Recent News

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

“Explicit attitudes of xenophobia and discrimination toward immigrants, and intolerance toward the cultural diversity of our country.”

That was a government agency’s recent summary of what a poll of citizens found.

But the poll was in Mexico—and the government agency was Conapred, the “Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación” (National Council For The Prevention Of Discrimination).

Mitt Romney rolls on (more or less). And his key success in the February 28 presidential primary in my home state of Arizona must be attributed at least in part to his going out of his way, in the candidates’ debate, to defend the state’s struggle against illegal immigration and its enabler, the Obama Administration.

As usual, of course, Romney’s signals are mixed. More recently, his spokesman Ryan Williams has been reassuring MSM immigration enthusiasts that Romney meant, not SB1070, but the state’s 2007 employer sanctions law. [For Romney, 'model' policy on migration isn't SB 1070, by Dan Nowicki, Arizona Republic, Mar. 3, 2012].

But even the 2007 law required Arizona employers to hire only legal workers. And the simplest way for an employer to do that is to use the Federal E-Verify program.

So, at the very least, a Romney nomination seems likely to make E-Verify an issue in the general election.

Why do business groups and "immigrant rights" groups fight so fiercely against making E-Verify mandatory? Is it really because they are concerned that legal workers will accidentally be flagged as unauthorized and be fired or that E-Verify will breed profiling?

I don't think so.

Let's be honest. Business groups are just greedy. They have become addicted to

So why did Rush Limbaugh apologize?

When Democratic activist Sandra Fluke testified that she wanted Georgetown, a Catholic University, to be compelled by federal law to pay her three thousand dollars for contraceptives—she meant the Pill, which means she’s asking her university to pay for her to able to have unprotected sex—Limbaugh called her a “slut.” According to Media Matters, the Outraged Left, and the Righteous Right, that’s something Rush is not allowed to say.

Limbaugh is a talk show host. Insulting people is his job.

But, as with Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Pat Buchanan, Media Matters doesn’t want him to have his job. What can it do to destroy him?

There’s virtually no law of libel in the United States. The Supreme Court abolished it in order to prevent the Press and the Civil Rights movement from being sued for lying about the South. The FCC abandoned the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” years ago. (Efforts to revive it are called, with good reason, the “Hush Rush Law.”)

And Limbaugh doesn’t actually have a job he can be fired from. He’s a businessman with his own network, which he sells to advertisers and to radio stations around the country.

This makes money for the advertisers, because Limbaugh has many extremely loyal fans, and it makes money for the radio stations, too.

But in spite of this, advertisers are dropping him. Recently he’s lost the accounts of

• AOL Inc.
• Tax Resolution Services Co.
• ProFlowers
• Quicken Loans
• Sleep Number beds
• Sleep Train
• Citrix Systems Inc.
• online data backup service provider Carbonite
• online legal document services company LegalZoom

and Allstate Corp, which not only dropped him, but claimed it only advertised on the show by mistake. [Limbaugh advertisers keep heading for the exits  March 5, 2012]

This is notwithstanding the fact that he’s issued

1. An apology: A Statement from Rush, March 3, 2012
2. A statement about why he apologized, repeating his apology: Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke, March 5, 2012.

But it wasn’t enough—it’s never enough. [Faux-Apology Not Accepted: Fire Rush Limbaugh for His Hateful Misogyny, by

Timothy Stanley could not have planned it better: his new biography of Patrick J. Buchanan, The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan hit bookstores just as the champion of the Right was purged by MSNBC.

While Main Stream Media headlines screamed and liberals gloated, the Establishment conservative movement remained largely silent. This might appear to contradict Stanley’s contention that a biography of Pat Buchanan is a biography of the conservative movement itself. But in fact it strengthens it—the career of Pat Buchanan, advisor to Presidents, television pioneer, insurgent candidate, and best selling author, is the real story of the American Right’s rise, fall—and possible resurrection.

Stanley, a Catholic convert observing American politics from across the Pond, delivers an admirably objective analysis of the man TIME magazine smeared as “Hell Raiser" [Cover, November 6, 1995]—and a portrait of a vanished age, when boys would be boys, the Church was still the Church, and America was still recognizably American.

Stanley traces Buchanan’s worldview to his upbringing. He noting that in Buchanan’s autobiographical Right From the Beginning

You can almost smell the incense and home cooking; almost hear the school bell call the boys to prayer and the soft click-click-click of rosary beads as they run through the fingers at nighttime prayer.

Buchanan’s father taught his large brood (six boys and two girls) to stand up for the Faith and themselves. After a trouble-making adolescence of raiding parties with his brothers, fighting the cops, and scaring the family of Maureen Dowd, Buchanan “gave his assent” to the truths he had been taught as a child and spent his life defending an authentic street corner conservatism of faith, tradition, and community rather than a collection of abstractions.

After a promising beginning as a journalist, Buchanan’s hiring by Richard Nixon in 1966 propelled him to the status of a political insider. Stanley emphasizes the almost father-son relationship between Nixon, whom Buchanan called “the Old Man”, and his young conservative pitbull. He notes that Pat Buchanan was seen as the conservative movement’s inside man in the Nixon Administration as “Nixonism was nonideological” except for malice towards easily identified foes. Buchanan’s mission was to craft a conservative agenda that could win and then convince the “Old Man” that it was in his advantage to champion it.

For that reason, Buchanan’s conservatism was not built on ideological propositions, but practically, on specific

James Fulford writes: Today’s article is taken from the most recent issue of The Social Contract Magazine, with their permission. [Subscribe to the Social Contract.]

Proposition 187, passed by California voters in 1994, was the forerunner of many of today’s state immigration laws.  It was “defeated” in court, and you will see people like Linda Chavez saying it was “unconstitutional”.

Actually it was betrayed by Gray Davis, the former Governor of California, who when sued by the Treason Lobby, decided to roll over and play dead. You have to wonder what would have happened if it had been allowed to stand? Would California still be visibly American?

And you also have to wonder what will to Alabama and Georgia if their laws are struck down—Mexifornia, here we come!

See also Ed Rubenstein’s National Data | Immigrants Causing One Fifth Of Federal Deficit—the original impetus for Prop. 187 was that immigration costs the taxpayer money.  

Remembering Proposition 187

By Edwin S. Rubenstein

Social Contract Press,

Volume 22, Number 2 (Winter 2011-2012)

Change is in the air. States from Arizona to Virginia have enacted laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Some target the immigrants; some target their employers. Some rely on local police to do the job; others require that employers use the federal e-Verify system to check the immigration status of employees. Many of these statutes have been challenged in court. Some have been put on hold while others—including an Alabama statute regarded as the most stringent of all—have been endorsed by federal appeals judges.

These initiatives share a common goal: enforcement of federal immigration laws, something neither political party has been willing to do in Washington.

To young activists, this burst of state involvement seems like a new trend. It is, in fact, merely the latest round in a fight that started in California nearly twenty years ago. Then, as now, the state was in dire economic straits. Over the 1991–94 period state government revenues declined by over 25 percent while social program caseloads rose dramatically. At its worst, the state deficit equaled one-third of California’s general fund budget.

While the 1990s recession was short lived, social program outlays and caseloads continued rising even after it ended. Gov. Pete Wilson blamed illegal immigration. In his view, the chronic fiscal crisis was caused by a jurisdictional dysfunction: the federal government required California to provide services to illegal aliens, who were state residents only because that same federal government failed to prevent them from crossing the border.

In 1993, Gov. Wilson sued in federal court, arguing that Washington was responsible for reimbursing California for the cost of state services to illegal aliens. Mr. Wilson urged state officials to enforce federal laws restricting welfare eligibility.

On November 8, 1994, California voters approved Proposition 187, a state initiative prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving tax-funded health care, public education, and other social services. The initiative created a state-run system to verify the legal status of every person seeking benefits for which illegals were ineligible. Law enforcement agents were instructed to investigate the immigration status of all arrested persons, and report violations to the attorney general of California and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). [Proposition 187 in California, By  Philip Martin, International Migration Review, Spring 1995]

Proposition 187 made its intentions abundantly clear to voters.

The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully. [Proposition 187, Section 1]

The initiative passed by

Recently on VDARE.com, I discussed the Puerto Rican question (¡Viva Puerto Rico Libre! Free Puerto Rico (and the U.S.) Now! My position: Puerto Rico is a distinctly different society from the U.S.—so it should not become the 51^st state (as Mitt Romney has foolishly said) but, instead, should be granted its independence.

My column received a lot of publicity thanks to an article about it posted on the website of El Nuevo Día, Puerto Rico´s most widely read newspaper.

This article, by the periodical’s Washington correspondent Jose A. Delgado (email him), was entitled Puerto Rico sería el Caballo de Troya de la hispanización de EE.UU. [“Puerto Rico would be the Trojan Horse of the Hispanicization of the United States”] (February 10, 2012).

Here’s how Delgado began (my translation):

Allan Wall, columnist of the internet page VDARE.com has indicated that Puerto Rico would be the Trojan Horse of the Hispanicization of the United States if the island were accepted as the 51^st state. Considering that Puerto Rico has a national identity and distinct culture, Wall wrote an essay against statehood entitled “¡Viva Puerto Rico Libre! Free Puerto Rico (And The U.S.) Now!.

Delgado also discussed Peter Brimelow’s appearance at CPAC:

Wall’s column was published yesterday, the same day that the founder of VDARE.COM, Peter Brimelow, participated in a forum about ‘English Only’ in the annual conference of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which meets this weekend in Washington.

Of course, he had to include something like this:

Brimelow has been described by civil rights groups as a "white nationalist" and "anti-immigrant".

Other than that, though, I have to say that the Delgado article fairly summarized my column and quoted it without distortion. (It was fairer, in other words, than a typical hit piece by Media Matters or