The Hopeless Stupidity of the Republican National Committee

Earl Holt, American Renaissance, December 1, 2014

Is there a way to reform the GOP?

Last year, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee announced plans for the RNC to spend millions of dollars and endless man-hours on “minority outreach” programs into black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Other than endanger canvassers by sending them into dangerous “hoods” and barrios, this program has achieved nothing beyond confirming the RNC’s practice of squandering funds donated by supporters. I do not make this allegation flippantly.

When I lived in St. Louis, Missouri, from 1983 to 2009, I got to know a wealthy black couple who often attended Republican functions. When I asked why they were Republicans, the wife candidly replied, “Because the lines are shorter.”

In the same vein, someone once quipped that all a black has to do is deliver a pizza to Republican headquarters in most counties and they’ll try to groom him for public office. The current RNC leadership seems particularly susceptible to opportunistic blacks who feign allegiance to GOP principles in order to benefit themselves.

This is not to suggest that there aren’t some genuinely honorable and principled blacks who have found a home in the GOP. The difference is that they didn’t have to be recruited to be part of a “team photo.” They managed to find their own way into the party because they were attracted by its message and philosophy.

I suspect those who must be recruited–and are attracted by whatever benefits the RNC offers–will pretend to be loyal so long as the benefits continue while continuing to vote “Democrat.”

Colin Powell is a good example of a black man with little or no allegiance to Republican principles who, nonetheless, is usually the first in line to accept any favors the GOP offers. Although he publicly supported Barrack Obama in 2008 and 2012, a great many “establishment” Republicans and RNC-types actually wanted to draft Mr. Powell for a spot on the national ticket in several recent elections.

The same mentality was at work when a black, former Alabama Congressman named Artur Davis, who served eight years as a Democrat in the House and then ran as a Democrat for Governor, was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention in 2012. This should have created a storm of protest and been denounced as an affront to loyal Republicans–such as Joe Arpaio or Phyllis Schlafly, to name just two–who have fought on the front-lines of America’s culture wars for many years, with few perks and little recognition.

Instead, they were preempted by a Democrat with an American Conservative Union Lifetime Rating of 22 percent, and whose last year in Congress earned him a 7 percent rating. (He was getting significantly more leftist and partisan toward the end of his Congressional career, but this was no deterrent to the RNC.) What kind of GOP “leadership” would choose someone like that to address the Republican faithful, and how much did they have to pay him in the way of an honorarium?

When it comes to race, the RNC seems to be hopelessly naive and foolish. One scam that must have cost Republican contributors tens of millions of dollars over the years was the RNC’s earlier version of its minority outreach effort to the so-called “black Republican” constituency.

This has always been a pipe-dream and an utter failure: It is widely accepted that blacks voted nearly 95 percent for Barack Obama in 2008, and came close to repeating that level of support in 2012. In fact, the official statistics are certainly underestimates, and more accurate figures could be close to 98 or 99 percent. The reason for the undercount is that a common method for estimating the racial vote is to count any precinct that is all black, and use the voting records in these areas as part of the calculation of racial support for each candidate.

In fact, it is common to count precincts that are 90 to 95 percent black as 100 percent black, and even some areas thought to be all black may have a number of white voters. Many of these are people who were too stubborn to leave when their neighborhoods began to change, and have now lost so much equity in their homes they can’t afford to leave. When these whites vote Republican they are counted as “black” Republicans.

When I worked as a St. Louis Election Judge and Election Observer, I often saw whites who lived and voted in what were presumed to be “all-black” areas. That’s because I routinely volunteered for polling places in areas where most Republicans dare not tread, in order to combat voter fraud. This phantom “black” vote for Republicans helps nourish the RNC’s fantasies.

Despite endless RNC solicitations by mail, e-mail and telephone each year, my wife and I refuse to contribute. Instead, as we politely explain to telephone solicitors, we give directly to conservative Republican candidates because we do not trust the RNC.

This may be a way to reform the Republican Party: deny contributions to a leadership that has failed to earn our respect and appears wholly unable to overcome its own stupidity.

Topics: ,

Share This

Earl P. Holt, III
Mr. Holt is a retired entrepreneur and former anti-busing school board member in St. Louis, Mo, where he is grateful no longer to reside.
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.
  • Roninf9

    The GOP Establishment is not stupid. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They work for the same Globalist Bankster/Insiders that the Democrat Party works for. Their role is to dissipate,divert, and otherwise control the political energies of the conservative majority in the county and make sure no one rises up in the Republican Party to challenge the Globalist Agenda. Reagan was the exception and he was quickly dealt with less than 3 months after being in inaugurated. Is it possible to wrest control of the Republican Party from the GOP Establishment “leaders”? I say no because they make the rules and control the money. Send it the way of the Whigs.

    • Tim_in_Indiana

      They’re stupid in the sense that they’re ensuring their own demise.

      • Evette Coutier

        They don’t care. Those in charge with walk off rich at the expense of the party.

        • Pathfinder75

          “at the expense of the party.”

          And the country.

      • Pat Thompson

        If someone is paid to destroy the country, and after taking the money they do a fine good job of it, would you still say they are really ‘stupid’?

        Outside interests want a weaker America to pave the way for global government – a government that will not be free or democratic.

        These are the globalists.

        • tlk244182

          And who, exactly, are these ‘globalists?’

          • Sick of it

            It probably rhymes with hue.

      • Harry Savannah

        They are nowhere near as stupid as the White who identifies as R. I may be dull (formerly registered R. for 25 years) but I think not stupid. I see it as something like this: Subjecting yourself to discomfort and receiving little profit is dull. Subjecting yourself to out-right pain and receiving NO profit is stupid…real stupid.

    • Rhialto

      I don’t think the Repubs work for anybody/ anything except the election of Republicans. The Repubs will, of course, conspire with any group to effect this. I agree that the Repubs actively suppress any serious anti-Liberal political groups.

      The last Republican president that I respect was Calvin Coolidge.

    • WR_the_realist

      I really don’t see Reagan as much of an exception. The mainstream party was happy to see him greatly increase defense spending without raising taxes to pay for it (the deficit moved up sharply under Reagan). And although he later regretted it, Reagan did sign congress’ illegal alien amnesty bill.

      If you want an example of a politician who is really dangerous to the establishment, that would be Ron Paul. Yes, he is weak on immigration enforcement, but at least he never voted for amnesty. He did sponsor a bill to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants. But his cardinal sin was opposition to American military global hegemony, and his belief that we should only fight wars declared by congress and that congress should only declare wars against countries that have attacked us. It is no surprise that the Republican establishment hated him as much as the liberal media did.

      • michaelsanchez

        The problem is that Ron Paul makes no logical sense when he argues against Congressionally approved military action. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to wage war, there is nothing within it that states that the only legal precursor to troop deployment are your magical words of “declaration.” If Congress approves an action to go bitch slap someone halfway around the planet, there are no magic words it must be executed with. The whole “war declaration” BS you guys spew is nothing but a myth concocted by the likes of anti-semites such as Pat Buchanan, who still thinks that WW2 was illegal.

        Try reading the Constitution before regurgitating these tired talking points. Nowhere does it say that any of these magic words must be uttered by Congress. It simply says they have the authority to wage war.

        • WR_the_realist

          Pat Buchanan is not an anti-Semite. He is just not a Zionist. But of course all Zionists will call Pat Buchanan an anti-Semite for not being in thrall to Israel. And I’ve never heard Pat Buchanan say that World War II was illegal, he merely argued that it was avoidable. The problem with Congress is not that they use some alternative language to “declaration of war”, the problem is that congress refuses to take responsibility for starting a war — it always passes some bill to let the president decide if he wants a war, which they did with Iraq. By passing the buck in this way congress can take credit if the war goes well and blame the president if the war goes badly. But it is against the intent of the constitution to let the president decide whether we have a war or not. The credit or blame should lie wholly with congress. The president is responsible for executing the war, as commander in chief, but not for deciding whether to have a war in the first place.

          • Black Swan

            Make no mistake that it was Roosevelt that agitated for the US to enter WW II while stating repeatedly to the American people that he would keep “our boys” out of the war. He and Churchill (and Stalin) were war criminals and should have been tried and hanged for what they did to their own people, mostly young White males.

            Pat Buchanan once called the US a colony of Israel. For that he has paid a price as his column is no longer carried by most msm publications.

          • Tom_in_Miami

            You are absolutely correct.

          • John Jackson

            Oh really, name one thing he said that was even remotely true and can be backed up by an facts, I’ll wait.

        • Black Swan

          WW II was illegal.

          I suppose you think if we hadn’t stopped the Nazis, we’d all be speaking German and screaming Heil Hitler! in America.

          Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on a promise to keep “our boys” out of WW II while plotting secretly with Churchill how to get the US into the war ASAP. Here are a few direct quotes Roosevelt made to the American people:

          “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

          “I am fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting.”

          “Your national government … is equally a government of peace — a government that intends to retain peace for the American people.”

          “Your President says this country is not going to war.”

          “The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war.”

          “How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America into War”

          http //www ihr org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin html

          He baited the Japanese into attacking at Pearl Harbor and then blamed General Short and Pacific Fleet, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, accusing them of being unprepared and charged. Kimmel figured out what Roosevelt was up but was powerless to stop his evil plan that lead to the deaths of approximately 200,000 young White American males before it was over.

          Roosevelt also armed and fed the Red Army which lead to the defeat the Nazis whose goal it was to stop the spread of murderous Communism in Europe. We supported Bolshevik expansion and fought WWII so our White homelands could be turned into multicultural, diverse hell holes with Whites as a hated minority.

          This is a direct result of our WW II “victory.” Do you think it was worth fighting our White brothers and dying in droves so our countries could be over-run with political correctness and cultural Marxism?

          • WR_the_realist

            The U.S. entry into World War II was not illegal. Congress actually declared that war (it hasn’t declared one since) so by any constitutional measure that war was legal. Whether it was advisable is an entirely different matter. Much of the debate on that issue depends on counter factual assumptions that can’t be proven or disproven. The fact that Stalin was evil does not mean Hitler was good. I think the two dictators deserved each other and that decent people deserved neither.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You, Sir, are a scholar…!

          • Sick of it

            Conspiring to allow foreign enemies to attack one’s nation without the appropriate defenses to meet their assault is treason (i.e. Pearl Harbor).

          • none of your business

            I believe Germany declared war on us a day or 2 after we declared war on its ally Japan.

        • tlk244182

          What’s wrong with being an anti-Semite? You make it sound like a vice.

          • An “anti-Semite” is someone who is winning an argument with a “Semite.”

          • Paleoconn

            An antisemite is someone hated by Jews.
            -Joe Sobran

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Some of my favorite people are anti-Semites…

          • none of your business

            I agree, especially when I look at the names of the attorneys who filed all the school integration, affirmative action, school busing and pro criminal anti victim and police lawsuits.
            Then there is Englemann. He is enough to turn the most pro Semite into an anti Semite especially when he lies and makes things up to suit his positions.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            ALL “Democrats” do that: It’s a campaign tactic they have used since LBJ…

        • Tom_in_Miami

          When and where has Pat Buchanan said that (regarding the US, of course) WW2 was “illegal”?

        • John Jackson

          Anti-Semite? Boy, looks like we got us an Alinsky disciple here, nothing like playing the ole race card eh? Likewise, Ron Paul has said war must be voted on by Congress, WTF are you even talking about with this “magic words” crap, are you drunk?

        • Garrett Brown

          Does the classification “anti-Semite” hold the same integrity as the word “racist” now as well? If so, thank you!

          • Sick of it

            It’s a rather funny phrase, considering I personally sympathize with various Semitic Christians in places like Syria. Or perhaps semi-Semitic, considering the convoluted ethnic history of the region. I do not, however, sympathize with a particular tribe determined to conquer the world.

      • Roninf9

        Reagen wasn’t running much of anything after the son of George Bush’s best friend took a shot at him. The Reagen White House was riddled with Bush cronies. His Chief of Staff was the Bush Crime Family consigliere James Baker for crissake.

        Ron is the gold standard. His son is not perfect but he is the best of any potential candidate. The Establishment is going to pull out all the stops to sabotage his campaign. He should avoid small airplanes, convertibles, theatre boxes, and hotel kitchens.

        • JohnEngelman

          During the Reagan years Reagan’s advisors ran the country while the Gipper took long naps and vacations.

          • Roninf9

            If you check most of Reagan’s advisers were in fact Bush’s goons.

          • JohnEngelman

            Incongruous successes fascinate me. Ronald Reagan is believed to have had an IQ of 105. Many of those who knew him well had a condescending opinion of his intellect. How could he have had such an effect on American politics?

            I see Ronald Reagan as a group phenomenon. Reagan was not even in charge of the group. He was an amiable front man who needed to be told what to say, and where to put his feet. In his book “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Failed,” David Stockman, who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1986, said that Edwin Meese was “the acting president.”

            Ronald Reagan also benefitted from the fact that the political winds were blowing in a rightward direction. By the 1980’s it was obvious that the Great Society had not worked. As a race blacks had proven themselves unworthy of the hopes white liberals had had for them during the early 1960’s.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Ronald Reagan was believed to have an I.Q. of 105 by people believed to have an I.Q. of 75. He was a college graduate who made reasonably good grades, at a time when higher education was not a four-year indoctrination of “multi-culturalism” and other Marxist enthusiasms, and when its standards were demonstrably higher.

            His writings have been found by even leftist scholars to be quite prescient: For example, the notion that the Soviet Union could be defeated economically, if the U.S. would just stop giving it hundreds of billions in “Trade Credits” every year or so. This “quaint” notion was found to be laughable among the faculty at Harvard and other bastions of elite privilege and Cultural Marxism…

          • Sick of it

            People at places like Harvard tend to come from money, not necessarily brains.

