“We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.” - President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996
Before I launch into my tirade, rant, mantra or whatever detractors will call it, let's review some history on the subject. Before I do, let me make this crystal clear: The United States has the largest mixture of immigrants than any other country in the world and was the vehicle that made it into what it is today. Without immigration, this country would never exist.
Illegal immigration started in the late nineteenth century when a federal law was passed in 1875 prohibiting entry of convicts and prostitutes. The distinction of being legal or illegal immigrant began when President Chester A. Arthur virtually denied all Chinese immigration to the United States and later denying paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering the country.
In 1892 Ellis Island opened and became the port of entry for newly arriving immigrants. When they arrived, they were required to prove their identity then answered a series of questions, find a friend or relative who could vouch for them and scanned for physical ailments; any immigrant who was thought to have an ailment was marked with chalk. If it turned out to be correct, they were placed in a cage. Ellis Island ended operations in 1954 and between the time of opening and closing 12 million immigrants were processed.
For a brief time line of US policy on immigration and naturalization, please visit The Flow of History.
Americans already know that it's illegal to enter the country without permission. What many Americans don't know that it's a misdemeanor on the first offense, due to the fact that they can be returned to their country of origin quickly. If it were a felony, then the offender would have to go through a trial. A second offense, however, is a felony.
Typically there are three ways someone becomes an illegal alien: Illegal entry, Visa overstay and Visa fraud. However, there are more statutes that fall under the umbrella of being an illegal alien:
Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323] - Unlawfully bringing aliens to US and unlawful harboring illegal aliens. Fine: $3,000 for each alien.
Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] - Employing, Recruiting, or Referring Illegal Aliens for Jobs.
Sec. 274C. [8 U.S.C. 1324c] - Illegally Forging Documents for Illegal Immigrants or violate Identity Theft Laws.
Sec. 277. [8 U.S.C. 1327] - Aiding or Abetting Illegal Immigrants.
Sec. 312. [8 U.S.C. 1423] - Legal Immigrants Must Know English, US History, US Laws, and Principles.
Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] - Legal Immigrants Must Display Moral Character and No Crime Record.
Sec. 335. [8 U.S.C. 1446] - Legal Immigrants Must Be Investigated and Screened for past crimes and terrorism links.
Sec. 232 [8 U.S.C. 1252] -It is Illegal For Illegal Aliens to Bypass Medical and Physical Exams for illnesses and infectious diseases.
Sec. 250. [8 U.S.C. 1260] -Illegal Aliens Deported are ineligible for readmission to US Under Current Laws.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32] - It is Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to possess a firearm or ammunition.
Unfortunately, the federal government has been negligent enforcing some of the above mentioned statutes causing Phoenix to be the number two kidnap capital of the world. Moreover,with the drug wars going on just over the border, the fear of it spilling into Arizona is a justifiable concern for citizens and government officials.
Really? I suppose that he hasn't heard of the ICE 287(g) MOA.
Here's the problem. Politicians always make hollow promises in regards to immigration issues during their campaigns, yet never follow through when they get elected. With the crime rates spiraling out of control, the governor of Arizona did what she felt she had to do with 63% of her constituents support.
Why did the governor of Arizona pass SB1070? Because the federal government has done a less then dismal job at doing it themselves.
Let's see what Obama had to say about illegal aliens in 2006:
Today a vote on a "non binding" resolution will be taken on HR 2499 (The Puerto Rico Democracy Act). According to http://www.hr2499.org/, Congressman Pierluisi of Puerto Rico has introduced HR 2499, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, to effectively resolve the status uncertainty of Puerto Rico.
After the Spanish-American War of 1898, Puerto Rico became subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty, similar to Guam and the Virgin Islands. The citizens of the island are under our protection, but, do not pay taxes. If admitted to statehood, Puerto Rico will add 6 US congressmen, 2 senators, and 8 presidential electoral votes and, of course a 51st star to the nation's flag.
"The main thing that every political campaign in the United States demonstrates is that the politicians of all parties, despite their superficial enmities, are really members of one great brotherhood. Their principal, and indeed their sole, object is to collar public office, with all the privileges and profits that go therewith. They achieve this collaring by buying votes with other people's money. No professional politician is ever actually in favor of public economy. It is his implacable enemy, and he knows it. All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man."
- H.L. Mencken
If you spend more than five minutes listening to radio shows or watching the news, you will eventually hear about the economic crisis we're facing. Continuing to listen, you will most likely hear one side pointing the finger of blame at the other while ignoring where the other three are pointing at.
