Recent News

REDSTATE Conservatives Turn On Renee Ellmers On Abortion… But Why Not On Immigration?

Immigration patriots already knew that North Carolina GOP congressthing Renee Ellmers was a traitor. Now the pro-lifers at RedState know it too. But will they continue to prioritize attacks on immigration patriots rather than a GOP Establishment that despises them? is focused on immigration and the National Question—whether the U.S. can survive as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people. It does not take a position on abortion, and we know our writers and readers are on both (all) sides of the issue. But we are vitally interested in any clash between GOP leaders and the party’s base, because it is the GOP leaders who have systematically frustrated the base’s desire for patriotic immigration reform.

And Ellmers turned on the pro-life Republican base faster than the French government turned on free speech after the Islamic terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo. On the very eve of the annual March for Life, an event that brought half a million pro-life protesters to the Capitol, Ellmers waged an insurgent campaign within the Republican caucus to defeat a bill that would have banned late term abortions. [Abortion bill dropped amid concerns of female GOP lawmakers , by Ed O’Keefe, Washington Post, January 21, 2015] Thus, at the hands of a Southern Republican, the pro-choice movement can celebrate a victory and the already disorganized Republican caucus looks even more hapless [Planned Parenthood seizes on House GOP’s abortion bill retreat, by Sarah Ferris, The Hill, January 22, 2015]

The base is outraged. Jim Duncan, chairman of the Chatham County Republican Party, was apparently already looking at a primary challenge to Ellmers but his incipient rebellion now has serious momentum behind it. Roll Call is reporting that her abortion vote may mean Ellmers will face a “bruising primary from the conservative wing of her party in 2016 [Renee Ellmers May Face Primary Challenge, by Emily Cahn, January 23, 2015].

The Respectable Rightists of RedState are especially outraged. Erick Erickson spat that Ellmers is a “damnable liar” who “must be ruined politically” for claiming “she’d vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act after she ensured it would not pass.” He proclaimed that “the pro-life movement must stop being the whores of the GOP” and mused, “Maybe it is time for a third party to give the GOP competition” [The Pro-Life Movement Must Stop Being Whores of the Republican Party, RedState, January 22, 2015].

Thomas Crown, a former Director of RedState vowed: “I will never vote Republican again. Not for any reason… today, the Party stands for indifference in the face of a man-made cataclysm of flesh and blood, and for apathy toward good and cooperation with evil.” [The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy, by Thomas Crown, RedState, January 22, 2015]

RedState Commissar Leon Wolf wrote:

41153-bruce6pm-640x360[1]Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC ) was swept into office in 2010 on a wave of Tea Party support and based on the fact that she had the good fortune to have a Democrat incumbent who let himself get videotaped assaulting some college kids. The video in question went nationally viral and Ellmers’ election became something of a cause celebre in conservative circles. When she narrowly pulled off the victory, people expected great things from her.

However, since her election, she has been one of the worst members of the GOP caucus…Ellmers is either lying to her constituents about being pro-life or she has become a poltroon on this issue now that the GOP has taken control of the house and she figures she can increase her district’s share of the federal feeding trough... It would be better to have a Democrat in this seat than a cancer in the Republican caucus.”

[Renee Ellmers is Worse Than a Democrat, January 21, 2015]

And RedState regular Aaron Gardner triggered progressives around the country by demanding of Ellmers, “Tell me why you are worthy of this life you have been given, Representative.” [Is Renee Ellmers Worthy of Life?, January 23, 2015]

Nevertheless, it’s hard to take these kinds of militant statements seriously when we review RedState’s recent record on immigration. After all, Erickson has made some excellent comments in the past about the baleful impact of consultants on the Republican Party, but has apparently retreated on the issue now that the Republicans might have the potential to do something about it.

Significantly, RedState purged Daniel Horowitz for his excellent immigration updates and issued an abrupt volte face on the immigration issue. Leon Wolf openly

If Boehner And Bibi Want War With Iran, Time To Leave GOP?

“The Iranians are on the march,” warned John McCain Sunday. […]

The SYRIZA Phenomenon; Or, How The Greek Center-Right Shot Itself In The Foot


Repressed Golden Dawn supporter Voula Papachristou, thrown off Greece's Olympic team for her opinions.


See also by Dimitrios Papageorgiou: Greek Anti-Immigration Party Golden Dawn Survives Crackdown—Because It’s Rooted In Middle Class and Like It Or Not, Golden Dawn Fighting Genocide In Greece by Nicholas Stix

The electoral triumph of SYRIZA in Greece made worldwide headlines: the hard-Left party managed to get an impressive 36.3%, leaving behind the center-right New Democracy governing party, which got 27.8%. Golden Dawn, a new anti-immigration party widely denounced as neo-Nazi, came third with 6.28%. Greece, the center of a renewed European crisis, has taken a radical turn.

SYRIZA is the first hard-Left party to take power in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union. (The name is an acronym, in Greek, for Coalition of the Radical Left.)

In order to understand the importance of this, we must look at what SYRIZA is. Greek electoral law gives a bonus of 50 seats in parliament to the party that achieves the highest popular vote. But it will not give this much-needed bonus to a coalition of parties. Until recently—just a couple of years ago—SYRIZA was such a coalition, of many leftist parties of various tendencies including Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist and even some with anarchist leanings. All those, with the addition of voters abandoning the failing socialist party PASOK, have merged nominally into one party, but still fiercely hold into their different views.

That means that there are several agendas that will come into play the next years: internationalist, communist, anti-military. And, of course, pro-immigrant—many of these groupuscules have been trying to make inroads into the immigrant communities in Greece

Others identify themselves with Leftist Latin American governments, notably Venezuela and Cuba. Significantly, the ambassador of Venezuela has recently been accorded celebrity status in SYRIZA's meetings.

SYRIZA will now pursue schemes like the disarmament of police units, extending voting and citizenship rights to immigrants, the building of mosques in Athens and of course harsher laws against “xenophobia” and “racism” (which includes thought crimes). But this agenda has not been widely discussed in Greece, since all debate in the election was focused on the economy.

A few years ago, SYRIZA was a small party that in every election would be in agony over whether

When Narratives Collide—SELMA Versus AMERICAN SNIPER

See also Selma to Ferguson, Ferguson to Selma: What Happened After the Reporters Left, by Paul Kersey

American Sniper, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, is americansniperseemingly designed to enrage the Left. The film tells the story of the late Chris Kyle, a rodeo rider from Texas who became a Navy SEAL and the deadliest sniper in American history. It unapologetically portrays Kyle as a proud warrior dedicated to his country and his profession, a bracing change from the usual Hollywood treatment of American servicemen as either psychopathic killers or ashamed and broken victims.

Associated Press attributes the film’s success to conservatives flocking to the see the movie [‘Sniper’ success reveals power of conservative audience, Washington Post, January 20, 2015]. But this is a simplistic assessment of American Sniper’s appeal—it’s an unapologetically pro-American movie with a white male hero at a time when white male Americans are constantly lectured to feel guilty about their race and nationality.

That would be bad enough in the eyes of the Left, but American Sniper also came out over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Worse, it’s competing with the latest political hagiography dedicated to “Dr.” King: Selma. As King is less a historical figure than a modern American god, a competing film about a heroic white man has been interpreted as nothing less than a form of blasphemy.

What’s especially infuriating to the Leftist nation of “anti-America” is that American Sniper made $110 million over the Martin Luther King Day weekend and received several Oscar nominations. [Wow! “American Sniper Four Day Take Was a Whopping $110.6 million, by Roger Friedman, Showbiz 411, January 20, 2015]. In contrast, Selma is a box office flop.

The response from the cultural commissars who govern the commanding heights of American entertainment: this is a kind of national moral failing.

Film critic Scott Mendelson moans:

The sad irony of a weekend dedicated to a black man who preached non violence and created great social change through pacifism being dominated by a movie about a white guy who (at least in the movie, final ten minutes notwithstanding) is most noteworthy for his record-breaking body count on a battlefield is not lost on me. [Box Office: 'Selma' Grossed $5M On Martin Luther King Day, Forbes, January 21, 2015]

Matt Taibbi, whose anti-establishment posturing conceals his shameful retreat on immigration, threw up a lazily written blog post

There’s A Reason For The Two-Minute Hate Against Steve King: He’s Right

330px-Steve_King_Official[1]Rep. Steve King is hosting his Iowa Freedom Summit on Saturday (January 23) and the Democrats and their Main Stream Media adjunct are in high attack mode against him and his home state of Iowa. White, conservative, Christian—what’s not to abhor? The resulting Two Minutes Hate has been an illuminating study in MSM political management, Establishment GOP stupidity—and tangible Ruling Class fear that the immigration issue could spin out of their control.

The co-ordination is blatant. When I was young, I had a knowing, sophisticated view of sociopsychological factors that shape public debate—for example, what the late Joe Sobran used to call “The Hive“, explaining why Leftists everywhere suddenly start saying the same thing. But as I get older, I lean increasingly to the view that it`s all a matter of goldarned conspiracies, cabals and corruption. In the immortal words of Spencer Ackerman to his fellow Leftists on the notorious Journolist secret ListServe group during the Jeremiah Wright scandals,

[f]ind a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear…[t]ake one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.

This tactic is exactly what the MSM tried to pull this week after King tweeted to protest the Obamas’ inviting an illegal alien, Ana Zamora, who has benefitted the illegal 2012 DACA Administrative Amnesty:

As one, the MSM reacted as if “deportable” was an obscenity—but in fact an obscenity would not have provoked this reaction:

But the simple fact is that, of course, Ms. Zamora is a “deportable”—she is an illegal alien whose status, even after Obama’s DACA decree, is provisional and could be revoked. Obama’s arrogant flaunting of her was treason and he should be impeached.

And as King himself has said crushingly of his use of the term “deportable”: “I would just direct people that have any question about that to AUSC 1227, which is the section in the U.S. Code that is titled this: ‘Deportable Aliens’…I mean, it is a legal term.” (Steve King and his role as an Iowa kingmaker in the early presidential sweepstakes, by Jeff Zeleny and Jordyn Phelps, Yahoo/ABC News, January 23, 2015).

This bullying attempt to anathematize the term “deportable” is just like the Left’s long war against the term “illegal alien,” which recently resulted in vandalism against a Santa Barbara newspaper (no arrests, needless to say, and therefore no strategic deportations). It’s another example of the Left owning the Megaphone and using it to impose its own version of reality.

Similarly, King was demonstrably right to say in 2013 that there were more drug smugglers than valedictorians among illegal alien minors (and subsequently was further vindicated by a spectacular case of illegal alien minor drug smuggling). Yet the Megaphone blares only that King said illegals develop muscles like cantaloupes (a reference to their immense loads, the 12-year old boy in the subsequent illegal smuggling case was carrying 80 pounds of marijuana) and that he compared once immigrants to dogs (wrong).

Of course, it actually doesn’t matter what King may or may not have said. There is an agenda here, pretty well summarized by neoconservative immigration enthusiast enforcer Jennifer Rubin:

…candidates who attend [the Iowa Freedom Summit] are enabling King to hold court, thereby setting themselves and the party up to be slammed

Lawrence Auster’s Legacy—Starting The Debate On Reversing Muslim Immigration

facesFaces of diversity

Picture from: How the French [sic] terrorists were connected to al Qaeda, ISIS, by Bob Orr, CBS News, January 9, 2015.

It didn’t take long for our President to blame the French people for the Islamic terrorist attacks that shocked the world. Barack Obama told the Europeans that they must do more to integrate Muslims and avoid “respond[ing] with a hammer.” [Europe needs to better integrate Muslim communities: Obama, AFP, January 16, 2015] In fact, of course, contemporary Europeans would do very well to remember the example of Charles Martel, “Hammer of the Franks,” who saved Europe from Islam at the Battle of Tours.

But Obama is right that the Islamic question in Europe won’t be solved simply through law enforcement or military action. What he would never admit: it must be solved by action on immigration—and repatriation.

Why would any country in its right mind want Muslim immigration, or immigration from predominantly Muslim countries? It really shouldn’t take dead bodies to shock people into thinking clearly about immigration. But c'est la vie, as the French would say.

The French terrorists were a diversity twofer—both racially and religiously “diverse” in that they weren’t of either European or Christian stock. Though they were born in France, they couldn’t be considered “French” except in a technical legal sense. They owed greater allegiance to an increasing Islamic diaspora community than to the French nation.

Therefore the ultimate question, which absolutely no mainstream American commentators have raised; how can we, lawfully and humanely, reduce the number of Muslims in the West and so reduce the source of the problem?

The late Lawrence Auster, editor of View From The Right, pointed towards a constructive policy in two speeches, at an Act for America meeting in New York (January 25, 2010)

Muslims in large numbers do not belong in any Western society. It was a mistake to let them in, and now we have to recognize that mistake and find ways to start reversing that immigration.

[Islam and the West…Can They Co-Exist, The "silent" majority no more! (blog), January 28, 2010]

See also A Real Islam Policy For A Real America, the talk Auster gave at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference, February 8, 2009.[Audio links | MP3]

But how do we “reverse” any form of immigration? The very mention of reversing immigration would require political courage unseen in America.

Or would it? There are actually laws

Obama’s Bloody Yemen Disaster

When President Obama declares something a “success story,” you know […]

Against Terrorism–But FOR What?

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that France "is at war with terrorism, jihadism and radical Islamism." This tells us what France is fighting against.

But what is France fighting for in this war on terror? For terrorism is simply a tactic, and arguably the most effective tactic of the national liberation movements of the 20th century.

Terrorism was used by the Irgun to drive the British out of Palestine and by the Mau Mau to run them out of Kenya. Terrorism, blowing up movie theaters and cafes, was the tactic the FLN used to drive the French out of Algeria.

The FALN tried to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950 at Blair House, shot up the House of Representatives in 1954, and, in 1975, blew up Fraunces Tavern in New York where Washington had bid his officers farewell. The FALN goal: Independence from a United States that had annexed Puerto Rico as the spoils of war in its victory over Spain.

What did the FLN, FALN, Mau Mau, Irgun and Mandela's ANC have in common? All sought the expulsion

John Derbyshire: Fox’s Steve Emerson—Wrong On “No-Go Areas,” Right On The Trend?

I’ve had Birmingham on my mind recently, as a conjunction of the political and the personal.

No, this is not Birmingham, Alabama I’ve been pondering: not the Birmingham from whose jail Martin Luther King—I beg your pardon: The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—wrote a famous letter in 1963, and whose subsequent decline has been chronicled in a article and a book by our own correspondent Paul Kersey

No, the Birmingham on my mind is the English Birmingham, a big old industrial city in the West Midlands.

(The central trunk of England is, in the imagination of the English, divided into North, Midlands, and South. The West Midlands stretches from the Welsh border eastwards to Rugby. East of that is of course the East Midlands, where I was born and raised. East of that is East Anglia, a flat, damp, and dreary region best known for Puritans, opium addiction, and singing mailmen.)

So what’s been going on in Birmingham? First the political.

On January 10th, the Saturday following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, terrorism expert and author Steve Emerson was on the Fox News program Justice with Judge Jeanine. Discussing the situation of Muslims in Europe, Emerson said the following thing:

In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones. There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.

That was an unfortunately absurd thing to say. In the 2011 national census 22 percent of Birmingham’s inhabitants identified as Muslim, 46 percent as Christian, 32 percent as other religions or none.

Birmingham is Britain’s second most populous city at 1.1 million. The municipal boundaries encompass 103 square miles, putting Birmingham midway in size between Sacramento and Salt Lake City—but in, of course, a much smaller country. For non-Muslims to be excluded from a place that size would be astounding.

The worst of it, from a point of view, was that Emerson’s clumsy remark was a gift to the multiculturalists, transnationalists, and Muslim supremacists, who were soon hooting and shrieking all over the internet.

A journalist at the far-left Guardian newspaper started the Twitter hashtag #FoxNewsFacts, and the twittosphere quickly filled up with mockery, not much of it very funny.

Fox and Emerson issued separate apologies, and Emerson made a £500 ($750) donation to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.[ Fox News 'terror expert': Listening back to my comments on Birmingham is like 'waterboarding' By Leon Siciliano, Telegraph (UK), January 15, 2015]

Next up was Louisiana Governor and GOP Great Brown Hope Bobby Jindal. Addressing the neocon think tank Henry Jackson Society on a visit to London, Jindal offered a milder version of Emerson’s remarks about no-go areas in Europe:

In a speech prepared for delivery at a British think tank, Jindal said some immigrants are seeking “to colonize Western countries

Ann Coulter: Hearing Voices–Rachel Maddow And Liberal Dementia On “Racism”

annThat MSNBC routinely, almost compulsively, mischaracterizes what conservatives say is nothing new. It's what makes the network so adorable. But in a recent trend, anchor Rachel Maddow has been upping the ante, altering quotes we just heard her play on tape.

On Monday night, for example, Rachel ran a news clip from President Reagan's 1983 Martin Luther King Day signing ceremony:

"Chris Wallace, NBC Reporter (by miraculous coincidence, currently a Fox News anchor): 'There was an air of celebration in the Rose Garden and an underlying tension. White House officials wrestled for days how to usher in a holiday the president opposed. They finally decided to embrace it. ... Maybe that's what today was about, that blacks have the power to make politicians do things.'"

End tape, cut to Rachel, taking notes, muttering with disgust: "The blacks now have the power ..."

Except Wallace didn't say "the blacks." Refer to the tape. By adding the simple article "the," Rachel turned Chris Wallace from a garden-variety 1980s news reporter into Archie Bunker. It takes a special kind of zealotry to play a tape of someone and then immediately lie about what viewers just heard him say.

Rachel's rewrite of Wallace (again, a Fox News host) was astonishingly similar to her misquote of Republican Senate candidate—now senator—Joni Ernst just before the November elections. Maddow inserted the word "the" into Ernst's statement, entirely changing her meaning.

Ernst had said—as anyone could hear from the tape helpfully played by Rachel: "I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family—whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from a government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."

The very next line in the transcript has Rachel sneering—as if repeating Ernst's line: "I believe in my right to defend myself from the government with my beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter." She then riffed on her own rewrite of Ernst's statement, warning that a Senate candidate "is threatening to turn to armed violence against the government if she doesn't get what she wants ..."

Obviously, there's a pretty big difference between a Second Amendment right to defend yourself from "a government" and "the government." One is theoretical—referring to some future tyrannical government or even