Archive for the 'Mitt Romney' Category

Romney H-1B and PhD’s for India and China didn’t make sense

February 6, 2008

Mitt Romney’s basic message was let’s bring as many people from India and China to America as we can. Let’s give them the Ph.D. education in science and math. Let’s give them the good jobs. Lets give them the computer programming jobs. Let’s transfer our know-how to China and India. Let’s send our manufacturing there.

This is what his message was. Romney said the smart people are not Americans, they are in India and China. This is also the good people. The message Americans are dumb and bad students and workers, lets replace them was his economic message. That is why it didn’t sell.

Issues sell if you have something to say that makes sense. Romney said he was the one to manage the economy. But his message was give the good education to people not in the U.S. Keep giving them our universities and industries and jobs. That message didn’t sell.

The real message that sells is to stop immigration and have wages go up here, keep know-how here and teach Americans in American Ph.D. programs in math and science. Most such programs are full of people from India and China and everyone knows it.

Everyone knows that Silicon Valley tries to not hire Americans as programmers. This was who Romney appeared to be, part of that world of venture capital taking our jobs and know how and giving them to India and China. So people rejected him.

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Women’s median is what men made in 1960. The labor force participation rates of white and black men were 80 percent in 1965 and are 74 and 67 percent today. See A Nation of Lou Dobbs Democrats link for links to data sources and graphs.

This is the economic fact reality from government statistics. Romney had no plan to change this but just continue it. He never said this is the problem and then how to fix it. Without a specific diagnosis there can’t be a specific remedy. Without a plan for a remedy its just a personality contest.

You can’t say Romney lost because people didn’t pick the better man. He should have had a specific plan. That plan starts with a diagnosis of what is wrong. That is that wages are the same as in 1973 for men even while productivity doubled and fewer men as a percentage have jobs. That is a sick society. That is the diagnosis. The cure is to stop immigration, stop student visas, keep know-how here, educate our people, keep our factories here and protect this country’s built up base of technology, engineering, industry, etc.

In the final analysis, Mitt Romney is still the Harvard MBA venture capitalist. He is the same as Bush in that regard, another Harvard MBA. Romney never spoke up against the interests of the venture capital firms that have grown rich from H-1B’s and know-how and factory transfer to India and China.

Mitt wanted the populist vote but only went half way. To be populist you have to stop the immigration that takes the good jobs, not just the bad ones and costs money for schools, ER’s, roads, police, etc. He failed to go against his VC Wall Street network, so the people didn’t vote for him.

Lawrence Auster has considered the view, without wholesale adopting of it, that its jealousy of Romney that is the problem. First look for what he did wrong, then blame it on jealousy. Romney has said he is good on economics, but the economy we have is good for the Romneys and bad for the rest, or increasingly tends that way. So he had to be able to figure that out, e.g. read the government statistics on wages and employment and figure out the solution, measures to push up wages and reduce income inequality, i.e. helping the people.

Romney didn’t do that. He didn’t advocate any program for the rest of us. So he was just a fat cat for fat cats as far as anything he said. So why not vote for the non-fat cat, John McCain?

You can only sell your self as the guy to fix the economy if you (1) diagnose it, (2) have a fix (3) it works for the voters not your fellow fat cats. Romney didn’t do that.

== In fact, its worse because of higher teen unemployment.

Not only is our state in time worse now than in 1965 or 1973, but we are headed in the wrong direction. We have

  1. Higher teen unemployment rates for black, Hispanic and whites today than in 1965.
  2. We have worse school conditions it appears, not based on stats from a data source, just perception.
  3. The good education in Ph.D. programs in math and science and engineering is for people not in the US at time of application.

Thus every statistic predicts it will get worse for unskilled and skilled jobs. Americans are not getting either one. They are losing out now and its getting worse because kids are employed at lower rates and are not getting the good education in science and engineering and math. Thus the trend will continue down.

We have to stop immigration, legal and illegal, and student visas for a long time to get back to 1965. Remember, what we were doing in 1965 is what got us here. So we have to have less immigration now than in 1965 to get back to 1965 and less than in 1965 to keep from going down. So we need to be close to zero immigration, e.g. 25,000 per year total.

