Sunday, May 30, 2010

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Google Could Rat You Out

How much does Google know about you? That depends on how much you rely on its cornucopia of free services. But that stored information may easily include the Websites you visit, the search terms you use, the maps you view, your contacts and calendar, your e-mail messages, your chat history, Google Voice phone records, YouTube videos and Picasa photos, the documents you store online, your blogs and advertising accounts, your status updates on Google Buzz, your location on Google Latitude, and--if you use an Android handset--all the data associated with your cell phone, too.

If the government comes knocking with a subpoena--or even just a strongly worded letter, per the Patriot Act--Google is obligated to hand everything over. Sure, the feds can get this data from anyone, but Google's wealth of information (as well as its lengthy data-retention policies) makes their job much easier.

Even if you have nothing to hide from the authorities, all that stands between you and Christmas in July for an identity thief is your Gmail log-on and password; that's the key that unlocks every other Google service. Last October, Google reported that thousands of Gmail accounts had been compromised by a phishing scheme that also targeted AOL, MSN Hotmail, and Yahoo. Even sophisticated users have had their Gmail accounts hijacked. Little wonder, then, that Chinese hackers targeted Gmail accounts when they compromised the service last December.

The Fix: Use Google Dashboard to see what information you're sharing (prepare to be blown away), and adjust your settings accordingly. Make your Gmail password harder to guess, and change it every couple of months. If you think your Gmail account has been hacked or stolen, you may be able to use Google's account-recovery page to get it back. And given Google's recent stumbles over user privacy with Buzz, you might consider spreading the risk over different providers.

As far as this blog is concerned, jewgle already knows all that they need to know about me should they one day deem it necessary to try to destroy my life. I'm not particularly worried because there's no way to stuff the tooth paste back into the tube at this point, and though I try to play it safe, my level of commitment is such that there really is no turning back for me.

Readers such as Jimbo have suggested moving to a Wordpress theme, but, it's too late and I'm sure that the Watchmen are watching there too(it's not just Google involved in these monitoring activities). "Anonymity" on the web is a myth. The only way not to be discovered in some capacity is to get off the grid all together. If you ever find yourself on the lam, for God's sake, throw your cell phone out the window.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Just Another Also Rand

Rand Paul, good or bad, is finished. Like all White men who cow tow to politically correct dogma, they must grovel once they are accused of Thought Crime by their enemies. Capitulation and back pedaling are like bloody chum being dropped into shark infested waters to those who seek your destruction.

To hell with Rand Paul and his kooky old man. I voted for Ron Paul in the '08 primary, but he really lost my respect when he said during a debate that spics would be welcomed with open arms if the economy weren't so bad. Plus I found it distasteful the way he squirmed just like his son is now over owning up to his race realist newsletters which he claims to not only not have authored, but never even read, although they were put out by his office.

Here's Rand polishing up his kike loving bonifides:

"Israel and the United States have a special relationship," Rand's position paper begins. "With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries."

Rand goes on to support free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and "strongly object to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration" toward the peace process. "Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations," he asserts.

In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that:

As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.

Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.

Most White Nationalists that I hear chattering on Stormfront and other WN sites seem to bend over backwards in defense of the Pauls excusing anything they do with "well, you gotta understand they have to play the game in order to get elected...they don't really mean any of this stuff."

Perhaps, but then what good is a hamstrung pretender who is paying lip service to the machine's dogma and doing nothing to dismantle the broken system he is now just another slave to?

Monday, May 24, 2010

Marxist bulldog dyke roundly booed at Arizona commencement

For what this video might be worth, I'm glad that at least White people are not just sitting there passively when this vomit is spewed all over them.

I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the calls for "civility." You mean the kind of "civility" that is shown to people like Tom Tancredo or the Minute Men founder when they speak on college campuses? Or the Marxist faggots who come into Professor MacDonald's psychology classes to disrupt and protest his political views? Further, there is no call for civility when these vomit encrusted pieces of bile left over from the hippie era turn violent and start destroying university property and attempt to assault speakers they disagree with. In fact, the universities generally ignore it all together, because they agree with the leftist rabble.

Really though, it wasn't enough. The booing should have been a sustained wall of sound until this dyke was forced off the stage. The guy calling for civility should have been booed at an even higher decibel level.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

CNN Continues Pushing Anti-White Agenda

They will not stop until they've defiled the mind of this beautiful child

Nigglets don't even choose the niggers...and who could blame them?

(CNN) -- A 5-year-old girl in Georgia is being asked a series of questions in her school library. The girl, who is white, is looking at pictures of five cartoons of girls, all identical except for skin color ranging from light to dark. When asked who the smart child is, she points to a light-skinned doll. When asked who the mean child is she points to a dark-skinned doll. She says a white child is good because "I think she looks like me", and says the black child is ugly because "she's a lot darker." As she answers her mother watches, and gently weeps.

Insidiously evil. That's about the only words I can find to sum up this utterly horrific exercise in child abuse, White Guilt and White demonization.

First, the test is inherently flawed because it is rigged to produce the desired outcome: that Whites are inherently evil and racists.

As there is no difference between the cartoons other than the degree of shading, the child has no choice BUT to make her selection based on color. Finding comfort in someone who "looks like me", which is a natural predilection, now has to be treated as a mental illness at best or "troubling signs of racism" at worst.

Also, the child didn't select the Whitest choice available(not that this would be bad), but that matters not, because the verdict is in: America's White children are all racist devils in need of exorcism and re-"education" and reconditioning until they renounce their heresy and start demonstrating the prescribed multi-kult nigger love as mandated by the state.

Mom has demonstrated the requisite shame and White Guilt. But this is not the final desired outcome; it's only the beginning of the process. If selecting a doll based on race is "awful", then her daughter rejecting the sexual advances of a subhuman nigger savage will be inexcusable! The child will also undergo the proper amount of reconditioning until she is shamed into one day opening her legs for a nigger...and the faggot Anderson Cooper and the high yellow mulatto mystery meat Soledad O'Brien go on about their anti-White genocidal agenda.

Friday, May 14, 2010

As Arizona Burns, So Shall Hollyweird

Disclaimer: I detest this disinformationist shill and the bullshit he peddles. In spite of Alex Jones's fearful demeanor in this vid and his "just wanting to get along" emasculation, it's a fairly good expose on the thing. As they say, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

I had to check if this was even real(it appears to be) because this "Machete" thing is/was a trailer for a fake movie to accompany the 70's exploitation theme of Rodriguez and Tarantino's "Grindhouse" movies. It seems, with the aid of your tax dollars, that the idea has been fleshed out into a full blown anti-White piece of propaganda.

First, let me say to the White people who are dutifully playing their parts as the gringo villains in this steaming pile of feces: go fuck yourselves. That's directed at actual White actors and not kikejews like DeNiro who pretend to be Italian Whites. But just the same, fuck you too, Bobby. You're all soulless and you're empty, devoid of anything even resembling pride. You've got less self respect than a two dollar crack whore fumbling through a urine soaked gutter for a lost nickel while on her knees taking a load in the face.

I expect nothing less from Quentin Tarantino's butt buddy Robert Rodriguez. He's only following the anti-White lead of his partner. But Rodriguez is really going to take the prize with this one and create a White awakening that Tarantino failed to do with his anti-White "Inglorious Basterds." The problem with that garbage(which I have never seen and refuse to even borrow it from a library) is that the slack jawed White dupes have been so conditioned to cheer the deaths of their White brothers because they are Nat-zees that the jew invective aimed at their own race and ancestors went right over their shit filled heads.

This Machete "film" is really going to cause the mexcriment to hit the fan. It's a dangerous game they're playing here and the consequences of what I foresee once the mongrels are worked up by this agit-prop are going to be dire. For them. Every other ethnic group has a racial consciousness already, it's time that White people got one too. Even if they have to see their neighbor's head caved in with a shovel or a brick to get it.

It's due out in early September, and it will be a fine culmination to a long fiery summer of anti-White, anti-Tea Party vilification and invective. The powder keg that's been lit is going to be a rude but necessary awakening for our Folk.

