Recent News

File this in the overflowing cabinet labeled: No Wonder the Mainstream Media Is Dying. On Tuesday, the Associated Press announced that it is banishing the phrase "illegal immigrant" from its famous stylebook. The world's largest newsgathering outlet now advises reporters that "illegal" will "only refer to an action, not a person."

AP directs writers not to use the terms "illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented" anymore, except "in direct quotations." It won't be long before

In the midst of current Conservatism Inc. Hispano-hysteria, the Wall Street Journal has been touting the example of Representative Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico). [One GOP Lawmaker Shows How to Woo Latino Voters, By Neil King,  March 11, 2013 |PDF]

(Oddly, proclaiming New Mexico messiahs is not new for Conservatism Inc.  Back in 1997, it was William T. Redmond, the GOP victor in the special election to replace UN Ambassador Bill Richardson. But as Peter Brimelow and Edwin S. Rubenstein pointed out in their 1997 Electing A New People cover story in National Review

What happened was that the Democratic vote was split, by a former Democrat running as the candidate of New Mexico's enviro-Stalinist Green Party, who got 17 per cent of the vote. This, and not a mass conversion of Hispanics, won the seat. Rep. Redmond will do well to hold it in 1998.

(He did not.)

Pearce is relatively tough on immigration (NumbersUSA rating A-, career grade C, indicating he has improved in recent years). Yet in this 2012 election, he got a higher-than-Republican-average share (42%) of the Hispanic vote in his district.

Congressman Pearce does not, as has been noted on VDARE.com although downplayed by the WSJ, win the majority of Hispanics. But he is at the high end for a Republican.

So is Steve Pearce showing us a new model for winning the Hispanic vote? He’s certainly been getting

Full disclosure: During the late 1990s, I freelanced for John Podhoretz at the New York Post, where he was the Editorial Page editor. We even shook hands once. However, he can honestly deny this, seeing as I wrote under a pseudonym (“Robert Berman”) and never told anyone. [How to Make Change Real, New York Post, June 28, 1998] Being “me” would have been professional suicide in my day job. And in those days, before the current Cultural Marxist internet-facilitated Reign of Terror, stuffy editors insisted on writers using their own names.

However, that business with the Post isn’t my John Podhoretz problem.

In 2007, Commentary magazine, a once-brilliant, once-conservative, Jewish periodical which used to stand for meritocracy, announced that in January, 2009, Podhoretz would take over as editor-in-chief. Podhoretz was hired solely due to his being the son of the magazine’s longtime editor, Norman Podhoretz. Commentary had thus replaced meritocracy with nepotism as the guiding notion of neo-conservatism.

Recently, on March 14, Podhoretz wrote a New York Post column A test for New York; Will pols stand with the rioters? about the three nights rioting following the righteous, fatal March 6 shooting of 16-year-old, black gangbanger Kimani Gray by two cops. (One Egyptian, one Hispanic, since you asked. See my VDARE.com column, Trayvon Martin was Barack Obama’s Son, and Kiki Gray was Jumaane Williams’ Son, but Why Will No Politician Adopt Bailey O’Neill?).

Podhoretz argued that politicians should not support the rioters. But he has spent years vilifying people who even mildly criticize black savagery.

In 2005, when my VDARE.com colleague Steve Sailer satirized Podhoretz’ defense of birth-right citizenship in terms of the latter being a “birthright pundit,” Podhoretz denounced him as “a bigoted, racist scum.”

Podhoretz also spent years attacking my VDARE.com colleague John Derbyshire at National Review, when both were colleagues there. That helped grease the skids for Derbyshire, when editrix Rich Lowry finally caved in and fired Derbyshire for a racial thoughtcrime in 2012.

Indeed, as soon as Podhoretz got posting privileges at National Review’s blog The Corner, circa 2005, he began denouncing Derbyshire.

While I understand that denunciation is central to political polemics, it is highly unusual for a writer to see one’s colleagues as enemies and denounce them.

Podhoretz, an Open Borders zealot, even lit into CIS’s Mark Krikorian, of all people, despite Krikorian’s history of triangulating to the left.

Last June, in his capacity as editor of Commentary, Podhoretz published articles of surrender in the Trayvon Martin Hoax, in the form of a 2,400-word essay by a David French. [Conservatives and the Trayvon Martin Case, June 2012]

In November, Podhoretz learned to love gay marriage. [A Note, Commentary, November 10, 2012]

In the January Commentary, Podhoretz published a symposium of 52 writers on the future of conservatism—but somehow forgot to invite any conservatives! [What Is the Future of Conservatism in the Wake of the 2012 Election?]

