It looks like the two Jews on the Supreme Court, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both sided with Sotomayor on this one. Luckily levelheadedness prevailed and raced-based political correctness received a much needed blow on Monday. Unfortunately it will probably be short-lived, as our public officials will surely continue to be swayed by our media and other agitators.
SCOTUS Rules For White Firefighters
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of a group of White men and one Hispanic who claimed the New Haven, CT firefighting department discriminated against them because of their race in not hiring them.
Ricci v. DeStefano, began when New Haven voided its entire 2003 promotional exam after the results made 18 Whites - but no Blacks - eligible to become officers. When the city decided to promote no one, the White men fought back using the legal system, claiming the rejection was unconstitutional.
The case became a media focal point due to SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor having ruled against the White men while an appeals judge. Sotomayor has also claimed her experience as a “wise Latina” trumps the knowledge of White men when it comes to making decisions as a judge.
It has been called “the most astounding piece of sleight of hand ever invented.” The creation of money has been privatized, usurped from Congress by a private banking cartel. Most people think money is issued by fiat by the government, but that is not the case. Except for coins, which compose only about one one-thousandth of the total U.S. money supply, all of our money is now created by banks. Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) are issued by the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, and lent to the government.1 Moreover, Federal Reserve Notes and coins together compose less than 3 percent of the money supply. The other 97 percent is created by commercial banks as loans.2
Don’t believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script.3 Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank’s foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. “Consideration” (”the thing exchanged”) is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.
Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled. It was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, an autonomous court system dating back to those frontier days when defendants had trouble traveling to big cities to respond to summonses. In that system (which has now been phased out), judges and courts were pretty much on their own. Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:
If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!5
From time to time, however, the curtain has been lifted long enough for us to see behind it. A number of reputable authorities have attested to what is going on, including Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.
Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:
We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.6
Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:
Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created — brand new money.7
Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:
[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.
How did this scheme originate, and how has it been concealed for so many years? To answer those questions, we need to go back to the seventeenth century.
The Shell Game of the Goldsmiths
In seventeenth century Europe, trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. Coins were durable and had value in themselves, but they were hard to transport in bulk and could be stolen if not kept under lock and key. Many people therefore deposited their coins with the goldsmiths, who had the strongest safes in town. The goldsmiths issued convenient paper receipts that could be traded in place of the bulkier coins they represented. These receipts were also used when people who needed coins came to the goldsmiths for loans.
The mischief began when the goldsmiths noticed that only about 10 to 20 percent of their receipts came back to be redeemed in gold at any one time. They could safely “lend” the gold in their strongboxes at interest several times over, as long as they kept 10 to 20 percent of the value of their outstanding loans in gold to meet the demand. They thus created “paper money” (receipts for loans of gold) worth several times the gold they actually held. They typically issued notes and made loans in amounts that were four to five times their actual supply of gold. At an interest rate of 20 percent, the same gold lent five times over produced a 100 percent return every year, on gold the goldsmiths did not actually own and could not legally lend at all. If they were careful not to overextend this “credit,” the goldsmiths could thus become quite wealthy without producing anything of value themselves. Since only the principal was lent into the money supply, more money was eventually owed back in principal and interest than the townspeople as a whole possessed. They had to continually take out loans of new paper money to cover the shortfall, causing the wealth of the town and eventually of the country to be siphoned into the vaults of the goldsmiths-turned-bankers, while the people fell progressively into their debt.8
Following this model, in nineteenth century America, private banks issued their own banknotes in sums up to ten times their actual reserves in gold. This was called “fractional reserve” banking, meaning that only a fraction of the total deposits managed by a bank were kept in “reserve” to meet the demands of depositors. But periodic runs on the banks when the customers all got suspicious and demanded their gold at the same time caused banks to go bankrupt and made the system unstable. In 1913, the private banknote system was therefore consolidated into a national banknote system under the Federal Reserve (or “Fed”), a privately-owned corporation given the right to issue Federal Reserve Notes and lend them to the U.S. government. These notes, which were issued by the Fed basically for the cost of printing them, came to form the basis of the national money supply.
Twenty years later, the country faced massive depression. The money supply shrank, as banks closed their doors and gold fled to Europe. Dollars at that time had to be 40 percent backed by gold, so for every dollar’s worth of gold that left the country, 2.5 dollars in credit money also disappeared. To prevent this alarming deflationary spiral from collapsing the money supply completely, in 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt took the dollar off the gold standard. Today the Federal Reserve still operates on the “fractional reserve” system, but its “reserves” consist of nothing but government bonds (I.O.U.s or debts). The government issues bonds, the Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes, and they basically swap stacks, leaving the government in debt to a private banking corporation for money the government could have issued itself, debt-free.
Theft by Inflation
M3, the broadest measure of the U.S. money supply, shot up from $3.7 trillion in February 1988 to $10.3 trillion 14 years later, when the Fed quit reporting it. Why the Fed quit reporting it in March 2006 is suggested by John Williams in a website called “Shadow Government Statistics” (shadowstats.com), which shows that by the spring of 2007, M3 was growing at the astounding rate of 11.8 percent per year. Best not to publicize such figures too widely! The question posed here, however, is this: where did all this new money come from? The government did not step up its output of coins, and no gold was added to the national money supply, since the government went off the gold standard in 1933. This new money could only have been created privately as “bank credit” advanced as loans.
