Archive for the 'William Kristol' Category

Anglo-Deeth

December 25, 2007

Ron Paul said that every other country avoided a Civil War to end slavery. William Kristol after hearing the clip saying that said there is no reason to think the US could have ended slavery without war because no country with slavery so embedded into its economy ended slavery without a civil war.

Kristol said such discussion is academic. Kristol went on to say that Paul was opposed to both world wars as well as the US civil war. Kristol also said Paul was opposed to the current deaths of Americans, British, Australians, etc. in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kristol considered this crackpot.

William Kristol called Ron Paul a crackpot. This is discussed at Lew Rockwell. The Ron Paul comment on the Civil War and Kristol’s comment are both at Youtube here.

The US Civil War, WWI, WWII and the “smaller” wars of the Cold War and War on Terror have led to many deaths of Anglo-Saxons, as well as others. However, there is no term for the mass deaths of Anglo-Saxons including the 600,000 in the Civil War, the over 1 million in France in WWI and the over 500,000 in WWII. Bill Kristol supported all these deaths as necessary.

This brings up the need for a term for these Anglo-Saxon mass deaths. They also include deaths of Irish, German, Scots, etc. But we can have a specific term for Anglo-Saxon deaths. Since Anglo is used to mean white by many, e.g. Hispanics, the term has some elasticity already in current usage.

Who is included in Great Anglo-Saxon Deaths is part of the refinement of this terminology. This essay is not intended to be complete or final on that subject. Instead this is exploratory.

Some alternative names, in the singular.

  1. Anglo-Deeth
  2. Great Anglo-Deeth
  3. Deethfold or Deethfald
  4. Anglo-Deethfold
  5. Great Anglo-Deethfold

These would include as examples the US Civil War, WWI in France for England and possibly America included as well, and WWII for the English countries which would include part or all defending on how the terms are stretched of American deaths.
Some search terms:

“Anglo Saxon death”

Deeth

deeth death

Anglo-Deeth has no hits

deethfold has no hits.

Results 136 of 36 for anglo saxon death.

Results 1100 of about 269,000 for deeth

Death and Deeth ME

deethfold has 0 hits. This could mean death of many. Deeth is ME death. Fold is ME many.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/death

Middle English:

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/concise/concise.html

http://uk.geocities.com/hashanayobel/o/oldeng.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Dictionary

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mec/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/browse.html

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/folde
Folde with e at the end means earth or ground.

Fold or fald mean many in Middle English.

Earth-Death might be used for the Fermi Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language

http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/oeme_dictionaries.htm

Immigration has followed each of the Anglo-Deeths. That has cut down the fertility rate of the Anglo-Saxons. Even Australia and Canada had losses in the Anglo-Deeths of WWI and WWII. So their immigration is post Anglo-Deeths as well.

Immigration itself is the greatest of the Anglo-Deeths. It is the Mass Anglo-Deeth, MAD. Or it might be called the Immigration Anglo-Deeth, IAD. IAD is MAD.

Ron Paul has said no more Anglo-Deeths and that the past ones were all mistakes. Kristol advocates past and current Anglo-Deeths and the immigrations that follow them. The Paul Plan is avoid Anglo-Deeths. The Kristol Plan is Anglo-Deeths followed by immigration takeovers. Kristol says the Paul Plan is crackpot. Kristol says stopping immigration and the Anglo-Deeths that enable them is crackpot.

==

Repetition from previous posts:

==Wright Island Model Sustained Immigration is genetic replacement immigration.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=12139

As pointed out in a previous post:

The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.

==

Neocons: Traditionalism for me, Globalism for you

October 9, 2007

This is a continuation of the discussion of Lawrence Auster’s traditionalism discussion. See that post and linked ones for references to Auster or Vanishing American.

Neocons at AEI and elsewhere have set up a situation of all the benefits of traditionalism for themselves. They have tenure or strong bargaining power or both. They have extended networks of friends who can help them get jobs or money or resources on an ongoing basis. When they get together with their network it helps them advance in getting money.

