Why Do White People Think Mitt Romney Should Be President?

Tom Scocca, Slate, November 2, 2012

I’m voting for Barack Obama on Election Day. This fact will appear on Slate’s list of which candidates its writers are voting for, a list which will almost certainly look like the 2008 list, which is to say an almost unbroken string of “Obama.” {snip}

{snip} There is a real, airtight bubble in this election, but it’s not Obama’s. As a middle-aged white man, in fact, I’m breaching it. White people—white men in particular—are for Mitt Romney. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney’s candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him.

This fact is obfuscated because white people control the political media. So we get the Washington Post reporting that the election is “more polarized along racial lines than any other contest since 1988”:

Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll. That presents a significant hurdle for the president—and suggests that he will need to achieve even larger margins of victory among women and minorities, two important parts of the Democratic base, to win reelection.

That’s not polarized. Polarization would mean that various races were mutually pulling apart, toward their favored candidates. “Minorities” is not a race (nor, you may have noticed, is “women”). Minorities and women are the people standing still, while white men run away from them.

What is it with these white men? What are they seeing that ordinary people don’t see? What accounts for this . . . secession of theirs, from the rest of America? John Sununu, Romney’s campaign co-chair, responded to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama by saying, “I think that when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States—I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

Sununu was trying to be snide. But there he is, standing with Mitt Romney. Just like Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood and Buzz Bissinger and Meat Loaf—one aging white man after another. It’s a study in identity politics.

{snip}

Yet Mitt Romney’s election strategy depends on the notion that the white vote is separate from the rest of the vote, and can be captured as such. Back in August, National Journal ran a report on campaign math headlined “Obama Needs 80% of Minority Vote to Win 2012 Presidential Election“:

Romney’s camp is focused intently on capturing at least 61 percent of white voters. That would provide him a slim national majority—so long as whites constitute at least 74 percent of the vote, as they did last time, and Obama doesn’t improve on his 80 percent showing with minorities.

Again, why are “minorities” treated as a bloc here? The story mentions no particular plan by the Obama campaign to capture the nonwhite vote. Instead, it discusses how the Romney forces hope to get a bigger share of white voters than John McCain did—by “stressing the increased federal debt” and attacking “Obama’s record on spending and welfare.”

{snip} A recent  ABC/Washington Post poll found Romney leading Obama 65-32 among white men and 53-44 among white women, giving him a 59 percent share of the white vote overall—“a new high,” and closing in on that 60 percent target.

{snip}

And so we have two elections going on. In one, President Obama is running for re-election after a difficult but largely competent first term, in which the multiple economic and foreign-policy disasters of four years ago have at least settled down into being ongoing economic and foreign-policy problems. A national health care reform bill got passed, and two reasonable justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Presidents have done worse in their first terms. In my lifetime—which began under the first term of an outright thug and war criminal—I’m not sure any presidents have done better. (The senile demagogue? The craven panderer? The ex-CIA director?)

In the other election, the election scripted for white voters—honestly, I’m not entirely sure what the story is. Republican campaigns have been using dog-whistle signals for so long that they seem to have forgotten how to make sounds in normal human hearing range. Mitt Romney appears to be running on the message that first of all, Obama hasn’t accomplished anything, and second of all, he’s going to repeal all the bad things that Obama has accomplished. And then Romney himself, as a practical businessman, is going to . . . something something, small business, something, restore America, growth and jobs, tax cuts, something. {snip}

{snip}

If there’s one thing white people have learned from decades of being targeted by campaigns, it’s that someone, somewhere, is trying to cheat them. This is the idea behind Romney’s 47 percent remarks in that appearance—America is divided between regular, productive folks and the people who are victimizing them.

{snip}

Here, Romney is speaking fluent White. In white people’s political English, “personal responsibility” is the opposite of “handouts,” “food stamps,” and particularly “welfare,” all of which are synonyms for “niggers.” This was Ronald Reagan’s rallying cry, and it was the defining issue for traumatized post-Reagan white Democrats. Like George Wallace vowing not to be out-niggered again, the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Republic and Bill Clinton made Ending Welfare as We Know It the policy centerpiece of the 1990s.

The actual policy never mattered. Now the Romney campaign is running ads in Ohio saying that Obama “gutted the work requirement for welfare” and “doubled the number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps.” In mixed company, Romney glosses the food-stamp lines as concern about the country’s economic status, but that’s not why “work requirement” and “able-bodied” are in there. It’s the rusty old Confederate bugle, blown one more time.

At the end of the National Journal piece about Romney’s white-vote goals, a Republican strategist acknowledged the campaign was hanging its hopes at a shrinking target: “This is the last time anyone will try to do this.” This is a demographic proposition rather than a moral one: The GOP will end its get-out-the-white-vote strategy whenever it stops working. Maybe, with luck, this will be the final sounding of that bugle.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FWMCMK6U5OWRHYIYJAF2TPFL2U thomas

    Not for the same reasons that 98% of blacks think obama should be president. Perhaps one day our people will catch up…

    • IstvanIN

       Right, whites are racists because only 37% support Obama but blacks are “NORMAL” Americans because 98% support Obama.  Only white men are racists.  How do these race traitors even keep a straight face?  They lie and lie and lie, I just do not get it.

      • vladdy1

        Yeh. Like that article here the other day claiming “Americans” More Racist Than Ever — turns out to be about white people. I thought it was a no-no to “exclude” others by only calling white people Americans. Only when it suits their needs, eh?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Peterson/100003526607299 Jesse Peterson

    Columnist can’t think of a legitimate reason white men would prefer Romney.
    ______________

    I can think of one: He isn’t a Watusi.