In March, Podhoretz published a long article by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner on How to Save the Republican Party.

With the exception of Gerson’s promotion of Catholicism’s principle of subsidiarity, a longtime hobbyhorse of his, the article is eerily similar to the repetitious, 40,000-word GOP suicide report that was issued on March 18 by the RNC, on the orders of Chairman Reince Priebus, and which lovingly quotes Gerson and Wehner. [Growth & Opportunity Project, Republican National Committee, March 18.]

Both documents should be called: “GOP to Whites: Drop Dead.” They both pursue the same two long discredited strategies that Conservatism, Inc. hacks have relentlessly promoted since the election:

1. Compassionate (Welfare State) Conservatism Redux: The Party must show people that it “cares” about them. People voted Democrat because they felt that Obama and his party “cared” about them, and was “tolerant”;

2. We must have a mass amnesty of tens of millions of almost exclusively non-white, irredentist, illegal alien invaders, and the party must reach out to Hispanics, blacks, homosexuals, women—everyone but white, heterosexual men, especially Christians, who are to treated with contempt.

Like so many Republican documents these days, both pieces sound as if they had been crafted by Democratic Party consultants.

While we’re on the subject, here’s John Podhoretz’s hysterical tweet about James Kirkpatrick’s incisive twitter coverage of the January NRI Summit. He wrote:

Repugnant racists from VDare are clogging up the #NRISummit hashtag. You people are a stain on the republic.

Kirkpatrick quipped:

Maybe he’s upset by VDARE.com’s praise for Israel’s solution to its illegal immigration problem?

John Podhoretz permits no comments by readers at Commentary’s Web site. Oddly enough, the New York Post also recently abolished its online reader comments function.

For an example of what I regard as Podhoretz’ baleful influence

Lawrence Michael Auster January 26 1949—March 23, 2013, picture taken shortly before his death.

Lawrence Auster, proprietor of the View From The Right blog, died peacefully in hospice in West Chester, Pennsylvania, early on the morning of Good Friday, 2013. His death ends both a long period of often excruciating physical suffering; and a most remarkable polemicist’s career. Those of us who agree with Larry’s diagnoses of what is wrong with our world today hope and believe that his death will not end his influence.

Of course, those who view the world through the funhouse mirror of the Main Stream Media will see Auster as an obscure figure on the fringe—if indeed they know of him at all. But the reality is that for decades Larry was at the forefront in seeing and speaking about the dangers America and the rest of the West face from uncontrolled immigration, rampant diversity-worship, Political Correctness, and the encroachments of Islam via immigration and weak Western leadership.

Unlike many “conservative” writers who trim to hang on to respectability as defined by the likes of National Review and Fox News, Larry hewed to his principles throughout. As our cultural situation worsened, Larry never accommodated himself to it, neocon-fashion, but increased his warnings.

That made him enemies. But it also won him many admirers on the “Dissident Right.”. Unlike so many of us, Larry never feared speaking the truth, and never took refuge behind a pseudonym.

As long ago as the late 1980s, when very few (VDare.com’s own Peter Brimelow among them) were paying any attention to the havoc mass immigration already was wreaking on America, when the threat of unwanted demographic transformation seemed still a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, Auster, like Isaiah, sounded the warning

In 1990, the American Immigration Control Foundation published the first of Larry’s books advocating immigration restriction: The Path to National Suicide. Larry accurately identified Emanuel Celler and Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965 as the beginning of the end of traditional America if the flood of demographically

Gay marriage, which was argued before the Supreme Court Tuesday (March 26), is outside VDARE.com’s immigration patriot focus—and, as a member of the webzine’s Democratic Caucus, I am probably less distressed than most. But that is not the case with HIV/ AIDs. Increasingly, it is being imported through immigration policy.

Last summer’s International AIDS Conference centered on spending billions more for prevention and treatment. New vaccines raise hopes that this may be the last generation to see a rise in AIDS cases, but paying for these vaccines is a costly business. Typically, attendees at the AIDS conference believed that throwing money at illiterate people will solve the problem. This is bogus, in the U.S. no less than in Africa. [Money will turn tide on AIDS, conference attendees say, Washington Post, July 27, 2012]

HIV/AIDS continues to kill thousands in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports as of 2010, 1,129,127 people have died of AIDS since the epidemic began 30 years ago. Approximately 50,000 American residents are infected with HIV each year. [CDS Factsheet, PDF]

Nationally, most people afflicted with HIV/AIDS are men who have sex with men (MSM in CDC parlance). But rates of infection vary dramatically by race and ethnicity. According to the CDC:

“In 2009, the estimated rate of new HIV infections among black men was six and a half times as high as that of white men, and more than two and a half times as high as that of Hispanic/Latino men and of black women. In the same year, the estimated rate of new HIV infections among black women was 15 times that of white women and over three times that of Hispanic/Latina women.”[HIV At Glance (PDF)]

The CDC does not break out cases by country of birth—except for Hispanics. Table 9 of the 2009 surveillance report shows that of the total 5,830 new AIDS diagnoses among Hispanics in 2009, 2,645 or 45 percent of the cases were adults and adolescents born in other countries. [Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2009, CDC HIV Surveillance Report, Volume 21]

The ranking of the number of new cases by place of birth is: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Central America, South America and Cuba.

For Hispanic male homosexuals, foreign-born cases made up 60 percent of all new AIDS diagnoses in 2009.

Two areas which are greatly affected by HIV/AIDS are immigrant-impacted: California’s Los Angeles County and Florida’s Miami/Dade metropolitan area.

In Los Angeles County, in the last two decades, blacks and whites have moved out and Hispanics and Asians have moved in. Los Angeles County is an immigration epicenter, especially for Mexicans.

According to census data, the population of Los Angeles increased by 955,441 residents between the years 1990 and 2010. In that period, the population of Hispanics increased by 1,336,647. White and black residents together declined by over 1 million people. According to census data, 36 percent of LA’s residents were foreign-born in 2010, and 56 percent of the residents over 5 years speak a language other than English.

In the Los Angeles County Public Health HIV/AIDS surveillance report for 2011, Table 23 shows that between 2004 and 2011, the number of persons living with AIDS increased by 5,257 cases. Hispanic residents accounted for over half of the added cases.  According to the commentary in the surveillance report, 40 percent of the total of those infected with AIDS are Hispanics; 34 percent whites and 21 percent blacks.  [Annual HIV Surveillance Report for LA County, February 17, 2012 (PDF)]  

In short, Mexican immigration is a prime reason the HIV/AIDS cases are on the rise in Los Angeles County.

On the other side of the country, the population changes in the Miami/Dade metropolitan area have been equally dramatic. In the decade 2000 to 2010, 41,161 foreign-born residents moved in and 24,525 domestic residents moved out. The Dade County Planning Department projects that this trend will continue.  [PDF]

In 2010, over half of the residents in Miami were foreign- born and over two-thirds of the residents spoke a language other than English. Hispanics comprised 65 percent of the population, blacks 19 percent and non-Hispanic whites 16 percent.

For most of the last decade, Miami has held the number one position among metropolitan areas with the highest level of HIV/AIDS cases.

The Miami-Dade Comprehensive Plan for HIV/AIDS [PDF] shows that together blacks and Hispanics make up 89 percent of the affected population (blacks-48% and Hispanics-38 percent).

Many Miami residents are not eligible for Medicaid because they are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Some of these HIV/ AIDS victims are treated with federal funds via the Ryan White Program, Part A. The comprehensive plan states on page 29, that among this HIV/AIDS population, a majority

“. . .are foreign-born and among Haitians and Hispanic MSMs almost 90% are foreign-born. Large numbers of immigrants increase the need to provide services in three languages: 36% . . .are Spanish speaking and 11% speak Creole.”

In Miami, among Hispanic MSM AIDs/HIV vicims, Cubans comprise 40 percent; Central and South Americans 45 percent and Mexicans 3 percent.

“Similar to the Haitian population, there is a reliance on folk medicines and healers as a means of treatment and there is substantial misinformation concerning the transmission of HIV/AIDS along with a high incidence of ‘no symptoms, no problem’ thinking . . .” (comp plan, p. 34)

The Haitian and Hispanic populations are especially difficult cases to treat for a variety of reasons. In 2007, among those who were not Medicaid-eligible, Haitians made up 12 percent of the caseload and of these, 8 percent had TB, 18 percent were mentally ill, 70 percent had no health insurance and 66 percent had an AIDS diagnosis. Among Hispanic MSMs (23% of cases), 14 percent were substance abusers, 33 percent were mentally ill, 69 percent had no health insurance and 56 percent had an AIDS diagnosis. (Comp Plan, p.32)

A research project by the University of Miami found that among Haitians, (Comp Plan, p. 32

“. . . a persistent feeling of stigma about HIV/AIDS exists. . . a sense of vulnerability to deportation and/or incarceration, a complex non-western system of beliefs about health behavior. . . .

