Posted on 05/04/2008 1:30:25 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Breath taking...stunned...etc
Great article...
America IS a Republic, a constitutional Republic---- of a democratic nature-----that democratic nature is predicated on one man, one vote.
I think the democratic principle of "one man,one vote" is especially significant in light of the invaders co-opting the system with multiple identites, with the intent of forming a voting bloc to co-opt the Congress into voting to take back the SW.
The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic there are certain things that can NEVER be done no matter how many people want to do it. Rights of individuals can Never be removed or diminished (irregardless of how many people vote to do so)or because one group threatens to undermine the electoral system.
Our founding fathers wanted a "representative" (democratic-type) system, not a pure democracy, and so established a Republic, a Constitutional Republic.
That’s what I’d like to know. At one point, June of ‘07, he was behind Fred Thompson and Fred hadn’t even announced he was running yet. It doesn’t add up.
Keep in mind that Giuliani's handlers switched to McCain when their boy Rudy tanked like a deadweight going down a 300 ft cistern. Fox pundit Billy Kristol and the pukeneo crowd's first-choice was Giuliani; and they were the ones orchestrating Rooty's strategy to religiously cleanse the Repub party and kick conservatievs to the curb.
The pukeneos also dreamed-up Giuliani's cockamamie strategy to "save himself" for Florida---which has reached cult status as the stupidest strategy in US campaign history.
Giuliani ferociously campaigned (and lost) in EVERY primary/caucus, then campaigned 61 days straight in Fla, and came in a distant third..........without conservatives.
Switch-hitters to McCain are shortstuff Fox pundit, Billy Kristol, his daddy, and their crowd of pukeneos. The Kristol coterie are cheerleaders for the current admin's most destructive polices---including the twice-failed amnesty, and the trillion dollar bleeding of young American lives and US treasure into Mideast hellholes.
The conservative-hating Kristols are also designated drivers of the wacky "National Greatness" thingy---which must have been written in a drunken stupor.
Now we observe McC's disastrous sucking up to hyphenates. Keep in mind Hyphenator McQueeg helped write the twice-failed amnesty bill we fought so hard to stop.
Watch McCain closely when he campaigns on the Hundred Year War and amnesty (the SW giveaway). McC's posture changes---like the pukeneos are tightening his leash.
McCain became the presumptive nominee with just 31% of the total primary vote. He is the only top tier candidate of either party who failed to win his home state with more than 50% of the vote. McCain won because of open primaries, winner take all rules, and a compressed primary schedule. He gamed the system, which was made to order for him.
http://westernsurvival.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Their Only Weapon
A correspondent on Lawrence Auster’s site, commenting on republican Arkansas Governor Huckabee’s feeling that racism is fueling the anti-immigration sentiment, wrote:
“All he has to do is stand up there, give one inane comment after another and use the word that puts trembling in the hearts of the American people and shut them down. Racist.”
A cartoon I saw recently showed a Mexican-flag-waving illegal snarling at a white man, saying something like “Let me into your prosperous country, you damned racist xenophobe.” It captured perfectly the dynamic involved in the immigration debate: people who have no leverage other than guilt are using it to control us.
What are they going to do the day that white people stop running from that word, “racist”?
I have begun, among my white friends, to acknowledge that I am a racist. I say, “If by racist, you mean that I think there are actual differences, genetic differences, between racial groups that have real consequences, then yes I am a racist. If you mean that I feel more of an affinity for people of my ethnic group, that I feel more comfortable and at home with them, then yes I am a racist. If you mean I put the interests of my people, my ethnic group, ahead of the interests of others just as I put my family’s interests over others, then yes I am a racist. But if by “racist” you mean someone who believes in genocide or slavery or hatred or oppression of other ethnic groups, then no, I am not a racist.”
I sense that many white people have had enough of being bullied with the “racist” label. But there are two ways of handling that accusation. One is to claim that you’re not actually a racist. This is the approach most whites take right now, but it hands all of the power over to the non-white person, who can then act as judge and jury on the evidence to decide whether the white person is a racist or not. The other approach is to say, “yeah, I’m a racist; so what?” There is no answer to that. If you prefer your own people and put their interests ahead of others’ without engaging in hatred or violence, what’s it to them?
