Friday, June 28, 2013

The Destructive Power of the POOR

Karl Marx drafted a political philosophy specifically to appeal to the Poor. John Engles did the writing.Marx was poor, and he embraced a lazy, petty and jealous personality. Engles had credibility (something Marx lacked) and it was Engle’s standing that enabled Marx’s Communist Manifesto to spread.The Marxist philosophy resulted in: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others.Those regimes and their policies of FAIRNESS ended the lives of 200 million human beings. History is replete with suffering, death, and destruction – all initiated to help the Poor.

One important lesson exists in history. It is perhaps the most important. If all the deaths and other human costs that arose from the actions taken to help the poor were summed, the number of the Poor remains the same and it would not change the Poor's perspective and demands. Helping the Poor assures the problems associated with poverty expand and intensify. The Poor are NEVER satisfied regardless of how much is done for them. The Poor are perpetually in search of anyone who they can manipulate to illegitimately increase their income. (NOTE: Every Progressive accusation is a revelation of their own sins - Projection).

The Roman Empire was destroyed and Western Civilization driven into a Dark Age by servicing the demands of The Poor. Roman politicians and Emperors used Food and Circus to placate the Poor - and buy their support. The costs of bread and entertainment to Rome's poor was astronomical.The money spent servicing the Poor was not available to defend Rome’s borders, and positively influence prosperity for the empire - but the Poor were kept satisfied. When the hoards surrounding Rome saw the decline - they attacked and defeated Rome. The producers were killed or fled. The Poor went back to being Poor. The Poor did nothing to improve themselves once the empire died and opportunity abounded. Outside producers entered and created feudal estates - to protect themselves against the Poor. The Poor were reset into their natural state.

The Poor are poor for a reason - they are typically un-smart.

Any attempt to reduce failure / risk comes at the direct expense of liberty and property.The lessons regarding this principle are inexplicably fleeting.For the worst reasons known, new generations of politicians refuse to acknowledge the liberty / risk relationship.Those politicians consider themselves able to negotiate separating the inseparable.Every attempt to transfer wealth and keep a nation prosperous has failed.Freedom and risk/ opportunity to fail, are each a side of the same coin.

If giving the Poor what they demand solved the problems of the Poor; by now, society would have solved all of the Poor's problems.

More than any other factor - Intellect determines wealth. Every person possesses different abilities; and inabilities. Those traits influence a person’s behaviors. They adopt behaviors that reflect their abilities and inabilities/traits. Those traits and resulting behaviors are what predicates success in life. This is NOT a Zero-Sum calculus.

The Poor have historically shown they possess the same intellectual traits of their Poor forebearers.

The traits and behaviors that lead to being Poor are:
Lazy, less ambitious and unwilling to expend the effort required to obtain success –

Get rich quick, less willing to work for objectives that provide no instant reward –

Immediate gratification, the work energy expended is focused upon material items that provide an instantaneous rush -

Stupidity, seeking an education provides no immediate reward, it requires persistence, it is difficult and rejected by the poor.

Like liberty and risk, the above behaviors (and the resulting outcomes) are “generally” inseparable.These traits lead to poverty; and assure poverty remains.

The Poor are magnificently ungrateful.The demands of the Poor are irascible and relentless. The Poor remain unsatisfied no matter what is given them.Unbelievably, the Poor’s grievances increase, proportionally, the more that is given them.This ungrateful phenomenon was noted by Margret Sanger in the early 1900s. Margret Sanger is a folk hero to Progressive Democrat politicians. She is credited with founding Planned Parenthood. Sanger suggested abortions (for the Poor) be provided upon demand or whenever a person was unable to care for a child. Ms. Sanger was a rabid advocate for eugenics – a practice I support when properly channeled.

...In Sanger’s 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous. Sanger asserted - helping the poor produced even more “human waste.” (Waste was Sanger’s euphemism for Poor children.) Sanger also stated, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” This statement infers society must be unaffected by the complaints of the Poor - because servicing their needs contributed to the destruction of a society.

Sanger said more: “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, providing the Poor with assistance makes the Poor more menacing and dominant.”

Sanger was right.

All lasting societies refused to service the Poor. The USA is revered and the world's poor flocked to it because the poor were given the opportunity to succeed. Obviously - that failed too! Churches were then the organizations that cared for the Poor. That charity is much different than today's anonymous guaranteed pay outs. The Poor were then forced to face their benefactors weekly. Shame was a consequence the poor also faced. The poor were forced to WORK and attend church to learn the errors of their ways. These small requirements vetted the poor who arrived there from bad circumstances and those who chose being poor for a variety of reasons. Regardless, the poor had to expend some effort and were prevented from behaving violently and criminally - unlike today.

Verifiable and consistent outcomes are associated with a limited intellect - the Poor/stupid are unable/unwilling to see, or are unwilling to admit, their behaviors are primarily responsible for their complaints. Irresponsible people refuse to adopt the behaviors that lead to success. A lack of responsibility – personal responsibility included, is most often causal for poverty.

The Poor enjoy blaming their failures on: birth right, bad circumstances, oppressive forces, and bad luck. Ostensibly, according to the poor's self assessment, the reason they are poor is due to forces beyond their control. Analysis shows a different causal factor - the Poor construct their lives to accrue the most comforts they can with the resources available to them - without adding to their labors or making matters more complicated. Responsible people improve their station and escape poverty incrementally. The Poor refuse to so do.

