Impotent Republican Party: Time for Secession

[Warren Penn]

Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?

Kevin MacDonald

My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of
course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical
component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.

Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have
become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic
position so much as their identification with non-White America.
Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).

Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner
Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).

So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is
screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
is very unlikely to work.

It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors,
Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that

from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10
million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has
one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
will look like soon.

So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a
very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.

And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
party of non-White America independent of social class.

White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies
soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.

This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

[Gunner]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
<haplog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>will look like soon.

California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
2000s

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability

Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
land where dreams come true.”

In the report, titled “The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look,"
Tom Gray and Robert Scardamalia found Californians have fled to states
like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, and
Georgia because those states have a better economic climate with less
taxes and regulation.

The report found that between 1960 and 1990, 4.2 million Americans
moved to California and helped accelerate California’s booming
economy. Since 1990, though, California has lost nearly all of that
gain, with net domestic out-migration averaging 225,00 residents a
year. Between 2000 and 2010, out-migration has resulted in lost income
of 5.67 billion to Nevada, $4.96 billion to Arizona, $4.07 to Texas,
and $3.85 billion to Oregon.

The study found that “if all these trends continue, California may
find itself in a situation similar to that of New York and the states
of the midwestern Rust Belt in the last century, which have seen
populations stagnate for decades, or even fall.”

Mitt Romney, on the campaign trail, has often warned that under four
more years of President Barack Obama, the nation could become more
like California. Decades ago, this would have been taken as a
compliment. But, as the report details, it is anything but so today.

Jobs

Californians are leaving for states like Texas because those states
have more jobs and economic opportunity. The report notes that “more
often than not, people move because there is a better opportunity
elsewhere” and “families looking for economic opportunity travel to
Texas now,” where the economy, unlike California’s, has been
“booming.”

Those families had once traveled to California. But that is no longer
so because companies “set up shop where conditions are more conducive
to making a profit.” This also impacts retirees, who may move to
“migrate to be near children who have taken jobs in another state.”

Consider Oklahoma. As the study notes, net migration from California
to Oklahoma totaled only 775 residents from 1991 to 2000. Ten years
later, Oklahoma’s job market was stronger than California’s, and 2,125
Californians moved to Oklahoma from 2001-2010.

Further, the study found most of the states Californians are fleeing
to are right-to-work states. Of the ten top states Californians have
fled to, "seven (Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Georgia, and
North Carolina) have right-to-work laws that explicitly ban the
compulsory union shop."

Taxes

The study found most of the “destination states favored by
Californians have lower taxes,” and, as a general rule, “Californians
have tended to flee high taxes for low ones.”

The study also examines several trends that may have instigated or
accelerated the out-migration from California to more economically
friendly states since 1990.

In 1990, California’s recession was worse than the rest of the
nation’s, and the state’s unemployment rate surpassed the national
average.

At the same time, not only were taxes on the rise in California, but
residents and business owners felt that “the tax revolt that had
started with Proposition 13 in 1978 seemed to be out of gas” because
even Republicans, like Gov. Pete Wilson, were supporting and signing
off on tax increases.

“It was a sign that California’s political leaders had abandoned any
notion of trying to spur growth through tax cuts,” the authors write.

The study found that “California’s volatile tax structure (it depends
heavily on corporate profits and income from capital gains) and its
inability to restrain spending in high-revenue years made the state
government increasingly vulnerable to a recessionary shock,” and that
shock arrived in the early 2000s.

Public Sector Instability

The authors note that long before California’s municipalities began
declaring bankruptcy in 2012, California’s Standard & Poor’s bond
rating, by 2003, was already at “BBB,” the worst in the nation. The
state then was “patching together budgets through short-term borrowing
and accounting tricks,” and, as a result, “when recovery arrived in
the middle of the decade, it did not resolve the structural imbalances
between revenues and spending,” which is the cause of California’s
troubles today. As of 2012, California has the lowest S&P rating in
the nation.

According to the report, the “fiscal distress in government sends at
least two discouraging messages to businesses and individuals.” First,
they “cannot count on state and local governments to provide essential
services—much less, tax breaks or other incentives.” Second,
“chronically out-of-balance budgets can be seen as tax hikes waiting
to happen, with businesses and their owners the likeliest targets to
tap for new revenue.”

“In contrast, a fiscally competent state inspires confidence that it
can sustain its services without unpleasant tax surprises.”

One interesting note the authors found: “Of the ten states that sent
the most people to California in the past decade, eight are high-tax
jurisdictions—and the only two that are not, Illinois and Michigan,
had low credit ratings.”

Regulations

According to the report, California’s regulations make it more
difficult for employers to stay in or come to the state. It cites a
2005 study by the Milken Institute that found California was the
fourth worst state in which to conduct business. This study even left
out the impact of regulations, which the report noted was hard to
measure precisely because it was difficult to quantify “the cost of
delays, paperwork, and uncertainty due to unfriendly laws and
bureaucrats” and that this was “not an exact science.” The report
cited additional “business climate” surveys that “rank California
near the bottom in the regulation category.”

Population and migration pattern studies are reflective because they
are important indicators of a state's political and fiscal health.

“Migration choices reveal an important truth: some states understand
how to get richer, while others seem to have lost the touch,” the
authors write. “People will follow economic opportunity. The theme is
clear in the data: states that provide the most opportunity draw the
most people.”

The report notes that California’s leaders can start to “do something
about the instability of public-sector finances,” “rethink regulations
that hold back business expansion and cost employers time and money,”
enact policies that enable more development of land instead of
allowing environmentalists to have a veto over any land-use decisions,
which would make land cheaper and more livable.

How California confronts this situation "will send a strong signal,
whichever way they go: the state’s voters will be deciding to continue
on the path of high taxes and high costs—or to make a break with the
recent trend of decline."

“California’s economy remains diverse and dynamic; it has not yet gone
the way of Detroit,” the authors note. “It still produces plenty of
wealth that can be tapped by state and local governments. Tapping that
private wealth more wisely and frugally can go far to keep more of it
from leaving.”

This study used data from the Census, the Internal Revenue Service,
the state’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, and other sources.

Etc etc...lots...lots more out there.

Hell...even the wetbacks are going home. No work for them.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/03/illegal-aliens-leaving-u-s-returning-to-mexico-for-better-life/

Illegal aliens leaving U.S., returning to Mexico for better life?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

In case you needed it, here's yet another sign of just how bad the
economy is:

Illegal aliens are leaving the United States and returning to Mexico
in search of a better life.

You heard that right. One Mexican official tells the Sacramento Bee
that Mexico has "become a middle class country" where it's now easier
to buy homes on credit, get higher education and find a job."

Not so here in the U.S. where the employment picture remains grim.
Just today came announcements from Cisco and Goldman Sachs that
they're cutting thousands of jobs.

Plus - a report from payroll processor ADP shows that although the
private sector added jobs in July, growth is below what's needed for a
steady recovery.

Meanwhile - As we wait for the monthly jobs report Friday, consider
this: Mexico's unemployment rate is 4.9%... compared to 9.2% in the
U.S. You do the math.

It's estimated that about 300,000 illegal aliens have left California
alone since 2008.

Experts say the weaker U.S. economy along with rising deportations and
tougher border enforcement means fewer illegal aliens. But - there
have also been significant improvements in Mexico's society.

Its economy is growing at 4-5% and, according to the UN, Mexico's
average standard of living - which includes things like health,
education and per capita income - is higher than in Russia, China and
India.

Turns out Mexicans might just have better luck of achieving the
American Dream south of the border.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say that illegal aliens are
leaving the U.S. and returning to Mexico in search of a better life?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Phillip:
Can you imagine truckloads of middle class Americans sneaking into
Mexico for a better life? It may be the only way to save the middle
class of our nation.

Richard in Malvern, Pennsylvania:
Jack, it says that things are looking up! More jobs for Americans,
fewer drugs and murders, and maybe this will have a positive effect on
border states. Politicians won't do anything to protect our borders,
so the slumping economy will do their job. How ironic.

Dave in Orlando:
It says that we are officially a 3rd world country. We have been
driven into the ground by special interests, philandering, pandering,
bribe-taking lawmakers, a do-nothing president good only at making
speeches, and a top court populated largely by people intent on
revoking the U.S. charter. Even illegal aliens are jumping ship.

Gerald on Facebook writes:
No work, no health care, no education, might as well go back. Now,
where do the rest of us go?

George in Pennsylvania:
I just went to Sears to buy a Wet Vac. I found it was made in Mexico.
Maybe they've got something there.

Parah Salin:
Ain't 'free trade' great? Waiter, another round of cat food! Any
chance in the next election we'll get what we vote for?

Tim in Colorado:
It says that they are tired of the Situation Room.

Dan:
Take me with you, amigos!

--
""The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have
to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I
became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you
have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to
use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have
a clue as to political reality.
What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard
workers and convince them that they should support social programs
that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a
little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you
want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic
operative instead of a Republican was because there were more
Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans."
James Carvell, DNC operative

[Steve from Colorado]

On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>> will look like soon.
>
> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
> 2000s
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability
>
> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

> suggesting California is no longer �perceived by most Americans as the
> land where dreams come true.�
>
<snip>

Just a couple of observations per the articles:

Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
overturning of PROP 187.

Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it now
resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
'50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
going for it.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

Repubs need to openly pander to whites the way dems do blacks and
hispanics. If dems can be racist, so can we. If the
GOP can get just 70% of the white vote, they'd win every time.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/11/2012 1:58 PM, Steve from Colorado wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>> <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>> will look like soon.
>>
>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>> 2000s
>>
>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127
>>
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability
>>
>>
>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>> land where dreams come true.”

>>
> <snip>
>
> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>
> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> overturning of PROP 187.
>
> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
> now resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and
> Puerto Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were
> filled with orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that
> it was in the '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and
> Ensenada in much of Southern California. Other than the warm weather,
> it has little going for it.
>

Maybe we should require an exchange program and for every illegal
Mexican in the USA we should require Mexico to accept one Liberal
citizen from the United States who will renounce their U.S. citizenship.

--
*Welcome to Socialism*


-Kum bay ya-

[Gunner]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:58:52 -0700, Steve from Colorado
<steve.fro...@cocks.net> wrote:

>On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>> <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>> will look like soon.
>>
>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>> 2000s
>>
>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability
>>
>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>> land where dreams come true.”

>>
><snip>
>
>Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>
>Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>overturning of PROP 187.

