About Me

Wednesday, October 25, 2023

THIS is the New York Times: Oh Hitler, How Great Thou Art!

NY Times Hires Hitler-praising Palestinian to Cover Israel-Hamas war 

From the New York Post:

“A New York Times reporter who came under fire last year for a praising Adolf Hitler in multiple resurfaced Facebook posts was rehired by the Gray Lady to cover the Israel-Palestine war.

Palestinian filmmaker Soliman Hijjy hailed the Nazi leader as recently as 2018 in a post on Facebook, when he shared a photo of himself captioned that he was “in a state of harmony as Hitler was during the Holocaust,” per a translation from Arabic by pro-Israel media watchdog site HonestReporting.

That same year, Hijjy was hired by the Times as a freelance journalist and worked on a slew of “visual investigations” published by the organization through 2021, including one on an Israeli airstrike that killed 44 people.

Hijjy’s 2018 post — including a 2012 Facebook post where he wrote, “How great you are, Hitler” in Arabic alongside a photoshopped image of Hitler seemingly taking a selfie — were unearthed last year, when pro-Israel outlets called out the Times for hiring antisemitic journalists as freelancers.

Palestinian filmmaker Soliman Hijjy is freelancing for the New York Times again — recent bylines at the news giant revealed — one year after the journalist came under fire for eulogizing Hitler.

It’s beginning to be difficult to see who is the most crazy and ignorant party in this whole sordid affair.

Monday, October 23, 2023

Israel A 'Nuclear Wildcard' On 'Dangerous Road To Armageddon': Macgregor

Text from Zerohedge. At the bottom of text is the Video from YouTube.

Tucker Carlson sat down with Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.), who laid out a disturbing scenario in which the United States could quickly be pulled into a direct conflict with Iran, Russia and China over Israel's anticipated response to the October 7 Hamas attack.


Carlson starts off highlighting Lindsey Graham, who vowed; "...if Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran, launches a massive attack on Israel, I consider that a threat to the... state of Israel, existential in nature. I will introduce a resolution [in] the United States Senate to allow military action by the United States in conjunction with Israel to knock Iran out of the Oil Business..."

Carlson then asks: "So what would war with Iran mean? McGregor: Well, it's hard to know because virtually no one who's talking about it in public is operating from a deep interest in America's interest. Is this good for us, or is it not?"

If, as Sen. Graham suggests, we start bombing critical infrastructure in Iran, Macgregor warns "the destruction would be wholesale" as Iran would target "all the bases we have in Iraq and Syria - with around 1000 Americans - would be targeted... and this time accurately."

According to Macgregor, "The chosen destination" if we continue on this path, "is Armageddon," and the implications (of which nobody seems to be considering) for the United States, Europe, and the Middle East are grave. For example, "just on the economic side, about 20% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz every month - probably 25% of liquefied natural gas, and you're talking about shutting down 2 to three million barrels a day of oil from Iran. 

"You know this entire region is involved in the war. This is not an Iranian Monopoly by any stretch of the imagination," he continued.

The two also discussed how one of the primary challenges of in contemplating war with Iran is the unpredictable nature of such conflicts. Economic sanctions, which have been the go-to strategy for years, have failed to cripple Iran's military capabilities. When military force comes into play, a whole new set of unknowns emerges.

The U.S. military, as it stands, may not be adequately prepared for such a conflict - particularly if the enemy has new weapons systems and capabilities.

"We've had the luxury of sitting around forward operating bases and striking opponents that were armed with AK-47s, and command detonated mines and the occasional mortar or rocket. Very, very low-intensity combat," he said, referring to the types of engagements the US military has grown accustomed to.

Nuclear wildcard?

According to Macgregor, "This is a high-end, conventional war that we're looking at, with the potential to go nuclear - which, obviously, I don't think we or the Russians want to happen, but we have the wild-card in Israel. They do have a nuclear capability."

"We don't know what the trip wire is for them to employ such a weapon. At that point of course, all bets are off and I think most of the world would turn against Israel. Right now, they just have to worry about the Muslim world against them," he continued, explaining that by focusing on Hamas and Hezbollah as immediate threats, the broader implications are obscured. For example, attacking urban environments such as Gaza comes with a high risk of civilian casualties - the consequences of which would catastrophic, both morally and strategically.

"Hezbollah has a very large operation in Mexico," says Macgregor. "There are no doubt many, many Hezbollah agents inside the United States. We can only begin to imagine the kind of trouble they could cause."

In the midst of all this, the question arises: How will a war with Iran affect American domestic politics? History shows that war is often used to stifle dissent, but in today's connected world, censorship can only go so far. Public opinion, initially in favor of violence against Hamas, may wane as the conflict escalates and images of destruction flood the media.

"But what's most important, I think, for Americans to understand is, if we attack Iran on the basis of Hezbollah's alleged willingness to attack Israel, if Israel gets into a real shooting war with Hezbollah, they have the largest armed forces in the region."

Watch:

Saturday, October 21, 2023

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Fuhrer

In my post How Israel Emerged In the Collapsed Ottoman Empire, I mention the role of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who allied himself with Germany and the Ottoman Empire during WWI and then Germany and Hitler in WWII -- both disasters for Middle Eastern Muslims. The loss of Germany in WWI caused the fall of the Ottoman Empire and their loss in WWII saw them lose control of their region that included the area now called Israel through large-scale Jewish immigration after 1948.

The Mufti literally sat at Hitler's right hand (see photo below).  I quoted Sol Stern, an American and Israeli citizen, has been writing about Israel for 50 years, as follows from his book A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism:

At the center of his account is the neglected and little known -- yet central -- figure of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Haj Amin al-Husseini. As the grand mufti of Jerusalem, he was the leader of the Palestinian movement from its inception in the 1920s in the wake of the British Balfour Declaration, into the 1950s, after which he was succeeded by his nephew Yasser Arafat......

Like Arafat and Abbas after him, time and again the mufti rejected any compromise. Driven by a sense of Islamic entitlement and Arab resentment of the West, insensible to the economic growth made possible by the relative prosperity of the Jews, the mufti urged his followers to embrace implacable hatred.

Siegel writes about the book:

In the Arab revolt of the late 1930s, Islamist crowds stormed through the streets of Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter shouting slogans such as “Muhammad’s religion was born with the sword.” The mob killed, looted and burned. Two years of low-level war left the Jews stronger than ever and the local Arab economy in ruins, a scene that has recurred time and again. But the mufti saw hope for his cause in Hitler’s war against the allies and the Jews.

From the online article The Mufti and the Fuhrer:

"In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.


The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”1

On November 28, 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany’s objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

Two German historians say that Hitler had a plan to extend the Holocaust to the Middle East and had forged an alliance with Arab nationalists. This is perhaps why Hitler met with the Mufti and provided him a budget of 750,000 Reichsmark per month to foment a jihad in Palestine. The alliance did not alter Hitler’s racist views toward Arabs reflected in his refusal to shake the Mufti’s hand or drink coffee with him.3

In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.

A document attesting to the connection between Nazi Germany and the Mufti was released in March 2017. In the letter published by the National Library of Israel Archives, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler heaps praise upon Mufti al-Husseini, stating that the Nazi leadership  has been closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs - and especially in Palestine - against the Jewish invaders. Himmler ends the letter by bidding the Mufti warm wishes for the continuation of your battle until the big victory.  This letter was delivered in the Fall of 1943, two years after the Mufti's famous meeting with Adolf Hitler.4

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:
1 “Grand Mufti Plotted To Do Away With All Jews In Mideast,” Response, (Fall 1991), pp. 2-3.
2 Record of the Conversation Between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, London, 1964, p. 881ff in Walter Lacquer and Barry Rubin, The Israel-Arab Reader, (NY: Facts on File, 1984), pp. 79-84.
3 Von Jan Friedman, “New Research Taints Image of Desert Fox Rommel,” Der Spiegel, (May 23, 2007).
4 Letter written to Grand Mufti from Himmler uncovered, YNet News, (March 30, 2017)

Friday, October 20, 2023

Tucker Confirms What Has Always Been Known: George Floyd Wasn't Murdered

Tucker Carlson has come out on Twitter and just repeated the results of the Medical Examiner in the George Floyd case; namely that George Floyd had no physical signs of asphyxia (refer to my post which is included below).  

Now, I don't know why Tucker is so late to the party here, as Gulfcoastcommentary readers were informed of ME results and the lack of evidence for the murder charge against Derek Chauvin long ago; despite how "it looked." Yes, it DID look bad, but I suggested at the time that Chauvin's knee was not actually on Floyd's neck but on his back/shoulders.  It's also true that Floyd was experienced labored breathing even before being forcibly subdued, a sign of opiod overdose. The Medical examiner found that Floyd's lungs were FULL of fluids in a sign of a fatal fentanyl overdose. Read here at New Updates on 'Saint George' and 'Holy Martyr' Jacob Blake below.

There was HUGE PRESSURE on the Chauvin jury to CONVICT despite the exonerating evidence. In Chauvin's case, it "looked bad" but the medical examiner was unable to see any forcible asphyxia. He also found lethal levels of fentanyl and other 'substances'. This guy was an enormous loser and serial criminal!

Also see this recent article: Prosecutor Comes Clean: Derek Chauvin is Innocent and ‘Immense Pressure’ Was Put on Them to Charge Him and Change Autopsy.

Below is a summary of all the lies told recently about black criminals to make them sound like saints  

Here's my re-post below of All the Unworthy, Unholy Black "Martyrs:"

Why do all the black activists propagandists and race hustlers like BLM, Obama, Holder, the Biden administration, Sharpton and other black "leaders" choose such unworthy "martyrs" when they play the race card? Perhaps it's because there are so few worthy ones?  Like maybe NONE?

Race hustlers like Sharpton and Obama always rallied to back the black "victim" instantly, and without any facts established, to cases where white police interact with black persons with or without the appearance of wrongdoing.  It's still happening today but even more dishonest. The dishonest, Leftist, Big media always raises the ante in the court of public opinion. It's because there's money in victimhood. So, naturally they fail to report the fact police operate in environments where black persons commit violent crimes at 7 times the rate of whites putting officers in a constant "war zone."  

