Meet the New Boss, Bad As The Old Boss: All Three Candidates for Speaker Have Supported Amnesty. They Need A Good Scare...

Throwing the rascals out is always nice. But sometimes, new rascals move right back in. Whether it’s Stalin replacing Hitler or President Coin reinstituting the Hunger Games after deposing President Snow, the new boss is often the same as the old boss. Sometimes he’s worse.

Currently there

John Derbyshire: A Dismal Anniversary—50 Years Of The Immigration Act Of 1965

A dismal anniversary: On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration Act.

The 1965 Act did two big things, and a multitude of small ones. ustoadmit

The first big thing it did: abolish the old National-Origins quotas, established in 1921, revised in 1924 and 1929. The idea of the quotas was to maintain demographic stability by limiting settlement from any European country to some fixed percent of that country's representation in a recent census.

The 1921 Act used the 1910 census as its benchmark. The 1924 Act used the 1890 census in order to  reduce the quota numbers on South and East Europeans, who it was thought did not make as good citizens as north and west Europeans. The 1929 revision went to the 1920 census.

To present-day sensibilities it all sounds very horrible: "Whaddya mean, an Italian or a Pole doesn't make as good a citizen as a German or Irishman? Whoa!"

But that was then and this is now. And personally, I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It's up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It's not up to foreigners.

If, when I applied for U.S. citizenship in 2001, the immigration authorities had said: "Sorry, pal, we don't like the look of your teeth, and we have enough Brits anyway," it would not have occurred to me that I had any grounds for complaint. I might have wheedled and pleaded a bit—"Come on, just one more won't hurt, and I'll find an orthodontist, I promise"— but if they'd sent me back to Blighty at last I would have understood. This country belongs to Americans. It's for them and their legislators to say who they want joining them.

Those 1920s quotas applied to Europeans, by the way. Americans at that time didn't want immigrants from Africa or Asia at all. A few hundred Read more >>

Memo From Middle America: Trump Connects With Middle Americans. Southern Baptist “Insider” Russell Moore Connects...

I recently attended the Trump rally in Oklahoma City (my son even got close enough to exchange greetings with him!) and I can testify that The Donald has a remarkable ability to connect to ordinary Middle Americans. Many are evangelical Christians, and Trump has been ahead among them in recent polls [ Donald Trump strikes a chord – with evangelicals , by Matt Viser, Boston Globe, September 15, 2015]. But, in another example of “leaders” turning on those they purport to lead, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission,” tells us that “to back Mr. Trump, these [evangelical] voters must repudiate everything they believe.” [ Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values? New York Times, September 17, 2015]

Is Moore saying that any Christian who supports Donald Trump is betraying his Christian faith? As an evangelical Christian, I say that’s outrageous.

Moore of course is a passionate Amnesty supporter. He’s also part of the Evangelical Immigration Table, a pro-Amnesty “evangelical organization” that receives funding from globalist atheist George Soros. And he chose to bash his fellow Christians not in Christianity Today or some other publication that evangelicals actually read, but in the New York Times. Plainly, he’s just virtue-signaling that he’s not like those retrograde, narrow-minded evangelicals in the pews.

Moore admits there shouldn’t be a “religious test” for office and notes that “my Baptist ancestors were willing to make alliances with the heretical Thomas Jefferson” over religious liberty. But he claims Trump is different because:
We should… ask about his personal character and fitness for office. His personal morality is clear, not because of tabloid exposés but because of his own boasts. His attitude toward women

The Baby Butchers and Their Media Butchers

"I'd say a lot of people want liver."

The propagandists of Planned Parenthood don't want you to remember that earlier this summer the group apologized for the "tone" of one of its top officials, Deborah Nucatola, who casually hawked unborn baby parts to undercover journalists from the Center Read more >>

Putin: American Critics Of Bush Wars Were Right

"Do you realize now what you have done?"

So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.

Fourteen years after we invaded

Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act: The War On America Turns 50

511nk5odwLL._SY344_BO1204203200_-198x300[1]Half a century ago, Democrats looked at the country and realized they were never going to convince Americans to agree with them. But they noticed that people in most other countries of the world already agreed with them. The solution was obvious.

