Archive for October 2009
Gates Foundation Grants Ensure More Population Growth—And Immigration By Donald A. Collins
There’s an old joke about a delusionary business plan: “Lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume.”
I was reminded of this by an October 28, 2009 statement posted on Bill and Melinda Gates’ Foundation Center web site about their vast plans to cut disease, particularly among children, with lavish spending,:
“In a joint speech to lawmakers, administration officials, and foreign policy experts as part of the foundation’s new Living Proof Project, the Gateses noted that U.S. spending on global health has increased significantly in recent years, from $1.5 billion in 2001 to $7.7 billion in 2009. Although that figure represents less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the federal budget, the nation’s investments in global health have achieved impressive results. For instance, since 2003 the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has helped save an estimated 1.2 million lives. ‘U.S.-supported global health programs are saving and improving the lives of millions of people, at a remarkably low cost,’ said Bill Gates. ‘All Americans should be proud of this success.’ [Bill and Melinda Gates Call on U.S. Policy Makers to Continue Support of Global Health Initiatives]
Doubtless many lives are saved by these efforts—at least temporarily. The Gates’ business, Microsoft, certainly knows how to reach millions and its volume has grown to be huge.
But is this program ignoring the facts on the ground in too many countries?
Since 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Gates, 1.2 million lives may have been saved—but the net number of humans added to the planet since then is about 400 million, many of them in countries which have serious health, resource, and stability problems.
Every child born potentially adds to the cumulative ills facing these poor countries. And these translate into conditions where immigration to other places often becomes imperative for many—that, or joining an indigenous militant group.
[Read more]
This Isn’t Change, It’s Treason
There used to be a time in this country, not that long ago, when, despite our religious, cultural and societal differences, there were at least a few basic tenets upon which we, as Americans, could all agree. We could locate our borders, we spoke a common language and shared a common understanding of our Founders and constitutionalism.
There was no confusion over what constituted acts of heroism and patriotism. Conversely, we also understood and clearly recognized, evil, greed, treason and hypocrisy.
But, alas, the beloved country that was so united in my youth has become a cesspool of unabated and accelerating filth, selfishness, decadence and immorality. The scoundrels that supposedly represent us don’t even have the decency to tell us the truth, read the laws they use to enslave us or listen to our objections.
Some, including myself, have described what Obama and his Socialists are up to as a bloodless coup. But, after further evaluation of what’s really going on behind the scenes in Washington, I have come to an even more alarming conclusion: What they are doing is committing legislative jihad.
Socialists have declared jihad on our economic prosperity
The stinkulus was a failure: The jobs it did create came at astronomical cost or simply grew the bureaucracy. Government now controls major players in several sectors of the economy with no signs of easing that control. Government spending now comprises alarming percentages of our Gross Domestic Product. We’ve ran out of money, we’ve essentially accumulated over 100 trillion dollars in unfunded future entitlements, foreclosures have accelerated and we continue to bleed jobs. Add to the mix, health care, one sixth of the entire US economy, and it doesn’t take an economist to see where Democrats are taking us.
Shots Fired at NJ Home of Lou Dobbs
Journalist Lou Dobbs says gunshots were fired at his New Jersey home this month after a series of threatening phone calls to his residence.
The CNN Host of “the Lou Dobbs Show” told listeners on his nationally syndicated radio show that he believes the incident is related to his outspoken views on immigration. Dobbs is a fervent proponent of U.S. border enforcement.
“They’ve created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda,” Dobbs said in reference to pro-immigration groups.
“Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing outside and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”
New Jersey State Police told media outlets that troopers were called to the Dobbs’ estate in Wantage, N.J., at about 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 5.
Investigators at the scene were told that Dobbs and his wife were outside their home when they heard a gunshot, and a bullet struck their attic. The bullet was located and is being analyzed, law enforcement officials said.
The Visigoth Immigrants and the Fall of Rome
Visigoths crossing the Danube
Ammianus Marcellinus wrote the account of the Visigothic Occupation of Roman Territory which ultimately led to the sack of the empire. He was a native of Antioch, (now a city in southern Turkey) a Roman soldier of Greek ancestry and apparently of noble birth.
The narrative constitutes an invaluable source of information on the men and events of the era. Its greatest value is on the period of the Germanic invasion, for in dealing with these years the author described events about which he had direct and personal knowledge.
