Recent News

The February 27 decision by the notorious U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals that California school officials could ban students from wearing the U.S. flag on Cinco de Mayo because of an alleged fear it would “provoke” racial violence was a disgusting capitulation to Hispanic supremacism and Mexican Reconquistas, and a betrayal of white Americans. There is no other way to describe it. As VDARE.com’s Allan Wall asked, what country are we living in?

But no one in the Main Stream Media, liberal or “conservative,” has pointed out the decisive fact: 2010 was the first year in Live Oak High School’s history that Hispanics outnumbered whites.

Schooldigger.com, a popular source of information about schools, lists the racial composition of the student body and the way it changed over the decades.

From 1988 until 2009, whites outnumbered Hispanics at Live Oak High. But Hispanics slowly grew in number, while whites decreased—until they became a minority in 2010.

Not coincidentally, 2010 was also the year that Mexican students threatened American students for wearing their flag on Cinco de Mayo—and the American students were sent home or told to change their clothes, while the Mexicans were allowed to celebrate their national flag.

2010 was simply the flashpoint in the mounting conflict brought about by racial population change.

Imagine the sense of dispossession and loss on the part of those poor American parents, as an American school took on the trappings of the Mexicans who had been allowed into the district in overwhelming numbers—legally and illegally, remember there an estimated 2.5 million illegal aliens in California

Now the immigrants, and their ungrateful anchor-baby progeny, are a living curse,

Back in 2007, Rush Limbaugh told a caller, “Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” This January, Stanford alumni Richard Sherman confirmed Limbaugh’s observation with his loutish behavior at the end of the National Football League’s (NFL) NFC Championship game.

But NCAA college football is the feeder league for professional thuggery and a scandal far greater than Sherman’s screeching is all but ignored by the national Main Stream Media—above all, its undeniable racial angle.  One of the top public colleges in America is embroiled in not one, but two huge racial scandals that prove the NCAA has nothing to do with anything resembling “higher education.”

The University of North Carolina (UNC) is one of the top institutions of higher learning in the South.  Not surprisingly, this means the black male student population is low, and a high proportion of what “diversity” there is functions as “student-athletes” on the football or basketball team. [Only 98 of nearly 4,000 new first-years are black males, By Julia Craven, The Daily Tar Heel, October 14, 2013]. A 2013 study conducted by the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, [Black Male Student-Athletes and Racial Inequities in NCAA Division I College Sports, By Shaun R. Harper, Collin D. Williams Jr., and Horatio W. Blackman (PDF)] noted that only 3.5 percent of the undergraduate population of UNC was black, but 69.9 percent of the revenue-generating athletes (football and men’s basketball) were black.

Stripped of Political Correctness, what this means is that black males are not capable of earning admission to UNC on academic grounds, but that the college thinks it requires blacks to staff profitable athletic teams.  

The perennial problem for UNC and other universities: how to keep these black male athletes academically eligible to compete for the school, while maintaining academic integrity and credibility.

The solution UNC developed: fraud!

The first scandal is the revelation that the UNC “Afro-American Studies” department engaged in massive fraud to ensure black athletes received grades they didn’t (and couldn’t) earn.  [The Scandal Bowl: Tar Heels Football, Academic Fraud, and Implicit Racism, by Paul Barrett, Business Week, January 2, 2014]

The fraud including changing grades, forging professors’ signatures, and “little or no class time” for supposed students.  It extended back to 1997.  [UNC probe reveals academic fraud, by Robbi Pickeral, ESPN, December 2, 2012]

Professor Julius Nyang’oro, a Tanzanian immigrant, was criminally indicted in December 2013 for the disgrace and has hid in a “cone of silence.”  According to the New York Times, before the scandal broke, Nyang’oro was an “internationally respected scholar.”  Now, it has been alleged that though students received grades, some of his classes never even existed.  [A’s for Athletes, but Charges of Fraud at North Carolina, by Sarah Lyall, December 31, 2013] 

