Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Federal Judge in California Halts Splitting of Migrant Families at Border

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/family-separations-congress-states.html?emc=edit_na_20180627&nl=breaking-news&nlid=47262106ing-news&ref=headline

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction late Tuesday temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating children from their parents at the border and ordered that all families already separated be reunited within 30 days. Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the Federal District Court in San Diego said children under 5 must be reunited with their parents within 14 days, and he ordered that all children must be allowed to talk to their parents within 10 days. “The unfortunate reality is that under the present system, migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property,” the judge wrote. Judge Sabraw’s order, which is likely to prompt a high-profile legal battle with the Justice Department, came on the same day that President Trump won a landmark legal victory when the Supreme Court upheld his travel ban, ending a 17-month legal fight.

But the judge’s ruling in the family separation case raises the stakes on an issue that had already become an intensely difficult political crisis for Mr. Trump. The president last week issued an executive order seeking to bring family separations to an end, but saying little about reuniting families. The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a lawsuit to stop the separations before the president’s executive order. In his order, Judge Sabraw said that children may be separated at the border only if the adults with them present an immediate danger to the children. You have 3 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times He also said that adults may not be deported from the United States without their children. “The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance — responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government’s own making,” the judge wrote in the opinion. “They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children.”

A federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating families at the border, and he ordered that all families already separated be reunited within 30 days. 24 pages, 1.22 MB In a statement, Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer in the case for the A.C.L.U., hailed the judge’s order. “This is an enormous win and will mean that this humanitarian crisis is coming to an end,” Mr. Gelernt said. “We hope the Trump administration will not think about appealing when the lives of these little children are at stake.” The A.C.L.U. lawsuit was initially brought on behalf of two cases in which the children of immigrants were taken from them after they crossed the border. In one case, a woman entered the United States legally at a port of entry, fleeing persecution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The lawsuit says that her 6-year-old daughter was taken from her and sent to a facility in Chicago, where she stayed for nearly five months. In another case, a woman from Brazil, identified as “Ms. C,” crossed the border illegally with her 14-year-old son, who was separated from her and also sent to a facility in Chicago. The mother and son were apart for nearly eight months, according to the lawsuit. “During the five months she was detained, Ms. C. did not see her son, and they spoke on the phone only ‘a handful of times,’” the lawsuit says. “Ms. C. was ‘desperate’ to be reunited with her son, worried about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see him.” Earlier Tuesday, seventeen states sued Mr. Trump for his administration’s practice of separating immigrant parents from their children, saying that the tactic is causing “devastating harm,” even as a top official said the government was struggling to reunite families fractured by the policy. On a day when Mr. Trump basked publicly in the glow of a victory, with the Supreme Court upholding his travel ban, he faced a new legal challenge to what has emerged as the most controversial piece of his immigration agenda.

The states, including Washington, California and New York and joined by the District of Columbia, branded the forcible separation of immigrant families unconstitutional, “cruel and unlawful,” calling it a violation of the principles of due process and equal protection. They requested that the court halt it and immediately compel the government to reunite parents with their children. The Trump administration says it is trying to do just that, but success has proved vexing. The administration has appeared unprepared for the fallout from its decision to prosecute every immigrant apprehended entering the country without authorization — including those who are seeking asylum — without exceptions for parents. Even after Mr. Trump reversed course last week and moved to detain migrant parents facing charges of unlawful entry with their children, the challenge of reuniting families already torn apart has morphed into a crisis of its own. Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, told senators on Tuesday that his department — which is charged with taking custody of undocumented unaccompanied minors — was having trouble figuring out how to care for the children it was holding who had been separated from their parents. Some of them, he said, were in federal custody even though their parents had been sent back to Central America after trying to enter the United States illegally. “As to any parent who’s deported, the child has independent rights,” Mr. Azar said during a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, where his plan to discuss prescription drug pricing was upended by a grilling over the separated families. “We often do find, when a parent is deported, that they ask the child to remain separate and remain in this country.”

Mr. Azar said his department is holding 2,047 separated children, only six fewer than it held last week when Mr. Trump signed the executive order. Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, conceded that the process of reuniting families would be difficult. “This is a complex situation,” Mr. Shah told CNN in an interview. “Our goal is to fully reunite as many families as possible, as quickly as possible.” Yet in the lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court in Seattle, the attorneys general for the states noted that Mr. Trump’s order last week did not apply to families already broken apart, nor did it prevent the tactic from being used in the future. A top official at Customs and Border Protection said Monday that the agency would cease referring parents traveling with minor children for criminal prosecution in order to keep families together. But White House officials said Monday that the change was temporary and only being carried out because the government would soon run out of space and resources to detain families together. Amid the chaos, the first lady, Melania Trump, who traveled last week to a facility housing undocumented children who had been separated from their parents at the border, has planned another such visit this week, according to a spokeswoman. The president, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s validation of the travel ban, continued on Tuesday to rail against immigration laws that afford those fleeing danger and persecution in their home countries the chance to have their asylum claims adjudicated by a judge. “If they step on our land, they have judges — it’s insane,” Mr. Trump said. He said the United States should adopt stricter laws that send an unmistakable message that only immigrants who have special skills to boost the American economy should be allowed into the country. “It’s called, ‘I’m sorry, you can’t come in. You have to go in through a legal process,’” Mr. Trump said of his approach, during a lunch at the White House with Republican members of Congress. “I have to let people come in, but they have to come in through a merit. They have to be people that can love our country and help our country.”

Vice President Mike Pence, traveling in Brazil, implored would-be immigrants not to attempt to cross the United States border without authorization. “Don’t risk your lives or the lives of your children by trying to come to the United States on the road run by drug smugglers and human traffickers,” Mr. Pence said. “If you can’t come legally, don’t come at all.” The lawsuit filed Tuesday took aim at the administration’s hostility toward asylum seekers, maintaining that officials at the border were violating the law by turning them away before they could reach a port of entry to lawfully make their claim or, in some cases, before detaining them and taking away their children. “By criminalizing the pursuit of asylum, this policy runs counter to established immigration and refugee laws,” the lawsuit said. White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the legal challenge. Yet even as Mr. Trump vented his anger about the current state of immigration laws, his on-again, off-again push for a legislative overhaul of immigration policy appeared headed for defeat. The House was poised to reject a broad immigration bill slated for a vote on Wednesday, a result that is likely to prompt lawmakers in that chamber to shift their focus to narrower legislation meant to ensure that families are kept together at the border. If the broad overhaul fails, it would be the second time in a week that a wide-ranging immigration bill died in the House because of persistent divisions among Republican members and mixed signals from a president who is reluctant to be seen as suffering a defeat. The House voted down a hard-line immigration bill last week, with 41 Republicans joining Democrats in siding against the measure. It was not clear on Tuesday whether the overhaul to be voted on this week — a compromise worked out by Republican moderates and conservatives — would fare any better.

The bill would provide a path to citizenship for the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, while keeping migrant families together at the border and providing billions of dollars for Mr. Trump’s promised wall on the southern border with Mexico. Democrats are expected to broadly oppose it, and many conservative Republicans are also expected to vote against the measure, which has been criticized from the right as “amnesty.” Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin reiterated Tuesday that he wants migrant families to be kept together. But he held back from previewing how the House might take action if the broad legislation fails on Wednesday. “I want to lean into that vote,” Mr. Ryan said, adding, “If that doesn’t succeed, then we’ll cross that bridge. But the last thing I want to do is undercut a vote on what is a great consensus bill.” With the bill’s defeat all but certain, Republicans in the House appear ready to pursue a narrower measure on the issue of family separation. “We want to make sure that’s addressed regardless,” said Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative members. With the Fourth of July looming, it was not clear how quickly the House might be able to take action on that subject. The chamber is scheduled to finish its work for the week on Thursday and not return until July 10. Senators have also been pursuing stand-alone legislation intended to keep families together. The broader immigration overhaul had first been scheduled for a vote in the House last Thursday. But Republican leaders delayed the vote until Friday, and then pushed it to this week, as they tried to grow its support in the chamber.

Pittsburgh cop arrested for homicide in fatal shooting of unarmed teen Antwon Rose Jr.


The police officer who fatally shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose, Jr. has been charged with criminal homicide, KDKA-TV reported Wednesday.
East Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael Rosfeld shot the unarmed teenager three times in the back, only 90 minutes after being sworn in as an officer with the department.

