Five minutes in an American multicultural hell-hole

Went out for a brief walk today from my White Plains NY apartment to my local pharmacist to pick up a prescription. It's a quick walk, only five minutes one way, but on a busy semi-downtown street. Today, being a Saturday, it was quite crowded with other pedestrians and some storefront loiterers. In this short time I saw or passed the following:

An orthodox Jewish family threesome of grandfather, father & son dressed in jackets & neckties, a scruffy white teenage kid with a gross heavy metal t-shirt design gabbing on a cellphone, a couple of poorly dressed Black men sitting on a bench in front of a bodega advertising Play-lotto here, a couple of Hispanic families going into and out of a laundromat yakking away in Espanol, and a few Whites, mostly elderly, mixed in with several other younger brownish immigrant types. In the pharmacy, the Indian pharmacist was on the phone with a customer and apparently neither could understand one another. During all this time I was having to bite my lip to either keep from shouting out loud "Where have all the Whiteys gone!" or to keep from laughing because:

This isn't just Diversity anymore, it has become a pathetic caricature of itself, a big joke, like John Cleese of Monty Python days doing a Hitler comedy skit complete with silly goose-stepping walks. My hometown, which I've lived in for nearly all of my 50 odd years, is now like a foreign country to me. I figured out long ago that diversity wasn't our greatest source of strength, but now that White Plains, and much of Westchester County NY has been completely transformed by our Globalist Multiculturalist Elite overlords I've had it! I'm going to vote with my feet, and put the co-op for sale, weak market be damned, I'll take a loss just to get out of here now.

I think I'll move out to semi-rural 90+% white Indiana, where my sister's family lives. And for all of you White Liberals who love this diversity, who would get teary-eyed with joy taking the same five minute walk I just took, you can have it all to yourselves! Just make sure you stay in downstate New York, and California, and all the other parts you've ruined, and stay out of any county in America which is still 90+% white! And for any European-American who agrees with me, start planning your move too. It's time to draw a line in the sand and work on keeping the parts of America not overrun with Diversity the way they are. Geographic dominance will have to come first, before any real workable effort to stop what I call "The Great Transformation" can begin.

You know who the one person I felt sorry for in the crowd (besides myself) was? The orthodox Jewish 10 year old kid! I wonder if he ever asks his dad "Why am I so different from the others and have to dress up while everyone else dresses like slobs, etc.?" A better question would be "Is it really a good idea to be part of a closed Nation-within-a-Nation?" Because that's what America is becoming, a multicultural empire with open borders and countless nations-within-nations like the Black nation, Hispanic nation, Gay nation, Islamic nation, etc., all except for a White nation, but we can't have that because that would be RACIST!

America is breaking down tribally, as if it was reverting to its pre-European discovery days, when it was just the Indians, ethnically and racially similar in this case but broken into hundreds of tribes who spent centuries at war with each other. And this was with a total population estimated to have peaked at just 3 to 5 million in 1700! But now our current tribal breakdown is occurring with over population looming, and it can't end well. This new warfare, a political and cultural one, will be fought first in the courts, in the voting booth, in the State Legislatures and in Congress, and if not resolved, in the streets. This is why the USA Death Watch continues...

Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead! Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!

Like a bear coming out of hibernation, This Blog's author has awakened after a long sleep to report that:

Sen. Edward (Ted) Kennedy died today. Finally.

The architect of one of the most profoundly damaging pieces of Congressional legislation in history, the White America Killer, the starting point of what shall someday become known as the Great Transformation, AKA the 1965 Immigration Act, has gone to meet his maker.

Hopefully Mary Jo Kopechne's soul will be waiting to meet him too, and demand a long stint for Kennedy in Purgatory. (I'm resigned to the fact he won't go to Hell, after all he was Catholic, and as an old joke goes, you won't find any Catholics in Hell.)

Obama said that Kennedy was quote " The greatest Senator of our time". I think he meant "The greatest Socialist of our time". I guess the TelePrompter wasn't working right.