So, who is to blame for the current economic crisis we're in now? Is it the democrats? Is it the republicans? Was it Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? Alan Greenspan?
The answer is everyone, including those that took out loans that were well above their means. In other words, YOU, if you were on of those consumers that took out loans that were way out of your means.
Did some politicians raise the alarm about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Most certainly as will be noted in the time line.
I have been working on this off and on for over six months to get the information I needed to piece together this time line and those politicians and financial executives that were chiefly involved in creating this mess. I'm sure that there is more to what I am writing here, but, sufficient enough to give a clear picture of what occurred. I'll do my best to cite references, which I'm sure many will dispute. But, remember this: If you dispute it by name calling, I'll kick your account and possibly ban you.
Away we go.
Before we begin, we must go over some 20th Century history. However, let's take a look at the Constitution first.
Article 1 Section 8 (Article 1 refers to the Legislative Branch and Section 8 refers to the powers of Congress)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it give powers to Congress to delegate the coining of Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Yet, they did it anyway when the Fed was created in 1910 on Jekyll Island and fully implemented in 1913. Whether you like it or not, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.
Done with the brief history and moving on.
1914: Federal Trade Commission Act was signed into law that prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices.
1933: Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law that separates commercial banks focusing on consumer activities from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers.
1968: Truth in Lending Act was signed into law that required banks to disclose loan terms & fees.
1970: Bank Holding Company Act Amendments allowed commercial banks, via holding companies, to both accept deposits and make commercial loans.
1978: SCOTUS's Marquette decision gives banks the right to make loans in states other than where they are headquartered.
1980: Interest rates rise 13 percentage points in two years, President Carter signs law gutting Glass-Steagall. The measure, pushed through by Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah), destroys usury caps for mortgages and raises standards for prosecuting lenders.
January 1981: Sen. Garn becomes chair of Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee with M. Danny Wall as majority staff director.
1982: Sen. Garn coauthors Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulates savings and loan industry.
And here, in my opinion, is where our economy started to take a nose dive.
1984: Savings and Loans start crashing in Texas as oil boom wanes. More than 1,000 thrifts nationwide will fail between 1986 and 1995, that costs $500 billion, to include $124 billion in taxpayer money.
April 2, 1987: Sen. John McCain meets with federal regulators to discuss investigation of Lincoln Savings and Loan. The owner, Charles Keating, was the McCain business partner and campaign contributor.
September 1987: Drexel Burnham Lambert creates "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOS); securities made up of myriad loans and bonds with different risk levels.
December 9, 1988: Silverado S&L collapses, leaving taxpayers a $1.3 billion liability. Board members included Neil Bush, who engineered loans to friends in what federal Office of Thrift Supervision will call "multiple conflicts of interest." Bush later tells Congress a few of his deals may have looked "a little fishy."
February 6, 1989: President George H.W. Bush bails out S&L industry; among those helped is his son, Jeb, as government takes over most of a $5 million second mortgage on his Miami office building.
September 30, 1995: Congress enacts Truth in Lending Act reform, easing regulations on creditors. This bill was pushed through by Rep. Bill McCollum (D-Fla.), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations to the tune of $136,000 between 1993-94.
December 22: As part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, Congress enacts a measure making it more difficult to sue companies for securities fraud.
August 2, 1996: Office of Thrift Supervision issues rule preempting almost all state laws regulating S&L credit activities.
March 4, 1998: First Union acquires The Money Store, nation's 5th-largest subprime lender.
April 1998: Citicorp and Travelers announce biggest ever corporate merger ($70 billion). This transaction would have been illegal under the Glass-Steagall Act. It's noteworthy to mention that CEO Sandy Weill launches $12 million campaign to repeal law.
June 1998: Conseco purchases mobile home lender Green Tree in $6 billion deal.
July 1999: North Carolina General Assembly throws aside the deregulation trend, passing a landmark measure to curb predatory lending.
November 1999: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act dooms Glass-Steagall, setting off a tsunami of mergers among banks and insurance and securities companies. The chief proponent was Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who received $4.6 million from FIRE sector over previous decade.
June 20, 2000: Treasury and HUD urge the Fed to investigate subprime units of major banks. No action by the Fed was taken.
June 26: First Union closes The Money Store, takes $2.8 billion write down.
December 14: Just prior to Congress taking its obligatory Christmas recess, Sen. Gramm attaches a 262-page amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill. Commodity Futures Modernization Act will deregulate derivatives trading, which caused the Enron disaster, which in turn started a tidal wave of new, unregulated securities.
