Archive for January, 2008

John Edwards new trade rep for China spoof

January 31, 2008

John Edwards has already taken a position as China’s trade representative to the U.S. News conference in Beijing.

Chinese Mandarin Supervisor: We are pleased to announce Senator John Edwards as our new honorable, strike honorable, as comrade, strike comrade, our new sellout American lackey. He will betray Americans better than we could destroy them ourselves. We would feel too much shame. But that is not a problem for Edwards.

Edwards: No problem for me, Master. I just want to help the people at the mills. They are all in China. And none of them is white. I hate white people especially men.

Mandarin: That is why we have you John. You can channel the dark side of the force as only a turncoat can. While they still trust you, you disdain them for their trust. Once you are exposed, you hate them for their resentment. When its some of each, both hates mix together. We haven’t seen this since we had John McCain as a guest in the South.

Edwards: I’ll do more for you than McCain. I’ll get you millions of H-1B’s. I’ll help you take over America’s universities, the ones you don’t have already. I’ll help you get into Los Alamos and elbow out the Turks, Russians, and others. I will do anything to betray America, those people who worked in the mills once in North Carolina.

Mandarin: I know.


Why does McCain resent America?

January 31, 2008

We can consider some possible reasons. This is not an assertion this is why, but its just to get a list of candidates.

  1. McCain’s family had distinguished admirals. Yet McCain as a child may not have been treated with deference by other kids. Bush may have had this same feeling. Bush’s Mexican maid treated him well, but possibly few others. So Bush and McCain turned resentments from within their family or school kids towards whites in general.
  2. McCain graduated 3rd in his class at Annapolis. He also may only have gotten into the Naval Academy because of his father.
  3. McCain was a POW for several years. He may have blamed that on America, especially when America turned on Vietnam. By doing that America turned on the sacrifice by McCain. So McCain turned on America.
  4. McCain was not promoted to Admiral. He may again have blamed the Navy for that. That became resenting whites who had did him in.
  5. At the POW camp, he may have been indoctrinated with hatred of whites as colonialists, etc. This was his graduate education in effect.
  6. McCain has demonstrated selfishness and self-centeredness ever since. He dropped his first wife who had been disfigured in an auto accident. McCain was involved in the Keating 5 case. He may have gotten off because of his record.

McCain called us bigots and racists, Americans in general and whites in particular. Sometimes people use the term racist just to express hate. Its the most harmful word one can use. McCain may be expressing his resentments of a lifetime when he calls Americans in general and white Americans in particular, racists.

McCain really is repeating what he was called in his POW prison. They called him a white racist there. Now he repeats it. Now he does to us what his jailers wanted too, destroy America, extinct the people, remove it from the earth.

This isn’t kill the people to save the culture, a Vietnam concept applied against us. This is kill the people to destroy the redneck Southern America culture that he comes from.

John McCain is willing to link himself to others with a grievance against America. That includes Hispanics who are the ones actually changing, i.e. replacing the old America. They are replacing the people and the culture. That is what McCain was taught in his POW camp.

Stop McCain Vote Romney or is it Huckabee or Paul?

January 31, 2008

Who should conservatives vote for in the Republican primaries on Super Tuesday? Do we have to gag or panic that McCain might win? Should we vote for Romney to stop McCain as Lawrence Auster is suggesting?

If Huckabee and Romney split the conservative vote in winner take all states does that mean that McCain wins many of them with only 35 to 40 percent of the vote in those states? Could we see a McCain Landslide on Super Tuesday? Will the MSM anoint him as our leader, if they haven’t already?

On their websites, Huckabee and Romney both have positions against radical Islam and illegal immigration. However, Huckabees are better.

Romney is more likely to win according to some than Huckabee. Lawrence Auster is saying vote for Romney.

Where should Fred Thompson supporters go is discussed here, including that Duncan Hunter endorsed Huckabee:

Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney, however. As has Lawrence Auster. Are conservatives coalescing around Romney as the alternative to McCain?

The national poll shows Huckabee and Romeny equal around 20 percent each. McCain is around 30 percent.

