion to be nice to poor countries, and—perhaps most important—racial guilt over Nazism, Caldwell notes that hypersensitivity about the Holocaust made it easy to blacken defenders of Europe as “Nazis,” and that Muslims quickly learned to use this powerful weapon. At the beginning of Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow called this phenomenon “Hitler’s Revenge”.

These were elite concerns, however. Like Americans, ordinary Europeans would have rejected mass immigration out of hand if they could have voted on it.

Caldwell points out that immigrants did not come because they wanted to be Europeans; they wanted to remain Turks or Moroccans or Bengalis but with a European standard of living. They also showed up just when militant Islam was on the upswing, which shackled their minds even more tightly to their home countries.

The result is an indigestible mass of underclass foreigners who are more alienated from Europe with every new generation. When the French police arrest an Arab, it is common for other Muslims to start chanting Nique la France“F–k France”. When French-Arab students are asked if they are French, chances are they will say that is impossible because they are Muslim. Only 5 percent of Turks in Germany say they can imagine being buried there, and only about half say the laws of Islam are compatible with German society. Just under half of Dutch Muslims were “in complete sympathy with the attacks of September 11. Thirty-seven percent of British Muslims say apostates from Islam deserve death. Sixty years after they started coming to Britain, three quarters of (what are now) Bangladeshis still import their wives from the subcontinent rather than marry co-ethnics tainted by living in Europe.

As Caldwell points out, these people have no intention of assimilating; they expect Europe to change to suit them.

And how have European governments reacted to open rejection? By petting the immigrants and gushing about the equality of all cultures. In 2008, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stopped using the term “Islamic terrorism” and started talking about anti-Islamic activity instead. The famous Macpherson Report of 1999 defined a “racist” incident as one the victim—or anyone else—thought was “racist”. British and French welfare programs started paying extra benefits for multiple Muslim wives and their children. Dutch and British public health services have even paid for “hymen reconstruction surgery” so Muslim brides could fool their husbands.

In 2006, despite warnings from free speech activists, Britain passed a general ban on “incitement of religious hatred”. Why? Muslims—but no one else—wanted it.

European Union researchers on anti-Semitism who were supposed to publish a report in 2003 found, of course, that almost all perpetrators were Muslim immigrants. But they couldn’t bring themselves to say so. They dithered for a year and finally “balanced” the report, according to Caldwell, by issuing a disingenuous press release saying most of the perps were disaffected whites.

Caldwell notes that the more wildly violent Muslims become, the more theologically learned European (and American) leaders pretend to be. Politicians across the continent assure people that the bomb-throwers are “poorly educated in extremist madrassas” and that violence is “un-Islamic”. No less a boob than George Bush posed as an expert in comparative religions by telling us that Islam is a “religion of peace”.

European elites are afraid that straightforward condemnation will encourage nativism and extremism. Whenever Muslims riot, steal, throw bricks at firemen, or wreck housing projects, politicians blame themselves for not doing enough.

Caldwell is right to attribute this lick-spittle mentality to a devastating loss of confidence. European leaders, he writes, “have tended to treat immigration to Europe as something immigrants are simply entitled to, part of an outstanding debt that Europe owes the rest of the world for centuries of economic exploitation”.

For similar reasons, European politicians made it matter of pride to let in any brown-skinned vagabond who could pronounce the word asylum. Caldwell quotes one European minister as actually saying, “We live in a borderless world in which our new mission is defending the border not of our countries but of civility and human rights”.

The Dutch were notoriously easy touches, and at one time Sweden was adding one percent a year to its population just through asylum—not counting family members. (Both countries later tightened up the rules.)

One of Caldwell’s most poignant examples of subservience to outsiders comes from Britain. A 2008 poll found that immigrants were more confident than native Britons that they could influence decisions at local and national levels. And why not? Muslims, non-whites, and foreigners get so much public attention it is natural, as Caldwell puts it, for whites to think “their aspiration are not the real subject matter of Britain’s politics”.

This book is very good on just how different Islam is from Christianity, and why that causes trouble. First, Muslims know they are right and everyone else is wrong. They have a muscular, intolerant faith that shocks limp-wristed Euro-Christians. That is why the “interreligious dialogue” Christians always crave usually means “discussing how Christians can make life easier for Muslims”.

As Caldwell observes, the only reason the term “moderate Islam” exists is because there is so much of the other kind. There are many kinds of Christianity, but no one talks about “moderate Christians” because, compared to Muslims, they are all moderate.

Europeans are on a snipe hunt for “moderates”, just as the Republicans are for “black conservatives”, but whenever the French or British find a tame cleric he turns out to have no constituency.

Caldwell reports that Muslims are very keen on freedom of religion—but only so long as it means they can open sharia-law courts and build giant mosques; Euro-imams have openly proclaimed their goal of stamping out any but The One True Faith once they get power.

By contrast, Europeans act on principle. When the French decided they couldn’t have Arab girls wearing veils to school, they felt compelled to ban yarmulkes and “large crucifixes” as well. Italians and Germans couldn’t ban veils without taking down classroom crucifixes that may have been up for centuries.

Europeans therefore cannot bring themselves to combat alien practices head-on. When the Danes got sick of Muslims fetching brides from the old country, they had to ban young spouses rather than illiterate Third Worlders. By forbidding the import of marriage partners under the age of 24, the Danes mostly stopped the practice, but they had to pretend they had an underage-spouse problem rather than an immigration problem.

Measures like this bother people who shouldn’t be bothered. If the authorities step up surveillance on fire-breathing imams, they think they have to keep tabs on other people, too. If they cut back on welfare because of immigrant chiselers, they have to change the rules for everyone. Although it came to nothing, one Swedish bureaucrat, shocked to discover female genital mutilation was going on in her country, argued for mandatory checkups for every Swedish girl.

Surprisingly, Caldwell falls for the silly idea that you can’t have free flow of capital without free flow of people—the Japanese and Koreans have proven the two are unrelated. But he is good on arguments against Third World immigration in general. He points out, for example, that peasant labor cannot possibly save European welfare states. Turks and Tunisians soak up social services and make such low wages they are a net drain. He adds that even if, by massaging the numbers, the boosters can show a slight net benefit to the native-born due to immigrants—what George Borjas calls “the immigrant surplus”—this misses the point. Haggling over plus-or-minus tenths of a percent of GNP completely ignores the real impact of immigration, which is not economic at all.

Caldwell can turn a graceful phrase when he writes about how imperceptibly societies change as the ethnic mix shifts. Here is a sentence worth pondering: “When people start doing out of fear what they previously did out of conviction or generosity, they often do not notice the transition.”

This is good, too: “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

Alas, when Caldwell writes about America he doesn’t just jump the tracks: he does it going over a trestle. Our Hispanics are not at all like European immigrants, he says, because they are Christians and speak a European language. What’s more, they volunteer for the military, have babies, take blue-collar jobs—why, they’re just like Americans from 40 years ago!

Practically all of VDARE.COM is devoted to taking the stuffing out of stupidity of that kind, but suffice it say that any group with Hispanic rates of crime, illegitimacy, welfare use, poverty, school failure, and radical disaffection is nothing like Grandma’s generation.

How can a man who sees so clearly what is happening across the Atlantic pretend that none of the following applies to the United States?

  • “For all the lip service paid to diversity, people tend to flee it.”
  • “Real discussions—about the increasing ‘diversity’ of European society and whether it was a good or a bad thing—were all but shut down.
  • “To express misgivings about immigration was to confess racist inclinations.”
  • “Immigrants and their children were at liberty to express politically their wishes as a people, in a way that European natives were not.”
  • Europe is “not dealing with an ordinary immigration problem at all, but with an adversary culture.”
  • After the 2005 French riots “there was a desire, verging on desperation, to explain the riots as being due to some misconduct of the majority society.”
  • “Europeans fear their individual countries are slowly escaping their political control, and they are right, although they can seldom spell out precisely how.”
  • Europeans live in internal exile, “cut off by economic and cultural changes from the world they thought they would inhabit.”
  • Immigration “means importing not just factors of production but factors of social change.
  • “In no country in Europe does the bulk of the population aspire to live in a bazaar of world cultures.”

Whether out of ignorance, cowardice, or—could it possibly be?—conviction, Caldwell refused to recognize that Europe and America face the same crisis. Whatever he learned in Europe he seems to have forgotten when he stepped off the plane.

There is worse. Caldwell sees as clearly as anyone sees anything that immigration is a disaster for Europe. But he dismisses as moral inferiors the men who recognized the truth long before he did. The book opens with an account of Enoch Powell’s famous so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech, given in 1968 when Caldwell was in knee britches. Caldwell admits that Powell’s predictions were factually correct—”beyond any shadow of a doubt”—but says, without explanation, that Powell was “morally wrong”. This is as obtuse as calling the speech a “rant”—the immensely cultivated Powell was incapable of ranting—but he also calls Oriana Fallaci’s hugely successful critique of Islam (The Rage and the Pride) a “tirade”.

And what about people who are actually trying to defend Europe against the threat Caldwell so clearly spells out? Jean-Marie Le Pen is a “fear-mongering reactionary” and his National Front is fascistic“. The British National Party is one of those extremist parties that sow hatred” and Pia Kjaersgaard’s Danish Peoples Party is “immigrant obsessed”.

Why does Caldwell abuse his elders and betters? Is he afraid he will be called a “fear-mongering reactionary” and thinks he can head off charges by redirecting them?

That is a contemptible trick. And it doesn’t even work.

In his defense, Caldwell is writing in an age of terror, in which telling the truth is a firing offense. Still, he should have remained silent rather than denounce patriots who are doing the work he has the good sense to realize must be done.

This book is like a piece of Camembert that is just good enough to pick up and eat after it falls into the dirt. You eat it very carefully.

Jared Taylor (email him) is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow’s review, click here.)

If you want to email or print out, format by clicking on this permanent URL:
http://www.vdare.com/taylor/090819_caldwell.htm

Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

By Chuck Baldwin

The Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps all across America. Of course, “mainstream” media outlets refuse to touch the subject; or if they do, they pooh-pooh the story; they do what Glenn Beck recently did: try to debunk the story as fallacious and impugn people who speak of it as “conspiracy nuts.” The fact that the Becks, Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O’Reillys of the media circus refuse to deal with the construction of large numbers of internment camps does not make them disappear, however.

For starters, all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the subject of internment camps is Google the phrase FEMA Camps.” There is more than enough evidence in that search engine alone to keep one busy with some in-depth private investigation of the subject for quite a while.

Another URL to check out is this one from the June 2009 Idaho Observer:

FEMA camps: Not just for April fools anymore

As people read my columns all across America, I have had numerous readers contact me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation of construction materials used for internment camps, have actually worked in and around them, or have personally seen such camps. These eyewitness testimonies have come from very credible people, including law enforcement and military personnel, as well as airline pilots and construction workers.

Just a few weeks ago, I was aboard a cross-country flight when the passenger I was sitting next to (a total stranger) asked me to take a look out the window. He asked, “Do those look like internment camps to you?” I was astonished that the man (1) would even know to notice such a potentiality, and (2) would be so bold as to ask such a question of a total stranger. I must say, I was extremely happy to make his acquaintance. And we had a very warm and invigorating discussion the rest of the trip.

We were flying over Colorado, over extreme wilderness terrain, and, yes, right in the middle of nowhere, the buildings and surrounding features that I saw sure looked like internment camps to me. Of course, flying at over 30,000 feet in the sky makes it difficult for any kind of detailed analysis to take place; that is for sure.

Then, a friend recently brought this URL to my attention:

http://www.nationalguard.com/careers/mos/description.php?mos_code=31E

This is an advertisement by the National Guard promoting the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of “Internment/Resettlement Specialist.” Question: why does the National Guard need to recruit Internment/Resettlement Specialists? What do they know that we should know?

Furthermore, I have had military personnel tell me that many of the US military bases that have been recently “closed” are also being prepared as large-scale “holding areas.”

Obviously, the question that begs to be asked is, “Who is the US government planning to intern and resettle?” And another question is, “How many people are they planning to intern that would require the massive number of camps that are apparently being constructed?”

Some suggest that these facilities are being prepared for large numbers of illegal immigrants. This seems extremely doubtful, however, considering the propensity of the federal government to (1) do next to nothing to seriously curtail the flood of illegal aliens into America, (2) do virtually nothing tto apprehend illegals known to be in the US, and (3) do everything it can to facilitate the release of those illegals incarcerated by State and local authorities. To think that the federal government intends to place thousands of illegal aliens in internment camps borders on lunacy. If anything, the federal government (with either Democrats or Republicans in charge) has done everything it can to (1) entice illegals to come to America, and (2) provide every incentive for them to stay illegally in this country after having entered. I feel safe in saying that we can eliminate the possibility that these camps are being prepared for illegal aliens.

Others suggest that these internment camps are being constructed to accommodate “enemy combatants” from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet, the total number of these types of detainees is miniscule compared to the detention space being constructed. Can one really imagine the need to build facilities that could accommodate prisoners numbering in the tens of thousands to house a few hundred foreign troops? I don’t think so.

Then, of course, there are those who continue to deny that these internment camps exist at all. But then, were there not thousands of Germans who denied the existence of concentration camps during World War II? These types of people would refuse to believe the sun came up in the east if the government spinmeisters told them it didn’t.

That our federal government is building large numbers of “holding areas” or internment camps seems to be an established fact. The only questions that remain are “Why?” and “For whom?”

At this point, the imagination can take us anywhere, but it is not a little disconcerting when the same federal government that is building these internment camps begins categorizing Christians, conservatives, people who support the Second Amendment, people who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage, people who oppose the North American Union and the New World Order, people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration, and people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin as “extremists,” or “potential dangerous militia members.”

