The challenge of SJW entryism

Brian Niemeier points out the fundamental flaw in the conservative strategy of permanent retreat:

We also agree that the opposition’s numbers are small relative to greater fandom and the general population. Yet despite being vastly outnumbered, look what they’ve achieved.

They halved the Big Five’s SFF sales, took over SFWA, and dominated Worldcon–all in 20 years.

You correctly argue that these institutions are irrelevant. But they weren’t prior to that 20-year march. I’m all for discussing which hills we’re ready to die on, but before we can have that discussion, everyone needs to understand how the enemy operates.

They’re experts at infiltrating and subverting organizations–especially when they’re at a numeric disadvantage. San Diego, SLCCC, and Gen Con have lots of thankless scut jobs that Morlocks will gladly take to get their feet in the door and multiply.

How many of those cons have codes of conduct? All it takes is one infiltrator on a committee and the other members’ complacency to weaponize the rules against normal fans.

Larry posted a while back about a guy who complained that Gen Con isn’t safe for minorities. That’s how it starts.

I’m all for starting new awards and moving on to greener convention pastures. But unless the unequivocal message is sent that entryism will not be tolerated, anything we build will look just like Worldcon and trad publishing inside of 2 decades.

Conservative strategy is guaranteed failure. Conservatism is the prevent defense of politics. It doesn’t always fail, but it fails often enough that anyone who advocates it as a strategy should be assumed to be inept and incompetent.

I am working on developing a proper Code of Conduct designed to not only keep out entryists, but eject them as soon as they reveal themselves. If you want peace, prepare for war. If you want freedom of thought and speech, prepare to police the would be policemen.


The only sane candidate

It’s rather remarkable, astonishing really, that Donald Trump is the only candidate in either party whose public statements aren’t either completely a) irrelevant, or b) insane:

Donald Trump, the Republican Party presidential front-runner, was talking about Mrs. Merkel’s invitation to migrants on the American political interview show, ‘Face The Nation’.

Mr Trump said: “I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming”. Instead he favours “a safe zone for people”, an idea on which he expanded.

He said: “Frankly, look, Europe is going to have to handle — but they’re going to have riots in Germany. What’s happening in Germany, I always thought Merkel was like this great leader. What she’s done in Germany is insane. It is insane. They’re having all sorts of attacks.”

Mr Trump was talking about the decision to throw open Germany’s doors to Syrian migrants taken by Frau Merkel in August, which Breitbart London previously reported. The ‘open doors’ policy is an idea for which she has come under attack, even from those within her own political ranks.

“What they should do is get all the countries together, including the Gulf States, which have nothing but money. They should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria.

“They should do a safe zone for people where they could live. And then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.”

And then start sending the Somalis and every other group of “refugees” back to safe zones in their own countries. Because they are rapidly and actively transforming the USA into the very third world hellholes from which they came.

I don’t care what any candidate has to say about any issue except immigration. There is no longer any other issue that matters.


Feminism is a loser’s game

It has always been observable that feminism is a loser’s game, but many have not understand exactly why. This commenter at Heartiste does a nice job of explaining why failure is inevitable.

Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly
the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that
you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your
strengths. In broader socio-economic terms, feminism has pressured women
to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and
discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and
fertility). Young women have taken up this mantra to the extreme as
their innate herd behavior has driven millions of them dominate
universities and commit to a life of cubicle drudgery over hearth and
home. They would rather have a crappy job with vicious co-workers that
provides them money to spend on frivolities than a humble home domain
where they rule and experience the joy of children. It is unfortunate
that so many of our most intelligent and well-bred women are buying into
this lie only to discover just 10 years after starting that they have
missed the boat on marriage and childbearing opportunities.

Adding to
this cruel feminist hoax inflicted on impressionable women, some
companies make a spectacle of offering to freeze their female worker’s
eggs so they can devote their youth to the corporation and attempt
childbirth long after the ideal window for this has passed. This is not
to imply that women should not be educated; a woman should have an
education as a financial backup and to use after child-rearing.

As a general rule, if you’re fighting a) your own biology, b) history, and c) Mother Nature, you should not be terribly surprised when the results are less than entirely triumphant.


Decalifornication

Glenn Reynolds advises preemptively decalifornicating the low-tax destination states being invaded by high-tax migrants:

The world is in the grip of a vast migration. Seeking a better life for themselves and their families, people are abandoning their benighted homelands and moving to places that offer them more opportunity. But are they bringing their homelands’ problems with them?