          • none of your business

            You were a middle aged adult during the carter years. Surely you remember the 12 percent inflation and wage freeezes of the Carter years? That is why Reagan won the Presidency.
            The only way to determine Reagan’s IQ is to take a look at his elementary school records. Back when he was in elementary school all children had their IQs tested in first grade. He also was in the army during WW2. The army has his military IQ tests as well. Remember when the liberals were all saying Bush Jr. was some kind of moron despite his Yale and Harvard degrees? His military IQ test was leaked, 125, 5 points higher than his rival Kerry’s military test IQ.
            Moderator, why is Englemann still posting here? This is a forum for Whites to discuss racial issues, not to read this pompous old FDR worshipper’s blathering.
            There is also the issue of all the lies he continually tells. Virtually everything he says about California where he lives is a lie.

          • JohnEngelman

            The inflation of 1979 to 1980 was a result of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. President Carter was not responsible for that. President Eisenhower was. In 1953 he directed the CIA to orchestrate the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran and install Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as absolute monarch.

            The Shah of Iran was never a popular dictator. When he was overthrown the Iranians hated the United States for imposing him on them.

        • Tom_in_Miami

          Your post is very unclear. Who are you talking about when you write that “Ron is the gold standard”? Did you meander from Ron Reagan to Ron Paul?

    • Ernest

      The real issue is not about reforming the GOP but about whites forming their own. The GOP will never represent whites or our interest.

      • none of your business

        Thank you, what I have said since Nixon.

    • Black Swan

      What’s heartening is to see more and more “mainstream” Whites understand this (obvious fact).

      Both parties work for the same paymasters who have the money and power to destroy them personally, financially and politically and won’t hesitate to do it, and they know it.

      Signing onto the NWO/global warming agenda has great rewards such as fame, fortune and political power (though limited), the alternative is bankruptcy, personal destruction and political blackballing. Ask Traficante.

    • mael

      Republican, Democrat…. Both sides of the same shekel.

    • Earl P. Holt III

      I say it’s easier to seize control of the GOP than start a viable Third Party. Let’s see what faction of the GOP gets the nomination in 2016: That will tell us everything.

      P.S. John Hinckley was no more an agent for the “Globalist Bankers” than he was Napolean Bonaparte…

      • Roninf9

        ‘Let’s see what faction of the GOP gets the nomination in 2016’

        The GOP Establishment made sure their man got the nomination in 88, 92, 96, 00, 04, 08, and 12 and its been a 25 year disaster for the country. Do you really need yet another election to figure out what is going on with the Republican Party?

        The best friend of Hinkley’s father was George Bush, the man that stood the most to gain from Reagan’s death and the “former” commander of the CIA, notorious for rigging elections, overthrowing governments, and installing handpicked presidents. Combined with total Corporate Media cover up and it is so blatantly obvious that Pollyanna could see what is going on here.

  • JohnEngelman

    When it comes to race, the RNC seems to be hopelessly naive and foolish.

    – Earl Holt, American Renaissance, December 1, 2014

    When it comes to economic matters the RNC knows what it is doing. The Republican Party exists to advance the economic interests of the richest 10 percent of the American population. Since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan the RNC has achieved what it has wanted to.

    • Beowald

      Seems the RNC exists to advance the economic interests of the RNC.

    • Epiminondas

      They’ve been doing this since 1861, John.

      • JohnEngelman

        Actually, it has been since the Republican Party was founded in 1854.

        • none of your business

          I guess you, like most demorats who have been to college in the last 30 years believe that the Republicans were the southern secessionists and the demorats fought to free the slaves in the 1861 to 1865 unpleasantness.

        • none of your business

          Worshipping and adoring the demorats and blacks as you do Englemann, you seem to have forgotten who won the civil war and unleashed the black plague on the rest of the country. 150 years ago you would have been an ardent abolitionist.

    • NoMosqueHere

      Many if not most rich elitists and corporate leaders favor the Democrats, and vice versa. They prefer liberal social policies, including liberal immigration policies. The knee jerk assumption that the economic and other interests of the elites are tied to the Republican party is pretty outdated.

      • JohnEngelman

        Rich people in both parties favor more immigration. The Republican Party favors tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich mean tax increases for the rest of us, cuts in programs that benefit us, and/or more national debt.

        • LHathaway

          “Rich people in both parties favor more immigration”.

          We just read this on AmRen some weeks ago. A presumably (relatively) trustworthy poll showed that whites of All income brackets (even the super-rich) favor less immigration.

          • JohnEngelman

            People with strong opinions tend to reject facts that discredit those opinions. It does not matter what their opinions are. That is why I like to document my factual assertions.

          • none of your business

            An assertion is not a fact. Do you have a dictionary? You make many assertions that are simply not true.

          • JohnEngelman

            What have I asserted that is not true?

        • WR_the_realist

          When have Democrats actually increased taxes on the rich? The real rich, like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates? Always it is the upper middle class that gets hit by Democratic tax increases.

          • JohnEngelman

            Franklin Roosevelt did. So did Bill Clinton.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into The Great Depression by raising taxes and allowing a monetary contraction to continue unabated.

            He then created a number of federal agencies which he allowed the Soviet NKVD, GRU and his ugly lesbian whore of a wife to staff with Soviet spies…

          • JohnEngelman

            As taxes on the rich got higher, unemployment got lower, and the per capita gross domestic product grew. The United States taxed and spent its way out of the Great Depression.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            No serious person believes that: The Federal Government began to spend like nobody’s business in anticipation of W.W. II, reflating the economy after a long depression caused by a 33% monetary contraction, courtesy of Hoover. Proving that fact is how and why Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize. (“Monetary History of the United States.”)

            In fact, Roosevelt’s tax increases made the situation worse: The nadir of the Great Depression was 1936-1937, four and five years after Roosevelt assumed office.

            I had been warned you believe everything you read in the New York Times…

          • JohnEngelman

            The New York Times is one of the most prestigious English language newspapers the world. When it makes a mistake it prints a retraction.

            My source for unemployment rates during the Roosevelt Administration is the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

            When Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6 percent. It never again got that high. It did increase to 19.0 in 1938 after declining to 16.9 in 1936. That is because in 1937 Roosevelt made the mistake of cutting government spending and employment.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The NEW YORK TIMES is the most biased organ the Corrupt Leftist Media has, and has happily employed some of the most dishonest Soviet Agents of Disinformation the world has ever seen, such as Herbert Matthews and Walter Duranty.

            I’m sure you are a big fan and defender of Duranty, who wrote back glowing accounts of Stalin’s Soviet Utopia in the Ukraine, even as Stalin intentionally starved to death at least 10 million hard-working non-communist farmers — the “Kulaks — which Robert Conquest has admirably recounted in his book “The Harvest of Sorrow.”

            Communism murdered over 100 million innocent souls in the 20th Century, and you sound very much like its agents of Disinformation…

          • JohnEngelman

            There is no point in repeating what I already pointed out.

            Rush Limbaugh has made a career of telling angry white men lies they want to believe. His lies have been documented since 1994. FOX News won a lawsuit in Florida protecting its right to lie.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I’m through with you: You are as dishonest as the vast majority of your tribe and political party. You are not worth the candle…

          • JohnEngelman

            This is the second time you have said that. Please keep your promise this time. Your intemperate responses are tiresome, but not at all enlightening.

          • none of your business

            He did not tax the rich anymore than they had been taxed before the recession. He ended prohibition and the liquor taxes helped every state and county implement the federal welfare programs that kept people fed.
            He did not cure the depression at all. What he did was distribute enough welfare to keep people from starvation. Those welfare distributions were excellent and necessary to keep people fed and housed. But every economist in the world from left to right agrees that it was only WW2 war material production that ended the depression. Even my old commie parents (just like yours) agree that only WW2 war production ended the depression.
            Thank Roosevelt for welfare and social security but don’t make one of your erroneous “assertions” that his economic policies ended the depression.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the top tax rate was 63 percent. When he died in office in 1944 it was 94 percent.

            During this time the unemployment rate declined from 23.6 percent to 1.2 percent.

            Military spending is government spending.

            Why are you so angry? Why are you so incapable of a civil discussion of basic principles? My guess is that you are unhappy about your personal life and project your animosities onto political issues.

          • BillMillerTime

            FDR and the Democrats slapped a luxury tax on yachts. Result: shipyards lost business, and workers at shipyards lost jobs. FDR’s policies were disastrous and counterproductive every step of the way. They succeeded in pushing the economy even further into the Great Depression.

          • JohnEngelman

            The gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grew nearly as much during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

            After he was elected in 1932 unemployment declined every year Roosevelt was in office, except for one year after 1937 when he made the mistake of cutting government spending and employment.

          • BillMillerTime

            In the decade of the 1930s, U.S. industrial production and national income fell by almost one-third. In 1940, after year eight years of the New Deal, unemployment was still averaged a god-awful 14 percent. FDR’s policies made it more difficult and expensive to hire workers. His policies turned what should merely have been a minor downturn into a prolonged economic depression. See Robert P. Murphy, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression. (2009)

          • JohnEngelman

            Economists cannot prove their experiments with controlled, repeatable experiments the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

            By raising wages, minimum wage laws and strong labor unions created better consumers. As these bought more, employers hired more people to produce and sell what was bought. Moreover, employers whose employees were not in unions were forced to pay may better wages in order to compete with union wages.

            Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. This is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries have never been able to repeal the basic reforms of the New Deal.

          • BillMillerTime

            We don’t need to run tests to determine whether 2 + 2 = 4 in Los Angeles as well as in Chicago, or whether 2 +2 continues to equal 4 in 2014 just as it did in 1914.

            It is delusional to promulgate government policies as if the laws of supply and demand were optional. Raising the government-mandated minimum wage above its true market wage rate ipso facto causes unemployment. This can in fact be proven with mathematical certainty.

            Government manipulation of agricultural prices above their market rates will always and everywhere lead to surpluses.

            It is likewise indisputable that resources expropriated by government for, say, producing tanks and warships, are thus unavailable for producing consumer goods (which raise our current standard of living) or capital goods (which raise our future standard of living).

            Some things in economics you simply do not need to test. The inevitable results can deduced.

            In 1938 after 5 years of FDR’s medicine, the economy suffered what has been called a “depression within a depression.” Economic output collapsed 3 percent and unemployment rates averaged 19 percent for the year. By April 1939 the unemployment broke 20 percent, leading FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury and close confidant Henry Morgenthau to confess:

            “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot.”

            FDR’s economic policies were inspired by Mussolini’s fascism.

            Suggested reading: anything by Robert P. Murphy, Thomas Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises. See specifically Gene SMiley, Rethinking the Great Depression; Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His new Deal Prolonged the Great Depression.

            Previous panics in American history, before the emergence of Keynes and New Dealers, were short in duration and relatively mild.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933 the unemployment rate was 24.9 percent. It declined to 14.3 percent in 1937. In 1939 it rose to 17.2 percent because Roosevelt made the mistake of reducing government spending and employment.

            Henry Morgenthau’s comment is often quoted by reactionaries, but it is factually incorrect.

          • none of your business

            Roosevelt did not raise taxes on anyone. Read some history Englemann. Roosevelt did a lot of things that alleviated the effects of the depression but he did not raise taxes. By ending prohibition he got enough taxes to implement his programs. This is just an example of Englemann just making things up. Why can’t he be blocked? We have to read or see this anti White liberal propaganda every time we turn on the TV or look at a news site. Why do we have to endure liberal anti White propaganda here?

          • JohnEngelman

            When Roosevelt was elected in 1932 the top tax rate was 63 percent. When he died in office in 1944 it had grown to 94 percent.

          • Black Swan

            Democrats are for taxing income, not wealth.

            Dims know better than to foment a wealth tax on their biggest, wealthiest donors.

          • none of your business

            That is right. They go after $80,000 a year plumbers and police and $200,000 a year Drs but don’t touch Soros, Gates, Paul Allen, Peter Lewis, Zuckerman Duponts Mellons, Mcknights and the rest

        • michaelsanchez

          You are woefully ignorant of basic economic principles. That’s a terribly inaccurate oversimplification of tax policy. Since when have you lost any benefits? I’d love to hear what kind of “benefits” you’ve lost because over the years. Social welfare programs do not shrink; they only grow. You want more entitlement programs? Move to a welfare state like California where the taxes are high and the jobs few. You people complain about entitlements and taxes when most entitlement programs come at the state level anyway. Texas has no income tax, it’s a red state, so why don’t you move there if you really care about your “bank for your buck”?

          • JohnEngelman

            Since the presidential campaign of 1980 Republican economic policies have been fraudulent. Republicans have argued that tax cuts for the rich would generate so much economic growth that it would be unnecessary for them to cut middle class entitlements that they knew were popular. Their hope was that when the national debt reached a certain level it would be possible for them to cut those programs, which they never liked.

            Of course it has not been possible.

            Now that Republicans control both houses of Congress they will again try to “reform” Social Security and Medicate in ways that reduce benefits. They will again run into effective resistance. Voters over 65 are currently a Republican constituency. That will change quickly if Social Security and Medicare payments decline. Indeed, it will change quickly enough for the Democrats to sweep the 2016 elections.

          • WR_the_realist

            Obamacare, approved by the Democrats, has shifted money away from Medicare (too many old Republican voting white people get it) and into Medicaid (young members of the diversity who vote Democratic get it).

