Recent News

Here's a typical sob story reportorial from the Boston Globe about how illegal aliens from Mexico have swamped a perfectly innocent town in central Washington State and are really, really hurt because the mean old GOP won't let them have citizenship:

MATTAWA, Wash. – Eloy Cervantes, a cattle rancher and father of four, has staked his family’s future on this remote farming city in America’s apple country — a city riddled by troubles he wishes he could help fix. Teen pregnancy. Grating poverty. And violent gangs that shot bullet holes into his neighbors’ trailers.

But Cervantes is not a US citizen, so he is powerless to change a thing. In fact, the majority of people in this American town hundreds of miles from the southern border are not American citizens. Mattawa’s longtime mayor, a white woman in a town of 4,400 mostly Latino residents, won the last election with a grand total of 37 votes.

Immigration puts small town on cultural divide| America’s immigration impasse is a daily, dispiriting fact of life in Mattawa, Wash., and many places where noncitizens abound, by Maria Sacchetti, Januart 5, 2014. Bolding added throughout.

A white woman! Can't have that!

The Globe's Sacchetti (email her) describes the hell that was Mattawa before the immivasion:

Thirty years ago, Mattawa was a fading town of 300 hardy white farmers on the banks of the Columbia River, which flows south through ocher-tinted gorges from the Canadian Rockies. City officials joked that Mattawa easily lived up to the meaning of its Native American name, “Where is it?”

Hardy white farmers! The horror!

Unusually, Ms. Sacchetti is naive (or subversive?) enough to say straight out what the political economy of this immigration disaster actually is:

...in the late 1990s, corporate farmers blanketed the brown hills with forests of apples, cherries, and grapes — with the government’s help. They tapped water from a federal irrigation project and some leased land from the state.

In other words, Big Ag

Leftists rejoiced with characteristic crudity at the passing of Bob Grant, the conservative Talk Radio pioneer who died December 31 at age 84. Daryle Lamont Jenkins of the One Person’s Project, er, “One People’s Project,” shrieked in triumph that Bob Grant should “Rot in Hell!”This is the same Jenkins who recently ordered to pay $50,000 to Comanche patriot David Yeagley for his role in forcing the cancellation of the 2010 American Renaissance Conference at which Yeagley was to speak. (Read Yeagley’s 2012 AmRen speech here. )

Bob Grant was an exemplar of the confrontational conservative radio hosts that the Main Stream Media loves to describe as “shock jocks.”Beginning in the 1970s, Grant steadily built a following in New York City as a token conservative who eventually emerged as a dominant force on Talk Radio during the Reagan years. [Bob Grant, a Combative Personality on New York Talk Radio, Dies at 84, by Paul Vitello, New York Times, January 2, 2014]

As most obituaries noted, Grant was notorious for controversial remarks. He referred to the now-sainted Martin Luther King Jr.  as “this bum, this womanizer, this liar, this fake, this phony. ”He expressed great pessimism about the future of the country, because “the quality of the citizenry seems to be heading down. ”Finally, and most damningly, Grant noticed the great double standard you are not supposed to mention, saying, “You can talk all you want about ‘minorities’ rights,’ but heaven forbid you talk about white rights.”

Grant’s fall in 1996 came about because of an ill-considered crack at the news that then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s plane had crashed. Grant joked that because he was a pessimist, he thought Brown would be the only survivor. Unfortunately, Brown actually had died.

With help from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Leftist vigilante group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) managed to get Grant fired from WABC. Though he would continue on other stations and blog and speak until his death, the damage was done. By 2008, in an example of the curious intensification of Political Correctness after what VDARE.com describes as the post-Soviet “Interglacial,”Grant was deemed too controversial

Previously by John Reid: Political Correctness At Elite Law Schools: It’s Not The Professors, It’s The Students—Which Is Why You Should Give To VDARE.com!

In 1911, Ambrose Bierce defined a lawyer as “one skilled in circumvention of the law” and a liar as a “lawyer with a roving commission” in his satirical Devil’s Dictionary. For the next century, many less-funny jokes have made similar points:

• How do you know a lawyer his lying? His lips are moving
• What do you call an honest lawyer? An oxymoron

Despite (or perhaps because of) this reputation, lawyers need to pass rigorous character and fitness tests before admission to the bar. A bar applicant must disclose all legal problems, down to traffic tickets. Many states require credit checks. While a couple of traffic tickets or even a DUI will not prevent most people from admission, any evidence of dishonesty will.

Illegal aliens commit a host of dishonest and illegal “crimes of moral turpitude” just to function in society—even putting illegal presence aside. Consider how often you need to give your social security number on some form. Illegals just fake it.

With this in mind, enter Sergio Garcia, an illegal alien who the Supreme Court of California recently approved for admission to the bar. [Illegal immigrant Sergio Garcia gets California law licence, BBC, January 3, 2014] As to be expected, Garcia has the relatively sympathetic DREAMER back-story. His parents brought him to the US as an infant, although he left when he was 9 and did not return until he was 17.

However, Garcia’s legal career is inconsistent with the celebrated “undocumented valedictorian” meme. He graduated from the ABA-unaccredited Cal Northern Law School, a school with a median LSAT score of 145—half a standard deviation lower than the lowest median LSAT of any ranked law school.

And—to his credit—Garcia does not lie to reporters and tell them that he aspires to use his law license to help the disenfranchised blah blah. Rather, he aspires to be a personal injury litigator—the type of attorney most responsible for the bad lawyer jokes.

Garcia passed the bar exam and then applied for his law license, admitting his illegal status. The California Committee of Bar Examiners found that, his illegal status notwithstanding, Garcia had

[John Derbyshire writes: I’ll be speaking at the 2014 American Renaissance conference, which takes place April 25-27 at the lodge in Montgomery Bell State Park, near Nashville.

Full details are on the AmRen website, as is a write-up of last year’s very successful conference, at which I gave a talk.

It’s a warm, friendly gathering, with many opportunities to socialize and exchange ideas. The staff at the lodge are hospitable, and the food surprisingly good. The park itself is beautiful, with miles of hiking trails and many noble prospects.

Some antifa neckbeards may show up for light entertainment, but the park police will keep them well corralled.

Early birds get discounts, so if you can make it to Tennessee that weekend, register now!]

Among other, much more important anniversaries, 2014 is the semicentenary of my one and only visit to Romania. According to my passport, I entered what was then the Rumanian [sic] People’s Republic on September 11^th 1964, and left ten days later. I recorded some random reminiscences here.

I have never been to Bulgaria; although once, again back in Iron Curtain days, I patronized an automobile service station in White Plains, New York, run by Bulgarians. On the office wall hung a photograph of King Simeon, then living in exile in Spain. (He is still with us—the only living person to bear the title “Tsar.”)

My base of knowledge for estimating the impact of several million Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants into Britain, following the complete opening of the borders this Wednesday, is thus regrettably narrow.

And note that word “complete.” There are already plenty of people from these two poor, corrupt Balkan nations already in Britain—around 100,000 Romanians and 50,000 Bulgarians at year’s end. They have been allowed in since joining the EU in 2007, although subject to quotas and work permits.

The Avis clerk who checked in my rental car return at Heathrow Airport last November 11^th was a charming young lady from Romania, who reacted with delight when I tried out my very limited stock of remembered Romanian phrases on her.

This Wednesday the quotas and permits were dropped. There will be some easily-evaded limitations on what welfare programs the immigrants may apply for (the BBC website has a handy Q&A here), but the British border has essentially been abolished for them.

This latest opening of Britain’s borders has generated a mass of commentary. At one pole there is blithe enthusiasm:

On behalf of The Economist’s home country, we invite you to come and work here. Beginning on January 1st, you can go anywhere in the European Union. We hope lots of you choose Britain. [You’re welcome: An open letter to the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania, The Economist, December 21, 2013.]

At the other pole there are forebodings of doom:

THE day of destiny has almost arrived. Another stage is about to be reached in the destruction of national identity and our existence as an independent country. From the beginning of January, all restrictions will be lifted on immigration to Britain of people from Bulgaria and Romania. Under European Union free movement laws, the 28 million citizens of these two countries will have the legal right to settle here.  [Mass immigration is destroying our once great nation, by Leo McKinstry, Daily Express, December 30, 2013.]

The coming flood of Romanians and Bulgarians is an interesting “control” case for commentators on mass immigration in that there is not much of a race issue to it. These are mostly white Europeans.

You could argue in fact that in British resistance to the flood there is something of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Having admitted hundreds of thousands of blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, the Brits have given themselves a U.S.-style race problem all their very own, where they had none before.

Having further, across the same span of decades, admitted hundreds of thousands of Muslims from West Asia and Africa, the Brits added a religion problem to their race problem, with mad preachers inciting horrid crimes, and the dysgenic consequences of cousin marriage.

And now outrage is being expressed at the prospect of some similar number of white mostly-European Christians settling in Britain?

As the kids say: Hel-lo?

(Nobody knows how many Romanians

As 2014 begins, President Barack Obama is on the ropes—and the only thing that can save him is the Republican Party. Luckily for him, Rep. Paul Ryan seems determined to oblige, by handing him an epochal political victory in the shape of some form of the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge (which the Treason Lobby and the Main Stream Media call “Immigration Reform” in a telling tacit admission of its unpopularity).

This is all the more unforgivable because it is unnecessary. Obama has had what Queen Elizabeth II might call an annus horribilis. Though Republican bumbling led to political defeat in Virginia and New Jersey, the larger political momentum has turned decisively against the President. In foreign affairs, he was outmaneuvered by Kremlin chessmaster Vladimir Putin, and America seems increasingly irrelevant even as tensions increase in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Northeast Asia. [Barack Obama – our irrelevant President, by Michael Goodwin, New York Post, August 26, 2013]

In domestic politics, the Sandy Hook shooting in late 2012 was supposed to allow President Obama and the Democrats to pass transformative gun control laws. But after a year of speeches, social media campaigns, and biased hysteria from the Fourth Estate, the result was still crushing defeat. The assault weapons ban and the gun background check both failed in the Senate in April. [Gun background check compromise, assault weapon ban fail in Senate, by Ed O’Keefe, Washington Post, April 17, 2013]  

And in the states, the majority of laws based actually loosened restrictions on guns. [State Gun Laws Enacted in the Year Since Newton, New York Times, December 10, 2013]

Obama even seemed strangely detached from the year’s fierce budget battles. Instead of negotiating with leading Congressional Republicans, he took every opportunity to make impotent threats from the bully pulpit, to the indifference of the country. This made him look even more unnecessary to the governing process. [Obama the Irrelevant, by Larry Kudlow, Daily Caller, September 20, 2013]

Finally, and most importantly, that apogee of racial socialism known as Obamacare has become a national joke, mocked on everything from Saturday Night Live to the Country Music Awards. The inability of the Minority Occupation Government to build a website is a priceless political gift to the Republican Party.  

Only 35 percent of Americans approve of Obamacare and the numbers are still falling. [Obamacare Approval Ratings Hit Record Low, by Charlotte Alter, Time, December 23, 2013] And Barack Obama’s own personal approval ratings have fallen below 40 percent in some polls, a level that marked the beginning of George W. Bush’s second-term death spiral. [Obama’s Approval Rating Dipped Into Dangerously Low Territory Yesterday, by Brett Logiurato, BusinessInsider, December 4, 2013]

So the GOP Establishment may be about to win the only way they know how – by default. Generic Republicans now have an edge going into the midterm elections, part of a 13 point swing away from the Democratic Party. [CNN Poll: GOP has edge in early midterm indicator, by Paul Steinhauser, CNN, December 26, 2013]

Obama needs a massive legislative triumph to reestablish his relevance and to animate his nonwhite base. Thus the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is not just Barack Obama’s top legislative priority – it is his last hope of avoiding lame duck status.

In contrast, all the GOP has to do is nothing. And the strongest force in politics is usually inertia. But with the Beltway Right, inertia is often overwhelmed by stupidity.

Enter Paul Ryan, who with his dogmatic, even religious, rationalizations for cheap labor, his political talent for describing surrender as victory, and his sociopathic contempt for his own constituents is almost a caricature of the soul of the Beltway Right.

Ryan, who shares with National Review Editor Rich Lowry the characteristic of looking like a pubescent boy despite being well over 40, has already been working to save Barack Obama by crafting a “bipartisan” budget plan with Senator Patty Murray (D.-Washington State). Obama, vacationing as

President Obama Speaking At Nelson Mandela's Funeral

By their heroes shall you know them.

In his eulogy, President Obama put Nelson Mandela in the company of three other heroes: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln.

What did these men have in common? Three were assassinated, and all four are icons of resistance to white rule over peoples of color.

Lincoln waged the bloodiest war in American history that ended slavery. Gandhi advanced the end of British rule in India. King led the civil rights struggle that buried Jim Crow. Mandela was the leader of the revolution that overthrew apartheid.

Obama's heroes testify to his belief that the great moral struggle of the age is the struggle for racial equality.

For the neocons, the greatest man was Winston Churchill, because he stood up, almost alone, to the great evil of the age—Nazism.

Thus, to neocons, Munich was the great betrayal because it was there that Neville Chamberlain, rather than defy Hitler, agreed to the return of the Sudeten Germans to German rule. (To the Old Right, Yalta, where Churchill and FDR ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, a monster as evil and more menacing than Hitler, was the greatest betrayal.)

But what did Churchill think of Obama's hero Gandhi?

"It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace ... to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King."

What did Churchill think of ending Western white rule of peoples of color? Here he is in 1937:

"I do not admit ... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia ... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race ... has come in and taken its place."

Here is Churchill during World War II:

"I have not become the King's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."

In short, Dunkirk defiance aside, Churchill's convictions about the superiority of some races and civilizations, and their inherent right to rule what Kipling called "the lesser breeds without the law,"

Consider this: Taylor Swift wasn't even born yet when the fight over the Mount Soledad cross began. How much longer will it drag on? Disgruntled atheists first filed suit over the memorial at a veterans park in San Diego in the summer of 1989. The fringe grievance-mongers have clung bitterly to their litigious activities for nearly a quarter-century. It's time to let go and bring peace to the city.

The historic 43-foot cross has stood atop Mount Soledad on public land since 1954. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association erected the monument to commemorate the sacrifice of American soldiers who died in the Korean War, World War I and World War II. The cross has long carried meaning for the city's residents far beyond religious symbolism. "It's a symbol of coming of age and of remembrance," Pastor Mark Slomka of the Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church said years ago when the case erupted. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board explained that the cross is "much like the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the cross at Presidio Park, both of which also are rooted in Christianity but have come to signify the birth of San Diego."

I first started covering the case as an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s. A federal judge initially ruled that the landmark cross's presence violated the California constitution's church-state separation principles. The city of San Diego put the issue before voters, who overwhelmingly approved a practical solution in 2005: Sell the cross and the park to the veterans group for use in a national war memorial.

A pragmatic, tolerant resolution with 76 percent of voters' support? Heavens, no! The extreme secularists couldn't have that. They sued and sued and sued and sued. By 2007, the state Supreme Court—affirmed by a state appellate court—had rejected the atheists' campaign. The courts affirmed the constitutionality of the San Diego referendum (Proposition A) and the sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The American Civil Liberties Union intervened to suppress and "de-publish" the ruling as a way to prevent its use in future litigation. They lost.

Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the memorial association, were relieved: "This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical veterans memorial for future generations." They've fought hard to remind America that the Founding Fathers fought for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

But still the cross-hunters press on. Fast-forward to Christmas week 2013. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, who earlier had ruled in support of the cross, was forced to rule that it must come down in 90 days in the wake of a liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning his prior decision. In anticipation of new appeals, Burns stayed the order. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case last summer.

Rabbi Ben Kamin, who lives in Southern California, responded sensibly to the hysteria of the Mount Soledad cross-hunters who claimed to be irreparably "hurt"