Recent News

My video clip of the week, perhaps the year, is this one of Vincent Stewart, a/k/a/ Reverend X, preaching God’s Word.  The whole thing is 13 minutes, but here’s a flavor:

(1m26s, responding to a phone-in caller): Repeat it after me, bitch.  I come in the name of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.  God Almighty, you know?  Ruler of heaven and earth and every goddam thing in between...

 (3m38s, different caller): What do you know about the Lord? [repeated twice.]  Now tell me.  I come in the name of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Let’s stay focused.  You wan’ see [?] you own flesh.  You wan’... ’Cause you see flesh an’ s--t, and whitey always told you, “Oh, a man can’t be God.”  Huh?  What you callin’ me for?  I told you what I’m about.  It’s about getting lawyers and training them up in the word of the Scriptures, and we’re going to help the poor, the fatherless that can’t afford...that can’t afford they, um, legal...legality.  See, they can’t...they can’t afford justice.  I know you all live for justice, huh, just like the white supremaciss, huh.  White supremaciss preachin’ justice fo’ yo ass to spare you from the noose, blaaack maaaan! . . .

(10m52s, different caller, who had accused Rev. X of “corrupt communications”):  Your motherf-----g communication is corrupted!  Whatever!  Whatever!  Then I’m wrong!  You got me now! [repeated twice.] You figured me out!  You f-----g nincom-f-----g-poop! . . .  

You get the idea.  It’s a down-market version of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  The same things are there, only more coarsely expressed:  the everlasting rancor of the black, his hatred of “whitey,” the crude socialism and talk of “justice,” the obsessive imagery of nooses.  This is Black Liberation Theology for the ghetto crowd. 

To judge by the social successes of Rev. Wright and his most notable parishioner, this is now mainstream black Christianity, objected to by nobody much.  As Patrick Buchanan has remarked:

That Wright is a revered preacher in black America also tells us that, far from coming together, we Americans are further apart than we were in the 1950s, when Negroes could be described as Christian, conservative and patriotic. Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad did not speak for black America then. Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young and Dr. Martin Luther King did.

I pulled that Reverend X clip from a posting at the Occam’s Razor blog.  The blog’s author, Alfred Clark, is arguing that Christianity is becoming a ghetto religion, with less and less appeal to white people.

This would be a remarkable development, if it’s actually

The shutdown-delayed employment report for September, which was supposed to be released about three weeks ago, found that only 148,000 jobs were added over the month. Even this may be too optimistic, as it reflects the situation prior to the government shutdown. Government employment actually rose in September.

Since January, employers have added an average of 177,000 net new jobs per month. The rate slipped over the summer, to only 143,000 per month. Unmentioned in Main Stream Media accounts of this disappointing development: more than half of the new positions will be needed just to absorb new legal immigrants.

This job growth slowdown should worry the Obama Administration, but it apparently it doesn’t. Indeed, the push to legalize millions of illegal aliens already working in the U.S. and increase legal immigration from its current record levels only intensified after the government re-opened for business. As we reported a few weeks ago, S.744 would add a minimum of 33 million more lifetime work permits in its first decade than would occur under current law.

Our analysis of the “other” employment report—of households rather than businesses—shows how desperate the situation has already become for native-born American workers.

            In September:

• Total employment rose by 133,000, or by 0.1%
• Native-born American employment fell by 73,000, or by -0.1%
• Foreign-born employment rose by 206,000, or by 0.9%

September was the second successive month in which native-born American workers actually held fewer jobs in absolute terms, while foreign-born workers enjoyed robust job growth.

The number of employed immigrants rose by 0.87% in September—the largest growth rate recorded for that month since the economic recovery began in 2009.  The immigrant share of U.S. employment—16.62%—was the highest for any September during the Obama years.

From September 2009 to September 2013 the share of total jobs held by immigrants rose from 15.72% to 16.62%.

Had the immigrant share of employment remained at its September 2009 level, 1.30 million more native-born American workers would have been employed this September. The overall unemployment rate would have been about a percentage point lower than the 7.2% reported by the Labor Department.

We chart the displacement of native-born workers by immigrants in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI). It tracks month to month changes in native-born American and foreign-born employment since the start of the Obama Administration:

The growth of native-born American employment is tracked by the blue line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born American job growth—is in yellow. The graphic starts at 100.0 for both native-born

VDARE.com has already noted the scandalous presence of a Reconquista band, Los Tigres del Norte, at the October 8 rally that illegal aliens and their Treason Lobby supporters were permitted to hold on the National Mall in D.C.—subsidized, as Van Esser of NumbersUSA pointed out, by the National Park Service a.k.a. you

The rally was billed as the “Camino Americano: March for Immigrant Dignity and Respect”. (Does “Americano” here refer to “American” as in the English-language designation for U.S. citizen, or “Américano” as in Spanish, referring to the inhabitants of the entire Western Hemisphere?)  But whereas tens of thousands had been touted, only a few thousand showed up. After Los Tigres’ performance, the crowd reportedly thinned even more. [Marchers urge Congress to pass immigration reform; several congressmen arrested, By Pamela Constable and Carol Morello, WaPo, October 8, 2013]

Long-time VDARE.COM readers will remember an article I did about Los Tigres eleven years ago ("SOMOS MAS AMERICANOS" – We Are More American!)

Based in California, they are practitioners of Norteño music, a polka-based genre from the U.S.-Mexico border region, famous for its story-song "corridos".

The group (see photo  below)   is formed by front-man Jorge Hernandez, his brothers, and a cousin, who came from Mexico to California in the late 1960s.

They were adopted by British impresario (and non-Spanish speaker) Art Walker, who encouraged them to electrify, modernize and commercialize their music.

The Tigres are an enormously successful, 32 million record-selling band. They have won five Latin Grammy awards and tour extensively in the U.S., Mexico and other Latin American countries. They’ve even been flown over to perform for U.S. military personnel in Japan and South Korea—an ominous sign about the loyalty of our armed forces.

Now, all the group’s members but one are American citizens, the other a legal resident.

Yet, like U.S. congressman Luis Gutierrez, who also spoke at the rally, the Tigres’ only apparent loyalty is to the immigrant community – make that the unassimilated Latino immigrant community.

All this was apparently news to the Washington Post, which used Los Tigres' appearance at the Treason Lobby rally as the occasion for a massive puff piece: Los Tigres provide soundtrack for immigrants’ lives (by David Montgomery, October 8, 2013):

The rally for immigration reform became a singalong Tuesday afternoon for thousands on the otherwise shutdown Mall. Los Tigres del Norte—the biggest, most beloved band that many English-speaking Americans have never heard of—were onstage, and almost everyone in the audience seemed to know every word.

“The biggest, most beloved band that many English-speaking Americans have never heard of”? Why is that?

It’s because, as I wrote back in 2002,

“One of the results of the creeping bilingualism in the U.S.A. is the growth of a parallel Spanish media—practically unknown to most clueless English-speakers. .. If you haven't heard of Los Tigres del Norte, well, they aren't singing songs for you anyway. But they are singing about you.”

Montgomery’s Washington Post piece hastens to explain

Peter Brimelow celebrating his 66th birthday with his daughter Felicity and Ulrich von Dog, October 13, 2013

Peter Brimelow writes: This is an adaptation of a talk I recently gave to a Dissident Right dinner club in New York City. Several friends of VDARE.com were in the audience.

Around Easter of 1980, I was in Paris trying to persuade my first wife, whom some of you knew, to marry me. I thought that, in the interests of full disclosure, I ought to tell her everything. So I said, look, I’m involved in an anti-Communist faction in journalism and we’re going to lose. I think there’s a real serious possibility that we’re all going to end up in a Gulag.

And, besides that, it’s crippling to our careers. I’d been approached by the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] to do on-camera reports about business. I could have been Lou Dobbs! [Laughter] But when they heard I’d written anti-Communist stuff, they said they couldn’t possibly hire an anti-communist—even though what I would have been covering was entirely non-political.

Maggy was a Canadian and wasn’t particularly political. She listened to this and said she’d not thought about it before, but, now that I’d explained it, she could see it was true.

So, she asked with female practicality, why didn’t I change sides?

I usually tell this sort of story to illustrate that miracles do happen. Nobody—nobody—expected the Soviet Union to collapse. We, those of us that grew up in the 1950s and earlier, really did think in the 1970s that there was a very good chance the Soviet Union would prevail. Whittaker Chambers was convinced he was joining the losing side when he renounced communism in 1938.

But in fact, later in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president. And by 1991, the Soviet Union had collapsed.

Miracles actually happen quite frequently in politics—not always the right way. To those of us who grew up in the 1950s, the idea that the Afrikaners, who had fought this tremendous war against the British just 50 years earlier, would ever let go of their South African nation-state was inconceivable. And yet they did.

Similarly, to those of us who grew up in the 1950s, in the days of Paul Blanshard when the Roman Catholic Church seemed to be an ominously well-organized state within a state, it was inconceivable that it would go through this incredible Vatican II revolution (particularly because it meant dumping the greatest musical tradition in the history of the world).

It’s been a surprise to me to find that people under 40 simply don’t recall the Cold War, how serious it was and how terrified people were much of the time. They know about WWII, interestingly, but they just don’t know about the Cold War.

It’s easy now to say that the Soviet Union’s command economy was always doomed to collapse. But it wasn’t obvious at the time—and it was obvious that the Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht, no mean achievement to put it mildly. We were right to take it seriously.

