It’s Finally Time For the U.S. Military to Defend the Homeland

At arguably no point in the lifetime of any living American has the U.S. military been used to defend U.S. soil. Our Middle Eastern forays over the past few decades were completely unnecessary and ultimately probably made us less safe than if we had never gotten involved there in the first place. Vietnam resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and over 2 million Southeast Asians.

There is a case to be made that the Korean War was ultimately a just war given the stark contrast today between the half of the Korean Peninsula we liberated (South Korea) and the other half that we didn’t (North Korea). But at the end of the day, communism in Korea doesn’t affect America at all. I’m not talking about “U.S. Interests™” (a globalist term used to justify going to war in faraway places). I’m talking about American soil itself. We were never under any sort of threat by the Korean communists.

Many would say that World War II was the last “just war” this country ever fought, and up until quite recently I would have whole-heartedly agreed. But Pat Buchanan makes an excellent case that WWII was not worth it, and he’s convinced me to view WWII in a whole different light. After all, it began as a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland over a small bit of land (Danzig) that Germany rightfully felt was unfairly taken from it at Versailles following WWI, and ended up as the bloodiest conflict in human history:

“Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

After the war, every country in Europe east of Austria was under Soviet Rule. An estimated 20 million people were either starved or murdered by the Bolsheviks by the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and millions more were enslaved in the gulag archipelago–a network of labor and torture camps that put Hitler’s to shame. Some estimates even put the final Soviet death toll at over 60 million. And this does not even include the 70-85 million combined civilians and soldiers killed during WWII.

Was WWII worth 100 million+ lives, especially considering it also resulted in the collapse of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet Union?

And don’t tell me the Nazis were seeking GLOBAL DOMINATION. They were never going to try to invade America. For Pete’s sake their navy couldn’t even conquer Britain, and that was before we entered the war. How were they ever going to cross the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America? The idea is laughable.

There’s little evidence Hitler wanted to annex anything more than the land Germany had lost following World War I, which is to say Danzig, Czecholslovakia and the Rhineland. Here’s a map of Germany in 1944 at the height of Nazi power:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 1.16.38 AM.png

And here’s a map of the German Empire prior to WWI:


Almost identical, no? Hitler’s aim was to retake all the territories he felt were unjustly ripped away from Germany at Versailles. Nothing more. He only went to war with France because the French declared war on Germany first, after Hitler invaded Poland. This is an indisputable historical fact.

The point here is to illustrate that virtually none of the wars of the past century were worth it. Don’t even get me started on World War I: if we hadn’t gotten involved in World War I, there would have never even been a World War II.

The U.S. military has been consistently and repeatedly misused for the past century-plus.

Importantly, none of what I’m arguing here is to disparage or belittle the troops or anything our boys have done on our behalf–don’t take it that way. Our troops obey their superiors and have fought valiantly wherever they’ve been sent.

What I’m saying is that the people in charge have not for a very, very long time used our military justly and deservedly. My ire is directed entirely at the people in charge, not the troops.

The purpose of the military is to defend the homeland from immediate threats, and it hasn’t done this since the 19th century.

The major reason our military hasn’t been used to defend the homeland in well over a century is simple geography: America benefits from the fact that it only borders two other countries, Mexico and Canada, and is sandwiched by two vast oceans which insulate it from the chaos of the “Old World,” i.e. Europe and Asia. After our great nation had established itself as a major power around the start of the 20th century, none of the old world powers in Europe and Asia wanted any trouble with us. It’s not difficult to see why: our economy had become a juggernaut, our relative size advantage made us formidable, and our location an ocean away made it generally unnecessary for us to meddle in the affairs of the old world.

This is how things have traditionally been in human history: nations used to only go to war with neighboring countries. Up until the era of imperialism–and its successor, globalization–there was never any reason for America to go to war with Japan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany. Rome never went to war with the Han Dynasty in China.

Everything used to be more or less regional.

When you look at our military from the perspective that it exists for no other reason than to defend the homeland, the logical conclusion is that the only “just war” we could ever fight would be one with Canada or Mexico, or perhaps some country/countries in the Caribbean (Communist Cuba specifically comes to mind) or in South America.

In light of that, and given the present state of affairs in our corner of the world, the only situation that would truly justify mobilizing the U.S. military would be going to war with the Mexican drug cartels, an idea President Trump floated today in light of the news that nine Americans were brutally murdered by the Mexican drug cartels just 42 miles from the U.S. border:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.07.50 AM.png

The details of the massacre are sickening, and as such now have many Americans entertaining the idea of a war with (more accurately, in) Mexico for the first time since the 1840s.

At first blush, the idea of going to war in Mexico seems crazy. We Americans are not used to the idea of a war being fought on our doorstep. We’re used to our wars all being fought “over there.” And it’s not as if Mexico’s government itself has done anything to warrant us declaring war on it.

But the crucial fact here is that we wouldn’t be going to war with Mexico, we’d be assisting Mexico’s government in its war on the cartels.

