Trump Suggestions

(1) The biggest goal for Trump politically ought to be to expand his base - the best way to do that is to basically use the veneer of "reaching out" in order to forge alliances with the left on issues where we actually agree - in particular, when the leftist has not been hostile to Trump (Jill Stein) or when they can be used as a slap in the face to Conservatism, Inc.

Trump will have Trade Promotion Authority when he takes office (I think, when does the 2015 TPA expire?) If I were him, I would try to get a House-Senate delegation created to work on any new trade deals (as I understand it, TPA supposedly allows for more legislative input during the actual formulation of the deal). I would work to make certain that Jeff Sessions, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders were in the Senate delegation (all voted against TPA). The House Delegation could include Louie Gohmert, David Brat, and some well-known pro-labor Democrats.

This would build a sense that Trump wants to work with Democrats while he doesn't actually have to compromise on his priorities, and the inclusion of folks such as Sessions and Gohmert would insure that the Democrats don't try to sneak things into any agreement that would offend Trump's base (e.g. climate change regulations or immigration increases).

(2) Secondly, he needs to work to appease environmentalists with research into alternate energy worked into the Defense and NASA budgets. (Research how to make a solar-powered army base or how to use solar power for space stations or rockets, etc.). Spend a few billion on this, and make Jill Stein an adviser. Again, reach out to the other side without giving up anything on your core issues. Yes, Conservative Inc. will go apoplectic at spending a few billion on green energy, but no one else will care.

(3) Gingrich should get a position in the administration that puts him high up in NASA. Gingrich is a guy who likes big, crazy ideas, and that is what we need in NASA. Researching space bases? Mining asteroids? NASA should have something impressive as its ten-year goal, and Gingrich is the guy for that. Even if it fails utterly, I'm sure we'll get some useful new tech applications out of it.

(4) I think it's time we floated a proposal for a Christian Arab ethnostate in the Levant. We need a Lebanon that can serve as a haven for persecuted Arab Christians. There are a lot of rich Lebanese-heritage Christians (Darrell Issa being the wealthiest Congressman, Carlos Slim being the one-time wealthiest man in the world), and we need to get some Jewish historians who specialize in studying the Zionist Project that led to the creation of modern Israel together with them to talk about how land could be bought for such a project. I think a Trump administration could work on this behind the scenes.

(5) I think there needs to be a push for a national voter registration database (we can bribe states to join) where all citizens can get a voting ID number that can then be used to register, but will also be linked to information such as "any crimes that would deny you the right to vote, and where would you be denied" and "where have you voted in the past year." This number could be obtained at birth, but requires proof of citizenship to get. Free photo voter IDs that states would be required to accept as identification, but that any state or locality could require as proof of identity. Basically, we need to make certain that states can prevent voter fraud while also making the voter registration process more streamlined so as to be able to refute all claims of voter suppression.

That is all for now.

Where Trump can be Conciliatory

To environmentalists, he can include solar powered vehicles and bases in the military research budget, or the use of solar power in NASA's budget. Take the money from "diversity training," etc.

To neoconservatives, he can offer Condoleeza Rice the National Endowment for the Arts (she is trained as a pianist).

On voting, we need a new voting rights act that makes it okay to ask for ID to vote, to demand proof of citizenship to register, but also makes those things easily accessible and free of charge.

That is all - for now.

Unpatriotic Neoconservative

This cartoon is in response to David Frum shilling for Hillary.

That is all.

Two New Cartoons: "Honest Amptoons"

What if Ampersand and his fellow lefty cartoonists were honest?



In response to this.



In response to this.



In response to this.

More to come. Feel free to download, save, distribute. Will be on my DeviantArt page soon.

That is all.

Getting Grabby

People talk about how Donald Trump talked with Billy Bush, but guess what - both men and women sometimes talk that way. Here's the wife of Duran Duran frontman Simon Le Bon:



That is all.

5% "Increase" in Median Household Income Pure Illlusion:

Interesting take on supposedly good news.

Note: direct link has been blocked by Twitter.

That is all.

How to Use Twitter to Argue for a Cause

When trying to use Twitter to argue a position, one needs to consider what the goals are. Generally, there are at least 4 things Twitter is useful for:

(1) Disseminating information to people who support your position. Linking to articles, blogposts, etc., that provide support for a position allows people to improve their arguments, as well as provides them with things they can link to to support their position in the future. Finally, it helps to keep their moral high and to prevent discouragement.

(2) Providing support to your side in an argument. Joining in a conversation and supporting the people arguing for your side can help their morale and can give alternate perspectives for the other side. In addition, if you can provide links to articles, etc., supporting your side, you help to provide support for the facts of your argument (as well as helping the other people on your side in the future).

(3) Directly appealing to those on the opponents' side. Basically, trying to convince an opponent to consider your side. This requires being polite, and when possible appealing to your opponents' concerns that would ten to support your side rather than belittling the ones they disagree with. For example, when arguing with a liberal pointing out that the Koch brothers are supporters of mass immigration, and that it lowers wages, makes more sense than accusing them of wanting to commit white genocide.

(4) Discrediting your opponents. Generally, exposing the flaws of a someone's arguments (politely) to someone who supports them might make them less likely to trust that person (or at least their judgment) in the future. This is particularly important when arguing with someone who has some level of influence, as reducing their influence on others might make them change their attitude, or at least could reduce the damage they can do.

A good way to use Twitter, I would argue, would be to find conversations on a topic. Find ones where there is at least one person on your side. If you have an effective rebuttal to the person who is not on your side, reply to that person, and include at least one or two people on your side in the mentions. (The longer your reply, the fewer people you can use, obviously). One trick you can use to allow longer responses is to make a longer tweet, with your links in it, not responding to anyone, and then in your response, link to that tweet rather than stating your arguments in the response. The goal is to get other people who support you to retweet your position, or to further respond, backing up their arguments.

You can also include at least one other person in the tweet who disagrees with you, in hopes that one of your opponents may be provided with a reason to question the other. But do not include too many (having 2 opponents mentioned in one tweet is probably a good limit), because if a large number of them block you, you could get suspended. (This also means that you should only join one or two arguments at a time, so that you do not risk getting too many consecutive blocks). Also try to avoid arguing with someone who appears to be irrational or block-happy. You can also always click on your opponent's names later to see if they have blocked you. If you were able to join an argument without getting blocks (especially important; has the opponent tweeted since you joined the argument - i.e. have they been on Twitter and had a chance to block you but did not?) you can probably join another.

In between this, you can of course use Twitter to publicize links, or to post helpful things to people on your own side - for example, post an article supporting a position they have taken, or suggest a better way to phrase something. And of course, keep retweeting good tweets, etc. The point is, make your arguments only 10%-30% of your Twitter posting, so you don't seem to be always spoiling for a fight. I don't know for certain that this helps prevent suspensions, but I have not been suspended for more than 2 years using this strategy, so it seems to work fairly well.

Happy tweeting!

That is all.

NumbersUSA: Vote for Immigration Questions for the Next Presidential Debate

I don't know how effective it will be, but the "Open Debate Coalition" is holding voting on questions for the next debate, and NumbersUSA is asking people to go to the site and vote.

Here are the questions from a search for "immigration" in order of most votes.

Please vote for questions that are designed to make a pro-borders response look good. Do NOT vote for questions designed to make immigration control look bad. For example, "If you deport my parents, what happens to me?" is obviously designed to make immigration control look mean. Don't vote for that one, vote for one like the one that says: "How does encouraging unskilled immigration actually benefit minority Americans?" or "Do you support open borders?"