In summary, we need to see what Romney failed to do and fix that before blaming the people who voted for McCain. We can’t learn from our mistakes if we don’t recognize them. We can’t fix them if we don’t diagnose them. Romney needs to diagnose his own mistakes just like he needs to diagnose the economy’s problem for non Romney people. He has failed to do both. So he lost.

McCain is naturally the person of the median wage and not Romney. Romney starts out as the fat cat for the fat cats. When he stressed immigration and Ph.D.’s and jobs for India and China not Americans at American schools he said he was still a fat cat for fat cats. This is what made Harvard MBA Romney rich and funds his campaign.

The money he spends just proves he made his money while the rest of us stood still. He has no program to change that. So people didn’t vote for him. They voted for McCain whom they believe, right or wrong, will understand that median wages are the same as in 1973 and 74/67 percent of men are in the labor force now compared to 80/80 in 1965. Of course, McCain married wealth and advocates the same immigration that is the problem. But unless Romney spells out the situation, and the graphs and numbers and the fix, McCain will seem the man of the people because he was a POW in Vietnam.

The election came down to McCain was the guy to help median wages rise and men get jobs because he was a POW. Romney said the economy needed to give away the Ph.D. fellowships to India and China and give them the know how and jobs. That is the Wall Street Silicon Valley VC mantra that got us here. People voted no to that. If Romney is so smart, they said, let him figure it out.


Romney Plan

  1. Americans graduate from college with liberal arts degree and 100,000 in debt.
  2. Students from India and China get living expenses and free tuition and health care for their families and a visa and no debt when they get their Ph.D.
  3. Microsoft hires the Indian and Chinese Ph.D.’s ahead of Americans who have only an undergrad degree.

Why should Americans vote for this Romney Plan? This is the university, Wall Street, Silicon Valley VC fat cat plan. This is why we have median wages the same as in 1973 for men even though productivity doubled. This is why fewer men have jobs today as a percentage than in 1965, with teens especially hard hit. That means it will get worse from here not better.

Romney’s plan is still substitute for Americans using immigrants, outsourcing and factory and industrial relocation and know-how transfer. Its still a plan for him and his fat cats to get rich. In this race, Romney is the fat cat and John McCain the guy who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton. That can’t be changed unless Romney says no to Wall Street profiteering by immigration and know-how transfer.

Because Romney made his money from c. 1975 when he got his Harvard MBA to the 1990’s and then since in the stock market he is the one who owns that men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Romney owns that men’s labor force participation rate is 74/67 now v. 80/80 in 1965. Romney owns that teen unemployment is higher.

Romney owns that Indians and Chinese are in Ph.D. programs all expense paid while Americans get undergrad degrees with 100,000 in debt. Romney owns that college kids fear being out of work with that debt so they have to take whatever job they get on whatever terms are offered. Romney owns the fear because he profited from it and helped fund the politicians who made it and he has been one.

Romney owns all of that because he has the 250 million made from it happening by his work as a VC and management consultant and HBS MBA/JD. Romney owns all that so he has to fix it by reversing all the things that caused it, immigration, student visas, outsourcing, know-how transfer, cheap and unfair imports, etc.


Conservatives should Vote Romney Super Tuesday

February 3, 2008

Romney has come substantially towards the conservative position on amnesty. Moreover, he will not try to estrange himself from conservatives as president on immigration. McCain is happy to triangulate himself between conservatives and the left. This often puts McCain on the left.

Triangulation McCain is not someone conservatives want as a leader. He is someone who is actively against us. We should vote for Romney who has campaigned as the conservative candidate. Romney is perfect as Lawrence Auster points out.

This has become a 2 man race for the Republican party. Huckabee is simply a stalking horse for McCain in effect. So its time to make a choice for conservatives, and that choice is Romney.

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.

Tom Tancredo Endores Romney not Fred

December 20, 2007

Tom Tancredo fears that Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain, HGM, could get the nomination. By endorsing Romney, Tom does the most to stop HGM. Is that right or should we support Fred Thompson or for some Ron Paul?

Let’s look at HGM first. McCain really is an amnesty heresiarch. So there is no point even voting Republican if he gets the nomination. Mike Huckabee and Rudi Giuliani have promised to oppose amnesty in name. Huckabee appears to support a touchback amnesty scheme. Giuliani seems to say secure the border and then have amnesty.

You can’t have any control if you have periodic legalization of any portion of those here. That makes it a lottery ticket. You lose nothing to try, so you might as well come as an illegal. This is a mistake. With any legalization we are in trouble. Thus Mike Huckabee and Rudi Giuliani are a mistake.

That leaves Fred. Fred has voted for H-1B, but he has been against amnesty in the past. Fred is for attrition. He says so explicitly.

Mitt Romney has said he wants to expand legal immigration. This causes our genetic replacement and suppresses our birth rate. Evidently he wants that.

Tom Tancredo evidently thought Fred was unlikely to win and he wanted to stop HGM with Romney. But how much of a trade is that really?

According to Roy Beck at Numbers USA, Fred is against amnesty and for attrition by enforcement, but none of HGM or Romney qualify. He has Romney as fair. This has not changed since Romney released his new plan. Numbers USA rates both Rudi and McCain as bad on amnesty. They give Huckabee a question mark. Romney is fair. Fred Thompson is excellent.

Why not hold out? Vote for Fred who is excellent on amnesty, attrition by enforcement. This is even better than Ron Paul who is good. Duncan Hunter is also excellent but is a long shot. Bottom line, why not vote for Fred Thompson?

Why not go with Numbers USA ratings? Those tell us Fred is excellent. They also tell us HGM are bad or extremely questionable. Romney is fair. Romney is avoiding the worst. Do we have to go for that now? If not, pick Fred. For me, my choice for now is Fred Thompson. Hold their feet to the fire. Isn’t that we said in the Senate Phone In of 2007?

Mitt Romney Ending Illegal Immigration Plan

December 17, 2007

Mitt Romney has a plan for “Ending the Tide of Illegal Immigration.” The words are important. It is a tide that we have been powerless or will-less to resist.

Romney charts the rise of illegal immigration through the 1990’s and 2000’s. It is now much larger. Romney does not identify the role of legal immigration in bringing illegals. As America becomes Mexico, its easier for Mexicans to come. Thus the barriers to entry are much lower. These include family, language, Univision, ideological support from Jorge Ramos and Maria Hinojosa who are Mexican nationalists.

Every corporate or government form in Spanish makes it easier for illegals. Legals are supposed to know English already. So the Spanish language options are for those here illegally in one way or another.

Hispanic supremacism is an ideology that Hispanics are not subject to the law of the gringo. The law keeping them out is racist so they are morally bound to violate it. This is a difference from 20 years ago that makes it harder to stop illegal immigration. The MSM basically agree with this attitude as do McCain and even Rudi Giuliani and Mike Huckabee: Stopping this immigration tide is racist. Although in Huckabee’s case you never know if its cufflinks in his pockets supremacy.

Romney claims to reject amnesty, but actually some here will be able to stay and get citizenship. This is a reward. Moreover, it keeps the hope and incentive alive. As long as some get amnestied you might as well come. There is also no longer any concept that those here since these amnesty bills were announced have zero eligibility.

Encourage Legal Immigration. Streamline the system to recruit and retain skilled workers and welcome the best and the brightest from around the world to our universities.

Because legal immigration leads illegal immigration you can’t stop illegal without stopping legal. Half of illegals are visa stay overs. To stop those you need to stop legal immigration. There are employer pipelines back to India and China.

There are university pipelines back to India and China from profs here who started there and recruit from profs back there for grad students and even undergrads. All of them then support each other in stay overs. This is done with federal dollars in grants for labs etc. The same pipelines feed into Silicon Valley.

Harvard MBA Romeny failed to mention all these problems. Nor how he would deal with them. Didn’t HBS teach Romney you have to identify the problems and the incentives to fix it?

==Romney Dec 14, 2007 Press Release

End Chain Migration. Governor Romney believes we should end the policy of chain migration that says if a child is born here to illegal immigrants then, by right, the entire family is brought in based upon that child’s citizenship. As a nation we can limit family sponsorships while at the same time promote legitimate family reunification.

Encourage Legal Immigration. Governor Romney will streamline the visa system to recruit and retain skilled workers in high demand by U.S. companies. He will also welcome the best and the brightest from around the world to our universities. We must stop illegal immigration so we can encourage legal immigration.

This continues the university pipelines to India and China. This continues “Irish need not apply” for jobs in computer programming or Ph.D. programs in science, math, engineering, economics and business. Romney is still being a good friend to India and China and giving them our know-how and closing the door on education of those who go to high school in America.

There are some enforcement features of the Romney plan that are beneficial. But it leaves in place the overall concept of immigration supremacy, that immigrants are the smart ones, vibrant ones, hard working ones, honest ones, non-violent ones.

The Romney verbiage also perpetuates the myths of immigration: That they are without racism or ethnic preference for their own. That they feel no loyalty to their parents or home country over America. Or if they have those, its the fault of white racism that they do. Everyone who comes here is the victim of white racism so they are entitled to discriminate against whites by affirmative action as well as in pipelines that exclude Americans or anyone of a different ethnic group.

==Numbers USA

Note this chart changes constantly, so you should save a copy if you study it now.

==Romney on Meet the Press

Tim Russert interview of Romney on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Immigration, an issue that is very important in this country and to the Republican primary voters. The Boston Globe interviewed you two years ago, and there’s a tape of that conversation where you expressed support for the policies of George Bush and John McCain on immigration. Let’s watch and listen.


GOV. ROMNEY: I think an amnesty program is what, which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens,

Romney its only amnesty if all can stay.

Unidentified Man: Mm-hmm.

GOV. ROMNEY: …and a walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed,

Man: Mm-hmm.

GOV. ROMNEY: …and, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are, are quite different than that.

Man: Mm-hmm.

GOV. ROMNEY: They require people signing up for a, a, well, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes…

Man: Mm-hmm.

GOV. ROMNEY: …not taking benefits–health, Medicaid, food stamps, and so forth–not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. And, and those are things that are being, being considered, and I, I think that that’s–that those are reasonable proposals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Reasonable proposals.


MR. RUSSERT: The Lowell Sun, your home–one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. “Governor Mitt Romney expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship.

“`I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.'”

This is George Bush and John McCain.

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let’s, now let’s look at those very carefully, OK, and you’re, you’re a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support–and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country–the 12 million or so that are here illegally–should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

Romney is really for amnesty. If some can stay, more will come to take their chance. This keeps the incentive to come. Stay for the next amnesty. Only if all must leave will the incentive of future amnesties disappear.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn’t have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home–they should go home eventually. There’s a set per–in my view they should be–they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship.

Sign up for citizenship while here. This is worse than the Pence Huckabee touchback amnesty plan.

But there’s a set period where upon they should return home.

Until the next one. Until the in-between amnesties we had in the 1990’s. Until the special AgJobs amnesty.

And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that’s a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they’ve brought a child to this country or they’ve had a child in this country, that’s, that’s wonderful that they’re growing their families, but that doesn’t mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We’re fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think’s awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It’s not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education,

Is this immigration supremacism? Immigrants are the real Americans or the real people? They are vibrant and we are not? The opposite of vibrant is dead or close to it. That describes our acceptance of genetic replacement immigration.

but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there’s an employment verification system to identify who’s here legally and who’s not. And then for the 12 million who’ve come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

MR. RUSSERT: Your views have been complicated by your own situation. This was The Boston Globe back in December of ’06. “As Governor Mitt Romney explores a presidential bid, he has grown outspoken in his criticism of illegal immigration. But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the ground surrounding his pink Colonial house.” That was a year ago. A year later, The Boston Globe came back and the same company and illegal immigrants doing the same work. Did you report that company to authorities saying–a year ago–saying they’re using illegal immigrants?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, it was, it was on the front page of The Boston Globe; a reporting was not necessary. But I have to clear up the most egregious error in that article. It said my house is pink. I would not have a pink house, I assure you. In an effort to–let me, let me describe the circumstance. And that is the very issue I just mentioned, which is we need an employment verification system in this country. I hire a landscaper to take care of my leaves and, and mow the lawn, and, and the landscaping company hires people to work for them. We’re certainly not going to have an America where a homeowner is expected or even thought of going out and saying, “Gosh, I see some workers here who have an accent. I want them to bring papers so I can inspect them.” As a matter of fact, I think that’s against the law in this country. And so, in this case, the, the landscaper, or the contractor has a responsibility to ensure that their workers are legal.

So after the first story came out, I met with the–excuse me, my son met with the landscaper and sat down with him and said, “Look, you’re a good person, and you’re a friend, and–but we can’t possibly have someone working at my dad’s house that’s not a legal alien, and so you have to be absolutely certain anybody working here is legal.” And he assured us that he, he would do just that. And he failed in that effort. He, according to the paper, he tried, he got documents, apparently, from all the people who, who he had work at our property. Apparently one or two of them had falsified their documents. That’s the very reason why we so desperately need in this country an employment verification system, so that an employer who’s hiring people can know who’s here legally or illegally. If we don’t have that, what it’s going to say to an employer is, you better not hire someone that has any accent because if you do, it’s possible they’ve counterfeited their documents and you’re going to get whacked and the people you work for are going to get whacked.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you then be in favor of a mandatory prison term for any employer who hired an illegal immigrant?

GOV. ROMNEY: Of course not.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, a mandatory prison term? No. But here’s what I would do. I’d say once you’ve put in place an employment verification system–and that’s a big phrase to describe something pretty simple. I’d say to anybody who’s coming here legally, they get a card with their name, biometric information, a number and their work status, and you–once you have those cards in place–that the only ones that can get them are people that are here legally–you then say to employers, “If you want to hire someone that’s not a US citizen with a valid Social Security number, you ask for the card. You then verify it on the computer, and you can hire them if it’s a valid card if they have a card. If they don’t have a card and you hire them anyway, then you’re going to be subject to the same kind of sanctions you get for not paying your taxes. And that’s typically fines, very substantial fines, they get larger and larger. But a first offense employer hiring someone who’s not legal, putting them in jail, I, I doubt that’s…

MR. RUSSERT: But if you wanted to end illegal immigration, if you…

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I’m sure, I’m sure, I’m sure…

MR. RUSSERT: …came down hard on employers.

GOV. ROMNEY: I’m sure capital punishment would come down hard as well, but I’m not, I’m not suggesting that kind of penalty. But I do believe that, that sanctioning employers with substantial fines–and potentially worse if, if they were egregious, continuous offenders could be called for. But what employers tell me, and I, and I talk to a lot of people in small business, they say, “It is almost impossible for us to know who’s here legally and illegally.” In fact, there’s a federal law–you’ll find this interesting–a federal law prohibits an employer from, quote, “discriminating against a document that’s given to them by someone applying for work.” So if they look at something that looks like it’s a forgery, they’re not allowed to discriminate against that document. This puts them in a real catch-22, typical government work. And what we have to do instead is say, “We’re going to allow you, as employers, to finally have access to an employment verification system that says who’s here legally and who’s here illegally. If you hire an illegal, now we’re going to whack you hard with fines and penalties,” and potentially even worse if they’re repeat offenders.

==Wright Island Model Sustained Immigration is genetic replacement immigration.

“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”

As pointed out in a previous post:

The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.

The Wright Island Model means Romney legal immigration causes our genetic extinction. The Wright Island Model means the Romney partial amnesty causes our genetic extinction.

The Mitt Romney plan calls for continued annual legal immigration above zero. The Wright Island Model says that this results in genetic replacement and the genetic extinction of all genes here, and ultimately of all the genes that come in any year. Any plan for the genetic extinction of all genes here is immigration supremacy. Thus the Romney plan is an immigration supremacist plan. This makes Romney still an immigration supremacist, because he advocates a plan proven to cause the genetic extinction of all genes now in America.

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]

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

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.

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

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

==Others on Confederate Flag question

==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?

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.

==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?

%d bloggers like this: