Monthly Archives: June 2008

Saudi Marriage Official Says 1-Year-Old Brides OK

Call it marriage, Islamic style.

Saudi marriage officiant Dr. Ahmad al-Mu’bi told Lebanese television viewers last week that it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed.

Al-Mu’bi’s remarkable comments also included an explanation that “there is no minimal age for entering marriage.”

“You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8,” he said. “But is the girl ready for sex or not?” What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition,” al-Mu’bi said.

Click here to view al-Mu’bi’s interview with LBC-TV.


Eugene Armstrong Beheading and Islamofascists in NYC

Eugene Armstrong Gruesome beheading:

Bay Ridge, NYC Towelheads stomping on flag talking s**t about the USA and how they’re exploiting loopholes in the 1st Amendment to march on the United States and take over for the Islamic Caliphate:

Arab-Muslim Fascists plotting in the open a mushroom cloud on Israel and to take over the United States while chanting ‘jihad vis-a-vis Hitler!’ and ‘Allahu Akbar!’:

Big Promises Bump Into Budget Realities (WashPost)

New President Won’t Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2008; A01


On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat Barack Obama promises to “completely eliminate” income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year.

Republican John McCain vows to double the exemption for dependents and slash the corporate income tax.

To which the folks who monitor the nation’s financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform.

Economists expect the deficit to top $400 billion when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, rivaling the all-time high of $413 billion set in 2004. Meanwhile, Congress recently adopted a spending plan that projects a $340 billion deficit in 2009 — a number likely to grow, lawmakers say, as the cost of the Iraq war rises, the economy weakens and the flow of revenue slows.

Against that dour financial backdrop, the next president will have to decide what to do with President Bush‘s signature tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010. Obama and McCain have both promised to keep at least some of them, but that would increase the deficit by $150 billion a year or more. Preventing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, from expanding to the middle class would add billions more.

Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush’s first term.

In a new paper titled “Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration,” University of California at Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and two co-authors from the Brookings Institution conclude that, if spending grows at historic rates, simply keeping the Bush tax cuts and halting the spread of the AMT would drive the budget deficit to $481 billion by the end of the next president’s first term, or 2.7 percent of the economy. Subtract the cash borrowed from Social Security and other retirement funds, and it would be $796 billion, or 4.4 percent of GDP.

“It’s a train wreck,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Budget Committee. “The government is making promises to people right now it knows it can’t keep. And you have some candidates piling more promises on top, which are clearly unfulfillable.”

Former House Budget Committee chairman Leon Panetta, who served as President Bill Clinton‘s first budget director, said the financial situation is “much worse” than it was in 1993, when Clinton was forced to abandon promises of a middle-class tax cut before he took office. Instead, Clinton wound up devoting his first State of the Union address to a plan that aimed to tame rising deficits with one of the largest tax hikes in history.

“It’s worse because there are a huge number of crises out there that are going to confront the new president,” Panetta said, citing costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare. “We’re looking at a $400 billion deficit this year with the economy in recession or near recession. The likelihood is that it’s going to get worse. And the fundamental problem has been that there’s very little willpower by Republicans or Democrats to confront the issue.”

A commitment by congressional Democrats to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules could further complicate the next president’s ability to pursue expensive initiatives.

Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, “savers” and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018.

That analysis excludes some expensive proposals, including promises to close the gap in prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients (estimated to cost about $400 billion over 10 years); to introduce government-funded health insurance for the uninsured (which the campaign estimates would cost as much as $65 billion a year); and to make large-scale investments in energy, education and infrastructure, which Obama dubbed his “competitiveness agenda” during a speech this week in Flint, Mich.

The analysis also excludes a possible reduction in corporate tax rates, which Obama first mentioned in an interview this week with the Wall Street Journal. Campaign officials said Obama would pay for the rate reduction by closing corporate tax loopholes.

Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said the senator has identified ways to cover the costs of his proposals, starting with savings of $90 billion a year from ending the Iraq war. “All of his programs are paid for and the deficit would come down” from where it is today, Goolsbee said.

