Archive for the 'George W. Bush' Category

Ted the magic driver with a plan called amnesty

May 21, 2007

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Little Georgie Junior loved that rascal Ted,
And brought him strings and sealing wax and other fancy treads. oh

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

Together they would travel on a boat with billowed sail
Georgie kept a lookout perched on Ted’s gigantic tail,
Noble kings and emirs would bow wheneer they came,
Pirate ships would lower their flag when Ted roared out his name. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

A drowner lives forever but not so little girls
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other swirls.
One grey night it happened, Mary’s vapor came no more
And Ted that mighty driver, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green tales fell like rain,
Ted no longer went to play along the Chappie lane.
Without his little girl friend, Ted could not be brave,
So Ted that mighty driver sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty,
Ted, the magic driver lived by the sea
And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called amnesty.

==Keywords

Mary Jo Kopechne

Edward M. Kennedy

Teddy Kennedy

Chappaquiddick

George Bush Junior

Bush Kennedy McCain Senate Amnesty

John McCain

http://www.ytedk.com/

Peter, Paul & Mary, Puff, the Magic Dragon

Formatted lyrics

“puff the magic dragon”

Bush Senate Amnesty: Vendetta on Buchanan Perot voters for ’92, ’00 betrayals?

May 17, 2007

In the New York Times, RICHARD L. BERKE as Published: September 30, 1999 wrote about “Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan”. Is Bush’s amnesty and legal immigration program part of this resentment? Did Bush have two vendettas when he became president, get Saddam Hussein for the attempt on his father’s life and get the Buchanan Perot voters for betraying his father in 1992 and causing his election defeat?

Bush Speaks of Perot and Buchanan Acting in ‘Vendetta’

Gov. George W. Bush sternly denounced Ross Perot and Patrick J. Buchanan today, suggesting that ”personal vendettas” may be driving their apparent alliance to have Mr. Buchanan seek the Reform Party nomination. Mr. Bush asserted that both men helped undermine his father’s unsuccessful campaign for re-election to the White House in 1992.

I’ve always thought the 1992 campaign was hard for my dad to get traction in the race because of, first, Patrick J. Buchanan, and then Ross Perot inflicted a series of cuts,” Mr. Bush said in a response to questions at a news conference in a two-day campaign swing in this state. ”If the adage is true — you die a death of a thousand cuts in politics — Ross Perot was a part of the thousand cuts.

Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan was unusual in a campaign in which Mr. Bush has tried to strike an accommodating tone to win over a broad spectrum of voters.

Are Lou Dobbs Democrats taken from the Buchanan Perot voters, and now Bush focuses his resentment on them as well? Buchanan Perot voters voted against Bush Sr in 1992. They voted against Bush Jr. as governor of Texas, and Perot voters consider Perot a real Texican and Bush Jr. to be a Yale man carpetbagger. Pat Buchanan voters voted against Bush Sr. in 1992 and against Bush Jr. in 2000.

Buchanan voters caused the election to go to the Supreme Court. If they had all voted for Bush Jr. as they are supposed to, there would have been no problem in 2000.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2000election.pdf

Florida page 13:

Republican (Bush) 2,912,790

Democrat (Gore) 2,912,253

Reform (Buchanan) 17,484

Bush won, officially, by 537 votes. Pat Buchanan got 17,484 votes. So if Buchanan had not run, Bush would have won without the recount mess.

1992 Election

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

William Jefferson Clinton 43.0%

George H. W. Bush 37.4%

H. Ross Perot 18.9%

So if Perot had not run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have won, Bush Jr. can tell himself. It was the Buchanan Perot voters who betrayed Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bush Jr. in 2000. They are disloyal and Bush Jr. resents them. Or so we might infer. Bush Jr. ignored the warning signs before 9-11. After 9-11, he has done almost nothing to secure the borders or protect the people from immigration.

In 1992 and 2000, Buchanan Perot voters voted against immigration. They realize its harming them in wages and economic prosperity. Bush Jr. wants to fulfill his second vendetta, the first being against Saddam, on these voters by amnesty and legal immigration?


1996 election results wiki

Clinton 49.2

Dole 40.7

Perot 8.4

So Clinton picked up 6 percentage points from 1992 to 1996 from Perot. That is one way to define or measure Democrat votes taken by Perot, this is one way to measure the Lou Dobbs Democrats.

==

The following article makes the argument that it was the Perot voter who voted the Democrats into control of Congress in 2006.

Perot’s Revenge

“Put simply, 2006 saw the return of the Perot voter: economically populist, socially moderate voters with highly nationalist tendencies. Had the Democrats not courted candidates who fit this mold in a number of high profile races, Republicans would almost certainly control the Senate right now if not the House. Democratic candidates like Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Tester all won by appealing to this specific group of voters who found themselves once again disenchanted with a Republican Party led by a president named Bush.”

