Reality For Radicals

Reality For Radicals




Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.
December 26, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Transition: During the campaign, Democrats pledged radical change. But recession has forced them to rein in their agenda, from soaking the rich to nationalizing health care. How the worm turns.

In debate after debate, Barack Obama assured voters he'd pay for his national health care plan by taxing the rich. But now that appears unreasonable even to the fawning reporters who cover him.

"How are you actually planning to fund your health care program?" asked one earlier this month. "It has been estimated that it could cost up to $65 billion, and you had planned originally to fund it through getting rid of the tax cuts to the wealthy. But in the current economic situation, maybe that's not so reasonable?"

Obama stammered before answering, "I have not made yet a determination in terms of how we're going to deal with the rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." He allowed that he may need "additional dollars to pay for some investments."

In other words, he's hard-pressed for revenues to fund his ambitious spending programs. Redistribution's no fun in a recession.

His health care plan, which was supposed to at least cover all children, has been reduced to a medical cost-savings program that includes modernizing doctors' antiquated medical records systems. Somehow "health IT," as Obama calls his savings program, wasn't the health care reform Moveon.org had in mind.

"We can't simply insure everybody under the current program without bankrupting the government or bankrupting business or states," Obama said, "So our starting point is savings."

The president-elect is also having to rethink his anti-industry energy policies. With crude under $40 a barrel, he won't pursue a windfall-profit tax on oil companies, which he'd hoped would fund new green initiatives and other domestic programs.

And a planned assault on the coal industry is also on the back burner. It would likely mean higher utility bills and more pain for depressed regions that depend on coal mining.

The cooling climate is also giving Obama fits. With snow falling from New Orleans to Las Vegas and Malibu, Calif., efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions now seem forced.

What's more, we have it on good authority that Obama's promised support for a card-check system for unions trying to organize a new workplace is also a nonstarter. That, too, had been a priority.

Obama owes unions, big-time, but he's also rethinking his plan to add labor, as well as environmental, protections to NAFTA. The Democrat-controlled Congress is also backing off pro-union, anti-trade measures for fear of delaying the economic recovery.

"Card check, tax increases, major moves to the left are off the table," a Republican leader on the Hill told us.

Just months ago, Democrats were toying with the idea of taxing 401(k)s. Now that's dead in the water. So is the Global Poverty Act, a bill Obama co-sponsored in the Senate.

One by one, Obama is backing off campaign promises as his radical agenda runs into the buzz saw of reality. That doesn't mean he's changing his agenda, but he admits "we're going to have to prioritize" as conditions change. Call it the education of Barack Obama.



Email To Friend |

Hey Caroline: You're Not Entitled

Hey Caroline: You're Not Entitled

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:36 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann



Caroline Kennedy apparently thinks that she is entitled to be appointed as the next junior senator from New York.


She shouldn’t be. Think about it.


Her qualifications? Her name is Kennedy and she can raise a lot of fat-cat money for herself and for New York Democrats who support her.


Her strategy? Ignore the voters and the press and meet with the political bosses behind closed doors to persuade them to pressure Gov. David Paterson to appoint her to Hillary Clinton’s seat.


Is there a more cynical message in the Age of Obama?


Who’s supporting her? Among her chief backers is New York City’s billionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently decided to ignore a legitimate and binding citywide referendum that prohibited him from seeking a third term. In one of the most appalling examples of an arrogant “the public be damned” attitude, Bloomberg persuaded the city council to overrule the will of the people so he could stay in city hall. He’s a big contributor to many of the folks who supported this brazen move. Legendary Tammany Hall boss Carmine De Sapio would love both Bloomberg and Caroline for bringing back the old “power to the bosses” style of politics.


Her position on issues that will face the next senator? She won’t tell you. She has refused adamantly to speak about any issues. In her first foray outside Manhattan, she declined all questions from the press. She wouldn’t even say whether she had ever been to Syracuse before. Does that suggest what the answer would have been? Her handlers finally provided written answers to some of the questions posed by The New York Times. She picked out the questions she wanted to answer and ignored some of the tough issues, such as whether she supports increased taxes for rich people. She’s not saying, Now, SHE WON’T DISCLOSE HER PERSONAL FINANCES OR PROVIDE A LIST OF COMPANIES THAT SHE HAS A STAKE IN!