Perhaps the non-whites and liberals are flinging the “racist” accusation with such vehemence because they sense that the white majority is losing patience. Their one tool, their one way of controlling white people, is losing its efficacy, so they ramp up the volume and the bitterness to try to keep the upper hand. Their worst nightmare is that white people stop flinching at the word because that will be the day that anti-whites (both non-whites and whites who scorn whiteness) lose their only weapon.
But while we need to assert that we, like every other healthy people on earth, are indeed “racists”, what we want to avoid this time is letting the pendulum swing back the other way into hatred. We don’t want another Hitler. We don’t want burning crosses. We don’t want oppression and injustice. We just want to assert our right to survive as a distinct people and to separate ourselves physically and politically from those who threaten our safety, prosperity, and unique identity
C27
That’s the one! Thanks, I’ll save it to HD.
bttt & ping
Somebody should tell this to Crazy McCain.
No, it has nothing to do with race. We can be a multiracial society, but we can't be a multicultural one and preserve the values and ideals that formed this nation.
Allo mamasita,
Ais comin’ home.
Puleasz gets el beachfront condo—the one in Acapulco——ready for me to move in. We rent out the rest o’da condos ais bought wit mai salaree as a lettuce peeker.
I sneek over de border to the Yoonited States to peek lettuce for a better life, beecauz Americanos do not want to do eet.
The US benefeets ees goot. Evree year dee IRS send me five EITC refunds, and evree months I get six Social Security, unemployment and disability checks ...plis all de monies ai’s make from deelivers drugs for el cartel.
Mama-—Ai’s in trouble now. Nuttin big-—molesting kids here is a crme. Ai can’t buleeves it. In Mehico, is no crime.
Don’ta worry mamasita, the US checks will steel be comin’ under all the fake names ai uses. We gonna leeve like Montezuma.
Your son, Pepino
Well, I disagree. A society can be multi-racial in part, but once it becomes heavily multi-racial it will inevitably become multi-cultural. You can't separate the two. For example, a nation that is 90% white and 10% other races combined can avoid multi-culturalism, but a nation that is (for example) one third white, one third black, and one third Mestizo would be constantly torn by multi-culturalism.
All you have to do is look at Canada where the relatively slight difference between Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians has constantly created turmoil, because the French-Canadian minority is significant and concentrated in a large province with a lot of clout. Imagine if one of Canada's provinces had an Arabic-speaking Muslim majority, or if one had a black majority. Imagine if every Canadian province had a different racial majority.
This idea that nations can be multi-racial and still be mono-cultural is ludicrous. It comes from the fact that America, after being founded by the British, was able to admit some immigrants from other European nations with relatively little turmoil. So people project from that that we could just as easily admit tens of millions of people from Africa, India, China, Mexico, or the Middle East with no problem. Well, we couldn't.
Well, you might ask why we couldn't admit those people but demand that they adopt our culture. The problem is, we can't demand that if there are millions of them and they can vote. The reason we were able once-upon-a-time to demand it of blacks and Native Americans is that we didn't let them vote. People a hundred years ago didn't talk much about black culture because blacks were an oppressed minority with no political clout, so they had to bow to our Western culture. Once they got the vote and began electing mayors and politically dominating certain regions, we began to hear talk of black culture and began to hear Jesse Jackson chanting "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go".
This will inevitably happen. The Tibetans and Chinese can't live in the same nation without either the Chinese oppressing the Tibetans or agreeing to be multi-cultural towards them.
This isn't to say that any one race is better than any other. It's just a reality. Yet we act shocked when the reality slaps us in the face. People were "shocked" when blacks cheered the O.J. acquittal. They were "shocked" when Obama's pastor turned out to be a hater. They were "shocked" when a Hispanic politician in California boasted about the last gasp of white people in that state. No doubt Native Americans were "shocked" when whites began pushing them off their traditional lands. Then again, maybe they weren't so shocked because they hadn't been taught for years that "race doesn't matter" and we can all live together under the umbrella of the same culture.