The University has been reduced to spot checks of scheduled classes to make sure they are actually real.  [“UNC holds unannounced inspections of classes to make sure they exist,” by Robby Soave, Daily Caller, February 28, 2013]

For those wondering, an internal audit found that 40 percent of those enrolled in 54 classes at the heart of the scandal were football or basketball players. What percentage went on to get masters or even PhDs in Black studies or some other made-up liberal arts degree? [UNC players made up 39 percent of suspect classes: Nearly 40% in certain UNC courses played football or basketball, Charlotte News and Observer, May 7, 2012

Long-time NFL star Julius Peppers was one of those black athletes who

As I wrote in a recent letter to the editor, Malaysian Air flight MH370 has literally disappeared into thin air. The most seasoned aeronautic veterans are scratching their heads and wondering how an apparently well-maintained modern jet airplane can just up and vanish when it has reached cruising altitude in untroubled clear blue skies. They all seem to agree it must have been something fairly sudden and catastrophic because no communication has been detected by authorities, which one would assume would happen given something like a jammed jack screw.

No, something more sudden seems to be the consensus, it’s increasingly pointing into the direction of murder most foul. Investigation into the passenger manifest has revealed two people traveling with stolen passports. Which of course makes us all suspect that perhaps one of both of these people boarded the plane under-cover with a bomb with the intention of meeting Allah in a hurry. [Passport Theft Adds to Mystery of Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet, By Thomas Fuller And Eric Schmitt, NYT, March 8, 2014]

But it is odd, if that is the case, that they would target a Malaysian airline. It is a Muslim country, after all. But maybe they saw Malaysia’s candy-striped flag (right) and said to themselves, “Close enough, I want me my 72 virgins, Allahu Akbar!”

Given all this hand-wringing and speculation, it’s a wonder that the Main Stream Media has not picked up on the deplorable state of U.S. identity security. Here in the U.S., any attempt at improving the security and validity of identification is met with full-throated defiance by the usual suspects, who happen to run the country. We are meant to believe that asking for basic forms of identification routinely needed for something as simple as renting a movie is tantamount to poll-taxes and Jim Crow.

This mentality can be seen in the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill being pushed by the Great and the Good. It actually has a provision that makes it illegal to “forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make 3 or more passports”.

See? The first two are free! [Rubio Didn't Know His Own Bill Allows Someone to Forge 2 Passports Before It's a Crime,By Alissa Tabirian, CNSnews.com, July 19, 2013.]

But honestly, what is the thinking behind this? Why on earth, given our apparent state of perpetual war against whole swaths of mankind, would we attempt to lay avenues of attacks unobstructed to foreigners whose designs may be anywhere from rudely imposing to murderous? I mean, what’s that point of having an official document if in fact the law actually has provisions allowing it to be counterfeited?

I’ll answer my own question: it’s because the person(s) who wrote this bill are wild-eyed Open-Border Treason Lobby fanatics. They don’t want ANY form of identification that hinders the absolute free-movement of people.

This Gang Of Eight bill was written by the likes of

Mickey Kaus, moderator Jonathan Garthwaite, and Ann Coulter "Debate" Immigration

I’ve made it pretty clear that Conservatism Inc. exists for the benefit of its wealthy donors, not to protect the interest of its voters. But protesting participants tell me that this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, which I discussed here, took price gouging and abuse of the loyal grass roots to new lows. The Beltway Right increasingly resembles the hitman antihero of the film Killing Me Softly, who concludes at the end of the movie: “America’s not a country; it’s just a business. Now f***ing pay me.”

As even the Leftist Main Stream Media has discovered, major corporations don’t just fund CPAC—they set its agenda. [Why CPAC isn’t as grassroots as you think, by Eli Clifton, Slate, March 7, 2014] Chief among the donors: oil, tobacco, and gun companies. Xbox, Motion Picture Association of America, and even Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook (!!!), also had booths at CPAC, part of the increasing corporate presence. CPAC now really stands for Corporate Political Action Conference.

But while the Left usually loves to bash Big Business, it is silent about the consequences of this corporate corruption—because it approves of the political consequences: above all the blatant repression of immigration patriots and the steady drumbeat for Open Borders and mass immigration.

Of course, in order for this plan to work, "CorporatePAC" (CPAC) has to control not only the views presented from the main stage but the organizations that participate in the Exhibit Hall. Over the past few years, the sponsoring American Conservative Union (Al Cardenas, caudillo) has steadily increased prices, limited access, and discouraged grassroots participation to make sure no unapproved views are aired at its swanky party.

This year, "CorporatePAC" (CPAC) dramatically cut down the hours in which paying exhibitors could display their booths: just 11 AM - 4 pm during Thursday and Friday, and 10 AM to 2 pm on Saturday. That's only 14 hours for small groups that paid $4,000 to attend the event just to have a booth—nearly $300 an hour.

For the second year in a row, the main stage where the speakers talk was on a different floor from the Exhibit Hall. Many people now never bother to go down to visit the Exhibitor Hall because they spend their whole time in the main Ballroom.

But at least last year exhibitors had a nice view of the harbor from the exhibit hall, and there were big-screen TVs in the hall so attendees could follow events. In contrast, this year all exhibitors were closed off from views, TV’s were eliminated, and “side events" also took place in the noisy Exhibit Hall, rendering them hard to hear and all but ignored. Small groups paid huge amounts of money for no perks, receiving as consolation prizes only "free lunches” and live music in the Exhibit Hall, which no one listened to. The obvious intent of all of this was to actively discourage participation by the grassroots.

Many exhibitors feel insulted by the way they were treated. Some libertarian groups are disgusted but take in stride because they think they are making a “hostile takeover” of the Establishment conservative movement. If the gray old men are eventually forced out by socially liberal, openly hostile left-libertarians, they have only themselves to blame given the way they treat their own supporters. Rather than a meeting place for a movement, "CorporatePAC" (CPAC) has become a gathering place for opposing tribes of con artists plotting how to exploit each other.

"CorporatePAC" (CPAC)’s venue, the Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center, is very far away from any Metro subway station. This makes it very hard or expensive for people who do not have cars to attend the event. The obvious target is students, once seen as the very heart and soul of the annual event. CPAC claimed to have shuttle buses running from Union Station, but they were shut down at about 8:00 pm on Friday, making it all but impossible for students to stick around for late night events. The younger libertarians grousing about this in their “Stand With Rand” T shirts speculate that the Gaylord Hotel was chosen to make it difficult for the Ron Paul/Rand Paul student brigades to swamp the vote for their candidate.

This failed—Senator Paul won the straw poll this year, as he did the year before. Still, "CorporatePAC" (CPAC)’s manipulations have ensured that the Paulistas

CPAC: The Good—Ann Coulter	The Bad and The Ugly—ACU chairman Al Cardenas

They have learned nothing. They have forgotten nothing. They are doing nothing. And they may win by default.

Thus is the state of “the movement” at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2014 Anno Domini.

Much was the same as the year before. Once again, ACU organizers did their best to prevent any dissent against their preferred policy of Amnesty. Once again, speakers used militant rhetoric on tangential issues. Once again, there were laughable efforts at minority outreach, greeted with hooting scorn by an openly hostile Main Stream Media. And once again, the only person who bluntly told the truth about the dispossession of the historic American nation was Ann Coulter.

One MSM mini-meme for this year’s CPAC: “sanity” (as defined by Leftists) has been restored to CPAC. This was duly dissected by VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow, whose appearance in 2012 seems to have been nominated as the nadir by whatever replaced Journolist.

The problem, of course: the goal posts for “racism” keep being moved. Thus the collection of clickbait clichés known as Gawker dispatched one Gabrielle Bluestone who duly kvetched that “on the second day of CPAC, all of the main speakers are white men.” [A Sea of White: Day Two at CPAC, by Gabrielle Bluestone, Gawker, March 7, 2013] (Like the demographic that created the country.)

CPAC did try its usual tactic of presenting a Great Black Hope—in this case, Dr. Ben Carson, who received a raucous reception. Conference organizers also tried to head off race-baiting stories with panels on minority outreach—unfortunately for them, no one showed up, at least not at the beginning of the panel. Thus, liberal journalists were able to write triumphalist stories about how CPAC is neglecting diversity. The smug John Hudak gloated

“The diversity panel is the path to the party being successful and making inroads into traditionally Democratic groups. If the GOP wants to see the Democratic Party struggle to elect a president, they should win 20% of the African American Vote or 50% of the Latino vote…If the attendance pictured above reflects the party’s future approach to diversity outreach, it is probably safe to say that for some the given future, the White House will be a solid hue of deep blue.”

[Live from CPAC: The Most Important Panel Everyone Missed, by John Hudak, Brookings Institution, March 6, 2014]

The deliberate exclusion of immigration patriots was intensified this year—as Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA  put it, CPAC has become a “kind of the corporate elites playground instead of [about] conservative principles. [Immigration hardliners: No room for us at CPAC, by Jackie Kucinich, The Washington Post, March 7, 2014]. The Huffington Post celebrated that “Cuban-born lawyer and lobbyist Al Cardenas has invited several Latino activists and leaders to take part in panels and immigration and health care.” [CPAC, Once Again An Obstacle To GOP Attempts To Soften Message, Shows Signs of Moderation, by Jon Ward, Huffington Post, March 6, 2014]. (See here for more disgusting details on corruptocat Cardenas.)

However, there was an odd defensiveness about the entire conference

Also by Paul Nachman: Astonishing Immigration Patriot Victory In Montana—No Thanks To GOP, Which Ran Away (And Lost)

Since early February, the indefatigable Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch has been sounding the alarm that Wyoming, the only state without a refugee program, is setting itself up for all the woe that having such a program brings. Its Governor Matt Mead, [Email him] a Republican, actually contacted the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement to indicate his interest in getting started.

(Reading between the lines at Wikipedia's profile of Mead, we can guess that he's a typically well-insulated and clueless member of what columnist Mark Steyn calls America's "depraved political class." The profile includes this: "In 2003, Mead and his brother and sister put their family ranch in [Grand Teton National Park] up for sale; the price was said to be $110 million.")

Wyomingites wanting to bring themselves up to speed on this threat should first read Ms. Corcoran's blogs on the subject:

• Wyoming to get refugee resettlement office (they know not what they do!) (February 3, 2014)
• Wyoming being fed a pack of lies! (February 25, 2014)

A couple of weeks ago, I did a VDARE.com blog about the threat to Wyoming, urging citizens of Wyoming and others with strong connections to the state to contact Mead and express your displeasure (politely, of course). If enough people do that, the governor may catch on that pursuing this initiative won't necessarily be a controversy-free way to burnish his "compassion" credentials. If you've been meaning to do that but haven't yet gotten around to it, step right up.

This Tuesday, March 4, a letter from me appeared in the Casper Star-Tribune, Wyoming's largest-circulation newspaper, under the (editor-supplied) headline Refugee influx not so great. Since others might use it as a starting template for their own letters, I'll provide the full text here:

Editor:

The Feb. 22 article (Former child soldier wants refugee office in Wyoming) about a possible influx of refugees to Wyoming paints the cheerful picture of a program—under careful, joint control by the federal government and national charitable organizations (e.g. Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society)—that brings in people whose diverse backgrounds enrich the lives of the locals, even as these newcomers speedily become “self sufficient.”

That scenario has almost no overlap with the actual experiences of cities across the country (e.g. Lewiston, Maine; Amarillo, Texas; Manchester, N.H.) that have been deluged with needy people—typically unaccustomed to living in a modern, self-governing society—once they agreed to accept a few refugees.

And often they didn’t even agree. Instead, the U.S. State Department, in cooperation with those national organizations, merely announced that refugees would be coming, and it was up to local governments and their taxpayers to accommodate the inflow.

One explicitly local burden is the surge of non-English-speakers into public schools (ESL teachers required) and as clients of the court system and social services agencies (translators required). Those don’t qualify for the federal support that supposedly makes the program cost-free to receiving communities.

All public benefits—federal, state, and local—are available to refugees by 30 days after their arrival in the U.S., and their use is much higher than that by native-born citizens. For example, in 2010, 49 percent of refugees who had arrived during 2005-2010 were receiving medical assistance (primarily Medicaid).

Further, what’s implied by “self-sufficiency?” This merely means that refugees aren’t collecting federally-funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). They can still be receiving food stamps, Medicaid, locally-funded general (cash) assistance, and Supplemental Security Income while being officially counted as “self sufficient."

It’s also important to recognize that those organizations that help resettle refugees are federal contractors. Instead of providing actual charity, they run their refugee operations primarily with taxpayer money.

So Wyomingites shouldn’t just leave decisions about the proposed state refugee program to such self-interested “experts.” Remember, it’s still your state.

PAUL NACHMAN, Bozeman, Mont. (Hyperlinks supplied by VDARE.com)

At this writing, there have been nine comments added by readers. The one by refugee expert

I recently needed to look something up in George H. Nash’s 1976 book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. I found what I wanted, then fell to browsing.

It is still fascinating to read about American Conservatism during the Cold War, but you can’t help noticing something missing in those debates, something that puts them at a distance from the headlines of today.

Headlines like this one, for example:

EU demands Britain gives more rights to migrants:

Commissioner wants citizens to “enjoy same rights they have at home in other member states”

Eurocrats will today demand that Britain give “rights without borders” to EU migrants.

In a move certain to spark a new row with Westminster, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding is pressing for a “fully functioning common area of justice.”

Most controversially, citizens would be able to “enjoy the same rights they have at home in another Member State”—potentially importing a string of onerous new rules and obligations to the UK …

[By James Slack, Mail Online, March 3, 2014.]

What’s missing from those Cold War debates is any foreboding that, fifty years on, the very concept of the nation-state would be under threat.

The word “nationalist” does not even appear in the index of Nash’s book. It does appear in his narrative, most significantly when he discusses the mid-1960s exchanges between Straussians like Harry Jaffa and states’ rightists like Frank Meyer over liberty versus equality.

What Nash calls “nationalists” here were the Straussians, whom the other side saw as:

… too Hamiltonian, even authoritarian, to satisfy a man [i.e. Meyer] for whom individual freedom and limited government were supreme, and for whom the Tenth Amendment was a good deal more than a “truism.” [Ibid. p. 226.]

From today’s perspective it all looks a bit naïve and parochial. Didn’t they see what was coming?

Well, no, of course they didn’t. We never do.

Writes Nash:

In a noteworthy exchange between Harry Jaffa and Frank Meyer in 1965, the debate was joined on the issue of Abraham Lincoln.

A vigorous and, yes, noteworthy exchange it sounds to have been. But … 1965? The year of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act? Wasn’t that pretty darn “noteworthy”?

Not to a historian of conservatism writing in 1976. Neither Philip Hart nor Emanuel Celler appears in Nash’s 15-page index. Nor does Teddy Kennedy.  Nor, for that matter, does the word “immigration.” Such innocent times!

There are of course allowances to be made. This was the Cold War. The nations of the West were huddled together like sheep in a storm, with the possibility of nuclear annihilation always just one crisis away. It was natural for the intellectuals Nash was writing about to think in terms of civilization, not nationality.

Nationalism had in any case suffered by association with fascist collectivism. To cherish one’s country was acceptable, but to regard it as the organic expression of a particular people was frowned upon. This was a time when people said—I think Russell Kirk actually said it—“I am a patriot but not at all a nationalist.”

The more one thinks about that assertion, the less sense it makes; but the technology and demographics