McCain has proposed even bigger tax reductions, including an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, permanent limits on the AMT and a 10 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate. All told, McCain’s tax plans would cost the Treasury more than $1.1 trillion during his first term, and would increase the national debt by $4.3 trillion by 2018, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis.

McCain does vow to balance the budget, but he proposes to do it by slashing spending projections for troops abroad, domestic programs and health care — reductions unlikely to pass muster with a Democratic Congress.

“They’re promising the world with ways to pay for it that are really suspect,” Bob Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, said of both candidates.

Despite his promises of tax cuts, fiscal analysts note that McCain has a reputation as a budget-cutter. He voted against the Bush tax cuts he now proposes to extend and refuses to request funding for local programs known as earmarks. He has been talking about the need to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid since the race began more than a year ago.

“I suspect that McCain will be more constrained and will have a veto power over the Democratic Congress,” said Alice M. Rivlin, who served as the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, as well as one of Clinton’s budget directors. “If it’s Obama, the Democratic Congress is going to be pushing for spending and it’s awfully hard to rein in your own folks. No Democrat is going to want to go to war with Congress.”

Budget experts also note that progress on the deficit has often come with divided government because both parties can shoulder blame equally. And there is likely to be plenty of blame to go around if the candidates make good on their promise to tackle long-term deficits in the retirement programs. Few options are likely to be popular with voters: Obama has discussed raising the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, hitting higher-income families with another tax hike. McCain has proposed charging wealthy seniors higher premiums for Medicare prescription-drug benefits.

G. William Hoagland, who worked for years as a budget adviser to top Senate Republicans, predicted that the nation’s money troubles will be a painful and persistent headache for whoever next occupies the White House. “The platter is so full for the next president,” Hoagland said, “I think at some point the reality will start to set in that there have been a lot of promises made that aren’t going to be addressed very quickly.”

The Early Word: $21 Million May (NYT)

When Senator Barack Obama declined public financing for the general election, he committed himself to a lot of extra fund-raising. And he’ll have to do even more of it if he wants to do better than he did in the month of May, when he brought in about $22 million, as his campaign reported last night – a somewhat unimpressive figure relative to what he has achieved in previous months, and only slightly more than Senator John McCain’s haul. Experts say Mr. Obama likely experienced a surge in donations after he took the nomination earlier this month.

Filings to the Federal Elections Commission showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign even deeper in debt — $22.52 million in debt to be exact. Griff Palmer, one of our campaign finance gurus, wrote us a note when her filing came in late Friday night:

The figure for May is $22.52 million, is up 15 percent from April’s total of $19.48 million.

In May, Clinton had $10.35 million in unpaid bills. She had $12.18 million in outstanding loans. (That’s all money she loaned to her campaign.)

In April, she had $9.48 million in unpaid bills and $10 million in loans.

Since last month she’s loaned her campaign another $2.2 million, a 22 percent increase. Her unpaid bills balance has gone up 9.2 percent.

Senator John McCain also took in more than $21 million in May, and when you compare combined cash on hand of the candidates and political parties, Mr. McCain and the Republicans are doing better than Mr. Obama and the Democrats, reports Dan Morain of The Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Obama is using the specter of Republican 527 groups to motivate donors, reports The Times’s John M. Broder. But the people behind some of those 527s are worried that there won’t be enough cash available to make an impact. Michael Luo of The Times profiles Floyd Brown, “who says it is his calling to tread where the campaign is unwilling to tread in finding malicious gossip on a Democratic nominee.” Think Willie Horton in 1988 – that was Mr. Brown, whose ads questioning Mr. Obama’s religion (he is a committed Christian) you might have seen, if only his operation had more money.

“It’s all about reaching a tipping point,” Mr. Brown said. “Swift Boats achieved the tipping point. I was part of a team that reached the tipping point in 1988. In 1992, we didn’t reach it. We might not this time. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to try.”

Right now, the candidates are largely focused on how to pay for their campaigns, but Lori Montgomery of The Washington Post looks at how they’re going to pay (or not) for their policy proposals.

With Senator John McCain speaking in Canada on Friday, the topic of trade dominated the dialogue. Mr. Obama met with Democratic governors in Chicago to demonstrate unity.

Daniel Burke of the Religion News Service reports on Mr. Obama’s efforts to court the faithful, including a grassroots operation with the working title Joshua Generation, which will hold concerts and house meetings to target young Christians.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Obama, Senator Chuck Hagel, the Republican, is open to the idea of being your vice president. Senator Jim Webb was evasive on the matter.

McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling

  • Story Highlights
  • President Bush plans to ask Congress to lift offshore drilling ban Wednesday
  • McCain says he opposes ban; states should decide
  • Current law bans drilling in most of the United States’ coastal waters
  • McCain would consider incentives for states that allow coastal exploration

(CNN) — Sen. John McCain on Tuesday proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.

“The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy,” McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, said at a press conference Tuesday in Houston, Texas.

Hours later, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said President Bush on Wednesday will ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, but Perino said he now wants to go further.

“For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action,” she said.

Earlier in the day, McCain, describing the high price of fuel, confused the cost of gallons versus barrels, which drew laughs from the crowd and the candidate himself. He quickly corrected himself.

“And with gasoline running at more than $4 a barrel … a gallon … I wish … $4 a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,” he said.

“We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.”

McCain’s plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities. Video Watch a McCain adviser describe the proposal »

The proposal could put McCain at odds with environmentalists who say it is incongruous with his plans to combat global warning. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, opposes offshore drilling.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist had expressed opposition to exploring coastal waters, but he said this week he supports McCain’s plan to lift the moratorium and would not rule out letting his state choose to drill offshore.

“It’s the last thing in the world I’d like to do, but I also understand what people are paying at the pump, and I understand the drag it is on our economy,” Crist told the St. Petersburg Times. “Something has to be done in a responsible, pragmatic way.”

The current law, which has been in effect since 1981, covers most of the country’s coastal waters.

Many officials from coastal states oppose offshore drilling because of the risk of oil spills. Environmentalists want offshore drilling to stop to protect oceans and beaches from further pollution.

“The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies, not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America,” McCain said Tuesday.

McCain on Monday said incentives could possibly be provided for states that choose to permit exploration off their coasts, adding that “exploration is a step toward the longer-term goal.”

Tuesday’s discussion marks the first in a series of talks about America’s energy security that McCain will hold during the next two weeks as he lays out his plan to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

McCain opposes drilling in some parts of the wilderness and says those areas must be left undisturbed.

“When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a ‘refuge’ for a reason,” he said.

McCain also criticized the energy policy of Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama.

“He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He doesn’t support new domestic production. He doesn’t support new nuclear plants. He doesn’t support more traditional use of coal, either,” McCain said.

“So what does Sen. Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters, he supported the energy bill of 2005 — a grab bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big idea too — and a lot of good it did us.”

McCain argues that a windfall profits tax will only increase the country’s dependence on foreign oil and be an obstacle to domestic exploration.

“I’m all for recycling — but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s,” he said.

Obama on Tuesday blasted McCain for changing his stance on offshore drilling.

“John McCain’s support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades,” he said.

“It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil,” he said.

Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson also criticized McCain’s plan, saying it would ruin his state’s tourism industry and would not solve the problem.

“I thought John McCain was serious when he said he wanted to make America less dependent on oil. I didn’t think he was a flip-flopper. He knows that more drilling isn’t the solution to high gas prices,” Nelson said Tuesday.

Obama said a windfall profits tax would ease the burden of energy costs on working families. He also wants to invest in affordable, renewable energy sources.


Controversy over offshore drilling surfaced in the United States in 1969, after a crack in the seafloor led to a huge oil spill off Santa Barbara, California.

During the 1970s, when many Arab nations launched an oil embargo, many U.S. officials pushed for the exploration of offshore drilling of the coastal United States. Environmentalists responded with loud protests.

CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry contributed to this report

All About Oil Production and RefiningJohn McCainBarack Obama

A U.N. Khan Job

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT

WMDs: Blueprints for a nuclear weapon compatible with the ballistic missiles of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states were found on computers of the notorious Khan smuggling ring. Will a complacent world wake up?