In the Mexican Drug Cartels, America may now, after well over a century, have a true, genuine reason to actually go to war.

The drug cartels must be destroyed primarily because their drugs are destroying America. Drug-related deaths have skyrocketed over the past 20 years in America to never-before-seen levels, and this is mostly because of the cartels.

Drug culture in America is out of control. Just about everyone knows someone–either in their community or their own family–that has either died or had their life ruined due to drug use. Many millions of Americans’–young and old–lives revolve around drugs, and this is because of their ready availability due to the cartels.

Drug trafficking into America has become an enormous business. The main cartels in Mexico rake in more money than many of the companies on the S&P 500. The famous kingpin of the Sinaloa Cartel “El Chapo” Guzman had a net worth of over $12.6 billion by the time he was sentenced to life in prison this past July. A 2017 study found that the global drug trade was worth at least $462 billion per year, and the Mexican cartels represent a large chunk of that.

Most of the drugs that enter America come from either Mexico, Peru or Colombia, and the cartels facilitate the whole process. Business Insider has a bunch of maps that show where all the drugs come from, but here’s the main one:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.21.09 AM.png

The majority of the drugs that make their way into the U.S. from their South American origin points come through Mexico by way of the cartels. Stories of the cartels’ violence have grown more and more common with each passing year.

The cartels are now so powerful that they’re going toe-to-toe with the actual Mexican Army and winning. You may recall hearing last month about how the Sinaloa Cartel tried to spring their new boss, Ovidio Guzman Lopez (El Chapo’s son and successor), from police custody by waging a full-on firefight with the Mexican Army in the city of Culiacan. The Mexican government attempted to portray the cartel’s attempted prisonbreak as a “failure” but wound up releasing Lopez to purportedly “defuse” the situation. Does that sound like something a government solidly in control of its own country would ever do? Of course not. They were militarily overpowered by the cartel.

And this is all happening just on the other side of our border.

Another major reason the drug cartels must be destroyed is that they are also destroying Mexico itself, and that affects America. A major driver behind mass immigration (both legal and illegal) is the simple fact that America is much safer than cartel-controlled Mexico. Lots of Mexicans are simply trying to flee the violence that now ravages their country.

The power of the cartels has grown so much over the past few decades that it now rivals and arguably exceeds that of the Mexican government itself. They have destabilized the Mexican government to the point where it now poses a direct threat to actual U.S. interests (as opposed to “U.S. Interests™” in the globalist sense).

The cartels are destroying the fabric of our communities with their drugs. Their violence is causing an immigration surge that America cannot handle. And now they are brutally murdering Americans who happen to cross their paths.

A wall alone is not enough to keep America safe from the failed state south of our border.

At long last, it is time to call upon the American military to do the one thing it exists to do, yet has not been ordered to do in more than a century-and-a-half: defend the homeland from immediate danger.

SHOWDOWN: 374 Years of Legal Precedent vs. A Silly Poem on the Statue of Liberty

According to the media, the “Give me your tired. . .” poem on the Statue of Liberty is the be-all, end-all of American immigration policy, so authoritative and unquestionable it might as well be part of the Constitution (even though the media doesn’t much care for the Constitution).

That’s why Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of the Citizenship and Immigration Office, recently got himself into trouble with CNN’s Erin Burnett–for daring to question the holy dogma of THE POEM establishing America as the world’s homeless shelter:

“Erin Burnett was not going to let Ken Cuccinelli off the hook for his despicable rewrite of Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty. Instead, she pinned him to the wall and watched him squirm like a worm on a hook.

There was a back and forth where he ultimately accused her of “twisting this like everybody else on the left has done all day today.” That accusation simply prompted her to bring receipts.

“You’re saying — it’s important — you’re saying it’s important to stand on your own two feet,” she said. Cuccinelli agreed with that.

Burnett then informed him (again) that the poem did not say that, and again he deflected, first blaming the NPR reporter for bringing it up (how dare they?) and then Burnett.”


“She was having no part of his little dance, coming back to bring her receipts, after repeating how he had bastardized the poem to be one for ugly xenophobes instead of an inspiring invitation.

“However it came up, you said, ‘Give me your tired and poor who can stand on their own two feet, not become a public charge,” she reiterated.

Again, he agreed, unapologetically.

“The poem reads, ‘give me your tired your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’ Wretched refuse. That’s what the poem says America is supposed to stand for. So what do you think America stands for?” she asked.”

Replace the word “poem” with “Bible” and CNN’s Erin Burnett is no different from a religious zealot.

Cuccinelli’s response:

“Well, of course that poem referred back to people coming from Europe where they had class-based societies. Where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class. And it was introduced — it was written one year — one year after the first federal public charge rule was written that says — I’ll quote it — any person unable to take care of himself without becoming a public charge, unquote, would be inadmissible in the terms that my agency deals with, they can’t do what’s called adjusting status getting a green card becoming legal permanent residents. Same exact time, Erin, same exact time. And the year is went on the statue of liberty, 1903, another federal law was passed expanding the elements of public charge by Congress. This is a — this is a central part.”

Decent response by Cuccinelli, but he is under no obligation to try to interpret the poem in a way that bolsters his stance on immigration.

The poem is pro-open borders, period.

But that’s okay because we are not under any obligation to agree with it or live according to its message.

We don’t have to care what Emma Lazarus thinks about immigration.

Anytime we talk about immigration, open borders propagandists like Erin Burnett will screech “BUT THE POEM! THE POEM SAYS!”

But who cares? Not me.

The important thing Ken Cuccinelli brought up was the “Public Charge” law, enacted one year before Lazarus’ stupid poem was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, which denies immigration to Lazarus’ exalted “wretched refuse” of other countries–i.e. immigrants who can’t take care of themselves and who are a drain on taxpayers.

Cuccinelli, who is spearheading the Trump administration’s effort to, not even enact but merely resume enforcement of, the “public charge” laws already on the books, has real legal precedent on his side. Erin Burnett has a stupid poem on her’s.

In fact, Ken Cuccinelli and the Trump administration have 374 years of legal precedent on their side when it comes to public charge laws.

The first one was enacted in 1645 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony:

“The English colony of Massachusetts enacted the earliest American public charge laws in 1645. The arrival in the colonies of undesirables spurred other colonies to enact similar laws. “By the end of the seventeenth century American colonists were especially reluctant to extend a welcome to impoverished foreigners and the ‘Rogues and vagabonds’ that England had so graciously decided she could spare.” Many colonies protected themselves against public charges through such measures as mandatory reporting of ship passengers, immigrant screening and exclusion upon arrival of designated “undesirables,” and requiring bonds for potential public charges.

For example, a law enacted in colonial Massachusetts in 1700 kept out the infirm who had no security against becoming public charges. The law required ship captains to post bonds for “lame, impotent, or infirm” passengers who were “incapable of maintaining themselves.” The bond requirement sought to prevent the new arrival from becoming reliant on public relief. Without a bond from the captain, the vessel had to return the person to his home country.

New York adopted a law in 1691 that required an immigrant to have “a visible Estate” or “a manual occupation” or “give sufficient surety, that he shall not be a burden or charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit.” Delaware in 1740 sought to exclude potential public charges, including “any such infant, lunatick [sic], aged, maimed, impotent or vagrant person;” the colony thus enacted a law whose title was to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons [from] being Imported.” Following American independence, states either automatically continued to enforce colonial-era public charge laws or reaffirmed those laws.”

Since the very beginning of this country, we have sought to avoid being saddled with unproductive burdens via immigration.

We don’t want immigrants coming here to take advantage of our public services.

It is not our side who are the radicals attempting to go against the American tradition on immigration.

It is instead the open borders globalists of the past 20-30 years who have decided to reverse centuries of American immigration policy in order to flood the country with poor third-worlders.

We are under no obligation to care what their stupid poem says.

You Can Oppose Immigration and Still Not Be Racist

Just because I don’t want my country to be demographically transformed does not mean I’m a racist.

Being opposed to immigration is not some moral failing on my part. It’s not because I’m racist.

It’s because I like my country the way it is. I don’t want an endless flood of foreigners pouring into it every year indefinitely.

I’m perfectly fine with Mexicans and Guatemalans and Indians and Africans. I have no problem with them. I seek no quarrel with them. I don’t spend my time writing screeds and manifestos about how my race is superior to theirs and about how much I hate them. In fact I don’t think about them much at all–that is, until they start moving into my country in large numbers.

I have no problem with the vast majority of foreigners, but that doesn’t mean I want them moving into my country in droves. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Why do we act like those two things are mutually exclusive? What is so mind-boggling about someone who has no beef with foreigners but also doesn’t want to import hundreds of thousands of foreigners into their country per year?

The whole underlying idea and attitude around mass immigration today is that it’s a given, the norm, the natural state of things, and that if I oppose it then there’s something wrong with me.

No, there’s nothing wrong with me. Why can’t everyone just stay put? Why is it so bad to want that?

We are not obligated to support mass immigration. We can oppose it and still not be racists, because it’s our country and we have the right to determine our own immigration policy.

My reason for opposing mass immigration is not because I’m racist against foreigners. It’s because they’re coming into my country in large numbers and I don’t recall ever voting on it. I don’t recall any presidential election where a candidate was promising Open Borders and won because of it.

In fact the one election where immigration was a central issue throughout the campaign was 2016, and the guy who wanted to Build The Wall won. This means that in the one case where you could plausibly argue that Open Borders was on the ballot, it lost.

None of us asked for this. None of us voted for open borders and mass immigration.

And yet the elite still slanders us as Racists if we oppose a policy that was forced upon us without our consent.

If someone enters my home without my permission and I tell them to leave, it’s not because I’m racist against them. I just don’t want them in my home. It has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with the fact that it’s my home and they weren’t invited in. I never wanted them there in the first place. It’s my home; I’m allowed to deny people entry and guess what? I don’t have to give a good explanation for it–because it’s my home.

Strangers don’t have the right to enter your home.

Calling you a racist for opposing immigration is a diversion, a way to confuse you and turn the tables on you and avoid the fact that tons and tons of people are entering this country uninvited.

The media acts like the only reason anyone could ever oppose mass immigration is Because Racism.

How about: “I like my country the way it is, thank you.” How come that’s not an option?

No, you’re a racist if you don’t want to surrender your own country to foreigners.

By this globalist Open Borders logic, they should have no problem at all with the European colonization of the “New World” following Columbus’ discovery of it in 1492.

The Indians who were here had no right to object to the European colonizers because to do so would be Racist against the Europeans.


Someone should go to a prominent leftist celebrity’s house and open the door to allow a stream of strangers in, and then when the celebrity leftist objects, respond, “I don’t see what the problem is. You must be a racist if you don’t want all these random people in your home.”

The “Racism!” attack against people in favor of restricted immigration is a non-sequitur.

I don’t oppose immigration because I’m a racist, I oppose mass immigration because I oppose mass immigration.

Get it?

There is no moral obligation to support immigration. It doesn’t make you a good person to be for open borders, nor does it make you a bad person to be for closed borders. This is one of the biggest, most pervasive lies that has taken root in 21st Century Western Civilization: that being in favor of mass immigration is somehow a more virtuous stance than being against immigration.

What’s so wrong with me liking my country the way it is and not wanting it to be “enriched” with an endless stream of foreigners pouring in year after year, decade after decade?

At the very least I should at least be able to ask, “What’s in it for me? How will mass immigration benefit me?”

As Americans already living here, don’t we have the right to ask how opening our doors up to foreigners will benefit us?

No, apparently we do not. Apparently foreigners are entitled to move here. Apparently their desire to move to America supersedes our right to have borders and sovereignty.

“Well they’re just seeking a better life in America because they live in poor countries.”

So what? Just because they live in poor countries does not mean they’re entitled to moving to America. It doesn’t work that way. Just because we have something they want doesn’t mean we’re obligated to give it to them.

My neighbor has a pool, I don’t. Am I entitled to using his pool whenever I want just because I come from a place that doesn’t have one and I really want one?

Of course not.

I only get to use his pool if he lets me, if he invites me over. He has every right to kick me out if I climb over his fence and jump in the pool. I wasn’t invited. I have no right to use his pool just because I want to and I don’t have one.

And he’s not Raaaacist for not letting me use his pool because I’m not entitled to using his pool in the first place.

Just because I want a pool doesn’t mean I’m allowed to use my neighbor’s whenever I want.

It doesn’t work that way.

The same logic applies to immigration–at least it should apply to immigration.

But right now in this country, the choice is either be slandered as a racist or allow your country to be swamped with foreigners and eventually lost forever.

You’re either for open borders or a racist. That’s the rules the elites have made for us.

This is like if I go to a car dealership and say I want a German car, but the salesman tries to sell me a Korean car and then calls me a racist for not wanting the Korean car. “What, you don’t want the Kia? Are you racist against Koreans or something?”

No, I just wanted a German car. I have no problem with Koreans, or even Korean cars. I just want a Mercedes. “Well you’re not allowed to buy a Mercedes. You either buy the Kia or you’re a Raaaaacist!”

And how much immigration do I have to approve of to be Not Racist? What is the number, Uniparty elitists? I’d really like to know.

For instance, if someone is OK with 1,000,000 immigrants a year, does that make them Not A Racist? And if they’re only OK with 999,999, does that make them a racist?

Can you please explain what’s so special and sacred about the number 1,000,000?

Or is it simply Racist to want any sort of immigration cap at all?

Always ask them this question because it will reveal the truth–which is that they never actually pondered the question of how much immigration is enough immigration. The open borders radicals’ goal was never “cultural enrichment” or “greater diversity”–it is and always has been complete demographic transformation.

And then in the unlikely event that they actually do give you a precise number for immigrants, you can ask them to explain why exactly accepting a lower number of immigrants is racist.

Inevitably they’ll come to the point where they accuse you of just wanting to preserve the white majority in America.

But what’s so wrong with that?

Again: I’m a racist for liking my country the way it is and has historically been?

Millions of poor people from the third world can want to live in a white country but I’m not allowed to want to?

Ask the Globalists why they don’t want America to have a white majority. This one’s a trick question: because they’re racist against whites people!

You can’t say it’s racist to oppose the demographic dispossession of your own race. That is literally genocidal.

One side wants to continue and accelerate the demographic transformation of America, the other side simply wants to halt it.

And you’re telling me the side engineering a full-scale racial and ethnic cleansing via mass immigration is the side that isn’t racist?

For the record: the person who wants to maintain the demographic makeup of his country isn’t a racist, nor is he under any obligation to explain why. You don’t owe globalists any explanation for why you want America to remain a white country.

I’m not a racist. I just happen to like my country the way it is, and the way it has been since it was founded centuries ago.

We never voted on the globalist elite’s grand scheme to totally demographically transform America, and yet somehow we’re Racists if we object to it?

If you don’t want to demographically transform America, that makes you a racist.

Yet no one ever explains why the people who want to demographically transform America–by replacing its white historical majority with a nonwhite one–aren’t racists.


If I was in favor of endless mass foreign immigration to Japan so that one day its Japanese ethnic majority would be replaced, how doesn’t that make me a racist?

I’d love to hear that explained.

If I say Japan should have fewer Japanese people, please explain to me how it doesn’t logically follow that I’m a racist?

I’ll wait.

If you want to upend the demographics of a nation–any nation: Iran, Russia, Germany, Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, America, Congo, France–you are far, far more of a racist than I am.

I’m the one in the wrong if I say, “Iran needs more Africans.” The Iranian people don’t then have to prove they’re Not Racists by submitting to my wishes that Iran get an influx of African immigrants.

When you worry about disproving the charge of racism, you’ve already implicitly conceded the question of “Do we need more immigrants in the first place?” You’ve already accepted the premise that the only reason anyone can oppose open borders is because they’re racist.

Don’t even play the game. Reject the false choice entirely.

With their constant bombardment of racism accusations, the Elite has bullied us into submitting to their open borders immigration agenda. Wouldn’t want to speak out against it and open yourself up to charges of Racism, now would you? So we sit passively by and allow them to flood our countries with foreigners out of fear that if we object we’ll be called racists.

Elite: “Are you racists?”

Well-meaning citizens: “No, of course not.”

Elite: “Splendid! We’re going to let in 80,000 third-world immigrants a month, then.”

That’s how the elite jammed its Open Borders agenda down our throats: If you people aren’t racists, then certainly you’ll have no problem with a million Central Americans a year immigrating to this country.

No more. We don’t have to play that stupid game. We Westerners have the right to oppose the transformation of our countries.

We have the right to like our countries the way they are and not want to be “enriched” with greater and greater levels of “diversity.”

By the way, if diversity is such an obvious and self-evident good, and if immigration “enriches” us so much, then they do the elites have to force it on us undemocratically?

Also, is there ever a saturation point for cultural enrichment? Is there ever a point of diminishing returns?

I can see the plausible case for calling it “cultural enrichment” when a formerly homogeneous population accepts like a ~2% foreign minority.

But what about when continued immigration over a long period of time makes that ~2% minority into 10? And then when it becomes 20%?

Is that enough cultural enrichment? Aren’t we sufficiently enriched?

No, not according to our elites.

According to our elites, we can never hit the point of diminishing enrichment no matter how many foreigners we take in.

I have no problem with foreigners. I simply don’t want them moving into my country in mass numbers. People need to de-program their minds after years and years of Uniparty globalist propaganda and psychological abuse and understand: opposing mass immigration does not make you a racist.

I don’t have a problem with foreigners. I just don’t want millions of them moving into my country every year.

If I want to be surrounded by foreigners, I’ll go to a foreign country.


Header photo credit: PragerU

When Will Republicans Wake Up and Realize that Demographics Are Destiny?

Lee Kwan Yew, founder of Singapore:

In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

He couldn’t be more right.

This explains why inner cities consistently vote over 90% Democrat even though the Democrats have done nothing to improve the inner cities over six decades.

When I was younger, I used to think it was all about ideology. I was obsessed with conservative ideology and comparing socialism vs capitalism and stuff like that. I thought that was what drives people’s voting decisions.

And so I could never wrap my head around this idea that someday Texas is going to start voting Democrat.

What? Are you crazy? Texans are the most conservative people around. They’re not just going to change their whole worldview and become liberals? Never!

No, Texans as we picture them are not going to become liberals. It’s not going to be an ideological shift within an existing, static population.

What’s going to happen is that Texans as we traditionally know them are going to become the demographic minority in the state. The combination of mass foreign immigration and liberal white transplants from other states (like California) is outnumbering Texas’ traditional white conservative majority. No longer is the state full of Hank Hills. The Hank Hills are in the process of being outnumbered. That is why Texas will probably turn blue in the next 4-8 years.

Hank Hill is not becoming a liberal over time. That’s ridiculous.

What will happen is that the state’s demographics will change.

And so this leads me to the Republican Party nationally, which still insists that it’s not against all immigration, only illegal immigration. In fact the GOP loves legal immigrants and tells you every chance it gets–even Trump:

“We want to allow millions of people to come in [legally] because we need them. We have companies pouring in from Japan, all over Europe, all over the world, they’re opening up companies here, they need people to work.”

Trump, just like the Chamber of Commerce and the big businesses that have traditionally controlled the GOP, wants “millions” of cheap foreign workers pouring into this country.

But does he realize that it’s legal immigration that will be the end of the Republican party one day soon if not massively reduced?