Police had stopped Rose and another teen on suspicion they were involved in a drive-by shooting. Rose fled and was shot.
The shooting unleashed massive protests in Pittsburgh by demonstrators seeking justice for the victim.
Officer Rosfeld was placed on paid administrative leave following the fatal shooting.
Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala will be holding a Wednesday news conference to explain the charges.
“The family views the indictment with guarded optimism. We realize that conviction is a long road ahead and it will require our continued advocacy on behalf of Antwon. We echo the sentiments that this officer with a history of violence and a history of manipulating evidence to obscure his violence at previous jobs, there should have been safeguards in place to ensure that he wasn’t hired in the first place. Although it feels like we are moving in the direction of justice, the kind of evidence that existed at the time of the shooting, this is justice delayed for the family,” said Lee Merritt, the family attorney for Rose’s family.

Trump and Putin Will Hold Summit Meeting, Officials Say

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/world/europe/bolton-moscow-putin-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20180627&nl=breaking-news&nlid=47262106ing-news&ref=headline

WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to meet President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia next month in a one-on-one summit meeting, a politically sensitive encounter that could exacerbate strains with NATO allies even if it eases tensions between the United States and Russia. It would be the first formal summit meeting specifically for Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, who have met twice at annual gatherings of world leaders. And it comes at a particularly delicate moment, with midterm elections looming in the United States and the special counsel’s investigation of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia grinding on. But the president has expressed a determination to meet with Mr. Putin, administration officials said, especially in the aftermath of his encounter with Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, which Mr. Trump celebrated as a diplomatic triumph — even if it has produced little in the way of tangible results. Mr. Trump dispatched to Moscow his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, who met on Wednesday with Mr. Putin. Afterward, Mr. Bolton said a time and place for the meeting would be announced Thursday. Other administration officials said Helsinki, Finland, was a prime candidate. “Getting along with Russia, and with China, and with everybody, is a very good thing,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office later Wednesday. “So we’ll probably be meeting sometime around my trip to Europe.” Mr. Trump is scheduled to attend a NATO summit meeting in Brussels on July 11 and 12, followed by a long-delayed visit to Britain. He could add another stop on the European trip to get together with Mr. Putin. You have 4 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times The prospect of a high-level encounter — one that would presumably focus on the American-Russian relationship and related issues, including Syria and arms control — has stirred anxieties in Europe given Mr. Trump’s clashes with allies like Germany, France and Canada. European officials have expressed fears that it could overshadow or undermine the NATO meeting, particularly if that gathering ends in acrimony, as did the recently concluded meeting of the Group of 7 major industrial powers in Canada. American officials said they were drafting language for a NATO statement that would reaffirm the importance of a “rules-based order.” But they acknowledged that Mr. Trump could decide to jettison it, as he did last year when he deleted an endorsement of Article Five, the principle of mutual defense, from his speech dedicating NATO’s new headquarters.

Instead, Mr. Trump assailed other NATO members at that meeting for not shouldering their fair share of military expenses. More recently, he has clashed with some of those same countries over trade and migration. At the same time, Mr. Trump has stubbornly refused to criticize Mr. Putin, despite recurring tensions over Ukraine, Syria and meddling in the 2016 election. Mr. Bolton briefly raised the election issue on Wednesday with Russian officials, according to Yuri Ushakov, an aide to Mr. Putin. “We declared clearly that the Russian government did not meddle in U.S. processes, does not meddle and moreover did not meddle in the 2016 elections,” Mr. Ushakov said. In a televised portion of the meeting in Moscow, Mr. Putin told Mr. Bolton, “I have to say with regret that Russian-American relations are not in the best shape.” “And I’ve already said this repeatedly in public and am saying this to you now: I think that this is largely a result of the acute internal political struggle within the United States,” Mr. Putin said. For his part, Mr. Bolton, an avowed hawk on Russia, opened with a compliment, telling Mr. Putin he looked forward to hearing “how you handled the World Cup so successfully.” Mr. Trump picked up that theme later in the Oval Office. Russia is doing “a fantastic job with the World Cup,” he told journalists as he welcomed the president of Portugal, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa. “It’s exciting,” Mr. Trump said. “My son loves soccer and he loves watching the World Cup, and they have really done a fantastic job.” Mr. Trump has sought a meeting with Mr. Putin since March, when he called to congratulate the Russian president for winning another term in an election that was widely viewed in the West as a sham. Mr. Trump has also broached the idea that Mr. Putin could visit the White House, something the Russian leader has not done since 2005. Some administration officials have resisted such a meeting, as have Mr. Trump’s political allies, given the continuing scrutiny of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election and its possible links to the Trump campaign. The two countries also recently expelled some of the other’s diplomats after the poisoning in March of a former Russian spy living in Britain. But this month, Mr. Trump urged other members of the Group of 7 to readmit Russia, which was expelled after its armed intervention in Ukraine in 2014 and seizure of Crimea. A summit meeting could score some easy diplomatic advances for the two men. “The presidents may agree on a joint statement, which could outline further steps for both countries to improve bilateral relations and for some joint actions on the international arena,” Mr. Ushakov said. Sergei A. Karaganov, an adviser to the Kremlin on foreign policy, said the two presidents also could, for example, formalize cooperation in Syria that is already taking place and extend or modify strategic arms agreements. “There cannot be a breakthrough,” Mr. Karaganov said, though he added that a meeting “could start the process of civilizing a relationship that is outright dangerous and uncivilized now, to the extent that it even exists.” Michael McFaul, a former American ambassador to Russia, said that he favored high-level summit meetings, if only to dispel misperceptions about the other side. But he questioned whether Mr. Trump would bring concrete objectives to the meeting — for example, an agreement to begin negotiating a successor to the New Start arms treaty. “I fear his eagerness to get along with Putin might produce concessions that do not serve American national interests,” Mr. McFaul said. “If Trump heaps the kind of praise on Putin that he devoted to Kim Jong-un, that will be a giant victory for Putin. That’s all Putin needs for a successful meeting.”

Farmers in America Are Now Killing Themselves at an Unprecedented Rate


Renegade Editor’s Note: The obvious point not being made in this article is that the farmers are mostly White, and that the suicide epidemic is predominately affecting White people, who have been the ongoing target of genocidal hatred coming from the top down.
By Tyler Durden
Suicide is exploding in America – and the increase isn’t confined to celebrities like Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain. Suicide rates have risen by an astonishing 30% since 1999, with suicidal people citing relationship stress, financial difficulties and other issues as the underlying cause.
But suicide rates have increased for some professions more than others. According to CBS, farmers are facing the highest suicide rate of any profession in the US. The suicide rate for people in the field of farming, fishing and forestry is 84.5 per 100,000 people – more than five times that of the broader population. And with retaliatory tariffs from China and the European Union set to further undermine US crop prices, a bad situation could be about to get worse. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates, making the loans on which farmers depend increasingly expensive.
The study comes with a few caveats: For one, it leaves out Iowa, a major agricultural state. And while farmers make up the bulk of the workers in their subgroup, they do share the designation with a small number of workers from related occupational groups, like fishing and forestry. But the figures largely jive with other recent studies. For example, suicide rates are highest in rural areas – where the bulk of farming is done.
One source said today’s crisis of suicide might be worse than a similar wave that gripped the American heartland in the 1980s.
The farm crisis was so bad, there was a terrible outbreak of suicide and depression,” said Jennifer Fahy, communications director with Farm Aid, a group founded in 1985 that advocates for farmers. Today, she said, “I think it’s actually worse.”
We’re hearing from farmers on our hotline that farmer stress is extremely high,” Fahy said. “Every time there’s more uncertainty around issues around the farm economy is another day of phones ringing off the hook.”
Finances are probably the most pressing reason: Since 2013, farm income has been declining steadily according to the US Department of Agriculture. This year, the average farm is expected to earn 35% less than what it earned in 2013.
“Think about trying to live today on the income you had 15 years ago.” That’s how agriculture expert Chris Hurt describes the plight facing U.S. farmers today.
Farmers are at the mercy of extreme weather like hurricanes that threaten crops to agricultural commodity prices that have fallen below breakeven production levels. And prices will likely only continue to fall as America’s trading partners slap tariffs on American agricultural products.
Of course, farmers aren’t the only American professionals feeling squeezed. In New York City, local press has focused on a wave of cab driver suicides in recent months which have been largely blamed on the rise of ride-sharing apps, which have devalued cab drivers’ medallions. Over the last five months, more than five New York City cabbies had committed suicide, blaming Uber for their financial troubles.

This article originally appeared on Zero Hedge.

The Copper Conspiracy – What the Media and Doctors Failed to Tell Us

From Vita: Copper has been one of the most life-changing miracles for me, which was totally unexpected after a year of battling “copper toxicity”. I had to rethink everything I knew about copper and that led me to the other side of information out there. It’s crazy how if you research copper toxicity, you’ll find only information supporting it and it will seem like copper is the biggest villain out there. But if you research copper health benefits, things you find will blow your mind. A lot of us are copper deficient, yet the media and doctors fail to acknowledge it or to openly discuss it. Such a shame!
Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor and I’m not giving medical advice. I’m just someone who has spent hundreds of hours researching health, so I can heal myself. Please do your own research before trying anything and make sure you always make informed decisions.

The Reich in Color Photos – Germany at War



    The EU Is Waging War on What Makes the Internet Great

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-eu-is-waging-war-on-what-makes-the-internet-great/

    By Oliver Wiseman
    What is it about the European Union and bad tech laws with boring names? Brussels has managed to transform four harmless letters into a byword for irritating compliance-induced spam and pop-ups, as well as a consolidation of power for the internet’s biggest players. Now that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) dust has settled, along comes Article 13 of the Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which was approved Thursday by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs.
    The Latest Crackdown on Internet Freedom
    Article 13 requires websites to take “appropriate and proportionate” measures to make sure copyrighted material doesn’t appear on their pages. It also requires sites to “provide rightsholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of measures.” Then there is the jargon-laden instruction for Member States to “facilitate… cooperating between the information society service providers and rightsholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices.”
    Those appropriate and proportionate measures mean “content recognition technologies” along the lines of Content ID, the copyright filter that Google uses to stop YouTube users from uploading copyrighted videos. As open internet campaigner and writer Cory Doctorow has explained, everyone hates the filter:
    “Big rightsholders say that it still lets crucial materials slip through the cracks. Indie rightsholders say that it lets big corporations falsely claim copyright over their works and take them down. Google hates Content ID because they spent $60,000,000 developing a system that makes everyone miserable, and YouTubers and their viewers hate it because it overblocks so much legit content.”
    The E.U. seems to have looked at this way of doing things and decided it should be extended – by law – not just to all online videos but to everything on the internet.
    Stifling the Free Flow of Ideas and Information
    It is hard to overstate the extent of the threat this piece of legislation is to online culture as we know it. In an open letter to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, a group of internet pioneers that includes Tim Berners-Lee, Vinton Cerf, and Jimmy Wales spell out the danger:
    “Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance of its users.”
    Article 13 essentially amounts to an outsourcing of copyright enforcement to internet companies and imposes a requirement to check everything posted online for copyright infringement. That will have grave consequences for both free expression and competition.
    That the legislation is bad news for free expression is inevitable for two reasons. The first is the inadequacy of the technology. As Doctorow explains, YouTube’s filter just isn’t very good at distinguishing copyrighted from non-copyrighted material. The same would be true of whatever firms are forced to implement by Brussels. Plenty of material that in no way falls foul of copyright law will be caught by the filters. Given that the internet platforms now responsible for policing copyright have little reason to be anything other than risk-averse when it comes to preventing infringement, overkill seems unavoidable under Article 13.
    But the bigger problem is that identifying material shouldn’t be enough to automatically block its use. It’s not hard to think of harmless pictures that could be caught by a filter because of a logo on a t-shirt or a poster on the wall. There is also the question of what is known as fair dealing in U.K. copyright law and fair use elsewhere. These are the exceptions that allow people to use copyrighted material if they are doing so for research, criticism, review, parody, or a number of other uses. A filter that automatically blocks copyrighted material would make no allowance for these important cases.
    This is, among many other things, bad news for good fun. Memes, which very often involve the sharing, tweaking, and re-sharing of copyrighted material, wouldn’t make it past the proposed filters. Nor would countless other ways we use the internet.
    Article 13 Consolidates Big Tech’s Power
    Article 13 wouldn’t just hurt users directly by limiting what they can post online, but would indirectly affect them by further tilting things in favor of the internet giants. The E.U. likes to talk tough – and impose big fines – on big tech. So why does it keep passing laws that impose regulatory burdens large firms can shoulder more easily than their smaller competitors?
    The benefits of this copyright clampdown are nothing compared to the benefits of an open, vibrant online culture. But whereas the former are concentrated among a handful of industries, the latter are spread thinly across society. Such fights will always be imbalanced ones, but they are made worse when, as in Brussels, decision-making is dysfunctional, remote, and democratically deficient. That makes it easier for vested interested to exploit the legislative process. Healthy political systems sometimes pass bad laws. But unhealthy political systems pass many more of them.
    It is probably too late to stop Article 13. After very little public debate, it is set to be waved through a plenary session of the European Parliament. And so, with lamentably little fuss, the E.U. will have taken a big step towards ruining what makes the internet so great.

    This article originally appeared on fee.org.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018

    Mestizo America: The End of Aryan Enterprise

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/mestizo-america-the-end-of-aryan-enterprise/

    By Eric Thomson (2000)
    Benjamin Disraeli wrote that “those who did not understand race will never understand history” and a European whose name I forget predicted in the l9th century that “the U.S. would conquer Mexico and be destroyed.” The Aryan conquerors of Mexico in the 1840s were much wiser than we are today, for they already knew the truth of Disraeli’s statement. Thus did Aryan-ruled America annex the least-populated parts of Mexico, even though many Mexicans wanted them to annex all of the country to have done with mestizo misrule. But Aryan Americans wanted no part of populous Mexico with its ungovernable, unproductive, corrupt and prolific mestizo inhabitants. Thus was the European’s dire prediction confounded until this century of the “Pox Judaica”.
    Now that the Zionist bankster government in the District of Corruption has decreed that North America, including Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico will join in economic/political union whether we like it or not, it behooves us to consider the cost of adopting the entire mestizo population of Mexico in addition to the hordes already within our borders. One Zogling in the Pentagon’s War College let slip the fact that Mexico nearly ‘self-destructed’ into chaos and civil war in the 1980s due to endemic corruption and mismanagement plus the omnipresent mestizo population explosion. He said the C.I.A. “had warned Americans of this danger.” Well, he and his fellow Pentagonian Zoglings may have received the C.I.A.’s warning, but few other Americans did, to my knowledge, for the likelihood of another violent outburst of the kind which racked Mexico from 1910 to 1929 hardly seemed “newsworthy” to the U.S. jewsmedia.
    History, as Santayana warned us, is repeated by those who do not learn it. We should therefore consider what brought about the so-called Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the carnage that followed. Mexico under the Aztecs had a workable, albeit bloody-minded, system of birth control. Tribal wars were the ‘national sport’ and prisoners were taken for blood sacrifices. Thus were the natives occupied when the Spaniards came and committed two cardinal blunders: they stopped the human sacrifices and they miscegenated, thus producing a crazy, mixed-up population which bred like ‘piranha-bunnies’.
    Porfirio Diaz, one of Juarez’ mestizo generals, but typical, ruled Mexico for 34 peaceful and prosperous years until he was forced to flee the country in 1910. He died of old age in France, whose armies he had fought under Juarez. Porfirio Diaz wanted Mexico to progress. He saw, wherever he looked, that Mexico’s Indian heritage and population were preventing Mexico from becoming a wealthy and powerful country. Even having lost some two-thirds of its territory to the United States, Mexico was large, rich in natural resources and well-situated for world trade. Its climate and soil were well-suited to a broad spectrum of agricultural production.
    Except for the Indian factor, Diaz saw no reason why Mexico should remain a poor and backward country. Thus did he encourage the immigration of Whites into Mexico, along with U.S. and European investment capital. Under Diaz, most of Mexico’s railroads and factories were built. Public works projects, such as water systems, roads, bridges, telegraph and telephone systems, public transportation services and other attributes of Aryan civilization were eagerly introduced throughout the country. In 1910, Mexico was becoming a modern, Aryanized state. In that year, Diaz was at the height of his achievements. Unlike most Latin American dictators, Diaz took care to keep the armed forces small, cheap and always under his watchful control. The Mexican Treasury had a large surplus, in gold, and it would appear that Diaz himself was not only patriotic, but honest, in comparison to all of his successors up to the present. Naturally, he was surprised when the inevitable explosion came.
    What caused Mexico to self-destruct in 1910? The most important factor was the incredible mestizo population explosion. Diaz had undone himself to some extent by introducing water purification plants and hygienic water distribution systems in so many Mexican towns and cities. This otherwise thoughtful and patriotic measure drastically reduced the normal infant death rate and contributed to the population explosion. In those days, the United States did not serve as a safety-valve for Mexico’s fast-breeding mestizo population, so the pressure built up quickly. Not only is Mexico still plagued by this problem of mestizo-locusts, we in the U.S.A. are also suffering from the swarms which have invaded our living space.
    Another fatal flaw in Diaz’ Mexico was the adoption of ‘supply-side economics’ or the ‘trickle-down theory’. The idea was and is that if the rich can become very, very rich, some of the wealth will ‘trickle down’ into the hands of the less-wealthy. As the money pours into the hands of the rich, it is fondly hoped that some of their pockets will overflow or that a moneybag will burst and sprinkle some means of exchange throughout the economy. Ah, fond and baseless hope! Up until 1910, some Mexicans and foreigners grew quite rich, just as the Milkens and Boeskys (both jews) prospered in the 1980s here in the U.S. But ‘supply-side economics’ did not bring about general prosperity, either in the United States of today or in the Mexico of 1910. Why did Diaz adopt such a disastrous policy? Well, he was, after all, only a mestizo soldier, so he respected economists who claimed to be ‘up-to-date’ and ‘progressive’. Even Aryans have been fooled by glib con-men who are adept at economic jargon and are capable of performing marvelous feats of statistical ‘jew-jitsu’. Non-Aryan Franklin D. Roosevelt called his ‘advisors’ “brain-trusters” and Diaz called his “los cientificos” (“the scientists”), regardless of the bad advice they gave their respective employers.
    History teaches those of us who will learn that the two fatal flaws in 1910 Mexico were primarily the non-White population explosion and secondarily, a defective economic policy adopted by the government. These two fatal flaws will preclude any ‘rescue operation’ for present day Mexico or the United States as assuredly as the iceberg and the enormous gash in the hull sank the TITANIC. Unless we in the U.S. solve the racial/population problem and adopt sound economic policies, this country will go under, too. Our Zionist Occupation Government in the District of Corruption is merely running the (money) pumps faster and playing the music louder to distract us from the dark waves which lap around our ankles.
    Enlightened self-interest is an alien concept to the mestizo mind. What is produced by the mestizos’ shortsighted greed and rapacious reproductive instincts is a country from which rich and poor alike must flee; the poor to seek employment and the rich to protect and to enjoy their largely ill-gotten gains. The mestizos’ nightmare is that they will find only other Mexicos in their flight. This nightmare becomes reality wherever the mestizos gather in sufficient numbers to overwhelm Aryan society, as has happened in parts of California, Texas and other states. The mestizo recreates Mexican corruption and poverty unavoidably, for they are inherent parts of his genetic makeup. He brings Mexico with him, no matter how much he wants to escape it and he imposes Mexican conditions upon us, much as swamps impose mosquitos on those who dwell nearby.
    U.S. citizens fleeing San Diego, California, report that they cannot find jobs which pay even the minimum wage, because swarms of mestizos cross the nearby Mexican border every day to work in the San Diego area and U.S. employers can pay them less than the officially-required minimum wage. This means survival in terms of Mexican living standards, but such low wages allow no one to partake of U.S. living standards.
    The mestizo mentality is, in regard to shortsighted greed, rife in the North American business community which cannot see reality much beyond their quarterly balance sheets. In order to “reduce labor costs”, U.S. businessmen and farmers import mestizo workers and/or move their operations into Mexico, the source of North America’s “cheapest” labor supply. Although these policies may look profitable in the short run, they only serve to prove the adage that “there is no such thing as cheap labor”. Mestizos erode the U.S. tax base and burden tax-payer supported social services, so it is the U.S. tax-payer who must make up the difference for what any employer “saves” by hiring mestizos. Mestizo labor is a large net loss for the U.S. economy and lowers the U.S. standard of living. Such employers only care about “saving money”. They couldn’t care less what it costs U.S. society when they import mestizos into the country and export jobs out of the U.S. A truly “national” government would stop these traitors in their tracks, but none exists right now to govern the U.S.A. There is only the Z.O.G. composed of criminal Jews and their Goy stooges.
    Criminal folly is, however, eventually corrected, for there is an inherent justice in the scheme of things, no matter how criminally fools wish to behave. It is therefore only fair to warn those who want “free trade” with Mexico that there is ultimately no escape from Say’s Law (Jean Baptiste Say, 1767-1832) which states that those who produce must be paid sufficient to buy the products they make, whether it be in a local or world economy. This means that if only Mexican wages are paid for products, these products must eventually and inescapably be sold at Mexican prices, not U.S. prices. Otherwise they will not be sold and there will be no point in making them. As for the unemployed in Canada and the U.S., who have lost their jobs to Mexicans, it is unlikely that they can buy these goods, even at Mexican prices. So much for “cheap labor”.
    The concentration of wealth into the hands of a rich minority has never produced prosperity, only poverty and instability, as we have seen throughout Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the U.S.A. The rich few cannot consume the products of world industry, even if they would like to. Thus they have a vast surplus of purchasing power which will not be spent to absorb the vast inventories of world economic production. The rich will only buy so many cars, houses, yachts and so much food and clothing. Although Imelda Marcos did her best to consume world footwear production, even her heroic efforts were unsuccessful. What can be done with the huge surplus of production?
    For several decades, the rich have resorted to two short-term schemes to sell these products at a profit: money-lending and tapping the tax-payers. Because U.S. workers are generally paid insufficient real wages to buy the products of their labor, this wage-price gap has been “filled” by credit. Most U.S. workers must borrow money to meet the barest requirements of food, clothing, shelter and transportation. If they have children or illness, it is a certainty that a median U.S. family with two wage-earners will be in debt. Prices and taxes seem to preclude saving money “to make ends meet” in today’s Judeo-America.
    But even credit or money-lending to individuals is insufficient to absorb the excess productivity, so the rich lobby governments to use the tax-payers’ money to buy the otherwise unsaleable (at current prices) items. This is why the rich see nothing wrong in welfare states and ‘foreign aid’ programs, as long as they do not have to fund them. The same applies to war materiel and weapons production which profit the rich as they impoverish the tax-payers. When foreign countries want to buy products, but lack the money to do so, they are lent the necessary funds by the various tentacles of the world bankster community. These loans are often “insured” by the U.S. tax-payers, so the rich can only gain – in the short run. The late Roman Empire was similarly afflicted by such shortsighted economic policies and it is unlikely that many wealthy members of Roman society remained rich after the Empire’s collapse, which they helped bring about more effectively than any barbarian invasion. History teaches us that contemporary rich people will face social collapse and chaos in “the long run”, which will probably occur within our own lifetimes.
    The tax-payers are becoming unemployed or are earning less. Borrowing money at interest is becoming dangerous for the individual and the world economy, for either the lenders must stop lending or money will have no value. This is the inescapable penalty for usury, for the money lent and the interest charged do not represent productivity. They only represent the profit motive of the lender and the need of the borrower. If properly used and created, money represents the supply of goods and services in the economy, as a measure of value, like honest weights and measures. It is or should be a means of exchange, not a tool of speculation, just as no one is allowed to speculate on the length of a yard or the volume of a quart. Bankster-created inflation and deflation of our money supply is robbery. When a worker has earned the wages of an eight-hour day and is later told that his money is only worth that of a six-hour day, someone has stolen two hours of that worker’s life and productivity. It is not too difficult to identify the culprit. “Find the jew”, to paraphrase the incorrect French expression.
    There is no substitute for saving, but nobody does that these days, largely because of our debt-based economy. Were we to adopt an economy based on productivity, as the German National Socialists did, saving would be both possible and desirable. Putting your jewish money into a bank, savings & loan, real estate, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. these days is really gambling, not saving, and you will need all the luck you can get to keep the wolf from the door and the shirt on your back.
    In the short run, our jobs are going south and what has passed for prosperity here in the U.S. is going with them. The mestizos will keep on coming north until the last vestiges of Aryan civilization in U.S. territory are destroyed. The European’s dire prediction will be fulfilled when we have finally incorporated Mexico into the U.S. economy. In reality, we are witnessing Mexico’s conquest of North America and it means disaster for all concerned. Race is everything. It is dangerous and uncomfortable even to be rich in a mestizo society.

    via faem.com

    U.S. Homeland Security Investigating Swastika Drawn in Building

    https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/reports/2658-u-s-homeland-security-investigating-swastika-drawn-in-building Internal email obtain...

    Most Popular Posts This Week