Show your support by purchasing VDARE.com merchandise. 
VDARE.com's Amazon connection has been restored! Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow 
Recent News
Memo From Middle America | FOCUS ON THE FAMILY Needs Evangelicals’ Money—Don’t Give To Them!
American Christians can expect a pile of propaganda from the pulpit this Sunday. President Obama’s clearly impeachable extension of his administrative amnesty, to illegals who would have been covered by the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has repeatedly refused to pass, has the support, not merely of much (if not all) of the political class, but also of Big Religion. Here is Peter Brimelow on his Episcopalian Church. Here’s a scathing indictment of the Catholic Bishops’ hypocritical just-issued statement of support for Obama.
As an evangelical Christian myself, I’m particularly interested in the evangelical family organization Focus on the Family. According to the group’s own website,
Focus on the Family is a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive. We provide help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God’s design, and for parents to raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles. [About Focus on the Family]
But Focus on the Family has just betrayed its contributors, betrayed families and betrayed its own principles by, for the first time, supporting amnesty.
As reported in my blog entry, Focus on the Family Boards the Amnesty Bandwagon, the group’s current leader, Jim Daly, joined a group of 100 similarly deluded evangelicals in signing a document, "Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform" calling for "a bipartisan solution
The Fulford File | Romney May Have Lost The Election By Rolling Over For Obama's Illegal Amnesty
Pat Buchanan once said that if, when the Rodney King Riots happened in April, 1992, President Bush (Senior) had sent in the Army immediately, he would have won the election right there. Instead, Federal troops didn't arrive until after four days of rioting. And Clinton was elected in November.
In exactly the same way, GOP Presidential nominee presumptive Mitt Romney could have won the election today. Instead, he may have lost it.
The Obama Administration has made official the Administrative Amnesty that we've been reporting on since last year. They have announced that they will not deport the young illegals who would have been given amnesty by the DREAM Act, if it had passed through Congress and become law, which it didn't.
Romney could have responded to this as the act of treason and/or corruption it actually is, by condemning Obama in the strongest terms, and saying that a Romney administration would never do any such thing.
He could even have called for Obama's impeachment—this amnesty, affecting millions of illegals, is much more serious than anything Nixon did over Watergate, or Clinton did over the Lewinsky affair.
But Romney didn't. And it's possible, because of that, that there won't be a Romney administration.
Daniel Horowitz, the young man mentioned in Patrick Cleburne's blog RedState Comes Through On Obamacrat Administrative Amnesty, has followed up:
Call me naive, but I was expecting top Republicans to come out with both guns blazing against Obama’s outrageous and illegal administrate amnesty that was announced earlier today.
Romney’s “Bold” Statement on Obama’s Illegal Administrative Amnesty, June 15, 2012
All right, I will call him naïve. The problem of illegal immigration is bipartisan—vote-hungry Democrats and cheap-labor hungry Republicans. Romney belongs to
Birth Announcement: Karia Sybil Nancy Brimelow
With my daughter, Karia Sybil Nancy Brimelow, born 10:51 pm June 13, 8lb 8oz:
Narrow-Minded Left Claims Monopoly On Moral Legitimacy (A Sam Francis Column From The Year 2000)
[James Fulford writes: (June 13, 2012) We have a link on Sam Francis's page to his columns on TownHall, January 4 2000-August 1 2000. That's an Archive.org link, so you couldn't find any of those columns by Googling. I'm posting this because the principle still applies, and while Sam and Charlton Heston have both passed on, and the gun controllers have a great deal less traction than they did even 12 years ago, Richard Cohen[Email him] still has a column in the Washington Post.]
Originally published on March 28, 2000
The republic has been edified in the last couple of weeks by the continuing debate between the National Rifle Association on the one hand, and on the other, bear with me a moment, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, former President Ford, Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, much of the national news media, and all of the gun control lobby over the NRA's unfairness toward the president. That NRA is dreadful, isn't it? Who will it gang up on next?
One lesson the debate teaches, though few seem to have learned it, is that the left side of the debate never hesitates to reject the moral legitimacy of its opponents, while at the same time screaming and screeching if the right side ever insinuates any doubt about the left's moral postures. Those who have followed the controversies between left and right over the years may have noticed that the left does this routinely.
In the eyes of the left, the right is almost always motivated by greed (Franklin Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth"), hate ("racism," "xenophobia," "homophobia," "anti-Semitism," "bigotry") or just general irrationality, if not outright insanity ("the paranoid fringe"). It seems to be impossible for the left to acknowledge that those who disagree with it from the right do so because they are rationally convinced of the truth of what they believe and the moral necessity of acting on it. To the mentality of the left, there's always an ulterior, and discreditable, reason why anyone disagrees with it.
