It really began with the focus on Iraq after 9/11. Those who understood Iraq knew that although it was not a “great” country in the context of the Middle East, it was not too bad.

Although Sadaam Hussein was certainly violent towards many elements in the country, his political party and philosophy was fairly moderate. Thus, women had rights as did religious minorities (Christians --- Sadaam’s right hand man Tariq Aziz was a Christian). No orchestrated violence was going against Christians. The law and the political system was secular, not religious.

Radical Muslims were great enemies of Sadaam Hussein. Both radical Shiites and Sunnis were great enemies of Hussein. He treated both very harshly. Sadaam allowed alcohol and allowed women to engage in work that they wanted.

Prior to 9/11 I questioned the Iraq war. My Republican credentials were strong – but I immediately heard amazingly stupid things from people I knew for 30 years. 

I was told things like:

We finished the job in Afghanistan, so we now can turn our attention elsewhere.

We will be greeted as liberators, the Middle East will have a great ally of America as a result.

The war will not cost anything, Iraq’s oil will pay for it.

The $100,000,000,000 pre-war estimate was way too high (turns out, way too low).

You are a traitor for questioning the President.

As a result of Iraq, the Republican party has forfeited multiple positions that it could bank on. Republicans were no longer the party of fiscal responsibility (the war costs were way, way too high). The Republican party was no longer the party with military expertise (No war, Vietnam or otherwise, was planned worse than this one). The Republican party was impotent to bring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice (it made Jimmy Carter look like Patten or Grant in comparison). The Republican party is no longer “Pro-Christian” (no similar destruction of a large Christian community has occurred in the same numbers – but the Republicans simply could not care less).

So, this is what we are left with. Virtually all Republicans have a long record of not questioning the President at all. They no longer believe in accountability – while they could blame welfare queens for not having a work ethic – when the Bush administration continually made ridiculous inexcusable mistakes every excuse in the world was made for them.

The Republicans did virtually nothing about real issues such as political correctness (Bush pretty much waved a white flag to this one) and immigration issues (Bush apparently believes that because he never had a hard job that there are many jobs that no American will do, so we need to import cheap labor). The Republicans were stupid enough to believe that they could somehow recruit large numbers of “Hispanics” (mostly Mexicans) to vote for them. 10 years ago, it was obvious that, at best, maybe you could reliably get about 35% of the Hispanic vote – while that is not as low as the black vote (10%) it is still a lot less than 50%. 

The Republicans were too stupid to understand that Democrats could better appeal to Hispanics because of (1) better social welfare issues, (2) more reliability on quotas/affirmative action, (3) the fact that most immigrants, being poor, would support the party that is more poised to support “the poor.”

Demographically, how in the world did the Republicans think that the immigration policies would help them? If I could go somewhere to get preferential treatment it would be pretty tempting to seek such a place and vote for a party that more strongly supported such a program.

How in the world will Republicans have more than 40% of the vote in 10 years? 

Conservatives literally would be better off to quit the Republican Party and go into the Democratic party and try to support conservative Democrats in primaries since it appears that they will be unable to secure a majority.

Obama had less experience than any recent Presidential candidate and more baggage (to me, more than anything it was the Wright issue – which showed that Obama had crazy bigotry and chutzpah [knowing his family held slaves, and were not slaves, but believing that anyone with white skin is guilty of some historical sin]).

While I sincerely hope that Obama becomes a great president – undoubtedly should that happen it will be the death knell of the party.

The U.S. Auto Industry

Many conservatives are using the problems faced by the auto industry as an attempt to trash unions. They forget that unions have lost most of their power over the past 30 years and our manufacturing base especially is now tiny compared to what it once was.

Here is a simple explanation for why the U.S. auto industry has fallen apart.

Our health care costs have increased at a level much higher than inflation.

America counts on employers to provide health care unlike most other industrial countries which rely mostly on the government.

30 years ago, it was not unreasonable for either the unions or the companies to enter into the agreements that they did. Nobody could specifically know that health care costs would rise at a level much higher than inflation. Nobody would specifically know that our auto companies would all be in peril in 2008.

30 years ago it may have been reasonable to think it would even be possible to increase employees of American owned companies – so the per employee health care cost would not have necessarily have been so high.

Today, there are way more retirees than current U.S. owned auto workers. So, the companies have an incredible burden. 

To me, it is incredible that conservatives will say how terrible that universal health care is – and believe that employers should continue to provide health care rather than the government – but when it has consequence they blame the employees. Would conservatives rather that these workers had government health care?

It is largely the fault of the republicans that we have such high health care costs.

If these companies did not have to worry about the health care costs of the retired workers, they would be in decent shape.

Conservatives are pretty stupid to claim that American auto workers earn way more than Japanese and German auto workers – they actually do not. It is totally false to claim they do. But, the health care burdens on these companies are enormous. Our health care issues are unique to the industrial world – we do not see the same issues in Germany or Japan. So, whose fault is that? Conservatives claim it is the unions? – incredibly stupid.

I can see a horrible future for America.

First, we will manufacture almost nothing – including food. We are now beginning to import food from China.   Apparently, it does not matter that they have horrible sanitary issues and safety issues – big business certainly will profit from this.

We will completely open our borders. There will be no American Identity. The Southwest will probably be about 70 percent Mexican/Hispanic in about 20 years. The programs providing preferential treatment will never go away. Intellectual white city dwellers will continue to say that the poor whites are “genetically inferior rednecks” even though many of them are capable of building a house, fixing a car and providing food on the table (an intellectual can parrot some other intellectuals views – wow!).

Hate speech will become heavily enforced. Obama Judges and legislation will come up with the “hate speech” exception. By the way, it won’t apply to Jeremiah Wright or any radical leftist.

School children will be heavily indoctrinated with political correctness. Churches will lose tax benefits if they teach “hate.”

Most guns will no longer be allowed. Bolt action hunting rifles might be permitted – but they are almost useless as a personal defense weapon.

This is just a few of the wonderful things to look forward to.

Deconstructing the Problems with GWB

My first problem is that in 7 years we were unable to kill or capture Bin Laden. The U.S.A. has no excuse for that (except for gross incompetence along with no focus on the goal). 

Prior to going to Iraq many so called conservatives argued with me that we had already finished the job in Afghanistan (in 2003!), so we should now go to Iraq. It was impossible to reason with these people. Of course I did not “like” Saddam Hussein – but there was no connection between him and 9/11. Hussein was a secularist – and provided many more rights for women than were allowed in Islamist regimes. His Vice President was a Christians. 

Aside from that, Iraq (like Yugoslavia) was an artificial country with many delicate balances that could easily fall apart. It was unclear to me how “everything changed” after 9/11 to the extent that GHWB’s book written 5 years earlier fully explaining why invading Iraq would be a mistake. 

Apparently, neocons convinced dummy GWB that we would be greeted as liberators – and a thriving democracy would develop. Nobody bothered to explain that Iraq had no history of democracy and it could end up being dominated by the only other country in the world with a majority Shiite Muslim population (Iran) which has a bigger population and would likely have a much stronger army after we invaded. The Neocons had an answer: Chalabi. Chalabi was going to be a combination George Washington and Charles DeGaul.

The war was expected to cost nothing. Oil funds would be used to reconstruct Iraq. By the way, the plan was to get rid of all Baath party officials in all government employment (sorry about that Police, Army, Roads, Water, Sewer Electricity and Garbage).

So, America invaded – and spent perhaps $1,000,000,000,000 in the process (in 2004 I was ridiculed for suggesting that it might costs more than $200,000,000,000).

Many historical functions that were performed by the military was channeled to private contractors – creating a huge conflict as to policy.

By the way, prior to the Iraq war Iraq actually had a lot of Christians – guess where most of them are now? Either: (1) dead or (2) refugees.   Guess what else? Many of their churches (some 1000 years old) have been blown up. Earlier this year a bishop was kidnapped a murdered. GWB cared very little about these issues.

After a few years of grave stupidity, the Bush administration figured out that many people joined the Baath party to simply get along with the government (I guess they did not know that Saddam also killed many people from that party). The Baath party, for a party in the Arab world, was hardly a radical party.

Even today, Iraq does not have the electrical plants, water, sewage and garbage collection that it once did.