“My guess is this group is also anti-free trade and strongly opposed to the president’s immigration plan. Again, Perotism rises 14 years later to defeat another guy named Bush.”

“The new Democratic majority has these voters to thank for its ascendancy. Without their votes in the industrial north, west, and midwest, Republicans would still be in charge.
… This gives Republicans a real shot at winning these voters back if the Boxerites take over the party the way they did after these same Perot types voted Democrat back in 1992 and watched as the party veered to the far left.”

Note, the odd question marks in the original were edited out.

Buchananites, Perot Voters, Nader Greens, Lou Dobbs Democrats. The name changes but the dissatisfaction with the two headed monster stays the same? And its because of bipartisan opposition to the American people on immigration, jihad, etc? The bipartisan jihad on the middle class is finally catching up with the two party duopoly as Nader calls it?

==

Many Bush Jr. administration appointees were from Bush Sr. administration. But many of these disliked Reagen Republicans and Reagen Democrats starting in or even before 1988.

Departing ship
By Daniel Gallington
May 19, 2007 Washington Times

In a nutshell, many of the “Bush I” people disliked the Reagan people because the Reaganites thought many of the Bush people second-rate.
In addition, many of the Bush I people tried very hard to be Reagan people and were not allowed in, not even during the second Reagan term, or even during the last half of the second Reagan term. Result? These were people with serious chips on their shoulders, especially for the Reagan-era traditional Republicans.

Re: President George Bush Renewing Efforts on Immigration

April 9, 2007

“President Renewing Efforts on Immigration Plan for Overhaul Faces Battle in Divided Congress”

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A01

See comments by Patrick Cleburne at

Problem for Amnesty: Troops unwilling.

Follow up WaPo Article

Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, Guest Worker Program

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 9, 2007; 3:36 PM
Comments at Follow Up article
==Comments original WaPo article posted at WaPo below

What follows is a mess. Its notes while posting comments at WaPo on the Bush immigration speech. In some cases, the links that were used to source quotes are included. But these are not formatted as live links at this point.
==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough. Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century. Search on “u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez. Saez is a Berkeley prof. He has data to download from his website. They have an NBER paper. They find that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, they got 10 percent after and then after the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration, it has gone back up to 20 percent. Search NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro to see a graph of the percentage share of national income of the top 1 percent. The Bush family is in the top 1 percent. So are Kennedy and McCain. So is Sheikh Pelosi.

==

quote Mr. Luntz is 80 percent right. The richest 20 percent of American households—and only the richest 20 percent—have enjoyed higher real incomes during the Bush expansion. Everyone else has lost ground; the lowest 20 percent has actually lost a full 1.8 percent. (For details, click here: Table 1.) end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality
at Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==Edwin S. Rubenstein quotation:

Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University]

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote In debunking SBTC the authors make a broader historical point regarding immigration:

“To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports…”

“Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” end quote. September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==quotation Edwin S. Rubenstein:

quote But the foreign-born share of the labor force—15 percent in 2005—is also unprecedented. Since 2001 illegals have accounted for most of immigrant labor force growth.

Cheap immigrant labor induces only a nugatory increase in total native income. Its biggest impact, according to Harvard economist George Borjas, is to redistribute income from native workers to employers.

Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor.

Similarly, the service industries—restaurants, hotels, motels, cleaning companies, etc. – are major employers of immigrant labor. These industries are booming, creating wealth for executives and shareholders. But average real wages of service industry workers have declined since 2001. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

quote Traditionally, drinking to excess is valued in Mexican and Latin culture, where it is seen an expression of machismo. Moreover, MADD reports that Hispanics believe it takes 6-8 drinks to affect driving, while Americans think it takes 2-4 drinks.

In 2001, according to MADD, 44.1 percent of California’s drunk driving arrests in 2001 were of Hispanics, although Hispanics made up only 31.3 percent of the state’s population.

The general incidence of drunk driving has worsened in California—parallel with the skyrocketing Latino population. Accidents involving drunk drivers increased overall nearly 5 percent in the state in 2000, with an uptick in Los Angeles County of 7.6 percent in that year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Hispanics ages 1-44. end quote Brenda Walker Vdare.com

==

quote THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT BEING WIPED OUT, THIS ASSERTION IS NONSENSE, the unemployment rate is 5 percent and wages are rising. We are not going to deport 12 million people, without creating a police state that people woud never support.

By RealChoices | Apr 9, 2007 6:56:50 AM | end quote. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-231.pdf graph page 18 at census.gov. Just search on p60-231 in google.

==

L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock Southern Poverty Love Center.

quote “The way I hear these knuckleheads tell it, they don’t want their neighborhoods infested with blacks, as if it’s an infestation,” says respected Los Angeles gang expert Tony Rafael, who interviewed several Latino street gang leaders for an upcoming book on the Mexican Mafia, the dominant Latino gang in Southern California. “It’s pure racial animosity that manifests itself in a policy of a major criminal organization.”

