Recent News

Grim times call for grim men

From my vantage point observing the sewer run of 2013 Amnesty War news, it has become clear that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has emerged as this year’s patriot champion.

Sessions is not only excellent on Amnesty itself, he is forceful and articulate in denouncing the stealth GOP Establishment agenda of accelerated legal immigration. How many other Republicans would dare say of the treasonous U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

The Chamber’s primary goal has never been to establish a lawful immigration system and secure our borders, but to get as much cheap labor as possible—regardless of how it impacts American workers, legal immigrants, and taxpayers in general.

Sen. Jeff Sessions slams immigration pact supported by GOP House majority leader, [by Neil Munro, The Daily Caller, February 22, 2013].

Of course it takes integrity to defy the Main Stream Media (MSM)/ Conservatism Inc. consensus—especially when the payoff for Treason is, as now, unprecedentedly large. (You there, Jim DeMint?

But what has really impressed me is the evidence that Sessions has the moral fiber to withstand the most extreme form of Reconquista mau-mauing face to face as vividly demonstrated in Latinos plead with Sen. Jeff Sessions asking him to help them and their families By Charles J. Dean, (email him) AL.com, February 20, 2013.

 leg·er·de·main

 [lej-er-duh-meyn]

noun 1. sleight of hand.

2. trickery; deception.

3. any artful trick.

Do you believe that American immigration policy should be decided by American citizens?

You do? You’re behind the times! In recent years, foreign governments have taken a strong interest in our immigration policies and are actively meddling in them. That’s particularly true now with the current debate over “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. amnesty.

Mexico is the main culprit, of course. See my recent article Mexican Foreign Ministry Meddling In Amnesty Debate—Where Is U.S. Government (And GOP)?

But Mexico is not the only case of Latino legerdemain—light-fingered Latin American countries attempting to steal America from under our noses.

For example, three Central American countries—Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras—have teamed up to push for amnesty for their illegal aliens on U.S. soil.  

Here at VDARE.COM we’ve been writing about foreign meddling for years. The Mainstream Media might catch up to us if it didn’t have another agenda. But we’re thankful for anything—this month The Hill ran a story headlined Foreign governments lobbying hard in favor of immigration reform (by Julian Pecquet, February 7 , 2013]:

Foreign governments are working hard to shape the debate on immigration reform as momentum for a comprehensive bill builds in Congress. While the issue routinely comes up in talks between foreign leaders and the executive branch, embassy officials are ramping up their outreach to Congress and the White House in order to take advantage of the best hope for reform in years. A number of countries with significant immigration ties to the United States—notably Mexico, Ireland and several Central American nations—have been making their concerns known while doing their best to avoid meddling in domestic affairs. 

The Hill article reported that Mexico’s new ambassador Eduardo Medina-Mora (see my article linked above) is already in the thick of it, having had “a number of meetings with the administration” on immigration; and that the Mexican ambassador “is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form.”

Of course, these foreign meddlers have allies in the U.S. Congress:

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a leader on immigration reform [with an F- grade from Numbers USA , see VDARE.COM file here], said he’d had “conversations

On January 7, four white women—Rebeika Powell and Kayetie Powell-Melchor; and Julie Jackson and Misty Nunley, pictured above —were slaughtered in a Tulsa apartment, allegedly by two black brothers, James and Cedric Poore, pictured below, who appeared in court today [Hearings Set For Brothers Charged In 4 Tulsa Deaths, by Russell Hulstine, NewsOn6.com February 22, 2013].

Needless to say, the national Main Stream Media (MSM) is refusing to report this story, just as it refused to report previous black-on-white Tulsa atrocities within the last two years: gentle young sweethearts Carissa Horton and Ethan Nichols; Dorothy and Bob Strait, who had been married for 60 years; and retiree William Zachary.

Local responses to the slaughter of the four white women were also bizarre in ways that have become banal in the age of racial socialism. Mayor Dewey Bartlett blamed “poverty” and “out-of-state apartment owners.”

Murder victims Carissa Horton, 18, and Ethan Nichols, 21.

Jerard Davis and Darren Price have been charged; each says the other pulled the trigger.

