Recent News

I write from Mexico, where my family and I are visiting for about a month. Of course, I try to keep up with the latest on the Amnesty debate in the US. And, of course, that's being covered here in Mexico. Guess what, Mexicans support amnesty, so it must be good for the United States, right?

Being here in Mexico while this is going on brings back memories. As longtime readers of VDARE.COM know, it was my experience living in Mexico for many years that helped transform me into an American immigration patriot. (See my article THE EDUCATION OF A GRINGO IN MEXICO, Or How Living in Mexico Helped Transform Me Into A VDARE.COM Contributor. )

The Mexican media and political class keep close tabs on U.S. immigration legislation—closer tabs than most Americans do. And of course Eduardo Medina-Mora, Mexico's ambassador in Washington, is particularly on top of things:

"The Ambassador of Mexico in the United States, Eduardo Medina Mora, praised the migratory reform Project being discussed in the U.S. Senate.” Embajador de México en EU alaba avance en reforma migratoria, [By Angel Villarino,  Terra.com, June 12th, 2013 ]

The ambassador prefaced his remark with a typical disclaimer - "The government of Mexico admits that the migratory reform in the United States is a domestic issue..." (Mexican diplomats say that when they're about to meddle) - but we cannot fail to recognize its deep impact."

The ambassador continued "The possibility that this reform is passed is a reminder of the best traditions that have made this country great." Actually, this reform is in the tradition of things that are destroying our nation.

Medina Mora's comments were made at an American Enterprise Institute symposium on June 12^th—the same day the Senate voted to begin deliberations on S. 744. He was the keynote speaker at the symposium ludicrously entitled "Where is Mexico Headed?"

Where is Mexico headed? To the United States, obviously—in droves.

And the Villarino article included this equally ludicrous comment:

While other governments such as South Korea or China have lobbied to support migratory reform, Mexico (the country with the most migrants in the United States) has preferred to maintain itself at the margin.

Mexico at the margin of the immigration debate? Baloney! Mexico is already well-established in the United States with its 50 consulates and its flagrant meddling in our internal affairs apparently isn't an issue. (When was the last time you heard a GOP politician complain about it?)

Meanwhile, back in Mexico the Mexican Congress is also working on S. 744. Recently, Mexican congressman Miguel Alonso Raya [Twitter] presented a statement to the Comisión Permanente [Permanent Commission] of the Mexican Congress. (The Comisión Permanente is a sort of mini-Congress with 37 members, which is in session during congressional recesses.)

Raya’s memo was actually an exhortation telling the Mexican executive branch to "prepare to respond...to an unprecedented demand for documents on the part of Mexican migrants resulting from the approval of a migratory reform in the United States” and to "coordinate with the state governments, the chief of the Federal District and the municipal governments to respond to such a demand of documentation over nationality, identity and civil state." (This would include Mexican citizenship, birth and civil state documents).

In other words, this congressman wants the Mexican government to get ready to help Mexican illegal aliens to be legalized under S. 744.

Ayala pointed out, in fact, that there already is a demand for such documents,

 Previously By Anthony Boehm: Funny Thing: Anti-German Racism In Czech Election Doesn’t Bother U.S. Main Stream Media

Sixty years ago this Monday (June 17), the people of the Soviet Occupation Zone (SOZ) a.k.a. East Germany rose against their leaders. Scores were killed in the uprising, including, thank all the Gods, over 100 functionaries of the Soviet-imposed “Socialist Unity” (SED) Communist puppet regime.

This is an anniversary which will probably not be noted much in the MSM, in the US or in Germany. After all, the victims were not members of any preferred group— just Germans, co-ethnics of what is still, despite our all political elite’s efforts, the largest component of the American population.

The uprising  occurred in the framework of the Cold War tensions of the 1950s. West Berlin-based US radio did its job and incited the citizens of the SOZ to resist an increased work quota. Amazing as it seems in retrospect, a people that had been raped and plundered by the Soviets and their SOZ collaborators for eight long years found the will to take to the streets to demand that the new quotas be rescinded. Thousands took to the streets across the SOZ and huge crowds converged on the center of Berlin, carrying homemade anti-regime signs demanding all-German elections and chanting, "Death to Communism!", "Down with the Government!"—and even “Long live Eisenhower.”

Their trust in the then-U.S. President was sadly as misplaced as that of the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1956. The US did not intend to actually do anything to support the Germans or roll back the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.

Soviet troops, together with elements of the Communist regime’s Volkspolizei , fired into the crowds and put down the rising by sheer brutality, with many shot to death on the streets or summarily executed. Others were murdered by the Communist regime after what passed as trials.  

This June 17^th Uprising was the occasion of the famous poem by Bertolt Brecht, The Solution:

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
[Emphasis added]

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow cited these lines in his National Review cover story Time To Rethink Immigration  [June 22, 1992] which ultimately grew into his 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster:

"The government should dissolve the people and elect another one," quipped

There was a MainStream Media conference call today (June 14) by Treason Lobbyists wanting to blame all resistance to amnesty on Dr. John Tanton (again) and “nativists” in general.

Breitbart summarized it well:

An employee of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), together with a political ally of “Gang of Eight” member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), will argue Friday that groups opposed to the immigration bill pending in the U.S. Senate are "nativists," Breitbart News has learned.

ATR’s Josh Culling and Hispanic Leadership Fund (HLF) president Mario Lopez will make the argument on a conference call with mainstream media reporters on Friday at 11 AM EDT. Brad Bailey of an organization called Texas Immigration Studies will join them on the call.

(877) 888-4319: Norquist, Rubio Allies To Paint Immigration Bill Opponents As Nativists On Conference Call, by Matthew Boyle, June 13, 2013

Needless to say, genuine conservatives will not be fooled by this—Breitbart rightly notes that these people are “described” as “conservative leaders" by their PR types.

But the Main Stream Media can be expected to play along. When HLF president Mario H. Lopez (email him) surfaced some months ago with an article on this stuff in Human Life Review, VDARE.com’s Washington Watcher said all too accurately that “the MSM, which usually presents the Religious Right and Grover Norquist as the root of all evil in America, has done its job in hyping this supposed controversy.”

The Treason Lobby regularly smears opponents of amnesty by tying them to “White nationalism”. This can’t literally be true, since “White nationalism” is something of a fringe movement, whereas opposition to amnesty polls in the 70s and 80s with actual Americans. (Up to 88 percent with African-Americans, but I suppose “black nationalism” isn’t objectionable as far as the MSM is concerned.)

Moreover, as I explained in an article entitled Communism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism, Democratic Hegemonists, Crony Capitalism, Ethnic Agendas, Treason Etc.—The “Ugly Roots” Of Immigration Enthusiasm, immigration enthusiasts claiming that Dr. Tanton and people like, well, me, are at the “root” of opposition to immigration have unspoken or even open nefarious agendas of their own.

Thus it’s obvious that something called the Hispanic Leadership Fund is for Hispanic immigration even it costs non-Hispanic Americans money. I called them Ethnic Agenda-Mongers. It’s even more obvious that Conservatism Inc. types like lobbyist Grover Norquist support the wealthy employer against the poor or even middle-class American worker. I called this species Crony Capitalists.

But now there’s a new evilmonger in sight—Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. He is married to Columba Garnica Gallo, from Guanajato, Mexico, and is the father of the half-Mexican George P. Bush, who seems to have been indoctrinated by his mother as a Hispanic race warrior—he told a Hispanic Republican rally in 2000 that "She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us". [Reuters, August 2, 2000]

In spite of these Hispanic credentials, Jeb Bush in a recent speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority conference accused Hispanic immigrants of being “more fertile” than regular Americans. (He and Columba have three grown children.) See Jeb Bush: U.S. economy needs immigrants because they’re ‘more fertile’, Aaron Blake, Washington Post, June 14, 2013.

Hold on a minute! Doesn’t Bush realize it is officially Hateful to refer to immigrant fertility?

Years ago, similarly referring to the extraordinary philoprogenitiveness of Mexican immigrants, Dr. John Tanton made the following very mild joke (in a private memo):

“On the demographic point: perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!".[Memo To WITAN IV Attendees, October 10, 1986 (Link courtesy of the $PLC’s spymasters—see Dr. Tanton’s reply to the SPLC's attack on him)]

This quote gets over 11, 000 hits on Google, and was quoted in 21 actual printed books, mostly by left-wing Latino academics. (Sample titles: White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race  and Voices of the U.S. Latino Experience .)

Neocon princess Linda Chavez, hearing about this memo, resigned from the Official English group US English in a Politically Correct panic. She subsequently brought the story up in 2003, defending Arnold Schwarzenegger from charges of evil associations, saying she resigned because the memo’s reference to fertility (like Jeb, she has three children.) was “anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic.” [English and Arnold, Townhall.com, August 20, 2003, see also Don't Listen To Linda Chavez, by Sam Francis, August 28, 2003]

So now that Jeb Bush has said the same thing about immigrant fertility that Dr. Tanton said, can Linda Chavez resign from the Republican Party? Please?

I’m joking, of course. Jeb Bush’s speech was full of hateful

Next year should be a banner year for the GOP, and may yet be.

Obamacare, a "train wreck" about to happen, says Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, goes into full effect Jan. 1, with the popular IRS as enforcer.

The Obama media feel betrayed by the secret intrusions on First Amendment rights. Libertarians see the National Security Agency's data mining as a massive violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

The White House is bedeviled by scandals, the second-term curse has caught up with the Obama presidency, and prospects for the U.S. economy seem dicier than a few months ago.

History is also on the GOP's side. In the second midterm elections, Presidents Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK-LBJ, Nixon-Ford, Reagan and Bush II all suffered big losses. It has become a tradition.

But if the GOP is favored to hold the House and make gains in the Senate, the long-term prognosis for the party remains grim.

First, libertarianism is breaking up that old gang of mine.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham call for air strikes on Syria. But no echo is heard, as the Republican Party becomes anti-interventionist.

Yet the acid test comes after Friday's Iranian election, as the neocon war drums begin to beat.

Libertarian Republicans believe the National Security Agency is Big Brother and the Brave New World at hand. National security Republicans back the agency's right to access private data banks to protect us from terrorism.

On how to deal with 12 million illegal aliens—send them home or grant them amnesty and a "path to citizenship"—the party's rancorous division will be starkly visible when the bill reaches the House.

But the existential crisis of the GOP, from which it has turned its eyes away since George H.W. Bush, is demography.

Yet the matter cannot be avoided now, for it is on page one.

"White Numbers Shrink," was the headline on the lead story in USA Today. "More Whites Dying Than Being Born," blared The Wall Street Journal. What does this mean?

In demographic terms, more white Americans died in 2012 than were born. Never before—not during the Civil War bloodletting, not during the influenza epidemic after World War I, not during th

One can never have enough lessons in humility. A month or so after publishing a book titled From the Dissident Right, last weekend I found myself among some real dissidents.

This was the dinner for Professor Zhang Yitang I mentioned here. Prof. Zhang is currently famous for having cracked an outstanding mathematical problem earlier this year. [Solving a Riddle of Primes, By Kenneth Chang, NYT, May 20, 2013] The dinner was organized by old friends of his—mainland Chinese who had, like him, come to study in the U.S.A. in the 1980s. Most of them had had some association with the Chinese Alliance for Democracy, which flourished in the 1980s and 1990s among expatriate Chinese intellectuals.

It was humbling to be among these people. One fellow diner had spent eleven years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement. Another had been imprisoned for four years at the age of sixteen after participating in the 1978-79 “Democracy Wall” movement. (She now works for a New York-registered foundation, Women’s Rights In China.)