Eighty percent of Haitians have less than a high school degree [my emphasis—LT] and 45% do not speak English. Although written materials are often translated into Creole, the estimate is that 35% of Haitian adults cannot read or write in either Creole or English.”

Another behavior that contributes to the difficulty of prevention of the disease among Haitians and American blacks in general: the “down low” practice.  One slang dictionary  defines down low:

Down Low is used to describe the behavior of American Black men who have sex with other men, as well as with women, but who do not identify as gay or

Winston Churchill famously said, “"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” The Obama Administration thinks A Big Lie needs a bodyguard of smaller lies.

Washington is waging a war, but the enemy is its own people: the traditional American nation. The horrible truth about the Obama/ Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is that it is advanced precisely because it will dispossess Americans. That unmentionable reality is concealed with a bodyguard of smaller lies, petty deceits in service to the larger deception that immigration laws cannot be enforced.

A recent example: we are told that the federal government cannot fulfill a Congressional mandate to establish a biometric entry-exit system to allow the government to fulfill its basic responsibility of ensuring which individuals are complying with their period of admission and which are not. Instead, even though this system is not in place, the Department of Homeland Security assures us that the government is still mysteriously capable of identifying “those who overstay their visas” even though the basic infrastructure does not exist.

The frontman for this particular falsehood: one David Heyman, a senior Democrat operative who is Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. Since being sworn in June 2009, Hayman has developed a certain amount of expertise in relatively obscure areas of immigration law enforcement. Not bad for a former Clinton Administration junior official and biology major at Brandeis University.

Heyman's responsibility for “policy” means administering the multifaceted and complex Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. Well-trained in the art of the lie, Heyman does not go big, but goes small, in the Gramscian manner of the “Long March through the institutions,” step by step.

There's a host of these small lies in this USA Today op-ed by Heyman. He wrote:

For two decades, the federal government has worked to obtain accurate and timely data on individuals who have overstayed their period of admission to the U.S. After 9/11, Congress passed a law to develop a biometric entry-exit system, requiring some form of biometric—fingerprints, for example—be collected when non-citizens enter and leave the U.S. The point is to match entry and exit records and determine which individuals are complying with their period of admission, and sanction those who are not.

DHS: We Can Identify Those Who Overstay On Visas, February 25, 2013

In fact, a mandatory exit verification system was first required by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) and reiterated

James Fulford writes:  Ann Coulter's March 17 speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] was one of the best on immigration in years. Naturally, CPAC and the MSM haven't bothered to provide a transcript. This transcript is therefore exclusive to VDARE.com, as well as the links, all of them added by us.

Ann Coulter has always been good on immigration (see the list of her columns on immigration) One of my favorites was Read My Lips: No New Amnesty. She also gets in on legal immigration.

This was not only an important speech, it was a brave one. The Daily Caller's Mickey Kaus pointed out that Senator Marco Rubio (Conquistador-FL), who is supposed to be betraying both his country and his party in the Amnesty deal, didn't have the nerve to get up at and say that to the young people at CPAC. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has a lot more nerve (Kaus uses a different word) than Rubio is ever likely to grow.

Maybe it’s not that courageous to defy the near-perfect Elite Media Consensus favoring “comprehensive immigration reform”–i.e. amnesty. But it takes balls to do it a) at a conservative conference rigged to push amnesty; b) if you value your relationship with amnesty-supporting FOX News; and c) if you ridicule Roger Ailes’ old patrons, the Bushes, in the process.

…The Coulter video is here on Politico. … Don’t expect it to be featured on Fox! … P.S.: Hmm. I can’t find it on Daily Caller either. It’s lucky I’m not paranoid. …[Coulter blasts amnesty at CPAC, March 17, 2013]

Well, I'm not paranoid either, but as I say, there's no transcript anywhere but here on VDARE.com.

Ann Coulter:

As some of you know that with the turmoil in North Korea our regularly scheduled ambassador Dennis Rodman will not be here so I’m filling in.

I’m Ann Coulter, the author of NINE massive NYT Best sellers. Boy, the sequester has really ruined everything hasn’t it? Little kids can’t go on White House tours, the Muslim Brotherhood has been deprived of $250 million…oh no, that’s safe. Even CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year … by about 300 pounds.

After all Obama’s hard work and wrangling over the budget, he’s managed to cut the growth of federal spending by 2%.

Congratulations, Mr. President!

Even that was imposed on him by the sequester. And Roger Ailes calls Obama lazy!

Did you see that? A new biography of Roger Ailes  quotes him as saying that Obama is lazy. Van Jones said that was racist, but Obama himself said he was lazy. You know why Van Jones didn’t know that? Because he’s lazy. I’m just kidding, I love Van Jones. I do!

Liberals say the word “lazy” is a racist code word, as is “Chicago,” the word “apartment,” mentioning that Obama golfs. No, these are all—according to liberals—racist dog-whistles. That may be why only Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews can hear them.

But you know, Obama has his own code words. He says “investment”—he means government spending. He says “revenue,” he means taxes. He says “Dr. Livingstone is in the library,” he means “Distract Michelle I’m going out for a smoke!”

Even after Republicans gave Obama his tax hike he still won’t cut spending. This is becoming what’s known as “a pattern.” Remember?  Republicans agreed to raise taxes and in exchange, we’re supposed to be taking an axe to the budget. No, he wants to raise taxes again. Remember this the next time some journalist asks a Republican, “Are you saying you wouldn’t take ONE DOLLAR in tax hikes in exchange for ten dollars in budget cuts?!” No, see the problem is, we’re the Indians and the Democrats are Andrew Jackson. We’ve been through this before.

Back in the 80s, Ronald Reagan made that deal with Tip O’Neill, he said he’d raise taxes, Tip O’Neill said, oh yeah, we’ll slash the budget. Oh, yeah. The Democrats TRIPLED the budget. So it is not true that Reagan’s tax cuts led to the deficit. The problem was that for every additional dollar that came in to the IRS the Democrats were spending another $3. Then Reagan’s knucklehead of a Vice President, the first George Bush, unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, made the exact same deal with Democrats, breaking his “No New Taxes” pledge. He raised taxes in exchange for promised cuts in spending.

“I’d gladly take a tax hike today for a cut in spending on Tuesday.”

And once again, Democrats raised spending. So it would be like journalists going to tribal chiefs circa 1890 and saying sarcastically, “Are you telling me you would not give up ONE acre of land for a guaranteed promise ten acres of land?” And then ten years later, “Oh yeah we’re going to be needing Nebraska and South Dakota, too.”

Obama claims he wants to keep taxes low for the middle class and let me tell you, for the 400 people left in the middle class they could not be happier. But Obama also said he had to shut down White House tours because of the sequester—do not worry though! The $250 million for the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s safe. The federal grant to study the sex habits of gophers, that’s safe.

We also apparently have enough money to spy on American’s personal finances. Did you see that Reuters reported—yesterday, I think— that Obama is drawing up a plan to allow our spy agencies to scour the finances of Americans? But most Americans don’t care, after four years of Obama they don’t really have any personal finances to scour. Most of them told Obama ”Hey, let me know if you find anything!”

I don’t know why Republicans keep saying we have to cut spending to save these entitlement programs for our grandchildren. We have to cut spending to save the entitlements for today’s 45 year olds. In our current spending rate, 45 year olds will not receive any Medicare. And liberal’s response is to say “Well, but Medicare is the most popular program in US history.” Which, by the way, isn’t saying much, “the most popular government program!” They determined what the most popular program was by asking the recipients of Medicare, do you like Medicare? That’s like asking six year olds, are birthdays a good idea? Can we include the neighbors and the friends who are forced by buy gifts?

Despite the non-Fox Media’s claim that we have become a center-Left nation, in fact the Republicans still hold the House of Representatives. There’s a reason that’s called “the people’s house,” it is most representative of the people of America, they are up for election every two years. And the reason we don’t have the Senate is because the Republicans keep screwing up. I can think of about 10 Senate seats in the last three election cycles that we just pissed away through narcissism, greed or stupidity.

Show me one example in the last ten years of the Democrats giving up a winnable seat. No, that hasn’t happened. Passion is great, but remember that in politics, scoring is all that counts. We can’t anticipate every candidate’s mistake but we can stop encouraging candidates to show off for the base by taking positions that aren’t even our positions. It is not the position of the National Right to Life Committee that a woman should be forced to carry the baby of her rapist. I think our position is no, absolutely, exceptions for rape and incest, and now let’s talk about the other 99% of abortions. Hey, where did all the Democrats go?

I think our position is also and let’s talk about locking up the rapist and not giving him the right to vote the way the Democrats want to. But on the basis of this one bone-headed statement