Recent News

 Texas Governor Rick Perry was speaking to voters in Waverly, Iowa before that state’s caucuses in December when a local man raised his hand. "I don't know how the rest of the conservatives in the room feel, but personally, I'm fed up with seeing the directions on every single product on every single shelf of every single store written in foreign languages,” he announced. “And I'd like to say English should be the official language of government in this country."[English as official US language: Perry says, 'I can agree with that', By Carrie Dann, December 30, 2012]

Rick Perry, who until this moment had no public record of ever voicing support for making English the official language of his state or the U.S

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

Peter Brimelow writes: I’m going to miss Newt Gingrich. (Assuming, of course, that he can’t re-reincarnate himself). Whatever else you can say about the former Speaker of the House—and we’ve said a lot—he is original and even creative. Thus he has single-handedly raised the issue of legislating judges, the key force behind America’s ongoing cultural Marxist revolution—and an immense problem for patriotic immigration reform legislation (exactly as I predicted in Alien Nation).  

Gingrich wants legislators to counteract judicial imperialism. His idea has caused a lot of harrumphing, even from self-proclaimed conservatives (for example, see A conservative worries: Will Gingrich return America to the days of King George? , by Rodney K. Smith, Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2012). But of course Gingrich is right.

The traditional remedy to judicial imperialism: appoint judges who actually believe in the law. This was the answer I supported in my October 1981 Harper’s Magazine article, Supreme Irony: The Court Of Last Resort, which we have exhumed from the print tomb and which makes its first public online appearance here tonight.

But that was thirty years, and five Republican Administrations, ago. It just hasn’t worked. Indeed, Republican Senators were wholly unable to mount an effective opposition to Obama Supreme Court selections Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, although both are plainly just liberal political commissars.

On VDARE.com, we have discussed other remedies: jurisdiction-stripping under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and (my personal favorite!) impeachment.The problem remains as stated. For the solution, we may have to back to the drawing board—along with Newt.

SUPREME IRONY |The court of last resort

[Originally published in Harpers, October 1981]

Within weeks of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, several lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of his retroactive hiring freeze on federal recruiting. A public-interest group called Energy Action announced a suit protesting decontrol of petroleum prices. Public Citizen, Ralph Nader’s public-interest lobby, sued Health and Human Services secretary Schweiker over policy toward generic (non-brand-name) drugs. And a number of legal challenges to the proposed freeze on federal regulations were being discussed. All of which was presaged by the Washington Star directly after the election:

“Noting the three recent appointments of well-known liberal activists to the U.S. Court of Appeals

—Abner Mikva, Patricia Wald and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—one public interest lawyer commented:

“The courts now loom as the most congenial branch of the federal government. We may have to return to litigation to take advantage of this asset.”

It is important to realize what is going on here. One faction in American politics—whether or not it represents “the public interest”—has lost an election. Its policies may be reversed. It proposes to prevent that by appealing to the courts. It trusts the courts not because of the law but because of the judges. They are members of the same faction.

In Britain, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is to be found in the legislature. In Ronald Reagan’s America, opposition is centered on the bench. It will almost certainly be neither loyal to, nor even impressed by, his mandate. And behind this opposition lurks a more ominous possibility: that our political culture is losing sight of the ideal of an impartial law.

THAT THERE has been an extraordinary invasion of every area of American life by the federal judiciary in the past twenty-five years is now undeniable. At one time, it was fashionable for supporters of this judicial activism to argue that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes had been equally unrestrained in 1935-36 when it ruled vital New Deal legislation unconstitutional. But there is a distinction. The Hughes Court was reviewing, perhaps overenthusiastically, the actions of a reforming legislature. Now, however, Supreme Court justices and a host of inferior judges are themselves reforming society, in the most detailed and aggressive way, not merely without the sanction of elected lawmakers, but often in a direction diametrically opposed to that in which they or their constituents might have wished to go.

It is an open secret that most major social reforms of the last generation have been accomplished by the judiciary. In what amounts to a cloverleaf of Damascus Roads, the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional such previously accepted practices as segregation, capital punishment, school prayer and has unilaterally effected one-man, one-vote state legislative apportionment, affirmative action, abortion on demand, and the abolition of residency laws for welfare eligibility.

Each of these ends had devoted advocates who were not inclined to question the means by which they were achieved. But presumably everyone would have preferred to see legislatures rewriting the necessary statutes, or amending the Constitution. As matters stand, it is only a matter of time before someone realizes that the judicial branch in general and the Supreme Court in particular are the modern equivalent of the Wizard of Oz. They have no power other than the awe inspired by the Constitution. But a fundamental organic law capable of such profound reinterpretation at the drop of a Supreme Court justice or two, and their replacement by political opponents, is no sort of law at all.

Perhaps the confusion that exists in the minds of lawyers on the point has helped postpone that awful day. In his autobiography, The Court Years,  William O. Douglas claimed that when he joined the Supreme Court in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes told him that constitutional decisions were 90 percent emotional: “the rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.” Douglas says he took this advice to heart. There is every reason to believe him. He once remarked that he was more interested in creating a precedent than finding one. Nobody did more to convince American lawyers that they should study not the Constitution but the Supreme Court.

Yet there at the end of his book is the poor old U.S. Constitution, reproduced as an appendix, like an Orthodox priest drafted to sprinkle holy water on Red Army tanks.

And there can be no dispute about the degree of judicial ambition displayed in the endlessly proliferating minor cases as well. In Texas last year, U.S. District Court Judge Gabrielle McDonald  ordered a public station to screen “Death of a Princess”—a controversial television film it had canceled after Saudi Arabian protests. In South Dakota, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Porter ruled that ranchers must stop using certain chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency to combat a grasshopper plague.

In Washington, Judge Barrington Parker ordered the army to upgrade less than honorable discharges given to some 10,000 Vietnam-era veterans found to be abusing drugs, following compulsory urinalyses that Parker said were “statements” covered by Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

In Rhode Island, Judge Raymond J. Pettine forced school administrators to allow a homosexual student to take a male date to his senior prom. In Mississippi, Judge Orma Smith ordered the state to supply to high schools a textbook previously rejected because of its controversial stress on black history. The California supreme court recently held intelligence tests to be unconstitutional.

In all of these cases, elected legislators and appointed officials found themselves stymied by arbitrary fiat, any challenge to which must be mounted against the forces of inertia and cost that are invariably decisive in politics. None of the rulings bore any serious relationship to the intentions of the Constitution’s framers, traditionally the standard by which legal problems are judged. Yet they explicitly contradicted political solutions.

This situation is largely the fault of our tremulous legislators. A classic illustration was provided by Washington Monthly when in 1979 it sent purported pro-and anti-abortion letters to every senator, demanding to know his or her position. [Mail Fraud on Capitol Hill, by Mark Feldstein, October 1979] No ancient Greek ever fled in more terror from the Furies than the average political hack from these two ferocious lobbies, and the result was the expected mixture of silence and mealymouthed or contradictory replies. One, however, was particularly significant. Senator Donald W. Riegle (Dem.-Mich.) replied that he preferred “to leave the issue to the courts.”

And this has been the way in which a whole generation of legislators

Red Tails flew into the movie theatres January 20 with a ton of fanfare, via free publicity from a gushing Main Stream Media eager to promote the true story of Black World War II pilots overcoming white racism and segregation to make the world safe for Democracy. As I argued on VDARE.com as the movie opened, powerful forces are making the Tuskegee Airmen—the 332^nd Fighter Group, a black unit created by the Roosevelt Administration and nicknamed “Red Tails”—into an heroic, albeit mendacious, myth designed for our brave new multicultural America.

At the January 20 burial at Arlington National Ceremony of Lt. Colonel Luke Weathers, one of the last surviving Red Tails—he died October 15, but his funeral was delayed, significantly, until the release of the film—his son gave voice to this myth:

Peter Brimelow writes: “One spark could start a conflagration. It may still be struck,” I wrote when I complained about the short shrift given to the patriotic immigration reform issue in the last GOP candidates’ debate in South Carolina.

Well, it’s happened, sort of. In the next debate, in Florida on January 23, Mitt Romney annoyed me even further by abruptly agreeing with Newt Gingrich on a mini-DREAM Act for illegals who take American jobs in the military. But Romney's throwaway line about encouraging “self-deportation” for illegal aliens has indeed caused something of a flare-up, because the Main Stream Media (and Gingrich) reacted with boneheaded incredulity to a concept that has extensively discussed among immigration patriots (who usually call it “attrition through enforcement”) over many years.

Tellingly, by the most recent debate on January 27, even Gingrich felt compelled to concede, grudgingly, that the concept has merit. (See transcript below).

That’s the great thing about election campaigns and debates. They are the growth point of politics.

And that’s particularly true for immigration. Contrary to what they claim (but what else is new?) it is the immigration enthusiasts who control Establishment debate who are consumed with emotion on the issue, not immigration skeptics, who are usually coolly rational.  Hence Michele Bachmann had only to hint at criticizing the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act, which unleashed the current mass immigration, to provoke a hysterical editorial in the Washington Post. This is the kind of “earned media” that candidates are supposed to long for. Unhappily, Bachmann—or her handlers—chose to fall silent.

Self-deportation/ Attrition Through Enforcement was just one of five key immigration reform concepts that I listed after the last South Carolina debate. All are potentially incendiary. The others:

(2) Obama’s Administrative Amnesty—a new development to which the GOP has, incredibly, not yet responded;

(3) Better visa control, since up to half of all illegal aliens in the U.S. came here as legal visitors and overstayed;

 (4) Strategic deportation—let’s start an Operation Wetback–style stampede for the exits;

(5) An anti-unemployment immigration moratorium—aimed at curtailing legal immigration.

There are more. For example, with a Republican audience, it would certainly be legitimate to point out that

(6) “Electing A New People”— the Democrats are deliberately openly boasting that they intend to swamp the historic American nation with non-traditional, left-leaning minorities; and

(7) End Birthright Citizenship—something that even Establishment Republicans have discussed, albeit without doing anything about it.

Mitt Romney does not come naturally to immigration patriotism—or, apparently, to any strong position.

Thus Romney was not asked about Puerto Rico in this debate, but he went even further than Rick Santorum (“I don't take a position one way or the other on statehood, commonwealth, independence, that's for the people of Puerto Rico to decide”) the next day, saying he will actively work for Puerto Rican statehood. (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich Pressed on Puerto Rico Statehood in South Florida, by Matthew Jaffe, Emily Friedman and Elicia Dover, ABCnews, January 27, 2011).

VDARE.com’s reaction: Americans should be asked if they want to take Puerto Rico on as a state.

And how does Romney reconcile admitting a Spanish-speaking state with his professed support for English As An Official language (see below)?

Full CNN Transcript

Portland, Oregon is a progressive city full of bike riders, outdoor enthusiasts, microbreweries, coffee shops, indie bands and book shops. It is always rated as one of the most livable and most green cities in the U.S. and Forbes has ranked Portland as the third safest city in the nation.

The city is even the subject of a popular TV show called Portlandia that makes fun of the Stuff White People Like types who inhabit “The City of Roses.”

Portland added over 10,000 white residents from 2000-2010 and local economist Joe Cortright calls these new arrivals the “beer, bikes and Birkenstock” crowd.

But the unemployment rate in Portland is actually higher than the U.S. average. And salaries in other liberal Northwest meccas such as Seattle and San Francisco are roughly 20% higher than in Portland. So why are whites flocking there?

Answer: overwhelmingly, culture and quality of life. The progressive reputation of Portland is attracting college-educated whites from across the U.S. to live in a city full of reliable public transportation and walkable, safe neighborhoods.  

But much to their consternation, their own migration is helping to keep Portland white.

The 2010 Census shows that whites comprise 74% of the city of Portland