In Alabama and Georgia, Huckabee leads all. In Colorado, Romney leads by far. In Tennessee, Huckabee leads. Also in Missouri.

Not all states are winner take all, state wide. Wiki has a table in the above link for the Republican primaries on Feb 5, 2008.. WTA means winner take all. Not all are WTA.

For those who live in a southern state, it appears voting for Huckabee is the sound choice. For those in Romney lead states, Romney is a sound choice. There are some of those.

What about states like California, where Romney and Huckabee together could stop McCain but separately they can’t? California is winner take all at the district level not the state level. But the distribution is likely to be the same by districts. Nonetheless, there may be North South splits or East West or urban and rural, etc.

Lawrence Auster discusses Romney in many posts. One recent one with reader comments is here:

There is, of course, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a protest vote against the establishment and what it has done to us. This is a reasonable vote to make as well. Pollster indicates this is down to about 3 or 4 percent, although Poll may tend to get more votes than he polls.

There likely isn’t going to be a coalescing around Romney in the South. Whether that is what should happen in the rest of the country is hard to say. Lawrence Auster lives in New York, so maybe for the Northeast that is the best solution.

Voting Romney not Huckabee appears to apply in California and Illinois using the Pollster state by state polls at the above link. In California its McCain 37, Romney 26, and Huckabee around 12. So in that state, conservatives should rally around Romney if they want to stop McCain.

If state by state, voters are willing to join with Romney or Huckabee where they have a clear lead, then McCain can be stopped. Most conservatives don’t want McCain. So this is doable.


An analysis of Romney having negative ratings among Huckabee voters is at Opinionated Catholic:

This is a very good analysis. It basically indicates that Romney has done negative campaigning and this may make it hard for him to win voters from candidates he attacked. That also depends on how firmly those voters were attached to those candidates. Lawrence Auster advises Romney to go even more negative.


A good state by state analysis by Ed Sistrunk:


Romney won the debate according to his roundup of views:

This is close to the above discussion.

Stimulate Economy by Stopping Immigration

January 27, 2008

Immigration is a net burden on the economy and society. Third world immigrants, who are the bulk, take out more than they put in for their entire lives. In addition, third world immigrants send money home that drains money out of our economy.

What about social security? The idea of social security is a person puts in during part of their life and takes out during another part. But if a person on net takes more from government than they put in every year of their life, then they can’t be supporting social security or anything else.

That is the case with Mexican and other 3rd world immigrants. They take more out each year in schools, ER’s, roads, etc. Moreover, the accounting from CIS and others on immigrants only counts the cost of immigrants in terms of checks with that immigrants name on it. Even the person at the welfare agency who prints up the check, CIS and others count that person’s salary as not part of what the immigrant takes.

If you allocate a percentage of overhead, including national defense, interest on the debt (much of it caused by immigrants burden on government), etc. then immigrants are consuming far more than what CIS or others estimate. Its a paradox. If you only subtract what the immigrant gets with a check with their name on it, and then claim they support the rest of the government, but never count that as against them for receiving the benefits of it, then its not counting fairly. For example, you count an immigrant tax dollar as going against interest on the debt, but the interest on the debt is only allocated to non-immigrants. This is the fallacy in CIS and other numbers that ignores the immigrant’s real burden.

If we stop immigration, we get immediate cost savings. We stop new money going back to their home, which is almost a form of tax on us by Mexico. We also help ourselves on social security. How?

Social Security and Medicare are underfunded. So the dollar falls because foreigners see we are financially unsound. Immigration imposes a net burden on the people here, not any assistance in funding social security because the immigrants on net take out. They also have children of low IQ, 85 to 90, if from the 3rd world, who are a net burden on society and degrade schools for the rest. The result is that 3rd world immigrants impose costs on us that last as long as their descendants do, i.e. forever. Thus they create a huge unfunded payment forever.

If we stop immigration, we stop adding this negative present value each year. The result is we have more money to pay social security and medicare on those here. The result is we are in a better fiscal situation. So the dollar rises and we can borrow more cheaply. This gives us immediate cost savings.

The drop in interest rates from this effect benefits government and business and consumers. This lower interest rate stimulates the economy, but without government borrowing to do it as in the Bush Paulsen Bernanke stimulus package. The result is we get to reduce our debt by stopping immigration and we get a stimulus from cost savings, interest savings, lower interest rates, and lower crowding costs and lower environment costs.

Legal immigration is over 1 million per year. So stopping this has a big effect. Foreign students take away education from Americans. That undermines our long term financial solvency. When our people are not educated, their ability to support future mandates like social security is lower. Moreover, the education goes overseas and they can out compete with us using our own know-how. So salaries drop here. We can benefit ourselves so many ways by stopping this drain. We can also stop aid to the third world that does the same thing.


We don’t want a stimulus package that just stimulates China and immigration. If we get more immigration from a stimulus package, we just lose every year from those immigrants. We have to stop this ongoing burden. America is approaching being 1/3 3rd world in population, i.e. about 100 million. This is a huge burden.

The cumulative burden of our 3rd world population is something Japan’s leaders tell us from time to time is dragging us down. Japan doesn’t want to be the last civilized country in the world. That is why they keep warning us about 3rd world immigration.

==July 29, 2008

9/11 was done by immigrants. All the increased defense costs since 9/11 stem from those immigrants and thus are a consequence of immigration. This cancels all the supposed benefits of immigration. The buildings, lives, and economic disruption were all caused by immigrants. The only thing they brought was diversity. What about when its nuclear?

Huckabee v. Romney on Immigration and Islam

January 25, 2008

Who is better on these two issues for invaders/dis-inviters? (Meaning we invade them and dis-invite them from coming here.)

Huckabee and Romney both say radical Islam in some form or another is a threat. Huckabee seems to think we are at war and need to fight it. Romney seems to think we should give aid to our enemies, who he thinks are the answer.

Romney really believes in H-1B supremacy to Americans in the technical arts. Do we really want that?

Huckabee “moved right on immigration to a huge degree (just contrast that with Dubya!)” Clark Coleman.

If invaders/disinviters are looking for someone who deeply believes in the war with Islam and will keep the base on anti-immigration is Huckabee their man?

Huckabee lists immigration as his first two issue points. He has adopted positions from Center for Immigration Studies and met with Roy Beck of Numbers USA.

Huckabee has gone to Beck and made his confirmation and put it in writing on his webpage. Romney hasn’t. To Romney, Roy Beck is not Harvard B-School material. Its impossible for Romney to do what Huckabee did, take Beck and us seriously as equals.

  • I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy.
  • The top priority of the President as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens.
  • I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission.

Is this the Huckabee Doctrine? Will we actually fight our enemies instead of inviting them to give money to the Bush Clinton families?

Do Huck’s real views come out in his issues? While with Mitt you get marketing research spewed back at you?

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

This is the summary first paragraph of Romney’s war with Jihad. This is the same HBS Bush plan? Its not a real belief in a war with people who hate us. Its the idea of just tinkering with them a little and they will understand us. They already understand us. They want to take our lands and subjugate us and then ethnically cleanse us.

Romney first paragraph on immigration:

Immigration has been an important part of our nation’s success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.

Romney insisted on saying at the end of one debate, ABC News before New Hampshire I believe, that everyone of the candidates supports legal immigration. When do we realize that Romney and Bush are both Harvard Business School MBA’s who really believe in this?

Bush and Romney both believe in the HBS approach to the war on Islam. Bush and Romney both believe in mass legal immigration. They both say this over and over.

Romney is just a smarter smoother version of Bush. Romney is what Harvard Business School wants to achieve. HBS is a hotbed of internationalism, far more so than it was in the 1920’s when the Soviets were recruiting Harry Dexter White as a Harvard econ Ph.D. Now that philosophy is taught from HBS.

HBS was once loyal to America. That was the HBS of McNamara. HBS taught making America the factory of the world. Now it teaches the Morgenthau Plan on America. De-industrialize Nazi Amerika is the attitude of HBS. Hillbillies are stupid and gullible is their attitude towards us.
Now HBS is against America and teaches disdain and contempt of hillbilly Americans in fly over country. We are workers to be subjugated to HBS. The HBS attitude to us is about the same as that of Islam. That is what Bush and Romney believe in their bones.

Both Bush and Romney are deeply internationalist and have no loyalty to Americans in any ethnic or genetic sense. The very idea of such a loyalty is repugnant to them. That means our ethnic cleansing is something they want.

Who we pick tends to be who we believe in. They have the soap box. Its very important to look at what they say in writing. If we look at what is on their webpages now in writing, Huckabee is writing what we write (invade them not us-ers that is) to a large extent. Mitt Romney is writing the opposite.

Romney is an invite them here and give them money there to be more moderate. That doesn’t work. If Romney can’t see that now, he isn’t going to.

Romney believes in the Gospel according to Harvard Business School. That has made him and that is who he is. That is what he wrote on his webpage. Read it. He isn’t going to be better governing than he is in what he writes now.

Compare Romney’s paragraph on immigration, which is Bush Rovian to Huckabee’s plan which is based on CIS as he says:

Huckabee has moved to our side at least in writing. Romney is against our side in writing. That means Romney is no choice for us.

Huckabee has strengthened (Auster says solidified) his position against amnesty.


January 19, 2008 – 11:38 PM

Numbers USA: No Amnesty Pledge

Yesterday, I signed the following pledge:



“I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States. As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.”

To learn more about my Secure America Plan click here.

To view the pledge Governor Huckabee signed, click here (pdf-384kb).

Important points:

1. The 12 million illegal immigrants now here will have to go home.

2. They will not get any legal status while here that allows them to remain long-term.

3. Once in their home countries, they may apply for re-admittance to the U.S. as immigrants, visitors or temporary workers through normal channels.

4. Once in their home countries, they will not receive any special privileges on the basis of their having been in the U.S. illegally, such as being put to the front of a visa line.

5. There will be no new categories or programs through which they may re-enter the U.S.

6. There will not be an expansion of green cards in any existing categories that will speed up their movement to the front of the line.

(The Governor agreed to this pledge made to the American people with his public signing before the national media on Jan. 16, 2008 at North Greenville University, South Carolina.)

Does Mitt Romney think he can square the circle?

January 25, 2008

Mitt Romney’s story is of one direction, going up. He has mastered everything and won big. Does he think he can bring in 3rd world immigrants and at the same time raise them up to first world level? What sort of blinders does he have on?

The Great Man of History always has hubris that blinds him to the obvious that others can see. Is Romney a multiculti Xerxes or Alexander? Who leaves a broken country and empire in his path? Do we want to be the Greeks to the Mexicans and Muslims?

The Muslims ethnically cleansed the Greeks from the Eastern Med from 633 AD to now and counting. They are professionals. They also never give up. As one of the forces of history, Muslims stack up greater than Mitt. Does Mitt see that? The same with Mexican migration.

Clark Coleman writes:

Romney: Flip-flops indicate that he knows what he has to do to appeal to the base, and is not such a true believer on any subject that he won’t bend. An exception is legal immigration, particularly H-1B visas for high-tech workers, etc. The corporatist background shining through.

Does Mitt believe in an us? Is us for Mitt a word for followers? It doesn’t matter who the followers are? That is often seen in the great leaders of history.

Achievement and understanding are not the same thing. Those who achieve think it is. Those who understand don’t. Romney is an achiever. He understands how to get his way. Most important, Romney knows how to become and stay leader. We need someone who understands where we are, where we are headed, how we got here, and what to do.

For living things you start with their genes. For Romney that is a repugnant concept. Living things that deny their genes are headed towards extinction. Genetic Pride or die is the way it is for living things. Romney doesn’t have that.

Republican Primary Neocons v. Conservatives

January 25, 2008

The neocons are John McCain and Rudi Giuliani. The definition of neocon used here is Steve Sailer’s, invite the world, invade the world, or is it the other way around? We can use the Steve Sailer matrix to identify the candidates.

  1. Invade and Invite: Rudi and McCain.
  2. Invade don’t invite: Tancredo, Hunter, and Fred in part.
  3. Invade and invite some: Romney and Huckabee.
  4. Don’t invade, invite some: Ron Paul.

Some may react to this as dumb and dumber. Others may see one as good and the other bad. Apparently the invade and invite group has a continuing appeal. Rudi and McCain summed together have gotten over 40 percent over the last year. Graph of polls of candidates since start of 2007. The Rudi McCain lines sum to a constant, almost.

We now have Romney and Huckabee fighting for the spot of invade and half invite. Ron Paul is the don’t invade and other half invite, e.g. H-1B and guest worker he seems to have a libertarian reversion towards in some of his comments. Detailed matrix from NumbersUSA on all candidates, Democrat and Republican.

For now NumbersUSA has a good overview on immigration positions of the candidates on its homepage. This has less information than the grid linked to above.

The Steve Sailer Matrix or Cross is similar to the Boston Consulting Group Matrix.  Too bad its not a Bain Box.  But let’s hope Romney isn’t the bane of conservatives by being another HBSer like Bush.

Fear of Offending already is death

January 25, 2008

search “Fear of Offending”

Results 1100 of about 202,000 for Fear of Offending.

But immigrant pandering, of course, trumped public safety. Law-abiding residents of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the tattooed gangbangers dealing drugs, spraying graffiti, and shooting up rivals outside their homes, but such distress cannot compare to a politician’s fear of offending Hispanics.

This is related to Auster’s law of minority majority relations. The more we fear offending a group, it is because the worse they are in offensive against us. Or put more bluntly, the more we fear offending a group, the more offensive it is.

This is, in a way, a twist on the old saw about respecting one’s enemies more than one’s friends, or however its said. But this is at the heart of liberalism as Auster points out. This is simply a light hearted comment and not meant to redefine Auster’s version of his own law.

Offending is time and state contingent. What is offensive and the relation of a group or other entity may change. A knife left in after surgery is offensive, but if used to remove a cancer and then removed is not. The difference is discrimination, something liberals don’t like to let us do.

Liberals prefer a rule to be followed regardless of circumstances. But that also implies a rule to be followed regardless of consequences. The result of that behavior is self destruction. In fact, to have that attitude is to search for self-destruction and to be guaranteed to find it. That applies for a liberal individual or a society.

In applying Auster’s law, one has to taken notice that its really a hypothesis and is only part of a model. So one can’t just apply it as if it was a law. Its a hypothesis to be tested and by itself is too simplistic to be used without testing. It also requires combining with other assumptions and modification to be testable in specific circumstances.


Fear of offending is the death of good writing, thinking, and politics. Its the death of a society. Or its essential to all of those. Its a matter of balance, i.e. of search, i.e. of being offensive to someone without intending it or to be that offensive.

Clearly there is an equilibrium amount of offending and being offended. Again, it takes discrimination. Its also not the same per person.

Some individuals offend greatly. Some offend many. Some do both. Some teach by offending. Few teach by being offended, except as a counter-example.

To switch from Auster to Acton. Great men are always offensive men. Greatness offends. Truth offends. Achievement offends.

Only one person, or 3, can win the Nobel Prize in a category each year, but many can be offended. The Nobel Prize in Economics seems to get that reaction often. They gave a Nobel Prize for that? Patents have this effect as well.

This is draft and preliminary and subject to revision. I hope I have taught more than I have offended, but probably its the opposite. Now on to Antony. The offensive in men’s lives lives after them, the inoffensive is interred with their bones. Or something like that.

I have already revised this column for fear of offending, and probably will do so again. To switch to paraphrasing Emily Dickinson. I am offensive. Are you? Oh dear. That makes two of us. Don’t tell them.

Search unoffensive inoffensive

I will try not to offend by mixing up inoffensive and unoffensive. I promise. I promise to try, or maybe just a little some of the time.

James D. Watson met Napoleon. Some men are born offensive. Some men achieve offensiveness. Some men have offensiveness thrust upon them. Watson and Waterloo start the same but may end differently. It depends on which side you favor as well of course. Lets hope that Watson goes with Waterloo like Wellington.

Just to frame a hopefully not to offensive hypothesis. Whatever is offensive to us is partly true? We are most offended and most often offended by the truth. Whoever is offended most and loudest is the surest signpost to the truth?

A sort of lighthouse almost? Calling out the offending truth before the ship is aground and its too late. The warning that comes last is the most offensive? Truth attracts being offended like a lamp attracts moths.

Suppression is nine tenths of the truth?  Or is it offensiveness? Of course, like genius the other 1/10 is important.

Being offended is the key to suppression. Satan has mischief still for idle lips to spew? Liberals are most pleased when their pupils say they are offended to conservatives so that the source of warning will stop as our society crashes on the shore of mathematical theorems it considers too geek to live by? It was all geek to me. That is the cousin of being offended.

Bernanke US a Banana Republic Spoof

January 22, 2008

Ben Bernanke today said the US was becoming a Banana Republic. He said Bill Clinton’s payoff from Dubai showed that US leaders take bribes for 3rd world immigration that pushes down wages in the US and world wide. The US has created a 3rd world population bubble to take down wages everywhere.

Bernanke said the Congress and President were corrupt and selling out to special interests by 3rd world immigration. He said the best technical education goes to people from India and China and not to Americans. Bernanke said teaching those from India and China in our Ph.D. programs instead of Americans was creating a know-how deficit, we were giving our know-how away.

The know-how deficit then leads to the manufacturing deficit, they build products with out know-how and their wages and the result is our manufacturing disappears. The result is we lose our good jobs and our low end jobs. Bernanke noted that men’s median wages were the same as in 1973 and women’s median was the male median in 1960 which illustrates the point.

Payoffs from Wall Street show it as well. But these payoffs help the current CEO but hurt the company later. The result is the companies fall apart as their know-how ends up India and China. We need to close our borders to the know-how deficit, teach our kids in our Ph.D. programs, and protect our industries to re-industrialize America.

During WWII, the Morgenthau Plan proposed to deinustrialize Germany. Bernanke said we implemented the Morgenthau Plan, but on America. Bernanke said what we would impose as victors we have imposed on ourselves.

In 1944, Morgenthau proposed the Morgenthau Plan for postwar Germany, calling for Germany to be dismembered, partitioned into separate independent states, stripped of all heavy industry and forced to return to an agrarian economy. The Morgenthau plan is by some thought to have been devised by Morganthau’s deputy, Harry Dexter White.,_Jr.#Morgenthau_Plan

Bernanke said the Congress and President and ultimately the public had chosen 3rd world immigration and had to face the consequences. Bernanke said the Fed’s job was to deliver consequences when the Congress and President sell out the present and the future.

Bernanke said the Fed’s job was to keep the dollar sound even while Congress and the President turned us into a 3rd world country with low living standards. We are importing poison from China in physical form and a trade deficit. Cheap goods are used to avoid reality. But that is passing.

Bernanke said the Fed would raise interest rates to defend the dollar and to send a message of consequences home to the voters this year. The message is that Congress and the President have betrayed them with third world immigration and its consequences of failing schools, falling wages, know-how transfer and the loss of America’s identity.

Bernanke said America was importing the lowest morals on earth and it already showed in the Clinton Dubai payoff. Bernanke said no more easy money to the crooks in Wall Street or Congress or the K Street Lobbying Corridor. Bernanke said the people have to know that by allowing 3rd world migration they have damned themselves. They have condemned themselves to a 3rd world life. Better to learn it during the election than later.

The above is spoof. Actually Bernanke gave Wall Street and Congress what they want in an election year, easy money to cover up their scams on the public. The CEO Presidential axis of stealing continues funded by the Fed. Bernanke is paying Wall Street bonuses and those pay the contributions to Congress and the presidential candidates. The magic circle of money that keeps America falling.

Democrat Debate Secret Service Pulls Obama off Hillary spoof

January 21, 2008

The Secret Service had to pull Senator Barack Hussein Obama off of Hillary Clinton at the Democrat Presidential Debate. Edwards was hovering around behind Obama saying give it to her bro. When the Secret Service asked him what he was doing, he said, don’t tase me bro.

The Secret Service charged Edwards and Obama with conspiracy to beat up on a girl. Saint Hillary, the feminist of Wellesley, said they did it deliberately. Make them spend the night in jail she chanted.

What started this? Aren’t presidential candidates supposed to be adults? There is something about South Carolina that brings out the red bull in all of them.

What brought this on? The Secret Service let them go and they were interviewed after the Mugging at Myrtle.

Obama: She started it. She’s a girl and she knows how to make boys lose control.

Hillary: I don’t know how to do that. (Speaking in her school girl way.)

Obama: Yes you do. Girls are more mature, but you use your knowledge for evil.

Hillary: Now what makes you say that? Did your slum lord client tell you to say that?

Obama: No he didn’t. There she goes again. I can’t control myself when she says that. She smears and I jeer. That’s the way I am. I’m likable too. But she isn’t.

Hillary: You aren’t so likable when you are asked about your record. Then you hover and look for cover. You don’t come out in the open to defend your record. You never take responsibility for anything you ever voted for.

Obama: I do so. Its you who run from your record. You are hiding behind Bill’s skirts.

Hillary: Bill doesn’t wear skirts.

Obama: But he has them around.

Hillary: I’m not sure what you mean. But you know Bill was pointing out how you are non-responsive on your record.

Obama: I am responsive. Its you who are not responsive. You twist everything I say. You and Bill. I’m tired of it.

Edwards: I get to say something.

Obama: What? (glowering)

Edwards: Well, er, I was going to answer the question, but if it makes you mad I’ll just be quiet.

Obama: (glowering) It doesn’t make me mad. Answer the question.

Edwards: I was going to say this doesn’t help stop poverty …

Obama: (interjecting) at the Mill. Yes we know about the Mill, John. When can you say anything else?

Edwards: I didn’t know it was getting on your nerves, Hussein.

Obama: I am not a Muslim, Senator Cracker.

Edwards: (eyelids moving at 100 clicks per minute) I’m surprised at that comment, Hussein. I have stood up for the poor ever since ..

Obama: The Mill. Yes we know Edwards.

Hillary: Hussein, did you have a chance to answer my crack that you worked for a slum lord? By the way did you say you smoked crack in your book?

Obama: (glowering) You two are ganging up on me again. I’m gonna get you both. I’ll be president and I’ll have your FBI files. We are going to find out who got Paula Jones audited at last.

Hillary: Well, I wouldn’t know about that.

Obama: (sneering) So typical. You lie like your husband. The two of you.

Hillary: Can’t match you in the invent yourself department. You have reinvented yourself how many times Hussein?

Obama: (glowering) I was never a Muslim.

Hillary: I know that. But your book doesn’t say that. It says you went to Muslim prayers. Sounds Muslim to me.

Obama: You didn’t read my book, you read Steve Sailer trash talk my book. That guy writes for the white nationalist website Vdare.
Hillary: Well, it takes one to know one.

Obama: Are you saying I am a black nationalist?

Hillary: It sounds like it. It sounds like you go to the Church of the African National Congress.

Obama: There you go again disdaining Martin Luther King.

Hillary: King was in America. Nelson Mendela was in South Africa. By the way, I know Nelson Mendela, and you are no Nelson Mendela, Hussein.

Obama: (glowering) You keep calling me Hussein, and you may see Nelson Mandela unleashed.

Hillary: You mean the communist terrorist?

Obama: (sneering) There you go again with your putting down black revolutionaries.

Hillary: Do you see yourself as a black revolutionary Hussein?

Obama: (glowering) Don’t push it Hillary. You haven’t seen me when I get angry.

Hillary: I hope we don’t see that with you having your finger on nuclear weapons. Would you sell them to your church?

Obama: (sneering) Was that a programmed attack to get me angry. If so its not working.

Hillary: (In her girlish vein.) If you say so Hussein.

Obama: Make her stop. (sneering) She keeps pushing my buttons and making me angry. I can’t control myself. Bill told her to. I sneered about her being likable and they planned this. She’s white you know. They both are. My pastor warned me about white people. She deserves it. Make her stop. Make her stop.

The above is spoof or satire. Any resemblance to the actual Democrat Debate is purely from having watched it.

“Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in a forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.” Bloomberg.

%d bloggers like this: