Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Fresh from disrupting CPAC’s minority pandering plans, Matthew Heimbach and his Towson University White Student Union struck again last week—this time conducting campus safety patrols. Needless to say, the Towson University administration is not amused, harrumphing “we do not encourage the general public to take the law into their own hands for both their personal safety and legal protection.”
Towson claims that crime is down. But the school does send out “crime alerts” which Heimbach reports consistently feature young black males attacking females. [PDF]On Tuesday evening (April 3), Towson President Maravene Loeschke (email her) joined a student government-organized rally against the WSU, causing Heimbach to remark, entirely accurately: "Anything that doesn't fall in the far-left agenda is labeled as either a hate group or extreme." Hundreds of Towson University students walk for unity | Students react in wake of 'White Student Union' nightly patrols, WBAL-TV, April 3, 2013.
Main Stream Media [MSM] reaction to Heimbach has been hostile, of course. [White Student Union’s plan to patrol the Baltimore area’s Towson University in response to 'black crime wave' sparks controversy, By Victoria Taylor, New York Daily News, March 28, 2013]
One of the more significant came from Total Frat Move, a news/comedy website that glorifies the stereotypical fraternity experience.
TFM reads like a Stuff White People Like for young, conservative, suburban whites, with music, merchandise, advice columns, and humor, all targeted to this specific demographic. It celebrates drinking, wealth, hazing, fratty fashion, Republicans, and most importantly, Kate Upton. (Shown right).
College fraternities are classic Burkean institutions, with as the President of Delta put it in Animal House, a “long tradition of existence to [their] members, and to the community at large.” They incorporate elements of hierarchy, tradition, and initiatic ritual—all anathema to the modern campus mania for endless equality.
In an age when separate men's and women's bathrooms are seen as incipient fascism, fraternities remain a bastion of male identity and exclusivity. Even when unconscious of their own roots, fraternity men proudly claim superiority to the masses. Predictably, most fraternity men lean to the Right. [Colleges, Fraternities, and ‘Natural Conservatives’, By Jordan Bloom, January 28, 2013]
But, surprisingly, TFM posted a smear piece on Matt Heimbach, by one “BlutarskyTFM,” so formulaic and whiny it could have come from Jezebel. [Crazy Towson Students To Patrol Campus For Crime, March 26, 2013] “BlutarskyTFM” moaned that the WSU seems “scary” and appealed to the eminently reliable Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com) to prove that the White Student Union is “extreme.”
Highpoint of the piece: BlutarskyTFM’s gloating that soon the headlines will read: “Group of small, intrusive white kids viciously beaten by Towson Football and Basketball Team Members as Cheerleaders Watch and Laugh.”
BlutarskyTFM's white male humiliation fantasies would be par for the course for Jezebel, but TFM depends on a totally different market. Just like The Blaze, Breitbart, or the Daily Caller, TFM is utterly reliant on generating traffic by posting news items about the latest Politically Correct outrage:
- UNC Drops Term “Freshman” In Order to be More “Gender Inclusive”
- Professor Fired For Forcing Students To Sign Pledge To Vote For Obama
- Vegetarians At Stanford Compare Struggle To Civil Rights Movement, Are Crazy
Feminists hate TFM and its “rape culture.” But the internet is still a liberated zone, and the webzine can continue to be TFTC (“Too Frat To Care”) about its shrill critics. TFM can hardly censor its comments for being “offensive” or “racist”—it would have none left.
But this is not at all the case on America’s campuses. Greek life on American campuses has been in retreat for
File this in the overflowing cabinet labeled: No Wonder the Mainstream Media Is Dying. On Tuesday, the Associated Press announced that it is banishing the phrase "illegal immigrant" from its famous stylebook. The world's largest newsgathering outlet now advises reporters that "illegal" will "only refer to an action, not a person."
AP directs writers not to use the terms "illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented" anymore, except "in direct quotations." It won't be long before
And why shouldn’t the princely press preach the dogma of diversity to the little citizens? It’s uniquely positioned to regurgitate the ideology of Leftist elites—because journalists face almost no threat that their jobs will be pinched by immigrants.
For a profession that prides itself on defending the rights of the little guy, the MSM focus on foreigners’ well-being rather than citizens’ is odd to say the least. Plus, the press denizens never connect the dots between crushing unemployment and the continuing influx of millions of foreign workers. Lazy, no?
For example, the construction industry has been overwhelmed in many regions by illegal alien workers. What was once a middle-class occupation for citizens has been taken over by foreigners willing to work for low wages.
But stories about the hardship inflicted on Americans by Open Borders run only in citizen-friendly websites like VDARE.com.
To the liberal MSM, sob stories about illegal aliens are far more appealing, particularly when including photos of adorable doe-eyed kiddies.
In contrast, readers never see sad American children whose parents have been displaced from jobs.
The MSM is on board for the cultish fixation on victimhood. Illegal aliens from the Third World fulfill the Marxist cliché of an oppressive America stomping out the aspirations of poor people.
No mention that billions of people from across the planet would flock to this racist hellhole if only they were able.
But while the MSM enthusiastically preaches diversity for others, it does not recommend or practice diverse immigration for its own newsrooms.
When the CEOs of other industries like tech and medicine decide they want a batch of cheaper employees, they inform Congress that they need more foreigners to fill those jobs. Congress invariably hastens to comply, by creating a visa category like H-1b for information technology, or H-1c for nurses.
However, there has been no hue and cry from to open the scribbler/ gabbler field up to foreigners. Media organizations practice diversity almost entirely by having a token number of blacks, Asians and Hispanics on staff.
My modest proposal: the media profession would benefit from a stream of immigrant workers eagerly taking the jobs now held by Americans. Journalists would then experience the insecurity and unemployment they wish upon others less privileged.
Can we imagine for a moment if the thousands of foreigners crossing the border daily were not just tomato pickers and gardeners, but instead included skilled reporters and editors?
The average newsroom scribblers would then have skin in the game, and might sympathize with other Americans in the same sinking boat.
Journalists are a uniquely protected class—possibly because elite publishers
In the midst of current Conservatism Inc. Hispano-hysteria, the Wall Street Journal has been touting the example of Representative Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico). [One GOP Lawmaker Shows How to Woo Latino Voters, By Neil King, March 11, 2013 |PDF]
(Oddly, proclaiming New Mexico messiahs is not new for Conservatism Inc. Back in 1997, it was William T. Redmond, the GOP victor in the special election to replace UN Ambassador Bill Richardson. But as Peter Brimelow and Edwin S. Rubenstein pointed out in their 1997 Electing A New People cover story in National Review
What happened was that the Democratic vote was split, by a former Democrat running as the candidate of New Mexico's enviro-Stalinist Green Party, who got 17 per cent of the vote. This, and not a mass conversion of Hispanics, won the seat. Rep. Redmond will do well to hold it in 1998.
(He did not.)
Pearce is relatively tough on immigration (NumbersUSA rating A-, career grade C, indicating he has improved in recent years). Yet in this 2012 election, he got a higher-than-Republican-average share (42%) of the Hispanic vote in his district.
Congressman Pearce does not, as has been noted on VDARE.com although downplayed by the WSJ, win the majority of Hispanics. But he is at the high end for a Republican.
So is Steve Pearce showing us a new model for winning the Hispanic vote? He’s certainly been getting
Full disclosure: During the late 1990s, I freelanced for John Podhoretz at the New York Post, where he was the Editorial Page editor. We even shook hands once. However, he can honestly deny this, seeing as I wrote under a pseudonym (“Robert Berman”) and never told anyone. [How to Make Change Real, New York Post, June 28, 1998] Being “me” would have been professional suicide in my day job. And in those days, before the current Cultural Marxist internet-facilitated Reign of Terror, stuffy editors insisted on writers using their own names.
However, that business with the Post isn’t my John Podhoretz problem.
In 2007, Commentary magazine, a once-brilliant, once-conservative, Jewish periodical which used to stand for meritocracy, announced that in January, 2009, Podhoretz would take over as editor-in-chief. Podhoretz was hired solely due to his being the son of the magazine’s longtime editor, Norman Podhoretz. Commentary had thus replaced meritocracy with nepotism as the guiding notion of neo-conservatism.
Recently, on March 14, Podhoretz wrote a New York Post column A test for New York; Will pols stand with the rioters? about the three nights rioting following the righteous, fatal March 6 shooting of 16-year-old, black gangbanger Kimani Gray by two cops. (One Egyptian, one Hispanic, since you asked. See my VDARE.com column, Trayvon Martin was Barack Obama’s Son, and Kiki Gray was Jumaane Williams’ Son, but Why Will No Politician Adopt Bailey O’Neill?).
Podhoretz argued that politicians should not support the rioters. But he has spent years vilifying people who even mildly criticize black savagery.
In 2005, when my VDARE.com colleague Steve Sailer satirized Podhoretz’ defense of birth-right citizenship in terms of the latter being a “birthright pundit,” Podhoretz denounced him as “a bigoted, racist scum.”
Podhoretz also spent years attacking my VDARE.com colleague John Derbyshire at National Review, when both were colleagues there. That helped grease the skids for Derbyshire, when editrix Rich Lowry finally caved in and fired Derbyshire for a racial thoughtcrime in 2012.
Indeed, as soon as Podhoretz got posting privileges at National Review’s blog The Corner, circa 2005, he began denouncing Derbyshire.
While I understand that denunciation is central to political polemics, it is highly unusual for a writer to see one’s colleagues as enemies and denounce them.
