Is it racist?

Is it racist to not embrace full on the demographic transformation of your society, a transformation, furthermore, that will make your group go from a majority to an minority in a few decades and be divested of substanial political say (e.g. to be divested)? According to a huge amount of liberals the answer is yes but only if your white and you don't love going from a majority to a minority in your beloved England, France or America. However, liberals conclude, if your a black South African who doesn't want to become a minority thats just fine. Isn't racism treating people different on racial grounds?

Hitler's Revenge

The most destructive ideology of the first half of the 20th Century was obviously Nazism. Ironically, the most destructive and insidious ideology of second half of the 20th Century (and beyond) was & is poltically correct multiculturalism. This was "Hitler's Revenge". Nazism caused the left to turn off their brains and move to the opposite extreme and scorning nationalism and patriotism and rejecting the idea that nation's had any racial or etnic identity (aka China is Chinese). This brought about unlimited mass immigration to the west & inturn brought about the death of the West.

Multiculturalism does not work within a society. Racial diversity at to fast at rate of growth creates what we have in California today: Governor Schwarznegger goes on TV his state deep and debt and lyingly asserts that there is nothing more to cut. The truth is that the California debt could be greatly mitigated by merely listening to the Californian majority (as of now atleast) and ending the transfer of billions of tax payer dollars to the millions of illegals living without fear, outside the shadows in California mooching off the tax payers receieving free schooling, welfare, therapy, scholarships, healthcare on Uncle Sam's tab. But why can't Schwarznegger tell the truth? Why does he lie so blatantly? Because California has a huge population of people-Mexicans-who have intrests completly different from that of "white Americans" which screws democracy up entirely. For the fragile instuition of pure one man one vote democracy to work everyone has to share a basic set of intrests. It fucks democracy up completly when , say, 30% of the population's allegiance is with another foreign nation.

Jim Pinkerton makes the above point well here.

Soledad O'Brien: The Diversity Triple Threat of Cable News

Since diversity is now legally mandated in every sector of America life and enforced via hefty discrimination and dispirate impact lawsuites from racial grievance rackets like the SPLC and/or the Justice Department (which have become indistuishable in the last year) every company, its plain to see, has their own token minority employees in legion. You'll notice how rare it is to see black criminals on crime sitcoms and films. For instance from Steve Sailer:

Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.

One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!

Another reader pointed out:

"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"

You'll notice how disportionatly blacks are anchormen and salesmen in the Obama era aswell. The reason that Chase bank and Chilli's all want a black guy selling their product in ad's is to quell potential Jack Jackson's from exhorting them for not having "enough" black employees. When the head of Google recently testified infront of the Senate, Sheila Jackson, the embarssingly ghetto black and proud senator from California used her time to reprsent her constiuents by asking,

"How many black employees does Google have?"

Well, CNN, FOX, MSNBC are all under the same threat of exhortation and to varying degrees work to avoid the R word by clearly having on regular black guests and, in the liberal cable news channels case more ofcourse, having a huge amount of black and hispanic and non-white, non-male anchors and reports. I can only recall 1 or 2 white male anchors at CNN. But more importantly take two constant commentators on FOX and MSNBC: Washington Post black colmunist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC and NPR's Juan Williams on FOX. Both Williams and Robinson hardly have never uttered anything orginal or intresting and are clearly products of affirmtive action for to go by merit cable news on the left and right would be all-white as far as commentators are concerned.

Among the most obvious affirmtive action babys as anchors and reporters are Gwen Iffel and Soledad O'Brien. Soladad is the queen of diversity in media bullshit affirmtive action or should I say diva? She is really hot, and not very bright thats not unique among cable news anchor women but what makes this airhead special is her de facto current position at CNN. Basically, CNN decided that rather than hire 1 black male affirmtive action reporter hire, 1 black female affirmtive action hire, 1 latino male hire, 1 latino female hire they would get multi-racial Soledad to play black and latino at once and make terrible PC documentrarys for CNN called "Black in America" and "Latino in America" (the latter of which didn't even try to hide its pro-amnesty agenda) both which no one in America including blacks and latinos wanted to watch. Soladad apparently had her own show once on CNN but it did so bad they had to delegate her to "making" 2 documentarys a year. Vdare.com's Joe Guzzardi writes brillantly about Soledad below:

O’Brien, who is half Cuban black, half Australian Irish, has gathered many boring conventional awards, including one named after herself: the “Soledad O'Brien Freedom's Voice Award” from the Morehouse School of Medicine for being a “catalyst for social change”.

But, because the competition is stiffer, ours is harder to win—and therefore more prestigious.

I note that the “O’Brien Award” given to O’Brien is significant because, as you will soon learn, she’s in love with herself.

O’Brien has also been included twice in Irish America Magazine’s list of top 100 Irish Americans—as well as on Black Enterprise’s hottest list!

Newsweek featured O’Brien on a cover story and named her as one of the “15 People Who Make America Great”.

Therein lies the secret of O’Brien’s success. No matter what the assignment O’Brien, ethnically speaking, is the right reporter for the job.

When CNN wants a black to interview Michelle Obama, the Hurricane Katrina displaced, or Haiti’s victims, there’s O’Brien posing as a black. (See O’Brien with Obama, her “passion for justice” for New Orleans’ residents displaced by Katrina and the Haitian orphan victims here, here and here. More evidence: in this interview discussing another of her documentaries, “Black in America”, O’Brien identifies herself as black.)

However, if CNN decides that it would be a good idea to run a documentary about being “Latino in America”, they can call on O’Brien, a self described Latina. (Here, among a Hispanic audience, O’Brien reconfirms that description.)

When a highfalutin’ organization needs an ethnically all-purpose speaker, O’Brien is their girl. Her appointment calendar is booked solid because she’s everything all rolled up into one: female, African-American, Hispanic and Irish.

For example, last year on November 10th O’ Brien travelled to Yale University as the guest of the Poynter Fellowship in Journalism to present her speech agonizingly titled “Diversity in the Media: Behind the Scenes & in Our Lives”.

Chances are good that O’Brien used the same notes from her October 28th speech at St. Joseph’s University: “Diversity on TV, Behind the Scenes and in our Lives”.

Or perhaps O’Brien rehashed her January speech given at Duke University, “Black in America: African Americans in the Last Forty Years”. (Watch here.)

Before I launch into why O’Brien won this year, a little biographical information will help you understand why my choice is an easy one.

O’Brien never misses a chance to literally cash in by referring to herself by her complete name, María de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien.

Although she doesn’t speak Spanish, this gives O’Brien an excellent opportunity to define herself as a multicultural maven who’s perfect for CNN or any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe if she looks back far enough in her genealogical tree, she’ll find Asian ancestors!

Against all evidence, O’Brien stretches to make a point of her black/Latina roots. In an interview for her official CNN biography, O’Brien states that she has: “a mass of kinky hair, light brown skin and lots of freckles”.

Photographs of O’Brien do not support her claim. In this ethnically ambiguous photo I see a traditional hairstyle, no freckles and either light brown skin or too much make up.

Now to my topic: During her seven year CNN career and before that at NBC, O’Brien has been consistently terrible on immigration and race.

What iced our award for O’Brien is her two-part documentary, “Latino in America”, which bombed in the ratings and had the curious effect of angering everyone including some Latinos. Her 2007 documentary, “Black in America”, also raised the ire of many blacks.

Defending “Latino in America”, O’Brien tries to make the case that she represents a “voice for the voiceless”.

This position is patently absurd. Anyone who follows immigration knows that immigration reform patriots are the voiceless ones, to the point that the media regularly censors us.

The immigrant story is told repeatedly in the most sympathetic terms on CNN or in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other major dailies.

What the CNN documentary does, apparently without O’Brien catching the irony, is emphasize why illegal immigration does not—as she would have you believe—make the case for diversity but instead exacerbates the problems of multiculturalism.

One of O’Brien’s subjects is Francisca Abreau, a Dominican high school student apparently in the U.S. illegally, who when pregnant at 14, contemplated suicide. Then, after Abreau gave birth to her anchor baby daughter Destiny (!!!), she received therapy for her continued identity struggles.

Here’s what I take from Abreau’s story: at taxpayer’s expense she took up a seat in a New York classroom, delivered a baby and underwent costly psychological treatments. In the light of my twenty-five years in the California public school system, I would place Francisca’s odds for success as an adult at near zero.

