Wednesday, November 30, 2011

An American Dream

Comrades, I made this video as a promotion for the ANP. It's also on JewTube, and I'm amazed that none of them has been pulled yet.

I've made several such videos, and I'm going to post them here, although not every day, naturally. When they are no longer on the front page of this blog, I'll give them their very own page so it will be easier to find and access.

And for you critics: Yes, I do use pictures that I got from Google. I don't have a studio and video camera to make them from scratch. I use Windows Movie Maker, and pictures and music that I downloaded off the internet. So if you have any negative criticisms, please limit them to the content, and not about the methods I used to make them. I do the best I can with what I have to work with.


Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Occupy L.A. Protesters Given Eviction Notice By The City

Occupy L.A.

Occupy L.A. seeks court order to stop eviction

Protesters plan to file for a federal injunction that would prevent police from dismantling the Occupy L.A. encampment around City Hall.

The complaint, which was to be filed at 10 a.m. Monday in federal court, names the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, alleging that the protesters' civil rights were violated. The three protesters who planned to file the suit would be seeking a court order to prevent the city from evicting the camp from the City Hall lawn.

The complaint accuses the city of engaging in "arbitrary and capricious action in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments by first approving the Occupy presence for 56 days before suddenly revoking permission through the unilateral action of defendants."

Chief Deputy City Atty. William Carter said the city attorney's office was reviewing the complaint and was ready to respond or appear if necessary.

Carter said the city was prepared to file three declarations in opposition to a restraining order. One is from a Los Angeles Police Department officer relating to enforcement of the city ordinance that bans people from being in parks overnight.

The protesters' complaint points out that the City Council passed a resolution of support for the protesters and states that an aide to Villaraigosa told two of the plaintiffs, protester Mario Brito and Jim Lafferty of the National Lawyers Guild, that the municipal code section prohibiting overnight camping in city parks would not be enforced.

The complaint also pointed out that the city has made other exceptions to the anti-camping provision, including for people waiting at Exposition Park to be eligible for free medical services and for an estimated 500 fans of the "Twilight" vampire movies who "camped out on the sidewalks of Westwood Village for several days to be first in line for the midnight showing of the first 'Twilight' sequel."

The city was also prepared to submit a letter from Jon Kirk Mukri, general manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks, about the condition of City Hall Park, where protesters have been camped since Oct. 1. The third letter is from Carter himself, alleging protesters did not give the city due notice of their intention to seek the restraining order.

Earlier this month, protesters did give notice that they would seek an emergency restraining order on Nov. 18. But the issue was put on hold when protesters failed to show up in court to file for the request.

On that day, civil rights lawyer Carol Sobel, a legal advisor for Occupy protests across the country, appeared in court and said she planned to argue that the protesters seeking the injunction did not represent Occupy L.A. Sobel is listed as the attorney on the new complaint.

Protesters had expected to be forcefully evicted after the mayor announced that the park would be closed at 12:01 a.m. Monday.

Instead, after a night of largely peaceful protests, police arrested four people who refused to clear the streets. Overnight, about 1,000 protesters blocked the intersection of 1st and Main streets until about 5 a.m., when police issued an order to disperse.

Most returned to the encampment at City Hall Park, but a few were arrested.

Villaraigosa and Beck said that the 12:01 a.m. deadline marked the time when the encampment became illegal, not when eviction would occur.

Although protesters said they were happy with the outcome, officials stressed that the encampment cannot continue.

"We will enforce the park closure," Villaraigosa said in an interview with KTLA-TV. "We thought talking through this was the best way to proceed and we've done that. But it's become crystal clear … that it wasn't sustainable to be there indefinitely."

Villaraigosa praised the protesters for shining a light on problems facing the middle class and forcing people to listen.

"My hope is that we will be able to conclude this chapter peacefully," he said.


Well, it looks like the lid is about to blow in the City Of The Angels.

Mayor Villaraigosa's deadline has come and gone, and a good number of protesters have failed to leave. Indeed, many of the ones who did leave are expected to return in the daytime. They'll be day protesters instead off occupiers, which is better than giving up altogether.

Now why haven't the cops gone in yet? The reason is that the hard-core occupiers have made it clear they aren't going to leave without a fight. When the cops come in, the riot begins, and the mayor knows it. Things are pretty ugly in L.A, and will only get uglier. GOOD, it's about damn time America!

Comrades, the ANP has been criticized by a few other groups for supporting a movement that the American Communist Party and other Marxist groups also endorse.

Just because OWS is endorsed by Marxists, doesn't mean WE must oppose it. To oppose OWS simply because some of our other enemies support it seems pretty stupid and pig-headed to me.

BTW, I'm speaking for myself, not the ANP. Now I don't deny that communism goes completely against the principles of National Socialism. But then again, so does Judeo-Capitalism. The Communists and National Socialists have a common enemy: Wall Street. If we can BOTH bring down Wall Street by fighting on the same side, then let's do it. After we defeat the greatest enemy of the White Working and Middle Classes (ie the fat cat corporations), then we can concentrate on our other enemies - including all Marxists.

One of the reasons Hitler lost WW II was because he was fighting a war with too many fronts. We mustn't make that mistake as well. One battle at a time whenever possible.

For example, Black people are as against illegal immigration as are Whites. Since National Socialism is NOT a way of life that includes Blacks, and since they oppose illegal immigration, does that mean we must SUPPORT
border jumpers? NO! That's absolutely ridiculous. Our enemy's enemy is our friend? NOT! At least not in the case of OWS and illegal immigration, that's for damn sure.

I say anything that gets America to wake up and oppose the system is a GOOD thing.

Someone recently pointed out that one of the differences between Marxism and National Socialism is that Communists oppose ALL free enterprise, while we do not. I agree. They said we should not support OWS because this country was built on free enterprise, and that's what Wall Street is about: Free enterprise.

But I must point out that while Judeo-Capitalism is free enterprise, not all free enterprise is Judeo-Capitalism.

When huge corporations exploit the Working and Middle classes, manipulate money, and engage in stock investing, debt manipulation, and any kind of usury, that's Judeo-Capitalism. When someone works hard, opens his own business and makes a go of it with his own sweat, that's NOT Judeo-Capitalism, but it IS free enterprise. The latter is what made America great. The former is destroying it.

Some of you may disagree with me, and that's your right. You are free to let me know your thoughts on the matter. Remember, comments with obscenities and insults will NOT be published. Speak your mind, but speak as adults, and not a bunch of middle school kids arguing in the school yard.

Dan 88!

Monday, November 28, 2011

Senator Lindsey Graham calls for using military against American Citizens

America is a "battleground," says South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

​The US government has been slowly eradicating the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878. That act banned the US government from using the US military in domestic law enforcement. Over the past few decades the US government has repeatedly violated the act. However, many Republicans have insisted that the Posse Comitatus Act needs to be respected to protect the rights of American Citizens.

South Carolina's left-wing Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, however, is supporting provisions to eradicate Posse Comitatus and dramatically expand the powers of the Federal government.

The US Senate Armed Forces Committee, led by Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), held a secret closed door session to insert ominous new Federal powers into the Defense Authorization Bill. This is the annual bill to fund the US military. These new powers were requested by the Obama administration.

The provisions would give the Federal government the power to insert the military into domestic law enforce and detain suspects indefinitely. While they claim that it will help "fight terrorism," there is no limits to how the new powers could be abused. Critics call it an explicit creation of a police state.

American citizens would be denied all constitutional protections and there would be no oversight to prevent abuse. This is the same Federal government that intervened on behalf of the "underwear bomber" to get him on a plane to the US, even after his own father warned that he was a terrorist. This is the same US government that shadowed two of the 911 highjackers all the way from Malaysia, yet did nothing to stop them. We would be trusting the same people to decide who's constitutional rights to suspend.

Several Democrats and Republicans have come out against the provisions. Republicans neo-cons like Lindsey Graham and John McCain have sided with the Obama administration and support the new powers.

Lindsey Graham, however, is enthusiastically supporting it. He wants to give Obama dramatic new powers to detain US citizens indefinitely with no oversight. Lindsey Graham stated that our "homeland is part of the battlefield." He confirmed that American citizens could be detained indefinitely.

Obama has already declared his intentions to use US troops in domestic law enforcement. Do you have faith that neither Obama nor any future US president will not abuse this power?