Sound like the good old days? Is this woman kidding?

Her involvement in politics? Not much. She campaigned for Obama and worked on his committee that recommended the vice-presidential candidate. She’s never been active in New York politics and she hasn’t even voted in about half the contested elections in New York since 1988. During the past 15 years, she’s contributed to her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy; her cousin Rep. Patrick Kennedy; Barack Obama; Hillary Clinton; John Kerry; Al Gore; Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Connecticut wanna-be Ned Lamont; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Harris Wofford (1991). Not much interest in New York’s candidates or issues!

Her experience?



She is a longtime patron of the American Ballet Theatre.


She is active in her father’s presidential library.


She was a part-time volunteer fund raiser for the NYC schools for less than two years.


She’s co-authored two books on civil liberties.


She’s written five books. She is her most derivative in her published works. Of four New York Times best-sellers, three were compilations of other peoples’ work. One was “The Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories, and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.” The only thing these songs, poems, stories, and speeches had in common was that she didn’t write any of them.

Then followed “The Best-Loved Poems of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.” In this book, she not only didn’t write the poetry but also didn’t even choose it. Her third best seller-was “A Family of Poems: My Favorite Poetry for Children,” again a compilation of works that were not her own.

Then there’s “A Family Christmas,” another anthology of her favorite short stories, poems, etc. about Christmas (all written by other people).


In another book, “Profiles in Courage For Our Time”, she swiped only the title from her late father but wrote the copy herself.

She hasn’t had a job since before she went to law school in the 1980s.



So, why should Caroline be appointed senator?


Does anyone seriously believe that her audacious grab for the New York Senate seat is based on anything more than a misplaced and somewhat grandiose sense of entitlement coupled with a cynical claim of access to big money for the next election?


If her name weren’t Kennedy, would anyone give any consideration at all to someone without any experience to prepare her for the job or to even inform the voters about what she stands for?


ANSWER: NO


Is there a single person in the United States who doesn’t wish Caroline Kennedy well and hope that she’s spared from further tragedy?


Probably not.


But affection, sympathy, and nostalgia shouldn’t be the basis for appointing this woefully inexperienced woman to a key Senate seat in these troubles times.


Her father’s and uncles’ names are the only things that make her a contender.


Doesn’t anyone in New York politics use their own names anymore? Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president, wants to take the Senate seat of Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. But some people are pushing for Andrew Cuomo, the son of the former governor. Are we stuck in political dynasties? And who will make the decision? New York’s David Paterson, the son of Basil Paterson, the former New York state senator, secretary of state, and deputy mayor of New York City.


Don’t we have any talented people who don’t feel entitled to inherit a seat? Can’t we stop the political dynasties?


At least Cuomo has his own accomplishments. He was the secretary of HUD in the Clinton administration, and as the elected New York state attorney general, he’s done an outstanding job. Caroline Kennedy has done absolutely nothing to deserve elevation to the United States Senate. A review of hundreds of newspaper articles mentioning her name during the past 20 years show rare substantive issues: her books and book tours, awarding the Profiles in Courage Award to Lowell Weicker for instituting an income tax in Connecticut, very part-time fundraising for the city schools. Even in that regard, her influence is questioned and others are given as much or more credit. The majority of the articles are about her wedding, her mother, her brother, her socialite activities, and her lucrative auction of her mother’s old blankets, picnic baskets, and other household effects.


No, Caroline has not been heard from on any of the important issues facing New Yorkers.


Paterson is a talented politician. He probably will appoint Cuomo anyway for one simple reason: to get him out of the way. Acutely aware that he was not elected governor but only got the job when Eliot Spitzer self-destructed, Paterson probably would face an uphill primary fight against Cuomo in 2010 if he doesn’t shunt him off into the Senate. Other than the attorney general, there is nobody with the stature to offer Paterson serious opposition in the Democratic Party.


Paterson should not succumb to the lobbying of the bosses and the fat cats for Caroline. She’s not entitled.

Which California?

Which California?



By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Governance: The new "alpha state," as the Web site Politico calls it, is a study in dysfunction at home but a rising power in Washington. Maybe it can teach through its bad example.