Last June, in his capacity as editor of Commentary, Podhoretz published articles of surrender in the Trayvon Martin Hoax, in the form of a 2,400-word essay by a David French. [Conservatives and the Trayvon Martin Case, June 2012]
In November, Podhoretz learned to love gay marriage. [A Note, Commentary, November 10, 2012]
In the January Commentary, Podhoretz published a symposium of 52 writers on the future of conservatism—but somehow forgot to invite any conservatives! [What Is the Future of Conservatism in the Wake of the 2012 Election?]
With the exception of Gerson’s promotion of Catholicism’s principle of subsidiarity, a longtime hobbyhorse of his, the article is eerily similar to the repetitious, 40,000-word GOP suicide report that was issued on March 18 by the RNC, on the orders of Chairman Reince Priebus, and which lovingly quotes Gerson and Wehner. [Growth & Opportunity Project, Republican National Committee, March 18.]
Both documents should be called: “GOP to Whites: Drop Dead.” They both pursue the same two long discredited strategies that Conservatism, Inc. hacks have relentlessly promoted since the election:
1. Compassionate (Welfare State) Conservatism Redux: The Party must show people that it “cares” about them. People voted Democrat because they felt that Obama and his party “cared” about them, and was “tolerant”;
2. We must have a mass amnesty of tens of millions of almost exclusively non-white, irredentist, illegal alien invaders, and the party must reach out to Hispanics, blacks, homosexuals, women—everyone but white, heterosexual men, especially Christians, who are to treated with contempt.
Like so many Republican documents these days, both pieces sound as if they had been crafted by Democratic Party consultants.
Repugnant racists from VDare are clogging up the #NRISummit hashtag. You people are a stain on the republic.
John Podhoretz permits no comments by readers at Commentary’s Web site. Oddly enough, the New York Post also recently abolished its online reader comments function.
For an example of what I regard as Podhoretz’ baleful influence
In the usual mysterious way, there’s been a step-up in Main Stream Media coverage (a.k.a. sneering at) of what the George Soros-funded Media Matters is calling Fox's Week-Long "War On Easter". Of course, this is painfully stupid. It’s not Fox’s “War On Easter”—it’s the Christophobes and bureaucrats demonstrating their “sensitivity” to religious minorities who are making war on Easter. Fox is just reporting it. (Media Matters pulled the same trick with the War On Christmas, which has been going on since 1906.)
Other examples this year:
- Fox News conjures, attacks “War on Easter”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 29, 2013
- There's No War On Easter, Hartford Courant, March 29, 2013
- Is there a war on Easter? Maybe there should be, by Alexandra Petri, Washington Post, March 28, 2013—the kind of snarky deconstruction you’re not going to see about Hanukkah, or Ramadan.
- Why there’s no need to go down the war-on-Easter rabbit hole, Macleans Magazine, March 28, 2013
Actually, the editors of Macleans Magazine, up there in Canada, apparently didn’t get the memo. They claim there isn’t any War on Easter, and that “the pleasant lack of springtime controversy suggests the possibility of a peaceful coexistence between religion as heritage and a secular society.”
I should add that the editors of Macleans Magazine are not really working in an igloo without internet access—they have heard of the War On Easter, but dismiss it as the concern of a “few over-eager culture warriors”.
The truth: the War on Easter has been growing with each Eastertide for quite a while. It’s gotten perceptibly stronger while we’ve been covering it. In 2011, my column on it was headed Yes, Virginia, There Is A War On Easter—And Also War On Easter Denial.
The news focus this year: a black middle school principal in Madison, Alabama named Lydia Davenport who decided that the Easter Egg hunt at Heritage Middle School—a series of quiz questions—couldn’t be called that.
Davenport initially canceled the egg hunt, which was also to include kindergartners, to avoid any issues with mixing religious observances with school events.
"We had in the past a parent to question us about some of the things we do here at school, so we're just trying to make sure we respect and honor everybody's differences," Principal Lydia Davenport told The Times' news partner, WHNT News 19. [Madison elementary school takes Easter out of egg hunt, sparks national reaction (poll), by Mark Heim, AL.com, March 27, 2013]
If anyone wants proof that there’s an attempt to suppress all reference to Easter, you only need two words: “Spring Bunny.”
A Google News search for “Spring Bunny” finds not only O’Reilly complaining about the spring bunny, and people complaining about O’Reilly complaining about it, et cetera, but a story from Norwood, Massachusetts in which Norwood Recreation Department Program Director Linda Berger says, apparently with a perfectly straight face, that “The Spring Egg Hunt is a Norwood Tradition.”
At the Spring Egg Hunt
Toddlers to first graders are invited to the school, where they can hunt for eggs spread all over the Willett Field. They will also get to meet with the Spring Bunny.
[Norwood Recreation Department hosting spring activities, By Brad Cole, Wicked Local Norwood, March 22, 2013]
The “Spring Bunny,” of course, is already a euphemism. It’s just another sign of a central reality of modern American culture: Christophobia,
I discussed this just over a year ago: “Christophobia”—The Prejudice That Barely Has A Name. I was writing partly about Iowa journalism professor, Stephen G. Bloom [email him], who in an Atlantic piece called Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life (Dec. 9 2011) had said
"After years and years of in-your-face religion, [Bloom, born in New Jersey, moved to Iowa in 1992] I decided to give what has become an annual lecture, in which I urge my students not to bid strangers 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Easter,' 'Have you gotten all your Christmas shopping done?' or 'Are you going to the Easter egg hunt?' Such well-wishes are not appropriate for everyone, I tell my charges gently. A cheery 'Happy holidays!' will suffice. Small potatoes, I know, but did everyone have to proclaim their Christianity so loud and clear?"
Bloom was lucky that he picked as his target Christianity, the only religion in America that you’re allowed to attack. If he’d attacked Haitian devil worship, or “dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems,” it would have been national news.
But what really puts the “phobia” in Bloom’s Christophobia is his memory
Lawrence Matthew Auster January 26 1949—March 23, 2013, picture taken shortly before his death.
Lawrence Auster, proprietor of the View From The Right blog, died peacefully in hospice in West Chester, Pennsylvania, early on the morning of Good Friday, 2013. His death ends both a long period of often excruciating physical suffering; and a most remarkable polemicist’s career. Those of us who agree with Larry’s diagnoses of what is wrong with our world today hope and believe that his death will not end his influence.
Of course, those who view the world through the funhouse mirror of the Main Stream Media will see Auster as an obscure figure on the fringe—if indeed they know of him at all. But the reality is that for decades Larry was at the forefront in seeing and speaking about the dangers America and the rest of the West face from uncontrolled immigration, rampant diversity-worship, Political Correctness, and the encroachments of Islam via immigration and weak Western leadership.
Unlike many “conservative” writers who trim to hang on to respectability as defined by the likes of National Review and Fox News, Larry hewed to his principles throughout. As our cultural situation worsened, Larry never accommodated himself to it, neocon-fashion, but increased his warnings.
As long ago as the late 1980s, when very few (VDare.com’s own Peter Brimelow among them) were paying any attention to the havoc mass immigration already was wreaking on America, when the threat of unwanted demographic transformation seemed still a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, Auster, like Isaiah, sounded the warning
In 1990, the American Immigration Control Foundation published the first of Larry’s books advocating immigration restriction: The Path to National Suicide. Larry accurately identified Emanuel Celler and Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965 as the beginning of the end of traditional America if the flood of demographically
Gay Marriage and Amnesty are the two main battles in the Culture War right now. Both issues are designed to further the Left’s never-ending and unrelenting quest to create a completely egalitarian society. And, right on cue, the Left has discovered an overlooked demographic that is supposedly in dire need of direct support from our federal government and is ideal propaganda for energizing the Left’s white liberal base: illegal immigrants who happen to be gay.
Three things are certain in our world—death, taxes, and a never-ending supply of new “victims” for the Left to rally around. No matter how far the Right retreats, the Left can always create a new cause and hurl charges of “bigotry” and “discrimination.”
The history of the modern Left is a long chronology of finding new classes of “subalterns”—Antonio Gramsci’s generic term for the oppressed. Once located, these “victims of oppression” can then be rescued by brave progressives fighting evil reactionaries. This familiar narrative plays out again and again in our society—and the latest chapter is a progressive twofer of illegal immigrants and homosexuals.
Seeing that liberals worship both groups, a merger between the two is a match made in heaven for furthering Leftist social reforms—and for fattening the paychecks of “nonprofit” progressive activists.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report earlier this month that focused specifically on “undocumented” gays. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that America must dramatically transform both its immigration laws and marriage requirements in order to satisfy homosexual aliens.
The report, Living in Dual Shadows: LGBT Undocumented [By Crosby Burns, Ann Garcia, and Philip E. Wolgin, March 8, 2013], clams that there are over 267,000 immigrants living illegally in America who identify as either gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. That is a little over 2.4% of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens in the US today. But this demographic, according to the CAP report, contains “society’s most vulnerable individuals.”
Why? According to the CAP report, the fact that “LGBT Undocumented” lack both a “path to citizenship” and federal recognition of their “bi-national same sex couples” leads to their marginalization.
Clearly, there can be no higher priority than federal intervention aimed at serving a population that refers to itself as “undocuqueers.” The newest client population is proudly out of the closet—and over the fence.
The plan proposed by CAP goes much further than anything the “Gang of Eight” is reportedly going to recommend.
Naturally, it already accepts a pathway to citizenship as a given, stating that, if anything, the pathway does not go far enough to help gay illegals. But in addition to demanding citizenship, the CAP report authors call for the U.S. government to end “discrimination” against bi-national same sex couples by passing both the “Reuniting Families Act” and “DREAM act”. Finally, the U.S. government should also repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
What does the Defense of Marriage Act have to do with immigration issues—and why would its repeal help homosexual illegals? The report states:
One of the many reasons that Congress and the Supreme Court need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is to ensure that the government treats all families equally under existing immigration law. Congress can and should swiftly pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would
At a Library of Congress function some years ago I encountered the well-known British historian Paul Johnson. This was not long after Michael Fumento’s 1990 book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS came out, and people were still discussing that issue. I asked Johnson whether homosexuality would one day be seen as perfectly normal.
This may not seem the most obvious reaction to the wall-to-wall triumphalist Main Stream Media [MSM] coverage of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearings on gay marriage. But it is worth remembering that pendulums swing both ways.
Of course, it is depressing to compare the progress made by the patriotic immigration movement with the progress made by homosexual activists.
When VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow published Alien Nation in 1995, twenty states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books. It was a mere nine years since Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching…” etc.
Now, two further nine-year spans on from 1995, the homosexualist cause has advanced with astonishing speed, to the point where the U.S. Supreme Court is solemnly pondering whether homosexual marriage is required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
If the speeds of advance of the two causes had been reversed, we would still today have anti-sodomy laws in twenty states, but we would have an Israeli-style fence along our entire southern border, a foolproof visa monitoring program, universal compulsory E-Verify, birthright citizenship annulled by either congressional action or constitutional amendment; and, of course, an immigration moratorium.
Talk about being on the wrong side of history!
The contrast is even more striking if you consider that immigration restriction is, or ought to be, a much less emotional matter than sexuality and marriage.
From a viewpoint of, say, thirty years ago an American might have supposed that constitutional accommodation of homosexuality would be fought over with much heat and passion, while the control of voluntary population inflows could be debated in a spirit of calm rationality.
You would expect people to feel really strongly about their teenage sons being taken off on a camping trip in the woods by an openly homosexual scoutmaster. But the requirement for skilled foreign workers ought to be a matter of cold arithmetic.
But well-nigh the opposite has been the case. The public has acquiesced meekly to the normalization of homosexuality, while immigration restriction has been fought with venomous passion.
Why? Possible explanations:
- Immigration restriction would cost major businesses a lot of money by tightening the labor market. Homosexual “rights” are probably a wash economically.
- With homosexuals at three or four percent of the population, they are also a wash politically. Just legal immigration at current levels increases the population by three percent—equal to the entire homosexual cohort—in less than ten years. And recent immigrants vote overwhelmingly Democrat, explaining the party’s enthusiasm for Electing A New People.
- Aversion to homosexuality, while frowned on by the Overclass, none the less has religious sanction, which still counts for something in the U.S.A. Scriptures of the major religions have little to say about immigration (although not quite nothing). This might have worked against the homosexuals and in favor of immigration patriots—except for the dramatic Political Correctness infection of church bureaucrats, especially in the major denominations, which has essentially reversed the effect.
- Immigration restriction is easily smeared as racism, which has been propagandized over the past half-century as an evil beyond compare, motivated by “hate.” You can work up a thesis that disapproval of homosexuality is likewise driven by “hate,” based on scattered incidents of violence, but it’s more of a stretch, and some “anti-racists” think the comparison is offensive because it trivializes their pet cause.
- The dominant current ethic of Cultural Marxism—“Who? Whom?”—demands sympathy for the Whom, the oppressed, the victim. Both homosexuals and immigrants can plausibly be cast in that role: homosexuals, because of the social disapproval they labored under in most times and places until a few years ago, immigrants because “they come here to better themselves,” their former lives in their home countries having presumably been wretched.
Given that Cultural Marxist association, it is not very surprising to find that homosexual activism was one of the “ugly roots” of immigration enthusiasm listed by James Fulford in his classic March 4, 2013 piece here on VDARE.com.
In strict logic the two issues are orthogonal: you might take any position on the one without your position on the other being inconsistent. In political practice there is, as James showed, strong linkage.
The source of that linkage is not hard to find. In Tuesday’s hearing before the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia asked lawyer Theodore Olson when it had become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: “1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”
Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.
Supreme Court hints that it won't issue sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage, By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News, March 27, 2013
While by no means conceding the marriage point, I believe Olson identified there the main factor in the swift relaxing of attitudes to homosexuality: a change in thinking about human nature, a more punctilious distinguishing between what we do and what we are. Homosexuality, in the common perception, shifted decisively from the former zone to the latter.
Thence also the linkage with race and immigration issues. Probably the black Civil Rights movement did most of the work.
But there was always awareness at some level that homosexuality “is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control.” I can remember people in the 1950s saying “they can’t help it.”
And one’s race or place of birth is likewise
Gay marriage, which was argued before the Supreme Court Tuesday (March 26), is outside VDARE.com’s immigration patriot focus—and, as a member of the webzine’s Democratic Caucus, I am probably less distressed than most. But that is not the case with HIV/ AIDs. Increasingly, it is being imported through immigration policy.
Last summer’s International AIDS Conference centered on spending billions more for prevention and treatment. New vaccines raise hopes that this may be the last generation to see a rise in AIDS cases, but paying for these vaccines is a costly business. Typically, attendees at the AIDS conference believed that throwing money at illiterate people will solve the problem. This is bogus, in the U.S. no less than in Africa. [Money will turn tide on AIDS, conference attendees say, Washington Post, July 27, 2012]
HIV/AIDS continues to kill thousands in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports as of 2010, 1,129,127 people have died of AIDS since the epidemic began 30 years ago. Approximately 50,000 American residents are infected with HIV each year. [CDS Factsheet, PDF]
“In 2009, the estimated rate of new HIV infections among black men was six and a half times as high as that of white men, and more than two and a half times as high as that of Hispanic/Latino men and of black women. In the same year, the estimated rate of new HIV infections among black women was 15 times that of white women and over three times that of Hispanic/Latina women.”[HIV At Glance (PDF)]
The CDC does not break out cases by country of birth—except for Hispanics. Table 9 of the 2009 surveillance report shows that of the total 5,830 new AIDS diagnoses among Hispanics in 2009, 2,645 or 45 percent of the cases were adults and adolescents born in other countries. [Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2009, CDC HIV Surveillance Report, Volume 21]
For Hispanic male homosexuals, foreign-born cases made up 60 percent of all new AIDS diagnoses in 2009.
Two areas which are greatly affected by HIV/AIDS are immigrant-impacted: California’s Los Angeles County and Florida’s Miami/Dade metropolitan area.
According to census data, the population of Los Angeles increased by 955,441 residents between the years 1990 and 2010. In that period, the population of Hispanics increased by 1,336,647. White and black residents together declined by over 1 million people. According to census data, 36 percent of LA’s residents were foreign-born in 2010, and 56 percent of the residents over 5 years speak a language other than English.
In the Los Angeles County Public Health HIV/AIDS surveillance report for 2011, Table 23 shows that between 2004 and 2011, the number of persons living with AIDS increased by 5,257 cases. Hispanic residents accounted for over half of the added cases. According to the commentary in the surveillance report, 40 percent of the total of those infected with AIDS are Hispanics; 34 percent whites and 21 percent blacks. [Annual HIV Surveillance Report for LA County, February 17, 2012 (PDF)]
In short, Mexican immigration is a prime reason the HIV/AIDS cases are on the rise in Los Angeles County.
On the other side of the country, the population changes in the Miami/Dade metropolitan area have been equally dramatic. In the decade 2000 to 2010, 41,161 foreign-born residents moved in and 24,525 domestic residents moved out. The Dade County Planning Department projects that this trend will continue. [PDF]
In 2010, over half of the residents in Miami were foreign- born and over two-thirds of the residents spoke a language other than English. Hispanics comprised 65 percent of the population, blacks 19 percent and non-Hispanic whites 16 percent.
For most of the last decade, Miami has held the number one position among metropolitan areas with the highest level of HIV/AIDS cases.
The Miami-Dade Comprehensive Plan for HIV/AIDS [PDF] shows that together blacks and Hispanics make up 89 percent of the affected population (blacks-48% and Hispanics-38 percent).
Many Miami residents are not eligible for Medicaid because they are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Some of these HIV/ AIDS victims are treated with federal funds via the Ryan White Program, Part A. The comprehensive plan states on page 29, that among this HIV/AIDS population, a majority
“. . .are foreign-born and among Haitians and Hispanic MSMs almost 90% are foreign-born. Large numbers of immigrants increase the need to provide services in three languages: 36% . . .are Spanish speaking and 11% speak Creole.”
In Miami, among Hispanic MSM AIDs/HIV vicims, Cubans comprise 40 percent; Central and South Americans 45 percent and Mexicans 3 percent.
“Similar to the Haitian population, there is a reliance on folk medicines and healers as a means of treatment and there is substantial misinformation concerning the transmission of HIV/AIDS along with a high incidence of ‘no symptoms, no problem’ thinking . . .” (comp plan, p. 34)
The Haitian and Hispanic populations are especially difficult cases to treat for a variety of reasons. In 2007, among those who were not Medicaid-eligible, Haitians made up 12 percent of the caseload and of these, 8 percent had TB, 18 percent were mentally ill, 70 percent had no health insurance and 66 percent had an AIDS diagnosis. Among Hispanic MSMs (23% of cases), 14 percent were substance abusers, 33 percent were mentally ill, 69 percent had no health insurance and 56 percent had an AIDS diagnosis. (Comp Plan, p.32)
A research project by the University of Miami found that among Haitians, (Comp Plan, p. 32
“. . . a persistent feeling of stigma about HIV/AIDS exists. . . a sense of vulnerability to deportation and/or incarceration, a complex non-western system of beliefs about health behavior. . . .
Eighty percent of Haitians have less than a high school degree [my emphasis—LT] and 45% do not speak English. Although written materials are often translated into Creole, the estimate is that 35% of Haitian adults cannot read or write in either Creole or English.”
Another behavior that contributes to the difficulty of prevention of the disease among Haitians and American blacks in general: the “down low” practice. One slang dictionary defines down low:
Down Low is used to describe the behavior of American Black men who have sex with other men, as well as with women, but who do not identify as gay or
American politicians in both parties are stampeding all over themselves to pander to Mexico and adopt mass illegal alien amnesty schemes. But while the Mexican government lobbies for more "humane" treatment of illegal border crossers from their country into ours, Mexico remains notoriously restrictionist toward "undesirable" foreigners who break their laws or threaten their security.
Winston Churchill famously said, “"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” The Obama Administration thinks A Big Lie needs a bodyguard of smaller lies.
Washington is waging a war, but the enemy is its own people: the traditional American nation. The horrible truth about the Obama/ Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is that it is advanced precisely because it will dispossess Americans. That unmentionable reality is concealed with a bodyguard of smaller lies, petty deceits in service to the larger deception that immigration laws cannot be enforced.
A recent example: we are told that the federal government cannot fulfill a Congressional mandate to establish a biometric entry-exit system to allow the government to fulfill its basic responsibility of ensuring which individuals are complying with their period of admission and which are not. Instead, even though this system is not in place, the Department of Homeland Security assures us that the government is still mysteriously capable of identifying “those who overstay their visas” even though the basic infrastructure does not exist.
The frontman for this particular falsehood: one David Heyman, a senior Democrat operative who is Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. Since being sworn in June 2009, Hayman has developed a certain amount of expertise in relatively obscure areas of immigration law enforcement. Not bad for a former Clinton Administration junior official and biology major at Brandeis University.
Heyman's responsibility for “policy” means administering the multifaceted and complex Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. Well-trained in the art of the lie, Heyman does not go big, but goes small, in the Gramscian manner of the “Long March through the institutions,” step by step.
There's a host of these small lies in this USA Today op-ed by Heyman. He wrote:
For two decades, the federal government has worked to obtain accurate and timely data on individuals who have overstayed their period of admission to the U.S. After 9/11, Congress passed a law to develop a biometric entry-exit system, requiring some form of biometric—fingerprints, for example—be collected when non-citizens enter and leave the U.S. The point is to match entry and exit records and determine which individuals are complying with their period of admission, and sanction those who are not.
DHS: We Can Identify Those Who Overstay On Visas, February 25, 2013
In fact, a mandatory exit verification system was first required by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) and reiterated
Yet, the crisis of the Grand Old Party goes back much further.
First, some history. The Frank Lloyd Wright of the "New Majority" was Richard Nixon, who picked up the pieces of the party after Goldwater's defeat had left Republicans with just a third of the House and Senate.
In 1966, Nixon led the GOP back to a stunning victory, picking up 47 House seats. In 1968, he united the Rockefeller and Reagan wings and held off an October surge by Hubert Humphrey, which cut a 13-point Nixon lead to less than a point in four weeks.
In 1972, Nixon swept 49 states. The "New Majority" was born. How did he do it?
Nixon sliced off from FDR's New Deal coalition Northern Catholics and ethnics—Irish, Italians, Poles, East Europeans—and Southern Christian conservatives. Where FDR and Woodrow Wilson had won all 11 Southern States six times, Nixon swept them all in '72. And where Nixon won only 22 percent of the Catholic vote against JFK, he won 55 percent against George McGovern in 1972.
What killed the New Majority?
- First, there was mass immigration, which brought in 40 to 50 million people, legal and illegal, poor and working class, and almost all from the Third World. The GOP agreed to the importation of a vast new constituency that is now kicking the GOP into an early grave.
James Fulford writes: Ann Coulter's March 17 speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] was one of the best on immigration in years. Naturally, CPAC and the MSM haven't bothered to provide a transcript. This transcript is therefore exclusive to VDARE.com, as well as the links, all of them added by us.
This was not only an important speech, it was a brave one. The Daily Caller's Mickey Kaus pointed out that Senator Marco Rubio (Conquistador-FL), who is supposed to be betraying both his country and his party in the Amnesty deal, didn't have the nerve to get up at and say that to the young people at CPAC. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has a lot more nerve (Kaus uses a different word) than Rubio is ever likely to grow.
Maybe it’s not that courageous to defy the near-perfect Elite Media Consensus favoring “comprehensive immigration reform”–i.e. amnesty. But it takes balls to do it a) at a conservative conference rigged to push amnesty; b) if you value your relationship with amnesty-supporting FOX News; and c) if you ridicule Roger Ailes’ old patrons, the Bushes, in the process.
…The Coulter video is here on Politico. … Don’t expect it to be featured on Fox! … P.S.: Hmm. I can’t find it on Daily Caller either. It’s lucky I’m not paranoid. …[Coulter blasts amnesty at CPAC, March 17, 2013]
Well, I'm not paranoid either, but as I say, there's no transcript anywhere but here on VDARE.com.
As some of you know that with the turmoil in North Korea our regularly scheduled ambassador Dennis Rodman will not be here so I’m filling in.
I’m Ann Coulter, the author of NINE massive NYT Best sellers. Boy, the sequester has really ruined everything hasn’t it? Little kids can’t go on White House tours, the Muslim Brotherhood has been deprived of $250 million…oh no, that’s safe. Even CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year … by about 300 pounds.
After all Obama’s hard work and wrangling over the budget, he’s managed to cut the growth of federal spending by 2%.
Congratulations, Mr. President!
Did you see that? A new biography of Roger Ailes quotes him as saying that Obama is lazy. Van Jones said that was racist, but Obama himself said he was lazy. You know why Van Jones didn’t know that? Because he’s lazy. I’m just kidding, I love Van Jones. I do!
Liberals say the word “lazy” is a racist code word, as is “Chicago,” the word “apartment,” mentioning that Obama golfs. No, these are all—according to liberals—racist dog-whistles. That may be why only Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews can hear them.
But you know, Obama has his own code words. He says “investment”—he means government spending. He says “revenue,” he means taxes. He says “Dr. Livingstone is in the library,” he means “Distract Michelle I’m going out for a smoke!”
Even after Republicans gave Obama his tax hike he still won’t cut spending. This is becoming what’s known as “a pattern.” Remember? Republicans agreed to raise taxes and in exchange, we’re supposed to be taking an axe to the budget. No, he wants to raise taxes again. Remember this the next time some journalist asks a Republican, “Are you saying you wouldn’t take ONE DOLLAR in tax hikes in exchange for ten dollars in budget cuts?!” No, see the problem is, we’re the Indians and the Democrats are Andrew Jackson. We’ve been through this before.
Back in the 80s, Ronald Reagan made that deal with Tip O’Neill, he said he’d raise taxes, Tip O’Neill said, oh yeah, we’ll slash the budget. Oh, yeah. The Democrats TRIPLED the budget. So it is not true that Reagan’s tax cuts led to the deficit. The problem was that for every additional dollar that came in to the IRS the Democrats were spending another $3. Then Reagan’s knucklehead of a Vice President, the first George Bush, unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, made the exact same deal with Democrats, breaking his “No New Taxes” pledge. He raised taxes in exchange for promised cuts in spending.
“I’d gladly take a tax hike today for a cut in spending on Tuesday.”
And once again, Democrats raised spending. So it would be like journalists going to tribal chiefs circa 1890 and saying sarcastically, “Are you telling me you would not give up ONE acre of land for a guaranteed promise ten acres of land?” And then ten years later, “Oh yeah we’re going to be needing Nebraska and South Dakota, too.”
Obama claims he wants to keep taxes low for the middle class and let me tell you, for the 400 people left in the middle class they could not be happier. But Obama also said he had to shut down White House tours because of the sequester—do not worry though! The $250 million for the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s safe. The federal grant to study the sex habits of gophers, that’s safe.
We also apparently have enough money to spy on American’s personal finances. Did you see that Reuters reported—yesterday, I think— that Obama is drawing up a plan to allow our spy agencies to scour the finances of Americans? But most Americans don’t care, after four years of Obama they don’t really have any personal finances to scour. Most of them told Obama ”Hey, let me know if you find anything!”
I don’t know why Republicans keep saying we have to cut spending to save these entitlement programs for our grandchildren. We have to cut spending to save the entitlements for today’s 45 year olds. In our current spending rate, 45 year olds will not receive any Medicare. And liberal’s response is to say “Well, but Medicare is the most popular program in US history.” Which, by the way, isn’t saying much, “the most popular government program!” They determined what the most popular program was by asking the recipients of Medicare, do you like Medicare? That’s like asking six year olds, are birthdays a good idea? Can we include the neighbors and the friends who are forced by buy gifts?
Despite the non-Fox Media’s claim that we have become a center-Left nation, in fact the Republicans still hold the House of Representatives. There’s a reason that’s called “the people’s house,” it is most representative of the people of America, they are up for election every two years. And the reason we don’t have the Senate is because the Republicans keep screwing up. I can think of about 10 Senate seats in the last three election cycles that we just pissed away through narcissism, greed or stupidity.
Show me one example in the last ten years of the Democrats giving up a winnable seat. No, that hasn’t happened. Passion is great, but remember that in politics, scoring is all that counts. We can’t anticipate every candidate’s mistake but we can stop encouraging candidates to show off for the base by taking positions that aren’t even our positions. It is not the position of the National Right to Life Committee that a woman should be forced to carry the baby of her rapist. I think our position is no, absolutely, exceptions for rape and incest, and now let’s talk about the other 99% of abortions. Hey, where did all the Democrats go?