Black communities = War zones. It's no wonder police fear for their lives. And it's no wonder they treat these people like animals. It's because they act like animals. Blacks are notorious in resisting and violently reacting during police encounters.

But remember how notably silent they were when black perpetrators gun down white officers. This shows their true intent and bias: to start a race war, disrupt the social fabric of the country and start a campaign against law enforcement. It's outrageous that the President of the United States himself was complicit in that effort. Therefore Obama was complicit in murders of black persons in Baltimore when the city erupted in lawless, black-on-black violence after the police backed-off their duties in response to this war on police and the "witch hunt" trial of 6 police officers.

Obama was also complicit in numerous murders of white police officers across the nation due to his war-on-law-enforcement "activism." Obama and Holder also coordinated protests using 'professional' protesters in Sanford and Ferguson, so they are also responsible for deaths and property loss in Ferguson riots -- riots that hurt only responsible black residents. 

Daunte Wright

On April 11, 2021, Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by police officer Kimberly Potter during a traffic stop for an expired registration. From Wikipedia:

"Officers ran Wright's name through a police database and learned that he had an open arrest warrant "after failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with Minneapolis police in June".

Based on that information, police attempted to arrest him. A police body camera showed three officers approaching the car. An officer on the driver's side opened a door and Wright stepped out of the car. Wright had his hands behind his back as an officer attempted to put on handcuffs. Potter then approached Wright and the other officer. Wright struggled with the officers, broke free, and got back behind the wheel of his vehicle..."

He resisted arrest and failed to follow officer commands. DO BLACKS EVER NOT RESIST POLICE?  Although, a common event in black communities, this incident aroused the mindless black protestors and propangandist media outlets AGAIN.  

Mindless = Black.  Propagandists = Media. Victimhood = Money.

More From Human Events

As riots continue to swallow up the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, more details are coming to light about Daunte Wright, the man who was shot and killed by a police officer last Sunday. 

A new report reveals that there was a second open warrant for Wright’s arrest, this one related to an aggravated armed robbery attempt. 

The second warrant adds to the other outstanding for failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possession of a gun without a permit. 

Wright and a high school acquaintance, Emajay Maurice Driver, were both charged with first-degree aggravated robbery in a December 2019 incident. 

According to documents, Wright and Driver went to a party about 5 miles from Brooklyn Center. The men spent the night at the apartment because they reportedly had no ride home. 

The next morning, when one of the two women paid the other her share of rent – $820 in cash – the two men tried to rob her. 

Per Fox News: 

“Wright then allegedly pulled a black handgun ‘with silver trim out from either his right waistband or his right coat pocket,’ pointed it at the woman and demanded the [money], the court documents say. Wright then allegedly choked the woman while trying to pull the cash out from under her bra, where she had it tucked away. He allegedly tried to choke her a second time and tried to take the money…Driver allegedly told her to give Wright the money. The two men then left the apartment, got into a white Cadillac, and left the scene without the money.” 

Wright was eventually arrested over the incident and released on $100,000 bail, which was revoked in July because he violated the condition of possessing a firearm and failed to keep in touch with his probation officer, according to BizPacReview.

Daunte Wright was another career criminal in the making --- not a tragic figure. 

Freddie Gray and Eric Garner

From my post Unworthy Martyrs:  Gray and Garner both had huge rap sheets. Gray had 18 arrests. Garner had 30 arrests since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny.

Eric Garner, the 350 lb black guy in Manhattan, who resisted arrest was wrestled to the ground. He was reported to have said "you're choking me, you're choking me" at least 15 times while wrestling with police -- proving beyond a shadow of doubt that he WAS NOT choking. (how could he have the breath to say that repeatedly if his airway was restricted?) The officers wrestled him on the ground but his death was a cardiac event on the way to the police station. A grand jury declined to indict officers.

Notice that this same phenomenon, ie., perpetrators saying over and over again that they can't breath even though they can speak repeatedly? This same thing is at the heart of the George Floyd case.

Sandra Bland

From that same post Unwothy Martyrs,  Sandra Bland, who was arrested by a cop in Waller County, Texas, committed suicide three days after her family refused to bail her out. She became a media darling for the "political correctness" crowd and Black Lives Matter crowd. The family blamed the police for her death.

But Sandra had a long history of run-ins with cops.  According to NBC5, she she owed a total of $7,579.00 in court fines resulting from five traffic stops in various Chicago suburbs (including a DUI), and she had been cited several times for her failure to pay those fines. She had at least 10 encounters herself with police in both Illinois and Texas in past years. The words "Failure to comply" was frequently cited by officials and police.

In all these cases, once facts are gathered, the credibility of the complainants largely dissolves. In a publicity stunt, funded by who knows who, Sandra Bland's family filed a lawsuit against Waller County in order to "find out" what really happened to Ms. Bland. At a press conference, when someone asked the family why they didn't bail her out, the family walked out of the conference -- along with their credibility. 

You see, a despondent Ms Bland killed herself three days after her family refused to bail her out. Bail was a modest $500. It's a sad story really, but for the family to make racist allegations is bad. It's black people who are the racists in this country!

Jacob Blake

From my post New Updates on Saint George and Holy Martyr Jacob Blake,  Jacob Blake already had an outstanding arrest warrant for sexual assault when stopped by police in Kenosha in August 2020. 

On July 6, 2020, AP says that Kenosha County prosecutors charged Jacob Blake with third-degree sexual assault, trespassing and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse. An arrest warrant was issued for Blake the following day. Police knew this.

More video evidence shows that Jacob Blake was failing to respond to police commands even after they Tasered him. With guns drawn and police yelling at him to stop, Blake tried to reach inside the floor of his vehicle. See the video at this New York Post story. The police had no idea if there was a weapon in the car. They literally HAD to shoot him according to any and all police department procedures.  

And in 2015, Blake DID HAVE a weapon in the floor-board of his car in a violent interaction with police. Basically, because Blake could not control himself and became an imminent threat to the officers, he had to be put down like a wild animal. He, like so many black men, committed "suicide-by-cop" with his actions and lack of impulse control. This also explains why blacks commit violent crimes at SEVEN TIMES THE RATE compared to whites.  Unfortunately, the police were totally justified in shooting him.

George Floyd

See my post The Left is Pushing "Systemic Racism" Again, But the Problem is Low Black Intelligence and High Criminality for a full discussion of Floyd's case.  George Floyd resisted police demands for him to sit in the police vehicle the entire encounter. It was one non-stop wrestling match.  Finally, they had to pin him to the ground to control his ass.

From a recent Spectator.org article:  

"Dr. Baker, the chief medical examiner, had to concede that at 11 ng/mL, Floyd had “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.” He also conceded that the fentanyl overdose “can cause pulmonary edema,” a frothy fluid build-up in the lungs that was evidenced by the finding at autopsy that Floyd’s lungs weighed two to three times normal weight.

This is consistent with Officer Kueng’s observation at the scene that Floyd was foaming at the mouth and, as found at autopsy, that his lungs were “diffusely congested and edematous.”

In other words, like a drowned man, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid BEFORE FORCING OFFICERS TO RESTRAIN HIM ON THE GROUND. And that was the obvious and inescapable reason why Floyd kept shouting over and over again that he couldn’t breathe even when he was upright and mobile.

The memorandum ends with Dr. Baker’s devastating conclusion that “if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death.”

Translation: this toxicology report drives a stake through the heart of our murder case. How do we justify criminally charging these police officers and explain away our colossal screw-up?

The handwriting is on the wall. Through all of the rioting, looting, and burning, the prosecution has kept secret its knowledge that George Floyd died as the result of a self-administered overdose of fentanyl. The Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County said as much way back on May 31, 2020. 

Michael Brown

From my post Unworthy Martyrs, Michael Brown, the thug from Ferguson, who was caught on surveillance video robbing a convenience store and assaulting the clerk minutes before his run-in with Officer Wilson, also apparently had a 2nd degree murder charge as a juvenile (records sealed).  

The grand jury and forensics confirmed that he fought then charged Wilson. Is there any doubt that his life would have been a life of crime? He was hardly the "gentle giant" the media tried to portray. ABCNews, a thoroughly discredited and incompetent media propaganda outlet, continued to portray Michael as an angelic kid who was going to college, even a day after the convenience store video blew up all the credibility of all those involved. The claim that Michael was going to college was a complete fabrication. He was heading to jail.

From my post Media Circus and Race Baiters Clear Out of Ferguson. Michael Brown Was the Aggressor:  The incredible media circus and propaganda campaign has now fallen apart now that reports that "angelic" Michael Brown not only was the aggressor in the incident, but he reportedly busted Darren Wilson's face.  This is now (finally) being widely reported.

Of course none of the major media outlets broke this and other truths since they were so invested in spinning and propagandizing their story to portray Michael Brown as this "angelic" teenager who is so innocent and deservedly headed to college.  Bullshit!  It was the same bullshit in Trayvon Martin's case -- except Martin nearly WAS an angel compared to Michael Brown. See below for Brown's rap sheet.

No charges were ever brought for Officer Wilson even after the idiot Holder was in town to force a 'show trial.'. But the black racists, so-called black "leaders" and the thoroughly discredited media should have been indicted instead.  The whole incident is just another case of out-of-control,  criminal and hot-headed black men causing a problems for themselves and their communities.  America, there is a black criminal epidemic underway as black "culture" has collapsed along with Obama's economy. 

It's getting hard to find a black man in the case who's NOT a criminal (including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson).  It turns out that the star witness, Dorian Johnson, who lied to police in defending Michael Brown, has an outstanding warrant for a 2011 theft and lied on a police report related to that theft.   He was also an accomplice (with Michael Brown) in the convenience store robbery and assault just prior to the shooting.  Nice guy, huh?   See my blog below.

Michael Brown's already has an adult arrest record even though he just turned 18 years old  a few months prior.  He is charged with Burglary 1st Degree, Assault 1st Degree with Serious Injury, and armed criminal action.  Yeah, he was going to college, right?  Who made that up?   He was headed to prison -- not college.   It looks like there were 4 charges for the same incident:  His juvenile record is sealed but I'll bet you $100 that he had juvenile crimes as well.  From Liveleak:

Burglary – 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Assault 1st Degree – Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Once again, the hot-headed and idiot black residents of Ferguson, the troublemakers that converged on Ferguson including the racist black leaders in this country and their sympathizers in the media are proven once again to be wrong, wrong and wrong -- wrong about EVERYTHING! 

Rayshard Brooks

Don't forget Rayshard Brooks.  Painted as a hero, ABC News published a glowing piece about Rayshard Brooks, the man killed by former Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe after he resisted arrest, assaulted an officer, stole his taser and discharged it, saying he was remembered for his “hard work and dedication to family.”    See my post "Another Massive Propaganda Push by US Media to Portray Black Criminals as Angelic."
 
(ABC did this same shit with regard to Michael Brown too, posting a much younger and flattering photo of little boy Brown. Similarly, there was nothing but sweetness and praise for someone who was obviously going to COLLEGE!!  It was all made-up propaganda. Michael was always headed to prison or an early grave. Period.)

Nowhere does the story mention his rap sheet of this 'dedicated' family man, which includes convictions for felony cruelty to children, family battery violence, false imprisonment, interference with custody, and more. Here's Rayshard's criminal record:


Rayshard was just another low-IQ black career criminal who was incapable of conducting his life in an advanced society like the USA. This story is repeated 20 million times over in this country . The problem for America is low black intelligence and their high criminality. It's not a surprise. It's the same in every black community in the world.
 
The entire black community, and it's so-called "leaders,"are thoroughly discredited time after time when their "victims" are found to have caused trouble for themselves. There is usually no white bogeyman -- just black troublemakers in a culturally-collapsed community as far as the eye can see. 

Black people -- especially black men -- remain a huge burden to this country --and the World.

PCR: Slavery Was Practiced by Africans & Arabs in Africa Long Before the White Man

Published at Herland Report, Written by Paul Craig Roberts

Slavery is presented to American school children as something that white people did to black people.  Therefore, white people are racists and must pay in some way for the slavery of black people that ended in the US 156 years ago.

For example, about the black African kingdom of Dahomey Benin, Encyclopedia Britiannica says, “Dahomey was organized for war, not only to expand its boundaries but also to take captives as slaves. Slaves were either sold to the Europeans [or Muslims] in exchange for weapons or kept to work the royal plantations that supplied food for the army and court.”

Slavery had been a fact of life for millenniums. Long before white peoples had black slaves, they had white slaves, and were themselves slaves owned by Arabs. Read about this below.

But if a person wants to engage others in emotion for the purpose of gaining preferment and its rewards, money and power, or simply to enjoy the self-righteousness of moral denunciation of one’s fellows, these questions are in the way.

The fact that these questions are never asked and are not a part of black studies programs in universities or the New York Times’ fake history project–the 1619 Project–is conclusive evidence that today slavery is an emotive word used to demonize white people and to bring preferment to black people, writes Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a leading American political economist and regular contributor to The Herland Report.

There are so many unasked questions.  For example, how did the blacks brought to North America become slaves?  Who enslaved them?  The answer, which explodes the narrative, is that blacks were enslaved by other blacks.

The main source of slaves for the slave trade was the black Kingdom of Dahomey.  Dahomey engaged in slave wars with other black kingdoms or tribes and became the dominant power.

As Encyclopedia Britiannica says, “Dahomey was organized for war, not only to expand its boundaries but also to take captives as slaves. Slaves were either sold to the Europeans [or Muslims] in exchange for weapons or kept to work the royal plantations that supplied food for the army and court.”

The socialist Karl Polanyi wrote the classic work:  Dahomey and the Slave Trade published in 1966. The book does not fit our woke time and the black studies agenda, and it is no longer available in print.

Today Dahomey is known as Benin.  On the beach at Ouidah there is a contemporary monument, the Gate of no Return, commemorating the lives of the Africans captured by the black Kingdom of Dahomey and sold to Arabs and Europeans as slaves or traded for firearms.

In other words, the origin of black slaves was black slave traders.

Why did European sea captains bring black slaves to North America?  The answer is that there was fertile land capable of producing profitable crops and no labor force.  Those who held land grants or charters from the English king needed labor to make the land useable.  There was no other work force.

Slaves were brought to the US not because of racism but for economic motives. Black Africans sold other black Africans to merchants for firearms that established Dahomey’s dominance.

The merchants sold the slaves as a labor force to those who held land that originated in land grants or charters from the English monarch and had no one to work it.  Slavery was established as the agricultural labor force long before the United States existed.

This brings us back to the opening question of this essay.  Was slavery a wrong or an inherited institution?  Whether or not something is wrong depends on the morality of the time.  At the time the black Kingdom of Dahomey and the other blacks with whom Dahomey engaged in slave wars did not consider slavery wrong.

