A Tale Of Two Mockingbirds: The Fatal Flaw Of The Civil Rights Movement

harper-lee-go-set-a-watchman-cover-lead[1]On July 14, 2015 a “new” novel appeared from author Harper Lee. Entitled Go Set a Watchman, it was actually Lee’s first novel, written years before her famous 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, but rejected by a major publisher in 1957. And while the dramatic changes to the iconic character Atticus Finch are creating headlines, what the novel really shows is how the optimistic expectations and assumptions behind the Civil Rights Movement, are, like the Old South itself, gone with the wind.

As celebrated in Mockingbird, the character of Finch proves a moral giant in the segregationist South by defending an African-American. In contrast, in Watchman, Finch is a diehard segregationist who defends a black man only because the law requires due process and because he fears that if he doesn’t take the case, the NAACP will disrupt the rhythm of Southern life.

To_Kill_a_Mockingbird[1]The only reason this book has been published now is because Harper Lee’s estate trustee found the manuscript in a safe deposit box. Lee herself is now 89, partially deaf and blind, living in a nursing home, and may or may not have actually consented to publication.

Reviewers and readers have been shocked by the new “racist” version of Atticus. [ The two Atticuses: ‘Mockingbird’s hero radically reshaped from ‘Watchman’s racist version , by Colette Bancroft, Tampa Bay Times, July 22, 2015].

The source of the change lies more than a half century in the past, Read more >>

Pat Buchanan: Could Trump Actually WIN?

See also, by James Kirkpatrick Will GOP Establishment Elect Donald Trump—Or Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s Surrendering Socialist?

The American political class has failed the country, and should be fired. That is the clearest message from the summer surge of Bernie Sanders and the remarkable rise of Donald Trump.

Sanders' candidacy can trace it roots back to the 19th-century populist party of Mary Elizabeth Lease who declaimed: Read more >>

Will GOP Establishment Elect Donald Trump—Or Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s Surrendering Socialist?

In Europe, the talk is of rising right wing nationalism and left wing revolution [ Europe’s leaders are openly worrying about ‘violence’ and ‘revolution’ if Greece goes wrong , by Jim Edwards, Business Insider, July 17, 2015]. And the center can’t hold even in the United States, as the rise of Donald Trump in the GOP primaries and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders among Democrats shows the instability of the American political system [ Candidates caught in the middle as words ring hollow to activists , by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, July 25, 2015]. Yet even as onetime President Presumptive Hillary Clinton faces an unexpected challenge, economically struggling Americans should not be fooled—the self-proclaimed socialist Sanders stands for business as usual when it comes to the most regressive issue of all: mass immigration.

This may seem surprising. Sanders, an “independent” who caucuses with the Democrats, has occasionally spoken sense on immigration. He has openly identified the desire for cheap labor motivating the corporate push for more foreign guest workers, even in jobs like ski instructors or lifeguards that could easily be filled by American students. Sanders rails against stagnant wages for high-skilled workers, high unemployment for low-skilled workers (especially nonwhite Americans). He understands that, in his words, “If you need to workers in a certain area, you need to raise wages.”

And Sanders voted against so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty/ Immigration Surge in 2007 because the legislation enabled more so-called guest workers [ Bernie Sanders and Immigration Reform , by Jerry Kammer, Center for Immigration Studies, 2011].

Indeed, Numbers USA awards Sanders a relatively high “B+” rating for opposing “unnecessary worker visas” over the course of his career and an “A+” for his recent efforts to reduce the visa lottery.

But if the occasional piece of rhetoric about defending American workers was enough, then Jim Webb would be the leading presidential candidate for President. As with Webb, despite the occasional show of promise, Sanders is MIA when it comes to taking a principled stand against mass immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens—thus rendering the rest of his “pro-worker” platform irrelevant.

Thus when it comes to opposing immigration in general, Sanders receives a career “D” from Numbers USA. He also receives the lowest possible rating for consistently voting against any measures that would reduce illegal immigration at the border. He even voted against making English the official language of the United States in 2007 [ United States Senate Roll Call Vote 198 110th Congress, 1st Session , United States Senate, June 6, 2007].

In 2013, despite criticizing “a massive effort to attract cheap labor,” Sanders voted in support of the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge [ Senate roll vote for immigration bill , Fox News, June 27, 2013]. During the debate surrounding so-called comprehensive immigration reform, Sanders supported the DREAM act and a “pathway to citizenship” (aka Amnesty) for illegals.

Most importantly, despite his general critique of corporations’ Read more >>

What The Latest Round Of Commutations Tells Us About Obama’s Version Of “Justice”

See earlier by Thomas O. Meehan: Obama’s Clemency Initiative—Putting Black And Hispanic Drug Distributors Back On The Streets Just In Time For The Riots

President Obama is commuting the sentences of drug dealers again, calling it part of a criminal justice “reform” package he outlined in a speech before the NAACP’s national conference on July 14, 2015.[Text | Video ] He wants Americans to believe that he is righting historic wrongs, and he’s particularly concerned with what he believes are disproportionate sentences meted out to obama-signs-commutations[1]non-white drug dealers. Obama also frets about job prospects for the criminals he wants to liberate—it seems that racist white employers are loath to hire criminals. And he calls our incarceration rate “a source of inequity that has ripple effects on families and on communities and ultimately on our nation,” as if non-white criminals spring from intact families within functional communities that mesh seamlessly with the rest of our nation. [ President Obama for the prisoners , The Economist, July 16, 2015]. What are his true motives and mentality?

On July 15, the president commuted the sentences of 46 inmates. It’s no surprise, given the president’s preoccupation with his own race, that 78 percent of them are black. Surprisingly, only four percent are Hispanic. Even more surprising: Only three are women. Does Michelle know this?

Back on March 31, Obama commuted the sentences of twenty-two inmates. Seventy-two percent of these were black. And again, only four percent were Hispanic. Only one woman got lucky that time.

It seems that white drug pushers, unlike black drug pushers, deserved their long sentences. Their commutations never get above single digits.

A revealing stat in the commutation records: the mean age of the perps. Using Inmate Locater, I was able to find the age of each prisoner in the commutations and determine the mean of each group. For the first group, the mean was 47 years old. It’s 49 for the second. (See a similar analysis from the leftwing Clemency Report website: Mostly black, mostly crack, July 16, 2015)

The president would say these prisoners were released at this relatively advanced age because they had been in prison too long for justice’s sake. But as a former law enforcement official, I can offer a more pressing and honest reason: Middle-aged and older inmates have reached the point where they are less dangerous, while starting to exhibit expensive medical issues, issues the Bureau of Prisons would rather not deal with.

What I detect in all these commutations: cynical mummery. I have little doubt that Obama would like to Read more >>

A Guilty Elite: Immigration Beyond Economics Note: This was originally published in Chronicles Magazine, December 2014, (without links) and is used with permission.

America’s immigration enthusiasts, which is to say her entire ruling class, have such untrammeled access to the mainstream media that they are able to launch obviously absurd memes in shamelessly coordinated fashion. Thus, in the wake of the Republican triumph in the 2014 midterm elections—which of course had no effect on them at all; being an immigration enthusiast (to adapt the old movie Love Story) means never having to say you’re sorry— The New Republic ran “A Radical Solution to Global Income Inequality: Make the U.S. More Like Qatar” (November 6), by two University of Chicago academics, Eric A. Posner [Email him] and Glen Weyl. [Email him] They argued, seemingly with straight faces, that First World countries have a moral duty to admit Third World immigrants approaching levels seen in Persian Gulf states like Qatar (upward of 80 percent). (The illustration above is what they used for this vision of America.)

09-VIEW-master315[1] The New York Times then published “A Strategy for Rich Countries: Absorb More Immigrants” (November 8), by the George Mason University libertarian economist Tyler Cowen, [Email him] making an almost identical argument (with the carton at the right) this time because recent projections suggest that the global population may not, after all, be peaking out; and wealth needs to be shared.

(That bit about population not peaking out is really interesting. For years, immigration enthusiasts like the late Ben Wattenberg have been saying that immigration into the United States should not be cut because it would slow all by itself as global population peaked out. Now, the opposite condition is being claimed. Problems change, but the solution is always the same: more immigration!)

As a lifelong financial journalist and a battle-scarred veteran of the immigration wars, I know from bitter experience that, although everyone claims to be interested in what the dismal science has to say about immigration, actually they’re not interested in it at all. They really want to talk about, or more commonly emote about, race.

However, for the record: What Posner, Weyl, and Cowen are proposing is nuts. For more than 20 years, the consensus— the consensus—among labor economists has been that the immense inflow into the United States since immigration was reignited, after a 40-year lull, by Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 Immigration Act is of virtually no benefit, in aggregate, to native-born Americans. Immigration does increase output (GDP) in varying degrees. (In the case of unskilled immigrants, the increase is often minuscule.) But essentially all of that is captured by the immigrants themselves, through wages.

In other words, America is being transformed for nothing.

Immigration does affect native-born Americans economically, however,
More Articles...