Recent News

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 seemingly 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

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 VDARE.com 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 VDARE.com 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

The “NAACP Bombing” … or The Barbershop Bang?

COLORADO SPRINGS—From the liberal media’s coverage of my beautiful adopted […]

Memo From Middle America | Mexico Is “Helping” Us With Amnesty (But There Could Be A Silver Lining, If We Take Advantage Of It!)

If you insist on watching the State of the Union, here it is.

The Obama Administration is vowing defiance against the new Republican Congress (the White House website promises more of the same in tonight’s SOTU—Obama has invited an actual illegal to be present) but it has no problem working directly with the Mexican government to implement its unilateral Amnesty/Immigration Surge. Mexico’s support isn’t limited to just words—it’s actually providing documentation to allow Mexican illegals to remain north of the border. And nobody in our government—in either party—seems to care about this.

It’s not like the Mexican government is bothering to conceal its intentions. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto recently met with President Obama at the White House. Incredibly, Peña Nieto offered to help his fellow leader implement what he termed Obama’s “very intelligent and audacious policy.”

Mexico’s president told President Obama Tuesday that his government will supply the documents necessary for millions of illegal Mexican immigrants to prove they’ve been living in the U.S. prior to 2010, a move that will help them qualify for Mr. Obama’s recently announced deportation amnesty.

[Mexican president offers Obama help with amnesty documents, by Dave Boyer, Washington Times, January 6, 2015]

Of course, how can Mexican documents prove residence in the United States? And how come Nieto sees his government’s role as “[ensuring] that Mexicans who want to stay in the U.S. can do so”?

Mexican meddling in ostensibly American immigration policies has been a regular occurrence for years, but even though Congressmen and Senators will drone on about all sorts of marginal issues, none of them (including Republicans) seem terribly interested in it.

It’s not just at the federal level. Mexico is also heavily involved in the state of California’s effort to provide driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles

If The GOP Leadership  Believes Obama’s Amnesty Is Unconstitutional, Why Can’t They Even CONSIDER Impeaching Him?

obamaproclaimingamnesty

Obama Announcing His Unconstitutional Amnesty

The GOP House Leadership finally passed some immigration legislation that would be useful if it were actually designed to be implemented. Unfortunately, it’s simply a show for the rubes—the party Establishment has no intention of serious opposition to President Obama’s unilateral Amnesty/Immigration Surge.

But they have set themselves a trap by inadvertently exposing just how radical and unconstitutional Obama’s actions really are. And as the President moves to retake control of the legislative agenda with the upcoming State of the Union address, the GOP is going to have to give their voters something other than empty rhetoric if they want to have a chance in 2016.

The House voted to block funding for Obama’s unilateral amnesty and, in a narrow 218-209 vote, passed a repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) law that enabled Obama’s staged “Central American refugee crisis” [House passes bill to defund Obama’s immigration orders, by Rebecca Shabad and Cristina Marcos, The Hill, January 14, 2015] The Main Stream Media, (what the German protesters of Pegida have taken to calling the Lügenpresse, or “lying press”) immediately collapsed into effeminate hysteria, charging that the Republicans were just nasty bigots:

The problem with House Speaker John Boehner and his cohorts is more than political, it is moral: these are not good people. For them, when it comes to immigration, hate always comes first.

[The House vote to overturn President Obama’s immigration actions can hurt immigrants’ vital role on ‘Main Street,’ by Albor Ruz, New York Daily News. January 18, 2015]

Perhaps to preempt such nebulous charges of “hate,” Speaker John Boehner delivered an uncharacteristically powerful and widely-circulated speech which charged the President had, “on at least 22 occasions… said he does not have the authority to do what he did.” Boehner thundered that President Obama’s unilateral Amnesty/Immigration Surge was “an executive overreach…an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself” [‘Enough is enough!’: Boehner fills House chamber with high drama as he lashes out against Obama in high-stakes immigration battle—and throws his own words back in his face, by David Martosko, Daily Mail, January 14, 2015]

Following this logic, the Republican reaction isn’t so much about immigration policy, but about the Executive branch knowingly usurping the power of the Legislature, thus violating the Constitution.

Of course, the inevitable question that follows such a tirade is "And what are you going to do about it?" The answer seems to be "Not much."

In the Senate for example, recently re-elected