Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
.
Recent News
Richard Lynn On A Century of IQ In Britain And The U.S.
[This article appears in the current, Summer 2013 issue, of the U.K. quarterly magazine Salisbury Review]
The intelligence quotient or, to give its popular acronym, IQ, has now achieved its centenary. This measure of our thinking, problem-solving, learning and memory abilities was devised in 1912 by Wilhelm Stern, a professor of psychology at the University of Breslau, now Wroclaw in Poland.
Stern’s IQ scale was constructed with the average set at 100, and with a range from zero to about 200. Approximately 96 per cent of people have IQs between 70 and 130, with about 2 per cent below 70 and 2 per cent above 130. People with IQs below 70 have some degree of learning difficulty, but most of these have IQs between 50 and 70 and function reasonably well performing undemanding jobs.
About one person per 1,000 has an IQ of 145 and above, and IQs higher than 160 are possessed by only approximately one person in 30,000. An IQ of 200 is about the highest ever recorded and is very rare. It has been estimated that this IQ was possessed by Francis Galton, Blaise Pascal and John Stuart Mill.
During its hundred-year existence, it has been found that our IQ affects our life in a number of important ways. It is a significant determinant of how well we do at school and in further education, our income, occupation, health, life expectancy, and of our choice of friends and partners.
In the early years of the twentieth century, attitudes to the IQ assumed a political dimension. The Liberal-Left generally approved of the IQ and research showing its importance. One of the most salient issues was the discovery that intelligent women were having relatively few children and the inference that was drawn from this that the IQ of the population was deteriorating. In many countries eugenics societies were established to promote ways to reverse this.
The principal supporters of eugenics came from the Liberal-Left. In Britain they included H.G. Wells, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. The programs they advocated were the provision of financial incentives for those with high IQs to have more children, designated positive eugenics, and measures to reduce the numbers of children of those with low IQs, designated negative eugenics.
In the United States and a number of countries in continental Europe, the principal of these negative eugenics measures was the sterilisation of the mentally retarded to prevent the birth of mentally retarded children. This was not introduced in Britain, but H.G. Wells in his book A Modern Utopia (1905) came up with the alternative of getting rid of them by dumping them on an uninhabited island.
In 1944, the IQ achieved a major political success in Britain with its introduction in the “Eleven-Plus” exam to select children with high IQs for “grammar schools” (=academic high schools).
This was initially welcomed by the Liberal-Left because it promoted the ideal of equality of opportunity. It enabled children from working class families who had high IQs to obtain a grammar school education and enter the middle and professional classes.
In the second half of the twentieth century, Liberal-Left opinion turned against
No Hope On The Jobs Front
Do you remember the promise of the New Economy that was going to replace the lost “dirty fingernail” manufacturing jobs with innovative highly paid New Economy jobs? Well, the promise was just another deception from the elites who have stolen Americans’ future.
National Data | June Jobs: Record Immigrant Displacement Of American Workers
Just as the U.S. House of Representatives is returning from the July 4 recess to take up the Schumer/Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, the Labor Department has reported that unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 7.6% in June, although the reported 195,000 jobs created in June was better than expected. This persistently high unemployment is not surprising: nearly half of the June job gains are needed just to absorb the 90,000 legal immigrants that arrive in the U.S. every month. It’s why VDARE.com keeps saying there should be an immigration moratorium. Instead, incredibly, Schumer-Rubio proposes to double (at least) that legal influx.
Indeed, our analysis of the June data indicates that the job market is fairly strong—but for immigrant workers only. Native-born Americans continue to lose jobs, exit the labor force, and retire earlier than planned.
Result: immigrant displacement of American workers had reached an all-time Obama Era high.