In another segment, O’Brien featured Tucson illegal alien activist Isabel Garcia, who during an open borders rally beheaded a pinata that resembled Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (See it here.) Garcia (email her) defended it as free speech.

One of the interesting things about O’Brien is that for as much time as she spends defining herself as black or Latino, she never refers to herself as American—even though she is American-born, raised in Long Island in comfortable, middle class surroundings.

When O’Brien discussed the conceptual evolution of Latino in America, she said that she was approached by many ethnic groups urging a special on Asian in America, Gay in America, and Muslim in America. But O’Brien never mentioned what would be the most interesting of all: White in America. At least one black viewer agrees.

O’Brien is sharp enough to realize that the multicultural angle works for her. She’s parlayed it into a fat salary and inflated speaking fees. Moreover, she’s married to an investment banker and lives the high life in Manhattan.

Her ethnic roots, whatever they may be, have paid O’Brien rich rewards.

Along with her five siblings, O’Brien is a Harvard graduate. However, she didn’t learn much.

During her recent appearance on Celebrity Jeopardy, she came in last and finished behind basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (UCLA).

The final jeopardy question that O’Brien couldn’t answer: “Trees with biblical names include the Joshua tree and the world’s oldest tree, a 4,700-year old pine named for him. What is it?” O’Brien’s reply: “Who is Moses?” (Correct answer: “Who was Methuselah?”)

O’Brien’s excuse: the buzzer is hard to operate.

Along with her complete failure to report honestly about immigration, I deducted points for O’Brien’s smug attitude and grating voice, a big minus for a television anchor. (Watch her talk about Spike Lee here.)

Finally, O’Brien is not only a phony but flat out just not a nice person!

In a non-journalism related incident, last year O’Brien signed an eviction notice for her co-op neighbor because she did not like his dog!

According to O’Brien, a Neapolitan Mastiff in her building offended her because of its "size, slobbering, shedding, drooling, gassiness and odors".

Luckily for Ugo and his owners, the judge threw O’Brien’s case out.

You Can't Say That!: A Lesson In Crime-Speak

I picked up a liberal little book called, "They Said What?" by Jim Hunt, which the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, describes as "a compendium of reactionary statements by American officials. Outragous in content, pitchy in style, the quotations reveal the long history of jingoism, racism, exism, and elitism that so mars our country. You want the evidence? Here it is." on the back cover.
Well, anyhow it's a collection, mostly, of quotes from Woodrow Wilson and TR era type politicians identifying difficult, impolite, un-PC truths about race, gender, intelligence, culture, and the like. Hunt makes use of the changing mores surrounding the word "negro". Many quotes within the small book would be prefectly unremarkable if you merely replace the word black with "negro". They are saying all the crucial difficult things that we are not allowed to say today thanks to the likes of Mr. Hunt and are dying as a nation because of it. For instance, coincedentally, the first quote i flipped the book open to see was the following quote from Woodrow Wilson's Secterary of State, Robert Lansing discussing a subject that has boomranged its way back into the forefront of American news media: Hiati and why the Dominican Republic is so much richer than it.

"It is well to distinguish at once between the Dominicans and the Haitians. the former, while in many ways not advanced far enough for the highest type of self goverment, yet have a preponderance of white blood and culture. The Haitians on the other hand are Negro for the most part, and, barring a very few highly educated politicians, are almost in a state of savagery and complete ignorance."

- Sectetary of State Robert Lansing, 1917.

The funny thing is that just 2 weeks ago when Haiti went nuts, i read Jared Diamond, PC as one can be, gently pointing out the exact same point Lansing points out here almost a 100 years ago about why Haiti is so poor and the Dominican Republic is so much richer and well off (cause Haiti has hardly any white blood).

Why was Lansing discussing this recently resurgent subject of the root of Haitian poverty? Because as alarmingly few people have pointed out since the Haiti earthquake America has occupied Haiti before for as long as 15 years. Woodrow Wilson got the Marines into Haiti in 1915 and they quickly came to the conclusion about Haiti (that its virtually helpless under black rule and would do better back under a French protectorate).

This is 1984 the nation we live in today, in which pointing out such things is simply against the social law.

The Miracle in Masschusettes, as great & crucial as it is now & in the near term isn't gonna stave of the long term decline of the GOP by demographics

BELOW IS PERHAPS, JUST MAYBE, THE MOST INTELLIGENT & IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRITING ABOUT THE SCOTT BROWN VICTORY:

FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE STRAIGHT DOPE OF THE FOLLOWING WITH FOOT-NOTES LIKE SPEED, HERE IS A ABSTRACT FOR THE BELOW ARTICLE (aka my facebook status):

Brown's upset was great but the insuing euphoria must be balanced by the realization on the part of Republicans that while the Masschusettes triumph on January 19th is crucial in the near term its all but irrelevant in the long term for the GOP. No longer will how Republicans do in regard to current issues (such as Obamacare) decide the GOP ultimate electoral fate. That was true in 1954 when America was almost entirely white. Today, whether we like it or not, voting lines are, more or less, inseprable from racial lines in America. Latinos, who are very often, it must be mentioned, more loyal to Mexico (or other "indigenous" latin nations) than America, will and are voting most of the time on the basis of what will most benefit there own burgenoing racial group not America (and unfornutaly as we see with the issue of wheather or not 20 million illegal aliens should recieve free non-emergency health care, whats good for latinos is very often incredibly bad for the US. Even if Republicans make clear just how bad mass illegal (for that matter, mass 3rd world legal immigration) is for America, latinos will still vote on mass for open borders, increased benefits for illegals, amnesty and in order to do these things, vote for liberals down the line, for the simply reason that all those policies will help dramaticly increase the size of the latino population in the US, making latinos a more powerful voting bloc, son on and so fourth. Simply put, as far as America becomes less white the GOP will claim less and less of the elocrate. And have no doubt this correlation is not the results of the GOP being "racist"-which it isn't-or because it hasn't tried to attract non-white voters. But the GOP shouldn't be concerned by our broken boreders merely because its bad for the GOP. It just so happens that unsecured borders is bad for the GOP and catrosrophic for America in every sense (whether your concern is the economny, education, nationality unity, or so on. The fate of the GOP & of America is being decided on the Rio Grande. If we don't secure our porous border it wont matter if we on the right have finer policies & better arguments, the GOP & America will live or die by demographics.

FULL ARTICLE:

The male model Republican (Scott Brown) has beaten/trounced the obnoxious Martha Stokely in the race for the worst America politician in American history, the nation killer, Ted Kennedy's Massuchsettes Senate seat, which Kennedy basically owned for over half a century, since 1952 to be precise. This has crucially weakned the Democartic majority in the Senate and has scared the shit out the Democrats (who hopeful will heed the people's message(s) & not so things (so unpopylar among Americans in general) like push for amnesty for 20+ million illegals at a time when 20+ million Americans are unemployed for instance. Keith Oblerman condemned this handsome Republican as a "bigot" for saying that two women having a baby "wasn't normal". So if you pretend don't think/say that 2 women having a baby is normal your a "bigot". This is why I call liberals like Keith O. "polite liars". Oblerman then goes on to say that racism is the real reason the tea partyers protest against the Democrats. (cause in Oblermann world, how could anyone oppose Obama for substanitive reasons?)

If you had any doubt about the message from the GOP victories in the Virgina and New Jersey governor races, Scott Brown's victory should make it undeniably clear that the majority of Americans (they are whites almost entirely) are saying that they didn't like Bush but Obama is even worse. Bush was embarsingly inarticulate. fine. He had a dumb liberal wilsonian foreign policy. Fine. He spent too much money. Fine. But Obama is bad to whole 'nother degree. Unlike with Bush in office, one doesn't feel confident that Obama is looking out for us when he does something. It is more than dubious whether he acts out of national intrest. Indeed, millions of patriotic Americans who actually pay attention to what is going on (many of whome voted for Obama-not knowing who he was), realize that judging Obama purely on his actions as President he is clearly aPresident who sees issues through a prism utterly devoid of patriotism also known as nationalism/nation intrest. Obama's motivatations when he ignores/neglects our porous borders, pushs for amnesty and so fourth is less clear but it certainly seems to be atleast tinged by a duty on Obama's part to act to benefit of blacks (and perhaps non whites in general) even if the relevent action (like amnesty) happens to be terrible for America writ large (or actively harmful or unjust to other groups he cares less about like whites).

Many Americans much older than me have been remarking that the Scott Brown victory is the biggest upset they've ever seen in there entire lives.

However, there is a danger in dwelling mindlessly in the euphoria of Brown's upset win tonight (over a real liberal bitch, lets be honest). One must balance this very good news with the unforunate reality that the game of poltics in America has changed for worse, as i have mentioned, it is no longer the case today, as it was in 1845, 1934 or even as late as 1987 in America that the fortunes of the Republican or Democrat party will be decided by things like the succes of liberal or conservative policies. Yes, the Republicans, as the Scott Brown triumph shows will and are benefitting from the current set of issues (etc.) but only in the short term . In the long term, however the succes or failure or decline or ascendency of the GOP will be determined by what happens at the Rio Grande and the southern border of the United States. If the porous southern border is not secured soon (and they're is only a certain window of time inwhich that will be able to be done by Republicans). This is because, whether we like it or not, today and increasingly from now on, voting lines corelates with racial lines in America. Blacks almost all vote liberal, the overwhelming majority of latinos vot liberal and whites increasingly are voting and will vote more and more Republican. Thus as the US gets less white & more latino and a solidly liberal black-latino poltical colaition (on the left) grows the GOP will decline. The watering-down of America's founding stock (Britons-Scots/Europeans) will correlate exactly with the decline of the Republican party (as it will correlate with the decline of America in general, as the US gets less wealthy, less united, more violent, less among other things, intelligent (IQ-wise)).
Unforunatly the above message which should be the colloroy to celebrating the Brown win is virtually unsayable in the Mainstream Media today thanks to Poltical Correctness. (By the way, this is a prime example of why i believe the rise of poltical correctness to be the sole culprit in the death of America-for it has stopped the most important issues (immigration, etc.) and arguments from being mentioned for fear of being too un-PC. One cannot say that it will hurt America if the nation gets less-white. You simply can't if you want to wake up tommorow with the same Senate seat or TV host job you had the night before. Thus Americans are not being told, even, that the US will have white minority around 2040 or 2050 let alone what the (catosphoric) consquences of that demographic transformation will be. When i mention this fact about 2050 and what America will look like, people think i'm joking or spewing "right wing propganda" or lies. This is why i believe white Amer icans will be so inscenced and enraged when they do discover (not by being told, but by simply observing changes with there own eyes) that they, white Americans, are being demographicly being dispossosed of a nation, America, that they grew up assuming was there's (unquestionably) forever and ever.

To conclude, let me briefly add one final important point that few if any at all will even touch upon in responding to the Brown victory: The Republican talking point right now is in responce to the Brown triumph that the upset shows the people don't want obamacare and the Democrats should heed there call and stop going against those they claim to reprsent. This is the wrong point not to mention it opens the right up to charges of hypocrisy considering that a plurality of Americans wanted/want out of both the Iraqi and Afgan wars and the GOP is not inturn advocating withdrawl (but most liberals aren't smart enough to even make that argument). Republicans should point out that the Brown upset shows that the left needs to stop to completly ignore the consesus views of the people and stop showing contempt for the clear policy positions of Americans left and right and stop doing things like making a (essentially treasonist) push for amnesty for 20 million plus illegals which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left & right, despise more than merely oppose. There are not consesus views on the part of a overwhelming majority of Americans (left & right) about every issue but there are a discernable and identfiable set of policies that this overwhelming majoriity i speak of oppose (and usually downright despise as i said). These (which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left and right, oppose/hate) include:

1. Amnesty= In other words, granting citizenship (aka free access to trillions in free welfare, healhtcare, education, etc & the ability for each to bring in dozens of there relatives from abroad), over night, to 20 million people who broke our laws often more than once, in breaching our borders, identity theft, faking and stealing Social Security numbers (which will put citizens if caught in jail for years if not decades) and who are overwhelmingly poor, illiterate, non-english speaking Mexicans/latinos who have 1. usually never seen the inside of a high school 2. often been in jail or arrested in the past, 3. have hardly any work skills, and are and will always be low wage workers and who 4. are only in America to make more money and have no desire to become Americans or to switch there allegiance from Mexico to America (primarily because they perceive America, correctly, as the white man, the conquerors nation/artfice/creation and 5. a shockingly large propition of them (e.g. illegal aliens) see themselves as the footsolidiers of Reconquestidora, taking back land (namely the southwest) that is rightly theres as the decdents of the native peoples and/or, by implication, the true property of an de facto "indigenous" nation-state such as Mexico.

2. Free unlimited non-emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants. In other words: this is a policy of giving away trillions (more) of Americans tax payers money to millions of illegals (in the form of free millions in presciption drugs like OxyCottin, Zanax & Adderal (aka non-emergency healthcare)) who already as it is recieve billions of our tax dollars in the free education (17,000 a year for 1 student & there are well over atleast 5 million illegals attending public schools from kindergarten till college), college scholarships, welfare, social services & emergency healthcare (the cost of which, accounts for the majority of most hospitals deficits & has literally lead to the bankruptcy of tons of hospitals). This means, again in other words, free aderall presciptions for the 8 illegal children of a illegal family (the cost of a Aderall prescpition for one kid per year being over 3 grand atleast. By the way, as with almost all these policy listed (that relate to illegal immigrants to be precise) this policy of giving 20 million illegals free non-emergency healthcare is really only supported by illegals and there treasonist protectors such as the Hispanic Caucus and LA RAZA (spanish for "The Race"). 1 final note: Republicans must not let liberals get away with saying that they support giving just "healthcare" to illegals as they say. We must make sure America realize that illegals already receive billions in free emergency healthcare which, in itself, bankrupts hospitals all the time (hospitls must by law provide legals with millions of dollars of treatment no matter what and usually have to beg/bribe illegals to accept the plane tickets they purchase for them to fly back to there nation of orgin. The Democrats support giving illegals full non-emergency health care, we SIMPLY MUST point out (as we have failed to do).

3. Staying in the Iraq and Afgan wars of choice and charity for another 2-3 years or more. These nearly decade long wars that have cost us, some estimate, around 4 or 5 trillion dollars have nothing to do with our national intrest and are a total waste for us, a nation 12 trillion in debt and counting.

4. Continuing to hand out billions (we don't have) to almost every nation on earth in foreign aid as we have for decades without any regard to being 12 trillion in debt.

5. Imposing Cap & trade, which would be the largest tax/transfer of wealth from indivuals to goverment in our history. A de facto tax on not just business that emit carbon but the whole population who will pay much higher prices for products such as energy (e.g. electrcity) as a consquence at a time, nonetheless, when 21 million Americans are unemployed and many Americans have smaller incomes and only part time jobs. In othe words cap & trade would tax more of the smaller amount of wealth Americans have. It would also, as no one seriously denies, lead to the shipping away of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of jobs as tons of companys who won't be able to afford doing business in America as a result of Cap & trade will and will, inturn, move to other more business friendly and less tax heavy nations and take there millions of jobs with them. So Cap & Trade will surely increase unemployment at a time, again, when 21 mil. Americans are unemployed already. These consquences ofcourse are all less than an after thought to the liberals who want Cap & trade since they are the types, liberals, who have never even contemplated the idea that corporations (which they villify so much) can even leave America in the first place. And contrary to what naive liberals like Barak Obama claim, the millions made unemployed by Cap & Trade will not all find jobs in the mythical green industrys that Obama talks so much about and claims will replace fossil fuels and nuclear power as our nations primary energy source (although it costs over 10 times as much as fossil fuels and nuclear power. And so what would we get for all these sacrficies? The left claims we would save the world. Thats a lie. Cap & Trade would have no effect on the climate for, as more honest leftists like Ralph Nader have remarked, Cap & Trade while it will surely cut alot of jobs and companys from the US economy, it won't cut any substantial amount of co2. The neglible amount it will cut will be easily canceled out and effectivly nullfied by the very co2 the coal plants China and India will build this year will emit. Ofcourse, we could cut back on co2 to a far far greater degree and not kill the economy and ship away jobs if we got more of our energy from nuclear power plants but the left doesn't care. No honest climatolgists believes Cap & Trade will have any real effect on the climate. The truth is that even if one assumes Al Gore computer model predictions of climate change are dead on (although we now know much of it was faked) even if the US and all of the EU made massive cutbacks in Co2 and imposed far more onerous carbon taxes, even that would have no serious effect. It is hubris in the to think America and a tiny cadre of EU nations making neglible co2 cutbacks that will be nullfied by the emissions of Russia, China, India, Brazil and the rest of thedevolping world will have any effect in changing the climate changes. Changing the wheather is harder than the lefts thinks.

6. Racial Qoutas, Dispirate Impact, bogus discrimination suits against Fire & Police Departments for the crime of not merely having what a certain group such as the EEOC or the SPLC deems enough African American Capitains or whatnot (even though the Departments, as is the case today, never discriminated against any race or group). These patently absurd suits which base claims, as i touched upon before, not on any actual proof of "discrimation" (ofcourse it would be in a Police Department favor in this cases if it was discovored that they had discrimnated against an un-protected race such as whites or christians). Fire Departments are onstantly sued succefully for "discrimination against African Americans" without the entrace exam for the said Fire Dpartment being shown to have "racially biased" questions. Instead, the results themselves of such exams (that are not discriminatory) if not the way the Judge desires are used as proof. This would mean that everyday public school or perhaps every college in the nation would be legally guilty of discrimination against blacks because of how blacks continually do much worse than whites on every big test. The one of insidious effects these bogus cases is, as some of us became aware this year, that hard working guys like Frank Ricci don't get the promotion they undeniably unearned on the basis not of discrimination but clearly on the back of there own hard work and indivual merit simply because they are white and none of the black testtakers got a good enough score to earn a promotion. These suits also force Police and Fire Departments in fear of future lawsuites to discriminate against whites (inwhich case they never get sued for discrimination) and are given the impetus to achieve the right racial "balance" by cutting corners or employing dubious and often illegal tricks behind the scenes with civil service exams.

7. Make free education, non-emergency healthcare, scholarships, and welfare legally available for illegal immigrants. The cost of this policy which the terrible liberal Supreme Court of the 1990's decided was unconstuinial for a state to curtail as California did when its citizens voted en masse in the 1990's to bar illegal aliens from receiving tax payer dollars (via free education and so fourth). Needless to say such a desicion is hogwash with no Constuinial legs to stand on but than against liberal jurisprudence is hogwash in general. Today the overwhelmingly majority of Americans atleast want to curtail the amount of goverment money illegals receive because we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and the Democrats are determined to make it to 15 trillion by months end it seems. Most Democrats would find even the idea of cutting any of these billion/trillion? dollar entitlments for illegals (because partially weak-chinned Republicans wont even press them on the issue) which shows what rubbish it is when they claim to be "extremly concerned" about the debt they are racking up with unholy abandon (on rubbish). However Democratic politicians probably don't touch the billions of free services illegal receive as a result of there being in the tank for the hispanic pressure groups (not wanting to jeporadize the Democratic monopoly on the latino vote). However tens perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans who voted Democratic would agree with millions on the right that, at the very least, the trillions(?) illegals receive in entitlments should be curtailed if not outright eliminated both as a means of cutting back on spending and as measure of reducing insenstives (a concept liberals need to be introduced to someday) for Mexicans to come to America illegally and for illegals here already. Cutting back or eliminating the trillions in services illegal aliens receive (the department of welfare seeks illegals out even!) would undeniable lead many illegals to go back home and make living here harder for illegals and less attractive to potential illegals in Latin America.

8. The Court overruling states which have referendums to decide whether to have gay marriage or whether illegal immigrants should receive tax payers money when the populous votes for what the Supreme Court deems to be the wrong way (e.g. against gay marriage, for tax payer money going to only citizens). I say that the Supreme Court deems"wrong" rather than "uncontuitional" because, unlike many cowardly legal scholars, i have enough honesty and gusto to point out that a liberal court (or judge) is veering utterly from the Constuition when a liberal court (or judge) obviously veers utterly from the Constuition. On what conceivable grounds could one argue that it is unconstuinial for a referendum on gay marriage in Connieticut to be held and for the populous to come out against gay marriage and for keeping the definition of marriage as "between a man and a women" (like almost every state that has dealt with the issue thus far i might add)? Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison look on such a excercise in direct self goverment at the state level and say "Oh no, this isn't what we meant at all! In fact, we wanted to make sure in the Constuition that this kind of thing be outlawed. You see we thought that gay marriage was a absolute human right and a basic Constuitional right which we, for some reason forgot to mention, even though gay marriage existed nowhere i America in our life time and no one ever deemed that a violatation of gay American's rights."? Let's be honest, all the Supreme Court did in overruling these completly constuinal and reasonable state referendums was impose not the law or the will of the Founders but there own will/opinion(s). The liberal justices that at these moments ruled the Court had deemed gay marriage a basic constuinal right because they deemed it so and this is there job since they claim it is there job to modernize the concept of "basic rights" to this new age. To translate: we have no law, it doesn't matter that gay marriage was not a set down as a right of citizens in the Constuition or for that matter that the 14th Amendment didn't outlaw school segrgation.

"YOU IDIOTS!"

1. Just a moment ago, liberal arrogance once again creeped into my life (despite my efforts. I saw the cover of the most recent Rolling Stone magazaine, which reads in big red letters "You Idiots!:the people who are getting in the way of climate change action".

It shows just how unintelligent these Gorite elements on the left are, that they don't even know that they are the ones making the audicious claims that people should be skeptical, at the very least, about.

2. One of the most ubiqitous ironies in contemporary American politics is the left's obbession with McCrathyism, which is, far and away, the most overblown so call "scandal" in American history. Thanks to the lefts lock on the neth-worlds of academia and media they have succeded in producing a mountain of films about McCrathyism and have produced US History textbooks which fail to mention Paul Reveere at all, Alexander Hamilton 3 times, John Marshall not at all but manage to mention the KKK 33 times and McCarthyism 39 times (and poltical correctness never). The irony is not the bias as much as the fact that the true McCarthists (if anybody is to be compared) of the last 40 years have been leftists not conservatives. I'd go as far as saying that the New McCarthyism of Potical Correctness is worse than McCarthyism itself. For one, McCarthyism last all but around half a decade. The imfamous "blacklists" aside, not that many innocent people (who weren't communists) where "ruined" by Joe McCarthy. You can't as many on one hand. The bulk of those who where negatively effected by McCarthy where often actually reds and they merely changed there pen names and continued to work in hollywood or they took a hiatus for a little and came back to Hollywood soon enough. McCarthy blowed over and he was a villian already by the 60's, his "victims" where accepted right back into hollywood or goverment and so on. And again there where not many victims despite the tens of thousands you would except there to be based on how many movies, plays and novels we've seen on McCarthyism. Poltical Correctness has hand probably over 200 percent more victims than McCarthyism and the victims have been victimized much more severely, losing jobs held for 50 years with noted brillance for the offence of innocently using the word un-racist "niggardly" in a document and other similiarly outrages intstances which unlike with McCarthyism can't be counted on a hand but would require a 700 page book to chronicle them all. Finally, unlike poltical correctness, McCarthyism, was mostly true in the sense that there where contrary to what most think, many communists and communists spies within the annals of the US goverment as the Alger Hiss case showed dating back to the 20's and 30's all the way up to the 50's. Poltical Correctness' claims of the boogeyman of white racism have, atleast, for the last 20 years been far far more sperious. And look McCarthyism only last half a decade at the end of which McCarthy was roundly discredited and denounced. Poltical Correctness reign of terror, if you will, has continued for roughly 4 decades and isn't discredited and diavowed by the mainstream at all, rather it is the mainstream (though it becomes less reveered with every passing day as its antics and claims of "racism" under every rock become ever-more clearly deseperate and slanderous. Here is one telling instance which reveals just how "tolerant" the left is and just how un-McCarthyite they are today. James D. Watson, our greatest living scienist, the man who discovered DNA in his 20's! He went on to found Cold Spring Harbour and teach at Harvard for 50 years. He gives a interview in London recently and says that we should lower our exspectations of Africa catching up to the West economically and so fourth considering that blacks have lower IQ's than Europeans (a fact). For mentioning that un-PC fact about IQ distrubution between the races Watson is dismissed as head of the labrotory he founded and built up from the ground for 50 years, Cold Spring Harbour and is roundedly diowned and shunned by academia and "respectable" PC society. Now who are the people smashing Galielo's telescopes?