The most recent display of this mentality popped out last week in a column by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on NRA President Charlton Heston. [Heaven Help the Gun Nuts, By Richard Cohen, March 23, 2000]Though I rarely agree with him, Cohen is one of my favorite columnists, not only because of his considerable writing talent but also because of his, well, innocence. It is his curse, if not his gift, to display to the world the way the unguarded liberal mind really works. Most other liberals have the prudence at least to try to hide those workings, but Cohen almost always lays them open like a child babbling family secrets.
It is Cohen's thesis in his column about Heston (which the Post published with a little box around it to draw the reader's attention to it) that Heston, in a word, "is nuts." He's nuts, that is, crazy, insane, irrational or mentally
Could Rubio's DREAM Act Preening Reignite 2010's Birthright Citizenship Firestorm?
Illegals protesting enforcement, Chicago 2006: Their children are Americans?
What appears to be a concerted effort by Establishment Republicans to bully GOP Presidential nominee-apparent Mitt Romney into choosing, on (probably fallacious) Hispandering grounds, Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his Vice Presidential running mate is culminating in a new (deeply flawed) DREAM Act proposal. This is apparently planned to showcase Rubio.
But instead, it may give immigration patriots a magnificent opportunity. The Hill reports:
Rubio’s bill could give a small group of conservative colleagues a chance to force a vote on ending birthright citizenship.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the U.S. a citizen only if his or her parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an alien serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Republican Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) have co-sponsored Vitter’s bill.
Rubio’s effort to reach out to Hispanic voters could backfire on Senate floor, by Alexander Hill, June 10, 2012
The Birthright Citizenship/Anchor Baby issue is the jugular of the Treason Lobby’s attempt to swamp the historic American nation and convert the country onto a Minority/Majority footing. Without the current practice of giving citizenship to all babies born on American soil (unless of diplomatic families), the political transformation of the country would be drastically slowed.As a result, needless to say, any discussion
Immigration Hitting Middle Class Hardest, But Post Story Fails To Note Why
Families see their wealth sapped; Middle Class Is Hit Hardest; Measure of net worth falls to early 90's level” ran the Washington Post’s headline on its page one story today [By Ylan Q. Mui, June 11, 2012].
So at last the effect of years of excess alien importation, known to all immigration reform patriots and reported in an incisive flow of VDARE.com stories, has appeared in an MSM paper—but, ironically and predictably, without explaining WHY!
Oh, yes, the WaPo story talks about the effects of the “economic downturn”, but it does not say WHY our economic downturn was so serious. Why is unemployment so intractable? Why are we sinking, California-style, into more and more entitlements and increasing national debt?
OK, our warmongering certainly plays a role. But the real reason there is now and will be for the foreseeable future a “weeping and gnashing of teeth” by far too many Americans is the excess immigration from 1965 onwards.
“What’s That You Say, Mr. Robinson?” A State Department Bureaucrat’s Public and Private Views On The Refugee Racket
Almost 10 years ago, I wrote on VDARE.com
“The refugee program is bringing in ever more real refugees, from ever more unassimilable backgrounds. Officials are forced to spread them over ever more American communities. The program will lose what is left of its apple pie appeal and finally become a political issue.”
Well, the Refugee Industry is still in the saddle—owing to the general uselessness of Congress; and to the Main Stream Media’s systematic failure to report the issue. (Antidote: read VDARE.com and, specifically, Resettlement Watch!)
But the Refugee Industry is clearly having an increasingly hard time.
Of course, it can count on the support of the interest groups profiting from the refugee trade—both the government-addicted “charity” refugee contractors like the Episcopalian Migration Ministries,, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and Catholic Charities. (And also the cheap-labor addicted Slave Power. )But there is clearly concern in government circles that the refugee business is not faring as well among those who are forced to pay for it.
As part of a Spring PR offensive, accordingly, the Obama Administration’s then-Acting Assistant Secretary of State, David M Robinson wrote a puff piece for Huffpo: Three Million: Changing Lives One Refugee at a Time, February 24, 2012.
(Robinson’s propaganda is particularly problematic given that current law prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing American audiences. A recent bill before Congress would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, but it has not passed—yet. Voice of America, and more, might someday be beamed at Americans. But right now, it’s illegal—or supposed to be.) [Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, By Amy Sly, BuzzFeed,May 18, 2012]
At an April press conference at New York’s Foreign Press Center in April, Robinson and Larry Bartlett, Director of the Office of Refugee Admissions, were asked by a reporter about the mayor of Manchester NH’s appeal (“please halt the program; we cannot take any more”). [Refugee Resettlement and the U.S. State Department's Role in the U.S. Refugee Admission Program, Transcript, April 11, 2012]
The State Department officials conceded that these concerns were not isolated—and that the Feds recently had to send officials to Tennessee and Georgia, which had “expressed concerns about resettlement”.
But Robinson insisted arrogantly:
“[T]his remains a federal program. It’s not limited by the activity of an individual mayor…we have reduced the number of refugees being settled in Manchester, in part because of the mayor’s concerns. But we are still resettling refugees there.” [Emphasis added].
Tennessee, which, thanks in part to the refugee influx now has a Muslim Advisory Council shadowing
A Texas Businessman Makes Two Good Points About Mexicans
Recently, I attended the Center for Immigration’s highly useful annual luncheon at which is presented the 2012 Eugene Katz Award For Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. (This year’s winner: The Daily’s reporter Sarah Ryley).[See articles, videos, and a transcript of the awards ceremony, including Ms.
Robert Putnam, The Detroit Corollary, And The Slamming-Shut Of The American Mind
The Drudge Report, with its dramatic (if dogwhistling) news judgment, splashed this on Friday:
Drudge was linking to this story: City officials: Detroit will go broke in a week if consent deal lawsuit isn't withdrawn, By Suzette Hackney and Matt Helms, Detroit Free Press, June 8, 2012.
It began:
Detroit will run out of cash a week from today if a lawsuit challenging the validity of the city's consent agreement with the state is not withdrawn, city officials said this morning.
Jack Martin, the city’s new chief financial officer, said the city will be broke by June 15 but should be able to make payroll for its employees. He said the city will be operating in a deficit situation if the state withholds payments on a portion of the $80 million in bond money needed to help keep the city afloat.
The battle ultimately could lead to an emergency manager if state officials deem the city to be in violation of the consent agreement that gives the state significant control over Detroit’s finances.
(Links in original).
Also on June 8, National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson [Twitter]gave Conservatism Inc’s intellectually bankrupt but
Immigration Cartoon Of The Day
This daily cartoon contributed to VDARE.com by Baloo. His site is HERE
The Fulford File | Do Hipsters Or Hispanics Keep Chickens In The Front Yard? SLATE Knows (But It’s Not Saying)!
Slate has an article on the disturbing trend (and it is a little disturbing) towards "Backyard Butchery." [The Butcher Next Door Why the rise of DIY urban animal slaughter is bad for people and animals, by James McWilliams, June 6, 2012]
This backyard butchery isn't weird murders or amateurish abortions. It's literal butchery—the process of turning pigs, goats, and chickens into pork chops, goat stew, and barbecued chicken. Slate presents this as a fad among the granola-loving hipsters typical of Stuff White People Like.
The SWPL list includes Organic Food, Farmer’s Markets, and Picking Their Own Fruit. So killing a chicken is not an impossible extension.
McWilliams, a vegan professor of history who frequently covers food issues, writes:
Urbanites are starting to keep and slaughter their own farm animals
These urbanites are white:
…hip urban dwellers intent on controlling the food they eat. Urban farming has been happening as long as there have been urban centers, but only recently has it started to reincorporate animals into city space (something Americans stopped doing in the late 18th century due to sanitation concerns). The process began with egg-laying hens, which are now legal for residents to keep in most major cities in the United States. Now, however, urban uber-locavores want to eat (and sell) not only eggs but also the chickens themselves, not to mention rabbits, ducks, goats, and even pigs.
McWilliams [Email him] lists some things that are wrong with this:
- Negative effects on the neighbors: one backyard butcher's neighbor was "kept up all night by the moaning of a dying a goat (who had eaten
From Compstat to Fakestat: The Epidemic Of Fraudulent Official Crime Reports
That crime in America is decreasing is a critical Main Stream Media meme. Many factors are at work. One of them is that official statistics have become, to a significant but undetermined extent, a manufactured illusion.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, urban crime was momentarily beyond the Establishment’s ability to
John Derbyshire On Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices
I'm going to tackle something a little tricky. I feel sure that when I'm finished, I'll be dissatisfied with my treatment of the topic. It's a thing that comes up three or four times a year in my emailbag, though; and the VDARE.com editors tell me they occasionally see it in theirs, too; so it's worth an airing, if only to give me a "marker" piece to which I can link future inquirers.
Here's the thing. VDARE.com contributors and readers all want the same thing: a rational immigration policy that preserves the historic white-European ethnic core of the American nation, as our immigration laws did until the 1965 Act; and indeed, as Senator Edward Kennedy, moving that Act, promised they would continue to do.
In the style of textbooks on logic numbering their propositions, let's call this position "V1." i.e. the basic VDARE.com position.
I have signed on to it; I have for 12 years been writing in support of it; and yet … here am I with an Asian wife!
What's up with that?
I'll take the issue a piece at a time.
First, I am not—obviously not—a racial purist. I'm fine with miscegenation—again, obviously. I don't even have anything to say to racial purists. I just think they're wrong; and also, to judge from their occasional emails, slightly nuts.
With that out of the way, let's consider liberty—a thing that I personally, and Americans in the generality, are rather keen on.
My own ideas about liberty always begin from that marvelous opening page of A.J.P. Taylor's English History, 1914-1945:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the