So, was this really worth the $1,000,000,000,000. The government simply could have gotten rid of Saddam with the right behind the scenes move (a la Allende in Chile) had it wanted an ally in Iraq. Saddam had made plenty of enemies – the promise of lifted trade sanctions, special forces help, and $100,000,000,000 in aid would have convinced a handful of generals to do what we screwed up.

Today, Iraq now has more sharia law – less rights for women and it largely bans alcohol. Not exactly a success story.

Oh yeah, Bin Laden does not matter (as per GWB in 2004). If Bin Laden does not matter, why not just let every criminal out of prison?

Aside from all of the poor Iraq decisions, the administration’s decision to label people traitors and to demonize any and all who questioned the administration was another breath of fresh air.

GWB had no control whatsoever over spending – largely because of Iraq, but also because of the Medicare prescription drug bill – which is largely simply a hand out to big pharma. Why again does the VA and various Medicaid programs try to negotiate with drug companies, but these policies will not? Also, the rules and coverage issues change so much from year to year, how can someone actually make an informed choice?

Also on medical care, why is it that people who never have worked, criminals and illegal immigrants are covered for medical conditions in this country – but someone who is middle class and loses a job – so has to chose between paying a child’s college tuition or medical care – if they have a heart attack – they lose all of the money they have saved up – while the homeless criminal pays nothing for the same care?

All Americans should have entitlement to Medicaid (not just the poor, criminals or aliens). The program should not be an ideal program ever – but it should ensure that serious problems don’t get worse and people do not die unnecessarily.

The private market then can actually provide valuable medical coverage (something better than the bottom Medicaid). As it is now, many programs are actually no better than Medicaid.

Those who say our medical care would get worse are simply wrong and negative. Those who think our taxes would have to go up are also wrong (why do we already spend more on government provided health care per capita than most rich countries who provide national health insurance).   A good model might be looked upon as Germany’s health care. In Germany about 1/3 costs are private; 2/3 are government (in the U.S. it is 50% each). Nobody would purchase coverage that gives nothing more than what the “free” plan would provide. So competition, would provide something better then the basic – the same reason many people send children to private schools.

Anyway, Bush did nothing to correct this problem. Instead, he and conservatives studied it as a freemarket issue.

Heathcare is incredibly regulated. For example, it is very hard to become a doctor, or set up a medical facility. Even if someone in the medical profession (such as a nurse) invented some wonderful new procedure that person could not perform that procedure. The Drug industry is a mess – doctors prescribe drugs sometimes because they are afraid (especially because they do not want to prescribe pain meds) so instead they prescribe drugs like Vioxx (drug companies make big money – but people die).

One of the reasons countries with socialized medicine obtain results comparable to America is because doctors tend not to prescribe expensive (often unnecessary) meds – instead they give cheap opiate based pain meds (many countries sell them over the counter).

Also, there is a public effort to keep people healthy (at a good weight, not smoking or drinking to excess).

I would love it if someone could by-pass medical school and take a few exams to become a general practitioner (or family medicine doctor) – it would also be nice if people could decide what medicines that they need. Such ideas would actually be compatible with a free market. Total market regulation is not.

GWB did nothing to try to keep our manufacturing base. While some people blame unions and others blame companies, the blame is largely with the U.S. government. Our governmental policies were responsible for medical costs being more than double the rate of inflation from 1980 to 2000. Guess what happened?   That destroyed the U.S. owned auto manufacturers. The unions and companies had no way of knowing that things would go so out of whack – but they did.

Foreign companies – which do not have huge retiree numbers and also started building cars here mostly after the 1980s – have done fine in America. It is not the “lazy worker” or even evil “unions” – these costs are out of hand. Sadly they are about to destroy a critical industry.

People too easily forget that we only won WWII because we had so many auto plants that could easily be converted to tank, plane and bomb production.

Also on trade, GWB pushed for cheap food from places (especially China and Mexico). Our government for nearly 100 years has done a pretty good job with inspection our food production – it cannot do this in either China or Mexico. 

Pretty soon we are going to be unable to even feed ourselves. Check out how much food in now foreign made – 10 years ago it was unheard of.

How strict do you suppose the chemical use is in those countries? What kind of hygienic conditions exist in Chinese food plants.