  • Biff_Maliboo

     “Tom Scocca” is a synonym for “as*hole.”

  • MerlinV

    Why am I voting for Romney? Because he’s not Obama.

    • Detroit_WASP

      Why am I voting for Romney?  Because he looks like me and the other men that built this country and not the ones that are destroying it.  

      • striker

        lol you gotta be kidding me!!! white people build this country… my ass!

        • Ray

          Uh, yeah. They did.

  • http://twitter.com/LavMenace Crystal Lee Evans

    I think that white people perceive that because Romney is white, he has their best interests at heart. Blacks feel the same way about Obama.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Peterson/100003526607299 Jesse Peterson

      No we don’t. We’ve been betrayed by far too many White politicians. A lot of us don’t trust Romney but we know for a fact that Obongo will seek to destroy us.

      • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

         It’s actually a tough call, deciding which one will actually cause the fireworks to go off first.  I think that Romney doesn’t care one jot for anyone beyond his family and religious sect.  He love money and he will see to it that those who are in that club will be protected.  The rest of us only have his white skin to trust.

        Obama on the other hand, is a guaranteed polarizer.    The more he legislates and pimps bills that discriminate against whites, the more whites will see their own race identity and the need to organize around it.

        Voting for Obama might actually be a vote for a certain white future.  Anyway, that notion shows how far out of whack our system and politics have gone.  It is dysfunctional beyond repair.  It was a valiant try, but the U.S. is a failure.

    • bluffcreek1967

      Geez, if only Romney actually did have the interests of Whites at heart! I’m not voting for Romney because I think he has a greater interest in what is best for Whites, but because I can’t bring myself to vote for the current empty suit in the Oval Office (empty chair?). Romney, in fact, has specifically pandered to Hispanics in ways that are not good for Whites nor the future of our great country. I will hold my nose tomorrow as I vote for Romney. I might even vomit afterwards, but I will never vote for Obama.  

  • MSNBC Derangement Syndrome

    Columnist can’t think of a legitimate reason white men would prefer Romney.

    Then he’s behind the times. 

    He should have blamed “White privilege” for the reason, and then celebrated Civil Rights’ helping to “change America for the better,” and then quoted Tim Wise about how much more better America is about to be when White privilege is extinct.

  • Germanacus

    Obama’s primary interest is for the black man first and foremost. This means doing everything possible to minimize the White man through non-White immigration, afirmative action, loading the courts with judges who hold his beliefs, miscegenation which he has engaged in himself several times, virtually anything to reduce White status will be on his agenda. White women who vote black and White liberals are nothing but useful idiots. It’s about race. It always has been. Most White men sense these things even if subconsciously.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

       I personally think that Obama does not like the ladies and that any tales of him and White women are just that, tall tales.  Obama is most likely a poof and Sasha and Malaria are more than likely the offspring of some other male.

      • vladdy1

        There’s something kinda creepy about the way one kid looks exactly like Mooch and one exactly like O  — same build, features, etc. — like little mini-me’s. Just sayin’.

  • Francis Galton

    Easily one of the most infuriating, Orwellian articles I have ever read.

    Notice how this cretin contrasts White males with “normal Americans” and “ordinary people.”

    Despicable, self-hating, sponge-for-a-backbone creep. 

    To the author:

    Hey, idiot, how about this: White men envisioned this nation, White men conceived this nation, White men fought for and defended this nation, and White men are still the physical, economic, social, and political backbone of this nation to this day.  Apparently, to you and other far-leftists, the only “species” worthy of extinction is the White male.  Well, since that’s the case, maybe you could do us all a favor and fire the “starting gun,” so to speak.

    Also, I had to laugh at your through-the-looking-glass summary of Obama’s first term.  “Largely competent” first term?!  Yes, if we’re comparing his record to those of Stalin or Mao, then I’d say his is the preferable record.  His potential second term record, maybe not so much….

    Oh yeah, Mr. Tom Scr**um, one more thing: we now know that you have publicly used the N-word more than have the entire Republican party membership this election cycle.  You: 1; them: 0.  Congratulations!

    Sorry, one more thing: the reason the electorate–yes, even those evil Whites–are being demographically sliced and diced is because YOUR people–self-hating White regressives– originated and perfected it!  

  • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

    White people—white men in particular—are for Mitt Romney. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney’s candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him.

    I stopped reading at this point because I felt the need to comment.

    If white men have no logic or common sense to vote for Romney, what logic and common sense do they have to vote for Obama? Are white men doing better under an Obama administration? What have white men gotten and what can they look forward to under a second Obama administration?

    Exactly who are ‘normal Americans’? Anyone who isn’t a white male?

    “Without this narrow, tribal appeal”. Blacks voted for Obama by 96-98%. Is that not exclusive appeal?

    ‘Romney isn’t viable because Americans see no reason to vote for him’?

     Again, if Romney isn’t seen as viable, considering the last four years of the Obama administration, how is Obama viable?

    • Eagle_Eyed

       I could probably write a senior level thesis on the sentence you quoted–dissecting the deranged nature of the modern racial liberal’s mind.

      As a self-proclaimed white man, what makes him write something like this?  It’s one thing to decry Romney’s wealth, tax return history, platform, etc.–but why would a white man feel such loathing toward his fellow men of European heritage? 

      • Gracchus123

        Because he’s a deranged person who very likely will never fulfill the biological imperative?

  • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

    “The GOP will end its get-out-the-white-vote strategy whenever it stops working.”

    Am I missing something here? I can’t think of a single instance where White people have been targeted in a positive way as White People. One party targets the “evil White voters” and cries racism, and the other party excuses it all away by parading out a bevy of black conservatives, or they talk about how their party is the one who will help all the poor, mistreated minorities.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YL6T3BJRP7N3DDTPORHM2J2GFQ Chris R; Something Clever

    You know, a part of me wants these sycophants to get everything they want so I watch the country go down in flames and guys like this get a rude awakening.

    • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

       The pessimist in me agrees with this.

      The optimist, however, tells me that I should find a way to save the sinking ship and then give these types a solitary world of exactly what they seemed to want.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/YL6T3BJRP7N3DDTPORHM2J2GFQ Chris R; Something Clever

         Agreed, I think that once the country collapses we can make our move and secede.  These leftist swines can live in the hells they helped create.  If they EVER dare show their faces in front of our gates begging us to let them in I would let them rot outside.

        • Sun

          You are too kid for Leftist. I, on the other hand, am not. I find great glee in bullying them using their own logic.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

    “This fact is obfuscated because white people control the political media.”

    Well that depends on if you consider Jews to be White. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7RORAJVG7LJJZECDJIILHJBE7U So CAL Snowman

    “What is it with these white men? What are they seeing that ordinary people don’t see?”

    That’s the Liberal world view in a nutshell.  White men = Bad, not normal

  • http://twitter.com/baldowl baldowl

    I’ll be voting for Romney to spite black people.  Seriously, that’s the only reason I’ll be participating in this election at all.

    • JohnEngelman

      I will be voting for Obama to spite white people like you, baldowl. I will also be voting for him because Romney is an empty suit who only cares about rich people. 

      • SLCain

        All of you who have put in a good word for John Engelman’s posts, thinking he is an ally – remember this.  Remember what he wrote here.

        • JohnEngelman

          I am the ally of intelligent and morally responsible people of all races and national origins. 

          • ed91

             you are a pompous windbag who doesn’t know his tail from his toe.

          • JohnEngelman

            As the ally of those who are intelligent I am not your ally. 

          • ed91

             I would never want an ally of your ilk, milquetoast.

            you and ideas like yours are what needs to go.   I suspect you’re in your mom’s basement somewhere. 
            you should stay there and read some more.  mlk was a known plagiarist so his stuff won’t do.  Same with your boy obmbm, his stuff was written by ayres.
            get real and learn what you’re talking about.

            p.s. My Asian friend says your posts are bs too.

      • http://twitter.com/baldowl baldowl

         I think you’re in the wrong place, then, traitor. 

        • JohnEngelman

          I think you are intolerant of opinions you do not have because you are incapable of refuting them.

          • http://twitter.com/baldowl baldowl

            And I think you waited two months to try to get the last word. Since I really have no interest in continuing some dusty old argument, I’ll just wish you a good day and prosperous new year.
            (I got the last word and get to appear magnanimous at the same time.)

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    Well, it’s come to the point that white men are singled out as a group acting outside the norm.  The reason why is that they have been legislated against for 40+ years by those who wanted to replace them/take what they had.  Now that they have, they are preparing for the “coup de grace” by establishing the notion that white males are abnormal fixtures among “normal Americans” and dont’ have a place in America.

    I have known that for a while.  This article is a great piece of proof that the American Experiment has failed. 

    As I wrote elsewhere, it doesn’t matter who is elected, but Obama getting four more years will actually serve to polarize more whites into the recognition of the fact that they are no longer included in America and need to begin to act for themselves.  Just be sure that you don’t “jump the gun.”  We must be defensive, not offensive.  When the entire house of cards collapses, we will be able to establish ourselves again.  And we don’t need to do anything but be prepared and wait.  No need to be pro-active or engage in any sort of violence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aunti-Occupy/100003232140389 Aunti Occupy

    BECAUSE HE IS WHITE

    His wife is white. His kids are white.  His parents are white.  His in laws are white too.  White is right.  That is the only reason I am voting for Romney.

    • JohnEngelman

      That is the only reason to vote for Mitt Romney. It is not a good reason. He will raise taxes on those who are not rich, while cutting programs that benefit them, and cutting taxes for the rich. 

      • 5n4k33y35

        Psh… As if race hasn’t overshadowed class stratification completely.

        • JohnEngelman

          Race has overshadowed class stratification in the minds of lower income whites who oppose economic policies that benefit them it they also benefit blacks.

          • Ray

            But leftism benefits neither.

          • JohnEngelman

            Lower income whites benefit from a generously funded public sector of the economy – including a single payer health plan – that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

          • Ray

            No, they don’t. Activist government is the greatest cause of poverty. Redistribution of wealth is a myth. The only redistribution that occurs is government taking and keeping as much money as it can, to pay for and guarantee more expansion of government. Lower taxes, less regulation, and less government benefits all.

          • JohnEngelman

            From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there were nearly always more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

            Lower income people benefited from Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage laws, and laws protecting labor unions.

            Tax cuts for the rich mean tax increases for the rest of us, cuts in government spending programs that benefit us, and/or more national debt.

          • Ray

            Tax cuts across the board help all. That’s where jobs come from. Employers create jobs, not government. And there is no such thing as government spending programs. Government has no money of it’s own.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Jimmy Carter was president the top tax rate was 70 percent. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency it was reduced to 28 percent.

            When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. When Ronald Reagan was president that declined to 2,000,000 jobs created per year.

            When Jimmy Carter was president the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined. When Ronald Reagan was president the national debt tripled.

            Those are the facts.

          • Ray

            20 million new jobs under Reagan at an average wage scale of 10$ an hour, far above minimum wage of the day. Inflation slashed, and that debt came under a Democrat House for all eight years and a Democrat Senate for half of that.

          • JohnEngelman

            Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years, not four.

            Inflation declined because the world price of petroleum declined. American presidents have little control over that.

            I have already pointed out that more jobs per year were created under Carter than Reagan. The highest unemployment under Carter was 7.8 percent. The highest under Reagan was 10.8 percent.

            The tripling of the national debt under Ronald Reagan happened because Reagan cut taxes while raising defense spending.

          • Ray

            All right, I was wrong on one thing. You are wrong on everything else. The majority of jobs created under Carter were under 28,000$ per year, and 41% were under 7,012$. 9.9 % of pre existing over 28,000 had been lost under Carter, 46% increased under Reagan. And Congress exceeded Reagan proposed budgets every year save one. Unemployment was at 7.6% when Reagan took office, 5.5 when he left. The lowest economic quintile average earnings increased under Reagan, 86% increased standard of living for the poorest and 47% for the middle class. An increase in manufacturing productivity at triple the 1970′s and an increase of skilled labor jobs.

          • JohnEngelman

            Can you document your assertions?

            Was I wrong about more jobs being created per year under Carter than Reagan? Was I wrong about a higher rate of unemployment under Reagan than Carter (and Obama) ? Was I wrong about the tripling of the national debt under Reagan?

            Every budget that the Reagan administration presented to Congress arrived there with a huge budget deficit built into it. This has been acknowledged by David A. Stockman, who was President Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, in his book “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.”

            In one of his columns George Will acknowledged that if every one of Reagan’s budgets had been accepted in its entirety the increase in the national debt under Reagan would have been only ten percent less than it was.

          • Ray

            And so what? Deficits are not that big a deal. And Stockman was not a Reaganite, he was a RINO who should have been let go. Reagan saved America and the West. That is what matters. And yes, you are wrong about that unemployment rate overall. Obama? They just stopped counting people who have given up looking for work. And overall employment was higher under Reagan than under Carter. I have shown this. You want verification? Try the 1990 Congressional Joint Economic Commission findings. Cook the stats all you want. I am still right.

          • JohnEngelman

            You do not prove your assertions by making them. You do not prove them by repeating them.

            If deficits “are not that big a deal,” why do Republicans complain about them when there is a Democratic president?

            David Stockman was a committed libertarian who had the honesty to admit that it was not possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in popular domestic spending programs. These would have included Social Security, Medicare, farm and business subsidies, and military pensions.In his book he made it clear that these cuts were not made because most Republican voters would have opposed them.

            How did Reagan save “America and the West?” The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan and nearing collapse.

            My data on job creation under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan comes from The Wall Street Journal. My data on unemployment under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama comes from the U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has not changed the way it measures unemployment.

          • Ray

            Yes, that is what you on the left always say. You fail to recognize the gains made by the Communists in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East in the 70′s and how they were rolled back and defeated by Reagan. Funny how the former Soviets admit Reagan defeated them but people with no insider knowledge say otherwise. “Ronald Reagan was the victor of the Cold War.”- Eduard Shevardnadze. Of course, you will claim he had no credibility. Reagan was the one who recognized the Soviets were in decay, explained it and why publicly, and was derided by the left as a fool for it. Of course, then they claim that it was true, contradicting themselves or worse, claiming to have been a part of the victory they actually tried to impede. Pathetic. Look at Reagan speaking to Parliament when he lays out his understanding of the Soviets ending on “the ash heap of history”, and why, and how it would be defeated. And then he did exactly that. You are on the wrong side of history.
            And again, one year of unemployment stats don’t hide the fact that overall employment, with better wages increased under Reagan.

          • Ray

            - you like. You’re still wrong.

          • JohnEngelman

            “The gains made by the Communists in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East,” happened because left wing insurgents were more popular than right wing dictatorships. The United States had no right to intervene in the affairs of those countries.

            Fidel Castro has asked, “They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?”

          • Ray

            Bullshit! None of them, including Vietnam and Cuba, were ever popular revolutions! Where is the success? Only in the places where it has been allowed! Great job, quoting that monster! Crawl back into your rathole! Hahaha! What a fool you are!

          • JohnEngelman

            I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.

            - Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

          • Ray

            Voting is not the same as supporting an invasion or revolution.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Americans were the invaders. The Geneva Agreement of 1954 very specifically forbade the entry of foreign troops to Vietnam. It said that the division of Vietnam into North and South was temporary. It scheduled elections to be held in July 1956. Those elections were not held because President Eisenhower knew that Ho Chi Minh would win in a blowout.

          • Ray

            North and South Vietnam were traditionally separate for centuries. And North Vietnam was separate and communist from 1945. North Vietnam was the invader. Backed by China and the Soviets.

          • JohnEngelman

            Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People’s Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part…

            4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions…

            5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties…

            6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary…

            In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities.

          • JohnEngelman

            Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People’s Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part…

            4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions…

            5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties…

            6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary…

            In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities.

          • Ray

            Well, they were wrong. That seperation had long been there. The North Vietnamese were invaders.

          • JohnEngelman

            The American presence in Vietnam violated the Geneva Agreement of 1954. It was resented by the clear majority of Vietnamese. The War in Vietnam happened because the United States attempted to prevent the ascension the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. Don’t argue with me about that. Argue with President Eisenhower.

            Moreover, Vietnam was unimportant to America’s security or economy. The War in Vietnam was tragically futile. It was an expensive, losing war fought with a tough resourceful enemy, in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible.

          • Ray

            No, that isn’t true. It was an act of communist aggression. And that war, which was a political defeat not a military one, did prevent the fall of southeast Asia. As was admitted by the presidents of Thailand and Indonesia later on.

          • JohnEngelman

            You are not responding to my arguments. You are repeating misconceptions you have carried in your mind for years. I am confident that until I told you about President Eisenhower’s appraisal of the popularity of Ho Chi Minh, and the Geneva Agreement of 1954 you never knew of them.

            Well, you know now. Your misconceptions are no longer acceptable. The War in Vietnam happened because the United States refused to sign and refused to honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. The War in Vietnam happened because the United States prevented a fair, internationally supervised election that would have been won in a blow out by a Communist leader.

          • Ray

            Well, seeing as Eisenhower first sent military personnel to Vietnam (based on Truman’s pledge) in violation of the 1954 treaty you hold in such esteem, your point is invalid. You are a fool to ever take A Communist at their word. History shows that. That war was inevitable because of communist imperialism, as always. Ho would only have won because the northern slaves would have no choice but to vote for him unanimously. History proves that I am right. As for arguing with Eisenhower, In spite of what appears to be his contradictions, I would if I could. If he really believed what he wrote. I would argue with him about the Suez as well.

          • JohnEngelman

            Your mind seems to be covered with cast iron. No facts can change opinions you made years, perhaps decades ago.

            The War in Vietnam was an expensive losing war, fought with a tough resourceful enemy, in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible. Vietnam was unimportant to our economy or security. The war was tragically futile. The vast majority of the Vietnamese supported the Communists.

          • Ray

            Well, they were wrong. The Western powers were naive to trust Communists and the commies took full advantage of typical détentist fools. That separation had long existed and should have been respected instead of having the resolution forced on the South. The North invaded the South as a foreign power backed by foreign powers.

          • Ray

            Ho would have only won because the communist slaves in the north would have been allowed no other vote, as always under communism.

          • JohnEngelman

            President Eisenhower disagreed with you. Everything I have read about Vietnam and everyone I have talked to who was there convince me that in South Vietnam the Communists had broad popular support.

          • Ray

            Believe what you want. Communism has always been forced upon people by a minority of revolutionaries. That is why whenever offered a choice it has always been rejected. And South Vietnam never would have fallen had the Kennedy brothers not allowed Diem to be killed. Even Ho admitted that.

          • Ray

            Not only the right but the moral responsibility.

          • Ray

            In fact, The Russian revolution itself was not a people’s movement. Most Russians, by a wide margin, wanted democracy, not monarchy or communism!

          • Ray

            Under Reagan, at the beginning of his first term, the top 5% of wage earners paid 35% of federal taxes and the bottom 50 paid 8%. By the end of his 2nd term the top 5 paid 46%, the bottom 50 paid 6%. Those are the facts.

  • puffdaddy

    Why “luckily” – does this writer think blacks, hispanics, and other minorities are going to be interested in Slate? Delusional and suicidal.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/D7BX764AFX7YRN57CDP7IRUMNE Darryl

    I would vote for the corpse of a dead White man over a live black/mexican any day. George Bush turned out to be quite the flop, but at least he was no kenyan!

    • JohnEngelman

      Neither is President Obama. 

      • ed91

         actually he is not who he says either.

        so who he is mr smartass?   you seem to know everything

        • JohnEngelman

          The President is a Christian and a Democrat who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. 
              
          I hope your next question is that easy. .

          • http://twitter.com/baldowl baldowl

             You are fascinating.  If the President is a Christian, my name is John Engelman.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/D7BX764AFX7YRN57CDP7IRUMNE Darryl

            Here is a video of the “president” talking about his muslim faith:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

            and here is an article where he is quoted talking about his muslim faith:

            http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=5&

            “I was a little Jakarta street kid,”
            Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

            Methinks Mr. Engleman is of the tribe of Levi

          • ed91

             bullsmack………

            here’s my next one

            why would an opinionated fool like you come here to stir up stuff?
            Do you think you can convince anyone with your gay bs?

            there’s a nice corner in hell reserved for shills like you.

          • JohnEngelman

            I enjoy investigating different points of view and expressing my own. I enjoy political debates. Just because you do not like my opinions does not mean that I am ignorant. 
                       
            I agree with Jared Taylor on important issues. I want more restrictions on immigration. I think it is important to publicize the reality of black crime, and to defend  and popularize the writings of men like Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton.
                         
            I was originally attracted to American Renaissance by reading “The Color of Crime,” by Jared Taylor. 
            http://www.colorofcrime.com/ 
                          
            I enjoy reading the original articles published here, and the news stories.
                      
            Nevertheless, some of the comments posted here are scary. There is a lot of hate expressed for those who are not white Gentiles of European descent. I admire Orientals and Jews. 

  • ncpride

    If I live to be 100, I’ll never understand the self-loathing, White guilt it requires for someone like Tom Scocca to write an article like this. There is no ‘ISM’ to explain away this hatred for his own race, this cheering for our demise in eager anticipation. Even the handful of black writers who speak the truth don’t exhibit such hostility and condemnation of their own people. Tom Scocca needs psychological counseling, because his is truly a sick mind.

    • JohnEngelman

      You seem to be projecting your own hate. 

      • ncpride

        You’re darn right I am. I DESPISE White men like this pathetic wimp. He’s too arrogant to see his own hypocrisy. EVERY group tends to vote along racial lines EXCEPT Whites…. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it, but this loony liberal only targets White men. God forbid they should do any such thing. So, I hope I don’t ‘seem’ to be projecting hatred, but rather made it perfectly clear.

        • JohnEngelman

          A working class white man who votes for his bigotry rather than his economic interests is a fool. 

          Anyone who expects a better job market under Romney is delusional.

          • ncpride

            Now who’s ‘projecting’, John? You don’t know anything about my political views.  My post was about the weasel that wrote this article attacking White men. If you really want to know, I don’t think either of them will make much difference to this country, because neither has the courage to do what’s necessary to turn it all around. But Obama had his turn and he hasn’t done a THING to help my economic interests what-so-ever.

          • Bad_Mr_Frosty

            Pay no attention to the sinophile troll. He hates everyone who isn’t asian. He’s just upset there’s no asian candidate.

          • JohnEngelman

            ncpride,

            Republicans have done everything they could to prevent the President from fixing the economy. Do you think they will be able to fix it if they have the chance? Why?

          • JohnEngelman

            Bad_Mr_Frosty,
             
            I don’t hate whites. I don’t hate blacks. You are projecting your race hatred onto me. 
             
            I do prefer the company of Orientals to the company of whites for  the same reasons I prefer the company of whites to blacks. They tend to be more intelligent. They have lower crime rates. They are more sexually responsible. What is there not to admire about those wonderful people?

          • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

            JohnEngleman projects his own jealousy toward anyone he believes is rich.

            He clearly favors redistribution of wealth as a universal solution.
             
            He makes the mistake that all Marxists make. He believes that there is a pool of money the rich are hording and refuse to share. Unfortunately, he and those like him don’t understand how money and capital actually work.

          • ed91

             perhaps you are delusional.

            there is no doubt Romney would let loose the horses of capitalism.

            obama would let loose the dogs of war.

          • JohnEngelman

            Who started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How well did that turn out?

          • curri

            Reagan was more of a scourge of the plutocrats than Obama:
            http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/12/bill-black-on-incidence-of-fraud.html
            (…)
            “On the prosecution of fraud following the Savings and Loan Crisis: Our agency filed over 10,000 criminal referrals that resulted in over 1,000 felony convictions.  We worked closely with the FBI and the Justice Department, to prioritize cases—creating the top 100 list of the 100 worst institutions which translated into about 600 or 700 executives. We went after the absolute worst frauds.
            On the prosecution of fraud following the current crisis: We now have appointed anti-regulators. The FBI warned in open testimony in the House of Representatives, in September 2004, that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and they predicted that it would cause a financial crisis if it were not contained. It was not contained. Since then we have had zero  criminal referrals. They completely shut down making criminal referrals. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have not made it a priority to prosecute these elite criminals who caused this devastating injury.”
            (…)

          • JohnEngelman

            Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.

          • Ray

            And was right to do so.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            “Fixing” the economy?  Is that what the Porkulous Packages were about?

            You’re a very funny man, though probably not on purpose.

      • ed91

         you seem to be projecting your own stupidity and bias.

  • JohnEngelman
  • Biff_Maliboo

     Fair hair?

    Blue eyes?

    *gasp*

    He’s white!

  • JohnEngelman

    Working class whites who vote Republican feel so much hostility for blacks that they vote against policies that will help blacks and them. The most obvious example of this is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but there are others.
                                           
    The following comments by Ramesh Ponnuru, who  is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review, give an indication of what whites who are not rich can expect from a Romney administration: “For the most part, though, closing the fiscal gap is a question of how much to raise middle-class taxes, how much to reduce the growth of middle-class benefits.”
    http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20121102/OPINION16/311020002/What-Romney-White-House-could-do-U-S?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cs&nclick_check=1    

    • Gracchus123

      The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) is the biggest middle class tax increase in recent memory. 

      And raising taxes and reducing the growth of middle-class benefits will do nothing to close the fiscal gap.

      The only thing that will even approach fix in the “fiscal gap” is massive cuts in spending both in “entitlements” of all kinds and the military, all spending.

      The federal government has no business insinuating itself between a doctor and a patient. 

      I have read the act. It is about much, much more than medicine. Have you read the act?

      • JohnEngelman

        The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is nearly the same as the health care plan signed by Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts. 
         
        I prefer the Canadian single payer plan. So do the Canadians.
         
        —————-
         
        Harris Interactive
         
        ROCHESTER, N.Y. – August 12, 2009 – As members of Congress return to their states and districts to debate the merits of the Democrats’ proposals for health care reform, critics of the proposals may repeat the phrase used by some Republicans, newspaper editorials and  bloggers that ‘the American health care system is the envy of the world.”             If so, they should read the results of a recent Harris/Decima poll in Canada that found a 10-to-1 majority of Canadians believed their system was “superior” to the U.S. system.  They might also note that a 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was “performing well”; and that a majority favored an expansion of public sector health care (i.e., “government-run” health care in the current debate) over private sector health care. 
        http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-Canadian-HC-system-2009-08.pdf      

        • Gracchus123

          Having not read the Mass. plan or the Canadian plan, I cannot speak to either.

          Nevertheless, I will re-state my opposition to the Obama healthcare plan simply because it will be a system run by the federal government, which except for the military, runs nothing well. 

          • JohnEngelman

            In 2011 the United States spent 41 percent of what the world spends on the military.
                                      
            http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
                               
            “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ” 
                                
            - Sun Tzu, from “The Art of War”   
                        
            A well run military wins wars quickly and cheaply. After nearly ten years of fighting the War in Iraq has ended inconclusively. The War in Afghanistan is still going on. President Bush was given every thing he asked for to fight those wars. 

          • Gracchus123

            Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were invaded in order to “win”. Had the US wanted to win militarily, both of those countries would look like glass parking lots. Those countries are purposely being “occupied”. 

            You need more study concerning geo-politics.

          • JohnEngelman

            How well has the U.S. military handled the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

            Obama’s health care plan is nearly the same as the one Romney introduced in Massachusetts, and which is popular there.

    • ed91

       so you are simply a dimorat shill?

      well, good for you and there is no surprise in learning that.
      You have sounded like a liberal for a long time

      • JohnEngelman

        I am certainly a Democrat. Please join me in celebrating the reelection of the President. 

    • SLCain

      The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – usually known as Obama Care – is blatantly unconstitutional and an assault on our liberty.

      And you are an apologist for and supporter of Obama.  And a stupid fool, to boot.  Why should anyone here care what you think?

      • JohnEngelman

        How is the Protection and Affordable Care Act un Constitutional? Quote the parts of the Constitution it violates. 

        • Gracchus123

          Very simply, it does not fall under any of the enumerated powers.

          • JohnEngelman

            One could say that of Social Security, Medicare, environmental legislation, and civil rights legislation. None of that will ever be repealed.
                   
            The following passages of the United States Constitution authorize all of that, plus the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
                    
            ———
             
            Preamble
             
            We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…
             
            Article I Section 81:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States 

            ——— 

            Notice the mention of “welfare.” That authorizes a welfare state if that is what most of the voters want, and most of the voters want a government that will help them get through life. Republican politicians learn that as soon as they get beyond vague campaign rhetoric about “less government,” and try to cut specific programs.

          • SLCain

            The constitution says nothing about not allowing the government to force all of us to wear a dog-collar.  Does that mean that – if the government decided that we should all wear a dog-collar – that it would be constitutional?

            The government does not have the authority to do anything it wants.  The assumption underling the Constitution is that the government is not empowered to do anything that it is not explicity permitted to do.

            Mr. Engelman, you have revealed yourself to be a socialist, a supporter of Obama, anti-white, and hostile to any traditional conception of America.  Moreover, you are an obnoxious idiot.  Nobody here gives a damn what you think.  Go away.

          • JohnEngelman

            SLCain,
             
            The United States Constitution is a guidebook on how to operate a democratic government. The government requires everyone to get a Social Security number in order to get a job. It has the power to do that because the vast majority of the voters support Social Security. 
             
            If the voters wanted everyone to be required to wear a dog-collar, everyone would be required to wear a dog collar. That is a moot point, however, because the voters would not choose that. 

          • Gracchus123

            “What the Constitution does not forbid it permits, and leaves it up to the voters.”—John Engelman
            Absolutely wrong!! That statement by you is a perfect example of my earlier statement that you display subject matter ignorance so often. Had you studied anything about the Constitution, you would not make such a statement as above. 

            The Constitution lists certain enumerated powers which describe what the federal government CAN do. Exactly opposite of your statement, the federal government can do ONLY what falls under the enumerated powers. Anything else is un-constitutional. 

            So, most of the things you list are, in fact, un-constitutional. 

            In the beginning, the whole idea was to LIMIT the power of the federal government; the States were sovereign and had formed the federal government to fulfill certain requirements of the various States, the “enumerated powers”. Nothing else.

            What you describe is a completely unfettered Central Power which will invariably lead to totalitarianism. I don’t think you will be happy with that, will you?

          • JohnEngelman

            Gracchus123, 
            The purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1786 was not to reduce the power of the government, but to increase it. The Articles of Confederation were insufficient for a united country.

          • SLCain

            “The United States Constitution is a guidebook on how to operate a
            democratic government.”

            Wrong, nitwit.  The Constitution is The Law – the most fundmental law of this land.

            “The government requires everyone to get a Social
            Security number in order to get a job. It has the power to do that
            because the vast majority of the voters support Social Security.”

            The government arrogated unto itself the “right” to do that.  It had neither the right, nor the authority to do so.
             
            “If
            the voters wanted everyone to be required to wear a dog-collar,
            everyone would be required to wear a dog collar. That is a moot point,
            however, because the voters would not choose that. ”

            Actually, I suspect that YOU would vote for that very thing, lapdog.

            “What the Constitution does not forbid it permits, and leaves it up to the voters.”

            Wrong, nitwit.  What the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do, the federal government may not do.  It doesn’t become okay just because Congress votes it in.

            Yours is the typical leftist interperetation of the Constitution.  Your “facts” are wrong, your “knowledge” bogus, and your opinions loathesome.

          • Gracchus123

            Gracchus123, 
            The purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1786 was not to reduce the power of the government, but to increase it. The Articles of Confederation were insufficient for a united country.
            “ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

            Whether the Constitution is “better” than the Articles of Confederation is an open question.

            Let’s remember that the original idea of the US was a confederation of sovereign states. The various states created the federal government. If you will notice, IIRC, the Declaration of Independence is titled ” The declaration of Independence of “these united States”. Notice the use of the word “these” and the fact that the word “united” is not capitalized. Each state is a sovereign entity, and thus the tenth amendment to underscore that fact.

            There have always been those who wanted a strong central government with which to “make mischief”, for example, Alexander Hamilton.

            For your further edification on this subject, I suggest THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS (to lend perspective to the Federalist Papers), and a little Fredric Bastiat, ON LAW, as well as a smattering of Russell Kirk.

            If you want to know what drives people like me, sometimes known as paleo-conservatives or Jeffersonian democrats, it is simply the desire to live under a system of “ordered” individual liberty; this is not possible when one lives under a strong central government that believes in wealth re-distribution. Wealth is property. Taking my property without my consent is theft.

  • MSNBC Derangement Syndrome

    Romney just said he has an “unshakable faith in the greatness of the American spirit… We are gonna come back… the only thing standing between us and the greatest years ahead is lack of leadership.”

    Really?  He’s a business man, so he understands friction and inefficiency are obstacles to growth.

    Will he rid us of the illegal alien friction and the diveristy inefficiency?

    Will he overturn Affirmative Action and let the best men grow America, or will he keep fighting agaisnt historic injustices?

    He’s all talk, no action, and our BRA Diveristy will get worse, starting in 2016.  He’s just a delay of the inevitable.

    Watch and see how many light skinned black women he puts in his administration, and how many full blooded blacks he appoints to Chiefs of Command, and how many J-words he puts on SCOTUS.

    We are the last conservatives, and there isn’t anything left to conserve.

    Revenge is an option…

    • MSNBC Derangement Syndrome

      I wonder how he’s feeling about the American spirit that just chose the N over him?

      This ain’t America no mo’, as we were told.

  • JDInSanDiego

    You could take most of the article and substitute the word white for black, black for white, Romney for Obama and Obama for Romney and it would make perfect sense to us.

    For example: ‘Black’ men are supporting “Obama” to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. 

    Or:  What is it with these “black” men? What are they seeing that ordinary people don’t see? What accounts for this . . . secession of theirs, from the rest of America?

  • Germania Jim

    because anyone is better than an avowed communist, thats why.

  • Gracchus123

    Read up on Kaganovich, very likely a namesake.

  • JohnEngelman

    No body hates you because you’re white Daisy. 

    • ed91

      now you’re being naive and stupid.

    • 5n4k33y35

      Tell that to the Orthodox Jew who just got beaten by a gang of blacks, kicked in the head, robbed, and then they stepped on his head. Had he been a mulatto Jew, you think they would have done that to him? Idiot.

  • JohnEngelman

    Those who think Tom Scocca hates white men are projecting their race hate onto him. He does not hate all white men. He does feel contempt for white men whose minds are so twisted by their hatred for non whites that they will vote for a man only because he is white. 

    • ed91

       who are you proclaim universal truths?

      obama and his crew hate white men unless they’re gay or sissies………..

    • nathan wartooth

      Then Obama must be the president of poor black people since so many of them are voting for him? 

      I mean Obama never would bail out big banks or take money from rich people, right? Not to mention Obama is part of the 1% elite just like Mitt Romney is.

      John Engelman as a far left (socialist even?) race realist (or else why would you be on this site?) why don’t you go tell your leftist friends how different the races are. Did you do that already and they all disowned you and now you have to spend your free time trolling this site? 

      Moderators: Keep an eye on JohnEngelman. He is stirring up trouble in every comment section and it’s just getting ridiculous.

      • Gracchus123

        If this Engelman person is “stirring up trouble”, why not simply ignore him? After all, his ignorance and naivete (particularly about politics) screams from virtually all of his posts.

  • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

    This guy is doing two things.

    He’s pushing the leftist idea of ‘impliciate racism’ and coded speech appealing to whites and he’s planting the idea in peoples’ minds that white people, like those who vote for Romney, think of blacks as n*gg*rs.

    Some people who read this will erroneously believe that Romney in fact called blacks n*gg*rs.

  • JohnEngelman

    Marxism and Islam are two points of view that rule each other out. Those who claim that President Obama is a Marxist, a Muslim, and/or a native of Kenya are expressing their hatred for him because he is a black man. 

    • ed91

      so when blacks hate whites with a fervor like a burning star……………

      do you say anything about that?

  • ed91

     he looks very young.  The public schools have indoctrinated millions of them.
    Some will realize their foolishness and come to their senses.

    Many will not……….  often, whites are their own greatest enemies.

  • ed91

     the only thing that will stop Romney’s election is massive voter fraud.

    watch for it.

  • Sun

    The stupid right never went after their white Liberal counterparts. That is how we have writers like Tom Scocca, writer for Slate Magazine, writing this garbarge. Congratulations.

  • Sun

    Hopefully he is talking about himself.

  • vladdy1

    Wonder what the author’s race is? If he’s black, it at least makes sense that he’s writing as he does. (However, it IS very racist to end with that “with good luck” statement). But if he’s white, I’d say shame on him, except that he’l obviously so full of shame already just because he was born white.

  • vladdy1

    I don’t believe his incompetenc comes anywhere near his contempt for America and his love for islam.

  • Michael_C_Scott

    I think Marxism and Islam are necessarily mutually exclusive.  The Koran expressly says how much land a man may own, while in Marxism private ownership of a means of production (like farmland and livestock) is expressly forbidden.  Marxism has from its inception also stressed the equality of the sexes, which is an absolute no-no in Islam.

    President Oogabooga for years went to church services run by that loathesome reverend Wright; if he ever was a Muslim, this makes him an apostate.  The Koran states that the punishment for apostasy is death, so no; he isn’t really a Muslim.

  • 5n4k33y35

     That’s one reason I’m not voting for Obama. If I were in a swing state, I might even vote Romney, but as it is, I’m not voting at all.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Yes, and I live in Colorado, which is a notorious swing state.  I’d have voted anyway, because there’s always House and Senate races, the state legislature races and local ballot/tax issues.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/3KPHHNMYU4BXQSC2GSYLLO4YFU larry

    Another gay man who would sell out America for China in a second(Cheaper male prostittutes).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002454802929 John Smith

    My God, there’s just too much BS here to respond to line by line. Tribal appeal? Blacks re-elected Marion Barry after he was recorded using crack with a prostitute. Is there any crime a black could commit that would prevent another black from voting for him? Or is it that criminal activity is looked upon as a kind of thumbing the nose at YT? Street cred? Keepin’ it real? This guy has lost what little he had of his mind.

  • Dave4088

    Gee, maybe the author should mention Obama’s documented hatred and bigotry towards white people as motivating factor for whites not to vote for him.  It’s morons like Scocca who pretend that only whites are resisting the post racial dystopia and that “normal” (i.e., white liberals, blacks, mestizos) people are on board.