This is a page from the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only goal is educating and informing. 


Although all material contained or referenced on this page is copyrighted either by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” or by other parties (all pictures are from the Internet and are copyrighted by third parties), it is being offered here solely as an educational tool to increase understanding of global economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


Please, send your comments to  (See also readers’ comments after the article.)







By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”


February 1, 2009 (last updated February 4, 2009, minor additions February 5, 2009)




On Friday afternoon January 30, 2009, when most working Americans were readying themselves for the Super Bowl weekend and not watching the news, the "leadership" of the Grand Old Party "elected" the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Michael Steele.

As if electing the first black president of the U.S., who would have no chances of winning the presidential contest if he weren't black, wasn't enough humiliation to the white majority of the American electorate or didn't sooth enough Left's conspirators in their arrogant imposition of power on the American nation. (Tell me more about "white privilege".)

It is clear to me that the following were the most important factors that let to the "election": cowardice, naïveté, losership, betrayal, hostility towards whites that borders with racism, and the disconnect between GOP's "leadership" ("dictatorship" or "despotism" seem like more adequate descriptors here) and its base.


It appears that, in the times when displacement of American white majority with mostly imported minorities and their countless children is on its way, the GOP's "leadership" has been paralyzed with the prospect of being branded "racist" due to their willy-nilly criticism of the first black president of the U.S. Now, not only will they be able to begin and end each public address with "We are not racists" and "We have many black friends" semi-apologies, but also they can claim that "We have a black chairman that we all report to".

For if the first black Republican criticizes the first black president, this is not the "white" party that does so, and all the cowards in the Party's establishment may feel secure not having to expose their white-looking faces to the attacks of the militant ethnocentric lobbies.


It's mind boggling that, despite decades of negative experiences with pondering to "minority" votes, GOP's "leadership" keeps naively stipulating that their gestures towards the "under-represented" will translate onto substantial electoral gains. Nothing further from the truth. For every "minority" vote that they gain that way there are several white votes that they lose.

One of the best documented examples of the falsity of the above stipulation was then Gov. Pete Wilson's (GOP) quest to end California's sponsorship of millions of illegal aliens. Despite grim prognoses of how this "anti-Latino" initiative would fail and how it would hurt GOP in terms of lost votes of Hispanic voters, and despite all the "mainstream" media assaults on it, the Proposition 187 that Wilson was the main champion of, passed with almost 2/3 majority of vote, and Wilson won his re-election on a landslide. (So much for losing elections because of not being "open" enough to minorities.)


To me, a classic example of a predictable loser who thought that nice (towards "minorities") guys finish first was Sen. John McCain.


I remember his occurrence in Barbara Walter's show a few days before the election, when Whoopi Goldberg asked him if, because of his apparent devotion to the letter of the U.S. Constitution, she will be forced to go back to plantation. McCain, who could at least expressed his surprise with such an insidious, if not assaultive, question, answered: "That's a very good question". It was obvious that he not only was unwilling to accept the challenge from Ms. Goldberg, but also he did not want to show a shade of appearance of being combative.

McCain lost because he was unable or unwilling to fight, as if he knew of historic inevitability of Obama's election. He was incapable of confronting a black adversary, as though he believed that a black is a Godsend. Now, the entire GOP's "leadership" seems ready to follow his steps in order to open a "new chapter" in the Republican Party with the "election" of Mr. Steele, an event that they refer to as the "dawn of a new party". Will you be surprised seeing them lose, just like McCain had lost?

I will be not. They are about as good in defending GOP's from loss of power to arrogant (and often cheating) Left and assertive minorities as they have been in defending our country from multi-million man invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico and other Third-World countries.


Even if Mr. Steele is the most gifted Republican who has all the prerequisites expected of the successful party leader (which I doubt), how do we know that he is willing and able to wholeheartedly and unreservedly represent the white majority and defend it from assaults of other racial and ethnic groups? I am skeptical in this respect.

Take, for instance, Gen. Colin Powell. He betrayed his "conservative" principles and the party that moved him up to the highest honors in the U.S. Army and federal government by choosing genetic kinship over loyalty in his endorsement of then candidate Barak Obama's candidacy. Inexplicably, right after that betrayal, the GOP's "leadership" doesn't apparently think we took enough risk in this matter.

How do they know that the newly elected black chairman will not follow Powell's example at the time of crisis and turmoil? Or, perhaps, those who have engineered his "election" know damn well what he is likely to do and this is exactly why they arranged things this way in order to make GOP irrelevant for decades to come.

If the latter were true (I would hypothesize so) then we, the white majority, are being betrayed by those who are supposed to preach and practice conservatism and preservation of the American status quo. And my hypothesis explains a lot, indeed.

Under such assumption, it becomes clear why GOP has been lured into opening itself to "under-represented" minorities despite such politics being clearly and factually suicidal for the entire party; the engineers of that opening needed it in order to achieve one of their main objective: to submit once powerful party of white majority to the "minority" rule.

If this is not betrayal then nothing is.

Anti-white hostility

When a predominantly Hispanic school district elects a white board member then, according to a recent court ruling, it's a manifestation of racism (see [1]). For decades, courts and lawmakers bent the U.S. Constitution and gerrymandered voting district so that a majority of black voters can always elect a black Congressman. (Now, the non-white Hispanic were granted the same right by the court.) But when it comes to filling the post of the GOP's chair, all of the sudden election of member of Party's small minority that accounted for about 5 percent of votes in the recent presidential elections is being praised are the right and just thing to do. Aren't we entitled to being led by someone who can relate to us and our needs? Or these are only the non-whites who have this inalienable right to be led by someone who looks like them?

If you are not screaming "Hypocrisy!" and "Double standard!" then, perhaps, you deserve what you are getting now.

And to all those who are ready to pull out their "white supremacy" argument, take a note of this.

No major nation, except for those with white majority, ever elected, in a democratic process, a member of a different race to its highest posts. So if it is OK for the Chinese in China to exercise the "Chinese supremacy", for Hindu in India to exercise the "Indian supremacy", for blacks in Africa to exercise the "black supremacy", for Latinos in South America to exercise the "Latino supremacy" then why the heck we, the white majority, cannot maintain our white majority and the political power that is a result of it, in our own country that we and our ancestors have build from scratch?

From a wider perspective, the election of Chairman Steele seems to go along with the engineered demographic makeover of the U.S. There is a good reason why millions of "minorities" flood and populate our country under the "watchful" eye of the federal authorities, while their leaders openly demand that "All whites go back to Europe." (They don't insist that we take the wealth and the economy that we created here with us, though.) There is a good reason why Sarah Palin, an extremely popular and unapologetically white authentic Republican, the quintessence of American and a model of a family woman, had not even been seriously considered for the RNC chairmanship.


These events are parts of a large-scale process of whites' displacement that will end with nothing short of submitting the current white majority to the dictatorship of other races. They can only be explained with this country rulers' anti-white hostility (the anti-Palin hostility has been a perfect example of) that borders with racism.

Disconnect with the Party's base

Anyone who claims that GOP's "election" had anything to do with a democratic process is a liar or a naive ignorant.

After the Republican Party, disheartened with Sen. McCain's nomination, got electrified by emergence of Sarah Palin (which event, if it weren't for Charlie Gibson's condescending "interview" with her that swayed away millions of prospective voters and showed other "mainstream" media hyenas how to attack her, would secure the White House for a Republican administration), pulling out of literally nowhere a personality like Mr. Steele seems particularly irrational, if not outright absurd.

My colleague, who showed me his "Life Member" card of the Republican National Committee, told me that no one even polled him, never mind allowing him to cast a vote, as to who should be the chair of the RNC. (Tell me more about the democratic elections.)

The GOP's "leadership" seems to believe that they need to reach out to "Liberals" and "minorities" in order to have a chance in 2012 presidential rematch. But in their shortsighted, if not treasonous, attempts they seem to neglect almost totally the strength and unrealized potential of the existing, albeit apathetic, base that disapproves of the GOP's "me too" politics (like, for instance, repeated attempts to pass the amnesty for illegal aliens or to redistribute taxpayers' money among low income individuals in order to secure their votes, or to expand the size and power of the federal government). After all, they joined the Republican Party and not a generic copy or an imitation of the Democratic Party.

About half of those identifying themselves as Republican voters stayed at home last November. They yielded to apathy and hopelessness that then candidate McCain and GOP's "leadership" projected on them. Should someone energize them to the point that they would go to the polling places, then candidate Obama and his left-leaning mentors would have no chances of scoring the White House in the last elections.

And if someone tells me that lackluster and anti-charismatic Mr. Steele is going to do to the GOP's base what Sarah Palin did (incite it with enthusiasm and the will of winning) then I will tell that person: "I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be willing to buy from me".


The GOP's soft-gloves self-restrained "leaders" (I don's use noun "morons" here out of being polite) deserve the blame for losing the presidential election to the most left-leaning, and - arguably - least qualified, candidate in recent history, period. We cannot afford risking another loss that would give President Obama more time to implement his socialist agenda. It's time for them to relinquish their "leadership" to those, like Sarah Palin, who are capable of leading and winning.


Let's give these "leaders" a boot they deserve for the disasters that they have brought on our heads. Let's rid the GOP's leadership of  naturally born losers, RINOs, traitors, neo-cons, and other half-hearted conservatives. Enough is enough, already.



Addendum (February 4, 2009). It turns that the "behind the scenes" manipulations might have been what made Mr. Steele to emerge as the winner. Per NRO (see [3]), Mike Duncan, the front runner with solid initial lead over Steele, exited the race at the last moment after three ballots were cast. (I guess, they "leadership" just kept voting until the desirable candidate won; that must have been much easier then Democratic-style recounts.) One can only imagine the hand twisting that led to that unexpected tossup. [top]


Note added February 4, 2009. Last night, an associate of mine posted the first two paragraphs of this article and a link to it at GOPUSA forums Miscellaneous News and Conservatism and the Republican Party. The very next morning the posts have been removed and my associate can no longer login to their website (see reference [2] the links to the removed  threads returned by Google). I guess, the truth in this case has been so heavy for GOPUSA that they cannot bear it. Tell me more about censorship and arrogance. I would hypothesize that neocons and former Democrats have already rooted themselves there - not a good prognosis for the vast majority of GOP members. 





[1] Madera Unified case is changing elections throughout California,0,6908778.story


[2] Links to removed posts at GOPUSA returned by Google (as of Feb. 4, 2009)

(you may also click here and here to retrieve the entire posts from Google's caches before they expire)


[3] Duncan Exits the Race





“Racist” Is a Code Word for White”

Loser McCain

Differences Between Races a Distraction

Venom in the News

“Their” Land

Liberation and Socialism, or the Marching Morons?




Readers’ comments:  "Thanks for the article on the GOP sell out to minority pandering."

Send yours to  [top]




Past commentary (October 25, 2008) “Racist” Is a Code Word for “White”  


Click here for Disclaimer



Mark Andrew Dwyer's latest commentary (updated) is posted at:

save this link >>>

The complete list of commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” with synopses and readers’ comments ordered by the date of original posting (with the most recent commentary first).

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at (retrieved by Google)

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at

Links to commentaries by "Mark Andrew Dwyer" posted elsewhere (retrieved by Google)

Visit for the most comprehensive and up to date coverage of immigration news and commentaries.



The URL address of this page is: