Friday, December 31, 2010

Countless Juarez residents flee 'dying city'

No one knows how many have left city of 1.4 million since deadly turf battle

Residents of Ciudad Juarez arrive at the airport of Veracruz, Mexico. They call it the exodus of the 'juarochos': thousands of Mexicans who had immigrated in recent decades to Ciudad Juarez, the most violent city in the country, have returned in recent months to their regions of origin due to fear of crime.

The Associated Press

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico — The mother of four raised a finger, pointing out abandoned and stripped concrete homes and counting how many families have fled the Western Hemisphere's deadliest city on her street alone.

"One, two, three, four, here, and two more back there on the next block," said Laura Longoria.

The 36-year-old ran a convenience store in her working-class neighborhood in south Juarez until the owners closed shop, fed up with the tribute they were forced to pay to drug gangsters to stay in business.

Her family vowed to stick it out. But then came the kidnapping of a teen from a stationery shop across the street. After that, Longoria's husband, Enrique Mondragon, requested a transfer from the bus company where he works.

"They asked, 'where to,'" he recalled. "I said, 'Anywhere.'"


No one knows how many residents have left the city of 1.4 million since a turf battle over border drug corridors unleashed an unprecedented wave of cartel murders and mayhem. Business leaders, citing government tax information, say the exodus could number 110,000, while a municipal group and local university say it's closer to 230,000 and estimates by social organizations are even higher.

The tally is especially hard to track because Juarez is by nature transitory, attracting thousands of workers to high-turnover jobs in manufacturing, or who use the city across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, as a waystation before they slip north illegally.
But its toll is everywhere you look. Barely a week goes by when Longoria and her husband don't watch a neighbor move away. Then the vandals arrive, carrying off window panes, pipes, even light fixtures, until there's nothing but a graffiti-covered shell, surrounded by yards strewn with rotting food or shredded tires. That could be what's in store for Longoria's three-room home of poured concrete if her husband's transfer comes through.

Long controlled by the Juarez Cartel, the city descended into a horrifying cycle of violence after Mexico's most-wanted kingpin, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and his Sinaloa Cartel tried to shoot their way to power here beginning in 2008. President Felipe Calderon sent nearly 10,000 troops to restore order. Now, the Mexican army and federal authorities are going door-to-door, conducting an emergency census to determine just how many residents have fled.

Many people, however, refuse to answer their questions for fear authorities are simply collecting information about neighborhoods so they can begin extorting residents — just like the drug gangs. "Soon," Longoria said, "there won't be many people left to count."

'Out of control'

While many Juarez residents fleeing the violence seek out more peaceful points in Mexico, others have streamed across the border into El Paso, population 740,000, where apartment vacancies are down and requests for new utility services in recently purchased or rented houses have spiked, according to Mayor John Cook.

Massacres, beheadings, YouTube videos featuring cartel torture sessions and even car bombs are becoming commonplace in Juarez, where more than 3,000 people have been killed this year, according to the federal government, making it among the most dangerous places on earth.

El Paso, by contrast, has had three violent deaths — and one was a murder-suicide.

Juarez Chamber of Commerce President Daniel Murguia said at least 6,000 city businesses have closed so far this year, according to Mexican Interior Ministry figures. There is no data available on those shuttered amid last year's and 2008 violence, however, or on scores of businesses targeted by arsonists.

Kathy Dodson, El Paso's economic director, said the number of fees paid for new city business permits there have not increased dramatically, but Jose Luis Mauricio, president of a group for new Mexican business owners in El Paso known as "La Red," or The Net, said membership has grown from nine in February to about 280 today.

"Maybe it's a bit sad for Juarez, but these are business owners who are moving here because they have no choice," said Mauricio, who leads weekly breakfasts for Mexican expatriates looking to set up businesses in El Paso.

One club member is a Mexican-American who owns a factory in Juarez but moved to El Paso with his family after he was kidnapped last year. The 50-year-old, who asked that his name not be published to avoid further repercussions, was held in a Juarez safe house — but managed to untie his hands and cry for help loud enough that neighbors called the Mexican army to rescue him.

"There's a lot of people afraid. I don't blame them. Even if they haven't had a bad experience, they don't want to be the next one to have one, so they run away," said the factory owner. He said he will never move back to Juarez but hopes the violence will one day calm enough for him to visit.

"It's a city that's dying," he said. "It's out of control."

'Juarez is mine'

Many of those who have not left want to, including Marta Elena Ramirez. She owns Restaurant Dona Chole, specializing in menudo, a clear soup made with beef stomach. Her cafeteria-style eatery is on the second floor of an indoor market of Mexican handicrafts.

Ramirez said sales are down 50 percent since 2007, when Americans used to head south for drinking and clubbing, or to stock up on Mexican knicknacks. Now they are too afraid to come.

Though she has held U.S. residency for 18 years, Ramirez lives in Juarez and had never considered moving — until now. She's stopped paying rent on her restaurant and is looking for investors to help her start a street food cart in El Paso.

"I've always been a fighter, and this is my Juarez. I've always said, 'No matter what happens, Juarez is mine,'" said the 65-year-old. "But too much has happened."

As commerce in the city dries up, even Juarez residents who do not move north cross into El Paso more frequently for services no longer available in their neighborhoods and spend $220 million a year in El Paso, said Murguia.

"Here it's a problem of opportunity, not just violence," he said. "There are no jobs, and that means there are more people who are becoming hit men and criminals."

Even for those not tied to drug trafficking, staying in Juarez means paying off extortionists — like a 43-year-old food wholesaler near the city's center who provides everything from bulk dog food to beer that smaller stores use to stock their shelves.

In September 2009, associates from "La Linea," enforcers for the Juarez Cartel comprised of hit men and corrupt police and soldiers, visited his store and said he would be required to pay 4,000 pesos — about $330 — a week "for protection."

"They came to see me in a very friendly way," said the business owner, who asked that his name and key details be omitted so he could not be identified. "Everyone is paying. Those who aren't paying are out of business, even dead."

As recently as 2008, he had 500 wholesale customers; now it's down to 200. Two storeowners who used to do business with him have been gunned down in their stores over the last year, and a third shot dead in his kitchen. Business got so slow that his extortionists recently reduced his weekly payment to 2,500 pesos, about $205, but warned him never to miss a week.

Every week, the wholesaler receives a call in which a distorted voice provides a bank account number where money can be deposited but not withdrawn. He takes cash to indicated bank branches and makes deposits.

The wholesaler's son-in-law was kidnapped early last year — the family put $230,000 on a debit card and exchanged it for his safe return. His store had also been burglarized previously. Since he began paying for protection, however, all crime around him has ceased and his customers have even stopped getting harassed by police for illegally parking in front of his business.

"At first, I used to say 'this will pass,' but now I'm resigned that there's no solution," said the wholesaler, who has applied for U.S. residency to move to El Paso.

Murguia said extortion payments are now so common that they've become known as "cobras del piso" or "floor charges" for doing business in Juarez — but that there's no measure of how much payoffs cost business citywide per year because few admit to paying them.

Abandoned and tagged

Many familiar Juarez restaurants have shut down only to pop up anew on the U.S. side. The high-end Mexican eatery Maria Chuhchena closed its original location in Juarez and resurfaced in El Paso, though the restaurant maintains a branch in Juarez's spiffy Campestre district. Another Juarez favorite, Aroma, was one of three eateries set ablaze by arsonists on a single night in June 2008 and now operates in El Paso.

Now parts of Juarez after sundown are all but deserted — even in the heart of downtown. Closed used car dealerships, taco and hamburger stands, pharmacies, ice cream parlors and muffler shops give way to a block of abandoned doctors' and dentists' offices, which stand forlornly next to a closed stereo outlet and across from an empty office supply store.

"Se renta" and "se vende," signs offering retail space for rent or sale are everywhere, plastered to the shuttered pizzeria, the closed and looted furniture store, the defunct locksmith and the empty facade of "Jersey Mechanic."

Other abandoned properties are tagged with a simple phrase in black spray paint: "How many more?"


This situation is rampant all throughout Mexico, although Juarez is indeed the worst. It has become a hell on Earth, with little exaggeration. The Mexican government, which is even more corrupt than ours, has completely lost control of the situation. It has become like Chicago in the 1920's when gangsters like Al Capone ran the city.

Comrades, you should also bear in mind that Juarez is a border city, just a few miles from El Paso, Texas. It is inconceivable as to how the Federal government keeps sending more and more troops to fight a useless war against an enemy that only considers the USA a threat because we constantly stick our noses in other countries' business, and because we support Israel.

All we have to do to neutralise the Muslim extremist threat is to stop interfering in the Middle East, and stop supporting Israel. If the government would only do that, then they could bring our troops home and deploy them along the southern border where they are DESPERATELY needed. Mexico is the real threat, not some little country in a patch of desert 10,000 miles away. Mexican nationals run our borders everyday bringing with them disease, crime, and a culture which is diametrically the opposite of European culture. Not to mention the fact that they drain our resources and take our jobs.

We're fighting people in the Middle East who would rather not fight us at all, and we're letting the real enemy drive us out of our own land. Comrades, the madness must end, and NOW!

Thursday, December 30, 2010

$500 Fine For Public Swearing?!

MILWAUKEE — A Milwaukee man thinks it's pretty darn ridiculous that he got fined $500 for swearing on a county bus...

Terry Duncan said that he considers it un-American to get slapped with a $500 disorderly conduct fine for saying two words.

The words in questions started with the letters "f" and "s."

After Duncan uttered them last Tuesday, an undercover deputy ordered him off the vehicle and handed him the ticket.

Duncan said he's new to Milwaukee, didn't know about the law and pointed out it's not posted anywhere in the bus. He said he'll fight the ticket in court.

A spokeswoman for Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said he's warned the public about his zero-tolerance approach to disorderly conduct on buses.

Read more:


WTF?! This is getting ridiculous. Alright, I agree that public swearing only serves to show ignorance and crudeness, and I could understand kicking someone off of a bus for swearing, but a $500 fine? Maybe state governments are getting so desperate for revenue, that they are using any technicalities they can think of to extort money from people? What's going to be next? Did you know some cities actually have ordinances that require people to cover their mouths and noses when they cough or sneeze under penalty of fine? Covering your mouth/nose is common courtesy. But to start fining people for rudeness? That's ludicrous. Rudeness is ignorance, and since when is ignorance a crime?

Comrades, I'll admit that when it comes to this sort of ignorance, I've been as guilty as the next one. I've sworn in public. Almost everyone does at one time or another. Hell, I've sworn on this blog. I know I really shouldn't. It serves no legitimate purpose. We should all watch our language, at least in public. The Media likes to paint a picture of National Socialists as crude, foul-mouthed hate mongers. Watch the swearing, the racial slurs, and other crudities. Let's NEVER give them what they want. At least not with this sort of thing.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Hawaii's governor wants to reveal Obama birth info

By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Mark Niesse, Associated Press – Tue Dec 28, 9:34 pm ET

HONOLULU – Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie wants to find a way to release more information about President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth and dispel conspiracy theories that he was born elsewhere.

Abercrombie was a friend of Obama's parents and knew him as a child, and is deeply troubled by the effort to cast doubt on the president's citizenship.
The newly elected governor will ask the state attorney general's office about what can be done to put an end to questions about Obama's birth documentation from Aug. 4, 1961, spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Tuesday.

"He had a friendship with Mr. Obama's parents, and so there is a personal issue at hand," Dela Cruz said. "Is it going to be done immediately? No, the first thing on our list is the economy."

It's unclear what Abercrombie could do because Hawaii's privacy laws have long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn't have a tangible interest.

Hawaii's health director said last year and in 2008 that she had seen and verified Obama's original vital records, and birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers were published within days of Obama's birth at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.

So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because they say there's no proof he was born in the United States, with many of the skeptics questioning whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.
"What bothers me is that some people who should know better are trying to use this for political reasons," Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times last week. "Maybe I'm the only one in the country that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, 'I was here when that baby was born.'"

Abercrombie was unavailable for additional comment Tuesday because he was vacationing on Maui, Dela Cruz said.

The Obama campaign issued a certificate of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's birth date, city and name, along with his parents' names and races. The certificate doesn't list the name of the hospital where he was born or the physician who delivered him, information collected by the state as part of its vital records.

Abercrombie, originally from New York, befriended Obama's parents at the University of Hawaii after he moved here in 1959, the same year the islands became a state.
Abercrombie, 72, has said he remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events, although he acknowledged that he didn't see his parents with their newborn son at the hospital.

The number of requests for Obama's birth information increased this month as the Obama family prepared to vacation in Hawaii.

The Department of Health had received 27 requests for the president's birth information this month as of last Thursday, up from 16 in November, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

Information requests rose despite a new state law allowing officials to ignore persistent and repetitive inquiries, a law that has been used about six times by the department, Okubo said.

"It's just a few people, and some of their requests are the same," she said. "The requests fluctuate from month to month."

Nearly all birth certificate information seekers are from the mainland United States, with requests rarely coming from Hawaii residents, said Cathy Takase, acting director for the state Office of Information Practices.

Takase usually responds to appeals for Obama's birth records by telling requesters that the information they're seeking is contained in records protected by statute.


This issue has become like beating a dead horse. However, I'd still like to see Obama's actual birth certificate. If it proves he was born in Hawaii, then fine. If not, then the courts need to remove him from office on the grounds he's ineligible to be the president. It's as simple as that. I don't particularly care what colour his skin is. The issue is his eligibilty for office, not his race. For the record, if McCain had won, and he hadn't produced his birth certificate, and there were rumours he was actually born in Ireland, my attitude would be the same. SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

This is an interview with Sheriff Babeu of Pinal County, AZ on 12-16-2010. Interview starts at 2:40 This could be good news. Napalitano is there, but will not meet with him. He has declared war on the Cartels, and if they refuse to lay down their arms when ordered to in Spanish, his deputies will shoot to kill. He's taken the gloves off and his team is conducting operations at this time.


At 6:50 he lays it on the line. They will no longer allow the cartels access, especially since he found out the feds had given the officer killed less lethal ammunition. (bean bags) He's ordered his men to be fully locked and loaded, they either surrender, or point a weapon and die.


Another real American hero. The other is Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. Go get 'em guys!

Monday, December 27, 2010


MEXIFORNIA – in meltdown!

U.S. Census Bureau projection: U.S. population 625 million before 2100 (LaSeer)

310 million in 2010.
405 million in 2040.
437 million in 2050.
505 million in 2070.
625 million before 2100.

Above numbers do not include illegal aliens, births to illegal aliens, and, if Senate passes illegal immigrant amnesty next week, supposed “relatives” of amnestied ex-illegal immigrants. Illegals immigrants, births to illegal immigrants, amnesty, and chain migration of “relatives” of amnestied ex-illegal immigrants could push U.S. population over 1 billion mark sometime between 2100 and 2150.

The following outline of the historical population growth in the U.S. begins with data from the first U.S. Census in 1790. The information includes current U.S. Census Bureau data and U.S. Census Bureau population growth projections.

1770-1970: The U.S. took in about 250,000 immigrants per year.

1790: The first U.S. Census counted 4 million people in the U.S.

1790-1915: A 125-year period during which the first 100-million increase in U.S. population happened, and the population increased to 104 million.

1915: Around this time, the U.S. Census Bureau declared that the U.S. no longer had a frontier.

1915-1970: The second 100-million increase in the U.S. population was more rapid than the first 100-million increase. During this 55-year period, the population increased to 205 million.

1970: U.S. population growth changed dramatically after 1970 when Congress forced an increase in legal immigration population growth. In the 1970's, Congress forced the immigration levels up from the traditional 250,000 per year to 425,000 per year.

1980: In the 1980's, Congress forced the legal immigration level up from 425,000 per year to 635,000 per year.

1990: Congress passed new legislation that increased the annual rate of legal immigration from 635,000 per year up to more than 1 million each year through the present year.

The third 100-million increase in the size of the U.S. population was during the 40-year period between 1970 and 2010 when the U.S. population reached around 310 million because Congress continued its pattern of failing to address and correct its unsustainable immigration policy.

The fourth 100-million increase in the size of the U.S. population will happen during the 30 years between 2010 and 2040 when the U.S. population will increase to around 405 million according to current U.S. Census Bureau projections of fertility and mortality rates.

In 2050, the U.S. population will number 437 million according to Census Bureau data and projections.

The population projection for 2050 would be 260 million instead of 437 million if Congress had not acted beginning in 1970 to force an increase in traditional legal immigration levels according to the Census Bureau data and projections.

The fifth 100-million increase in the size of the U.S. population will happen in the 30 years between 2040 and 2070 when it will reach about 505 million according to Census Bureau data and projections.

The sixth 100-million increase in the size of the U.S. population will happen during the 30 years sometime between 2070 and 2100 because the U.S. population will hit 625,000 before 2100 according to Census Bureau data and projections.

These numbers approach a ½ Billion increase in the size of the U.S. population from 205 million in 1970 to 625 million sometime before 2100.

These numbers do not include an uncounted (by the U.S. Census Bureau) number of illegal immigrants that are in the U.S. today. These numbers do not include the increase in the size of the population due to illegal immigrants coming into the U.S., new births to those illegal immigrants, and current immigration policy that allows each legal immigrant to bring many of their supposed “relatives” into the U.S. after they arrive here.

According to the Hew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants that entered the U.S. annually between 2007-2009 was 300,000.

Polls show that during the period 1970-2010, little more than 10% of the U.S. population was in favor of these increases in immigration levels. The American people never asked Congress for these increases in legal immigration.

In 1996, the Clinton administration's National Commission on Sustainability urged big reductions in immigration levels back to more traditional levels of about 250,000 per year as it was during the 200 years from 1790-1970. The commission urged Congress to pass legislation to make big reductions in the legal immigration levels in order to allow the U.S. population to stabilize so that we could be a sustainable society. Congress ignored those recommendations.

In the U.S., chain migration partially explains why legal immigration has quadrupled from about 250,000 per year between 1790 and 1970 to more than 1 million per year today. U.S. chain migration policy is one of the major causes of the current immigrant population explosion in the U.S.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress gave amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants. After the amnesty, those former illegal aliens began to import supposed “relatives” into the U.S. under the U.S. chain migration laws. In turn supposed “relatives” that eventually became naturalized citizens imported their supposed “relatives” under the chain migration laws.

If the U.S. Senate passes the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act bill (the DREAM Act) next week, Dec 13-17, 2010, millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. will receive amnesty. Afterwards, those millions of amnestied former illegal aliens will begin importing supposed “relatives” under the chain migration laws. Chain migration creates a snowball effect and accelerates the explosion in the size of the U.S. population.

The Census Bureau population projection of 625 million before the year 2100 does not include the number of illegal immigrants that enter the U.S. each year and does not include births to those illegal immigrants; nor do the projections include population growth due to the current U.S. immigration policy of chain migration that allows legal immigrants to bring many “relatives” into the U.S. after they arrive in the U.S.

The Census Bureau projections include population growth due to legal immigration and births to legal immigrants.



Illegal immigrants in the U.S. hide from authorities. An accurate count of them does not appear in the Census count. Estimates of their population range from a conservative 11 million to 23 million. The U.S. government prefers to use the conservative estimate.

Based on these Census Bureau projections and considering the number of illegal immigrants that enter the U.S. each year, births to those illegal immigrants, successive births to the offspring of illegal immigrants, and explosive chain migration, it is reasonable to argue that the U.S population will hit 1 billion sometime within the next 125 - 150 years.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s projection that the population will reach 625 million sometime before the year 2100 is not something that could happen or something that might happen. It is something that will happen if Congress fails to act now to change U.S. immigration policy now.

Today, the following 3 countries have the 3 largest populations:
(1) Communist China (People’s Republic of China): 1.3 billion.
(2) India: 1.2 billion
(3) United States of America: 311 million

An article in USA Today in 2008 predicts that the U.S. population will hit the 1 billion mark by 2100.

Americans living in the year 2100 will have no choice in this matter. We do.

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, CA) plans to vote YES next week for passage of the DREAM Act.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat, CA) plans to vote YES next week for passage of the DREAM Act.

Call the offices of both U.S. senators everyday between now through the moment when members of the U.S. Senate start voting on the DREAM Act sometime next week beginning on Monday, Dec 13.

Tell the senators to OPPOSE the CLOTURE VOTE. Tell them that if the cloture vote passes to VOTE NO on the DREAM Act amnesty.

(The purpose of a cloture vote is to determine whether there are enough senators that would want to debate a bill and then after the debate to move forward to a final vote. When the Senate has a cloture vote, it votes on whether to go ahead and have a debate about a bill. If a cloture vote fails to pass, then the bill dies, there is no debate, and there is no final vote. The bill is dead. If a Senate cloture vote passes, then the Senate begins debating the various provisions in the bill, and after the debate, there is a final vote. If the final vote passes the bill, it becomes law. If the DREAM Act bill were to pass the cloture vote next week, there would be a debate on the bill. After the debate, there would be a final vote. The final vote could take place on the same day after the end of the cloture vote, possibly beginning minutes after the end of the cloture vote. If the final vote were to pass the DREAM Act amnesty bill, millions of illegal aliens would receive an amnesty.)

For the past couple of weeks, 10’s of thousands of illegal immigrants, their supporters, and banks of paid phone callers across the country have made 10’s of thousands of phone calls to the offices of Feinstein, Boxer, and other Members of Congress to say to them to vote YES on the DREAM Act amnesty. Whether the DREAM Act amnesty dies or passes could depend simply on whether there are more callers that say vote NO to kill the DREAM Act or say vote YES to pass it.

Call the office (phone numbers at bottom of post) of each senator and tell the staffer that answers the phone that you want the senator to vote NO on the cloture vote, and if the Senate passes the cloture vote, that you want the senator to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty. If the office is closed, leave a clear voice mail message stating that you want the senator to vote NO to kill the DREAM Act.

Additionally, it is best to phone other senators' offices even if you do not live in the state that elected them to the Senate. NumbersUSA website has a list on its website of the senators that it is best to call and tell to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty.

U.S. Senate website has contact information for all 100 U.S. Senators:



Over 1 million active NumbersUSA members killed every attempt by Congress (read Wall Street) during the past 10 years to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. During the past couple of weeks 100’s of thousands of members of NumbersUSA have logged on the NumbersUSA website and sent 100’s of thousands of ready-made (free, no charge) faxes to Congress. 100’s of thousands of the members have made phone calls to the offices of Members of Congress. Join the fight now. It’s not too late:

According to the Hew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants that entered the U.S. annually between 2007-2009 was 300,000:

11 million illegal immigrant population in U.S.:

23 million illegal immigrant population in U.S.:

Today, the following 3 countries have the 3 largest populations:
(1) Communist China (People’s Republic of China): 1.3 billion.
(2) India: 1.2 billion
(3) United States of America: 311 million

USA Today, April 30, 2008, Expert: U.S. population to hit 1 billion by 2100:

1986 amnesty for estimated 3 million illegal immigrants:

Description of the DREAM Act:

Outrageous, real consequences of the DREAM Act:

Nightmarish details about the DREAM Act:

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
State offices:
559-497-5109, Fresno, CA
951-684-4849, Riverside, CA
213-894-5000, Los Angeles, CA
916-448-2787, Sacramento, CA
619-239-3884, San Diego, CA
415-403-0100, San Francisco, CA

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
State offices:
415-393-0707, San Francisco, CA
310-914-7300, Los Angeles, CA
619-231-9712, San Diego, CA
559-485-7430, Fresno, CA


“Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended.”

Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million

Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy."



Do I need to? This report says it all. The rest of this country had better bloody well take a good look at this state if you want a glimpse of your own future. If you allow it, this is going to happen to you without question. The only real question will be exactly when will it happen? Sooner than you think, comrades. I believe California is a lost cause. I'm only staying until my folks pass away, then it's back to New Hampshire for me. California started to fight back too late. It's probably too late for the entire Southwest as well. The rest of the nation still has a chance, but only if we fight NOW before it is too late. The future is now, and it's name is Aztlan. Let's see that it doesn't go any farther. THE LINE IS DRAWN. THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER! HAIL VICTORY! HEIL HITLER!

BTW, this report has one error. California is not 50% Hispanic. IT IS 60% HISPANIC!

Sunday, December 26, 2010

More Announcements And Updates

Since traffic is slow here this weekend because of the holiday, I thought I'd just make a couple of quick announcements and updates.

1. ANP Nationals will be held late this summer in Laurens, SC. Exact date will be released when I'm authorised to do so.

2. My ANP YouTube Channel has been up and running for 26 days. I have two videos of my own posted, a recruitment video and a documentary I made on the origins and meaning of the Swastika. Both have also been posted here as well. I have received 407 channel views, 414 upload views, 14 Friends, and 11 subscribers in less than a month! I've also favourited a few from other channels.

3. Finally, the predicted Saturday night rains have come. Not too bad so far, but after the record soaking we got which ended only two days ago, we're pretty well saturated. It won't take that much more rain before the run-off starts doing more damage. I tarred my roof Friday morning. No leaks - so far. I'll just have to hope I got it. I'll know by morning. Got the pots ready any just in case!

4. I hope all of you had a great Christmas. Next is New Year's. Here in California, the cops will be out in force. Watch the drinking and driving. I'd hate to see any of you hurt, killed, or hurt and kill another. I'm going to a New Year's Eve party two doors down from me. Naturally, it being so close, I won't be doing any driving that night, so DUI's are not a concern. If you have a choice of two parties, one within walking distance, the other not, then choose the closer. It may save your life or freedom, or someone else's life. Just be careful, and act responsibly. With the state budgets so strained this year, the cops want to bust you more than ever so the courts can impose a hefty fine on you first-timers to generate much needed revenue. Don't let that happen. BE SAFE COMRADES!

Friday, December 24, 2010

We Got Clobbered!

I guess most of you heard about the pounding we took out here in the last week. Something like seven or eight inches of rain. That's a new record for here! We had mud and rock slides, flooding, and even a few lightening strikes. Believe me, sunny California has been anything but sunny!

Some of you in other parts of the country are probably saying, "What a bunch of wusses. We get that kind of weather all the time."

Well, that's my point. California is simply neither prepared, nor used to that kind of weather, and certainly not for an entire week. I had so many leaks in my roof I was running out of pots! On Friday, I'll be up on my roof with the Blackjack (roofing tar). My poor brother had it even worse. His living room ceiling collapsed. I just got a little wet with no serious damage. Many people around here actually lost their homes due to serious flooding, and mud and rock slides. Some had their cars carried away by flood waters. With most of them, it was their own stupid fault. I mean it shouldn't take a genius to realise that when the water is above the door of an 8 cylinder 4 X 4 pickup, you don't cross that road. But noooo! Some moron right here in San Bernardino in a Ford F250 4 X 4 did just that. Even with four wheel drive he didn't make it. The rescue squad had to get him out, and shortly after his truck just started drifting away with the mud and water. I hope he was insured, the idiot.

Maybe that's not a fair statement. Like I said, Californians just aren't used to this sort of thing. Being originally from New Hampshire, I know how to drive in harsh weather, while native Californians don't. Well, the guy in the F250 knows better now!

San Bernardino County was one of the hardest hit areas. A state of emergency exists here, and several other areas including Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties. The damage is estimated at nearly $100 million and is expected to rise. Right here in San Bernardino County we're already up to $20 million ourselves.

Up in Kern County just north of LA county, 25 homes were destroyed when truck-sized boulders rolled down from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and plowed right into them. Just imagine being asleep in bed when a boulder the size of the one that almost crushed Harrison Ford in 'Raiders Of The lost Ark' comes crashing through your bedroom! Yikes!

All of So. Cal. is in a bad way right now, and more rain is forecast for Saturday night, and more for next Wednesday. It'll be a merry, but wet Christmas for us all this year. I hope Santa has rain gear!

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

2010 Census Results

WASHINGTON — After knocking on 50 million doors and handling tens of millions of surveys, the Census Bureau on Tuesday announced that the official population of the United States is now 308,745,538.

The 2010 census also shows America's once-torrid population growth dropping to its lowest level in seven decades.

The new number, based on the surveys taken on April 1, 2010, is a 9.7 percent increase over the last census, 281.4 million residents in 2000.

But that's slower than the 13.2 percent increase from 1990 to 2000. And it's the slowest rate of increase since the 1940 census. That is the decade in which the Great Depression slashed the population growth rate by more than half, to 7.3 percent.

The Census figures will be used to reapportion the 435 House seats among the 50 states. The numbers trigger a high-stakes process wherein the dominant party in each state redraws the election map, shaping the political landscape for the next 10 years.

In Congress, the steady migration to the South and West should be a boon for Republicans, with GOP-leaning states led by Texas picking up House seats.

The U.S. is still growing quickly relative to other developed nations. The population in France and England each increased roughly 5 percent over the past decade, while in Japan the number is largely unchanged and in Germany the population is declining. China grew at about 6 percent; Canada's growth rate is roughly 10 percent.

"We have a youthful population that will create population momentum through a large number of births, relative to deaths, for years to come," said Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the Population Reference Bureau, a private firm in Washington that analyzes census data. "But demographers generally expect slower growth in the first decade of the 21st century."

The declining growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years. The 2010 count represents the number of people — citizens as well as legal and illegal immigrants — who called the U.S. their home on April 1 this year.

The most populous state was California (37,253,956); the least populous, Wyoming (563,626).

The state that gained the most numerically since 2010 was Texas (up 4,293,741 to 25,145,561); the state that gained the most as a percentage was Nevada (up 35 percent to 2,700,551).

Politically, Texas will gain four House seats due to a burgeoning Hispanic population and a diversified economy that held up relatively well during the recession. Other winners are GOP-leaning Arizona (1) and Florida (2).

Other states with increases are: Georgia (1), South Carolina (1), Utah (1) and Washington (1).

States that lose seats are: Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1).

The Ohio and New York losses typify many of the Democratic strongholds carried by Barack Obama in 2008 that saw declines in political influence.

And, for the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California did not gain a House seat after a census after losing many of its residents in the last decade to neighboring states.

On Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to downplay the possibility that 2010 census results would be a boon for Republicans. "I don't think shifting some seats from one area of the country to another necessarily marks a concern that you can't make a politically potent argument in those new places."

The projections do not account for overseas U.S. military personnel and their families, who are typically counted at military bases in the U.S. The Census Bureau obtains Pentagon records on overseas military and adds them to the resident count before allocating the House seats. In 2000, North Carolina beat out Utah for the last House seat because of its strong Army presence.

The stakes are high. States on the losing end Tuesday may have little recourse to challenge the numbers. Still, census officials were bracing for the possibility of lawsuits seeking to reverse the 2010 findings, according to internal documents.

The release of state apportionment numbers is the first set of numbers from the 2010 census. Beginning in February, the Census Bureau will release population and race breakdowns down to the neighborhood level for states to redraw congressional boundaries.

Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and Mississippi will be among the first states to receive their redistricting data next February.

The 2010 census results also are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state's Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election.


Population increase may have indeed slowed, but that will change if the economy improves. The better times are, the more births there are. Comrades, I have a question. Just how many people can this country hold before we're literally all full? I'd say we still have room if we used places like Wyoming more. But there won't be enough room forever. We'll reach our limit eventually. Are we going to wait until this happens before we take action? No, we'll take care of it later. It's always later. Later we'll do something about over-population. Later we'll do something about nuclear weapons. People seem to think we have all the time in the world. Comrades, how much time does the world actually have?

A perfect example in miniature is Easter Island, 4,000 miles west of Chile in the South Pacific. It's the island with all those weird stone statues. Anyway, it was home to 10,000 natives at one time. It was a tropical paradise. They deforested the entire island, and used up most of their resources due to over-population. Today, only about 2,000 people live there. Will that happen to our whole country before we put strict limits on our population?

As Shakespeare said, "Later, later, later still. Too late!"

Monday, December 20, 2010

With gay ban debate over, military impact in doubt

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – Sun Dec 19, 8:03 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The debate over gays in the military has been settled with a historic decision to allow them to serve openly, but big questions lie ahead about how and when the change will take place, how troops will accept it and whether it will hamper the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law this week the legislation that passed the Senate on Saturday, an act some believe will carry social implications as profound as President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order on racial equality in the military.

The new law probably won't go into practice for months. Obama and his top advisers must first certify that repealing the 1993 ban on gays serving openly will not damage U.S. troops' ability to fight. That ban, known as "don't ask, don't tell," has allowed gays to serve, but only if they kept quiet about their sexual orientation.

In the meantime, the restrictions will remain on the books, although it's unclear how fully they will be enforced. Some believe gay discharge cases will be dropped as soon as Obama signs the law.

The issue of gays in the military has been a contentious one for decades. Until 1993, all recruits had to state on a questionnaire whether they were homosexual; if they said "yes," they could not join. More than 13,500 service members were dismissed under the law.

In the years since the ban went into effect, views in the wider society have evolved. Gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Opinion surveys say a majority of Americans think it's OK for gays to serve in uniform.

The repeal vote by Congress was a political victory for Obama, who campaigned on ending the ban. Even though opponents have made clear they will continue to argue against the change, Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who commanded a brigade in Iraq, said Sunday he believes the military — from top commanders to foot soldiers — will accept their new orders.

"Pretty much all the heated discussion is over and now it's a matter of the more mundane aspects of implementing the law," Mansoor, a professor of military history at Ohio State University, said in a telephone interview.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who had argued against the policy change, said Sunday that "the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy."

Amos vowed to "personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines."

Implementation begins, under terms of the legislation, with Obama's certification to Congress — for which there's no stated deadline. There is room for argument, however, about what certification must entail and how long it should take. Even after that, there will be a mandatory 60-day waiting period.
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said he expects the Pentagon to announce shortly that it needs a long time for training and education to prepare troops for the change — possibly lasting much of 2011.

In a statement Saturday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he will begin the certification process immediately. But any change in policy won't come until after careful consultation with military service chiefs and combatant commanders, he said.
Gates has supported Obama's push to repeal the 1993 ban, but stressed a go-slow approach.

"Successful implementation will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message and proactive education throughout the force," Gates said.
Some questions that Gates faces before providing certification have been answered in the recommendations of a yearlong Pentagon study on the impact of repealing the 1993 ban. The study said, for example, that no new standards of conduct are needed. It found that issues of sexual conduct and fraternization can be dealt with by using existing Defense Department rules and regulations, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The study, released Nov. 30, found that two-thirds of service members surveyed didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect on military effectiveness. Of those who did predict negative consequences, most were in combat elements such as the infantry. Their misgivings became ammunition for opponents of repeal, including the influential chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps.
Certifying to Congress also requires writing Pentagon policies and regulations to put in place the repeal law — and stating that the new policies are consistent with standards that allow the military to remain ready for combat, to fight effectively and to ensure cohesion in fighting units.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a leading opponent of repealing the 1993 law, said Sunday that the certification process is a "sham" because it will be done by three people who already have stated their support for the change: Obama, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Donnelly also believes that passage and implementation of the repeal legislation will lead to a wave of lawsuits by gay troops seeking, for example, more military benefits for same-sex partners.

"The story is just beginning," she said in an interview.

Gay rights activists say the complications and uncertainties are being overblown.
"Only three steps are needed to assure a smooth and quick transition to open gay service," Belkin said. They are: an immediate executive order from Obama suspending all gay discharges; a few weeks to put new regulations in place; then immediate certification to Congress that the new law will work.

There remains, however, strong doubt among some that the way ahead will be smooth.

"The acceptance of open homosexuality and the creation and enforcement of new policies could be far more difficult to implement than repeal advocates ever envisioned," said Richard L. Eubank, a retired Marine and Vietnam combat veteran who leads the 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Richard Myers, a retired Air Forge general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that the degree of difficulty in the immediate future is hard to predict. "But in the long run I think we can" make the change without hurting military effectiveness.

Not without opposition, both inside and outside the military.
Bryan Taylor of Prattville, Ala., who served four years on active duty and in November was elected to the Alabama Senate, said Sunday in an interview that he sees difficulties ahead.

"I think this is going to pose a lot of challenges for the military," Taylor said. When a soldier openly declares he is gay, "it does create an unnecessary distraction."
Associated Press writers Anne Flaherty in Washington and Bob Johnson in Montgomery, Ala., contributed to this report.
Pentagon study:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:
Information on the bill, H.R. 2965, can be found at


I'm sorry to say that the average GI will most likely accept this new policy with little or no trouble. Once Upon A Time in the good OLD US of A, homosexuality was a perversion (still is in my book), but now it's a "lifestyle choice". Our young adults, with a few exceptions, were raised to believe that "it's OK to be Gay." Most of them have no idea what it's like to like in a society where Queers are treated like pariahs, so most won't have a problem with this. Some will, but not most.

It's like the motorcycle helmet law here in California. We've had it for about 15 years. We have a whole crop of riders who grew up never knowing what it feels like to ride lidless. They don't know any other way except wearing a helmet, so they don't object to this law. They feel, "Not wear a helmet? Why would anyone not want to wear a helmet? I don't get it." The same with Queers. They were raised to tolerate, and even accept them, and many of them can't understand why we old fogies like Comrades Rock, JT, Paul, and myself won't. We're just old-fanshioned, and out-of-touch with the modern way of thinking. But I should point out that just because the majority believes something is right, doesn't make it so. At one time, everyone believed the world was flat, and they acted like it was flat (don't sail out too far or you'll fall off the edge), but it's still round. The majority's belief's didn't alter the facts. And here is an undeniable fact: The purpose of sex is procreation (pleasure is only incidental, not the real purpose). Two men or two women cannot procreate. QED, homosexuality is abnormal.

Through National Socialism, decency will one day be restored to this modern Sodam and Gommorah called the USA. Until then, we must stand our ground and not sacrifice our principles. In previous posts, I always said I would never advise anyone to quit their job because of a conflict with principles. Jobs are scarce, and we all need to make a living. However, this is different. I call upon all good National Socialists in the military to leave the service as soon as they are legally able to do so. Don't desert. But as soon as you are able to be legally discharged, leave. If you volunteer for another hitch, in my opinion you are a hypocrite.

Sunday, December 19, 2010



DREAM Act Goes Down in Flames in Senate

Read more:

Published December 18, 2010 |

An immigration bill that would blaze a trail to legal status for hundreds of thousands of undocumented students went down in flames in the Senate on Saturday, delivering a critical blow to Democrats and Hispanic activists.

* * * * *

Both sides, which have fought tooth and nail over the bill immediately reacted to Saturday's vote.

"Now, the next Congress can start to put unemployed Americans back to work by eliminating the ability for illegal aliens to hold jobs and by reducing the number of unnecessary permanent foreign workers we currently bring in legally every month," said Roy Beck, president and founder of NumbersUSA.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "It is deeply disappointing that the Senate today refused to even allow a vote on the bill."

House Democrats vowed the fight was not over.

"Though disappointed by the result of today's DREAM Act vote in the Senate, we are not deterred in our determination to continue advocating for this critical legislation," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.


Well, maybe the good guys don't always lose these days after all. This is most assuredly it for the DREAM Act for at least two years. It lost two votes in two weeks. The Senate still has a few things to do before it finishes up for the year and goes home for the holidays. Afterwards, the Republicrats take over, and the pro-amnesty people are SOL. I still say the entire system is rotten, but every now and again they do something right. I wonder how long before they screw us over in some other way. Well, we'll just have to wait and see.
Comrades, below is a list of how our senators voted. I included the Democans who voted against amnesty, which was only five. Also, a list of the six Republicrats who voted yes. Of the remaining 89 senators, all the Democans voted yes (including my two senators, Barbara Boxer (Jewish), and Diane Feinstein (also Jewish). All the remaining Republicrats voted no. Comrades, for those of you who still bother to vote in our farcical elections, I hope you'll remember who voted yes and who voted no when they come up for reelection.

Now, let's look at the individual votes ( asterisks *** before names means they are Lame Ducks who leave office Jan. 5) . . .

(Ark.) Pryor
(Mont.) Baucus
(Mont.) Tester
(Neb.) Nelson
(N.C.) Hagan

Where would we be without you activists in Montana? Congratulations to all of you in those four states for helping these Senators understand the importance of ignoring the appeals of their Party leaders (including the President) to support an amnesty.
(W.Va.) Manchin didn't vote but issued a statement that he opposed the DREAM Act amnesty.

All other Democrats voted YES for the amnesty today.

In a Senate filibuster roll call like this one, the effect of not voting is the same as voting NO. Sen. Manchin is brand new and takes the seat held close to forever by the late Robert Byrd who was one of our most reliable Democrats to stand for American workers against unfair foreign labor competition. We are looking to West Virginians to make sure Sen. Manchin continues that tradition (although you didn't succeed with your Sen. Rockefeller today).


(Alaska) Murkowski
(Ind.) Lugar
*** (Utah) Bennett

In a Senate filibuster roll call, the effect of not voting is the same as voting NO. Our whip counting beforehand indicated that the following three were committed to vote NO, even though they didn't end up voting at all.

(Ky.) *** Bunning
(N.H.) *** Gregg
(Utah) Hatch

All other Republicans voted NO against the amnesty.

That accounts for all 100 of the Senators.

The next sections just look at groups of those Senators in a different way.

Baucus NO
Conrad YES
* Dorgan YES
Landrieu YES
McCaskill YES
Pryor NO
Tester NO


McCain AZ
* Brownback KS
Collins ME
Hutchison TX
Snowe ME

Stabenow MI
McCaskill MO
Webb VA
Lieberman CT
Nelson FL
Klobuchar MN
Bingaman NM
Brown OH
Cantwell WA
Kohl WI

Lugar IN

Saturday, December 18, 2010

DREAM ACT Gets One More Chance TODAY!

Comrades, despite the fact that the majority of the American people have spoken, and said NO to amnesty, the Democans in the Senate lead by Majority Leader Harry Reid are determined to get this travesty voted into law. All we ca do now is wait and keep our fingers crossed that it fails again. If it does, then the DREAM Act is dead.

However, I wouldn't put it past Reid to play any dirty trick he can to get his way, such having the goods on some Democan senator who voted no the other day, and blackmailing him into changing his vote.

It's now too late for anyone to do anything but wait and watch. The organisation Numbers USA is having a live webcast of this vote today. You can watch it at That's dot tv, not dot com.

I'll be commenting on the results later. If this thing wins, don't come back here unless you don't mind obscenities. I know Chairman Suhayda wants us to watch our language, but if this passes, I'll be so infuriated, I won't be able to help myself. I bet a lot of you will too.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Unemployment Benefits Have Been Extended!

WASHINGTON — Acting with uncommon speed, Congress gave final passage Thursday night of sweeping, bipartisan legislation to avoid a Jan. 1 spike in income taxes for millions and renew jobless benefits for victims of the worst recession in 80 years.

The House passed the measure 277-148 to send the bill to President Barack Obama for signing.

The measure also will cut Social Security taxes for nearly every wage-earner and pump billions of dollars into the still-sluggish economy.

The legislation was the result of a reach across party lines by President Barack Obama and top Republicans in Congress — stubborn adversaries during two years of political combat that ended when the GOP emerged the undisputed winner in midterm elections on Nov. 2.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., called it "a bipartisan moment of clarity" as the House moved toward an expected late night vote.
NBC/WSJ poll: Nearly 60% approve of tax deal

After forcing a delay in the House early in the day, Democratic critics settled for a separate vote in their bid to toughen an estate tax provision they attacked as a giveaway to the very rich. They were defeated, 233-194, with one vote of "present."

"The president will be able to sign it as soon as he likes," said Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey, who added later on the House floor he would support "an imperfect bill" in hopes of stimulating job creation.

Like the Senate, much of the House support came from Republicans. Democrats were deeply divided on the bill. Only a few dozen out of 179 Republicans voted against it.

On the bill's final vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did not vote; House GOP leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., voted for the bill, and Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-SC, voted against the bill.

The Senate passed the legislation Wednesday, 81-19.

House Republicans who will move into powerful posts when the GOP takes control in January urged passage of the bill.

Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, in line to become majority leader, said the measure, while not perfect, marked a "first step" toward economic recovery.

Largely marginalized in the negotiations leading to the bill, Democrats emphasized their unhappiness with Obama.

"We stand today with only one choice: Pay the ransom now or pay more ransom later," said Rep. Brad Sherman of California. "This is not a place Democrats want to be. But, ultimately, it is better to pay the ransom today than to watch the president pay even more, and I think he'd be willing to pay a bit more next month."

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said the White House "could have gotten a better deal" in secretive talks.

Policy differences aside, the legislation stood on the brink of enactment an astonishingly quick 10 days after the president announced at the White House he had agreed on a framework with Republicans.

With the economy performing poorly and a year-end tax increase looming, there were none of the customary congressional hearings that normally precede debate on major legislation, and few if any complaints that lawmakers had not had enough time to review the legislation.

The bill provides a two-year extension of tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president, avoiding an increase at all income levels that would otherwise occur on New Year's Day.

It would also renew an expiring program of benefits for the long-term unemployed, and enact a reduction in Social Security taxes for 2011 that would amount to $1,000 for an individual earning $50,000 a year. The bill's cost, $858 billion over two years, would be tacked on to the federal deficit, a sore spot with deficit hawks in both parties.

The Senate approval came scarcely more than a week after Obama announced he and Republicans had agreed on the general outlines.

Obama has urged the House to approved the measure unchanged, calling the bill a good compromise with Republicans that would help the economy recover from the worst recession in decades while providing assistance to the unemployed.

But his pleas have failed to satisfy critics in the House who are adamantly opposed to an easing of the estate tax, a concession Obama made to Republicans.

As a result, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House Democratic leadership have spent recent days trying to satisfy liberals inside the party who want to kill — or at least change — the bill, without running the risk of having taxes rise for millions on Jan. 1.

Republicans have left them little maneuvering room, warning they may walk away from their agreement with Obama if the measure is changed.

Nor was the tax bill the only priority that the White House and congressional leaders worked on as the year — and their control of both houses of Congress — neared an end.

Temporary funding for the federal government expires over the weekend, and Democrats want to enact a pork barrel-stuffed spending measure before conservatives take over the House in January.

Obama still hopes to push ratification of a new arms control treaty with Russia through the Senate, and the White House and party leaders seek legislation to let openly gay servicemen and servicewomen remain in the military.

Controversial provisions

The estate tax portion of the tax bill, as drafted, would allow $5 million of each spouse's estate to pass to heirs without taxation, with the balance subjected to a 35 percent rate.

Many Democrats favor an alternative to reduce the amount that can be inherited tax free to $3.5 million, and tax the balance at 45 percent.

Supporters said that, if approved, the change would expose an additional 6,600 estates to taxes in 2011, and the government would collect $23 billion over two years as a result.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., one of the critics of the Obama-GOP agreement, said it is important for opponents to have the opportunity to vote on alternatives, even if they have no chance of passing.

"This is the last opportunity we have," he said, noting that Congress will soon adjourn for the year and Republicans will control the House in January.

Other tax cuts, enacted in the past decade, include a more generous child tax credit, breaks for college students, lower taxes on capital gains and dividends and a series of business tax breaks designed to encourage investment. All would be extended if the legislation passes.

The jobless benefits that would be renewed would go to individuals who have been laid off more than 26 weeks but less than 99. Checks average about $300 a week.

Numerous business tax breaks that are due to expire would also be extended, as would a series of provisions relating to energy taxes.

Among them is the federal subsidy for ethanol, supported by many veteran lawmakers from Midwestern states but targeted for cuts or possible extinction by conservatives who will take office in January.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.


Alright, so there will be tax breaks for the Judeo-Capitalists. But the middle class will benefit as well. Let's also not forget that unemployment benefits will be extended as well, so all of you who are out-of-work should breath a sigh of relief - for the moment. At least you can enjoy your Holidays now.

When you're unemployed, you can't worry about tomorrow. All you can do is take care of today. Although I'm working now, and my business has picked up a bit, I've been unemployed, so I know what's like. It's like being on the outside looking in. It doesn't feel good. After awhile, when you get the occasional job interview, you start to feel like you're going there with your hat in your hands, begging for work. It's degrading. However, did anyone ever stop to think that that is exactly how they want you to feel? You better bloody well believe that's EXACTLY how they want you to feel. They want you to come in there desparate, with your spirit broken, ready to do anything they demand, and make any concession to get that job. They are conditioning the working class, and the White working class in particular to take on a slave-mentality. They are training us to jump through their hoops.

Now I'm not telling you to tell them they can take their jobs and shove them. We all have to earn our daily bread, as the Fuhrer often put it. However, we must also not let them enslave us any more than they have. We have to resist their financial tyranny. If you know what they are trying to reduce you to, you can put one over on them. You have to work. That's a fact. I wish it wasn't. I hate having to do sometimes repugnant jobs at the bidding of others, but I too must earn a living. If we understand just exactly how they are trying to condition us, we can resist them. We can just pretend to go along with them so we can support ourselves and our families. Then, when the time is right, we can show them that they have failed. We'll take back our country, our economy, our culture, and our heritage, and make these greedy, corrupt Judeo-Capitalists pay for their crimes against the Aryan Folk. Comrades, that day will come. There's no doubt in my mind about that. The only question is when will it come? The answer is when we're strong enough. When we've educated enough of our Folk. When we hand out those special sunglasses and show everyone that THEY LIVE! Not aliens like in the movie of course, but the real enemy: The greedy and corrupt who sold out their own Folk for material wealth. Joining the ANP is the best step you can take to advance our struggle.

Justice doesn't always use a clock. Often, it uses a calender.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

It's That Time Of The Month

No, I'm not referring to the ladies and their monthlies. This time of the month is even more unpleasant for some, but it has to be done. When I was editing AN's monthly publication, I used to call this My Monthly Nag, because some people need to be nagged about this every month. I'm referring of course to your monthly pledge to the ANP.

It's now December 16, and not only should your monthly pledge be in the mail, it should be at HQ by now. If you haven't gotten it in yet, you're past due. Now I know Christmas is this month and because of it, you may be a little short, but we're only talking about a minimum pledge of $10.00. Unless you've made other arrangements with Chairman Suhayda, you need to send in your cash or money order ASAP. No checks please. A little extra would be a nice Christmas gift, not only to the ANP, but all Aryan Folk.

Never forget that the ANP has expenses every single month. How about the expenses of the White Worker? There's paper, ink cartridges, copy machine toner. Mailing costs. The post office doesn't deliver for free. There's hosting fees for the website, cost of the P.O. Box, and other expenses I'm not even thinking about but are there each and every month. I'd hate to see the ANP start the New Year off in the red. Well, with King Commie Obama in office, we're all "in the red" these days!LOL But you know what I mean.

Also, with Christmas just one week from Saturday, have you done your literature handouts for this month yet? If not you need to get that done too. Just one more weekend before Christmas! This month, I'm trying it a different way. The first weekend this month, I took a bad fall on Thursday afternoon and hurt my back and knee, so I couldn't go out that weekend. The next weekend it rained. So what I did was I put 200 pieces of literature and stickers in my truck. Whenever I went someplace, like to the grocery store or Walmart, I gave a couple out, slipped one or two onto shelves, left one in the men's room, and put up a sticker here, and one there. My little box of literature is nearly empty now and it seems like I really took no time at all out from my daily schedule. Probably by the end of the week I'll be all finished.

When I was with ANP the first time, I think it was Comrade Axl who said he never went anywhere without some literature or cards in his car because you never know when an opportunity to talk to someone who may be interested might come up. It's like I always say, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Comrades, your pledges and literature are your most important obligations to ANP and the fight for our Folk. If we all shirk our responsibilities, then the enemy has already won.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010


DREAM Act Fails in Senate, Deals Blow to Anti-White Movement!

The fight against the DREAM Act amnesty not only proved that the American political process is not as broken as White Nationalists once imagined, but that the forces of communism, treason, and race suicide can be pushed back – no matter how powerful.

For over nine years, RINOs and Democrats have conspired to push the DREAM Act through Congress, and with a mulatto in the White House and a solid Democratic majority in the House and Senate, fate briefly seemed destined to smile on advocates of amnesty for illegal aliens, who pinned their hopes on Dirty Harry’s ambition and Nancy Pelosi’s corrupt bargain with the Treason Caucus, to pass at least one small portion of their radical agenda.

Congratulations to all those who struck a blow against these enemies of America. This victory would not have been possible without the brave decision by so many of you to stand your ground and represent the commonsense views of your constituents.

How’s that for a change?

Even today, the anti-White movement is busy skewing the facts and spoonfeeding pro-amnesty propaganda to the mainstream media and the public. Imagine2050, an anti-White organization with ties to the Far Left and hate groups like the NAACP and La Raza, has repeatedly trashed White America on a daily basis for over two years now.

White Americans are smart enough to read the tea leaves and see through their smokescreen of hypocrisy and lies. They know that rewarding criminals and pandering to anti-White hate groups is hardly in their racial self interest.

We are winning this debate. These criminals will remain in the shadows where they rightly belong … until we elect a government willing to deport each and every single one of their sorry tan asses back to Mexico or whatever corrupt Third World hellhole they originally hailed from.

Numerous reports have shown that rewarding illegal aliens with a “path to citizenship,” in-state college tuition, and access to other public services would have been a significant drag on the American economy. And yet the anti-White movement continually proffers false information to distort the truth.

Seriously, how can anyone look at a bankrupt state like Mexifornia – the Greece of the Pacific – and claim it is a model worth imitating? How does America benefit from assuming the burden of supporting Mexico’s underclass?

The DREAM Act’s fate now lies in the hands of the U.S. Senate, which is expected to vote again on the bill next week. Harry Reid pulled the bill from the floor yesterday morning because he lacked the votes to secure a filibuster proof majority.

Regardless of how the House vote was decided, the Senate has spoken, and we have defeated this Crime Against America yet again. And this is a victory, which we must savor.

We have always known that the majority of Americans reject amnesty for illegal aliens, as the polls have consistently shown this, and the electorate most recently proved it by tossing out pro-amnesty RINOs and 63 Democrats in the 2010 election cycle, replacing them with restrictionists like Lou Barletta, in spite of hysterical cries of “racism” from anti-White groups such as Imagine2050.

These so-called “progressive” organizations have been put on notice that what they malign as “hate” is now mainstream and their anti-White plot against America will no longer be tolerated or quietly submitted to.


Well, what do you know about that?! Frankly, I'm quite surprised. I thought Senator Reid would be able to swing a few Republicrats to his side in time, but he didn't! However, let's not sit on our laurels celebrating this just yet. Unfortunately, while in critical condition, the DREAM ACT isn't quite dead yet. Reid has another chance next week. He's going to resubmit it for another vote. This time all he needs to do is swing one Republicrat for a fillibuster-proof number. If he fails again, then the Bad DREAM is really over. I doubt there will be enough Senators left between Christmas and New Years to be bothered with voting on any bills, especially with many of them not coming back in the New Year. As to those senators who did not win reelection, if you were one of them, and December 31 was your last day in office, would you bother going back home to say Salem, Oregon for Christmas, then back to D.C. on Monday? I wouldn't. I'd say since I'm out next Friday, fuck the whole damn thing. I'm spending the holiday week at home with my family. Next week is the last chance. Then it's TAPS for the DREAM ACT. That would be the best Christmas present I could ever get.

Now don't get me wrong. I still say that our corrupt system is beyond repair and should be discarded like an old FORD Pinto. It's just every now and again I get a pleasant surprise from them. However, even if they vote it down again next week, they'll find another way to screw the White Working class before the end of January, if not sooner. For those who think I'm too cynical, I advise you to take your rose-coloured glasses off and put on your special sunglasses. THEY LIVE!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul

Associated Press
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Judge Strikes Down Federal Health Care Law

Big legal setback for Obama's health care overhaul

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled, agreeing with the argument of Virginia's Republican attorney general - and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January. Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase - or decline to purchase - health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause," said Hudson, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, the White House predicted it would prevail in the Supreme Court, although it may be a year or two before the health care law gets there. The next step for the Virginia lawsuit is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where Democratic-appointed judges hold a majority.

In an interview with television station WFLA in Tampa, Fla., on Monday, Obama emphasized that other judges had either found the law constitutional or dismissed lawsuits against it.

"Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," Obama said. "You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things."

But in the short term, the latest court ruling hands potent ammunition to GOP opponents as they prepare to assert control in the new Congress with promises to repeal the law. Obama in turn has promised to veto any repeal legislation and appears likely to be able to prevail since Democrats retain control of the Senate. Republicans also have discussed trying to starve the law of funding.

Whatever the eventual outcome, Monday's ruling could create uncertainty around the administration's efforts to gradually put into effect the landmark legislation extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. And it can only increase the public's skepticism, which has not significantly receded in the months since the law's enactment, defying Obama's prediction that it would become more popular as the public got to know it.

Obama aides said implementation would not be affected, noting that the individual insurance requirement and other major portions of the legislation don't take effect until 2014.

Underscoring the potential for Hudson's ruling to become a political cudgel for the new Republican House majority, incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly cautioned states against "investing time and resources in Obamacare's implementation now that its central mandate has been ruled unconstitutional."

"Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that's what we're going to do," said Boehner. Calls to repeal the law were a staple of tea party campaign rallies this year.

Other lawsuits are going forward, including one by 20 states that gets under way Thursday in Florida. That suit also challenges whether the federal government can require states to expand their Medicaid programs.

The suit that was decided on Monday had gained a high profile because it was pursued by Virginia's outspoken attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. The two earlier cases decided in favor of the administration were brought by little-known legal entities.

In his ruling, Hudson largely agreed with Cuccinelli's argument that Congress exceeded its authority, and he dismissed the Justice Department's argument that the insurance-buying requirement would come under the definition of regulating interstate commerce, a power given to Congress by the Constitution.

The mandate for people to buy insurance "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," the judge said.

Hudson limited his ruling to striking down the so-called individual mandate, leaving intact other portions of the law - something supporters cast as a victory. But administration officials and outside analysts agree that important provisions of the legislation could not go forward without the requirement for everyone to be insured. That's because insurers need to have large pools of healthy people, who are cheap to insure, or it is not financially tenable for them to extend coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or guarantee certain policies to nearly all comers.

Some provisions of the law took effect in September, six months after its passage, including free preventive care, an elimination of lifetime limits on coverage and a requirement for insurers to allow adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

Hudson recognized that his would not be the last word on the subject.

"The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court," he wrote.

White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges - in Virginia and Michigan - who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.

In contrast to Hudson's ruling, the judges in Michigan and Virginia, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the purchase requirement was allowable under the Constitution.


Associated Press writer Larry O'Dell contributed to this report from Richmond, Va.


At last, a judge stands up to King Obongo. What really grinds my gears on this issue is the judges who won't even hear the case. They are so afraid of crossing our illegal alien president that they don't even want to listen to opposing arguments.

Also, I sincerely hope that those judges who have ruled in favour of Obamacare truly believe it is constitutional, and are not upholding it "for the good of the party", which I'm certain some have done just that. Why do I object to that? Because it's another instance of ZOG throwing our Constitution into the shredder. But that's how ZOG operates comrades. It pushes aside our Constitution, a document that literally hundreds of thousands have given their lives to uphold, to suit their agenda.

Since WW II, the government has been growing faster than a teenager with raging hormones and it has to be stopped. We must stop this darkness which threatens to engulf us all. We must never give up the fight. We must each one of us become a ray of light, and unite with others like us so that we become one blinding light, triumphant over the darkness. There are many such unities out there right now. Most are just flickers. The brightest of these is of course the ANP. Most of these other groups are mostly losers, bad apples, and a few good people. If the few good comrades from all the other groups would only join with us, we could accomplish anything. And the light shineth in the darkness; but the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:5. I'm not a religious man, but sometimes the Bible makes good sense.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Not Enough Christmas Spirit These Days

To ask a question from "Family Guy": Do you know what grinds my gears? Not enough people are getting into the Christmas Spirit, that's what. It's not just this year because of the bad economy and all. This has been going on for many years before the Recession began.

For example, as many of you know, I live in a mobile home park. Hey don't look down your noses at me. If you own your mobile home outright, which I do, it's the cheapest way to live. It's cheaper than an apartment, and I don't share a wall, ceiling, or floor with my neighbour. Anyway, we have 45 coaches in this park. Out of that 45, only 11 coaches have put up Christmas decorations. Now there are 12 coaches occupied by Whites. Three by Blacks, the rest are Mestizos. No Asians. Now how many do you suppose are Catholic or Christian? I'm sure all of them are. Most Mexicans are Catholic, although a few have gone with other Christian denominations. Blacks are mostly Baptists. In fact one of the three Black families the husband is a newly ordained minister with a small Baptist congregation. One of the others is his mother who is also Christian. The third I don't know. He could be in the Nation Of Islam or even a Jewish convert like Sammy Davis, Jr., but going by appearances, I seriously doubt it, so he's most likely Christian as well. I know one of the White families are Jehovah's Witnesses, and they don't celebrate Christmas, so they're off the hook on this subject. But what about the 44 other families?

Christmas is less than two weeks away and less than one quarter of the tenants have put up Christmas decorations. Most of these people have young children. For shame!

Now I realise things are tight right now, and so many people are out of work. It could mean a dismal Christmas gift-wise this year. But as they say, Christmas is about giving, not receiving. It is possible to celebrate without presents. Put up some decorations, sing some carols, have a nice dinner. There are many churches helping people out this year with food. If you're too proud to accept charity, then fine, do without. Your choice. Just remember that young children won't understand about a "man's pride". All they'll understand is Santa isn't coming to their house this year, and they won't know why. Swallow your pride for your children's sake. Hey, even if you live alone, you should still show a little Christmas Spirit. You don't want the neighbours to see you as "that weird guy who lives alone and never celebrates holidays" do you?

I'm sure all of you have at least some decorations. I've never known ANYONE who throws away Christmas decorations unless they're broken. So you can't say, "I don't have any decorations and I can't afford to buy them this year." I say horse manure to that. I bet you all have a few things in your garage, shed, or apartment storage bin.

What really grinds my gears is the reason so few decorate anymore. It's that they simply don't want to be bothered. It's too much trouble. Again, for shame!

The most common excuse is, "I don't have time. I have to work." Sure you do. But you don't work 16 hours, come home for some sleep, then back for another 16 hours. You certainly don't do this 24/7. Maybe a tiny handful might have to work like this, but not most people.

My own brother is a perfect example. He does no decorating because he doesn't want to be bothered. He used to use the work excuse. I'd say to him, "You can put up some decorations on Saturday." He'd say, "No, I have to do yard work (remember, in California yard work is year-round), then I have to go to the grocery store, and then some other errands." Then I say, "OK. How about Sunday?" Then he whines, "Aw, don't I get ONE day when I don't have to do anything?" How many of you say that? A lot I bet. The answer is, no you don't. Until you can afford to pay someone to do your chores for you, you don't get a day when you have nothing to do. That's life. There's ALWAYS SOMETHING that needs to be done. Quit your whining and just do it. You certainly can spend an hour or two once a year to put up decorations, and an hour or two once a year to take them down. That's only two - four hours a year, so quit your sniveling and just do it. Now that my brother is on forced furlough on Fridays, he can't use the work excuse anymore. At least he's now being honest and admitting he doesn't want be bothered. OK, fine. My brother, Ebeneezer Schruender. Humbug!

If you live in an apartment, just put a few lights up around your front window, or hang a wreath on the door. Just do something! If your building prohibits outdoor decorations, then it's not your fault, and you too are off the hook.

Now if you're really busy with a lot of overtime at work, then you have a few bucks to spare. Go to the store and buy a small display. An outdoor tree, Santa and some reindeer, a snowman. You know, the kind that light up. It takes just a few minutes to put up, and a few to take down. So comrades, stop the whining and excuse making and show some Christmas Spirit.

I realise I may have spoken a little harshly, and maybe it's none of my business, but Christmas is just about the most important Aryan holiday there is. I'd hate to see it die from apathy. Every good parent wants his kids to have better Christmases than they had. The first place to start is your home. If you won't do it for yourselves, do it for your children. If you have no children, then do it for the neighbourhood kids. Even if you're alone, it does make the holidays brighter. Merry Christmas comrades!