I’ve never seen a political movement actively campaign for its own demise, and pursue policies that will ensure its extinction in the near future. This is what Republicans are doing in celebrating legal immigration: ensuring their own doom.

It’s not illegal immigrants that have tipped so many states toward Democrats. Although many illegals do in fact vote, and Democrats today want to make it so all the illegals in this country (some 30 million of them, not the 11 million lie that has been repeated since the mid-2000s as if not a single illegal has entered this country since then) can vote, the real issue for Republicans is the legal immigrants who are already voting for Democrats in large numbers:

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 9.34.49 PM.png

There is a fair amount of ideological diversity among white voters. This is a remnant of pre-Diversity America when elections really were about issues rather than race. This is why you see the white vote split like 60-40 these days.

But there isn’t ideological diversity among nonwhite groups. They all vote heavily Democrat because they believe it’s in their racial interest to do so. They would feel like race traitors voting Republican because they see it as the White Man’s Party. In 2016 Trump carried the white vote 57-37 over Hillary. But Hillary carried the non-white vote by a margin of 74-21.

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 9.37.17 PM.png

Minorities vote Democrat almost monolithically. It’s not really about the issues, it’s about racial identity. This is the payoff for Democrats’ identity politics obsession, i.e. tying voting behavior to race.

Do you remember in 2016 seeing those signs “Latinos for Hillary”?


We’ve grown used to seeing this type of thing but have you ever stopped and thought about what “Latinos for Hillary” truly means? It is a frank admission that race drives voting decisions. “Latinos for Hillary” completely ignores the fact that there are male Latinos, female Latinos, young Latinos, middle-aged Latinos, old Latinos, rich Latinos, poor Latinos, middle class Latinos, etc. This is a total refutation of the idea that people vote primarily based on their economic interests. Otherwise, we’d see middle-class Latinos (and middle-class blacks and Asians) voting the same way as middle-class whites. “Latinos for Hillary” is the acknowledgment that race transcends everything and that voting for Hillary will benefit all Latinos no matter their gender, age and income status.

The only people who don’t see this are white conservatives. Well, some see it, but for whatever reason they ignore it or pretend they can change it.

Someone focused on ideology alone will never be able to understand American politics in the coming years. They will wonder why Texas, Georgia, Arizona and other states are flipping blue despite being ideologically conservative for decades. “Why are people in those states suddenly becoming liberals??? It does not make any sense!!” They’ll wonder.

But just because you’re ideological doesn’t mean other people are. Just because you don’t vote based on race doesn’t mean other people don’t.

People need to start realizing what’s going on and why.

Can You Guess the Mystery Country Where 6 in 10 say “Migrants Are a Burden”?

Is it the US, with its Evil Nazi Dictator in the White House and its Institutionalized Racism™?


Is it the evil white colonialists of Britain?


Give up?

The answer is. . .


“More than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans. A 55 percent majority supports deporting migrants who travel through Mexico to reach the United States.

Those findings defy the perception that Mexico—a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances—is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”

Who knew Mexicans were so Racist™?


“What should Mexico do with the Central American migrants who cross our country trying to reach the United States?   Offer them residence in Mexico, give them temporary asylum while the United States decides if they will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?

The answers: Offer them residence in Mexico 7%, Give them temporary asylum 33%, Deport them to their countries of origin 55%.

So a majority wants to deport them, 33% only want temporary asylum, with only 7% favoring permanent residence.”

Apparently, Mexicans are getting a sick of all the Central Americans coming up through their country in massive caravans trying to get into the US.

REMINDER: Dems Tried to Get Former White House Aide and Immigrant Sebastian Gorka Deported

It is so incredibly racist and bigoted and un-American to question an immigrant’s allegiance to this country. Immigrants are every bit as American–perhaps more–than you and I. Questioning an immigrant’s patriotism is beyond the pale. It must never be done. It is xenophobic and wrong.

Unless the immigrant is a Republican.

March 16, 2017 – The Hill: “Dem rep asks White House for Sebastian Gorka’s immigration papers,”

“Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is asking the White House to hand President Trump aide Sebastian Gorka’s immigration paperwork over to the House Judiciary Committee.

In a letter addressed to Trump, Nadler cites a report in The Forward, an American Jewish news outlet, linking Gorka to a far-right group in Hungary, saying that the judiciary panel needs to “be assured that he did not enter this country under false pretenses.”

“If Sebastian Gorka is indeed a member of this organization, as high-ranking leaders of the organization claim he is, he would have been required to disclose this information on his immigration application, and on his application to be a naturalized U.S. citizen,” the letter reads.

“Failing to do so, he may have been withholding important material facts about his background from the United States, in violation of the law.

Gorka, a top counterterrorism adviser to Trump, was born in the United Kingdom in 1970 to Hungarian parents. He became a U.S. citizen in 2012. He fervently denied the allegations in The Forward’s story on Thursday.”

Where was the shrieking and gnashing of teeth when Democrat Jerry Nadler tried to Send Gorka Back? Where were the howls of RACISM and Xenophobia? Why was the media not irate that a politician would dare question the patriotism and allegiance of one of our treasured Immigrants, who are are all so pure and wonderful and bless us with their mere presence?

Because Gorka’s a Trump supporter. And he’s white.

The media–and their Conservative, Inc. lapdogs–only get upset when anyone questions the patriotism of America-hating, leftwing Somali Muslim immigrants like Ilhan Omar.

“Send Her Back”

This gives me hope for the future. Despite the bombardment of politically correct multiculturalist propaganda, Americans still aren’t afraid to stand up for their country against invaders and subversives:

It gives me hope to see that not all Americans have been bullied into accepting the lie that we have to welcome and accept foreigners who don’t even try to hide the fact that they hate us.

This is a woman who has referred to 9/11 as “some people did something.”

Ilhan Omar has said that America is “not going to be the country of white people,” and we’re supposed to sit here and act like that’s not blatant racism and support for white genocide.

How come it’s racist to say America, a country that was consistently 87% white/13% black for two centuries, is a white country? It’s just a fact. But Ilhan Omar wants to change that fact. It doesn’t make you a bad person if you disagree strongly.

We are under no obligation to accept “refugees” who come here and want to implement a demographic replacement of the historical majority of the country.

If I went to her native Ethiopia and, after some time living there, I ran for political office and won and upon taking office I confidently pronounced that “this is not going to be the country of black people,” people would be rightfully pissed. They let me in, and I repay them by basically telling them it’s my country now, not theirs.

The fact that we didn’t send Ilhan Omar packing the moment she said that is extraordinary and shows just how conditioned Americans are to accepting foreigners who obviously hate this country and everything it represents.

But as last night’s Trump rally showed, not all of us believe the lies.

Outside of the fact that she went through a citizenship ceremony, where is the evidence that Ilhan Omar is an American? It should be obvious from her words and actions, but it’s not. In fact her words and actions indicate someone who hates America.

But she went through a citizenship ceremony so according to the Politically Correct cowards she’s Just As American As Anyone Else!

She is the first invader member of Congress and thankfully there’s still some people who see straight through it. They don’t buy this bullshit that says stepping on to America’s Magic Soil automatically makes anyone as American as Elvis Presley.

“Send her back” is the visceral reaction of patriotic Americans who instinctively recognize a traitor in their midst.

Oh shut up. Quit playing dumb.

You know exactly what this is: Ilhan Omar is not only unAmerican, she’s anti-American. This is way more than simply “saying something President Trump doesn’t like.” This goes way beyond mere disagreement.

This woman committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother in order to gain citizenship, then used that wrongfully-gotten citizenship to run for Congress, where she was able to win because her district is full of Somali Muslims just like her who simply voted for her in ethnic solidarity, and now she uses her ill-gotten political power to subvert and destroy America from within. And she has the tacit approval of leftist elites who hate America as much as she does, as well as cowed “conservative” media who through years of shaming and psychological abuse by the media and Democratic Politicians, have genuinely come to be as pro-immigrant as the Democrats despite not benefitting from it like the Democrats do.

This woman–who hates white people, flippantly dismisses 9-11, and committed immigration fraud to gain her citizenship here–does not belong in America.

I’m glad there’s still some Americans out there who aren’t afraid to say so.

Notorious Xenophobic Racist Barack Obama: Just Because You Come From a Poor, Crime-Riddled Country Doesn’t Mean You’re Entitled to Asylum in the U.S.

Obama in 2014:

“Typically, refugee status is not granted just because of economic need, or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood, or poverty.”

Today’s Democratic Party, led by Ocasio-Cortez and her radical, open borders pals, are basically claiming that anyone who wants to immigrate to America is a refugee and must be allowed in.

Kinda crazy to think that just five years ago the Democrats were in favor of some form of restriction on immigration.

These nutcases today make Obama look like a right-winger.

Who Really Governs This Country?

You may have read recently about President Trump’s welcome decision to change legal asylum rules:

This is an obviously good idea that makes perfect logical sense. If someone is leaving their home country and seeking asylum somewhere else, there is no reason for them to pass through multiple countries before settling down again.

There is no reason someone from El Salvador or Honduras needs to come through Mexico to America and only America in search of asylum.

Unless the claim of “asylum” is just an excuse to be allowed into the United States.

If it’s really about asylum, then any country other than their home country will suffice. Mexico, for instance, should suffice for someone seeking asylum from Guatemala or Honduras.

Logically, people forfeit their claims to be seeking asylum when they pass through one or more countries en route to their end destination of America.

If you go through one or more other countries to come here, you clearly aren’t just seeking to escape your home country. If that was the case you would have stopped seeking asylum the moment you got out of your home country.

But obviously we’re not stupid; we realize that these “asylum” claims are mostly BS excuses to get into America and get healthcare and welfare. So now Trump has removed part of that incentive for people from any country that does not border the U.S., which is to say every country in the world but two.

I say “part” of the incentive because we still give healthcare and welfare benefits to illegals, and prospective illegal immigrants in other countries know this and still want to come to America because of it. Until we stop giving handouts to illegals, they will never stop wanting to come here.

Now, while Trump’s decision is a good one that should in theory discourage and ultimately greatly reduce false asylum claims at the border, there are a couple problems that still remain.

First, people will still keep trying to come across the border illegally. They want to get into America to enjoy our generous welfare system by any means possible.

Second, they should know that while Trump is against illegal immigration and wants to crack down on it, the rest of the American political class is not. Phony asylum seekers should know by now that Democrats will let them in and give them free healthcare and government benefits. Prospective migrants from poor countries have lots of friends in high places here in the US, and that just because Trump issued this rule does not mean it will stand.

We all know this rule is going to be immediately challenged by liberal open borders groups, brought before liberal open borders judges, and struck down as “Unconstitutional” because everyone knows the Founding Fathers were liberal open borders progressives who envisioned a day when America would be overrun by poor third-worlders. After all, we have to base our entire immigration system on the poem on the Statue of Liberty because it’s basically a part of the Constitution.

Thus far in his Presidency, the federal courts have, just to give a sampling:

  • Frozen Pentagon money Trump directed to be used on the border wall.
  • On seven different occasions ruled that the administration cannot deny funding to Sanctuary Cities, because everyone knows the Founding Fathers instituted the concept of Federalism so deep-blue urban areas could openly flout national immigration laws.
  • Ruled that Trump is not allowed to block his critics on Twitter. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has blocked plenty of people on Twitter but as of now, no federal court has ruled that she can’t.
  • Overturned the Trump White House’s decision to revoke CNN Propagandist Jim Acosta’s White House press pass, which he routinely abuses in order to narcissistically grandstand, spout off Democratic Party talking points and build a celebrity profile for himself instead of reporting the news.
  • Barred the administration from asking the citizenship question on the 2020 Census in order to ensure Democratic states rife with illegals are able to continue inflating their populations in order to get more Electoral Votes and more seats in the House of Representatives.

And that’s not nearly everything. But it just gives you an idea of how corrupt the federal court system is, and how dead-set it is on making sure nothing ever gets in the way of this country being endlessly flooded by poor third-worlders.

All in all, federal courts have ruled against the administration 70 times in two and a half years, according to the Bezos Post, which proudly trumpets this number as if it reflects poorly on Trump rather than the courts themselves:

It’s not because, as Bezos Post wants you to believe, Trump is trampling on the Constitution left and right. It’s because the corrupt courts have taken for themselves both legislative and executive powers.

Virtually none of this is on the up-and-up.

How can you tell? Because, conveniently, it just so happens that any and all opposition to liberal policies is Unconstitutional. Imagine that. According to federal judges, the Founding Fathers didn’t want a border, saw no distinction between American citizens and illegals, supported the idea of Sanctuary Cities, and hated the idea of honest, legitimate journalism. And everyone knows the Founding Fathers wanted trannies in the military.

Wow, how fortunate for the left that the Racist, Sexist, Slave-owning Founding Fathers also happened to agree with the Democratic Party of 2019 on literally everything.

The Impartial and Unbiased courts whom no one must ever question or criticize said so!

This how our country is run now. Uniparty judges appointed by Obama, Bush and Clinton are the real government. They alone decide which policies stand and which are struck down.

And there’s nothing you can do about it because they’re appointed for life. The President you voted for has been overruled by judges you didn’t vote for, and that’s how this country works now.

You are not allowed to vote against open borders. That’s one government policy the American people don’t get a say in.

Immigration restrictions are no longer on the menu.

How ’bout a nice, fat helping of open borders instead?

Trump to Ungrateful Invader Congresswomen: If You Hate America so Much, then “Go Back” to Where You Came From

I approve of these tweets:

The media and the Establishment Republicans will lose their minds over this, but the fact is most regular Americans agree: if you don’t love America, then leave.

Ilhan Omar and the rest denounce America as evil and racist on an almost daily basis, so why don’t they leave?

Why would they stay in a country they obviously hate?

Because they’re only here for the economic benefits. It’s safer and way more advanced than their home countries (for Omar its Somalia) and America has a generous welfare state. That’s all America means to them.

They come here to extract financial benefits from our welfare system while retaining a strong sense of national pride and identity with their original countries.

Immigrants who come here only to benefit from the American system and not to leave their old countries behind and become Americans are destroying this country.

This is what separates post-1965 immigrants from turn of the century immigrants: the Europeans who came here a hundred years ago were not seeking a generous welfare state to leech off of. They were leaving their old countries behind and integrating into American culture.

The fact that in the late 19th/early 20th century there was no expansive and easily-bilked welfare state for turn of the century immigrants to benefit from in America is all the proof you need that they came here for far nobler reasons than people like Ilhan Omar.

No matter how much the media shrieks “Racism” about Trump’s tweets, it doesn’t make him wrong. He’s dead-right about these ungrateful freeloaders.