As I say, I normally tell this sort of story to make the point that miracles happen, and very quickly. But I’m afraid it is also true that they un-happen. And that, unfortunately, is what we’re experiencing now.

Cultural Marxism has come sweeping right back. John Derbyshire [a dinner guest] and I have discussed the interglacial moment that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, when it was possible to publish Politically Incorrect stuff in the Main Stream Media. I got my Alien Nation published, Murray and Herrnstein got The Bell Curve published —a whole series of un-PC books got published by mainstream publishers which would not be published now.

I speak from bitter experience. I have been unable to get an Establishment publisher to let me update Alien Nation, although it was very successful at the time. (See here for Introduction to 2013 Kindle edition).

There is now an extreme control of American political debate that wasn’t the case ten years ago.

The internet is a two-edged sword. It’s disintermediated journalism—it makes possible non-PC publications like VDARE.COM, we can find audiences and build an institution.

But it also means that anybody who writes for us gets relentlessly hunted down. This is why [another dinner guest] doesn’t write for VDARE.com under his own name anymore. In fact, almost nobody writes under their own name anymore, except me and other a couple of other old lags like John Derbyshire, because I can’t have younger people taking the risk—It is just too damaging to careers, even in completely unrelated areas.

And the worst aspect of the Cold War victory’s unhappening: the West now faces another existential threat—every bit serious as the Soviet Union. And that is mass Third World immigration.

In the U.S., mass immigration as was kicked off again by the 1965 Immigration Act, after a 40 year pause during which there was essentially no immigration at all. Simultaneously, enforcement against illegal immigration collapsed, so that there are somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegals in the country right now.

The demographic impact of this is dramatic. Because immigration is skewed by public policy toward non-traditional sources, by 2040 a majority of people in the U.S. will be non-white. This is a country that was 90% white in 1965, when the Immigration Act was passed.

Now, of course, what that means is that at that point the US will cease to exist. It will not be the historic America that we know. It may be something else. But it’s not going to be America.

And this is going to happen very soon. Within the lifetimes

“Katrina Revisionism,” the campaign to disappear ordinary Americans’ horrified reaction to the reports of barbarism that got past Main Stream Media news managers after Hurricane Katrina, has taken a heavy but (needless to say) little-reported blow. It raises the gravest questions about the integrity of the Obama Regime and Eric (“My People”) Holder’s Department of Justice— which, by the way, would get to administer any illegal alien Amnesty.

Federal Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Bush II appointee, has just granted a motion for a new trial for five of the New Orleans policemen, including one black, convicted and sentenced for shooting six unarmed blacks, killing two, at the Danziger Bridge in the wake of Katrina, and for the subsequent cover up. In a 129-page statement, Judge Engelhardt  cited rampant misconduct by members of the Obama/Holder DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, including criminal acts: at least three DOJ lawyers pseudonymously posting prejudicial comments at the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s website; lying to Judge Engelhardt about their misconduct; intimidating defense witnesses out of testifying; illegally revealing secret grand jury testimony both to fellow prosecutors trying the case, and to the Times-Picayune and the Associated Press.

Judge Engelhardt’s conclusion: “Traditional notions and concepts of criminal justice cannot be served by minimizing such misconduct and preserving a verdict under these peculiar circumstances.”  

This tale of Third World justice began in the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  On September 4, 2005, the seventh or eighth straight day of bloody chaos in The Big Easy, a van full of cops drove to the Danziger Bridge in response to report of shooting, jumped out and opened fire on a crowd.  Police contended that they had received fire and that a gun had been found on one victim.  New Orleans prosecutors charged that all the victims had been unarmed, and police had planted a weapon and created a cover-up.   

The officers were charged in state court in 2005 with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and various charges related to the alleged cover-up. However, the state’s case fell apart, due to the prosecution criminally leaking secret grand jury testimony—just as the feds would later do.  

Determined not to let the officers escape, George W. Bush’s Department of Justice—which, contrary to Leftist propaganda, was extremely aggressive towards white blue collar Americans accused of racial offences—charged the police with violating the victims’ federal “civil rights.”  Barack Obama’s DOJ actually got to prosecute the case.  At least 10 officers were originally indicted, but four took plea bargains in exchange for testifying against their fellow officers.

The result was a farce.  Though several officers were convicted, in October 2011 Judge Engelhardt threw out some of the convictions, suggesting that Officer Michael Hunter, who had plea bargained, had perjured himself.  Furthermore, the chief FBI investigator on the case, Special Agent William Bezak, had suborned perjury from Hunter and the federal government had made false charges against three officers. Judge Engelhardt would later charge Special Agent Bezak with “shockingly coercive tactics employed against one potential witness [NOPD Officer Heather Gore].”

Hunter’s credibility was so weak, in Engelhardt’s view, that he asked to see the handwritten notes of FBI Special Agent William Bezak, who had debriefed him. After reviewing Bezak’s notes and other court documents, the judge wrote, “the Court could only conclude that either (a) Special Agent Bezak is the worst note-taker in the history of the FBI; or (b) Hunter’s approach to the truth was so cavalier and insouciant that his word … should be accepted only with special care, utmost caution/doubt, and requisite corroboration.”

[Federal judge throws out 3 charges in Danziger Bridge case by Gordon Russell, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune, October 20, 2011.]

Judge Engelhardt sentenced the remaining convicted defendants, harshly, on April 4, 2012.  However, even on this occasion, he questioned the prosecution: 

The government's reliance on cooperating witnesses who were looking to protect themselves made the judge very uncomfortable.

“Using liars to convict liars is no way to pursue justice,” Engelhardt said.

Citing witnesses for perjury “at this trial would be like giving out speeding tickets at the Indy 500,” he added. [Judge imposes stiff sentences on 5 NOPD officers convicted in Danziger shootings by Brendan McCarthy, The Times-Picayune, last updated April 5, 2012.]

The notorious Thomas Perez, then assistant U.S. attorney general, and head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was reported as responding

"You don't go to the witness store to pick out your witnesses." You deal with what is presented to you, he said.

[Danziger Bridge prosecution was mishandled, federal judge says by Brendan McCarthy, The Times-Picayune, April 4, 2012.]

But the case continued to fall apart. Astonishingly, it materialized that DOJ lawyers had frequently (and illegally) posted pseudonymous comments at the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s Web site.  This was discovered by local landfill owner Fred Heebe as part of a lawsuit originating in a separate Department of Justice effort against him.

Assistant U.S. Attorney and Senior Litigation Counsel Sal Perricone; his superior, First U.S. Attorney Jan Mann; and DOJ prosecutor Karla Dobinski posted hundreds of comments under at least 16 different pseudonyms. For example, Perricone posted this in the comments thread on a December 3, 2010

Pat Buchanan recently wrote an intriguing column titled, “Is Red State America Seceding?” His column clearly reveals that an independence/secession movement is spreading globally.

No major legislation has ever been passed like Obamacare—and I'm using the word "passed" pretty loosely.

It became law without both houses ever voting on the same bill. (Say, is the Constitution considered "settled law"?) Not one Republican voted for it—and a lot of Democrats immediately wished they hadn't.

Historically, big laws have been enacted with large, bipartisan majorities. In 1935, President Roosevelt enacted Social Security with a 372-33 vote in the House and 77-6 in the Senate.

In 1965, Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and the House 307-116, with the vast majority of Democrats supporting this Ponzi scheme and Republicans roughly split.

Reagan's magnificent tax cuts in 1981—which Democrats now denounce as if they'd been appalled at the time—passed with a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and even 323-107 in the hostile Democratic House.

Even Bill Clinton's signature legislative achievement—Midnight Basketball for the Homeless—received more bipartisan support than Obamacare.

No law, certainly not one that fundamentally alters the role of the government, has ever been passed like this.

But now, this greased-through, irregular law is relentlessly defended as "settled law" and "the law of the land"! (At least the parts that Obama hasn't unconstitutionally waived—again, anybody know if the Constitution is "settled law"?)

Wow—Obamacare sounds fantastic! Not only does Congress refuse to live under it, but its proponents' strongest argument is that it's "settled law!"

The most hilarious part of the "settled law" argument is that it's coming from the left, for whom nothing is ever "settled" until they get their way—as described in my new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican.

Liberals seem to believe our founding fathers sought to create a country where the pushiest always win. (That's why they're the party of trial lawyers.) They want the nation's policies to be determined by a never-ending co-op board meeting dominated by the most obnoxious shareholders.

As New Yorkers are about to discover if they elect Bill de Blasio mayor, for example, liberals will never abandon their plans to hamstring cops and spring criminals. For 30 years, New York City tried the Democrats' approach to crime. The result was an explosion of murders, rapes, permanent disfigurements, robberies, car thefts and burglaries.

Then Rudy Giuliani came in and saved the city. The dramatic decrease in crime effected by Giuliani's crime policies made commerce, tourism—life!—possible again in New York.

But liberals have been biding their time, waiting for people to forget, itching to get their hands on the levers of power so they can start releasing criminals again. (Or as Democrats refer to them, "our base.")

Wasn't "stop and frisk" "settled law"? Why yes, it was, upheld in 1996 by a New York appeals court in People v. Batista. But that settled law was recently overturned by a liberal judge [VDARE.com note: appointed by Bill Clinton] in a case funded by George Soros.

Hey, does anyone know if the Second Amendment is "settled law"?

And how many dozens of states have expressly voted