This used to be true in traditional societies. You hunted or farmed or fought off invaders or marauders together. Your extended network and your livelihood and defense were all linked together. Every social occasion advanced your personal interests.

For professors, think tank dwellers, journalists, White House staffers or Senators or CEO’s this is still true. They have an extended network that helps them advance themselves. Social networking and business networking are linked. They get self defense from this network against marauders like a crusading assistant US attorney who needs to be reassigned or have their case reassigned.

For the rest of us, the neocons want to take away whatever bits of this are left and deny it to us. They want us globalized. They want our network to disappear. We have the social networking of losers not champions. We can’t help people in our network get jobs, because new jobs are at the level of H-1B wages down to illegal immigrant wages. Social networking with us doesn’t help anymore. There isn’t any need to know extended kin, because they don’t have good jobs to tell us about either.

The good jobs are locked up in the AEI network and aren’t available to the rest of us. So we can only network in fear and commiseration. We can tell each other when we lose our good job, but can’t help the person or give help to find another good job. Those are locked into the AEI network or similar out of reach networks.

The AEI Davos network spends its time taking away the good jobs from the rest of the people. So we are living in fear. Our social and family network can’t help us. They don’t have the resources to help us because the good jobs are disappearing. So they can’t help us find them.

Mitt Romney gained his fortune by working the Bain and Company side of that network. He helped corporate managements in small towns see the light, to ditch the people and get short term profits so they could cash out their options. The result is that traditional family and social networks in America can’t offer help, they are just line ups into the work and reeducation camps the neocons provide us, if that.

Meanwhile the neocons and professors and journalists are living rooted traditional lives. They have permanent jobs and places in their community. They have extended networks that can get them jobs or money or financial opportunities. They get regular opportunities to give papers, op-eds, present at networking gatherings that increase their security and opportunities.

They want traditionalism for them and globalization for us. Their institutions push that as hard as they can. For that they are well paid. Institutions which were supposed to put a break on this are co-opted. The Antitrust Division of the DOJ is effectively controlled by Deputy Assistant Attorney General econ or law profs who approve mergers and takeovers.

The investment banks and corporations doing the deals are then paying them as consultants or their expert witness firms and hiring their students to high paying jobs on Wall Street. That leads to higher salaries for these profs because this is what fuels high tuition, dream job opportunities that come from the former DAAG econ and law profs.

The takeovers and consolidation and approvals have been rubber stamped by a small group of econ prof DAAGs who are parts of the same types of networks discussed above. They have written books together, are on the same journals, are part of a small set of large expert witness firms, etc.

DOJ staff econ Ph.d.’s are the students of these profs. The profs write the letter of recommendation to the current prof who is in charge of the econ Ph.D.’s in DOJ. The prof at DOJ decides which Ph.D.’s to hire. They are then promoted by the prof at DOJ who runs that section. The Economic Analysis Group at DOJ is always run by a prof on loan from a university.

From the time a student enters grad school to the time they retire from DOJ as a Ph.D. economist staffer, their entire career is controlled by the same group of about 10 econ prof DAAGs. This is how its worked for a long time. DOJ doesn’t make it easy to datamine the statistics on this, but one can pull it together from searches.

DOJ Antitrust can’t do any action without an econ Ph.D. signing off on it. That means if the investment banks and management consulting firms can coopt the econ profs who control this system then they can get anything approved. Even the merger of Exxon and Mobil would be approved, and was.

The same system is working to offshore U.S. know-how. Russia, China, India, and other countries analyze this system and get in on it. They are taken care of. The result is that the globalization process happens faster and the rest of us lose out faster.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/traditionalism-permanent-people/

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/bains-mitt-romney-youre-fired/

antitrust expert witness

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch6.htm

Most DAAG econ profs are linked to the Handbook of Industrial Organization of Elsevier

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%2324610%231989%23999989999%23565226%23FLP%23&_cdi=24610&_pubType=HS&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1c37e4a33f2dcd10872dbb19dbd222ef

Elsevier’s merger with Academic Press was approved in 1999 by DOJ. Daniel Rubinfeld, not DAAG then, later put up an analysis that this violated antitrust laws. That was later taken down.

