Per and by Michael Master
www.saveamericanow.us.com
The jobs commission which is led by Jeff Immelt, a large Jewish contributor to Obama and CEO of GE, made its recommendation on how to stimulate the economy. It is important to remember that GE was the largest corporate recipient of stimulus money from Obama, paid no corporate taxes, competes with Boeing for government engine contracts, and is moving manufacturing out of the USA.
The recommendation included that the federal government should spend on infrastructure and other projects that would employ more union workers and more teachers ... GE does lots of this work ... much the same as the other failed stimulus programs. The recommendations encourage programs that employ more union employees who traditionally vote for Democrats.
In addition, the jobs commission stated that one of the causes of the recession is too low of demand for products like housing and related products. It did not state the cause of the lower demand, but recommended that the government "liberalize" immigration so that more immigrants can come to the USA and consume more products.
This government refuses to acknowledge the causes of low demand include a low birth rate ... instead it continues to exacerbate the problem by recommending more immigration.
Who is going to provide these immigrants with jobs, healthcare, educations, and other services? Will they receive welfare?
Immigration, the redistribution of population, is the ultimate method of redistribution of wealth on a world basis. It is the ultimate strategy of the New World Order for total redistribution of wealth, socialization, of the rest of us who are not part of the elite ruling class.... Mr. Immelt and Mr. Obama are using this economic crisis in industrialized countries for implementation of more liberal policies to socialize the rest of us. The recommendation of the jobs commission will increase government costs as the poor of other countries come to America and need care.
An increase to immigration will eventually lower the pay for union workers who now are voting for these job creation measures because they "promise" to create immediate jobs ... when in reality more immigration will eventually hurt the workers of the USA with more government costs and lower worker pay.
Why can't Immelt be honest and tell us that because the intrinsic population is not having enough child birth, the economy is suffering? Why can't they be honest and tell us that they are trying to redistribute the wealth by redistributing the population on a world basis?
Even the poorest in America are more wealthy than the poor immigrants, so those who are currently poor in America will eventually have to pay more taxes to take care of the poor immigrants who come here.
This from my latest book, Rules for Conservatives, http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Conservatives-Response-Radicals-Alinsky/dp/0983745684/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317308173&sr=1-6 :
America faces some very difficult challenges. The retirement of so many baby boom workers over the next 20 years without enough younger workers to replace them will place an enormous strain on Social Security revenues vs. expenses, on Medicare costs, and on the economy. The high number of people retiring without enough younger people replacing them is decreasing the demand for goods, is decreasing the demand for housing, and is depleting our brain trust of intelligence/experience. The huge amounts of immigration for the previous 20 years is changing the culture of America as more immigrants are used to offset the lack of births to American citizens.
...All of the growth in industrialized counties is from immigration from the Have-Not nations. By attrition and immigration, the cultures of the Haves will be replaced within the next fifty years by the cultures of the Have-Nots.
...The negative intrinsic growth to our population in the 70s left the USA with too few low paid workers in the 90s and 2000s. The birth rate fell from 2.3 children per family to 1.3 at times. And 2.1 children per family is required just to maintain a population. Therefore, the percent of the population who were in their teens and 20s decreased in the 1990s and 2000s which caused businesses to turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants ... some businesses actually encouraged them ... so there would be enough low cost workers for construction, restaurants, yard work, domestic work, etc. (Negative population growth in the 70s is also a major cause to the increased healthcare costs per person and to insolvency of the Social Security System). And what caused the negative population growth in the 70s? It was caused by the liberal push in our government for zero population growth. That push was used to justify funding of Planned Parenthood and taking abortion around the world to appease feminists. The USA, Western Europe, and Japan participated and are all suffering economically from that decision. Those countries who did not participate like Brazil, China, and India are thriving. The biggest harm is now felt in the housing market. Simply stated, there are fewer people between the ages of forty and fifty five years old who are the most important consumers for the housing market. Those white people who would be in their middle ages today decreased because of low birth rates in the 70s and 80s. But this government will not say that because it will undermine the whole platform of liberals for the last forty years. Low interest rates, immigrants, and stimulus spending will not cure this problem of fewer white customers between forty and fifty five years old who purchase bigger houses and associated products like appliances and furniture. Without immigrants and their offspring for the last forty years, the USA population today would be 200 million instead of 300 million. One third of a population from immigration is too much for a culture and an economy to assimilate, so now our culture and our economy are paying the price. First generation immigrants cannot replace the consumption of a decreasing intrinsic population. A congressman who wishes to remain anonymous discussed this with me for an hour in his Washington office in the spring of 2010. He said that Congress was well aware of the problems caused by too low of a birth rate to Caucasians in the 70s and 80s. He went on to say that the federal government deliberately allowed immigration in large numbers in the 90s and early 2000s to compensate for those low birth rates. He said that Congress did not foresee the problems that would be caused by such a huge amount of immigration. They underestimated the effects on our health system, our schools, and our communities. He said that “Congress did not foresee the problems of increased immigration.”
This is not only in the USA. It is throughout the industrialized world. England is feeling it. France is feeling it. All of Europe is feeling the pains of increased immigration to offset the impact of low birth rates to Caucasians.
You need to be a member of Restore America's Mission to add comments!
Replies