The kike's (who are the ones really behind this, just look into it and you'll see who the producers are) are going to over play their hands in such a way with this that the blow back is going to reach all the way to their palm tree laden palaces in Sodom.

I know there will be White people going to see this atrocity, and as fans of these ass wipes Rodriquez and Tarantino they are probably anxiously marking off their calendars in anticipation of its release. May these whiggers be the first to be caught up in the destruction, preferably at the theaters while they're shoveling pop corn into their fucking yaps.

Arizona to Machete: "No. Fuck you!"

Machete will rouse far more beaners to take up arms against Whitey than this clown will at his La Raza meeting. Come and get some, maggots.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

The Night They Drove Ol' Dixie Down(again)

U.S. Marines boot recruits with Confederate tattoos
You won't believe what military thinks of historic Southern symbol

A widely regarded Southern symbol of pride and states' rights is standing in the way of would-be Marines in their quest to serve their country – a Confederate battle flag.

Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp.

But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family.

Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him.

Now, the young man, who wishes to remain unnamed and declined to be interviewed, has chosen to return to school and is no longer an aspiring Marine.

"I think he just wants to let it go," said former Marine 1st Lt. Gene Andrews, a friend of the man and patriotic Southerner who served in Vietnam from 1968 through 1971. Andrews is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of male descendants of Confederate soldiers. He counseled the young man when he decided to become a Marine.

When the young recruit didn't go to boot camp, Andrews learned of his rejection based on his tattoo of the Confederate battle flag on his shoulder.

Current Marine Corps tattoo policy states, "Tattoos/brands that are sexist (express nudity), racist, eccentric or offensive in nature, express an association with conduct or substances prohibited by the Marine Corps drug policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to include tattoos associated with illegal drugs, drug usage or paraphernalia, are prohibited. Tattoos/brands that depict vulgar or anti-American content, bring possible discredit to the Marine Corps, or associate the applicant/Marine with any extremist group or organization are prohibited."

A Tennessee recruiting station Marine sergeant explained, "The policy is if a tattoo can be construed by anyone as being gang-related or racially biased, then we can't accept them."

While some "extremist" groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations have embraced the Confederate flag in the past, the KKK has also adopted the U.S. flag and Christian crosses as symbols. However, many Southerners do not consider the flag an expression of racism or indicator of membership in extremist groups. They regard the Confederate flag as a symbol of state sovereignty and an honorable tribute to the men who fought and died to protect their homeland from invasion by the federalist North.

Asked whether an exception might be made for a Marine recruit who could provide a full explanation on the meaning of his tattoo as an expression of Southern pride, the recruiter explained, "At this point in time, no. If it can be construed by anyone as being racially biased, then right now it's a flat-out denial."

He acknowledged that the tattoo is quite popular in the South and that recruitment has been impacted by the ban on Confederate-flag tattoos, but he explained that the policy has been set by Headquarters Marine Corps.

However, the U.S. Marine Corps "Guidebook for Tattoo Screening, Volume VII," a manual that outlines procedures for enlisted recruiting and officer procurement operations, explains, "Users of this guidebook should keep in mind, however, that few symbols ever just represent one idea or are used exclusively by one group. For example, the confederate flag is a symbol that is frequently used by white supremacists[sic] but which also has been used by people and groups that are not racist. To some it may signify pride in one's heritage, but to others it suggests slavery or white supremacy[sic]."

Other service members and recruits have dealt with similar issues concerning Confederate flag tattoos and military policy.

The Southern Legal Resource Center, or SLRC, is a nonprofit legal foundation that has handled a number of legal cases involving the Confederate battle flag.

"We've seen this before," SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk Lyons told WND. "This is not a unique situation. We have had instances where people have called who were hassled by Marine military police for having a small Confederate battle flag sticker on their vehicle. We had a Navy recruit who was turned away for having a Confederate battle flag tattoo on his forearm. There was one more incident a couple of years ago where another Marine recruit was refused enlistment because of a battle flag tattoo."

Lyons said the case of the Marine with a Confederate flag bumper sticker was resolved without legal action because the base commander decided to leave it alone. However, he said most enlistees and recruits don't pursue legal action or complaints, so the policy is never challenged.

"If a family is not willing to make an issue of it and push it, there's really nothing we can do because we have to have standing," he explained.

On the other hand, enlistees often cooperate so their careers don't suffer, Lyons said.

"They've got to keep their mouths shut because they're very career-oriented," he said. "You either get with the program, or you're going to destroy your career. The military is going to fight it tooth and nail. In a lot of cases like this, there's nobody to support these guys. They're on their own."

He added, "Somebody's got to stand up and say, 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.' If people surrender their rights and just go on, there's not much we can do."

As for Andrews, he walked into the local Marine recruiting station in Madison, Tenn., that had turned the recruit away. He met a staff sergeant and informed him of his family's defense of Tennessee during the Civil War and his own service in Vietnam.

"I had thought about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I felt like this is just not right," he said. "I thought, if we just sit here, we're going to be slapped around and stepped on forever."

In a recent commentary posted on numerous blogs, Andrews recounted his experience:

"I informed the young sergeant that my family had defended the state of Tennessee (also his home state) against a sadistic invasion under that flag and to call our sacred flag of honor a 'hate symbol' was an insult to all southerners, but especially to those southerners who had risked or even given their lives in service to the Marine Corps. Southerners had served at Belleau Woods, at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, at Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir, and at Khe Sanh and Hue City, but now we are no longer wanted in the politically correct, don't-offend-any-minorities military?"

The sergeant politely explained that the policy was handed down by headquarters.

Andrews continued, "I asked the sergeant if he had taken out the trash yet. He replied that he hadn't.

"I then said, 'Please add these to the day's garbage,' and returned my lieutenant's bars, my gold and silver Marine Corps emblem from my dress blues, my shooting badges and my Vietnam ribbons.

"I, like many of you, have always been told, 'Once a Marine, always a Marine,' and 'There are no ex-Marines, only former Marines,' but for me that is no longer true."

"This is an insult to us," he said. "We've laid our lives on the line in the Marine Corps since there was a Marine Corps. We fought in every campaign that the Marine Corps has been involved in. When I was in Vietnam, there were Confederate flags at every base, every fire-support base over there. Nobody said anything about it. There were state flags, Confederate flags, and it was no big deal."

Andrews said he is not angry. Rather, he is disappointed in the Marine Corps.

"I thought if it had been a bunch of political hacks or a school board or a local government or some municipality that was pretty spineless anyway, I really wouldn't have been surprised," he said. "That happens all the time. But I felt that the Marine Corps had a little more backbone and a little more character than that."

Asked what he would say to people who believe the Confederate flag represents racism and slavery, he responded, "I'd say they don't know much about history. Slavery existed under the United States flag much longer than it ever did under the Confederate flag."

He added, "It's pitiful to bring up historical topics to some of our young people today. They just stare at you like you're from outer space. If you're going to be led around by the nose in this country by the government, if you can't figure out what's true and what's not and what kind of propaganda they're giving you, that's a sad situation."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, recently fought to ban the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse. NAACP leaders have said the Confederate flag "supports the evils of slavery" and "represents terrorism."

However, in his 1999 commentary, columnist Walter Williams argued, "It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years."

He explained, "The birth of both flags had little or nothing to do with slavery. Both flags saw their birth in a violent and proud struggle for independence and self-governance."

Williams noted that the flag naturally symbolizes resentment for those individuals who see the War for Southern Independence solely or chiefly as a struggle for slavery.

"The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors," he explained. "Here's an oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression."

Meanwhile, a May 9, 2000, survey by Gallup Poll News Service posed this question to Americans, "Do you, yourself, see the Confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride, or more as a symbol of racism?"

A full 59 percent of all respondents said they believe it is a symbol of Southern pride, while only 28 percent saw it as a symbol of racism.

"It's kind of a hot topic for us right now," the Tennessee Marine recruiter said of the Marine Corps policy on Confederate flag tattoos. "Personally, I don't have any problems with it. I have friends, both white and black, who don't have any problems with it. But there are also those out there who do see it as being racially biased."

My first response to this would be that the South's best Sons need not serve this evil beast called ZOG and sacrifice their lives for the bandit state of Israel in the first place. Our military has been systematically deracinated for years and while there may be proud, upstanding White men in the lower ranks, there certainly are none at the highest levels. These have been weeded out and replaced with diversity mongering faggot loving goofballs who are aiding and abetting in weakening our military with this criminal social experiment.

The article states that the Confederate flag can be construed as a "gang symbol" which policy forbids. And yet the ranks are swelling with non-White subhuman trash who are affiliated with the most violent criminal gangs in North America, and no doubt most, if not all of them have marked themselves as such. But that would be discrimination!

We are now in a stage of our decline where our history is scrubbed by anti-White revisionists, our heroes and founders are vilified, and now the flag of the United States of America itself has been declared "offensive" and "racist" as we have seen last week in Mexifornia.

This is all good for us, though. The more that regular White folks are pushed and the harder and more in your face the shoving becomes, there can only be two reactions: take it or fight back. Ignoring it is no longer an option.

Monday, May 10, 2010

I Thought Pigs Were Unkosher?

By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2009

Bulldog dyke n' kike; coming soon to a SCOTUS near you

Brother Nathanael Kapner: What was your initial reaction to Elena Kagan’s candidacy to the Supreme Court?

Kevin MacDonald: The Jewish-owned media initially published a flurry of praises for Kagan’s candidacy. It was obvious to me that the theme of all of this is ethnic networking.

How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School?

Br Nathanael: What was the hype on Kagan and what indicated ethnic networking?

Kevin MacDonald: The LA Times first published, “Supreme Court Candidate Elena Kagan Has Admirers Left And Right,” written by David Savage, a Jewish journalist. Although masquerading as news, the article is a brief for the candidacy of Elena Kagan.

Savage notes that Kagan is well connected to top people in the Obama Administration, (Larry Summers being one of them), and there is effusive praise from two legal bigwigs, Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried, both of Harvard and both Jews.

More was to follow from the Huffington Post’s ”Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner.” Once again, the same people were hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant.

Charles Fried waxed redundant, saying, “Elena Kagan is supremely intelligent, one of the most intelligent people I have known. I think she’s a very, very intelligent person.”

The ethnic networking involved has as its backdrop Kagan being appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.

Br Nathanael: Is there a “Jewish” issue involved if Kagan is nominated?

Kevin MacDonald: The Jewish issue rears its head only slightly according to the HuffPost article: “There has been some superficial concern over Kagan’s religion — not because she’s Jewish but because without Stevens there will be no Protestants on the court.” Also, Kagan would be the first open homosexual on the court.

Br Nathanael: Really? Is Kagan a lesbian?

Kevin MacDonald: The Huffington article certainly suggests it. Also, some have written that Kagan is an “open lesbian.” Others have written that although Kagan is “not out,” she has a female partner. It is said that this is an open secret at Harvard Law School among students and faculty. In any case, Kagan has shown her commitment to gay rights.

Br Nathanael: Getting back to the Jewish issue. Is there a valid concern that if Kagan is nominated there will be no White Protestants on the Supreme Court?

Kevin MacDonald: In a country that in living memory thought of itself as WASP at its very core, it most certainly IS an issue. Without Souter and Stevens gone there will be no Protestants on the court. With Kagan, there will be three Jews and no White Protestants.
Again, in Huffington’s article, when the issue of Kagan’s homosexual orientation is addressed, they wrote, “Strategists predict that this is only a distraction not a speed bump.”

Now, who exactly are these “strategists” and what is the goal of their strategizing?

Br Nathanael: What exactly is the strategy behind the Jewish push for Kagan?

Kevin MacDonald: If Kagan is nominated and confirmed, there would be three Jewish justices on the Supreme Court — all on the left.

Maybe Kagan-thing and Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg can hook up for a little under the black robes box banging?

Jews are of course always overrepresented among elites — especially on the left, but Jews as one-third of the Supreme Court is high by any standard given that they constitute only 2% of the US population. This is much higher than the disproportionate Jewish representation in the US Senate (13%) and the House of Representatives (7%).

Three Jews on the Supreme Court seems sure to raise the eyebrows among people like me who think that Jewish identity often makes a big difference in attitudes and behavior. And if there is one area where mainstream Jewish political identity has had a huge effect, it’s in legislation related to multiculturalism. This is true of the Jewish mainstream across the board, from the far left to the neoconservative right.

Br Nathanael: Where does Kagan stand on multiculturalism? Isn’t she a conservative?

Kevin MacDonald: The amazing thing is that Kagan is being framed as a conservative. But on the issues that really count — issues related to multiculturalism and free speech — Kagan is clearly on the left and touts American Jewry’s position in these areas. Kagan’s record strongly suggests that she would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her Jewish goals.

Kagan’s Chicago Law school article, “Regulation of Hate Speech And Pornography” indicates someone who is seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “We live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality. Certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality. The disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”
Br Nathanael: Would Kagan actually rule against the 1st Amendment?”

Kevin MacDonald: In the same article, Kagan wrote that “although the Supreme Court will not in the foreseeable future adopt the view that all governmental efforts to regulate such speech accord with the Constitution, a new majority could rule that all government efforts to regulate such speech would be constitutional.” Need I say more?

Br Nathanael: Do Kagan’s views fit with the outlook of the organized Jewish community?

Kevin MacDonald: The organized Jewish community has a long record of opposing free speech related to multicultural issues. Kagan’s views fit well with the outlook of the organized Jewish community: “Every effort should be made to restrict hate speech within the current legal context and to do whatever possible to change that context so that such speech is outlawed.”

The picture that emerges is that of someone who would have no hesitation to end First Amendment freedoms and squelch any hope that a White racialist movement could achieve real power. Kagan’s vision for America is entirely within the Jewish mainstream.

And if the organized Jewish community has its way with Kagan, Jewish supremacy will reign supreme in America’s Supreme Court.

The joke's on you, Whitey

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Cum Dumpster Disappointed that Times Square Bomber Not White

Can the blatant outright hatred that these people have for the White race be any clearer? We know very well that these fools were all hoping and praying that the Times Square bomb attempt could be laid at the feet of a "Tea Partier" or some "Right Wing Extremist White Supremacist Racist Home Grown Terrorist Militia Gun Nut". So open with their hatred of us that they can actually express that disdain publicly with absolutely no fear of reprisal.

They actually crave the "right wing" violence that they are so quick to project and preemptively blame on their political opponents.

I'll bet this bullshit goes on in newsrooms every day with nigger crime. When they find out a suspect is a shitskin there is a collective groan. When Whitey does something, they're cheering and high fiving each other, doing a little happy dance that they get to plaster a White mug shot all over the airwaves. For them it's like standing at a roulette wheel in Vegas...except it usually lands on black and they hate the fact that what we evil racists say is proved reality each and every day.

Hypocritical much, Cunt-essa?

Monday, May 3, 2010

The Party of Stupid

Republicunts worry Arizona law could hurt party

Jeb; allegedly the "smart" Bush

Arizona’s immigration law has been an immediate hit with the Republican base, but some of the party’s top strategists and rising stars worry that the harsh crackdown may do long-term damage to the GOP in the eyes of America’s Hispanic population.

From Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Republicans who represent heavily Hispanic states have been vocal in their criticism of the Arizona law, saying it overreaches. Even Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a conservative hero for his win last fall, has questioned the law.

And the party’s long-term thinkers worry that the Arizona law is merely a quick political fix which may create a permanent rift with the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate.

“You can’t win a national election and you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem,” says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004.

“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” top Bush strategist Karl Turd Blossom Rove said during a stop on his book tour. “I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way.”

“I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,” Perry said earlier this week.

Jeb Bush was also blunt: “I don't think this is the proper approach.”


Yet polls show Arizona’s law is popular, even with independents, and it’s given Republican Gov. Jan Brewer a boost in the polls. In September she trailed her likely Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, by 3 points with white voters. Now she leads him by 8 points with whites. But Goddard has increased his lead with Hispanics from 20 points to 46.

Arizona has far more white voters than it does Hispanic voters—for now – so the immigration law may not have an immediate impact on the election. But the long term demographic outlook for Republicans and the Hispanic vote is troubling for the GOP.

Ninety percent of Hispanics under 18 in Arizona are U.S. citizens, and the explosive growth of the Hispanic population this decade has been driven by U.S. births. That’s a switch from the 1990s, when most of the Hispanic population’s increase was due to non-citizen immigration.

“This law and potential copy cat laws have the ability to seal the fate of the Republican Party with Hispanics in the exact same way that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act did with African Americans,” said Matt Barreto, a pollster for Latino Decisions and an associate political science professor at the University of Washington.

In Florida, Senate candidate Rubio’s extremely calibrated response showed the fine line Republicans have to walk on this issue. Rubio is young, bilingual, Cuban-born and running to the right of Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist. And according to a new SurveyUSA poll, 82 percent of Florida Republicans who have heard about Arizona’s law agree with it—and 81 percent think Florida should pass a similar measure.

So Rubio has his sound bite ready on amnesty—“I hope Congress…will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation,” he said.

But he is terribly uncomfortable with the racial profiling he sees in the Arizona bill. “I do have concerns about this legislation,” Rubio said, pointing out that the law could “unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.”

Rubio’s logic recognizes Florida’s changing demographics—and acknowledges that Obama tilted the state in Democrats’ favor in 2008 largely because of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote.

Even Sal Russo, the longtime California Republican political operative who helps fund the Tea Party Express, acknowledges that the Arizona law creates problems for the party.

“I think Republicans do a poor job of communicating to non-traditional republican voters,” Russo said. “We’ve done a poor job in reaching out beyond the Republican base, and I think that’s been part of the problem.

California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina didn’t seem to take the Arizona law head on when asked about it Friday in an interview with POLITICO.

“The Democrats want to use immigration as a wedge issue for the Hispanic community – Barbara Boxer, in particular, has taken the Hispanic constituency for granted for many, many years. We are blessed in this nation by immigration, and we are blessed in particular with a vibrant Hispanic culture,” Fiorina said.

Some Republicans in states with fast growing Hispanic populations aren’t being as calibrated. Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis has said he’d sign a version of Arizona’s law.

But he and others also run the risk of misinterpreting the law’s popularity. The numbers, pollsters say, likely represent an overall frustration with Washington and support for Arizona’s willingness to do something, anything—not an anti-immigrant reaction.

This really points out the pathetic disconnect that these party hacks have with their base, which is White people. But make no mistake, they are not a pro-White party. They could give a flying fuck about you or me. They want your vote. If there's not enough of you to keep them in power, any mud will do, and they'll go and court them instead.

But therein lies the problem, and the absolutely ridiculous fallacy of their distorted logic. By inappropriately being identified as the "White Party" by the jewsmedia, they are inherently "racist"(because any gathering of more than two Whites is "Nazi" by nature) , and therefore are to be shunned, scorned and repudiated at the polls, which, in fact, they are, cycle after cycle by the very muds they keep trying to "reach out" to. You'd think after so much reaching out and having your hands slapped away you'd eventually get the message.

Republicunts know their party is on a collision course with destiny and it's about to be smashed against the rocks(we can only hope) so they are grasping at straws to stay in power. They will pander to whoever represents a significant voting block that will help them maintain that power. Problem is there's already a nigger-faggot-mestizo loving anti-White party in town and they've cornered the market on pandering to subhumans.

The smart thing, the White thing to do would be to actually become the "White Party" and start looking after the interests of their base.

Until they do that, I will cheer their destruction. Because only then will you see true White discontent and anger, which is required for real change. All this Tea Party bullshit amounts to is leading the herd to a different grazing field. There's a lot of dipshits (even some reading this very blog) who think Republicunts are their only salvation and they just keep rewarding these treasonous career politicians year after year with their vote.

Until we begin to see them as just as expendable as they see us, we are not going to get the "change we can believe in."