Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
In the current hiatus between the Senate’s passing of the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill and the House’s taking up, or deciding not to take up, the bill (or deciding to try for piecemeal legislation), bigfoot pundits have been peddling their immigration wares, like the girls who appeared in spotlights with trays full of ice cream for sale during intermissions in the movie theaters of my childhood.
Much of their commentary was not so much about the bill itself as about other people’s commentary.
Thus Bill Keller [Liberals vs. Immigration Reform, New York Times, July 7, 2013] sought to “address some of the liberal misgivings.”
As usual, reader’ comments on a NYT article about the Senate’s passing of the bill [Senate, 68 to 32, Passes Overhaul for Immigration, By Ashley Parker And Jonathan Martin , June 27, 2013] had included many that were negative, often from an Old Left viewpoint (“It’s a slap in the face of the American working class and the millions of unemployed Americans . . .,” etc.) Keller sought to shore up the globalist elite’s dwindling base of Old Left support.
Along the way he made some interesting concessions, saying things that are close to heretical by Times standards, although wearily familiar to VDARE.com readers:
As the demographer Michael Teitelbaum points out, you can find shortages of skilled labor at some times, in some fields, and in some places, but over all there is plenty of domestic STEM talent looking for work.
Disaffection among Outer Party members
[James Fulford writes: Tonight we're starting to run Ann Coulter's syndicated column. Ann Coulter has been fighting the good fight magnificently on immigration and other conservative issues since the administration of Bill Clinton , whom she almost had removed from office. Her work on the current Amnesty attempt is equally magnificent. Note to the $PLC and Media Matters—Ms. Coulter is not responsible for the links in this column, or the fact that we are running her column. I've had to explain this before—I call it "guilt by syndication."]
This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.)
It's becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case—until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC.
With the prosecution's witnesses making the defense's case, the inquisitors' last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:
"Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt." [Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court, By Lizette Alvarez, July 7, 2013]
The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we're going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter "The Twilight Zone."
There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not
[VDARE.com Note: So far, Rand Paul is "standing with" Hunter—he hasn't given in and fired him for un-PC speech.]
The recent attack on Jack Hunter a.k.a. “The Southern Avenger” radio host follows an all-too-familiar script in Washington. Someone connected to the Republican mainstream is accused of saying something Politically Incorrect. The Left and neoconservative echo chamber repeats the smear and tries to connect the Politically Incorrect statement to as many of its enemies as possible. The offender grovels. He may or may not be able to survive.
Jack Hunter is a leader of the “Liberty Movement” in his capacity as an official blogger for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign and a close aide to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. The younger Paul appointed Hunter as his social media director last year and Hunter coauthored the Senator’s book The Tea Party Goes to Washington . Hunter had previously written columns and had a radio show under the name “The Southern Avenger.”
The neoconservative webzine the Washington Free Beacon ran a hit piece on Hunter entitled Rebel Yell: Rand Paul aide has history of neo-Confederate sympathies, inflammatory statements (by Alana Goodman, July 9, 2013)
Among Hunter’s sins:
- He was a member of the secessionist group, the League of the South during the 1990s.
The “conservative” Free Beacon even interviewed a representative from the Anti-Defamation League, as if it were an authority: the ADL proclaimed
The League of the South is an implicitly racist group in that the idealized version of the South that they promote is one which, to use their ideology, is dominated by ‘Anglo-Celtic’ culture, which is their code word for ‘white’.
More "evidence" against Hunter:
- In 2004, Hunter wrote: “Although Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth’s heart was in the right place, the Southern Avenger does regret that Lincoln’s murder automatically turned him into a martyr.”
- In 2007, Hunter wrote that, while blacks and Hispanics and blacks are encouraged to celebrate their racial identity, “not only are whites not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity—but anything that is considered ‘too white’ is immediately suspect …The term ‘diversity’ has become nothing more than a code word for ‘not white,’ and it’s a shame that just because we have fair skin, we are always denied fair treatment.”
(Note: This was long before
World Crisis Alert: Guantanamo Bay detainees don't want to eat. Muslim rapper Yasiin "Mos Def" Bey is so worked up about their appetite plight that he videotaped himself being force-fed to build support for closing Gitmo. Cry me a river.
This latest round of hunger strikes isn't an international human rights tragedy. It's another manipulative act of Jihad Theater.
The Fulford File| What Will Amnesty Do For The Tens Of Thousands Of Illegals Who Don’t Even Know They’re Aliens—And Will They Be Allowed To Vote?
Bowing down in blind credulity, as is my custom, before mere authority and the tradition of the elders, superstitiously swallowing a story I could not test at the time by experiment or private judgment, I am firmly of opinion that I was born on the 29th of May, 1874, on Campden Hill, Kensington; and baptised according to the formularies of the Church of England in the little church of St. George opposite the large Waterworks Tower that dominated that ridge. I do not allege any significance in the relation of the two buildings; and I indignantly deny that the church was chosen because it needed the whole water-power of West London to turn me into a Christian.
Well, we’re skeptics about the Gang Of Eight—SchMcGRubio and Company as Michelle Malkin calls them—and their plan to Amnesty and put on a “path to citizenship” millions of illegals including the DREAM Act kids who (as we’re incessantly told) “came here as children.” And Chesterton’s joke is one reason we’re skeptical.
The DREAM Act kids have already been covered by Barack Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty. But they’re not currently on a path to citizenship, and they’re not yet allowed to vote.
But do they know that?
It’s like the notorious “Birther” controversy—if it were to turn out that Barack Obama’s birth did not actually take place in Hawaii, or that his natural father was someone other than Barack, Senior, it would not be his fault. The President has no more personal knowledge of where he was born than anyone else, because it happened when he was too young to remember. That’s the common experience of mankind.
Take the late A. M. Rosenthal, who was for years Executive Editor of the New York Times, and for years after that the author of what Slate press critic Jack Shafer
Harold Meyerson [Email him] recently gloated that "the South may soon undergo an epochal political change" because of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. In the meantime, Meyerson advocated building a border fence "in the right place" from Norfolk to Dallas which would keep America safe from "the all-round fruitcakery of the right-wing white South." "Start the border fence in Norfolk, Va." [Washington Post, June 25, 2013]
I would like VDARE.com readers to ponder the implications of Meyerson's ingenious thought experiment on the last fifty years of U.S. immigration policy. In this thought experiment, 15 Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) seceded from the Union in the year 1965 and constructed a double-layered border fence along the Potomac and Ohio Rivers which wraps around Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas down to the Mexican border.
This border fence separates a restored Confederacy—the "Republic of Dixie"—from the restored Union—the United States of America. What would the last fifty years of American immigration policy have looked like in an independent Southern Republic without the interference of the "damnyankee"?
(Note: in the vote counts that follow, I indicate the when legislators failing to vote with square brackets .)
In the U.S. Senate, the South provided 16 of the 18 votes against the Immigration Act of 1965, and the region voted 16 to 13 against the bill. Sen. Norris Cotton of New Hampshire was the only senator from the Northeast that voted against the bill. Every senator from the Midwest also voted for the bill.
United States: 76-18  The South: 13-16
In the U.S. House, the South voted 79-43 against the Immigration Act of 1965. But every member of the U.S. House from the Northeast voted for the Immigration Act of 1965—except for Rep. Leo O'Brien of New York, who failed to cast a vote.
In other words, the disastrous nation-breaking 1965 Immigration Act would never have passed if it had been up to the South.
United States: 318-95 The South: 43-79 
In the U.S. Senate, the South voted with the rest of America for the Reagan-supported IRCA Amnesty of 1986. (Strangely enough, Ted Kennedy and other Northern senators such John Kerry and Joe Biden voted against the bill—presumably arguing the amnesty provisions were too onerous)
United States: 69-30  The South: 25-4 
In the U.S. House, the South voted against
[This article appears in the current, Summer 2013 issue, of the U.K. quarterly magazine Salisbury Review]
The intelligence quotient or, to give its popular acronym, IQ, has now achieved its centenary. This measure of our thinking, problem-solving, learning and memory abilities was devised in 1912 by Wilhelm Stern, a professor of psychology at the University of Breslau, now Wroclaw in Poland.
Stern’s IQ scale was constructed with the average set at 100, and with a range from zero to about 200. Approximately 96 per cent of people have IQs between 70 and 130, with about 2 per cent below 70 and 2 per cent above 130. People with IQs below 70 have some degree of learning difficulty, but most of these have IQs between 50 and 70 and function reasonably well performing undemanding jobs.
About one person per 1,000 has an IQ of 145 and above, and IQs higher than 160 are possessed by only approximately one person in 30,000. An IQ of 200 is about the highest ever recorded and is very rare. It has been estimated that this IQ was possessed by Francis Galton, Blaise Pascal and John Stuart Mill.
During its hundred-year existence, it has been found that our IQ affects our life in a number of important ways. It is a significant determinant of how well we do at school and in further education, our income, occupation, health, life expectancy, and of our choice of friends and partners.
In the early years of the twentieth century, attitudes to the IQ assumed a political dimension. The Liberal-Left generally approved of the IQ and research showing its importance. One of the most salient issues was the discovery that intelligent women were having relatively few children and the inference that was drawn from this that the IQ of the population was deteriorating. In many countries eugenics societies were established to promote ways to reverse this.
The principal supporters of eugenics came from the Liberal-Left. In Britain they included H.G. Wells, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. The programs they advocated were the provision of financial incentives for those with high IQs to have more children, designated positive eugenics, and measures to reduce the numbers of children of those with low IQs, designated negative eugenics.
In the United States and a number of countries in continental Europe, the principal of these negative eugenics measures was the sterilisation of the mentally retarded to prevent the birth of mentally retarded children. This was not introduced in Britain, but H.G. Wells in his book A Modern Utopia (1905) came up with the alternative of getting rid of them by dumping them on an uninhabited island.
This was initially welcomed by the Liberal-Left because it promoted the ideal of equality of opportunity. It enabled children from working class families who had high IQs to obtain a grammar school education and enter the middle and professional classes.
In the second half of the twentieth century, Liberal-Left opinion turned against
Just as the U.S. House of Representatives is returning from the July 4 recess to take up the Schumer/Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, the Labor Department has reported that unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 7.6% in June, although the reported 195,000 jobs created in June was better than expected. This persistently high unemployment is not surprising: nearly half of the June job gains are needed just to absorb the 90,000 legal immigrants that arrive in the U.S. every month. It’s why VDARE.com keeps saying there should be an immigration moratorium. Instead, incredibly, Schumer-Rubio proposes to double (at least) that legal influx.
Indeed, our analysis of the June data indicates that the job market is fairly strong—but for immigrant workers only. Native-born Americans continue to lose jobs, exit the labor force, and retire earlier than planned.
Result: immigrant displacement of American workers had reached an all-time Obama Era high.
The “other” employment survey, of Households, shows a 160,000 job gain in June. The Household Survey now reports place of birth (but not legal status—it includes illegals). This allows us to see that behind the job growth lie two disparate job markets:
- Total employment rose by 160,000, or by 0.11%
- Native-born employment fell by 84,000, or by -0.07%
- Foreign-born employment rose by 244,000, or by 1.05%
Immigrant job growth north of 1.0% per month is particularly noteworthy. If that rate persists, immigrant employment will double within 72 months—or by June 2019. That surely rivals (exceeds?) immigrant job growth in any comparable period of U.S. history.
Perhaps there are seasonal factors that propel immigrant employment up faster than native-born employment in the month of June. Nevertheless, the spike in foreign-born employment this June stands in sharp contrast to the declines over the past two Junes.
In fact, the immigrant share of total U.S. employment in June
On February 3rd 1954 the British Cabinet, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, discussed the issue of the fast-swelling nonwhite population of the U.K. That population then stood at 40,000, most of them blacks from the Caribbean, eighty percent having arrived in the previous six years.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary (i.e. Attorney General, approximately) weighed the pros and cons of controlling the inflow by legislation. By imposing controls, said Sir David, as reported in the abbreviated language of Cabinet minutes:
“We should be reversing age-long tradition that British subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should offend liberals, also sentimentalists.” Accordingly, “on balance, scale of the problem is such that we shouldn’t take these risks today.” He finished with a shrewd, cynical thrust: “The coloured populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington and other areas—by those who come into contact with them. But those who don’t are apt to take liberal view.”
My emphasis. I took that extract from Family Britain, 1951-1957, the second volume of David Kynaston’s social history of the post-WW2 United Kingdom.
(To the degree that Sir David Maxwell Fyfe is remembered at all today it is for his response to Member of Parliament—and promiscuous bisexual—Robert Boothby when Boothby was lobbying for reform of Britain’s homosexuality laws: “I am not going down in history as the man who made sodomy legal.”)
Contact Theory takes a point of view opposite to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe’s. It argues that group prejudices and stereotypes are a result of isolation and ignorance. If persons from different groups are brought together, says the Contact Theorist, they will see the falseness of their prejudices and embrace the “psychic unity of mankind.”
Contact Theory is one of the foundation stones of the modern cult of Diversity.
To be fair to Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice presented Contact Theory in a subtle and qualified form. Allport repeatedly stressed, for example, that the individuals in contact need to see themselves as being on the same social level for the theory to work its magic: “occupational contacts with Negroes of equal status tend to make for lessened prejudice,” etc. (page 276, Allport’s emphasis).
Subsequent social science research, notably Robert Putnam’s much-discussed 2006 paper, further diluted Contact Theory down to well-nigh homeopathic levels. There is a good discussion of the theory’s current status in Chapter IV of Russell Nieli’s book Wounds That Will Not Heal, which I reviewed for VDARE.com here.
Sir David’s observation that familiarity breeds rancor while ignorance is multicultural bliss seems oddly up-to-date. Here for example was I,
"[The date] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
However, while this is, as Presidential Proclamations still say, “the Year of Our Lord 2013 and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh,” it is also the fifth year of the Obama administration.
The threat of a repeat of black mob violence on the Fourth of July is causing at least three cities to cancel their annual Independence Day fireworks parties.
Black mob violence has marred for several years the annual holiday celebrations in the Cleveland suburb of Bedford. Almost none of which made its way to the local media. But the city council heard an earful from local residents following last year’s holiday violence.
They reported that 50 to 80 black people were hitting people in the face and disrupting the festival and surrounding areas.
“Police officers used pepper ball pellets and a taser,” said city council minutes from a special meeting in August 2012. “Even the Wal-Mart and Get-Go store had to be closed for three hours.”
“The mayor was shocked by what he had witnessed,” said the minutes. The mayor assured the audience that Bedford was “not the only city that had these types of problems.” People were “traveling from city to city just causing problems.”
Because Bedford no longer has a daily newspaper, the city sent out a “Code Red” message warning residents of the violence and lawlessness that was “out of control” at their event. Three surrounding police agencies were called in to quell the violence.
The fire chief said his people were not armed or trained for this kind of activity.
Some of the residents complained of “political correctness” that prevented them from talking about what really happened. City manager Henry Angelo did not deny that black mobs were responsible for the violence. But he did say it was “contemptuous” that anyone would notice. [More]
Kaboom! Now Black Mobs Kill 4th of July | People 'traveling from city to city just causing problems', WND.com, July 1, 2013
In April, 2012, John Derbyshire wrote a famous article for Takimag "The Talk: Nonblack Version”, with a list of ways to avoid being the victim of random black violence. (Instead, he was the victim of random Political Correctness—National Review Editor Rich Lowry randomly fired him.)
One of the items on Derbyshire’s list:
If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date. (Neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot.)
That was a riot at the Six Flags Great Adventure Park in Jackson, N.J., which Derbyshire happened to be visiting in April, 1987. See
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Yet we Americans have often sacrificed liberty for safety.
The greater antagonist of liberty is not the quest for security, but our insatiable demand and inexorable drive for equality—not equality of rights but equality of results.
To equalize incomes the government confiscates 40 percent of the earnings of the most successful Americans and uses that wealth to subsidize the food, health care, housing and income of that half of the nation that pays no income taxes.
The federal estate tax is 40 percent for the wealthy. Some states tack on 16 percent. Individuals may spend entire lives acquiring wealth for their progeny. And governments, in the name of equality, will seize half of it on their deaths. Socialism, said Winston Churchill, is the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed.
To guarantee equal pay for equal work, the government has created agencies to monitor the payrolls of every business, agencies empowered to identify, expose and punish employers who might dare to use their economic freedom to reward some workers more than others.
To ensure racial, ethnic and gender equality in the labor force and the front office, the government fields thousands of agents to police the hiring, promotion and dismissal decisions of executives.
Affirmative action and quotas have been imposed on colleges and universities, stripping those institutions of freedom of choice, to advance a greater racial, ethnic and gender equality in student bodies and on faculties than a free and fair competition might produce.
Contract set-asides have been established on which no white male may bid. To make minorities and women more equal, we make others less free.
Freedom of assembly, which produced men's and women's clubs
The trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with Murder Two for killing Trayvon Martin, will recess for the July Fourth holiday only—the jury is sequestered and there is obviously pressure to reach a verdict as soon as possible.
As a blogger, I have watched all the testimony so far. (On Tuesday, incredibly, Judge Debra Nelson instructed the jury to disregard prosecution witness police officer Chris Serino’s testimony that he believed Zimmerman’s story—and Jacksonville medical examiner Valerie Rao, for some reason an Indian immigrant from Madras, controversially testified that Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds were “very insignificant.”)
My assessment: if this were a football game, the Zimmerman team would be ahead 35-10. That doesn’t bode well for the railroading of Zimmerman. But that project is far from exhausted.
What all of the testimony so far has hammered home again and again: there never was any case against George Zimmerman.
This is a political show trial. Prosecutors, and their political masters, expected to railroad an innocent man for an imaginary crime, with the help of the Politically Correct Main Stream Media.
But thousands of patriotic Americans saw what was at stake and variously blogged on the case, doing for nothing what the MSM is paid for, and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Zimmerman’s defense fund (which the Florida legal bureaucracy has since neutralized, prosecuting Zimmerman’s wife for perjury on a technical issue).
Those patriotic Americans remembered the Duke Rape Hoax, and no doubt multiple similar hoaxes. They saw the Trayvon Martin Hoax as yet another “anti-racist” lynching, with questionable black “victims” supported by powerful Politically Correct whites—and, in this case, by a President who publicly encouraged the frenzy against white-enough Zimmerman.
My quick thoughts:
- The Prosecution Team
Through the first three days last week, presiding judge, aka “prosecutor’s assistant” (John Derbyshire) Debra Nelson sustained every objection made by the prosecution, including making it impossible for defense counsel Don West to make a proper opening argument, while overruling most defense objections, leaving defense counsel at times speechless.
It appeared that Judge Nelson had no intention of granting George Zimmerman a vigorous defense or a fair trial. Most people fail to realize that judges, far from being demigods, are typically no more than pompous political hacks. (Nelson’s later rulings have been less consistent.)
Judge Nelson’s teammates: prosecutors John Guy, Bernie de la Rionda, and Richard Mantei, and Special Prosecutor Angela Corley. Guy asserted in his opening that Zimmerman had had “hate in his heart.”
All are white.
- The Defense Team
In spite of their disadvantages, Zimmerman’s high-priced defense team of Mark O’Mara and Don West has succeeded in turning most prosecution witnesses into defense witnesses—showing them committing rampant perjury or being manipulated in their perceptions by the MSM. In fact, the
Much as the Establishment GOP has betrayed its base time and again over the National Question, some American evangelical leaders have betrayed their congregations by shilling for the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. Recently, VDARE.com’s Allan Wall has noted that the so-called Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a conglomeration of denomination preachers (a few) bureaucrats (a lot), activists, university officials and authors, is literally a front for the George Soros-funded National Immigration Forum.
Most of the coverage of this entertaining sideshow of the immigration war has come from a few guerilla bloggers and journalists, particularly Matt Boyle of Breitbart News, who originally broke the story, [National Immigration Forum Funded by Soros and the Left, June 2, 2013] Michael Patrick Leahy, who did follow-up coverage at Breitbart, and Marjorie Jeffrey at The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog Juicy Ecumenism.
Ms. Jeffrey explains:
“Politics makes for strange bedfellows goes the old saying. The marriage between a group of Evangelical Christian organizers and George Soros has birthed a new organization called the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT).
EIT reportedly does not legally exist and is an arm of the George Soros funded National Immigration Forum, which as a “neutral third-party institution” facilitated EIT’s $250,000 radio ad campaign urging Evangelicals to back mass legalization of illegal immigrants.
So if the EIT is just a front, then what exactly is the National Immigration Forum? NIF received over three million dollars from Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2009-2010 alone, as well as one million dollars from the left-wing Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Sojourners is also a recipient of Soros’ money, and their President and CEO, Jim Wallis, is prominent within EIT.
All roads seem to lead to Soros, as a cursory glance into the funding of many religious organizations that have publicly advocated for the recent amnesty legislation find their way back to the Hungarian-American’s bountiful leftist check book. Take, for example, the so-called Nuns on the Bus…
Jeffrey goes on:
“What are Soros, the open borders lobby, and the progressive left really trying to accomplish? The Left sees a prime opportunity to exploit Evangelical leaders by crafting a media campaign designed to convince the GOP leadership that one of their main constituencies, Bible Belt Christians, favors comprehensive reform.
Some may argue legitimately that some Evangelical elites genuinely see passing amnesty as their Christian duty. Mega funding by leftist philanthropies and high level, publicized political partnerships are added inducements.
But there remains the nauseating fact
They did. Within days Nixon's approval surged to 68 percent. The ferocious Republican partisan of the 1950s had won over millions of Democrats.
Why? Because sons and brothers of those Democrats were doing much of the fighting in Vietnam. If Nixon was standing by them, they would stand by him.
In 1972 Nixon would win 49 states. Ronald Reagan, backed by his "Reagan Democrats," would win 44- and 49-state landslides.
Answer: For a generation, when forced to choose between Middle America and corporate America, on NAFTA, most-favored nation for China, and free trade, the GOP establishment opted to go with the Fortune 500. In the GOP the corporate conservative rides up front; the social, cultural and patriotic conservatives in the back of the bus.
Consider who has benefited most from Republican-backed globalization.
Was it not corporate executives and
One of the major battlegrounds of the Civil Rights movement, Birmingham now has a special place in the hearts of those who fought for and support what the author calls Black Run America (BRA). Every American schoolchild now learns that peaceful, put-upon blacks in that city faced down insurmountable odds in overcoming segregation, white racism, bombings and Bull Connor’s fire hoses and police dogs.
But Kersey looks beyond that popular myth at the reality of post-civil rights era Birmingham.
In this age of rapid demographic displacement of whites, it is remarkable to note that Birmingham’s racial balance was stable from 1890 to 1960. Throughout those 70 years, the demographics remained steady at 60% white, 40% black. Not only was the racial balance stable, Birmingham was prosperous as well. It vied with Atlanta for the title of business capital of the South. The city was home to six Fortune 500 companies even into the 1990s. (It now has only one).
Birmingham worked because it was a segregated city whose institutions were all run by whites. The brutal, unmentionable fact is that both working class and wealthy whites could live in safe, orderly neighborhoods with good schools because blacks were legally barred from living there. (If The Tragic City has a flaw it is that the author does not spend more time documenting life in the pre-Civil Rights era).
But with the success of the Civil Rights revolution in the 1960s, many whites saw the writing on the wall and fled. By 1980, blacks were 55% of the population.
This demographic shift was key to giving Birmingham its first black mayor in 1979. In what was essentially a racial headcount, black Democrat Richard Arrington beat white Republican Frank Parsons by 2,000 votes. Arrington received 98% of the black vote and Parsons garnered 88% of the white vote.
This marked the beginning of black political control of Birmingham—and the