No, I’m not talking about Mexicans coming to the United States, or Middle Easterners and Africans flooding into Europe. I’m talking about Americans moving from blue states to red states….

There are two things that might get in the way here. One is that high-tax, high-benefit states might lower their taxes and reduce their benefits. That does happen, though it’s difficult: Politicians extract a lot of power from high taxes (and from selectively reducing high taxes for favored constituencies) and high benefits are an effective way of buying votes. Generally, the situation has to be absolutely desperate (think Greece) before they’ll change.

The other thing that might happen is that the migrants from high tax states might bring their political attitudes with them, moving to new, low-tax states for the economic opportunity but then supporting the same policies that ruined the states they left. This seems quite plausible, alas, and I’ve heard Coloradans lament that the flow of Californians to their state involved a lot of people doing just that. (I suppose that migrants from lower-benefits states to higher-benefits states might support change the other way, but people who live on the dole seem to have pretty similar voting patterns regardless of location, which is why the dole is so popular with certain politicians).

If I were one of those conservative billionaires (hello, Koch brothers! hi, Sheldon Adelson!) who are always donating tens of millions to support Republican candidates, I think I might try spending some of the money on something more useful: A sort of welcome wagon for blue state migrants to red states. Something that would explain to them why the place they’re moving to is doing better than the place they left, and suggesting that they might not want to vote for the same policies that are driving their old home states into bankruptcy.

What I find encouraging about this is the way it shows how the Right is increasingly understanding that it has been routinely defeated for decades in a multi-generational cultural war, and is finally beginning to develop tacticians and strategists who think in multi-generational terms.

Generation X is far less susceptible to being influenced by Boomer rhetoric and our thinkers, under the influence of the few older mavericks who were able to successfully resist the siren song of social justice, are beginning to develop defensive strategies and even some basic counteroffensives.


Fair play for FATCA

It looks like the Law of Unintended Consequences is about to strike the US federal government again:

This week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will announce its final package of measures under its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project that would enable foreign governments to tax overseas earnings of American companies. If the United States fails to make changes of our own before that plan begins being enacted next year, this effort, which The Wall Street Journal called “a global revenue grab,” will ensure much of these American earnings stay overseas permanently.

Considering that the US government claims the right to force foreign banks to track and report its citizens, it’s not going to have much of a leg to stand on when foreign governments start claiming the right to tax the earnings of US corporations with bank accounts in their countries.

This is why it is so reprehensibly stupid for the US to insist on intervening in sovereign lands; by doing so it sacrifices its own claims to sovereignty. It is unlikely that Putin would have intervened in Syria if the US had not intervened in Ukraine and Syria. This foreign cash grab probably would not have been successful without FATCA.


Not slutty enough

Who would have ever thought we would see the day that Nero was deemed insufficiently sluttish?

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was ejected from the Amber Rose Slut Walk in Los Angeles this afternoon. Slut Walkers could be heard yelling to police officers, “Thanks for taking out the trash!”‎

Yiannopoulos was reporting from the event with a film crew, interviewing Rebel Media broadcaster and Canadian libertarian politician Lauren Southern about the feminist movement which protests against “rape culture” and “slut-shaming.”

Southern had just asked host Amber Rose whether she believed in rape culture. Event organizers immediately announced to Breitbart that they were calling law enforcement to have both journalists escorted from Pershing Square in downtown LA.

Protesters snatched and tore up Yiannopoulos’s placard, which read: “‘Rape Culture And Harry Potter’: Both Fantasy” in view of the police, who stood by while protesters bellowed and grabbed at a second placard that read, “Regret is not Rape.”‎

I have no doubt that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice will be all over this outrageous violation of a gay man’s civil rights.


Mailvox: Catalonian independence

MT writes what amounts to a primer on Catalonia and the complications surrounding its independence movement in asking about the American Right’s response to it. I will respond to it in a future post.

I’m writing to ask you a question that has puzzled me for some time. The American right (without a single exception that I know of) enthusiastically supports independence movements in Europe even when these movements hold views radically opposed to those of the American right. I understand that the American right may consider independence so good in and of itself that it is desirable even when pursued by the ideological antagonists of the American right. And so they would be delighted to see the South and each of the leftists coasts abandon the Union because that would leave a more decent, more genuine America. OK. But my question is: why does the American right persist in speaking of these movements as if these European independentists actually held the ideals of 1776?

I find this attitude of the American right strange because most of these movements espouse views that are diametrically opposed to anything that one might call right-wing (anti-austerity, pro-multiculturalism, pro-homosexuality, pro-EU, anti-State-church separation, vastly corrupt schemes, pro-environmentalism, pro-feminism, politically-controlled media, politically-controlled education, politically-controlled language usage, etc.) But the American right invariably ignores—indeed they don’t seem to care at all—about the actual views or deeds of the pro-independence movement. They are so determined to defend the independentists that they always take it absolutely for granted that the pro-independence movements just espouse the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

And this goes against all evidence.

This is truly spectacular in the case of Catalan secessionism (the case I know best) because they have actually been ruling their region for about 40 years now. So it’s not like their views, policies, speeches and attitudes are a matter of abstract speculation or inventive futurology. This is not like wondering what would happen if the Free State Project achieved its goal or how a Rand Paul administration might be like. These people have already done plenty of actual politics, actual ruling. Their actions are not a state secret.

For decades the independentists have spread their propaganda while the other side only broke their silence from time to time to agree with their supposed adversaries (a typical feature of the modern left-right divide), so it is only natural that foreigners will be much more acquainted with the Catalanist point of view. And since the ideals of the American right are inseparable from the ideals of 1776 (perhaps with the exception of the likes of Moldbug and maybe Hoppe, I guess), it is perfectly understandable that the American right will tend to side with other peoples who also seek to break free from another European monarch. The problem is that this sympathy is explained under the pretense or delusion that these particular independentists are carbon copies of the Minutemen whereas they hold views and actually enforce policies that are as far removed from the ideals of the Revolutionary War as you can get in modern politics, and that’s very far away indeed.

If I go to one of these American conservatives and comment that I am surprised that the American government could make this or that blunder, they’ll quickly inform me that I’m being naïve—it’s not a blunder, it’s a feature! The leftist politicians in Washington, DC are not acting in the best interests of the American people, and the Republicans—they’ll quickly add—are not much better. But mention instead the Catalan politicians and suddenly it is all milk and honey: brave, well-meaning, freedom-lovers who only want to get rid of an oppressive government. Braveheart in the 21st century, seems to be the way they think of it. A reenactment of 1776 in another land. They usually can’t name more than one of these politicians and not even one of their policies, but that doesn’t stop them.

I understand that American conservatives are very comfortable with this unique interpretation, but most of these Americans are people who have gone to great lengths to free themselves from political naiveté when it comes to their own politicians.

By the way, I am not against independence per se. I do believe that it may be good in some cases. Yes, maybe even in the Catalan case. But to me, that’s entirely beside the point. What perplexes me to no end is how the American right stubbornly keeps misinterpreting the pro-independence movements.

Also, I speak the Catalan language as a native speaker because I am from a region where we speak what the Catalonians consider a dialect of their own Catalan language. I lived in that Catalan-influenced region for two decades. I also lived in Catalonia itself for fifteen years. Now I live in Madrid where Spanish-speakers routinely mistake me for a Catalan, because of my accent and family names (Spanish people have two family names). Indeed, a Catalanist taking a look at my family tree would have an orgasm seeing only Catalan-sounding names for, at least, half a millennium. Not that this should matter, but Catalanists have repeatedly stated the capital importance of one’s family names, so there is that.

And so I find myself in the privileged position of witnessing this whole mess with an unusual amount of knowledge and an ideological open-mind. I’ve had countless conversations about this with people from all over, mostly with Catalanists. And yet, a conversation about this with the American right is always doomed to fail. Much more doomed to fail than with the usual pro-independence Catalanist. I speak of Catalonia, and the American conservative says “Catalonia” but his mind is in the Thirteen Colonies over two centuries ago. His entire worldview: every secessionist is a George Washington, everybody else a vampire.

When I speak of the Catalan issue I mention economic policies, electoral laws, legislations of all sorts, political corruption, ideological values, but the American right only hears: redcoats, redcoats, redcoats everywhere! When speaking about the facts of Catalonia to the American right, the facts of Catalonia are entirely irrelevant, it is all about the Boston tea party. I find this militant solipsism quite alien to conservatism, but there it is.

I mentioned in your blog that since 1992 the population of Catalonia has grown from 6 to 7 million due to the Catalanist policy of favoring North African and Middle East immigration to counter the Hispanic immigration from the American continent. Yet the American right keeps talking about a would-be independent Catalonia that would have “less forced Muslim invasion”. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/catalonia-votes-for-independence/ This is not a matter of supposition or futurology, this is already fact. Catalanism has deliberately engaged for years now in massive Islamic immigration, yet the American right dreams that a triumphant Catalanism will actually help reverse the very trend that Catalanism initiated. This is bizarre.

I’ve mentioned repeatedly to many American conservatives how the Catalan-designed tariffs—particularly the “Arancel Cambó”—prevented the industrialization of most of Spain while protecting the industry in Catalonia and the Basque Provinces. But the American right keeps repeating the inverted tale that wronged industrious Catalonians have been robbed by Spain.

Catalonia has been receiving enormous amounts of tax money and extra benefits at the expense of the rest of the nation, in part due to the unfair Spanish electoral law which vastly over-represents Catalonia in the national parliament, often leaving the two big Spanish parties in the uncomfortable position of literally having to buy the support of the Catalanist party to form a national government in Spain. And they have repeatedly bought it with money that went from Spanish taxpayers to Spanish politicians to Catalanist politicians to accounts in tax havens.

For many years now, the rest of Spain has had to pay for the Catalan Social Security that seems doomed to eternal deficits. And the Spanish government has bailed out the Catalan regional government in excess of 20,000,000,000 euros already since the crisis began. And Catalonia (since before the days of the Franco regime) has received more money for public infrastructure than anyone else. Presently, it is the only region in the nation that has each one of its 4 provincial capitals linked by the Spanish-funded high speed train. Obviously an irresponsible extravagance, but this is reported in the Catalan media as “Madrid steals from us”.

Not all regional governments are funded according to the same laws: Navarra and the Basque Provinces have a unique system—popularly known as “el cupo vasco” and supposedly a continuation of the historic “fueros” that have limited the power of kings for a thousand years—which allows their regional governments to collect their own taxes while at the same time strictly limits the contribution of these regions to the national tax revenue. This has made it very difficult for Basque and Navarrese leaders to engage in nonsensical spending and has allowed these regions to have an unparalleled prosperity. Interestingly, very few in the rest of Spain have complained, and a growing number suggest the system should be extended to every corner of the kingdom. The Eurocrats, on the other hand, insist it should be abolished.

But why am I mentioning how the Basque regional government is funded? The Catalan leaders were offered this system in 1978 but they refused it because they didn’t want to appear as tax collectors to their people: let Madrid play bad cop and then let the Catalan politicians go to Madrid and sell their votes for money. And in each new election the Catalan votes are overrepresented and then there is a new charade where the two main Spanish parties bid for the Catalanist whore. But as years passed, these Spanish parties raised their bids by offering to share ever larger percentages of tax revenues. The national government keeps looking as the bad guy for collecting the taxes, and the Catalonian politicians keep looking as the good guys for (over)spending it. Then Catalonia runs into preposterous deficits and the regional leaders run to Madrid to get more Spanish tax money. And the singsong goes on about Madrid being a thief. This is systematically described among the American right as Catalans needing tax freedom from oppressive Spain.

In the early 2000s, the Spanish conservative government made a zero-deficit law. The problem was that most spending was done by the regions while most tax collecting was done by the central government. So long as most regions were ruled by the conservative party, things were manageable, and the deficit problem seemed to be solvable at last. But by the time the crisis came, the new socialist government had eliminated the zero deficit rule. And they also reformed the law regulating the financing of regional governments explicitly bragging that it was to the detriment of Madrid, Baleares and Valencia and to the benefit of Catalonia (the Spanish government that did this was socialist, while the conservatives were running the abused regions). When the socialists lost the last national elections, the conservatives now in power could not reintroduce the no-deficit rule in part because Catalonia had gotten very cozy with its overspending practices. Catalonia has about 14% of the population but has incurred in about 25% of the debt.

All this while the government of the region of Madrid lowered taxes and embarked in liberalizing reforms. Last year alone, of the 4.000 businesses that left Catalonia, nearly half of them relocated to Madrid. When this trend began, the media was quick to inform us that this had nothing to do with Catalanist interventionism, now the pretense is over. The farce has gone so far that it can only be sold in Catalonia to a brain-washed populace. Even one of the sons of the Pujol clan (the family who created and embodied modern-day Catalanism) moved to Madrid to avoid the taxes imposed by his own family in Catalonia! This is where I’d expect the American right to say “you can’t make this shit up” but no. They are a very smart family, always bragged about being humble middle class from the rural heartland, all they’ve done is politics, and now they have a collection of luxury cars, and bank accounts in several tax havens… meanwhile patriotic Catalanists dream of having “their own” tax agency so they can pay all their taxes to the likes of the Pujol clan. And the American right goes on with their stories about Spain sucking the blood of the hard-working Catalans, because the British Crown invented the unconstitutional IRS to piss off the colonists, or something.

The Catalan government refused to make any spending cuts in its gigantic media conglomerate that includes six TV channels (in a region of 7 million people) while they stopped paying their share of publicly-paid medicine. The Spanish government, again, sent extra funds to the Catalan government AND extra funds to the medicine suppliers. But somehow Spain is the thief.

This reminds me of how scientists initially thought that electric current moved in the direction of positive charges but when they found it was actually the negative electron that moved, they kept the criterion: it goes this way but we’ll say it goes that way. Scientists can do this because it doesn’t interfere with their understanding of the actual phenomenon, the same cannot be said of the American right.

Obviously, the Catalan media conglomerate runs its own huge deficit, which is paid by Spanish taxpayers to convince the Catalan population of how evil Spain is. And the conglomerate kept hammering the same old tune about “Madrid is robbing us”. With the crisis, other regions have had to downsize and in some cases close altogether their public regional TV stations, but the Catalanist propaganda machine remains untouched. Patients can live without their medicine, medicine suppliers can live without their money, but Catalans can’t live without their six public TV channels.

As an economist I tend to focus on the financial and fiscal aspects of all this aberration, this “Himalaya of lies” as Besteiro said. But it goes far, far, far beyond that. The tip of the iceberg: the Catalonian regional government ran an over-the-top TV ad bluntly promoting sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality and even sexual violence but when a Spanish conservative commentator criticized it, he was severely fined for saying that the political leader (a Catalanist woman) responsible for this was a “swine”. Catalanism has devastated Catalan society to the point that nobody from Catalonia dared criticize this ad: no media, no church, no heart-bleeding NGO. It had to be someone from evil, evil Madrid. Sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality and even sexual violence are a-ok but to call a female pro-independence politician a “swine” is an intolerable offense. The American right that is so quick to criticize these things everywhere mysteriously went blind, deaf, and mute that day. Just like the feminists, sexual degeneracy is evil, except when it’s perpetrated by “one of ours”, I guess.

Then, of course, there are the huge money-laundering scams by the Catalanist leaders. Which became public knowledge in the early 1980s, the first one being the Banca Catalana case. But the Spanish government chose to manipulate the judiciary and the media to save the Catalanist leadership and make people forget the whole business. Yes, I know, this planet is overflowing with governmental wisdom and journalistic integrity. Mysteriously, silencing the judiciary and the media about the first cases of corruption did nothing to prevent further Catalanist corruption. Actually, more cases appeared over the years: De la Rosa, Casinos, Planes de Muns, Estivill, Hacienda, Palau de la Musica, Cullell, Alavedra, Pallerols, etc…. Eventually, the headquarters of Pujol’s party had to be foreclosed due to the debts caused by the scandals. And the show goes on.

An innocent mortal can be accused of faults much milder than any of these cases and his life as a free man is ruined forever. But the Catalanist leaders engage in this behavior all the time and they are the figureheads of the eternal victims. “Bizarre” doesn’t begin to describe this.

When the national government is covering your back and you have a media empire of newspapers, radio stations and 6 TV channels, and the nominally private media busy licking your parts, then nobody among The People seems to know a thing about corruption. That’s why for years Catalonia was known as “el estanque dorado” (the golden pond): a piss puddle that stinks but where nobody dares make waves and so it looks gilded and peaceful.

A turning point for the golden pond came one day when the supposedly private media had become so much part of the Catalanist elite’s scam machine that they began issuing unanimous op-eds. I mean, literally unanimous. Each and every major newspaper in the region printed the very same op-ed. Word by word. Suddenly everybody in Catalonia had one single idea about one single issue and, of course, it just happened to be 100% in sync with what the Catalanist-controlled media had been preaching for decades. Oh, did I forget to mention that the regional elite also controls the education system and the regional police?

So, when Pujol had to publicly explain to his people that he had been hoarding large amounts of money in tax havens, well, it was a big shock. Good old Pujol stealing from his own people of Catalonia! Impossible, stealing is what Madrid does! The TV says so! All TVs say so! And the teachers say so! It can’t be true! But Pujol has said so, therefore it can’t be false! Robbie the Robot’s circuitry didn’t suffer that much.

Spain would be much better off without the parasitical Catalonian elite. Except that the place is already a Muslim beachhead, and sooner than later someone will have to deal with that mess. And I don’t mean hashtags. But who? The Catalanists will be the dhimmis of the Muslims, the EU is already cheering the Muslims, as is the red-profaned Vatican and the UN, the Americans are already busy in their War against Christendom, and Spain will perhaps not exist—to everybody’s delight. Which reminds me of Don Pelayo and his battle at Covadonga. But it also reminds me that in 1770, the 4-year-old Russian Imperial Navy anchored at the Spanish coastal city where I was born—where hundreds of Russian sailors are buried—on its way to defeat the Turks at Chesma.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the many, many things that can be said about the Catalanist movement. I’ve mentioned many of these things to many an American conservative, but until this day I’ve never found one who even wanted to listen, they just want to dream on with their mental movie about Braveheart in the 21st century. I am perplexed by this attitude of the American right.


Put a fork in the Republicans

They’re done. They’re not only sell-outs, they’re never going to be seriously competitive with the Democratic Party because apparently they have hamstrung themselves and agreed to never challenge voter fraud:

The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

    The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.

    The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.

    The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

Do you seriously believe any party that would agree to such handcuffs is even remotely capable of defending American interests?


How is this woman still a candidate?

I’m sure you will be just as shocked as I am to learn that Hillary Clinton has been caught lying about her emails again:

The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.

The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009.

The Defense Department provided the emails to the State Department in “the last several days,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.

Clinton’s use of a private email account connected to a server in her home instead of a government-issued email address came to light in March.

News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March.

Nearly a third of all Democrats and 58 percent of all voters think Clinton is lying about her handling of her emails, according to a Fox News poll released this week.

At this point, it is beginning to look as if the only reason the Lizard Queen is still in the race is in the hopes of being able to get elected and pardon herself. She’s not only jumping the shark, she’s doing backflips over it.


Californication and cuckservatism

Taxpayers flee high-tax Democrat States for lower-tax Republican States:

In 2013, more than 200,000 people on net fled states with Democrat governors [led by New York, Illinois, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts] for ones run by Republicans [led by Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Arizona], according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by Americans for Tax Reform.

“People move away from high tax states to low tax states. Every tax refugee is sending a powerful message to politicians,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “They are voting with their feet. Leaders in Texas and Florida are listening. New York and California are not.”

That year, Democrat-run states lost a net 226,763 taxpayers, bringing with them nearly $15.7 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI). That same year, states with Republican governors gained nearly 220,000 new taxpayers, who brought more than $14.1 billion in AGI with them.

Instapundit advises the newly flown wisely: JUST DON’T VOTE FOR THE SAME LOSER POLICIES WHEN YOU GET THERE.

But here is what I find interesting. Many of the same people who correctly understand that there is a serious political problem that arises from Californians moving to Colorado, New Yorkers moving to North Carolina and Minnesotans moving to Texas will nevertheless deny that the Irish, Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, and Jews, all of whom came from political cultures far more different from the political tradition established by the English U.S. Founding Fathers, could possibly have had any negative effect on the resulting American political scene.

I fail to see how it is even remotely possible to assert the one and deny the other. Indeed, logic dictates that the changes that stemmed from the multiple waves of immigration from various alien nations must have been considerably greater than the changes resulting from these state-to-state population transfers.

Millions of Mexicans immigrants can now vote. They are accustomed to
choosing between a nationalist party (National Action Party) and two revolutionary socialist
parties (Institutional Revolutionary Party and (Party of the Democratic Revolution)… which may well be the choice facing Americans in less than two decades. If the Republican party does not become the nationalist party, a new one will arise.