The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Only You Can Prevent DACA Amnesties
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Agnostic wonders if a DACA amnesty is suicide for Republicans… or if it is actually suicide for Democrats. He is one of the most original and perspicacious thinkers out there. It would be folly not to take him seriously here.

That said, there are some questionable assumptions in the argument he makes:

Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily concentrated in safe states — mostly deep blue ones like California and New York, but also deep red ones like Texas and Utah. Millions more newly legalized citizens with voting rights in California will be no big loss to the GOP there, as the party effectively no longer exists in that state.

Of the 30 states Trump won in 2016, his margin of victory was wider in 21 of them than it was in Texas. It was narrower in just eight. Texas is still reliably Republican for now, but it is hardly a “deep red” state.

It can’t be dismissed as a one off instance, either, the consequence of a socially moderate, non-traditional Republican candidate. Iowa, too, is a tradcon state–and generally considered a toss-up in 21st century presidential elections–and Trump won it more decisively than he won Texas.

Romney’s Texas margin of victory of 16 points was larger than Trump’s 9 points, but it too was among the more narrow of red state wins. In 2008, McCain’s Texas margin was 12 points.

Compare California, which a generation ago was a reliably red state, too. As demographics have turned it reliably blue, its remaining whites have not jointed together to form a Republican bloc. On the contrary, they have become more supportive of Democrats over time.


The more that demographics change toward non-white, the more whites will vote as a bloc.

Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voters? Blacks. Where are blacks the largest share of the population? In the South. What region is completely off the table for Democrats? Also the South, because whites said “fair is fair” and began voting as a bloc like the blacks.

Texas would do the same thing if Hispanic immigrants poured in enough to make them a near-majority.

Putting aside that the cavaliers and highlanders in the South are not the Puritans, Quakers, and Teutons out West, Texas’ whites already strongly vote Republican, at about 75%-25%. That’s far and away the most Republican-skewed white population among states with large Hispanic populations in the country.

It’s possible white Texans will move towards an Alabama or Mississippi levels of white electoral solidarity, but as the Austinization–Hillary won Travis county by a margin of more than 2-to-1 even though non-Hispanic whites make up half the population–of the state continues, that may not be the way to bet.

Agnostic again:

Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied, the next move by globalists will be to broaden it to other groups who are slightly lower on the sympathy scale, potentially including all 20 million illegals by the final round.

Immigration hardliners argue that mass amnesty is suicide for the GOP, since immigrants lean so heavily Democrat. They are trying to argue to Republican party leaders that, even if they despise their voters, they should at least back off of amnesty in order to ensure their own survival as a major party.

This is a naive argument, which explains why it is never listened to by the GOP.

Every legislative amnesty that has been attempted in the last couple of decades has been stopped by Republican congressmen. Things go the way they do until they don’t, but why should we expect this time around to be different?

In 2007, Democrats controlled both houses of congress–and amnesty got crushed. In 2013, Republicans controlled both houses of congress–and amnesty got crushed.

Throughout 2015 the GOPe thought the idea Trump had any chance at the nomination, let alone the presidency, was–to put it very mildly–naive. It’s called the stupid party for a reason.

There is no 4D chess being played here. Republican congressmen are pushed by their donors to support amnesty and pulled by their voters to oppose it. The donors are proactive, the voters reactive. The donors make the marionette congressmen dance a furious jig in favor of amnesty. Seeing this, the congressmen’s voters go for the scissors and cut the strings before the amnesty dance can work its magic.

This has been the case since 1986. At some point it will cease to be the case, but America’s demographics in 2017 are not that different from 2013 or even 2007, and we have a president who–whatever the exact nature of his true feelings–is less receptive to amnesty than Bush or Obama were.

We also now have a vastly interconnected virtual network with tens of thousands of nodes that reach hundreds of millions of people in aggregate. If we can get guys like Stefan Molyneux and Mike Cernovich imploring people to light up the congressional switchboards, we can stop a DACA amnesty.