Money Came First for Bush

Instead of trying to cut back political correctness or racial quotas, Bush spent all his chits on the war – so he did little to try to change these policies.

In fact, Bush pushed for more immigration. Invariably, this leads to the “quota” issue since for whatever reason “Hispanics” irrespective of racial or cultural background, benefit from preferential treatment. (I was competing for a grad school spot with someone from Costa Rica who was a millionaire, was a non-citizen, whose sister had blond hair and blue eyes, had worse grades and test scores than I did – I was not admitted to that program – he received a full scholarship). Some would say it is “bitter” to complain about such things – I submit it is wrong to cower and accept such unfair and wrong policies.

Bush was apparently too stupid to understand that if you increase the numbers of a so called group “Hispanics” – and they only vote about 30 to 40 percent for your party, you have less of a chance to win future elections.

As far as the goal of simply fair and equal treatment for everyone – that will never happen in my lifetime. Things are way too screwed up and so many government and university jobs are predicated on those policies, they never will go away.

By the way, you are a racist for questioning these policies.

George, thanks again for your wise stewardship.

Take my word for it; there never was a “white conspiracy.”

Let us examine the “white conspiracy” theories. When did this exactly occur? Certainly it was not occurring during WWII or WWI (where millions of “whites” died). Did it really exist in America? The Klan used to protest against Catholics as well as blacks and Jews – so 2/3 of the groups they opposed were also “white.”

Certainly, petty discrimination by so called “whites” against blacks occurred (like in the American South or in South Africa). However, this policy was never designed to kill or commit genocide.

Grouping “whites” together is racist. “We” whites do not have a singular history. Indeed, some of us “whites” like Barack Obama had black slaves.   Certainly, Germans had a negative history in the 20^th century.

I have yet to ever hear anyone who is Jewish blame “all whites” for Nazism. Indeed, usually there is not even a universal condemnation of all Germans because some Germans dissented from such policies (Schindler, Bonhoeffer).

All children are taught this revisionist history. It does not matter what someone’s actual history is – it does not matter who held slaves. Few care about racial incidents where “whites” are victimized be it Reginald Denny or the Duke Lacrosse players. All that is needed as a defense is “black rage” – like that used by Colin Ferguson.

In my lifetime, it has definitely gotten worse. 20 years ago, it was possible to challenge people who make blanket false assertions. Today, political correctness has a stranglehold in both academia and the government. Thus, most colleges have no white male moderate to conservative professors in any liberal arts fields.

Does history matter?

After World War II, when East Germany was created, the Stalinist East German propaganda machine created the fiction that the Nazis were all West Germans. While it may have been true that some of those who were enemies of the German Third Reich became powerful in East Germany – but it was simply factually untrue to claim that the Nazi’s were from the West.

The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world have constantly pressed for the historical wrongs that happened to blacks in America. A particular figure that they frequently cite is 300 years of discrimination. Of course, some slaves did not even get to America until the early 19^th Century – so by that very fact the years are cut in half.

So, what of Obama’s connection to slavery? It is true that he had multiple slaveholding ancestors – unlike me. It is also true that his mother was of mostly English heritage. While I do have some very remote English heritage (albeit of people who most recently religious minorities) it is not nearly the degree of Obama’s English heritage.

So, comparing myself with Obama, his ancestors for hundreds of years deprived my ancestors of life, liberty and property. Also, his ancestors were involved in the attempt to wipe out Ireland’s primary religion. 

The English domination of Ireland existed more than 800 years (compare again to the years of slavery). In various times, in multiple centuries, the English either directly or indirectly attempted to kill and starve the Irish. The Irish themselves were enslaved by the English and sent to the Caribbean (particularly Barbados) and the New World.

During both the 17^th Century and the 19^th Century significant percentages of Irish were killed due to English policy. 

Observers at the time considered the treatment of Irish worse than black slaves or American Indians. 

For petty offenses, for decades Irish were deported to Australia – a trip much further than West Africa to the Americas.

All over Ireland, there are mass graves.

Today, none of this matters in America. All whites are the same (if you believe the history books in our schools). 

The sickness of political correctness has stolen our history. America’s history is full of the Irish experience. There are significantly more Irish Americans than there are people in Ireland (this is yet another huge factual reality). In one West African country today – Nigeria – there are more than 5 times more black Africans than in the U.S.

In rough numbers, there are similar numbers of Irish Americans and descendents of black Slaves (of course, some people have both heritages). Though children for years, and years and years are taught about the unfairness of slavery – this part of our history is ignored.

Do you think any professor in a public university is permitted to say such facts? Think again. In our public universities, professors cannot even question the wisdom of racial quotas and political correctness.

What does diversity mean?

To some extent, there is a little bit diversity in “black America” as a result of recent immigration from Africa and earlier immigration from the Caribbean. Those of primary black Ancestry are really not as “diverse” as many other ethnic and racial groups.

For example, most black Americans have primarily heritage from sub-Saharan Western Africa (from places known today such as Angola, Nigeria or Liberia). Also, because of slavery itself, many of these different groupings lost importance over time (like many “white” people whose ancestors came to the U.S. over 100 years ago who can sometimes be of part English, German, Dutch, Swedish and Scots heritage – which can kind of negate an “individual heritage”).

Many so called white people still DO retain heritage related to their ethnicity. This is especially true with groups such as the Irish, Greeks, Italians and Polish – but it is by no means exclusive to these groups.

So, picking 10 random “white” people is likely to get you maybe 2 Irish Catholics, 2 Germans (perhaps one Protestant, one Catholic), a mixed English/Scotsman, one full Italian and one half Italian, half French, someone Pole, a Greek and a Swede. In many cases these groups are quite different – they speak totally different languages – have different religions and very different histories.

But even when you go further into “white” history – you can find groups that were eager and successful colonists (the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French and Dutch in particular) along with groups who were constantly under siege (like Sorbs, Estonians and the Rusyns). Many groups never had any “new world” immigration in large numbers until the 20^th century (like Albanians, Russian, Italians, etc.).

Picking 10 random black people will likely cause about 8 people being pretty similar in background (originally from the South [or still residing in the South], of primarily West African Ancestry mixed with perhaps ¼  ancestry from the British Isles or France. Perhaps one will have little to no European heritage (for example Gullah people like Clarence Thomas who actually retain African languages) perhaps one will be either originally from Haiti or Jamaica.

Anyway, “white people” (which at this point has been a point of such historical distortion and misuse that I would like it to be relegated to where “colored” has been sent) have very “diverse” histories – in many cases where they did not cross paths with black slavery or discrimination.

Of course, the strange new racial term “Asian” which could conceivably cover people who are white Caucasians (since that region is actually in Asia) to all Jews, all Asiatic Indians, Koreans and Syrians – is even more “diverse” – though in raw numbers all “Asian groups” remain for now a relatively small combined minority.

I even suspect that at somepoint Obama himself might say that "I only got elected because I was not really black (biracial and NOT West African)."

I have heard some of the most bizarre excuses for the Jeremiah Wright association (all whites did this, and did that and created AIDS to kill blacks) -- yet it was really fine for most Americans that Obama slammed both his grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro -- for doing something that a "person of color" would have no problem doing.

Few if any blacks have any concept that the petty unfair treatment that they sufferred (along with probably thousands of murders) really does not amount to much compared to what happened to Irish (and off and on again 800 year campaign where millions were starved and those who lived in conditions unfit for animals let alone slaves).

Personally, for my ancestors who sufferred -- who amount to about 50% of my heritage (the other 50% did not fare that much better in Ireland -- but they at least did not suffer to extent they did in Mayo) -- cry out to the constant slanders, blanket statements and lies told by Obama. 

Top 10 things that might end racism in America

1.)    Make efforts to deport anyone who has more than two slaveholding ancestors from America (that way some other country would have to deal with both Obama and McLame).

2.)    All crimes where victim and perpetrator were of different races would be presumed to be hate crimes (but would be potentially something that could be rebutted). Jesse Jackson would have a fit with this.

3.)    Actually teach the truth of what happened to the Irish from 1600 to 1900 (the mass genocides, slavery, deportations to Australia on Prison ships would be highlighted).