December 27: American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender required insurance. National Association of Realtors lobbied for it, spending $9 million and making $4 million in contributions.
March 6, 2001: The Federal Trade Commission sues Citigroup and its subsidiaries, the nation's second largest subprime lender. They charged that Citigroup used "systematic abusive lending practices" (ie. predatory lending) involving 2 million borrowers. A year and half year later Citigroup settles for $215 million.
April 6: Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan signals concern with "abusive lending practices that target vulnerable segments of the population and can result in unaffordable payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure."
July 27: Ameriquest chairman Stephen W. Prough tells Congress, urging rollback of subprime regulations. Because, "'Predatory' is really a high-profile word with no definition,"
April 22, 2002: Georgia's new anti-predatory law signed; Ameriquest helps lead campaign against it and announces that it won't do business in Georgia until law is changed. Standard & Poor's refuses to rate Georgia mortgage securities, choking credit supply to state's home buyers; law gutted within a year.
October 7: Swiss investment bank UBS announces that Sen. Gramm is joining it to "advise clients on corporate finance issues and strategy"; he will also lobby Congress, Treasury, and Fed on banking and mortgage issues as industry pushes to eliminate predatory-lending rules.
December 18: Conseco files for bankruptcy, primarily due to its purchase of subprime lender Green Tree.
March 2003: HSBC acquires Household Finance, the nation's fourth largest subprime lender.
May 1: New Jersey's anti-predatory lending law signed. Ameriquest and other lenders launch campaign to kill it and Standard & Poor's says it won't rate certain New Jersey securities. The law was gutted within a year.
September 10, 2003: Treasury Secretary, John Snow tells Congress that "We need a strong world class regulatory agency, to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's..." Later in the hearings, Barney Frank responds, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis..."
January 7, 2004: Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issues final rule to preempt states from applying most of their credit laws to national banks and their subsidiaries.
February 17, 2005: During a hearing in Congress, Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan states, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size, and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes, we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
March 2005: Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) introduces Responsible Lending Act. Supporters of the bill included New Century Financial, the nation's second largest subprime lender. Consumer advocates call it "Loan Shark Protection Act."
April 6, 2005: At another hearing, Alan Greenspan states, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."
April 6, 2005 : Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a staunch defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac states, "I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done a incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best housed people in the world. If you look over the last 20 or whatever years they've done a very, very good job."
April 2005: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act makes it far harder for consumers, but not businesses, to discharge debts. Chief sponsor, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
September 1: As housing bubble begins to deflate, administration economist Patrick Lawler announces, "There is no evidence here of prices topping out. On the contrary, house price inflation continues to accelerate."
September 22: Illinois Supreme Court hands mortgage lenders a victory, blowing away a 3% cap on fees for loans with more than 8% interest.
January 23, 2006: Ameriquest settles 49 state investigation into deceptive subprime practices for $325 million.
April 27: Fed chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledges "signs of softening" in housing market, but says a "sharp slowdown" unlikely.
May 25, 2006: John McCain (R-AZ) raises the alarm in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He cosponsors a bill that would further push regulations, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the sheer magnitude of the companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay." It never made it to the floor because all democrats would have voted against it.
July 10: Henry M. Paulson Jr. sworn in as Treasury secretary, leaving job as Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO.
Here's where the economy went into free fall and got us where we are today.
Jan 2, 2007: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) assumes chairmanship of House Financial Services Committee.
January 29: Paulson tells Congress, "One of the pleasant surprises I had coming to government has been the strong economy we have today."
February 22: HSBC's head of mortgage lending business resigns. Its losses reach $10.5 billion.
February 28: Bernanke tells House Budget Committee the housing sector "is a concern, but at this point we don't see it as being a broad financial concern or a major factor in assessing the course of the economy."
February 28: New home sales reported down 20.1% from previous year.
March 12: Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign announces that Sen. Gramm will join it as cochair and economic policy adviser.
April 2: Subprime giant New Century Financial files for Chapter 11 after being forced to repurchase billions of dollars of bad loans.
May 3: UBS shuts down Dillon Read Capital Management, its US subprime arm. GM's finance unit announces deep losses on subprime mortgages. SEC task force begins meeting to examine Wall Street's handling of subprime loans.
June 9: In Wall Street Journal interview, former Fed governor Edward Gramlich accuses Greenspan of blocking a 2000 proposal to increase scrutiny of subprime lenders. Greenspan responds there are "a very large number of small institutions, some on the margin of scrupulousness and very hard to detect when they are doing something wrong."
July 19-20: In congressional testimony, Bernanke cuts growth forecasts for 2007 and 2008, blaming problems in housing market. He then warns that a subprime crisis could cost up to $100 billion.
August 6: American Home Mortgage, one of the largest US independent home-loan providers, files for Chapter 11.
August 16: Countrywide, biggest US mortgage lender, narrowly avoids bankruptcy by taking out emergency $11.5 billion loan.
August 31: Ameriquest goes out of business.
September 14: Sen. Barney Frank in Boston Globe: Mortgage crisis "was in large part a natural experiment on the role of regulation."
September 20: Treasury secretary Paulson tells House Financial Services Committee that "fundamental reappraisals in the pricing and appetite of risk have taken place numerous times...We are in the process of another such reappraisal."
September 30: UBS announces 3rd-quarter losses of $690 million.
January 2008: Number of homes facing foreclosure up 57% compared to same month of previous year. US unemployment rises sharply.
January 10: Cleveland files lawsuit against numerous financial institutions alleging that their activities in connection with securitization of subprime mortgages created a "public nuisance." Currently, litigation still pending.
January 15: Citigroup reports $9.8 billion loss for 4th quarter and writes down $18 billion in subprime losses.
January 22 & 30: Fed makes biggest rate cut in 25 years; 1.25 percentage points, to 3%.
February 6: Longest period of decline in nationwide house prices since 1990.
March 7: Former bosses of Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and Citigroup questioned by a congressional panel about the $460 million in compensation they received between them during 5 years of subprime boom.
March 16: Bear Stearns announces takeover by JPMorgan Chase in Fed-engineered bailout; measure approved by Fed Board of Governors with fewer votes than required by law, under a post-9/11 "national security emergency" exception.
March 25: In speech on housing market, Sen. McCain states, “In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital and financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”
April 18: Jerry Bowyer, chief economist for financial services firm Benchmark, says in New York Sun op-ed that fault for subprime crisis "lies with the small army of hard-left political hustlers who spent the early 1990s pushing risky mortgages on home lenders. And the fault lies especially with the legislators that gave them the power to do it."
April 29: Foreclosure activity reported up 112% from first quarter of 2007.
May 6: Bush announces he will veto legislation directing $15 billion to neighborhoods ransacked by foreclosures. Also threatens to veto legislation to provide $300 billion for struggling homeowners (and force lenders to renegotiate some mortgages) because it would be a "burdensome bailout" that "opens taxpayers to too much risk."
September 15, 2008: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy. Lehman borrowed significant amounts to fund its investing in the years leading to its bankruptcy, a process known as leveraging or gearing.
Despite the fact that MANY of our politicians and lending companies are responsible for our current economic mess, it becomes even more clearer that democrats made every attempt to thwart legislation for more regulation, hide the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were getting out of control, force legislation that allowed consumers to take out loans that lenders knew they couldn't pay back and some outright lying.
On the following page there are several videos that don't lie. What they will show is a clear message that democrats were the chief instigators of this entire mess.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
- Adolf Hitler
Want to get people to believe a lie? It's simple. Make up a story, distort the facts, add a drop of truth and they'll follow you like the mice that followed the Pied Piper of Hamlin.
- Steve LeMaster
If you should find yourself perusing Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", one thing you might notice are the titles she gave some of the chapters in her book, “Rivers of Death,””The Human Price,”“The Rumblings of an Avalanche,” and “Beyond the Dreams of the Borgias.” This is typical of anyone who wants to get a message out of untold horrors, whether it's in a work of fiction or nonfiction. It's designed to prepare the reader for what follows in the pages of that chapter, so what better way than to give them titles that portend death and destruction?
Rachel Louise Carson was born on May 27, 1907 and worked for the US Bureau of Fisheries in the 1950's, she was also a nature writer and an environmentalist. Her 1951 book, "The Sea Around Us" became a best seller and secured her financially. In 1962, she published a book that would cause widespread controversy to this very day titled "Silent Spring". Many claim that it started the environmental movement. Filled with half truths, distortions and outright lies, her book caused a reversal of the use of DDT by the United Nations that caused the deaths of millions of people in Africa. According to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 2.7 million people die annually of malaria.[1]
Carson starts her first lie right away in the dedication to Albert Schweitzer, "To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’” An acquaintance of mine steered me to page 262 of his autobiography. So, I go to the public library find the book and lo and behold, "How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us."
That's interesting. She dedicates her book to Albert Schweitzer, who is more concerned about nuclear warfare than anything else, but, has his hopes set on DDT for those wicked insects? Had she even bothered to check out his autobiography first, she would most likely not have made this error. Sadly, her book is replete with it.
And she wastes little time trying to link insecticides to chemicals used for warfare prior to World War II:
All this has come about because of the sudden rise and the prodigious growth of an industry for the production of man-made or synthetic chemicals with insecticidal properties. This industry is a child of the Second World War. In the course of developing agents of chemical warfare, some of the chemicals created in the laboratory were found to be lethal to insects. The discovery did not come by chance: insects were widely used to test chemicals as agents for death of man.[2]
What she is trying to do is link insecticides to those chemicals used in warfare. By doing so, she is laying a foundation that DDT was tested as an agent "for the death of man" when it was used for nothing of the sort. DDT was first synthesized in 1873, but its insecticidal properties were not discovered until 1939, by the Swiss scientist Paul Hermann Müller, who was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his efforts. It was hailed as a major public health success because DDT kills mosquitoes, lice and fleas, which are carriers for more than 20 serious infectious diseases like the bubonic plague, typhus, yellow fever, encephalitis and malaria.[3] It's also known to be non-hazardous to humans! Considering that volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects.[4]
She goes on by asserting that insecticides that were used before World War II were simple, organic compounds that were naturally occurring and lists a variety. However, two of those in her list are actually complex organic chemicals, pyrethrum and rotenone.[5] She then goes on to state that arsenic is a carcinogen and links it to the deaths of many English citizens due to chimney soot, which is supported by an anonymous English physician two centuries ago. She then paints a horrific scene of sickness and death among humans and animals.[6] What's of interest here is that on the following page, she goes out of her way to make sure the reader knows that DDT is the deadliest.[7]
Modern insecticides are still more deadly. The vast majority fall into one or two large groups of chemicals. One, represented by DDT, is known as the "chlorinated hydrocarbons."
This indictment of DDT is a travesty and a downright misrepresentation of the facts, better known as pseudo or junk science. As noted earlier, volunteers ingested as much as 35 grams of DDT for two years and not one of them suffered any adverse side effects. Not to mention that millions of people lived with the chemical for years during the mosquito spray programs in 1956.[8] Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, "In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable."[9] A leading British scientist stated, "If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust."
And this last statement sums it up eloquently. What Rachel Carson's book did was nothing short of causing hysterics, which resulted in knee jerk reactions by politicians and bureaucrats in the United Nations to cease the use of DDT. As with any politician, all they care about is getting reelected and typically fall into lockstep with the noise created by alarmists with a complete disregard for the consequences. In this case millions of preventable deaths around the world, or what we call today as genocide.
Then there is the myth of the near extinction of the Bald Eagle caused by DDT. This myth claims that DDT killed these magnificent birds and caused the shells of eggs to become thin, yet as early as 1921 the journal called Ecology reported that Bald Eagles were under threat of extinction 22 years before DDT was even invented. According to the National Museum Bulletin, they all but vanished in the New England area by 1937, which was 10 years prior to widespread use of pesticides.
In an article posted by the Associated Press on July 4, 2006, it was reported that Bald Eagle pairs increased from 3 to 100 between 1983 and 2006. They go on to mention that, "DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery."
The problem is that nowhere has it ever been reported that Bald Eagles were considered as a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, fisherman and farmers. This is what nearly caused the Bald Eagle's demise and compelled the government to enact a federal law protecting the bird in 1940. The AP, of course, underplaying these facts. Since that time, the Bald Eagle population has dramatically increased.
What was the actual cause of these egg shells thinning? A variety of reasons. Some of them already in the scientific literature prior to an Environmental Protection Agency administrative judge, William Ruckleshaus who presided over the 1971-1972 hearings about whether DDT should be banned.
Lastly, I would like to mention the real reason why DDT was banned. The reason was nothing more than control. In a Seattle Times newspaper (Oct. 5, 1969 edition), senior scientist for the ultra radical Environmental Defense Fund, Charles Wurster stated, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."
I like to call it genocide via environmental alarmism.
So, it had nothing whatever to do with banning DDT for it's "deadly" properties. It was always about control.
When Roman legions returned to Rome from battle, generals were required by law to disband their armies and disarm before crossing the Rubicon. On January 10, 49 BC, Julius Caesar was having nothing of it and decided to cross over the river starting the invasion of Rome.
When a person or group of people commit themselves and act on a decision we use the euphemism of crossing the river Rubicon, because it is the point of no return.
And the democrat party has done precisely that. From causing the housing melt down, bank bailouts, taking over auto industries to passing Obamacare, the democrats Holy Grail of progressivism, they have crossed the Rubicon and many of them know it and are bailing out like rats on a sinking ship.
Make no mistake. The republican party is just as guilty in much of the economic turmoil we're in, but, democrats have accelerated the problem exponentially. During the Bush years, liberals were yelling of malfeasance, impeach Bush for starting an unjust war, the Patriot Act is being used to arrest Americans, though there hasn't been any evidence of it. The list is endless.
Now that liberals have gotten their wish, though temporarily, critics of the Obama regime have been endlessly berated and called racist and ask, "Where were you when Bush was president?" Well, we were saying something, but nobody was listening. If you were expecting us to launch into venomous and vitriolic tirades, sorry, we conservatives and libertarians don't see the need to act in such ways.
However, since Obama has been in office, he has made the economic situation worse, as well as stepping up combat operations in Afghanistan. You asked us where we were when Bush was causing problems, well, we can ask you the same thing now. Why aren't you yelling from on high about the current situation? Where is the vitriol you showed Bush? Or is that the problem? It's ok because it's a democrat doing it, but not ok if it's a republican.
Oh well, it doesn't matter. Rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Dans le doute, abstiens toi." we're in no doubt now and we are going to do something this November. All we need to do is vote out many of the incumbents and replace them in he House, where the purse strings reside.
Then we can starve these reprehensible bills out of existence.
The typical person makes a decision that costs them tons of money and it fails, he or she usually learns from it. If they don't, we on the outside looking in usually quip, "Stupid is, as stupid does." and our politicians are no different.
Taxpayers currently pay approximately $70 billion for K through 12 education, yet the bulk of those taxes go to salaries and school lunches. Last year, Congress passed a $56 billion bill for school construction and repair via the so-called economic stimulus package.
Now our ever so brilliant politicians are considering yet another taxpayer funded bill sponsored by Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Ky., and 25 other Democrats. Not for more renovations and upgrading, but for "green" schools. You may ask what the problem is with this bill, going green is the new fad.
Consider this:
In 2007, several "green" schools were constructed in Olympia, Spokane and Northshore Washington State for testing if going "green" was, in fact, cost effective. The results? After one year of being open it was determined that there were higher costs, energy savings and projected benefits were negligible or non existent.
Compare these two statements below and ask yourself who made them:
"Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked ... Our objectives are entirely different: We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world."
"the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism."
If you said Joseph Goebbels and Margaret Sanger, you'd be correct.
After the full extent of the macabre horrors that took place in the Nazi death camps were revealed to the world, the American Birth Control League quietly changed its name to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Or what we know today as Planned Parenthood and what was really impressive was how swift and silent this change took place.
Why the change? As with any progressive organization, when the populace catches on to what they're really all about, they change their name the same way a chameleon changes its color to blend in with its surroundings; they may have melded into the background, but, their purpose never changes and they think that nobody will notice. Just look at ACORN. People caught on to what they were doing and they were getting hammered, so what did they do? Changed their name, though their purpose hasn't changed.
In 1914, Sanger released her publication called the Woman Rebel where she advocated "No Gods. No Masters." In it she writes, "I hated the wretchedness and hopelessness of the poor, and never experienced that satisfaction in working among them that so many noble women have found." She also openly supported the infanticide program conducted by the Nazi Party in her "Birth Control Review", as well as openly advocating Hitler's Aryan supremacy.
Her mantra was "The elimination of 'human weeds', for the 'cessation of charity' because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the 'segregation' of the 'morons, misfits, and the 'maladjusted', and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races."
Ernst Rudin, Dr. Paul Popenoe and Mr. E.S. Gosney
A few years before World War II began, Margaret Sanger commissioned the Director of the German Experiment Programs to serve as an adviser by the name of Ernst Rudin. His work, along with other Nazi elitists, allowed for the passage of the "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring" to be enacted on July 14, 1933 and become effective on January 1, 1934. This law forced compulsory sterilization of "undesirables."
The leading people in the German sterilization movement have stated ad nauseum, that this law was predicated on the work of Dr. Paul Popenoe and a Mr. E.S. Gosney. Stating that it would have been impossible to carry out the sterilization of 1 million people without drawing on the experience elsewhere. Popenoe was a leading scientist in the eugenics movement who wrote an article titled, "Eugenic Sterilization", in Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Review.
Dr. Popenoe stated that, "The situation in the U.S.A will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results." How many Americans would be forced to go under this procedure? Between five million and ten million.
In his book, "Killer Angel" George Grant writes that Sanger believed that the unfit should not reproduce and opened a "clinic" in Brownsville, New York. This area was heavily populated with newly arrived immigrants from Slavs, Latins to Jews whom she turned her sights on to save the world from the unfit. In 1939, she organized the "Negro Project" because she was of the belief that they were an inferior race. She justified her crusade against blacks because, "The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."
One of the methods she attempted is typical of any progressive movement and it still holds true today and that's through religion. She tried to recruit black religious ministers to spread her propaganda to churches in the South and later wrote, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
If you think that Margaret Sanger and her organization didn't have any influence consider this: A 1927 case that the Supreme Court upheld was Buck v. Bell. This case shows just how much influence the American Birth Control League had, when the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's ruling that Carrie Buck and her daughter were "mentally defective" and was in need of forced sterilization.
At any rate, Sanger became increasingly hostile to Christianity and individual liberty, as well as anything to do with freedoms under the banner of God. It becomes evident when she wrote, "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism."
If none of this is sounding familiar, all you have to do is look to President Barack Obama's new spiritual "adviser", Jim Wallis. His message of "social justice" smacks of the typical progressive movement. What better way to spread that propaganda, than through religion?
Lothrop Stoddard
Theodore Lothrop Stoddard was born in Brookline, Massachusetts on June 29, 1883. He was a political scientist, eugenicist, anti-immigration advocate and a self appointed "pacifist. How anyone can be all of these things and claim to be a pacifist is beyond me, but that's progressives for you. He was recruited by Sanger as a board member of the American Birth Control League, the predecessor of today's Planned Parenthood.
In his book, "Into The Darkness" (1940) Stoddard states that the Nazi's had a two fold task:
to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law.
According to Stefan Kuhl, author of The Nazi Connection (Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism), Stoddard personally witnessed how the Nazis were "weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way." Moreover, Stoddard states that the Jewish "problem" was "already settled in principle and soon to be settled in fact by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich."
Now you can see why Planned Parenthood is desperate in trying to erase their past. Margaret Sanger was as evil as they come and people, such as Woodrow Wilson held the same beliefs.
As I stated earlier, progressives change their name when people catch on to what they are up to or when they are trying to hide something. They think that people are ignorant enough that they'll just slip right past them and continue doing what they've always done. So, is there a difference between pro abortion and pro choice?
I have seen no evidence of it; if anything, it only seems pro choice when a woman chooses to abort her fetus. Consider a house bill (HB 1453) that failed to make it through committee in the Illinois State legislature (aka. A Woman's Right To Know). This bill would have required "doctors" (I use this term loosely) to give complete information with regard to the full nature of the procedure, facts about the unborn baby inside them, a list of possible physical and emotional side effects and the consequences of having it done. It would also have required a waiting period of 24 hours.
Another situation cropped up before the Super Bowl. Before a commercial about Tim Tebow even aired, "pro choice" advocates cried fowl because it supposedly "advocated pro life". Well, if they are "pro choice" you would think that they wouldn't have had an issue with Tim Tebow's mother choosing life. Not quite. Even though their attempts failed to have the ad pulled, it most certainly showed their true colors of not being "pro choice" at all.
Another sticky issue that "pro choice" advocates try their best to hide or not mention is, or was their patron saint Norma McCorvey. Who is she? Norma was Roe in Roe v. Wade and she recently changed her point of view and is now a pro life advocate. Why the volte face? In her book, "Won by Love" she writes:
I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby! I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.
She disavowed lesbianism and in 1998 affirmed her entrance in the Roman Catholic Church. Could this be why "pro choice" advocates no longer hold her in high regards? Possibly.
You can't make something from nothing
Ask any "pro choice" advocate when life begins and your likely to get various answers, yet none of them will have the word conception in it. Merriam Webster defines conception as the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both. If life begins when the heart beats, as "pro choice" people believe, then that begs the question as to how the fetus got to that stage in the first place.
Of course, nobody has ever accused progressives of using rational logic. When this question is posed to them, they typically drool on themselves and launch into a vitriolic tirade. So, we take the issue a step further and really send them into a hissy fit.
Ask a "pro choice" advocate if nature or humans can make something from nothing. If you get a response of "No", then proceed to the next stage that will surely send them into a hissy fit because there's no way around it.
Ask your "pro choice" friend if they know what Creatio Ex Nihilo means (no, I didn't misspell creation). Chances are in your favor that they won't know and this is where you win hands down.
Creatio Ex Nihilo is Latin for creation from nothing. If your "pro choice" pal told you that humans and nature can't create something from nothing, and the dictionary defines conception as the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both, then wouldn't it be logical that life begins at conception?
