Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
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
The soft tyranny of Political Correctness is steadily transforming into outright Cultural Marxist totalitarianism – and it is starting on QVC.
Now that the Amnesty and Immigration Surge Bill has been voted up by the U.S. Senate, it is instructive to step back and take a look at its origins.
The sheer amount of legislative effort here has, after all, been tremendous. At twelve hundred pages, the bill is almost as long as War and Peace—sixty times the length of the original U.S. Constitution. Such heroic labors! Why? What have been the motivations of the bill’s authors and movers?
I thought I might gain some insight into this from a close reading of Ryan Lizza’s piece “Getting to Maybe: Inside the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Deal” in the June 24th New Yorker.
Lizza is the magazine’s Washington correspondent. His article gives all the personal dynamics of the Senate’s taking up the bill and passing it through the Judiciary Committee. (It does not of course take us all the way to this week’s final passage.)
“Getting to Maybe” is written with flawless professional objectivity, the writer himself almost invisible, offering no commentary, no opinion, and no sign of any engagement with the underlying issue.
Even when the protagonists in the story are at their most mendacious or obnoxious, Lizza resists the temptation to add any critical or ironic coloring to his narrative, allowing their words to speak for themselves.
He writes for example of the first bonding between John McCain and Chuck Schumer, in meetings last fall to preserve the Senate’s filibuster rule:
McCain agreed that the meetings built trust between him and Schumer. “The reason why I enjoyed working with Ted Kennedy is because Ted was always good to his word,” he said. “And so is Chuck.”
Any regular reader of VDARE.com, recalling Ted Kennedy’s bare-faced lies about the 1965 immigration bill he championed, would have sprayed coffee over page 47 of the New Yorker at that point, but Lizza passes on without comment.
Likewise with Lizza’s coverage of the Heritage-Richwine flap last month.
McCain could hardly contain himself as he recited the story of how the Heritage report backfired. “Ka-boom!” he yelled. “That was a gift from God . . . But, yeah, those low-I.Q. Hispanics, I’ll tell ya, that was really revealing to me, I had no idea.” McCain, who is of Irish heritage, added, “We’ve always known that about the Irish.”
Ha ha ha ha! Never mind that a young scholar’s career was destroyed for having, in a Harvard doctoral dissertation, tried to introduce some quantitative facts about human capital into the immigration debate.
Politics proverbially ain’t beanbag, but I don’t think politicians are supposed to take quite so much pleasure in inflicting collateral casualties. On Lizza’s account, John McCain really does seem to be an extremely unpleasant person.
The passage in Lizza’s piece that got everyone’s attention was the quote he included from a Rubio aide that: “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.”
When Rubio’s people pushed back indignantly against that quote, Lizza quietly released the full transcript of his notes, according to which a second Rubio aide had chimed in:
Rubio Aide 2: But the same is true for the high-skilled workers.
Rubio Aide 1: Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.
Mickey Kaus summarized the Rubio aides’ view of American workers:
There’s a reason unemployed Americans are unemployed. They aren’t star performers. Screw ’em. We’re bringing in workers from abroad!
No news to anyone on this side of the issue, but
The Treason Lobby won a Pyrrhic victory on Thursday, passing the nation-breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill through the Senate. This widely-anticipated action led to predictable Main Stream Media ululations, maudlin sentimentality, and veiled racial threats against the historic American nation on the part of the governing class and its clients. But patriots should not be cowed: there is real cause for optimism.
The fact that Amnesty has passed the Senate means little in itself—it did that years ago. As Jim Antle notes on Twitter, “There has been 60 to 70 Senate votes for some form of comprehensive immigration reform since 2005.”
So the whole point of the current full court press for Amnesty/ Immigration Surge following Barack Obama's re-election has been to overwhelm debate and create a sense of inevitability.
Thus Lindsey Graham said that he wanted to get half of the Republicans in the Senate to back him. [Lindsey Graham: Marco Rubio 'Committed To Immigration Reform', By Elise Foley, Huffington Post, June 4, 2013] But in fact, only 14 of the 45 Republicans voted for it—a much lower share than in 1986 and 2006.
Similarly, Amnesty backers confidently predicted at least 70 votes—as Chuck Schumer put it, “We need 70.” [Getting to Maybe, by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, June 24, 2013] Even opponents of the bill conceded that was likely to happen. But it didn't happen—the final tally was 68-32. This tells us there is trouble from within the Establishment.
Even the celebratory press conference after the bill's passage seemed feigned and pathetic. Lindsey Graham made sure to thank President Obama for all his help—now that the bill is safely passed, the Beltway Right no longer has to feign opposition. He also threw in a prissy non sequitur attack on former Congressman Tom Tancredo, claiming that Republicans were coming around to Graham's own self-described “tough but practical” position.
However, one could not help but notice that two faces were missing from the celebratory gaggle—Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake. Both avoided the press conference, as if they were ashamed. It won't do them any good—Rubio's favorability ratings among Republicans have plummeted. [Poll: Rubio’s favorability down among GOP voters, up among independents, By Caroline May, Daily Caller, June 24, 2013]
After all, Rubio's role throughout this entire process has been to convince (= fool) conservatives
Forget Paula Deen. There are far more dangerous bigots and poisonous haters spoiling the American landscape. They cook up violent rhetoric and murderous plots against our troops, our citizens and our allies 24/7. And they have direct access to the White House.
Peter Morrison Report: Immigration, Abortion, The DOMA Disaster—For Texas, Red States No Way Out But Secession
I know it's been a while since I've sent out a report, but conditions have not materially changed since then.
Yesterday the Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, tipping their hand of the first of many steps to ratchet our country, against the will of many of the states and 6,000 years of recorded history, into accepting homosexual marriage under penalty of law. Already conservatives are running to their old standbys of pushing for constitutional amendments to remedy the problem, never mind the impossibility of getting two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states to go along. You can be sure, however, that earnest promises will be made in the next Republican primary.
It is clear to me that we are dealing with a Romans 1 situation. We live in a country that elected and then re-elected Barack Hussein Obama, and there is simply no way out except political separation. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we can either have the judgment to separate from the blue states, or we will all be judged together. History knows no other fate for societies who have fallen to this level of moral degeneracy.
You can be sure in the coming years that those who hold to traditional morality will be further marginalized as haters and bigots. Many church denominations will either stop talking about the issue or "discover" a new angle on interpreting Scripture in order to accommodate the state religion of equality. It will be a time of testing where people will reveal their true loyalties.
The problem is not merely political. All across the nation about 40 years ago, every single state, red and blue, surrendered to feminist demands and passed laws making divorce quick and easy. Our governments have made a mockery of heterosexual marriage, and so now we are mocked with the spectacle of homosexual marriage. It is also surely true that the epidemic of absent or weak fathers wrought by easy divorce has itself contributed to the growth of the gay population and the atmosphere of moral relativism in our society. We reap what we sow. Spiritual renewal is the only true long-term hope we have.
Nevertheless, it is clear that political separation will help contain the problem, as the blue states are further down this road than ever. The long-term necessity of separation is what makes our leaders here in Texas so generally disappointing. Texas is naturally the state to take the lead
Is the Second Reconstruction over?
The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.
The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.
Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.
What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.
You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.
Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?
By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.
Even the "pre-clearance" provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what "Bull" Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.
Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.
What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally—for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.
The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.
Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals
[Previously by Matthew Richer The Marco Rubio Of Massachusetts: Will The GOP Establishment And Its Token Hispanic Gabriel Gomez Blow This Election Too]
Watching the Republican Party’s current obsession with “Hispanic outreach” reminds one of the circus clown whose routine consists of tossing banana peels in front of himself, then slipping and falling flat on his back.
Early in the special election campaign to replace John Kerry in the U.S. Senate, it was clear that the Massachusetts GOP Establishment had handpicked Gabriel Gomez as their candidate, and for only one reason—he’s Hispanic.
Just as being black was the only reason Deval Patrick was elected Governor and Barack Obama elected President, being Hispanic was the only reason Gabriel Gomez received the GOP nomination for the Senate.
When asked about his qualifications, Gomez constantly repeated the fact that he had served as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately, military service does not impress a lot of voters here in the Bay State, and “Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez” quickly became an irritating soundbite.
True, Gomez did join a successful private equity firm after his military service, but one has to wonder if he was just an Affirmative Action hire. He never really seemed to understand economic policy very well—especially given that he is a huge booster for the nation-bankrupting Gang of Eight Amnesty/ Immigration Surge.
During the debates, Gabriel Gomez deliberately chided his Democratic opponent, Ed Markey (NumbersUSA F) for being too weak a proponent of the Gang of Eight amnesty and actually vowed to outdo the Democrat on this issue. ““I want to make it a ‘Gang of Nine,’” Gomez promised again and again. Gomez: We’ll win ‘with or without DC’, by Jessica Taylor, June 25, 2013
You can’t make this stuff up.
Every time Gomez uttered this “Gang of Nine” remark, it was obvious that he really believed that he was delivering a decisive blow against his opponent. But the only people wincing were potential voters.
The “Gang of Nine” sound bite was obviously pre-rehearsed. Who can doubt that Gomez’s consultants
Peter Brimelow WND's Column On Student Loan Crisis: Gang Of 8 Plans Further Immiseration Of New College Graduates
Great news! Another bursting debt bubble is about to take down the U.S. economy. And the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, now being debated in the Senate, is perfectly designed to make the situation worse!
This time, the culprit is not reckless mortgage lending, which led to massive defaults and a real-estate crash that nearly wrecked the world economy in 2008. Instead, now the culprit is student loans—amazingly, they’re now getting to be about as large in total as the subprime mortgage market at its peak in 2007 ($1.3 trillion); they already exceed total credit card debt ($798 billion). And student default rates are creeping up into the same range as the default rate on mortgages in 2007.
In both cases, the ultimate villain is the federal government.
For more than 20 years, under both Democrats and Republicans, Washington pushed the mortgage banks to extend home loans to people who would not normally qualify, because it wanted to expand home ownership among minorities, who are disproportionately bad credit risks.
It was always obvious that this would result in more defaults—I wrote about it in Forbes magazine back in 1993! [The Hidden Clue] But Washington didn’t care. It drove the mortgage industry, and the economy, right over the cliff anyway.
In some ways, the more interesting question is: Why did the mortgage banks let themselves be driven off the cliff?
To understand this, you have to know something about the peculiar psychology of commercial bureaucracies. To the individuals running the mortgage banks, more lending meant more immediate commissions and bonuses for them personally. And for that they were quite ready to sacrifice the future of the institutions they managed (but usually didn’t own). Plus they may have reasoned that the federal government would ultimately bail the banks out anyway—which, in fact, is just what happened.
Again, this short-term greed is exactly what is driving the current extraordinary spending on the Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill by plutocrats like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Standard econometric analysis suggests that legalization, and the planned huge simultaneous increase in legal immigration, could result in the transfer of as much as a trillion dollars a year from labor to the owners of capital, because
Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He's a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He's also a coward, a bigot, a liar and a textbook example of plantation progressivism.
I used to be a Democrat. I still am an environmentalist. It doesn’t surprise me when my former fellow-Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer salivates about two million-strong Mexican mobs assembling on the Washington mall to intimidate Americans: the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill is designed literally to crowd out the historic American nation. The politics of this—the drive to Elect a New People—have been extensively discussed on VDARE.com. But the population aspect—the tsunami of people that would be allowed in by this bill—deserves attention too.
Obviously any serious environmentalists would worry about the danger inherent in importing enormous numbers of people, especially from the Third World to the First where their use of resources normally increases greatly. After all, greater material consumption is why most immigrants come, though we call it “searching for a better life.”
But these days, “global warming” has become almost the sole issue in Establishment environmentalism. Population issues have been purged, because it is not PC to say America is full up.
I was part of a movement among grassroots Sierra Club members that worked for years to return the organization to being a voice for domestic overpopulation concerns. Unfortunately, the normal democratic process for reform had been undermined by a secret bribe of $100 million to suppress mention of the connection between excessive immigration and environmental harm.
When business special interests and non-white racial nationalists wrote this Open Borders plus Amnesty bill of their dreams, all the conspirators got what they wanted. Any "compromise" simply meant more handouts, from La Raza to the Chamber of Commerce.
As a result, the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill is a monstrous Leviathan of more cheap workers, more Democrats, more union members, more taxes, more shoppers, more pavement—and, above all, more people. The base-line estimate, taken from a recent CBO report that immigration enthusiasts actually touted as favorable to their cause: a stunning 46 million persons in the next two decades [Senate bill allows 46 million immigrants by 2033, says CBO, by Neil Munro, Daily Caller, June 19, 2013]
During the mark-up of the legislation in May, Schumer deflected Senator Jeff Sessions’ question about the numbers allowed in the “new legal flow” by announcing: “They’re coming. They’re either coming under law or not under law. And what we do is try to rationalize that system.”
In other words, this bad-faith bill explicitly eliminates borders and enforcement—it just calls the result “legal immigration.” A massively increased future flow from the Third World is the goal of the Gang of Eight bill. The 10 (20?) million illegal aliens to be legalized are just the beginning.
Many of the immigrants unleashed by S.744 will certainly end up in Golden State. Would a quarter of the 46 million settle in the scenic former paradise? That guesstimate would not be unreasonable, since over one in four residents is foreign born now, according to the Census. Twenty-five percent of 46 million would be over 11 million in 20 years who need schools, jobs and housing.
California (population now 38 million) has a little-known but long-established history of drought and the population is well beyond a normal carrying capacity. Tree-ring research has indicated water shortages of disturbing length in relatively recent history:
Beginning about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.
Severe Ancient Droughts: A Warning to California, By William K. Stevens, New York Times, July 19, 1994
Already, overuse of natural resources has led to expensive and taxpayer-funded
Rubiot Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) has just claimed: "It's impossible winning the presidency getting 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, 30 percent of the Asian vote and 7 percent of the African-American vote." GOP Strategy for 2016 Looks Deeply Unsettled, By Charles Babington, RealClearPolitics, June 23, 2013:
This is telling . A couple months ago, renowned New York Times political statistician Nate Silver put together a vote modeling system to measure the electoral effects of the current Senate Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. In a widely-noted column, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out that the model showed the GOP could do better in the short term with slight improvements in the white vote than with shifts of near-impossible magnitude in the Hispanic vote.[Byron York: Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP, May 2, 2013] Of course, Steve Sailer has been making this point on VDARE.com ever since the 2000 election,
In fact, Nate Silver’s model shows that, even if non-whites do continue to vote as Lindsey Graham describes,
Memo From Middle America | How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?
The news from the U.S. Senate is bad enough: the new 1200 page Hoeven-Corker “Border Surge” amendment to the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill will be voted on Monday—requiring Senators to read 24 pages an hour for 16 hours a day over the weekend. But the Supreme Court made things even worse last week by striking down Arizona’s attempt to require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship. [Supreme Court strikes down Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote, by Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC, June 17, 2013]
Let that sink in just a moment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And it isn’t—in Mexico.
The real culprit here, legally speaking: the Motor Voter Act, passed in 1993, to “make it easier” for folks to register to vote by letting them register when applying for driver’s licenses. According to our Supreme Court, nothing besides the actual Motor Voter form can be added by any state, without special permission.
And, incredibly, all the Motor Voter act requires is for an applicant to state that he is a citizen—without requiring any proof whatsoever!
Which means it’s easier to register to vote in this country than apply for a video rental card.
Well, priorities are priorities.
In the Supreme Court hearing on the case in March, Thomas Horne, Attorney General of Arizona pointed out that the Motor Voter form, “…is extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”
Wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, however, responded that “Well, that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”
As VDARE.COM readers are well aware, Arizona has been Ground Zero in the battle to resist the illegal invasion, and has put up a bigger resistance than the other three border states (California, New Mexico and Texas) put together. That’s why the state is the target of federal mugging on immigration–related matters.
In 2004, the voters of Arizona passed Proposition 200 which required applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That sounds totally fair and logical. But the voting registration part has now been struck down.
To their credit, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, displayed some common sense in voting no. Justice Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.” [Arizona V. Inter Tribal Council Of Ariz. Inc. PDF]
Arizona still has an option: to ask the federal government to add state-specific material requiring additional documentation on the Motor Voter form. The state of Louisiana successfully obtained that. The problem: the Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona would apply, currently has no members. New members are supposed to be nominated by the president.
El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, combined the Arizona story with one about in-state- tuition-for-illegals in New Jersey. It began:
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday against
Whatever the outcome of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty/ Immigration Surge battle in Congress, Conservatism Inc. has already lost. The only way the Beltway Right could get the immigration issue “behind” it is if there were no debate within the conservative movement in the country. But the conservative grassroots have decisively turned against Rubio, McCain, Graham, and their collaborators.
And so Conservatism Inc. has turned against the grassroots.
The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis [Email him] epitomized Conservatism Inc.’s hatred of its own voters in his most recent diatribe “Exposing anti-immigration reform motives and canards” [July 20, 2013 ] Lewis, who earlier distinguished himself by his eagerness to purge the “indefensible” John Derbyshire, follows the usual Beltway Right pattern of deciding his opinion on an issue by whether or not it will lead to Leftists calling him names.
Attacking some of the grassroots videos made in response to Mickey Kaus’ mischievous suggestion, Lewis claims that immigration patriotism is discredited because Amnesty opponents believe that the historic American nation should be preserved. He thinks that highlighting this lying promise by Teddy Kennedy at the time of the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act must be a case of gross nativism (if not neo-Nazism):
Lewis sneers that he “doesn't care what Ted Kennedy said in 1965” and preens that he “couldn't care less about preserving the 'ethnic mix' of America. “
Instead, he triumphantly offers the tired bromide that America isn't about a culture or people but about “ideas.”
Lewis writes: “As long as America is free and virtuous, honors the rule of law, and advances the values of Western Civilization, why does ethnicity matter?”
But of course, America currently does none of those things—and mass immigration is a major reason why.
- We are not free, because you can't have freedom and multiculturalism.
- We are not virtuous—America is a moral cesspool, and the increasing Hispanic population is only worsening the problems of illegitimacy, abortion, and crime.
- The rule of law is a joke—as shown by how we are even having this debate over Amnesty.
- “Third World America” does not advance the values of Western Civilization—by opposing patriotic movements in Europe, subsidizing moral degeneracy internationally, facilitating mass immigration into both Europe and America,
The forthcoming book of collected essays from Pierre Ryckmans—for more on which, see my current column at Taki’s Magazine—contains a nice little encomium to Fr. Laszlo Ladany, a Jesuit priest and scholar who, from 1953 to 1982, published a weekly bulletin titled China News Analysis.
Writing shortly before Fr. Ladany died in 1990, Ryckmans says this:
Far away from the crude limelight of the media circus, he has enjoyed three decades of illustrious anonymity. All “China Watchers” used to read his newsletter with avidity; many stole from it—but generally they took great pains never to acknowledge their indebtedness or to mention his name . . .
China News Analysis was compulsory reading for all those who wished to be informed of Chinese political developments: scholars, journalists, diplomats. In academe, however, its perusal among many political scientists was akin to what a drinking habit might be for an ayatollah, or an addiction to pornography for a bishop: it was a compulsive need that had to be indulged in secrecy. China experts gnashed their teeth as they read Ladany’s incisive comments; they hated his clear-sightedness and cynicism; still, they could not afford to miss one single issue of his newsletter, for, however disturbing and scandalous his conclusions, the factual information he supplied was invaluable and irreplaceable.
By that point in Ryckmans’ text, I was thinking of our own Steve Sailer, who claims on indirect but (it seems to me) convincing evidence that several of our bigfoot opinion journalists read his blog in the privacy of their chambers. I think Steve would object to “cynicism,” though.
Why does Ryckmans think Fr. Ladany’s newsletter was such compulsive reading for China experts?
What made China News Analysis so infuriatingly indispensable