Want to know what California will look like in 20 years?

Want to know what California will look like in 20 years? Google Tijuana.

Google Earth has partially cataloged the streets of Tijuana in the “street view” and it is not a pretty sight. The sprawling urban city of 1.5 million butts up against the US border. It has one of the highest murder rates in the Western Hemisphere. Google street view shows a dense urban landscape where residents live in total fear of their neighbors. The entire city is covered in massive concrete walls, steel gates, and steel bars. Combine that with the gang graffiti and crumbling roads and it looks like some post apocalyptic landscape. It is so dangerous that the United States Marine Corps recently ended a decades old tradition of letting soldiers take leave in the city.

Click here to explore the real Tijuana.

Obama to Latinos: I don’t have to enforce immigration law.

Obama went on Univision, the Spanish language network, to re-assure Latinos that he has no plans to enforce US immigration law.

From RCP…

“The most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works — again, I just wanna repeat, I’m president, I’m not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves,” President Obama told Univision.

Note: Obama released Haitians criminals from detention centers in a unilateral backdoor amnesty. These were illegal aliens from Haiti who have already committed crimes in the United States. They had served time in American jails and prisons and were awaiting deportation. Obama released all of these illegal alien thugs back into society. Some have already committed new crimes. Obama’s comments are absurd. He wants all illegals to stay, no matter how many problems they cause.

Velasquez fans show their hatred of white people after fight.

Latino MMA fans celebrating Velasquez victory with racial animosity. The new UFC heavyweight champion has “Brown Pride” tattooed on his chest and boasts of being “100% Mexican” despite being born in California. His title match took place in Anaheim where Latino fans waved Mexican flags and signs saying “Brown Pride.”

The irony is a white competitor with “White Pride” tattooed on his chest would be barred from even competing. Velasquez defines himself in racial terms and his Latino fan base love him for it.

After the fight, youtube and internet message boards were filled with tens of thousands of messages from Valasquez fans attacking whites. In fact, praising Velasquez for his victory and attacking white people with profanities and racial slurs seem to go hand in hand for Latino fans.


Partitioning intra- and inter-racial genetic variation

Partitioning intra- and inter-racial genetic variation

We are all familiar with the mantra of the anti-racist when confronted with facts about race: there is more genetic variation within a race than between races.  Is this true?  It depends on how one measures genetic variation.  Using Fst or AMOVA, the split is typically 85/15 between intra-racial and inter-racial variation.  But these measures are based on allele frequency comparisons averaged over individual genes.  It’s hard to reconcile an 85/15 split with the following PCA plot, based on 250,000 SNPs:


Let’s look at 4 populations: YRI (Nigerians, left of plot), CEU (Northwestern Europeans, bottom of plot), CHB (Chinese in Beijing, top of plot), and JPT (Japanese in Tokyo, top of plot).  Considering that the first two principal components account for 87.8% of the variation, and that the distance between samples in the same population is tiny compared to that between populations, this plot suggests that the 85/15 split is not an adequate description of the intra- vs. inter-racial variation.

One common statistical technique for partitioning variation is ANOVA (to be specific it is partitioning variance, or the variation around a mean).  Here is a short introduction to the method.

I took 100,000 random autosomal SNPs from the HapMap 3 data set and determined the genotypes for 100 individuals (excluding children) from CEU and YRI at those positions.  For each SNP, I determined which is the most common allele in the overall population (I’ll call this the globally most common allele, or GMCA).  I then calculated the total number of GMCAs for each individual, across all SNPs.  The GMCA totals where then used with a single factor (population, with 2 levels: CEU and YRI) to perform a one-way ANOVA.  This procedure was performed 3 times. (note: the results should be similar if, instead of choosing a ‘GMCA’, I just chose a random allele).

The median ratio of the treatment sum of squares to the total sum of squares was 0.985 (range: 0.979 to 0.986).  Racial group explains 98.5% of the variation.

The distribution of GMCA counts within CEU and YRI are relatively normal.





The variance for CEU and YRI is 36761.77 and 38314.7, respectively.  The rule of thumb is that there should be less than a 4-fold difference in the variance of any groups used in the analysis, so this is fine.

A plot of the residual versus fitted values does not suggest problems with heteroscedacity (variance increasing or decreasing with the magnitude of the fitted value):


The residuals look to be fairly normally distributed:



The normal Q-Q plot suggests that normality breaks down at very high and low values, but this does not look worse than some plots I’ve seen which are said to be ok.

So far as I can determine, there are no major violations of the assumptions required for ANOVA.

The 98.5% inter-racial variance is more in line with the PCA plot shown at the beginning.  Another approach, instead of using ‘GMCA’, would be to use the eigenvalues for the significant principal components from PCA for the samples in each population.  For example, if ANOVA on the values for principal component 1 of the above PCA showed that 99.5% of the variation was between groups, this would be converted to proportion of total variation by multiplying 99.5% by 75.9% (the percentage of variation accounted for by PC1), giving 75.5%.  Suppose ANOVA for PC2 showed 95% of variation as inter-group, this would then add 11.3% (0.95 x 0.119), for a total of 86.8%.  This would be done for the rest of the significant principal components.

In summary, the 85/15 partitioning of genetic variation is based on a single, limited definition of genetic variation.  Methods that consider large numbers of genes can apportion more variation between races.

Meg Whitman Spends $163 million to Lose the California Election

Meg Whitman Spends $163 million to Lose the California Election

Whitman waffled on illegal immigration, lost credibility with voters, losing by 13 points.

by James Buchanan

After defeating Steve Poizner in the Republican primary, it looked as though Meg Whitman would simply steamroll the Democrat candidate. Meg Whitman had been the CEO of e-Bay and became a billionaire in the process. The idea of a successful businesswoman running California had a strong appeal, but an over-managed campaign by inept advisers and Whitman’s inability to take a stand on key issues of the greatest importance to California doomed her campaign to failure.

The individual running against Meg Whitman is none other than aging hippie retread, Jerry Brown, the same bungler who allowed California state workers to unionize, which led to salary and pension deals, that are helping to drive California toward bankruptcy. You’d think Whitman might have mentioned that in a few commercials, but her dream team of “genius” political advisers either didn’t think it was important or they were afraid of offending the union members.

A recent news article reports “Democrat Jerry Brown has opened up a wide lead over his Republican challenger, Meg Whitman, with just eight days left before Election Day, a new LA Times/USC poll has found. Brown’s lead over Whitman has jumped to 13 percentage points. Of the voters surveyed, 52% said they would vote for Brown while just 39% said they planned to vote for Whitman.”

Meg Whitman has failed over and over to make her positions clear on the issues. When the Arizona immigration law SB1070 became national news, Whitman could have clearly voiced her support for it, but instead she produced a bewildering answer that it was OK for Arizona, but bad for California because California is bigger. Why should the size of California matter?

Whitman failed to take a clear stand on Proposition 23, a bill to repeal California’s Global Warming Act, which will cost California over a million jobs according to two different studies. If Whitman came out loud and clear supporting Prop. 23 to repeal the Global Warming law, it would have benefited both her and Proposition 23. As things stand now Prop. 23 is losing by 11 points thanks to a barrage of left wings ads and Meg is losing by 13 points. Left wing political ads claim that Prop. 23 will cause electrical rates to shoot up –while the complete opposite is true.

Whitman’s gutless political advisers are apparently telling her to avoid taking a clear position on anything. This however is totally insane. After a while, everyone begins to notice that Whitman is continually speaking like a lawyer and can’t say anything straight.

Whitman came out looking bad again when her illegal alien nanny went public. It’s a little hard to believe that Whitman didn’t know her maid was an illegal alien, considering that the maid was barely able to speak English after being in the US for over 10 years. Whitman didn’t bother to make the effort to hire an American nanny.

What completely killed Meg Whitman’s chances to win were her attempts to pander to Latinos. After telling the John and Ken radio show that she would be “tough as nails” on illegal immigration, she then released ads in Spanish that talked about a “path to citizenship” for illegals. This attempt to take both sides of the illegal alien issue immediately was exposed by the media and talk radio. It was at this point that Meg Whitman lost all her credibility with the White people of California. Her million dollar advisers look like complete imbeciles once again.

Politicians need to decide how they’re going to get a majority. It’s possible to get a majority in California by taking a strong stand against illegal aliens. Even though White people are less than 50 percent in California, Blacks are strongly opposed to illegal immigrants who compete with them for government programs.

Meg’s fuzzy position on illegal immigration and her attempts at pandering to illegals led to her splitting the White vote 41-to-41 with the Democrat, which is an absolutely horrible performance by a Republican. A strong stand against illegal aliens should get 80 percent of the White vote.

A Meg Whitman interview on the immensely popular John and Ken show, which is broadcast throughout California went disastrously wrong. John and Ken tried to get Whitman to take a clear position on Prop. 23 and the illegal alien issue. If Meg had bothered to listen to the John and Ken show like millions of other Californians, she might have been better prepared and realized that she could NOT weasel her way out of answering some basic questions that are of great importance to the people of California. Whitman was reportedly sniffling in the elevator on the way out of the KFI studio. After Meg Whitman’s disaster, Jerry Brown avoided the John and Ken show like the plague.

The people of California want someone who has political beliefs that mirror their own. California is literally being driven bankrupt by illegal aliens and unionized state workers who have salaries and pensions that are totally unsustainable. The crazy California legislature refuses to do anything about these two issues, which will doom the state to bankruptcy.

Maybe it’s just as well that Meg Whitman loses to Jerry Brown. Let the aging hippie retread, Brown take the blame when California eventually goes bankrupt. And if we’re really lucky, these rich egomaniacs will quit running in Republican elections. Whitman doesn’t have the guts to tackle the illegal alien problem, and without deporting millions of illegal aliens, California is going bankrupt. By running in the California race, she squandered $163 million just to lose the election and she also denied California a chance to have a more serious right wing candidate on the Republican ticket.

The Tea Party Revolution and the Future of Politics

The Tea Party Revolution and the Future of Politics

by James Buchanan

There are at least three Tea Party candidates running for Senator in the 2010 elections. There’s Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharon Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. The Tea Party played a key role in defeating pro-Amnesty Republican Senators Bob Bennett and Arlen Specter. Bennett not only lost his primary, he placed THIRD scoring only 27 percent. Arlen Specter was even more pathetic. Specter actually fled the Republican Party, ran in the Democrat primary and lost. Both Specter and Bennett supported the 2007 Amnesty Bill, and were seen as liberal “RINO” Republicans.

Anyone familiar with US politics should know how rare it is for an entrenched, multi-term incumbent to be defeated in his own primary. Even John McCain barely squeaked by after spending $21 million and lying about his past support for Amnesty. If the Arizona primary system were closed so that only Republicans could vote for the Republican candidate, McCain would have lost too.

The combined defeat of Specter and Bennett and the primary victories by Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell is already the making of a mini-Revolution. The Jewish mainstream media has been fighting the Tea Party revolution every step of the way. Any embarrassing thing the Jewish media can dig up on the Tea Party candidates going back to their teenage years has gone on the evening news and the Jay Leno Show.

The Tea Party is at least the beginning of a move in the right direction. Most of the Tea Party is against illegal immigration. The acronym “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already”. Most of the Tea Party members are long time conservatives who are sick and tired of a Republican Party of crooks, who are little different from the Democrats.

What led to the Tea Party Revolution? Why are taxes so high? We’re paying for government benefits for tens of millions of Third World parasites. And who’s paying the taxes? Primarily White people, most of whom can’t send their kids to their local public schools because they’re full of Mexicans or Blacks and have become too dangerous. Many White people in big cities today can’t pay for private schools for their kids plus the endless taxes that the Democrats want from them.

Added to that is the bipartisan betrayal (NAFTA and GATT) which led to the outsourcing of millions of American factory jobs. There’s also the massive legal immigration from Asia that has flooded many technical fields, lowered wages and added many White Americans to the ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Considering the long, long list of betrayals against the White American public by our government, they are lucky that all they’re facing so far are electoral defeats of incumbents and the election of a wide range of Tea Party candidates, some of whom are extremely serious and some of whom are novices, who have few plans other than reducing taxes.

This raises the question of whether the Tea Party movement will finish with a few dozen upset victories in 2010 or if the revolution will evolve into a more serious political movement. Lowering taxes will be the first step. The second step will hopefully be the deportation of over 20 million illegal aliens and the revocation of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

The Tea Party should be seen as a positive development by even the most jaded and pessimistic Americans. We’ll soon discover the extent of the Tea Party Revolution with the November elections. It’s likely the senior members of the Senate and House will try to bully the TEA Party Senators and Congressmen and block their efforts at reform, but the surviving long term incumbents need to remember that the Tea Party has ended the careers of Senators, who had four and five terms under their belts. Getting in the way of the Tea Party may prove a career-ending decision for even more long-term incumbents in the 2012 elections.

By the 2012 elections, the Tea Party may not be satisfied with the ouster of corrupt politicians; the public could easily be demanding the criminal prosecution of politicians, who lied us into wars or who gave multi-billion dollar kick backs via Stimulus Bills and TARP to their political cronies.