The “other” employment survey, of Households, shows a 160,000 job gain in June. The Household Survey now reports place of birth (but not legal status—it includes illegals). This allows us to see that behind the job growth lie two disparate job markets:
- Total employment rose by 160,000, or by 0.11%
- Native-born employment fell by 84,000, or by -0.07%
- Foreign-born employment rose by 244,000, or by 1.05%
Immigrant job growth north of 1.0% per month is particularly noteworthy. If that rate persists, immigrant employment will double within 72 months—or by June 2019. That surely rivals (exceeds?) immigrant job growth in any comparable period of U.S. history.
Perhaps there are seasonal factors that propel immigrant employment up faster than native-born employment in the month of June. Nevertheless, the spike in foreign-born employment this June stands in sharp contrast to the declines over the past two Junes.
In fact, the immigrant share of total U.S. employment in June
John Derbyshire On “Contact Theory”—Ignorance Is Bliss, But Familiarity Breeds....What, Exactly?
On February 3rd 1954 the British Cabinet, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, discussed the issue of the fast-swelling nonwhite population of the U.K. That population then stood at 40,000, most of them blacks from the Caribbean, eighty percent having arrived in the previous six years.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary (i.e. Attorney General, approximately) weighed the pros and cons of controlling the inflow by legislation. By imposing controls, said Sir David, as reported in the abbreviated language of Cabinet minutes:
“We should be reversing age-long tradition that British subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should offend liberals, also sentimentalists.” Accordingly, “on balance, scale of the problem is such that we shouldn’t take these risks today.” He finished with a shrewd, cynical thrust: “The coloured populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington and other areas—by those who come into contact with them. But those who don’t are apt to take liberal view.”
My emphasis. I took that extract from Family Britain, 1951-1957, the second volume of David Kynaston’s social history of the post-WW2 United Kingdom.
(To the degree that Sir David Maxwell Fyfe is remembered at all today it is for his response to Member of Parliament—and promiscuous bisexual—Robert Boothby when Boothby was lobbying for reform of Britain’s homosexuality laws: “I am not going down in history as the man who made sodomy legal.”)
Curiously, the year 1954 also saw the publication of Gordon Allport’s book The Nature of Prejudice, which is generally credited with having unleashed “Contact Theory” on an unsuspecting world.
Contact Theory takes a point of view opposite to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe’s. It argues that group prejudices and stereotypes are a result of isolation and ignorance. If persons from different groups are brought together, says the Contact Theorist, they will see the falseness of their prejudices and embrace the “psychic unity of mankind.”
Contact Theory is one of the foundation stones of the modern cult of Diversity.
To be fair to Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice presented Contact Theory in a subtle and qualified form. Allport repeatedly stressed, for example, that the individuals in contact need to see themselves as being on the same social level for the theory to work its magic: “occupational contacts with Negroes of equal status tend to make for lessened prejudice,” etc. (page 276, Allport’s emphasis).
Subsequent social science research, notably Robert Putnam’s much-discussed 2006 paper, further diluted Contact Theory down to well-nigh homeopathic levels. There is a good discussion of the theory’s current status in Chapter IV of Russell Nieli’s book Wounds That Will Not Heal, which I reviewed for VDARE.com here.
Sir David’s observation that familiarity breeds rancor while ignorance is multicultural bliss seems oddly up-to-date. Here for example was I,
VDARE.com Says: Happy Independence Day— But Watch Out For Real Gunfire!
For several years, on the Fourth Of July, I’ve liked to quote the saying of John Adams, originally enunciated on the Second of July when the vote on the Declaration of Independence was taken,
"[The date] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
However, while this is, as Presidential Proclamations still say, “the Year of Our Lord 2013 and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh,” it is also the fifth year of the Obama administration.
And according to Colin Flaherty (an expert in black mob violence), the shows, games, and sports that Adams envisaged may have to be cancelled because the “guns” will be loaded guns.
The threat of a repeat of black mob violence on the Fourth of July is causing at least three cities to cancel their annual Independence Day fireworks parties.
Black mob violence has marred for several years the annual holiday celebrations in the Cleveland suburb of Bedford. Almost none of which made its way to the local media. But the city council heard an earful from local residents following last year’s holiday violence.