Multiracial societies are inherently unstable. As black conservative Thomas Sowell stated (sic) They only “work” when one race is a large majority.
In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.
One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.
- Ann Coulter
Well written.
I disagree. A multi-racial society doesn't necessarily lead to a multi-cultural one as long as it occurs over a long period of time and there is assimilation. Our current problems are associated with an unprecedent influx of immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In about a decade, the number will be one in 7, the highest in our history, and by 2050, one in 5 residents of this country will be foreign born. You can't maintain a national identity and shared sense of endeavor with such a rapidly changing demographic.
All you have to do is look at Canada where the relatively slight difference between Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians has constantly created turmoil, because the French-Canadian minority is significant and concentrated in a large province with a lot of clout. Imagine if one of Canada's provinces had an Arabic-speaking Muslim majority, or if one had a black majority. Imagine if every Canadian province had a different racial majority.
The mistake the Canadians did was to allow Quebec to maintain a separate language and culture and to give it a degree of autonomy. They are now stuck with a problem that may only be solved through Quebec becoming a separate nation, in much the same way that we have seem many more countries emerge around the globe. It has more to do with culture than race.
This idea that nations can be multi-racial and still be mono-cultural is ludicrous. It comes from the fact that America, after being founded by the British, was able to admit some immigrants from other European nations with relatively little turmoil. So people project from that that we could just as easily admit tens of millions of people from Africa, India, China, Mexico, or the Middle East with no problem. Well, we couldn't.,
Aside from slavery, America was able to assimilate these many immigrants because they shared essentially the same culture and values. And we had a government that imposed those values on our institutions. The immigrant had to adjust to the country and not the other way around. For example, there were no ESL courses in schools. And we didn't have social welfare systems to take care of the immigrants. As a result, many went back home.
The 1965 Immigration Act changed the demographics of this country dramatically. We have gone from a country that was in 1965 89% white European, 10% black, and 1% hispanic to our current 65% non-hispanic white, 13% black, 4.6% asian, and almost 16% hispanic of all races. By 2050, the hispanic population will be, according to the Pew research center, 29% of the poplatioin and non-Hispanic whites 47%. And we will be a nation of nearly half a billion people. Since 1970, we have added more than 100 million people, three-quarters coming from immigration, legal and illegal. Demography is destiny.
The reason we were able once-upon-a-time to demand it of blacks and Native Americans is that we didn't let them vote. People a hundred years ago didn't talk much about black culture because blacks were an oppressed minority with no political clout, so they had to bow to our Western culture. Once they got the vote and began electing mayors and politically dominating certain regions, we began to hear talk of black culture and began to hear Jesse Jackson chanting "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go".
You can't compare the black experience with the current hispanic invasion. Segregation and discrimination helped form a separate black culture. Hispanics are coming in such huge numbers that they don't have to assimilate and they are choosing to retain their own culture. Hispanics are only recently becoming politically active. Their political impact is just starting to be felt.
The Hispanic Challenge By Samuel P. Huntington
Then again, maybe they weren't so shocked because they hadn't been taught for years that "race doesn't matter" and we can all live together under the umbrella of the same culture.
Therein lies the problem. Race doesn't matter if you share the same culture. The reality is that we have celebrated multiculturalism, which will lead to the downfall of this country. It will be taken down using our own democratic process and institutions.
“Our family is on welfare and food stamps even though we are not eligible. We have fake IDs that say we are legal, and we have fake social security numbers to prove it.
Kent, that line is not true. They ARE eligible for welfare and food stamps. The fact that they have had 6 anchor babies who are citizens makes everyone of those 6 kids eligible for every social service available in our country.
VERY nice find!
According to the Bureau of the Census, the white population of the US is aproximately 80%. The non-Hispanic white population is around two-thirds. By 2050, whites will still be 72% of the popuation.
Hispanics come in all colors, but most of them are classified as white. The problem isn't race, it is culture and language. We can't assimilate these kinds of numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.