United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Mark Zuckerberg’s Attack ad Against Trump: “The Parable of Pete Wilson”
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/posts/mark-zuc ... ump-the-parable-of-pete-wilson
Published: Sep 17, 2015
Author: Steve Sailer
Post Date: 2015-09-17 12:18:36 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 1630
Comments: 11
Here’s a new ad from Facebook mogul Mark Zuckerberg’s Cheap Labor lobby FWD.us, “The Parable of Pete Wilson” about how supporting Proposition 187 in 1994 doomed the Republican Party in California. I realize that back in 1994, Mr. Zuckerberg was probably less interested in election data than in Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers, but there’s this thing called the Internet and you can use it to look up old numbers to see if somebody is trying to pull your leg. He should try it. I’ve gone over this a million times over the years, but this media myth is just a retconning of history. The GOP won California in 9 out of 10 Presidential elections from 1952-1988, but the historic turning point wasn’t after 1994, it was before it: in 1992 Bill Clinton whomped the incumbent Republican president George H.W. Bush 46-33 in California. And the Democrats won two open seat Senatorial elections in 1992: Barbara Boxer won 48-43 and Diane Feinstein won 54-38. Contrary to the myth, the GOP candidate did relatively better in 1996 than in 1992. I wrote in VDARE: Indeed, the GOP candidate did better in California in the Presidential election of 1996 than in 1992, both in absolute terms and relative to the whole country. Bush lost the U.S. in 1992 by 5.5 points and California by 13.3 points, while Dole lost the country in 1996 by 8.5 points and California by only 12.9 points. So, relative to their dire performance in the whole country, the GOP Presidential candidate closed the gap in California by 3.5 points from 1992 to 1996. Poster Comment: Pandering to Zuckerberg’s tribe is what has destroyed the GOP. The Jonah Golberg wing of the GOP were the ones pushing to remove Israels enemy Saddam, never mind how great he had been against our own enemy Iran. Zuckerberg’s tribal interest is to see western nations swamped by immigration to turn them into multi-cultural cess pools. And America of hyphenated Americans who may be played against each other, divide and conquer. While Americans are supposed to function as Janissaries to keeps Zuckerberg’s own tribal homeland inviolate. Stop pandering to Zuckerberg’s tribe, start pandering to Americans. If it takes economics that end up stripping some loot from Zuckerberg’s tribe, so be it. Preserving America is more important than preserving Zuckerberg’s purse.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
#7. To: tomder55 (#6)
“Anti-Semite!” The ultima ratio regum of the neocon, of the RINO, of the cuckservative, of gaydubyapegler. From Pat Buchanan, March 1st 2004; The neocons have also begun to injure their reputations and isolate themselves with the nastiness and irrationality of their attacks. French cannon once bore the inscription ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings. The toxic charge of “Anti-Semite!” has become the last argument of the neocons. But they have wheeled out that cannon too many times. People are less intimidated now. They have seen men look into its muzzle and walk away. Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Centcom, is a hero of Vietnam. He opposed war with Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military was overstretched and we would unleash forces we could not control. In an interview, Zinni related his astonishment at the vapidity of the Wolfowitz clique with which he had to deal at the Department of Defense: The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had had an idea that worked on the ground …. I don’t know where the neocons came from—that was not the platform [Bush and Cheney] ran on …. Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president. National Review’s response was to brand Zinni an anti-Semite. In a separate column, NR regular Joel Mowbray not only accused the general of having “blamed the Jews,” he insisted that the term neocon, in common usage for 25 years, is now an anti-Semitic code word for Jews: Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney … was to blame. It was the Jews. They captured both Bush and Cheney …. Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews.’ He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: ‘neoconservatives.’ Mowbray and National Review thus slandered a brave and brilliant soldier who has bled for his country. Such slanders do the neocons no good but only add to their isolation and the burgeoning detestation of their tactics. New York Times columnist David Brooks has also begun to smear critics of the neocons as anti-Semites. In the word “neocon,” he writes, the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish. But the problem for neocons is not that so many are Jewish, but that so few are conservative. Lawrence Kaplan, a Perle colleague who co-authored a book with William Kristol, after reading An End to Evil, declared: “This is not conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth.”
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestZuckerberg’s tribe ,Golberg's tribe . Your anti-semitism is showing .
Replies to Comment # 6. Your anti-semitism is showing.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]