Read More: Iran | Global War On Terror


It’s clear that it’s getting easier to build and use a nuclear bomb. If civilized countries want to stop their biggest cities from becoming radioactive craters, they’d better implement a no-tolerance policy against nuclear proliferation.

It’s unacceptable to find — four years after their seizure — that computers in Switzerland, Bangkok and several other cities housed sophisticated electronic designs for a Pakistani atomic bomb, in a form easy to reproduce.

David Albright, former chief arms inspector for the United Nations who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security, will issue a report this week revealing that the designs were found on computers in the possession of Swiss smugglers linked to nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is considered the father of Pakistan’s bomb.

The computers were seized in 2006. Yet the geniuses at the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reportedly had more trouble deciphering the more than 1,000 megabytes of information on the computers and finding the bomb plans than the Manhattan Project had building the first atom bomb in the 1940s.

Which raises a question: Why send hundreds of millions of dollars to Vienna, Austria, each year for IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei’s budget? So he can win a Nobel Peace Prize while helping the Islamofascist Iranian regime stall for time while it builds a nuke?

The U.N. agency, which turned 50 last year, exists by law to make sure that nuclear energy “is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” On winning his 2005 Peace Prize, ElBaradei said it was an “urgently required” step for the IAEA to “keep nuclear and radiological material out of the hands of extremist groups.”

Khan’s contacts with Tehran’s revolutionary regime go back to the 1980s. The IAEA knew at least five years ago that Iran’s centrifuge designs were Pakistani.

The IAEA should have been aggressively tracking down every tentacle of the Khan network for years.

Had it done so — who knows? — it might even have found Saddam Hussein was one of Khan’s clients, something that may yet be in the cards and that would not enhance ElBaradei’s reputation.

Switzerland’s government announced that it destroyed 30,000 pages relating to the Khan nuclear plans so they wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands. But only a naif would conclude that Khan’s plans aren’t now in the hands of dozens of unsavory characters around the world, from Pyongyang to Damascus, and perhaps even in the caves of Waziristan.

A real international nuclear watchdog would be carrying out a relentless global manhunt for anyone who might have such instructions on how to kill a million innocent souls.

What we have instead in the IAEA is an incompetent, ideologically leftist bureaucracy that continually is making worse an already dangerous state of affairs.


Multiculturalism (essay)

As A Tool To Divide And Conquer
The Layman’s Primer
by Louis Beam


No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

One must not let himself be confused by the window dressing of willing dupes from the left who are most often, but not always, seen as the spokesmen for the glories of multiculturalism. Liberal supporters of multiculturalism amount to nothing more than opportunist parasites riding on the back of a social fungus attacking the body politic. While some incoherent liberals have been spokesmen for multiculturalism, they should not be viewed as representing other main stream liberals any more so than do so-called conservatives like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich speak for constitutionalists and populists. The real stimulus, unseen elitist who promote multiculturalism as a tool of warfare, are themselves anything but liberal, progressive, or democratic. Rather they are global social tyrants who seek more power, more wealth, and more control over people–and they could care less what the politics are of those they seek to rule.

Elitists schemers envision a dictatorial world government composed of forcibly federated states, which, properly speaking, are police states without borders. The United Nations will serve as the store house front and public face of those who from behind the scenes manipulate world events. Economically envisioned is a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Stalin did for his miserable workers. Vassal states are to produce goods and insure compliance of their subjects by defining all opposition to the borderless police state as terrorism. Thus will be the good times. In bad times, when elitist multinational corporations are unable to maintain control, the armed might of NATO will be used to enforce obedience by non-compliant states.(1)


Just as television commercials are run by those who will profit from their airing, multiculturalism is fostered upon a country by its sponsors who intend to benefit from its acceptance.

Those who sponsor multiculturalism are properly called multiculturalists and generally will be found to be those people with the least amount of personal culture appertaining to them. As a dying tree drops its leaves and is attacked by fungus and worms of decay, so to is a nation set upon by multiculturalists. The dominate culture is attacked from all sides. This is not so much a product of maliciousness as necessity. By vilifying, leveling, and weakening the dominant culture, an environment is created for social, political, and economic turmoil which produces change that will benefit the sponsors of a multiculturalist state. If the government and news media relentlessly pursue issues of race, gender, and diversity in preference to the real issues that need to be addressed, there will be an increasing division of society along the same lines. Which is exactly what the sponsors of multiculturalism want.

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

As a general rule:

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption
at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is no accident! It is not government blundering, nor is it misguided liberalism; it is exactly what it is by design, purpose, and objective. A program advocated by both Republican and Democratic administrations for the elitist backers of both are the same. It is the program of a government which has fallen firmly into the hands of evil forces. Failure to recognize this salient point will result in endlessly chasing after tangents, or needlessly blaming those who have no power to change the current direction of events. Anger directed toward liberals,(2) Blacks, or people of colour is wasted. Reorganization of the government from the bottom up would be productive.

Multiculturalism, like drugs, is an insidious weapon. Both destroy the heart and fabric of a people. All ties to family, community, and one’s people as a whole are destroyed by these two opiates of the human mind. Both are sponsored from the top down by one world elitists bent upon creating a world order who’s power is such that its subjects posses no potential for resistance.

By its very nature every emerging police state seeks to harness both the power of the state and the people to its will. When calls are made for support of cryptic slogans such as war on crime, drugs, terrorism, hate, poverty, etc. what is really meant is “grant power to the state and applaud the rape of your freedom.” In sum: multiculturalism is another program designed to create the subjects of a Police State Without Borders. When coupled with the “war on drugs” and “war on terrorism,” Orwell’s world of endless war is realized. It would be their world, their orders, and nothing new, for a lust for despotism is as old as mankind himself.

The anti-thesis of multiculturalism is moral, religious, and cultural solidarity among the people of a nation. Belief in one’s self and the ultimate good of his people. A cohesiveness that produces a national vision, with set boundaries of acceptability and unacceptability in the affairs of a nation, while allowing for the natural differences in men. Multiculturalism as a tool of warfare becomes impotent and rejected in such an environment.

A necessary first step toward recovery is to look at politics, social policy, and government emanating from Washington D.C. with new eyes, unclouded by a lifetime of false information and deception propagated by elitist sponsors. Pretending any longer that the bought and paid for political prostitutes in Washington D.C. represent you or anyone you know is tantamount to cutting your own wrist with a razor blade. Self-destructive behavior may qualify one for government “protected class status” under diversity laws–but it will not save you, your family, or your nation.

America, Canada, and most of Europe are ruled by politicians about whom the best that can be said is that they are men of ill repute, each out to loot the state. One thing is clear, the American ruling elite of today are far closer in ideological viewpoint to world government ruled by a privileged few than it is to the world of the American Revolution or the Constitutional Convention of 1789. Yet still, the spirit of 1776 lives on in this land. For once again rebellion to tyrants in obedience to God is afoot. Listen closely and in the distance you can hear the ring of liberty’s bell calling gallant sons and noble daughters to her aid. They know no left, nor right, only treason. And they will not fear to answer. Let tyrants tremble. And though the heavens fall, let there be justice.


Foot Notes:

1. Those who imagine the United Nations in and of itself as a military threat are naive or deliberately mislead. Global elitist would never trust the U.N. with an army other than one on loan. Because of the U.N.’s diversity there is too great a potential for some member states taking as serious elitist propaganda of “democratic” rule and “equality” then using any military that might exist without elitist sanction. NATO on the other hand is controlled by the United States government, which is the chief force behind the establishment of the New World Order. It is, and will remain in the foreseeable future, the army of choice for insuring compliance. A quick change of hat from green to blue will make NATO troops “UN Forces” when such need is sanctioned by elitists.

2. Indeed liberal thinkers such as Daniel Brandt have written far more eloquently about the deleterious effects of multiculturalism than the present writer. Brandt’s essay Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite is a must read for those interested in the subject