The new powers are included in sections 1031 and 1032 of the Defense Authorization bill. It will be voted on next week.

Mark Udall (D-CO) has proposed an amendment to strip the provisions out of the Defense Authorization bill. It is Amendment 1107. Americans who oppose these provisions should immediately contact the Senate switchboard and tell your Senators to vote yes on Amendment 1107 of S. 1867

​United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. This number will connect you to any Senators switchboard.​


This should worry any freedom loving American. And for those of you who would sacrifice your freedom to be protected from real, or non-existant terrorists, then you are nothing but lilly-livered cowards.

Yeah, you read right. I'm calling every American who's willing to give up their Constitutional rights a bunch of wusses. And unfortunately, that describes the majority these days. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

If we don't stand up to these would-be Kommisars in the government, then we'll get exactly what we deserve - our freedoms continually being whittled away bit by bit.

For example, take the police. They USED to dress like police. Now they look more like commandos. It started with the Special Weapons And Tactics squad, which was understandable, but now most cops look more like soldiers than police. That alone makes a big statement. The cops say these new uniforms are more efficient and intimidating to criminals. Sure they are, but they are also intimidating to the average citizen as well, which is EXACTLY what they had in mind.

If we don't resist the government's efforts to make this even more of a police state that it is now, then we deserve to lose our freedom.

Also, I resent the constant use of the word "homeland" by police and government officials. Until the time of Emperor Bush II, I rarely heard the United States referred to as our "homeland". Until then, it was called our "country". ZOG uses the word "homeland" hoping to inspire people's patriotism so they will accept our gradual loss of freedom "for the good of our homeland."

For those who insist that the law abiding people are as free as they always have been, and it's only criminals and malcontents that cry "police state", I say you're only as free as the leash you're on. You tug on it too much, and they'll hang you by it.

Although it does make unfair and unjust parallels to Adolf Hitler, and a hero out of a half Jewish character, anyone who doubts what is happening in America today is leading to a dictatorship, I suggest you read Lewis Sinclair's novel, "It Can't Happen Here."

Here's a brief synopsis from Wikipedia:


Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, is elected President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year (approximately $80,000, adjusted for inflation[1]). Once in power, however, he becomes a dictator: he outlaws dissent, puts his political enemies in concentration camps, and creates a paramilitary force called the Minute Men who terrorize the citizens. One of his first acts as President is to make changes to theConstitution which give him sole power over the country, rendering Congress obsolete (in real life the President is not part of the Constitutional Amendment process at all). This is met by protest from the Congress as well as outraged citizens, but Windrip declares a state of martial law and, with the help of his Minute Men, throws the protesters in jail. As Windrip dismantles democracy, most Americans either support him and his Corpo Regime wholeheartedly or reassure themselves that fascism "can't happen" in America (hence the book's title).

The few who openly oppose Windrip's regime form a secret protest organization called The New Underground, establishing a secret propaganda periodical under the alias The Vermont Vigilance. Journalist Doremus Jessup, Windrip's loudest detractor, becomes a major contributor to these publications, writing editorials decrying the state's abuses of power. Shad Ledue, head of the state police and Jessup's former employee, terrorizes him, eventually putting him in a camp; he also goes after Jessup's family, attempting to seduce Jessup's daughter, Sissy. Eventually, however, Ledue falls out of favor with Windrip, and he is put in the same camp as Jessup, where he is murdered by the angry inmates he sent there. After Jessup's friend bribes a guard, Jessup escapes from the camp, rejoins his family, and goes to Canada to join a resistance movement.

Poster for the stage adaptation of It Can't Happen Here, October 27, 1936 at the Lafayette Theater as part of the DetroitFederal Theater

In time, Windrip's hold on power begins to weaken; the economic prosperity he promised has not materialized, and more and more people (including his own Vice-President) are fleeing to Canada to escape his government's brutality. Windrip's lieutenants stage a coup; Windrip's right-hand man, Lee Sarason, becomes President and has his former boss exiled to France. In the ensuing power vacuum, Windrip's lieutenants fight among themselves for control, setting the stage for the regime's self-destruction. After another coup, ousting Sarason in favor of General Haik, the Corpo Regime's power slowly starts seeping away and the government desperately tries to find a way to keep the people content. They decide to stir up patriotic fervor by slandering Mexico in the state-run newspapers, with the idea that an all-out invasion of that country will rally the American people around the government. But the resulting draft of 5 million men for the invasion splits the country into factions: those pro-war and loyal to the Corpo government, and those anti-war who now see that they have been manipulated for years. A half-Jewish general, Emmanuel Coon, launches a civil war against the regime. The story ends with Jessup as a guerrilla in Minnesota, operating under Walt Trowbridge, the leader-in-exile of the opposition movement.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

An extra big thanks to Comrade Raymond Bxxxxxxx for sending me this story.

Dan 88!

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Black Friday

Comrades, as you know, the Friday after Thanksgiving is the biggest shopping day of the year. People wait in lines in front of stores all night so as to be the first into stores in the morning to empty their wallets into the Judeo-Capitalist pockets and get "bargains" on the latest electronic "toys" (smartphones, X-Boxes, etc) and plastic crap from China. Materialism totally out of control.

I don't know if some of what I'm going to relate has made the news outside of California, or perhaps you've had similar incidents in your home states, but here goes.

In Los Angeles, a woman has been arrested for pepper spraying other customers so she could get herself an X-Box for half price.

A woman assaulted another woman over the last $4.00 waffle iron special.

Two men got into an actual fist fight. One man got that last of an item on special (I don't remember what the item was), and the other grabbed it out of his shopping cart and headed for a cashier. Let us say that the man who had it first took exception to that and they came to blows in full view of store video cameras.

BTW, are people stupid as well as greedy? They should know that wherever they go in a store (except the restrooms - supposedly) or the parking lot, they are being taped. Anything illegal they do will be recorded and they're almost sure to get busted.

In another incident, a 60 plus year old grandfather got so out of control, that the police had to throw him to the floor and cuff him.

This is nothing less than disgraceful. Unbridled greed at its worst.

People, there is absolutely NO excuse for this disgusting behaviour. I truly hope that as true National Socialists, none of us would ever behave so shamefully. And if that isn't enough for you, consider this: The JudeoCapitalists see this, and are laughing - all the way to the bank. The more out of control people get, the more mega-profits they rake in.

Now I'm not saying that you should not buy your loved ones gifts. No way do I mean that. All I'm saying is use a little restraint and self-control. Buy gifts, yes. But don't empty your wallets, and most especially don't trample your fellow Man in order to do it first. Act responsibly and thoughtfully at all times. If you don't get an item you wanted, well, then that's the way it is.

Here's something else to think about: As you know, stores always have big after Christmas sales where things are often marked lower than on Black Friday. The problem there is the selection is often poor. However, not always so with the internet. Internet companies often have a good selection at low prices - even after Christmas. You can explain to the kids that if they wait until then, they can get one or two extra toys because of the money you'll save, and you will still probably spend less.

One last thing: Even though it's Christmas time, a pledge is a pledge. It's a promise you made. You pledged at least $10 a month to the ANP. Christmas time or not, you made a pledge and you should honour it. The ANP's expenses don't disappear during the month of December, and magically return in January. So please, don't "blow off" your pledge just because it's Christmas time.

Another organisation has accused us of telling people not to buy Christmas gifts, and give the money to us instead. When have I, Chairman Suhayda, Comrades Bowles and Hess, or anyone else here EVER said that? Never, is when. All we say is you don't have to buy everything, and not to forget your monthly pledge in December.

This other organisation says they NEVER ask one penny from their members. This is absolutely TRUE. They never require a single pledge or donation from their members. With this in mind, I have a good question: If the membership doesn't financially support them, just where DO they get their operating funds from? I have a good idea, but as it's only speculation, I won't say it without evidence. As you know, I no longer make accusations against any group or individual unless I can substantiate what I'm saying with HARD proof. I'll let you do your own speculating.

Even the Republirats and the Demicons accept donations and hold fund-raisers. If the two largest, most wealthiest parties in America do it, why shouldn't we?

In light of what I've just written about, here's a joke I heard a few years ago:

On Black Friday, a man waited all night to get a big screen high definition TV that would be sold to the first five customers for only $50.

At a little before 8:00 AM, a little man got in the front of the line, and the first man got angry. He shoved the little man away and said, "Get to the back of the line you jerk!"

A minute later, the little man tried again, and the first man shouted, "I thought I told you to get lost?!"

The little man replied, "Okay, but who's going to open the store?"

Merry Christmas, comrades!

Dan 88!

Saturday, November 26, 2011

There's No Doubt The Mestizos ARE Taking Over!

Comrades, this is a link to a must see video of a teacher in Texas who made her class say the Mexican Pledge Of Allegiance.


According to this teacher, and I use the word lightly, this was merely a Spanish language exercise to help her students learn Spanish, then why was it necessary to make them give the Mexican salute (this is their equivalent of putting your hand over your heart)? No, those students weren't simply reciting something in Spanish as a class assignment, they were being forced into pledging allegiance to Mexico.

I have to admire this young girl for refusing to go along with what is nothing more than another method at which our youth are being indoctrinated to Mestizo culture so they'll accept the Latino take over of our country more easily.

You should also ask yourselves why was girl given an "alternate" assignment? With the exception of dissections in biology class, if a student refuses and assignment, they are given a failing grade. The answer is obvious. If that teacher was to fail her, her parents (who stated they stand behind their daughter) would scream bloody murder. They'd complain to the school, the district, the state, and if they didn't get satisfaction, they'd take it to court. There's your reason.

The school district is concerned over a possible lawsuit, which they fear they might lose, so they are doing whatever they can, short of dropping the offending lesson from the school curriculum, to placate said student and her parents. They want as little attention as possible because they don't want any interference with their program of brainwashing and indoctrination.

I just wish the parents were concerned about the welfare of the other students, and take legal action against the school district. Hopefully, if enough people here about it, someone in Texas will be willing to fight this thing. As far as I know, you'd have to be a Texas resident in order to bring suit, but I'm not absolutely certain of that.

It really galls me that the type of people who run this school district are the same type that accuse National Socialists of brainwashing youth. Well, I guess it's okay for them and not us because they're the "good guys" and we're the "bad guys." That's become the American way. The bad guys are required to observe certain rules, but the good guys are not. After all, it's acceptable for the good guys to do whatever it takes to protect themselves from the villains, but when the villains do EXACTLY the same thing, it's an atrocity.

There are a couple of little words for that: DOUBLE STANDARD.

I would like to thank Comrade Raymond Bxxxxxxx for making me aware of this video.

Dan 88!

Friday, November 25, 2011

Newt Gringrich, All Around Jackass

Gingrich's Leadership in 1996 Helped Ensure that Illegal Aliens Could Sink Deeper Roots in the U.S.

By Roy Beck,

The mainstream news media is filled with awe that Newt Gingrich showed some "compassion" for illegal aliens in last night's GOP presidential debate. A look at his record while in Congress shows this is nothing new. In fact, Gingrich's leadership in Congress is one of the reasons we have so many illegal aliens today who have been able to stay in this country for 25 years. That's the supreme irony of Gingrich's pro-amnesty remarks in last night's debate.

The man who helped ensure that illegal aliens from the 1980s and 1990s are still here in 2011 asked voters last night to consider the inhumanity of making illegal aliens leave this country after they have sunk such long roots here.

If, while Speaker of the House in the 1990s, Gingrich had shown any leadership in stopping illegal immigration, there would be very few illegal aliens still here from the 1980s and 1990s because they wouldn't have been able to hold payroll jobs. Nobody pushed him last night to take a pro-amnesty stand. He volunteered it! By focusing on long-term illegal aliens, he took a big risk that the media spotlight (or at least the internet and talk radio spotlight) would shine on his long-term record with those illegal aliens. What the spotlight will find is that Gingrich worked with Big Business lobbyists to make sure that employers could continue to hire illegal workers, and thus sink roots that would be used by pro-amnesty politicians to justify legalizing them today. We hear the same arguments from the National Council of La Raza, from the ACLU, from the National Immigration Forum -- all of them cite the lack of past enforcement (which they impeded at every turn) as having allowed illegal aliens to sink such long roots that it would be unjust to make them go home now. Gingrich reaffirmed his support for some legalizations several times last night.

Here is his first comment: "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out." -- Newt Gingrich He went on to indicate that he would give them permanent legal residency and permanent work permits, but not U.S. citizenship. He and his supporters in the media say it isn't amnesty if the illegal aliens don't get citizenship. I suppose that is supposed to make the unemployed American who is left without a job feel better.


The political stars were in alignment in 1995-96 when the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (appointed by the Senate and the House, and chaired by Barbara Jordan) issued its recommendations to protect vulnerable American workers. The immigration subcommittees of both House and Senate quickly presented legislation to carry out the recommendations to cut legal immigration in half and to stop illegal immigration, primarily by removing the jobs magnet. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich was in the pivotal position to help Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith push through the 1996 comprehensive bill that set up the verification program that eventually was named "E-Verify." The Commission had found that illegal immigration was booming in the 10 years since the 1986 blanket amnesty because illegal aliens had found it was still easy to obtain and keep U.S. jobs. What did Speaker Gingrich do? Those of us involved in that fight know that we were constantly and desperately seeking support from Gingrich which didn't come. Instead, Gingrich tried to kill the new job verification system entirely. Fortunately, the killer amendment he supported failed. No thanks to Gingrich, we have an E-Verify system today. But the E-Verify system is entirely VOLUNTARY today because of another House vote which Gingrich won. That vote was to make sure that the verification system would NOT be MANDATORY for employers. The nation's Big Business lobbies deemed it essential that employers maintain the ability to cheat the paper verification system and hire illegal workers. Speaker Gingrich saw to it that the ability continued. I am heartsick every time I think of that lost opportunity in 1996.

If Speaker Gingrich had thrown his considerable talents and power behind the bi-partisan recommendations and supported Lamar Smith, most of the illegal aliens who arrived since then would not have bothered. And most of the illegal aliens who arrived before 1996 -- with less than 10 years of roots in this country -- would have gone back home. Illegal immigration would not be topic of the 2012 Presidential debates. And we would not be in a nationwide fight right now to support Rep. Lamar Smith once again (this time as chair of the Judiciary Committee) in yet another attempt to pass a mandatory verification bill (H.R. 2885). Nor would we see states across the country passing their own immigration enforcement laws -- because the number of illegal aliens would be so small.


NumbersUSA is the nation's top source on records of Members of Congress on immigration since 1989. Here's the link to our report card on Gingrich's activities on 10 areas of immigration issues:

You will see that he got excellent grades on Border issues and on denying taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens. But he was terrible on everything else. On the issue of amnesty, Gingrich acknowledged last night that he voted for the 1986 blanket amnesty which he says was a failure. But during the 1990s, he showed no signs of learning from the 1986 amnesty failure. Congress passed several more smaller amnesties during the 1990s, primarily hiding them in other bills.

Although we find only one instance of Gingrich casting a vote on those amnesties (in favor), we find no sign of Gingrich ever working against them or using his Speakership to stop them. Despite that record, NumbersUSA earlier upgraded Gingrich's Presidential Grade Card rating on amnesty from "Bad" to "Unhelpful" based on public statements this year. We have been prepared to improve his ratings further if he makes more specific promises. Our Presidential ratings are not tied totally to past records. What we are most interested in are public promises made during the campaign. Hardly any candidates have totally clean hands on the immigration issue in the past. Nearly all of them have favored corporate lobbyists and foreign workers over American workers and taxpayers at some time. But some have made dramatic improvements in their stances.


Gingrich appeared to taunt Primary voters with the idea that they would lack compassion if they didn't agree with giving some kind of legalization to long-term illegal aliens. It was a bold move on his part, given than he is well aware that Texas Gov. Rick Perry plummeted in the polls after a debate comment that people have no compassion if they don't agree with in-state tuition for young illegal aliens. Perhaps Gingrich will retreat under attack and note that he was talking about a tiny sliver of the population. After all, how many illegal aliens with families have been here 25 years or more? Not many. Does this mean he wouldn't give his legalization to illegal aliens who have been here 15 years? Or 24 years? Where's the cut-off? I hope Gingrich does retreat. But his reference to a Krieble Foundation proposal suggests that he is thinking about far more than just 25-year illegal aliens.

"The Krieble Foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone." -- Newt Gingrich

Krieble has been peddling this idea for years. You may remember conservative darling Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana who a few years ago proposed a type of amnesty that knocked him off his pedestal. That proposal came from Krieble. Basically, Krieble believes the country has huge labor shortage issues and that the reason we have so many illegal aliens is that we don't provide enough legal ways for foreign workers to get here. Krieble would allow most illegal aliens to get work visas with various rules, but not citizenship that would allow them to vote for Democrats. Here's the promotional page for the red cards: Michelle Bachmann in the debate kept calling Gingrich's proposal an amnesty for most of the 11 million illegal aliens. Gingrich kept protesting that he wasn't talking about everybody. But his reference to Krieble raises big doubts. The CNN moderator pressed Mitt Romney more than once to acknowledge that Gingrich was right to show compassion to his narrowly defined group of church-going illegal aliens. Romney maintained a consistency he has shown through all the debates of rejecting any talk of amnesty now.

"Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally." -- Mitt Romney

Pressed further if he was saying that Gingrich's compassion is really about amnesty, Romney responded: "There's no question. But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing. People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so." -- Romney

But wouldn't you let the family-loving, church-going illegal aliens who have been here 25 years stay, Romney was asked again.

"I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go. The principle is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people who come here illegally get to stay for the rest of their life in this country legally." -- Romney

Romney went on to say that it was inappropriate in a debate to be sending signals to illegal aliens that certain of them should be rewarded for breaking the law. Nonetheless, Romney and all the rest of the candidates failed to make the point that the reason illegal immigration must be reversed is to protect American workers and taxpayers. That void led to a bunch of careless comments by Romney, Santorum and Gingrich about the country's need for highly-skilled immigrants -- indicating that they haven't looked at the unemployment rates for under-30 college grads, or that they don't care. And that leads to the worst part of Gingrich's attempt to distinguish himself from the other candidates last night. He has rarely acknowledged that immigration policy has any effect on American workers. To be fair, Gingrich has a mixed record on illegal immigration (despite the terrible blot on his E-Verify record described above). Dr. James Edwards, who wrote a book on the 1996 legislative battle, agrees with my assessment of Gingrich on matters of workplace verification. However, Edwards says that in the Conference Committee where Gingrich was wrestling with the White House, he stood his ground and kept the Clinton Administration from stripping out a number of non-workplace-related enforcement measures against illegal immigration. In fact, Gingrich earlier this year came out in support of mandatory E-Verify. We have changed his Presidential E-Verify rating from "Abysmal" to "Excellent." But if Gingrich is going to use some Krieble-type legalization to give most current illegal aliens work permits -- and if he is going to greatly expand guestworker programs for even more foreign workers -- mandatory E-Verify would not end up protecting many jobs for Americans. During the 1990s on immigration issues, Gingrich represented the interests of the national Republican Establishment. That Establishment was fully behind the Bush amnesty attempts in 2006 and 2007. And that Republican Establishment is advising Republican congressional leaders and candidates today to stay away from anything that would like the bi-partisan immigration legislation of 1996 that would make immigration policy serve the needs and interests of Americans -- especially the most vulnerable of Americans.

Gingrich's salvo last night looks like an appeal for the Republican Establishment's support with hopes that the grassroots won't punish him.


Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am NOT endorsing Mitt Romney for president. I'm not such a fool to believe that he is any different from any other phony politician. And even if he were, and even if he could get elected, being only one man, he couldn't fight against so many congressional ZOGBOTS. Either way, little, if anything would change. This system isn't the people's. It's ZOG's, and we must never forget that.

This post is to show in what other ways that Mr. Gingrat is the enemy of the White working and middle classes. If it were up to him, he'd probably throw open the borders and let the entire Third World in to take whatever jobs are left, and leave us out in the cold.

I know that some of you still vote - usually on the idea that you're voting for the lesser of two evils. But as it has been said, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I don't vote for evil at all, and I'm not endorsing Romney either. I'm just showing everyone just what kind of a douchebag Mr. Gingrat really is. Friend of the American people? Well, he's definitely a friend to at least 3% of the people. But to the rest - well you decide.

Also, I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving yesterday. If you're lucky enough to have a job, AND the rest of the weekend off, I hope you have a safe and enjoyable one. BTW, just one month until Christmas!

Dan 88!