The word “dissident” may be etymologically correct for those of us Americans who sit apart when the community singing is going on, but it seems a tad impertinent in company like this.

Although the general mood was one of celebration for Prof. Zhang’s achievement, there was a whiff of melancholy about the occasion. The democracy movement’s U.S. branch has quiesced; their magazine has suspended publication; the activists have built lives and careers for themselves here in the U.S.A. and drifted away from each other.

One of them remarked to me wistfully at the dinner that it had been many years since she’d seen so many of that generation of dissidents all together in one place.

It didn’t help that last week marked the 24^th anniversary of the Chinese government’s crushing of the student movement in Tiananmen Square. Twenty-four may not seem like a very round number to Westerners, but it is precisely two duodecadal cycles of the traditional Chinese calendar: 1989 and 2013 are both Years of the Snake. My dinner partners had it in mind.

In the context of U.S. politics, this was also the week when China’s new leader Xi Jinping paid a call on Barack Obama, while Chinese blogs had just got through batting around some controversial remarks Joe Biden made at a commencement speech last month. (The remarks went unnoticed here—who pays attention to anything Joe Biden says?—but caused a stir over there.)

It has therefore been with China on my mind that I’ve been watching the SchMcGRubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill drag its weary length along through the U.S. Senate chamber.

For better or worse, our two nations look set to dominate geopolitics across the next few years, yoked together in a to-and-fro dance of mutual dependency and mutual suspicion.

Some problems we have that they don’t, mainly our vast and unsustainable public debt. Some they have that we don’t: massive environmental degradation, restless border colonies. We also have some problems in common: slowing economies, unemployed college graduates, widening wealth gaps.

(Class resentment in China when I lived there 30 years ago was aimed at the gao-gan-zi-di—the “princeling” offspring of senior Party officials and old revolutionaries. Nowadays there is a whole menagerie of spoiled brats: fu-er-dai, guan-er-dai, xing-er-dai, hong-er-dai…I find it hard to remember which is which. There’s a taxonomy here.)

And then, in the longer term, there are the prospects of demographic disaster,

Seems like the big boys in government and business and their ethnic auxiliaries have settled in on a multiplicity of efforts to make life for us average US citizens as complex and ugly as possible.

The Senate has “opened debate” on S. 744, the nation-breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill—the first crucial vote comes at 2.15 pm today, June 11—but the Main Stream Media knows that the only way it will pass is if debate is closed. Politico did its part with a recent piece cheer-leading the environmentalist movement’s sell-out to the Treason Lobby: Greens move to heal immigration reform rift , By Darren Samuelsohn,[ email  him] June 2, 2013.

Environmentalists are getting off the sidelines and backing immigration reform — but it wasn’t easy.

During the Senate’s last go round on the issue in 2007, greens stayed silent to avoid airing their dirty laundry — an internal dispute that some in the movement feared would be seen as racist.

Their family feud was so rough that it twice nearly ruptured the Sierra Club when a vocal faction — including some of the movement’s leading luminaries — argued too many new immigrants living the American dream could spell doom for the planet.

Fast forward to 2013, and the Sierra Club, BlueGreen Alliance and Greenpeace are among those out publicly in support of the kinds of comprehensive immigration reform measures pursued by President Barack Obama and the Senate’s Gang of Eight. [Links added by VDARE.com ]

I was part of that “vocal faction” in 2004 and documented our struggle at VDARE.com in a series of articles. We were merely honest environmentalists who remembered the obvious truth, which had been the Sierra Club’s historical position for 30 years, that more people represent increased strain on America's natural resources.

But, as it subsequently turned out, the Sierra Club management had been simply (and secretly) bribed to switch sides. Wealthy investor David Gelbaum specified the strings attached to his $100 million donation: “I did tell [Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”[The Man Behind the Land,  By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times, Oct 27, 2004).

The Sierra Club obediently fell into line, with a new official policy in 1996 of “neutrality” on immigration and population growth. A group of grassroots members (SUSPS) attempted to overturn the change. But after years of effort, they learned that the fix was in. The Sierra Club's leadership simply ignored its own democratic processes and demonized its own members as, guess what, “racists.”

Note, however, that the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge cheerleaders still need to smear their opposition. Thus Politico’s Samuelsohn charges that the anti-immigration “faction” said immigrants would “doom the planet.” Absurd. We just pointed out that admitting millions from the Third World would greatly increase their use of natural resources compared to what they would have used at home. Immigrants don’t relocate for the better recycling opportunities; they want to become part of the American consumer economy and buy lots of manufactured stuff.

Even more absurd, Samuelsohn swallows whole the Environmentalist Establishment's ludicrous rationale:

Atop their list of reasons why: the prospect of 11 million new green-minded voters.

Of course, Illiterate Mexicans from the countryside are not “green” in any sense.

But the “Greens” at least understand what Grover Norquist and company ignore, that most Hispanics prefer big government and the Democratic Party. In fact, a 2012 Pew poll found that Hispanic predilection for welfare-style governance lasts for generations. In the eyes of the Sierra Club and their cronies, “environmentalism” simply means voting for Barack Obama.

The liberal bureaucrats who have captured the Sierra Club once blogged, “Yep, We’re Too White” and claim to see more diversity as a worthwhile goal. But no white leader of the organization has ever volunteered to resign from a well-paid position so a diverse person could take it.

 Instead, executive director Michael Brune [ email]  appeared in Politico:

“Right now, there are 11 million people who don’t have the tools, who can’t act without fear. They can’t vote. They can’t engage in the public process. They can’t advocate for clean energy without the threat of deportation,” Brune added. “Nobody should live under those circumstances.”

Apparently, we are supposed to believe illegals are longing to hit the streets and “advocate for clean energy.” But in fact, they already demonstrate frequently in public—but with demands for legalization and access to American jobs.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer welcomed the greens’ entry to the debate, noting that illegal immigrants often live and work in places that are more vulnerable than the general population to higher levels of air, water and soil pollution. But they can’t speak up now for fear of deportation.

Illegals “can’t speak up for fear of deportation”? Loudmouth illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last February and no officers stepped in to cuff the guy. Apparently, Barbara Boxer doesn't even notice what goes on in her own workplace.

Environmentalists say their work on the immigration issue also gives them solid ground to stand on as they engage on issues intertwined in this legislative fight.

Several progressive and green groups pulled their ads off of Facebook in early May to protest pro-oil, anti-Obamacare ads sponsored by a subsidiary of Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration reform campaign.

It can be challenging to keep up with enviros’ relationship to industry. Previous Executive Director Carl Pope stirred up controversy when he partnered with Clorox to give it the Sierra Club endorsement with a seal of approval on products, aka Green Works. In return, Clorox “donated” $470,000 to the Club in 2009 to help with its environmental issues.

When the Florida chapter of the Club had a problem with the unprecedented product endorsement, the head office in San Francisco suspended the entire state chapter of 35,000 members for four years.

Resistance Is Futile! to anyone threatening the Sierra Club’s connection with a wealthy donor.

In 1997-98, the Sierra Club faced a mutiny from within its own ranks over whether to end a long-standing position of neutrality on immigration. The question: whether to back a new stance favoring “an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths)” and “through reduction in net immigration.”

Several environmental heavyweights, including former Kennedy and Johnson administration Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, Earth Day founder and former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson and Earth First co-founder Dave Foreman, spoke up for the ballot initiative.

This is often forgotten, several years after the fact. Many serious conservationists were endorsers of the immigration limitation reformers, despite pressure from Sierra Club bureaucrats, who were focused on liberal loyalties and future donations. Additional endorsers included: Prof. Al Bartlett (famous for his arithmetic, population, energy lecture), Lester Brown (the environment author and founder of Worldwatch Institute), California Congressman Tony Beilenson, the late, iconic nature photographer Galen Rowell and many others.

But it went down