All major political parties want poverty for the US

by Don Hank

The below-linked report shows that of all factors studied, the one most strongly correlated with GDP, or national wealth, is strength of the rule of law.

http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2012/07/the-main-driver-of-gdp-growth-strong.html

Quote: …he mentioned that he had done a study based on analysis by an institution that looks at all sorts of “fuzzy” data, like how easy it is to start a business in a country, corporate taxes and business structures, levels of free trade and free markets, and the legal system. It turned out that the trait that was most positively correlated with GDP growth was strength of the rule of law. It is also one of the major factors that Niall Ferguson cites in his book Civilization as a reason for the ascendency of the West in the last 500 years, and a factor that helps explain why China is rising again as it emerges from chaos.

Amazingly, despite this strong correlation, not ONE of the 2 main parties supports the rule of law. Bush and his GOP cronies famously supported rewarding lawbreakers with amnesty. Obama has gone further, refusing to allow ICE to deport many alien felons (only the most egregious) and even suing Arizona for trying to protect itself from the invasion — even though Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says the federal government is supposed to protect the states from invasion, literally.

Last but not least is the Libertarian party, which basically thinks borders are bad for liberty and is not much in favor of laws at all. Like the early communists, they think the state will melt away if we can just teach enough people how to behave in a lawless society (anarchy). I’m not making it up: If you go to the Von Mises Institute site you can see a proud invitation to sign up for a course in “Anarcho-Capitalism,” the favorite ideology of site founder Lew Rockwell, who is a mentor of Ron Paul.

America has given up on law, instead falling all over itself to protect the “rights” of minority criminals, like the black panthers who violated election law by intimidating voters and siding with petty thugs like Trayvon Martin while seeking to jail law and order activists like George Zimmerman. And suspending ICE agents for arresting illegal aliens (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/senator-ice-agent-facing-punishment-for-arresting-illegal.html). This is a reflection of the back seat that science has taken in the public discussion, in the media and politics. We prefer catchy pandering slogans to facts. Slogans and pandering ensure poll success.

But as the law goes, so does GDP. It looks like our main political parties have all chosen poverty for us all.

Funny, none of them asked us either.

Racially integrated mobs (with no white, Asian or Hispanic members)

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” — Race Baiter in Chief

by Don Hank

Ever since about the time of the Trayvon Martin incident, I have been receiving regular, roughly daily, forwarded reports of unprovoked attacks by mobs of  “young people” all around the US. A visitor from another planet would certainly infer from these reports that young people are a dangerous mutant subspecies of human and need to be monitored and strictly disciplined.

That’s because the mainstream media almost never identify racially homogeneous mobs by race unless they are white. They pretend the mobs are diverse, thinking, I suppose, that if they don’t identify the problem, it will simply go away.

By this logic, Hitler was an international citizen, not a German. Mussolini was a man without a country. Al Capone was an international business man, not a member of the Italian mafia. Pablo Escobar was a successful American merchant, not a member of the Medellin cartel. Godzilla was a troubled youth who was painfully conscious of his size and was merely overcompensating. And so forth. 

Anyway, the mobs are growing and the racially homogeneous violence is escalating, despite efforts to minimize it and pretend it is diverse and non-specific. (Say, how about we stop looking for specific bacteria that cause disease? Let’s just have a campaign to wipe out all germs? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Oh, that’s right. Some commensal bacteria are needed by the body to digest food. Never mind).

But now for the good news.

Recently, President Obama issued the statement shown below clarifying his “post-racial” position. Did you catch it? Here it is again in case you missed it:

“Shortly after I was elected I proclaimed America to be in its post-racial phase, where race has become totally irrelevant and people are judged on the noble principle set forth by Dr. Martin Luther King, namely, according to the content of their character. I meant exactly what I said.

A growing number of people of my race – and party (guess that goes without saying) – weren’t listening to King or to me and they have attacked white people simply for being white, claiming “your people” hurt “our people.” Let me be clear: There is no “your people” and there is no “our people” in post-racial America. Both blacks and whites need to follow MLK’s guidelines, without exception, if we are to get along. Your asinine presumption that someone’s ancestors harmed your ancestors does not give you the right to practice violence against that person or steal their property. Before the civil war, most northern whites, guided by Christ’s teachings, thought slavery was evil and acted accordingly. They set up the Underground Railroad to help eliminate the practice. William Wilberforce, the British activist who almost single-handedly ended the institution of slavery in his country, was a white Christian. White Christians also helped end slavery here and later helped spearhead the civil rights movement. They were so successful that slavery is virtually non-existent in the West, having survived almost solely in certain Muslim countries (like Sudan) today.

E pluribus unum means out of many one (I had mistranslated that in an earlier speech. My apologies). Throughout my 3.5 years as president I have gradually come to realize we are all one people now and the name of that people is Americans, one of the most beautiful names in the English language.

I was elected by a majority of all Americans, am grateful to each and every one of you, and as long as I am president, I will stand up for the rights of all Americans, regardless of their color. There will be no race baiting, no special rights for minorities, no legal double standards and no coddling of people who violate the law. You violate the law and you hurt me, Barack Obama.

I may take some heat for saying this, but someone had to say it, and the buck stops with me.

BTW, Eric Holder, you’re fired! Get outta here!

Thank you and may God bless America.

Oh, I omitted to say that Obama made this speech in a dream I had. Guess I shouldn’t have eaten those spicy meatballs before retiring last night.

 

Of interest:

The escalation of the violence all started with this speech:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57403200-503544/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/

The rest (see below) was 100% predictable. The White House resident got exactly what he wanted.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/racial-violence-explodes-in-3-states/?cat_orig=us

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-terrorize-1-of-whitest-big-cities/

One lady whose own neighborhood had been a victim of the violence objected to the fact that some referred to the black rioters as black. Maybe Hampton is getting what it asked for? 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mob-in-the-hamptons/?cat_orig=us

“Young people” targeting Jews:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/black-mobs-now-beating-jews-in-new-york/?cat_orig=faith

“Young people” assault pregnant white girl
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-7159518.html

A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Remembering the prime cause of the economic crisis

Most Americans are puzzled and, of these, most are angry that Tim Geithner and Obama keep forking over our cash to a failing Europe via the IMF.

In fact, these politicians are some of the few who realize that the US Left actually triggered the world economic crash and therefore, in a sense, owes Europe and everyone else an apology at the very least.

It is interesting that even the most conservative authors, writing on the economy, rightfully blame the banks, the Fed and the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall for the economic crash, but most of them fail to look back at the prime cause, the bleeding heart giveaway policies of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). True, these other factors were absolutely key and no one is denying that. But without the CRA, it would not have happened, at least not in the same way.

“Most people do not realize this, but derivatives were at the center of the financial crisis of 2008,” states an article at theeconomiccollapseblog.com.

Nothing wrong with that statement. (This blog is in fact one of the best sources available on the progress of the West’s current economic suicide attempt.)

Indeed, neither party noticed the enormous destructive power of these instruments back when the market was bearish.

But let’s be more specific. In the case of the current crisis, it was not just any old derivatives that caused the initial tremor in the markets. It was mostly a derivative known as MBSs, or mortgage backed securities, that got the avalanche rolling. And the repeal of Glass-Steagall (which had denied banks the right to act as both investment houses and banks) was the enabler.

However, we need to look back further to find the root cause. To recap for those who have forgotten: Back in the 70s Carter, always the bleeding heart and skeptic of the free market, decided banks were deliberately refusing to service blacks, Hispanics, etc, on the basis of race. That assumption was in itself unproven at best and maliciously phony at worst. Nonetheless, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) became the law of the land in 1977. No one tried to seriously enforce this law until Clinton became president because Republicans used to know that forcing banks to lend to the insolvent would inevitably lead to ruin. Ironically, by the founding of the Clinton Dynasty, businesses were even more conscientious than before about eliminating racial considerations from their lending practices. A well-off black men could secure a loan just as easily — if not more easily (thanks to affirmative discrimination) — than a white man.

But Clinton had declared himself the “first black president” and he had to live up to his absurd title. So his HUD secretary Henry Cisneros, with equal absurdity, started to put teeth into the law that had, mercifully, lay fallow in the intervening years:

Here is what the CATO Institute says:

In 1992, HUD was given regulatory authority over these government-sponsored enterprises, and it began pushing the two firms into the subprime lending business.

The ensuing horrors we see all around us could perhaps have been mitigated, or even averted, had GW Bush not tried so hard to be a “compassionate conservative” (code for socialist in sheep’s clothing). In fairness, Bush had initially warned against these policies, but by January 2004, his HUD web site was trumpeting:

“Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities,” said HUD’s Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. “President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal.”

It was the serious enforcement of a less-than-serious law, coupled with the repeal of another law that would have prevented the securitization and sale of mortgages that indirectly led to a debacle that has engulfed the entire world and has led to a situation in which derivatives with an estimated notional value of $1.4 quadrillion have flooded the world market – a value of about 23 times world GDP. Not only the issuance of MBSs, but the practice of creating and selling these potentially lethal instruments, is what threatens every inhabitant of our globe.

So keep this in mind: without the repeal of Glass-Steagall and without the “compassionate conservatism” and outright socialism of our past governments, you and your friends would have reasonable job security and/or a job.

Good reasons to avoid voting for a RINO or a Democrat next year.

Just as I told you: Sharia law coming to Libya

You can’t say I didn’t warn you: Libya’s new leader wants sharia law.

 

Don Hank

Newsmax just now reported that the new unelected leader of Libya is a strong proponent of Sharia law – in contradistinction to the moderate Ghadaffi whom we just murdered.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the favorite of NATO, the EU, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and most other European leaders, as well as of Obama, “laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”

Why was this no surprise to me?

I had just recently researched Mustafa Abdul Jalil’s background and learned :

After graduating from the department of Shari’a and Law in the Arabic Language and Islamic Studies faculty of University of Libya in 1975, Abdul Jalil was initially “assistant to the Secretary of the Public Prosecutor” in Bayda, before being appointed a judge in 1978.[6]
Abdul Jalil was a judge “known for ruling consistently against the regime,…”

 I had looked this up in response to naïve comments from a reader who has the misfortune to be addicted to the MSM and apparently has not yet seen the extent to which modern “journalists” are in fact propagandists and little else.

This reader quoted a prediction that if the war were to continue, a half-million Libyans would die.

I read the article this reader linked to and was astonished to find the quote was attributed to none other than the leader of the transition government, Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

So I researched his background and sure enough, he is a proponent of Sharia law.

Now, go ahead and tell me the EU, NATO, Sarkozy and Obama didn’t know this.

We just murdered a man who was a moderate and Western-friendly in order to install a radical Islamist who will rule the same way they rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That can only mean the cruelest possible punishments. Just for reference, a Saudi court recently ordered a migrant worker’s eye gouged out.

Ghadaffi had tried Sharia law and found it did not work well in the real world; further, while the Western propaganda bleated that Ghadaffi was a ruthless dictator who swept aside all opposition, he obviously had kept Abdul Jalil alive and in power despite their major differences. If he was so ruthless, why is Abdul Jalil still alive?

OUR money paid for Ghadaffi’s brutal murder. OUR American and British and French blood was spilled to murder a friendly moderate and install a hostile Islamist in Libya.

It is a self-replicating pattern of what was done in Iran, Kosovo, Iraq, Egypt and Ivory Coast: support for rigid, radical Islamists over moderates who tolerated Jews and Christians.

YOUR government did not do it. You do not have a government. You have, in lieu of a legitimate government, a clique of usurpers with superior mind control methods, led by bankers, corporations, media moguls and assorted government agencies and officials in league with each other, who despise you, your values and your Western way of life and, using the language of moderation and tolerance, are stealthily installing leaders in the Middle East to destroy the last traces of Western influence, except for heavily guarded ties to the Western Ruling Class and the banking system (Ghadaffi had made the mistake of establishing an independent Libyan banking system). Nothing has changed since the late 1880s when a small group of rich radicals met at a private home in a banking area of London for the purpose of accomplishing two heinous goals throughout the world: 1) Install socialism, and 2) eliminate Western (particularly Christian) culture. They later took the name “Fabian Society” and are still quite active today, both in the open, and more importantly, under a cloak of secrecy. Mild-mannered Tony Blair is a member.

Things are going swimmingly for them, what with millions of Muslims imported against the will of the people and wars in the Middle East that tend to strangle Christian influence there.

People don’t get it. They say “these leaders must be crazy” and “if only we could make them understand what they are doing to us.”

But they know exactly what they are doing to us. And they are far from crazy. But so far we have been docile little toadies bowing and scraping before them and dutifully taking notes as they instruct us in the most efficient means of self destruction.

That must stop or we are doomed.

Pray for Israel. Pray for the Middle East Christians.

Pray that others will wake up and see the evil shadow government behind the mask and behind weasel words like peace, sustainable development, green energy, wealth redistribution, quantitative easing

The Ruling Elites also speak out of both sides of their mouths on Israel and the Jews, subtly promoting anti-Jewish sentiment eerily reminiscent of Germany in the 30s and 40s, while pretending to honor holocaust victims. As a result of their anti-Jewish whispering campaign, I find that even some of my freedom advocating correspondents in Europe, who properly grasp that the EU is a dictatorship, show decidedly anti-Jewish sentiments, failing to understand that in so doing, they are, tragically, supporting the people they think they are opposing.

The words of Western “leaders” mean just the opposite of what they say and suggest.

Open your eyes.

You can’t fight an invisible enemy, and you can’t survive if you don’t fight back.

 

I tried to warn you before:

http://laiglesforum.com/ghadaffi-dies-of-propaganda-overdose/2772.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/i-told-you-so-again/2697.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

 

The Fabian society:

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/the-city-of-london-and-the-fabian-society-2/

 

So now it’s all the banks’ fault?

All of a sudden, the CRA never happened and no banks were forced to give loans to the insolvent. And no banks were induced to follow suit to make a quick buck.

 

Don Hank

When the banks crashed in 2008, people on the Right figured out that the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lend more money to the “underserviced communities”) had something to do with it.

A lot was said and written about the CRA and the case against it looked pretty airtight.

But then leftwing analysts issued damage control statements supposedly showing that the CRA played only a minuscule role. They argued, among other things, that the CRA was enforced only on certain large banks while others did not have to comply.

Conservative observers bought into this story without further examination, and all of a sudden, everyone was looking elsewhere for a culprit: And they found blood on the hands of the Fed, the corporations, the lobbyists, etc, all of whom certainly had played a role.

I must agree, of course, with the libertarians and even the OWS crowd that corporations and banks contributed in no small way to the crash.

And I agree with Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Steph Jasky, Karl Denninger, Bill Stills and others that the Fed, with its inflationary policies and cheap credit in the midst of a housing bubble, had a huge hand in the crash. There is a lot of political hay to be made off the anger of many in the Occupy Wall Street crowd who can see only corporate greed as the culprit. Conservatives who spell out the entire narrative, including the role of leftist government, risk losing their constituency and their followers.

So with all these individuals and groups jumping on the anti-corporate and anti-Fed bandwagon, should the CRA get off Scott free?

Amidst the lynch crowd fervor, should we really let the government off the hook?

I go on the theory that the truth is always best, even if it is bad for one’s popularity at times.

Thus, one side of the rather complex discussion has been muted, and yet, that is the message we all need to focus on right now, if for no other reason than that it is a blind spot that could cause many to think the private corporations are solely to blame, when the government was the culprit that got the ball rolling toward the housing crash and subsequent subprime crisis by enforcing horrendous wealth redistribution law that was doomed to fail from the start. After all, exonerating a truly guilty party can only induce devious characters to do more mischief.

Case in point: taking advantage of the blackout regarding the seminal causes of the crash, Barney Frank, one of the most heinous offenders in the run-up, hypocritically teamed up with Chris Dodd after the crash to write tighter banking regulations, slyly dissimulating that his own support for the CRA had contributed to the economic/financial downturn in a way that some are now calling criminal.

So let’s be honest and let the chips fall where they may. The government played a seminal role in the crash with its CRA enforcement, as aided and abetted by ACORN, even though a superficial analysis may suggest it was not that big a role. So how did this devastating law do its dirty work in the shadows?

It pulled off this feat because it was not the government forcing banks to make loans to the insolvent, which was just an initiator or catalyst. It was rather the less visible effect of the CRA’s policy allowing (force was soon no longer needed) the banks to make bad loans with the tacit guarantee that the loans would be guaranteed by government.

See, if a law forces some people to use unsound banking policies, i.e., deliberately lending to the insolvent, then it can hardly prosecute banks that do this, even if they were not the ones originally targeted by the legislation. Thus the CRA opened the flood gates for horrendous banking practices never seen before on this scale by providing a huge incentive for banks to make money hand over fist at taxpayer expense.

All of this is further compounded by the fact that neither banks nor most (if any) American corporations can be thought of as representing true free market capitalism. So for the OWS activists or anyone else to blame the crash on capitalism is like blaming saber tooth tigers for making the outdoors unsafe.

But we aren’t talking about any of this now. Somehow, the narrative of the CRA as an insignificant contributor to our woes has assumed the status of settled science.  We’ve been led down a rabbit trail by both the far left and the well-meaning right that got lost and started seeing only the role of the banks.

But you know what? This topic of government culpability is much too young to die. Let’s drag it back onto the table again and take a longer look this time.