So in 1965—50 years ago this week—Sen. Ted Kennedy passed an immigration law that has brought 59 million foreigners to our shores, who happen to vote 8-2 for the Democrats.

Democrats haven't won any arguments; they changed the voters. If anything, the Democrats have stopped bothering to appeal to Americans. The new feminized Democratic Party says, That's too bad about those steelworkers in Ohio losing their jobs, but THERE'S A WOMAN AT A LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY WHO DESERVES TO MAKE PARTNER!

tsc26_1_t110[1]Republicans should be sweeping the country, but they aren't, because of Kennedy's immigration law. Without post-1965 immigrants bloc-voting for the Democrats, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won a bigger landslide against him in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.

This isn't a guess; it's a provable fact. Obama beat Romney by less than 5 million votes in a presidential election in which about 125 million votes were cast. More than 30 million of Obama's Read more >>

Derb’s Monthly Diary Revivified: Alan Colmes, Jigsaw Puzzles, And Black Dysfunction (It’s Worse Than You...

[When I was blogging at National Review Online I posted a diary at the end of each month.  Each diary was a rag-bag of short pieces on random topics.  Some were penetrating social/cultural/political analysis, others were learnéd discourses about the fluff in my belly-button.  All my NRO monthly diaries, 2001-2012, are archived here.

When I moved to Taki’s Magazine in 2012, I suggested keeping up the monthly-diary tradition, but they weren’t keen.  We compromised on a “Quarterly Potpourri.”  The last one I did is here.

I asked Editor Peter Brimelow if he wouldn’t mind my reviving the monthly diary tradition here on  Peter said: “Sure, give it a try.”  Bless that man.

As with the NRO monthly diaries, these will usually end with a math note.]

  A decent Lefty.  I was on Alan Colmes’ radio show September 25th.  This was Alan’s “Friday Night Free-for-All,” where he has three invited guests and we bat around listener’s call-in questions.

I really shouldn’t do radio.  I can’t think on my feet, and am tormented afterwards by l’esprit d’escalier—thinking of what I should have said.  I console myself with Vladimir Nabokov’s apology for similar shortcomings: “I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, I speak like a child.”

The “Free for All” format works against me, too.  If just one of the other guests is garrulous, a retiring type like myself can’t get a word in sideways.

So why do I do it?  Well, there’s vanity, of course.  I like having that Fox News limo pull up outside the house to take me to Manhattan.  It impresses the neighbors.

Mostly, though, it’s that I like Alan.  Sure, he’s a Lefty, but one of the better sort.  You could see this in his August 31st interview with Jared Taylor—see both the closed-minded Lefty ideologue Alan and the fundamentally decent Alan.

In the Reconstruction phase following the end of the Cold Civil War, when Goodwhites at last have the total power they crave and we Badwhite advocates are being hustled off to the labor camps, Alan will be one of the small number of goodwhites saying, “Hey, wait a minute…”  He’ll probably end up breaking rocks in the Aleutian Islands with us badwhite zeks.

To some degree, in fact, this has already happened.  Alan’s show is a sort of Aleutian Island of talk radio.  Fox does little to publicize it and I assume—just from the fact of its being on Fox—that none of the big Lefty networks wants it.  The “Free for All” guests are low-rank bloggers and freelance writers. The callers are mostly lunatics.  I’ve heard Alan himself say: “I can’t believe I do this for a living.”

As George Orwell saw so clearly, it’s not just heterodox ideas that the Left hates, it’s human decency: the decency, for example, that believes even heterodox ideas deserve a hearing.

I doubt that anyone much on the Left likes Alan Colmes.

Peak white guilt?  Steve Sailer, apropos transethnic Jeb Bush saying that Democrats woo blacks by promising to “take care of you with free stuff”: Read more >>
More Articles...
Your Personal Patriot Pack

Stand up against Cultural Marxism and celebrate America!

Help with your donations today - and get your Personal Patriot Pack
Donate $75
Donate $125