Majorityrights Central > Category: U.S. Politics

By Bo Sears

Most of us diverse white American people have had a hard time understanding US Senator Barack Obama’s mind. We now know about his policies toward European Americans (more LBJ-syle set-asides, affirmative action, and quotas), but he has also provided us with a window into his mind about how he views us.

Taking offence vs. analysing the speaker’s mind

The Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s seem unable to discuss Obama’s willingness to label and describe us without getting tangled up in the concept of “giving offense.” Their lack of intellectual acuity doesn’t speak well for us.

Resisting Defamation has made it clear that slurs, slanders, names, labels, descriptions, and definitions don’t need to be offensive to us. They simply give us permission to look into the mind of the speaker to find out more about him. This is an important distinction—being “offended” is a highly specialized skill set, and most white American people do not realize that hours are spent in training in college dorms, human rights seminars, and minority-run segregated professional and occupational meetings to know when to shed one tear, two tears, or three tears for maximum impact; when to gasp in pain on hearing any of over 200 words that “give offense”; how to share with a left-wing racialist reporter one’s distress; and when to claim “I’m so afraid!” in public discourse.

Yes, dear reader, the “spontaneous” outbursts about offense are almost always fraudulent, but reporters who are in on the secret make a great to-do about minority claims of offense, frankly, as part of the campaign of defamation against the diverse European American peoples.

As sensible adults, we diverse white American peoples don’t claim offense, but we do find speech that denigrates, stereotypes, and uses code words or phrases worthy of analysis to determine the mind of the speaker.

So let’s take a look at Obama’s mind.

READ MORE...

The manipulation of the American political machine is the sole privilege of Jews.  Everyone knows that.  Or rather, everyone in the American political machine knows that, of course.  But nobody else should, and no one needs to.  And really, what’s it to ordinary disempowered Americans where policy comes from?  Nothing whatsoever.

Brave little Israel they must know about, of course ... the Holocaust ... MLK ... white guilt.  That sort of thing.

But the Israel Lobby?  Are you nuts?

So here, from a couple of years ago, is Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post ritually demonising the Walt & Mearsheimer paper out of existence.  He hopes.

Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic?  If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information—why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

Trouble is, those three little words “The Israel Lobby” have escaped into the public consciousness and cannot so easily be recalled, especially while some dumb Jewish journalist can lose the plot as royally as Dana Milbank did.  Reporting for the Post on a public meeting last Monday called by a “group of Jewish leaders” to discuss the 2008 presidential election, he actually wrote:-

The Audacity of Chutzpah

... Daroff said he had “heard in the hallways here” that Obama “doesn’t see the U.S.-Israel relationship as much of the mainstream of the Senate or the Jewish community sees it.”

Kurtzer [supporter Obama - Ed] blamed such sentiment on “attack dogs” and writers of scurrilous e-mails. “He’s right within the mainstream of American society and Jewish community concerns.”

... Next question to Kurtzer: Obama’s assertion that he needn’t have a “Likud view”—that of Israel’s right-wing party—to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a “plurality of views.” Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis [supporting Hilary - Ed] retorted: “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”  The audience members applauded.

So let’s run that thought-crime from Ann Lewis by once more.  Remember, this is a senior advisor to the Lizard Queen speaking.

“The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.  It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”

READ MORE...

The Senate delivered an apparently fatal blow on Thursday to President George W. Bush’s planned immigration overhaul and dashed the hopes of millions of immigrants seeking legal status.

In a crucial make or break vote that exposed deep lack of support among Bush’s own Republicans, the legislation fell 14 votes short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.

... The president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country and would do little to stem illegal immigration.

Even the promise of an additional $4.4 billion to pay for more border security and enforcement did not quell Republican opposition.

The bill failed to garner even a simple majority. Only 46 senators—33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 1 independent—voted to advance the bill. Some 15 Democrats joined 37 Republicans and 1 independent to block the legislation.

It was the second time in as many weeks the Senate tried to pass the legislation.

Senate leaders have said it would be difficult if not impossible to revive the bill again before the November 2008 presidential election. Immigration has already become an issue in the election campaign.

Reuter’s top story today.

And then there was this:-

READ MORE...

Let’s look at this article by Thomas F. Schaller, particularly the first page.

Before I get to the main point, two “diversions”, one lengthy and one brief.

First, I’d like to address Mr. Rosenberg, of whom we read:

“The Republican strategy on immigration has been one of the great failures of modern politics,” says Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, which has organized a systematic outreach campaign to Hispanic voters. “What’s going on in the Republican Party is a debate between the strategists who want to win and a part of their base that is extremely xenophobic.”

I’m not surprised that someone with the surname “Rosenberg” has an agenda to promote Hispanic interests in what used to be the United States of America, but his comments are absurd on their face.  If the GOP cannot “win” without Hispanic voters, then they certainly cannot win without their base, which, by definition, constitutes the foundation of their electoral support.  One supposes that Rosenberg assumes that the base should remain passive and allow itself to be taken for granted – “automatic” votes for the GOP because “they have nowhere else to go.”  Thus, the base should support policies they loathe and believe are destructive, just so “their party” can “win.”  Again, it is not surprising that a “Rosenberg” would like to promote to white gentiles a “football game, rah-rah” version of “politics”, where “winning elections” is an end to itself.  However, to any triple-digit IQ individual, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of “winning an election” is not as an end to itself, not as a way of saying “nyah, nyah…my boys won and your boys lost”, but instead as a tool to promote particular policies.  What price “victory” if the cost of “winning” is to have “your party” adopt the very policies you oppose and which have traditionally characterized “the opposition?”

In essence, Rosenberg and the GOP seem to want the Republican base to “reason “ as follows: “I support the GOP because that party promotes traditional American values, will preserve the traditional America, will oppose illegal immigration and cut down unassimilable legal immigration, and will oppose the pandering to minorities.  It is therefore important that the GOP win elections.  In order to win elections, the GOP needs more votes, and, hey, those Hispanics are good candidates!  Therefore, in order to win, the GOP should support illegal immigrant amnesty, support flooding America with more Third Worlders, pander to all sorts of minorities, and tear down the traditional America!  That’ll teach ‘dem Democrats a thing or two!”

What stupidity.  The problem is that this is exactly how the “base” has been “reasoning” for decades.  In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has essentially allowed “their party” to become a carbon copy of the opposition.  Is that “smart politics?”  And comments about a “20th century vs. 21st century party” are particularly offensive to the GOP base.  In other words, says Rosenberg, the GOP’s white base is “in the past” and “outdated” while all the growing and vibrant Hispanics are “the future” and representative of the “21st century.”

Hmmm….I don’t know.  Perhaps the base would not like to be contemptuously disregarded as “in the past” and, essentially, dead and buried?  Perhaps the base, which are the voters who actually contribute the most to the GOP’s “victories”, do not want to be taken for granted, and then have their interests disregarded as soon as the Republican candidate is elected?  Perhaps, just perhaps, the base has interests just as legitimate – or more so? – than all the hip and modernistic 21st century Hispanics?  Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should give similar advice to Israel: the idea of a “Jewish state” is an outdated 2oth century idea, while those dynamic Palestinians and their high birth rate are the harbingers of Israel’s bright, 21st century Arabic future.  How about that?

READ MORE...

On the White House lawn, a loyal Jew and faithful Mexican.  With George W Bush, to speak about ...

Leading U.S. senators reached an agreement on Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would fortify U.S. borders and grant lawful status to millions of illegal immigrants, a move that could lead to a major legislative victory for President George W. Bush.

The agreement sets the stage for what is expected to be a passionate Senate debate over the proposal, which would give an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants legal status, create a temporary worker program and establish a new merit-based system for future immigrants.

“The agreement we’ve just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who helped lead the bipartisan talks that included Sen. Jon Kyl and administration officials.

Source Reuters.

On the video the low, rich tessitura lights up the inevitable appeal to unity, Kenyan coffee on a cold, dull morning.  The easily thrilled contemplate the realisation of a dream of four decades of another young Democrat god in the White House ... and a

first

second black president after Bill Clinton.  Obama the Handled, the Manufactured has entered the race for the nomination.