The problem with inflating the money supply in this way, of course, is that it inflates prices. More money competing for the same goods drives prices up. The dollar buys less, robbing people of the value of their money. This rampant inflation is usually blamed on the government, which is accused of running the dollar printing presses in order to spend and spend without resorting to the politically unpopular expedient of raising taxes. But as noted earlier, the only money the U.S. government actually issues are coins. In countries in which the central bank has been nationalized, paper money may be issued by the government along with coins, but paper money still composes only a very small percentage of the money supply. In England, where the Bank of England was nationalized after World War II, private banks continue to create 97 percent of the money supply as loans.9
Price inflation is only one problem with this system of private money creation. Another is that banks create only the principal but not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Since virtually the entire money supply is created by banks themselves, new money must continually be borrowed into existence just to pay the interest owed to the bankers. A dollar lent at 5 percent interest becomes 2 dollars in 14 years. That means the money supply has to double every 14 years just to cover the interest owed on the money existing at the beginning of this 14 year cycle. The Federal Reserve’s own figures confirm that M3 has doubled or more every 14 years since 1959, when the Fed began reporting it. 10That means that every 14 years, banks siphon off as much money in interest as there was in the entire economy 14 years earlier. This tribute is paid for lending something the banks never actually had to lend, making it perhaps the greatest scam ever perpetrated, since it now affects the entire global economy. The privatization of money is the underlying cause of poverty, economic slavery, underfunded government, and an oligarchical ruling class that thwarts every attempt to shake it loose from the reins of power.
This problem can only be set right by reversing the process that created it. Congress needs to take back the Constitutional power to issue the nation’s money. “Fractional reserve” banking needs to be eliminated, limiting banks to lending only pre-existing funds. If the power to create money were returned to the government, the federal debt could be paid off, taxes could be slashed, and needed government programs could be expanded. Contrary to popular belief, paying off the federal debt with new U.S. Notes would not be dangerously inflationary, because government securities are already included in the widest measure of the money supply. The dollars would just replace the bonds, leaving the total unchanged. If the U.S. federal debt had been paid off in fiscal year 2006, the savings to the government from no longer having to pay interest would have been $406 billion, enough to eliminate the $390 billion budget deficit that year with money to spare. The budget could have been met with taxes, without creating money out of nothing either on a government print press or as accounting entry bank loans. However, some money created on a government printing press could actually be good for the economy. It would be good if it were used for the productive purpose of creating new goods and services, rather than for the non-productive purpose of paying interest on loans. When supply (goods and services) goes up along with demand (money), they remain in balance and prices remain stable. New money could be added without creating price inflation up to the point of full employment. In this way Congress could fund much-needed programs, such as the development of alternative energy sources and the expansion of health coverage, while actually reducing taxes.
A short video putting the amount of financial aid we give to Israel into perspective. Since Israel has not paid back a single penny of these “loans,” the U.S. government has just written this money off as grants. This is not even including all of the military equipment and technology we have given to them (or that they have stolen from us). The U.S. has given them one of the best militaries in the world, all for a total population of only six million Jewish inhabitants. They also have an estimated nuclear arsenal of 300-400 nuclear weapons, thanks to the Jewish spies who have stolen U.S. nuclear intelligence and passed it on to their ethnic kin. An argument could even be made that Jewish espionage was responsible for the start of the Cold War and the rise of a nuclear Soviet Union, due to the Rosenbergs passing U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.S.S.R. Ask yourself this, what has Israel ever done to deserve such American gratitude? Can you name one instance that they have come to our aid? The sheer magnitude of our foreign aid to Israel gives credence to the reality of massive Jewish influence in our government.
If anyone is still wondering why our country is going bankrupt, Desmond Hatchett is a perfect example. He is only 29 years old, but has 21 children with 11 different moms. The state can legally only take half of his minimum wage paycheck; which means the taxpayers pick up the rest of the bill. The productive citizens of this country are literally subsidizing their own extinction. How wonderful will democracy look in the future, when millions of these degenerates will be able to out-vote any remaining rational White population?
Maurice Greenberg, the former head of AIG, was the man responsible for creating the huge financial products division that bankrupted the company earlier this year. Not only has he been responsible for the destruction of AIG, causing thousands of people to lose their jobs and retirement, but he has now stolen billions of dollars from an AIG retirement account upon leaving the company. With all of the Jewish financial criminals in the news lately, just think of all the illegal activity that is being overlooked. Read more details about Maurice Greenberg by clicking here.
AIG says former top exec plundered retirement plan
By Madlen Read
(AP) New York - The former top executive of American International Group Inc. plundered an AIG retirement program of billions of dollars because he was angry at being forced out of the company, a lawyer for AIG told jurors Monday at the start of a civil trial.
Attorney Theodore Wells told the jury in Manhattan that former AIG Chief Executive Officer Maurice “Hank” Greenberg improperly took $4.3 billion in stock from the company in 2005, after he was ousted by the company amid investigations of accounting irregularities.
“Hank Greenberg was mad. He was angry,” Wells said in U.S. District Court of the emotional state of the man who, over a 35-year-career, built AIG from a small company into the world’s largest insurance provider. He said the saga is a story of “anger, betrayal and cover-up.”
Wells said that Greenberg, within weeks of being forced out in mid-2005, gave the go-ahead for tens of millions of shares to be sold from a trust fund. The fund was set up to provide incentive bonuses to a select group of AIG management and highly compensated employees that they would receive upon their retirement.
Wells showed the jury several clips of Greenberg speaking on videotape about the responsibilities of the trust fund. He called it Greenberg’s “videotaped confession.”
Wells asked the jury to award AIG $4.276 billion and 185 million AIG shares.
Greenberg, 84, has contended through his lawyers that he had the right to sell the shares because they were owned by Starr International, a privately held company he controlled.
Greenberg’s lawyer, David Boies, told the jury in his opening statement that the shares sold by his client did not belong to AIG.
“I disagree with a great many things that Mr. Wells said,” Boies told the jury. He said a study of the documents in the case would prove that the shares sold by Greenberg did not belong to AIG.
“Look in this case not to what people said after this lawsuit started,” Boies said. “Look to what they said and did and wrote before the lawsuit started.”
Starr International was named after Cornelius Vander Starr, who created a worldwide network of insurance companies in the early 1900s.
AIG maintains that Starr and Greenberg, his protege and successor, decided in the late 1960s to organize the various companies under one holding company, AIG.
Starr International remained a private company and its shareholders decided in 1970 that the amount that its shares of AIG were worth above book value of about $110 million should be used to compensate AIG employees, AIG has said.
The embattled insurer is trying to reclaim the money from Starr it says was wrongly pocketed through stock sales by Greenberg.
The trial relates to events that occurred long before AIG found itself under attack earlier this year over its bonus program.
The company was roundly criticized after it accepted $182 billion in federal aid and then paid out $165 million in bonuses to employees, including traders in the financial products unit that nearly caused the company to collapse.
Before the jury was chosen Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said evidence in the trial could not include information about the government bailout.
The trial featured two legal heavyweights.
Boies argued on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court during the disputed presidential vote in 2000. Wells was on the team of defense lawyers in 2007 for former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about his role in leaking the name of a CIA operative to a reporter.
This essay is Copyright of Midwestfreepress.com 2009. All intellectual property rights are under the sole ownership of this website and it’s authors. Unlawful reproduction of this material without permission is prohibited by law. If you choose to copy this material to your website, please provide your readers with a citation.
Nationalist Economic Policy
This will be the first post in a series of our position statements; outlining the foundations of our world view. We have placed many links at your disposal, but sometimes it is helpful to bring everything together in one coherent dissertation. So, whatever your previous background, I hope you keep an open mind when reading this material. We will do our best to provide you with as much supporting evidence on this site as possible.
A country’s economic system, although not everyone’s favorite subject, is quite possibly one of the most important factors for the longstanding well-being and prosperity of a country. It, however, is not THE most important factor. A nation can never merely be just an economic venture. Unfortunately, that is exactly what America has become: nothing but a conglomeration of profit-seeking individualists who care more about their materialistic self-gratification than their people and culture. No, a nation must first be founded on a common ideal of race. Historically this has been true for almost every nation, up until very recently of course. In fact, even most countries today are still founded on the precepts of race and culture, except for White Western countries that is. The importance of Nation and Race is profound, and an entire position article will need to be dedicated to it in the near future.
Today I chose to focus on the ideal economic principles for a true Nationalist country, assuming that the issue of race was already paramount in the hearts and minds of its citizens. You could therefore call this a blueprint for a theoretical White Nationalist economy. This topic desperately needs to be talked about in the midst of today’s financial problems. I frequently get inquiries about what needs to be done to fix America’s economy. The answer? - Scrap the whole system. Our entire concept of economics must change.
Analyzing Our Current Monetary System
This is a topic of high debate, almost everyone agrees that the current U.S. monetary system is built to fail. If you don’t know how our current fractional reserve banking system works by now, this should be your first focus. We currently have a debt-based monetary system, where Congress does not create any of our nation’s money; a right which is allotted to it by the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they appropriate money by first passing a bill, and they then borrow money at interest to pay for it. This borrowing is done by either issuing T-bills or by borrowing directly from the private Federal Reserve bank. In each of these scenarios the U.S. government is forced to pay interest on this new money. This is what is referred to as the National Debt. Most Americans don’t realize that every year, almost every penny of their tax money goes directly to pay the interest on the national debt rather than to pay the principle.
As you may know, this interest is pure profit for the bankers (Fed) that lend us the money. Since the bulk of the interest must be paid first, we fork over billions of dollars of taxpayer money to the private owners of the Federal Reserve. And, since the interest charged is money that has never existed, more money must constantly be created in order to pay the interest on previous debt. This creates a never-ending spiral of increasing debt and inflation, which will continue until the buying power of the average citizen is destroyed and the bankers own the majority of the world’s wealth. It would take too much time to explain this system in it’s entirety, therefore it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE THAT YOU WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW. All of my further writing will be based on your understanding of this video. Trust me, if you have never seen it, it is extremely interesting and it will change your entire outlook on the future of our country. It would also be a great idea to visit the links on our Economics Page, as they will help you understand more about our current system, and how to fix it. The video starts after about 14 seconds into it:
This system is the reason why a man in 1950 could have graduated from high school and comfortably worked in a factory until he retired; but this same man would have trouble doing so today. Back then he was able to get married, have a lot of kids, and his wife didn’t have to work in order for them to survive. One income was enough for the family, and companies could still afford to give their employees pensions when they retired. Health care was affordable, and you could go to college without having to take on debilitating amounts of debt. This reality has now been destroyed, as companies must forever search for increasing profits, no matter what the cost is to our country and society. If a company can save money by shipping their labor overseas, then this is what they do; partly because our economic system requires perpetual growth to stay afloat, and partly because our concept of race and nation has been destroyed.
Anyone who is willing to put aside the modern capitalist rhetoric for a second and instead choose to think logically, will come to the conclusion that the perpetual growth required by our economic system must ultimately lead to the destruction of everything we hold dear. It will destroy our natural resources, our national sovereignty, and our most important goal of creating a nation that functions in the best interests of it’s people and culture. When constant growth is a necessity, all other things eventually become secondary.
Why would perpetual growth be necessary for a country to survive? Honestly, a simple barter system was historically used and everyone seemed to do quite well, aside from the awkwardness of trading physical items. A society was able to sustain itself at a level of equilibrium, only growing when it needed to in order to handle an increase in population. To fix the problems of a barter system, money was created. Money was simply created to serve as a medium of exchange; it was a matter of convenience. Today money, even paper money, is now treated as a commodity which can be bought and sold. The value of a dollar changes daily, and a primary goal for people today is to make money simply by having money. We have come a long way since the time when money only served as a medium of exchange. But, in order for our people to be prosperous once again we must return to that very concept of money.
Why does inflation have to exist? Our countries literally went for centuries with very little inflation, only to change recently. Is it really imperative for the money supply of a country to perpetually grow forever in order for people to exchange goods and services? A modern economist may try to tell you so, but any logical man will agree that it does not have to. It is possible to create a debt-free, interest-free, and virtually inflation-free monetary system, because it has been done before. If only the American people knew that every year, approximately 3-4 months of their salary went directly into the coffers of primarily Jewish-owned banks, then their enthusiasm for American Capitalism may finally begin to fade.
Capitalism: Not What It Used to Be
Most people who consider themselves capitalists today are well-intentioned. This is because they truly don’t understand all of the baggage that comes along with modern capitalism. Their idealistic view of capitalism is a system dictated purely by supply and demand economics. A very noble idea indeed, but sadly not the case today. They fail to see that their dream of pure “supply and demand” is hindered tremendously by capitalism’s dirty counterparts; mainly the speculative exchanges. People are told by the media that the stock exchange is the beacon of free-market economics, yet more market manipulation takes place here than anywhere else. It is our firm position that the laws of supply and demand should be encouraged as much as possible, but not to the point where it jeopardizes the integrity of our race. Supply and demand must be encouraged for domestic production in most cases, as this is frequently the most efficient process.
However, the government must possess the power to step in and mediate when the national interest is threatened. For example, it would be the duty of the government to make sure that companies were not off-shoring their business facilities in order to undercut other companies. This off-shoring of labor must be strictly forbidden. If one or two companies do it, the rest must follow to stay competitive. This creates a cascade that will destroy the country’s manufacturing and working class. I will talk more later about how this can be accomplished without exposing the national worker to cheaper imports. Secondly, the government must also see to it that companies are not importing foreign laborers into the country. This would naturally place downward pressure on the wages of the nation’s workers, let alone destroy the racial integrity of the country. These, and other essential government functions are the primary reason why we do not subscribe to the ideology of libertarianism. Libertarianism, in it’s most pure form, does not acknowledge race, trade boundaries, and in some cases immigration boundaries. Libertarianism would also wish to take any power away from the government which would be necessary to protect the nation’s racial economic interests. These factors will obviously never be in sync with a country that holds the interests of race at it’s core.
As previously mentioned, in today’s Capitalist society, money is valued as a tradable commodity rather than just a medium used to exchange goods. The concept of making money by way of simply having money is a very destructive force. When someone makes money in this fashion they are essentially stealing it from somewhere else in the economy. Because, by doing this, they have created nothing of real value. They have neither invented nor produced anything themselves, nor have they supplied any labor from themselves. This system wrongly assumes that money actually has value, when in fact only tangible assets and labor hold real value. Therefore any economic process that allows someone to invest money in a system that does not involve an equivalent amount of tangible assets or labor should be strictly forbidden. This is commonly referred to as speculation.
When speculation occurs, it means that the concept of money has shifted from that of a medium of exchange to that of a commodity. You must see this process as being morally wrong; because if it is allowed to occur then men will be allowed to make fortunes by making bets and shuffling money, instead of creating things of real value to our society. Fortunes should be made by those who have created or produced things of real value, and not by those who have learned to manipulate a monetary system to their advantage. This is why Nationalism is not compatible with our modern form of Capitalism, nor is it compatible with Libertarianism. Today, our entire economy is made up of speculative ventures and markets. Some of the most wealthy men in our society are those who have done nothing but sit in a New York office building, trading paper with fictional value. If the money made by these processes is legitimized, then it therefore steals wealth from the man who is the actual creator and supplier of goods and services. I will touch more on this under ”The Capitalist Exchange Markets” section.
Most Americans today really believe that American Capitalism is the epitome of supply and demand economics, but nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that our interest rates, and therefore our money supply, is centrally planned by the Federal Reserve proves that true capitalism has not been present in this country since before 1913. If we truly lived in a free market economy then interest rates would solely be determined by the market, not by a bank created to “stabilize our financial system.” By the very nature of the system, the Federal Reserve’s rate changes can only be reactionary, that is to say, they can only be a reaction to the events that have already happened in the market; or to what is predicted will happen in the future. This ensures that no regulatory body of men will ever be able to form the correct conclusions about what the future holds, and therefore the system will be plagued with mistakes, even if these men are well-intentioned. The booms and busts of our current economic climate are the product of unrealistic interest rates enacted by the Federal Reserve: Keep them too low for too long and you encourage malinvestment; keep them too high for too long and you stifle the economic growth that is necessary for this inflationary system to survive.
Interest Slavery
Many libertarians would therefore suggest that we abolish the Federal Reserve and let the market determine interest rates. But, I go a step further than this. While abolishing the Fed, why not abolish the concept of interest altogether? Like I mentioned before, in order for a monetary system to be successful in the long run, income must not be generated from the mere fact of having money. This is usury at its core, and has been outlawed in our societies for much of our history. If interest does not exist, then private banks could not exist either. This, I find to be a good thing. This statement may startle some of you at first, because it tears at the core of your previously-ingrained economic thought. However, you must think of it in these terms: If a private bank issues a loan to you, you must pay back the principle plus the interest. Even if we required that every loan be backed by an equivalent amount of bank funds, the interest charged would still have never been created.
For example, imagine a 100% reserve-backed banking system (as many libertarians suggest). Now assume that the bank has $1 million of reserves to make loans against, using a 1:1 ratio. In this case, they would be able to make a total of $1 million worth of loans, but they would be able to charge interest on this money. Therefore they would lend out $1 million, but possibly demand a hypothetical total of $2 million be paid in return when including interest. This extra $1 million does not exist. If banks are allowed to demand the payment of any amount of money greater than which currently exists, then eventually the banks will end up with all of the money; just like a fractional reserve monetary system only much slower. This is the primary reason why private banks must not exist, and the charging of interest must be completely outlawed. The charging of interest also assumes that there is a “cost” to money, therefore again treating it as a commodity. Money should only be used as a service to the people, not as a force that will enslave them in perpetual debt.
Finance Capital and The Capitalist Exchange Markets
As mentioned above, all forms of monetary speculation must be prohibited. This means the complete abolition of the stock exchanges, currency exchanges, and commodity speculation. These markets serve as nothing but a vehicle for wealth transfer. Also, in a non-inflationary monetary system these markets would not be needed to “grow your money” as we are told today. Our current inflationary monetary system and the modern stock exchange go hand in hand to systematically steal the wealth of the American people. First, our inflationary fractional reserve system not only serves as a vehicle to collect absurd amounts of interest from the public, but it also destroys our buying power through constant inflation. Therefore, in order to “protect our money from inflation,” we are told to invest our money in the stock market so it can grow with the cost of living and reach an amount suitable for a future retirement. Little do the American people know that they are being led into a trap.
Most people are extremely ignorant of how the stock market really works. We are told that our economy lives or dies by the performance of the stock market, but nothing could be any more ridiculous. The only time any money is raised by a company issuing stock is at it’s IPO, or initial public offering. The company issues the stock to the public at a certain fixed price, and collects the proceeds as a means of raising cash. After this, the stock is then traded openly on a secondary market i.e. the stock exchanges (New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, etc.). There are a fixed number of stock certificates trading for each company, which means that anytime a stock is sold someone else must buy it. This has been the traditional role of brokers; as a middleman to match up sellers and buyers. Many times, if a match cannot be made right away the stock is held in possession of the broker until he can find a match. But, the overall concept stays the same. This means that if someone makes money in the stock market, then someone, somewhere loses that value. This also means that there will always be winners and there will always be losers when it comes to the markets. Everyone cannot win.
If everyone cannot win, then it seems fruitless to advise every citizen to invest their money into the stock market, doesn’t it? No, not if you plan on stealing it from them. Some of the most wealthy individuals on the planet have obtained their money through this very system, all while creating absolutely nothing of value. They have only traded pieces of paper back and forth, while normal Americans sometimes put in 40+ hours of hard labor per week. Hedge fund managers for example, are even able to pull off this scheme by using massive amounts of money that isn’t even theirs. They borrow huge sums of money, buy up large amounts of stock with it, and then walk away with half of your 401(K) account. In addition to this, the stock market does NOT move based on company fundamentals, like we are told. No, market manipulation and insider trading are very real things, and they go on extensively every day. Read my post on stock market manipulation to get a better idea of how this entire process works.
It is true, some of the money that has been newly-created by inflation will end up in the stock market, thus pushing the total value of the market up as time goes on. However, this is not even close to enough money to ensure profits for everyone who invests, especially since the major market players will gobble up a significant portion of it anyway. After the recent bank failures the stock market plunged, and we were told by financial commentators that “over $9 trillion of wealth had evaporated from the stock market.” This statement is rubbish. First, much of this “wealth” was nothing more than fictional numbers on paper that didn’t represent any real wealth at all. Secondly, if the stock market falls drastically it means people have been selling. When people do more selling than buying the stock market drops, and vice versa. This means that a significant number of people just lost money, but someone had to have sold at the top for a profit. These individuals are likely to be few in number, and could have quite possibly acquired insider information as to what was going to happen in our economy. We saw this similar situation when massive amounts of options were placed on American Airlines in the days leading up to 9/11, revealing that not only did many people have foreknowledge of 9/11, but insider information was being used to profit from it.
In regards to the stock market, with all of the possible manipulation methods used by the major market players, the retirement accounts of average Americans can be systematically stolen. In the period following 9/11, and now following the banking crisis, we have seen hard-working Americans potentially lose half of their entire life savings by no fault of their own. And, since these American’s lost wealth in this process, that means someone else gained wealth. All of this wealth was obtained by creating nothing of real tangible value, yet we are supposed to believe that the stock market is the pinnacle of American freedom. As you can see, our inflationary monetary system and our speculative exchanges work in concert to steal the hard earned wealth of the working public.
Similar methods are used with currency exchanges and commodities exchanges; one example being the unreasonable and outrageous spike in gasoline last year, leading to prices of over $4 a gallon. Much of this spike was not created by supply and demand, but instead by speculators who never even touched a barrel of oil. These people profit in the comfort of their office, while we pay for their luxuries at the pump. This is also a matter of national security. A commodity as important to our country as gasoline should never be in the hands of speculators who are looking to turn a quick profit at the expense of average citizens. Currency exchanges are also particularly harmful. Each day the dollar is traded openly against the other currencies of the world, and this relative value fluctuates regularly. This is yet another example of money being used as a commodity. It assumes that the value of a dollar can change on a daily basis, and therefore so can the value of someone’s labor. Should your labor be worth more one day and less the next? Should we let international currency traders determine the value of your labor, rather than your own productivity? Obviously not.
Historically the dollar has been quite strong compared to other world currencies. This fact, combined with lax international trade laws, has encouraged the off-shoring of labor among U.S. businesses. This is because an American business can set up a manufacturing facility in a country with a cheap currency, produce the product at next to nothing, and then sell it in America for a large profit. This not only destroys the American working class, but it harms our national security as well. If we no longer possess manufacturing facilities within our borders, then we become totally dependent on other countries in times of war.
The disparity in the value of currencies has great influence over our buying power as well. When the dollar is strong we are able to afford more imports, but when the dollar is weak our exports increase. This fluctuation in the value of the dollar not only affects the individual consumer, but it can also create roller coaster economic cycles for companies that survive off of imports or exports. International bankers also take advantage of worldwide currency exchanges. They are able to buy and sell large amounts of different currencies in different countries. They can make tremendous profits from these paper transactions, which results in nothing more than the theft of a country’s wealth. This type of behavior is supposed to be regulated by international authorities, but that’s like saying the SEC should have caught Bernard Madoff at the inception of his ponzi scheme. These are the primary reasons why a Nationalist country should not expose its currency to international exchanges. A nation’s currency should represent a certain value of labor or goods. Since the value of someone’s labor does not change from day to day, neither should the value of the nation’s currency.
The entire notion of modern finance capital needs to change. A Nationalist economy should only recognize real capital; that is, tangible assets and labor. In real life, these are the only things that have actual value. Since a Nationalist economy should be based on these principles, then so should it’s monetary policy. In part 2 of this essay, I will explain the details of implementing a Nationalist economy. I will discuss the following topics: Implementing and operating a debt-free, non-inflationary, Nationalist monetary policy; the role of government in a Nationalist economy including social policies; the disadvantages of a Gold Standard; handling international trade; and tax structure. I feel that once I explore all of these areas, the entire concept of Nationalist economics will come together for you in a nice understandable package.
Since Obama’s recent speech in Egypt, almost every so-called conservative commentator has been going berserk with regards to his Israel-criticizing comments. Claims of him being a Muslim sympathizer have become rampant. This is a joke to begin with, as half of Obama’s cabinet is filled with Jews, including Rahm Emanuel who has actually served in the Israeli military. On top of that, they made sure Obama visited Buchenwald concentration camp while in Germany. Obama doesn’t even write his own speeches. Do you really think Emanuel and David Axelrod would actually let him enact anti-Israeli policies, when they have so much interest in Israel’s future? Think of it this way: Obama has not brought our troops home from the Middle East (a campaign promise), he is still using Bush-style language towards Iran, and he has talked openly about the so-called holocaust. Furthermore, I doubt it was his idea to surround himself with so many Jews. It definitely didn’t happen by chance. Jews have obviously been pulling the strings behind Obama from the inception. Why do you think the man received absolutely no criticism from the media during his campaign?
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, etc., have all dedicated hours of their nationwide talk shows to persuading the American public that Israel’s well-being is at the top of America’s interests. All of these neocon sell-outs don’t even get this excited when it comes to events happening in our own country, like the illegal alien invasion from the south. For example, Limbaugh rarely ever exits his Republican-Democrat rants in order to talk about the immigration problem; a problem that is due to the incompetence of BOTH parties. Yet, he dedicates half of his show to the defense of Israel.
This spastic response to any criticism of Israel shows you exactly who is running the show, and it is very telling about where these commentators receive their influence and endorsements. In fact, there is not one single commentator on television or radio who is consistently critical of Israel. Over this past week, these clowns filled the airways with Jewish guests and “experts,” all of whom echoed the same predictable garbage. Laura Ingraham had an editor of the Jerusalem Post on her show who claimed that Israel’s settlements are on “debatable” territory. I guess it may be debatable if you ignore every internationally agreed-upon boundary that has ever been enacted. Laura even talked about how great her trip to Israel was, and almost every one of these commentators has taken similar vacations. This is because trips to Israel are offered to these commentators by Zionist Jews as literal propaganda missions.
These have been the tactics of our Jewish-owned media; to control both sides of the argument in order to present a spectrum of acceptable opinion. Jews have always dominated the left, but over the past couple of decades they have now become completely dominant over the right. Neoconservatism was founded by former leftist Jews who were unhappy with the Democratic party’s stance on Israel. So they defected to the “right,” and we now have a “conservative” movement that is in favor of Middle East interventionism (i.e. pro-Israel). This is also the reason why the neocons are not truly conservative on most domestic issues either, and this has dramatically shifted the Republican party to the left. Any true American conservative, like their founding conservative predecessors, should be staunchly opposed to supporting Israel.
The following is an excerpt from this website: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ It was founded by a journalist who spent a considerable amount of time in the region and became dismayed about the obvious pro-Israel bias in the U.S. media. I recommend that you all visit it and read their information thoroughly:
For centuries there was no such conflict. In the 19th century the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population – approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish – living in peace.
Zionism
In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine.
At first, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.
UN Partition Plan
Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.
Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state – despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.
1947-1949 War
While it is widely reported that the resulting war eventually included five Arab armies, less well known is the fact that throughout this war Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined – often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel – virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.
Finally, it is significant to note that Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as “splendid,” and stated: “As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.” Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.
By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once saying: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”
1967 War & USS Liberty
In 1967, Israel conquered still more land. Following the Six Day War, in which Israeli forces launched a highly successful surprise attack on Egypt, Israel occupied the final 22% of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 – the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since, according to international law it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, these are occupied territories and do not belong to Israel. It also occupied parts of Egypt (since returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation).
Also during the Six Day War, Israel attacked a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, killing and injuring over 200 American servicemen. President Lyndon Johnson recalled rescue flights, saying that he did not want to “embarrass an ally.” (In 2004 a high-level commission chaired by Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, found this attack to be “an act of war against the United States,” a fact few news media have reported.)
Current Conflict
There are two primary issues at the core of this continuing conflict. First, there is the inevitably destabilizing effect of trying to maintain an ethnically preferential state, particularly when it is largely of foreign origin. The original population of what is now Israel was 96 percent Muslim and Christian, yet, these refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes in the self-described Jewish state (and those within Israel are subjected to systematic discrimination).
Second, Israel’s continued military occupation and confiscation of privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza, are extremely oppressive, with Palestinians having minimal control over their lives. Over 10,000 Palestinian men, women, and children are held in Israeli prisons. Few of them have had a legitimate trial; Physical abuse and torture are frequent. Palestinian borders (even internal ones) are controlled by Israeli forces. Periodically men, women, and children are strip searched; people are beaten; women in labor are prevented from reaching hospitals (at times resulting in death); food and medicine are blocked from entering Gaza, producing an escalating humanitarian crisis. Israeli forces invade almost daily, injuring, kidnapping, and sometimes killing inhabitants.
According to the Oslo peace accords of 1993, these territories were supposed to finally become a Palestinian state. However, after years of Israel continuing to confiscate land and conditions steadily worsening, the Palestinian population rebelled. (The Barak offer, widely reputed to be generous, was anything but.) This uprising, called the “Intifada” (Arabic for “shaking off”) began at the end of September 2000.
U.S. Involvement
Largely due to special-interest lobbying, U.S. taxpayers give Israel an average of $7 million per day, and since its creation have given more U.S. funds to Israel than to any other nation. As Americans learn about how Israel is using our tax dollars, many are calling for an end to this expenditure.
Thirty-six Hispanic gang members were arrested in Omaha on Tuesday after federal agents arranged to buy illegal guns from the group. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had to handle this sting because 31 of the 36 arrested were illegal aliens. The group was apparently under the impression that the guns would be going to Mexico after being sold. Barack Obama’s logic would therefore be to enact stricter gun laws in America so these illegal aliens would have a tougher time acquiring firearms while in our country. The unfortunate part is that these new laws would hurt legal American gun owners more than anyone. It seems the majority of our politicians lack any sense of good logic.
You could ask any average man on the street how to fix this very problem, mainly the prevalence of organized Hispanic crime in our communities, and the answer they would give you is very simple: Close the border. As a matter of national security, let alone to preserve our culture, this task could be done with relative ease despite what the “experts” say. For some reason, our elected officials think that it is an easier undertaking to occupy and overthrow countries in the Middle East, than to use our military here at home to actually protect our country.
I find it quite ironic how Jewish groups in America are at the forefront of promoting the acceptance of illegal immigration, but strongly disapprove of the same concept for Israel. Jews are also at the forefront of promoting military intervention in the Middle East, no doubt to protect the regional interests of Israel over the national interests of the United States. It’s funny how community leaders like Alan Potash harp on the dangers of “right-wing extremists,” but every night our local news is filled with similar stories of disproportionate Black and Hispanic crime. Personally I was astonished to learn of such activity going on amongst illegal immigrants in our community. Up until now, the mainstream media has only informed me that immigrants strictly come here to do the jobs Americans won’t.
OMAHA, Neb. - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, in close partnership with the Omaha Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), seized 69 firearms during an investigation that culminated Tuesday with the arrest of 36 gang members and gang associates. This is the latest joint local action of ICE’s ongoing national efforts to target transnational gang members and stop the illicit flow of U.S. weapons to Mexico.Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agencies have arrested 36 gang members and associates and seized 69 guns. The stunning display of evidence is the biggest gun seizure in Nebraska history.Agents also seized about $40,000 in cash and small amounts of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and marijuana.
All 36 were arrested in Omaha and Lincoln, Neb., June 2 and have been identified as gang members or gang associates. The seized firearms, which include 14 assault rifles and a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle, were sold to a government informant who told the gang members and associates that he planned to ship the firearms to Mexico’s drug cartels.
“This ICE investigation confirmed that gangs not only spread crime and fear throughout our neighborhoods, they are also eager to turn a profit by arming Mexico’s violent drug cartels,” said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Bloomington, Minn…
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, drug cartels, rival gangs and other criminal enterprises have steadily increased the violence to expand the scope of their operations. In the past few years, the level of violence on both sides of the border has reached a feverish pitch. In response, the governments of the United States and Mexico are engaged in bi-lateral law enforcement and intelligence sharing to identify, disrupt and dismantle transnational weapons-smuggling networks…
The 69 weapons purchased from gang members and associates include: 22 handguns, 14 assault rifles, 16 shotguns, and 17 rifles, including a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. During the operation agents also seized about $40,000 in cash and small amounts of cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and marijuana.
The following 20 individuals arrested Tuesday have been indicted by a federal grand jury or criminally charged by complaint.
Esteban Hernandez, 23, arrested in Omaha, charged with knowingly selling a firearm to a felon and providing false information on a firearms form.
Uriel Alvarez, 18, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Gonzalo Rios, 18, arrested in Omaha, charged with State of Nebraska narcotics violations.
Daniel Tellez-Lazcano, 52, arrested in Omaha, charged with illegally re-entering the United States after deportation.
Carlos Gonzalo-Rios, 32, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Norma Bobadilla-Salazar, 30, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Moises Carrillo, 20, arrested in Omaha, charged with knowingly selling a firearm to a felon.
Fredy Rincon, 23, arrested in Omaha, charged with knowingly selling a firearm to a felon.
Ignacio Lopez-Buenrostro, 26, arrested in Omaha, charged with being an illegal alien possessing a firearm.
Lorenzo Reyes, 33, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Richard Gomez, 24, arrested in Lincoln, charged with knowingly selling a firearm to a felon.
Gerardo Hernandez-Vazquez, arrested in Omaha, charged with State of Nebraska narcotics violations.
Martin Noriega-Navarro, 45, arrested in Omaha, charged with knowingly selling a firearm to a felon and distributing a controlled substance.
Giavana Carrillo, 19, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Antonio Azpeitia-Rodriguez, 31, arrested in Omaha, charged with being an illegal alien possessing a firearm.
Erick Garcia-Bartolo, 37, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Roberto Gutierrez-Cisneros, 33, arrested in Omaha, charged with distributing a controlled substance.
Carlos Guerrero-Hernandez, 22, arrested in Omaha, charged with being an illegal alien possessing a firearm and distributing a controlled substance.
Luis Reyes-Cisnero, 23, arrested in Omaha, charged with being an illegal alien possessing of a firearm and distributing a controlled substance.
In addition to those criminally charged and indicted, ICE agents also arrested 16 gang members and associates on administrative immigration violations.
Many of those arrested have been convicted of past crimes, including: making terroristic threats, domestic violence, burglary, receiving stolen property, assault, carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and cocaine possession…
Between February 2005, when Operation Community Shield was launched, through May 2009, ICE agents arrested 13,228 street gang members and associates, and seized 663 firearms as part of the initiative.
Among those arrested, Jesus Rocha-Cruz, who lived in a mobile home park off 63rd and Grover. Agents say he had been selling methamphetamine and illegal guns…
Informants revealed the guns were headed to Mexican cartels.
But Omaha Police Chief Eric Buske points out, “This group obviously demonstrated they didn’t care where these guns were going. It didn’t matter to them. They were told they were going to Mexico. They very well could have just as easily ended up on the streets of Omaha, so it’s a big deal to get this number of guns out of a specific group’s hands.”
The Surenos are an international threat. Agents say they have been in Omaha since the mid-1990’s.
“They’ve created a lot of violent acts, not only in Omaha alone, but across the country, and in Mexico,” says Special Agent in Charge of Omaha’s ICE division.
“They’re involved in regular acts of violence involving drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, you name the criminal act and they probably have touched it in some way…”
All but five of those taken into custody are illegal immigrants. Twenty of those arrested have been indicted by a federal grand jury or criminally charged by complaint.
This is the latest joint local action of ICE’s ongoing national efforts to target transnational gang members and stop the illicit flow of U.S. weapons to Mexico.
U.S. Attorney Joe W. Stecher, District of Nebraska, says he believes the raids will prove to be a powerful blow to Surenos gang activity in Omaha. He compares it with indictments 18 months ago against MS13 gang members.
When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court — in Barack Obama’s America.
Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.
To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.
Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”
Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.
Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity.
In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.
It looks like the two Jews on the Supreme Court, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both sided with Sotomayor on this one. Luckily levelheadedness prevailed and raced-based political correctness received a much needed blow on Monday. Unfortunately it will probably be short-lived, as our public officials will surely continue to be swayed by our media and other agitators.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/live/s_gold.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/live/s_silv.gif)
