Archive for the 'Tom Tancredo' Category

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?


Tom Tancredo Moratorium Idea’s Time Has Come

December 19, 2007

Tom Tancredo is a great American and a true conservative and patriot.   Tomorrow he is making an announcement in Iowa.  It is thought he will announce he is leaving the race.  Tom Tancredo should have been the Republican candidate and elected president.  He is the right man for his time on immigration and Islam. 

DENVER – NBC News is reporting Republican presidential candidate and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo plans to call it quits in his bid for the GOP nomination for the presidency of the United States of America.

Tancredo scheduled a Thursday news conference in Des Moines for a “major announcement,” but did not release any information regarding the meeting. He has consistently polled at the back of the seven-person GOP field.

Tancredo has based his campaign on opposition to illegal immigration, running television ads that link lax border security to terrorist attacks, rape and other crimes.

In a recent ad Tancredo ran in Iowa, he spliced images of tattooed Hispanic men, who he called “Central American gang members,” and bloody bodies, blaming “gutless politicians who refuse to defend our borders.”

His earlier ad said Islamic terrorists who “froth with hate” have entered the United States. It showed a hooded man appearing to blow up a shopping mall, leaving bloodied bodies behind.

We need leaders like Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode.  They tell the truth about Islam and immigration.

Comments at Raw Story that Tom Tancredo may announce he is withdrawing from the race tomorrow.

For now, bad candidates force out good in a form of Gresham’s Law of the Republican Primary. Duncan Hunter is the second best to Tancredo.  After that we have Ron Paul and Fred Thompson.  Of the top 5, Fred Thompson is the only one that is conservative.  The others are the new RINO-4: Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.   They are all for some of the people here illegally staying on.

USA Scores Tancredo as Excellent in every category.

No other candidate is as good.  The RINO-4 want to increase legal immigration.  This is a mistake.  The idea that illegal immigration is bad and legal good is a fallacy.  Both cause genetic replacement.


Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

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.

==We don’t end up as part of a mixture we go extinct.

Liberals promise our genes survive in a mixture.  But whether there is marriage or mixing or not, the initial genes present go extinct completely.   Tancredo’s moratorium proposal has to be permanent, and has to be zero, not 250,000.  Otherwise we go extinct.  This is true whether we mix or not in an intermediate state.


Tom Tancredo has asked Ron Paul to disavow the article written by Abelardo J. Arias, who many would identify as a Hispanic nationalist or even supremacist.

==Will Tom Tancredo endorse Fred Thompson?

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?

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.

Draft Left Defines White Nationalism

November 24, 2007

The left approximately follows the following escalating levels of attack on whites. This doesn’t apply in all cases, but illustrates the phenomenon. We can formulate the following

Leftist Escalation of Attack Words Hypothesis

  1. Bigot or Nativist: Under leftism, any white who speaks up or about what is happening to whites, without using the word white.
  2. White nationalist. When the white uses the word white and just reports or repeats a fact incident, the left calls them white nationalist.
  3. White supremacist. If they say it should stop, the left calls them a white supremacist. If they propose specific action to make it stop, the likelihood of being called white supremacist goes up.

An example is the attacks on Brussels Journal, Vlaams Belang and Paul Belien by some at LGF. They were all attacked as white supremacist for not just saying what was happening to whites in Europe, but that what is happening to whites in Europe should stop.

Lets analyze the above paragraph. LGF reports on what is happening in Europe and condemns it. What is happening to whom? Its being done to white Europeans. But to say that is beyond the pale to LGF. Why does LGF condemn what is done to whites but that to say the victims are white Europeans they condemn? If they condemn what is done to whites, are they not saying it should stop being done to whites? But don’t want to say that explicitly?

Why do they say that stopping what is being done to whites in Europe is white supremacy? Filip Dewinter said he didn’t want his daughter to marry a black, and that is called white supremacism by his critics. But isn’t it rational?

As Steve Sailer documents, regression towards the mean in IQ means that children of black parents regress towards the mean of black IQ which is 85, 15 points below the white average. Thus a child of a white and black parent will, from this effect, tend to have a lower IQ than the white average. LGF condemned Filip Dewinter for wanting to avoid that. Why shouldn’t he?

Isn’t it irrational to want a lower IQ for your grand child? It would seem the definition of rationality would imply preferring high IQ to low IQ. Since marrying a black implies regression towards the black mean of lower IQ of 85 as Steve Sailer points out, this is irrational. Note that the black IQ is 85 in the U.S. In Africa its much lower. Europe has immigration of blacks primarily from Africa, so the black IQ there might be as low as 70. There has also been much less time for mixing there than in the U.S.

Being white and knowing the truth about statistics and data sources already makes you a covert white nationalist in the mind of the left. If you say the word white in relation to the victims identity, the left goes crazy. Even though they publicize hate crimes with black victims, if a white talks about white victims they are a racist to white nationalist to white supremacist. Saying the victims were white as a stand alone sentence is considered racist by many.


If you tell what happens to whites in an incident or generally, the left calls you a bigot or nativist. If you use the word white while doing so, they call you a white nationalist. If you say it should stop, they call you a white supremacist. Listen to them. Observe them. This is real not just a joke. They are deadly serious.

==This is real

The EU has made it at least a draft policy to eliminate the white race in Europe and replace it with a mixed race.

VA quotes the following

EU Proposal for Mestizo Europe

BRUSSELS, July 27 (Reuters) – The European Union should admit up to 75 million immigrants over the next 50 years and be prepared to become a racially hybrid society, according to a paper to be discussed at an EU ministerial meeting on Friday.”

That’s a real government saying this as policy. They are doing it. They are doing it after the attacks in Malmo, London, Madrid, the car burnings in France, etc. After all this, they make it policy to eliminate the white race. This is the real thing. Its happening now. They are open about it.

The EU has taken ownership of London, Madrid, Malmo, the car burnings in France. The EU has said these are their policies. Listen, observe, believe. This is what is happening now. They say so.

==Following was after reading following discussion

So is there something wrong with the term ‘white nationalist‘? I would say only the fact that it is necessary to prefix the term with the word ‘white.’ Old-style American nationalism (which undeniably many people find a negative word, preferring the term ‘patriotism’ which they find more positive) implies an identification with the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of America.


MM identifies Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse as white-nationalist blogs.

Mencius Moldbug

I am not a white nationalist, but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I’m not afraid to link to them. The undisputed champion in this department is Larry Auster. I am also fond of Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse. The two central organs of intellectual white nationalism in the US are American Renaissance and VDare. If there is a European equivalent, it is probably Brussels Journal. On all these sites, you’ll find thoughtful, well-written commentary that will expand your mind. I’m not sure all these writers would accept the white-nationalist label – this is just my own description.


This is rather academic. Another approach is to say that white nationalism is what people who call themselves “white nationalists” believe. John Savage has a good link summary, featuring a friendly debate between Steve Sailer (who is perhaps best classified as a Sailerist, a label I’m not at all afraid to stick on my shirt) and the editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor.

Perhaps the best summary of the white nationalist case I’ve seen, however, is this essay by the Norwegian blogger known only as Fjordman.

==Old Atlantic and White Nationalism?

OA like Vdare does not adopt the term white nationalism. This is a term for discussion. I, like everyone else, am trying to sort this out in my mind as to where we are, where we are going, and what will happen. I appreciate the writing of Vanishing American and the others listed above on this subject.

I do support almost zero immigration, not 250,000 per year. Under the Wright Island Theorem and Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem that inflow would still result in genetic replacement and zero survival factors for genes, even allowing for some outflow. We are not at a point of circulation.

White nationalism as an idea I consider to be a positive one, not a negative one. I see nothing wrong with those who adopt the term, simply from doing so.

I hope the break up of the U.S. can be avoided. I don’t want to see an Islamic Europe that has British and French nuclear weapons and wants to attack New York City because of the people who live there, or other American cities. This does require people in the West to help each other survive liberalism.

The people of the West do have to wake up. It does need to keep white majorities. There is a reality outside liberal TV shows that can’t be ignored. We do have to say we want to keep white majorities to actually keep them.

Those who want to stop terrorist immigration need to recognize that to do that you have to stop all legal Muslim immigration. Under liberalism, the only way to stop all legal Muslim immigration is to stop all legal immigration.

People have to see an upside to their own efforts. Fighting in wars, being called bigot and racist to stop immigration are not something people will do so that liberals can stay on top calling them names. They will do it for the survival of their own, not just for some abstract principle the writers of All in the Family cherish. The purpose of life is not to avoid being called names by liberals. That is not the purpose of the universe either.

==Mexican and Muslim Nationalism are the real thing

==Can we test the hypothesis?

Because nativist and bigot are used almost as standard terms for anyone the left disagrees with on immigration, we would expect these terms to dominate the terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist”. So in looking at results we have to adjust for that.

Note the initial work didn’t look at racist in the searches, but that has been added in some cases. This seems to be the word of choice still. One can consider the hypothesis that the left just uses whatever word is in vogue, and they copy each other and the words they use are not used for their meaning but just because it makes them feel good to say them.

SPLC searches were not done initially but added after the strange Ron Paul results were found.


Results 1100 of about 67,000 for amren racist.

amren nativist

Results 146 of 46 for amren nativist.

amren “white nationalist”

Results 1100 of about 23,200 for amren “white nationalist.

amren “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 19,900 for amren “white supremacist.

==Jared Taylor

Results 1100 of about 35,200 for “Jared Taylorracist.

“Jared Taylor” nativist

Results 1100 of about 643 for “Jared Taylornativist.

“Jared Taylor” “white nationalist”

Results 1100 of about 11,200 for “Jared Taylor” “white nationalist

“Jared Taylor” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 11,200 for “Jared Taylor” “white supremacist.

==Lawrence Auster

Results 1100 of about 28,500 for Lawrence Auster” racist.

“Lawrence Auster” nativist

Results 1100 of about 677 for Lawrence Auster” nativist.

“Lawrence Auster” “white nationalist”

Results 163 of 63 for Lawrence Auster” “white nationalist.

“Lawrence Auster” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 807 for Lawrence Auster” “white supremacist.

==James Watson

“James Watson” bigot

Results 1100 of about 22,600 for James Watsonbigot.