Anyone knows that before a government can begin persecuting and imprisoning large groups of people, they must first marginalize them. As someone said, “Just because you are paranoid does not mean they really aren’t trying to get you.”

In fact, an argument could be made that by today’s politically correct definition, America’s Founding Fathers would be categorized as “paranoid,” “extremists,” or “potential dangerous militia members.” I would even go so far as to question the patriotism of anyone today that is not a little paranoid. This federal government has certainly earned whatever paranoia citizens feel.

Feelings of paranoia notwithstanding, why is the federal government constructing large numbers of internment camps, and who does the government plan on incarcerating in those camps? Those questions still need to be answered.

P.S. If you live within driving distance of Oklahoma City, or Tulsa, Oklahoma, I will be appearing at several events in this area this Thursday and Friday, August 13 and 14. I would love to meet any of my readers who could attend these meetings. For details, go here.

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

Socialist America Sinking

Socialist America Sinking

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After half a century of fighting encroachments upon freedom in America, journalist Garet Garrett published The People’s Pottage.  A year later, in 1954, he died.  The People’s Pottage opens thus:

“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.” [Full book, PDF]

Garrett wrote of a revolution within the form. While outwardly America appeared the same, a revolution within had taken place that was now irreversible. One need only glance at where we were before the New Deal, where we are and where we are headed to see how far we are off the course the Founding Fathers set for our republic.

Taxes drove the American Revolution, for we were a taxaphobic, liberty-loving people. That government is best that governs least is an Americanism. When “Silent Cal” Coolidge went home in 1929, the U.S. government was spending 3 percent of gross domestic product.

And today? Obama’s first budget will consume 28 percent of the entire GDP; state and local governments another 15 percent. While there is some overlap, in 2009, government will consume 40 percent of GDP, approaching the peak of World War II.

The deficit for 2009 is $1.8 trillion, 13 percent of the whole economy. Obama is pushing a cap-and-trade bill to cut carbon emissions that will impose huge costs on energy production, spike consumer prices and drive production offshore to China, which is opting out of Kyoto II. The Chinese are not fools.

Obama plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and take the income tax rate to near 40 percent. Combined state and local income tax rates can run to 10 percent. For the self-employed, payroll taxes add up to 15.2 percent on the first $106,800 for all wages of all workers. Medicare takes 2.9 percent of all wages above that. Then there are the state sales taxes that can run to 8 percent, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, and “sin taxes” on booze, cigarettes and, soon, hot dogs and soft drinks.

Comes now national health insurance from Nancy Pelosi’s House. A surtax that runs to 5.4 percent of all earnings of the top 1 percent of Americans, who already pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, has been sent to the Senate. Included also is an 8 percent tax on the entire payroll of small businesses that fail to provide health insurance for employees.

Other ideas on the table include taxing the health benefits that businesses provide their employees.

The D.C.-based Tax Foundation says New Yorkers could face a combined income tax rate of near 60 percent.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called George III a tyrant for having “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

What did George III do with his Stamp Act, Townshend Acts or tea tax to compare with what is being done to this generation of Americans by their own government?

While the hardest working and most productive are bled, a third of all wage-earners pay no U.S. income tax, and Obama plans to free almost half of all wage-earners of all income taxes. Yet, tens of millions get Medicaid, rent supplements, free education, food stamps, welfare and an annual check from Uncle Sam called an Earned Income Tax Credit, though they never paid a nickel in income taxes.

Oh, yes. Obama also promises everybody a college education.

Coming to America to feast on this cornucopia of freebies is the world. One million to 2 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive every year. They come with fewer skills and less education than Americans, and consume more tax dollars than they contribute by three to one.

Wise Latina women have more babies north of the border than they do in Mexico and twice as many here as American women.

As almost all immigrants are now Third World people of color, they qualify for ethnic preferences in hiring and promotions and admissions to college over the children of Americans

All of this would have astounded and appalled the Founding Fathers, who after all, created America—as they declared loud and clear in the Constitution—for ourselves and our posterity.”

China saves, invests and grows at 8 percent. America, awash in debt, has a shrinking economy, a huge trade deficit, a gutted industrial base, an unemployment rate surging toward 10 percent and a money supply that’s swollen to double its size in a year. The 20th century may have been the American Century. The 21st shows another pattern.

“The United States is declining as a nation and a world power with mostly sighs and shrugs to mark this seismic event,” writes Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine. “Astonishingly, some people do not appear to realize that the situation is all that serious.”[Necessity, Choice, and Common Sense, May/June 2009]

Even the establishment is starting to get the message.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.