Elsevier charges huge library subscription fees, unlike the case in the 1960′s. This huge inflation in rates charged libraries was the basis, in part, of Rubinfeld’s analysis.

Some of the analysis is still available:

search Daniel Rubinfeld Elsevier Academic Press

“economic analysis” site:usdoj.gov

“economic analysis” “deputy assistant attorney general”

Wall Street hires the econ undergrad, grad students and law students of these profs. That lets the universities charge high tuition, in part, because dream jobs on Wall Street help fuel high tuition. But dream jobs on Wall Street are fueled by the DOJ Antitrust Division approving mergers and acquisitions. No M and A deal approvals, no M and A profits. M and A is a major driver of profits on Wall Street.

This cozy little world has all the advantages of traditionalism. Everyone knows everyone. Everyone has a permanent place. They have extended networks they have known for decades. Most have multiple jobs and affiliations and multiple pots of money. They have multiple secretaries and support people to smooth their lives. They spend their time in conferences and Davos and other resort meetings. The people who were supposed to be protected instead are losing their jobs.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Graph page 16:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

Income inequality is huge.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.


Income Inequality U Shape Timeline

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.


Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet

==

Mitt Romney is the presidential candidate of this network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

After graduating from Harvard, Romney went to work for the The Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[15] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a Bain & Company spin-off private equity investment firm called Bain Capital.[16] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[17] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[18] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy Corporation and The Sports Authority.[19]

In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[17]

Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[20]

He and his wife have a net worth of between 190 and 250 million USD.[21]

Mitt Romney is a beneficiary of the cozy networks that made possible his fortune. Electing him is putting the fox in charge of the hiring of the DAAG econ profs and law profs who manage the technical work at DOJ.

==

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/elites-have-old-fashioned-communities-built-in/

From Vanishing American

Too often, children have no contact with older people, and the elders are isolated in ’senior communities’ or homes, rarely seeing their grandchildren or other relatives, who live far away.

So we are dwindling away, and fewer of the younger people bother to keep up the extended family ties that were so central to the older generations. Coming to the family reunions and to family holiday celebrations is not a priority with the younger generations.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-many-is-too-many.html

This isn’t a problem for the elite networks.

William Kristol

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952 in New York City) is an American neoconservative pundit, analyst and strategist. He is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the founders of the neoconservative movement

http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol.asp

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

Mr. Kristol recently co-authored The New York Times bestseller The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny.

This links to

http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=1234

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1254

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kristol

http://www.newamericancentury.org/williamkristolbio.htm

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2120,00.html

William Kristol is a political contributor for the FOX News Channel (FNC) and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume, the highest rated political program on cable television.

Irving Kristol

The philisophy of neo-conservatism is two-faced. Its traditionalism for those inside it, and globalization for the rest.

Lawrence Auster discusses Kristol on immigration:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005363.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/fns_roundtable_april_2.html

“KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.”

“KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. “

“What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years?”

http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=5

“as well as his very lucrative speaking career, which by some reports nets him $100,000 to $200,000 per year.”

