Saturday, June 30, 2012

60% Think Federal Government Encourages Illegal Immigration

Most voters continue to favor a welcoming immigration policy that focuses on gaining control of the border.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Voters agree that the goal of immigration policy should be to keep out only national security threats, criminals and those who come to the United States to live off its welfare system. Twenty-five percent (25%) disagree.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 25-26, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. 

Arizona Voters Blame Government, Employers for Illegal Immigration

Arizona is at the forefront of the national debate over stopping illegal immigration, but voters in the state are more likely to blame those who encourage the immigrants than those who come here illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Arizona finds that 42% are angry about current immigration policy, and another 33% are mildly frustrated by it. Only 23% consider immigration policy just one of many issues they have an opinion on.

This Arizona survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on June 26, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted June 25-26, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports
1* In terms of immigration legislation, which is more important - gaining control of the border or legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States?

2* Some people believe that the goal of immigration policy should be to keep out national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off our welfare system. Beyond that, all immigrants would be welcome. Do you agree or disagree with that goal for immigration policy?

3* Do the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally?

4* Should the U.S. military be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration?

5* Which is the better approach to dealing with illegal immigration—allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws or relying upon the federal government to enforce immigration laws? 

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
The survey of 1,000 Americans nationwide was conducted on June 26-27, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.


Here are MY answers:

1.  Gaining control of the border.

2.  I think we should  keep out national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off our welfare system, and people, regardless of race, that would take jobs from American citizens.



5.  We should allow individual states to enforce their own immigration laws, since the federal government seems to be unwilling to enforce theirs.

Let me know how you would answer these questions.  All answers will be posted - even Anti-Racist, and Anti-Fascist as long as there is no profanity and insults.  I want to hear from both sides.  Just be adult about it.

Dan  88!

Friday, June 29, 2012

The Supreme Court Has It All Backwards!

Comrades, I'm sure all of you are aware that the Supreme Court has upheld ALL of Obamacare, so I don't feel there's a need to even post an article.  And if you didn't know, then where are you living?  Are you already in that cave with your MREs and other survival equipment like I mentioned yesterday?  For shame.  If you haven't heard, my advice is to turn to the front page of your paper instead of the sports page for a change.

They got it all backwards.  They struck down Arizona SB 1070, and upheld Obamacare.  Surprised?  Not me.

Anyway, on the one hand, I do agree that health care reform is desperately needed, but Obama missed on several counts.  First is to require everyone to buy health insurance.  I don't think it's right to force people to buy something they may not want, and probably cannot afford, just on principle.

However, if you don't have health insurance but you do have cable/satellite TV and internet access, you've made the wrong choice.  Get your priorities right.  The money you save by cancelling your cable/satellite TV and internet access and smartphone service will MORE than allow you enough money to afford insurance.  Health insurance is more important than the Jew box.  You can use the library computers for free, and while I agree the cellphones are more necessary than they used to be, you can get a regular cellphone that's just a phone.  You can get along without internet access on your phone.

You may not even have to sacrifice all of these things, but just one or two.  Around So. Cal., basic cable/satellite is about $65.00 a month.  I don't know how much insurance for a family costs, but insurance for a single person wouldn't cost more than that per month.  Get rid of your cable/satellite.  The Jew box is mostly trash anyway.  Besides, you can still get some TV from an antenna.

In my case, as a self-employed person, I have to buy my own insurance.  To afford that, I let my satellite go. I have a cellphone, but not a smartphone.  I of course have internet access.  But as a single person, getting rid of my satellite service allows me to afford insurance.  Since I only watch a few hours of TV a week, I figured satellite was a waste of money anyway.

In this economy, we have to make choices.  Insurance comes before TV, internet, and smartphone service.

The other thing that bothers me about Obamacare is what they call mandatory "End Of Life Counselling".  Now what do you suppose that means?   What I think this counseling is about is once you reach a certain age, say 75 or older, and you need an expensive procedure to save your life that will cost say $500,000, but it will only give you say 3 to 5 more years, the government will say it's not worth the expense, and these people will receive "counseling" that they have to face the fact that it's the end of their lives.  This will not effect those who buy private insurance without going through Obamacare. 

This is typical of a Judeo-Capitalist Society.  We work our asses off our entire lives, and not only are we denied a decent retirement, now we're going to be told that after a certain age that a medical procedure to give us a few more years of life is not worth it to the government and the insurance companies and we must accept the fact that it is the end of our lives.  A typically heartless attitude of the elite towards the working class.  And of course those who will suffer the most will be the White working class.  After all, if they let an elderly Black person die, that would be racist.  But it's okay to let a poor White die.  Survival of the richest - as usual.

National Socialist Germany had a wonderful healthcare system.  It was run by the government, and not jobbed out to private-for-profit insurance companies.  The elderly were rewarded for a lifetime of service, and not cast away and left to die like now.  That is why it was so important for the Jewish power structure to destroy National Socialism, and prevent it from ever returning.  With Judeo-Capitalism, it's profit before people.  With National Socialism, it's people before profits.  That alone is the best reason they have for destroying us.

In ancient times, the elderly were left to die in the jungle or the desert.  After thousands of years, little has changed.

Dan  88!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obama Retaliates Against Arizona

By Jim Robb
On Monday, the same day that theSupreme Court upheld the heart of Arizona's SB 1070 illegal alien law, the Obama administrationcancelled its immigration enforcement partnership with that  state. The federal 287(g) program allows cooperation between the federal government and state and local police forces to identify and remove illegal aliens. Arizona had been signed up with 287(g) for years, until Obama abruptly cancelled it.
As you know, Pres. Obama sued the state of Arizona to block S.B. 1070, the nation-leading bill that gave Arizona several ways to enforce immigration laws. The Obama administration claimed that the federal government and only the federal government can enforce immigration laws. After literally years of litigation, the Supreme Court returned a mixed decision.
The court agreed that Congress must set immigration policy, and it threw out several of the enforcement methods in SB 1070. Yet the justices allowed the most important enforcement method to stand. Arizona IS permitted to require its police to check on immigration status of people who are already detained, such as in traffic stops. If the persons challenged cannot show they are in the U.S. legally, the Supreme Court agrees that the state can turn them over to federal officers.
How did the Obama administration react to the court's decision? Did it agree to work hard with Arizona law enforcement officials to remove illegal aliens from that state? No, the administration retaliated by immediately canceling its 287(g) agreement with Arizona. In effect, the people of Arizona were told, "If you dare to speak back to us, we will punish you. We will refuse to cooperate with you. We will not even come to pick up illegal aliens you pick up in your state."
This is outrageous! The whole purpose of 287(g) is to help local law enforcement remove illegal aliens they come across while enforcing state law.
The administration seems to be warning states that if they pursue their Supreme Court-affirmed right to enquire about immigration status, the federal government will burn down their state and bring out the marshmallows!
Obama insists that Congress must set all immigration policy. Yet Pres. Obama isn't allowing Arizona to use one of the few means Congresshas authorized, which is 287(g). Ironically, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recognizes, on their website, the effectiveness of the 287(g) program:
"Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise."
The Obama administration's move is another action that may barely fall within the letter of law but clearly violates the spirit of Congress. It will set back immigration enforcement by years if left standing. It must be undone.
Need more proof? Just today the administration flatly refused to enter into a 287(g) partnership with Virginia, another enforcement-oriented state. What's next?
Our Capital hill team is working with members of Congress right now to draft laws that would allow enforcement of immigration laws without the administration's cooperation.
We're also working very hard to undo the president's disastrous and unilateral amnesty announced two weeks ago. We ARE pushing back hard to turn this situation around, but we need your help to do so. As soon as the legislation is introduced, we'll send you alerts to allow you to press Congress for action.
Okay, enough is enough.  If that's the way Obama wants to play it, then maybe Arizona should do a little retaliating of its own.  I say they should enforce SB 1070 despite the Supreme Court ruling.  Obama has basically sent Arizona to stand in the corner for being naughty by standing up to them.  There's been talk of this for the past few years.  Maybe the time has come.  We all know the United States will eventually break up into smaller countries.  Maybe the time has come.  If it is to happen, one state or states must secede first.  Maybe that's exactly what Arizona should do.  
If Obama is going to send them out of the game to the penalty box, then I'd just walk out of the stadium if it were me and the hell with all of them.
All that is needed is for one brave state to have the guts to do it, and I'm sure they'd get a lot of support from other tough-on-illegal-immigration states like Virginia, Texas, Georgia, New Hampshire, Maine, and a few others.  As a snowball grows in size as it rolls down a hill, one state standing up to the Feds is all it might take, and other states would join them.
Let's face it, this country is finished.  It's just a matter of time.  Let's get it over with sooner, rather than later.  The sooner it happens, the sooner we can help to build a new nation that will look after the interests of the White working class, instead of the elite.
When it does happen, I hope that you aren't planning to take some cases of MRE's, and other survival gear and go hide in a cave until it's all over.  If you do, who knows what you'll find when you come out?  We have to be ready WHEN it happens, not IF it happens.  And when it does, local government will be more important than the Feds.  That's where we can make the biggest changes.  It will help if we already have some people in place holding local offices.  We've already begun, but the more the better.  Holding office isn't a pipe dream.  It CAN happen - but you have to run first.  
The whole idea can be intimidating, but the Political Advisory Board is here to help.  You won't be out there alone I assure you.  That first step is the hardest.  But once you take it, each succeeding step gets easier.
Dan  88!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Well, What Did You Expect?

In Arizona dissent, Scalia blasts Obama’s deportation stay, immigration policies

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Mon, Jun 25, 2012

In a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws.
"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administra­tion's proposed revision of the Immigration Act," Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."
Scalia went on to write:
Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.
Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks.
Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point.
"Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonen­forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."
The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.
Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies.
The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.
So they upheld one single part of SB 1070.  Like that will do a lot of good.  Rather than write a lengthy commentary, I'm posting another video made by RAMZPAUL, who made the one I posted yesterday.  I basically agree with everything he says, and he says it in his usual humourous way.
Also, Scalia is a perfect example of what Commander Rockwell meant by a "pressure valve" and the so-called "White Knight".  All the Supreme Court Injustices agree that SB 1070 is mostly unconstitutional - except one - Scalia.  He's the "voice of reason".  Yeah right.  Even IF he's sincere, he's only one, so what can he do?  A whole lot of nothing, that's what, and we slip even further into the proverbial toilet.
I am convinced now more than ever that the only hope we have is through National Socialism.  If you have any hope at all left, we need your support more now than ever.
Dan  88!

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Talk: The Liberal View

This five minute video says in a humourous way what the ANP has been saying all along on the racial double standard in this country.  Enjoy!

Thanks to Comrade Kathy for sending this to me.

Dan 88!

Monday, June 25, 2012

But It's Just A Freakin' Rock!

A monolithic debut for LACMA's 'Levitated Mass'

Hundreds of camera-toting Angelenos descend upon the Los Angeles County Museum of Art for the public unveiling of its monumental new outdoor sculpture.

By Reed Johnson and Danielle Paquette, Los Angeles Times  June 24, 20128:45 p.m.

The Egyptian Pharaohs would've approved. Sisyphus [Greek mythology.  Sisyphus was sent to Hades and condemned to push a huge rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down again for all eternity. - Dan] 
After four decades of planning and a 105-mile odyssey, the rock officially has come to rest at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where it is expected to hang out for roughly the next 3,500 years.

On Sunday, hundreds of camera-toting, iPhone-wielding Angelenos and a clutch of dignitaries descended on Michael Heizer's monumental new outdoor sculpture, a 340-ton granite boulder suspended over a 456-foot-long concrete channel, formally known as "Levitated Mass."
The rock's public unveiling produced a scene that combined civic fanfare and primordial drama with the hoopla of a Hollywood red-carpet opening. The first waves of people swarmed beneath the sculpture, ooh-ing and ah-ing and creating a momentary SigAlert in the artwork's walkway as they paused to ponder the monolith or seek shade beneath its iconic bulk.
"It is a monument to our own time and our own place and our own aspirations as people," Michael Govan, LACMA's chief executive, said during the brief dedication ceremony under a blistering late-morning sun. "And being made of stone, concrete and steel and engineered to withstand time, perhaps it will be here millennia forward to communicate those feelings to future civilizations."
Sunday's festivities were the climax of a process that started as an art commission but grew into a pop-culture phenomenon of sorts. Heizer first had the idea for "Levitated Mass" some four decades ago. But his vision went unfulfilled until a heavyweight group of LACMA donors, led by former board chair Nancy Daly, ponied up large private gifts toward the artwork's $10-million price tag.

The rock drew massive attention in March when it made an 11-night journey from a quarry in Riverside through a series of Los Angeles County cities to the LACMA grounds on Wilshire Boulevard. The boulder traveled on a specially made transporter at just a few miles per hour as it negotiated surface streets, bridges, at least one tight overpass and sharp turns, a trip that required months of logistical planning and negotiating with local municipalities.
Crowds turned out to watch it move through the Greater L.A. area, and in one place where it stopped for the night, Bixby Knolls in Long Beach, thousands of people flocked to an impromptu street party around the boulder.

Besides seeing the artwork itself, Sunday's opening afforded a rare public sighting of Heizer, who was present in a polo shirt, sunglasses and a large, wide-brimmed hat. Although he didn't speak from the podium, Heizer obligingly signed autographs and answered questions from museum visitors and the mobs of news media.
Still, the famously reclusive artist kept his comments minimalist and laconic. "When you saw this rock, how did you know it was the one?" one female reporter asked.
"Because it was big," Heizer replied.
Along with breathless tweets and enthusiastic Facebook posts, the rock also has generated on-line criticism from fiscal libertarians and others who regard it as a P.T. Barnum-esque folly. No such sentiments could be heard from those who turned out Sunday.
"This is a world event. This is sit-up-and-take-notice. Because L.A. will move the earth, and not only from the earthquakes," said Marlene Picard, a Namibia native who said the sculpture reminds her of her parched, flinty homeland.

Nicole Mirante-Matthews and her husband, Jason, traveled from Silver Lake to walk their pit bull puppy, Olive, through the exhibit. The pair, both rock climbers, saw the tented rock before it left the Riverside quarry.
"We'd like to put this in our backyard, but it's bigger than our house," Nicole said, laughing. "It's amazing to be standing under a huge rock in the middle of a big city."
Attendant politicians saw the rock as a symbol for, well, whatever they pleased. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the pristine concrete walkway that slices beneath the boulder "reminds me of what our streets should look like. And I'd like to get 'em there, so we've got to extend Measure R." The 2008 measure raises money for traffic reduction and other transit project.
Leaving no public policy stone unturned, Villaraigosa also gave a plug for the planned subway line extension to LACMA and for environmental conservation. The mayor said the rock, lifted from a desert, reminds us that "we actually do live in a semi-arid place" and "that we have to conserve our water, we have to protect our climate."
William Escalera, who serves on LACMA's modern art acquisitions council, predicted that Angelenos would find many uses for the rock. "People will want to get married in front of it," he said. "I hope nobody wants to climb on it."
There'll be plenty of time to find out. It's going to be around for a while.


Sculpture?!  Comrades, am I wrong or is that just a freakin' rock?  Looks like a rock to me.  It isn't even "levitated".  As you can plainly see, it's sitting on steel and concrete supports.

The idiocy of most Californians - especially those in Loony Angeles - I mean Los Angeles (maybe I was right the first time) never ceases to amaze me.

This is a typical example of Jewish "garbage art".   But let me get this straight.  The so-called artist, Michael Heizer, who IS indeed Jewish finds this huge rock, props it up outside the L.A. County Art Museum, and calls it art?  And it's worth ten million dollars?!  Maybe I'm just some kind of an uncultured clod, but I don't get it.  I know I'm repeating myself, but it's a stupid rock.   This is culture?  How is this art at all?

I've only touched on art once before when I posted some of the Fuhrer's paintings.  Now that was art.  When he painted something, the paintings LOOKED like what he was painting.  He didn't swirl random colours on his canvas,  or paint a woman with three breasts and two noses and call it art.  His was REAL art, and not this ridiculous garbage that passes itself off as art at obscene prices.  It goes to show you how moronic people are that would pay millions for a rock.  These people are also allowed to vote?  No wonder crooks, idiots, and sock puppets keep getting elected.

Art is supposed to enhance life.  How does a huge hunk of stone enhance life?  This is another method the Jewish power structure  uses to corrupt our young people and distort values.  Anyone remember the controversy a couple of years ago about the "sculpture" of the Virgin Mary smeared with cow dung?  Absolutely disgusting.

I hate  the idea of limiting freedom of expression, which is one of our most treasured rights, but this is just plain ludicrous.  After all, we do have freedom of speech, but you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre just because you felt like it.  You should also not be allowed to produce so-called artwork that corrupts and distorts values just because you want some attention.

Art is supposed to enhance life - not distort it.

Dan  88!

Sunday, June 24, 2012

It Just gets Crazier And Crazier

Two polls came out earlier this week showing strong support for the Obama Administration's plan to offer an amnesty to at least 1.4 million people. While the polls from Bloomberg and Rasmussen show 64% and 71%, respectively, support the plan, the results were very misleading. During ourThursday webcast, Roy and I took a closer look at these two polls, and here's what we found.
The Bloomberg poll asked 734 likely voters whether they supported Pres. Obama's plan to halt deportations of individuals who were brought into the country before they were 16; are in school, have a high school diploma or were honorably discharged from the military; and have no criminal record. While 64% of respondents said they support the policy, the question never mentioned that the individuals can be up to 30 years old and would get work permits even though more than 6 million Americans the same age with only a high school degree can't find a full-time job or have given up their job search.
The poll also states "no criminal record" while the actual policy only requires no "significant misdemeanors". Responses to other questions in the poll reveal other major flaws; Roy and I discussed all of this during our webcast. (Watch a replay at
The Rasmussen Poll asked 1,000 likely voters if they support giving work permits to illegal aliens who were brought here before the age of 16. But, like the Bloomberg poll, the question misled respondents by stating "no criminal record". A staggering 71% said they supported work permits for illegal aliens, BUT the poll question gave respondents only two choices -- work permits or deportation. Again, there were several other flaws with this poll that Roy and I discussed in the webcast.
The GOP Senate Leadership isn't taking the Administration's move lightly. Earlier this week, 20 Senators led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the President asking for answers. The Senators asked for documentation on the legal basis for the new policy, how much implementation and execution of the policy could cost taxpayers, and how they would handle specific scenarios that aren't addressed by the announced policy.
For instance, the written policy only refers to individuals who "came to the United States under the age of sixteen", but supporters of the policy continuously talk about individuals who were brought here "by their parents". So David North from the Center for Immigration Studies decided to call the hotline set up by the Administration to ask for clarification. What did David find? Six different responses from six different operators, and most of the six weren't very confident with their answers.
As Roy said during the webcast, NumbersUSA will continue to stay out on front on this issue. If one or more of your Members of Congress serve on the Senate or House Appropriations Committees, we've posted brand new faxes on your Action Board. There's an amendment to the House version of the DHS Appropriations bill that prevents the Administration from using deferred action or prosecutorial discretion, and we need the appropriators to keep that clause in the bill! We're also urging support of Rep. Lamar Smith's HALT Act (H.R.2497) that would suspend the Administration's authority to issue an Executive Amnesty. 

Misleading polls?  Considering both polls are Jewish run, it should come as no surprise.  More Judeo-Capitalist propaganda from Wall Street and their political sock puppets.  Personally, I pay them no mind.  They are all full of manure.

As someone who lives in an area which is nothing less than a Babylon of races, I can't find one single person who agrees with Obama on this - especially Mestizo-Americans.  Even THEY are against this.  And legal immigrants are viewing this as a slap in the face.  They worked their collective asses off to comply with immigration law, and with a stroke of the pen, Obama gives a free pass to these "DREAMERS" (what those who would be covered by the DREAM ACT are referred to).   

Now, we have about a million and a half MORE people competing with White Americans for what few jobs there are left.  

Obama claims to be working in the best interest of the people.  LOL  We all know who he is really working for, so I don't have to repeat myself.  But let's suppose - hypothetically - that he means what he says.  If that were true, then he must be a complete and utter moron.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to qualify 1.4 million MORE people for work, when the unemployment rate continues to rise.

In all honesty, Obama is NOT a moron.  He knows full well what he's doing.  He thinks that WE are the morons.  He has just made it even harder for American citizens to get work, and he tells us it was the right thing to do.

Like I've previously said, it doesn't matter who is elected.  Nothing will improve - except for the one percent.  Yet still, in November, my money is on Obama.  Maybe Obama is right.  Most voters ARE a bunch of morons.  Even if you are still misguided enough to believe in the system, only a moron would disagree with his actions, and still vote for him.  

This is what I tell people:  Okay, so you don't like National Socialism.  Fine.  But there are a lot of other Third Parties out there.  Find one you can believe in, and support them.  National Socialism is the ONLY way to save this country, but for now, let's just get away from the Democrats and Republicans.  For now, let's  get the sock puppets out.  Then we can work on getting National Socialism in.

Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the system.  Success comes one step at a time.

Dan  88!

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Real Activism

Sorry, a screw up on my part .  I didn't forget to post, I just set the wrong date when I scheduled it.  My bad.

An interview with activist Matthew Heimbach at the beautiful SC Statehouse grounds about his recent troubles with PC Left on campus; the 'White pride' chalking incident which garnered so much media attention; hatred of Confederate symbols by Black student group; being attacked by the SPLC; threats of violence against the Youth for Western Civilization; double standards applied to non-White groups and White groups by university, police and media, the future of his activism; and more!

The young man in this video is not a National Socialist, but he is a White Nationalist.  If just half of all ANP Supporters did half of what he does, we'd really be on our way to holding federal offices.

Dan  88!

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Chairman Suhayda Interviewed By A Jew!

This was an excellent interview.  Mr. Pearlman was very fair and balanced in his treatment of the Chairman.  He asked very intelligent and pertinent questions, and Chairman Suhayda gave intelligent pertinent answers.  Actually, Mr. Pearlman did ask one stupid question, and the Chairman gave an appropriate answer.  See if you can pick it out.

Dan  88!

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Golden Dawn Holds Their Parliament Seats In Latest Election

By The Associated Press
ATHENS, Greece (AP) - An extreme right party that campaigned to rid Greece of illegal immigrants largely held its bloc of seats in parliamentary elections Sunday, retaining support after a party official slapped a female politician and threw a glass of water on another on live television during the campaign.
Official projections showed the Golden Dawn party returning to the 300-member parliament with 18 seats, just three fewer than it had won in an inconclusive election on May 6, when no party won enough votes to form a government amid a deep financial crisis that threatens Greece's place in the Eurozone and could hurt the global economy.
The conservative New Democracy party came first and could gather enough support to form a coalition as it seeks to soften the tough terms of an international bailout deal that is keeping Greek finances afloat. While New Democracy will not court Golden Dawn in any power-sharing arrangement, the entry of the far-right party into parliament this year for the first time is seen by many Greeks as a symptom of the alienation and hardship that their society is experiencing.
"I would like to thank the hundreds of thousands of Greeks who did not change their vote, despite the effort of wretched propaganda by the paid stooges on TV," said Golden Dawn leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos, whose party capitalized on a wave of anger over how mainstream politicians have handled Greece's economic woes. "We will continue the fight for a Greece that belongs to Greeks."
In the northern city of Thessaloniki, Golden Dawn supporters celebrated outside their party headquarters by setting off flares and small fireworks.
Earlier this month, Ilias Kasidiaris, the 31-year-old spokesman for Golden Dawn, accosted two politicians from leftist parties on live TV and defied an arrest warrant that was later issued against him. He also sued the politicians, accusing them of unprovoked insults.
The Party opposes the international bailout deal for Greece, and advocates cleaning up crime-ridden neighborhoods and mining Greece's borders to stop illegal immigration.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. 
That's terrific news!  What's even better is that this election was not "inconclusive" like the May election.  The results will stand.  Okay, they lost three seats, most likely because of the slapping and water throwing incidents.  Definitely inappropriate behaviour to be sure, but the Greeks are a rather hot-blooded and emotional people.  Fortunately, the public has short attention spans, and by the next election in a few years, they'll get those seats back - and more.
Comrades, we are on our way to doing the same, but we've a long way to go.  We have a lobbyist, a political advisory board, and a few people interested in running for office, but we need more.  Golden Dawn won 18 seats in Parliament, but you better believe a lot more than 18 candidates ran.
Running for office, like distributing literature, is a numbers game.  If you hand out 100 pieces of literature and get one response, you did well.  If we ran ten people for office and won one victory, we did fantastic.  Let's get off our collective asses and start running.  
We have elections coming up in November.  If there are any realistic offices open in your area, the filing date should be sometime in August.  I know it's only June 20 (first day of summer, btw), it will be August before you know it and too late.  If you don't know how to find out what offices will be open, contact me and I'll help you find out.  That's one of the things the Political Advisory Board does:  We help in any way we can.  So saying, "I don't know what to do."  just won't cut it.  If you don't know how to get started, we'll help you.  How about it?  If you don't do it, who will?  Yeah yeah, I know.  Too busy, too tired and "Can't someone else do it?"  The only "someone else" out there is you.  
The call has been made.  Will you answer it?
Dan  88!

Mullet Is Trying Again!

I got this story off of White Reference.

Crusaders For Yahweh-Aryan Nations 

LLC  Becomes A Registered Pro-White 

Lobbyist Group in Washington DC

One of the leading political blogs in the U.S. has reported that another pro-White group has followed the example of the American Nazi Party and has registered to lobby on behalf of White racial interests in Washington D.C.The Hill reports that Crusaders For Yahweh-Aryan Nations LLC filed paperwork on Thursday June 14th, 2012 indicating that it would lobby on“any activities that adversly afect [sic] the White Race.” The Hill made sure to highlight the misspelling in their story.

Paul Mullet, senior pastor for Crusaders For Yahweh, told The Hill that the group plans to be more politically active, and entering the lobbying field is part of that effort. “Because we need to have Christianity brought back to American society,” Mullet said. “For one, the white race is being targeted as a hate group. Everywhere we turn, we are being depicted as a bunch of inbreds. … It is time we take a stand.” Mullet said his group has 37 chapters across the country and plans to run candidates for local political offices. They filed a second quarter report for 2012, which indicated that the group hadn’t lobbied during the quarter and spent less than $5,000.

Paul Mullet has an extensive history of pro-White political advocacy. During his previous sojourn with Aryan Nations, he launched a major literature outreach drive throughout much of Idaho. But plans to build a compound in John Day, Oregon were undermined and derailed by local officials in 2010, and shortly thereafter, Mullet took his faction out of Aryan Nations and started the American National Socialist Party (ANSP). However, the ANSP could not break through the dominance of the "Big Two" (NSM, ANP), and so when Pastor Morris Gulett revitalized Aryan nations in 2011, Mullet placed his group under the AN umbrella and changed it to Crusaders For Yahweh after being ordained a Christian Identity pastor by R. Vincent Bertollini in August 2011

The American Nazi Party's West Coast organizer, Dan Schruender, was once a member of Paul Mullet's faction, but departed on reasonably civil terms. He objected to the religious emphasis. Here's his explanation:

Aryan Nations is a different story. As a former member, although they call themselves political, they are more of a church. Their religion is called Christian Identity. Most of the leaders of the different factions all use the title of "Pastor". Most of them legally hold this title. There are places on the internet where you take a home study course, pass an easy test, and BAM! Instant minister. All for a fee, of course. Paul Mullet, Morris Gulet, and August Kreiss et al all hold the title of Pastor. Technically, it could be called a cult, as it is far from mainstream religions, and their "flock" is limited in numbers. I was a member of this church, but only on a technicality. I wanted to be a part of their political activities, but Director Mullet said I had to be a church member - at least in name. That's all I was - a church member in name. I never was much of a churchgoer. I always found it too boring. No offense to any Christian was intended in that remark.


I stand by my previous statement.  And I want to re-emphasis I meant no disrespect to any Christian.  It's just I'm more of an agnostic, and I do find church boring.

You gotta hand it to Paul.  He IS persistent.  First, he starts AN88.  I've heard different stories of how he was ousted, and since I have no personal knowledge of which one is true, I won't even repeat them.  I'm not writing this as an attempt to trash him.  Like I've said previously, I won't trash anyone without proof.

Next he started the American National Socialist Party.  Well, that fizzled out pretty quickly.  When he started calling himself "Reichsfuhrer", I felt it was time I left.  I did stay a couple of months, but only because I wanted to think things out thoroughly.  I made a similar decision regarding my involvement with the NSALP very hastily, and I didn't want to do it again, so I gave myself some time to consider all of my options.  After all, if you don't feel comfortable with the group you are with, you can't be very effective.  There had been MANY changes to AN88 - ANSP, and I was no longer comfortable.

Now he's back with Crusaders For Yahweh - Aryan Nations LLC.  I make no judgments on this blog.  But I will say this.  Unless Paul means it in a different way, LLC stands for "Limited Liability Corporation".  

I'll finish by asking a simple question:  If his new group is simply a religious-political organization, why does he need to incorporate?  I have my opinion, but I won't state it here.  I'll let you answer that one for yourselves.

Sorry the column on this post is too thin.  I had some trouble making it fit right, and I figured it was better to have it too thin, than too wide with the right side cut off.

Dan  88!

Monday, June 18, 2012

Rodney King found dead in swimming pool

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout

Rodney King, whose videotaped beating by police in 1991 sparked the L.A. riots, was found dead at his California home on Sunday. He was 47.
Police said King's fiancée discovered him at the bottom of the swimming pool at their Rialto, Calif., home, about 55 miles east of Los Angeles.
Police responded to a call at 5:25 a.m., pulled King out of the pool and attempted CPR, but could not revive him.
King's representative Suzanne Wickmanconfirmed to his death to KABC-TV. According to TMZ, King's fiancée, Cynthia Kelley, told friends King spent the bulk of Saturday drinking and "smoked marijuana at some point," before she went to went to bed at 2:00 a.m.  [Gee, what a surprise! - Dan]
The cause of death is unknown, but police are investigating it as a drowning. Rialto Police Capt. Randy DeAnda told CNN there were no preliminary signs of foul play.
King was beaten by four white LAPD officers following a DUI stop on March 3, 1991. Footage captured by an amateur videographer showed the officers hitting King 56 times with wooden batons.
"I just got lucky that night to have the cameras on me," King said in April, marking the 20th anniversary of the L.A. riots. "When I saw the tape, I was so happy that it was on tape and then looking at it, it was like I was in another body. I felt like I had died in that one, and was just watching it."
The four officers--Theodore Briseno, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind and Sgt. Stacey Koon--were acquitted of criminal charges, sparking the riots that left 55 people dead. (Koon and Powell were later found guilty of federal civil rights charges and sentenced to 30 months in prison.)
"It felt like Armageddon," King said of the acquittal. "It felt like the end of the world. I was hurt. I was past upset.
"I was raised not to be violent, and not to be rioting and carrying on like a wild man," he added, "but at the same time, there was a side of me saying, 'What else can you do?' I didn't agree with it, but I understood."
During the five-day riots--marked by widespread looting, arson and racially-charged beatings throughout South Central L.A.--King made his famous public plea for peace: "People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we get along?"
"Through all that he had gone through with his beating and personal demons, he was never one to not call for reconciliation and for his people to overcome and forgive," the Rev. Al Sharpton said in a statement on Sunday.
King had long struggled with alcohol abuse, much of it detailed in his 2012 memoir, "The Riot Within." According to KABC, he was arrested or detained by police at least a dozen times on charges ranging from DUI to domestic violence.
In 2011--the 20th anniversary of his beating--King was arrested in California on suspicion of DUI.
According to TMZ, King was scheduled to compete in a celebrity boxing match against Jose Canseco in August.
Why did I even bother to make a post about this loser at all?  No reason in particular - except that this happened about one mile away from where I live here in Rialto.  When something like this happens right in your own backyard, it makes it more interesting.
I'd also like to mention that of all the millions King got in his settlement, he was all but broke.  A few years ago he wrapped his car around the Rialto High School sign post (good thing it was night and there were no kids nearby), and was charged with DUI several times.  A real upstanding citizen.
Now sometimes I say I live in Rialto, and sometimes I say San Bernardino.  I actually live in Rialto, which is a suburb of nearby San Bernardino.  I often say San Bernardino because it's a major city and well known across the country.
FYI, Rialto is NOT a Spanish name.  Around the year 1900, Rialto was founded by Italian immigrant citrus growers who named their new town after a town in Italy. 
Also, I hope everyone had a nice Father's Day.  For those of you lucky enough to have dads that are still living, I hope you spent some time with them.  
Yesterday I mentioned living as a true National Socialist.  Part of that is spending time with your family, and being there for your elderly parents, just as they were always there for you when you needed them.
BTW, anyone know what "TMZ" actually means?  It means "Thirty Mile Zone", referring to the famous thirty mile area around the center of HollyJewood.  
Dan  88!