Progressives want (and need) stupid voters who are solely focused on their poverty.

The process Progressives use buy votes is three fold:

1. They make a villian. Progressives blame the wealthy as the illegitimate holder of the money and criticizing their life styles/motives.

2. They promise to implement policies that transfer wealth to the Poor's (and improve their own political viability).

3. They inform the Poor their vote is the only way to assure these policies are enacted.

Bribery is the operative function.

Historically, the Poor have shown remarkable durability in their greed, dissatisfaction, and willingness to rain violence, mayhem and murder to punish others more affluent than they.The poor claim violence is the ONLY tool available. Progressives walk a fine line to agree with, and enable, this violent option/threat. Violence is chosen by the stupid because they are unable to develop a peaceful solution, or the peaceful solution does not immediately appease their demands.

Potential violence is used by Progressives as a tool to intimidate the self sufficient./tax payers.  Violence is the implied threat - should the poor not get what they demand - riots, looting, unrest, will arise. This double edge sword is applied against the responsible and self sufficient to confiscate their wealth – “voluntarily”.

Progressive Bribery = Taxes are raised and the money redistributed to the Poor. The Poor exchange their votes for the money given them. Democrats expand government control to buy even more votes. Over time, those on the margin of poverty see they can stop working and not suffer a reduction in life style. They join others who exhange their votes for Free Stuff. Eventually, those receiving the public dole form a majority and the country implodes/goes bankrupt.

The promise Democrats make to the self sufficient is peace and safety - violence will be avoided if tax payers agree to part with their property in service to the "Needs" of the Poor. History proves no amount of transferred wealth will sate the demands of the Poor. Add to this - the Poor are incapable of retaining wealth or growing their wealth.Short-sightedness, born of a limited intellect, and the desire for immediate gratification results in the Poor spending their wealth away on products that deliver instantaneous gratification or to display affluence (showing off - pretending they are not Poor).

Margret Sanger and other eugenicists accurately defined why poverty existed and how to properly treat it. This school of thought was popular and it is likely that school would have improved the USA and prevented the immediate threat of financial ruin. Sanger's opinions on poverty’s causality and how to remedy the complaints of the Poor should be considered – if not her radical methods and words.

To understand poverty and the Poor – defining poverty is essential.What is poor? Subjectively, poor/poverty is a perspective. Many people with limited financial assets live happy and productive lives. They view themselves as Rich in love, contentment, and family. The political definition of the poor includes people who lack the assets to sustain themselves in an environment. Poor is also a comparative term. The Poor in one location are not poor compared to another location. America's "poor" live a lavish lifestyle compared to the poor in India, Africa, third world et al. American laws prevent The Poor from being poor whatsoever. The Quality of Life is equated with poverty in Democrat government speak. It is a word game that has no basis in reality.

The Poor sit front and center in the Democrat's policy making. Democrats label the Poor “Middle-Class” because the Poor do not like being referred to (Nor do they actually qualify) as Poor! Democrats have created euphemisms that describe their Poor. The Poor are called: At Risk, Working Americans/Families, Under-employed, and Working Poor. These terms are acceptable to the Poor because it implies the poor work and does not "stigmatize" them as POOR!

The exact measure of poverty that politically defines Poor is purposely unclear - and will remain unclear due to Democrats refusing to determine, or permit a determination of what defines poor = a mean level of income and property ownership that defines poverty. The definition of poverty must remain nebulous to enable Democrats a perpetual political argument.

When tasked to determine a "Poverty Point" the Health and Human Services agency could not (refused to) provide one. Being employed, receiving government subsidies, private sector subsidies, did not disqualify a person from being classified as poor! Owning a home, car (or two cars), a color TV - or several TVs, cell phone, A/C, household conveniences, and other trappings of a middle class status did not lessen a person's poverty according to HHS. The exact poverty point was purposely avoided.

According to HHS, Poverty is circumstantial and open to interpretation.

The term poverty/poor were honed over decades by Progressive Democrats to specifically describe people who lack a Quality of Life (as defined by Democrats). This is done to rile up their emotions - and the emotions of the self sufficient. Servicing the needs (demands) of the poor has caused untold strife and harm around the globe. Communism is the most extreme example of politicians appealing to the wants of the poor. Appealing to the Poor lead to the Russian revolution - ditto Mao's Communist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, Castro's Cuba. These all arose from politicians appealing to the poor. The violent nature of the poor is what accomplished those revolutions. Whether the violence is implied or actual, violence sits as the causal mechanism used to steal wealth and political control. Permanently controlling government is the goal of Progressive Democrat politicians.

The threat of violence or unrest should the poor's demands not be sated is ubiquitous. The riots of the 1960s are what prompted the initial War on Poverty. The programs and stipends offered to the poor since the 1960s have increased substantially. Noteably - the percentage of people defined as poor remains unchanged since the war on poverty was implemented. The WOP has done nothing to decrease the number of poor or the behaviors that lead to poverty.

This begs a question...