“There’s absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin,” adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. end quote

==
June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow
quote Moratorium on legal immigration. Not no gross immigration but no net immigration—which would permit an inflow of 200,000 a year or so, enough to take care of hardship cases, needed skills etc. Abandon the principle of “family reunification,” which in practice has meant uncontrollable chain migration. Immigrants should be admitted on own merits.

bullet Abolish “refugee” category. In practice, this is simply an expedited, subsidized immigration program for politically-favored groups. Anyway, humanitarian aid is best given in situ—for example, the “Somali Bantu” could have been resettled in Mozambique, not Maine. America is not the world’s Kleenex. end quote June 05, 2006
Time To Rethink Immigration (II): Freeing America From The Immigration Gulag

By Peter Brimelow Vdare.com

==

Immigration, legal, amnesty, refugee, means the end of social security, medicare, medicaid, functional schools, ERs, and health insurance at work. Men’s median wages were higher in 1973, see p60-231.pdf at census.gov, graph page 18. The reason they cut health benefits is the same reason, to cut our wages. Government can’t afford what we don’t make. We can’t have national health insurance for the 3rd world. We are losing our health coverage by legal immigration. We must have zero immigration to save our way of life.

==

Bush is disloyal to the American people.

..

Bush: America is an idea not people. The American
people can be discarded in the dustbin of history.

==

Bush what matters is the idea of freedom, not the people
who want to be free, they can be discarded as refuse.

Iraq was for freedom as an idea, Abu Ghraib was for the actual people. Bushism is Stalinism. Believe in Bush and you will be free in Stalin.

==

Bush’s Iraq promise was for freedom as an idea. Bush’s Abu Ghraib was for the actual people.

==

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

Brentin Mock continued
quote A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or “clusters,” of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.

Furthermore, the study found, “There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat.”
Six years later, the racist terror campaign continues. end quote

SPLC L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.
by Brentin Mock

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

==

Don’t protect politicians who commit crimes. They are disloyal to us on immigration. Let Bush go to jail for torture. Let Kennedy go to jail for Chappaquiddick. These politicians have a long list of suspect transactions. If you have even a little information send it to groups that forward information on crime or Judicial Watch or blog it anonymously. You don’t have to be a hero and go into the FBI. Turn your information over to organizations that go after politicians. You don’t have to tell your boss. There are tipster organizations you can contact.

==

quote The question is asked, who will pick the fruits and vegetables, who will do the construction jobs, who will do the jobs in the service industry? Which in turn begs the question, who owns the farms, who is having the house built, who owns the hotel and the restraunt? And the answer is the rich, the upper 10 who exploit these illegals,who are just trying to have a better way of life. If these people were made to pay better wages then maybe a lot more people could have a better way of life

By johnleebowes | Apr 9, 2007 10:41:40 AM | end quote. Put employers of illegals in prison and they can pick the fruit on a chain gang. What about politicians who vote the way they get contributions. They will want to have a jury decide if they did right, won’t they? To clear their name?

==

Jack Abramoff can probably fill the farms with chain gang pols from his contribution rolodex. And he isn’t the only one. The K street gang documented by the Post can fill our farms with their labor.

==

quote Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years, respectively, in October by U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone end quote WND. Members of Congress and Senators and lobbyists will want juries to determine if the contributions they gave for earmarks were bribery, won’t they? They will want to clear their name before their constituents? If border guards go to jail for dangerous work, shouldn’t Senators who take money from special interests face the people on a jury?

“u shaped” income inequality Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez
http://www.vdare.com/walker/dui.htm

May 04, 2004
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Drunk Driving

By Brenda Walker

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=181

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-harbor4mar04,0,5714315.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How a community imploded
L.A. long ignored Harbor Gateway. Now a Latino gang calls the shots.
By Sam Quinones, Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2007

==

Thomas Piketty

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030300841.html

==

April 08, 2007

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON’T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/07/07 – A Jewish Immigration Dissident Advises David Orland Not To Hold His Breath
Today’s Letter: A Reader Experiences Censorship

Re: LAPD: “We Don’t Get Into” Immigration Status Of Christmas Story Director’s Killer By Nicholas Stix

From: An “Irate Reader”

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_040807.htm
==

“u shaped” site:vdare.com

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

http://www.nber.org/papers/W8467

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

http://www.vdare.com/pb/060605_gulag.htm

http://www.vdare.com/bulletins/031907_bulletin.htm

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Duane Chapman bounty hunter mexico

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/dog-bounty-hunter-star-duane-chapman-arrested-for-capture-1009823.php

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

==

m.jagger | Apr 9, 2007 11:38:04 AM is right. Also, as others pointed out, illegals here and those who would come here can make their own countries better rather than keeping us from having children by taking away job security for young adults. Think of all the children not born to Americans since Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act because men’s median wages stopped going up in 1973. quote ==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=201

==

quote *Mens median wages peaked in 1973. See p60-231.pdf a publication of the census at census.gov. Search on p60-231.pdf is enough.* What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. end quote quote Until recently, economists rarely mentioned the I-word when explaining the income distribution. The consensus among most academics was that the primary cause of increased inequality was “skill-biased technical change” (SBTC)—i.e., increased economic rewards to educated, technically savvy workers.

In a word, SBTC compensation was based on merit. How quaint!

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon broke from the group naiveté in a paper published last year:

“If SBTC had been a major source of the rise in inequality, then we should have observed an increase in relative wages of those most directly skilled in the development and use of computers. Yet in the 1989-97 period….total real compensation of CEOs increased by 100 percent, while those in occupations related to math and computer science increased only 4.8 percent and engineers decreased by 1.4 percent.” [Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, (PDF) Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University] end quote September 26, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

==

Second post has a different quotation from Vdare on U shaped timing show that share of top 1 percent, the Bush Pelosi McCain Kennedy group, went from 20 percent before 1920’s restriction to 10 percent during restriction back to 20 percent with legal immigration. This shows its legal and illegal immigration that is the cause of men’s median wages being below 1973. Sorry if 2nd post above looks like the same post over again, but the reply is different. Also thanks to Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 12:14:00 PM | for his research and insights in replying to this, that the rise in women’s wages is simply creating men and women living apart with no kids or a single parent with kids. In fact, the Post has reported on that several times. 51 percent of women live without a spouse. Married with kids is the privilege of the affluent according to Post reporting. quote “Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/03/04/mexican-gangs-ethnic-cleansing-of-black-amercans-in-los-angeles/

Hispanic ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

ethnic cleansing blacks site:Vdare.com

u shaped site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/01/25/

http://wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality-graph/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/mccain-fighting-to-recapture-maverick-spirit-of-2000-bid/

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060926_nd.htm

==

quote Economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have compared wage and salary growth within the richest ten percent of American earners with that of the median wage earner. [Ian Dew-Becker, Robert J. Gordon, Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2:2005. PDF]

Here are their results, adjusted for inflation, for the years 1966 to 2001:
bullet Median wage and salary: +11 percent
bullet 90th percentile: +58 percent
bullet 99th percentile: +121 percent
bullet 99.9th percentile: +236 percent end quote
January 29, 2007
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Yes, Tyler, Income Inequality Is Real. And Immigration Is A Cause. Vdare.com

==

quote July 28, 2003
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Hispanic Family Values?
Illegitimacy rates: unmarried Hispanic women aged 15-44 are about one-third again as likely to have a child as unmarried black women in that age bracket – 93.4 per 1,000 vs. 71.5 – and more than three times as an unmarried white women (27.9 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Abortion: Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women (33 per 1,000 annually vs. 13) and nearly-two thirds as likely as black women (49). [Source: Guttmacher Institute]

bullet Teenage pregnancy: Hispanics are high (about 94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites) and relatively worsening – they’ve now surpassed blacks (83 per 1,000). [Source: Centers For Disease Control, pdf file]

bullet Dependency: Nearly one-third (30.6%) of Hispanics receive means-tested benefits, compared to less than a tenth (9.2%) of non-Hispanic whites and just over a third (35.0%) of blacks. [Source: U.S. Census, pdf file]

bullet Criminality: just over one in every hundred adult male Hispanics (1.2%) was imprisoned in 2001 – almost a third of the non-Hispanic black rate (3.5%) and well over twice the non-Hispanic white rate (0.5%). [Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001, pdf file]

bullet Risky behavior: The Hispanic death rate from HIV disease is 2.5-times that of whites (7 per 100,000 vs. 2.8), and about one-third of the black rate (24). [National Center For Health Statistics, pdf file]

end quote
==

quote Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande

“Family Values Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande.”
The problem of emigrants abandoning their families is so bad that some of these poor Mexican women have actually written to VDARE.COM for help! One of them told us (my translation) that

“…my husband is an illegal alien, and has been for approximately a year and a half. I haven’t seen him for 3 years and I would like him sent back to Mexico, where he was born… I am a desperate woman with 4 children and I can’t provide for them, we live in poverty…Help me…”

This desperate lady wants the U.S. to deport her husband, and she actually included the guy’s address in California.

That’s a slogan George W. Bush uses to justify illegal immigration.
One of the towns in Susuapan is Tremecino:

“In Tremecino 25% of the mothers are left alone with their children, expecting a husband who may return this year, in 2 years or more, if at all.”

By the way, in Tremecino, the average age of marriage or cohabitation is 14!

One of the inhabitants of Tremecino is Rosa:

“…She had 4 children when her husband emigrated to Tucson. She was expecting him to send her money but it never arrived, because the man became an alcoholic and found another woman.”

