Archive for November, 2007

Mitt Romney Confederate Flag No Chinese Yes

November 30, 2007

Mitt Romney denounced the Confederate Flag as divisive. But the Chinese flag unifies us with our global supply chain, which it happens Mitt Romney made 250 million dollars creating at Bain in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint JD/MBA program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Education

Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. See p60-233.pdf graph page 18. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. Interesting that Romney graduating from Harvard is when our wages stopped going up.

B.R. We can date our history to when Romney graduated from Harvard Business School. Before Romney, median wages went up.

A. R. After Romney they stopped. But Romney’s wages went up, and up and up. Romney made 250 million dollars by sending good jobs to China.

Romney’s Chinese Flag will be America’s trade policy. Under Romney the American Flag will be made in China. Romney’s job policy. The only good job in America is one Wall Street’s Harvard MBA’s and JD’s bring someone from China to have. That is except for good paying jobs at Wall Street and venture capital funds like the one that made Al Gore a partner. That fund is China’s representative to America? One of many.

Romney would not have been a Confederate general. But for the services Romney has done for China he could be a general in the Chinese army or intelligence service. Doesn’t America need someone who believes in American flags including the Confederate Flag instead of the flags of China, India and Saudi Arabia?

Romney’s 250 million dollar fortune is invested in stocks of companies that took their manufacturing out of America in the 1980’s and 1990’s and 2000’s and put it into India and China. Romney doesn’t say anything against China’s flag. Why not? Doesn’t China poison us with lead filled toys? Why does Romney protect China and condemn the Confederacy?

==Romney wants Chinese Ph.D.’s not Hillbilly Southerners

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUDwY3ePc18rXfxD59EQvcKtvC3A

During the town-hall meeting, Romney played to the Silicon Valley crowd, some of whom work at nearby Google, Cisco Systems and Apple Inc.

Romney also expressed interest in expanding the number of H-1B visas, which allow employers to seek temporary help from foreigners holding at least a bachelor’s degree.

“H-1B visas are a great source of a brain magnet, if you will, bringing people into this country who have skill and experience from other countries,” he said.

Lamenting that many foreign doctoral candidates must leave the country after graduation, Romney added: “I’d rather staple a green card to your diploma and say that if you can get a Ph.D. from one of our great institutions, we’d love you to stay here.”

Why doesn’t Romney lament that Americans are Ph.D. students at American schools? Romney would rather have a Chinese Flag in every engineering school door room than a Confederate Flag in any of them.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/mitt-romney-immigration-h-1b-china-first/

In the CNN You Tube debate it was a young man with a Confederate Flag in his room. Was that a dorm or near a college? Is he studying engineering? Did Romney show disdain for that young man?

Is Romney saying he would rather have the son of a Chinese professor come here and help other Chinese come here to take over our engineering schools so that the young man with the Confederate Flag can spend his time without a good career and having no kids?

Is that the Romney Chinese Flag Plan for America, a subsidiary of China, providing careers for children of Chinese professors to come here and take over our universities and industry and move it to China completely?

More on Romney and China

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/mitt-romney-immigration-h-1b-china-first/

Romney wants the Chinese flag on Mars and American military software coded in China or by Chinese here. In Romney’s America, there will be miniature Chinese Flag in every piece of hardward, a sign saying Made in China, implanted in chips implanted in our bodies. We will have national id cards with electronics programmed in China.

==Debate Transcript

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/

==Others on Confederate Flag question

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/11/29/youtube-boobtubery-cnn-spins-thompsons-confederate-flag-stance

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/who-won-cnn-youtube-republican-debate/

==Questions to ask

Which flag would you rather have in front of your house, the Confederate Flag or the Chinese Flag?

(Can vary this to South Carolina State House, your office, etc. )

Which flag symbolizes hate of America, the Confederate Flag, Chinese Flag or Saudi Arabian Flag?

Should Islamic flags be flown in America? Does Islam preach hate of America? Did communism plan America’s destruction through immigration? Do Islamic states and organizations, even supporting Mexican immigration to destroy and break up America? Is that not in fact happening? Isn’t that the real hate of America?

Who is really supporting America, Virgil Goode or Mitt Romney?

White Supremacism v. Immigration Supremacism

November 29, 2007

Questions for candidates running for office.

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

That is, if we take the following definitions, valid for this question only:

White Supremacism: America should be more than 50 percent white.

Immigration Supremacism: America should be less than 50 percent white.

Are you, Candidate X, a white supremacist or an immigration supremacist?