Agnostic’s fatalism is irritating because we need not be passive observers as this plays out. Trump is positioning himself well politically no matter how things turn out–he’s rescinded DACA as promised and now has kicked it to the ‘people’s elected representatives’. The people will decide, you see, and that’s democracy in action!

If we, the voters who have gently rested the tips of our spears on the backs of our congressmen so they have no choice but to face forward, let our guard down here, our front lines will break and we’ll be routed by the forces of amnesty.

It’s not hard to see why Trump isn’t eager to die on this hill alone. If we don’t join him to storm it, he’ll wave the other side by instead of engaging them.

Contact your house member here and your senators here. Feel free to cut and paste this message to send to them:

DACA is an unconstitutional executive action enacted against the will of the American public and without the consent of our elected representatives. It should never have taken effect and should never go back into effect again.

Illegal aliens must not be rewarded for violating the laws of the land, whether they’re sixteen or sixty years old. We have our own problems to deal with. We do not need to be creating more. America first!

Call, write, email, fax, whatever. Keep it even simpler if you’d prefer–“No DACA amnesty. It’s time we stopped forgetting about our own children. America first!”

Agnostic on why the chances for this amnesty are better than the full-blown amnesty attempts of the past:

Amnesty this time is more likely b/c it’s not comprehensive but just for the DACA people — say 1 million max, vs. the 10-20 million total — and they’re chosen to be the most sympathetic cases, vs. any illegal no matter how awful.

The more I think about it, the more the conclusion becomes unavoidable that this battle is huge, the most monumental one of the Trump presidency thus far. If a DACA amnesty is stopped, the least objectionable variation of amnesty will have been stopeed by the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

If it passes in congress, the judicial and executive stops are negated and reversed, respectively. A new precedent will be set, one that hasn’t existed in a generation. The thin end of the wedge will be in and attempts at more expansive amnesties will trail close behind.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We've been thru this before, but anyway.

    The West coast used to be much more Republican for mainly these reasons:

    – hating big government
    – the defense industry
    – being more rural

    These states were never culturally conservative (on the GSS, on every social issue imaginable, they are the most liberal states). When the cold war wound down in the late 80's, and bible thumpers mostly from the South and Midwest took over the GOP, these states had little reason to vote GOP anymore. And as the cities of this area grew and got further rings of suburbs (to the extent that one could build them), they lost some of their Western disdain for city culture.

    Demographics have little to do with Oregon and WA voting Dem. beginning 1988. As far as I'm concerned, voting patterns don't change how godawfully liberal these places are and likely will be for many generations to come.

    It may be very hard to believe, but there was a time (pre-late 1980's) when the GOP believed that "country-Western" culture would always dominate the Southern and Western states. Midwestern states were considered too cold, grey, old, and unionized to be worth reaching (the Rust-belt Midwest got presidentially pushed to the GOP in the early 70's and early 1980's due to horrible Dem presidents, but the GOP never locally found appeal in these areas back then).

    Perhaps the ultimate indictment of the Stupid Party is that they never considered that flooding the Sun-belt and Pacific states with immigrants and strivers would first damage traditional culture and second, later on, would so alter demographics that Dems would ultimately benefit. In their defense, they don't control how liberal the Pacific is, and it's not their fault that most of the West and some of the Sun-belt had not been developed (rural areas like the GOP, but greater development+transplants+a lack of cultural conservatism=liberalism)

  2. You're dead right. DACA is the pivot point for the 2018 midterms.

    For 36 straight years owning the long term debt of a government or multinational corporation was like planting a money tree. As interest rates fell, capital value rose, so borrowing-to-spend looked like a perpetual motion machine producing wealth. There was no brake on spending & no need to tax, and somehow the sky didn’t fall.

    Manufacturing (and its associated jobs) were exported but retailing is DOMESTIC! Given the debt/monetary conditions in the paragraph above, the Chamber of Commerce cabal bought off politicians in order to stuff the (high dollar) retail channel with consumers so as to reap the arbitrage between $$$$ retail & $ manufacturing. When borrowing "manufactures" wealth, consumers need not work in order to consume. Our "jobless" "recovery" makes perfect sense in this bizarro world.

