Recent News

The struggle of the German homeschooling Romeike family to receive asylum in the U.S. can be approached from several different angles – religious freedom, homeschooling, immigration, and what appears to be an unmistakable anti-white bias in the Obama Administration. See my previous articles: Eric Holder’s DOJ Finds Some Foreigners It Wants To Deport—White Evangelical German Homeschoolers , followed two months later by More On The Romeike Case—What’s Wrong With Wanting White Immigrants?  Now there is new, horrifying evidence of what the Romeikes face in Germany.

To summarize: Uwe Romeike and his wife Hannalore are music teachers who fled their native Germany in 2008 because of harassment they received from the government for home schooling. They had been fined and were facing the possibility of losing custody of their children. They settled in Tennessee and applied for asylum.

The Romeikes received asylum, like the majority of asylum applicants.  On January 26, 2010, an immigration judge in Tennessee ruled in their favor. That would normally have been the end of the case—but not in Obama’s America.

Attorney General Eric “My People” Holder’s DOJ got involved, seeking to reverse the Romeikes’ asylum status. The Board of Immigration Appeals backed up Holder. The Romeikes appealed to federal court.

But on May 14^th, the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled against the Romeikes, upholding the Obama administration’s asylum denial. (The judges: Ronald Lee Gilman, appointed by Bill Clinton; Jeffrey Sutton and John M. Rogers, appointed by George Bush.)[Decision in Romeike  v. Holder (PDF)]

The court did acknowledge a constitutional right of Americans

[See also Ann Coulter: 'Breaking Bad': A Christian Parable]

Creating drug dealers in New Mexico may lead to great television, but it shouldn't be a result of our immigration policy.

Breaking Bad, the story of a white chemistry teacher turned drug kingpin in New Mexico, came to an end last Sunday. The scribblers and chattering classes are obsessing over the show and its meaning, but continuing to avert their eyes from the actual casualties of drugs in New Mexico. Most importantly, they take care not to address what is really driving the death toll in the Land of Enchantment – mass immigration.

While Breaking Bad’s Walter White occasionally clashed with Mexican gangs on AMC, the real life penetration of the Mexican cartels into the United States is no fiction. New Mexico’s rate of drug overdose is higher than the national average – and many of the cartel's customers are teenagers. [The Heroin Surge | As addiction climbs in Albuquerque, cartels are ready to deliver, By Joe Kolb, Alibi.com, June 2 - 8, 2011 ]

New Mexico politicians are divided about how to respond. Rep. Emily Kane (D) proposed to reduce marijuana possession penalties but her bill was defeated in the Senate. However, the debate over liberalization of marijuana laws is irrelevant—youth in New Mexico are dying from hard drug use and overdoses that will continue as long as the borders remain open.

New Mexico has some of the highest national rates of cocaine and marijuana use for 12-17 year olds, according to New Mexico’s Department of Health. But the real problem drugs in the Southwest: heroin and prescription opiate painkillers. As a society, we are in a prescription drug abuse crisis, officially declared an epidemic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2009.

Of course, Americans’ tendency to pop a pill to deal with the stresses of everyday life is not the fault of drug cartel. However, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that one-third of people over twelve who used a controlled substance for the first time started off using a prescription drug non-medically. The leap to heroin from opiate painkillers in New Mexico is even more logical, given its low cost and easy availability.

The source of this cheap heroin: Mexico. Mike Gallagher, a journalist for the Albuquerque Journal, has spent his career investigating the New Mexican drug cartels

Following my September 18^th report on Scandinavia, I thought some news from the other end of Europe would not go amiss. Here are two stories.

The one that really had me transfixed this week was the public self-criticism performed by Guido Barilla, chairman of the privately-owned Barilla Group, the world’s leading producer of pasta.

This story begins September 25^th when, in an interview with an Italian radio station, the 55-year-old Mr. Barilla was asked whether his company planned to do an advertisement featuring a homosexual family. Barilla replied:

Non faremo pubblicità con omosessuali perché a noi piace la famiglia tradizionale. Se i gay non sono d'accordo, possono sempre mangiare la pasta di un’altra marca. (“We will not do advertising with homosexuals because we like the traditional family. If gays do not agree, they can always eat another brand of pasta.”)

Invited to elaborate, Mr. Barilla said that homosexuals “all have the right to do what they want—of course they do—so long as they don’t disturb others,” but that his firm aimed to serve the traditional family, with the woman in a key role.

Innocuous enough, surely. Mr. Barilla sounds like a live-and-let-live sort of guy, but prefers to target his firm’s product at traditional families.  

Given that Italy’s Total Fertility Rate is a dismal 1.41, ranked 203 out of 224 in the world, and that their country is a prime destination for illegal immigrants from Africa, patriotic Italians keen to preserve their nation’s character and culture have good reasons to worry about the demographic future.  Such worries might reasonably generate doubts about the wisdom of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

But Mr. Barilla did not take that position, nor any other political position, only remarking that Non la penso come loro—“I don’t think like them.”

He quickly learned that in the Western world of today there is only one permitted way to think. The homosexualist lobbies and their Leftist allies went into a feeding frenzy, launching boycotts via the Twitter hashtag #biocottabarilla and venting their outrage on talking-head TV shows.

The Daily Beast reports that pasta aisles were vandalized in grocery stores in Bologna, “considered the most gay-friendly city in Italy.” [Italian Gay Activists Boycott Top Pasta Maker, by Barbie Latza Nadeau, September 27, 2013] The president of a homosexualist group opined that Mr. Barilla’s view “that if you don’t agree, you can just eat another type of pasta” was “a dangerous message.” A Leftist parliamentarian was less alarmist, saying only that “we need to educate the public who agree with Barilla’s sentiment.”

[Note: For my usage of the word “homosexualist,” see the first paragraph here.]

The outrage spread worldwide. Barilla is international: The Economist reported in 2007 that the firm has 25 percent of the U.S. market.

The chairman buckled. He put out a short video clip, recanting his heresy. This was the item that had me transfixed.

Yesterday I apologized for offending many people around the world. Today I am repeating that apology. Through my entire life I have always respected every person I have met, including gays and their families, without any distinction. I’ve never

The Establishment Conservative Movement has been compared to a gun turret, capable of hitting targets directly in front of it, but unable to shift to hit anything else. Unfortunately, this understates the case. Like a dysfunctional laser, the Beltway Right has an incredible ability to take on precisely the fights it can't win—while ignoring the critical issues like immigration that could save the movement and the country. To adopt General Omar Bradley’s famous phrase, it fights the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy.

Right now, the “conservative wing” of the Republican Party has shut down the federal government in what is largely conceded to be a futile effort to stop Obamacare and repeal the 2012 Presidential Election. However, at the same time, the party leadership is preparing to dispossess its white base by sneaking in Amnesty through the back door.

The last ditch effort to stop Obamacare began with a filibuster from Texas Senator Ted Cruz, complete with allusions to Nazism, Star Wars references, and a reading from Green Eggs & Ham. Cruz's effort electrified many American conservatives, who are already talking about him as a presidential candidate.

This led to Cruz’s remarkable political coup: in effect, becoming the de facto Speaker of the House, as John Boehner and the House Republicans followed his lead, demanding concessions from the White House or else they would shut down the government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama called their bluff, and as a result, the Republicans may be on the wrong side of a public relations disaster.

This is especially embarrassing because we have seen this movie before. Newt Gingrich famously shut down the government when trying to win concessions from President Bill Clinton. The result: a catastrophic loss of support for the Republican Revolution of 1994 and Slick Willie's political resurrection.

The parallels go further. The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 was significantly powered by a host of patriotic National Question concerns, including illegal immigration (California’s Proposition 187 also passed in 1994) and anti-white discrimination (California’s anti-Affirmative Action Proposition 209 was clearly headed for an overwhelming victory in 1996). But while Republicans were happy to benefit from these issues, they did absolutely nothing about them once they won office. Instead, Newt Gingrich, in a comically doomed attempt to win black votes, allied with black Republican congressman JC Watts to ensure that Affirmative Action remained untouchable.

Similarly, archetypical Beltway conservative Paul Ryan is using the government shutdown as an opportunity to scheme for amnesty. [Where Has Paul Ryan Been During the Latest Shutdown Debate?  By Matt Fuller, RollCall,  September 27, 2013]  Eric Cantor is also holding meetings on immigration, while RNC head Reince Priebus  prepared for a joint appearance with DNC chief Tim Kaine on the Treason Lobby television network Telemundo.

However, the real problem is Ted Cruz. He has been remarkably silent during the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge battle. Though he has expressed opposition to Amnesty, he has done so in a muted form obviously calculated not to upset any of the party's major donors. Instead, he has vowed to raise a “grassroots army” to confront Obamacare, even though the law is already a fait accompli. In contrast, he has been notably silent about raising any such army to save America from another attempt at Amnesty.

The likely result is the worst possible scenario. The Republicans will fail in their attempts to win any concessions from the White House. More importantly, they will inherit all of the blame for the government shutdown, and this will bleed into the 2014 mid-term elections. As a result, the Republicans will fail to expand their majority in the House and fail to retake the Senate, giving the Obama Administration the advantage as it heads into its final two years.

The real tragedy here: the historic American nation, which has largely entrusted its political fortunes to the Republican Party, will receive the blame for any upcoming defeats.

Thus homosexual faux conservative Andrew Sullivan writes:

We cannot deny that race too is an added factor to the fathomless sense of entitlement felt among the GOP far right. You saw it in birtherism; in the Southern GOP’s constant outrageous claims of Obama’s alleged treason and alliance with Islamist enemies... in the endless race-baiting from Fox News and the talk radio right… [The Nullification Party, The Dish, October 1, 2013]

Bigot Joan Walsh, author of What's the Matter with White People? thinks that the real story of the shutdown is “50 years of GOP race baiting.” [Salon, October 1, 2013 ]

And of course, MSNBC's explanation is that the shutdown is being motivated by “hate.” [‘Serious Racism Here’: Ed Schultz Insists GOP’s Shutdown Showdown Motivated by ‘Hate’, by Noah Rothman,  MediaIte, September 27, 2013]

They are all correct…but not in the way they think. All of these smears reflect that fact that the GOP has by default become the Generic American Party, the party of the Historic American Nation, which happens to be white. Any hope of stopping mass immigration largely remains with the Republican Party, as among Democrats immigration patriotism has been all but totally suppressed by the Leftist ideological faction that controls the party. Accordingly, Republican political defeat likely spells disaster for immigration patriots.

Immigration patriotism as an issue has no powerful constituency within the Republican Party—except for primary voters as a whole. But this is not a decisive advantage because, among the conservative base, immigration is simply one more issue, behind other priorities such as guns, abortion, or health care. Therefore, #StandWithCruz is largely a kind of Kabuki theater, a way of defining conservative “militancy” through largely irrelevant concerns.

While Cruz's look-alike Pat Buchanan was once the gold standard for “authentic” conservatism, today conservatism relies on culture war rhetoric to defend economistic policies. The result: the Republican Party receives all of the political baggage of being tied to inherently evil people like white families and Southerners without any of the benefits of actually helping these constituencies. Indeed, the GOP actually works to destroy American whites, while simultaneously being condemned as a “white nationalist party.”

 When culture does enter into Conservatism Inc. calculations, it is often a cynical use of Christian Right rhetoric that does little but confirm Leftist stereotypes. The disaster of Todd Akin's comments on abortion and rape, the perennial debates about evolution in science classes, or the black would-be Lieutenant Governor of Virginia's comments on yoga leading to Satanic possession were hardly edifying spectacles. Furthermore, though conservative Christian voters actually tend to support immigration patriotism, their leaders

If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit. Actually, it already is his—the President has just officially adopted it. 

Of Detroit's over 700,000 people, eighty-two percent are black.  Obama won the city’s voters by a margin not seen since the fall of Saddam Hussein, taking 98 percent of the votes cast in the 2012 election.

Not coincidentally, the city is also $18.5 billion in long-term debt, forcing the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.

However, in the post-American age, slavish political support for the powers that be has its benefits. The Obama Administration has just delivered the “bacon” City Council member JoAnn Watson notoriously demanded after the election. [Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out, MyFoxDetroit, December 5, 2012]

America’s failed city is getting $300 million in “freed-up” grants from the government and private foundations. The Obama Administration has also appointed a “point person” who will be “on the ground” during this “recovery” process. It has “vowed to bring ‘a lot of passion’ to an aggressive effort to help Detroit recover from its economic crisis”:

White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, addressing the media after a closed-door meeting between White House officials and state and local leaders, said Friday’s meeting was “exceptionally good.” “We just have one goal: To have all of Detroit working together for one Detroit with the Obama administration as a key partner every step along the way to support the vision, strategy and priorities of the people of Detroit,” he said. “We do not think of it as our job to devise the priorities or the strategy for Detroit. Our job is to listen to all sectors of Detroit.”

U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan

This talk was given at the Property And Freedom Society by Jared Taylor, and is cross-posted on American Renaissance.

I would like to thank Professor Hoppe for inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure and an honor to be before you today.

I have been asked to give you a history of American race relations in a half hour—not an easy thing to do. It would be easier to give you a history in a single word, and that word would be conflict. Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.

Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.

Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict.

American race relations in the Anglo-American sense began in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony on the coast of Virginia. Jamestown is not only where American race relations begin, it is also a fascinating example of the inevitability of racial conflict.

The purpose of the colony was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.

The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.

In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.

There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.

The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance.

I don’t know how much I can assume about this audience’s knowledge of colonial history, but the chief of the neighboring Indians was named Powhatan, and his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, converted to Christianity and married the English planter John Rolfe. That was in 1614, and it inaugurated a period of real harmony. The new head of the colony, George Thorpe, was especially solicitous of the Indians, whom he genuinely tried to help. When English dogs barked at Indians, he had them publicly hanged.

But four years after Pocahontas married John Rolfe, Chief Powhatan died, and his younger brother, Opchanacanough, became chief. Opchanacanough did not have a marriage alliance with the English, and he wanted to drive the invaders out. In 1622, four years after he became chief, Opchanacanough struck. By then there were about 1,200 English in the colony, spread out in several different locations. Every morning, Indians would come to work with the English on farms and in workshops, and on March 22, they were to all rise up and exterminate