They reported that 50 to 80 black people were hitting people in the face and disrupting the festival and surrounding areas.
“Police officers used pepper ball pellets and a taser,” said city council minutes from a special meeting in August 2012. “Even the Wal-Mart and Get-Go store had to be closed for three hours.”
“The mayor was shocked by what he had witnessed,” said the minutes. The mayor assured the audience that Bedford was “not the only city that had these types of problems.” People were “traveling from city to city just causing problems.”
Because Bedford no longer has a daily newspaper, the city sent out a “Code Red” message warning residents of the violence and lawlessness that was “out of control” at their event. Three surrounding police agencies were called in to quell the violence.
The fire chief said his people were not armed or trained for this kind of activity.
Some of the residents complained of “political correctness” that prevented them from talking about what really happened. City manager Henry Angelo did not deny that black mobs were responsible for the violence. But he did say it was “contemptuous” that anyone would notice. [More]
Kaboom! Now Black Mobs Kill 4th of July | People 'traveling from city to city just causing problems', WND.com, July 1, 2013
In April, 2012, John Derbyshire wrote a famous article for Takimag "The Talk: Nonblack Version”, with a list of ways to avoid being the victim of random black violence. (Instead, he was the victim of random Political Correctness—National Review Editor Rich Lowry randomly fired him.)
One of the items on Derbyshire’s list:
If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date. (Neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot.)
That was a riot at the Six Flags Great Adventure Park in Jackson, N.J., which Derbyshire happened to be visiting in April, 1987. See
Equality: An American Idol
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin is much quoted in today's debate on the trade-off between freedom and security, as we learn about the National Security Agency's easy access to our phone records and emails.
Yet we Americans have often sacrificed liberty for safety.
In World War II, Korea and Vietnam, we conscripted millions of men and sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths fighting against Italians, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese.
The greater antagonist of liberty is not the quest for security, but our insatiable demand and inexorable drive for equality—not equality of rights but equality of results.
To equalize incomes the government confiscates 40 percent of the earnings of the most successful Americans and uses that wealth to subsidize the food, health care, housing and income of that half of the nation that pays no income taxes.
A steeply progressive income tax was originally advanced by that great egalitarian Karl Marx.
The federal estate tax is 40 percent for the wealthy. Some states tack on 16 percent. Individuals may spend entire lives acquiring wealth for their progeny. And governments, in the name of equality, will seize half of it on their deaths. Socialism, said Winston Churchill, is the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed.
To guarantee equal pay for equal work, the government has created agencies to monitor the payrolls of every business, agencies empowered to identify, expose and punish employers who might dare to use their economic freedom to reward some workers more than others.
To ensure racial, ethnic and gender equality in the labor force and the front office, the government fields thousands of agents to police the hiring, promotion and dismissal decisions of executives.
Affirmative action and quotas have been imposed on colleges and universities, stripping those institutions of freedom of choice, to advance a greater racial, ethnic and gender equality in student bodies and on faculties than a free and fair competition might produce.
Contract set-asides have been established on which no white male may bid. To make minorities and women more equal, we make others less free.
Freedom of assembly, which produced men's and women's clubs
George Zimmerman And The “Thirteenth Juror”—The Threat Of Black Riots If He’s Acquitted
The trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with Murder Two for killing Trayvon Martin, will recess for the July Fourth holiday only—the jury is sequestered and there is obviously pressure to reach a verdict as soon as possible.
As a blogger, I have watched all the testimony so far. (On Tuesday, incredibly, Judge Debra Nelson instructed the jury to disregard prosecution witness police officer Chris Serino’s testimony that he believed Zimmerman’s story—and Jacksonville medical examiner Valerie Rao, for some reason an Indian immigrant from Madras, controversially testified that Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds were “very insignificant.”)
My assessment: if this were a football game, the Zimmerman team would be ahead 35-10. That doesn’t bode well for the railroading of Zimmerman. But that project is far from exhausted.
What all of the testimony so far has hammered home again and again: there never was any case against George Zimmerman.
This is a political show trial. Prosecutors, and their political masters, expected to railroad an innocent man for an imaginary crime, with the help of the Politically Correct Main Stream Media.
But thousands of patriotic Americans saw what was at stake and variously blogged on the case, doing for nothing what the MSM is paid for, and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Zimmerman’s defense fund (which the Florida legal bureaucracy has since neutralized, prosecuting Zimmerman’s wife for perjury on a technical issue).
Those patriotic Americans remembered the Duke Rape Hoax, and no doubt multiple similar hoaxes. They saw the Trayvon Martin Hoax as yet another “anti-racist” lynching, with questionable black “victims” supported by powerful Politically Correct whites—and, in this case, by a President who publicly encouraged the frenzy against white-enough Zimmerman.
As in the Duke Rape Hoax, the lynch mob turned the burden of proof upside down, demanding that the accused “prove” his innocence—impossible without without top-drawer legal representation.
My quick thoughts:
- The Prosecution Team
Through the first three days last week, presiding judge, aka “prosecutor’s assistant” (John Derbyshire) Debra Nelson sustained every objection made by the prosecution, including making it impossible for defense counsel Don West to make a proper opening argument, while overruling most defense objections, leaving defense counsel at times speechless.
It appeared that Judge Nelson had no intention of granting George Zimmerman a vigorous defense or a fair trial. Most people fail to realize that judges, far from being demigods, are typically no more than pompous political hacks. (Nelson’s later rulings have been less consistent.)
Judge Nelson’s teammates: prosecutors John Guy, Bernie de la Rionda, and Richard Mantei, and Special Prosecutor Angela Corley. Guy asserted in his opening that Zimmerman had had “hate in his heart.”
All are white.
- The Defense Team
In spite of their disadvantages, Zimmerman’s high-priced defense team of Mark O’Mara and Don West has succeeded in turning most prosecution witnesses into defense witnesses—showing them committing rampant perjury or being manipulated in their perceptions by the MSM. In fact, the
Immigration Enthusiast Evangelicals Squirming After Soros, Treason Lobby Funding Revealed
Much as the Establishment GOP has betrayed its base time and again over the National Question, some American evangelical leaders have betrayed their congregations by shilling for the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. Recently, VDARE.com’s Allan Wall has noted that the so-called Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a conglomeration of denomination preachers (a few) bureaucrats (a lot), activists, university officials and authors, is literally a front for the George Soros-funded National Immigration Forum.
Most of the coverage of this entertaining sideshow of the immigration war has come from a few guerilla bloggers and journalists, particularly Matt Boyle of Breitbart News, who originally broke the story, [National Immigration Forum Funded by Soros and the Left, June 2, 2013] Michael Patrick Leahy, who did follow-up coverage at Breitbart, and Marjorie Jeffrey at The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog Juicy Ecumenism.
Ms. Jeffrey explains:
“Politics makes for strange bedfellows goes the old saying. The marriage between a group of Evangelical Christian organizers and George Soros has birthed a new organization called the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT).
EIT reportedly does not legally exist and is an arm of the George Soros funded National Immigration Forum, which as a “neutral third-party institution” facilitated EIT’s $250,000 radio ad campaign urging Evangelicals to back mass legalization of illegal immigrants.
So if the EIT is just a front, then what exactly is the National Immigration Forum? NIF received over three million dollars from Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2009-2010 alone, as well as one million dollars from the left-wing Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Sojourners is also a recipient of Soros’ money, and their President and CEO, Jim Wallis, is prominent within EIT.
All roads seem to lead to Soros, as a cursory glance into the funding of many religious organizations that have publicly advocated for the recent amnesty legislation find their way back to the Hungarian-American’s bountiful leftist check book. Take, for example, the so-called Nuns on the Bus…
The Evangelical Immigration Table Exposed As Another Soros Front, June 5, 2013
Jeffrey goes on:
“What are Soros, the open borders lobby, and the progressive left really trying to accomplish? The Left sees a prime opportunity to exploit Evangelical leaders by crafting a media campaign designed to convince the GOP leadership that one of their main constituencies, Bible Belt Christians, favors comprehensive reform.
Some may argue legitimately that some Evangelical elites genuinely see passing amnesty as their Christian duty. Mega funding by leftist philanthropies and high level, publicized political partnerships are added inducements.
But there remains the nauseating fact
GOP Support Of Immigration, Globalization, And Corporatism—Why the Reagan Democrats Departed
On November 3, 1969, Richard Nixon, his presidency about to be broken by massive antiwar demonstrations, called on "the great silent majority" to stand by him for peace with honor in Vietnam.
They did. Within days Nixon's approval surged to 68 percent. The ferocious Republican partisan of the 1950s had won over millions of Democrats.
Why? Because sons and brothers of those Democrats were doing much of the fighting in Vietnam. If Nixon was standing by them, they would stand by him.
In 1972 Nixon would win 49 states. Ronald Reagan, backed by his "Reagan Democrats," would win 44- and 49-state landslides.
Yet since Reagan went home, Democrats have won the popular vote in five of six presidential elections. The New Majority is history. The Reagan Democrats have departed. What happened?
Answer: For a generation, when forced to choose between Middle America and corporate America, on NAFTA, most-favored nation for China, and free trade, the GOP establishment opted to go with the Fortune 500. In the GOP the corporate conservative rides up front; the social, cultural and patriotic conservatives in the back of the bus.
Consider who has benefited most from Republican-backed globalization.
Was it not corporate executives and
“The Tragic City”—Birmingham AL After 50 Years. Coming To An America Near You?
“What is the city but the people?” asked Shakespeare in Coriolanus. In The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013 , author Paul Kersey examines the city of Birmingham, Alabama.
One of the major battlegrounds of the Civil Rights movement, Birmingham now has a special place in the hearts of those who fought for and support what the author calls Black Run America (BRA). Every American schoolchild now learns that peaceful, put-upon blacks in that city faced down insurmountable odds in overcoming segregation, white racism, bombings and Bull Connor’s fire hoses and police dogs.
But Kersey looks beyond that popular myth at the reality of post-civil rights era Birmingham.
In this age of rapid demographic displacement of whites, it is remarkable to note that Birmingham’s racial balance was stable from 1890 to 1960. Throughout those 70 years, the demographics remained steady at 60% white, 40% black. Not only was the racial balance stable, Birmingham was prosperous as well. It vied with Atlanta for the title of business capital of the South. The city was home to six Fortune 500 companies even into the 1990s. (It now has only one).
Birmingham worked because it was a segregated city whose institutions were all run by whites. The brutal, unmentionable fact is that both working class and wealthy whites could live in safe, orderly neighborhoods with good schools because blacks were legally barred from living there. (If The Tragic City has a flaw it is that the author does not spend more time documenting life in the pre-Civil Rights era).
But with the success of the Civil Rights revolution in the 1960s, many whites saw the writing on the wall and fled. By 1980, blacks were 55% of the population.
This demographic shift was key to giving Birmingham its first black mayor in 1979. In what was essentially a racial headcount, black Democrat Richard Arrington beat white Republican Frank Parsons by 2,000 votes. Arrington received 98% of the black vote and Parsons garnered 88% of the white vote.
This marked the beginning of black political control of Birmingham—and the
America’s Reaction To Paula Deen Suggests Elite’s Show Trial Strategy About To Backfire
The soft tyranny of Political Correctness is steadily transforming into outright Cultural Marxist totalitarianism – and it is starting on QVC.
John Derbyshire On The Origins Of The Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill: Getting To Treason
Now that the Amnesty and Immigration Surge Bill has been voted up by the U.S. Senate, it is instructive to step back and take a look at its origins.
