Schwarzenegger - An Honest Comment

California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is in trouble again for commiting the sin of honesty. In a closed-door meeting with his advisors, Schwarzenegger made this comment:

"I mean Cuban, Puerto-Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

Well, apparently this is a big sin for him to have said this. It's "racism", afterall, the biggest and deadliest sin of modern liberalism. However, California's Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia has stepped forward in defense of Schwarzenegger and declared that she often calls herself a "hot-blooded Latina".

Gee, it makes you wonder if liberals have ever heard of these theories before. It's pretty well understood by the man on the street that Puerto Ricans and Cubans are more hot-blooded than say Canadians. The worst you can say about the Governor's comments are that they were impolite. But of course the liberals know this. Their desire to "punish" and stamp out all signs of "racism" stems from the fact they are really some of the most racist people on the planet.

See, what liberals care about is "apperance". Everyone should always say the right thing and never offend anyone. A single comment that offends say blacks, women, or homosexuals can lose a man his career, despite his other values. Words and appearance are now vastly more important than substance.

For liberals, it's all about appearing to be support justice, progress, tolerance, and opportunity while really hording power to yourself and doing little real work. See government workers, trial lawyers, or journalist for example. Any kind of emotionally honest racism, sexism, classism, tribalism, homophobia, public declarations in belief in God, ect interfere in this artifical world they've created for themselves.

Schwarzenegger's comments weren't even made in public. Liberal journalist always feel the need to hunt for these kind of off-the-cuff remarks to "punish" anyone who steps outside of the ideology. I've covered the distasteful motives of liberal journalist in a earlier piece so I won't go into them again. Nonetheless, what kind of world are they creating where people are going to feel the need to constantly edit their thinking to remove anything that might offend the ideology? It's a joyless world where spontaneity, honesty, and morality will wither on the vine of life due to lack of nourishment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_tape_6;_ylt=AnbMr4X0aZP3r8L3qGPHfpHtPRYi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

John McCain is no "Straight Talker"

John McCain has become the favorite candidate of the set who which to be seen as "moderate" or "above the fray". Really, this is quite sad when one considers the actions of the politician himself. McCain has shown numerous times he has no opinions of his own and just goes with the flow. His "straight-shooting maverick" persona is just a carefully crafted marketing strategy to pickup disenfranchised voters. McCain is really the prototypical "Washington Insider".

Let's for example consider McCain's "straight talk" about the Religous Right. In 2000 he called men like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance". However, now that the winds have changed, McCain has changed direction 180 degrees. In 2006 he went to Falwell's Liberty University to kneel before the Religious Right because he needs their vote. He later went on Larry King to say "I admire the Religious Right for the dedication and zeal they put into the political process". So which is it McCain? Are Falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" or are they admirable for their "dedication and zeal"? I guess it depends on who's vote you need at the time.

Or consider McCain's relationship with George W. Bush. In the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina, Bush's campaign used such nasty and immoral tactics to defeat McCain that the Senator said "that there is a special place in hell for people like those". In 2004 McCain said that helping Bush get reelected "was one of the proudest moments of my life".

Uh-huh. Words have no meaning for a man like McCain. He is only interested in one thing and that is power.

NAFTA Superhighway

This is a “mind-boggling concept,” exploded Lou Dobbs. It must cause Americans to think our political and academic elites have “gone utterly mad.” What had detonated the mild-mannered CNN anchor?

Dr. Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, had just appeared before a panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—to call for erasing all U.S. borders and a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

Under the Pastor-CFR plan, the illegal alien invasion would be solved by eliminating America’s borders and legalizing the invasion. We would no longer defend the Rio Grande.

“What we need to do,” Pastor instructed, “is forge a new North American Community. . . . Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls.”

So this is probably the plan all along. Mix up matters so much that the concept of getting rid of borders all together seems viable. Meanwhile back on the home front, poverty continues to increase while the rich keep getting richer. Let's bring in several million more Mexicans, that should help.

The American people never supported NAFTA, and they are angry over Bush’s failure to secure the border—but a shotgun marriage between our two nations appears prearranged. Central feature: a ten-lane, 400-yard-wide NAFTA Super Highway from the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, up to and across the U.S. border, all the way to Canada. Within the median strip dividing the north and south car and truck lanes would be rail lines for both passengers and freight traffic, and oil and gas pipelines.

As author Jerome Corsi describes this Fox-Bush autobahn, container ships from China would unload at Lazaro Cardenas, a port named for the Mexican president who nationalized all U.S. oil companies in 1938. From there, trucks with Mexican drivers would run fast lines into the United States, hauling their cargo to a U.S. customs inspection terminal—in Kansas City, Mo. From there, the trucks would fan out across America or roll on into Canada. Similar super-highways from Mexico through the United States into Canada are planned.

According to Corsi, construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway, is to begin next year.

The beneficiaries of this NAFTA Super Highway project would be the contractors who build it and the importers and outlet stores for the Chinese-manufactured goods that would come flooding in. The losers would be U.S. longshoremen, truckers, manufacturers and taxpayers.

This is all going on NOW, and American culture has decayed so much that few care enough to stop it.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/buchanan.cgi/Immigration/The_NAFTA_Superhigh.html?seemore=y

Difference Between Men and Women

One difference between men and women universally understood across cultures:

Sheik Jassem Al-Mutawah explains

Men Not Marrying

According to some manganias on the internet, things are the same as they have always been in regards to the instutition of marriage. These statistics prove otherwise:

"About 18 percent of men ages 40 to 44 with less than four years of college have never married, according to census estimates. That is up from about 6 percent a quarter-century ago. Among similar men ages 35 to 39, the portion jumped to 22 percent from 8 percent in that time."

Proves people are not marrying as much as before. Period.

"In the past guys could drop out of school after finishing high school, or even without finishing, and go into a factory and get a steady job with benefits,” said Valerie K. Oppenheimer, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But there has been a deterioration in young men’s economic position, and women are hesitant to marry a man who is likely to be an economic dependent."

Why not? Aren't the sexes now equal and gender roles flexible, as the modernist tell us? Before, the man was expected to work long and hard to support his wife and family. Basically, the woman was an "economic dependent". Now, the man is still expected to work long and hard to support his wife and family, despite an ever decreasing pool of decent jobs for men due to the feminist reworking of society?

As a response to some of these trends, many women with limited education have turned theirs sights on “marrying up,” choosing men who may be older, more established and more educated.

So what about men with limited educations? Can they turn their sights on "marrying up"? No, women marry up. If women are marrying up, they aren't marrying down.

Yet economics and education have changed to make things a lot more suitable for women. There is a disconnect between reality and expectations developing. Women want to have careers and make a lot of money, but they want a large pool of wealthy men available when they feel it's time to quit working so they can spit out children. Sorry "ladies", can't have it both ways.

"Why would you want to be in a stable relationship with somebody who is unstable?” asked Ketny Jean-Francois, a never-married 30-something from the Bronx who has supported her 3-year-old son on her unemployment check and food stamps since leaving her job as a security guard a year ago. “It’s a myth that all women want to marry."

Ah, there you go - to the meat of the matter. The welfare state has become the new lower-end breadwinner for today's liberated, godless female. Instead of seeking out males on the lower-half to build a family with, it is far easier for an unwed female to just hit up Uncle Sam when times get tough. Uncle Sam will provide housing, food, transportation, child care services, and police protection to any helpless female who wants to have a family without learning to submit herself to a man. How can any male making near minimum wage provide all of this, and without making any demands themselves on the poor women?

NY Times Story

Men Not Working

Yet another lovely side effect of womyn recreating society to suit their lunancy. 13% of American men aged 30-55 out of work today compared with 5% in the 1960s. The numbers are similar in Europe and Japan.

NY Times Story