Were those acts of violence, the1960s riots, planned by Democrats?  The Fast and Furious scandal revealed the motivations and subsequent actions of Democrats to rally support for their planned policies.  Democrat policy making must be closely and historically examined . Do Democrats create self-fulfilling prophecies?  Evidence suggest Democrats plan and then pro-actively work to create the circumstances/programs Democrats need to argue for policy change?  F&F was such a plan.  Democrats wanted more gun control.  SO, Democrats broke laws were broken, they gave guns to Mexican gangs.  They purposely did not track the guns.  Whne people died, Democrats demanded more gun control was needed.  Democrats created the circumstances they needed to argue for gun law changes.  People died - Democrats did not care!!!  The deaths were either planned - or an acceptable cost.  The ends jusifty ANY means.

Servicing needs that arise from chosen behaviors - behaviors (that never abate) due to irresponsible and indolent choices; are not how most people view helping the poor. Temporary assistance is all a person is due. Society is not served with prolonged, institutional indolence/dependence. That practice assures the tax payer is an indentured servant of the government and their poor terror wing.

Remarkably, Democrats openly slander the tax payer and insult their efforts for not giving more to sate the demands of Democrat politicians and their poor voters/dependents.

Compassion is owed the compassionate. A majority of the poor are not compassionate and their behaviors clearly reveal their animus towards their fellowman and their own families.

The most glaring example of how inconsiderate, selfish, greedy, and stupid the poor are is the wide-spread practice of breeding children while receiving public assistance. No sane, compassionate, or lucid person will purposely add to their burdens while failing to sustain themselves. Adding children to an environment, incapable of providing for itself, staggers the imagination and is evidence of child abuse. However, Democrats reward the poor when they created more demand.  They receive more money for each new dependent they add to the roles.  Complaints are silenced with cries of racist. 

Democrat policy making encourages this rapacious behavior and seeks to punish and silence any opposition to their policies or the behaviors of the poor.Unrestricted breeding is one of the greatest financial drains this nation faces.The Poor will eventually breed in numbers sufficient to install a permanent Democrat majority and thereby permanently steal the wealth of the productive – legally.This is the over-arching goal of Democrats.

Lastly, the US Supreme Court decision recently handed down another bribe to the poor -free health care. Progressive politicians appear as dull-witted as the indolent they serve. The end game for Progressive politics is bankruptcy. Entitlement payouts are the largest segment of the federal budget and Progressives work to expand these each year. The children created by dependents also add to the number of mouths needing feeding. Progressive walk merrily hand in hand with their poor dependents on the road to financial ruin, and, ultimately revolution.

Once Progressives achieve their goals, neither the poor nor the government will have funds sufficient to cover their expenses. Only then, will bribing the poor finally end. That outcome will bring horrific suffering – much more than curtailing the behaviors that lead to a distorted view of poverty - a view that is neither poor or under-represented. Communists murdered 200 million poor once they no longer needed them. America's poor will a similar fate - but they are too stupid and purposely uninformed to know what awaits them.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Saving Traditional America

It merely takes a spark... someone ignites the dry and forgotten remnants that people hold deep in the recesses of their souls with a word or idea.  I last saw it after the 2001 attack. I captured hours of footage in 5 second bits of American flags unfurled everywhere. I shot the first tape in Baltimore when my wife was receiving therapy for cancer. Flags were ubiquitous and ranged is sizes from cartop antenna to half the side of buildings. Americans were united again. Americans were be proud of their Country. They wanted retribution too. Americans took joy in sharing a simple patriotic act that united them in spirit and purpose - raising the flag.

The flags became dirty and worn a few months afterwards. Patriotism was not encouraged. Evil despicable forces within the US didn't like the display of unity and patriotism. Democrats found flags undermined their objective - destroying America. Some Democrats complained and wanted the flags taken down. Imagine that. US residents claiming offense over flags, and judges permitting cases in their courtrooms - with the purpose of removing flags. This is a symptom of a malignancy that will destroy America.  The Democrat Party is the malignancy.

Democrats love bullying and intimidating using government. There is no bigger more threatening cudgel. Government is absolute. The loss of everything can come at the hands of government –freedom, property, even life. People are right to be frightened of government. Democrats know these fears and exploit them for political gain. Democrats want the Federal government running everything.  That places absolute control in government. 

Democrats don't want Americans united. Democrats want Americans jealous and fearful of Republicans and other Democrats. They want the people neatly organized by physical appearances, incomes, ethnicities, sex, and sexual behaviors. It’s easier to exploit their weakness and wants this way.  It’s also easier to create reasons for each group to hate the others and to unite the group in a common cause.  Americans rallying together for a common love of Country shatters these Democrat ambitions.  Unification under a patriotic and apolitical mantel will not be tolerated very long, if at all.See: Tea Party

Another reason the flags came down was Legal lottery - where unprincipled attorneys combine with unapologetically greedy people and sell their souls. Legal lottery is symptomatic of all that is wrong with Democrats and their supporters.  They are unconcerned where or how they get money or the material possessions they crave.  If the object of their legal lottery complaint/greed destroys the US flag, their neighbors livelihood, and/or the Country - fuck it! "I gots mine".

Legal lottery sits in black hearts of many Democrat Americans when they are not playing the regular lottery. Misplaced priorities, virtues, and responsibilities of citizenship are causal.  Traditional values are antithetical to Democrat ambitions and they pose a fundamental barrier difficult, if not impossible to overcome if the values are widespread and embraced tightly.  Destroying these values is mandatory for Democrats.  The reason Democrats went after the Boy Scouts on an issue as obscure as gay rights was not to expand diversity or gay rights.  It was to destroy an institution that taught fundamental values and was revered for teaching those values – and one more… self reliance.  Being prepared/self reliant is the Scout motto.  For Democrats to thrive, they need dependents – at least in the beginning.  They stop needing dependents once they obtain absolute control. 

Get Rich quick, short-sighted desires and augmenting behaviors are increasingly in vogue for a majority of Americans. Democrats, their campaign arm - the Media, and advertisers combine to distract Americans away from a common apolitical unity and assure their greed and envy are perpetually an hurtful open sore that prompts them to think and act.

Democrat know their constituents are obsessed with material wealth – regardless of their incomes.  Democrats work to inflame this passion.  The envy and jealousy they experience when they see others with more than they have is used by Democrats for political purposes and to control these people. This status assessment is made down to the Nth degree. Nothing and no one escapes. Concern over status drives Democrat voters to get money illegally if needs be. Status rules. It compromises integrity and warps morality. These same constituents will spend the little money they control upon gambling, drugs & alcohol, objects they believe elevates their status or any other object that provides them an immediate thrill. They will allow their offspring to suffer and risk their daily needs for bragging rights; “respect” in those communities.  

The Media and advertisers relentlessly assert not owning "the product" reduces the status of the potential buyer. You ain't shit unless you own... This is best displayed each time Nike rolls out a new shoe line.  Some buyers murder, maim, and rob other buyers to own the shoes.  When they are unable to murder, maim, or rob to own the product, they complain and whine. Democrat politicians exploit these complaints and provide a villain - the Rich are preventing your owning it.

Democrat's income based campaigns are focused upon the Rich - how the Rich don't pay their fair share - a share that could be diverted by Democrat politicians into their hands; if only they more political control. These behaviors and strategies are a sickness that began with 1st Montgomery Ward catalogue.  Advertizing (commercial and political) pummels the senses of Americans non-stop. A person cannot avoid them. The single purpose is to frame a fiction - the product sold will improve the life or status of the buyer.  The reason promulgated is the constituent doesn't own the product because of the (un)fairness factor.  The Rich are the problem.

The Rich prevent their ownership.  The Rich keep them down.  The Rich commit untold crimes and get away with their crimes because of their wealth and the affiliations their wealth affords.  Who are the Rich?  “The Rich” are words used to describe Whites; indirectly. Democrat constituents know the misnomer. Racial inequalities are alleged and feelings that accompany the inequalities encouraged.  Those suffering under the alleged inequalities are justified to ameliorate their feelings and their plight using any means necessary – by Democrat politicians. 

The same politicians use the inequalities to guilt trip and threaten whites/Rich by suggesting the racial subset may act out and the Democrat government unable to control or prevent the actions.  Whites are again threatened if they are Christians – What would Jesus think of your keeping your wealth?  Your ancestors participated in slavery – directly or indirectly – YOU are blame worthy; at least in part.  YOU must pay for these past sins and crimes.  What would your God think of YOU?  When that didn’t work, Democrats used government to confiscate some civil rights of whites.

Whites were fearful they might lose more rights if they objected.  They failed to comprehend, and continue fail to comprehend the game Democrats play and the components used.  Democrats need whites to earn and pay taxes to buy the votes of their constituents.  They couldn’t take all their rights. So Democrats threaten confiscation, again using tactics like racist - where a person like Paula Dean, is accused and convicted in the press.  They suffer mightily and lose careers.  This is all Democrats can do retain white tax dollars.  They cannot attack all whites.  Democrats need the taxes they pay.  Ending those tax payments ends Democrat control and their arguments become moot. 

If whites objected en-mass and voted as a group – Democrats are finished as a political party.   If whites want traditional America back, this is the only way remaining.  Conservative politician must act to unify whites – unapologetically; and the arguments at their disposal are vast and justified using any meritorious measure.  They will be attacked by the media regardless.  That is unimportant as the media must be changed once they attain political control.  Keeping the focus upon traditional values, Constitutional rights, and unity is enough to rest control for decades.  This will require replacing the establishment that controls the Republican leadership and corporation, or the creation of a new party.  Either path will suffice.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Paula Dean - STOP IT!

Stop apologizing. Apologies over so-called racial slurs are ALWAYS followed by a tar and feathering party brought on by the vigilante press corps who love humiliating and ruining whites for using WORDS they find offensive. Offense taking is now an overt criminal act. Ms. Dean should never apologize. She should retract her apology. She should define who she was speaking about and the context she used the words she chose. If the object of her joke is unwilling to behave like an adult and take the ribbing in a good hearted nature - they can pound sand. What is the crime here? Someone was called a name. Think about this. Offense taking to a word created this stir. A Word...

 NOTE - Paula Dean's books are now flying off the shelves. A 1,300% increase in the past two days.  (We'll speak to this later in this blog.)

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me...." This adage once was used by everyone to suck it up and overcome the assaults we all face in life. The adage was used to instruct children to grow up - mature - to stop focusing on unimportant nonsense. If this nation is to become what Dr. King worked and died to achieve - judging a man by his Content of Character (Behaviors) not by his skin color, all the race based laws and prohibitions must end.

Racism, sexism, pick your ISM, will never end. Ignoring them will limit their influence. But Dr. King's goal is not what Progressive Democrats want. They use race and sex and sexual behaviors as weapons to charge their political opponents and that objective has transmogrified into an amorphous nefarious set of race laws that forbid specific thoughts and words. They have ruined careers. They are used to bully and intimidate and compel compliance when their arguments have no basis and their political objectives are unconstitutional.

Affirmative Action and other race laws restrict and deny the civil rights of white males who now occupy the back of the bus - they are the last considered, if they are considered at all. White males have replaced blacks in the discrimination line - and the government condones it!!! The Federal and State government sanction laws that overtly deny white males' civil rights. Democrats never complain about this injustice. Ask yourself why? Why are white males the object of the Democrat's derision? Why do Democrats want white males disenfranchised?

Paula Dean is often the brunt of jokes about fat, white, women. She is not on the record taking offense being the brunt - as if her offense taking would raise an eyebrow - she's white! (and rich)

Paula is a Southern Woman who grew up in an environment where the word nigger was ubiquitous. Some used the word for a less than honorable purpose. Other's like US President Lyndon Baines Johnson used the word while speaking to the nation. "Niggrah" was LBJ's go-to word when referring to blacks. I think it's a contraction of nigger and negro with a Southern dialect added. LBJ was never called out; nor did he suffer at all for speaking that word. But LBJ was a Liberal Democrat. He, like Harry Reid - who defines blacks as: "Clean, well-spoken, and not having a Negro dialect - unless he need one" to describe Obama, can say what they want about blacks without retribution. If we are to have standards - everyone must comply - not just Conservatives, Southerners, or Republicans. Taking offense to the use of any word(s) is childish, and betrays the behaviors that prompt the word. Nigger - according to the dictionary is primarily a set of behaviors or reaction to the behaviors - contemptible, ignorant, shiftless, & lazy. Nigger is not always a reference to skin color. Definition #3: Someone who is politically and socially disenfranchised = nigger. Wow! White males are niggers according to Random House.

Democrats have worked to guarantee some races, some sexes, and some who practice certain sexual behaviors are sacrosanct - they cannot be criticized no matter what behaviors they display. They are legally protected from having to feel sad because someone called them a name. This is the crime we're discussing.

Wop, Kike, Pollock, Mick, Limey are all A-Okay words.  Are they any different than the taboo "N-Word"?  Blacks are free from being the object of jokes. Their skin is so thin, no one can poke fun at them - not even their racial kinsmen - but they do; frequently. Concordantly, blacks are so noble, they must be respected at all times. Specific language laws were created to assure blacks never receive criticism. White people have lost their careers and opportunities for professional advancement by speaking forbidden words. Un-effing-believable.

The truth is an absolute defense in any courtroom. Ergo - according to Democrat standards, blacks behave in ways that never invite criticism - right? For the high regard and sacrosanct status the vigilante press use to hold any value and support the conclusions they make, blacks must live in exemplary ways for the press' assertions to be valid AND for the race laws to exist in a reasoned context. Do they? Let's break a race law and investigate - one week.

One dead four wounded, 6/25/13; two shot dead, and one stabbed to death, 6/25/13; 7 murdered 6/24/13; Weekend of June 22-13 - 48 people shot, 8 dead. These statistics are for Chicago's black on black crime. One week, one city, one race... who are deemed so noble by Democrats and the press they are UNTOUCHABLEs - appropriate for Chicago. 

US citizens are required to deny what their senses tell them - what they see, hear and read must be ignored.  Pretending behaviors by a protected Democrat constituents group didn't happen is a legal requirement.  Our press refuses to report the race of perpetrators - protecting them, and preventing the public from learning how bad and pervasive the behaviors are. 

Paula Dean's are now selling like mad for a reason. Why we can guess - white people support her. Whites want to reward her, Whites want to send a signal to Democrats they are sick and tired of being treated poorly - as second class citizens - having their civil rights denied.

Are you listen Republicans? Blue-collar whites (Dean's primary audience) are reacting to Democrats punishing one of their own. They are willing to spend money if you will support them - like ending affirmative action and other race laws. They will vote!  Republicans do not need the votes of Hispanics.  They need the votes of blue-collar whiate males and their families who do not currently vote. 

REPUBLICANS - Give these men a reason to vote for you!

Monday, June 17, 2013

Immigration Reform - What Republicans Should be Doing


Living in Washington DC does leave lasting marks. The District changes people quickly…permanently. There is an abundant history of perfectly reasonable and solid Conservatives who won election, moved to DC, and were absorbed into the collective in less than 2 years. A Senatorial term is more than enough time for the influence of DC to transform a Conservative. Take the case of Marco Rubio who is currently advocating for Democrat policy. The problem is Rubio is ostensibly a Republican. Rubio recently agreed to be the Democrat’s point man for immigration policy. The charges are Republicans cannot attract enough minority voters and will eventually become a relic know for exclusively representing white guys. That’s true, mostly – but it needn’t be the outcome. There is another option that actually improves Republican chances and increases the number of votes cast. 

The Republican’s other option is a real option; demographically speaking. Republican could choose to act as they are accused, live down to the accusations of Democrats, and represent white guys. Why not? What have they to lose? The media assures Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They can’t get a break and truly don’t deserve one – in the media’s view. Sam Francis labeled Republicans the Stupid Party. Republicans are stupid; to a point. Republicans behave stupidly due to another pressure FEAR. Republicans are afraid of their own shadows. Fear (of losing an election) is the operative nexus.

Republicans could become a vibrant and dynamic and powerful party over one election cycle – IF they would only live down to Democrat claims and work to support the white males they are accused of supporting. HALF of white men do not vote. Let’s examine the numbers – Conservatively.

Republicans have access to over 40 million untapped, white male votes. These are votes that are literally waiting for someone to represent them. They’ve waited and suffered since the early 1970s.

The math:

308 million total Americans.

48% are male = 148 million.

75% are white = 115 million.

40% do not vote = 46 million.

86% are old enough to vote = 40 million.

This is the number of white males who do not vote. Let’s presume half of these will never vote for any reason. (They could change their minds if they saw Republicans taking up their cause.) That leaves 20 million potential Republican voters. If Republicans could get half of the remaining non-voters to the polls they win BIG.

Who are these white men that refuse to vote? They primarily are “blue-collar”. They live in America’s hinterlands – in those areas the media refuses to cover. This is why Congress does not know of them. The media purposely ignores these men because the media fears them. Democrats fear them. Minorities fear them. Working women fear them. Were it not for affirmative action laws, these men would be our firemen, cops, soldiers, builders, road crews, etc… A good number of white males work construction. I know these men intimately. I was once one of them – working with them. The claims made here are factual and from the mouths of those men – as recently as one month past.

Blue-collar white males feel betrayed by government. They see no difference between the parties because neither will end affirmative action laws and re-establish their civil rights. This is an important fact that feeds the debate – AA laws deprive white males their Constitutional Rights. Who will argue with that? Democrat’s wouldn't. Democrats are extremely wary of white men and took an obtuse path to limit their political power. Democrats stand to lose big if they directly attack white men.

Democrat formed policy to assure white males replaced blacks; their civil rights infringed/lost). White males are metaphorically and legally required to go to the back of the bus. They are the last considered for government/contract jobs. They are maligned and mocked –watch any sit-com to see the venom Hollywood holds for them. And, Democrats feel perfectly comfortable attacking Republicans for being the party that only represents white males. Why not? Democrats worked to assure more than half of the white male population do not enjoy Constitutional protections and thereby restricted their political power!!!

Why would, why did, blue-collar white men become so reviled? What did they do? Democrats will immediately cry slavery and segregation. None of these white men owned slaves. Only a few lived when segregation laws were enacted. Fewer yet had anything to do with segregation. Mentioning slavery and segregation will cause many whites to cringe. THAT - must end and there is only one way to end it - terminate AA policies. 

"Why do the Left hate white males?" should be how the debate is framed.  Males are superior in many categories: physical strength, size, work ethic, often intellect – if compared to the standard government AA worker. Democrats fear their sanctioned groups being meritoriously/academically/intellectually compared to white men - otherwise they would not need AA laws. That comparison will reveal defects and inabilities in their sanctioned groups. That disparity is why Democrats work tirelessly to defame and hobble white men/men generically. The defects in their sanctioned groups cannot be exposed.

“DICK” Nixon, a Republican, used an executive order to create AA policy. Nixon betrayed his party, his sex, the US Constitution, and, yes, Nixon betrayed his race. Nixon did this get positive press - solely!

Since AA laws were penned,whites became the only group effectively and legally forbidden from celebrating and working to advance their race. If they do, they are labeled a racist. This attack is part and parcel to Democrats attempts to malign and discredit white men. It is another theft of liberty. Is it not a testament (and amazing) that white men continue to compete – considering all the barriers and baggage Democrats worked to heap upon them?
Congress did nothing to stop Nixon. Republicans secretly wanted AA laws – but feared the backlash. Those Republicans thought the same way Republicans fixated upon immigration do today. Both groups believed they would receive more minority votes due to their pandering/gift giving. They surely believed they would garner enough support to remove some votes from the Democrat tally; and offset the white votes lost due to their betrayal. These Republicans, the Gang of Eight, are more than stupid. They are politically suicidal, purposely blind to history, and eager for a positive press release. What Republicans are now considering is insane, and telling.
FACT: Republicans LOST black votes after AA was enacted. The same will happen to the hispanic vote if they pass amnesty/immigration reform.

FACT: Republicans permanently lost power in California after the amnesty Reagan signed. The amnesty they consider now will work to permanently assure they lose power across the USA.


 Whites, as a group, are so fear filled of being called a racist, they refuse to stand up for themselves and their race. Slavery and segregation are relics from the past. People fixated upon them are living in the past. Republicans can effectively argue civil rights are at stake. They are compelled to take action. There is not enough media to attack the entire party. Blue-collar white men will notice and have noticed even a hint at overturning AA laws - the Willie Horton political ad was hint. A frontal political campaign based primarily upon restoring the civil rights of white men; complimented with a get out the vote and message campaign, will stir white males to vote en mass.That is the path to garner more Republican votes. It is a path demanded by the US Constitutional and one that would literally rock the foundations of the political environment.

Champion White Male Voters - If Republicans took up the cause of white males – unapologetically; and added the Christian religion as a secondary issue - simultaneously – they would win in a landslide. Republicans would win over many white male Democrat voters – Reagan Democrats. If Republican could motivate half of the 20 million untapped votes, they claim a landslide victory. Once Democrats saw that outcome, they would be terrified and politically neutered. Democrats would either panic and attack –political suicide, OR, they could work to get those votes themselves. Once AA laws are over turned, what Democrats do is unimportant – they become a permanent minority because the policies they advocate will no longer attract enough voters.

 Once in the majority, Republicans tackle immigration. Republicans should follow Dwight Eisenhower’s immigration program: “Operation Wetback” . That program identified, verified, and deported illegals. The polls suggest a vast majority (75%) of Americans want the border sealed. These same Americans are largely unaware of the comprehensive costs illegals place in their lives. These people must be educated and learn that Illegals are law breakers (Illegal immigrant) who add enormous demands to government entitlement programs – increasing their taxes. Reducing illegal demands helps balance the budget, reduce taxes, while simultaneously removing the problem’s source. Illegals are also the source of much crime and other dysgenic behaviors – antithetical to the health of the US Constitution and the civil society.

Those same voters will support another Operation Wetback once they learn the benefits and how illegals negatively impact their lives, communities, taxes, and… importantly - how often illegals negate their votes!!! No one knows the true consequences of illegals voting. This is another question that once answered would enrage voters –against Democrats. An added benefits is taking these steps will reduce the number of Democrat votes substantially.
Ending AA laws would send Democrats into emotional depression, and then a death spiral. With the signature policy that enables Democrats to buy votes gone, it would be Democrats who lose power – for a good long time. A Democrat minority would last long enough to reduce the size and scope of government. Republicans could then re-enforce the US Constitution’s protections for all people – regardless of race; by ending AA laws and every policy of government that discriminates based upon skin color and sex. That outcome was the goal of the civil rights laws. However, it didn’t turn out that way. White males took the place of blacks once AA laws were enacted. Making white males second class citizens was the goal of Democrats and white Americans must be informed who did it, and why they did it. Democrats would lose considerable political power. Society will benefit once white males re-enter the work force in numbers commensurate with their percentage in the general population.

This may be the last chance for Republicans to save their party. If they fail to act, they will become a permanent minority. Republicans need to make a political fist and use it.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Underlying Reason for the Theft of Information -

Thirty years does not seem a long enough time to radically transform a nation supposedly filled with freedom loving people; but that has happened.  If questioned, American citizens will claim their freedoms and state emphatically they are free.  These same people respond favorably to the federal government ostensibly acting to preserve -their lives, their property, and their safety, because they no longer trust their local governments or their neighbors. 

They freely accept (and encourage) the federal government to do more on their behalf -mainly in the form of safety (and comfort) laws, and, in the form of "Free Stuff"; tax subsidies, tax exemptions, tax credits, health care, unearned SSI payouts, disability payouts, unemployment and welfare payouts - while endorsing higher taxes be placed upon their fellow citizens who earn more than they.  Sustaining the Life Style Americans enjoy and increasing the number of material possessions they claim - was enough to sway a majority of Americans to voluntarily cede their priceless freedoms to the Leviathan.  A handful of magic beans - was a much better deal. 

US citizens of both parties will claim the the opposing party can be blamed for the grid-lock and disfunction in government.  While it can be categorically proven Democrats in America are more blame worthy for the growth of government and the corresponding loss of freedoms; Republican members of government act little different than Democrat politicians when Republicans enjoy a majority.  The reasons for Republican legislators and Presidents acting like Democrats are the same as the garden variety citizen's for accepting the theft of freedoms - protecting the Life Style they enjoy and avoiding criticism. 

Both parties work to enlarge the size and scope of government.

The political parties in America assert there are meaningful and stark differences between them. This statement is a lie. While there are differences in the parties they use for elections - once in power they behave so similarly the stated differences become meaningless. Both parties lie. Both parties work to expand the size and scope of government.

The Republican Party - wishing to avoid bad press and lure "moderate, independent, minority voters" enact laws that continue and expand statutes favored by Democrats. The number of laws enacted by Republicans that stymie or end Democrat policies are so few as to be meaningless.

The majority of Republicans are perfectly happy being the minority party. They receive fewer perks and control fewer tax dollars, but they live a handsome and elegant life ensconced in the trappings of Capitol Hill.

When these Republicans make asinine comments contrary to the goals of the party's base - whom the Washington elites literally loathe - they drive those voters away - SEE the Romney election. The Tea Party is (in Obama's words) the enemy of these Republicans. The Tea Party wants the Republican Party returned to its Constitutional roots - or - to end the Republican Establishment's hold on power. They want their freedoms returned

I strongly suspect there are many Republicans who knew about the IRS investigating the Tea Party and approved of it. These Republican happily ignore the problems under their purview to avoid bad press and the accusations the press is found of making: racist, bigot, other...

The recent privacy intrusions made by government were initially created by Republicans when they held complete power - the G. W. Bush Presidency and Congress. Republicans are to blame for creating core and processes now used that claim the liberties of US citizens.  However, the source of the risk remains - largely untouched - and free to plot attacks upon US citizens and property - and as the source for the loss of more liberties. Safety and preservation of property and liberties was never the objective of politicians.  The 9/11 attacks was an opportunity to expand the size and scope of government - solely.  That individual freedoms fell by the wayside, was a Necessary Expense to PROTECT Americans.

Every politician refused to target (profile) the problem - young men with a  middle eastern heritage - AND - men between the ages of 17 and 40 who belong to the Muslim religion.

Additionally, foreign nationals, residing in the US, who travel must be included in the enhanced scrutiny - if safety is truly the goal. The US government must make a comprehensive list of potential terrorists and scrutinize the maximum number of people who conform to the lists' specifications (this includes targeting all young Muslim men) to contain the problem. This solution was never considered.  Muslims and Blacks are used by Democrats to intimidate whites.  They are literally the Terror Wing of the Democrat Party - replacing the KKK. The Ferguson situation is condoned and allowed to perpetuate because Democrats want white Americans fear filled - THIS violence could come your community - unless you agree to higher taxes and fewer freedoms.  How else can we appeases these JUSTIFIABLY actions. 

Immediately, voices who want the US attacked and under a permanent threat - citizens living in a perpetual state of fear - claimed Muslims feelings were hurt if they endured enhanced scrutiny.  No Muslim groups stood to demand safety and volunteer for the enhanced scrutiny - to assure safety was applied effectively, efficiently, and with the least cost to all citizens.  The silence of Muslims was staggering.  Nor was there any indication that Muslims assumed a new perspective - to eradicate the terrorists within their religion.  Responsible people could immediately see the savings of time and costs - if the group known to commit acts of terror were the primary group scrutinized.

Many other choices in life place a person under enhanced scrutiny and those are applied without consideration of "emotions" they inspire within an individual enduring the scrutiny - particularly if that person is a white, Christian, male.

The celebration of Christmas is embraced but only as long as the celebration avoids any mention of the causal event for the celebration - Christ's birth. Any public mention of Jesus Christ, or the Christian religion is Strang Verbotten. Christian's have been, and can be, served legal documents for announcing their faith by wearing paraphernalia, or by adorning their work station or office with Christian symbols. The display of a nativity scene on public property is another act that invites a Court challenge. Governments small and large have adopted policies and laws that specifically forbid public references to Christ or Christianity. Person who disobey these laws (by obeying the statutes of Christianity, their religious beliefs) are targeted, sued, and/or face other legal actions. Targeting Christians is sanctioned and encouraged by governments. If the above does not move you to outrage - comprehending the bizarre and nonsensical actions politicians take to avoid bad press - while assuring the problem that prompted their action remains, you are a lost cause, dishonest, and willing to jeopardize the life and property of your fellow citizen - and your own. 

In contrast, targeting a Muslim for enhanced scrutiny when traveling - based upon the acts of terror committed by their religious associates - is specifically forbidden despite the security risks associated with not so doing. Governments treat Muslims with a reverence not afforded Christians. Christians and members of other religions are targeted and treated disparately to avoid the appearance of investigating Muslims. The added expense of investigating non-Muslims is exponential and is a clear example of lengths to which governments will go to avoid offending Muslims - no expense is apparently too great. An entire new industry and agency of government was created to avoid offending Muslims.

Governments, and both political parties, will ignore past and current facts and evidence, endorse higher taxes, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to avoid mention of the terror and Muslim religion linkage. The indirect costs of lost efficiencies and time spent under scrutiny push the total costs into the stratosphere. They are nearly incomprehensible.

Recent news reveals how both parties are using the actions of 9/11 to deprive citizens of other liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Politicians then denied they are doing it and/or claim the personal information confiscation was useless. Which answer is correct?  Why could there be two answers? 

This begs the question - WHY is information confiscated?

When the answer to the questions concerning terror risk - and the probably perpetrators known, and synonymous, the need to capture, store, and analyze the information becomes moot.  The WHY additionally exposes and explains the likely reasons for the confiscation - control and deprivation of liberties, compiling information to misuse against political opponents, and the innumerable nefarious reasons for taking and keeping the information becomes clear.  Republicans and Democrats alike want more control over the US citizenry.  The information confiscated permits that control through intimidation and the corresponding loss of freedoms.  The power and influence contained in this information is incalculable.   

US citizens do not complain or demand different treatment - their privacy preserved outside the reach of government.  Fear of Muslims, fear of a comfort loss, fear of an indoctrinated  safety risk, and fear that others may receive more freebies than they receive, are reasons enough to prompt a majority to willingly hand over their liberties.  The age of freedom is over.  No shots were fired.  The response to one attack, 12 years past exposed the willingness of a majority of citizens. 

The grand experiment in freedom ended when their comforts and freebies were threatened. Those freebies and comforts are soon to disappear the way Detroit is imploding.  Even the federal government is unable to provide freebies and preserve the buying power.  Once Democrat know they hold complete power, they will act to preserve their hold on power.  That will require huge reductions in payout/freebies to maintain the loan money received from China et al.  Once China sees an ability to push the USA into insolvency and call their debt - they will.