Skip to comments.California’s Demographic Revolution (More proof CA = Doomed)
Posted on 02/13/2012 7:58:15 AM PST by C19fan
click here to read article
Yet another bucket mouth, barking from the sidelines, who's decided to keep their own state anonymous.
Funny, no comment from you regarding militarizing the U.S. border with Mexico, yet you demand that happen to an American state, a state which happens to be the state with the largest economic engine in the U.S.
All while your Republican leaders like Bush, and Perry, from so-called conservative states like Texas, rolled out the red carpet for tens of millions of illegals, all while aiding and abetting this epic invasion at every turn. During war time no less.
More Muslims were allowed to enter the U.S. legally, under Bush *after* 911, than in the previous 2 decades.
Below is Dallas Texas in 2006, during wartime, under a Bush presidency, with Perry as it's Republican governor.
500,000 illegal alines and their supporters march on Dallas Texas, while waving foreign flags and making demands and threats while Bush celebrated Cinco de Mayo up in the White House.
Texas Governor perry, aiding and abetting racist, pro-illegal alien organizations like La Raza, lending them credibility and legitimacy by attending their conferences.
I say we put up an electrically charged fence around your home, and take your Internet connection away in an effort to prevent stupidity and ignorance from spreading. That way you can continue pretending your somehow isolated from these country killing, government sponsored, open border/immigration polices.
Bush Jr's wholesale importation of Islam to our homeland is one of the blackest marks of his failed presidency.
Bush Jr's wholesale importation of Islam to our homeland is one of the blackest marks of his failed presidency.
I'm afraid you don't get it. Mexicans arrive here bathed, since birth, in hard-core socialism institutionalized by their 1919 revolution and the ascendancy of the PRI.
Furthermore, they are "culturally conservative". The practical meaning is, if grandfather and great-grandfather voted with the PRI, the great-grandchildren of today's immigrants can be counted on to vote for the most leftist politicians they can find. Even the Progs are weak tea, compared to what they're used to. That's the meaning of the social worker's quote in the article (see post #17 above):
“What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” says John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in Southern California and a player in California Latino politics. “We are a very compassionate people; we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.” (Emphasis supplied.)
That's what this guy is telling you. They're all hardcore socialist statists (all socialists are perforce statists; it's implicit), and importing masses of them because he knew that these people would vote overwhelmingly, generation after generation, for big-government New Deal Democrats was Lyndon Johnson's dark intention in the 1965 immigration bill.
This all has to be undone. It's an existential problem. Fail = no America.
In 1969, my South American history prof put what she called "the $64,000 question of Latin American history" to us. Simply put, except for the Chilean Communist poet Pablo Neruda, who'd won one of the great literature prizes mostly for being Communist, Latin America was bereft of Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, inventors and great scientists. They had a society that, in 1900, was in many ways as advanced as Europe's, particularly the Big Three or "ABC" countries of Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. Then everything turned to crap ..... but either before or after, Latin America never produced the high-achieving individuals who proliferated in North America and Europe. The question was, "why"? It's still valid, despite the distribution of a few politically-motivated attaboys like Neruda's.
Anyone care to take a crack at this one?
But what people addressing the immigration question don't get is that, add a ton of very different people to the original stock, and you get a big mess, and probably a lot of social grief, on your hands. We've very likely bought ourselves a civil war.
Lyndon Johnson had his own reasons for breaking the dam on Mexican immigration, and he'd been at it since the early 1950's, when Pres. Eisenhower overcame LBJ's interference in the termination of the WW II bracero labor program (and repatriation of the overstaying Mexican nationals) by writing an Executive Order deporting the braceros.
Johnson's motive was to import a huge new solid-Democrat voting bloc who would nullify the Dixiecrats, Southern white Democrats who were being progressively alienated from the Democratic Party by its adhesion to the 90%-solid, straight-ticket bloc voting of urban Negroes, and its program to register millions of blacks across the South to the same end through the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
When he signed the Voting Rights Act, Johnson commented that he and the Democrats had just given up the White House for the next 20 years. The Immigration Act was to be his, and Ted Kennedy's, counter.
That's a pretty good short version.
I assume the entire Democrat party was on the same page about importing Democrat voters, 1964 was the last year that whites voted Republican, and I doubt that the change dropped out of the sky suddenly, without the DNC thinkers noticing a pattern before then.
With no Sam "Momo" Giancana to vote the Chicago graveyards, there'd have been no JFK.
With no homosexual J. Edgar Hoover in the Mob's pocket, there'd have been no Sam Giancana, or at least nobody with enough corrupt swing to steal the election.
It all flows downhill from that one fact.
Hoover was not homosexual, that is beyond ridiculous.
Really? Could you elaborate?
I've read more than once that he had a long-term monogamous relationship. Today it would be a model of restraint; back then, .....
Yes, 1964 was the last election that the majority of the white vote went to the Democrat.
You have never read in serious history, that Hoover was homosexual, that is a media myth, and one that the Soviet Union wanted to feed.
In real life, he was never homosexual, never wore women’s clothing, he was just devoted to the FBI.
I've seen it in more than one periodical article, and then there's the recent A-list portrayal in J. Edgar.
How explain that? A giant smear? Perpetrated and sustained over what, 50, 60 years?
Hard to believe that people could smear a top cop for 60 years and get away with it.
Even the Rosenberg liars had their corregidors and purifiers of the true record 50 years ago. They never really got away with that one -- "we're innocent, it's a frame!"
I think you have the tougher sell.
J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson were an item over the course of decades.
Hoover denied the existence of organized crime until the 1957 Appalachin arrest of four dozen gang leaders in upper New York State embarrassed him.
He and Clyde were perennial guests of mob-owned race tracks and resorts.
The crusading anti-communist figured prominently in the coverup behind the absurd Warren Commission.
The man viscerally despised the Kennedys, was a neighbor and friend of Johnson for years.
William Sullivan was the opposite number to James Jesus Angleton and was shot dead before he could testify before the HSCA, having had a total fall from grace with the dictatorial director.
From the "love that dare not speak its name" and the stylish matching attire of the Hoover and Tolson pair America has transitioned to the Boy King and his body person Reggie Love.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.--Jerry Seinfeld
I don't have to sell reality, you need to figure out how to sell fantasy.
First, drop that timeline, the homo thing is new (relatively), Hoover, the FBI, the American Intelligence Community did not go through most of the 20th century fighting a non-existent acusation of homosexuality.
Here is a quick description to steer you into doing your own search. This liberal, but respected historian is harsher on Hoover than I think appropriate, but it gets you started nonetheless.
Sorry, the link did not take.
<Off-topic> The actor who portrayed Agent Tolson in J. Edgar is Armie Hammer. He's the great-grandson of Armand Hammer. I knew his father, Michael Hammer, at Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum in Houston in 1983-4.
Young Armie spent the early 90's (about the time his dad was inheriting, after the old man died) in the Cayman Islands. Nice to have a family foothold there.
Armie Hammer broke out as an actor in The Social Network the year before J. Edgar appeared, in a double role as the Winklevoss twins (the Harvard rowing twins who were the first two people Mark Zuckerberg sharped/screwed on his way to giga-wealth with Facebook).
Thanks for the post.
First, drop that timeline, the homo thing is new (relatively), .....
Well, no, I would disagree, given the dates. From your linked source (thanks again):
WEINER: This is a myth. It's been around since 1937, since Hoover went after homosexuals and government. It was - gasoline was poured on the embers of this by Bill Donovan, Hoover's mortal enemy in government. It's been around forever.
So there is a vintage to it, and granting that it's been meat for strong politico-bureaucratic rivals and may be prisoner to various agendas (not least NPR's), still I don't think either Weiner or you can wave it off quite so casually. Conceded marker No. 2 is that homosexuals, when attacked, almost reflexively, and inevitably, countercharge the accuser with homosexuality of his own, to muddy the waters and blackguard their accuser.
IMHO it's time to get busy digging in the Nixon and Johnson presidential tapes. This subject will have come up again.
I'm also acutely interested in Hoover's and LBJ's strong relationship, and how it was that LBJ blackmailed his way onto the 1960 ticket, for the sake seemingly of an office famously reviled only 20 years before by another Texan, John Nance Garner, only to have the Presidency fall into his hands the way it did. But that's another subject that needs deep research.
Geez, do Whatever, just leave us adults alone.
Yep, deep research.
Devote your life to that stuff, never let up, I think that you have them on the ropes.
Never let anyone trick you into joining the rest of us in our current political world.
California never was part of Mexico in any real sense. It was part of the Spanish Empire, then the Mexican Revolution occurred, during which it was really not controlled by anyone but the locals, then they became part of the U.S.
For more on this, see Travis McGee’s “The True History of the Southwest, 101” at the bottom of my FR profile page.
Take your snark with you.
I get the impression that you are going to unjustly attack Hoover..
the whole movement is by Vatican design.
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.