    Yes, this is absurd, but it is RUNNING OUR WORLD.

    It cannot continue forever, but it has outlasted any remotely informed forecast for inversion. It is this inversion we await; if it happens on the way into the primaries for incumbent GOP congressmen they will be sent packing by the bus load, but if this insanity continues, one amnesty after another will only serve to make the eventual war more greatly resemble the bloody pogroms of the last century.

  3. Trump set DACA up nicely, time-wise , to effectively put RINO's in a tough spot. IF they wiggle their way into a Amnesty for DACA ( Future Democrats for life ) they will be in excellent aim for primary challengers. Trump will have his finger to the wind and he'll know whether to punish them or sign their bill. If they haven't played ball with him up to that point, I think he will punish them with a veto and encourage primary challengers. If, though, the RINO's work with the President in the next 5 months, esp in December, he will likely repay the support and sign their DACA bill IF they produce one.

  4. "Compare California, which a generation ago was a reliably red state, too. As demographics have turned it reliably blue, its remaining whites have not jointed together to form a Republican bloc. On the contrary, they have become more supportive of Democrats over time."

    A lot of whites fled California after the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 — and then again after the DotCon bubble popped in 2000 and the H-1b flood allocated the few remaining stable STEM positions during the evolutionary bottleneck to the south Asian gangs.

    While it is true that a lot of whites flee the consequences of their own social degeneracy to find fresh areas of the country to destroy, I suspect most of the white flight was sincere.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    With respect to your comment on California, you are implying that the white people who lived in California 30 years ago are the same as the ones who live there today, and that no white person has ever emigrated from or immigrated to California.

    On the contrary, there is a TON of geographic mobility of white people in and out of California. Of course what you mentioned was gonna happen. The whites who are most likely to leave are the less educated, blue collar, fundie Christian, low IQ ones and the ones who are most likely to arrive are the highly educated, white collar, secular, high IQ, tech industry ones.

    Personal anecdote: every person I have ever known who has moved to California has been a white person of upper or upper middle class, of high IQ (120+), has a degree in a STEM subject (many of these acquaintances went to MIT), of non-religious background, and went to work in Silicon Valley. These are not the kind of guys and gals to vote for fundie Christian populists who hate minorities/women/gays and want to give welfare to blue collar white men.

    With respect to your comment on Austin, much of the same forces are in play. A ton of white geographic mobility. Less educated, blue collar, fundie Christian, low IQ whites are leaving for rural Texas or Oklahoma. Highly educated, white collar, secular, high IQ, tech industry whites are arriving in Austin from places like Lubbock or out-of-state.

    Personal anecdote: A friend of mine moved to Austin. He has a master's degree from Cornell, IQ is in the low 140s. Grew up in an upper middle class home with staunch atheist parents.

    With respect to your theory that white people will vote as a bloc whenever they encounter diversity, I disagree. Steve Sailer once mentioned that as the % of hispanics in a majority white neighborhood increases, nothing happens to the white residents' voting patterns. As the % of asians in a majority white neighborhood increases, the white residents get more LIBERAL for some reason. Your theory is only correct when whites are dealing with blacks…it's almost as if most normal white people have different opinions of hispanics/asians than they do of blacks!

  6. Feryl,

    It's a question of what it takes to move Texas away from being reliably red. Changes in political emphasis can do that but so can changes in demographics. Texas whites will remain more Republican than California's whites ever were, but that doesn't mean the state won't go blue.


    When the inversion occurs, the weak political and economic bonds that hold an otherwise disunited country of 330 million together will come apart. That will be the anvil that breaks the camel's back.

    Uncle Max,

    Agreed. A lot of people on the dissident right see it differently. It's encouraging to see that I'm not alone in seeing otherwise.


    California's budget problems and the move of some tech away to places like North Carolina and Texas coupled with a DACA amnesty that will do what amnesties always do and bring a bunch more people from south of the border into the US–specifically Texas–does it seem conceivable to you that Texas politically goes through something similar to what California did?

  7. Anon,

    I understand the geographic mobility. It's a factor but it is certainly not the only one. Mitt Romney *won* California among whites in 2012. The reason California is permanently blue is primarily because of how Hispanicized and Asianized it has become. The departure of middle class and working class whites has accelerated the trend, but it would've happened anyway.

    I'm skeptical of the theory that more non-whites will make whites bloc vote, at least in the short- and mid-terms. That's the theory Agnostic was putting forward as to why Texas won't flip blue. I'm skeptical.

    IQ correlated positively with voting Republican in the 80s and 90s even among whites (it obviously does when race is not considered). That changed in the 2000s and the 2016 presidential election will almost certainly show the trend towards higher IQ voting Democrat and lower IQ voting Republican among whites continue, but when California flipped it was not the case.

    Those high IQ secular STEM people are of course just as eager–probably more so–to avoid living around NAMs than blue collar white 'fundies' are.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    If agnostic was saying that theory, he needs to get a grip. There are differences between whites and non-whites, but the differences between blacks and non-blacks is just as large, if not larger in some cases. Same goes with hispanics and asians.

    My personal prediction is that because blacks, hispanics, and asians are just as different from each other as each group is from whites, white people will respond to diversity in the way that Steve Sailer once said: nothing will happen if the "diversity" means "hispanics" and whites will become more liberal for some reason if the "diversity" means "asians".

  9. I think I mentioned it here before but I think voting on DACA is a great gift for the midterms. DACA is unpopular and it will force Democrats and the GOPe to explain to constituents why they voted for something so reviled by the public. Typically incumbent parties lose seats in midterms but if they make it a referendum on immigration, it may just be enough to keep or even make gains on seats. The GOP leadership is too dumb to see through this but there will be a few Trump Republican upstarts who see it for the opportunity that it is. Time to finally snuff out the neocons once and for all.

  10. Anon,

    In fairness to him he put it forward in one of the comments, not in the body of the post itself. Genetically it seems that non-sub-Saharan Africans are all most closely related to one another than any are to sub-Saharan Africans. Blacks in the US have a non-negligible amount of European ancestry–around 20% on average–so that complicates things some, but generally speaking you're right.

    Random Dude,

    Agree. Some people are touting polling showing support for amnestying DACA beneficiaries. I saw a Morning Consult one showing ~58% support. But the same article showed 49% for amnesty of all 11+ million illegal immigrants! That's bullshit, of course. These sorts of polls are extremely susceptible to wording. R-I conducted the best one I've come across in terms of getting at underlying public sentiment, and it was very favorable for restrictionists.

  11. all more* closely related to one another…

  12. "While it is true that a lot of whites flee the consequences of their own social degeneracy to find fresh areas of the country to destroy, I suspect most of the white flight was sincere."

    People out West in general are flakes (not just CA people). That being said, people in Oregon, Texas, or wherever who complain that Californians bring "their" problems with them wherever they go are a little off-base. Californians aren't responsible for their state having good weather and lots of rich people, both of which attracts lots of transplants and immigrants. Matter of fact, they voted to deny foreigners benefits in the mid 90's which subsequently was over-turned by a dick judge (one of many legal betrayals that's haunted us since the 1960's, from a demographic and public safety stand-point).

    Californication is eventually going to happen Texas, Arizona, maybe even the Pac. NW. California was first since it's a young state with great weather and attractive scenery. Other Western states were once less attractive, but they've still got room to grow…whether established natives like it or not. The Midwest, Appalachia/Upper South, and really much of the Northeast aren't in as much danger since they're more developed and have more cold and clammy weather than most of the Western US and Sun-belt. Besides, even in the colder parts Out West at least you've got big mountains to ski. No such luck East of the Rockies. Nebraska has blizzards and nothing to ski. Maine is drizzly throughout the year and frigid in the winter. Vermont may be very liberal, but it's still incredibly white; unless you're in or near a large metro area, it's tough to find a lot of non-whites throughout much of New England, Upstate NY, Western PA, and the Upper Midwest. The increased welfare policies of the 1960's attracted a lot of blacks to MN and Wis. (the Twin Cities and Milwaukee) who often were rejects from Detroit/Chicago/St. Louis etc. Without that folly, MN and WI would be much whiter. And let's not forget that the Nords of these areas love boat people; Maine/Vermont etc. have far more Ellis Island types who don't want the wrong kind of boat people dumped in their yard.

    To head off more unwanted changes, striving must diminish and immigration has to be greatly reduced.

  13. "I'm skeptical of the theory that more non-whites will make whites bloc vote, at least in the short- and mid-terms. That's the theory Agnostic was putting forward as to why Texas won't flip blue. I'm skeptical. "

    Thus far it appears that Scots-Irish heritage, Eastern US roots, a very large black population, and low social class are all tied to racial bloc voting. Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Louisiana all appear likely to remain in the GOP for decades to come. Less white and/or more swply Southern states (Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennesee) could go to the Dems based on swpl transplants and/or the Dems fielding a legit populist.

    Trump did substantially better in the Northeastern quadrant of America than Romney or McCain, which could be put down to several things:

    – Trump is from this region, doesn't hide it, and didn't bother with pandering to the West or the Sun-belt (when did the GOP last have a candidate who could say this?)
    – Trump was more of an economic populist than Clinton; hell, he just wasn't Clinton, and she sucked.
    – Trump motivated proles in this region by attacking PC and diversity more than any other post-Eisenhower major party candidate

    If the third factor listed really did push a lot of Eastern whites to Trump, maybe that's reason to suspect that some kind of awakening might be happening with Eastern non-swpl whites. But who knows? It's tough to get people to honestly admit anything, anyway. It's not like the GOP in the Deep South ever lets on why they do well among ordinary whites, even when 90%+ of blacks don't vote GOP.

  14. That "racist joke" map is pretty good evidence that Eastern whites might just be amenable….Thing is, outside of the Deep South, many whites disdain and ridicule blacks but it's not like the black population is large enough or well-distributed enough to be that worrisome. And really, outside of the sweat-belt in the Southeastern quadrant of America, how many blacks do we ever expect to live in the US?

  15. " Less white and/or more swply Southern states (Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennesee) could go to the Dems based on swpl transplants and/or the Dems fielding a legit populist."

    Make that MORE white. Sorry.

  16. Anon,

    Yes, Sprint, Cerner, and Garmin all have a huge presence in our district. It is crucially important to his donors that they not have to pay American programmers professional wages!

    Yoder is a cuck. That said, he's solid on illegal immigration.

  17. Feryl,

    Racist joke map? What's that?

  18. "With respect to your comment on California, you are implying that the white people who lived in California 30 years ago are the same as the ones who live there today, and that no white person has ever emigrated from or immigrated to California."

    Yeah, sure, the West coast was once a hot-bed of social conservatism. Get real. The GSS (which dates back to 1972) demonstrates that on everything…Abortion, racial issues, gays, communism, RU a citizen of the world or the US, etc. the Pacific has always been the most Left-wing region. They just happened to vote for the GOP before the late 1980's because all of the Western states used to hate D.C. but relied heavily on the military, plus they used to be more rural/less developed. You gonna tell me that the region that "inspired" Kurt Cobain/Chris Cornell/Layne Staley to off themselves used to be some kind of conservative paradise? Not a chance. I would never, never, ever raise a child on the West Coast. Yuck.

    California used to be more affordable and had a huge military industry back in the cold war. Plus, back then, the Western states were synonymous with the GOP as the Dems were the party of Appalachian hicks, dreary unions, and ethnic urban machines Back East. The idea that most Western conservatives back then were John Birchers or something is ridiculous. Most Southern and Midwestern Democrats in the 70's and 80's were more culturally conservative than West coast GOP voters. Back East, porn was associated with the mafia and once the mafia was decimated in the late 80's, little porn was made anymore in the East (Cincinnati, Ohio, to this day heavily restricts porn sales and distribution). Meanwhile, in Cali, after the courts ruled that porn actors were not prostitutes in the late 70's, tons of porno got made by all kinds of people.

  19. In liberal circles, during the '16 election, a map circulated which demonstrated that the closer you get to the Atlantic, the more common racial joke internet searches are. The only exception being that the interior Mountain states were actually more PC than the Pacific states. It could just be that there's a correlation with bigger black populations/ghettos and how willing whites are to have wry fun with it, but that doesn't account for very white New England states being more "racist" than the Western states.

    I seem to remember thinking that there's a correlation of being rooted and being racially aware, with the very rootless Mountain states being clueless on racial issues.

  20. AE —

    Uh oh! Look at the emails from NumbersUSA today! This seems dire!

    You may be on the NumbersUSA list, but just in case:


    House Speaker Paul Ryan to meet with Democratic Leadership to discuss DACA Amnesty
    IMPORTANT NOTE: We're hearing from a number of NumbersUSA activists that Speaker Ryan's voicemail is full. You can also contact his office by filling out the contact form on his website:

    Dear Daniel,

    The Washington Post is reporting that House Speaker Paul Ryan is meeting with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the heads of several pro-amnesty Congressional caucuses this afternoon (Wednesday) to discuss a path forward on DACA.

    Please contact Speaker Ryan ahead of this afternoon's meeting and tell him that you oppose a DACA amnesty!

    Yesterday, The Hill published an op-ed written by Roy explaining why passing a DACA amnesty alone will only serve as an incentive for more illegal immigration and how current federal law will multiply the amnesty through chain migration.

    A primary reason most of the hundreds of thousands of young-adult Dreamers have grown from childhood to adulthood while illegally in this country is that outlaw employers have been allowed to hire the Dreamers' parents throughout their childhood…

    Current law —

    through its extended-family chain migration categories — offers even more temptation for parents of other nations to create the Dreamer dilemma for their own children if they believe DACA-type amnesties may become available.

    As soon as amnestied illegal immigrants become U.S. citizens, current law allows them to petition for their parents to also obtain lifetime work permits and permanent residency. In such a case, the sins of the parents not only won't be visited upon the children, they won't fall upon the parents, either.

    — NumbersUSA President Roy Beck, The Hill, Sept. 12, 2017

    Pres. Trump promised throughout the campaign to put American workers first, but the White House has sent mixed signals in recent weeks.

    Just last month, Pres. Trump stood with Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and endorsed their RAISE Act, which would end chain migration and the visa lottery and transform employment-based green cards to a merit-based system. Pres. Trump said this legislation would help raise the wages for American workers by reducing low-skilled immigration.

    Then, just last week, he finally fulfilled his promise to the voters when his administration announced an end to Pres. Obama's unconstitutional DACA executive amnesty. In his statement to the press, Pres. Trump, again, highlighted his support for the RAISE Act.

    But just yesterday, the White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short told reporters that passing a DACA amnesty is a top priority for the White House even if it means passing on other immigration-related legislative priorities.

    Given these mixed messages, Speaker Ryan must hear from the voters who helped elect Trump to the White House because of his pro-American worker positions on immigration. Should Congress pass a DACA amnesty and Pres. Trump sign it into law, it would be a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who voted for him.

    Please contact Speaker Ryan ahead of this afternoon's meeting and tell him that you oppose a DACA amnesty!



  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    DACA encourages more illegals to come because they will be assured that their children will have DACA privileges the minute they get here. That is how it will work in practice. All minors will automatically have special semi legal status the instant they enter the country. It actually incentivizes illegal immigrants to come and bring their families. It is far far cheaper for a laborer to send money home than to bring the whole family, enroll them on welfare and in public schools.

  22. Feryl,

    Looks like it was based on tweets. Probably not much different than from search volumes, but I'll check.


    It's serious. I'm not convinced it's dire yet, though. There will be a DACA amnesty written up–no one should have ever doubted that. The votes will be the harder part for the nation wreckers to come up with.


    Exactly. This situation isn't much different from the 1986 amnesty, at least up to this point. We're not passive spectators in terms of how it will play out, though. Contact your people.

  23. Feryl,

    I'm calling bullshit on that racist joke map (its validity, not its existence that you pointed us to).

    See here.

    Scroll down to the "subregion" section and run through the 50 states + DC. Nothing there.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS