Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
VDARE.com note: Just over a year ago, National Review fired their most brilliant writer, John Derbyshire—then in the midst of chemotherapy!—over an article he wrote for another webzine flowing out of the Trayvon Martin scam, then being ramped up in the Main Stream Media as part of the Obama re-election campaign. Every last word in Derbyshire’s article was defensible on the basis of truth and National Review’s capitulation was simply an aspect of the Conservative Establishment’s wider capitulation to the Left’s ideological hegemony that, among other things, meant that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 Presidential election because he was too cowardly to mobilize the white (formerly known as American) vote.
We were proud to offer John Derbyshire another home and we are delighted to publish From The Dissident Right, our collection of his columns. As he said gratefully in his first post-firing column for us, he was enormously buoyed up by “the kindness of strangers”—the individual Americans who spontaneously gave money to support him because they applaud his courage in defense of then and their posterity. Similarly, we support John Derbyshire’s writings through our earmarked John Derbyshire Fund (it’s tax-deductible).
Please consider an anniversary donation—and buy his book!
I have a new book out this week, title: From the Dissident Right. You can buy it on Kindle right now;it will be available in paperback shortly (if you’d like to be notified when, email here). is available here
Publishing a book is an act of such antisocial conceit (“this epidemical conspiracy for the destruction of paper”—Dr. Samuel Johnson), it calls for an explanation. Here’s mine.
I have been posting columns on VDARE.com since mid-2000, but with a four-year hiatus from 2008 to 2012. Let me explain the hiatus.
In February of 2008 William F. Buckley, Jr. died. Peter Brimelow posted some unflattering remarks (positively understated—PB) about his former boss at VDARE.com. Peter does not hold the admonition de mortuis nil nisi bonum in very reverent esteem; but then, as he pointed out, neither did Buckley. Unreceptive to this defense, the editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, [Email him] banned his contributors from associating in any way with VDARE.com.
I had been contributing to National Review since 1998, so I came under the ban, and crossed VDARE.com off my list of outlets. I was, and have always been, a freelancer. Juggling one’s outlets like this is part of the lifestyle.
Hence the beginning of that hiatus.
Four years later, on April 5, 2012, I published a column titled The Talk: Nonblack Version (hereinunder “The Talk”) in a different outlet, Taki’s Magazine. That column, as I explain in the introduction to From the Dissident Right,
while repeatedly stressing openness to the individual personality, points out negative—true, but negative—group characteristics of American blacks, without placing the blame for those negative characteristics on past or present malice by whites. That brings it within the scope of “racism” as currently understood in the U.S.A.
National Review—which, as one of the editors told me once, “doesn’t do race”—took exception to “The Talk.” They called it “nasty.” This time they crossed me off their contributor list. I tell you, it’s swings and roundabouts out here in Freelance Land.
(A few days later they dropped my friend Bob Weissberg from their list because of a speech Bob gave at the 2012 American Renaissance conference. They called Bob’s speech “noxious,” although at the time they did so the speech had not been reproduced in any form and National Review’s only source of information about it was an old Stalinist warhorse named Leonard Zeskind, whom, to the magazine’s everlasting shame, they thanked. Since these events Bob and I hail each other when meeting with: “Good evening, Mr. Noxious!” “Ah, hello there, Mr. Nasty!” Bob has mused that if vaudeville had not died, we could go on the road as a double act: Noxious and Nasty.)
Following my defenestration by National Review Peter Brimelow,
Adelson's Israel HaYom Downplays Stunning Success Of Sinai Fence: Inconvenient For Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Marketing Campaign?
Israel's Egyptian border fence. NB armed IDF man.
Yesterday Israel HaYom, the free Israeli newspaper with which owner Sheldon Adelson is distorting the Israeli media market as much as he is the operations of the GOP, came out with a peculiar headline: Infiltrators sneak into Israel despite completion of security fence by Lilach Shoval April 28 2013. This announces-
For the first time since the recent construction of the security fence along Israel's border with Egypt, four African infiltrators and five other individuals managed to breach the barrier and enter Israel during April
but also reports
The African infiltrators, who scaled the 5-meter (16-foot) fence to enter Israel illegally, were apprehended by Israel Defense Forces patrols in the area and transferred to the Saharonim detention center near the border, where by law they will be held for at least three years
(My emphasis. No ‘Catch and Release’ for Israel!).
The IDF response was
This was the weekend of the NFL Draft, a media spectacle featuring the 32 franchises supposedly scrambling to pick the best college football athletes in the country. This year, the Draft was expected to be watched by some 50 million people. [NFL Turns Its 6-Month Season Into a 12-Month Business, CNBC, April 26, 2013]
The NFL isn't just a sports-entertainment empire that generates many billions of profit per year. It's also a wonderful distraction—an opiate for the masses, if you will—from such frivolous news as the Gang of Eight’s desire to turn all of America into California.
But it's more than that. It's another battlefield in America's long war against her own people.
In the NFL, there is no such thing as “white privilege”. There’s systematic anti-white bias, as I’ve documented here.
- The Super Bowl, The Rooney Rule, And The Spread Of Anti-White Quotas In Obama’s America, February 13, 2013
- Superbowl 2012: NE Patriots vs. NY Giants—And Anti-White Stereotypes, February 5, 2012
- Tim Tebow: Bucking The NFL’s Anti-White Bias, October 22, 2011
The NFL's studied indifference to its lack of white players contrasts
My friend follows a Catholic webzine called Crisis. It bills itself as “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity” and focuses on social and moral issues and specifically Catholic matters about doctrine and what kind of padre the new Pope really is. It doesn’t look like immigration is a prominent concern, although the tone is pretty conservative overall.
On April 25th my friend got his daily e-mail about what was new on Crisis that day. It included this:
Apr 25, 2013 04:10 am | George Neumayr
The proper configurations of immigration law is clearly a matter on which Catholics can disagree. But one would never know that from the recent pronouncements of the U.S. bishops. What they call on their web page the "Catholic Church's position...
That got my friend’s attention: was Crisis publishing an article openly critical of the Catholic bishops’ slavish support for the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge? Good stuff! But when he followed the link from the e-mail, it was a dead end. The title of Neumayr’s article was there, along with a message saying “that content does not exist on Crisis.” [VDARE.com note: For now, it exists in Google’s cache. UPDATE: Posted by a bloggger here.]
My friend didn’t know what to make of that. Being eager to read what Neumayr had to say, he sent an e-mail to the editor asking for help to find the article:
I was looking forward to reading George Neumayr's Bishops Take Clericalist Stance on Illegal Immigration when I got this message. Unfortunately, following the link takes me to a page that says that content does not exist on Crisis. Help!
He couldn’t help but wonder if someone hadn’t censored Neumayr’s article.
And that’s exactly what had happened. My friend received this polite reply from Crisis’s editor:
The powers that be pulled the article. It was thought to lack sufficient regard for the complexity of the issue and thus might cause offense in some quarters. Sorry for disappointing you. We will try to address the topic again but in a more acceptable manner.
That made my friend pretty angry, he says. Not at Editor Vella, [Email him] but at the shadowy “powers that be” who decided George Neumayr’s take on the bishops and immigration was unfit for Crisis. The teaser he had read did not look inflammatory at all, or even insulting to the bishops. So he wrote back
I'm very sorry to hear that George Neumayr's article for Crisis about our bishops and their illegal-alien advocacy was pulled.
I really was looking forward to Mr. Neumayr's analysis of why U.S. Catholic bishops seem so Hell-bent (this faithful Catholic chooses the expression deliberately) to flood the United States with all-too-often incompatible foreign nationals, including those who have already entered the country illegally or remained illegally, and to have them all whose numbers we cannot remotely begin to estimate—granted U.S. citizenship as quickly as possible. I won't delve into analysis of who benefits from such nation-destroying folly except to note that it is not ordinary Americans, Catholic or otherwise. Good shepherds do not betray their flocks by agitating for their displacement in their own pastures, and I know of nothing in Christian tradition or Magisterial teaching that justifies U.S. bishops' strident support for effectively unlimited mass immigration. On the contrary, their advocacy of such an unquantifiable transformation is irresponsible imprudence.
If U.S. Catholic bishops should want a primer in intelligent immigration law—which I rather doubt—they would with great profit study the immigration laws of Mexico. Those are laws written in Mexicans' national interest, and the Mexican government actually enforces them.
Given their reprehensible collective weakness in addressing
Drudge: "MSM blockade-breaking is why readers come to my site"
Increasingly it looks as if the good Drudge news is real – this immensely popular site (“Visits To Drudge…1,029,617,707 visits Past 31 Days”) seems to have shifted to running informative and provocative Amnesty stories once again.
As I write there are 4 up:
- REPORT: Immigration bill to bring in at least 33 million people...
which links to Immigration bill to bring in at least 33 million people, says group by Neil Munro The Daily Caller 04/26/2013
The pending Senate immigration bill would bring a minimum of 33 million people into the country during its first decade of operation, according to an analysis by NumbersUSA…By 2024, the inflow would include an estimated 9.2 million illegal immigrants, plus 2.5 million illegals who arrived as children — dubbed ‘Dreamers’ — plus roughly 3.4 million company-sponsored employees with university degrees, said the unreleased analysis
- Loopholes create fast-track...
which links to
Memo From Middle America | Mexican Meddlers Conspiring With Obama Regime To Impose Amnesty—Regardless Of Congressional Approval
The Boston Bombing and its aftermath has (quite rightly) dominated the news, but during the same time period the Main Stream Media has paid disgracefully little attention to the Washington D.C. visits of top Mexican officials and the signing of a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Obama Regime.
Get ready for more of this—President Obama is scheduled to visit Mexico on May 2nd and 3rd.
The visits are yet a further example of Mexico’s meddling in American internal affairs—see Why Do We Put Up With This? Mexico’s New President Enrique Pena Nieto Openly Plans To Meddle In U.S. and Mexican Foreign Ministry Meddling In Amnesty Debate—Where Is U.S. Government (And GOP)?) The Mexican meddlers are colluding with the Obama Regime to facilitate the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill that the Treason Lobby wants to ram through Congress.
Further, their visits, and their attendant Memorandum of Understanding, also give us an idea of what the Obama Administration will do it if it fails to obtain an amnesty through the legislative route.
According to the website of the Mexican Foreign Ministry (Secretaría De Relaciones Exteriores, or SRE)”
…Meade and Kerry endorsed the commitment of both governments to cooperation…in the many issues that comprise the ample bilateral agenda. They agreed on the importance of taking full advantage of the links between the societies, the complementarities of the economies, and the political points of agreement between the governments.
El Canciller Meade realiza visita de trabajo a Washington, Estados Unidos, SRE, Comunicado 122, April 19, 2013. (AW translation and emphasis)
That’s bland diplomat-speak, but you can assume that
- ”complementarities of the economies” is used to justify mass one-way immigration from Mexico to the U.S., and
- Our two governments do agree on having a porous border between our two countries.
The Mexican Foreign Minister also
referred to the benefits for both societies of the adoption of laws and public policies that reinforce North America as a competitive and innovative region.
This sounds suspiciously like the North American Union stuff, or something similar.
Of course, immigration had to be brought up:
“….Meade again recognized the support that President Barack Obama has given to the process of migratory reform in his country [the U.S.]. He [Meade] stated that the government of Mexico will promptly accompany, within its scope of action, the debate that takes place within the American political system.”
This expression “promptly accompany” sounds awkward,
Amnesty comes first as tragedy, then as farce. The arguments and even some of the characters from the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) are the same as today. What has changed is the complete inability for any fair-minded person to take them in good faith.
As Grover Norquist is fond of reminding us, it was Ronald Reagan himself who signed the disastrous 1986 Amnesty. Of course, that Amnesty ensured that the state which made Reagan governor may well never vote Republican again. Furthermore, if the historic American nation is ultimately dispossessed, Reagan's triumph in the Cold War will have proven a Pyrrhic victory.
The same cannot be said of some of the other key players from 1986 who are active today—especially Senator Chuck Schumer
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio seems well meaning enough. As second-generation conservative Americans, I know we both share a common passion for this great land of opportunity. But when it comes to comprehending the real agenda of the open-borders zealots he's allied himself with, Rubio doesn't have a clue.
And his abject ignorance threatens all of us who cherish American sovereignty and exceptionalism.
On Fox News' "The Sean Hannity Show" Tuesday night, Rubio defended his Gang of Eight "immigration reform" bill and insisted that we could and should have a system in place that vets foreign tourists and short-term visa holders based on their "national security" profiles.