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/12/143558/031

William Kristol serves on the board of trustees of the Manhattan Institute (paid?)
Bill Kristol, while editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years.
Kristol says he does “a fair amount” of speaking to corporate groups and doesn’t normally disclose it.

search William Kristol speaking fees

All those speaking fee gigs are arranged by secretaries at his magazine or at the company or institute. They often provide a private aircraft presumably for himself and whoever he wants to go with him. He may have a lavish suite at a 5 class hotel as part of it and a limo to take him around. He gets treated with caviar traditionalism to say how we should get globalization. He tells CEO’s, take the money, fire the employees. “Take it.” “Take the …” Be an uber-CEO straddling across history like a colossus. While we petty men and women get globalization.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/julius_caesar.1.2.html

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

http://teamtancredo.org/

Re William Kristol: “They don’t really support our troops”

July 24, 2007

Comment on Article “They Don’t Really Support the Troops” by William Kristol, at Front Page Magazine. Kristol edits The Weekly Standard | July 24, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29259

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, emerged on the American political scene two years ago. Distraught and unstable, she was shamelessly exploited by opponents of George W. Bush and the war while such exploitation seemed to pay political benefits. When she became an embarrassment, she, like others before her, was tossed onto the trash heap of history by her progressive minders.

William Kristol supports immigration. China has gotten our night vision and sells it at a cheap price. This came from know-how transfer. Chinese H-1B’s, get our know how and give it to China. China provides night vision to Iran and Pakistan who provide it to insurgents to kill our troops.

“Results 1 – 100 of about 2,760,000 for China night vision.”

That night vision is used to kill our troops. How can Kristol talk about supporting our troops when he has been giving our night vision to China through supporting immigration to use to kill our troops?

Why doesn’t Kristol give back all the corporate speaking fees and corporate paid board memberships, and all other money he or his colleagues have derived from these sources? Kristol should give all this money back to the troops that are wounded or the survivors of the dead and apologize to each of their families, one by one.

Noshir Gowadia gave our stealth technology to China. They can sell it to Iran and Pakistan to use against our ships or Israel.

China also got our warhead technology. Giving our know-how to China and other countries to sell to insurgents or Iran or Pakistan is not supporting our troops. It is supporting the corporate speaking fee-ocracy.

What word does Kristol call those who want to keep China from selling our night vision to insurgents or stealth bombers to Iran? Is the word Kristol uses for those people, the word bigot? Nativist? Xenophobe?

How much money did Cindy Sheehan get for flacking for corporations or universities that flacked for transferring our know-how on night vision and stealth to China? How much money did she get from that compared to Kristol?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/index.asp?ID=29259&InvWord=0

===

Go to google and choose image and search on

Walter Reed Iraq

This shows photos of the injured. While they were getting injured, was Kristol getting corporate speaking fees?

Lawrence Auster discusses Kristol on immigration:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005363.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/fns_roundtable_april_2.html

“KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.”

“KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. “

“What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years?”

China got our stealth technology and our night vision and that is part of what produces those images above at Walter Reed. They can sell stealth to Iran to use against our carriers and against Israel. That subjects us to surprise attack. They could wipe out our fleet or Israel before we knew it.

” Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?”

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973, search p60-231.pdf, graph page 18.

Labor force participation rates of black men were 80 percent in 1965 and are 66 percent today. White men went from 80 to 74 percent.

Search on black labor force participation rates, and open the xls spreadsheet.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2006/B40.xls

“KRISTOL: And they’ve been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. “

False as shown by wages and labor force participation rates. Women’s median wages is lower than men, so women earn less than men did in 1973. Blacks and Hispanics also earn less than all men did in 1973.

Fertility has fallen except during immigration restriction for blacks and whites since 1800.

See graph:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Labor force participation rates for white, black, Asian and Hispanic men are all projected to fall by 2014:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emplab05.htm

Comments on the Kristol article are here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/?ID=29259

==

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/1139/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-kristol

On top of those royalties, some estimates put the money Kristol is making at speaking engagements at around one hundred to two hundred thousand dollars a year.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=5

as well as his very lucrative speaking career, which by some reports nets him $100,000 to $200,000 per year.

Search:

William Kristol “speaking engagements”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/02/trailing_the_truth.cfm

http://questionitnow.com/iraqb/uploaded_images/QuestionItNow-Combat-Veteran-769192.jpg

== Comment added at Front Page Magazine

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/1139/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-kristol

http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=5

“as well as his very lucrative speaking career, which by some reports nets him $100,000 to $200,000 per year.”