It was probably inevitable. With a Democratic Congress in place and a Democratic administration on the way, the biggest and one of the bluest states in the union is emerging as the most influential. Politico compares California's political heft to that of Texas in the heyday of Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.

It lists a host of reasons why. Mostly these are people in powerful places — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, senators and House members chairing a half-dozen key committees and the incoming secretaries of energy and labor and top presidential advisers on the economy and the environment.

California's 34-member Democratic bloc in the House is larger than the whole delegation of any other state. Zoe Lofgren, who leads that herd, says the state "has always been the ATM to the nation in terms of political fundraising. We're policy leaders now."

If Lofgren's right, then the question is whether all this new power will be used for good. To put it another way: Will California politicians help lead the country into the sunny uplands or into the sort of dank fog that so often engulfs the state's capital, Sacramento, at this time of year? The most likely answer: Don't get your hopes up.

To judge from the record of California's political class, the state right now can help Washington only by serving as a bad example. Years of overspending, fueled by a union-owned Legislature and unwise ballot initiatives, have thrown the state deeply into the red.

The state faces a shortfall of $15 billion in the current fiscal year and $25 billion in the next. Democrats, having run the Legislature nonstop for the past 38 years, can fairly be called the main architects of this fiasco and similar fiscal crackups in the past.

Republican minorities and Republican governors have some power to shape budgets and block tax hikes, but they've had little luck putting the brakes on spending. Their main contribution in recent years has been to hold taxes down with borrowing — a strategy that can only go so far before destroying the state's credit.

Added to this chronic lack of fiscal responsibility is a cavalier attitude toward the state's business climate. Past Republican governors provided some adult supervision in this area, but Arnold Schwarzenegger has sided with the greens and gone on a potentially costly crusade to end global warming one state — his — at a time.

California has a huge economy, with world-leading roles in computer technology and popular culture. And as every winter reminds us, it's a pleasant place to live. But the state's blessings also lead to complacency, over-regulation and steep taxes.

Currently, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation, at 8.2%. Only Michigan, home to imploding automakers, and Rhode Island, a state that ranks near California for high business taxes, were worse.

It's this California — the one that can't get the hang of governance — that we fear is showing up in Washington to replicate itself on a national scale. Then again, maybe the individuals who have come out of its political culture will rise above it. We can only hope.

There is also another California: a dynamic, freedom-loving society whose natural leaders are its innovators and entrepreneurs, not its elected officials. It has something of value to teach, as long as it survives.



Email To Friend |

TO ALL

FROM US TO ALL OF OUR FRIENDS


MERRY CHRISTMAS HAPPY NEW YEAR

Your Average Joe

I WOULD NOT PUT ANY OF THIS PAST THE NEW FOLKS IN DC??



Your Average Joe


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Class Warfare: President-elect Obama finally has a job for Vice President-elect Biden — czar of Obama's "middle-class task force." So what will that involve? Stirring up class envy and resentment is our guess.

Here's Biden on his job: "We'll look at everything from college affordability to after-school programs, the things that affect people's daily lives," he told ABC's "This Week."

We're not sure Biden could even tell us what the middle class is — in terms of income, wealth, education or any other meaningful measure. But we are sure one thing is certain to come out of this: A greater resentment between economic classes, stirred up intentionally as part of a divide-and-conquer strategy ultimately intended to impose punitive taxes on those deemed "wealthy."

The media and the left, which are often indistinguishable, have spent the last eight years telling those in the middle class that they're "losing ground" or will be the "first generation to have less than their parents did."

It's all nonsense, of course, but it seems to be effective. Obama's pledge to " rebuild the middle class" by giving tax breaks to "95% of workers and their families" no doubt won him a lot of votes.

But guess what? The middle class did get a tax break — a big one, it turns out — under President Bush. As Congressional Budget Office data show, the effective tax rate on the middle fifth of households fell from an average of about 17.1% under President Clinton to 14.4% under Bush. That's a 16% tax cut for the middle class.

Another oft-heard claim is that middle-class incomes are stagnant or shrinking. But a study last year by the Minneapolis Fed concluded that "incomes of most types of middle American households have increased substantially over the past three decades."

Class warriors such as Biden like to cite median household income as evidence of stagnation. And on the surface, it seems convincing: Real household income did grow just 18% over the past 30 years.