The sheer amount of legislative effort here has, after all, been tremendous. At twelve hundred pages, the bill is almost as long as War and Peace—sixty times the length of the original U.S. Constitution. Such heroic labors! Why? What have been the motivations of the bill’s authors and movers?
I thought I might gain some insight into this from a close reading of Ryan Lizza’s piece “Getting to Maybe: Inside the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Deal” in the June 24th New Yorker.
Lizza is the magazine’s Washington correspondent. His article gives all the personal dynamics of the Senate’s taking up the bill and passing it through the Judiciary Committee. (It does not of course take us all the way to this week’s final passage.)
“Getting to Maybe” is written with flawless professional objectivity, the writer himself almost invisible, offering no commentary, no opinion, and no sign of any engagement with the underlying issue.
Even when the protagonists in the story are at their most mendacious or obnoxious, Lizza resists the temptation to add any critical or ironic coloring to his narrative, allowing their words to speak for themselves.
He writes for example of the first bonding between John McCain and Chuck Schumer, in meetings last fall to preserve the Senate’s filibuster rule:
McCain agreed that the meetings built trust between him and Schumer. “The reason why I enjoyed working with Ted Kennedy is because Ted was always good to his word,” he said. “And so is Chuck.”
Any regular reader of VDARE.com, recalling Ted Kennedy’s bare-faced lies about the 1965 immigration bill he championed, would have sprayed coffee over page 47 of the New Yorker at that point, but Lizza passes on without comment.
Likewise with Lizza’s coverage of the Heritage-Richwine flap last month.
McCain could hardly contain himself as he recited the story of how the Heritage report backfired. “Ka-boom!” he yelled. “That was a gift from God . . . But, yeah, those low-I.Q. Hispanics, I’ll tell ya, that was really revealing to me, I had no idea.” McCain, who is of Irish heritage, added, “We’ve always known that about the Irish.”
Ha ha ha ha! Never mind that a young scholar’s career was destroyed for having, in a Harvard doctoral dissertation, tried to introduce some quantitative facts about human capital into the immigration debate.
Politics proverbially ain’t beanbag, but I don’t think politicians are supposed to take quite so much pleasure in inflicting collateral casualties. On Lizza’s account, John McCain really does seem to be an extremely unpleasant person.
The passage in Lizza’s piece that got everyone’s attention was the quote he included from a Rubio aide that: “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.”
When Rubio’s people pushed back indignantly against that quote, Lizza quietly released the full transcript of his notes, according to which a second Rubio aide had chimed in:
Rubio Aide 2: But the same is true for the high-skilled workers.
Rubio Aide 1: Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.
Mickey Kaus summarized the Rubio aides’ view of American workers:
There’s a reason unemployed Americans are unemployed. They aren’t star performers. Screw ’em. We’re bringing in workers from abroad!
No news to anyone on this side of the issue, but
S.744 Passes Senate—Pyrrhic Victory For Treason Lobby
The Treason Lobby won a Pyrrhic victory on Thursday, passing the nation-breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill through the Senate. This widely-anticipated action led to predictable Main Stream Media ululations, maudlin sentimentality, and veiled racial threats against the historic American nation on the part of the governing class and its clients. But patriots should not be cowed: there is real cause for optimism.
The fact that Amnesty has passed the Senate means little in itself—it did that years ago. As Jim Antle notes on Twitter, “There has been 60 to 70 Senate votes for some form of comprehensive immigration reform since 2005.”
So the whole point of the current full court press for Amnesty/ Immigration Surge following Barack Obama's re-election has been to overwhelm debate and create a sense of inevitability.
Thus Lindsey Graham said that he wanted to get half of the Republicans in the Senate to back him. [Lindsey Graham: Marco Rubio 'Committed To Immigration Reform', By Elise Foley, Huffington Post, June 4, 2013] But in fact, only 14 of the 45 Republicans voted for it—a much lower share than in 1986 and 2006.
Similarly, Amnesty backers confidently predicted at least 70 votes—as Chuck Schumer put it, “We need 70.” [Getting to Maybe, by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, June 24, 2013] Even opponents of the bill conceded that was likely to happen. But it didn't happen—the final tally was 68-32. This tells us there is trouble from within the Establishment.
Even the celebratory press conference after the bill's passage seemed feigned and pathetic. Lindsey Graham made sure to thank President Obama for all his help—now that the bill is safely passed, the Beltway Right no longer has to feign opposition. He also threw in a prissy non sequitur attack on former Congressman Tom Tancredo, claiming that Republicans were coming around to Graham's own self-described “tough but practical” position.
However, one could not help but notice that two faces were missing from the celebratory gaggle—Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake. Both avoided the press conference, as if they were ashamed. It won't do them any good—Rubio's favorability ratings among Republicans have plummeted. [Poll: Rubio’s favorability down among GOP voters, up among independents, By Caroline May, Daily Caller, June 24, 2013]
After all, Rubio's role throughout this entire process has been to convince (= fool) conservatives
Another White House Play Date with Muslim Jihad
Forget Paula Deen. There are far more dangerous bigots and poisonous haters spoiling the American landscape. They cook up violent rhetoric and murderous plots against our troops, our citizens and our allies 24/7. And they have direct access to the White House.
Peter Morrison Report: Immigration, Abortion, The DOMA Disaster—For Texas, Red States No Way Out But Secession
I know it's been a while since I've sent out a report, but conditions have not materially changed since then.
Yesterday the Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, tipping their hand of the first of many steps to ratchet our country, against the will of many of the states and 6,000 years of recorded history, into accepting homosexual marriage under penalty of law. Already conservatives are running to their old standbys of pushing for constitutional amendments to remedy the problem, never mind the impossibility of getting two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states to go along. You can be sure, however, that earnest promises will be made in the next Republican primary.
It is clear to me that we are dealing with a Romans 1 situation. We live in a country that elected and then re-elected Barack Hussein Obama, and there is simply no way out except political separation. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we can either have the judgment to separate from the blue states, or we will all be judged together. History knows no other fate for societies who have fallen to this level of moral degeneracy.
You can be sure in the coming years that those who hold to traditional morality will be further marginalized as haters and bigots. Many church denominations will either stop talking about the issue or "discover" a new angle on interpreting Scripture in order to accommodate the state religion of equality. It will be a time of testing where people will reveal their true loyalties.
The problem is not merely political. All across the nation about 40 years ago, every single state, red and blue, surrendered to feminist demands and passed laws making divorce quick and easy. Our governments have made a mockery of heterosexual marriage, and so now we are mocked with the spectacle of homosexual marriage. It is also surely true that the epidemic of absent or weak fathers wrought by easy divorce has itself contributed to the growth of the gay population and the atmosphere of moral relativism in our society. We reap what we sow. Spiritual renewal is the only true long-term hope we have.
Nevertheless, it is clear that political separation will help contain the problem, as the blue states are further down this road than ever. The long-term necessity of separation is what makes our leaders here in Texas so generally disappointing. Texas is naturally the state to take the lead
The Voting Rights Act Decision—Does the South Belong in the Union?
Is the Second Reconstruction over?
The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.
The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.
Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.
The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.
What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.
You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.
You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.
Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?
By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.
Even the "pre-clearance" provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what "Bull" Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.
Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.
What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally—for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.
The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.
Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals
Gabriel “Gang Of Nine” Gomez Loses Both Hispanics AND Whites in Massachusetts
[Previously by Matthew Richer The Marco Rubio Of Massachusetts: Will The GOP Establishment And Its Token Hispanic Gabriel Gomez Blow This Election Too]
Watching the Republican Party’s current obsession with “Hispanic outreach” reminds one of the circus clown whose routine consists of tossing banana peels in front of himself, then slipping and falling flat on his back.
Early in the special election campaign to replace John Kerry in the U.S. Senate, it was clear that the Massachusetts GOP Establishment had handpicked Gabriel Gomez as their candidate, and for only one reason—he’s Hispanic.
Just as being black was the only reason Deval Patrick was elected Governor and Barack Obama elected President, being Hispanic was the only reason Gabriel Gomez received the GOP nomination for the Senate.
When asked about his qualifications, Gomez constantly repeated the fact that he had served as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately, military service does not impress a lot of voters here in the Bay State, and “Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez” quickly became an irritating soundbite.
True, Gomez did join a successful private equity firm after his military service, but one has to wonder if he was just an Affirmative Action hire. He never really seemed to understand economic policy very well—especially given that he is a huge booster for the nation-bankrupting Gang of Eight Amnesty/ Immigration Surge.
During the debates, Gabriel Gomez deliberately chided his Democratic opponent, Ed Markey (NumbersUSA F) for being too weak a proponent of the Gang of Eight amnesty and actually vowed to outdo the Democrat on this issue. ““I want to make it a ‘Gang of Nine,’” Gomez promised again and again. Gomez: We’ll win ‘with or without DC’, by Jessica Taylor, June 25, 2013
You can’t make this stuff up.
Every time Gomez uttered this “Gang of Nine” remark, it was obvious that he really believed that he was delivering a decisive blow against his opponent. But the only people wincing were potential voters.
The “Gang of Nine” sound bite was obviously pre-rehearsed. Who can doubt that Gomez’s consultants
Peter Brimelow WND's Column On Student Loan Crisis: Gang Of 8 Plans Further Immiseration Of New College Graduates
[This is my fourth WND column this year, originally published on WND, June 24, 2013, updated here with more links. WND likes comments so I'd be grateful if VDARE.com readers could weigh in]
Great news! Another bursting debt bubble is about to take down the U.S. economy. And the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, now being debated in the Senate, is perfectly designed to make the situation worse!
This time, the culprit is not reckless mortgage lending, which led to massive defaults and a real-estate crash that nearly wrecked the world economy in 2008. Instead, now the culprit is student loans—amazingly, they’re now getting to be about as large in total as the subprime mortgage market at its peak in 2007 ($1.3 trillion); they already exceed total credit card debt ($798 billion). And student default rates are creeping up into the same range as the default rate on mortgages in 2007.
In both cases, the ultimate villain is the federal government.
For more than 20 years, under both Democrats and Republicans, Washington pushed the mortgage banks to extend home loans to people who would not normally qualify, because it wanted to expand home ownership among minorities, who are disproportionately bad credit risks.
It was always obvious that this would result in more defaults—I wrote about it in Forbes magazine back in 1993! [The Hidden Clue] But Washington didn’t care. It drove the mortgage industry, and the economy, right over the cliff anyway.
Moral: You simply can’t trust Washington not to drive the country off the cliff for short-term political reasons—as it is now trying to do with the Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill.
In some ways, the more interesting question is: Why did the mortgage banks let themselves be driven off the cliff?
To understand this, you have to know something about the peculiar psychology of commercial bureaucracies. To the individuals running the mortgage banks, more lending meant more immediate commissions and bonuses for them personally. And for that they were quite ready to sacrifice the future of the institutions they managed (but usually didn’t own). Plus they may have reasoned that the federal government would ultimately bail the banks out anyway—which, in fact, is just what happened.
Again, this short-term greed is exactly what is driving the current extraordinary spending on the Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill by plutocrats like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Standard econometric analysis suggests that legalization, and the planned huge simultaneous increase in legal immigration, could result in the transfer of as much as a trillion dollars a year from labor to the owners of capital, because
Played Out: the Liberal Racists' "Uncle Tom" Card
Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He's a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He's also a coward, a bigot, a liar and a textbook example of plantation progressivism.