This accounted was Translated by Charles D. Yonge under the title of Roman History during the Reigns of the Emperors Constantius, Julian, Jovianus, Valentinian, and Valens. (London, 1862)
The Gothic Invasion
Ammianus Marcellinus
In the meantime a report spread extensively through the other nations of the Goths [ a Gemanic tribe], that a race of men, the Huns, hitherto unknown, had suddenly descended like a whirlwind from the lofty mountains…and were ravaging and destroying everything that came in their way. Then the greater part of the (Goth) population…resolved to flee and to seek a home remote from all knowledge of the barbarians; and after a long deliberation …they resolved that a retreat into Thrace and ask permission to settle within the (Roman) Emprie…two reasons: first of all, because it is a district most abundant in grass; and in the second place, because, by the great breadth of the Danube…And the whole population of the tribe adopted this resolution unanimously.
Accordingly…they occupied the banks of the Danube; and having sent ambassadors to (Roan Emperor)Valens they humbly entreated that they might be received by him as his subjects, promising to live peaceably and to furnish a body of auxiliary troops, if any necessity for such a force should arise.
While these events were passing…a terrible rumor arose (among the Roman population) that the tribes of the north were planning new and unprecedented attacks upon (Rome) and that over the whole region a (Germanic) host composed of various distant nations which had suddenly been driven by force from their own country ( by the Huns), was now, with all their families, wandering about in different directions on the banks of the river Danube.
At first this intelligence was treated lightly by our people, because they were not in the habit of hearing of any wars in those remote regions until after they had been terminated either by victory or by treaty. But presently the belief in these occurrences grew stronger, being confirmed, moreover, by the arrival of the foreign ambassadors who, with prayers and earnest entreaties, begged that the Germans thus driven from their homes and now encamped on the other side of the river might be kindly received by( Rome). The affair seemed a cause of joy rather than of fear, according to the skilful flatterers who were always extolling and exaggerating the good fortune of Emperor (Valens); congratulating him that (representatives) had come from the farthest corners of the earth unexpectedly, offering him a large body of recruits, and that, by combining the strength of his own nation with these foreign forces, he would have an army absolutely invincible; observing farther that, by the payment for military reinforcements which came in every year from the provinces, a vast treasure of gold might be accumulated in his coffers.
Full of this hope, he sent several officers to bring this ferocious people and their wagons into our territory. And such great pains were taken to gratify this nation, which was destined to overthrow the empire of Rome, that not one was left behind, not even of those who were stricken with mortal disease. Moreover, having obtained permission of the Emperor to cross the Danube and to cultivate some districts in Thrace, they crossed the stream day and night, without ceasing, embarking in troops on board ships and rafts, and canoes made of the hollow trunks of trees. In this enterprise, since the Danube is the most difficult of all rivers to navigate, and was at that time swollen with continual rains, a great many were drowned, who, because they were too numerous for the vessels, tried to swim across, and in spite of all their exertions were swept away by the stream.
In this way, through the turbulent zeal of violent people, the ruin of the Roman Empire was brought on. This, at all events, is neither obscure nor uncertain, that the unhappy officers who were entrusted with the charge of conducting the multitude of the barbarians across the river, though they repeatedly endeavored to calculate their numbers, at last abandoned the attempt as useless; and the man who would wish to ascertain the number might as well attempt to count the waves in the African sea, or the grains of sand tossed about by the zephyr.
SWPL: Multiculturalism & selling out their countrymen
White English People, anyway. White English Labourites, that is. Mind you, the “Stuff White People Like” concept isn’t meant to describe the tastes, prejudices and beliefs of all white people, which obviously isn’t possible, but of a certain sort of white person — a bourgeois bohemian, more or less, though it’s pretty clear that SWPLs are liberal bien-pensants (though I would be less than honest if I didn’t admit that there are a few SWPL categories that apply to me).
I give you this background information for context to understand that Andrew Neather piece I referred to in the update to the British National Party post earlier. Having read only the Telegraph report on the essay, I was under the impression a guilt-stricken Neather was confessing that he felt rotten for having participated in a cynical political move to undercut the working classes of his own country, and to change the character of Britain. Wrong! Neather brags about it. Excerpt:
What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.
Even now, most graduates with good English and a salary of £40,000 or the local equivalent abroad are more or less guaranteed enough points to settle here.
The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.
Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.
My family’s east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.
But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.
It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.
Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.
But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.
My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.
London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.
This entire column ought to be preserved in Lucite so historians 500 years from now will have a perfect record of the British Establishment’s mindset at this point in the nation’s history. “Fascist au pair, anyone?” Well, dear, if we have to open the floodgates of our country to immigrants who share nothing of British history or culture so we can have suitable au pairs and good ethnic restaurants, why not? Because the point of life is consumption, right? If open immigration hurts the working-class white British people in the “sticks,” who gives a toss, they’re just a bunch of fascists anyway.
Newt, Sarah and a New GOP: “Are Republicans Willing To Call For A Moratorium On Immigration?”
“Sometimes party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.
For Sarah Palin, party loyalty in New York’s 23rd congressional district asks too much. Going rogue, Palin endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava.
On Oct. 1, Scozzafava was leading. Today, she trails Democrat Bill Owens and is only a few points ahead of Hoffman, as Empire State conservatives defect to vote their principles, not their party.
Newt Gingrich stayed on the reservation, endorsing Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and hauls water for the unions.
Scourged by the right, Newt accused conservatives of going over the hill in the battle to save the republic, just to get a buzz on. “If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision.” How Scozzafava would prevent America’s being “crushed” was unexplained.
The 23rd recalls a famous Senate race 40 years ago. Rep. Charles Goodell was picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the seat of Robert Kennedy in 1968. To hold onto it, Goodell swerved sharp left, emerging as an upstate Xerox copy of Jacob Javits, the most liberal Republican in the Senate.
In 1970, Goodell got both the GOP and Liberal Party nominations, and faced liberal Democrat Richard Ottinger. This left a huge vacuum into which Conservative Party candidate James Buckley, brother of William F., smartly moved.
Assessing the field, the Nixon White House concluded that, with liberals split, Goodell could not win. But Buckley might. Signals were flashed north that loyalty to the president was not inconsistent with voting for Buckley. To send the signal in the clear, Vice President Agnew described Charlie Goodell to a New Orleans newspaper as “the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party.”
The former George Jorgensen, Christine had undergone the most radical sex-change operation in recorded history.
Liberals went berserk, calling on New Yorkers to rally to Goodell, who began surging, at Ottinger’s expense. Buckley scooted between them both to win. Hoffman may also. But even if he does not, Palin, a conservative of the heart, did the right thing.
And the GOP has been sent a necessary message.
For, according to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans now identify as conservatives—only 20 percent as Republicans. If the GOP is not the conservative party, it will never be America’s Party.
Revelations from a bear pit - Part three
The fact that the liberal elite have completely lost touch with the heart of this country and its people could hardly have been exposed more clearly than on Thursday night by the jeers of derision which greeted any reference to a native race of Britons, and the cheers of delight awarded to anyone who claimed that no such thing as an indigenous Briton existed. I am sure that such new world orthodoxy was welcomed with with Champers cork popping glee, in the wine bars of Hoxton, and the aromatherapy scented drawing rooms of Hampstead, however, I doubt it played so well in Preston, Burnley or Porthcawl.
The official line of the red clawed multiculturalists, currently holding prominent positions in our country is that the British Islands have no indigenous people and that we are a shifting race of intermingling immigrants with no ancestral roots into into the soil of our homeland. Similar arguments are made against the claims of many native people’s across Europe, for instance , as Dr. D a regular commentator at Sarah Maid of Albion recently put it, it is now all but official policy in Sweden that “there is no Swedish identity, no Swedish history, no Swedish way of life. Everything is given over to the Other, the Other that is superior to all things native.” Sweden is an extreme case but the same is happening in country after country across the continent.
In the main, what is said about Britain is that as we have in the past taken in groups of foreign refugees from violence and oppression, we have somehow surrendered our right to sovereignty, rather in the same way that if you invite a vampire across your threshold, he has then the right to take your soul.
Furthermore, the impression given is that, just like the present, wave upon wave of immigrants have arrived on our shores, continually mixing their blood with the local population until there is no defined ethnicity or heritage. This is the official story, but, of course, being such it is not the truth.
Yes, we have taken in refugees, we are good, charitable. people, and now we are paying the price for that charity. However, contrary to the impression which is given, until the human tsunami of the last forty years, the numbers involved were relatively small, certainly not enough to change the bloodline of a nation.
The largest single group of refugees and the closest to compare with the current situation, were the French Huguenots, who arrived here in the 16th Century following persecution by the Catholics and incidents such as the Massacre of St Bartholomew. The Huguenot refugees dispersed across Europe, with some 50 thousand coming to Britain and 10 thousand going to Ireland.
[Read more]
Video: BNP Chairman’s Address: 25,000 new people!
Immigrant crime fear airbrushed from Government report
The report, published in 2001, had originally pointed to a risk that organised criminals would exploit increases numbers of migrants.
But the passages were removed from the final document because Downing Street was “nervous” that such comments would be seized on by extremists.
It is the latest controversy to surround the study, Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis, which was at the centre of a row this week amid claims Labour had a “secret plot” to use mass immigration to boost multiculturalism and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.
Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, claims earlier drafts of the report had suggested the huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country.
He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.
In the latest revelation, it has emerged a section headed “Criminal behaviour”, written as part of a chapter on the impact of migration, was removed.
The missing section warned: “Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.”
It reported: “There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.”
[Read more]
Exploring genetic differences in the new DNA age
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is increasingly exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified the small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percent of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin-deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all created equal.
[Read more]