          • JohnEngelman

            I prefer the Canadian single payer system to Obamacare, and Obamacare to the previous system.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You don’t really care, so long as it’s NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE, apparently…

          • JohnEngelman

            That’s right.

          • JohnEngelman

            That’s right.

          • none of your business

            Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • JohnEngelman

            One could with greater accuracy make that claim about you.

          • PouponMarx

            The Bush Tax Cuts DID NOT only benefit the rich. What are you talking about? That line was the Nancy Pelosi Democrapot talking point. Where do you get your information? Who are you, anyway?

            The Republican PHILOSOPHY is Federalism and minimal government. It is the RINOS that subvert that, sell out, and suck ash for lobby and Jewish dominated Billionaire Marxist money.

            Low income Whites who can think realize that business expansion means creation of jobs. It also means that being a White Male is not the object of denigration, ridicule, and blame for every problem in the World.

            You’re confused or are disseminating disinformation.

          • JohnEngelman

            President Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31.9% to 43.7% During the Clinton administration an average of 2,900,000 jobs were created per year.

            President George W. Bush reduced to top tax rate to 38.6%. During his administration an average of 625,000 jobs were created per year.

            Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus. This turned into a growing deficit under GW.

            You are not disseminating disinformation. You really believe what you say. This is because you are confused.

          • PouponMarx

            Two different epochs, like comparing apples and oranges. Clinton’s overall backing down from growing government and increasing taxes across the board was imposed by a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich. The surplus was result of Republican imposed policies.

            You have elected to march with the Marxist/Communist Left, dominated by Frankfurt School, TransNational subversive Jews.

            What Soros funded NGO pays for your matzos.

          • JohnEngelman

            When President Clinton proposed raising the top tax rate every Republican in Congress voted against it.

            Your inability to distinguish between my economic liberalism and “the Marxist/Communist Left” reveals your lack of intellectual sophistication. Intelligent people are able to make distinctions.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I get it: The guy who tried to implement “ObamaCare” in 1993 and 1994 was “really” a Fiscal Conservative.

            PouponMarx is right: Clinton’s surpluses were entirely a consequence of the Republican Party controlling both Houses of Congress and forcing fiscal discipline upon a political party indistinguishable from the CPUSA when it comes to Budgets and spending.

            It’s too bad the GOP lost its way (and mind!) from 2000 to 2006: I believe that was because there was no principled leadership of ANY KIND, whether the RNC, the House or Senate “Leadership,” or from George Bush, the biggest disappointment in my political life.

            George Bush made it possible for me to understand the estimated 4 million Republicans who refused to vote in 2012…

          • JohnEngelman

            I did not say Clinton was a fiscal conservative. I said he was a great president.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Only a sill child could reach that conclusion: You could NOT have been an adult during the Carter Administration. (There’s a reason he lost 45 states, despite his incumbency.)

          • none of your business

            Englemann’s pushing 70. He claims he worked as a computer programmer in San Jose/Silicon Valley in the early 1970’s. This may be a lie like much of what he writes. So he was an adult during the horrible combination of 12 percent a year inflation and wage freezes. But being unable to think for himself, he still worships Carter and hates Reagan who stopped inflation within 6 months of becoming President.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Thanks: I will not waste any more time on him, after I disprove his phony figures on Reagan Income Tax Revenues. (Mustn’t wake the wife right now in the process of finding my Economic Report of the President, which includes just about every important economic statistic one could hope to find…)

            Anyone who hated Reagan and loved Carter truly is “an amiable dunce.”

          • JohnEngelman

            Part of the reason was the fact that the briefing book Carter used to prepare for the debate of 1980 was stolen and given to the Reagan campaign. That was a felony, but no one was prosecuted.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Reagan didn’t need to cheat in destroying Carter in a debate, any more than I would have needed to do so. That was the excuse handed out by the DNC, as practiced a bunch of liars as the world has ever known. (Obviously, you are on the DNC Memo List.)

            That lie is on the same level with the fantasy of George Bush flying to Iran in an SR-71 “Blackbird” to secure release of those Carter Administration hostages — held for 444 days — on the day Reagan assumed office.

            It is also on par with “you can keep your doctor, you can keep your policy, and a family of four will save $5,000 per year with the Affordable Care Act.”

            You people are shameless: In fact, you put Goebbels and Lenin to shame…

          • JohnEngelman

            By January, 1980, however, Carter was leading Reagan by 62%-32%! As late as June, 1980, Carter was still polling ahead of Reagan by 6-7% in trial heats.

            ——–

            Debategate or briefing-gate was a political scandal affecting the administration of Ronald Reagan; it took place in the final days of the 1980 presidential election. Reagan’s team had somehow acquired President Jimmy Carter’s briefing papers he used in preparation for the October 28, 1980 debate with Reagan…

            ——–

            The October Surprise conspiracy theory refers to an alleged plot to influence the outcome of the 1980 United States presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter (D–GA) and opponent Ronald Reagan (R–CA).

            One of the leading national issues during that year was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran since 4 November 1979.[1] Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration, in fact, 20 minutes after he concluded his inaugural address, the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages…

            several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[2] former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.

            ——–

            The stolen briefing book probably did not make a difference. Reagan was already ahead in the polls. Nevertheless, the briefing book was stolen. If the Reagan campaign had integrity it would have reported that immediately.

            A possible deal with the Iranian government, if it happened, almost certainly did change the outcome fo the election. We do know that the Iranian government received secret weapons shipments authorized by the Reagan administration.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I refuse to read your lies: I have heard more than enough Jewish and communist Propaganda and disinformation to last me a lifetime…

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not lie. I express truths, which I document using credible sources. They are truths you do not want to be reminded of. I post fact based and logical arguments you are unable to refute.

            If you refuse to read my comments, why do you keep responding to them?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I can’t help but see something ridiculous you have written as I scroll by…

          • JohnEngelman

            Just because you disagree with my comments does not mean that they are ridiculous. My arguments are fact based, logical, and civil.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Your World View has been “fashioned” by a steady stream of very skewed sources of information, which has insulated you from the real world like a cocoon. The fact that you have never heard of Walter Duranty, speaks VOLUMES about this phenomenon.

            Query: Have you ever heard of “Venona”?

          • JohnEngelman

            Venona was an effort to decrypt coded messages of Soviet espionage.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            That’s like saying “The Manhattan Project was a physics experiment.”

            What it revealed was that there were THOUSANDS of Soviet espionage agents of the GRU and NKVD in the highest and most influential reaches of the Roosevelt Administration, including Roosevelt’s Civilian Chief of Staff, Lauchlin Currie (Soviet Codename: “Page.”)

            It also revealed that Joe McCarthy was ABSOLUTELY right, and one of the bravest and most honorable men who ever lived.

            You won’t do this — because you carefully restrict your sources of information — but you should read M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History”: Evans was the guy who sued the Federal Government under the Freedom of Information Act to compel it to release its files on Venona, and then wrote the DEFINITIVE history of the McCarthy Era with the info released.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Venona project was a counter-intelligence program initiated by the United States Army Signal Intelligence Service (a forerunner of the National Security Agency) that lasted from 1943 to 1980…

            During the program’s four decades, approximately 3,000 messages were at least partially decrypted and translated…

            To what extent the various individuals were involved with Soviet intelligence is a topic of dispute. While a number of academics and historians assert that most of the individuals mentioned in the Venona decrypts were most likely either clandestine assets and/or contacts of Soviet intelligence agents,[8][9] others argue that many of those people probably had no malicious intentions and committed no crimes.

            ———–

            I doubt that each of these “approximately 3,000 messages” was sent do a different “Soviet espionage [agent] of the GRU and NKVD in the highest and most influential reaches of the Roosevelt Administration.”

            Consequently, your factual assertion is improbable.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Did you get that out of THE NATION, or THE DAILY WORKER? I never alleged ANY of the things you attribute to me: I certainly never contended that each, individual soviet spy was in receipt of encrypted transmissions. That would be very clumsy “tradecraft,” not at all characteristic of Soviet espionage industry.)

            You have consulted someone — probably a CPUSA member — and he has derided what ALL Soviet and Cold War scholars recognize to be the complete and total subversion of the Roosevelt (and Truman) Administrations by Soviet spies.

            You REALLY ARE hopelessly dishonest, just as I have been warned…

          • JohnEngelman

            You said, “there were THOUSANDS of Soviet espionage agents of the GRU and NKVD in the highest and most influential reaches of the Roosevelt Administration.”

            There is no evidence of “THOUSANDS.”

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Army crypto-analysts were able to decode 3,000 out of a total 300,000 encrypted messages in the 1.5 years of Venona. The Venona Project was then compromised by a Soviet Agent inside the program.

            Despite this, many hundreds of Soviet spies have been exposed, despite the fact that your reading sources have never mentioned the fact. For example, the “Silvermaster” Spy Ring at Treasury consisted of Harry Dexter White (Soviet Codename “Jurist,”) Solomon Adler (“Sachs,”) Harold Glasser (“Ruble,”) Frank Coe (“Peak,”) William H. Taylor (“Acorn,”) and Sonia Gold (“Zhenia.”) That’s just the top of the Treasury Department.

            At the State Department, there were well over 100 known communists and “fellow-travelers,” all of whom are found in what is referred to as “The Lee List,” complied by former FBI Agent Robert Lee, employed by State Department to ferret-out these traitors.

            The OSS, (predecessor of the CIA,) the Office of War Information, and many other federal agencies were replete with Soviet Spies, many of whom came recommended by Eleanor Roosevelt.

            It is also believed that Harry Hopkins used Lend-Lease to ship stolen blueprints and materials to the Soviets, without fear of these shipments ever being searched or his nefarious purposes exposed. Several very capable and honorable men saw their careers destroyed because they questioned what Harry Hopkins was doing via Lend-Lease.

            Read one of the dozens of books available on the subject: I’m tired of trying to supplement your understanding of the world, and I suspect the effort will be fruitless, anyway…

          • JohnEngelman

            Where did you get that information? How credible is it? You give the impression of someone who believes everything you read if you want to believe it.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You give the impression of being someone who doesn’t know a f*cking thing about the most important historical events of the 20th Century…

          • JohnEngelman

            I am too courteous to describe other impressions you are giving.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I don’t give a rat’s *ss how I am perceived by my mortal enemies on the left, no matter how ignorant they may be…

          • JohnEngelman

            What about your “mortal enemies on the left” who are better informed and more civil than you are?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            They may be more civil than I am, but not one in ten million is better informed about Soviet spies in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, because most read the NY Times, where any such stories are carefully and immediately spiked. (For someone who has never even heard of Walter Duranty, you sure are an arrogant and egocentric piece of communist trash…)

          • Earl P. Holt III

            It takes a lot of nerve to describe yourself as “better informed,” when you had never even heard of Walter Duranty, Venona, or much else I have tried to introduce you to in your NY Times cocoon.

            You people had to invent the word “CHUTZPAH” to enable you to describe your own arrogance and gall…

          • JohnEngelman

            “Lee list”—a report that had been compiled three years earlier for the House Appropriations Committee…

            In 1948, the State Department had informed the House that of the 108 cases flagged by Lee, 57 were still working for the department. This list included persons whom Lee had deemed security risks for a variety of reasons, such as marital infidelity or drunkenness, and all of them had been cleared by the State Department’s review process.

            In response to these allegations, the Tydings Committee hearings were held, opening on March 8, 1950 and lasting until July 17…

            Throughout the hearings, McCarthy employed colorful rhetoric. He was able to produce no objective proof of any kind to support his accusations but instead relied on testimonies from Communists and ex-Communists in presenting his case to the public.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The Lee List was a list of communists in the State Department waved by Joe McCarthy, which liars that think and believe the things you believe claimed was a blank sheet of paper….

          • JohnEngelman

            How did the Lee List define “Communists?” McCarthy said “card carrying members of the Communist Party” were working for the State Department. Who were they? Were they ever named?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Read the book: I’ve wasted too much time on you already…

          • JohnEngelman

            If you have read the book you ought to be able to list the 57 card carrying members of the American Communist Party that Sen. McCarthy warned about, along with the evidence that they really were members of the CPUSA.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Those were just the Party Members from the Lee List, and not from any other federal agency.

            Read the book: It will be very good for you. You won’t be any wiser, but you will be much better informed…

          • JohnEngelman

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            – Karl Sagan.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I can’t decide if you are more like the people who deny we ever landed on the Moon, or you are more like those Jap soldiers who were still being discovered in the late 1950s and early 1960s, who didn’t know the war was over, and had never heard of the Atom Bomb.

            In any event, I’m done with you: I don’t give a rat’s ass WHAT you think…

          • JohnEngelman

            Then stop harassing me. Go away.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            “Extraordinary ignorance on your part is greatly wearing me down…”

            — Earl Holt III

          • JohnEngelman

            Then keep your promise of two days ago, and stop harassing me.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Carl Sagan: A predictably leftist Jew who opposed Reagan’s Space Defense Initiative because the efforts of the Soviet Union to match it were projected to bankrupt the Soviets, which is exactly what happened. Thus, the same treasonous Tribe that gave the Atom Bomb to the Soviets also wanted the U.S. to be vulnerable to the latter’s larger and more menacing arsenal.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            I know you won’t read the Evans book (“Blackmailed by History,”) because it would shatter almost everything you have ever believed or aspired to, but I include the Lee List and Supplemental List to the Tydings Committee, anyway…

            LEE LIST:

            Herbert Fierst, John Carter Vincent, Feveril Miegs, Giselles Illyafalvi-Vites, Jay Robinson, Francis M. Tucher, Marcia Ruth Harrison, Stanley Grase, David Demerest Lloyd, Marjorie E. Posner, Francis Ferry, Helen Yuhas, Carleton Washburne, Ernst Theodore Arndt, Phiollip Jessup, Robert T. Miller, Stella Gordon, Daniel Margolies, Gottfried Thomas Mann, Sam Fishback, Villiam D. Carter, Norma T. Hess, William T. Stone, Esther Gaukin Brunauer, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, Sylvia Shimmel, Rowena Rommel, Phillip Maine, Richard Post, Val R. Lorwin, Gertrude Cameron, PaulA Lifantieff-Lee, Fred Warner Neal, Lois Carlisle, Franz Leopold Neumann, Cora Dubois, Alicia Demerjain, Ishan W. Perkins, Stanley Wilcox, Hollis J. Peter, Victor Hunt, David Randolph (Rosenberg), John Richard Lindsey, Aaron Jack Gross, Sylvia Magnite, Harold Berman, Stoian Stoanoff, Leonard Horwin, Josef T. Jankowski, Mrs. Preston Keesling Lewis, James T. Ford, Edward G. Posniak , Andrew KamarekT. Achilles Polyseides, John T. Washburn, Ruby A. Parsons.

            SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF 25:

            Edna J. Askwith, Donald C. Blaisdell, John Paton Davies Jr., John T. Fishburn, Reed Harris, Louis Henkin, Charles M. Hulten, Victor M. Hunt, George M. Ingraham, Raymond P. Ludden, Leonard C. Meeker, Clarence J. Helson, Robert Newbegin, George J. Rothwell, James W. Rowe, William Sanders, Jack B. Tate, Charles A. Thomson, Gustavos Tuckerman, James E. Wood, Arpad Erdos, David Zabladowski, Josephina Ramon, Alexander Rapoport, and Andrew Grajdanzeve.

          • JohnEngelman

            Ronald Radosh, a historian and expert on the Cold War spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, states that “rather than a biography, Evans has written a defense counsel’s brief for his client, whom he seeks to defend against all the slanders made about McCarthy by his political enemies.” He praises Evans’ “extensive research”, and his exposure of the political agendas of McCarthy’s main opponents and their unwillingness to look more closely into Soviet penetration. He also commends Evans for correcting the view that all of McCarthy’s victims were innocent. Radosh severely criticises McCarthy’s failure to distinguish between communists and anti-communist liberals, and between those expressing communist views and those working as Soviet agents, and criticises Evans for glossing over this. Radosh concludes:[3]

            Evans’s book falls far short of what it might have done to correct the record about the era. His own exaggerations and unwarranted leaps parallel those made by McCarthy. It is unlikely that his hope to change history’s verdict will become a reality as a result of the publication of this book.

            Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning American historian David Oshinsky was harshly critical, calling Evans’ primary thesis a “remarkable fantasy,” asserting that Evans has uncovered no fresh evidence and arguing that the evidence supports the historical consensus that Communist spy networks in the United States had largely been dismantled by the time McCarthy started his campaign and that McCarthy was “a bit player in the battle against Communist subversion, a latecomer who turned a vital crusade into a political mud bath… The fiercely negative judgments of those who lived through the McCarthy era are widely accepted today for good reason: they ring true.”[1]

            Kirkus Reviews called the book “[a] revisionist biography”, which although a “detailed account” is “marred by ideological blinders” and fit “[f]or true believers only”,[2] Publishers Weekly describing Evans as “given to conspiracy thinking”[4] andReason magazine describing it as “revisionist” and “a breathless defense of McCarthy.”[5]

          • JohnEngelman
          • Earl P. Holt III

            Some Jew didn’t like Stan Evans’ book, probably because 2/3 to 3/4 of all the identified Soviet spies were fellow Jews, and this embarrasses to him. (See?: I can employ the Engleman logic and technique, as well. I choose not to do so, because I am more honest and more concerned about objective truth…)

          • JohnEngelman

            What you consider to be the truth is what you want to believe. What you want to believe is obviously influenced by hatred and anger.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            READ THE BOOK.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            He didn’t intend the book to be a “biography” of Joe McCarthy. It is, however, the definitive history of the McCarthy Era and the Soviet Espionage in the federal Government that he battled.

            READ THE BOOK.

          • JohnEngelman

            Do you believe everything you read that tells you what you want to believe? Evidently. Ever since I was a child I have been given reading lists by those who lose arguments with me.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            All reviews by Jews…

          • JohnEngelman

            So?

          • JohnEngelman

            Were they members of the American Communist Party? Did they pass classified information to the KGB?

            If the answer to either of those questions is “No” all we have is a list of people Robert Lee thought were disloyal to the United States.

            The answers to those questions is important. There were reasons for decent people to believe that tensions between the United States and the Communist world could have been unilaterally reduced by U.S. foreign policy.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            For someone who thinks he is “better informed,” ignorance sure is bliss.

            We have the FBI’s ComInTelPro (Counter-Intelligence) surveillance of these people, which even tells us the addresses where they attended their CPUSA meetings, and who were at those meetings…)

            READ THE BOOK.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Yes: READ THE BOOK.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            They were all spies.

            READ THE BOOK.

          • JohnEngelman

            John Earl Haynes is an American historian who is a specialist in 20th-centurypolitical history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. He is known for his books on the subject of the American Communist and anti-Communist movements, and on Soviet espionage in America (many written jointly with Harvey Klehr).

          • JohnEngelman

            Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona

            by John Earl Haynes

            April 2007

            McCarthy’s List (1)

            McCarthy’s 20 February Numbered List[3]

            Real Name: McCarthy list #; Lee list #; Venona status; Non-Venona Evidence of Espionage

            *****************************************************************************

            Arndt, Ernest Theodore: McCarthy list # 14; Lee list # 10; Not identified in Venona

            Barnett, Mrs. Robert Warren: McCarthy list # 49; Lee list # 59; Not identified in Venona

            etc. etc…

            Security Risks

            Of the 159 persons listed above, there is substantial evidence that nine assisted Soviet espionage against the United States: Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser, Gerald Graze, Standley Graze, Many Jane Keeney, David Karr, Robert T. Miller, Franz Neumann, and William Remington. David Zablodowsky is a tenth ambiguous case.

            Some of the others were security risks. To say that someone was a security risk is not to say that that person is a proven or even most likely a Soviet espionage source. It is only to say that in matters of national security “better safe than sorry” is a principle. Risks should be minimized by excluding those persons from employment in positions where they would have access to sensitive information.

            Risk factors vary from the purely personal to the ideological. Entirely patriotic and loyal persons may have risk factors that make them a security risk. Someone with a history of financial irresponsibility (chronic gambling, bankruptcy) may be tempted by financial gain to betray secret without regard to their patriotism. Someone with close relatives living in a hostile foreign nation may be vulnerable to blackmail due to coercive threats against those family members.

            And, of course, someone with ideological sympathy for a hostile foreign power may be tempted to betray by appeals to that ideology. Obviously, in the Cold War between the Communist bloc and the West, persons with Communist or pro-Communist ideological sympathies were security risks due to the possibility of ideological recruitment by Communist intelligence officers. Indeed, the great majority of American, several hundred, now known to have assisted Soviet espionage in the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s were motivated by ideology and many were secret members of the CPUSA.[54]

          • JohnEngelman

            On several occasions I have maintained that while Communist espionage was a legitimate concern for the United States during the Cold War, Communist “subversion” was not, and the United States would have benefited from a more robust debate over foreign relations with the Soviet Union and other Communist Countries.

            If Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers had openly been employed in the State Department, the news media, the universities, and the Democratic Party it is likely that the War in Vietnam and the Iranian Revolution could have been avoided.

            My own view is that following the Second World War a certain amount of tension with the Soviet Union was probably inevitable, but that the United States could have acted unilaterally in order to reduce the tension.

            I do not think there was the remotest chance that the United States, and the rest of the world, would somehow “go Communist.”

            The United States emerged from the Second World stronger and richer than ever before. The Soviet Union had been horribly devastated. Nevertheless, many Americans saw the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe, and the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War, and imagined that U.S. security was more precarious after World War II than before.

            Many of these were susceptible to Sen. McCarthy’s message that Communist control of Eastern Europe and China were the result of treason in high places in the U.S. government.

            The truth is that Eastern Europe had been conquered by the Soviet Army. The Communists had won the Chinese Civil War because their side was better led, and probably because it had more support amount Chinese peasants.

            These outcomes would have happened if the American Communist Party had not existed. There was little the United States could have done without entering into another world war in which the costs would have been enormous, and the outcome uncertain.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            READ THE BOOK.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Read the book: I’m tired of doing all the legwork for you that you should have done years ago…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Looks like you answered your own question, above…

          • JohnEngelman

            I would like to know a more precise explanation of what they were guilty of than “disloyalty.” Many decent, intelligent people then as now disapproved of U.S. foreign policy.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Espionage. READ THE BOOK, don’t just hide behind a book review…

          • Earl P. Holt III

            They were ALL spies: It was a precondition for recognition by the Comintern. (I don’t have to explain the “Comintern” to you also, do I?)

            READ THE BOOK.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Oh, yes there is…

          • JohnEngelman

            Oh no there is not.

            Please keep your promise to leave me alone.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            John Engelman, rediscovering the wheel on a daily basis…

          • JohnEngelman

            Although Soviet espionage during the Cold War was a legitimate concern, members of the American Communist Party had a Constitutionally guaranteed right to attempt to influence public opinion, and public policy.

            The evil committed by Sen. McCarthy is that he inhibited a candid debate of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War, just as the defenders of political correctness currently inhibit a candid debate of racial differences, and the biological reasons for them. For years after he had been discredited American politicians were afraid of being seen as “soft on Communism.”

            During the Second World War the Soviet Union lost an estimated twenty eight million dead, and suffered the destruction of about one third of its industrial and farm plant. A country that had been so devastated was not in a position to begin a campaign to conquer the world. Nevertheless, that was the assumption of the Truman, the Eisenhower, the Kennedy, and the Johnson administrations.

            In 1953 President Eisenhower directed the CIA to orchestrate the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran. The eventual result of that orchestration was the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

            A year later the United States refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That treaty ended the colonial war between France and the Viet Minh. It scheduled internationally supervised elections to be held in July 1956 to determine the peaceful future of Vietnam. The eventual result of that decision was the War in Vietnam.

            Both of these decisions should have been debated vigorously. Because of Sen. McCarthy they were not.

            From April 1963 to September 1964 there was a television program called Hootenanny that featured folk music. That television program blacklisted Pete Seeger because of his involvement with the American Communist Party. What were they afraid of? Did they think Pete Seeger would send coded messages to the KGB?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            For some bizarre reason, you feel the need to narrate back to ME a description of the Venona Project: I have read 25 books on the subject, and probably know more about it than Wikipedia’s contributors.

            I’m sure of one thing: Because of the narrow range of views to which you are exposed, you had never heard of Venona before I mentioned it to you. Then — arrogant and DISHONEST as always — you deride its significance, much as your fellow-travelers deride the notion that Alger Hiss was guilty, or that the Soviets murdered 27,000 innocent souls in the Katyn Forest…

          • JohnEngelman

            On the basis of the available evidence, some of it gained by Venona, I assume that Alger Hiss was guilty as charged. I also assume that “the Soviets murdered 27,000 innocent souls in the Katyn Forest,” although I was not there to witness the event, or to count the bodies.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Once again, your “selective” reading has permitted REALLY important facts to evade you.

            We know with absolute certainty that the Soviets intentionally murdered those 27,000 innocent souls at the Katyn Forest, because the Soviet Archives yielded a March 5, 1940 letter from NKVD Chief Lavrentia Beria to Josef Stalin, recommending this massacre, and prominent in its upper left-hand corner is STALIN’S SIGNATURE, ORDERING THIS MASSACRE.

            According to former NKVD and KGB General of Counterintelligence, Pavel Sudaplatov, Stalin’s signature would constitute an order to follow Beria’s recommendation. (Pavel Sudaplatove: “Special Tasks,” pp.467-478.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have never claimed that the Soviets did not kill “27,000 innocent souls at the Katyn Forest.” You raised the issue. I did not.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You made some typically mealy-mouthed comment that since there appears to be evidence of it, you (grudgingly) assume it’s true.

            My point was that there is just about as incontrovertible evidence of the fact as history is capable of revealing…

          • JohnEngelman

            Evidence of what? What happened at Katyn Forest is not controversial. Whether there were 57 members of the American Communist Party who worked for the State Department is controversial.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Only in communist circles…and among fellow-travelers.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Soviet agents of disinformation in the Office of War Information — one of whom may very well have been former Sen. Alan Cranston — intentionally misreported the Katyn Forest massacre as perpetrated by the Wehrmacht (German Army for you “knowledgeable” types) rather than the Soviets. It was done on orders from the NKVD, and was one of the more successful disinformation efforts by Soviet spies in the Roosevelt Administration.

            The American public was never to be allowed to see the true face of Soviet Communism, particularly when they were our ostensible allies in WW II.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            The CPUSA was required to serve Soviet Intelligence as a preconditionforf its recognition by the Soviet Comintern: We know this because of many documents discovered by academic researchers in the Soviet Archives immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

            That illegal and secret operations were an inevitable feature of American communism, is reflected in the fact that maintenance of an
            underground apparatus was one of 21 conditions established by the Comintern in 1920 for admission by prospective members. In late 1930, moreover, high-ranking Comintern officials reemphasized the need for members to “…immediately undertake measures to have within the legally existing Party committees an illegal directing one.” (Secret World, pp. 21 and 71.)

            Such illegal activities included large cash transfers to secretly fund member parties (Document #1,) the creation of secret courier services (Document #21,) the establishment of secret “mail-drops” (Document #7,) secret short-wave radio exchanges with Moscow (Document #58,) the use of false identification (Document #10,) and the recruitment of promising individuals for Secret intelligence (Document #63.)

            With such organizational structures in place, the replacement of amateur CPUSA operatives with seasoned and sophisticated
            professionals from the KGB or GRU was predictable and inevitable. As Klehr, Haynes and Firsov observe: “…such security precautions…provided communists with training in clandestine procedures that were readily adaptable to the needs of Soviet intelligence agencies.” (Klehr, Haynes and Firsov. “The Secret World of American Communism,” p.34)

            The CPUSA never had any other purpose than spying on America, and working to betray and subverting the U.S.

          • JohnEngelman

            Communist Party members should not have had access to classified information. I am confident few did.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            YOU are an idiot !

          • none of your business

            He was not a great President. He was a rapist among other things. I liked him because during some of his presidency I got raises and for a few years worked about 90 hours a week and managed to save a large amount of money. But no rapist can be called a great President.

          • none of your business

            I know exactly what you are Englemann. Your depression era parents raised you to worship the sacred Saints Franklin and Eleanor and the Church of liberal handouts they founded. You also like the fact that FDR’s agencies were filled with tens of thousands of communists. Check out the Venona transcripts and other FBI material to find out who worked for your object of worship, FDR.
            Englemann pretends to expertise on every topic mentioned. In reality he just parrots the same old commie Marxist anti White line or makes things up.
            FDR’s class warfare has changed into race warfare waged by the demorats on Whites. Since I am White, I am against the party that is in the process of destroying the White race.

          • JohnEngelman

            My friends in the American Communist Party would be surprised at your perception that I “parrot” the Communist line. They found me to be an effective debater about fundamental areas where we disagreed. They, however, were intelligent, well informed, and engaging conversationalists. You could learn much from them.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Clinton benefited from the economic renaissance initiated by Reagan: The economy didn’t begin to falter the day Reagan retired.

            Another reason the economy did so well under Clinton was because he took no interest in what Islamic Terrorists did to the U.S. — he never bothered to retaliate — and even turned down Usama Bin Laden three times when he was offered by foreign heads of state.

          • Sick of it

            Clinton benefited from a bubble economy that collapsed in the 2000s.

          • JohnEngelman

            The economic recovery that is supposed to have happened under Reagan was as shallow and superficial as he was. It collapsed under Bush I.

          • JohnEngelman

            “The economic renaissance initiated by Reagan” led first to the Reagan recession of 1991 = 922, then to a tripling of the national debt, then to the Bush I recession of 1990 – 91.

            As I have already pointed out more jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Pure lies and B.S.

            In fact, you are such a lying piece of trash, that I’m not even going to bother to debate you: You are not worth the candle. (You ARE a pathological liar, however, as many in your party seem to be…)

          • JohnEngelman

            What have I ever lied about?

            According to a January 9, 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal that I have posted previously, when Jimmy Carter was president and average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs.

          • none of your business

            I was there Englemann. There were actually fewer jobs under Carter and he was responsible for the deadly combination of wage freezes coupled with 12 percent inflation year after year. You were there too and you are lying.

          • JohnEngelman

            According to an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal January 9, 2009, when Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs created per year.

            The highest unemployment under Carter was 7.8 percent, reached in July 1980. The highest under Reagan was 10.8 percent, reached from November to December in 1982.

            Under Carter there was a fairly mild recession that lasted from January 1980 to July 1980. Under Reagan there was a far deeper recession that lasted from July 1981 to November 1982.

            I am not lying. Neither are you. You believe what you write. Unfortunately, you are poorly informed. You have strong opinions, but your comments reveal poor education and bad breeding. Strong opinions are the frequent inhabitants of weak minds.

          • JohnEngelman

            From July 1981 to November 1982 the United States suffered the deepest recession since the 1930’s.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            It was pretty rough, but it was an INEVITABLE consequence of wringing DOUBLE-DIGIT INFLATION out of the U.S. economy, by allowing interest rates to rise naturally. If you were honest about it, you would credit Jimmy Carter with that recession.

            Funny how Reagan took 49 states after that in 1984: Those white working Americans understood what Reagan was doing far more than a twisted and leftist individual, such as yourself…

          • JohnEngelman

            The rise in inflation was due to the OPEC Oil Embargo of 1973, and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Because these were examples of price fixing on an international level, they were economically unsustainable. That is why the world price of oil began to decline after 1982. The inflation rate declined with it.

            Using a recession to reduce inflation is Keynesianism of a most brutal variety. Employees had their wages cut. The rich got richer.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            PURE disinformation, worthy of your hero, Walter Duranty…

          • JohnEngelman

            I suppose I could look up Walter Duranty on the internet. I have never heard of him.

          • none of your business

            Go away you liar.

          • JohnEngelman

            What have I lied about?

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Doubling Federal Income Tax Revenues to the Treasury at lower rates helped CREATE 22 MILLION NEW JOBS under Reagan.

            I though I saw you comment something about always citing facts, earlier. I think you are a fraud.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year. These facts come from The Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009.

          • JohnEngelman

            Tax receipts in 1981 were $1,366.0 billion in 2009 dollars.

            Tax receipts in 1988 were $1,562.3 billion in 2009 dollars.

            Tax receipts increased. They did not double. Tax receipts increased more per year under President Carter.

            When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year.

            Under Reagan that declined to an average of 2,000,000 jobs per year.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You have lumped together every form of Receipt that accrues to the Federal Government in a given Fiscal Year. I am talking about Federal Income Tax Revenues, which doubled under Reagan at lower rates between 1982 and 1989. (His first budget was Fiscal 1982…)

            No one who was alive and sentient during the Carter Administration believes that Carter created 2.6 million jobs per year: That’s simply a falsehood, even accounting for the manner in which he grew the federal government. I don’t know what source you cite, but you would do well to avoid that source, because it is as dishonest as Obama, Hillary, Bill, or Jimmy Carter, or those phony politicians on the NYT Editorial Page posing as “Economists”…

          • none of your business

            A major reason for less job creation under Carter was the fact that so many employers were under federal court orders to stop giving employment exams and hiring qualified people until the employers changed their hiring processes to hire nothing but unqualified women and minorities.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            An even bigger reason were interest rates from Carter’s 13% inflation, including a 24% Prime Rate and 16% mortgage rates. There are few things that will kill economic growth faster than high interest rates.

          • JohnEngelman

            According to the Office of Management and Budget, income tax receipts under President Carter increased by an average of $21,610.75 million a year.

            Under President Reagan the increase was an average of $14,408 million a year.

            My figure for 2,600,000 jobs created per year under Jimmy Carter comes from The Wall Street Journal, as I have said previously.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Total Federal Income Tax Receipts for Fiscal 1981 were 599.3 Billion (Reagan’s first year in office) and were 991.2 Billion in Fiscal 1989, his last year. That’s an increase of over 65% in a mere eight years at lower Federal Income Tax Rates. (Admittedly, they did not double: I have seen it estimated that they doubled, but this requires comparing Fiscal 1980 Receipts with Fiscal 1989 Receipts.)

          • JohnEngelman

            What is your source for that? What you say might be true, but it should be documented. How do you account for the increase in the national debt that happened when Reagan was president? If it was necessary to raise defense spending, it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Economic Report of the President, 2005. (If you used standard and conventional sources of economic statistics — rather than the disinformation put out by the DNC and CPUSA — you would have a clearer picture of the 1970s and 1980s.)

          • JohnEngelman

            Economic statistics I have used include those from The Wall Street Journal, the United States Department of Commerce, and the United States Department of Labor.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Obama’s Labor Department is where they legerdemain all those “Unemployment” statistics. Ditto for his Commerce Department and Gross Domestic Product figures…

          • JohnEngelman

            Many people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgment of what is true and false. I do too, but I make an effort not to.

            Those who disregard facts garnered by credible organizations are beyond the range of rational debate.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Obama’s Labor and Commerce (and Justice and Homeland “Security”) are NOT” credible” organizations. Perhaps you missed the fact that almost EVERY Unemployment figure for a year prior to the 2012 General Election has had to be surreptitiously REVISED UPWARDS in the following weeks. Similar “problems” confound the Commerce Department’s GDP figures, and for the same reasons…

          • JohnEngelman

            I certainly did miss it. I am unaware of any credible evidence that the compilation of unemployment data is less honest and accurate than it was in previous administrations.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Ha, ha, ha, ha, …! ( Oy Vey !)

          • Earl P. Holt III

            You won’t believe anything I say, so Google this:

            “Fraud and Obama Administration Unemployment Figures”

          • JohnEngelman

            No results found for “Fraud and Obama Administration Unemployment Figures”.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Sorry. Corrected search:

            “Fraud in Obama Administration Unemployment Figures.” (4+ million hits.)

          • JohnEngelman

            No results found for “Fraud in Obama Administration Unemployment Figures.”.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            That’s funny: I got 4,000,000 “hits”…

          • JohnEngelman

            New York Post columnist John Crudele, citing one anonymous source, claims that Census Bureau employees have been ordered to make up responses when surveying households for the Labor Department’s monthly unemployment report. Crudele claims to have evidence from 2010 that one Census survey-taker was caught making up numbers to meet a quota. Crudele’s anonymous source claims there were other incidents of surveyors making up numbers, that Census officials encouraged such shenanigans, and that fake-number generation ramped up ahead of the 2012 election.

            This, Crudele suggests in a daring leap of logic, probably explains unemployment’s drop to 7.8 percent in September 2012 from 8.1 percent the month before…

            CNBC’s Steve Liesman reports that the alleged “employee who did it,” Julius Buckmon, has not worked at Census since August 2011. It’s highly unlikely Buckmon threw the 2012 election from his couch…

            The 0.3-percent decline in unemployment in September 2012 was not an unusually large change

          • Earl P. Holt III

            OF COURSE Income Tax Receipts increased under Carter: Double-Digit inflation pushed people into higher marginal tax brackets, without any gain in income. That’s one of the many reforms that Reagan — a guy you will never understand — did to benefit the U.S. economy and ALL taxpayers.

          • JohnEngelman

            The inflation of 1979 – 80, which declined after 1982 happened because of fluctuations over the world price of oil, over which neither president had much control.

          • Earl P. Holt III

            Actually, the Saudis were so happy to see a U.S. President who was not totally inept and a pawn of Jewish leftists, they greatly increased production, and drove the world price of crude down to as low as $10.80 a BBL at one point.

            Reagan had a GREAT DEAL to do with this: The Saudis would not have done this for anyone else, particularly the timid, indecisive, petty little fraud you like so much from Plains, GA…

          • none of your business

            Even your beloved NYSlimes and USA today and the rest of the MSM agrees that seniors are a demorat constituency. They vote demorat because they believe that the demorats will give them back some of the money they have put into the system for 50 years.
            You just make things up and tell outright lies and why do the moderators tolerate you?

          • JohnEngelman

            Pew Research Center NOVEMBER 5, 2014

            Fully 22% of 2014 voters were 65 and older — a group GOP candidates won by 16-points…

            The age gap in voting preferences, after first emerging in 2004 and 2006, became a major factor in 2008 and has remained substantial in each of the last four election cycles.

            This gap is the result both of the youngest voters (18- to 29- year-olds) consistently favoring Democrats over Republicans, while over this same time period voters 65 and older have consistently favored Republicans. Before 2004, there were little to no age differences in vote preferences going back more than two decades.

          • JohnEngelman

            The moderators have so far tolerated me because I am courteous, well informed, and a convinced race realist.

          • Black Swan

            Engleman’s warped world view is black and white, that is, one is either a flaming lib like him who believes 100% in Keynesian economics, socialized medicine and redistributing income or one is a hard-core evil Republican who wants to throw grandma into the street to protect the rich from being taxed.

            Either/or, nothing else.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am aware of many varieties of right wing and left wing thought. My opinions are often nuanced.

          • none of your business

            Englemann lives in California although some of the things he says about N. California leads those of us who do live there to wonder if he is either lying or lives elsewhere.

        • Earl P. Holt III

          You should have studied more economics. The fact of the matter is, we are experiencing (ready?) Diminishing Marginal Returns from Taxation, and have been for quite some time.

          Just as Reagan DOUBLED Federal Tax Revenues to the Treasury at LOWER marginal tax rates in his eight years (and you can look it up!,) any reasonable reduction in federal tax rates would almost certainly raise Treasury Revenues by stimulating entrepreneurship, investment, employment and the creation of wealth.

          Whether you understand this or not, we are all dependent upon those who create wealth, and by and large, the people who do that are very wealthy, themselves. Among others, they are the guys who created Silicon Valley in their parents’ garages…

          • JohnEngelman

            First of all, Reagan did not double federal tax revenue. In 1981 tax revenue in 2009 dollars was $1,366.0 billion. By 1988 that had grown to $1,562.3 billion. This represented an average increase in $24.5 billion per year. When Carter was president federal tax revenue increased an average of $40.3 billion per year.

            During the four years Carter was president the top tax rate was 70 percent. During the eight years Reagan was president this declined to 28 percent.

        • none of your business

          Go away Englemann and tell your lies elsewhere.

          • JohnEngelman

            What have I lied about?

    • PouponMarx

      Really? Then why do small businesses, startups, and family businesses support the GOP? This statement of yours sounds troll-like and suspicious. It would seem that you know better, but some genetic Marxist/Socialist genetic material just won’t let you hang the picture of Milton Friedman instead of Jeffrey Sachs…..of…..

      • JohnEngelman

        Some do. Some do not. You should also ask why low income whites usually vote Republican. The GOP has a better record on criminal justice policies. Nevertheless, only the rich benefit from tax cuts for the rich.

        • michaelsanchez

          If only the rich benefit from tax cuts for the rich, then you are basically saying that people with capital do not invest in anything that helps lower classes. If only the rich benefit, then they aren’t creating jobs. If the rich don’t create jobs, then there’s no point to capitalism for anyone other than the rich. Basically, you are a Marxist. Good job!

          • JohnEngelman

            I read any political thinker for insight, rather than doctrine. Karl Marx had valid insights. He also made serious mistakes. I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party. We had basic disagreements. We discussed them in a civilized manner.

          • ThomasER916

            The Culture of Critique series is always right.

          • WR_the_realist

            I despise all members of the American Communist Party. Communism is totalitarianism and an enemy of freedom. With the TSA and the NSA the United States has already moved too far in that direction. I note that Saint Obama has shown no more interest than the mainstream Republicans in wanting to put a leash on those organizations. (By the way, the American Communist Party decided not to run a candidate for the presidency in 2008 because they decided that with Obama the Democratic Party had moved far enough to the left.)

          • JohnEngelman

            Claiming to be a friend of freedom, while opposing the ability of the American Communist Party to propagate its message is as far as I am concerned, contradictory.

            The freedom that is most important to me is intellectual freedom. I want to be able to investigate different points of view, come to my own opinions, and express my opinions without fear of legal, economic, or social sanctions.

            I enjoy polite political arguments, and consider myself to be skilled at them.

            That is why I oppose the constraints of political correctness, and any effort to persecute the American Communist Party. I believe that democracy is most effective when the voters are exposed to different points of view.

            Bertrand Russell said, “I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.” For that same reason I would never try to suppress the propagation of beliefs I disagree with.

            During the 1970’s I participated in a fascinating seminar on Das Kapital that was given by the Washington, DC chapter of the CPUSA. When the Soviet Union still existed I collected books printed in Moscow by Progress Publishers. Some of these are political books, like “Lenin on the Intelligentsia.” That is on my desk as I type. Others were English translations of Russian classics of literature,

            I have always found members of the American Communist Party to be intelligent, well informed, and civil. I have always been able to have polite discussions with them over basic disagreements that I have had with them.

          • tlk244182

            You’re brilliant, John, absolutely brilliant.
            Your mother must be so proud.

          • JohnEngelman

            Thank you.

          • PouponMarx

            Fomenting lawlessness, advocating the violation of the Constitution and overthrow and replacement of the Government with a totally alien and undemocratic form is treason. All such members and sympathizers should be imprisoned and identified as Agent Provocateur.

            You are obviously someone who lives on abstractions and symbols. You believe you are clever by manipulating symbols,e.g., words building sandcastles in the air. Perhaps you fancy yourself as a salon intellectual fighting the good intellectual fight with a broom handle, while people who live in the Real World actually create something and produce useful work, either a service or product.

            Perhaps your parents endowed you with a trust fund, so you could doodle all your life.

          • JohnEngelman

            ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 2 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says, “a member who is a strikebreaker, a provocateur, engaged in espionage, or who advocates violence or terrorism, or who participates in the activities of any group that acts to undermine any democratic institution through which the majority of the American people can express their democratic rights forfeits membership in the Communist Party.”

          • PouponMarx

            How old are you? Have you reached puberty yet, or shaved your mustache for the first time. Of course, Communists/Marxists/Progressives/The Left never lie, cheat, steal, and deceive. And they don’t believe the end justifies the means.

            And everybody’s sphincter is located in their armpit.

            Are you that naive or do you believe everybody is that stupid?

          • JohnEngelman

            Have you ever known members of the American Communist Party? I doubt it. Why are you so sure that information you picked up somewhere is a more accurate description of CPUSA intentions than what they write in their Constitution?

            Although I have known and liked members of the CPUSA, I do not take their organization seriously as a threat to anyone. At most the CPUSA has several thousand members. Many are FBI informants.

            The American Communist Party has never been much more than a Marxist discussion group.

          • none of your business

            I grew up with CPUSA members. All driveling idiots like you. They worshipped blacks and despised Whites. After I read a few of your posts I knew what you are and how you got brainwashed.

          • none of your business

            He’s around 70. His parents were young adults during the depression and joined the CPUSA. They never got past the great days of 1936 when the communists ruled the Roosevelt administration. They belonged to the Jew/commie wing of the demorats that wanted communist Henry Wallace as FDR’s vice President in 1944 so that when FDR died a year later we would have a communist President. He is actually not even a baby boomer type liberal. He is really part of his parents FDR worshipping generation.
            He believes we are 80 IQ WASP Appalachian people, not the ones who make a good living in coal mines but are on life long welfare and are still staunch capitalists and Republicans. He firmly believes non of us ever went to college or finished high school or had an encyclopedia at home or is aware of anything going on. He believes he is the only person on this site who reads newspapers or news websites or can think and judge.

          • PouponMarx

            That Jewish genetic imprinting takes effect and out comes the overflow from the garbage disposal. It’s like a car with a wheel misalignment that keeps steering Left. As we know from 200 years of history, that path of Socialism leads to disaster every time overtime, right in the lane of opposing traffic and in the ditch.

            Marxism is the substitute for Judaism; it’s just another religion, a religion of putrefaction.

            “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
            ― Frédéric Bastiat

            There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.
            -George Orwell

            “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.”
            ― Frédéric Bastiat

            “The goal of socialism is communism.”
            — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

          • WR_the_realist

            The American Communist Party is free to propagate its message. So is Louis Farrakhan. I’m not taking way their free speech rights. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t despise them.

          • none of your business

            Lord Bertrand was a communist. He became a communist because he was only a younger son and a Lord Bertrand instead of a Lord Russell. I have had enough of your outright lies and do not understand why you are still here.

          • JohnEngelman

            One of Bertrand Russell’s early books was “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.” It was published in 1920 after Russell made a visit to Russia, and visited with Vladimir Lenin.

            In this book Russell expressed admiration for the ideals of Bolshevism, but warned, “I cannot share the hopes of the Bolsheviks any more than those of the Egyptian anchorites; I regard both as tragic delusions, destined to bring [16]upon the world centuries of darkness and futile violence…

            “Fanatics are seldom genuinely humane, and those who sincerely dread cruelty will be slow to adopt a fanatical creed. I do not know whether Bolshevism can be prevented from acquiring universal power. But even if it cannot, I am persuaded that those who stand out against it, not from love of ancient injustice, but in the name of the free spirit of Man, will be the bearers of the seeds of progress…

            “Unfortunately, violence is in itself delightful to most really vigorous revolutionaries, and they feel no interest in the problem of avoiding it as far as possible. Hatred of enemies is easier and more intense than love of friends. But from men who are more anxious to injure opponents than to benefit the world at large no great good is to be expected…

            “Opposition is crushed without mercy, and without shrinking from the methods of the Tsarist police, many of whom are still employed at their old work.”

          • none of your business

            Were your parents and some of their friends CPUSA members? I have deduced that from your postings. I have also deduced that although you were beaten and robbed by blacks you are a die hard liberal so incapable of rational thought you still worship blacks and hate your fellow Whites.

          • JohnEngelman

            My parents were not CPUSA members. They were registered Democrats and observant Episcopalians. I do not “hate my fellow Whites.” I certainly do not “worship blacks.”

            What about you? Why are you so intemperate? Are you this way in your real life, or is this only a pose you adopt for the internet.

        • PouponMarx

          The Bush Tax Cuts DID NOT only benefit the rich. What are you talking about? That line was the Nancy Pelosi Democrapot talking point. Where do you get your information? Who are you, anyway?

          The Republican PHILOSOPHY is Federalism and minimal government. It is the RINOS that subvert that, sell out, and suck ash for lobby and Jewish dominated Billionaire Marxist money.

          • none of your business

            You mentioned Nancy Pelosi. Did you know her Father, Mayor of Baltimore and long term congressman was a member of the Klu Klux Klan? Actually not a full member because back in the day Catholics were not allowed to join. But he was an honorary member. This was told to me by her husband Paul. Now because she represents part o San Francisco, she is an insane liberal. But if she moved to the most conservative Republican part of Idaho or Montana she would become a conservative Republican.

          • PouponMarx

            An excellent comment. She is an opportunist of convenience, where POWER is all that matters, and the means are “whatever it takes, or fakes”. She is a harlot, charlatan, evil, and sociopath.

        • Sick of it

          “Nevertheless, only the rich benefit from tax cuts for the rich.”

          That’s where Romney really screwed up. His tax plan ONLY included that sort of tax cut, not a general reduction in taxes or even a new and less severe form of taxation. Voter turnout sank him in the end.

          • JohnEngelman

            Cutting taxes is Republican identity politics. Different kinds of Republicans support it for different reasons. While Republicans advocated tax cuts they have the nerve to complain about deficits under Obama.

          • none of your business

            Who writes your scripts for you?

          • JohnEngelman

            I write my own material. I have a sufficiently low opinion of you to assume that you write your material too.

    • WR_the_realist

      The Republican Party exists to advance the economic interests of the richest 10 percent of the American population…the RNC has achieved what it has wanted to.

      And the Democrats have also done what the RNC wanted. Have we seen any decrease in economic inequality under Clinton or Obama? Not that I can see. Flooding the country with poor third worlders isn’t the obvious way to reduce economic inequality. The Obamacare subsidies are paid for by healthy middle class people, not by the rich.

    • Make that the richest 0.5%. I don’t think the RNC helps even as broad a base as the top 10%.

    • Earl P. Holt III

      Even the idiots at the RNC are sophisticated enough to recognize that a constituency of 10% hasn’t got a prayer against Santa Claus and his minions: You misstate their aims and intentions, and I suspect you do it intentionally.

      • JohnEngelman

        The Republican Party wins the votes of most whites with appeals to social concerns. However, it rarely does anything about these concerns.

    • none of your business

      Go away you liar.

      • JohnEngelman

        What have I lied about?

        You have a serious personality problem. Are you this way in your real life, or do you conceal it?

  • Bobbala

    No.
    — Bobbala

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    I knew they were losing it when they wheeled out that fossil to face down Obama. Then they tried it with a greedy prick. What’s next?

    • bilderbuster

      Bob Dole back in 96 was the last straw for me.

      • Sick of it

        I remember how many people disliked Bush I when I was a little kid. In a strong Republican zone.

        • Epiminondas

          Pappy Bush sucked all the morale out of me in 1990. I’ve never recovered.

        • WR_the_realist

          Liberals hated George W. Bush. Real conservatives hated George W. Bush too. But neoconservatives loved him and still do. And neoconservatives control the Republican Party.

          • Sick of it

            Some people were fooled by his folksy Southern way of speaking, despite the fact that Jorge Boosh was a carpetbagger. Needless to say, his pro-immigration rhetoric has lost him all of his former support (excepting the neo-con minority, as you’ve stated).

  • pea_brain_2012

    Rand Paul even opened up an outreach center in Detroit. What a waste of time. A neocon will be ignored. Right now Obama is doing more to change black minds.

    • WR_the_realist

      My guess is that Rand Paul might get as many as 2 black citizens of Detroit to vote for him.

      • none of your business

        If he has someone pick them up at the old folks home, drive them to the polling place, wheel them in and take them out for a nice lunch afterwards.

  • libertarian1234

    I have to agree that the GOP is clueless.

    They’re just incapable of fighting a guerilla political war.

    I understand that they want to hold on to power rather than advance a socially conservative ideology, but they don’t know how to do that either.

    If they did they would be going after millions of Tea Party and ultraconservative votes instead of grooming non-whites who never vote for them any way.

    Much of the time their actions are at cross purposes with one another, leaving their supporters wondering what they’re doing and for what reason. Karl Rove is an excellent example.

    The GOP establishment are wimps who operate under the fallacy that it is best to follow a policy typical of business managers, whose main concern is not creating waves, when it is those of their party who have created waves that keep putting them in power, and they think the reason they got there is because of their low-key strategy.

    People support leaders who stand up and show a spine, speaking candidly in the face of power. They don’t start crying and get choked up talking about individual liberties.

    • WR_the_realist

      The Republican Party will remain useless for as long as Karl Rove has any influence in it.

  • Michael Mason

    Lesson: do not donate to the republican party.

    • Pathfinder75

      A lesson well worth remembering.

  • I think it’s more fundamental than this.

    The confidence I had in democratic republicanism, fleeting as it was, totally dissipated this past summer with the Central American Children’s Crusade.

    It’s going to take a populist-nationalist-soft fascist-soft national socialist dictatorship to get us out of this mess. Not only us, but most of the rest of the white world. Until enough of the right kind people realize that to make it reality, the only thing elections can do us is to paper things over and to make things a little better than they would otherwise be, in a “best is the enemy of the good” sense.

    • phillyguy

      exactly right, I been saying this for 40 years, we need a white nationalist leader.

    • none of your business

      In my opinion, facism is the best political economic system. It balances capitalism and socialism and helps businesses. Most of all, it takes care of its own nation and country instead of trying to take care of the rest of the world. Facist countries are also tough on crime which benefits the majority who are not criminals. Facist countries usually have some sort of educational/jobtraining/recreation programs to keep the young men under control doing useful things instead of burning down Ferguson.
      Facist countries take pride in their people instead of hating and denigrating them.

      • I have come to the educated observation slash conclusion that, left uninhibited by ideology, most white people(s) want to live under a system that is some soft or hard variant of fascism slash national socialism. The only open question is a matter of degrees and nuances. Nobody really wants libertarianism or whole hog authoritarianism.

        Fascism may well “help businesses,” but it does not let business have the run of the joint, it limits its influence over public policy and public affairs, and is pretty resilient to corporatism and crony capitalism.

        • Spikeygrrl

          “Nobody really wants libertarianism or whole hog authoritarianism.”

          Having known some really smart people who support one or the other of these positions, I’m very curious as to where you picked up the notion that “[N]obody really wants” either one.

          • There are lots of very smart people who toy around with esoteric abstract ideologies, but then squeal like a stuck pig when they get at least some of what they say to want. Or they don’t recognize the irony of them benefiting from the implementation of the ideas that are the polar opposite of what they want.

            Then there’s the matter of the fact that those kind of people aren’t most people.

      • There has always been the sucession problem with Dictatorships. This was highlighted during ancient Greek days when they had good dictators and bad ones. The good ones could do much to uplift a country but some of the bad ones went completely crazy and were highly destructive towards their own people. I’m recalling the Syracusian Democracy around the 3rd or 4th century BC but forget the dictator’s name.

        In more recent times certainly Hitler was very destructive towards the German people: causing many to die in a needless war.

        I do not think further education nor job training nor recreational programs will help those who are burning down Ferguson. This has been tried for the past 50 years to the tune of many billions or trillions of dollars. These people are very different from “civilized society”. They have gentically inheritable lower IQ, a higher tendency towards violence, lower abstract reasoning, and require much less delay in gratification of their immediate needs. They may have compensating “positive traits” such as malarial resistances, or physical strength, & etc. However in the long run they are incompatable with our current level of social civilization.

        A Representative Government should work, however our Government has confused Democracy with Representative Government. Also there have to be checks and balances against certain behaviors. Our Republic was never originally envisioned in 1787 to be ruled by or even in collaboration with blacks.

  • D.B. Cooper

    The only republicans I’ll vote for are the proven hard right, and whoever is running against a white male democrat. I’m disappointed in you Buckeyes who let This closet democrat keep his position. Yep, any chance I get to remind all of you who the enemy is…

    • Max

      That picture makes me want to cry.

      • Sharps Rifle

        Makes him want to, too.

      • Pathfinder75

        You AND his wife.

        Poor woman.

    • none of your business

      What do you mean by hard right? Do you mean pro White? If hard right does not mean pro White voting hard right does us no good. That is the mistake so many Whites make. They think conservative means pro White. It does not.

  • Evette Coutier

    The GOP will not fundamentally change. It has too much inertia as a social institution to significantly change course in our lifetimes.

  • phorning

    Barack Obama is misspelled in the sixth paragraph.

    • The Bogeyman

      Barrack Ubangi is the correct spelling.

      • Spikeygrrl

        Barry Soetoro is the correct spelling. There is no such person as “Barack Obama.”

        • none of your business

          Actually, it is Barack Davis. His Father was Frank Marshall Davis, head of the communist party of Hawaii sent there by the communist party of Chicago where the CPUSA was headquartered at the time.
          He is President Davis. His wife is Mrs. Davis

  • Dave4088

    The Republican party can never be made into a pro-white party since their top Jewish donors and “money is all that matters” gentile elites would strenuously object to that. Republicans are every bit as rigid and ideological as the left only they believe that they can win the hearts and minds of non-whites with pandering, kindness, and economic prosperity.

    • evilsandmich

      Non-white pandering is a flavor of bad, but black pandering (as pointed out) is its own special dark pit that actually works to swallow up other non-white initiatives (such as they are).

  • ricpic

    It’s enormously important to respectable types that they be for the Negro. The Republican meme that we love blacks and blacks love us and only need a nudge to vote for us is all about Republicans making a show of their own virtue.

    • none of your business

      Today 12/2 Hannity actually talked like a man instead of a groveling black worshipping conservative during the Ferguson segment of his show. Of course he was the only White most of the time as blacks blathered away but he did show looting and had a businessman on whose store was destroyed and had a few things to say about Governor Nixon encouraging the rioters.

  • Dave West

    I caught a clip once of clueless Rand Paul speaking to a group of blacks, he spouted off the usual republican one-liners about “working hard” “freedom” “personal responsibility.” Unless you’re speaking to a group of Allen Wests’ and Herman Cains; once you say things like that to a typical group of blacks, you’ll loose the attention of at least 2/3 of the people in the room. Is Rand stupid? Black people don’t want to hear about hard work and responsibility. The want to hear about what you’re going to give them and how dropping out of high school, being arrested 8 times, and having 6 kids with three different women isn’t there fault.

    • eldoradocreekskipper

      Not stupid, delusional.

  • Tarczan

    If you accept the premise that blacks are the least intelligent race, than you must also accept the fact that they will always vote for the party that gives them the most handouts.

    Read an interesting book about the CFR “The Shadows of Power”. It’s an older book, 1990 but one of the points made is that the CFR pushes liberal, pro-communist Republicans.

    Nice job, Earl.

  • Manaphy

    As I’ve said before on this site, voting for the stupid party will not solve anything – in some cases it just may make things worse. Armed White revolution is the only legitimate way to preserve White interests.

    • Epiminondas

      I’m in. But it will take an economic collapse of biblical proportions to make the opportunity worth trying.

      • Manaphy

        Not necessarily. We need enough Whites to be as educated as we are on racial matters.

    • JohnEngelman

      “Armed White revolution” will lead to a dictatorship. It may lead to a dictatorship that will put you and those who think like you in slave labor camps.

      • I believe a Second Civil War may be coming to the USA and a dictatorship may be possible. Hopefully whites will not be eliminated as they are useful workers? Elimination is the probable outcome if we stay on the same course as are now. It’s similar to the situation in South Africa.

      • Manaphy

        A dictatorship ruled by people with my (our) views is much more appealing than our current black-occupation “government”.

        • JohnEngelman

          A dictatorship ruled by people of your views is not appealing to me at all. I would be arrested, imprisoned, and maybe shot.

          You are perfectly safe from people of my views. You will probably be ignored, but you will not be put in a slave labor camp. I would never kill for what I believe in. I might be mistaken.

          • none of your business

            America does not need slave labor camps however the economy goes and who runs the government. Only communist dictatorships like the ones you worship like Russia and China needed slave labor camps. Anyway, we don’t manufacture much anymore so no need for slave labor camps.

      • none of your business

        Another ridiculous statement from CPUSA Englemann. Not all revolutions lead to dictatorships. The American one didn’t. The French dictatorship lasted only about 25 years. Oliver Cromwells’s dictatorship lasted only 20 years. The reconstruction dictatorship of the Republican party after the civil war lasted only about 10 years. If we Whites win we won’t put anyone is slave labor camps. The American economy has never gotten so bad it needed slave labor camps. It is only when countries like the one you worship Russia after the commie revolution destroy their economies that they need slave labor camps.
        Do you realize how much of your communism you reveal?

        • JohnEngelman

          If you read my comments with better comprehension, you would know that I have no illusions about the Soviet regime. As an admirer of Edmund Burke I would have liked it better if the Czarist government had evolved into a representative democracy with a figurehead Czar and a Social Democratic economy.

    • none of your business

      How can I help?

  • LHathaway

    Wasn’t there a bible parable concerning something like this?

    A lot of Republicans voted for Obama simply because it had been 43 and 0 in favor of White contenders. I can understand the Rice’s and Powell’s. We may get the same thing again in 2016.

    This is an excellent expose’.

    • Sick of it

      “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

      Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

      And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
      corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

      Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
      hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

      Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
      creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” – Romans 1:21-25

      • LHathaway

        I was thinking of the one where church elders fawned over the sinner who had repented and not over the man who had remained true. How does that parable go?

        • Sick of it

          “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

          And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

          And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What
          man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

          And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

          And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

          I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” Luke 15:1-7

          • evilsandmich

            The repugs leave their 100 sheep so that they can find a wolf who promises to lay off the mutton every now and then.

          • Sick of it

            They certainly seem to support the insane come election time. Oh excuse me, “moderates”…

          • none of your business

            That is terrible animal husbandry and farming. If the shepherd left 99 sheep alone they would be eaten by wolves, foxes and stray dogs. They would be stolen by other farmers. They would get all upset by something(probably dogs) and stampede and hurt themselves. Whoever wrote the bible must not have been any kind of farmer who had herd animals who grazed freely. You can leave fenced in pigs and dairy cows in a barn but no sensible farmer leaves 99 sheep to get lost, stolen, killed or injured to go after one stray.

        • none of your business

          And the prodigal son who was favored over the good son.

  • Yves Vannes

    Because they did so well this past election they will go back to assuming they are infallible and go back to trying to please everyone EXCEPT their base. Expect another low turnout for the R party in 2016.

  • Glen

    The GOP won’t change. You’ll not be “infiltrating and taking ’em over.”

    Donations from the little guys don’t mean very much. It’s the money from the Adelsons that matters.

    Voting confers legitimacy on the government. Your best bet is either to not vote or vote for the opposition.

    • Bobbala

      What opposition?

    • none of your business

      I agree.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    The national GOP is deservedly called the Stupid Party because of how often it offends its base to its own detriment. Bush’s attempted amnesty fiasco (which solid Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter loudly opposed) is a good example, as are the presidential campaigns of McCain and Romney (which ran as far away from the Right as they could under the strange notion it would draw away “moderate” blacks and browns). Conservative whites stayed home; blacks and browns voted for the mulatto.

    But there are times when the base itself may deserve the label. Certainly when it comes to blacks who can articulate whatever idea is in vogue in Conservatism, Inc.

    • none of your business

      Jeb Bush was on today. He said something to the effect that being President would be hard on his family but if called upon he would run. But he would be a very moderate President which means another demorat.

  • Vito Powers

    As I understand it, the House Republicans are going to push for “entitlement reform” come January when the new Congress is in session. Republicans seem to have a jihad on “reforming” social security and Medicare. You know, the government programs that benefit white people like seniors and aging baby boomers. The Republicans are too gutless to “reform” programs like Head Start, Child Care Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other programs that primarily benefit the minorities that they’re sucking up to.

    • Max

      Not that I necesarily disagree with the premise of your statement in general but things like Head Start, Child Care anything, and probably dozens of other programs are immune to the forces of fiscal responsibility because ANYBODY mentioning cutting these HATES CHILDREN, wants them to starve and die of painful diseases. A person tackling these would never be elected to office and would probably never even get a stab at either ruling party’s support. It is plutonium. They are politically extremely toxic and we are stuck with them for billions of years.

      • Vito Powers

        I think it can be said that ” reforming” Social Security and Medicare is attacking seniors, blah, blah blah.

        No, Republicans don’t have the spine to do anything that would offend the minorities that they’re so desperately reaching out to.

    • evilsandmich

      I used to not be so cynical on the subject, but since the repugs have demonstrated time and again that they don’t mind an impoverishing debt based economy, I have to assume that they have other motives for going after these elderly programs. Can’t take $5 away from NPR but they have no issue taking $50 from granny, hmm…

    • none of your business

      Child care tax credit benefits Whites. But it is terribly abused by minority welfare Moms. They babysit each others children while they “look for work” and pull in $800.00 per month per kid which they are supposed to pay babysitters. But the money either is split with their friends or they just keep it. There is no auditing or oversight of the baby sitting money. That was part of Clinton’s welfare reform, give them $800.00 per month per kid more until the kids are 12.

  • Epiminondas

    You can’t reform fanatics, which is what the Republican Establishment are. It’s as though a casting call for an abolitionist play was answered by the GOP hierarchy. They simply are blind to the danger they are putting this country in. Their ancestors in the mid-19th century were quite willing to kill a million citizens to assuage their weird zealotry.

  • Bryce Armstrong

    Why do people constantly rant about the GOP losing its way? What is it going to take before people accept that the Republican party has NEVER been more Conservative then it is right now? Its the so called ‘ RINO’s like McCain and Powell that have kept the traditional Republican values the party was founded on. Its the Tea Party who are the up suppers that (supposedly) oppose everything its founders wanted.

    So to answer your question, is the Republican Party capable of being saved? No, and it shouldn’t

    • Epiminondas

      They’ve been defunct since the 1930s.

      • JohnEngelman

        I would say they have been defunct since Teddy Roosevelt left office.

  • Republicans are anti-white just like the Democrats.

    Northwestfront(dot)org

    • WR_the_realist

      No, show me somebody frothing at the mouth about white people (Tim Wise, for instance, or almost anybody at MSNBC) and I’ll show you a Democrat. The Democrats are anti-white, but the Republicans aren’t pro-white, they just don’t give a damn.

  • Evette Coutier

    Now is the time for folks like us to band together even stronger, and it’s the time to welcome in disaffected people who are looking for an anchor against the sea of troubles in America.

    • Carney3

      What’s the deal with these widely spammed one-sentence slogan comments I’m seeing everywhere?

      • Evette Coutier

        It’s not spam. Moreover, sometimes it’s best to get to the point in a single declarative sentence. Do you disagree with anything I said. If so then address it, not the style.

        • Carney3

          Sorry, I guess you were a legit poster. I just see a lot of that kind of vague slogan comment around, spammed out, and I don’t get how it started.

          • Evette Coutier

            No problem. I tend to agree with you that folks will spam platitudes. However, sometime the lengthy comments get preachy too. What’s important is that we are on the same side, and a minor misunderstanding is nothing to worry about. We have bigger fish to fry.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    The Republicans will only become more conservative if Sheldon Addison tells them to.

    • WR_the_realist

      I believe you mean Sheldon Adelson. That guy gave a talk before some yeshiva student in which he said the United States should preemptively nuke Iran. Just like we preemptively nuked Israel so they wouldn’t develop nuclear weapons.

      And yes, all the Republican presidential hopefuls have been kissing his ring lately.

  • MBlanc46

    There is no hope for the Repubs. There is no hopes for the Dems. There’s no hope for the country unless we abandon the bogus Rebub/Dem binary that the elites foist upon us.

  • Beowald

    There is a point about all organizations that is almost too obvious to be seen. Those organizations that place their own expansion and existence over everything else will outcompete those that are dedicated to any other mission–even when that mission is the official purpose of the organization. So, a GOP that truly worked for the interests of its base voters would not survive as long as a GOP that worked for the interests of itself. This is a kind of organizational survival of the fittest, where fitness is understood simply as the ability to continue in power.

    Now, this same observation applies equally to the leadership of an organization. So, over fairly short time scales, the interests of the leadership of every organization will diverge from the interests of the people the organization purportedly represents. This is why I say the RNC exists for the benefit of the RNC, but more particularly, for the benefit of the RNC leadership.

    This tendency of organizations to become self-perpetuating and self-protecting is most obvious in government bureaucracies, but it is to be seen in all organizations over time. Ironically, the dedication to short-term self interest is long-term suicide. The RNC leadership has to appease its paymasters or be fired; but appeasing the RNC paymasters will ultimately destroy the country–and with it, the RNC.

    How so? Immigration is the darling of the RNC, despite the robust opposition of base Republican voters, because (a) immigrants depress wages and (b) the corporations want cheap labor. But immigrants also increase the welfare rolls, either by displacing American workers, who must then go on welfare, or by becoming welfare recipients themselves directly. No society with open borders can afford a welfare system in the long term. Eventually, the country goes broke, we have economic chaos, and some strongman steps in to squelch our liberties. As much as I’d like to set things right by fiat, I have no confidence that a future strongman would do the things I would want him to. For one thing, he might be named Garcia.

    • While I agree that the GOP likes to depress wages by supporting immigration I don’t agree that organizations which place their own existence first will outcompete those dedicated to other missions.

      Compare for example the example of the Roman Catholic Church and the USSR. One, despite many proclamations about being the new way lasted barely 70 years and other lasted at least 1,700 and is still going. Thus generic statements and comparisons, such as this one, are perhaps a little too broad to be entirely useful. A GOP working simply for its own perpetuance is worthless and can perhaps be more usefully be replaced by a trade organization or smaller group than a political party. Whites in the US are still being disenfranchized and need some sort of representation of their own. If the GOP doesn’t provide it then a new organization will need to be developed. Where will the GOP be then, without its white base?

      • Beowald

        Well, that’s a good point about the RCC. Not sure it invalidates the general observation, but then maybe so. No time now for a thoughtful reply, but I may have something later.

        As for a new organization for whites, I yearn for that daily.

      • Beowald

        Two thoughts on the RCC. If it really is what it claims to be, then the Pope is God’s vicar on Earth, and the Church is sui generis. If not, then we would expect to see doctrinal changes, accelerating over time, as the organization adapts to preserve itself. Neither scenario invalidates the argument that organizations that do not make their own survival their primary mission ultimately cease to exist.

  • Well done, but the parting advice is a bit anticlimactic, since there are elites with mountains of money almost as high as the Himalayas who are willing to spend huge amounts of it to insure there is an open-borders, warlike GOP that is perhaps a tad less PC than the Cultural Marxist Party. Also, where are all these great anti-White demographic genocide GOP candidates to support?

  • Carney3

    I think the savviest of the Republican operatives are well aware these outreach efforts accomplish next to nothing in winning over black supporters, but that’s not the real target of those efforts. The real target is moderate white suburbanites who might care about and be swayed by accusations that the GOP is a “racist, whites-only” party. It’s part of the cost of doing business to tamp down (rather than fully eliminate, which is impossible) those sorts of accusations from the media, the Dems, and blacks. And if some blacks are won over, all the better. GOP strategists looking at close races won and lost can’t help but notice the monolithic black vote, well over 90%, that the Dems are absolutely dependent on, and be tempted to imagine how much easier a path to victory the GOP would have if it regularly got, not even close to a majority, but just 20 or 25 or 30% of the black vote. But this will-o-wisp has been chased for decades with little result. Only in a very few elections, when the Dem candidate is utterly hopeless and the Republican wins a crushing victory, does the GOP get anything like such a proportion of the black vote, and that then does not constitute a game-changing portion since their turnout is so tiny and the margin of victory is so big already.

  • meanqueen

    Trying, in an obvious way, to recruit minorities is worse than ineffectual – it’s the death knell because it smacks of desperation. It will make us a laughing stock. In effect, it is saying “we admit we need you in order to exist.” It is saying, “Our critics are right. We really do have too many white men in our party.” Who can respect that? Running black or hispanic candidates just because they’re non-whites won’t work, either. Blacks hate Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They see them as race traitors. Better to stand firmly on principle and if need be, find some covert way to “reach” and convert blacks and hispanics for votes. Better yet, why not just try to get the white liberal vote? If that sounds completely absurd, imagine how absurd it is to try to get the black/hispanic vote. Whites are still a majority. They’re the ones to reach. Honestly I don’t think there is a single thing the GOP can do to change this picture. We need some external force that changes the direction of the wind. A massive terror attack? A crashed economy? Something in that vein.

  • newscomments70

    Bill O’Reilly is one of the voices of the RNC. He laughs that the “far right” lambasts him for being liberal. He doesn’t care; he uses it as a bragging right. This mirrors how RNC elite feel. They don’t hate us as much as liberals do, but they ignore our opinions with the same intensity. The RNC laughs us off as silly radicals, while they continue with their genocidal agendas.

    • John Smith

      Let’s bring back the Whig Party that the GOP absorbed. Chris Christie, Bloomberg, Giuliani, Joe Scarborough, and many others are just Dems pretending to be Republicans and support most of the same anti-liberty agenda.

      • WR_the_realist

        Bloomberg was a Democrat. He became a “Republican” only because he wanted to run for mayor and the Democrats had already picked another man as their candidate. On nearly all issues he’s still a Bill Clinton style Democrat, not as crazy as de Blasio but certainly no Republican.

        • John Smith

          Knew that already. Certainly a statist, no matter what he’s calling himself (“independent” currently, IIRC). He’s just one of the latest and most notable moles the party has let in in their foolishness and desperation.

      • meanqueen

        Giuliani is a Dem pretending to be a Republican? Why do you say that?

        • John Smith

          Pro-gun control, pro-abortion, political support for Mario Cuomo, weak on capital punishment, pro illegal immigration, statist/authoritarian outlook on personal liberty.

          • none of your business

            If there had been no abortions since 1978 the black population would be 36 percent of the population instead of 12.5. Do you want that?
            Exactly what does abortion have to do with the anti White agenda of America’s government, academia, business community and media?
            Absolutely nothing. White issues are the only thing that is important.

          • John Smith

            I’d just give them free drugs, more guns and erect barriers around their neighborhoods to keep their population down.

  • WR_the_realist

    Instead, as we politely explain to telephone solicitors, we
    give directly to conservative Republican candidates because we do not
    trust the RNC.

    I’m the same way. I have on rare occasions given money to Republican candidates who were actually sensible on things like immigration, but I never give to the party organization, which I believe is owned by Lockheed and Halliburton. For as long as the RNC rallies behind the likes of Jeb Bush or John McCain there is no way they’re going to get my money.

  • Pontifex Maximus

    RINOS delenda est!

  • michaelsanchez

    I thought this was a real website, then I read the comments and realized you’re all just unsuccessful and bitter white prudes. Haha… racial superiority… makes me chuckle. Have fun with your meth kids.

    • The Dude

      Some of the comments here don’t reflect the positions of this site’s editors. Jared Taylor and other contributors never said anything about racial superiority. However, they acknowledge average differences between the races and populations.

    • none of your business

      I’m a bitter White but I am not a prude and don’t use drugs or even alcohol. I care not about gay marriage and vulgar entertainment guns, crime legislation capitalism and socialism and how we pay for medical care.
      I care about affirmative action discrimination, black on White crime, the terrorism and abuse White children and teachers endure in black infested schools the destruction of entire cities by the black plague, the lowering of wages and rise in housing costs because of immigration and the fact that any White person in this country can be treated as officer Darren Wilson has been when we defend ourselves against black aggression.
      With a last name like Sanchez you can get any job you apply for because you are an affirmative action aristocrat. Change your name to Sanders and check the White box on your application and see how you fare.

  • toldev

    I think much of the problem at this point is that many Republicans believe in the myth of equality. Due to that belief, many Republicans are blind to the fact that the best interests of white people and the best interests of black people are for the most part mutually exclusive. White working people use social programs rarely and would be better off without them if it would lower their taxes. Ghetto blacks on the other hand would have their living standard lowered quite a bit if not for the social programs. Ghetto blacks play virtually no taxes, so the cost of social programs is not an issue for them. Of course some blacks have now joined the middle class. But the Republicans can not recruit them either. The blacks who have joined the middle class have mostly done so due to things like affirmative action and set asides. Programs and policies that steal directly from whites. Of course successful blacks will angrily deny that their success comes mostly from such programs. But they also will never vote for a politician who would end such things.

    • JohnEngelman

      White working people benefit from programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation.

      • none of your business

        But Whites contribute to those programs. Immigrants who arrive in this country and have never contributed a dime to social security and medicare get those benefits. Minority lifelong welfare slugs who never contributed to social security and medicare get the same benefits.
        Whites contribute to those senior programs for 50 years and get the same benefits as immigrants and welfare slugs who never contributed a dime.
        That is called slavery.

    • none of your business

      True. Most families would not need the child care tax credits if federal income taxes were lower. Before National Review became part of the government of Israel department of propaganda it ran an article showing that about 90 percent of blacks who work work for either government or quasi government organizations like non profits, hospitals, schools and government contractors.

      • toldev

        90%, wow. I knew the numbers of blacks employed in such areas was high. I just didn’t know it was that high.

  • Daniel

    Here’s a little known fact corroborating GOP stupidity.
    Guess who originally appointed Eric Holder to his first federal position?
    Ronald Reagan………..check it out.

    • Vito Powers

      And George H W Bush appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the bench.

      Poppy always loved sucking up to Hispanics.

    • none of your business

      I thought it was Carter? Maybe his job with Carter was just an affirmative action civil service position and when Reagan became President he had someone list all the black AAGs and Holder was one of the few.

  • withcaution

    ” They managed to find their own way into the party because they were attracted by its message and philosophy.”

    That’s right, keep believing the Republican Party has some defined platform. I shake my head in disgust as my hard-working republican friends continue to back Big and bigger government George Bush who was one of the most destructive liberals we ever elected to office.

    • Ellis Kurtz

      “George Bush who was one of the most destructive liberals we ever elected to office”

      True, but I can’t see anything like Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind getting though the present Congress, and certainly not the one next year. Or Amnesty in any form. The reaction to Bush 43’s liberal excesses was muted (I would guess) because grass roots conservatives did not want to pile onto the guy, given the endless lies and slander of the MSM. But once he was gone the reaction emerged in the form of the Tea Party, and, whatever the RNC does, the TP has put its stamp on the party. What we need is a race realist version of the Tea Party. We are not there yet, unfortunately.

      • none of your business

        The Tea Party is a crew of old codgers bending over backwards to prove how non racist and black and minority loving they are. Someone suggested I join the Tea Party instead of just witching about racial issues. I only will join a pro White organization. Conservatives are not pro White and never will be.

        • Ellis Kurtz

          Do you realize that this comment has nothing to do with the point I was making?

  • curri

    If you live in an area where there is a potential significant support, get a group together and try to change the local government charter for the purpose of adopting proportional representation. PR is how nearly all the nationalist and right-wing parties in Europe got their foot in the door. The major exception is France-which has a political culture unlike anything else in the world.Even UKIP was able to get anywhere only because of the success they had in the mandatory proportional representation EU elections.

  • pcmustgo

    Lol, just fresh off the heels with a fight with a friend who just doesn’t get why “race matters” (she doesn’t believe race exists at all), worries people like me scare Blacks away from the Republican party, etc. I broke it down for her and told her the Republican party’s base is whites, and racial issues aren’t going anywhere because they’re based on real inequalities between the races- which blacks/liberals blame on whites and whites/conservatives blame on blacks. I’ve met many such Republicans. They’re Republican for every other reason besides anti-white racism- anti-abortion, “constitutional” issues, and they’re utterly boring. I reminded her that many right wingers DO talk about race, like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc, etc. FOX news talks about race most nights.

    • none of your business

      Most of the time Fox talks about how if only blacks would go to Church and marry the Mothers of their children they would become just like Whites. Hannity surprised me tonight. He actually told a few truths about Mike Brown and Ferguson. All O’Reilly does is tell blacks to go to church and behave like normal human beings.
      Ever time I click on Fox some black is blathering away. Fox has more blacks commenting that any other station ever noticed that?

  • dd121

    Not only will this lose for them. They’ll be grovelling while they’re losing. It’s a sickness with them.

  • See The Future

    The combined forces of the Democratic Party and the GOP will destroy America.

  • Harry Savannah

    Your “elites ‘torn to pieces’ ” scenario is a beautiful concept but I suspect they don’t share your vision. At worst (for them – that is, their offspring) disaster is future-distant. More generally they are confident that their wealth and their connectedness (to global power) will shield and preserve them; think Brazil, only more accommodating and sumptuous.

  • Lkoehn

    The only way to make the RepubliCONS turn into RepubliCANS is never support a RNC backed candidate in the primaries. Once elected if a supposed conservative does not vote conservative vote them out of office. Conservatives need to get off their couch or recliner and vote in every election all the time and change could happen.