You can vote only once for a question, but can vote for as many question as you would like.

That is all.

Norman Podhoretz Endorses Trump

Norman Podhoretz recently said he is voting for Trump because he is better for Israel.

However, his son John Podhoretz has not endorsed Trump.

A scene at the Podhoretz household (note that little Johnny hates Russia so much that he has developed an aversion to theanimal associated with them; he has even ripped an arm off of his teddy bear):



That is all.

Immigration: SVU: A Nation of Immigrants

A new meme for our time.

Here's the big print version:

That is all.

Would White Identity Politics Attract More Minorities than Cucking?

One of the concerns people keep having about the GOP pulling into white identity politics is that it will drive away minority voters and make it even harder for the GOP to win elections.

Why? Why would white identity politics drive Asians out of the GOP when black identity politics isn't driving them out of the Democratic Party? How come the embrace of LGBT doesn't drive Muslims out of the Democratic Party or vice versa? If identity politics are so anathema to groups outside of the identity, how come the Democrats can form a coalition of mutually hating identity groupS? If you can have a coalition of the fringes against the middle, why can't you have a coalition of the middle and middle-friendly minorities against the fringe?

One reason why Asians have left the GOP is that by eschewing identity politics, the GOP offers nothing for any group which wishes to engage in identity politics. If whites won't stand up for their own interests, why would they stand up for those of an ally?

There is a lot of talk about Jewish ethnocentrism being a driving factor in the war on whites, but according to a Gallup poll, the most ethnocentric Jews, the Orthodox, favor Trump 3 to 1. People who are ethnocentric respect other people who are ethnocentric; as long as they define themselves by their love of their own rather than by hatred of those not their own. Talking a similar language allows you to understand each other. Talking universalism when everyone else is tribal just tells them "I don't want your respect. Go ahead and take advantage of me."

The key point: you cannot form coalitions with other interest groups until you have an interest group of your own. Cucking is not going to attract more minorities. A recognition of one's own interests matched with benevolence toward those who will make common cause with you very well might.

That is all.

Trump and Deportations

A few points on the best way to respond to questions about "deporting 11 million" that Trump flubbed so badly recently:

First, never indicate that anyone will definitely be legalized. It disheartens supporters and allows the enemy to start tearing at the weakness.

Second, always shift the discussion to the non-sympathetic cases - not just the criminals, but those who are on welfare or otherwise are a detriment to our society. Do not get suckered into talking about people whom your emotions will tell you we have to let stay, but about those whom most people will demand be deported. However, never imply that you are limiting deportations only to the cases that you mention.

Third, emphasize the logic of attrition through enforcement - point out that seriously enforcing employment laws will cause many illegal aliens to leave; seriously enforcing welfare restrictions will do the same. Even deportations will have a multiplier effect, because once we are serious about deportations, a significant number will leave on their own. Emphasizing this will blunt the impact of the "you can't round up 11 million people" line. But do not hint at it - specifically note that enforcing the laws will cause many to leave without being deported.

Fourth, emphasize the deportation of recent visa overstayers - make the point that a large portion of illegal aliens did not come here illegally, but rather stayed here illegally. Talk about deporting those people, and associate the idea of a deportation force with a group of people who coordinate such removals.

Fifth, shift the discussion about the sympathetic cases to the future. "Listen, perhaps there are some cases of people who are beneficial to the country and who have been here a long time, and we can work with those people - but before we do any of that, we need to get a handle on the people who are not beneficial to this country - and there are a lot more of those than the media would have you believe. Before we determine what to do with these sympathetic cases, we must first remove the non-sympathetic ones - violent criminals first, but then lesser criminals, people who are receiving government benefits - the idea that the vast majority of illegal aliens are good guys and we only need to remove a few bad apples - there are lots of bad apples. But we'll get rid of them first; then we can see whether or not anyone who is left gets to stay."

That is all.

Trump Should Say Immigration is About Americans & Mexicans versus Carlos Slim

The best way for Trump to gain Latino votes, and to alter the impression that people have of him that he is mean to immigrants is for him to reframe the issue so that he will pursue policies that will help the illegal aliens to do better in their home countries.

He can reframe the issue as working class Americans and Mexicans versus rich plutocrats on both sides of the border who use immigration policy for exploitation. Carlos Slim is the obvious biggest target by far. Essentially, Trump can say that in addition to protecting our border, he will push for anti-monopoly reforms in Mexico to end the economy-sapping telecom gouging by Carlos Slim, and to increase penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals.

By far, the most important element is the first - he ought to declare that in any renegotiation of NAFTA, he will insist that Mexico pass certain reforms. In general, trade deals will be used as a bargaining chip with any country sending us large numbers of immigrants. The primary focus of the speech should be on he fact that he is not looking to help U.S. workers by hurting non-U.S. workers, but to help them by stopping the massive profiteering of corrupt plutocrats. His reforms would make both average Americans and average Mexicans richer - it's the corrupt plutocrats who would lose out.

Also, it would make it easier to talk about being humane to illegal aliens - he could simply say something like "by the time my policies are done, life will be so good in their home countries they will beg to be deported!" The key is to make it seem that America First will benefit everyone else as well, so it will be harder to portray as selfish.

As a bonus, he could continually lambaste the New York Times as nothing more than a puppet of Carlos Slim, and every bad article about him he could respond with "of course, the N.Y. Times hates me, it's owned by a bad guy I am trying to stop from exploiting his people." Also, he should start calling it the Carlos Slim Times.

That is all.

What's Good for (Which) Jews?

It strikes me that a lot of people seem to say "all Jews care mostly (or entirely) about 'is it good for the Jews.'" The implication being that Jews are irrevocably the enemies of white Gentiles, and that all Jews share the same goals and ideas as the Jewish elites. Therefore, my thesis of JewE (elites), JewB (blue-pilled), and JewR (red-pilled) is wrong.

In fact, I would argue that even from a standpoint of "is it good for the Jews" the JewE/B/R thesis is quite apt.

That is because there are at least two definitions of what "good for the Jews" means.

Elite Jews for the most part view the issue as "what helps the most powerful Jews become more powerful;" i.e. what puts the most Jews in the Fortune 500, puts the most in the Supreme Court, etc.

Most rank-and-file Jews define "good for the Jews" as "makes the most broad-based prosperity and safety for the Jewish people." That is, reduces the risk of antisemitic incidents (by any group) and makes the general safety of communities where Jews are likely to be as safe as possible (having violent criminals roam around or other things that reduces the safety of the general community is no better for Jews in that community than for anyone else).

The difference between red-pill Jews and blue-pill Jews to the extent that ethnocentric concerns drive them is that the red-pillers understand that the goals of the elites do not necessarily translate to the goals of the rank-and-file and that the blue-pillers assume that they do. That is, blue-pillers assume that more power to the most powerful Jews will automatically trickle down to the Jewish masses. Red-pillers see that their elite's goals often involve sacrificing their lessers to enhance their position vis a vis other elites.

It occurs to me that you can see this same pattern with the elites of many ethnicities - blacks come to mind. White Gentiles less so in some ways and more in others, because of the fact that their elite don't really pretend to care about whites in general, so blue-pillness among white Gentiles is less about faith the racial solidarity of the elites with the people and more about a desire to be polite.

That is all.

Upside Down World

This latest episode of Non sequitur by Wiley Miller at first glance appears to be reasonable. It's making fun of a ridiculous policy that does not seem to make sense at all.

That is, until you consider that it is in response to the ridiculous idea that a guy with a penis and testicles is a woman if he - oops, "she" - feels like one.

That Wiley Miller sees nothing ridiculous about a "woman" with a penis and testicles speaks volumes about the sickness of our society.

That is all.

On (((Jews))) - (E(Jews)E), (B(Jews)B), and (R(Jews)R)

Being somewhat connected with alt-right (don't know if I am alt-right, neoreactionary, etc. or what. Don't really care which label fits me), it has come to my attention that there is a lot of discussion about the role that Jews play in the current anti-white (anti-white Gentile, anyway) fever.

Thinking about things, I have come to a conclusion.

I think that most Jews who take an interest in internal European and America politics can be divided into one of three camps:

The Jewish establishment. JewE, if you will. These are the people who lead the big, well-funded groups, as well as those who actively agree with them. These largely do to one extent or another fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to tear down white Gentile/Christian culture wherever it exists, and do see racial minorities and third-worlders as weapons to be used against white Gentiles. Examples would be Abe Foxman, Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Chuck Schumer. Other examples would be Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, but Adelson's recent willingness to support Trump has opened the possibility that he might be willing to prioritize other things over inundating the U.S. with human flotsam and jetsam.

Blue-pill Jews. Basically, these are rank-and-file Jews who more or less follow JewE, but largely out of inertia, out of an assumption that they are looking out for their best interests, or other mundane reasons. There is no active hatred of Christians or white Gentiles, although there may be a back-of-the mind fear that drives them to the establishment for protection. I don't know if I have that many examples, because by definition I am mostly talking about people who are not setting agendas but following others.

Red-pill Jews. These are Jews who realize that Western culture is a good thing, and to the extent they are ethnocentric, as good for the Jews, and either see Jewish culture (and Israel) as part of the west or as symbiotic with the west. They see Islam as the great threat, and see white Gentiles as being, on the whole, friends or potential friends. I would include bloggers Nicholas Stix, The Mad Jewess, Mickey Kaus, and Ilana Mercer among this number.

I think that with the increasing Muslim population, Europe's Jews are increasingly getting red-pilled.

In many ways, American Jews are sort of like the GOP in 2004 - rot at the establishment top, lots of people following "their team," and only a few really caring about the problems that they are heading into.

So, if you want to use the ((())) symbols around Jewish people, may I suggest (E()E) for Establishment types (I sort of like the name "JewE"), (B()B) for blue-pill types (largely the only (B()B) types that would be prominent enough to mention would be "man on the street" interviewees or maybe someone who once wrote a letter to the editor), and (R()R) for red-pill types.

That is all.

The Best Quote from "A Few Good Men"

Capt. West: Commander Galloway, why don't you get yourself a cup of coffee.
Galloway: Thank you, sir, I'm fine.
Capt. West: Commander, I'd like you to leave the room so we can talk about you behind your back.
Galloway: Certainly, sir.

That is all.

Recall Grover Norquist

Dear readers:

I should have dealt with this earlier, but, if you are a fully paid Life Member of the NRA or have been a member for 5 straight years, you can vote for their board of directors and should have received a ballot in the MArch 2016 magazine.

In the ballot is a recall measure for Grover Norquist, due to his alleged connections to groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Regardless of the veracity of these charges, Norquist is a known proponent of amnesty (see him promote the "Gang of Eight" bill here), which would destroy our gun rights by changing the electorate.

I remember calling the NRA and urging them to take a stand on the Gang of Eight bill. They declined, unlike Gun Owners of America (guess which one will and which one will not be getting my donations in the future). Maybe Norquist is part of the reason why they don't see immigration as affecting gun rights?

Anyway, I encourage you to mail in a "Yes" vote to recall Norquist. Remember, it has to be received by (not maild by, received by) Saturday, May 1.

That is all.

The Point of "Cuckservative"

Someone on Twitter asked me what the point of name-calling, e.g. "cuckservative" is. Won't the term simply alienate people instead of change their minds?

I think this misses a vital point. While there are people who are mistaken on the amnesty question and on racial questions in general (that is, they think that aping the liberals is going to help the Republicans win, or believe that the liberal paradigm for race relations, e.g. "denouncing white privilege" is correct, there are many who are simply cowards who would sell anything out not to be called racist, or who are taking positions to please donors and who do not actually take their positions based on well-considered morality.

The point in such cases is two-fold; first, to counter the idea that hating your own people in the name of "equality" is a good thing. For someone to celebrate the idea that their ethnic group is going to become a minority in a country they created is insane. It is not something that anyone has done throughout history or that it is assumed to be normal that someone does. When someone says that it is racist to be against an immigration policy specifically because it will make whites a minority in the United States, the best response is to point out how ludicrous it is to call someone a name for wanting to keep the majority population of America what it has always been (more or less, obviously we are not going to revert to the WASPiness of the 18th and 19th centuries). The point is to have a counter-insult to racist.

The point also is to point out that many of these "conservatives" are determined to pander to those who hate them. They will reach across the aisle to Democrats who are not willing to reach back in return (note how all the Democrats in lockstep refused to defund Obama's executive amnesty), and are constantly trying to find ways to reach out to minority communities that have no interest in voting for anyone who does not support a generous welfare state and affirmative action, and more-or-less become a Democrat, while ignoring reaching out to their mostly white base. In other words, the term refers largely to "conservatives": who are desperate for approval by liberals and who will concede whatever they need to in order to get approval.

Note how in 2012 the Romney campaign was more interested in reaching out to blacks and Latinos than in trying to reach out to the disaffected Paul voters who were concerned about interventionist foreign policy.

"Cuck" is an appropriate term, because it suggests a hatred or indifference to one's own blood, and to one's own friends, while supporting those who have no interest in being friends. The point of the term, when used amongst allies, is to remind one's self of what the problem with the traitors within are. When used at others as an insult, the goal is to make "cuckish" behavior as unacceptable as "racism." Maybe we will alienate people, and maybe people will embrace the term. But long-term, the effect will be the same as the term "racist." People will try to deny that they are "cucks" as as people realize that they cannot escape disapproval by conceding to liberals.

The idea, in short, is to reverse the dominant paradigm of political discourse, which always favors liberals.

The fact of the matter is, the current immigration debate reflects an America that is being cuckolded; its people are being replaced by foreigners, whose children we are told we must support. As a Steve Sailer commenter pointed out in 2014, we lack a vocabulary to describe this, and so we are defenseless to stop it. The term "cuckold" isn't even in popular circulation to describe literal individual cuckolding, and we are supposed to think it fine to force a man to pay child support for the product of a wife's infidelity, with absolutely no negative consequences for the faithless wife. Terms such as "cuckservative" are a way of regaining that vocabulary, and of trying to reframe the debate on terms that are (a) favorable to conservatives, and (b) reflect the unstated realities of our current situation.

That is all.

Trump on Immigration in 2013

Some helpful links that Ann Coulter re-tweeted from Trump:

Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet

Terrorism is Only Secondarily a Foreign-Policy Issue

Articles like this one by the Christian Science Monitor usually involve the Conventional Wisdom types expressing surprise that after the Paris attacks, in a time of crisis, people are still flocking to Trump and not to the "moire serious" candidates such as Jeb or Marco (to be fair, Ted Cruz is also sometimes mentioned).

Whiole Greg Sargent does not express any surprise over it, he also to some extent misdiagnoses the problem as being entirely due to Trump's "strong man" image; that is, people care less about policy than about the fact he makes a big noise about it.

There is a more important point, though, that I think most people are not getting. Most pundits, and many politicians, insist on seeing the Paris attacks and terrorism in general as primarily an issue of foreign policy; we are being attacked by a foreign power and need to retaliate; we need to conquer the foreign power that is attacking us.

