Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Population Socialization

Has anyone, besides me, noticed that in general, the highest population density areas are the ones under Democrat/Socialist control? They are also the areas that have the highest cost of living, the highest crime,drug and gang activity, the highest concentration of ethnic groups that feel they do not need to conform to our culture, and are also the areas which the Socialist Political Masters spend the most tax dollars collected from the rest of us.
<br> These Socialist strongholds have become the highest population density areas because of the Socialist Programs that encourage those who seek the "free/easy money and the good life" without having to work and accept responsibility for self and family.
<br> I came to that realization as I watched the Election Board/Map on Fox News during the 2000 election. The small proportion of states in blue indicated the Socialist controlled States and the large mass of red indicated the areas controlled by American Citizens who still have most of their rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights.
<br> Most, if not all the infringement or loss of our rights that have occurred to date has origionated from "Lawmakers" in those Socialist controlled states.
<br> I have often wondered how long the Socialist Masters would stay in power if the rest of the country boycotted and isolated those states and forced them to live off themselves, rather than bleed the country dry,financially and moraly. Those states have allowed the likes of Clinton(s), Schumer,Boxer, Gephardt,Daschle, Weiner, Franks, etc., to achieve positions of power that have corrupted, degraded and prostituted our entire social structure.
<br> Do not stay home Nov. 5th and make it easier for a Socialist to gain Office or stay in one. Vote, get on line to your Representatives and tell them you know what's going on, and for them to help make it stop!

Interesting that you have noticed this, I thought I was the only one.
<br>
<br> Just after the presidential election, I studied the voteing returns of districts in Pennsylvania. I couldn't believe with all the hunters in Pa. that Gore could carry the stste. Pennsylvania went to Gore while the vast majority of districts throughout the state voted Bush. It was the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Harrisburg areas who voted Gore and ALL the rural areas voted Bush. The large population centers in this mostly rural state controlled Pa's electorial votes. I know that only a fraction of these rural gun owners voted. While gun rights are high on my list of reasons to vote for a paticular candidate, so are many other issues that go hand in hand with the values our forefathers fought so hard to preserve.
<br>
<br>It shows you that in the not so long run our rights under the second are in serious jepardy unless the gun owners stop being apethetic and get organized and exercise their voteing rights. The future of the nation we so dearly love is in serious doubt if things keep going the way they have been for the last 25 years.

Diesel,
<br>
<br>You nailed this one. Watch tomorrow to see it happen again in the Govenor's race. Philly, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Wilkes Barre will elect Ed Rendell (an NRA F- candidate) while the vast majority of the rural areas will vote for Mike Fisher (A+ candidate). Those of us in rural areas have our political leaders chosen for us by the inner city crowd. Something is wrong with that picture, but what do you do about it???? Other than getting people out to vote there is not much we can do. In PA I believe that Allegheny, Philadelphia, Chester and Bucks Counties alone have enough votes to elect someone to a statewide office, regardless of how the other 63 couties vote!
<br>
<br>

What is the suprise here? Chicago has dominated the rest of RURAL Illinois since I was a pup. This is how the Socialist azzholes will undermine the country, concentrate the sheeple for mass blocks of loyal to handout votes. This negates the less populated areas of free thinking individuals that still know what the Constitution is about. It's all about the dumbing down of America and creeping socialism.
<br>
<br>Why do you think the education system in these places consistantly produes heavy drop out rates and hordes of losers? More "line voters" with no clue what the government is supposed to be about. To them it is one big "sugar daddy" and they don't want to lose their .gov check and subsidised housing, free food and medical care.

Yes, this is the case in just about every state, but particularly here in NY. The vast majority of New York State (geographically) is rural, populated by regular Americans, and gun-owning, but we are still greatly outnumbered by the city populations who always vote in strong socialist blocks.
<br>
<br>In the middle of the country you have fewer big cities, and fewer immigrants from third-world, non-Western-European, countries, which is why you can still elect reasonably conservative people to national office, while we can't. We (on both sea boards) are over-run by aliens of both the legal and illegal type (both of which vote), and no one seems interested in doing anything about it, least of all the Democrates. Our only hope is to put a stop to the tide of non-Western-European immigration.
<br>
<br>Before the 1960s no one thought it politically incorrect to allow only very few immigrants into this country who did not share our Western-European culture, religion, legal traditions and values. It only made sense to do so, if you want to preserve a free nation. But you cannot turn us into a socialist totalitarian nation (which is the goal of the establishment) unless you have massive influxes of people who do not understand or appreciate the values and principles on which our nation was founded. This is why we have the massive influx, and if we don't do someting about it, we are truly doomed to becoming a socialist third world nation, hopelessly submerged in a one-world socialist tyranny, in the not too distant future. Gradually, red will fade to solid blue. The great experiment in liberty will have been extinguished, once and for all.
<br>
<br>Liberty is not man's natural state. It is the norm for human beings to be under the rule of totalitarians and despots, particularly so now that the technology exists for a centralized government to keep close tabs on every human being under its rule. I'm afraid that in the present environment of high technology, if liberty is ultimately extinguished, the human race will never again experience what it means to be free and, perhaps worst of all, will not even remember what liberty was.
<br>
<br>I believe, however, that it is not too late to reverse the tide towards socialism. But it means that we have to start exercising our right to vote, and to do so intelligently, and in an organized fashion, to elect only those candidates who think like Americans, and believe that the American ideals are worth preserving. Our number one priority in selecting our representatives in the Federal Government aught to be a total halt to immigration from non-Western-European countries, and the expulsion of those who are here already illegally. We must also stop all work and education visas from those nations, and cancel the ones that are currently active. That is the key. Without those steps, all of our other efforts will be to no avail.
<br>

For those who don't remember the map, go to
<br> http://www.cctrap.com/~varmint/apoli.htm
<br>and scroll down about 1/3 of the way.
<br>
<br>Yes, I think alot more people noticed it than you think. It has made me mad enough to not bother going to the poles a couple times. (I plan on going anyway, just so I can say "I told you so!" after it all goes to hell.
<br>
<br>Rendell's the man for PA! Ain't you guys watching the commercials? Look at all the beautiful things he's gonna do for us Pennsylvanians with his wonderful socialist programs! All funded by slot machines! Give me a freakin break.
<br>
<br>You guys might as well accept your fate. We are dinosaurs. Our purpose and time is over. Those of us left when this thing finaly blows will end up in internment camps at best. Probably in between a trench and a machine gun. Think I'm joking? Look into the history of Germany.
<br>7mm

I love that slot machine funding for education that Rendell is proposing. Tim Murphy, a congressional candidate for the 18th (?) district in PA broke the numbers down to a per student basis. Using the most generous estimates for slot machine revenues, PA public schools would see about $200 per student AT MOST!. That is assuming that the state transferred a full 100% of the revenues to the schools.
<br>
<br>Plus, I love the Ed Rendell can "create jobs" BS. When has a politician ever created a job that wasn't funded by somebody elses tax dollars?!?
<br>
<br>We are really in for it in PA. Hang onto your wallet 7mm! ;-)
<br>
<br>Stush

Stush,
<br>
<br> The Socialists may have exposed a weakness that they didn't intend to: just after their attempt to fabricate a higher vote count in those three Florida counties to no avail, Hillary Clinton, the Q.B.N.Y.(Queen Bitch of New York) stated on national Socialist media that "It's time we went back into the Constitution and got rid of A FEW THINGS, especially the Electoral College!"
<br>
<br> If the QBNY wants to get rid of it, maybe we should keep it, but make it work more for us gun owning Patriots!

Unfortunately most people have not received a proper education in the history of our nation, and its Constitution. This must be why so many people think it odd that the Majority of people could have voted for one candidate and the other candidate won. In our system, we do not elect the president by national popular vote, and there is a reason for it. If we did this, the most populous states (i.e., NY, California and Florida) would select our presidents for us. The president is selected by two interests in the United States. Firstly the interests of the States themselves, as political entities. Secondly, the interests of the citizens of those states.
<br>
<br>The way the Federal Government is divided up, the Representatives represent the interests of individual citizens within the states. The Senators represent the interests of the States as political entities (this has been changed by ammendment), and the President balances it out by representing both interests. Thus, it is not a straight popular electoin. States have some influence too. That is why each state has as many electors as they have representatives and senators. The number of senators is always two per state, so that balances things out in favor of states (so the more populous states don't totally overwhelm the less populous states), and the number of congressmen is determined by state population. So both interests are represented in the number of electors. Additionally balancing things out in favor of state interests over pure popular election is that fact that whichever candidate in a state gets most of the electors, that's the candidate who wins all of the electors of that state. So you see, this factor very much favors the state's interest in who becomes president, and that is how the Founders intended it. This way, as I've said a couple of time already, mere population numbers do not overwhelm the smaller states in representation in electing presidents. This is very important, and must not be changed. If anything, we should change back the senatorial election system to the way it used to be, whereby state governers nominated Senators, and State legislatures approved or rejected the nomination. This was the intention of the founders, i.e., that Senators represent State interests, not the interests of individuals in those states directly. Representatives are suppose to do that, and presidents represent a combination of state and individual interests. Thus we have a balance. Hope I haven't been too long winded.

Since we can see that the population centers will vote Democratic and for the free lunch (at the expense of the tax paying working sector) the biggest issue for those of us who still believe in the freedoms and values we inhereted from our forefathers has to be ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
<br>
<br>As our cities become larger and our towns become cities from ever increasing numbers of immigrants our freedoms erode. No politician has been willing to address this problem for fear of alienatong one minority or another and their votes. However, a opportunity has arisen from the ashes of 9/11. Since there must be an effort to protect the nation against terrorism, the borders must be tightened. Hopefully , with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, that the Office of Homeland Security will be established and our laws will be enforced.
<br>
<br>If we lose this chance, it will take another major hit to wake up the country.

I second that.

The best aspect of this whole election for me. Is that with the win of Republicans in the Senate. Our California (Democratic) Senators Boxer, and Fienstien will loose their leadership roles in major commitees. That's the next best thing to getting them completely out of office. Which I sure hope happens next time.
<br>
<br>Phil

Absolutely. I feel the same way about Hilary Clinton and Schumer, my two senators. I can't get rid of them, since I live in a liberal state, but now, at least, their destructive ability has been minimized a good deal.

TRH,
<br>
<br> A serious problem that has a major negative effect on the intended balance of our governmental system is that the Demo/Socialists have learned that they can switch sides, blatantly lie, ignore legal voting statutes, substitute candidates after legal deadlines, falsify ballots, register felons and dead people, and continue their Socialist, anti-freedon,anti-Constitution agenda without consequence.
<br>
<br> If you need an example, scrutinize John McCain! Look at Jeffords! McCain switched sides as easily as he changes his "beliefs" and "convictions" when he speaks to each different group of those pathetic enough to listen to him! Jeffords was obviously bought and paid for to switch sides and throw the advantage to the Demo/Socialist Party. He had origionally been a Democratic Socialist, switched to Republican a few years ago and at the critical moment, switched again to Independent to help insure the Socialist Agenda.
<br>
<br> Their adeptness with political deceit and misdirection of focus/attention gives them an advantage in their goal of the destruction of the very system that allows them to operate under protection.
<br>
<br> I will not refer to them as anything other than Democratic Socialists and I must point out that the definition of "Liberal" has not correctly applied to them since the 40's when the concept of the New World Order was put into motion by both the National Democratic Socialist Patry of Germany (the Nazi Party) and the League of Nations , for total world domination under Socialist control. They are NOT liberal, they are quite focused on completing the Socialist metamorphisis of our country.

Glockblaster, I agree with you on the real definition of liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The meaning has been warped but, in common language today, people think of liberalism as being what we know is correctly labelled Marxism/Socialism/Communism.