4.)    Compare and contrast what the Americans did to those of Japanese ancestry (who had to live in camps with their family and were clothed, fed and received medical treatment) with what happened to American POWs in Japanese hands (give particular attention to the medical and biological/chemical experimentation on live victims).

5.)    Let everyone who says that “you white people” did things to them be subjected to a choice of living as a typical Ukranian in the 1930s, an Irishman in the 1840s or an Armenian in the 1910s for a couple of months.

6.)    Let everyone who makes racial comments about "typical white people" be forced to learn about the multitude of cultures that exist in Europe and West Asia.

7.)    When people talk about the hardships of “Hispanics” let us remind people that Hispanics participated more in the slavetrade than any other European Group  (on this note instead accomodating Spanish speaking of Mexicansof pushing American Indian Mexicans [who constitute the vast majority of Mexican illegal aliens] to learn tribal languages.

8.)    Put a non-white person in “make-up” and drop them off in the middle of Down Town Washington, DC or Detroit and see what might happen/

9.)     Let someone explain to people in Sudan or Rwanda how the atrocities that happened there were the fault of the “whites.”

10.) Explain exactly how “the white man” was able to create nuclear weapons, germ war-fair in WWI, and has at its disposal all sorts of biological agents – but when they tried to kill “people of color” with AIDS, they failed miserably.

The majority values that exist in America are pathetic. No matter what your family history is, no matter how much money you have, no matter whether or not you are an American citizen or not, you are cursed with second class treatment in this country. Due to nothing more than skin color (“whiteness”) people suffer discrimination. It matters not that Italians, Russians or Estonians were not involved in the black slave trade – and did not really even live in America prior to the civil war.

On the other hand, if someone is of Spanish or Portuguese heritage – and even if they were involved with the slave trade (probably the Portuguese per person were the largest slave trade given the number of slaves transported to Brazil) – such a person is a “minority” who receives preferential treatment.

Slaves were held by few people. Slaves, though mistreated, but they were fed and thrived in America. That is, their numbers went up – unlike the Irish – even today Ireland has a smaller population than in 1840. 

A French Historian, who had observed the condition of slaves in America, Indians in America along with the Irish (before an gorta mor “The Famine”):

Gustave de Beaumont (b. February 6, 1802 in Beaumont-la-Chartre, France, d. March 30, 1865 in Paris, France) was a French magistrate, prison reformer, and travel companion to the famed philosopher and politician Alexis de Tocqueville. He visited Ireland in the mid-1830s. In his "Ireland: Social, Political and Religious", 1839 he writes about the state of the Irish. As an objective observer, neither English nor Irish, his observations are invaluable for an unbiased view of living conditions in Ireland at that time:
"I have seen the Indian in his forests, and the negro in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland. Like the Indian, the Irishman is poor and naked; but he lives in the midst of a society where luxury is eagerly sought, and where wealth is honoured. Like the Indian, he is destitute of the physical comforts which human industry and the commerce of nations procure; but he sees a part of his fellows enjoying the comforts to which he cannot aspire. In the midst of his greatest distress, the Indian preserves a certain independence, which has its dignity and its charms. Though indigent and famished, he is still free in his deserts, and the sense of this liberty alleviates many of his sufferings: the Irishman undergoes the same destitution without possessing the same liberty; he is subject to rules and restrictions of every sort: he is dying of hunger, and restrained by law; a sad condition, which unites all the vices of civilization to all those of savage life. Without doubt, the Irishman who is about to break his chains, and has faith in futurity, is not quite so much to be bewailed as the Indian or the slave. Still, at the present day, he has neither the liberty of the savage, nor the bread of servitude.

I will not undertake to describe all the circumstances and all the phases of Irish misery; from the condition of the small farmer, who starves himself that his children may have something to eat, down to the labourer, who, less miserable but more degraded, has recourse to mendicancy - from resigned indigence, which is silent in the midst of its sufferings, and sacrifices to that which revolts, and in its violence proceeds to crime.
Irish poverty has a special and exceptional character, which renders its definition difficult, because it can be compared with no other indigence. Irish misery forms a type by itself, of which neither the model nor the imitation can be found anywhere else.
In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland. To explain the social condition of such a country, it would be only necessary to recount its miseries and its sufferings; the history of the poor is the history of Ireland."