I really don't have much else to say about this other than all good White conservatives should be happy today, and that we must brace ourselves for Obama's eventual clarion call to pass his health care plan in Kennedy's memory. Yes We Can...Just Say No!

Obama's $800 Billion stimulus plan a waste of money

Obama and his team of financial advisers have released a 14 page summary of their $800 billion stimulus plan, you can see it here.

What a waste of money this $800B stimulus plan will be! On page 5 there is a chart that estimates what the unemployment rate will be with or without the plan out through the end of 2013. The difference in peak unemployment is a mere 1%! (8% in 2009 vs 9% in 2010). Is that all that they admit $800 billion will do?

Also in 2013 they have unemployment at about the same rate, 5.5%, after a steep (and optimistic) fall in 2011 & 2012. If the rate is going to be the same with or without the spending, why bother? Just ride the storm out.

The problem is they still don't understand the reasons for the (financial) storm itself, or if they do, still won't admit it in public. Basically, they (the Federal Government) caused it themselves, when they passed banking deregulation that lead to financial over leveraging, and creating a housing market bubble that finally burst when loans couldn't be repaid.

So now we have an exploding budget deficit, a $700 billion undeserved bank bailout (half has been given to the bankers who have hoarded it instead of loaned it as was intended), and a debt to GDP ratio that is approaching an all time high.

This HAS to stop this decade! In 2017 FICA taxes (Social Security & Medicare), currently providing a "surplus" (meaning the total deficit/debt would be WORSE without it!) will also start running a deficit. This combination of wasted spending now and the needed spending in the future will likely result in a debt so high that foreigners will stop financing it, and stop buying our T-bills & Bonds. That's when the bill will finally come due, and with it, the likely death of the USA as we now know it.

More on Prof. Panarin's prediction of America's breakup in 2010

Prof. Igor Panarin is in the news again, this time via the Wall Street Journal article As if things weren't bad enough...

Apparently he has become the darling of the Russian media, and is getting frequent interviews about his prediction of the USA's breakup in 2010, a prediction he made back in 1998. The problem is that the Russian media has become more state controlled again, and there may be a bit of wishful thinking on their part, having experienced their own country's breakup in 1991.

While I agree with the reasons Panarin puts forth as to why the breakup will occur, I don't see it happening in 2010. I also find lots to disagree with as to what the post breakup map will look like. (See the map below.) Here are some of the articles highlights:

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by former Soviet analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

U.S. foreign debt is a "a pyramid scheme," and he predicts that China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles, but when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The line about the wealthier states actually withholding funds is interesting, but that would mean the smaller states, as the large states like California and New York are already begging the Feds for their own bailout money, as they are in the red with their budgets. A very large number of the smaller states would have to withhold funds for the threat to be effective.

Also the line about Alaska going back to Russia, and Russia becoming a global financial regulator (ever heard of the EU?) seem to be written for Russian anti-American types only.

I also disagree with the part about foreign influence, I would see these groups of states becoming independent countries, with only Mexico having a strong influence in the Southwest. The part about Canada having influence over the tan colored "Central North American Republic" is absurd, that grouping alone would still be bigger than Canada in both population and GDP.

I also question the way Panarin splits the Old South in two, and splits Arizona and New Mexico. I would see both of them in one group, again under the influence of Mexico.

To sum up, while Panarin's theory is interesting, it seems to me to show a lack of understanding about the regional ethnic differences that exist in America, and wouldn't be a likely final scenario.

The President wishes you a happy Nowruz, um, New Year

I'll bet you've never heard of Nowruz, also known as the Iranian New Year. It falls around the first day of Spring, predates Islam, and is observed in several central Asian countries with names that end in -stan, some of which we have (too many) of our troops in.

And I'll bet that Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush had never heard of it either. But that hasn't stopped them from sending out their best wishes, first in 1992 (gee, did some Iranian-American group complain, do you think?), then in 2000 by Clinton (what about 1993-99?), and now annually since 2005 by Bush the Younger and Most Brain Damaged by Diversity.

I'm going to merely wish everyone a happy (Christian Era) New Year, and I don't care about the dozens (hundreds?) of other versions anymore. Remember, diversity is no longer our greatest source of strength, but our greatest source of conflict, and absurdity.

Check out the link here. (You'll have to type in the word nowruz in the archive search area). Also take note that for the first time, just this year, President Bush had to not only issue the annual best wishes, but had to elaborate on Nowruz in two recorded interviews the same day!

Speaking of countries that end in -stan, maybe we should rename America, and the Presidency, Absurdistan.

Immigration and the political party platforms - Part One

Having a historical interest in how immigration to America has come in waves, (and also desiring the end to the current influx) got me to thinking of where to look for written declarations made by Republicans and Democrats on this subject over the years.

One source I found are the party platforms issued every four years at their conventions.
This post will summarize their positions from the period 1900 to 1960. I wanted to see what they said about the great wave that occurred up until 1921, then the sharp reduction that ran from 1924 to 1965, and finally, the reasons for the 1965 increase.

I found a website that has copies of all the party platforms and nearly all Presidential speeches, the site is called The American Presidency Project and its homepage is here.
It's a great site for history buffs, it's quite impressive.

The first thing that surprised me was how little the party platforms had to say about immigration from 1900 to 1920. Despite this being a period of record high immigration, with a peak of 14% of the country being foreign born in 1910 (a percentage we are just about at now), the platforms didn't mention immigration in 1900, 1904, or 1908. The first call for a reduction came with the 1912 Republicans version, which said:

We pledge the Republican party to the enactment of appropriate laws to give relief from the constantly growing evil of induced or undesirable immigration, which is inimical to the progress and welfare of the people of the United States.

The Democrats had nothing to say in 1912. Neither party mentioned immigration in 1916, which may have been due to the fact that World War I had greatly reduced it. In 1920, however, the Republicans had a lot to say about it:

Immigration
The standard of living and the standard of citizenship of a nation are its most precious possessions, and the preservation and the elevation of those standards is the first duty of our government. The immigration policy of the U. S. should be such as to insure that the number of foreigners in the country at any one time shall not exceed that which can be assimilated with reasonable rapidity, and to favor immigrants whose standards are similar to ours.
The selective tests that are at present applied should be improved by requiring a higher physical standard, a more complete exclusion of mental defectives and of criminals, and a more effective inspection applied as near the source of immigration as possible, as well as at the port of entry. Justice to the foreigner and to ourselves demands provision for the guidance, protection and better economic distribution of our alien population. To facilitate government supervision, all aliens should be required to register annually until they become naturalized.
The existing policy of the United States for the practical exclusion of Asiatic immigrants is sound, and should be maintained.
Naturalization
There is urgent need of improvement in our naturalization law. No alien should become a citizen until he has become genuinely American, and adequate tests for determining the alien's fitness for American citizenship should be provided for by law.

How things have changed since 1920! The above would make a strong argument today for another immigration time-out, if the parties weren't so Politically Correct.
Despite this strong statement, the 1920 Democratic platform had nothing to say about immigration!

The 1924 Immigration Act, which greatly reduced the amount and instituted the national origins quota had already been passed before the party conventions. The Republican platform was an affirmation of the reasons for its passage:

The unprecedented living conditions in Europe following the world war created a condition by which we were threatened with mass immigration that would have seriously disturbed our economic life. The law recently enacted is designed to protect the inhabitants of our country, not only the American citizen, but also the alien already with us who is seeking to secure an economic foothold for himself and family from the competition that would come from unrestricted immigration. The administrative features of the law represent a great constructive advance, and eliminate the hardships suffered by immigrants under emergency statute. We favor the adoption of methods which will exercise a helpful influence among the foreign born population and provide for the education of the alien in our language, customs, ideals and standards of life.

The Democrats, for the first time in the 20th Century, had only this to say about immigration in their 1924 platform:

We pledge ourselves to maintain our established position in favor of the exclusion of Asiatic immigration.

That was it, nothing pro or con about the 1924 Act, and what they did say back then would have them apologising for their racism today, if anyone were to bring this to their attention.

In 1928, both parties made statements about immigration:

Republicans:
The Republican Party believes that in the interest of both native and foreign-born wage-earners, it is necessary to restrict immigration. Unrestricted immigration would result in widespread unemployment and in the breakdown of the American standard of living. Where, however, the law works undue hardships by depriving the immigrant of the comfort and society of those bound by close family ties, such modification should be adopted as will afford relief.

Democrats:
Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provisions contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purpose or the efficacy of such laws.

In 1932, during the worst part of the Great Depression, the Republicans said:

The restriction of immigration is a Republican policy. Our party formulated and enacted into law the quota system, which for the first time has made possible an adequate control of foreign immigration. We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of our present laws upon this subject.

The Democrats said nothing about it, and neither party platform mentioned immigration in 1936. In 1940, only the Republicans had this to say:

We favor the strict enforcement of all laws controlling the entry of aliens. The activities of undesirable aliens should be investigated and those who seek to change by force and violence the American form of government should be deported.

Neither party platform mentions immigration in 1944 or 1948.

In 1952, however, a significant change occurred. The Democrats platform, after being nearly silent about immigration all century, had this to say:

Subversive elements must be screened out and prevented from entering our land, but the gates must be left open for practical numbers of desirable persons from abroad whose immigration to this country provides an invigorating infusion into the stream of American life, as well as a significant contribution to the solution of the world refugee and overpopulation problems.
We pledge continuing revision of our immigration and naturalization laws to do away with any unjust and unfair practices against national groups which have contributed some of our best citizens. We will eliminate distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens. We want no "second-class" citizens in free America.

Here, for the first time, we see dissatisfaction with the 1924 national origins quota.

The Republicans didn't mention immigration in 1952.

In 1956, the Democrats basically repeated what they said in their 1952 platform, under the heading "Progressive Immigration Policies":

The Democratic Party favors prompt revision of the immigration and nationality laws to eliminate unfair provisions under which admissions to this country depend upon quotas based upon the accident of national origin. Proper safeguards against subversive elements should be provided. Our immigration procedures must reflect the principles of our Bill of Rights...
We also favor more liberal admission of relatives to eliminate the unnecessary tragedies of broken families. We favor elimination of unnecessary distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.

The Republicans, having been silent on immigration since 1940, had this to say in 1956:

The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.
We believe that such a policy serves our self-interest, reflects our responsibility for world leadership and develops maximum cooperation with other nations in resolving problems in this area.

Here, they also are having second thoughts regarding the 1924 Act, although rather vaguely compared to the Democrats.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy is nominated as the Democratic Presidential candidate, and it was he who really started to push strongly for the end of the 1924 Act. The party platform reflected this by putting immigration near the top of their 1960 platform:

We shall adjust our immigration, nationality and refugee policies to eliminate discrimination and to enable members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.
The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man. This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress...
We must remove the distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens to assure full protection of our laws to all. There is no place in the United States for "second-class citizenship."
The protections provided by due process, right of appeal, and statutes of limitation, can be extended to non-citizens without hampering the security of our nation.
We commend the Democratic Congress for the initial steps that have recently been taken toward liberalizing changes in immigration law. However, this should not be a piecemeal project and we are confident that a Democratic President in cooperation with Democratic Congresses will again implant a humanitarian and liberal spirit in our nation's immigration and citizenship policies.

The 1960 Republican platform mentions immigration, but unlike the Democrats it was placed at the very bottom of the page, indicating to me that the changes Kennedy & the Democrats wanted weren't all that objectionable:

Immigration has historically been a great factor in the growth of the United States, not only in numbers but in the enrichment of ideas that immigrants have brought with them...
Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that:
The annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.
Obsolete immigration laws be amended by abandoning the outdated 1920 census data as a base and substituting the 1960 census.
The guidelines of our immigration policy be based upon judgment of the individual merit of each applicant for admission and citizenship.

While not openly advocating for the end of the 1924 national origins quota, they are heading in that direction with the call to use the 1960 census as a guide. More alarming from a restrictionist standpoint is the call to double the number of immigrants. Even the Democrats didn't even call for this in 1960!

After reading the two parties 1960 platforms, it is clear that the 1924 restrictions were on life-support, and it's not surprising that they were eventually repealed with the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act.

President Lyndon Johnson and the 1965 Immigration Act

Ted Kennedy wasn't the only politician who got it wrong about what the 1965 Immigration Act would or wouldn't do to America. The bill was strongly supported and signed into law on October 3, 1965 by LBJ at the Statue of Liberty (Maybe it should be re-named the Statue of Immigration?). Here is an abridged version of his speech that day with some of my comments in bold:

This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power. Wrong - it's one of the most revolutionary bill ever!

Yet it is still one of the most important acts of this Congress and of this administration. For it does repair a very deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation. What's so cruel about controlling immigration?

The fairness of this standard is so self-evident that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. Yet the fact is that for over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system. Which you promptly replaced with with another injustice - all but totally ending white, European immigration.

Under that system the ability of new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth. Only three countries were allowed to supply 70 percent of all the immigrants. Now only three countries still supply the same percentage, just three from the Third World.

Men were denied entrance because they came from southern or eastern Europe or from one of the developing continents. This system violated the basic principle of American democracy--the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. If this were true the Sept 11th attacks never would have happened.

It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. We can now believe that it will never again shadow the gate to the American Nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and privilege. So you made immigration to America a civil right, not a privilege as it should be.

Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide. The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources--because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples. Who no longer are interested in "joining and blending", but instead keeping their cultures intact and expanding them.

The days of unlimited immigration are past. Dead wrong, with illegal immigration included, it's virtually unlimited now.

…and so it has been through all the great and testing moments of American history. Our history this year we see in Vietnam. Men there are dying… Neither the enemy who killed them nor the people whose independence they have fought to save ever asked them where they or their parents came from. They were all Americans. By eliminating that same question as a test for immigration the Congress proves ourselves worthy of those men and worthy of our own traditions as a Nation. Those traditions are dying, now everyone is either a hyphenated-American, or would rather be known as a foreign national who just happens to live in America.

If that wasn't enough, LBJ also made a speech on July 1, 1968, marking the day the 1965 Act actually went into effect:

It was nearly 3 years ago, on one of the proudest days of my Presidency, that I stood at the foot of the Statute of Liberty and signed into the law of this land the Immigration Act of 1965.
Today that act takes full force. The lamp of liberty has never shone brighter. The golden door to immigration has never stood wider. The lamp of liberty is about as dim as it ever has been, and the golden door has been ripped off of its hinges.

Every American can be proud today because we have finally eliminated the cruel and unjust national origins system from the immigration policy of the United States. We have righted a long-standing wrong. Cruel and unjust because it favored white Western Europeans.

So today, any man, anywhere in the world, can hope to begin a new life of freedom and a new life of greater opportunity in the United States. No longer will his color or his religion or his nationality be a barrier to him. The only preferences will be for those who already have relatives here… No longer will only three nations supply 70 percent of America's immigrants. No longer will the people of one nation be less welcome here than the people of another nation. So now we are in danger of losing our white majority, of having Islam become a major threat to Christianity, chain immigration from the third world, dominated by Mexico, and becoming a hundred little nations within one overcrowded country.

This landmark act will work to enrich the heart of America--the people themselves. All who, over the years, have dreamed and labored for its achievement can take great satisfaction today.
Together we have helped to preserve the American dream--and more than that--we have opened its promise equally to all men everywhere. No, you are destroying the American dream, by overwhelming us with Third World poverty and tribalism.

President Lyndon Johnson left office a broken man, thanks to the tragedy of the Vietnam War. His name has been cursed by many tens of thousands of older Americans who lost loved ones in that war. Now, he can also be cursed as the President who signed the bill that gave birth to Multicultural America, and the birth of an era that I call The Great Transformation, the transformation of America into a potential Third World nation, an era that is now past its midpoint with the election of Obama as President.