"In essence, we should be able to analyze (whether) these are individuals coming from a part of the world that keeps feeding into the terrorist network," Rubio earnestly explained. "(W)e should be very careful about who we allow in and take into account every single measure or every single factor that we think could lead to somebody being more likely possibly a member of a terrorist organization or involved in terror."[Transcript ]
Great idea, Rubio! Newsflash: The concept of a national security entry-exit screening database is at least 10 years old. It's an idea that was sabotaged by the progressive soft-on-security ideologues with whom Rubio has recklessly partnered.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created NSEERS, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Administered and championed by Justice Department constitutional lawyer, immigration enforcement expert and now-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, NSEERS stopped at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at certain official ports of entry.
NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia
[See also "The Alien In Hokie Nation"—Buchanan On The Dark Side of Diversity, about an earlier Immigrant Mass Murder at Virginia Tech.]
Yet, some assertions appear true.
Islam is growing in militancy and intolerance, evolving again into a fighting faith, and spreading not only through proselytizing, but violence.
How to justify the charge of intolerance?
The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. The Sufi shrines of Timbuktu were blown up by Ansar Dine. In Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan, Christian converts face the death sentence.
In Nigeria, the Boko Haram attacks churches and kills Christians, as in Ethiopia and the Sudan, where the south seceded over the persecution.
Egyptian Copts are under siege. Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq have seen churches pillaged, priests murdered. In Indonesia, churches are being shut on the demand of Islamists. Sharia law is being demanded by militants across the Middle East, as Christianity is exterminated in its cradle.
Has Islam become again a fighting faith?
Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia are the sites of Islamist uprisings using terror to rip these statelets from Russia. Muslim Uighurs are fighting to tear off a chunk of China and create an East Turkestan. Muslim Malays in south Thailand have fought a decade-long war of secession. Albania has acquired two sister Muslim states in Europe, Bosnia and Kosovo, both born in blood.
At the time of 9/11, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Al-Qaida may now be found in t
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Washington to be born?
(Apologies to the shade of W.B. Yeats.)
What rough beast? Why, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, Immigration Modernization, and World Peace For Ever Act. (I may have embroidered slightly there. Polemic license.)
Rough it certainly is, and its defenders have had to take extra chutzpa pills to keep their composure while they serve up bare-faced lies on nationwide TV.
Thus Janet Napolitano, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday on national security:
One of the real significant improvements made by this bill is to bring people out of the shadows. We know who they are. We know where they are.
“We know where you live,” was the traditional snarl of sectarian leg-breakers to potential victims in the Northern Ireland slums. Now that the Troubles over there have wound down, perhaps we could hire some of those guys in as consultants to the DHS, which is obviously in need of help in the know-where-they-are zone.
Under existing law, if you're illegally here, you can get a green card. It says you have to go back to your country of birth, you wait 10 years, and then you apply for the green card. All we're saying is, if you decide you wanted to stay here, you'll have to wait for more than 10 years...So I would argue that the existing law is actually more lenient, that going back and waiting 10 years is going to be cheaper and faster than going through this process that we are outlining.
So we’re discussing a law that makes it harder than it currently is for illegal aliens to get green cards? So what’s in it for illegals and those seeking to keep them in the U.S.A.?
Registered Provisional Immigrant Status, that’s what. As Mark Krikorian testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday:
RPI status brings with it work authorization, a legitimate Social Security account, driver’s
The Boston Bombing is Just One of Millions of Reasons Why Another Mass Amnesty of Illegal Alien Invaders is Insane
If the Boston Marathon Massacre had never been committed, but instead someone had written a screenplay depicting such an attack, it would have been a black comedy featuring Keystone Kops and crazy Chechens. But it’s not a comedy. Four people are dead and over 170 wounded, many of them maimed for life, who should never have been harmed—because the attackers had no business being in our country.
Many of America’s problems today are best understood by contrasting Enoch Powell’s famous dictum
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils”
with the practices favored by our “statesmen.”
Since 1965, our rulers have enthusiastically supported calamitous immigration policies, and have always lied about the rationale and the foreseeable consequences.
Now, as the Gang of Eight seeks to hammer the last nail in America’s coffin with their new democidal Amnesty/ Immigration Surge scheme, they are channeling the spirit of communist playwright Lillian Hellman, about whom Mary McCarthy quipped, every word she wrote was a lie, “including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”
They tell us that there are 11 million invaders who would benefit. But the numbers, as in 1986, will certainly be higher—guesses range up to 24 million (pdf) and even 40 million, plus an ultimate additional 120 million to 200 million through the unfixed “family reunification” feature that has been in the law since the catastrophic 1965 Act.
They tell us that they will collect fines and back taxes from the Amnestied invaders; that the Amnesty will be hard and demanding; that “triggers” must be hit, before the amnesty will be completed; that a “commission” of border state governors would have the legal power to halt any amnesty, based on the lack of fulfillment of various requirements.
We cannot trust the leaders of our two-party bipartisan duopoly on anything—let alone this nation-breaking legislation.
It has been estimated that it would cost $2,000 per background check of each criminal candidate for amnesty—that would mean as much as $80 billion for the initial “immigrants,” plus another $400 billion for their “relatives.”
We all know Obama will do no such thing. Heck, even the beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty were never vetted. Obama is already keeping some violent illegal alien felons out of jail, while freeing others. He loves non-white criminals.
Thus Boston is devastating to the Gang of Eight’s irresponsible Amnesty proposal. But it is even more devastating to legal immigration, which the Gang wants to increase massively. Above all, it is devastating to the refugee and amnesty programs.
As VDARE.com’s Thomas Allen and Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran have documented for years, the refugee program—in which foreigners are accepted for admission here while they are still overseas—is a racket, with which private agencies profit off of the American taxpayer by bringing in grifters who are almost never victims of persecution.
Then there are the Somali Jihadis, who play persecuted, game us for refugee status, and then return to Somalia to wage Holy War.
Then there are all of the “refugees” who claimed to be relatives of “refugees” already here. DNA screening proved that the second group of grifters had no relation to the first group.
But let’s say you were able to find the proverbial honest refugee. These people are the most primitive cusses on the face of the earth. They don’t understand the concept of a doorknob. They cook by setting the kitchen floor on fire. And they immediately form gangs, and prey on the civilized, white Americans in the formerly beautiful cities they get placed in and destroy—e.g., the Somalis and Hmong who have stolen public parks from the Americans of the Twin Cities. No sane government would accept them. They constitute one endless Mariel boatlift.
And then there is the Asylum scam—people who arrive in the U.S. as visitors and then demand to stay.
Perhaps the most famous asylum scammer: African Moslem Nafissatou Diallo, who gave an Academy Award-worthy performance as she recounted to American authorities the gang-rape she never endured back in Guinea. Diallo was subsequently involved in money-laundering, and last December she shook down French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn for millions of dollars, after having unsuccessfully sought to have him falsely imprisoned for yet another “rape.”
Who said crime doesn’t pay?
Miss Diallo has never been punished, let alone deported.
The Boston Bombers’ family, the Tsarnaevs, were also asylees. Asylum from what? These are not the kind of people who flee terror; they are the kind whom others flee!
They’re from Chechnya, an area whose people are in competition with the Afghanis and Somalis—just coincidentally, all Moslems—for the title of most warlike people on the face of the earth.
When the terrorists’ uncle Ruslan said that “Chechens are peaceful people,” and that
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon killing spree by foreign-born jihadists, see-no-evil bureaucrats in Washington are stubbornly defending America's lax asylum policies. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Tuesday that the screening process is rigorous, effective and extensive.
These people can't handle the truth. Or tell it.
The Tsarnaev brothers reportedly were granted asylum by "derivative" status through their parents. After entering on short-term tourist visas, the mother and father (an ethnic Chechen Muslim) won asylum and acquired U.S. citizenship. Next, younger son Dzhokhar obtained U.S. citizenship. Older son Tamerlan, whose naturalization application was pending, traveled freely between the U.S. and the jihad recruitment zone of Dagestan, Russia, last year before the bombers' gunfight in Watertown, Mass., last week left the Muslim terrorist dead.
Though they had convinced the U.S. that they faced deadly persecution, the Tsarnaevs' parents both returned to their native land and were there when their sons launched last week's terror rampage. Authorities will not reveal any details of the sob stories the Tsarnaevs originally spun to win asylum benefits for the entire family.
The whole thing stinks. And it's an old, familiar stench. Immigration lawyers have been working the system on behalf of asylum con artists for decades. The racketeers coach applicants with phony stories and documents from "chop shops" and game their way through "refugee roulette."
Asylum and refugee claimants are being rubber-stamped at all-time-high rates. Government data analyzed by the nonpartisan TRAC website show that "the odds of an asylum claim being denied in Immigration Court reached an historic low in FY 2012, with only 44.5 percent being turned down. Ten years ago, almost two out of three (62.6 percent) individuals seeking asylum lost their cases in similar actions. Twenty years ago, fewer than one out of four (24 percent) asylum applicants won their cases, while three out of four (76 percent) lost."
Soft-on-enforcement lobbying groups argue that it's better to err on the side of allowing bogus asylum-seekers and refugees to stay than to get serious about cracking down on fraud and send undeserving foreigners home. It's not "practical" or worth it, they say.
But what about the "if it saves just one life" standard set by President Obama? Why does it only apply to gun control? Why won't Washington err on the side of public safety by reexamining and overhauling our fraud-riddled asylum, detention, deportation and visa issuance policies after the Boston jihad?
In case you'd forgotten, the Tsarnaevs were not the first murder-minded jihadists to benefit from ineffective policing of our asylum and refugee policies. As I've reported previously:
- Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City's JFK airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." Yousef was released for lack of detention space and headed to Jersey City to plot the deadly 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
- Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996-97. He claimed political asylum based on phony persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien and then skipped his asylum hearing. In June 1997, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave on a "voluntary departure order." Mezer ignored him. He joined the New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off local police.
- Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., also exploited our insane asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who had participated in anti-American protests abroad, Kansi received a business visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he obtained a driver's license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents and wounded three others.
- Somali national Nuradin Abdi, the al-Qaida
Such is their total control of public debate that, before the perps turned out to be two Chechen Muslim immigrants, Salon’s David Sirota notoriously felt free to panic Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American (April 16, 2013).
In the wake of the unfortunate truth unfortunately emerging, desperate Treason Lobbyists are experimenting with
- anathematizing any mention of Boston—e.g. Senator Patrick Leahy’s bullying opening statement at the April 22 hearing, exactly like the current Orwellian attempt to anathematize “illegal immigrant;”
- the Big Lie—as RedState.com’s brilliant Daniel Horowitz put it
When it comes to the Gang of 8 immigration deform bill, night is day and up is down. The latest iteration of preposterous declarations comes from John McCain and Lindsey Graham in response to the Boston bombing and its implications for open borders. They had the unbridled impertinence to suggest that their bill, which will bring in millions of more temporary and permanent immigrants from all over the world in addition to granting citizenship to 11 million illegals, “will strengthen our nation’s security.”
[Immigration Deform Bill is a National Security Risk, April 21, 2013. Emphasis in original]
At VDARE.com, we view all this with icy detachment. We were scientifically interested, of course, to see if this was yet another example of something we uniquely report: Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome—37 cases, 337 dead, when we counted a couple of years ago; there have been more since them. (The first sign that it probably was: when the Main Stream Media began to report the color, not of the suspects, but of their hats. You get good at this kind of thing).
But we knew from long and bitter experience that only three outcomes were possible:
- The perp would be a white American, in which case there would be an attempt to lynch conservatives/ Republicans/ anyone associated with the historic American nation.
(The only palliating factor here: repeated recent MSM embarrassments like the wholly false allegations that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance was implicated in the 2011 Arizona/ Gabrielle Giffords shooting or that the Aurora CO “Dark Knight” killer was a member of the Tea Party.)
- The perp would be a minority American, in which case there would be a search for “root causes,” which might very well turn out to be “white racism.”
- The perp would turn out to be an immigrant, in which case there would be warnings about “rushing to judgment” and “backlash” and the story would be stuffed down the Memory Hole.
I have intense personal experience of this process. In April 1995, I was being interviewed in the Bloomberg studios on the first day of the publicity tour for my notorious book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster when news of the Oklahoma City bombing began to flare across the TV monitors.
For a couple of days thereafter, the fear in the eyes of my immigration enthusiast debating opponents was stark. They already knew, after their disastrous defeat in California's Proposition 187 the previous year, that their position had no support whatever in the country at large. Now they were afraid that a popular backlash would rout their elite enforcers.
In the event, of course, the government arrested a native-born American, Tim McVeigh. The elite enforcers proclaimed that white militias and "hate radio" talkshow hosts were to blame. (Indeed, this was the beginning of the Left’s counter-attack after the Democrats’ shocking loss of Congress in 1994 that saw Clinton unexpectedly re-elected in 1996). Our book tour became a nightmare of cancelled TV appearances and aborted print stories.
Under the circumstances, it was testimony to the underlying power of the immigration issue that Alien Nation garnered the ultimately rather large volume of publicity that it did.
Naturally, I wondered for several years thereafter: what if the perpetrators really had been Arabs?
Well, on September 11, 2001, I found out: Arab terrorists crashed
This is no Joke. H/T One Old Vet
Working my way through the intimidating backlog of One Old Vet’s Amnesty news compendiums accumulated since I last wrote on them, I find in Friday’s 57-strong collection the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s interview with Marco Rubio EIB Interview: Why, Senator Rubio? April 18, 2013 rushlimbaugh.com
In this Limbaugh, who really understands the immigration issue, asked an extremely penetrating question:
The last time you were here, you were very certain -- you assured everybody -- that until the border was secure, there would not be legalization of a pathway to citizenship. Now people who've seen the bill say that what actually happens is that the legalization does take place and that then there's a commission that has 10 years to figure out border security.
Which is true?
(The bill had actually been made public at 2-25AM (!) that morning)
Rubio dealt with this awkward query by lying:
The Department of Homeland Security has …the following goal: a hundred percent awareness of border, 90% apprehension. They have five years to meet that standard. If in five years the border is not 90% apprehension, 100% awareness, they lose control of the border issue to a commission that is not a Washington commission. It is a commission that will largely be driven by the governors of the border states.
(VDARE.com emphasis). As I noted yesterday in Gang Bill Omits Empowered Border Commission Rubio Promised - Will He Denounce? Byron York has demonstrated that this is just not true. The Commission – on which the Border Governors will only be a minority if they are on it at all – is not structured to assume legal power over anything, ever.
James Fulford writes: This column was posted to WND.com four days ago. It was quickly posted to FreeRepublic.com, and just as quickly pulled by moderators. This is because even before the $PLC started smearing us, we were banned by FreeRepublic for being “divisive.”
This was inspired, apparently, by Steve Sailer’s seminal article GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote, November 28, 2000. FreeRepublic was wrong then, and is wrong now. Since Sailer wrote that article we’ve seen George W. Bush win a presidential election in which he galvanized the white vote, and John McCain and Mitt Romney lose elections in which they didn’t. VDARE.com’s conclusions remain relevant, and FreeRepublic remains irrelevant, and of course unfree. This version of Peter Brimelow’s article contains many added links.
Everyone knows that the Republican Party needs to extend amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens in order to win the Hispanic vote. Right? But, to quote Josh Billings: “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
And it’s not just that Hispanics will never vote Republican anyway—because they are poor and naturally like government redistribution, and because they have eyes and can see that Marco Rubio is a white Cuban, not a Mexican.
Both those things are true, of course, but the real reason the current Hispanic hysteria is wrong is that there simply aren’t that many Hispanic voters. Whites will continue to dominate the U.S. electorate for the foreseeable future.
And it’s whites—especially the white working class, above all in the North—who are up for grabs.
And, remember, this was an election in which minority turnout rose because of Democratic anti-white race-baiting, and GOP turnout fell because
However, the mad push by the Gang of Eight reminds me of the madness of another Gang—the Gang of Four in China, so hipped on the ideology of its late Chairman that it bulldozed all in its path until brought down by the sheer weight of its perfidies, even in that repressive society.
The Boston Marathon terrorist tragedy offers several, what should be non-ideological, lessons. For example, it’s now obvious that anyone in this country, citizen or immigrant, can be found and quickly. Positive, rapid ID can be done. So we are talking only of the will to do the ID job—doing the right thing so we know who is in the US and why, legally or illegally. Doesn’t it seem obvious that in our society, which values the rule of law, our rightful identity should be made as transparent, simple and as secure as possible?
But the key lesson:
- The insane scale of unneeded alien imports since 1965.
There appeared on my breakfast table today an article in the Wall Street Journal which told us volumes about these two young terrorists. [Life in America Unraveled for Brothers, By Alan Cullison, Paul Sonne, and Jennifer Levitz, April 20, 2013]
It brilliantly documents the alienation that can grow even after years and some success in a new country:
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 years old, became a successful Golden Gloves boxer. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, 19, was a nursing student and became an American citizen just last year, on Sept. 11.”
How symbolic is that September 11th stamping of citizenship?
But the WSJ continues to weave the story of why “a close examination of the