He will divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good.  Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination?  Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?

Don’t ask me.  I come from a country that hasn’t yet so lost its sense it will contemplate a half-African, half-Moslem unknown in Number 10.

... according to Joe Mathews, LA Times reporter and author of The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger And the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy:-

... here is what Mathews said about driver’s licenses and the larger topic of immigration, listed as by voters in surveys before the election as one of the of the most important issues facing the state:

“What do you believe his view is on immigrant drivers licenses?”

“I believe there is a conversation. I believe his personal view is that he doesn’t care. He was willing to sign it. He certainly made a handshake deal with Gil Cedillo on his fourth day in office where he said “We’ll negotiate a bill I can sign,” and then he never did that when the heat became—the talk radio heat became too much. I believe there was a conversation between Duf Sundheim, the chairman of the Re;publican party, and him which went something like this: “Arnold, you haven’t given the people on the right a lot. The two things you’ve given them are taxes and this issue. There are people—there are Republicans in this state—that have pictures of you on the wall. If you sign that bill, those pictures come down and will never go back up.” And I just think this is an issue he will never give on even though he knows better.

I think the whole immigration issue he’s completely hypocritical on. He is essentially an immigration liberal. All his friends, so many of them are from other countries. He tells stories of all the ways he’s helped them manipulate the immigration system over the years and get them into the country. George Borjas is a great immigration scholar at Harvard, briefed him when he was running for office said it was pointless. That Arnold knew more about how the INS worked, if it was still the INS then… but knew how immigration worked better than he did. He had literally helped hundreds of people for years deal with immigration authorities; so, I mean he’s a complete liberal on that.

But even when he says things like Mexicans aren’t assimilating fast enough, and you really should, you know, leave your country behind when you come here - I mean, this guy hasn’t left his country behind - He’s an Austrian citizen. He’s really proud of it. He’s tight. He makes endorsements in Austrian elections. He’s—the OVP, the Austrian Volks Party, the Austrian People’s Party has been trying to get him to run for President. They keep sending him polling that says “You’d win.” So, I mean you know. His true views on that are probably poisonous for him politically.”

Thanks to Desmond Jones for the link.

A little good news is needed now and then. The pioneer spirit is still alive. As a person somewhat responsible for the resurgence in technology prize awards, I have a few things to say about Burt Rutan’s capture of the Ansari X-Prize by being the first to fly a man to space in a reusable craft twice within a week. He follows the great technology pioneers Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, both of whom came to prominence during similar fair contests: The Guggenheim Trophy and Orteig Prize respectively. (From these exemplars some might now see a reason the powers that be shy away from fair contests—contests where they can’t really control who wins the prizes—and it was left to an Iranian family, the Ansaris, to fully fund the X-Prize.)

A speech by Burt Rutan before the National Space Society is worth a view (requires QuickTime ). He repeatedly and angrily declares his embarrassment at the risk averse culture that has strangled the pioneer spirit since the feats of the 1960s—nearly 40 years ago. I’ve got my issues with his speech but we clearly agree that something went horribly wrong with the pioneer spirit subsequent to the 1960s. The turning inward of the human potential has resulted in the halting of human progress upward and outward with aerospace technology being bureaucratically and monotonously scaled up for jumbo jet transportation. The result is the sort of danger warned of by Charles Lindbergh in his 1939 Reader’s Digest article “Aviation, Geography, and Race”: a sea of humanity threatening our race which is, after all, a global minority. Indeed the technological exemplar of this era has been driven by the rise of finance to preeminence—the inward-turning microelectronic revolution. The unintended side-effect of this revolution you see before you now as a website, but it is small consolation for the damage to our pioneer spirit.  As we were warned by Henry Ford the great struggle of the 20th century was creative industry vs global finance.  Global finance has dominated the past 30 years or more. Perhaps men like Burt Rutan can lead us out of our malaise and realize the human potential.  If so it may be due to prize awards like the Ansari X-Prize that give men even younger than Burt Rutan a chance to make a name for themselves purely via their own grit and gifts.

READ MORE...