Neither did the Arabs who for centuries had raided European coastal towns for white slaves.  Neither did the Europeans who brought the purchased slaves to North America.  Neither did the colonists who purchased a labor force.  Neither did the original slaves, captives who themselves had fought in slave wars.

Slavery had been a fact of life for millenniums. Long before white peoples had black slaves, they had white slaves, and were themselves slaves owned by Arabs.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries North Americans were enslaved when US merchant ships were captured by North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

For some years the US Congress paid large sums to ransome Americans enslaved in Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.  President Thomas Jefferson tired of it and sent US Naval forces that captured Tripoli and broke up the practice of enslaving captured American merchant ship crews—thus in the US Marines anthem—“to the shores of Tripoli.”

Slavery was everywhere.  It was an inherited institution.  In the African slave wars, a man could begin the battle a free person and if defeated find himself a slave. A person born to slave parents knew no other life.

Truth about Slavery: In North America where slaves comprised the agricultural labor force, everyone was born into a society in which slavery was an established institution.  It was the result of a choice made in a distant time when there was no alternative labor force.

The American and French revolutions, as they are called, resulted in an idealism of the free autonomous person, and those affected by this ideal turned on slavery as wrong, as it seems to be under this ideal of Western Civilization.  However, it was not wrong in black Dahomey.

How one disposes of an entire labor institution and replaces it was never described by those who wanted an end to slavery in the 19th century.  Landowners owned the land and the labor.

To require them to free their slaves would be to deprive them of a large part of their capital. If they freed their work force, they would have to hire them back with wages, but after such a capital loss where would the wages come from?  Would taxpayers fund a government program to compensate owners for freeing their slaves?

These are major questions during a time period when many other major questions took precedence.  To reconfigure a country’s established institutions is an extraordinary undertaking.  The Communists attempted it in the 20th century, and did not meet with success.

Mechanization has replaced the bulk of the agricultural work force, but it wasn’t an available alternative at the time.  If it had been, what would have provided the livelihood for the freed slaves? In the end it was sharecropping, which kept the former slaves tied to the land as they had been as slaves and as medieval serfs had been tied to the land.  Instead of wages, sharecroppers shared in the ownership of the crop and the proceeds from the sale.

In the US the heavy immigration would have eventually produced a free labor force except for the fact that until the frontier was closed at the end of the 19th century, immigrants could move west and claim land they occupied.  Most prefered working their own place to working as labor for another person.

Jobs offshoring has eliminated most of the American manufacturing labor force, and those who had manufacturing jobs find themselves today with diminished living standards.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots are eliminating much of the rest of human employment.

The question of human employment in a world of automation and AI remains an evaded question, just as abolitionists evaded the question of the fate of freed slaves.  President Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa or to a Central or South American destination.

If slavery was such an evil, why did Congress resurrect slavery with the 16th Amendment in 1909 and the states ratify it in 1913?  To understand what I mean, ask yourself what is the definition of a slave?

A slave is a person who does not own his own labor or the products of his labor. If you are subject to an income tax, you do not own your own labor.

Part of a slave’s work goes to his own maintenance.  Otherwise, if he is not fed, clothed, housed, and his health attended to, his owner loses his labor.  The rest of his labor could be appropriated by his owner to cover the cost of the slave’s purchase and to turn a profit.  For a 19th century slave in the US the tax rate was approximately 50%.

For a medieval serf, the tax rate was lower as he had less technology and therefore was less productive.  A medieval serf could not reproduce if his tax rate exceeded 30%, or such was the view years ago when I studied the medieval economy.  Unlike a slave, a serf was not bought and sold.  He was attached to the land.  Like a slave, he was taxed in terms of his labor.  The lord of the manor had use rights in the serfs’ labor, and the serfs had use rights in the land.

Truth about Slavery: Formerly serfs were free farmers.  After the collapse of Roman power, they had no protection against Viking, Saracen, and Magyar raiders.  To survive they provided labor to a chieftain who constructed a walled tower and maintained fighting men.  In the event of raids, serfs had a redoubt to which to flee for protection.

In effect, serfs paid a defense tax.  They exchanged a percentage of their labor for protection.  Serfdom became an established institution and continued long after the raids had stopped.  In England serfdom was ended by the Enclosures which stripped serfs of their use rights in land and created a free labor market.

Consider the US income tax.  When President Reagan was elected the tax rate on investment income was 70%.  The top tax rate on wages and salaries was 50%.  In other words, the privileged (mainly white) rich were taxed at the same rate as 19th century black slaves.

How is an American on whose labor the government has a claim a free man?  Clearly, he is not a free man.  We can say that there is a difference between a present day American and a slave, because the government only owns a percentage of his labor and not the person himself–unless the person does not pay his taxes, in which case he can be imprisoned and his labor hired out to private companies who pay the prison for the use of the prisoner’s labor.

The extraordinary failure to ask the relevant questions discussed in this essay has caused a racial division in the US infused with hatred.  This hatred is cultivated every day by an irresponsible media, by the Democrat Party, by the universities, by the NY Times 1619 Project, and by the critical race theory taught in public schools.

Now that all this hate has been created, how do we get rid of it?  With misinformation passing as scholarly fact, how do we recover truth and escape the lies that are destroying us?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Doug here: There is still a large slave trade in children as free labor, women and girls as sex slaves for profit, forced prostitution, child trafficking.  There is child trafficking going on the US border and PROTECTED by the US Government (see below for links).  Here's an world-wide estimate of percentage of people in forced labor or slavery from the Washington Post:


Africa , South Asia and even Southeast Asia are still hotbeds of slave trade. 

See a few articles below.

The US Government: The Largest Human Trafficker In The World, at Gulfcoastcommentary
The US Govt: The Most Immoral, Massive Human Trafficker, RFK Jr. at Gulfcoastcommentary

I DON'T SEE ANY US BLACK SLAVERY IN AMERICA!!  INSTEAD, US BLACKS HAVE EVERY ADVANTAGE --BUT THEY KEEP SHOUTING "DISCRIMINATION" AND "PREDJUDICE"   HELL, GO BACK TO AFRICA, DIPSHITS.  THERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE SLAVERY CONDITIONS!!

TEACH THAT IN SCHOOLS, DUMBFUCKS!

'Pre-hot-war to brutal World War III': Ray Dalio explains how Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine conflicts can spiral out of control

By Anwesha Madhukalya from Business Today 

Israel-Hamas war: Ray Dalio said that it is unlikely that the Israel-Hamas war will be limited to Israel and Gaza Strip only. This war along with the Russia-Ukraine war will have “big effects on the ongoing great power conflicts”.

Ray Dalio, billionaire investor and founder of investment management company Bridgewater Associates, said that the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars should “raise revulsion and fear in everyone”. He said that these ‘hot wars' will cost the allies of these countries a lot and has the potential to spiral out of control to become an international war.  (His full missive is found at LinkedIn here.)

These wars reveal the “unimaginably terrible and revolting ways” people can treat other people, he said. No one anywhere can be sure that they won’t find themselves in the middle of a war, he stated in a blog titled ‘Another Step Toward International War’, where he also cites his book ‘Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order’. 

Although Israel, Ukraine, Russia and Hamas are involved in hot wars, “thankfully the major powers” China and the US are not but they might be at the brink of one, he said. Dalio added that it remains to be seen how far the war spreads and how the great powers will react. Dalio said that he hopes the horrific and tragic images will “encourage restraint”. 

Assessing how things have played out in the past, Dalio said that it seems clear that the warring sides have crossed the lines from “contained pre-hot-war conflicts to uncontained hot wars” that are expected to remain brutal till the end. Wars like these are more likely to spread than subside, he said, adding that they have the potential to be a “much more horrific hot world war”.

The world is changing in ways that haven't happened in our lifetimes but many times in history, he said. He listed “five big forces” that always interact to drive the confluence of all major changes in the world – debt, money or economic force, political conflicts due to irreconcilable wealth and value gaps, geopolitical conflicts, forces of nature like droughts, floods and pandemics, and human inventiveness or new technologies. 

“Based on the perspective I have gained from studying history and from my over 50 years of experiences betting on what’s likely to happen, it seems to me that the Israel-Hamas war is another classic, unfortunate step toward a more violent and encompassing international war. In other words, it’s part of a larger war dynamic,” he said, adding how these wars can end up involving more countries. 

The billionaire investor said that it is unlikely that the Israel-Hamas war will be limited to Israel and Gaza Strip only. This war along with the Russia-Ukraine war will have “big effects on the ongoing great power conflicts”. 

Also read: War in Middle East escalates as Israel strikes Syria's main airports in Aleppo, Damascus

“These two wars will cost the allies of these countries a lot. For example, the US is now fighting proxy wars in Europe and the Middle East while preparing for war in East Asia. As these wars spread, they will cost more. Fortunately, the progression toward a world war between the biggest powers (the US and China) has not yet crossed the irreversible line from being containable (which it is now) to becoming a brutal war between the biggest powers and their allies. If these major powers do have direct fighting with each other, in which one side kills a significant number of people on the other side, we will see the transition from contained pre-hot-war conflicts to a brutal World War III,” he said. 

Wars don’t go as expected and are more brutal than anticipated, he said, adding that the ones in favour of war also end up regretting having them. “I hope that the leaders of the great powers will wisely step back from the brink, even while they must prepare to be strong enough to successfully fight and win a hot war,” he said, adding that the might of non-fighting parties will also be tested. 

“That is because being allied and helpful to the allied countries in these brutal wars is always very costly and raises the risks of being drawn fully into the war. That’s how local wars spread into world wars,” said Ray Dalio. 

The billionaire investor said that it is his pipe dream to have “world leaders recognize that having hot wars is the worst possible thing to happen”. He added that his “more attainable stretch goal” is for the US and China to jointly broker peace in Ukraine. 

“Imagine how great an alliance in pursuit of world peace between the two greatest opposing countries would be,” he added.

Thursday, October 19, 2023

PCR: Uniparty Warmongers Have Captured the US Government, Risking Our Lives and the World

 From Paul Craig Roberts


The Biden regime refuses to defend US borders but does not hesitate to rush aircraft carrier task forces and the 101st US Airborne Division to defend Israel’s borders.  “We have Israel’s back,” endlessly proclaims America’ Jewish Secretary of State.  “America can afford two wars,” proclaims America’s Jewish Secretary of the Treasury.  But forget protecting our own border and the burdens on American taxpayers.

It seems our government is captured and risks our lives and welfare in the interest of another country.

It seems everyone in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, especially Republicans, have intense war fever.  While Washington quickly escalated the conflict by deploying US military forces to the area, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, blames  escalation on Iran and issues a threat: “if you escalate this war, we’re coming for you.” Graham continues with his threats, in our name, to Iran saying the US will “knock Iran out of the oil business.”  Like Israel and the Jewish-American neoconservatives, Graham’s target is the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah:  “I am poised to use military force to destroy the source of funding for Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Another House Republican, this one from Texas, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, says he is writing legislation for authority to commit the US military to Israel’s war on Palestine.

What we are witnessing is Republicans who are as extreme as Hamas.  Is this insanity real, or is this showmanship, with political campaign funding in mind, for the US military/security complex who will greatly benefit from America “affording two wars?”

We are also witnessing the total failure of Western leadership, not only in Washington but throughout the Western world.  Instead of escalating the situation by sending military forces, Washington should have used its offices to calm matters down.  Why did not Washington calm the situation down instead of blowing it up?

This website — https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/10/us-deploys-large-force-eyes-on-syria.html — speculates that the US forces accumulating in the war zone are a “war fleet,” the purpose of which is to finally bring regime change to Syria and kick out the Russians in an act of revenge for the Russians preventing President Obama’s planned overthrow of the Assad government.  

I can understand that the Biden regime’s neoconservatives want to continue their policy of cleansing the Middle East for Israeli expansion, but how safe is it to assume that Putin will run away with his tail between his legs?  This would finish Putin as a leader of the dissident world and probably also finish him inside Russia.  A show of Russian cowardice would certainly provoke an escalation of NATO’s involvement in Ukraine.  It seems certain that a US attack on Syria would result in military conflict between the US and Russia.

The Israelis have been massacring Palestinians and stealing their country bit by bit since 1947, and no one has ever done anything about it.  The UN passes resolutions, but the US vetoes them.  So this final time Netanyahu expects no opposition, indeed, he expects  help from the US and its empire in the commission of his war crimes.  

It is clear to me that the situation is awash in miscalculations. Hezbollah is a match for Israel.  Indeed, the militia has twice defeated the vaunted Israeli Army and driven them out of Lebanon despite Israel’s air power. Syria’s army is battle hardened from fighting the mercenaries Washington sent to overthrow Assad.  Like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran has fervor and a large number of missiles that can hit Israel.  If, as is claimed, 5,000 missiles from Hamas overwhelmed Israel’s Iron Dome, the Iron Dome has no chance against 100,000 or 200,000 missiles.

If Israel’s army is sent into Gaza, Hamas will keep it there, and Israel risks being overrun by Hezbollah, Syria, and Iraq and Iran should they care to participate.  Faced with Israel’s defeat, Washington would commit its forces with catastrophic consequences.

We are experiencing on the part of Israel and the US a total lack of judgment.  The risks are being ignored.  It is starting to look like the Armageddon that Revelation describes.  

The problem for humanity is that it has developed weapons that are capable of destroying all life, and these weapons are in the hands of emotional people incapable of restraint and reason.  

I have been, and continue to be, concerned about the conflict in Ukraine spiraling out of control.  The situation developing in the Middle East is more dangerous.  There doesn’t seem to be sufficient recognition of this danger.  The war propaganda from the presstitutes is extreme and blinds people to reality.  Those in office think they are in control, but they are not. 

Possibly Russia could prevent a wider conflict by raising its military presence in Syria, but Putin is not proactive.  

You tell me, where are the leaders to prevent a catastrophe? [Doug here: Virtually no one is calling for peace except Donald Trump]

Travel Log #4: Trip to Phuket, Thailand

If you're interested, I've posted a "travel log" (#4) from my stay in Phuket, Thailand over at Gulfcoastcommentary at Substack.  Here's the link.

I'm currently in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and will do a similar travel log (mostly pictures) for my time in Malaysia at the end of this month.

Tuesday, October 17, 2023

Reagan's 1964 Speech is More Relevant Than Ever (Transcript Included)

Transcript of "A Time for Choosing," delivered on national television on October 27, 1964 (From the Reagan Library)

...snip...

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. [Doug here: 7 years later Nixon ended the USD's link to Gold] And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind [Doug here: he's referring to the Soviet Union] in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down - 'up' is the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." 

Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how - who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer - and they've had almost 30 years of it - shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now, so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs - do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things - we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.


Now, we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it [Doug here: social security] "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary - his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due, that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.


Federal employees - federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the, or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men - that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy, and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer - not an easy answer but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace - and you can have it in the next second - surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face, that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum. And what then, when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin - just in the face of this enemy? 

Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this - this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits - not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.


We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.