Also his TV engagements are on corporate airwaves that are pushing immigration for corporate profits. Those should be counted as his “speaking for immigration” money.

Another amputee hero:

http://questionitnow.com/iraqb/uploaded_images/QuestionItNow-Combat-Veteran-769192.jpg

“Results 1 – 100 of about 3,420,000 for China night vision goggles.”

“KRISTOL: I’m a liberal on immigration. I mean, I think the Bush approach is right. I think the Senate Judiciary Committee approach is right. If Congressman King thinks that it’s a good idea to go around talking about branding people with the letter A for amnesty, if you (inaudible) see how, to use Brit’s word, repellent that is of an image, you know, for, it’s unbelievable. And the Republican Party will go down the tubes if it takes that position.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/fns_roundtable_april_2.html

Did he mean to say:

“And my corporate speaking fees will go down the tubes if I takes that position.”

==

“Iraqi Mujahideen Launch Anti-Air Missle at U.S. Flight Patrol Using Night Vision”

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1181385184

They sing/chant in Arabic at the end of the video and hug each other. This appears to be a Mujahideen made video of their using night vision against us.

Night vision was developed in the US. But China got hold of it through their students coming here to our Ph.D. programs.

“Results 1 – 100 of about 2,030,000 for Chinese night vision.”

Lawrence Auster on Kristol on immigration:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005363.html

“KRISTOL: I’m a liberal on immigration.”

“What’s happened that’s so terrible in the last 20 years?”

Those are our boys being shot at in that video using night vision that went out of the US from immigrants being admitted to our Ph.D. programs instead of Americans.

China has our stealth. This is real. Kristol takes corporate speaking fee money and advocates for this immigration that gave China and then the insurgents our night vision. They are dancing and singing in Arabic celebrating using night vision technology against the Americans. This is proof to them that Allah is on their side, because Allah let the Americans give their technology to China in American Ph.D. programs and companies. China then sold it to the insurgents.

Kristol takes 100 to 200 thousand a year in speaking fee money to push immigration and know-how transfer to China. This video shows that our boys then take it.

Search Walter Reed Iraq
in images to see our men, some of them amputees.

Its when the insurgents use night vision to plant the IED’s that they can get away with planting them so they work against us.

Another video of insurgents planting IED’s being observed by US with night vision. Despite this, the IED’s worked. When they have night vision on a mission, they are more likely to succeed, although on this mission they didn’t have night vision or its too hard to tell.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37c_1183066796

search

IED “night vision” insurgents

More Mujahideen made video:

http://www.liveleak.com/browse?all&q=mujahideen&page=1

search mujahideen video “night vision”

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373361

The recommended equipment list for the mujahid is specific and long, including: a pocket Quran, night vision goggles, shackles for use in abductions, a GPS system, video cameras for casing targets and an extensive list of other supplies.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,660926,00.html

More fascinating than the unprecedented action footage of the suicide attacks are the long glimpses into the culture and mindset of the fighters. In the opening vignette a night vision camera records what’s purported to be a young suicide bomber’s living will and messages to his family as masked men crowd around him. The dozens of fighters then chant as he walks to the cabin of the tanker truck rigged with explosives. The men give the bomber a final hug and farewell. He turns to the masked figures and waves, as though he’s about to board an ocean liner for a holiday. Behind the wheel bomber shows off the wiring to the explosive device and the trigger, a button between the seats. The camera records the truck disappearing into the night and the devastating explosion as it reaches its target,  the American position beneath Khalidya bridge, west of the restive city of Fallujah.

Night Vision footage with the Insurgents

http://www.liveleak.com/browse?tag=night%20vision

search mujahideen “night vision”

mujahideen “night vision” site:liveleak.com

Kennedy McCain rode income inequality wave

February 13, 2007

Most Senators today were born or became young adults in the 1940′s or 1950′s while income inequality was going down. If you look at Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Fig 1 or p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940′s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Census Income home page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html

Census Income Inequality Home Page:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html#incomeineq

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income05.html 

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-231.pdf page 18 or see p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Specter who sponsored S. 2611 was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Specter supports.

But Specter and most of the cosponsors rode the chart of income inequality from the time it was going down to the bottom of income inequality when they were starting out to the top where he is now on the top. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why they had it good and young people today don’t in their minds.

The lives of Specter and the 6 cosponsors are reviewed at the end of the article in terms of how they fit on the income inequality graph. Specter, McCain and Kennedy were born in the 1930′s and became young adults in the 1950′s while income inequality was falling. They could build careers and have families while still young. Two Senators, Hagel and Martinez were born in 1946. They became 21 in 1967. They had families and full careers as they timed the income inequality graph perfectly, low income inequality when they were young and rising while they got on top. Both became rich on this curve.

Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback were born in the mid 1950′s. Graham had to start out as the curve was getting worse. He had to choose a career or family and chose career. He has never had children. Brownback solved this problem by marrying an heiress and has 5 children and a career. Brownback is running for president.

The Senators who voted for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970′s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._2611

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/157/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@P

S.2611
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] (introduced 4/7/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.4437, S.2454, S.2612
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 – 36. Record Vote Number: 157.


COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 4/7/2006
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 4/7/2006
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] – 4/7/2006
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 4/7/2006
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] – 4/7/2006
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 4/7/2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter 1930http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback 1956http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M_Kennedy 1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez Born 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain Born 1936

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Born 1930

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-191.pdf

You may want to open the above pdf in another window and look at the income inequality graph. It is a bowl shape that goes down from the late 1940′s to bottom out from 1965 to 1968 and then heads back up. It splits into two indices and these reach the 1940′s level of income inequlity sometime between 1980 and 1985. Income inequality then rose to its current levels the most extreme. The bottom of the bowl is the 1965 Immigration Act. Despite the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, income inequality was at its low from 1965 to 1968 for all time that they have statistics.All the bill sponsors and cosponsors benefited from the time period at the bottom of this bowl.

Specter is the bill sponsor. He was born February 12, 1930 and 21 years later, in 1951, income inequality was headed down. That was when he was starting out as a young adult. Income inequality was falling rapidly in the early 1950′s. He could go to law school, get married, and have a family while he was a young adult and attribute all of that to his smarts and hard work.

Edward M. Kennedy was born February 22, 1932 and he was 21 in 1953. Although rich, he could feel that he was part of a generation where income inequality was falling rapidly. He became a young adult and even became a Senator in 1962 while income inequality was falling faster than at any time in history. He was the one who stopped that and reversed it by the 1965 Immigration Act.John McCain was born August 29, 1936 and was 21 in 1957. This was while income inequality was falling rapidly. He started out as a young adult during that time of rising boats for all. He was able to get married during this time. He was in a prison camp from 1967–1973 while income inequality bottomed out. When he returned he would divorce his wife, marry a millionairess and launch his political career. He was helping Charles Keating in the early 1980′s during the S and L scandal and was a member of the Keating 5.”

Melquíades Rafael “Mel” Martínez (born October 23, 1946) is a Cuban-born American politician,”. He started out as a lawyer in 1973 and built his practice for 25 years. He was 21 in 1967. The all time bottom in income inequality was 1968. He too could go to law school like Specter, get married, have a young family and build a legal career all as a young adult.”

Charles TimothyChuckHagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002.” Hagel enjoyed the same opportunity that Mel Martinez had, to become 21 in 1967 one year before income inequality bottomed out in 1968. Hagel thus could build his life while income inequality was low and enjoy rising income inequality later when he was an investment banker and businessma in the 1980′s. He could build a fortune in the 1980′s as income inequality was going up from over 20 years of the action of the 1965 Immigration Act. Hagel wants to keep his business network of rich guys in the same sweet spot of when they were born together and doing well so they can hire each other’s kids and avoid the fate that young people who are not children of business moguls like Hagel have to face.

“Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) ” “Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina at Columbia with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from its school of law with a J.D. in 1981, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer. He is a brother of the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. Graham has never married.” Graham unlike the others, could not build a career and have a family as a young adult. Graham is already illustrating the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, its why he had to choose building a career or a family as a young adult. Graham chose to build a career, so he never had a family as a result.

“Samuel Dale “Sam” Brownback (born September 12, 1956) is the senior United States senator from the U.S. state of Kansas. On January 20, 2007 he announced his intentions to seek the Republican Party‘s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential election.[1][2]“Brownback is married to the former Mary Stauffer, heiress[citation needed] to a Topeka, Kansas newspaper fortune. The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).”

So Brownback avoided Graham’s choice have a career or a family but not both, by marrying an heiress. So he could have both. But not those he governs. Brownback’s S. 2611 puts most Americans in the same boat as Lindsey Graham, if you want to build a career during this time of economic uncertainty, you have to defer marriage and children, maybe forever. For those making this choice, even becoming a US Senator may not be enough to reverse income inequality preventing them getting married and having kids when biology tells them to, as young adults.

==Reference Material

Table IE-6.  Measures of Household Income Inequality: 1967 to 2001*

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Variance        Mean

                        of the logarithmic                Atkinson

                        log of   deviation         -----------------------

 Year            Gini   income   of income   Theil  e=0.25  e=0.50  e=0.75

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2001           0.466    1.007       0.515   0.413   0.098   0.189   0.282

 2000 30/       0.462    0.983       0.490   0.404   0.096   0.185   0.275
1970           0.394    0.805       0.370   0.271   0.068   0.138   0.214

 1969           0.391    0.774       0.357   0.268   0.067   0.135   0.209

 1968           0.388    0.779       0.356   0.273   0.067   0.135   0.208

 1967 12/       0.399    0.813       0.380   0.287   0.071   0.143   0.220

=–

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

==

 Table IE-1.  Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion:

      1967 to 2001      (Households as of March of the following year.  Income in current

      and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      Measures of Income Dispersion    2001   2000 30/ 2000 29/   1999
Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles         95th/20th                        8.38     8.10     8.11     8.26

         95th/50th                        3.57     3.46     3.46     3.48

         80th/50th                        1.98     1.95     1.95     1.94

         80th/20th                        4.65     4.56     4.56     4.62

         20th/50th                        0.43     0.43     0.43     0.42
Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.466    0.462    0.460    0.457
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of Income Dispersion    1970     1969     1968   1967 12/

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

       Household Income at

         Selected Percentiles       In Current Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit   3,687    3,574    3,323    3,000

         50th (median)                 8,734    8,389    7,743    7,143

         80th percentile upper limit  14,661   13,900   12,688   11,841

         95th percentile lower limit  23,178   21,800   19,850   19,000

In 2001 Dollars:

         20th percentile upper limit  14,556   14,789   14,350   13,474

         50th (median)                34,481   34,714   33,436   32,081

         80th percentile upper limit  57,881   57,519   54,790   53,181

         95th percentile lower limit  91,505   90,209   85,717   85,334

Household Income Ratios of

         Selected Percentiles

95th/20th                        6.29     6.10     5.97     6.33

         95th/50th                        2.65     2.60     2.56     2.66

         80th/50th                        1.68     1.66     1.64     1.66

         80th/20th                        3.98     3.89     3.82     3.95

         20th/50th                        0.42     0.43     0.43     0.42

Mean Household Income

         of Quintiles

In Current Dollars

         Lowest quintile               2,029    1,957    1,832    1,626

         Second quintile               5,395    5,216    4,842    4,433

         Third quintile                8,688    8,335    7,679    7,078

         Fourth quintile              12,247   11,674   10,713    9,903

         Highest quintile             21,684   20,520   18,762   17,946

In 2001 Dollars:

         Lowest quintile               8,010    8,098    7,911    7,303

         Second quintile              21,299   21,584   20,909   19,910

         Third quintile               34,300   34,491   33,160   31,789

         Fourth quintile              48,350   48,307   46,261   44,477

         Highest quintile             85,607   84,913   81,019   80,601

Shares of Household Income

         of Quintiles

Lowest quintile                   4.1      4.1      4.2      4.0

         Second quintile                  10.8     10.9     11.1     10.8

         Third quintile                   17.4     17.5     17.5     17.3

         Fourth quintile                  24.5     24.5     24.4     24.2

         Highest quintile                 43.3     43.0     42.8     43.8

Gini coefficient of

         income inequality               0.394    0.391    0.388    0.399

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

“income inequality” site:census.gov

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2611
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

“Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause.” More on Rubenstein‘s ESR Research, which does statistical research.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
by Peter Brimelow
from National Review, June 22, 1992

Mr. Brimelow is Editor at VDARE.com.

Above is the famous Brimelow piece at National Review, when William F. Buckley was still for us on immigration restriction. William Kristol is now editor of National Review. Kristol, born in 1952, rode the income inequality wave and has pulled up the ladder on the generations that came after him.

The above was rewritten from a comment at Front Page Magazine on

The GOP’s Moment of Truth
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard | February 13, 2007

William Kristol was born in 1952. He rode the same income inequality wave.

==Comment that was rewritten into above:

Kristol was born in 1952 while income inequality was going down. If you look at p60-191.pdf at Census.gov they have a graph showing income inequality went down from the start of statistics in the 1940′s to bottom out at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act and started up after 1968 and has gone up ever since.

Men’s median wages flattened in 1973 and in 2005 were below 1973. See p60-229.pdf graph page 14. Kristol was part of the group that could get married early, have kids, and still have a career. Now he is against the young people of today being able to do this.

The census gov charts show why young adults don’t get married and have kids, they are struggling against the H-1B immigration, amnesty, family reunification that Kristol supports.

But Kristol rode the chart of income inequality from the bottom of income inequality when he was starting out to the top where he is now on the top. So he is against us. He takes credit for the chart being his genius. That’s why he had it good and young people today don’t in his mind.

You can simply type in the names of the pdf files into google and those will give the link to the pdf files at the census site, you don’t have to hunt through it.

The Senators for S. 2611 with amnesty and more legal immigration rode the same inequality curve. When they started out, inequality was at a bottom and they could get good paying summer jobs, go to college, and have kids right after college. They think their life is normal or their hard work. Many were in the Senate in the 1970′s when income inequality started to go up, and most were in by 1980. So they have been on top while income inequality went up, but in their minds, they worked their way up, because when they were starting out they were doing so at the time of low income equality, the bottom of the income inequality bowl graph.

So they feel morally superior and entitled to vote for immigration, because their success is their hard work. Lobbyists give them money in and out of office and they don’t realize at a gut level its for causing this bowl shape of the income inequality graph by immigration. They know it intellectually, but don’t accept it emotionally because they remember when they started out, there was low inequality and they could work themselves up and have families at the same time.

==Comments at Vdare on this post

The Senate: In an Income Time Warp?”

Patrick Cleburne

A large number of Americans appear to have realized that income inequality has increased and that massive immigration is substantially responsible. And they are increasingly willing to say so.

A frequently-expressed view of Peter Brimelow’s is that the current generation of political “leaders” was formed intellectually before immigration was discernable as a social problem. Quite possibly they will literally have to die off before public policy will change – people rarely have new ideas.

Personally, though, I still think the more persuasive explanation is that these Senators are selfish, corrupt, and unAmerican.

Mr. Cleburne has some kind words for this column and this blogger, which I thank him for. I am only too well aware of the editing work needed for this blog and I thank my readers for putting up with it.
– Also

What To Do With The Senate?” Randall Burns at Vdare.com

These are discussed further in this article.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.