But after correcting for distortions in the data, Terry Fitzgerald, a Fed senior economist, found something else: "Median household income for most household types . . . increased by 44% to 62% from 1976 to 2006." And per-person income surged 80%.

Rather than stagnating, income has grown at an extraordinary pace. Yet that story never quite gets told.

Instead, we hear about another myth: "growing inequality." But according to the accepted measure, the Census Bureau's Gini ratio, there was virtually no change in inequality from 2000 to 2007.

Yes, many Americans are suffering in this recession, including the middle class. But the last thing we need is another general in a phony class war telling people how bad they have it.



Email To Friend |

Obama's Surge

Obama's Surge
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terrorism: The Pentagon will add thousands of troops to Afghanistan next summer, setting up the smart war Barack Obama prefers. We hope he won't one day regret his choice and pull troops out too soon.

In October 2002, as President Bush and Congress were finalizing plans to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, Obama told participants at an anti-war rally in Chicago that he didn't "oppose all wars," but was certainly against "a dumb war" that is "based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

If Obama is indeed against dumb wars — he repeated his opposition to the "dumb war" in Iraq several times in that speech — then we have to assume he is in favor of smart wars. And given his comments about Afghanistan — in July he said more troops needed to be deployed in that country, because it should be the central focus in the war on terrorism — we must conclude that fighting in Afghanistan is a smart war.

We don't disagree. The ruling Taliban, routed from the country nearly seven years ago but not destroyed, has to be eliminated with finality. Terrorist strongholds must be dismantled, violent uprisings snuffed out, links to Iran severed, and the government prevented from falling into chaos. The rugged, mountainous badlands around Afghanistan's border with Pakistan have to be brought under control.

But knowing what needs to be done and having the audacity to actually do it are not the same things.

Taming Afghanistan and exterminating the terrorist network operating there will require a determination that a Democratic administration might find tough to maintain. There will be intense pressure from the left to exit Afghanistan when the campaign becomes a slog, as it ineluctably will.

Simply reminding those who put Obama into office that he is fighting a smart war will not be enough to quell the yawping, because the only sound ringing in their ears is his well-known opposition to the war in Iraq and promises of a hasty exit that got him elected.

Consequently, Obama will have to develop the deep resolve that Bush demonstrated in fully finishing the job in Iraq. Despite great media and political pressure to flee Iraq when it looked to many as if the post-war insurgency was unwinnable, Bush remained unmoved because he refused to compromise national security. Obama will serve well both his and America's long-term interests if he employs the same steadfastness in regard to Afghanistan.

But while Iraq was being won, Afghanistan boiled over. Despite the quick vanquishing of the Taliban, a stable post-war state in this historically poor and troubled nation has been elusive, partly due to the Afghanistan government's failures, partly due to a measure of international negligence.

Without an escalation of troops and aggression similar to the surge that delivered Iraq, Afghanistan will remain one of the world's most troubled — and dangerous — spots.

Losing Afghanistan to radicals would be tragic, especially after the coalition so easily crushed the Taliban and spilled precious blood to do it. Terrorists should never be able to return to their sanctuaries, from where they can wage jihad against the innocent. They cannot be allowed to draw power from a perceived lack of U.S. strength, or from the sympathetic tribal areas.

In less than a month, Afghanistan will be Obama's war. By the summer, when as many as 30,000 U.S. troops are added to the 70,000-man coalition force, it will be Obama's surge. Should he fail to see it through to the end, he would be laying the foundation for a poor presidential legacy.



Email To Friend |

Economic Bailout ?

Economic Bailout ?







WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO, OR NOT?


In 1999, the government seized the Mustang

Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and,

As required by law, tried to run it.

They failed and it closed. Now, we are trusting
The economy of our country and $800+ billion to a
Pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a
Whore house and selling booze..

Now, if that 'don't' make you nervous, what does?

A WARNING FOR AMERICA FROM AFRICA

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:10:04 +0000


A WARNING FOR AMERICA FROM AFRICA
by Alan Stang
November 6, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

I read this warning on my daily radio talk show last week,
before the election. It is even more relevant now, because
the same thing that was imposed on South Africa – by the
United States – is now happening here. So ma ny people
have asked for a copy of this message from a South African
journalist that I post it here. My comments on her comments
are in bold. Of course the parallels cannot be exact, but
see whether you recognize any of this.

By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South
African journalist. She and her husband, a former
conservative member of parliament, still reside in South
Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind
the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came
late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay
rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the
future Wester n world, for events in America reveal trends
chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your
lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary
Americans either get involved or ignore politics are
peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates.
But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it
important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you
are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county
fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies,
setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is
what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are
the political methods you've created for yourselves to
keep your cou ntry on track and to ensure political
accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules
change. White Americans may soon find themsel ves unable or
unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods
that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic
metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope
with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots,
intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for
proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other
social and political weapons used by the have-nots to
bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like
others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will
compromise away their independence and ultimately their way
of life.

That is exactly what happened in Sou th Africa. I know,
because I was there and I saw it happen.

South Africa used to be one of the most advanced nations on
earth. Then Washington intervened.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest
and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson
Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white
government simply capitulated in order to achieve
"peace."

Mandela was in jail for twenty seven years not because he
was an innocent black man but because he was a Communist
terrorist who said in court that he was planning to kill
people with bombs. He could have been released at any time
simply by renouncing terrorism. He re fused.

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They
are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of
the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with
different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners
continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and
its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples
of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war,
and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is
looting the very people (the white men) who feed the
country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of
savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the
right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are
sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western
conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to
the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the
dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe
and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a
similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand
for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside
the realm.

Again, Washington forced Rhodesia into Communist hands.
Rhodesia exported tons of food. Zimbabwe typically starves.
Washington did this.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for
America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on
the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically
correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven
politicians who believe "co mpassionate
conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few
more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in
that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have
inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted
for their own suicide. We are not so very different from
you.

South Africans voted for their own suicide. Did you?

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure
from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges
of "oppression" and "racism," and the
shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has
many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are
his compassion, his belief in the "equality of
man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy
- none of which are part of the Third World's history.

See my recent
piece
– Before the Election: What You Must Do – about the
deliberate cultivation of white guilt in the Communist
government schools.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of
Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in
South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's
mission-school protégés. Many dictators in Africa were men
of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect
criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which20had nothing
whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and
schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and
Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they
unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans
will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a
soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the
claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like
peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a
town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people
met to complain about falling standards in the schools.
Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented
the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When
a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and
waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back
into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut
up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of
society's laws. But what will happen when your future
majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe.
What w ill happen when the new majority says the judges are
racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white
man's justice"? What will happen when the courts
are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In
California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides
to change the names of streets and cities? (*Actually this
has already happend in places like New Orleans, Detroit and
Washington State.) What will you do when they no longer want
to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white
"racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like
you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the nat
ional anthem? Your official language? (*Right now in many
parts of the country Spanish is the de facto language.)

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in
South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is
now experiencing - invasions of private land by the
"have-nots;" the decline in health care quality;
roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your
history from the education of the young; the
revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up
in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply
disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison
authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and
airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school
and university certificates are ro utine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in
your neighbor's backyard? (* Again, already happening in
Louisiana, Georgia and Florida.) How do you clean up the
blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do
you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the
parts of young girls and boys are needed for
"medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the
burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa
today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with
their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like
the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be
found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because
of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't
exist among the whites. (Yet again, already happening,
especially among blacks.) When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia
tried to stand up to the world, white South African
politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to
surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political
opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes
the population and siphons off millions from the state
treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new
President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his
support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and
don't pay. (* You mean "spreading the wealth"
?) In South Africa, organizations that used to have access t
o state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and
veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will
be either destroyed from without, or transformed from
within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they
will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or
exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once
power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or
devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake.
One of the most surprising and tragic components of the
disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC
whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance,
there is no getting it back again.

Please note. Once it's gone, it's gone. Whatever
you do later, however hard you fight, you cannot get it
back.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You
cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your
Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with
prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your
fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your
weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political
opponents.

To=2 0survive, Americans must never lose the power they now
enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't
put yourselves to the test of fighting only when you r backs
are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no
mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas
Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What
they want are your possessions, your power, and your status.
And they already know that their allies among you, the
"human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and
the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for
you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian
charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know
your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?