Recent News

Saturday’s New York Times front-page article detailing the Obama Administration’s plans to boost minority preferences in schooling, U.S. Urges Creativity by Colleges to Gain Diversity [webposted December 2], reflects a big shift in how the Main Stream Media talks about the 2012 election—towards the frank racial analysis I’ve been using for the last eleven years.

Reporter Sam Dillon’s article starts:

“The Obama administration on Friday urged colleges and universities to get creative in improving racial diversity at their campuses, throwing out a Bush-era interpretation of recent Supreme Court rulings that limited affirmative action in admissions.”

In other words, the Affirmative Action President wants, unsurprisingly, more Affirmative Action. As I argued in America’s Half Blood Prince, Obama is essentially a racial redistributionist.

But what’s interesting is that Dillon’s article twice mentions how this payoff is part of the Obama Administration’s grand strategy for 2012:

“ ‘The administration is making strong policy statements on low-income children and students of color, outlining remedies,’ said Bob Wise, a former Democratic governor of West Virginia who heads an education nonprofit organization aimed at improving high school graduation rates. ‘They seem to be putting some markers down as the election begins,’ he said, adding that the new set of guidelines ‘tries to keep within the letter of the Supreme Court opinions, while probably pushing the spirit.’ ”

This confirms the insight of veteran Democratic pundit Tom Edsall in his The Future of the Obama Coalition (New York Times, November 27, 2011):

"[P]reparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned

This daily cartoon contributed to VDARE.com by Baloo. His site is HERE

Behind the excitement about the welcome exit from the GOP Presidential nomination contest of the seriously under-qualified Herman Cain is the emergence of a key existential question facing America: should anything be done, not just about sealing the border, but about the huge illegal alien population? The issue is making the weekend talk shows: Bachmann On Immigration: Deport All The Undocumented, By Sam Stein, Huffington Post, December 3, 2011).

(To say nothing of the resultant burgeoning anchor-baby population).

The current Politically Correct estimate of the illegal alien population seems to be 11 million—but in fact, as James Fulford noted for us in 2007, there is good reason to suppose it could be as high as 20 million. See also here and here [The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, Bear Stearns Asset Management, January 3, 2005].

Competition is a wonderful thing. Responding to the Gingrich Amnesty/Immigration Facilitation proposal, both Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann have made decisive suggestions:

• “‘My policy will be to detain and deport every illegal alien who is apprehended in this country,’ Perry said. ‘And we'll do it with an expedited hearing process so that millions of illegal aliens are not released into the general population with some hearing date down the road."

Perry says he will deport all detained illegal immigrants by Jason McLure Reuters, November  29, 2011

(Of course, why anyone should credit Perry, after his betrayal on this summer’s proposed “Sanctuary Cities” legislation in Texas, is a mystery.)

• “Bachmann…called for massive deportation of illegal immigrants, for English to be designated the official language of the federal government, and for an end to automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil.

  “‘When people are intercepted here illegally, they need to come within the confines of the law,' Bachmann said. 'If that means deportation, we need to have deportation.'"

[GOP contender Bachmann, in South Florida, calls for English to be official language of U.S. government , By Andrew Abramson, The Palm Beach Post, December 1, 2011]

At the time of the Bush Amnesty Wars, the battle-cry “What is it about 'illegal' you don’t understand?” was generally recognized to be effective. Unfortunately, similar respect is currently being accorded to the slogan: “You can’t deport 11 million people.”

Dealing with this problem definitely requires courage and intellectual precision. So why is it such a problem for Republicans?

The humane answer to this immense dereliction by the American ruling class: attrition through enforcement. America’s immigrant populations have always been very volatile, as Paul Nachman has

Roy Beck wrote on the NumbersUSA blog in 2009:

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's reaction to a limited set of stricter rules for banks hiring foreign workers answers a bar debate that long has raged. The question has always been whether if we had another Great Depression would the Chamber still continue to lobby for more foreign workers on the basis of worker shortages. This week, the debate is settled. YES, THEY WOULD! "It's Official -- U.S. Chamber Would Lobby for Foreign Workers During a Depression", February 10, 2009 

As the Great Recession continues, two years later, you may be wondering “In the midst of a Depression, would compliant Republican legislators give the Chamber Of Commerce everything

[Peter Brimelow writes: As I keep saying, VDARE.com is a forum site and we welcome all critics of America’s post-1965 immigration disaster, regardless of their other views. Randall Burns, who tells me the only Presidential candidates he has volunteered for were Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich, is one of several VDARE.com writers, and more readers, who consider themselves “progressives”.  Of course, progressives like Samuel Gompers did play a major role in ending the First Great Wave of Immigration (1880-1920), and there are many good reasons for them to do so again today.  Alas, I personally have more or less concluded that the progressives’ leadership will never let them, because its motives are now different. Still, Randall writes in a great tradition, and we’re happy to post his progressive perspective on Gingrich tonight]

Newt Gingrich recently came out with one of the most detailed immigration proposals of any Republican candidate. It contains 2907 words. Obviously Gingrich's staff put some work into this proposal. The question is: on whose behalf? Is this an example of realistic politics and statesmanship—or craven pandering to wealthy donors?

The crux of the Gingrich program is a tradeoff:  increased border control in return for (at least) partial amnesty, called “earned legalization”—plus increased legal immigration and expanded guest worker visas, amounts unspecified. A move towards English as an official language of government is also included.  A significant omission: reforming birthright citizenship.  To my eye, Gingrich seems to approach immigration as a cultural issue and only peripherally an economic issue. (However, critics like David Frum have argued Gingrich’s plan is still designed to benefit Big Business in effect).

On its face, the Gingrich proposal is strikingly naive. For example "earned legalization" in the Gingrich proposal means "once an applicant has been granted the right to obtain legal status, he or she will have to pay a penalty of at least $5,000".  But in a world where wages in the US are several times that of many source countries, a $5000 fine or even a $20,000 fine would merely be a cost of doing business.

Famously, Gingrich has recently stated : "Once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program [and tougher border security], you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here." [What would Gingrich’s plan for dealing with illegal immigration look like?, by Liz Goodwin, The Lookout,  November 23, 2001]

And I myself suggested a jury system in VDARE.com five years ago (December 13, 2006). But I was thinking of juries that would represent a broad cross-section of America—not just the “local committees” envisaged in Gingrich’s proposal. Many recent immigrants

What is poverty? The official definition, in use for about fifty years, counts as “poor” anyone living in a household in which household cash income falls below a certain level. Those threshold incomes were set at three times the cost of a minimum diet, to reflect the minimum income deemed necessary to pay for non-food expenses. The thresholds vary with

David Frum has recently argued in New York Magazine that the Republican Party has “lost touch with reality.” [When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?, November 28, 2011] With new GOP Presidential “front runner” Newt Gingrich expounding on the glories of child labor, Herman Cain worried about China acquiring nuclear weapons, and Rick Perry enjoying a spectacular meltdown in front of millions of people, Frum advances what I think is a compelling case that the late-phase Establishment conservative movement/ Republican Party (to the extent that the two can now be distinguished) no longer produces credible political leaders or policy options.

Frum gives several examples. The Republican Party has openly turned its back on the poor, calling them “lucky duckies” who don’t pay taxes. It’s hard to argue with Frum’s charge that “[the] party’s economic ideas seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners.” Historically Republican-supported economic policies, such as a stimulus program that contains tax cuts or the Federal Reserve’s keeping interest rates low, are now called “socialism” or “treason” respectively.

I think Frum is also correct when he explains that, because of the Republicans’ failed strategy of outright confrontation over Obamacare, the country is probably forever saddled with an expensive and deeply flawed entitlement program that has no chance of being repealed absent the deus ex machina of a court ruling.

Unlike sausage-making and legislation, the race for the Republican nomination is conducted perforce in full view of the public. I believe Frum is essentially correct when he argues that “these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn.” Every week brings a new catastrophe as a “conservative” leader says something remarkably ignorant or stupid. Even controlling for left wing media bias, a number of the leading candidates for one of the two major parties in the country seem to have no idea what they are talking about.

More ominously, liberal media criticism seems have the perverse effect of reinforcing “conservative” credentials, guaranteeing that “conservative” leaders can essentially say anything, regardless of how absurd, and have a guaranteed mass following.

Frum identifies three major reasons why this kind of insularity is not going away:

• First, conservative constituencies (the wealthy, the elderly, the rural, and veterans) benefit from federal largesse, even as they rail against big government.

As a result, their interests are in conflict with their ideology, creating more “suspicion that shadowy Washington elites are playing tricks upon them.”

• Secondly, in Frum’s words, “White America has been plunged into a mood of pessimism and anger since 2008.” Most whites believe their children will have a harder life than they had.

To Frum’s great credit—not for the first time on the immigration issue, although his new Main Stream Media friends don’t appear to have noticed—he points out that white workers are not being irrational, because “in post-recession America, employers seem to show a distinct preference for foreign-born workers.” (The figures he cites are drawn, unacknowledged, from one of Edwin S. Rubenstein’s National Data columns for VDARE.com)

• Finally, and most importantly, Frum writes, “conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment.” An entire “alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, [and] its own laws of economics” has been created.

As a result, huge percentages of the population will continue to believe in even demonstrably untrue

Former President Bill Clinton is the latest Establishment type to praise former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for his repackaging amnesty. [Bill Clinton Praises Old Foe Newt Gingrich, Newsmax.com, November 26, 2011] It’s less surprising than it might seem: both, along with former President George W. Bush, are bought-and-paid-for servants of Davos Man.

The truly dominant ideology of our times isn't anti-governmentism, it's globalism. It's so suffocating that at the elite level even an ex-President can only peck at it without daring to call it out by name.

Indeed, the most interesting aspect of Clinton’s recently-published Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy is the subterranean but still noticeable conflict between Clinton's devotion to his globalist paymasters and his still-sharp political instincts that tell him that American patriotism wins elections.

It’s a struggle. But he manages.

Nobody would call Bill Clinton a profound thinker. While shallow, however, his range is certainly broad. For example, he concludes Back To Work with 46 scattershot suggestions for improving the economy, such as:

• “To support the insourcing movement, we should increase the number of empowerment zones and expand the reach of the New Markets Initiative”.

You have to give Clinton this much credit: he does not bore easily. Bush and Clinton were both born in 1946, but Bush has retired, while Clinton is still out there on the conference circuit sitting through Powerpoint presentations. He gives the impression that he's actually interested in, say,

• "21. Speed up the issuance of new energy efficiency rules for the most common household appliances" or
• "33. Increase the role of the Small Business Administration (SBA)."

Clinton endorses the Obama policy on immigration, but only as #41 out of 46:

• “41. Keep pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, and in the meantime grant more H-1B visas to immigrants in STEM fields until we have enough qualified citizens to fill the openings. 

(VDARE.com links added to quotes thoughout). To my eye, he sounds less enthusiastic, more pro forma, about claiming that “the immigrants who fill the STEM jobs “ will somehow create jobs for Americans than he does about his priority #12:

• "At least paint the roofs white."

(Needless to say, Clinton makes no mention of

[See also by Paul Kersey: Joe Paterno And The Penn State Rape Scandal: Discrediting The Opiate Of America]

This Saturday, November 26, those watching the 76^th Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama on CBS will see a bizarre situation: two overwhelmingly white schools represented on the field by two overwhelmingly black teams, most of whose athletes call “home” those cities and counties that white Alabamians now avoid like the plague—for very good, but currently unmentionable, reasons.

It’s been 41 years