Not all of them actually. I live here in Cali..and Im seeing
truckloads of beaners pulling way overloaded trailers heaped 8 feet
tall headed down south for points of exit at San Diego, with fair
regularity. Or broken down on the sides of the road...same huge
trailer behind them. Shrug

>
>Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it now
>resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>'50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
>going for it.

Certain areas do..but its been the 40s since those areas were orange
groves.

We have miles of empty industrial strip malls where there used to be
machine shops and assembly companies. In some of them...its hard to
find an address because of the numbers of For Lease/For Sale signs on
the empty ones.

One of my clients built such a strip mall in the 1970s. Its never been
empty. Now he is the only one remaining..and he is closing down.

Gunner


Gunner

[Marvin the Martian]

Not forever, unless "white" people start to pump out a lot more babies.

What do you mean by "white" anyway?

[Marvin the Martian]

Better idea: Drive them both across the southern border. We don't care
what they call themselves as long as we can call them GONE.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 11, 12:30 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:


keep doubling down on what does not work "CONSERVATIVE", its the way
your type does things.
meanwhile, your policies of greed, selfishness, wealth worshiping,
deregulation(which is nothing more than thievery), hatreds, etc. has
turn offed tens of millions of people.
california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
of reaganomics, and nixon.
but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
turning blue, colorado is turning blue. so your article is pure
"CONSERVATIVE" crap as usual.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/10/california-gop_n_2110152.html


California GOP Showing Worries Party Strategists
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/10/12 06:46 PM ET EST

LOS ANGELES — If the future happens first in California, the
Republican Party has a problem.
The nation's most populous state – home to 1 in 8 Americans – has
entered a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that
the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger
of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse.
Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They
gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least
three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two
other tight races – in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-
educated physician who mobilized a district's growing swath of
Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.
The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both,
chambers in the Legislature.
"Republican leaders should look at California and shudder," says Steve
Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 campaign and anchored former
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election team in 2006. "The
two-party system has collapsed."
Republican voter registration has dipped so low – less than 30 percent
– that the party's future state candidates will be hobbled from the
start.
Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney's defeat
will inevitably examine why President Barack Obama rolled up more than
70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among
blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported
Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for
the president by 27 percentage points.
There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped
elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and
Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican
state in presidential contests.
A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns.
The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered
whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population
alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example,
voter surveys show they've overwhelmingly favored Democratic
presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place
across the nation.
"There are demographic changes in the American electorate that we saw
significantly, first, here in California and Republicans nationally
are not reacting to them," said Jim Brulte, a former Republican leader
in the California Senate.
"Romney overwhelmingly carried the white vote – 20 years ago, that
would have meant an electoral landslide. Instead, he lost by 2 million
votes" in the state, Brulte said.
Perhaps no part of the state better illustrates how Republicans
surrendered ground than in Orange County, once a largely white, GOP
bastion where Nixon's seaside home became known as the Western White
House.
Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population,
while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic,
according to the census.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter managed to collect about a quarter of the vote
against Reagan in the county. But by 1996, with the county
diversifying, Bill Clinton grabbed 38 percent of the vote, and Al Gore
boosted that to 40 percent in 2000. This year, Obama won 44 percent of
the vote in Orange County, according to preliminary returns.
Romney "implemented a winning election strategy for 1980," University
of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement
issued by the school. "If you look at the demographics and voting
proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today."
Celeste Greig, president of the conservative California Republican
Assembly, said in an email to supporters Friday that the party was in
need of a makeover, emphasizing Main Street over Wall Street.
"We have to admit that as a party in California, we're just plain
disorganized," she wrote.
Romney bypassed California this year, waging his fight in
battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida. In claiming the biggest
electoral prize in America, California's 55 electoral votes, Obama
rolled up a nearly 21 percent margin. Voters also returned Democratic
Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Washington in a landslide, after Republicans
put up a virtually unknown candidate, Elizabeth Emken, an autism
activist who had never held elected office.
Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts
in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.
California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does
today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that
time. You'd have to go back to that year to find a Republican
presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.
Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a
time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are
unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the
GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the
vote counting continues.
It remains unclear what direction Democrats, who have close ties to
public employee unions, will take with their additional clout. If they
achieve the supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats
can pass tax increases and override gubernatorial vetoes without any
Republican support.
The state is saddled with a litany of problems, including a long-
running budget crisis, massive, unfunded public pension obligations,
tuition increases at California universities and growing demands for
water, affordable housing and energy.
Gov. Jerry Brown sounded a cautionary note this week, saying he
intended to avoid spending binges.
Still, Democrats believe they have the state's demographics on their
side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse
population.
More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are
Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent
are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area –
tomorrow's voters – 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.
The GOP retains pockets of influence regionally, including rural,
inland areas.
Republican National Committee member Shawn Steel has been pushing the
party to become more aggressive about recruiting Asians.
"It's not just all about the Latinos," he says.
Schmidt traces GOP troubles with Hispanics to 1994, when voters with
encouragement from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson enacted Proposition
187, which prohibited illegal immigrants from using health care,
education or other social services.
The law eventually was overturned, but it left lingering resentment
with many Hispanics at a time when the Latino population was growing
swiftly and becoming increasingly important in elections.
California "is not just a large state, population-wise, it's a trend-
setting state," said Schmidt, a public relations strategist. "It could
be a glimpse of the future."

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado

<steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> > <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >> will look like soon.
>
> > California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> > are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
> > 2000s
>

> >http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...
>
> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

>
> > Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> > reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> > California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> > comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

> > suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
> > land where dreams come true.”

>
> <snip>
>
> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>
> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
> Latin America.  Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
> overturning of PROP 187.
>
> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it now
> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
> orange groves.  Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
> of Southern California.  Other than the warm weather, it has little
> going for it.

A letter from the Blue States

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
research and the best beaches.

We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
bunch of single moms.

Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
are people with higher morals than we lefties.

We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
in Mexico.

Sincerely,
Blue States

[BeamMeUpScotty]

MEMO
Attn: Blue States

Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.

You owe it to America because "you didn't build that" and you'd be poor
as dirt if it weren't for all the taxpayers that paved the way for you.

Redistribute that money and watch us all become wealthy, the only way
for you to be wealthy is to send your money to the federal government
where they know how to spend it correctly.

P.S.
You're a FAT BASTARD RICH GUY

[walt tonne]

Coming social strife and racial war will be a blessing.

[Steve from Colorado]

So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the former
Soviet Union. Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from Somalia
packing would be a better solution, IMO.

[Steve from Colorado]

I like that. Also Mexico should be forced to accept unemployed
African-Americans from Detroit, Newark, and other rust belt cities just
looking for a warmer climate to be homeless in.

[Steve from Colorado]

On 11/11/2012 1:50 PM, Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:58:52 -0700, Steve from Colorado
> <steve.fro...@cocks.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>> <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>> will look like soon.
>>>
>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>> 2000s
>>>
>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127
>>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability
>>>
>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

>>> suggesting California is no longer �perceived by most Americans as the
>>> land where dreams come true.�

Thanks for the report from the front lines.

Steve from Colorado
alt.politics.immigration
http://www.globalgulag.us

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 11, 5:25 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

truth hurts hey:))))


Obama Triumphus: The 10 Real Reasons Why the Republicans Lost the
Presidency: fox news, bush, palin, racism, hatreds, eastward, lyin
ryan, wealth worshiping, anti-safety net, war on women, tea party,
show me your papers, and there is more, ten is not enough






Geoffrey Dunn
Author, 'The Lies of Sarah Palin'




Obama Triumphus: The Ten Real Reasons Why the Republicans Lost the
Presidency
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:14 am


On the eve of last Tuesday's national election, I forced myself to do
something I hadn't done during the entire presidential campaign: I
watched Fox News.
I was astonished. I had kept close tabs on all of the major aggregate
polling data, as well as paying close attention to gambling sites out
of both Las Vegas and England; I like to joke with my friends that
while the pollsters live to breathe another day (even if they are
wrong), the bookies in Vegas and Britain get shot if they make a
mistake. So when I watched bobbing head after bobbing head on Fox
predict a Romney victory (and a landslide at that!), I was more than a
little flummoxed -- and did whatever I could to get my bets down.
That said, the outcome of the 2012 presidential was not a fait
accompli, as many are now arguing -- not by a long shot. This election
could have gone either way. Anyone who thinks the Obama victory was
inevitable or predetermined is in a worse state of denial than the
hucksters at Fox News: Go directly to jail, do not pass "Go," and
place 200 bucks in my online betting account. Obama was vulnerable for
a variety of reasons -- the unemployment rate; the stagnating economy;
his clear distaste for the electoral process (no Bill Clinton he) --
and unlike in 2008 when structural factors leaned heavily against the
Republicans (and their choice of Sarah Palin sealed the deal against
them), the Republicans had a real shot this time around. And a good
shot at that. Obama was on the ropes. In an article appearing in The
New York Times last year, Nate Silver (whose numbers are generally
spot on, even if his reasoning is not) had asked "Is Obama Toast?" and
declared him an "underdog."


All one needs to do is look at the campaign polling in early October
of this year, after Obama flailed miserably in the first debate. The
Obama campaign went into virtual free fall -- for nearly two full
weeks. More significantly, the Romney campaign was ascendant. For the
first time in the campaign -- and perhaps it was the only moment --
Romney had connected with the American people in a meaningful way.
Obama appeared flat and, even, uninspired; Romney came across as vital
and three-dimensional. Most importantly, he appeared presidential. At
that point, he could have won the election. Easily.
Why didn't he?
1. The Republican War on Women. If one takes a close look at the
numbers -- especially those in swing states -- it becomes clear that
the real "firewall" for Obama was not the auto bailout in the
industrial Midwest, but moderate and independent women who are never
going to vote Republican because of the ugly and vicious assault on
women's reproductive rights being waged by the cultural warriors in
the Republican Party. The likes of GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin and
Richard Mourdock opining about "legitimate rape" stuck fatal daggers
in the Romney campaign. And Romney's own personal history on this
issue as a Mormon bishop prevented him from distancing himself
completely from their taint.
2. Republican Racism. In the aftermath of the Republican Convention, I
called the GOP gala in Tampa a "Gathering of Pasty White People" and
later said it looked like a gaggle of "Pillsbury Dough Boys." One
right-wing commentator went apoplectic. But that's exactly what it
looked like and, more importantly, precisely what every campaign stop
for Mitt Romney looked like. America is now a diverse cultural and
ethnic mosaic, and any party that blows racist dog whistles (including
Romney's infamous "47 percent" rambling) is doomed for demise. End of
discussion.
3. The Obama campaign was brilliant. While their quarterback can be a
bit erratic at times, their blocking and ground game are unsurpassed.
Sorry to use a sports metaphor here, but think Green Bay Packers circa
1965. Jim Messina, David Axelrod, Jen Dillon O'Malley, Stephanie
Cutter,et al are absolutely unequaled as political strategists. While
Romney put together a credible team, his was no match for Obama's. In
the end, that's the definitive variable. Romney's field campaign was
overrun.
4. Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie. Pundits on the right have been
over-blowing this factor (pun intended), while those on the left have
been dismissing it. The truth is we'll never know how significant it
was statistically -- polling numbers can never get at an issue like
this -- but the fact remains that while Obama was clearly ahead going
into the final weeks of the campaign (and his momentum was steady with
Romney's at this point), Sandy closed off a path for a last-minute
Romney surge.
Sandy reminded independent and undecided voters about the importance
of the federal safety net; it highlighted Romney's opposition to FEMA;
it further underscored Romney's wishy-washy positions on a host of
positions; it allowed Obama to look presidential and rendered Romney
as a bystander; and it opened the door for what I called Chris
Christie's "turn" as Marcus Junnius Brutus. Game over. (And you can
bet there's a larger story here re: Christie and the Romney campaign.
I guess we'll have to wait for Game Change: The Sequel.)
5. Clint Eastwood. Conversely, in the case of Eastwood's pathetic,
self-indulgent turn at the podium during the final hour of the
Republican National Convention, the numbers don't lie; moderate and
independent voters were clearly turned off by his blithering empty-
chair schtick. Moreover, the Republicans had a superb video biography
of Romney that could have been seen by a national audience, setting
the stage for Rubio (who was great) and then Romney (who was more than
credible). Instead, the soundbites and headlines the following day
were all about Eastwood. As a result, the expectant bounce after the
convention was smaller and had less traction than it should have. That
may have been the absolute dumbest move of the campaign.
6. Paul Ryan (and Joe Biden). Vice-presidential candidates don't often
play a major factor in the race. But once Paul Ryan got busted for
lying about his marathon time, along with his budget numbers, he was
destined for a minor role in the campaign. Moreover, during the middle
of Obama's free fall, Biden played hardball in his debate with Ryan
(who came off as a numbers nerd) and stopped the Romney-Ryan momentum
dead in its tracks. Ryan was an absolute non-factor: he probably cost
Romney Florida and couldn't even deliver his home state of Wisconsin
(where the GOP ticket lost by a stunning 6.7 percent).
7. Bill Clinton. Clinton's speech at the Democratic Convention was a
tour de force of 21st century political oratory. But if you caught
footage of Clinton on the stump and in rope lines in the days and
weeks afterwards, you were watching the Michael Jordan and Joe Montana
of modern-day political campaigners. I believe that Clinton's fires
burned even brighter for victory than did Obama's. Moreover, the
Republicans had no one -- and I mean no one -- who could match Clinton
in the hustings. (That is unless you count George W. Bush delivering a
speech to investors in the Cayman Islands only a few days before the
election.) Dollar Bill was clearly a factor, and a definitive one at
that.
8. Fox News. Like I said, I can't tolerate watching this crew during
the regular season, and one night of viewing was enough to turn my
stomach for at least four more years. But it should be clear now that
the Fox mainstays like Hannity and Rove and Morris (what a piece of
work he is) are so out of touch with reality that any campaign based
on their political perceptions is doomed for failure. And does Sarah
Palin -- who after four years of steady embarrassment and who still
can't string a sentence together -- really have a place in the
national conversation? Certainly Roger Ailes can no longer think that.
9. Reince Priebus. This guy must turn off about 99 percent of the
entire electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike. Even my son's
goldfish can't stand him. Here's a guy who couldn't last one second in
a working-class bar anywhere in this country. And he's the mouthpiece
for a major political party? Whew. (One of my favorite moments in the
campaign was when Chris Matthews chewed him up and spit him out for
playing the race card.)
10. Obama. In November of 2006, Axelrod drafted a memorandum in which
he was brutally direct with his candidate: "I don't know whether or
not you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a
punch." The fact of the matters is that in terms of campaigning, Obama
is, indeed, more like Patterson than Ali. And fortunately for Obama,
McCain and Romney were more like George Chuvalo and Ingemar Johansson
than either Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier. But when the chips were down,
Obama stepped up. In debates two and three (a la Patterson against
Johansson), he pounded Romney to the canvas. His victory speech
Tuesday night was one of the best of his life. He must feel like the
weight of the world is off his back with his re-election in the rear
view mirror. It was a reminder of how powerful he can be when he puts
his heart into it -- and how equivocal he can come across when he
doesn't.
All of these factors added up to less than a two-percent differential
nationally but a landslide electorally. The Republicans will continue
to blame and finger-point and whine in the ensuing weeks and months
ahead. I'm not sure they have any adults left in the house. The
Republicans have some serious soul-searching to do -- and they will
have to be more honest with themselves than they were at any time
leading up to Election Day -- or the White House will seem mighty
distant again come 2016.
Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's best-selling The
Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for
Power was published by Macmillan/St. Martin's in May of 2011.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 11, 5:54 pm, Steve from Colorado

<steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 1:50 PM, Gunner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:58:52 -0700, Steve from Colorado
> > <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
> >>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> >>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> >>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> >>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> >>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> >>>> will look like soon.
>
> >>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
> >>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since  the mid
> >>> 2000s
>

> >>>http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...
>
> >>>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...

>
> >>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
> >>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
> >>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
> >>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

> >>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
> >>> land where dreams come true.”

stalin and mao starved millions to death.
hitler and musolinni crafted the useless eaters theory.
stalin and mao hated labor unions.
hitler and musolinni hated labor unions.
stalin and mao hated liberals.
hitler and musolinni hated liberals.
marx and rand hated big government, and wanted to destroy it.
stalin and mao thought that only the strong shall survive.
hitler and musolinni thought that only the strong shall survive.
all four hated homosexuals.
all four ran a show me your papers police state.
in stalins russia, as well as mao's china, almost all wealth and
power
ended up in the hands of a few.
its also happening in the west, where ever the conservatives and
rands
cranks theories are being employed.

[Gunner]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:35:04 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

Did voter fraud swing the election?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah presents evidence of illegal voting,
contributions, intimidation

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not a “conspiracy theorist.”

I live in the real world – always have. I’ve been a journalist who
goes where the facts lead him all my life – unlike most of my
colleagues whose “facts” are predetermined by their ideology.
Ads by Google

Man Cheats Credit Score1 simple trick & my credit score jumped 217
pts. Banks hate this! www.thecreditsolutionprogram.com
Utility InvestingTrade a Custom Portfolio of up to 30 Utility
Stocks - just $9.95. MotifInvesting.com/UtilityInvesting

I understand Barack Obama and Bill Ayers because I was one of them
early in my life. I even met Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and Tom Hayden
and Jane Fonda in the old days. I admired them. If Obama had been old
enough during the 1960s and 1970s, I probably would have run into him,
too.

If anyone has a balanced approach to the realities of political life
in America, it’s me. I’ve looked at life from both sides. I know the
arguments of the other side and can still spout them before most of
today’s practitioners of so-called “progressive” thought can.

I also know that the reigning ethos of this movement represented so
ably today by Obama is this: “By any means necessary …” It was first
articulated by Jean Paul Sartre in his play, “Dirty Hands.” But it
became popularized as a slogan of the revolutionary left by Malcolm X.

What it means, in short, is that the ends justify the means. It means
violence is fine in achieving a worthwhile objective. It means lying,
stealing, cheating and all those other bourgeoisie “sins” are
appropriate means of furthering the cause.

Is there any doubt in your mind today that this is now the reigning
ethos of the Democratic Party and its various tentacles and allies?

There is no doubt in my mind.

And that’s why stealing the vote is not only an acceptable practice by
these people, it is a moral imperative in their twisted worldview.

Am I suggesting that the recent presidential election was stolen
through voter fraud and manipulation?

Without a doubt.

Do I have evidence?

Yes, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that it was committed
by one side in the election in various ways. And I am convinced that
at least 5 percent of the Democratic vote can be attributed to fraud –
illegal voters, illegal campaign contributions, rigged balloting,
intimidation at the polls, you name it.

Here’s just some of the evidence for the skeptical:

In September, the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio reported this sad and
ugly news: “More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is
probably ineligible to vote. In two counties, the number of registered
voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s
Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while
in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per
100 eligible. Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90
percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most
voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.
In a close presidential election where every vote might count, which
ones to count might become paramount on Election Day – and in possible
legal battles afterward.” The Dispatch asked Ohio’s chief elections
official, Secretary of State Jon Husted, what could be done about this
problem. His answer? Not enough. Nine months ago, he asked U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder for a personal meeting to discuss how to
balance seemingly conflicting federal laws so he could pare Ohio’s
dirty voter list without removing truly eligible voters. Holder’s
office never even bothered to reply – to either Husted or the
newspaper. What does that tell you? It tells me voter fraud is and was
an important tactic in re-electing Holder’s boss and Democrats
throughout the country. Anyway, we all know how Ohio voted.

How about Michigan – Romney’s home state? How did Obama win such a
resounding victory when the polls showed the two candidates in a
virtual tie? And how is it that Obama won by 9 points while Democrats
suffered a string of defeats down the entire state ballot? For
instance, Republicans maintained control of both the state House and
the Supreme Court, while Democrats lost three ballot propositions.

Then, of course, there is the fine work of James O’Keefe and
Project Veritas, which demonstrated, over and over again on camera,
the willingness and ability of Democratic operatives to cheat and
commit fraud to win elections.

How about WND’s own investigation in which it demonstrated
conclusively that the Obama campaign welcomed foreign contributions by
intentionally leaving vulnerabilities in its web donation page that
allowed even those using bogus names, disposable credit cards and
foreign IP addresses to donate cash? The classic example was when WND
staffers did just this using the name Osama bin Laden, listing his
occupation as “deceased terrorist” and employer as “al-Qaida.” The
contributions were accepted by the Team Obama, just as it accepted
foreign contributions from the Palestinian Authority in 2008, as WND’s
Aaron Klein demonstrated.

How much evidence does one need to be convinced? This is just the tip
of the iceberg.

Did it make a difference in this close race?

Without question.

Is there anything we can do about it now?

Not likely.

But if we want to ensure that America has free and fair elections in
the future, we better get to work. America’s political system is
becoming a thugocracy.

I’m fighting back.

And you can help me in this fight.

I’m challenging the Obama campaign on the acceptance of those illegal
donations. I’ve filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint at
considerable cost. I have no illusions that it will be easy to
challenge a sitting president within his own bureaucracy. But I’m
doing it. Meanwhile, some in the press would prefer that I be charged
with voter fraud for efforts to expose the system. I wouldn’t be a bit
surprised if the Democrat machine tries something like that.

That’s why we need your help.

We’re fighting to preserve America’s freedom here – nothing less.

We’re fighting to preserve the concept of representative government –
elections that actually mean something.

We’re fighting to expose what no other news agency in the world
apparently has an interest in exposing – the dark underbelly of
corruption, fraud and abuse in our political system.

[Gunner]

Did voter fraud swing the election?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah presents evidence of illegal voting,
contributions, intimidation

Contrary to popular opinion, I am not a “conspiracy theorist.”

I live in the real world – always have. I’ve been a journalist who
goes where the facts lead him all my life – unlike most of my
colleagues whose “facts” are predetermined by their ideology.
Ads by Google

[Steve from Colorado]

On 11/11/2012 5:02 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:54 pm, Steve from Colorado
> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 1:50 PM, Gunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:58:52 -0700, Steve from Colorado
>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>> will look like soon.
>>
>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>>>> 2000s
>>
>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...
>>
>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...
>>
>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

>>>>> suggesting California is no longer �perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>> land where dreams come true.�

Excellent and very elucidating commentary. Thanks for posting.

[Sid9]

"walt tonne" <tonnew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df95292a-679d-4ad4...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> Coming social strife and racial war will be a blessing.

Would you accept the job of fuehrer?

[Gunner]

>>>>>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>>> land where dreams come true.”

From NBC

More than 400 possible cases of price gouging of gasoline and other
essentials, including a $10 box of matches and $7 loaf of bread, have
been reported in New York before and after Sandy.

Reports are being investigated in New York City, the Hudson Valley and
on Long Island by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Schneiderman said Monday that he's investigating an increasing number
of reports of spikes in prices for essential goods including gasoline,
food, bottled water, generators, batteries and flashlights. The probe
can include sharp, unwarranted increases in the cost of prices by
retailers including supermarkets, hardware stores, bodegas, delis,
hotels and taxis, he said.

In one report, the cost of a bag of potatoes jumped to $7, up from $3
before the storm hit. The cost of the box of matches appears more than
three times the usual cost, and the loaf of bread is more than double
the usual cost.

New Yorkers can report price gouging by telephone at 800-771-7755 or
through his office website.

"We are actively investigating hundreds of complaints we've received
from consumers of businesses preying on victims of Hurricane Sandy,"
Schneiderman said. "Our office has zero tolerance for price gouging."

No arrests were reported as of Monday. Schneiderman wouldn't discuss
details of the reports or the investigation.

Vendors may defend higher prices if they can show an increased cost of
obtaining goods from wholesalers or in delivering services, making
prosecutions difficult.

State business law prohibits an "unconscionably excessive price"
during an "abnormal disruption of the market" that unfairly takes
advantage of consumers.

Schneiderman offers the following tips for consumers to ward off
gouging in repairs from Sandy:

— Ask for references and check for licenses.

— Get estimates in writing and agree to added costs only in writing.

— Homeowners have a three-day period to cancel a contract, unless the
repair is an emergency.

— Verify a contractor's address.

— Never pay the full price up front. Withhold final payment until the
project is done satisfactorily.

— Be sure the contractor has valid insurance so you aren't liable for
any injuries on the job.

— Secure building permits before the job starts.

Last summer, Schneiderman sued some gas stations for price gouging
following Tropical Storm Irene. The reports of price gouging were
relative low during that storm, which ravaged parts of upstate New
York. Schneiderman had sent warning letters to major vendors before
Irene and before Sandy.

In August, a Yonkers gas station increased its price from $3.89 a
gallon before Irene hit to $4.79 two days later, drawing from the same
delivery of gas received before the storm hit. The station lowered the
price again, to $3.83, when Irene left. The company settled the suit
without admitting guilt for $7,500, Schneiderman said.

A Farmingdale gas station on Long Island raised its price 84 cents per
gallon when Irene hit. That gas station settled the lawsuit against it
for $3,000.

[Strabo]

On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?

I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
Great programing - no laugh track necessary!

Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to pour
piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.

But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
unemployment
reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
with Obama in office.

I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
vulnerable are feeling it first.

And they are the people that were hit by the storm and it will be common
place for different areas to see this as Obama brings you his Socialist
Master plan, if it's NOT a storm it will be riots or gas or electric
shortages, there will always be an excuse. There always is from Obama.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/11/2012 7:02 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:54 pm, Steve from Colorado
> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 1:50 PM, Gunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:58:52 -0700, Steve from Colorado
>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>> will look like soon.
>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>>>> 2000s
>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...
>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...
>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,

>>>>> suggesting California is no longer �perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>> land where dreams come true.�

We've employed Capitalism and freedom for 150 years and it didn't have
any real problems until Woodrow Wilson the Progressive and Socialist and
the last 100 years have been slightly more rocky with every ne
Socialist-progressive plan they created.


Cut out the Socialists and Progressive policies in the last 100 years
and the country would look like a pretty good place to live.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/11/2012 6:49 PM, Steve from Colorado wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 9:44 AM, Warren Penn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
>>
>> Kevin MacDonald
>>
>> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
>> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
>> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
>> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
>> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are

>> doomed if they don�t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

>>
>> The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
>> the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this

>> year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%�39%. Of

>> course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
>> classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
>> identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
>> Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama

>> didn�t immediately bomb Iran at Israel�s behest. As a critical

>> component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
>> by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
>> Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
>> partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
>> electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
>> Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
>>

>> Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama�80% on average. Asians have
>> become like Jews in their voting�focused not on their economic

>> position so much as their identification with non-White America.
>> Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
>> Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
>>
>> Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
>> voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the

>> youngest age category (18�29 years)�those most influenced by Sumner
>> Redstone�s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to

>> pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young

>> audiences�voted Republican (51% to 41%).
>>
>> So the Republican Party is the White people�s party. The media is

>> screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
>> competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
>> is very unlikely to work.
>>

>> It�s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast

>> majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
>> party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
>> base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal

>> article (�California�s Greek Tragedy�), two Stanford professors,

>> Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
>>

>> from the mid-1980s to 2005, California�s population grew by 10

>> million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
>> paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population

>> swelled by 115,000. � With 12% of America�s population, California has
>> one third of the nation�s welfare recipients. (see here)

>>
>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>> will look like soon.
>>
>> So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
>> agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
>> taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
>> even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
>> would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
>> research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public

>> goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It�s going to make for a

>> very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
>>
>> And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews

>> and Asians�they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the

>> party of non-White America independent of social class.
>>
>> White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will

>> continue to decline. It�s no accident that stocks of gun companies

>> soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
>> took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
>> traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive

>> White� category used by the media) are now pretty much officially

>> disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding

>> population. That�s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of

>> these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
>> campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
>> elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
>> because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
>> continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
>>
>> This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
>> this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
>> But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
>> deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham

>> O�Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about

>> secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
>> futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
>> other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
>> history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
>>
>
> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
> former Soviet Union. Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.

Maybe Homeland security could start looking at foreigners as threats
rather than just looking at U.S. citizens as the major threat?

[Sid9]

"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
news:h6_ns.1584$tk4....@newsfe25.iad...

Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 11, 6:50 pm, Steve from Colorado

> >>>>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
> >>>>> land where dreams come true.”

you are welcome, anything to help out the dim:)

[Steve from Colorado]

Exactly.

[Gunner]

Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:57:06 PM by mgist

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud Rachel Alexander

Nov 11, 2012

There were many factors that hurt Mitt Romney and favored Barack Obama
in the 2012 presidential election. The Democrats portrayed Romney in
the worst light possible; as a wealthy, out of touch millionaire who
wanted to return women to the 1800's. The left wing media predictably
did everything it could to perpetuate that false caricature. Obama's
race was an advantage; voters of all persuasions, particularly
minorities, still cannot get over the allure of the first black
president. The 47% of Americans on welfare were predisposed to vote
for the food stamp president over Romney, wanting the free goodies to
keep on giving, despite the long-term unsustainability.

In spite of those odds, polls indicated that Romney was going to win
the election. The economy is close to Great Depression era conditions,
and unemployment is almost as high as when Obama entered office.
Economic conditions became so dire after Obama took office it prompted
the rise of an entire new movement, the Tea Party. Presidents rarely
win reelection when the economy is in the tank.

So how did Romney lose a race that numerous reputable polls and
pundits predicted would be an easy win, based on historical patterns?
The most realistic explanation is voter fraud in a few swing states.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered
voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in
Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible
adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio's Wood County,
there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote.
An additional 31 of Ohio's 88 counties have voter registration rates
over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama
miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and
received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally
removed.

The inflated numbers can't just reflect voters who have moved, because
the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast
majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want
to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote,
one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest
counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means
the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration
level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by Videographer
James O'Keefe, known for his undercover videos exposing left wing
fraud, caught a Virginia Democratic Congressman's son on video in
October explaining how to commit voter fraud. Patrick Moran, the son
of Rep. Jim Moran, told O'Keefe's videographer that in order to make a
vote for someone else, you'd need two pieces of identification, such
as a utility bill, explaining, "they can fake a utility bill with
ease, you know?" He went on to advise the videographer that he should
also call the voter and pretend to be a polling company in order to
make sure the voter isn't intending to vote. He said that Democrat
attorneys would be located in the polling places to assist him if
challenged casting one of these illegal votes.

In another video, O'Keefe's videographer tells a DNC staffer from
Obama's Organizing for America that she intends to vote in both Texas
and Florida. The staffer laughs and says, "It's cool." The staffer
then prints out a voter registration form for the undercover
videographer and advises her on what to do if she gets caught.

These are just the known instances of attempted voter fraud. How many
instances occurred that were not discovered? Obama's Organizing for
America looked up voters in swing states – many who would not have
bothered voting otherwise – and got them to vote. How did they get
them to vote? They may have given them rides to the polls, they may
have offered to fill out and return their ballots for them, or they
may have voted ballots for the ones who were not going to vote.

Many on the left believe there is nothing wrong with committing fraud
in order to ensure Obama's reelection. It is a common tenet on the
left that the ends justify the means. Saul Alinsky, the 1960's radical
who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, taught community
organizers like Obama that dishonesty is acceptable if it achieves
your political goals. And when caught, Alinsky teaches radicals to
deny the wrongdoing and change the topic to put their accusers on the
defensive. One Obama supporter brazenly posted on Facebook that he was
voting four times for Obama, asserting that the ends justify the
means.

Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote.
The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since
2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was
enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for
overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in
Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for
ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military
voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer
overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant
considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

Voter fraud has been in the works for years. At least 52 employees of
the left wing group ACORN have been convicted of voter registration
fraud. ACORN itself was convicted of the crime of "compensation,"
paying its registration canvassers bonuses to exceed their quotas. In
2008, 36% of ACORN's voter registrations were invalidated. Left wing
political pundit Chris Matthews admitted last year that pretending to
call someone from a polling company, then voting their ballot for
them, has been happening in big cities since the 1950's. He admitted
he knows that kind of voter fraud takes place in Philadelphia.

Strong-arming people into voting who really have no desire to vote
undermines our form of government. People do not choose to vote
because they are uninformed about the issues and candidates, are lazy,
cynical, or are content with the status quo. Voting someone else's
ballot for them is cheating the system and essentially giving yourself
two votes.

When people claim that Obama won because the economy was improving, or
because Americans generally think he is doing a good job, it is not
true. He won through dishonest methods and rhetoric. Many of the votes
cast in the swing states were cajoled, some legally and perhaps even
more illegally, into supporting him. If voter fraud becomes
acceptable, then maybe Donald Trump is right: it's time for a
revolution.

[Gunner]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95725057/My-Voter-Fraud-List-120602

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 11, 10:44 am, Warren Penn <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
>
> Kevin MacDonald
>
> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are

> doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

>
> The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this

> year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of

> course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama

> didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical

> component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
>

> Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have
> become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic

> position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
>
> Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the

> youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner
> Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to

> pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young

> audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).
>
> So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is

> screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> is very unlikely to work.
>

> It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast

> majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal

> article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors,

> Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
>

> from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10

> million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population

> swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has
> one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

>
> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> will look like soon.
>

> So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public

> goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a

> very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
>
> And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews

> and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the

> party of non-White America independent of social class.
>
> White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will

> continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies

> soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive

> White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially

> disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding

> population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of

> these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
>
> This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham

> O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about

> secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.

In order to appeal to the vast
majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
party of entitlements for minorities

----
Americans will not be chastised into supporting a welfare state.

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, Steve from Colorado

---
come legally or don't come at all

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>MEMO
>Attn: Blue States
>
>Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.

Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
red states. So why do you lie?
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 12, 1:48 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>

> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >MEMO
> >Attn:  Blue States
>
> >Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>
> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to
look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn’t any. The
Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
coherent and connected.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:31:32 -0800 (PST), plainolamerican
<plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 12, 1:48=A0pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> >MEMO

>> >Attn: =A0Blue States

>>
>> >Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>>
>> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the

>> red states. So why do you lie?http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-r=

>edblue-paradox
>
>In the end, the red/blue paradox may be a product of our tendency to

>look for ideological consistency in politics when there isn=92t any. The

>Republican and Democratic parties, like all political coalitions, are
>umbrella groups that include very different interests. Pro-lifers
>share a party with hawks, gun controllers with immigration reformers.
>The role of ideology may be to make contradictory impulses seem
>coherent and connected.

What a nice way of dodging the hypocrisy of the red welfare states
complaining about their taxes.

[plainolamerican]

as they should ... along with immigration control, welfare rolls, and
socialist liberals

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>

>I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>with Obama in office.
>
>I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>vulnerable are feeling it first.

You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:09:15 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>We've employed Capitalism and freedom for 150 years and it didn't have
>any real problems until Woodrow Wilson the Progressive and Socialist and
>the last 100 years have been slightly more rocky with every ne
>Socialist-progressive plan they created.

LOL. SO you were a big fan of the 6 day 72 hour work week, child
labor, sweat shops and company store?

Sheesh, you never get embarrassed by just how stupid the stuff you say
is?

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:48:07 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:


This is what passes for argument among the illiterate Fox-Hannity true
believers.

>Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote.
>The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since
>2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was
>enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for
>overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in
>Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for
>ballots since 2008.

Gee it made it more difficult to vote, how? by allowing email, online
and fax voting? That's really hard.

A reduction in ballots might not have anything to do with the fact we
have far less military folks overseas now, given we're essentially out
of Iraq and greatly reduced in Afghanistan?

See the bait and switch? The law made it easier for military personnel
to register and vote. But there are less soldiers over seas and away
from home, but we use the correlation of less votes to say the law
suppressed it. Typical BS.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:48:07 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Strong-arming people into voting who really have no desire to vote
>undermines our form of government.

Wow, now just tell us who got strong armed? Oh, hasn't happened. But
it still gets the blood up huh? Sheesh.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:02:11 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>More than 400 possible cases of price gouging of gasoline and other
>essentials, including a $10 box of matches and $7 loaf of bread, have
>been reported in New York before and after Sandy.

Gee gunner, as free marketer, no regulation guy, what is "price
gouging" to you? It's a totally liberal concept counter to price and
demand economics. Are you getting socialistic in your old age?

I noticed your sig line changed after the election. Funny that!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/12/2012 2:48 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:25:07 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> MEMO
>> Attn: Blue States
>>
>> Pay your FAIR SHARE and stop your whining.
>
> Um Scotty, by now you know full well that Blue states subsidize the
> red states. So why do you lie?

I don't see a "lie". Pay your fair share.

Where is the lie?


It is what "you" tell Republican fat cats. I was actually quoting you Libs.

Sarcasm.... you know - humor that requires a modest amount of thinking.

Explain the lie for me.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
the President by their votes. It looked like a land slide up until
HurricaneSandy.

After Sandy it was a win but not a land slide... and after Obama won I
had the realization that our elections are being stolen. Democrats
won the contest in stealing the ballots.

[retro...@comcast.net]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>> with Obama in office.
>>>
>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>
>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>
>
>I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>the President by their votes.

You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
were skewed.

> It looked like a land slide up until
>HurricaneSandy.

God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?

>After Sandy it was a win but not a land slide... and after Obama won I
>had the realization that our elections are being stolen. Democrats
>won the contest in stealing the ballots.

They won by voting - despite the GOP's efforts to stop them.

I'm just wondering how long it will be before you go out to use your
Obamacare benefits.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>>
>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>
>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>> the President by their votes.
>
> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
> were skewed.

And they were all skewed in 2010.


My only mistake was to think Democrats couldn't steal an election... I
guess I under estimated the depths they could sink to.


Polls are really useless and I told you the poll that would count would
be the Nov 6, poll. So I'm right about some of it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/12/2012 9:20 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>>
>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>
>> I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>> that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>> in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>> the President by their votes.
>
> You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
> entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
> all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
> were skewed.
>
>> It looked like a land slide up until
>> HurricaneSandy.
> God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?

It was chance.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 12, 3:11 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

yep.

[Nickname unavailable]

you would starve without us. yet you hate us.

Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearly
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
Providers, 
Red States Are the Parasites 
There's only one way to
demonstrate who America's producers and 
parasites really are. It's
time to go Galt. 
February 29, 2012  |
 Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
works:
(click for larger version) 
Progressives believe in the redistribution
of wealth, so we're not 
usually too upset by this state of affairs.
That’s what it means to be 
one country. E pluribus unum, and all
that. We’re happy to help, 
because we think we’ve got a stake in
making sure kids in rural 
Alabama get educations and seniors in
Arizona get healthcare. What’s 
good for them is good for all of us.
We also like to think they’d help 
us out if our positions were
reversed. It’s an investment in making 
America stronger, and we feel
fine about that.
But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
by 
and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
and 
so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to
hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
"producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
drives 
everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
"parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
darkly 
implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
want to 
arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
narratives that 
can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
in 
the country to live.
Advertisement
And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
exceptions 
being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
Texas) -- 
the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
fading past, 
rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
and refused to 
invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
that those regions 
are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
labor, and 
expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
their wealth- 
destroying ways.
And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!
If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
like where we end up. 
By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
the birth of a new 
Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist
personal- 
responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
leeches off 
our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
without us, 
let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from
us, at 
minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up
verbal whoop- 
ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to
unload on us 
if the roles were reversed. 
The time has come for blue
America to go Galt. Our farewell rant — 
long and epic, as Rand's
turgid writing style would have required — 
might sound a bit like
this: 
First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on
a 
nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
highway, 
national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
are, in 
every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
of us 
paid to build.
Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
deduction 
— which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
with it your 
status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear
another word from 
you about how you made it all on your own. And that
goes for those of 
you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
out an SBA loan, 
or went to well-funded public schools back when such
things existed. 
You are what you are because we believed in you, and
invested in you. 
And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even
acknowledge that 
fact. 

Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
those kids you 
couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
contraception or 
abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
prevent. It's just 
that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
in every way that 
matters because we plan our families. A failure to
plan on your part 
does not create an obligation on ours. Your
policies force women to 
have kids, even when they're patently not
ready to have them. Now (as 
you’re so fond of telling women who find
themselves unhappily 
pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
of those choices.
Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
willing 
to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
believe in 
free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
education 
because it’s done more than any other government service to
make us 
rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
your own kids. Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science
and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual
contents of the US Constitution — we're probably not going to hire
them. So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that,
too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your
basement until you die.
Advertisement
Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies,
we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we'd actually
rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and
states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred
CAFO- 
grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can.
There 
aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all
of us 
yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are
working hard 
on the problem. You can either get on this train, or
holler at it 
while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us
because we 
don’t want to eat what you choose to grow. 
Notice, too,
that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the 
first place
is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with 
profits on
this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L 
Loser. In
ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.” 
Sixth: We are so over your
bigotry. Again: we know from our own long 
experience that including
women, gays and minorities makes us not only 
culturally richer; it
also makes us more economically productive as 
well. And the recent
economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures 
run exclusively by
rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools 
for all kinds of
social and financial parasites, who then come forward 
to prey on
those least able to resist -- like you. 
Diversity isn’t just an
idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we 
think it makes us
richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is 
just another
word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep 
them poor
and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you 
parasites.
And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you. 
And finally: If
you want to pretend global warming isn't happening, 
you do not get to
come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or 
floods. We're
not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We're not going 
to build
canals to give you our water. We're not going to fund your 
levees. If
you're so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your 
reservoirs
full and your cities dry. Because we resign. 
But will we come back?
Yep. It all sounds really ugly. But that’s the point of going Galt:
it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are
in 
the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to
any 
mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain
appreciation from an uncooperative family.) If others have to suffer
hardship to learn the lesson — well, that’ll teach 'em. The
emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back,
begging on their knees for your vital help and resources. They know
now, in a way they didn't before, that they cannot survive without
you. 
So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to
convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our
cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the
chastened masses once again? We have just five simple demands: 
1.
Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put
into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If
you 
can’t, that’s fine -- we'll go back to helping you out -- but you
have 
to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re
simply 
not entitled to it. 
2. Admit that we were right. Admit that
nobody in America ever makes 
it on their own, and that we are all in
this together, and that 
there’s such a thing as the common wealth and
the common good. Admit 
that regulation is necessary to keep the
unprincipled strong from 
preying on the weak. Admit that there has
never in history ever been 
any such thing as a free market: markets
are created by governments, 
and need to be overseen by them. And
finally: admit that your 
conservative leaders got us into this
economic mess, and don’t know 
squat about how to get us out of it.
3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity
utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on
topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and
that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something
about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-
determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who've
gained the real-world skills to help themselves. 
4. Admit that we
love our country every bit as much as you do — and 
that, given our
much greater success at creating strong families, 
productive 21st-
century industries and excellent places to live, we 
might actually
know more that you do about how to make it work better 
in the
future. 
5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering,
threats 
and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly
that 
parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you
should be 
embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so
clearly. And, just 
once, say thank you to us for all the
contributions we’ve made (or, at 
least, tried to make) toward your
well-being. We don’t ask for much, 
but a little gratitude now and
then wouldn’t hurt. 
Five easy steps. Do this, and we’ll come back and
work with you as co- 
creators of an America we all can love. Until
then, though, you can 
pay your own bills. We’ve decided we have
better things to invest that 
money in — upgraded schools, single-
payer healthcare, expanded college 
systems, mass transit, sustainable
technology investments, and forward- 
looking research to launch new
industries that will make us richer 
yet. And you’ll have a choice,
too: you’ll either learn what it takes 
to produce like we do, or
you’ll get to find out what real poverty 
feels like. 
Would that we
had the guts to go Galt. We probably don't; it's just 
not in our
natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or 
leverage our
economic might to get the political upper-hand. But 
there's nothing
stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often, 
exactly who is
really who in this producers-versus-parasites 
relationship. We didn't
draw that ridiculous battle line -- but maybe 
it's time for us to
accept their terms of engagement, stake our 
rightful claim as the
country's actual producer class, and show them 
just how tall and
proud we are to stand on our far more fertile 
ground.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 12, 3:49 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:48:07 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> This is what passes for argument among the illiterate Fox-Hannity true
> believers.
>
> >Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote.
> >The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since
> >2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was
> >enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for
> >overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in
> >Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for
> >ballots since 2008.
>
> Gee it made it more difficult to vote, how? by allowing email, online
> and fax voting? That's really hard.
>
> A reduction in ballots might not have anything to do with the fact we
> have far less military folks overseas now, given we're essentially out
> of Iraq and greatly reduced in Afghanistan?
>
> See the bait and switch? The law made it easier for military personnel
> to register and vote. But there are less soldiers over seas and away
> from home, but we use the correlation of less votes to say the law
> suppressed it. Typical BS.
>
>

remember, in "THE CONSERVATIVE WORLD", day is night, and night is
day.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's only your fantasy but the irony in it is really funny.

Considering how much you hate BIG OIL and ROMNEY and BIG BANKS.....

And then you try to raise their taxes so you can get free health care
and free birth control and free abortions and free cell phones.

[Gunner]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:20:58 -0800, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:00:28 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:34:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but this is nothing more than Obamanomics, I told you here
>>>> that a 10$ loaf of bread and $10 a gallon of gas was going to be reality
>>>> with Obama in office.
>>>>
>>>> I also told you there would be shortages and rolling black outs and cars
>>>> would be sitting and people would be hungry.... naturally the most
>>>> vulnerable are feeling it first.
>>>
>>> You also told us Romney would win by a landslide. "nuff said.
>>
>>
>>I did, and I can only attribute the loss to stupid tactics after I said
>>that, and some first class voter fraud and stolen ballots by Democrats
>>in so many precincts Nation wide that this Nation is NO longer electing
>>the President by their votes.
>
>
>You "can attribute it only" to that because you live in conservative
>entertainment bubble removed from reality. The win fell in line with
>all the mainstream polls that in your need to deny reality you said
>were skewed.

Oh look at the Leftwinger coughing up Far Leftwing talking points from
his little haven in Blue Country. Of course..he is mentally ill and
delusional.

>
>> It looked like a land slide up until
>>HurricaneSandy.
>
>God hates republicans? Or are you blaming global warming?

Democrats hate Republicans..and they are hardly G-d

>
>>After Sandy it was a win but not a land slide... and after Obama won I
>>had the realization that our elections are being stolen. Democrats
>>won the contest in stealing the ballots.
>
>They won by voting - despite the GOP's efforts to stop them.

You mean despite the GOPs efforts to stop the voter fraud. Thank you
for that admission.

>
>I'm just wondering how long it will be before you go out to use your
>Obamacare benefits.

Hell...some of us have already gone on welfare because you fat cat
Establishment types are going to take good care of us.

Gunner

>

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be
reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and
controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced,
if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again
learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

(Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 B.C.)

[Strabo]

On 11/11/2012 11:47 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message
> news:h6_ns.1584$tk4....@newsfe25.iad...
>> On 11/11/2012 5:43 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 12:58 pm, Steve from Colorado

>>> <steve.from.color...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2012 11:29 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:44:17 -0800 (PST), Warren Penn
>>>>> <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
>>>>>> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
>>>>>> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
>>>>>> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
>>>>>> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
>>>>>> will look like soon.
>>>>

>>>>> California is now suffering from more people Leaving the state than
>>>>> are moving here. By a significant number and has been since the mid
>>>>> 2000s
>>>>
>>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-2...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Cal...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, lack of public sector
>>>>> reforms, and a lackluster job climate, more people have left
>>>>> California than come to the state since 2005, according to a
>>>>> comprehensive study by the Manhattan Institute released on Tuesday,
>>>>> suggesting California is no longer “perceived by most Americans as the
>>>>> land where dreams come true.”
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Just a couple of observations per the articles:
>>>>
>>>> Illegals who leave California are not all going back to their homes in
>>>> Latin America. Many of them move on to the same U.S. states that the
>>>> citizens of California are moving to, creating the same demographic
>>>> replacement of whites that California experienced due to the federal
>>>> government's non-enforcement of immigration laws, borders, and
>>>> overturning of PROP 187.
>>>>

>>>> Secondly, I would argue that many people leave California because it
>>>> now
>>>> resembles some of the worst parts of New Jersey, New York, and Puerto
>>>> Rico in terms of urban blight in areas that long ago were filled with
>>>> orange groves. Instead of being the sunny paradise that it was in the
>>>> '50s and earlier decades, it now resembles Tijuana and Ensenada in much
>>>> of Southern California. Other than the warm weather, it has little
>>>> going for it.
>>>

>>> A letter from the Blue States
>>>
>>> Dear Red States:
>>>
>>> We're ticked off at the way you've treated the Blue States, and we've
>>> decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're
>>> taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that
>>> includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Minnesota, Wiscon...
>>> sin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.
>>>
>>> To sum up briefly:
>>>
>>> You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell
>>> research and the best beaches.
>>>
>>> We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Opry Land. We get Harvard; you
>>> get Ole' Miss.
>>>
>>> We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you
>>> get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the
>>> red states pay their fair share.
>>>
>>> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the
>>> Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families; you get a
>>> bunch of single moms.
>>>
>>> Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's
>>> fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the
>>> nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve
>>> French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the
>>> high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living
>>> redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
>>> plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
>>>
>>> With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
>>> Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
>>> mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
>>> of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
>>> Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
>>>
>>> We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
>>>
>>> 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by
>>> a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death
>>> penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that
>>> Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you
>>> are people with higher morals than we lefties.
>>>
>>> We're taking the good pot too. You can have that dirt weed they grow
>>> in Mexico.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Blue States
>>>
>>
>> Promise you'll take the Federal Reserve and bureaucrats?
>>
>> I admit your secession would be entertaining and beat anything on cable.
>> Great programing - no laugh track necessary!
>>
>> Unfortunately we'll never see it. The combination of Blacks, Latinos,
>> perverts and the White politically correct couldn't figure out how to
>> pour
>> piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the sole.
>>
>> But keep a good thought Blue Staters, once the economy crashes and
>> unemployment
>> reaches its tipping point, you will be rewarded.
>>
>>
>
> Did you ever pledge "...one nation, UNITED..."?
>

I took an oath to defend the Constitution.

[Strabo]

On 11/12/2012 4:49 PM, retro...@comcast.net wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:09:15 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> We've employed Capitalism and freedom for 150 years and it didn't have
>> any real problems until Woodrow Wilson the Progressive and Socialist and
>> the last 100 years have been slightly more rocky with every ne
>> Socialist-progressive plan they created.
>
>
> LOL. SO you were a big fan of the 6 day 72 hour work week, child
> labor, sweat shops and company store?
>

Prior to WWII most Americans were rural and worked in an agriculturally
based economy.

The much-touted "6 day 72 hour work week, child labor, sweat shops
and company store", a mix of separately related conditions, occurred
in mining and manufacturing, effecting principally the coal fields, northern
plants and New York City, each places of high-density European immigration.
This 1880-1923 round of Immigration was instigated by Congress to appease
profit-minded industrialists.

While each American had the right to reject adverse working conditions
I won't bother with explaining the influence of socialist British unions
with
miners or the desperation of immigrant families competing for survival
in NYC
but simply warn against uneducated and unqualified immigrants.

But guess what? They've done it again.

>
> Sheesh, you never get embarrassed by just how stupid the stuff you say
> is?
>

The truth often hurts. I try to be nice and soften the blow.

[Strabo]

On 11/11/2012 11:22 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> On 11/11/2012 6:49 PM, Steve from Colorado wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 9:44 AM, Warren Penn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
>>>
>>> Kevin MacDonald
>>>
>>> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
>>> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
>>> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
>>> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
>>> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
>>> doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

<snipped>

>>
>> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
>> former Soviet Union. Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
>> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.
>

> Maybe Homeland security could start looking at foreigners as threats
> rather than just looking at U.S. citizens as the major threat?
>

It could but then that would defeat the goals of those who benefit from
such dangerous, irrational

The Progressive-Corporatist element which sets American immigration
policy seeks to confuse and confound the electorate while catering to
profiteering.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:42:43 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.com>
wrote:

against its enemies.."both foreign and domestic"

Gunner raises his hand as well

[deep]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:15:55 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty

You are right about nothing. Nothing whatsover. All you know is hate
obsessed rants against things you can't understand.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually I was absolutely correct about the economy being manipulated
and the fact Obama policies would create StagFlation.... because it's
here.


The fact I didn't consider the theft of ballots on a grand scale was my
mistake, there is no limit to the corruption of government in the USA.
Obama can BUY Senate SEATS, and apparently he can buy an election if he
can afford to stuff the election boxes.

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 12, 11:30 pm, Nickname unavailable

> embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearlyhttp://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...

> Fifth: Between federal water ...
>
> read more »

you would starve without us
---
speculation noted ... not shared

that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
tons about your intellect.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Nov 13, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> you would starve without us
> ---
> speculation noted ... not shared
>
> that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
> tons about your intellect.

i am not the one preaching hate.

gee maybe after decades of lying and hate directed at liberals and
civil society, a few "CONSERVATIVES" may be getting it: zero tolerance
with the terrible tone that’s coming out of the talk radio universe
and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to
this fastest-growing demographic in the country.”



http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-slams-gop-ruling-class-blame-game-apparently-im-the-primary-reason-for-election-loss/

Rush Limbaugh Slams GOP Blame Game: Apparently ‘I’m The Primary
Reason’ For Election Loss
audio
by Meenal Vamburkar | 10:41 pm, November 12th, 2012



On Monday’s installment of his show, Rush Limbaugh hit back at those
attributing part of the Mitt Romney‘s election loss on, among other
things, talk radio. Criticizing the GOP “ruling class,” Limbaugh also
argued that the media and Democrats will ensure that Republicans are
not perceived as “pro-Latino.”
“Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh began, “this
election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh. I am the
primary reason.”
“There are others, but I’m the primary reason the Republican Party
lost,” he continued. “And I am, by the way, the primary reason the
Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the
Republican Party.”
He went on to talk about the “ruling class” of the Republican party.
“We, the country class, are not in the ruling class,” he said. “We’re
the problem.”
As an example, he pointed to Steve Schmidt‘s recent remarks, wherein
he said Republicans need “zero tolerance with the terrible tone that’s
coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in
Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest-growing
demographic in the country.”
Additionally, he argued that Democrats aren’t exactly looking out for
the GOP’s best interests when they offer up advice. To that point, he
asked Republicans a question: “Do you really think that the Democrat
Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-
immigration?” (Hint: no.)
All it takes is one person — be it an elected official or a talk radio
host — “disagreeing with the direction the party is taking, and the
Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, ‘See? The
Republicans really are anti-immigrant!’”
“The Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the
Republicans’ limit,” Limbaugh said. “They’ll always find some extreme
position that the Republicans just can’t agree with in order to be
able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-
abortion, anti-immigrant.”




they just cannot shut the demagogues up can they: the hate, lying and
demagoguing is still going on: Bill O’Reilly Decries ‘Secular
Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent On Destroying Traditional America(white)



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-decries-secular-progressives-who-are-bent-on-destroying-traditional-america/


Bill O’Reilly Decries ‘Secular Progressives’ Who Are ‘Bent On
Destroying Traditional America’

by Meenal Vamburkar | 9:13 pm, November 12th, 2012



Is traditional America gone for good? That’s the question Bill
O’Reilly tackled during his Talking Points Memo on Monday night.
Criticizing “secular progressives,” O’Reilly called for the right kind
of politician who will help us confront the “reality of our
situation.”
Traditional America can come back, O’Reilly said, with the right
person to make it happen. Specifically, he pointed to Mitt Romney‘s
electoral loss among blacks, women and Latinos. “It was an entitlement
election,” he said.
The media would have you believing the election confirmed election
ideology. While that’s not true, he said, secularism is “eroding
traditional power.”
“On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans,”
O’Reilly said. “But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very
special politician to do that. By the way, Mitt Romney didn’t even try
to marginalize secularism. He basically ignored it.”
Secular progressives don’t have the right approach, he argued, because
they don’t want judgment on personal behavior. For examples, O’Reilly
pointed to the issues of out-of-wedlock births, abortion and
entitlements. Secular progressives “don’t want limitations on so-
called private behavior,” he said.
The majority of Americans can be persuaded, O’Reilly said, “that the
far-left is dangerous outfit, bent of destroying traditional America
and replacing it with a social free-fire zone that drives dependency
and poverty.” We need to confront that, he added. But too many of our
politicians are too cowardly to do so.

[plainolamerican]

---
as if minorities want to be united. They prefer to segregate
themselves on racial and ethnic lines.

you're either an American or something else.

[plainolamerican]

---
no ... eliminated. We owe them nothing.

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 11, 4:19 pm, Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:30 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> keep doubling down on what does not work "CONSERVATIVE", its the way
> your type does things.
>  meanwhile, your policies of greed, selfishness, wealth worshiping,
> deregulation(which is nothing more than thievery), hatreds, etc. has
> turn offed tens of millions of people.
>  california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
> of reaganomics, and nixon.
>  but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
> turning blue, colorado is turning blue. so your article is pure
> "CONSERVATIVE" crap as usual.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/10/california-gop_n_2110152.html
>
> California GOP Showing Worries Party Strategists
> By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 11/10/12 06:46 PM ET EST
>
> LOS ANGELES — If the future happens first in California, the
> Republican Party has a problem.
> The nation's most populous state – home to 1 in 8 Americans – has
> entered a period of Democratic political control so far-reaching that
> the dwindling number of Republicans in the Legislature are in danger
> of becoming mere spectators at the statehouse.
> Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They
> gained even more ground in Tuesday's elections, picking up at least
> three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two
> other tight races – in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-
> educated physician who mobilized a district's growing swath of
> Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.
> The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both,
> chambers in the Legislature.
> "Republican leaders should look at California and shudder," says Steve
> Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 campaign and anchored former
> Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election team in 2006. "The
> two-party system has collapsed."
> Republican voter registration has dipped so low – less than 30 percent
> – that the party's future state candidates will be hobbled from the
> start.
> Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney's defeat
> will inevitably examine why President Barack Obama rolled up more than
> 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among
> blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported
> Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for
> the president by 27 percentage points.
> There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped
> elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and
> Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican
> state in presidential contests.
> A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns.
> The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered
> whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population
> alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example,
> voter surveys show they've overwhelmingly favored Democratic
> presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place
> across the nation.
> "There are demographic changes in the American electorate that we saw
> significantly, first, here in California and Republicans nationally
> are not reacting to them," said Jim Brulte, a former Republican leader
> in the California Senate.
> "Romney overwhelmingly carried the white vote – 20 years ago, that
> would have meant an electoral landslide. Instead, he lost by 2 million
> votes" in the state, Brulte said.
> Perhaps no part of the state better illustrates how Republicans
> surrendered ground than in Orange County, once a largely white, GOP
> bastion where Nixon's seaside home became known as the Western White
> House.
> Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population,
> while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic,
> according to the census.
> In 1980, Jimmy Carter managed to collect about a quarter of the vote
> against Reagan in the county. But by 1996, with the county
> diversifying, Bill Clinton grabbed 38 percent of the vote, and Al Gore
> boosted that to 40 percent in 2000. This year, Obama won 44 percent of
> the vote in Orange County, according to preliminary returns.
> Romney "implemented a winning election strategy for 1980," University
> of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement
> issued by the school. "If you look at the demographics and voting
> proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today."
> Celeste Greig, president of the conservative California Republican
> Assembly, said in an email to supporters Friday that the party was in
> need of a makeover, emphasizing Main Street over Wall Street.
> "We have to admit that as a party in California, we're just plain
> disorganized," she wrote.
> Romney bypassed California this year, waging his fight in
> battlegrounds such as Ohio and Florida. In claiming the biggest
> electoral prize in America, California's 55 electoral votes, Obama
> rolled up a nearly 21 percent margin. Voters also returned Democratic
> Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Washington in a landslide, after Republicans
> put up a virtually unknown candidate, Elizabeth Emken, an autism
> activist who had never held elected office.
> Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts
> in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.
> California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does
> today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that
> time. You'd have to go back to that year to find a Republican
> presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.
> Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a
> time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are
> unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the
> GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the
> vote counting continues.
> It remains unclear what direction Democrats, who have close ties to
> public employee unions, will take with their additional clout. If they
> achieve the supermajority in both houses of the Legislature, Democrats
> can pass tax increases and override gubernatorial vetoes without any
> Republican support.
> The state is saddled with a litany of problems, including a long-
> running budget crisis, massive, unfunded public pension obligations,
> tuition increases at California universities and growing demands for
> water, affordable housing and energy.
> Gov. Jerry Brown sounded a cautionary note this week, saying he
> intended to avoid spending binges.
> Still, Democrats believe they have the state's demographics on their
> side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse
> population.
> More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are
> Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent
> are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area –
> tomorrow's voters – 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.
> The GOP retains pockets of influence regionally, including rural,
> inland areas.
> Republican National Committee member Shawn Steel has been pushing the
> party to become more aggressive about recruiting Asians.
> "It's not just all about the Latinos," he says.
> Schmidt traces GOP troubles with Hispanics to 1994, when voters with
> encouragement from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson enacted Proposition
> 187, which prohibited illegal immigrants from using health care,
> education or other social services.
> The law eventually was overturned, but it left lingering resentment
> with many Hispanics at a time when the Latino population was growing
> swiftly and becoming increasingly important in elections.
> California "is not just a large state, population-wise, it's a trend-
> setting state," said Schmidt, a public relations strategist. "It could
> be a glimpse of the future."

california is now turning deep blue, even though its the birthplace
of reaganomics, and nixon.
but, arizona is turning blue, nevada is turning blue, new mexico is
turning blue, colorado is turning blue.
---
they need to breath.
dividing America by red and blue is insanity.

[Sid9]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:0590ccd8-6674-4573...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

.
.

Limbo is not responsible for anything.
It's always someone else.

[ColdWarDinosaur]

On 11/11/2012 11:44 AM, Warren Penn wrote:
>
>
> Impotent Republican Party: Time For Secession?
>
> Kevin MacDonald
>
> My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the
> glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was
> very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what
> they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans. This time
> around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are
> doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).
>

> The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008,
> the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this
> year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of
> course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners
> classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not
> identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of
> Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama
> didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical
> component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated
> by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic
> Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-
> partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the
> electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the
> Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites.
>
> Non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama–80% on average. Asians have
> become like Jews in their voting—focused not on their economic
> position so much as their identification with non-White America.
> Indeed, a higher percentage of Asians (73%) voted for Obama than did
> Latinos (71%) and Jews (70%).
>
> Whites of both sexes voted Republican, with only 35% of White males
> voting Democrat and only 42% of White women. Even Whites in the
> youngest age category (18–29 years)–those most influenced by Sumner
> Redstone’s MTV and by the school system whose main purpose now is to
> pound the benefits of diversity into the brains of captive young
> audiences–voted Republican (51% to 41%).
>
> So the Republican Party is the White people’s party. The media is
> screaming now that the party reach out to Latinos to become
> competitive again. I suppose that is what they will try to do. But it
> is very unlikely to work.
>
> It’s not just about immigration. In order to appeal to the vast
> majority of non-Whites, the Republicans would also have to be the
> party of entitlements for minorities and high taxes for their White
> base. Consider the situation in California. In a Wall Street Journal
> article (“California’s Greek Tragedy“), two Stanford professors,
> Michael F. Boskin and John F. Cogan, note that
>
> from the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10
> million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers
> paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population
> swelled by 115,000. … With 12% of America’s population, California has
> one third of the nation’s welfare recipients. (see here)

>
> And as a result of the most recent election, the Democrats have a 2/3
> majority in the State Legislature, meaning that they can raise taxes
> as much as they please. This new supermajority will now see White
> Californians as a cash cow, to be milked at will until we see the
> light and leave. California is a harbinger of what the entire nation
> will look like soon.
>

> So in order to appeal to Latinos, Republicans will have to not only
> agree to let more Latinos in, they also have to be gung ho on raising
> taxes and jacking up benefits. This is not even remotely a vision that
> even a moderate Republican could accept. It is complete surrender, and
> would be staunchly resisted by its core constituency. As all the
> research shows, Whites are not going to be willing to pay for public
> goods that will be consumed by non-Whites. It’s going to make for a
> very unhappy White minority. Just another cost of multiculturalism.
>
> And the bottom line is that Latinos will ultimately behave like Jews
> and Asians—they will see their future in the Democratic Party as the
> party of non-White America independent of social class.
>
> White males constituted only 34% of the electorate and this will
> continue to decline. It’s no accident that stocks of gun companies
> soared after the election, even though the stock market as a whole
> took a dive. What we have here is a situation in which around 70% of
> traditional American White men (correcting for the overly inclusive
> White’ category used by the media) are now pretty much officially
> disenfranchised in a country where they see themselves as the founding
> population. That’s a lot of angry White men. The vast majority of
> these men are not going to be willing participants in a Republican
> campaign to recruit Latinos, no matter what the enlightened party
> elites want. And there will be far more non-Whites voting in 2016
> because Obama is bent on legalizing the illegals and because of
> continuing displacement-level legal non-White immigration.
>
> This is or at least ought to be explosive. It may take a while for
> this 70% to wake up to the reality that they are politically impotent.
> But it will happen. Separatist movements in the many states that are
> deeply red are certainly a possibility, as advocated by Farnham
> O’Reilly here. (A friend mentioned that Rush Limbaugh joked about
> secession.) Is there any other realistic alternative? Apart from
> futile violence against the Leviathan, do White men really have any
> other choice? That is, unless they think that exiting the stage of
> history as something less than men is a reasonable alternative.
>

I am sure Mexico would love to take them all over. Imagine that. Your
garden guy becomes your boss....

--
~~
HW
__________________
The GOP Claim TO Be Christian but:
Are Capitalist Extremists.
Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.
Are Racists.
Are Pro-War.
Are Pro-Torture.
Are Pro-Execution.
Are Pro-Money-lender.
Despise Human Rights.
Despise The Poor.
Despise Women.
They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.
Who are these people really??

[ColdWarDinosaur]

Just say that they did secede. Where would all the money for their
indigent citizens come from and who would defend them against, um, er,
lets say Mexico?? Us?? No chance...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I considered signing the secession petition on the internet just so I
could get deported as the new petition Liberals want to start says.


This is my best chance of escaping the tyranny of the *Socialist States
of America*

I won't have to pay all the Obama tax/fees for having not been aborted.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/13/2012 2:28 PM, ColdWarDinosaur wrote:

I considered signing the secession petition on the internet just so I
could get deported as the new petition Liberals want to start says.


This is my best chance of escaping the tyranny of the
*Socialist States of America*

I won't have to pay all the ObamaCare tax/fees for having not been aborted.

ObamaCare is a tax on un-aborted fetuses..... it's an abortion tax, or
more precisely it should be called a tax for not becoming an abortion.

[Sid9]

"ColdWarDinosaur" <wynnehenry!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k7u70n$4u7$4...@dont-email.me...

,.
.
.
.
Rick Perry just disavowed this nonsense,
The civil war settled secession.

This proposing it are traitors to the United States

[plainolamerican]

--
better than socialists

Support Law of the Jungle, Survival of the Richest.

---
of course

Are Racists.
--
those who call people racist are usually jews, niggers, spics or some
other minority.
Which one are you?

Are Pro-War.
---
just like the dems

Are Pro-Torture.
---
terrorists should be tortured for info and then executed.

Are Pro-Execution.
---
killers should be executed or used as a labor source. No work .. no
food ... their choice.

Are Pro-Money-lender.
---
like the jews?

Despise Human Rights.
---
you only have rights you can protect.

Despise The Poor.
---
fund your own charities

Despise Women.
---
no ... they have the pussy and will suck a dick.

They appear to be against everything Jesus stood for.

---
religious myth to ignore. Gods are created in the imaginations of men.

Who are these people really??

---
Americans who despise socialist beggars who want government support,
food, housing and healthcare.

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 13, 1:25 pm, ColdWarDinosaur <wynnehen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

---
mexico is lucky the US hasn't already annexed their shit hole.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:10:14 -0800, plainolamerican wrote:

> Payments to foreign governments must be reduced ---
> no ... eliminated. We owe them nothing.

Amen!

Handing out money to foreign governments when our own government is past
bankrupt is just FUCKING STUPID.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:37:42 -0800, plainolamerican wrote:

> On Nov 11, 5:49 pm, Steve from Colorado <steve.from.color...@cocks.net>
> wrote:

>> So Mr. McDonald is proposing that the USA copy the breakup of the
>> former Soviet Union.  Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers from
>> Somalia packing would be a better solution, IMO.
>

> Sending illegal aliens and ayslum seekers ---
> come legally or don't come at all

AT work they have a world map. Put a little "pin" in the place you were
born.

One of the things that bothered me was that there were more pins in NORTH
Vietnam than in SOUTH Vietnam. Huh? I thought we took in the South
Vietnamese who "helped us" (meaning, they lifted a finger to save their
idiot asses from the communist... if we payed them). But there were MORE
from the North? WTF!!

[Strabo]

Debt which is incurred on the behalf of the American people but which the
Constitution does not authorize, is known as odious debt. The people are
under no obligation to accept or pay such debt.

Examples are: payments for undeclared wars; payments to foreign powers
like Israel and Egypt; losses due to illegal operations like the bundled
derivatives;
bailouts of private business, among others.

[Strabo]

On 11/13/2012 9:38 AM, deep wrote:

Here's a few tidbits which anyone can understand.

Any election which involves the use of machines for the accumulation or
counting of votes, or participation in elections by government or foreign
entities, is suspect on its face and the results should be rejected.

[Strabo]

It is no crime to defend the Constitution. If any official action or law
is not authorized by the Constitution it is null an void.

[Sid9]

"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message

news:HJ0qs.1246$Sm5...@newsfe25.iad...

YOU do not define the constitution.
The US Supreme Court defines what the words mean.

[Sid9]

"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message

news:lB0qs.10364$_c1....@newsfe16.iad...

Arbitrary nonsense not borne out by the facts.

[Sid9]

"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.com> wrote in message

news:iu0qs.3109$Sv5....@newsfe05.iad...

Right wing ignorance continues to spread like the disease it is!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Only what it means to them, so far as any of us care what they say.

Currently I don't trust the Supreme Courts decisions, because they are
all pro slavery decisions.

That makes life more like the Occupy movement where we will have to
ignore the powers that be and elect to live under anarchy through
PASSIVE RESISTANCE. Until government again represents the people rather
than representing government.



--
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf
Hitler-- (Speech of May 1, 1927

*Rumination*
#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.

[ColdWarDinosaur]

On 11/13/2012 3:03 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>

Actually it would be amusing if this turned on them. The moment that
DC stated they are free to go and stopped all red state hand outs, and
just handed them a bill for their share of the national debt, revoked
their citizenship and passports, they'd be lynched by their neighbors.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The constitution and the Bill of right are open to secession.

It was the north that didn't want to lose the tax and manpower of the
south went to war.

[Gunner]

Lets try it and find out.

Im sure you would love being without food, oil and coal.

Lets indeed try it out and find out if you die in the cold or not.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/19/2012 12:46 AM, Deucalion wrote:

> However, it was the South that fired the first shots.
ON southern property.... The south was being invaded. Foreign
troops were on the soil that belonged to the South.

[plainolamerican]

On Nov 13, 11:06 am, Nickname unavailable

<video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > you would starve without us
> > ---
> > speculation noted ... not shared
>
> > that you even try to segregate Americans with red and blue colors says
> > tons about your intellect.
>
>  i am not the one preaching hate.
>
> gee maybe after decades of lying and hate directed at liberals and
> civil society, a few "CONSERVATIVES" may be getting it: zero tolerance
> with the terrible tone that’s coming out of the talk radio universe
> and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to
> this fastest-growing demographic in the country.”
>

> http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-slams-gop-ruling-class-b...

> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-decries-secular-progressives-...

i am not the one preaching hate

---
yes you are ... by supporting socialist liberals

[plainolamerican]

---
the results of a failed US interventionist policy.
now Americans are having to accommodate all sorts of animals from the
middle east dumped on us by the US politicians. They should be forced
to fund their own charities.