==

quote It’s not widely understood, but the 1986 federal amnesty for illegal immigrants set off a baby boom among unskilled Hispanics in California that began in 1988 and lasted into the late 1990s, with consequences for gang activity that have just recently become palpable.

Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in 2002:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. … Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States… As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. (“Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”).

This ex-illegal immigrant baby boom created an indigestible population pig-in-a-python that overwhelmed California’s public schools in the 1990s, with many having to shift to disruptive year round schedules. The LA Unified School District alone has budgeted $19 billion for construction to accommodate the immigration-driven growth in student numbers. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer Vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070318_diversity.htm

==

Search construction industry wages site:vdare.com

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060406_nd.htm

quote The last few years should have been good ones for labor. Since February 2004 more than 4 million jobs have been created. Output per worker increased by 3.5 percent in 2004 and 2.7 percent last year. Yet the balance of power continued shifting from labor to capital. Not only did profits spike as a share of GDP, but real median income actually declined in 2003 and 2004 (the latest available year.) end quote quote Recent data seem to confirm this. The construction industry is booming, home builders are racking up record profits, yet average construction wages have fallen between 15 percent and 35 percent across the country—the result of cheap immigrant labor. end quote April 06, 2006
National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
The Smoking Bottom Line: Immigration Boosting Profits, Cutting Wages Vdare.com

==

quote Americans also know that there are resulting consequences for such massive uncontrolled illegal immigration. One result will be a population explosion! Do the math– it’s breathtaking! If all 20 to 23 million illegal aliens here today are given guest worker amnesty along with “family reunification,” it will add roughly 60 million people to the current legal population of 293 million.(12) In 2050, just forty-four years from now, demographers say there will be half a billion people residing in America!(13) Just imagine what kind of impact that will have on our natural resources and quality of life! end quote Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
March 16, 2006 Anarchy Reigns ~ Enforce the Laws ~ Stop The Invasion

==

quote Today, California’s amnesty baby boom generation is between ages 10 and 19, entering their prime gang violence years. … California is now exporting its illegal immigration problem—gang wars, overcrowded schools, declining standards of living, and the like—to the other 49 states. end quote March 18, 2007
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Gang Warfare

By Steve Sailer

==

quote L.A. Blackout
Acting on orders from the Mexican Mafia, Latino gang members in Southern California are terrorizing and killing blacks.

According to gang experts and law enforcement agents, a longstanding race war between the Mexican Mafia and the Black Guerilla family, a rival African-American prison gang, has generated such intense racial hatred among Mexican Mafia leaders, or shot callers, that they have issued a “green light” on all blacks. A sort of gang-life fatwah, this amounts to a standing authorization for Latino gang members to prove their mettle by terrorizing or even murdering any blacks sighted in a neighborhood claimed by a gang loyal to the Mexican Mafia.

“This attitude is pretty pervasive throughout all the [Latino] gangs,” says Tim Brown, a Los Angeles County probation supervisor. “As long as [street] gangs are heavily influenced by the prison gangs, particularly the Mexican Mafia, racism is just part and parcel of why they come into being and why they continue to exist.” But with the Mexican Mafia’s shadow looming over Los Angeles, it may be a long time before the rapidly growing number of streets claimed by Latino gangs are safe for blacks, if ever.
“It’s not just Highland Park. It’s almost anywhere in L.A. that you could find yourself in a difficult position [as a black person],” says Lewis, the LAPD probation officer. “All blacks are on green light no matter where.”
by Brentin Mock end quote SPLC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=281

==

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.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

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

S 2611 Roll Call Senators understand: immigration goes up, wages go down. Wages go down Senators’ stocks go up. Men’s median wages are lower than
in 1973, Senators’ stocks go up. Top 1 percent get 20 percent of national income today and 10 percent in 1965, Senators’ stocks go up. Bush family and Pelosi family are also in the top 1 percent.

==

quote Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Continuing
Large U.S. Population Growth

As Nation Hits 300 Million Milestone, Voters Prefer
Reduced Immigration Over Adding Another 100 Million

Commentary by Roy Beck * endquote NumbersUSA Posted on another thread by
blowe1 | Apr 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_bush_return.html

8th amnesty?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973?

==

quote What OldAtlantic never mentions is wages of women have rising considerably and more than made up for the drop in the wages of men. These trends have very little to illegal immigration. by RealChoices from Pacthed | Apr 9, 2007 4:39:28 PM above. In addition to Pacthed’s arguments above and earlier in response to this point by RealChoices it should be pointed out that women’s wages are still below men’s. But men’s are below what they were in 1973. So women’s wages now are still less than men’s wages in 1973. That is the argument of Bush, McCain and Kennedy for immigration, that its kept wages for women below what men’s wages were in 1973. How many women have thought that was society’s goal? I haven’t heard many women saying they wanted women’s wages to stay below men’s wages in 1973 for their entire working life from 1973 to now. Search p60-231.pdf in google and go to page 18 for the graph. It has men’s and women’s wages. Is the future for women that Kennedy promises them is that their wages will stay below the wages of men in 1973? The ratio of women’s wages to men’s went from 60 percent in 1959 to about 77 percent in 2005. This is what women were hoping for? That 77 percent is 77 percent of men’s wages in 2005, but men’s wages in 2005 were lower than men’s wages in 1973. So women are getting less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. Is that what women have been working for? Is that the future they want? A women who started working in 1965, the year of Kennedy’s immigration act and who worked to this year would have worked 42 years, all of them at less than 77 percent of what men made in 1973. Was that the goal? Do they thank Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act and its legal immigration for that lifetime of underpay?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=321

=

Another way to think of this. Suppose men made 100 in 1973 and women made 60 percent, or 60. Women go to 77 percent or 77, an improvement of 17. But if men’s wages had gone to 150 say and women’s percent stayed at 60, they would make 90 instead of 77. Moreover, if they had gone to 90 percent they would make 135 instead of 77, almost twice as much. Immigration did 2 things to women. It kept men’s wages down, and thus since women get a percentage less than 100 of men’s that means it kept theirs down. Second, the percentage of women’s pay to men’s pay was kept down by immigration. So women lost out twice from immigration, a lower percentage of men’s pay than they would have got, and their base in effect, men’s pay, didn’t move up. Even at 100 percent, women would only make what men did in 1973, since men only make that much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

==

Women are often treated harshly by employers. Look at Mary Jo Kopechne who was left by Kennedy to die in an air pocket while he went back to his hotel and had a drink while she suffocated. See ytedk.com. Women are treated too harshly by employers for them to have a ceiling of men’s pay which doesn’t move since 1973. Women work too hard and are treated too harshly for their percentage of men’s pay to be kept at 77 percent by immigration instead of being close to 100 percent where it would have been after 40 years of women’s lib without the legal and illegal immigration influx. Women got the short end from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration act 2 ways, men’s pay was frozen at the 1973 level and women’s percentage didn’t go to 100 percent, which it would have done without a market influx of low cost labor. Because health insurance benefits are cut back, women lose out a third time from immigration which has not just cut pay but also benefits including health insurance. Even if you get health insurance its not as good as it used to be.

==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040801260&start=341

Women also lose in that 51 percent live without a spouse and on pay that is 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That’s a pretty hard life. If they are a single mom on 77 percent of what a man made in 1973 that is harsher still.

Immigration is leaving many women unmarried, perhaps childless, or perhaps single moms. With men earning what they did in 1973, they aren’t able to pay much child support, and many just skip out because they earn so little.

Mary Jo Kopechne was a secretary when she was left to die in an air pocket by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. The scenario experienced by women , pay at under 77 percent of men’s and men’s pay frozen at the 1973 level, and a 51 percent chance to live without a spouse would have been her life had Kennedy let her live, albeit under his 1965 Immigration Act. This is what Kennedy calls upside.

==Mary Jo Kopechne Scenario

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

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.”

Ytedk archive site

also

July 20, 2004, 9:44 a.m.
Remembering Mary Jo
35 years later: Ted Kennedy’s under-investigated scandal.
Myrna Blyth National Review Online
If she had worked to 2007, she would have retired at age 67. That would have been as a teacher, secretary and administrator. She would have made typically less than 77 percent of what a man made her entire career. Because men’s wages topped out in 1973, she would have made no more than 77 percent of what a man made in 1973. That is what would have happened to her under Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, if she hadn’t suffered under Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Act.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007040900105&start=41

Immigration kept men’s median wages to the 1973 level, and women’s wages to under 77 percent of men. That was legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. With zero immigration, women’s wages would have reached parity with men long ago. In addition, men’s median wages would be higher than in 1973.

Search p60-231.pdf and go to census.gov to see a graph on page 18 that shows men’s median wages are less than in 1973 and that women’s ratio to men’s wages went from 60 percent in 1960 to 77 percent in 2005. They were kept from going higher by immigration which has targeted women’s jobs, e.g. cleaning and nursing.

==

amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM great find.

quote

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.
end quote.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Since 1973, men’s median wages are unchanged, see p60-231.pdf page 18 graph. Women’s wages were 60 percent of men’s in 1960 and are 77 percent in 2005.So women’s wages are less than 77 percent of what men’s wages were in 1973. This shows that before immigration, from 1947 to 1973, productivity and median wages went up 1 for 1. Since then, its all been to the shareholders, many of them rich senators like McCain and Kennedy.

==
Further comment on Meyerson quote that amonster | Apr 9, 2007 8:26:05 PM found above. quote

More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security. end quote

Those words are so true. America was once so much more of a family than it is today. Today it is a Bush Hobbesian land. America was so much better 25 years ago. It was so much safer to walk at night. There was so much less fear.

Children could play on their own and roam and get into trouble. They were safe. Probably, no one on earth will ever know a land that great and good for centuries and possibly millenia to come.

You can see what America was in the movies from decades ago. That was once real and it was America. It was so safe and so more unified.

read more | digg story

DOJ Should Investigate Martinez Election RNC

January 20, 2007

Wash Times

from “RNC Elects Martinez as Head”
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 20, 2007

Mr. Haugland told The Times afterward: “They didn’t follow the rules or the opinion of the independent certified parliamentarian. The breach of rules continues.”

Mr. Martinez was elected in a voice vote, instead of the secret ballot that opponents had sought.

Before yesterday’s vote, North Dakota RNC member Curly Haugland, one of the opponents of creating a general chairmanship, offered the written opinion of an accredited professional parliamentarian that the move violated RNC rules. The rules governing the RNC, adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention, call only for an elected chairman and co-chairman.
The wheels came off Mr. Haugland’s drive to use Roberts Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and the RNC’s own rules to have a secret ballot on the creation of a general chairman when Robert M. “Mike” Duncan, the newly elected day-to-day RNC chairman, quickly called for a voice vote.

Was there a conspiracy to take over the RNC involving President Bush, Senator Mel Martinez, Ken Mehlman, Robert M. Duncan, or others? Did this violate federal law?

Are all funds spent by Martinez or the conspirators illegal spending, for which they are personally liable?

Equitable Relief Sought from civil or criminal actions:

1. Remove Martinez from his position at RNC.

2. Remove those involved.

3. Those involved, incuding President George W. Bush, Senator Mel Martinez, and others would be expelled from the Republican Party.  This might include everyone who voted for Martinez in the voice vote.
This article is opinion, hypotheses, or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

Napoleon in the White House

December 20, 2006

“Iraq is Bush’s Waterloo – will it be America’s, too?” by Justin Raimondo. “When our president looks in the mirror, whom does he see? Lincoln? FDR? Churchill? Napoleon is more like it. Our expedition to Iraq bears a striking resemblance to the Little Corporal’s march on Russia – or, perhaps, Hitler’s version of the same mistake.”

Comment

Raimondo rates Bush a corporal in military strategy. Iraq is not just Bush’s Vietnam, its his Russia campaign. But is that correct? Napoleon’s army died. It died from starvation, cold, partisans and a majorb battle, Borodino outside Smolensk in 1812 on the road to Moscow.

Moscow was burned by the Russians. Napoleon decided there wasn’t enough food there, so he left and his army walked back to Poland in winter. The Russian army pursued it. It died on the way.

Now its true that Bush has built an Iraqi army composed of Muslim fighters who sympathize with Sadr’s militia more than Bush on occaision, but it is still not denying our troops basic supplies. Bush has made building the army of a hostile people his goal. This ranks as one of the great follies of history. But it is still not Bush’s Russia.

Raimondo says give up our bases in Iraq, instead of using them to invade Iran. As Reagen would say, these are my bases Mr. Raimondo, I paid for them with the lives of 3,000 Americans and British and coalition soldiers. We should not let that sacrifice be in vain. We can use those bases to invade Iran and save lives in that invasion.

Fight Iran we must. That is already decided by Iran and their view of Islam. We can either fight them from bases on 3 sides, or we can give up those bases and fight for position again. There is no better base to defeat Iran than the base we have built in Iraq.

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. Occupation phase deaths are 70 per month. For 3 months death we can invade Iran, if those numbers applied. Even at 1000, we are talking 14 months of Iraq occupation.

In World War II we would pay more for one island. We need to swap islands. Iraq is worthless. We need to remove the nuclear, sub, and missile capability of Iran. Then we need to move our army to the Pakistan border, blockade them by sea, and make them give up their nukes, subs and missiles.

Pakistan is putting minature nuclear warheads on missiles on subs as its next step. Those subs will be sold to Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. Why? Because Pakistan can’t afford to maintain a nuclear, missile and sub program without selling what it makes. It is over 30 billion dollars in debt. Its interest payments exceeds its gross exports. It has to sell what it makes. That is why it sold what A Q Khan made.

The time to fight wars is when battle phase deaths are 200. We save lives by a ground invasion. This is because we use our bases in Iraq and we avoid their retaliation with missiles against our ships. We could lose over 200 lives from one ship going down. That is why a ground invasion is safer than letting them get revenge on our ships with missiles.

== Info on Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia in 1812

From Wiki

On June 24, 1812, the Grande Armée of 691,501 men, the largest army assembled up to that point in European history, crossed the river Neman and headed towards Moscow.

Military losses amounted to 300,000 French, 70,000 Poles, 50,000 Italians, 80,000 Germans and perhaps 450,000 Russians. As well as the loss of human life the French also lost some 200,000 horses and over 1,000 artillery pieces.

As far as is known, Bush hasn’t lost any horses. Military losses for the French side were 500,000, summing the above numbers out of the initial 691,501. Note the Russians lost 450,000 killed, and they are considered to have won.

Coalition losses from March 2003 through Dec 19, 2006 are 3199. See http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Current Time in Baghdad: 4:42:24 PM
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

The time to fight wars is when these are the casualties, not the 500,000 killed Napoleon lost. How could they kill 500,000 of us? With nuclear weapons. We should invade Iran and then surround Pakistan and denuke it. We must do that before they have nukes on missiles on subs off our coasts. We must act now.

We have bases on 3 sides of Iran. This is staring victory in the face. This is the opposite of Napoleon in Russia in 1812. We have victory in our grasp, instead we choose to let our enemy get nuclear weapons. This is self hate and folly.

This article is speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

Blair Bush Dec 7, 2006 News Conference

December 7, 2006

Blair: “perverted view of Islam.” Who has that perverted view? Muhammed had those perverted views? Did the Caliphs who authorized the final version of the Koran? Then they had all other copies destroyed.

Was Muhammed the one who hijacked Islam? Was it the Caliphs? Was the attack of Islam on the Eastern Roman Empire in 633 AD a perversion of Islam?

The Koran was written down after 633 A.D. under the authority of the Caliph. Didn’t the Caliphate authorized version of the Koran justify everything the Caliphate had done, was doing and wanted to do?

So the Koran was written at the height of the age of perversion of Islam? The Koran was written in final form by the hijackers? They were occupying Damascus, Jerusalem, and so on at the time the Koran was finalized in written form.

Wasn’t it the Eastern Roman Empire that was hijacked not Islam? The hostage takers wrote down the Koran in final form and destroyed all other copies. They did it during the hostage taking.

After taking cities like Damascus, they sold the Christians into slavery, after raping them. Their standard was 3 days of looting and raping followed by selling the Christians and Jews as slaves.

This was done before, during and after the writing of the Koran. The Koran was written under the authority of the Caliphate to justify this. So the Koran justifies this looting and raping of Christians and Jews. This was during the hijacking and hostage taking.

Piracy, slavery, hostage taking, ransom have been part of Islam’s relation to the West from 622 A.D. to the present time. That is standard Islam. That is the entire history of Islam from then to now. The hostage takers were in charge when the Koran was finalized in written form. They authorized the final version, the version that exists today. It justifies what they were doing then and had done and have done since then.

When did Islam change from the Caliphate? Which attack on the West was not part of Islam? Did the Caliphs hijack Islam from Muhammed? Then they had control of the final written version of the Koran after the hijacking?

So the Caliphs had the Koran in its final written form embed the hijacking? So the Koran is not the teachings of Muhammed, but of the hijackers, the Caliphs? The Koran says its it, the whole thing. So that was false?

The current version of the Koran is a false book, created by Caliphs who hijacked Islam? What they wrote about Muhammed in the Koran, hadith, etc. is fabricated to justify their attack on the West?

–Bush: The New Course.

Stay the course. Change the course. Stay the new course.

This was always the course. We knew this from the beginning. The course never changed. Stay the course.

–Blair releasing money to Palestinians.

Hamas and Fatah are becoming more extreme not less?

This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion. Any part of it that gives offense to any person or faith should be considered restated or reinterpreted to avoid that offense. All other disclaimers apply.

“The GOP Leans on A Proven Strategy”

October 25, 2006

“White House Courts Conservative Base”

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page A01

WaPo Comments

Bush after 9-11 had to choose to cancel his tax cuts and rebuild the military to the 1991 level to deal with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan, or to pursue his odd obsession with Iraq and give a pass to the real sources of what attacked us.

Bush’s father’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge was broken by Bush Sr. Bush Jr. thought that made daddy lose the 92 election. So Bush let the Saudis airlift home after 9-11 and the Pakistanis continue to support the Taliban against our troops for the last 5 years while he had his safari in Iraq to bag Saddam, and giving inane speeches praising what attacked us as peaceful.

Bush ignored all security after 9-11 and continued immigration from Pakistan and is bringing in 15,000 Saudi males as students. Bush left the borders open and is for legalization. Bush wants to take our job security, physical security and speech security.

Young adults need a 25 year window to form marriages, keep them stable and have kids. Almost every social problem is rooted in denying them this by immigration, legal and illegal.

This includes crime, welfare, lack of health insurance, ER’s that are firing specialists so they can’t provide their services at zero cost, crowded highways, long commutes from outer suburbs, 2 or 3 jobs needed, inability for teens and marginal workers to get jobs, lack of job training and investment in workers by employers, insensitive management of workers including odd time shifts, lack of breaks, lack of workplace dignity, distrust, lack of civility, crime by CEO’s and politicians who feel they have to get theirs while they can, etc.

Bush is against us on our ability to have stable jobs and have stable marriages and have kids. So Bush is really against us.

This article is opinion, hypotheses, and speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: