January 10, 2010

Why Paul Krugman makes excuses for George W. Bush

From my new VDARE.com column:
All those boring end-of-year / end-of-decade articles that journalists phone in so that they can take the last week of the year off are finally over.

But here’s something that was missing from all of those summaries: a hidden key to understanding the two seminal events of the last decade—9/11 and the economic collapse.

The factor linking the two big stories of the 2000s: George W. Bush’s sizable degree of culpability in both disasters:

* Bush had Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta eradicate the airport security ethnic profiling system before 9/11. (Then he reappointed Mineta, a Democrat, for his second term!).

* Bush repeatedly signaled the mortgage industry in 2002-2004 that zero down payment home purchases would be A-OK with his federal regulators.

Of course, those are by no means the only causes of the subsequent disasters. But shouldn’t we at least talk about them?

And what links Bush’s two blunders?

George W. Bush’s Commitment to Diversity.

Bush explicitly articulated that he was fighting airline security and traditional credit standards in the sacred cause of battling racial inequality.

Was he lying? I’ve never seen any evidence that Bush wasn’t the truest true believer in Diversity. His immigration bills, No Child Left Behind—it all testifies to his naiveté. Compared to Bush, Obama is practically Lee Kwan Yew for worldliness.

Republicans don’t want to talk about Bush’s blunders because Bush was a Republican. Democrats don’t want to talk about Bush blunders because they want to make more blunders like them.

Yet how are we supposed to learn from mistakes if nobody will mention them?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

52 comments:

kudzu bob said...

George Bush = Patient Zero.

Black Sea said...

I think we could include as seminal events of the decade the invasions and occupations of both Afgahnistan and Iraq, with the intent of remaking both societies into parlimentary democracies which would just happen take a pro-American slant on regional issues.

I believe these actions were taken under the rubric of the "Freedom Agenda," and help me to remember who was responsible for coining that term. Oh, and these nation-building projects were supported by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats, which just goes to show that bi-partisanship isn't entirely dead in our once great republic. And on a final note, under a Democrat adminstration, were still engaged in both.

agnostic said...

Small typo: Krugman posted the graph in 2010, not 2009.

Truth said...

"The factor linking the two big stories of the 2000s: George W. Bush’s sizable degree of culpability in both disasters: And what links Bush’s two blunders? George W. Bush’s Commitment to Diversity."

Steve-O, I'm not above a little pick-me-up, but you really need to lay off the LSD, Bud.

Tsoldrin said...

If security was tighter for Arabs, I think they would have just used Persians or put on hairnets and posed as Mexicans.

dearieme said...

George W. Bush’s Commitment to Diversity will never stop Democrats accusing all Republicans of being racists.

Anonymous said...

I see Steve still does not understand the difference between Left and Right. Right is for those at the top (and those who think they are at the Top or will be at the Top). Right is for those who depend on BUYING labor to make money.

Left is for the rest of us, those who SELL labor to live.

Diversity/multiculti/mass immigration/racial integration etc etc is a RIGHTWING policy. It helps those who BUY labor. It hurts the majority of those who SELL labor.
It hekps those at the top (aka Capital) because it increases the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor, thus lowering wages. Also, multiculti et al., fragments the populace, dividing it by race, culture, language etc. A populace divided thusly is less able to unite against Capital, less able to unite and elect politicians they can hold accountable, less able to use their own government to fight Capital. See Putnam's BOWLING ALONE. See James Madison's writings; see Dr Woody Holton's writings; see Jerry Fresia's writings.


The rich, those at the top, know that multiculti/mass immigration etc works in their favor, and over the decades, they have molded the american culture so that our culture is now friendly to those at the top. This molding, this evolution of our culture has been effected by the use of Big MONEY. MONEY, Steve, spread through various channels, principally, via nonprofit foundations (e.g. Ford and rockefeller Foundations, etc), and via funding of academia via grants etc.

Thus was evolved the american Fakeleft culture. It started at the top of the educational institutions, e.g., harvard , yale, et al. Those who passed through these institutions decades ago were inculcated into this rightwing culture. Actually, it is a cryptorightwing culture because it passes itself off as a Leftist culture. But it is not. It is fakeleft.


Bush is the product of this culture, as are most college educated people.

It's not a conspiracy. It's an ecosytem. Culture is akin to an organism that exists in an ecosystem and evolves over time to adapt, and it is molded by environmental forces. Capital is a filter through which culture passes over time. Capital exerts forces via many venues, avenues etc. OVer time these forces evolve the culture to where the culture favors Capital. Multiculti et al is a feature of culture, just as long fur is a feature of arctic mammals. That culture is a part of Bush and of most americans. You say Bush is naive. Naivete has nothing to do with it. Bush is simply exhibiting and displaying the ideas that are expected of someone with his cultural background. Not to mention that the media is supported by ad revenue from ads purchased by businesses that profit from lower wages and fragmented workforces, and so the media would demonize any presidential candidate who did not tout multiculti.

-cryofan

dr kill said...

Both GWB and GHWB were disasters in economic conservatism. There is only a difference of degree in our elected officials and the wankers they appoint. They manufacture controversy as a tool of policy.

Check out the front two rows at the swimmers funeral to get an idea.

They remind me of talk radio today, where much of the call-in interaction is driven by the apparent disagreement between the on-air hosts.
Fiscal conservatives who still support the GOP are delusional. They are all on the same team, and it's not mine.

Henry Canaday said...

The price of commercial real estate is linked to the price of residential real estate on both the demand and supply side. On the demand side, as you note, higher residential prices lead to higher consumer wealth, real or delusive, which leads to higher consumption, which leads to higher values for commercial real estate.

On the supply side, commercial and residential uses compete, at least on the margin, for the same land. Higher residential prices will compel commercial developers to pay higher prices for this land as well.

Krugman could as well have used equity markets to “give the lie” to those who are concerned about government corruption of residential real estate markets. Equities also rose strongly, with a lag, during the housing bubble, based on the same facts, higher consumption and profits of corporations, which turned out to be misleading because the consumption boom could not continue.

Krugman has one valid point. Asset markets are vulnerable to larger and longer mistakes than commodity markets because they must judge conditions over a long and highly uncertain time horizon. Government has two positive duties in dealing with this vulnerability: protecting the integrity of financial institutions on which the economy relies; and protecting essential income streams, for example pensions, from damage when asset markets overshoot.

What Krugman does not want to acknowledge is that it is also vital for government to avoid corrupting a major asset market, such as residential real estate, which can do damage itself, and can mislead other asset markets into similarly large mistakes. Government should not play Fagin to its own banking system.

Les Norsemorbles said...

Steve, I fully agree with your assessment. Bubbles occur when everyone buys in onto something. It's a can't lose proposition like tulips. When the government explicitly or implicitly guarantees something, like mortgages, with big tax advantages to homeowners, and browbeats banks into pushing low-income loans, you create a monster.

outlaw josey wales said...

Steve,

During the years of Bush's presidency did you offer regular, substantive criticism of his belief in diversity?

If not, why? Republican's are not HBD's natural allies.

Anonymous said...

Hey Truth -

Try making an insightful or useful comment. The Steve-bashing is getting tiresome.

Fellow Traveller said...

On the racial profiling front it does make me wonder whether, the American police, after someone leaves a burning cross on a black family's front lawn, interview their neighbours or go and roust the local White Brotherhood/Aryan Nation/Klansman types and all the red neck bars in the area in the search for the perpetrators?

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm a fan of your blog, but I have to say this. 911 and the Kennedy assassination are two subjects you should stop alluding to. Like issues relating to race, these are topics where those who lightly accept the received wisdom will get shredded by the more knowledgeable, and just make themselves look foolish.

Anonymous said...

This is the most damning piece on Bush I've ever read, and you did it in 2000 words. Great work. Still, its hard to blame a dunce for being a dunce. I'd be most interested to hear what Karl Rove has to say for himself.

Marc B said...

"His immigration bills, No Child Left Behind—it all testifies to his naiveté."

I'd posit this fits right in with his Globalist agenda. He knew exactly what he was doing but felt people of his class could remain insulated from it's negative effects.

ivory neck said...

Wasn't Bush just a toybot for the Wall Street crowd? It seems to me that EVERYTHING CHANGED once the clever financial boys finally came up with a way to make money off 'diversity'. Prior to that, even most liberals, while saying one thing, were nervous about going all the way with 'diversity' in lending. But, once the 'best and brightest' in Wall Street assured everyone that they found a way to spread the debt around--and ALSO make unprecedented gazillions off of it by selling it around the world as AAA rated and packaged golden eggs--, everyone jumped onboard: conservatives, liberals, do-gooders, money-grubbers, etc.

It was like one could have the cake and eat it too. 'Capitalize socialism' or was it was 'Socialize capitalism'? It was supposed to be the best of times for liberal activists & the poor AND the best of times for Wall Street boys and conservatives. Win win for everyone, only to turn to Lose lose for everyone--though Wall Street used it muscle to get mega bailout from Bush and Obama cuz it was 'too big to fail'--euphemism is they are 'too powerful to mess with'.

In the end, it was as Milton Friedman said: no such thing as free lunch. But, where was Friedman when all this shit was going on? Was he senile or deluded himself?

William1066 said...

While I've often heard that Bush brushed off the August 2001 CIA briefing warning of some impending attack, do you have a reference link to Bush's also preventing profiling before 9-11? I'd love to shove that in the face of the remaining GW fans who bafflingly believe that "at least he kept us safe''.

Anonymous said...

9/11 and the mortgage meltdown were hardly "disasters" when viewed from the standpoint of the neocons and Goldman Sachs, respectively.

Anonymous said...

The war against "terror" was lost when Dubyah declared that "Islam is a religion of peace", and then allowed the new Afghanistan constitution to declare that Islam was the supreme law of the land in Afghanistan.

The only "peace" in Islam is the peace of the graveyard.

Anonymous said...

"Steve-O, I'm not above a little pick-me-up, but you really need to lay off the LSD, Bud."

Truth: Steve's panoramic views come from his living in the eye of the Diversity storm.

I've lived in California since the early 1990s and everything he says rings pretty much true to me.

SF said...

Harry Reid gets reamed for stating the obvious truth. Well, I guess this is old news. Seems like you have written on this subect a few times. . .

Whiskey said...

Yes GWB was bad. Obama is WORSE. At least after 9/11 Bush did SOMETHING, and under his watch no further attempts to blow up planes or hijack them were made, meaning guys were stopped before they could do this, including the LA Library Towers plot. Which had at its core the attempt to hijack an LAX plane and crash it into that Downtown skyscraper.

Bush never did restore profiling, but he did: Waterboard some high value targets that gave up the Library Towers and other plots; retaliate in Afghanistan and Iraq after 30+ years of Carteresque dithering; intern enemy alien illegal combatants and attempt to try them in military tribunals.

This is more than Obama, who if anything is even LESS willing to profile than Bush was.

Failure to make a response (other than impotent missile strikes) in Afghanistan would have confirmed to everyone in the world including tribal leaders in Pakistan with hands on nukes that America could be attacked with impunity. It was non-reacting from Carter onwards (including Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2) that allowed 9/11 to move forward. Iraq was a place where America could win, and also bring Saddam's oil onto the global market.

In ten years, Iraq will have a daily output to rival or exceed Saudi Arabias, meaning a valuable hedge against large oil increases. Assuming people still need to drive their cars and don't want to walk everywhere.

Yes Bush deserves censure for failing to name the enemy: Muslims, and for the lie that "Islam is a religion of Peace" or that America can have any type of security without profiling AND deterrence and non-toleration of Jihad within its borders AND constant deterrence. What good is a threat by America to retaliate if no one believes it?

But Obama is far worse. Under Obama, Major Hassan was promoted not jailed for consorting/plotting with the enemy, and the new proposed head of TSA, Southers, believes White Christians a greater threat to the US than AQ, along with Global Warming.

Bush is old news, whoever runs in 2012 will be part of the populist movement and have little use for "Diversity" which is now owned by Obama. And is rapidly becoming a code-word for non-White Male patronage incompetent: Southers, Napolitano, etc.

William1066 said...

Sorry, I hadn't clicked over to the VDARE version - with all those links. I suppose there is enough at least circumstantial evidence to condemn St. George, the patron saint of Muslim air travelers to a purgatory of endless TSA security pat downs.

albertosaurus said...

When I was an econ major in college the received wisdom was that FDR reversed the laissez-faire policies of Herbert Hoover and saved America (or not).

More recently it has been recognized that the New Deal type interventions actually originated with Hoover - e.g. The Forgotten Man, New Deal or Raw Deal? etc.

Obama's persistance in attacking George Bush is very reminiscent of FDR's attacks on Hoover. But both conceal the truth that the second's policies are just a continuation and intensification of the first's policies.

Anonymous said...

I don't get this ... it's somehow vitally important to keep saying that everything is Bush's fault, even if Obama ups the ante like ten fold.

I hear this all the time - with the deficit, multiculti security efforts, etc.

Because skewering Bush will surely help a lot, now?

Sorry, it's hard not so see this as lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.

jody said...

GW was committed to turning the US into mexico. his plans for america went far and beyond any liberal's dream. it greatly exceeded anything ted kennedy or barack obama envisioned.

thank goodness for term limits. today, GW is reduced to giving jerry jones a high five in the owner's box after a cowboy's playoff win.

treeline snow said...

Bush's going on easy on Muslim air passengers might have been stupid, but couldn't one say USA has been hijacked by the AIPAC gang? That is the real 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Anonymous said...

Treeline -

I'd like to be able to say that the USA has been hijacked by the AIPAC crowd, but America, under Bush and under Obama, is rushing to admit massive numbers of muslim immigrants.

These muslim immigrants work pretty hard to foil the AIPAC agenda. They donate money to AIPAC's enemies and the vote for congressmen that are committed to defeating AIPAC.

Ever been to Dearborn? You can't get elected there without pledging (in coded language) to destroy Israel.

If AIPAC is in control of the policies towards immigration of muslims, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

Treeline, I bet on the subject of muslim immigration to Israel, most members of AIPAC would prefer for you to be president instead of either Bush or Obama (admittedly on other subjects they might not be thrilled with you as president!)

Old Rebel said...

I doubt "naiveté" is the proper word to descrive Bush's enthusiasm for pushing diversity. The Neocons are globalists who want to flatten all cultures. It takes an authoritarian government to achieve such an unnatural goal.

Eric said...

Bush repeatedly signaled the mortgage industry in 2002-2004 that zero down payment home purchases would be A-OK with his federal regulators.

Is this something regulators are normally interested in controlling? The federal government shouldn't care what the terms of bank loans are, as long as the bank accounts for them properly and holds the paper.

On the other hand, assuming you think the GSEs should exist at all they should only be buying paper from fixed-rate, 20% down loans.

Truth said...

"I've lived in California since the early 1990s and everything he says rings pretty much true to me..."

We don't see things the way they are
we see things the way we are.
-Ayn Rand

Well that's great, I lived in SoCal from 1993-2004 and pretty much nothing rings true to me. Or let me slightly amend that:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the grammar or spelling in "See Spot Run", but you don't make a subject of your dissertation.

The reasons that Sailer is not on Gladwell's level, financially or in terms of esteem are as follows:

1) Gladwell is a better writer (no offense there, he's good.)

2) Sailer has this almost laughably ridiculous habit of taking a square peg, trying to fit it in a round hole and then when it doesn't fit, pounding it repeatedly with a sledgehammer.

Was the Barcelona train bombing caused by "making excuses for diversity?"

Did the Icelandic economy collapse because they were "Giving loans to low income blacks?"

Greek?

Dubai?

You guys have your own agendas, and you love them so much that you will continue repeating them even if it makes you sound like total fools in the process. Try this one on for size:

9/11 happened because it was an inside job

The world's economies are collapsing because there are two many white guys that think that you are shit in charge of them. Is that the whole story, no, but yoiu have to learn See Spot Run before you can understand War and Peace; that is simple.

Any other argument is akin to saying; "well, we all know that people lighting matches isn't the WHOLE story with climate change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it!"

Period.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Israel just announced it is building a huge new wall along its border with Egypt to keep out Africans and preserve its Jewish character. Imagine an American politician saying something like that.

Anonymous said...

Yeah.
Israel is building a wall to keep Africans out. Seems like a damn good idea. Mexico fights like hell to keep Guatemalans out. Also a good idea.

AIPAC would love love love to keep muslim immigrants out of America. The powers that be just laugh AIPAC out of the room on this one.

Anonymous said...

Sailer, you are a great writer and I love your stuff. But you must be kidding us here.

I won't even bother to ask about CDO fraud or the profit motive in lowering mortgage standards, or political lobbying on the parts of banks and mortgage originators to lower standards. Why you choose to ignore it is anybody's guess.


Mineta and 911, huh? Mineta testified before the 911 Commission. Do you think he was being called to testify about his opposition to racial profiling?

You are an extremely smart guy Sailer, that's obvious. So permit me to ask why you are ignoring the obvious?

Starry-eyed liberal politicians who are "true believers in diversity" - yeah that must be it.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm a fan of your blog, but I have to say this. 911 and the Kennedy assassination are two subjects you should stop alluding to. Like issues relating to race, these are topics where those who lightly accept the received wisdom will get shredded by the more knowledgeable, and just make themselves look foolish."

Knowledgable, how? Because you believe that you have deduced detailed forensic information from grainy You-Tube videos? I've rarely seen anything so foolish as a 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theorist. But hey, you're in good company there with Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen.

Mr. Anon said...

"outlaw josey wales said...

Steve,

During the years of Bush's presidency did you offer regular, substantive criticism of his belief in diversity?"

Yes, he did. Often. Are you new here?

Mr. Anon said...

Whiskey said...

Yes GWB was bad. Obama is WORSE. At least after 9/11 Bush did SOMETHING, and under his watch no further attempts to blow up planes or hijack them were made,...."

Richard Reid?

"Bush never did restore profiling, but he did: Waterboard some high value targets that gave up the Library Towers and other plots; retaliate in Afghanistan and Iraq after 30+ years of Carteresque dithering; intern enemy alien illegal combatants and attempt to try them in military tribunals."

He also let many of them go, such as for example, some of the Yemeni plotters in the recent bombing attempt. And let's not forget that Bush negotiated with the Saudi government to accept more Saudi flight students into the U.S. - after 9/11. Then of course, there was all that "Religion of Peace" crap.

"Iraq was a place where America could win, and also bring Saddam's oil onto the global market."

We could have also brought Iraqi oil on to the global market by lifting the sanctions - if all we wanted was oil.

"But Obama is far worse. Under Obama, Major Hassan was promoted not jailed for consorting/plotting with the enemy.....,

Major Hassan's career began long before Obama was elected.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Treeline -

I'd like to be able to say that the USA has been hijacked by the AIPAC crowd, but America, under Bush and under Obama, is rushing to admit massive numbers of muslim immigrants."

This is a good point. Although it should be noted that while many jews are good at asking the question "Is it good for the jews?", they're often not so good at answering it. But then, they're not alone in often undermining themselves - a lot of groups do that. Parenthetically, could there be an upside to Israel for increased arab migration to the U.S.? Like perhaps, fewer arabs in the middle east. It'd be really useful if they could persuade the 1 million arabs in Israel to emigrate.

I think it's more accurate to say that our government is in thrall to several foreign interests, not just Israel, but also Saudi Arabia and Mexico, and perhaps others as well. After all, we're not a nation anymore, so what does it matter? America is just a big pinata.

Anonymous said...

In ten years, Iraq will have a daily output to rival or exceed Saudi Arabias, meaning a valuable hedge against large oil increases.

You mean kind of like how Avatar was supposed to flop at the box office?

none of the above said...

Whiskey,

Why does it make sense to count the underpants bomber (under Obama) differently from the shoe bomber (under Bush)?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon says:

"I've rarely seen anything so foolish as a 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theorist. But hey, you're in good company there with Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen."

And anyone who theorizing about IQ differences among races is racist, antisemitic, and in good company with Hitler. That's about as good of an argument as yours.

Uncle Peregrine said...

"In the end, it was as Milton Friedman said: no such thing as free lunch. But, where was Friedman when all this shit was going on? Was he senile or deluded himself?"

Milton Friedman died in 2006 at the age of 94.

Anonymous said...

Dubai, Dubya. Same rise and fall.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the anti semites here at isteve are the funniest people. You should have your own show on the Comedy Channel, right after South Park.

Let me get this straight - the Jews are so smart that they have flooded America with muslim immigrants. And then the Jews told the smartest and most successful young Jewish men to marry Christians and stop being Jewish. And of course they really want war with Iran, so they of course arranged for Obama to be president instead of McCain. And they control the real estate market and arranged for Jewish families like the Bucksbaum's to lose everything in the crash. Wow.

And of course the Jews are so smart that they invested much of the money held by pro Israel charities with Bernie Madoff.

And of course the absolute wealthiest jew in America, Bloomberg gives 90% of his charity dollars to non-jewish causes. And hasn't given one thin dime to Israeli causes. But of course that is all part of the really super smart "evolutionary strategy" that you folks have figured out. Yeah, giving money to Christian charities is just one more way of being selfish for Bloomberg and the Jewish race

Wow, the anti semites have really given me some good belly laughs. Don't stop cooking meth in your trailer park, guys. Without the fumes you might not be quite so entertaining next time.

Anonymous said...

Auster(no less) on why Jews welcome Muslim immigration:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001041.html
(...)
As the writer suggests, a group phenomenon that seems to defy any rational explanation may be more explicable in terms of instinct. In this case, it seems to be the instinct to weaken a potentially anti-Semitic national majority by diversifying the nation, an instinct which may have served Jews in the past, or at least made sense in the abstract, but which under current circumstances—in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world—is plainly suicidal. The sad truth is that once a collective thought pattern becomes established, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to reason.
(...)

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

"Mr. Anon says:

"I've rarely seen anything so foolish as a 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theorist. But hey, you're in good company there with Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen.""

And anyone who theorizing about IQ differences among races is racist, antisemitic, and in good company with Hitler. That's about as good of an argument as yours."

I did not say you were wrong because you were the in the company of Sheen and O'Donnell. I merely pointed out that you are, and that you might want to consider that. As to evidence: There is plently of evidence for HBD. There is no evidence for your assertions about some "inside-job" on 9/11.

David said...

> it does make me wonder whether, the American police, after someone leaves a burning cross on a black family's front lawn, interview their neighbours or go and roust the local White Brotherhood/Aryan Nation/Klansman types and all the red neck bars <

Often here in America, the local sheriff belongs to the KKK and boasts of how many black necks he has stretched himself. See "Mississippi Burning" and "To Kill a Mockingbird." Very accurate picture of modern time America nation you speak of.

David said...

William1066 said

> do you have a reference link to Bush's also preventing profiling before 9-11? <

Read the story. Links there.

David said...

>it's hard not so see this as lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome<

RINO syndrome is also lingering. Bush wasn't the final one.

>These muslim immigrants work pretty hard to foil the AIPAC agenda. They donate money to AIPAC's enemies and the[y] vote for congressmen that are committed to defeating AIPAC.<

What's more important is that they demographically and culturally rub out White American Nazis. Break the white supremacist back! The Muzzies and other schwartzes can be contained afterward, they're so dumb. (Steinlight seems to be a Jewish voice in the wilderness on this issue.)

>Sailer, you are a great writer and I love your stuff.<

But don't you read it?

>Yes, he did. Often. Are you new here?<

Looks like Steve's blog is getting new folks including a small number of trolls. It's possibly good news for the blog.

Stick around, trolls! Seilor will soon have you converted to dirty crimethinkin' and other dark arts. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg gives 90% of his charity dollars to non-jewish causes.

Assuming that 90% figure is actually true, which we don't know since there was no citation ...

Jews are less than 2% of the population. Jews are by far the wealthiest ethnic group. Why would anyone give 10% of their charity to Jews? That's perverse.

Anonymous said...

AIPAC would love love love to keep muslim immigrants out of America.

They just haven't found the formula that would allow them do it while still packing everyone else in.

Wow, the anti semites have really given me some good belly laughs. Don't stop cooking meth in your trailer park, guys. Without the fumes you might not be quite so entertaining next time.

Jews hate and fear founding stock Americans. There's nothing funny about that. Maybe "anti-semites" get the specifics of how Jews go about undermining founding stock Americans wrong but that's no reason such speculation should cease.

Whiskey, your posts are great. They're indicative of the kind of 'thinking' that goes on in the brains of giants like Mike Ledeen, Gabby Schonfeld and J-Pod.