Help Vdare fight National Review Pseudocons

November 29, 2007

James Fulford

http://www.vdare.com/

 National Review has just run an editorial in favor of sanctuary cities, [Sanctuary Sanctimony, November 28, 2007] calling the pro-illegal  policy that Giuliani defended all the way to the Supreme Court “sensible “”humane” and “realistic.” This is why VDARE.com is important—we can count on the New York Times to be for Giuliani when he’s supporting illegal immigration, just as we can count on them to be against him when he puts actual criminals in jail.

Vdare is running a fund raising drive.   National Review is part of Rudi City, a place where there is no loyalty to Americans and all Americans are Confederate Flag waving yahoos who have to lose their good paying jobs to China to enrich Wall Street tycoons.

Steve Camarota 50 percent Mexicans get aid in US

November 29, 2007

Vanishing American discusses work by Steven A. Camarota

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-york-times-tells-truth-on.html

Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds

Report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Vanishing American has taken out the principal results, formatted them and put in bold key results. Her article is the best place to start to get a quick grasp of this important work by Steven Camarota at CIS.

This is great work by Camarota of CIS. A 2005 article with similar material, including graphs and info by state and by country of origin.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.html

See Table 13. 43.4 percent of Mexican (in US) headed households receive some form of assistance not including EITC. 50 percent of Mexican households (in the US) receive EITC, Earned income tax credits.  (The actual figure in the table is 49.9.)

Ed Rubenstein at Vdare compares immigrant dependency in the US and UK. A UK paper did a similar study in the UK and Rubenstein has put together tables from Camarota and the UK study to see the comparison. These are well formatted and easy to read:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/071025_nd_tables.htm

A UK paper did a similar study in the UK and Rubenstein has put together tables from Camarota and the UK study to see the comparison.

He also discusses the 2005 Camarota analysis here:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060809_nd.htm

Who won CNN Youtube Republican Debate?

November 29, 2007

The performance of the candidates in order, might be

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Tom Tancredo
  3. Duncan Hunter
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. John McCain
  7. Mike Huckabee
  8. Rudi Giuliani

There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.

  1. Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
  2. Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
  3. Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
  4. Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.

The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.

  1. Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
  2. John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
  3. Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
  4. Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.

The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.

That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/index.html

==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us

We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.

The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.

The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.

Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.

The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.

These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.

Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.

==Questions that should be asked.

A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?

To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?

Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)

Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?

For Dems and Huckabee:

Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?

Is it partly genetic?

Is it racist to say so?

Does it matter?

Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?

For Hispanics?

Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?

Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?

Is it racist to say so?

Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?

Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?

Is it racist to say so?

Is it white supremacist to say so?

Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?

Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?

Do you believe America will become a white minority country?

Do you think its racist to say it should not?

Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?

Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?

A white supremacist?

Do you believe every American either has to

  1. Support or accept minority status for whites, or
  2. Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?

Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

40 Lashes Gillian Gibbons 40 Bombs for Sudan

November 28, 2007

From The Times
November 29, 2007
“Outrage as Sudan charges teddy row teacher, Gillian Gibbons”

40 Bombs for Khartoum Sudan.   Attack every government installation, broadly interpreted, until they apologize for everything they have done since 622 A.D.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2963737.ece

We need to recognize what attacked us on 9-11 is what attacked the West from c. 630 A.D.

Re: Republican CNN Youtube Debate

November 28, 2007

Giuliani claim that New York was not a sanctuary city. Fred Thompson pointed out that if this was true, Giuliani filed a frivolous lawsuit to over the 1996 law that Fred Thompson voted for to outlaw illegal cities. This is a clever point. Why did Giuliani bring a lawsuit if New York was not already a sanctuary city. There have been reports, I believe at Vdare, that New York police underreported crime under Giuliani to produce artificially low crime statistics.

Pledge not to have an amnesty.

Fred Thompson gave the reason for not having amnesty that people are waiting in line. Vanishing American has pointed out over and over, that the reason for not having an amnesty is to protect the interests of citizens. Those not citizens have no claim to come here as VA has written.

Tom Tancredo said the issue is wages not jobs. My comment: This is correct, we don’t owe the world jobs. We don’t owe them wages. We owe jobs at good wages to American citizens. That means ending all legal immigration and no amnesties and real enforcement.

Huckabee on his program for tuition to illegals. Huckabee said the illegals didn’t get tuition unless they applied for citizenship. That’s just another benefit for illegals.

Romney then said Huckabee was wrong on this policy. Romney however gave the line get in line with everybody else.

Huckabee said they had to earn it, they were not given something. Huckabee said he worked his way through college. He got emotional and in fact irrational. He got a little angry during this stage. He was almost outraged at Mitt Romney to punish children for what their parents did.

Romney came back cool and rational as usual. There is only so much money to go around. (Huckabee was saying it was immoral in effect not to give illegals tuition breaks.)

Question to Ron Paul on Council of Foreign Relations and the union of Mexico, Canada and America.

Paul: CFR and Trilateral Commission exist. Paul: Its a conspiracy of ideas. (A good phrase, and accurate.) (EU did develop way North American union is, and Bush is using EU history as a model.) The international highway Mexico to Canada will make immigration problem worse. Its a contest of ideologies, our institutions here or move towards international government. Paul WTO wants to control drug industry, food. Our national sovereignty is under threat. (Cheers from audience.)

National debt and control spending questions. McCain: Republicans have strayed from what promised in 1994.

China exports dangerous toys to spies to America. Tancredo and Hunter took a strong stand against China and for America.

Chinese Romney has built his 250 million dollar fortune on the idea:

The only good job that should stay in America is one we bring someone from China to hold. Romney supports unlimited H-1B in effect. This would flood the market with low cost workers, and incidentally protect Romney’s hard earned 250 million dollar fortune from a recession and stock bear market caused by the inability of American workers to pay their mortgages now that interest rates have gone up, and median wages are falling, and new jobs are going to Hispanic and other immigrants not to citizens.

==

Tom Tancredo is right, the solution to most of our problems now and even more that are coming in the future is a moratorium on all legal immigration.  Fred Thompson has proposed ending chain migration.  Ron Paul has said end anchor baby.  This is the real truth.

$8 million book deal helps Ted Kennedy recall Chappaquiddick – Times Online

November 28, 2007

“Tom Baldwin. Sources close to the veteran Massachusetts senator acknowledge that he will have to address the subject of Chappaquiddick in the book but say that it remains “out of bounds” in both public interviews and private conversations.”

Old civil rights cases from the 1960’s have been retried. Kennedy was never tried for violating Kopechne’s civil rights by use of his office. So this is still an open issue, theoretically. Kennedy shouldn’t profit from Chappaquiddick.

If Kennedy had not covered up Chappaquiddick, he might have faced some prison and the end of his political career. This 8 million dollars is from his not calling the police. Kopechne was alive in an air bubble when Kennedy went back to his hotel room promising to call the police, according to the police diver the next monring. He said he was on call and would have been called out and would have saved her.

Kennedy promised others to call, and stopped them from calling by his false promise. He then went back to his hotel room and called others as phone records showed. Kennedy was possibly complaining that Wasp bigots would use this against him, at the very time Mary Jo Kopechne was still alive in an air bubble. If he had called the police he could have saved her instead of complaining that Wasp bigots would use it against him politically.

If he had called the police then, she would have been saved, but Kennedy would have faced charges of leaving an accident scene without reporting it promptly and possibly being drunk and facing a variety of charges. He traded her life to protect himself by leaving the scene instead of calling the police at the nearby house. This is an indecent deal for an indecent man.

http://www.ytedk.com/

read more | digg story

British teacher faces lashes in Sudan UK Times Rob Crilly

November 26, 2007

“A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old mother of two from Liverpool, was arrested at her lodgings at Khartoum’s Unity High School yesterday, accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam. ”

This should be treated as a hostage taking. The UK and US need to deliver an ultimatum to Sudan: Release the hostage unarmed for face the consequences. The policy of appeasement of Islam has failed. Time for a new policy. End Muslim immigration, keep Iran from getting nukes, make Pakistan give them up.

read more | digg story

Nation of Immigrants is Immigration Supremacy

November 26, 2007

Immigration Supremacists have made the phase America is a Nation of Immigrants into a mantra of immigration supremacism.  They also use in England, Denmark, Sweden, France, Norway, and Italy.

We are not a nation of immigrants.  An immigrant is a person who is not born in a country or not born a citizen and who lives there with the intent to stay permanently.  We are not a nation of such people nor is that the purpose of our nation.  Those who say immigrants are our future are immigration supremacists.

Ted Sorenson likely invented the phrase Nation of Immigrants and wrote the book with author name John F. Kennedy.  This was never the belief of the American people or any other Western country that is subjected to this phrase and these immigration supremacy policies.

Affirmative action for immigrants shows that immigration is really immigration supremacy.  What past discrimination is being remedied by affirmative action for immigrants?  This is accepted because of the power of the Immigration Supremacy Complex.

%d bloggers like this: