Running Nowhere: Making My Undervote Count

By Nicholas Stix

Though I had a cold and my feet hurt, I ran most of the way to the polling place on Election Day. I got in at 8:56 p.m., the last voter.

But I didn’t go to vote. I knew I had nowhere to go.

Had he been on the ballot, I would likely have voted for the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, for President.

The ballot listed Ralph Nader (Populist); Bob Barr (Libertarian); Cynthia McKinney (Green); Gloria LaRiva (Socialist and Liberation parties); Roger Calero (Socialist Workers) … and the other two. Of seven candidates, four were communists, and one (Nader) was a socialist. That must be some kind of record.

That left the man who had switched parties, only to be ambushed by his adopted party (Media); who had switched peoples, only to be rejected by his adopted people (Hispanics); and who, in an election that was all about race, and in which he had both extraordinary disadvantages and advantages, refused to engage the enemy. John McCain had all the fearsomeness of a lone National Guardsman marching through a riot zone, carrying an unloaded weapon.

(Disadvantages: George W. Bush, the diversity meltdown; advantages: The fact that his Democratic opponent was a black supremacist, a socialist at best and communist at worst, and crook; that approximately 75 percent of eligible voters were white; and that the immigration issue was sitting there, waiting for him to pick it up and run with it).

In McCain’s concession speech, he said, “We [Americans] never give up, we never quit, we don’t hide from history, we make history.”

But in letting his racist, Marxist opponent set the terms of debate, McCain gave up before he ever got started. Faced with the historic challenge of a thoroughly racialized election, John McCain ran screaming from history.

And so, for the second consecutive major election, I voted for no one.

(My family doesn’t know this. They gave me strict orders to vote for McCain. Let that be our little secret.)

In 2005, incumbent New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a liberal Democrat running as a Republican, was challenged by official Democratic candidate, Fernando “Freddie” Ferrer. Both were hostile towards working and middle-class whites and Asians (my wife is of Indian descent).

In 2008, as in 2005, I pulled the steel bar to the right, to close the booth’s curtains, and then, without voting for a candidate, back to the left, to re-open them and register my undervote.

That I went to the polls at all last Tuesday, was out of religious observance. I was raised an Orthodox Democrat; in my family, we worshiped FDR.

Every year, my Hungarian-born Nana (1893?-1976) went to vote, and needed only to know where the Democratic column was. She’d push down each lever in the row, regardless of whether she’d ever even heard of the candidate.

It would have been an act of sacrilege for me to spend an entire Election Day, without entering a polling booth.

And I’ve always been a registered Democrat.

“Obama”* won a majority of the popular vote, 52.6 to 46.1 percent for McCain, and an Electoral College landslide, 364 to 163 so far, with 11 electoral votes yet to be awarded.

On election night, Obama’s media acolytes echoed his campaign talking point, insisting that the turnout was “huge,” in order to try and fool viewers into believing that he was much more popular than he was. This was an implicit continuation of their fraudulent pre-election polls, showing Obama with double-digit leads of up to 18 points.

*(On January 20, 2009, will a man be sworn in as America's President under an assumed name, or did the President-elect at some point change his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama? Throughout this essay, quotation marks around the name Obama are implicit.)

But how, in a nation dominated by “racist white voters,” could Obama have had any chance at all?

Had the poll numbers been legitimate, Obama’s margin of victory would have exceeded Ronald Reagan’s 1984 popular vote landslide over Walter Mondale.

The phony polls were meant to discourage Republicans from voting, in order to ensure an Obama victory. The strategy was a national version of TV news divisions’ nearly successful 2000 ploy of announcing early that Gore had won Florida, in order to discourage Bush voters in Florida’s Panhandle, where the polls were open for another hour, from going to vote.

In 2004, the Democratic Party decided it would steal the election in Ohio, first by publicizing false exit poll numbers beginning in the early afternoon that showed John Kerry running away with the Buckeye State, and when that ruse failed, by getting ABC, CBS, and CNN to refrain from calling it for Bush, while working through the wee hours at “finding the votes” necessary, Daley-style, to steal Ohio back for Kerry.

The only reason we didn’t have another Al Gore-style crisis in 2004 was that, for once in his life, John Kerry did the right thing and threw in the towel, even if Dan Rather and Katie Couric refused to.

In 2008, the Party was determined not to let the same thing happen again. Helping McCain win the GOP nomination was a crucial piece of strategy.

Just over 125 million votes were cast. In 2004, during a less historic vote, 122 million votes were cast, even though at least five million more black, young, and fraudulent ACORN voters went to the polls this time.

(“Reporters” and “experts” keep telling us that the black portion of voters was “13.0%,” but the black portion of the citizenry is only 12.3 percent. Considering that at least one million black felons have lost the franchise, the black portion of eligible voters can’t be over 12.0 percent. On the other hand, if every instance of a “black voter” that ACORN “registered” to vote did so, and all of the voters in Philadelphia, where, as usual, there were more registered voters than living citizens voted, the black portion of the electorate might just have made it to 13 percent.

In 2007, “reporters” began claiming that blacks made up 13 percent of the citizenry, the Census be damned. I believe they were doing this out of loyalty to blacks, and in the face of the swelling numbers of Hispanics, who had just passed blacks as the nation’s leading “minority.”

The “experts” at The Pretend Encyclopedia (TPE), aka Wikipedia, go further to claim that, according to the 2000 Census, blacks comprise 13.8 percent of the American citizenry, and that in a mere 10 years—1990-2000—America’s black population rose 15 percent. Note that TPE’s claims are not linked to the U.S. Census, but instead to non-supporting “sources,” an old TPE trick.

In fact, the 2000 Census determined that 12.3 percent of America was black, not 13.8 percent, and the 1980 and 1990 Censuses determined that blacks comprised 11.7 and 12.1 percent of the country, respectively.)

The vast majority of the five million or more voters who stayed home or undervoted in this election (over and above those who undervoted last time) had likely voted Republican in 2004.

CNN Obama cheerleader—if you’ll pardon the redundancy—Gloria Berger gushed, “Obama used his money wisely in Florida,” in determining the identities of 600,000 black voters who were registered for the 2004 election but who did not vote, in order to ensure that every one of them voted this time.

Wisdom had nothing to do with it. A real journalist would have noted that, with a $640 million war chest, Obama had almost twice as much money as McCain, who had $370 million to work with. Obama’s advantage was due to his flouting of his former bedrock principle of public campaign financing, while McCain accepted the public financing limits. McCain adhered more to Democratic Party principles than Obama!

Just as Obama’s surrogates have done all along, in accusing McCain of racism, no matter how much he avoided race, they continued to lie, in claiming that Obama “reached out to many groups,” while asserting that McCain increasingly limited himself.

If only McCain had focused on wooing the white vote, as per the Sailer Strategy, he would have won. But that would have meant supporting Middle America, and John McCain would rather lose, and take the GOP and the country down in flames with him, than do that.


The Principle of Selling Out Your own Country

In October 2006, he grudgingly agreed to support border security:

A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”

He reverted to form on September 15, telling Mexican host Jorge Ramos on Spanish-language Univision TV of his intention to present an illegal alien amnesty plan “in the first day” of his administration.

McCain lost the Hispanic vote, 66-32 percent, or 67-31 percent, depending on the exit poll in question; pandering does not pay.

It is not alienating the Hispanic, but alienating the white vote that carries with it a high price for Republican politicians. In national elections, Hispanics almost always vote for Democrats 2-to-1 over Republicans. Even in the 2004 election, they chose John Kerry 61-39 percent over George Bush, though the MSM have promoted the myth that Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote ever since. And yet, even if we accepted the myth, it would still show that the Hispandering Bush decisively lost the Hispanic vote.

A Republican who had wooed the white vote, and then served the interests of white Americans, would have nothing to worry about from Hispanics, since roughly half of Hispanic Americans support enforcing the nation’s immigration laws; even if they didn’t support enforcement, they would be too small to avenge themselves on Republicans, given the over 60 percent support th elatter would get form whites; and a patriotic President serving and backed up by America’s historic majority would have little problem in deporting enough of the over 20 million foreign invaders in our midst, as well as the millions of their anchor baby children, (whom the Supreme Court has falsely claimed are citizens), that the rest would self-deport.

The problem with Hispanderers like McCain is that they are bringing about a self-fulfilling prophecy: If you refuse to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, because you assume the Hispanic invaders are taking over, then they will take over, but not because there was anything inevitable about the takeover.


We Love Barack!

CNN’s Obamanoids held a can-you-top-this competition, to see who could pay Obama the most mindless compliment.

Early on, David Gergen, still auditioning for his next White House job, invoked Martin Luther King’s “I Have been to the Mountaintop” speech.

(In his race-baiting of whites, there is no depth to which Gergen has not been willing to stoop. Yet these days, TV agitprop is so leftwing that Gergen passes for a “conservative.”)

Roland Martin, who is black, claimed that other candidates said “I,” while Obama said “we us our.” Martin waxed biblical, invoking Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem.

White socialist Jeffrey Toobin simply seconded Martin.

Hilary Rosen, the editor of the Obamanoid Huffington Post, remembered to say it was a “post-racial election.”


It’s Already 2050

CNN’s champion Obama groupies proved to be Gloria Berger and Soledad O’Brien, who were apparently also auditioning for the Obama White House. Berger, who is white, kept repeating, “He’s got the power!”

O’Brien is yet another mulatto child of a devoted white parent (her father) who grew up privileged, has benefited her entire professional life from affirmative action, and hates whites. She could not control herself, and spilled out Obama’s true message of white disenfranchisement. After swooning over Obama’s numbers among black, Hispanic, and young voters she opined, “So, there is definitely this issue of inclusion. Also, it’s the symbol of the new America, the America of 2050, in which minorities are the majority. It’s not the America of Joe the Plumber.”

“Inclusion”=Exclusion.

O'Brien: “It’s a symbol to so many people who waited such a long time, and it’s a new age.”

But I thought it “wasn’t about race”?

At least, O’Brien didn’t make us wait until 2050—or 2042 or even 2030—to learn what she and her comrades have planned for us.

At no point during the night did any CNN talking head mention that McCain had won the white vote (55-43 percent). Caring about the white vote is s-o-o-o 2049. After all, everyone knows that Hispanics' seven percent of votes count for much more than whites' mere 75 percent of votes.

Donna Brazille got in too late to do much gushing, but her presence alone was significant. She’s been ubiquitous as a paid TV talking head since the 2000 election, which is my point.

When the Democrats decided to try and steal that election, Brazille, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager, spread the most despicable of all the post-Election Day hoax stories, claiming that at Florida polling places, police were chasing off black voters with guns and dogs.

In a sane world, Brazille’s name would have become the political equivalent of journalism hoaxer Janet Cooke, and she would have been lucky to get a counter job at a McDonald’s. Instead, she was treated like royalty by the Democratic Party’s TV and publishing agitprop divisions, and became rich.

What was striking about this election was not the MSM’s power, but the crudeness of their cheerleading for Obama. They made no effort to conceal their support for him, or their dirty tricks against McCain and Palin.

Nor were they embarrassed. These are people, after all who, when they ogle the Anointed One’s crotch on his campaign plane, shout at a Secret Service agent to get out of their line of sight.

Didn’t John McCain realize, say, after the 100th op-ed or TV “news” story accusing his every criticism of Obama, no matter how racially neutral, of being “deliberately and deceptively racist,” that he’d been had by his media “friends”? Or perhaps after the thousandth puff piece on the Obamas, or vicious personal attack on Sarah Palin (e.g., claiming that her new baby was really her daughter’s child), or the refusal of the MSM to investigate Obama? Did McCain ever realize that he’d sacrificed the First Amendment, to bribe the MSM with “campaign finance reform,” and gotten nothing in return? Did any of his aides beg him to take off the gloves? He had nothing to lose, and everything to gain by making media corruption and anti-white racism the issue.

When he finally could have put his notorious nastiness to good use, McCain suddenly became Sen. Nice. Did the MSM blackmail him, by threatening to publish choice quotes from the Straight Talk Express 2000, if he got aggressive?

On January 8, following McCain’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, I wrote:

This is amazing, when you consider that:


1. McCain is the media’s own Frankenstein monster, created in 2000, and that the media brought his campaign back from the dead months ago, and kept it alive…

They did that, so that he could win the GOP nomination, and they could then deliver the coup de grace during the general election campaign, just as they’d planned to do in 2000, before George W. Bush derailed the Straight Talk Express.


More Rhetorical Magic Shows

In Obama’s victory speech, he skillfully mixed his two contradictory messages: “There’s one America, not two!” and “Yes, we can!” His best use of deception was in quoting from King’s “Mountaintop” speech: “We will get there as a people.” He can insist that he meant the entire American people, but blacks know full well that he meant them.

All year long, blacks kept up the public ruse of saying, “It’s not about race,” and the media collaborated with them on it. Then, once both groups got what they wanted, blacks dropped the pretext, and the media were beside themselves with happiness for their allies.

Logically, now that they’ve reached “the promised land,” blacks should no longer be screaming “racism” morning, noon, and night. And if you believe that, I’ve got a great deal for you on a plot of federal land on Pennsylvania Avenue.


Patriotism

Usually, I have a visceral relation to presidents whose administrations I’ve lived through, and an academic relation to those who were elected when I was very young, or not yet born. I have neither type of relationship to Ronald Reagan. I split the run-up to the 1980 Republican National Convention between college and washing pots, and lacked access to a TV. Shortly after the convention, I left the country, and lived in then-West Germany for over five years. By the time of my return, Reagan was a lame duck. I was in grad school then, and didn’t buy my first TV—a used, 9” B&W for $10—until 1986.

Having been raised a liberal Democrat, I was hostile towards Reagan. But he was my President.

(I’m no longer hostile towards him, but the man remains a mystery to me.)

In 1981, when he was shot, I was working on a West German assembly line, and almost punched out the gloating Turk who told me.

In 1985, while visiting with 85-year-old West German legal philosopher Erich Fechner, the subject of Reagan came up. I said I didn’t like him, “Aber er is nun mein President.” (“But he is my president.”)

“Sie sind Patriot,” responded my host. (“You’re a patriot.”)

I was deeply flattered.

I’m still a patriot, and that is why "Barack Obama," whatever his real name is, is not my President. He will never be my President.