Tulsa murder victims Bob and Nancy Strait

Tyrone Woodfork, charged with the first-degree rape and murder of  Nancy Strait etc.; the authorities “disappeared” the murder of Bob Strait, who hung on for weeks before dying from a brutal beating, declaring it to be of natural causes

What’s going on here? I can’t improve on the description at the Facebook page “We Are All Chris Dorner,” set up to celebrate the black ex-LAPD spree killer: “Yes, this is war”. (Christopher Dorner Update: Social media support seen for ex-cop accused of killing spree, February 11, 2013)

Suits me. I consider myself a war correspondent. Since 1990, I’ve been covering America’s longest-running war: The race war that blacks have been waging on whites.

I know; I’m crazy. Paranoid. Delusional. Leftist whites—not to mention blacks—will respond, “There is no race war, except for the one whites are waging on blacks.” Neocons will say, “Race relations are better than ever, except for demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.”

But I have a peculiar habit. When someone tells me he’s going to kill me, I take him seriously.

In 1972, when I was 14, a black boy a year younger than me, John Henry Wright, declared:

“We gon’ kill all the white people.”

Even me?

“Even you, Stix.”

I was then the token white in a small black gang led by Alan “Pancho” Hankins, with John Henry Wright and Arthur Harris. Our main pastime was shoplifting. The other fellows would act as decoys in Waldbaum’s, leading store security astray, while I’d walk out with 20-pound turkeys and such.

Pancho was big on sadism—and masochism. One time he made me beat

Perhaps as a reaction to the morbidly obese statism of early 21^st-century U.S. federal governments, there is a modest upswell of interest in Calvin Coolidge, who of all presidents in the previous century was the most dogged and unwavering in pursuit of lower federal expenditures and debt.

Last week saw the publication of Amity Shlaes’ Coolidge, which I have just been reading. Next month comes Charles C. Johnson’s Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America's Most Underrated President, which I have not yet seen. The main subject of this column will be Ms. Shlaes’ book. (Full disclosure: I am the author of a novel Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream.)

Coolidge was Warren Harding’s Vice President. He succeeded to the presidency on Harding’s sudden death in August, 1923. Coolidge and his wife were vacationing at the time in the remote Vermont farming hamlet where he had been raised. The thirtieth president was sworn in by his father, a notary public, in Coolidge, Sr.’s living-room, by the light of a kerosene lamp—electricity had not yet reached the village.

Coolidge served out Harding’s term, then easily won a term of his own in a three-way contest elegantly described by Garland Tucker in his book The High Tide of American Conservatism. But, although successful and popular, Coolidge declined to run for a second full term in 1928, for reasons that remain opaque in spite of his having given over eight pages of his autobiography to “explaining” them.

Amity Shlaes’ book concentrates on Coolidge’s budgetary and fiscal policies, which were very astute, and delivered great prosperity and social peace. This all built on foundations laid by Harding, who had created a Budget Bureau (now the OMB) and settled the budget process in the form we still use today, more or less, via the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.

The first Director of the Budget Bureau was Charles G. Dawes, later Coolidge’s Vice President. Dawes—if you are conservative, prepare to swoon—created a Federal Liquidation Board: “an entity whose entire purpose [Ms. Shlaes tells us] was to shutter government and military offices.”

Be still, my heart!

Coolidge continued these policies of federal reduction to such a point that his success generated problems of its own. Just as the trick of being a medieval monarch

Not so long ago “STEM” was an obscure acronym. Today everyone in official Washington seems obsessed with the (alleged) shortage of American STEM—“science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”—workers, a shortage that, we are told, could destroy what is left of U.S. economic competitiveness.

That this problem exists is one of the few things Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on. A bipartisan consensus also extends to the remedy: more foreign workers. The STEM Act, proposed by congressional Republicans late last year, would have shifted visas currently allocated to the diversity lottery to a new class of green card for foreign students with degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math. In 2011, there were 286,066 foreign STEM students in the U.S.—83% of them from Asia. [As STEM Act Vote Nears, Some Experts Dispute High Tech Worker Shortage, By Soni Sangha, Fox News Latino, November 28, 2012]

The bill did not pass, but the President furthered the cause by ordering Homeland Security to allow STEM students to stay in the U.S. an additional 17 months. All this on top of Mr. Obama’s executive order, issued shortly before the election, forbidding DHS from deporting illegal aliens who came here as children.

There’s something wrong with this picture. When a commodity is in short supply, its price rises, thereby increasing supply, reducing demand, and eventually eliminating the shortage. We’ve see this in oil, where sharply higher prices triggered development of new U.S. fields, reduced consumption, and turned the U.S. from a net importer to one of the world’s largest oil exporters.

Workers with STEM degrees do earn more than those

It seems to generally agreed that if “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty does not go through by the summer, it will not go through at all--itself evidence of how politically precarious the thing is. Until then, the pressure will be intense and immigration patriots will need coolness under fire. Six points to remember:

1] We’ve been here before—several times

And by “here” I mean not just the current offensive, but the Main Stream Media ululations, the blizzard of baloney about bipartisan breakthroughs and Things Being Different This Time, the authoritative assertions of inevitability etc. etc.

Thus one of the very earliest articles VDARE.com carried (August 14, 2001!!!!) was No Surrender, No Compromise, Only Victory! by Steve Sailer about George W. Bush’s initial, long-forgotten amnesty drive. Contrary to the then-conventional wisdom (same as the now-conventional wisdom), Steve boldly predicted the drive would fail. And it did, being finally finished off by 9/11. He quoted blogger Mickey Kaus:

The enthusiasm for amnesty (except as a business-class plot to attract more illegals and hold down wages, or a crass Rovian "compassion" bank shot aimed at prosperous suburban women) baffles me. It's dumb policy. It hurts low-wage American workers. Even from Bush's crude political point of view, it's semi-deluded…Even if the program is wildly successful at attracting the new citizens to the GOP —and say, 40 percent of them become Republicans—that still means Bush has created three new Democrats for every two new members of his party...Why can't it be stopped? Like Nixon's unexpectedly liberal "guaranteed income" plan, it intrigues the media elite but is likely to enrage a majority of voters…It creates a huge political opening for the candidate willing to say "no"—as Ronald Reagan said "no" to Nixon's welfare plan.

(My emphasis). Kaus could have said exactly the same thing in 2013.

Oh, wait, he has.

See also 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and during the Obama/Romney debates of 2012.

2] This Amnesty Offensive would still have been launched if Mitt Romney had been elected

The MSM/ Democratic narrative (n.b. really the same thing) has hapless GOP nominee Romney cast as an immigration hawk. But the truth is that he was always an Immigration Wimp, especially after the primaries. And in the October 16 Hofstra University debate he explicitly said of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. amnesty:

I’ll get it done. I’ll get it done. First year...

Apparently no-one except VDARE.com picked this up—it didn’t fit the MSM/ Democratic narrative; and for the GOP faithful, as also with George W. Bush’s literally incredible espousal of massive immigration increases in early 2004, it simply Did Not Compute.

In addition, Romney was fundamentally a coward. It is inconceivable that he would have stood up to the monolithic Establishment enthusiasm.

Quite obviously, the Treason Lobby was all ready to go with this Amnesty drive.

Of course, if Romney had been elected, the rationale would have been different. Had he done (relatively) well with Hispanics, it would have been that he had to capitalize on this “breakthrough” cf. Dubya after 2004. (Nixon goes to China!!)

Had he done poorly, it would have been that he needed to Do Something!!—while he still had time!!!

But, after more than twenty years in the immigration debate, I can say with confidence: whatever the problem, the immigration enthusiasts’ answer is always: more immigration!

The only difference: a Romney White House would have been able to count on even more support from brain-dead loyalist Republicans.

In that sense, immigration patriots would have been even worse off had he won.

3] No matter what you hear, this Amnesty Offensive may well fail—again

Perhaps surprisingly to readers dependent on the MSM, immigration patriots inside the Beltway (there are some) remain quietly confident that Amnesty can be stopped—again.

This will be a stunning shock to the MSM. As far as I know only Howard Kurtz has shown any premonition of an upset:

The mainstream media—you know who you are—are rooting for immigration reform….

But is that enthusiasm causing media organizations to overestimate the prospects for reform?

Be a little skeptical on immigration reform, CNN, January 31, 2013

But it has happened before. (See above).

4] In fact, the whole thing may be a charade

There is a Secret History to American politics. Thus the 2012 Romney campaign was not really about electing a president, but, in the words of RedState’s Ben Howe, “a consultant con job” focused

[VDARE.com note: Adapted from Steve Sailer’s presentation to VDARE.com’s first-ever Webinar, January 19, 2013. For other presentations, see here and here. Recordings will be available in a few days—or information when available, email office@vdare.com with “Webinar recording” in subject line]

Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address the first VDARE.com webinar. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.

I’m going to focus on voting by state because that is how Electoral College Votes are counted. For the GOP (or a GAP, “Generic American Party”) to ever take back the White House, it will have to figure out how to win more states.

I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about, the American Mosaic Poll. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.

Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.

For example, the Edison exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states—including Texas. But if you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas.

In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.

Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.

Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the two-party vote by race in each of the 50 states.

Note carefully: in the interest of simplicity, all the percentages here and in the rest of this article are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Third Parties—Libertarians, the Constitution Party, write-ins, and so forth. I used this approach in my post-election articles on the Marriage Gap (here and here) and on Romney’s fatal failure among Rust Belt whites.

I apologize for ignoring non-major party voters—I saw recently that Tom Wolfe reportedly wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012! But this expedient allows us to focus on just one issue: Romney’s share vs. Obama’s share. (If you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100).

In 2012, about 1.7 percent of the actual national Presidential vote went Third Party—about one percent for the Libertarian Party alone. This Third Party vote appears to have been heavily white. As a result, Romney’s actual white share is generally about a percentage point lower than I report it here. (I will post in a separate article a table reporting Romney’s actual white share, along with my reflections on the Third Party impact, shortly).

The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent of the two-party vote to Obama’s 52.0 percent.

(After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it

Sam Francis died eight years ago today (February 15). To a significant extent, the Conservatism Inc. parasite that captured the movement to which he gave his life depends on a diluted version of his work--while struggling to prevent the emergence of another Sam Francis.

Until he was purged, Francis’ career could be regarded as a successful model for young Beltway conservatives. He worked as a faithful Cold Warrior and analyst at the Heritage Foundation (where he authored The Soviet Strategy of Terror ), did his time on Capitol Hill with Senator John East, and received awards for his commentary at the Washington Times—the newspaper to which Reagan gave partial credit for winning the Cold War,. Francis was not a marginal figure throwing bombs from the outside, but a product of the late, great Conservative Movement™ at the height of its power.

Francis frankly acknowledged his intellectual debt to his conservative predecessors, especially James Burnham of National Review. From Burnham, Francis took the concept of the “New Class”—the apparatchiks who actually run the managerial state. The “New Class” has an institutional hostility to traditional familial and patriotic loyalties, seeming them as a barrier to their totalitarian control of economics, culture, and government. Burnham's used this analytical framework to study Cold War geopolitics. Francis applied it to something ultimately more important—the Death of the West.

The thought of Sam Francis can be summarized in three words—“who not what.” The New Class is pushing through a cultural, economic and governmental program that dispossesses the historic American nation. In theory, this should lead to a purely rationalistic and materialistic order where Americans become disposable cogs in the global economy. In practice, because race at the least “carries and parallels culture”  if it doesn't actually determine it, America as a meaningful national entity is being displaced and replaced by a distinctly alien order, gradually stripping white Americans of cultural, economic, and governmental power.

Whether the emerging non-white America will be in fact more amendable to technocratic rule, or whether short-sighted corporate elites are selling the rope that will be used to hang them, is a separate (and very interesting) question.

In Francis's view, Americans who want to keep their country must be

willing to challenge and derail the ruling class that gains money and power from the mass immigration it has permitted. It is doubtful that working through either of the two major political parties today can accomplish that, and Americans who seek to preserve their nation from the destruction that immigration brings will have to start