In order for anything, including a human baby, to be created it must be conceived of first. It is a biological absolute and there is no way around it.
Before an artists puts brush to canvas, the artist must first conceive what he or she is going to paint.
Before a sculptor puts hammer to chisel, the sculptor must first conceive what he or she is going to sculpt.
Before a baby is born, the mother and father must...well, you know the rest.
NOLA.com is reporting that Governor Bobby Jindal's campaign finance director and her boyfriend were beaten after a fund raising event at Brennan's Restaurant. Allee Bautsch suffered a broken leg and her boyfriend suffered a concussion and a fractured nose and jaw in the incident. Yet, nowhere is the media reporting anything about the incident.
Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.
At this point, I suggest we wait until everything comes out in the wash. Too often, we hear and read stories like this that pan out to be nothing more than exaggerated.
Hayride reports that Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin tells us that Alle Bautsch was not wearing a Palin pin. And neither was Joe Brown. So that’s an allegation which has been disputed. It does appear that the attack was, indeed, politically motivated.
The website, Gawker.com has broken a story in regards to an Apache gun camera video that proves it was purposely edited to skew their story that US Army personnel deliberately fired on innocent Iraqi civilians.
When wikileaks posted the video earlier this week, I knew the moment I watched it that something wasn't right. Upon receiving the article posted at Gawker in my email, it merely confirms what I always suspected: The deliberate editing of the video that gives the viewer a skewed perspective of events.
The question remains as to why the editors at the whistle blowing site would do such a thing.
Excerpt from Gawker's website:
You've all seen the edited, 17 minute video of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle. At 31:08, the video fades to black and—according to the time-stamp on the footage—resumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile attack.
The famous whistle blowing site, Wikileaks, posted a video Monday showing an Apache crew engaging and killing eight Iraqis, two of whom were Reuters cameramen. After it was released, questions are being raised as to how much of the story is actually being told and shown.
Watch the video below. Please be aware that it contains graphic images.
The video shows two men carrying what appears to be cameras. However, later in the video you see two men walking behind the group, one is clearly carrying an AK-47 and the other is carrying a rocket propelled grenade (RPG).
Called "Collateral Murder" by Wikileaks, they accuse the Army of killing innocent Iraqi civilians during a July 27, 2007 attack on New Baghdad and claiming that "It's another day at the office." for the U.S. Army. According to Wikileaks, the civilians shown in the video did nothing to provoke the attack and mistook their cameras for weapons, killed everyone in sight and then tried to cover it up.
The problem comes when you notice that the video contains selective editing. Notice that the video slows down when the two Reuters cameramen appear in the video. Yet, does not slow down when it clearly shows the two men carrying an AK-47 and an RPG and Wikileaks fails to mention these two men carrying the weapons.
What this video does is give the viewer a narrow and deliberately skewed perspective of events. What they also fail to mention is that fighting was heavy in the area all day, considering this, these men were walking freely in the streets raising the flag of suspicion. In other words, why would anyone in their right mind wander the streets when heavy fighting was going on in the area.
According to FoxNews, Wikileaks editor, Julian Assange admitted that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons." But, ultimately felt "unsure" after producing a draft copy of the video and ultimately omitted the reference to the two men carrying the weapons.
Although it is widely known that many Iraqi households have at least one AK-47, they do not have an RPG.
Another issue raised in the video later shows a van with two men inside being fired upon by the Apache, which arrived to carry one of the wounded men away from the scene; which turned out to be one of the cameramen. Wikileaks tries to make the weak argument that the Apache crew failed to follow the ROE (Rules of Engagement). This argument is quickly defeated when it's considered that they were not wearing any clearly defined markings and the heavy combat that had ensued earlier that day.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that Wikileaks deliberately altered the video to skew the story. Considering the title that Wikileaks editors have given to the video tells me the whole story.
They are the digital-age equivalent of crop circles -- mysterious patterns appearing on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's national radar system without any explanation. UFOs, perhaps?
And the random images, described as red stars, rings of fire and white doughnuts, are sending online conspiracy Web sites into meltdown. The anomalies first began on January 15 when an "iced doughnut" appeared over Kalgoorlie in Western Australia.
Satellite imagery showed there was no cloud over the area at the time to explain the unusual phenomenon, but farmers' online comments claimed it was "unusually hot" all day. It was followed by a bizarre red star over Broome on January 22 and a sinister spiral burst over Melbourne described by amateur radar buffs as the Ring Of Fire Fault.
“We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.”
- Stefan Kuhl
- Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe V. Wade