In reality, the problem is the enemy within; many western countries have large, unassimilated, and unassimilating Muslim populations. When we are told that most of the Paris attacks were carried out by French and Belgian nationals, the media try to distinguish them from immigrants in order to make us believe that the problem is our own people; in reality, what it proves is that the enemy has infiltrated us. But there is an importance to the distinction; it's not that immigrants are not dangerous; it is that the problem with Muslim immigrants is not merely one of whether individuals have terrorist ties, it is whether or not people of Muslim background are likely to become, in essence, fifth columnists in the future. In other words, there is an explicitly racial/cultural/religious angle to the political question of immigration, and more importantly, IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RACIAL/CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS ANGLE.

What we are getting from the "serious people" is that the primary solution here is to destroy ISIS and other radicals at the source and to remove their threat. While definitely this is a part of the war on terror, it is unclear whether this will accomplish anything as long as we are letting millions of Muslims into the West, many of whom share, if not the exact ideology of ISIS, ideologies of conquest that are just as deadly to western civilization.

And the problem here is that among the most ardent hawks are also those who most want vastly increase immigration (e.g. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Bob Corker, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush). The fact of the matter is, the most effective way "not to fight the terrorists here" is NOT TO BRING THEM HERE, and "fighting them over there" is a secondary tactic.

After 9/11, we were assured by all of the usual suspects that illegal aliens were "willing workers" and that we should distinguish between desperately needed low-pay farmworkers and people with bombs strapped to them or some such. The point being that controlling our borders was not a good way to keep terrorists out, so instead of course we ought to focus on fighting wars in the Middle East. Many came to feel that these wars at least in part served as a distraction to stop the public from demanding actual homeland security policies that dealt with the immigration angle. Being asked to have security guards look at you naked is not too high a price to pay for security, but not letting American corporations get foreign labor for a dollar less an hour is off the table.

What we are getting from Trump is someone who is talking about protecting the homeland first and foremost. He was talking about immigration before any of the other candidates made it a big deal. People sense that he is interested in avoiding Islamic terrorism via immigration policy to a greater extent than any other candidate, and therefore they flock to him, not to "serious" candidates like Rubio, whose Gang of Eight bill would have vastly increased immigration, including giving administrations far more leeway in granting refugee and asylum claims. Almost certainly the Gang of Eight bill would have brought more Muslims into the United States. So no one trusts Rubio. Similarly, Bush's love of immigrants over and above American citizens makes people distrust him on this issue.

In other words, Trump is dealing with the issue that most Americans think is most behind the terrorist attacks. Being a "serious candidate" means dealing primarily with an issue that most Americans think is at best a back-up to the primary issue and at worst a distraction. Hence Trump's success.

That is all.

Fighting Foreign Worker Expansion

The Obama Administration is proposing new regulations that could turn the F-1 Optional Training Program into backdoor H1B visas, allowing companies to undercut American workers. Comments can be submitted until November 18. The Stop Overreach website has a streamlined process for making comments. I would suggest emailing copies of your comments to you Senators and Congressman, and ask them to use their influence to turn the regulatory agency's ear. Here (in bold) is a sample of my email to Senator King including the original comment:

I recently submitted the following comment (tracking no. 1jz-8m8d-3dz9) to regulations.gov regarding ICEB-2015-0002-0011, Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and CapGap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students. I am opposed to expanding this program, which is being used as a backdoor H1B visa to allow companies to undercut America workers' wages. I ask that you use your influence as a Senator to help make certain that the regulatory agencies address my concerns. Thank you for your time.

[My Real Name]

Text of comment:

The Optional Practical Training program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign students for up to 1 year or up to 29 months in certain fields of study. The program was meant to provide foreign students with on-the-job training that would benefit them when they return to their home countries. Because of that, these students were exempted from paying payroll tax or being paid the prevailing wage. Instead, this proposed rule, which will extend the program for STEM students to 36 months, would create a bridge to a longer-term work visa and eventual green card. Given the prevailing wage exemption and the payroll tax exemption, this gives companies a direct incentive to hire foreign workers over U.S. workers. Not only does this hurt hard-working Americans, this is a direct violation of the foreign student's pledge when they received their student visa to leave the country upon graduation.

It's hard enough already for American workers, especially recent U.S. graduates, to find work, and this rule would make it even more difficult by adding unnecessary job competition to the mix. We have already heard about Disney using H1B visas to fire American workers in order to use foreign workers whom they can pay less. We should not be creating more ways for companies to undercut Americans.

I am sending a copy of this to my Representative (Chellie Pingree, ME-01) and to my Senators (Angus King and Susan Collins, ME). I believe that Congress ought to be consulted on a policy change such as this, and moreover that programs like this ought to require Congressional authorization, which was never obtained in the first place.

That is all.

Congressman a Democrat? How You Can Still Fight Against Ryan Becoming Speaker

Mickey Kaus is telling folks to inundate their Congressman with calls telling them they do not want Paul Ryan for Speaker.

It's a good strategy, and if it doesn't keep Ryan from the Speakership, it might at least get him to reduce his demands.

But what if your Congressman is a Democrat, and you don't see the point in calling politicians you are not constituents of?

Money is the best way I think to show your opinion. Give to them campaigns of Congressmen who have come out against Ryan. Although VDARE has expressed concerns that Webster may be wobbly on amnesty, at this point a vote for Webster is a vote against Ryan, so an endorsement of Webster is considered a good thing. Then post to their Facebook and Twitter feeds that you agave and why (and if there is a comment section on their "Donate" page, comment there as well).

People so far to give to:

Louie Gohmert (explains lack of support for Ryan)
Steve King (Endorsed Webster)
Ted Yoho (Ditto)
Walter Jones (backs Webster, and has blasted Ryan)
Thomas Massie (Massie Won't Back Ryan for Speaker)
Daniel Webster the guy running against Ryan.

There are others, but these are the ones I have noted and donated to so far. You can make your own list or donate to anyone against Ryan who is not on the list. As more opponents come out, I will try to add to the list, although I may not be able to donate personally to any more than these 6.

If you give, make certain to state on Facebook or Twitter that you gave and why (their pages ought to be accessible on their websites). This will send a message to other House members that you intend to help people who are against Ryan, which is as much influence as you probably can have outside your own district. It also might send the wobbly ones a message that you might help a primary challenger if they vote for Ryan.

That is all.

One Reason Why Trump's Kelly Comments Did Not Hurt Him

Because most people are less concerned with the blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's whatever than they are with the blood that came out of Kate Steinle's bullet wound.

That is all.

Question on Margin of Error

When we see a margin of error in a poll, is it really the same for any points within a poll? In other words, if a poll has a 3% margin of error, does that mean that someone who has 5% in the poll has a 95% chance of having between 2% and 8%, or is the 5% 3% only valid for someone who gets 50% in the poll? I am under the impression that the further away you are from 50%, the smaller the margin of error should be, but I am not certain about this.

Any statistic geeks want to explain it to me?

That is all.

Did Steve Sailer Column Inspire the "Cuckservative" Label?

Am I the only one who thought of this column when I first began to notice the words "cuckservative," "race-cuck," etc.?

I particularly like this line:

Do we even have the language anymore to articulate the concept of being personally cuckolded? Is the word “cuckold” even in current circulation?

Well, maybe it ought to be. And now it is being brought back.

That is all.

Huckabee and the Holocaust

I don't see what all of the brouhaha over Huckabee's comments about Obama leading the Jews to the ovens is about.

Huckabee's position is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will use it against Israel. Now, you can debate the merits of this belief. Personally, I don't think the Iranians will do it; they are evil, but they are not crazy.

This doesn't mean I want them to have nukes. It would probably lead to an arms race and get Iran a lot more influence over the Middle East. But I do not think they are Bond villains.

However, if you think they would use it against Israel, the comparison is perfectly apt. As I said, you can debate the merits of what Huckabee is suggesting. But if you think that Iran would nuke Israel if given a chance, then the comparison is quite apt. The only difference is that the deaths will be over a much smaller period of time.

I just don't see how comparing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians being vaporized and more civilians dying a slow agonizing death from radiation poisoning to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust.

That is all.

Cuckservatives Gotta Cuck

Interesting piece by "hateful Heretic" on the new term "Cuckservative."

In case you missed it, a "cuckservative" is a (normally establishment) conservative who wants to make conservatism friendly to multiculturalism and "anti-racist" (a code word for anti-white).

The good news is that the campaign has been noticed. Matt K. Lewis and Erick Erickson have both commented on it. They would not comment on it if they weren't worried it would affect people.

Join the Hashtag campaign on twitter: #cuckservative.

That is all.

Nigger.

The Hulk Hogan incident has reminded me of this earlier post about the Paula Deen incident.

It is said that if you want to know who is in control, figure out who you are not allowed to criticize. I might say, find out who you are not allowed to insult.

There has been a big brouhaha over making pictures of Mohammed as a way to stand up to Muslim terrorists.

Well, in Black-Run American, you are not allowed to criticize blacks, or to insult them.

If people are having their lives ruined because of perfectly natural statements made in private, it is time to once again defy the PC police so they don't nigger everything up, especially with the new Obama directive to niggerize all of the neighborhoods in America.

Nigger. I mean, that is all.

What to Do if You Get a Letter from Jeb's "Right to Rise" SuperPac Asking for Money

Don't throw it away (not if it is postage paid, anyway).

Instead, print out the following picture and mail it back, along with all of the paraphernalia that came with the letter to you:



That is all.

An Example of How Anti-Amnesty Activists Screw Up

24ahead.com often talks about how conservatives miss opportunities to discredit amnesty supporters by being stupid in their questions. To demonstrate, I wish to show you this article about a town meeting featuring Lindsey Graham and John McCain back in 2013 when they were promoting the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill.

Graham, lying, told the crowd this:

“Who’s got the ‘Remember 1986’ truck out there?” Graham asked. “If we remember what we did not do in 1986 and get it done this time, there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration, and that’s how you get 70 votes (for the bill in the Senate).”

The attendee replied:

“With all due respect, you didn’t do the job in 1986 and I doubt very seriously that you’ll do the job again,” he said to applause.

John McCain shot back, again lying:

“All I can tell you is, sir, that we negotiated with every segment of America’s economy, and the religious side, and every other part of America, and all of them, literally without exception, are in support of this legislation.”

The thing is, there were several responses that would have hurt them much more.

Firstly, when Graham suggested that we "do what we didn't do in 1986," someone should have asked specific questions to discredit him, like these:

* Senator Graham, you say that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." Exactly what do you plan to do different to avoid another wave of illegal immigration?

At this point, if he answers anything that involves making legal immigration easier, the answer back ought to be something along the lines of: "If we wanted a massive increase in immigration, wouldn't we not care about illegal immigration?"

* Senator Graham, the main thing we did wrong in 1986 was give the illegal aliens legal status first, then schedule enforcement for later. Every report out currently says that you plan to give the illegal aliens legal status before increasing enforcement. Doesn't that undercut your plans to "avoid doing what we did in 1986?"

(The report (April 4 2013) came out earlier than the town meeting (April 29 2013, the Monday before the April 30 article)) - if there were a town meeting a few weeks later, after the bill had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (or partway through markup), one could also have asked:

*Senator Graham, you claim that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." However, the main problem with the 1986 amnesty was that it put legalization before enforcement, and during committee markup, you helped to shoot down any amendments that would make legalization dependent on border security. Doesn't that mean you are trying to repeat the mistakes of 1986?

Admittedly, the third question would not have been possible at the town meeting, as it occurred priot to committee markup. But the first two questions could have been asked with the information that was already well-known. Doing so, and spreading a video of the resulting dissembling, would have hurt McCaion and Graham;'s credibility.

Secondly, McCain's statement that support of the Gang of Eight bill is unanimous is laughably ludicrous. One could have simply asked him:

* McCain, you say that every part of America is in support of the Gang of Eight legislation. Why don't you include the American Legion, which came out against your legislation back in February?

* McCain, you say that support for this bill is unanimous. However, it is well known that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was locked out of the negotiations over the bill, towards which they have expressed severe skepticism. Isn't it possible that you have manufactured unanimous agreement by deliberately avoiding meeting with anyone who disagrees?

With such inveterate liars, a little prior research and an ability to bring facts to bear would go a long way to changing the debate.

That is all.

Antisemitism and Antijaphetism - Two Sides of the Same Coin

This is a cartoon comparing antisemitism and antijaphetism. Antijaphetism refers to a prejudice against European Gentiles (white Gentiles). I am not the first to use the term. The etymology basically parallels that of antisemitism - whereas biblically, Jews are the sons of Shem (Semites), Europeans are the sons of Japheth (Japhetites or Japhites).

The man on the left is a white Gentile, accusing Jews of assaulting white women, general greed and avarice, and of controlling the U.S. government. He denies the Holocaust, using the term "Holohoax" and "Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupied Government). The man on the right is Jewish, and is accusing white Gentiles of oppressing non-whites (a Latino, a black, and an Asian), and of general cruelty.

I do think that one of the major problems in our current society is antijaphetism, and that there is a lot of antijaphetism in the Jewish community - at least among the elite, those who have influence in our society. On the other hand, I think that responding to this with a general anger at Jews is counterproductive. The fact that Chuck Schumer or Sheldon Adelson often conform to antisemitic stereotypes ought not be held against Ben Stein, Don Feder, or Nicholas Stix.

That is all.

Cartoonist John Cole's Anti-American Act

After seeing this little scribble re-printed in my local newspaper, I decided to take action and make my own cartoon response:



It is time that all who criticize "inaction" on amnesty or who talk about a "do-nothing Congress" or who in other ways suggest that we owe illegal aliens something, or that there is some failure in not passing legislation to open our borders, are confronted with the evil of what they are really suggesting. Traitors to our nation ought not to be given a pass.

That is all.

Some #BlackLivesMatter more than others

This cartoon is about the Jamiel Shaw Jr. case; a black teenager who was killed by an illegal alien who should have been deported but was not. You can read about it here. His father, Jamiel Shaw Sr., spoke recently to Congress about the problem of illegal aliens, including criminals, not being deported by a government that doesn't care to enforce the law. Lest anyone think this is mere Obama-bashing, Shaw was killed when George W. Bush was President, and the problem is much bigger than just one man, although Obama has gone far beyond his predecessors.

The first woman is meant to be Sabrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, and the second Lesley McSpadden, Mike Brown's mother. The man in the final two panels is Jamiel Shaw Sr.

Lefty is the guy in the red shirt.

That is all.

The Ultra-Naive Rod Dreher

One problem with the conservative movement is that too many folks are determined to believe in the good will of the other side, no matter how much the other side shows their bad will.

This is especially a problem with The American Conservative, which has turned from a paleoconservative publication (Taki's and Unz.com seem to fill the gap) to essentially a wishy-washy pseudoconservative magazine that wants to appear reasonable.

This particular article by Rod Dreher, where he insists that it is bad form for Giuliani to suggest that Obama does not love America, when he clearly hates America, at least in its current form, shows his extreme unwillingness to face facts.

So here is my opinion of Rod in that article:



That is all.

If Immigration Restriction is Hypocritical, so Is Opposition to Rape

That is all.

Rod Dreher the Referee, or Why We Lose - Because We Fight to Lose, not to Win

In case the cartoon is unclear, the donkey has taken off his gloves and is hitting the elephant with a folded-up folding chair, like the ones against the wall.

After this post (I will be making a new post on the matter with a cartoon soon), I want to explain why, although I like Rod Dreher, I find him exasperating.

I think this post by Dreher sums it up. He thinks that whether or not he rule of judges over issues such as marriage gives correct decisions, legally or otherwise, socons are morally bound to follow the liberal interpretation of the Constitution and to try to fight them using the rules they determine. Combined with the first sentence of the last paragraph of this post:

Nothing left to do but pray that Anthony Kennedy will be charitable towards religious liberty when imposing the terms of our defeat.

We see a man who wants to lose, or at least who doesn't want to fight to win. He wants to be able to say he lost gracefully and played by the rules. That's fine in a game. In real life, other than real moral rules (as opposed to strictures your enemy wants to place on you) you do what it takes to win when survival is on the line.

That is all.

The Stop Amnesty Challenge Goes On

Blogger 24AheadDotCom has long advocated for a plan to stop amnesty that involves publicly discrediting the people pushing amnesty. The idea essentially is to make it untenable to support amnesty by forcing amnesty advocates to answer questions publicly (or be seen explicitly not doing so). Along with this is the idea of trying to find people who support an amnesty advocate, and discredit the advocate in their eyes.

One idea for this is the Stop Amnesty Challenge. The basic idea is to offer a prize to someone who asks a hard question to a prominent amnesty supporter on video. The goal is to make it a question that is resistant to glib responses, so that the amnesty supporter can't go into a pre-rehearsed answer and either looks like a fool or has to shut up or so obviously dissemble that they lose credibility. More importantly, the idea is to get people with influence (e.g., Ann Coulter) to do this.

Most importantly, the idea is to discredit amnesty supporters to those who support them. Bernie Sanders or Richard Trumka are not going to care that Breitbart is against amnesty or that Fox News is (if it actually were). They will care if Huffington Post readers demand that columnists explain why they support positions that hurt working Americans (or if Huffington Post columnists ask the question themselves).

The original idea for this used a cash prize of $350. While the original tilt bounty page for getting the prize has expired, I will continue the contest by agreeing to pay it personally. The prize is still offered to the anyone who will take it up (up to five people); I will pay the money upon confirmation that you have posted a video that meets the qualifications on YouTube. general qualifications are listed on 24ahead.com's old Tilt page here, in the "How Do I Claim the Bounty section. I will also award prizes for questions sasked of prominent non-politician amnesty advocates. Contact me to know if someone qualifies. I can be contacted on my Twitter account @Glaivester, my email Glaivester at Yahoo dot com, or by commenting on this post.

However, the general idea right now goes beyond this specific contest. We need in general to demand that people with influence ask politicians these tough questions, and that lobbying groups such as NumbersUSA start campaigns to do so. This is a good start.

So please, let's start participating in the Stop Amnesty Challenge today.

That is all.

Do I (a Former Charter Subscriber) Regret No Longer Subscribing to The American Conservative nor Donating to it?

No.

That is all.

Dancing on the Graves of Americans Killed by Illegal Immigrants

Here is my latest cartoon, lampooning Chuck Schumer. I'll grant that the labels are a little redundant and Uncle Sam is stating the obvious, but I figure that makes it a little more like the 19th century political cartoons beloved by history books.



That is all.

A Modest Suggestion

I suggest that anyone who defends Obama's bringing up the Crusades in his speech regarding ISIS should be asked, "would you mind if in giving a speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day, he insisted on juxtaposing the Holocaust with the firebombing of Dresden and the millions of Germans who died in the post-war forced relocations?"

That is all.

That's a Woman, Winston Smith!

It seems to me that the major goal of trans activism is not that people are so terribly concerned about something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people. Rather, it is about forcing hoi polloi to submit to whatever the elites want to shove down our throats next.

 It is very much like the scene in 1984 where O'Brien forces Winston to lie about how many fingers he is holding up. So here is my cartoon on the subject. Note, there is full-frontal male... er... "female" nudity in the cartoon, because there is no way to make this point without it, but it is only in the form of a copy of Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man..." er... "Vitruvian Woman," so it ought to be okay.

That is all.

Atlantea the Beautiful

Given how nice Ex-Army and Baloo have been about putting my cartoons on their blog, I feel I should reciprocate by plugging Baloo's cartoon blogs:

(1) Atlantea the Beautiful - focuses on Obama and his depredations against America in an allegorical way.

(2) Baloo's cartoon blog - mostly single-panel gag cartoons.

That is all.

Meanwhile, in Hell

Before I post this cartoon, let me say that I believe in a literal Hell. In fact, there are at least two literal Hells, the one where the unsaved go when they die (Sheol), and the one where they are cast at the Last Judgment (Gehenna). I also think that it is most likely that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and the people who killed them are literally in the first one right now (I hope that they believed on Jesus and were saved in the last moment, but it seems unlikely). So don't think that I take Hell lightly. But I believe that it is a reality to be acknowledged. Denying its reality will not save people. Acknowledging it at least provides the hope that people will seek a way to avoid it, and hopefully find the True Way, Jesus Christ.

Also understand that I am a Baptist who believes very strongly in the saved/unsaved paradigm. Although those who go to Hell do go there for their sins, avoiding sin is not what allows you to avoid going to Hell (because no one avoids sin perfectly, and "the best you can do" is not good enough). Moreover, once saved by Grace (by believing in Jesus - that is, acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God the Son, Who died to pay for your sins, and trusting in Him to save you through His death) no amount of sin will send you to Hell - although sin has other eternal consequences (loss of possible rewards in Heaven, missed opportunities to share the saving Gospel with others).

So I am not trying to imply that the specific wrongs I criticize were somehow the deciding factors in why I am portraying these people in Hell. Nor am I happy to see them there. Nonetheless, I believe one takes one's sin with him into Hell, so it is an appropriate place to confront them with their sins.

So here is my latest cartoon on the Charlie Hebdo massacre:



Translation was done using Google Translate with a little proofreading, so pardonez-moi if there are errors:

First panel: Top caption reads "Meanwhile, in Hell," "Charlie Hebdo" is portrayed on the left, specifically (left to right) Bernard "Tignous" Verlhac, Stephane "Charb" Charbonnier, and Georges Wolinski (Jean "Cabu" Cabut and Phillipe Honore, also killed in the attack, are left out, as are the non-cartoonists). "The killers," are on the right, specifically (left to right) Chérif Kouachi, Saïd Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly. Charb ask one of the killers (presumably Cherif, in any case he is asking the question in the singular) "Does it bother you, using the freedoms of a society to destroy the foundations of the same society?"

Second panel: Cherif answers back, "That's funny, I was going to ask you the same thing."

Please if any of my readers know French, let me know how good the translation was.

That is all.

I Am Charles Martel

Below the break is my commentary on the Charlie Hebdo affair.  Given that we are supposed to show our courage by being willing to display offensive cartoons, I have decided to post the following cartoon, which is offensive to both Muslims and to those who are mourning Stephane Charbonnier.

You have been warned.

That is all.

Boehner Gives the Base a Salute

This is how I see John Boehner:

If you have a Republican Congressman, please call him and tell him to vote for Gohmert for Speaker:

Congressional contact information

That is all.

#BlackLivesMatter

This cartoon sums up how a lot of people feel about the "#Blacklivesmatter" movement:



Also on DeviantArt (you may need an account to see it there). That is all.

#HandsUpDontBeatPeopletoDeathwithaHammer

This is artwork representing the hashtag written in response to the Zemir Begic incident, in which a white St. Louis man beaten to death by two black and one Hispanic teen with a hammer.

Here it is on Deviant Art (you may need an account to see it there)

. That is all.

Governors Should Use "Prosecutorial Discretion" to Fight Amnesty

Republican governors should immediately declare that if Obama launches an administrative amnesty, they will do everything in their power (prosecutorial discretion, pardon power) to avoid penalizing American citizens who commit crimes against illegal aliens. Murder one? Pardon. Rape one? Pardon.

Say that if Obama wants people who commit crimes against illegal aliens prosecuted, he'll have to file civil rights charges on every single case. The state government won't help him a bit.

It's time to fight back.

That is all.

Jeanne Shaheen's Polio Hair-Splitting

Chief counsel for Jeanne Shaheen Judy Reardon recently made fun of Scott Brown for referring to the polio crossing the border, because enterovirus B68 is not the virus that causes traditional polio. This is rather like arguing over whether or not a caribou is a deer. I questioned her on this hairsplitting on twitter, and in response, she blocked me. The conversation is here.

I suggest that people ask Shaheen, or her advisors, on Twitter or at campaign stops, etc., how enterovirus B-68 is substantively different from polio, and to ask why Judy Reardon blocks people asking her about it. Remind her that this disease may be responsible for dozens of paralysis cases.

That is all.

Encouraging the Establishment GOP to Turn Against Amnesty

Recently, John Boehner came out with this statement:

Obama Administration Hiding the Truth about Immigration Actions

Today I donated to Boehner's campaign and to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

I left messages with Boehner and with the NRCC as well as posting on their pages on Facebook, explaining why I donated and why I have not done so in the past.

While I doubt that this shows an actual change of heart on their part, I do think that positive reinforcement is a good way to change behavior. If things go back, I'll stop. If anyone else wants to join me in contributing to the NRCC as positive reinforcement, please do so.

That is all.

Encouraging Democrats to Turn Against Amnesty

Sorry about not getting to this sooner.

In the recent ( ~3 months ago) House vote to defund DACA, four Democrats - Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, John Barrow of Georgia, and Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia - voted with the Republicans to end DACA.

Here are their Twitter accounts:

John Barrow Congress Campaign
Nick Rahall Congress
Collin C Peterson Campaign
Mike McIntyre Congress

Here are the campaign sites of the three who are running for re-election. Please donate generously, and use their Twitter, Contact forms, or Facebook pages to make explicit why you donated to them.

John Barrow Facebook (Campaign page)
Collin C. Peterson Facebook (Campaign page)
Nick Rahall Facebook

That is all.

Why I no longer subscribe to, or give any money to, The American Conservative

Asinine articles like this one from a Cultural Marxist who blames the second amendment for black violence.

That is all.

Help 24AheadDotCom Stop Obama's Amnesty with the Stop Amnesty Challenge

This is a reprint of a post on 24ahead.com's website:

The Stop Amnesty Challenge

It's vitally important to stop Obama's amnesty-by-executive-order now. If we don't stop it now, Obama could legalize millions of illegal aliens and rolling that back is going to be very difficult.

Thankfully, there's a way to stop Obama's amnesty right now. To make that happen, I'm announcing the Stop Amnesty Challenge. The winner and runner-up of the Challenge will win cash awards, but more importantly will have done a great public service.

Summary of the Challenge

The best way to stop amnesty is to challenge its supporters and show them wrong to their audience. If a politician makes a misleading claim, there's a good chance his audience doesn't know it's misleading. If we then show how he misled his audience, that will tend to keep the politician from making the same claim. It will also reduce the politician's influence over his audience. Other politicians will avoid making the same claim. That's how to stop amnesty: show how amnesty supporters are misleading about what it would do. And, the best way to show that is by asking them tough questions designed to box them in to admitting how they're misleading. As a side-effect, asking politicians tough questions will also help further discredit the media.

How To Enter

To enter the challenge, you'll need to attend an event with a nationally-known politician and ask that politician one of the questions we'll provide. You'll need to get the question and any answers from the politician on good quality video with clear audio. The terms of the Challenge are listed here and by entering you agree that you've read and understood those terms.

The Awards

The First Place winner will receive a cash award of $350. The Second Place winner will receive a cash award of $150. Obviously, you aren't going to be able to retire on those amounts, but your primary motivation should be doing the public service of blocking Obama's amnesty-by-executive-order.

The Questions

You can enter the Challenge by asking any one of these questions:

Question about Ebola and skilled immigration
Question about Obama's executive order on immigration
Question about subsidizing American farmworkers
Question about immigration reform being an amnesty for employers
Question about the DREAM Act
Read those through and decide which you feel most comfortable asking. As part of the Challenge you'll need to get a definitive answer from the politician, but each of the pages linked above has likely things the politician will say and how you can respond. Other questions can be provided or those questions can be modified on request.

Got Questions?

If you have any questions about the Challenge, don't hesitate to ask. For quickest response, tweet any questions to @24AheadDotCom_ .

Can't take the Challenge?

If for some reason you can't take the Challenge but still want to help stop Obama's executive order amnesty, you can still help out by promoting the challenge on social media or to your email contacts.

Resources

See the terms of the Challenge here.

For a FAQ about why asking tough questions will work, see the FAQ section here.

That is all.

Help 24AHeadDotCom Fight Amnesty!

Please go to this page to find out an exciting way to fight amnesty.

24AHeadDotCom's plan is to ask tough questions of amnesty supporters and to get them on the record to discredit them. There's a $350 bounty for it and a second $150 bounty. Details included on the page.

Don't worry about the deadline. It will be extended.

If you can't do the asking, consider donating to increase the number of bounties or maybe to increase the size of the bounties offered. I've given $480.

I'll have a more detailed post out soon.

That is all.

Dance, Grey Lady, Dance!

This cartoon depicts Mexican monopolist Carlos Slim. who is the second largest owner of the New York Times since he helped to rescue it from bankruptcy.

It is widely believed that he is in large part responsible for the Times' bias in favor of mass immigration, as he profits mightily off of Mexicans going to the U.S.

Note: I used the spelling "Grey" because it looks classier that way.

Cartoon also found at DeviantArt. That is all.

Vultures Can Give Milk!

This is a depiction of the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT). ALthough much has been made of the indirect George Soros connection, the connection to Peter Singer is much more direct. Singer is a major GOP donor (which means a RINO-maker) who is trying to push the party into supporting amnesty. He is also known as "the Vulture," at least partially for his insistence on collecting debts from the Argentinian government to the point where they may simply default on all debts.

I would have included Robert Gittelson, but he died a week or so ago , so it would be in poor taste.

I've also posted it on DeviantArt.

You may have some trouble seeing it there if you do not have a DeviantArt account, because I've given this a moderate mature content reading for nudity, in case the image of people suckling at a cow's udder (connected to a vulture) is too suggestive for some people.

That is all.

Accusations of Racism: Tool of Elites to Beat Down Working Class Whites

This is my response to this ridiculous Stuart Carlson cartoon.

Apparently Carlson thinks that the fatcats are trying to distract from their cupidity by blaming immigrants - in reality, mass immigration is a policy that the fatcats support, because it helps them reduce wages and to screw over American employees. They would never try to stir up resentment of immigrants, because it would damage their agenda. In reality, the fatcats would distract workers away from the immigrants and accuse them of racism if they did anything that threatened their cheap labor gravy train.

So this is the more accurate version of the cartoon.

Also on DeviantArt.

That is all.

Articles on How Mass Immigration Hurts Blacks

Here are some articles that suggest that mass immigration is problematic for black Americans:

Black Workers Claim Racial Bias at Farms

Black Leaders Warn Congress About Gang of Eight Bill's Impact on Black Americans

[Mostly Black] American Workers in Georgia Sue Farmers for Hiring Foreign Workers over Unemployed U.S. Workers

That is all.

About that Lindsey Graham Victory

With all of the disruption by the establishment over the historic loss of Eric Cantor, I have heard lots of people opining that Lindsey Graham's victory in South Carolina shows that people really are not against amnesty for illegal aliens.

B.S. Let's see about that race:

According to Ballotpedia, Graham spent a total of $3,500,510.52 on this campaign by April 15 of this year (I'll get better, i.e. more recent, stats when they become available). Lee Bright spent $217,467.71, Nancy Mace spent $388,435.38, Richard Cash spent $251,359.33, Det Bowers $44,808.21, Bill Connor $109,303.92, and Benjamin Dunn $0.00.

That means that as of April 15, Graham had spent $3.5 million, while his opponents had spent a total of about about $1.01 million (exactly $1,011,285.00). So Graham outspent his opponents by almost 3.5 times, he' an incumbent, and still he only got 56.3-58.4% of the vote (reports vary and the final official tally is not available as far as I can tell).

Don't let the Graham situation detract from the defeat of Cantor. Graham was expected to win. His win is not significant the way a win by an outraised 25 to 1 and outspent 40 to 1 previously unknown challenger is.

(Note: I will try to get all of my figures updated, and everything sourced, in the next few days as more information becomes available). That is all.

Andrew Sullivan Cannot be Let off the Hook

Any time Andrew Sullivan has another of his fainting spells over how evil traditional morality is, one simply needs to ask him this:

How many people have you personally infected with HIV because you were too selfish to use condoms (click on link and do a search for the word "condoms")?

That is all.

Time for Pushback: Impeach Obama

Through his DHS chief Jeh Johnson, Obama is floating a trial balloon of ending almost all remaining deportations. The only answer is impeachment.

Please call Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, and the House Judiciary Committee and demand that they threaten impeachment if the Obama administration decides to "curb deportations."

Speaker Boehner: 1-202-225-0600
Majority Leader Eric Cantor: 1-202-225-4000
Majority Whip McCarthy: 1-202-225-2915
House Judiciary: 1-202-225-3951

That is all.

Happy Passover/Easter!

And by the way, saying "Happy Passover" is not merely a sop to my Jewish readers. The fact of the matter is, from a Christian perspective, the Passion and the Resurrection are deeply tied to Passover, which was given as a type of the sacrifice to come. Understanding Passover helps one to understand the context of Christ's life, and of the events that God brought to bear in order to make His propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.

HE IS NOT DEAD, HE IS RISEN!

That is all.

Please help Frank X. Roche Beat Amnesty Whore Renee Ellmers

Treason Lobby servant Renee Ellmers is way ahead on fundraising.

Please donate to her primary opponent, immigration patriot Frank X. Roche.

That is all.

The Rape of America

I'm proud of this little cartoon of mine:


The Rape of America

Update (in response to a comment): Here's a previous drawing of Sheldon Adelson:



That is all.

Antijaphetism

I think it is time to popularize a new term, "antijaphetism." It refers to prejudice directed against people of European descent. It is designed to parallel "antisemitism," as Japheth biblically is the father of the Europeans as Shem is of the Hebrews. In particular, the term would be useful to use for Jewish people who harbor ill will toward non-Jewish whites, in order to acknowledge the existence of such prejudice while not imputing that position to Jews as a whole.

I decided that popularizing this term would be a good thing, as I have noticed that a lot of white nationalists tend to harbor antisemitic and anti-Zionist feelings that I think are not only wrong, but ultimately counterproductive. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing anti-white about Zionism, which is merely the belief that Jews have the right to a homeland. Jewish sympathy and unity toward other Jews should not be seen as threatening indeed, non-white ethnic nationalism as a whole should not be, unless it is accompanied by an antipathy toward whites.

While there are a lot of people of Jewish heritage who do seem to have an antipathy toward Gentile whites (Chuck Schumer), there is no reason to use this to attack the Jewish people as a whole, nor to conflate pro-Jewish movements with anti-Gentile ones. This would be the mirror image of the tendency to conflate any form of pro-whiteness with Nazism.

By the way, people who like whites, in particular Jews who see their interests as aligned with those of Gentile whites, I would refer to as philojaphetic.

That is all.

Helping Anti-Amnesty Allies

About 6 weeks ago, 16 GOP Congressmen signed a letter arguing not just against amnesty but against any increase in legal immigration. At a time when so many politicians couple their opposition to amnesty with a call to increase legal channels of immigration, or in other ways continue to press for the continued dispossession of the historic American nation while narrowly opposing illegal immigration (see Ted Cruz), this is refreshing. It would be better if they called for a reduction or even a moratorium on immigration, but we work with what we have.

Below is a list of their names, donation sites, web contacts, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and phone numbers (list is a work in progress). Please donate generously to one or all of them, and leave messages as to why you are doing so.

Brooks, Reps. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Walter Jones (R-NC), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), John Fleming (R-LA), Steve King (R-IA), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Jeff Duncan (R-SC), each signed the letter.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Donate // Contact // Facebook (Congress) Facebook (Campaign) // Twitter // Phone: Congress: (202) 225-4801 Campaign site: 256-763-0102

Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania

Donate (can send a message with donation) // Contact // Facebook (Congress) Facebook (Campaign) // Twitter // Phone: Congress:(202) 225-6511 Campaign site: 570-501-VOTE (8683)

Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas

Donate // Twitter // Facebook // Phone: 202-225-1555

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina

// Donate // Contact // Facebook

Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana

Donate (can send a message) // Contact // Facebook

Rep. Ted Yoho of Texas

Donate // Contact // Facebook

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (Note: she is not running for re-election in 2014)

Donate // Contact // Facebook

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina

// Donate // Contact // Facebook

Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Donate // Contact(form on homepage) // Facebook

Rep. Tom Cottom of Arkansas (Running for Senate)

Donate // Contact (form on homepage) // Facebook // Twitter // Phone (campaign) 501-313-2914

That is all.

Transgenderism

Most of the discussions of transgenderism by people who are advocates for the transgendered community remind me of this scene from 1984:

Reading this post by Ampersand, I keep feeling like he is holding up a picture of a naked person with a penis and testicles and asking us "what is this a picture of?"

(The answer he wants of course, is "a woman.")

The thing that annoys me is the GIF with the caption "I was born a baby who was assigned male at birth." This is a cutesy way of denying that someone born with a penis and testicles has a male body; with the implication that anatomy is completely irrelevant to gender (i.e. so that everyone should rearrange how they think about gender so as not to offend trans individuals).

That is all.

How to Deal with Charges of Racism on Immigration Issues

When someone suggests that the GOP opposition to amnesty is mostly racial point out that for the pro-amnesty side, their position is definitely due to racial animus:

ACORN chief wants immigration to "weaken white man".

That is all.