Results 1100 of about 152,000 for James Watsonracist.

“James Watson” “white nationalist”

Results 162 of 62 for James Watson” “white nationalist.

“James Watson” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 820 for James Watson” “white supremacist.

==Peter Brimelow

Results 1100 of about 27,500 for Peter Brimelow” racist.

Results 1100 of about 9,590 for Peter Brimelow” nativist.

“Peter Brimelow “white supremacist”
Results 1100 of about 995 for Peter Brimelow “white supremacist.

A quote mark was left out after Brimelow, so we can repeat this:

“Peter Brimelow” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 611 for Peter Brimelow” “white supremacist.
Results 1100 of about 41,000 for Peter Brimelow “white nationalist.

==Steve Sailer

Results 1100 of about 108,000 for “Steve Sailer” racist.

Results 1100 of about 25,800 for “Steve Sailer” bigot

Results 1100 of about 745 for “Steve Sailer” “white nationalist.

Results 1100 of about 821 for “Steve Sailer” “white supremacist.

==Virgil Goode

Virgil Goode said stop Muslim immigration. He said nothing about whites or anything about race. But Goode did say stop something. What was he called?

Results 1100 of about 41,800 for Virgil Goode” racist

bigot “Virgil Goode”

Results 1100 of about 20,400 for bigotVirgil Goode”

Islamophobe “Virgil Goode”

Results 1100 of about 972 for Islamophobe “Virgil Goode”.
“white supremacist” “Virgil Goode”

Results 1100 of about 661 for white supremacist” “Virgil Goode”.

“white nationalist” “Virgil Goode”

Results 119 of 19 for white nationalist” “Virgil Goode”.

==Senator George Allen

Results 1100 of about 168,000 for George Allenracist.

Results 1100 of about 71,000 for George Allenbigot.

Results 1100 of about 15,100 for George Allennativist

Results 1100 of about 606 for George Allen” “White nationalist.

Results 1100 of about 15,300 for George Allen” “White supremacist.

George Allen just used the word macaca.

Results 1100 of about 164,000 for George Allen” macaca.

Results 1100 of about 783 for George Allen” macaca “white supremacist

The hate against George Allen and Virgil Goode was a national obsession. The instant association of both with white supremacism and white nationalism is extreme. The searches could be repeated with -ism instead of -ist. Both Allen and Goode are from Virginia.


Results 1100 of about 157,000 for Vdare racist.

Vdare nativist

Results 1100 of about 9,320 for Vdare nativist.

“white nationalist” Vdare

Results 1100 of about 10,100 for white nationalist” Vdare.

Vdare “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 12,300 for Vdare “white supremacist.

Vdare has used the word white, said what is happening to whites using the word white, said to stop it and proposed specific action. They are called white supremacist more than white nationalist.

==Lou Dobbs

Results 1100 of about 379,000 for “Lou Dobbs” racist.

nativist “Lou Dobbs”

Results 1100 of about 52,300 for nativist “Lou Dobbs”.

Lou Dobbs does not describe his victims as white and does not propose remedies for preserving whites qua whites. He emphasizes amnesty but also discusses guest worker programs as harming Americans, independent of being white or not.

“Lou Dobbs” “white nationalist”

Results 1100 of about 734 for “Lou Dobbs” “white nationalist.

“Lou Dobbs” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 32,200 for “Lou Dobbs” “white supremacist.

“Lou Dobbs” Nazi

Results 133 of 33 from for “Lou Dobbs” Nazi.

Results 124 of 24 from for “Lou Dobbs” “white supremacist”.
Some results talk about guests on Lou Dobbs show. But it seems that we are seeing the emergence of support for a hypothesis that they don’t stop at calling someone white nationalist but move right up to white supremacist.

== Pat Buchanan

Results 1100 of about 262,000 for Pat Buchananracist.

“Pat Buchanan” nativist

Results 1100 of about 42,500 for Pat Buchanannativist

“Pat Buchanan” “white nationalist”

Results 1100 of about 10,400 for Pat Buchanan” “white nationalist.

“Pat Buchanan” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 24,400 for Pat Buchanan” “white supremacist.

Results 154 of 54 from for “Pat Buchanan” Nazi.

Results 135 of 35 from for “Pat Buchanan” “white supremacist”.
Pat Buchanan has explicitly talked about what is happening to whites and the West and said it should stop. The results in his case are that he is called white supremacist more than white nationalist. So this supports the hypothesis.

==Tom Tancredo

Results 1100 of about 530,000 for Tom Tancredo” racist.

Results 1100 of about 83,900 for Tom Tancredo” bigot.

Results 1100 of about 45,800 for Tom Tancredo” nativist.

Results 1100 of about 808 for Tom Tancredo” “white nationalist.

“Tom Tancredo” “white supremacist”

Results 1100 of about 33,300 for Tom Tancredo” “white supremacist.

Results 113 of 13 from for “Tom Tancredo” “white supremacist”.

Results 139 of 39 from for “Tom Tancredo” Nazi.

==Brussels Journal

Results 1100 of about 182,000 for Brussels Journalracist.

Results 1100 of about 30,300 for Brussels Journalbigot.

Results 1100 of about 801 for Brussels Journalnativist.

Results 1100 of about 21,400 for Brussels Journalindigenous.

Results 175 of 75 for Brussels Journal” “white nationalist.

Results 1100 of about 793 for Brussels Journal” “white supremacist.

We see that there is almost immediate escalation from white nationalist to white supremacist.


Results 1100 of about 702,000 for BNP racist.

Results 1100 of about 17,800 for BNP “white supremacist.

Results 1100 of about 24,300 for BNP “white nationalist.

Results 129 of 29 for BNP Ballerinawhite nationalist

Results 162 of 62 for BNP Ballerinawhite supremacist.

==Ron Paul

Results 1100 of about 234,000 for “Ron Paulbigot.

Results 1100 of about 37,600 for “Ron Paulnativist.

Results 1100 of about 1,550,000 for “Ron Paulracist.

“Ron Paul” “white nationalist”

Results 1100 of about 51,100 for “Ron Paul” “white nationalist.

Results 1100 of about 58,200 for “Ron Paul” “white supremacist.

How did Ron Paul get labeled with over 1 million hits on racist and over 50,000 hits on White Supremacist? He is not even a particularly strong advocate for immigration restriction relative to the other Republican candidates. He is against amnesty, but has supported H-1B and legal immigration. The most he has done is be against anchor baby.

Hypothesis: The enormous number of hits on Ron Paul shows its being white and not part of the establishment that gets you labeled. It doesn’t matter what you really say or do. White, non-“mainstream” and you are racist and white supremacist to them.

“Ron Paul”

One of the hits:

Extremist Group Announces Speech by Congressman | Hatewatch

Ron Paul is not necessarily a racist for one speech with this group, The SPLC should come to a Ron Paul New York meetup group meeting or listen to those
Hypothesis: This is smear by association. Ron Paul will talk to anyone as a person and not call them names but say what he thinks without telling them what they want to hear. This makes him racist and “white supremacist”. The failure to condemn those he should condemn, and treating everyone with civility and talking to them on an equal level using logic and facts is all that it takes to be named racist and white supremacist.

“Ron Paul” Nazi

Results 14 of 4 from for “Ron Paul” Nazi.


Results 1100 of about 627 from for Christian Nazi. Christian Identity

Christian Meeting Turns Into Attack on Gays. BRIEFS. NSM Attack Sparks Rift · KKK Suit Ends With Award to Victims · Neo-Nazi Financier Arrested – 40k – CachedSimilar pages
Christian Nazi

Results 1100 of about 306 from for Christian “white supremacist”. The Big Lie

Murder victim Channon Christian was the focus of a rally by white parroting the key white supremacist talking point, characterizing the Christian-Newsom – 51k – CachedSimilar pages

One of the hypotheses was that just to know the truth and speak the truth would get you attacked.


Results 161 of 61 from for Jesus “white supremacist”.

Results 183 of 83 from for Jesus Nazi.


God Nazi

Results 1100 of about 143 from for God “white supremacist”.

Results 1100 of about 290 from for God Nazi.


Results 1100 of about 813 from for “white Supremacist”.

Thus a little more than 1 in 6 times that “white supremacist” is used by SPLC on their website, God is associated with it.

Results 1100 of about 1,720 from for nazi.

Thus a little more than 1 in 6 times that Nazi is used by SPLC on their website, God is associated with it.


God, then Christian and Jesus were searched at SPLC after the Ron Paul results were found and then others checked at SPLC for Nazi and “White Supremacist”.


The original hypothesis has some support but is clearly only partly valid. The main problem is that the left in general and SPLC in particular want to ramp up to Nazi and white supremacist rather quickly. The term racist is still the preferred term for any comment from the right on the topic of immigration, crime, etc. The Delaware State and Washington public school programs that teach all whites are racist also prefers that term to saying say that all whites are Nazi or all whites are white supremacists.

Despite the randomness in the use of these words, there is still some tendency to escalate in rhetoric in the way the original hypothesis outlined. If you talk about what is happening, say its happening to whites, say it should stop, and say the white race deserves to live and to continue, and that its appropriate to act to do so, you are almost certain to be called a bigot or nativist, and have a good chance of being called a white nationalist or white supremacist. Distinguishing between white nationalist and white supremacist may be something only specialists do. It seems once they go for “white nationalist” they immediately go to “white supremacist”.
Those who call for ending the white race are usually cheered. Its very rare they are criticized. Nor is any term like white ethnocide or racecide, whitecide or white zeroist used to describe this in any standard way. Even though its openly advocated, planned, and announced by the EU as draft policy.

Bill Clinton also cheered it and in effect admitted that it is the policy of the U.S. government to make whites a minority in the U.S. Since the US engages in affirmative action and other acts, this amounts to making whitecide US government policy. This is because the cumulative effect of this policy is to reduce European white fertility to below replacement, which it is now world wide in almost every country if not every country.

If you listen to what they say about whitecide, repeat it, say you disagree with that policy, say you want to oppose the policy and propose specific action to stop whitecide, then they say you are a white nationalist or white supremacist with a good probability. It would be interesting to check what SPLC and ADL use for these individuals on their websites. This can be done by adding site: and the name of the website.

Basically, if you speak up, say what is happening, say its happening to whites, say whites have a right to survive and propose specific measures to stop it, then they are going to go after you as a white supremacist. They also will go quickly from nativist and bigot right through white nationalist to white supremacist without pausing. They are ready to pounce on anything a party or well-known person says to immediately push them all the way to white supremacist. Bottom line, if you speak up and out they are going to target you and they want to escalate to white supremacist. Other searches would be on Nazi, which likely has similar results.


Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

The island model with stochastically variable migration rate and immigrant gene frequency is investigated. It is supposed that the migration rate and the immigrant gene frequency are independent of each other in each generation, and each of them is independently and identically distributed in every generation. The treatment is confined to a single diallelic locus without mutation. If the diploid population is infinite, selection is absent and the immigrant gene frequency is fixed, then the gene frequency on the island converges to the immigrant frequency, and the logarithm of the absolute value of its deviation from it is asymptotically normally distributed.

The above implies that if you have two genes in some frequency in the immigrant population, that under one way migration that frequency becomes the frequency on the island.

From PDF, conclusion:

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.


If the EU bothered to read science articles on the internet, they would find out the end result of their actions is not a new race of white and non-white, its just elimination of whites. That is what the math says. Its a theorem.

== Random, Emotion, Civility, Failure to Condemn Hypotheses

The above analysis and searches leads to some new hypotheses to consider.

Hypothesis: Racist is the preferred term for attacking whites who talk about any subject involving race, immigration, etc. If the person says something like macaca, stop Muslim immigration, don’t use the Koran for oaths, etc. they will be deluged with racist.

Hypothesis: The use of the words white nationalist, white supremacist is almost random and independent of what the person said. Instead, these terms reflect the emotion of the leftist.

Hypothesis: Nazi is also a word that just means the leftist is too angry (or full of hate) to stop at racist and has to say more.

Hypothesis: The attack on Ron Paul and association with racist and white supremacist shows intent to smear. Ron Paul is a very mild mannered man. His main issue is smaller government. He is also anti war. He is for immigration restriction. He is anti big government in all forms. He treats everyone with civility. He will, if he has time, talk to anyone about anything, listen to them, and treat them with civility and as serious whatever the person says. He does not condemn people. Ron Paul then says what he thinks and tries to use reason and facts to persuade those he disagrees with instead of calling them names. This whole set of attributes produces an extreme reaction of what might be called hate but definitely fear. His civility and rationality, fairness and openness to everyone threatens the whole rule by smear and fear official information complex.

Hypothesis: There is no strategy to keep from being called white supremacist, white nationalist, Nazi, racist, bigot, nativist, etc. if you want to say anything that is non-establishment or if you will treat anyone with civility and not condemn them as a person for what they say. If you adopt civility towards all, are willing to listen to anyone, and will respond with civility and reason, they will go ballistic and start calling you racist, Nazi, white nationalist and white supremacist.

Hypothesis: There are funded groups that try to organize attacks on leaders like Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, as well as Lawrence Auster, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, the BNP Ballerina, etc. These attacks follow a script and the script ends up calling them Nazi, white nationalist, white supremacist. The script doesn’t call for waiting at white nationalist, but as the numbers indicate, once they use white nationalist, they go to white supremacist. Racist is used without any compunction as an entry level word.

Hypothesis: Attacks using Nazi, white nationalist and white supremacist may be used partly to get attention from search engines. The use of the word racist doesn’t get enough identification. SPLC has a high revenue stream. Just using words like racist or bigot isn’t going to get as much attention in search engines as Nazi and white supremacist. They may want to use stronger terms to get more attention and then more funding. This also may be why God and Nazi go together so much at the SPLC website.

This is draft and preliminary. All statements should be restated as questions or hypotheses. This is subject to revision. All comments welcome. All other disclaimers apply.

Tom Tancredo against H-1B

August 5, 2007

Randall Burns by email has graciously supplied me with some information that makes the issue of Tom Tancredo and H-1B a little more complicated to understand.'s%20un-REAL%20GUEST%20Ac

and the following that I found in a search

Rather than characterize this material myself at this time, I will let the reader follow the leader, in this case Randall Burns, to these other sites.

== The post I had before the input from Randall Burns:

Tom Tancredo has on numerous occasions taken a strong stand against H-1B visas. The following shows that Tancredo has a strong record against H-1B.

Better Immigration has what appears to be an error in its grade for Tom Tancredo as a member of the Colorado Delegation.

For Tom Tancredo as a presidential candidate, they give him an A+ and a check on all items. This is a detailed list.

For his individual record in the Colorado Delegation they show him with a B+/C+ on visa workers.

Tancredo’s Numbers USA profile is all green as well:

This error has propagated to Wikipedia:

Tancredo was an early critic of H-1b expansion. However, his recent votes in that area have been only slightly more restrictive than the average member of Congress and earned a C+ from Americans for Better Immigration, a project of NumbersUSA, in that area of immigration policy.

In 2005, Tancredo sponsored legislation to eliminate H-1B visas for temporary workers[28].

Americans for Better Immigration has awarded Tancredo a career score of 100% and a career grade of A+ for his opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens [29], his efforts to eliminate the automatic granting of citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens[30] and for his support of the interior enforcement of United States immigration laws[31]. In 2007, they awarded Tancredo a “Congressional Immigration Reduction Grade” of A+.[32]

Randall Burns has written a recent column relying on the seemingly incorrect Colorado delegation record for Tancredo at Better Immigration, showing a poor voting record for Tancredo on H-1B. We find, as indicated above, with further research that that webpage appears to be inaccurate.

(In the google blog search engine, for Tancredo H-1B and some other searches, it picks up the Randall Burns quote, and thus gives an incorrect view of this column which finds no support for the poor record on H-1B indicated by the website Burns linked to.)

Tancredo Statement to House June 18, 2003

Reference: Congressional Record Online (highlighting added)

So I am saying that it is now approaching a million people, if not more, that are here under an H-1b program that are taking jobs in “that high-tech industry that no other American would take.” Does anybody really buy that?

What we know is that they are being given these visas because they will work for less. It is a cheap labor program.

Randall Burns]

Furthermore,despite his early attention to H-1b expansion, Tancredo’s recent voting record on H-1b expansion has been fairly weak. Paul has placed less emphasis on immigration, but has a stronger recent record on H-1b expansion.

Is this vote record on Tancredo accurate? It seems in conflict with the Numbers USA link above on Tancredo’s voting record and Tancredo’s statements on H-1B. The website Randall Burns references, Better Immigration, lacks a link to the House on actual votes of Tancredo.

Numbers USA does have links to the Library of Congress webpage.

====Excerpts Numbers USA follows==========

Cosponsored bill to reduce foreign worker importation by eliminating the H-1B program in 2005-2006
Rep. Tancredo was a cosponsor of H.R 1325, to repeal the H-1B visa category for temporary workers in specialty occupations. The H-1B program increases the number of high-tech workers allowed into the U.S; however, there aren’t that many high-tech jobs available in the U.S.Without evidence of a shortage of high-tech workers, and considering it is laden with fraud and abuse, there is no need for the H-1B program. H.R. 1325 recognizes the fact that the program is obsolete – if it was ever truly needed – and puts an end to the unfair job competition for America’s high-tech workers. Read a summary of the bill here.
Cosponsored legislation to protect American jobs by reforming the L-1 and H-1B visa programs in 2003-2004
Rep. Tancredo cosponsored H.R. 2849, the USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003. H.R. 2849 would have implemented reforms of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs aimed at preventing American high-tech workers from being displaced by foreign workers. The legislation included important protections for American workers, including prevailing wage and no-layoff provisions. It also extended current no-layoff provisions for H-1B dependent employers to all H-1B employers. A companion bill, S. 1452, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Dodd.
Cosponsored bill to abolish the H-1B program in 2003-2004
Rep. Tancredo cosponsored H.R. 2688, a bill to abolish the H-1B visa program. Introduced by Rep. Tom Tancredo, H.R. 2688 would have put an end to the H-1B foreign-worker importation program that primarily allocates visas to high-tech workers. The annual cap of 195,000 on H-1B visas returned to its previous level of 65,000 in October of 2003.

====Excerpts Numbers USA ends==========

Search H-1b at Numbers USA page on Tom Tancredo to find info on his record with links to

WaPo article
House Votes to Toughen Laws on Immigration
One Setback for Bush: No Guest-Worker Plan

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 17, 2005; Page A01

H-1B are part of non-immigrant admissions. For the US government, immigrant means here to stay permanently. Even though most H-1B’s do, they represent they are here temporarily.

2005 Admission Numbers Page 3 of pdf:

The following are the flow for 2005, not the stock of total H-1B’s in the US in 2005, which was larger.

Temporary workers/trainees and families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .883,706

Specialty occupations (H-1B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407,418

Spouses/children of H-1, H-2, and H-3 workers (H-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130,145

Edwin Rubenstein discusses these immigration numbers at Vdare

see also his displacement index

Search h-1b Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo: The Pause in Immigration that Assimilates us

June 5, 2007

In contrast to Senate Amnesty and Guest Worker and continued legal immigration, Tom Tancredo proposed a pause in legal immigration in the Republican presidential debate.
Against a pause:

Huckabee against pause.

Rudi Giuliani against pause. Compared Tom Tancredo to Know Nothing party. Backward looking logic. Giuliani advocated perpetual immigration. (This was proven mathematically to cause genetic extinction of those who come here and those who are here at any point in time. See Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem

McCain No barriers and fences.


Repost in part on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic:

Assume US population at 300 million was the maximum. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter then births = 4million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

The ratio of births to deaths is 2/4 or 1/2. The time from birth to parent is roughly 25 years. So in 50 years, one has 1/4, and in 75 years 1/8 of the starting genes.

Even if population went to 450 million, deaths per year are 6 million. With even one million entrants that gives a survival ratio of 5/6. So the number left after 25*n years is (5/6)^n which goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

It goes to zero rapidly in fact.

The above implies that any law with immigration above zero on a sustained basis is unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. Causing the extinction of a group is a violation of treaties the US has passed.

The current US law is thus void. So is the proposed law.

The drop in fertility from 1800 to 1990 in one graph shows this substitution effect pressure from immigration.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

Fertility falls except during the period of immigration restriction from the 1920’s to 1965. During part of that period fertility rose, which is called the baby boom. This was a departure from the uniform fall in fertility.

Fertility is now below replacement for many groups in accordance with the theorem. Sustained immigration is omnia cleansing.

The same applies in Europe where fertility is below replacement.

We must stop immigration, we must stop legal immigration and we must stop illegal immigration.  We can not have any amnesty or legalization.  We have to get the rate of illegal immigration to zero, not just slow it down.  We must get the rate of legal immigration to zero.  The theorem requires this until the world changes so much that two way equal migration is viable.  But that won’t be viable for centuries.

See also
1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

Republican GOP Presidential Debates Go Tom Tancredo

May 3, 2007

Islamic radicalism question. “How do we win the war on terrorism, when jihadis are so easily replaced, when killed?” (paraphrase). Brownback. Engage moderate Muslim regimes, in Pakistan and Egypt. Confront Iran.

Q: Zogby poll shows 10 to 12 percent support us in moderate countries like Turkey and Morocco, and rest hate us. A: We need to engage. Not much of an answer, blather.

Q to Huckabee. Would you have fired Donald Rumsfeld before election last November? A Yes.

Q: General shakeup in cabinet? A: Jim Gilmore, right hand in pants pocket. Engage in Middle East. Palestinians and Israels. Sunnis and Shiites.

Q: On Iran nukes. A: McCain, will wait until they have a nuke to respond. (That’s too late.)

Q: Help Israel strike Iran? A: Tancredo. Would depend on our analysis, but would support.

Q: Amend Constitution so foreign born can run? A: Huckabee Yes, McCain maybe, Guilani sort of Yes. Rest No.

Q: to Rudi, what did you learn about African American community or by interacting with them? A: Tried to move people out of welfare, followed Tommy Thompson program. Moved people off, crime down.

Q: Dislike most about America to Romeny A: No real answer.

Q: Global warming to Huckabee: A: Leave planet in better shape. No real answer on whether believes in global warming.

Q: Shortage of organs donated for transplant: A: Not president’s job. No cloning.

Q: Compassionate Conservative like Bush to Hunter: A Yes. Iran has crossed the line. US has license to take necessary actions to stop instruments being moved across line inside Iraq. Don’t wait for enrichment by Iran, move quickly. (Basically he would attack Iran. Way to go Hunter.)

Q: A: Ron Paul. To lower taxes, change policy.

Values segment.

Q: Roe v Wade overturn: A Rudi ok to overturn, but ok not to overturn. Court has to make that decision. States make own decision. Others want it. Tancredo yes. Gilmore is pro choice?

Q: To Romney. Personally pro life, but would protect the law as it was. Cloning is too far. Changed mind, is now pro life.

(The Republicans overall are the A team compared to the Democrats. They come across as presidential. They are all solid executives and solid on policy. Also much stronger. Dems lacked in strong leadership presences in their debate. )

Q: McCain restore unity? A I want to be president to defeat enemies and help allies. Take on radial Islamic extremism, which threatens our values and very life. Most experienced candidate. Don’t want to be proud of nation which thinks best years are behind us.

Q: Duncan Hunter. China dangerous. Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Q Unite? Huckabee: Morning in America. Vision for America.

Q Paul A: Military aggressiveness weakens national defense. Getting ready to go to war with 3rd world countries with minor forces.

Huckabee Q: Private employer finds homosexuality, can fire them: A: Leave it up to business. Answer is yes.

Romney: Separation of church and state.

Huckabee. My faith affects my decision process. I am troubled by someone who tells me their faith doesn’t affect their decisions.

Gilmore: Spending too much money in government. What is important to this country is not Karl Rove.

Q: Tom Tancredo: A Karl Rove would not be in the White House if I was. Differ on immigration.

Q: Guiliani. A. Neither party has monopoly on virtue and vice. Ran a city that was 5 to 1 Democratic. Most conservative govt last 50 years, reduced crime.

Q: Thompson: Vetoed 1900 things? Welfare reform. Reduced welfare in Wisconsin by 93 percent. Republicans lost way. Washington changed us instead of us changing Washington.

Q: Brownback. Corruption in Republican party. A: Also Democrats with money in deep freezes.
Q: Tancredo. Ethics violations. A: Failures by individuals. Not just Democrats. Don’t have to be a centrist. Had principles. Believe in your heart in things you say is what matters.

Q: McCain. A: Special interest have kept spectrum. Lost election 2006, lost way. Spending got out of trouble.

Q: Budget. What programs cut. A: Line item veto is best tool. Defense acquisitions.

Q: Huckabee. What letter grade on Iraq war handling. A: No grade until it was over.

Q: Romney. Judges. A: Will appoint pro life judges not just strict constructionists.

Q: Rudi. pro choice? A: Hate abortion. Encouraged adoptions, went up 65 percent, abortion down 16 percent. Support choice.

Q: Thompson. Racism a problem. A: A problem can do things about it.

Q: Tancredo. A: Who else should be nominee? Good men all here. Issues not addressed tonight, immigration reform. No more platitudes. No more not for amnesty but for letting them stay. Who is where on this incredible issue.

Q: Anti illegal immigration position? A McCain is for comprehensive solution for illegal immigration. Temporary worker program. 12 million illegals.

Q: Hunter: Global warming and need to be energy independent. Bring together to remove energy dependence on Middle East and help climate. Take taxes to zero on alternative energy sources. Support US industry not foreign.

Q: Ron Paul. Decisions. A: In medicine have to make decisions. Not go to war in Iraq.

Q: To Gilmore. Mothers nonviolent first time offenders. A: Insist on obedience to the law. Let courts and juries make decisions. When elected prosecutor, had to address them. Have to have the law apply. Was governor during 9-11 attack. Chairman on terrorism commission.

Q: Embryonic stem cell research. A: Romney against. Brownback against. Gilmore no.

Huckabee no. Hunter no. Thompson mixed. Adult. McCain: Fund this. Ron Paul. Shouldn’t be in Washington. Rudi: Support it with limitations. Tancredo: No taxpayer money.

Romney: Health program. Also tax relief middle class on investment income. Eliminate tax on dividends, interest and capital gains for middle class.
Brownback: Flat tax.

Gilmore: Cut alternative minimum.

Huckabee: Fair tax. Flatter, fairer, family, finite.

Hunter: US manufacturing move off shore. Dumb trade deal, our exports taxed twice. Eliminate all taxes on companies hiring American workers and making products in US.

Thompson. Vetoed 1900 items. Cut alternative minimum tax. Flat tax. Pay whichever is least.

McCain: Alt minimum has to be repealed. 3000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. Simpler, flatter, fairer tax.

Dr. Paul: Cut taxes. Also inflation tax.

Rudi: Adjust AMT. Get rid of death tax.

Tancredo: Fair tax. Repeal 16th Amendment. Consumption and income tax we will end up with. Deal with structural problem in mandatory spending.

McCain: Lieberman may appoint to Cabinet. John Chambers hire from industry. (But Chambers already works for the Chinese government?)

Hunter: Secure the border. 2000 miles porous. Hundreds of thousands come across border. Some come across from Iran, Communist China, Korea.

McCain: Yes believes in evolution. A: See hand of God at Grand Canyon. (Actually the number 1 shows God’s presence more than the Grand Canyon does.)

Rudi: Sunni v. Shiite. Sunni believe Caliphate selected, Shiites believe by descent. Slaughter of Shiites in early history. (Very good answer.)

Gilmore: Consistent conservative.

Ron Paul: Trust internet more than MSM. Never interfere with internet. Never voted to regulate internet. Freedom of expression. Pick and choose in MSM. Some friendly, and some not so.

Rudi: Weakness as candidate. Optimist.

Huckabee: CEO’s get bonuses and workers lose pensions in sellouts to overseas is wrong.

Tom Tancredo: Work to protect women’s rights. Abortion. Not right to kill another person.

Thompson. Over 3000 killed, several thousand injured.

Ron Paul: No national id card. Tancredo: no national id. But a verifiable social security card. Thompson no national id.

Pardon Libby: Judicial process should complete. Should not have prosecuted after knew someone else leaked. Brownback: No law violated. Gilmore. Pardon has to make case. Tancredo: Pardon Ramos and Compean first then Libby. Ron Paul: No pardon.

Romney and Rudi: national id only for immigrants, not citizens. (Silly distinction, meaningless.) Gilmore: No national id card.

Clinton back in White House: Romney, awful to have Clinton back in WH. Paul voted to impeach Clinton.

Rudi: Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Not mentioned by Democrats.

(Almost every answer possible, the moderator would respond to Tom Tancredo’s answer with a sneer and gibe and put down. Tancredo said, Clinton is measuring drapes, and Chris Matthews put Tancredo down, you really think he is doing that? And this was typical of Matthews treatment of Tancredo. This was not done to other candidates like this. Another one was when Matthews asked Tancredo about Rove, and Tancredo said this is the closest Tancredo had ever been to Air Force One. Matthews then derisively said that isn’t air force one to put him down.)

Mistakes by Bush: Huckabee, taking power from states. Hunter: losing industrial base. China is cheating. Enforce trade laws, Bush doesn’t. Brownback: 3 state solution in Iraq. Push political solution. Tancredo: No child left behind, medical prescription were overreaching. Tancredo on Iraq Matthews cut him off and went to Thompson: Medical diplomacy. Dr. Paul: change foreign policy. Robert Taft foreign policy. Privacy of citizens. Warrantless searches. Not abuse habeas corpus.

Matthews thanked Mrs. Reagen but not any of the candidates, until after this was written.

MSNBC: The 10 most prominent candidates were debating ET at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., north of Los Angeles. The debate, co-sponsored by MSNBC and the political Web site, is airing on MSNBC-TV and C-SPAN radio and streaming live on Mel Martinez of Florida, chairman of the Republican National Committee…

For former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the gathering is a chance to build momentum on recent polls that show him leading the field. A poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed Giuliani leading his closest declared rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, by 27 percent to 19 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed in third, with 8 percent.

The other candidates on the stage Thursday night are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Tommy Thompson, a former governor of Wisconsin and Bush’s first secretary of health and human services.

%d bloggers like this: