I use Falwell’s name generically. I have a lot more respect for him than I do for the other right-wing Jehovists.

The other day, Falwell was insisting that “no one is born a criminal. No one is born a homosexual.”

Why? Because of Jehovist Dumb Science. Since crime and homosexuality are sins, so every man has an equal choice about being a criminal or a homosexual.

Liberals love the general idea that there is no such thing as heredity, though the gay libbers like the idea that homosexuality is inherited.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, identical twins raised in totally different environments from birth not only tend to commit crimes, they tend to commit the SAME crimes at the SAME age! But Dumb Science Jehovists stand shoulder to shoulder with liberals to suppress any mention of that fact.

Different people are born with a greater tendency to homosexuality than others. In the Victorian society Jehovists worship, Britain’s boys’ school were routinely hotbeds of homosexuality, with almost every Senior having some young lowerclassman in his bed every night.

There is a tendency and there are ways to discourage that tendency. Falwell denies there is tendency, but he has no idea how much Jehovists, with their crazy attitudes on sex, push homosexuality.

Speaking of suppression, the Jehovists and the left are united in favor of censorship. Conservatives say they want to suppress pornography on the Internet “to protect the children.”

Everything conservatives want to do is supposed to “protect the children.” If you are able to treat the public like children, you can forget freedom.

Leftists want to censor anything they call Hate Speech on the Internet.

Everything liberals want to do is supports to “suppress Hate.” If you can tell everybody that you will allow them to do only what leftists call a “preference” and they can keep you from doing anything they call a “prejudice,” you can forget freedom.

In congress, Jehovists and leftists form a solid bloc in favor of censorship.

And they are getting together in other ways. The weird logic of the left that is evil to execute someone but it is OK to lock them in a cage for life goes right along with the idea that a fertilized cell is morally exactly the same as a newborn baby.

They’re both nuts, and this is the only time in history, and it won’t last long, when people take that nonsense seriously. But right now the anti-death penalty and general “criminals are victims” leftists and pro-lifers is growing.

The problem with abolishing the death penalty is the logic behind it. Once you agree the state has no right to execute, you are on your way to saying the state has no right to punish. But Jehovists couldn’t care less about the future. Right now they are getting patted on the head by liberals.

More and more the only difference between Jehovist conservatives and leftists is how you treat Jehovah. Prayers in schools, Merry Christmas, the Ten Commandments, stuff like that.

And everyday, more and more people, including actual Christians, are realizing that both these groups are actually insane.

I formally resign from being a “conservative.”

Today’s conservative is a Jehovist who is trying desperately to crawl back into his mother’s womb.

I only use the word “conservative” about myself because I am one of the many types of people who opposes America’s Established Religion of Political Correctness, which called itself liberalism until that became so obviously ridiculous they changed it to “progressive.”

Conservatives today are dedicated to Jehovist Dumb Science. They demand that the world be regarded as being created in six days. They violate the Constitution by saying that life is not from birth to death, but from a one-cell conception, something the Pope insists on, just as he insists that it is a sin for a married couple to have sex for any reason except conceiving a baby.

Conservatives are dedicated to the liberal program up to the year 1968. They say they are more dedicated to liberalism than liberals are. Their political Bible is the Democratic platform of 1964, and all they ever do is accuse liberals of heresy.

I despise conservatives.

I mentioned before that if democracy means voting, there have never been more truly democratic countries on earth than those ruled by Communist regimes. They held THOUSANDS of regular elections. In every single one of those elections the voter turnout was over 99!

In fact, if voter turnout makes a democracy, North Korea is the most democratic country that ever existed. North Korea is the only country that EVER had a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT turnout in a national election.

Did the Communists hold REAL elections?

Absolutely. An election gives the voter two sides, BOTH sides, to choose from. The voter was given a ballot with a list of candidates put forward by the Communist Party. You could: 1) not mark the ballot and drop it into the ballot box; or 2) mark out any names you didn’t like.

If a candidate didn’t get fifty percent of the vote, the Party had to come up with a new nominee.

That never happened. But you had TWO choices. You could choose between “both sides.”

And, it was a secret ballot. You could take the list behind a curtain and mark off any names you didn’t approve of.

Going behind this curtain presented a minor problem. You were in a room where Communist Party members were sitting. If you wanted to approve the entire Communist Party ticket you simply took the ballot of dropped it into the ballot box. Almost everybody did not go behind the curtain and loyally dropped the list straight into the box.

If you took the ballot behind the curtain to mark some names off, several Party members saw you do it.

Oddly enough, not only did over 99% of voters turn out, but over 99% of them voted a straight Communist ticket.

But “both sides” were represented.

In America we have free speech because “both sides” are represented. Both leftism and respectable conservatism are supposed to be given equal time. But what if you aren’t a leftist, a respectable conservative, or somewhere in between?

If you are not one of the “both” sides, then you go behind that curtain.

And people see you do it.

A baseball pro named Whitaker (with one “t” just like mine) is almost certainly a good liberal Democrat. Why? Because he’s black.

Not everybody named Whitaker is white. Everybody knows that. Any pollster who did a poll to find out how Whitakers voted without breaking them down by race would be considered an idiot.

Any pollster who bunched all the Anglo-Saxon names together in a poll without making any racial distinction would be considered an idiot.

Now let’s look at the vote everybody calls Hispanic. People keep saying there are “cultural differences” between Hispanics. A Garcia from Honduras has a different “culture” than a Hispanic from Mexico.

Actually, that makes little political difference. A colored man from Mexico votes liberal Democratic, just as a colored man from Guatamala does.

What is needed is a poll of “Hispanics” based on the color of the skin.

“Culture” makes little difference in politics. Race makes ALL the difference in politics. The earlier, whiter Cubans who came to America are solid Republican. The darker ones (the ones who came later) have, to use the standard euphemism, “returned to more traditional Hispanic voting patterns.”

Translation: They’re colored, so they’re anti-white.

Simplisitic? This simple statement is a lot less “simplistic” than assuming that everybody named Garcia falls into the same group.

Actually, what Pat Caddell (former top Jimmy Carter adviser) complained about was that the Hispanics “voted for what the rich people wanted” on the embryonic stem cell referendum in California.

Caddell is no pro-lifer, but he is anti-science. I mentioned the 1969 Mule Train betow, when the entire civil rights leadership showed up at the beginning of the Moon Launch in 1969 to protest the fact that the money for going to the moon didn’t go to welfare programs.

Liberals want every crisis to be an excuse for bureaucrats to take more power. Their answer to the gasoline shortage is for the government to decide who gets gasoline and to impose more regulations on cars, heat and everything else.

Technology ruins many great crises that could lead to a government crackdown. Science and the free market both deal with problems liberals want bureaucrats to deal with.

Opponents of the moon program were united with many conservatives. They all opposed “shooting money out into space.” One reader objected to my praise of the moon launch here and said we might as well have spent the money on Tang research.

It just shows how conservatives can be REALLY stupid. Every person with a pacemaker owes his life to the moon launch, not to Tang research. Silicon Valley was a product of the moon launch. This computer, this computer, is a product of the moon launch.

The list is endless.

So the nut right and the nut left are in cahoots again. Caddell wants all that research money spent on bureaucrats and the little bit of welfare money that those bureaucrats let filter down to the barrios.

Those who consider the lives of two fertilized eggs to be more important than a child are with Caddell.

Actually, you could save DOZENS of fertilized eggs for the money a desperately ill child uses up in the emergency room. All those tens of thousands of dollars we waste saving a child could be used to get in there and prevent poor women from miscarrying.

The problem is that nobody thinks that logic is actually sane.

Politics is getting nastier because whites are getting the dim realization that what is now at stake is more than their looking sweet.

Lefist politics were always nasty. But politics only “got nasty” when people started getting nasty back.

Leftists were allowed to pull every dirty trick in the book and to say anything they wanted to about anybody. On the other side, moderates kept the conservatives in line.

Leftists could declare that every child in America was starving, and moderates would tell them what idealists they were and suggest softly that maybe only half the country’s children were starving.

But those sugar-sweet moderates were vicious when they fought conservatives. At every Republican convention conservatives were savaged and excluded.

In 1988, when Bush Senior took over, he had Reagan and one or two others speaking to the convention one night, and then his chief of staff said, “Thank God we got the conservatives out of the way!”

In 1989, one Bush operative bragged, “I was the first to clean all the Reaganites out of my department!”

As always, the conservatives mostly just grovelled at Bush’s feet.

It was even worse before Reagan. Conservatives at conventions were treated like dogs. A friend of mine put it perfectly:

“Every four years conservative Republicans get kicked in the teeth and come up smiling.”

Respectable conservatives now grovel at the fet of neoconservatives. But you have to give the neos this, they are not like moderates. When they fight on an issue they care about, like the fate of Israel, they go for the throat.

The media loved the moderates. The media hates the neos.

The media thought politics was very gentlemanly when only the Abbie Hoffmans and Ted Kennedys got to do the shouting and insulting and pull the dirty tricks.

The reason we hear that politics is getting nasty is because today the liberals are getting kicked, too.

Gay marriage and all the other liberal initiatives got tromped around the country.

Only one so-called “progressive” initiative passed overwhelmingly in California. Embryonic stem cell research.

California is not typical. But this was lopsided. This was out of sight. Governor Schwarzenegger backed it big time because he had to, though I have no doubt he is for it.

When embryonic stem cell research is brought up, people are told to believe that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a someone’s child. If you asked most of those people, “Does life begin at conception?” they would say “Yes.”

If all men are truly created equal then that fertilized egg you can see only under a microscope is exactly the same as a child you see playing in the grass. If you had a choice between letting a child die or letting two ferilized ova be destroyed, you would save the fetuses.

Nobody believes that. Well, almost nobody. But anybody who REALLY believes that is regarded by others as a nut. It’s a fine theory but it doesn’t really mean a thing.

It’s like evolution. A lot of people see evolution has holes in it. If you say the earth and all the life on it came into being at once, everybody will say how much they respect your point of view.

They don’t.

They’re humoring you.

No one who would actually save two fertilized eggs over a child will ever be elected to national office. Bush says he takes that proposition seriously, but everybody knows he doesn’t.

Anti-evolutionists and pro-lifers will have to define themselves out of the nutcase category and distance themselves from the crazies before they can win any serious political battle.

When someone with a writer’s ego like mine considers the comments as interesting as his own article, you know the end of the world is coming.

Well, get ready for Judgement Day!

There are so far twelve comments on my article below, “On the Election, Published in Stormfront” and they are the sort of responses I live for.

One big point Bush made at his press conference was that he had gained political capital and he planned to spend it.

If you wonder why he led with that point, you have to go back to the first Iraq War. When America won that war, his father’s popularity broke 90%.

As a moderate, Bush Senior tried to keep everybody happy. He didn’t use all that political capital to pursue any “divisive” issues. As a moderate, all he wanted was to get reelected.

I could tolerate moderates if their strategy of “going for the center” ever WORKED. But their strategy of selling out principles for votes is not just immoral. As a political professional I am not exactly a pillar of morality.

What really upsets me about moderates is that they are not just immoral, they are STUPID.

So when his popularity hit 91%, Bush Senior didn’t use that political capital to pursue ANYTHING. His popularity dribbled away. Buchanan took him on in the primary.

Reagan had gone hard right in 1980 and won a smashing victory. Reagan did the same thing in 1984. Bush ran as Reagan’s successor in 1988 and won on Reagan’s coattails.

But Bush Senior could have lost in 1988 if he had not had the hard right campaign of Lee Atwater.

By 1992, Bush was one more moderate Republican. He lost.

In 1994, Gingrich led the Republicans to the right with his Contract With America. They smashed the Democrats.

Again.

All the theories say that you have to be in the middle of the road to win. But if you look at congresssional voting records, you will find that simply is not true. Those who get elected are on the left or the right.

Moderate Republicans lost. Bush Senior lost.

So Bush Junior is saying he just won an election and the first thing he says is that he is going to USE it.

No one else remembers any of this, so The Man With a Memory will bring it up here.

Meanwhile Bush Junior is dribbling back to the center. He doesn’t matter to me at all, but I have to give it to him personally that at least he’s TRYING to learn something from his father’s mistakes.

Bush’s big victory here was a matter of a couple of percentage points.

Europeans forget the fact that Americans are human, too.

If France heard that Americans were insulting a candidate and demanding that he not be reelected, that man would be be reelected by a landslide. Europeans kept insulting Bush and saying that Americans had better not relect him.

We are not as silly as Europeans. In Europe that sort of demand by Americans that they vote against a sitting head of state would have given him a landslide.

In America, it just gave him a couple of percent.

We don’t take Europeans as seriously as Europe takes us.

But that two percent was all that Bush needed. That two percent told Europe to go to hell.

As always, what matters in politics is being ignored. That’s why they paid me the big bucks.

Part of professional politics is realizing that a black or brown skin means a Democratic vote. You aren’t allowed to say that, but the Democratic Party spends many millions each year to get out the minority vote.

They put their money where the bigot’s mouth is: a dark skin is a Democrat.

Back in the 1980s, all the media were talking abut “the gender gap.” This meant that Republicans were not getting the women’s vote.

But people like me, people who got paid for this kind of thing, were noticing one tiny little fact that meant nothing to the media but meant everything to those of us who did this for a living: Republicans were WINNING.

Silly little point, isn’t it?

In defense of those of us who did this for a living, let me say that winning elections was what we were all about. So while the media were fascinated by Republican sexual oppression and the Democratic capture of women and minorities, we had a forgivable obsession with the fact that Republicans were winning real elections.

I know it sounds simplistic, but remember we were not paid to be fashionable. Our job was to win elections.

When you said “the gender gap” back then, you meant the women’s vote. But professionals like me considered men’s votes important, too.

We had this silly idea that there are TWO genders. So it seemed logical that if the Democrats were getting the women’s vote and losing, the Republicans must be getting the men’s vote and winning.

Silly little point, isn’t it?

My silly little mind would say that since the Republicans were losing a lot of the women’s vote and still winning, and since there are only two genders out there, the Democrats had an even bigger gender gap on the male side.

A political science professor announced to the graduate class I was in — I went back to school briefly in 1992 — that a male gender gap is not a gender gap. Only a female gender gap is a gender gap.

If this sounds stupid to you, remember the fact that nobody but me has noticed the growing RACE gap today.

Brown skins are increasing at a breathless pace. But Republicans have the Presidency and a majority of both Houses of Congress.

Back when whites were a solid and overwhelming majority of the population, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

As brown skins increase, the Democrats are piling up automatic votes. Everybody notices that.

But somebody like me notices that there are TWO groups involved here. There are not just minorities, there are also whites.

All I read on Stormfront is pointing frantically at the growing minority vote. Nobody ever seems to notice what is happening to the white vote.

While everybody else is busy panicking, I quietly note that the white vote is moving steadily to the right. This steady movement is under way, and it shows no sign of retreating.

Whites are ceasing to feel guilty about being on the other side from the minorities.

Whites are getting really angry. They are beginning to see that there is more at stake here than polite disagreement.

Well, DUHH, you say. But if you have been watching this for fifty years, this is a breakthrough.

I thought that whites would never even BEGIN to catch on. But their opinions are finally moving.

So can’t we all cry and wail over the increasing non-white population?

I was raised where whites were a minority, but they were hard right.

We ruled.

No multiracial society is ever a democracy. So when we move right, and if we are hard right, we will become the ruling group.

Sorry if that doesn’t sound depressing enough.

OK, you can now go back to panicking. I just thought I might mention this.

I mentioned that there were six million Jews in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. The total population of the Roman Empire was about sixty million. If one just THINKS about that statistic, it totally changes the whole picture of history the preachers give us.

No one has made it more clear that he dislikes President Bush than I have. But here is another statistic I know that no one but me mentions:

When Bush became a pilot, the death rate for people in pilot training was HIGHER than the death rate for those in uniform in Vietnam. Pilot training was EXTREMELY dangerous then.

I dislike Bush, but I dislike professional veterans like Kerry, and the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation even more.

When the polls had Kerry ahead right after the Democratic Convention, I told you in WhitakerOnline that I didn’t think Kerry stood a chance of beating Bush. My reason is simply that I know too much about inside politics to think that Clinton will let him win.

I am usually right about politics, or I couldn’t have made a living at it.

I don’t see any important difference between Kerry and Bush, so I tend to prefer Bush because he has the right enemies.

But in the debates one issue comes up that is critically important to me: stem-cell research. I cannot vote for anyone who opposes EMBRYONIC stem-cell research because it puts an abstract theological concept up against human beings.

I like Pat Buchanan personally. I like his belated defense of the survival of the white race. But in his best-selling book on that subject, he lamely concluded that the way the white race might survive is by getting religion.

Pat retains his respectability because, when any issue gets hot, he can be relied on to retreat into being an irrelevant nutcase theologue.

My wild-eyed support of Buchanan collapsed in the election when he announced that he didn’t believe in evolution because he didn’t want to be descended from a monkey.

There are lots of reasons to question evolution, but no grown man says something like that, much less a man who could be president.

In 1800 when every preacher in London opposed vaccination because the Bible says the body is the temple of the soul and cow germs should not be introduced into it, they may well have been been perfectly right theologically. They were NOT right according to the Golden Rule, which overrules theology.

Instead of saving unborn babies, an area in which I have a lot of REAL accomplishments, the “Pro-Life” movement has abandoned the field. If those who value theocratic theory over human life had won, the exceptions for rape and incest would have been removed from legislation.

There is one little problem with that great theocratic victory: all that legislation would have been defeated. That is why my pro-life boss kept putting it back in.

No one in the purely theocratic wing of the Pro-Life Movement was the least bit worried about the millions of actual babies who would have been aborted if that legislation had been defeated. I talked to them. They wanted to win a theoretical victory, kids be damned.

I would like to be with the rest of you on these issues, but I have just been too close to the real thing.

When someone talks about the leftist National Council of Churches, I saw and SMELLED the death of whole villages they helped cause by their “humanitarian” support of Communist terrorists.

When someone gives me the theory and the Word of the Lord on legislation, I remember those self-styled Pro-Lifers who cared nothing for real unborn children. The kind of Pro-Lifers who are shouting about stem-cell research today have that same kind of mentality.

I remember when that type of Pro-Lifer was fighting to ban in vitro fertilization, because several embryos have to be created and die for each human being who lives.

They, too, argued that not one child had yet been born from in vitro, just as those opposing embryonic stem-cell research say no one has been cured by it yet.

When they shouted that several embryos had to die for each child, I also remembered that for every human being who has been on this earth, several fertilized embryos had to die in the natural process of human reproduction.

There are well over 30,000 people alive today because we beat that ban on in vitro fertilization. The fact is that no one who opposes embryonic stem cell research today could wish those 30,000 people to be alive today.

It is the SAME argument. The Pro-Lifers have conveniently forgotten about their attempt to ban in vitro fertilization because if it were brought up today it would show what callous fools they were.

I know Bush will win, but on that issue alone I wish he would not.

One day in the early 1970s a group of leftist female politicians held a press conference and set up the Women’s Liberation Movement. The Leader of the group was Bella Abzug, a hard-left congresswoman from New York.

There are many larger women’s political movements on the right, but they never get mentioned. When Bella announced that she represented “women” everybody took up the cry.

Bella Abzug had spent her entire political life fighting to get convicted felons back on the streets as fast as possible. Most crimes are committed by the criminals she championed, and this is especially true of rapists and child molesters.

One of the major charges Women’s Liberation made against men was the enormous and growing number of forcible rapes in American society.

No one ever mentioned that the lefist female political activists who set up the “women’s movement” had spent their entire political lives on the side of those rapists.

The media would never mention it, and respectable conservatives were too dumb to think of it. That’s how you get to be respectable.

It is a surprise to everybody in this election that the women’s vote is actually evenly split between Bush and Kerry. In recent times, women have voted solidly on the side of liberals, the rapists’ best friends.

Most of the violent rapes by repeat offenders occur in the big cities, where the women’s vote is even more solidly liberal.

I feel sorry for decent women who are attacked. But I do not feel sorry for a liberal woman who has to pay the price she makes so many others pay.

That’s not a very Christian attitude, but, to be honest, it IS mine.

There is a new party in Britain called the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). It wants to pull out of the European Union and cut immigration.

The UKIP says that the Conservative Party is dying. The UKIP beat the Tories (Conservatives) in some recent elections.

Naturally the UKIP is desperate to prove it isn’t racist.

But today’s newspaper means nothing to me. I see the UKIP as a part of a trend toward parties which represent racial groups in a racial world. The French anti-immigration party practically froths at the mouth at the word racist.

For the time being.

While everybody is concentrating on today’s paper, I have been through some 18,000 days since I started in politics, so whatever is the thing today doesn’t impress me a whole lot.

Every time I tell about a trend, somebody sends me a newspaper clipping to show me what the latest trends are. For 18,000 days I have looked at the latest trends.

They have been wrong 18,000 times.

Near the beginning of the presidential debates, I heard words that shocked me so much that I almost woke up.

Senator Kerry said “the border must be protected.” Bush agreed with him absolutely and raised him one. He replied, “The borders must be CLOSED.”

Surely I wasa dreaming. They COULDN’T have said what I thought they said.

Well, they weren’t. They were talking about IRAQ’s borders.

No, I don’t mean the Federal Communications Commission. I mean the Faithful Colored Companions. Up to now, non-whites have been looked upon politically as nothing more than the Faithful Colored Companions to liberals.

From a political point of view, all the colored folks look alike. So the Democratic Party spends tens of millions of dollars “to get out the minority vote.” To the Democratic Party all brown folks look alike, and they put their money where their mouth is.

Recently the Chicago city council adopted a resolution concerning self-contained black communities where blacks would own the businesses. Naturally all hell broke loose.

You see, this idea of a separate black community is a lot like what they called “separate development” in South Africa under the white government.

To make matters worse, the resolution was specifically aimed at protecting blacks against business takeovers in the black community not by whites, but by mostly non-white immigrants. Those immigrants are taking over and setting up all the businesses in black areas.

As I keep pointing out, we are in a new age. In the past there were two permanent, established minorities in America, blacks and Jews. We are moving into an age when everybody is part of a minority.

And each minority, including whites, will have to fend for itself.

The Chicago situation is just a little crack in the old “whites versus liberals and their Faithful Colored Companions” pattern.