Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
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
Some of the leading immigration patriots in the House of Representatives held a day-long press conference against Amnesty on Wednesday (June 19). But the event had to be interrupted for the speakers and attendees to go participate in the Tea Party Patriots’ “Audit the IRS” protest, led by Glenn Beck and Rand Paul.
This interruption is a near perfect metaphor for the way all the various Obama scandals have—rather than weakened Obama’s legislative agenda—distracted patriots from the much more pressing issue of stopping the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill.
And, more disturbingly, the scandal gives many of the pro-Amnesty politicians to grandstand to the base against Obama, instead of confronting the fact that they are working for Obama’s immigration agenda.
Quite frankly, the Tea Party Patriots time would be better spent protesting outside Rand Paul’s office in response to his initial vote in favor of the Gang of 8 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge.
In the wake of the Citizens United decision, there has been a real blurring of political and non-profit activity that does need to be scrutinized. I rarely agree with the New York Times editorial board, but I did concur when they wrote that
The Internal Revenue Service was absolutely correct to look into the abuse of the tax code by political organizations masquerading as “social welfare” groups over the last three years. The agency’s mistake — and it was a serious one — was focusing on groups with “Tea Party” in their name or those criticizing how the country is run.
The I.R.S. Audits Are Condemned, May 13, 2013
Groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and its Democratic equivalent, Priorities USA, should indeed be scrutinized. But they both have expensive lawyers who can deflect any question sent to them by the IRS. That’s why it was only smaller Tea Party organizations, without expensive legal representation, who were actually harmed by the IRS.
Nonetheless, Karl Rove, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers and all their paid lackeys in Conservatism Inc. are using this scandal not only to distract from the Amnesty, but also to further entrench the idea of corporate influence in elections as a conservative principle.
After the Citizens United ruling, I warned on VDARE.com: “No matter what the constitutional merits of the Supreme Court's decision, this could be a disaster for patriotic immigration reform.”
My main concern at the time: the possible use of corporate money in elections against immigration patriots.
Memo From Middle America | Mexican Meddlers Eager To Boost Obamnesty—With Birth Certificate Vending Machines At Mexican Consulates!
I write from Mexico, where my family and I are visiting for about a month. Of course, I try to keep up with the latest on the Amnesty debate in the US. And, of course, that's being covered here in Mexico. Guess what, Mexicans support amnesty, so it must be good for the United States, right?
Being here in Mexico while this is going on brings back memories. As longtime readers of VDARE.COM know, it was my experience living in Mexico for many years that helped transform me into an American immigration patriot. (See my article THE EDUCATION OF A GRINGO IN MEXICO, Or How Living in Mexico Helped Transform Me Into A VDARE.COM Contributor. )
The Mexican media and political class keep close tabs on U.S. immigration legislation—closer tabs than most Americans do. And of course Eduardo Medina-Mora, Mexico's ambassador in Washington, is particularly on top of things:
"The Ambassador of Mexico in the United States, Eduardo Medina Mora, praised the migratory reform Project being discussed in the U.S. Senate.” Embajador de México en EU alaba avance en reforma migratoria, [By Angel Villarino, Terra.com, June 12th, 2013 ]
The ambassador prefaced his remark with a typical disclaimer - "The government of Mexico admits that the migratory reform in the United States is a domestic issue..." (Mexican diplomats say that when they're about to meddle) - but we cannot fail to recognize its deep impact."
The ambassador continued "The possibility that this reform is passed is a reminder of the best traditions that have made this country great." Actually, this reform is in the tradition of things that are destroying our nation.
Medina Mora's comments were made at an American Enterprise Institute symposium on June 12th—the same day the Senate voted to begin deliberations on S. 744. He was the keynote speaker at the symposium ludicrously entitled "Where is Mexico Headed?"
Where is Mexico headed? To the United States, obviously—in droves.
And the Villarino article included this equally ludicrous comment:
While other governments such as South Korea or China have lobbied to support migratory reform, Mexico (the country with the most migrants in the United States) has preferred to maintain itself at the margin.
Mexico at the margin of the immigration debate? Baloney! Mexico is already well-established in the United States with its 50 consulates and its flagrant meddling in our internal affairs apparently isn't an issue. (When was the last time you heard a GOP politician complain about it?)
Meanwhile, back in Mexico the Mexican Congress is also working on S. 744. Recently, Mexican congressman Miguel Alonso Raya [Twitter] presented a statement to the Comisión Permanente [Permanent Commission] of the Mexican Congress. (The Comisión Permanente is a sort of mini-Congress with 37 members, which is in session during congressional recesses.)
Raya’s memo was actually an exhortation telling the Mexican executive branch to "prepare to respond...to an unprecedented demand for documents on the part of Mexican migrants resulting from the approval of a migratory reform in the United States” and to "coordinate with the state governments, the chief of the Federal District and the municipal governments to respond to such a demand of documentation over nationality, identity and civil state." (This would include Mexican citizenship, birth and civil state documents).
In other words, this congressman wants the Mexican government to get ready to help Mexican illegal aliens to be legalized under S. 744.
Ayala pointed out, in fact, that there already is a demand for such documents,
You can try to put "conservative" lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it's still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.
After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical "Aztlan" aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of "reform" and "opportunity."
It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As Twitchy.com reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach's neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It's how the Alinskyite "community organizers" roll.
Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach "King of Hate" for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.
But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.
After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: "I'll give her something to be disgusted about!" Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: "OMG! Maybe her drive should be next." Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: "Maybe her house should be next." Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode's page: "Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets."
Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: "(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it." A user writing as "Paul-says Fckmarkzuck" left death threats under Romero's comment: "Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP." The same user added: "Just another b*tch that needs to die off already."
The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: "Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is 'disgusted' by Hispanic protesters." Grosserode wasn't disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.
Gina Long pounced: "(S)he is stupid and doesn't like brown people."
Previously By Anthony Boehm: Funny Thing: Anti-German Racism In Czech Election Doesn’t Bother U.S. Main Stream Media
Sixty years ago this Monday (June 17), the people of the Soviet Occupation Zone (SOZ) a.k.a. East Germany rose against their leaders. Scores were killed in the uprising, including, thank all the Gods, over 100 functionaries of the Soviet-imposed “Socialist Unity” (SED) Communist puppet regime.
This is an anniversary which will probably not be noted much in the MSM, in the US or in Germany. After all, the victims were not members of any preferred group— just Germans, co-ethnics of what is still, despite our all political elite’s efforts, the largest component of the American population.
The uprising occurred in the framework of the Cold War tensions of the 1950s. West Berlin-based US radio did its job and incited the citizens of the SOZ to resist an increased work quota. Amazing as it seems in retrospect, a people that had been raped and plundered by the Soviets and their SOZ collaborators for eight long years found the will to take to the streets to demand that the new quotas be rescinded. Thousands took to the streets across the SOZ and huge crowds converged on the center of Berlin, carrying homemade anti-regime signs demanding all-German elections and chanting, "Death to Communism!", "Down with the Government!"—and even “Long live Eisenhower.”
Their trust in the then-U.S. President was sadly as misplaced as that of the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1956. The US did not intend to actually do anything to support the Germans or roll back the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.
Soviet troops, together with elements of the Communist regime’s Volkspolizei , fired into the crowds and put down the rising by sheer brutality, with many shot to death on the streets or summarily executed. Others were murdered by the Communist regime after what passed as trials.
This June 17th Uprising was the occasion of the famous poem by Bertolt Brecht, The Solution:
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow cited these lines in his National Review cover story Time To Rethink Immigration [June 22, 1992] which ultimately grew into his 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster:
If "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Is So Popular, Why Won't They Say It's Amnesty + Immigration Surge?
[Originally published on WND, June 12, 2013. Updated for VDARE.com with more links.]
The famous joke says that you can always tell when a lawyer is lying—his lips move.
Similarly, you can tell that backers of S.744, the 1,000-page Schumer-Rubio immigration bill that has been rushed to the Senate floor this week, are terrified that justly outraged American patriots will tar and feather them and run them out of town on a rail—they always describe their insanely radical and grossly self-interested proposal as “immigration reform” or, frequently, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
Of course, it’s a deception. “Immigration reform” could logically mean just about any change in the current chaotic, stuck-on-full-throttle immigration system. It could even mean an immigration moratorium—no net immigration. In fact, in view of America’s multi-year unemployment crisis, that is exactly what it should mean.
And, shamelessly, S.744′s backers are actually presenting the measure as an enforcement and anti-amnesty bill (they redefine amnesty) in what appears to be a lavishly funded election-campaign-style phone bank offensive, which I’ve heard about from states as far flung as Montana and Alaska.
But what S.744 actually comprises:
- Amnesty—the 11 million (20 million?—nobody knows) illegal aliens in the U.S. will be allowed to stay, which is what matters. Period.
- A legal immigration surge—legal immigration will be doubled or even tripled, from its already record levels. By some counts, this “reform” could mean as many as 33 million legal immigrants in the next decade. By comparison, only about 10 million legal immigrants arrived 1990-2012—and only about 2.5 million in the 1950s.
Forget about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”—S.744 must really be called the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge Act.
Naturally, most public attention is focused on the amnesty provisions. And they are truly outrageous.
But the increase in legal immigration is the real kicker here. It’s been smuggled
Breitbart summarized it well:
An employee of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), together with a political ally of “Gang of Eight” member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), will argue Friday that groups opposed to the immigration bill pending in the U.S. Senate are "nativists," Breitbart News has learned.
ATR’s Josh Culling and Hispanic Leadership Fund (HLF) president Mario Lopez will make the argument on a conference call with mainstream media reporters on Friday at 11 AM EDT. Brad Bailey of an organization called Texas Immigration Studies will join them on the call.
(877) 888-4319: Norquist, Rubio Allies To Paint Immigration Bill Opponents As Nativists On Conference Call, by Matthew Boyle, June 13, 2013
Needless to say, genuine conservatives will not be fooled by this—Breitbart rightly notes that these people are “described” as “conservative leaders" by their PR types.
But the Main Stream Media can be expected to play along. When HLF president Mario H. Lopez (email him) surfaced some months ago with an article on this stuff in Human Life Review, VDARE.com’s Washington Watcher said all too accurately that “the MSM, which usually presents the Religious Right and Grover Norquist as the root of all evil in America, has done its job in hyping this supposed controversy.”
The Treason Lobby regularly smears opponents of amnesty by tying them to “White nationalism”. This can’t literally be true, since “White nationalism” is something of a fringe movement, whereas opposition to amnesty polls in the 70s and 80s with actual Americans. (Up to 88 percent with African-Americans, but I suppose “black nationalism” isn’t objectionable as far as the MSM is concerned.)
Moreover, as I explained in an article entitled Communism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism, Democratic Hegemonists, Crony Capitalism, Ethnic Agendas, Treason Etc.—The “Ugly Roots” Of Immigration Enthusiasm, immigration enthusiasts claiming that Dr. Tanton and people like, well, me, are at the “root” of opposition to immigration have unspoken or even open nefarious agendas of their own.
Thus it’s obvious that something called the Hispanic Leadership Fund is for Hispanic immigration even it costs non-Hispanic Americans money. I called them Ethnic Agenda-Mongers. It’s even more obvious that Conservatism Inc. types like lobbyist Grover Norquist support the wealthy employer against the poor or even middle-class American worker. I called this species Crony Capitalists.
But now there’s a new evilmonger in sight—Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. He is married to Columba Garnica Gallo, from Guanajato, Mexico, and is the father of the half-Mexican George P. Bush, who seems to have been indoctrinated by his mother as a Hispanic race warrior—he told a Hispanic Republican rally in 2000 that "She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us". [Reuters, August 2, 2000]
In spite of these Hispanic credentials, Jeb Bush in a recent speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority conference accused Hispanic immigrants of being “more fertile” than regular Americans. (He and Columba have three grown children.) See Jeb Bush: U.S. economy needs immigrants because they’re ‘more fertile’, Aaron Blake, Washington Post, June 14, 2013.
Hold on a minute! Doesn’t Bush realize it is officially Hateful to refer to immigrant fertility?
Years ago, similarly referring to the extraordinary philoprogenitiveness of Mexican immigrants, Dr. John Tanton made the following very mild joke (in a private memo):
“On the demographic point: perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!".[Memo To WITAN IV Attendees, October 10, 1986 (Link courtesy of the $PLC’s spymasters—see Dr. Tanton’s reply to the SPLC's attack on him)]
This quote gets over 11, 000 hits on Google, and was quoted in 21 actual printed books, mostly by left-wing Latino academics. (Sample titles: White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race and Voices of the U.S. Latino Experience .)
Neocon princess Linda Chavez, hearing about this memo, resigned from the Official English group US English in a Politically Correct panic. She subsequently brought the story up in 2003, defending Arnold Schwarzenegger from charges of evil associations, saying she resigned because the memo’s reference to fertility (like Jeb, she has three children.) was “anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic.” [English and Arnold, Townhall.com, August 20, 2003, see also Don't Listen To Linda Chavez, by Sam Francis, August 28, 2003]
I’m joking, of course. Jeb Bush’s speech was full of hateful
S.744, the Obama-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill now being rushed through the U.S. Senate, is not just the 1986 Amnesty writ large: although little-noted, it’s simultaneously the disastrous1965 Immigration Act, which restarted immigration after a 40-year lull—also writ large. Accordingly, I’ve been documenting problems that the 1965 act appears to have exacerbated: violent crime; poverty; and now inequality.
Researchers at the International Labor Organization have measured national income inequality using a statistic called the “Gini coefficient.” Gini coefficients can range from 0 (perfect equality in income among all households) to 100 (one household receives the entire national income and the rest get nothing.) Like golf, low Gini scores win.
The recent ILO [PDF] report puts the U.S. Gini coefficient at 47.7 in 2011, or almost half way toward the theoretical maximum of 100. By comparison, inequality in the other 25 developed countries range from 20 to 35.
Moreover, inequality is rising faster here than anyplace else. The U.S. Gini coefficient rose even during the stock market collapse of 2008 to 2009. Market meltdowns like that usually have a leveling effect on inequality.
So it seems as if “American exceptionalism” includes the ability of our wealthy to garner a disproportionate share of national income.
Liberals blame the greed and avarice of the richest 1% —aided and abetted by financial de-regulation etc... Conservatives, to the extent that they fret over inequality, focus on the shocking lack of skills among large swaths of the bottom 99%—the result of an inefficient public education system substantially controlled by teacher unions.
Both sides believe income inequality will increase unless their policy agendas are put in place.
Both sides ignore U.S. economic history—and the role of immigration.
Jay Gatsby notwithstanding, the Roaring Twenties marked the start of a forty-year period during which ordinary workers got richer while the rich got relatively poorer. After an early recession unemployment dropped below 5% and stayed below that level for most of the decade. Americans found themselves sharing broadly similar lifestyles in a way not seen since before the Civil War.
But all of that went into reverse in the 1970s—right about the time that the 1965 Act became effective (and illegal immigration got underway again).
From the end of World War II until the late 1960s the rich-poor divide was remarkably stable, even narrowing over long stretches. The de facto immigration moratorium in place from the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s forced America to draw on unused and under employed minorities to meet its internal labor force needs.
That things started to come apart around 1970, as can be seen by eyeballing the trend in mean and median family income:
Mean is the average income, calculated by dividing total income by
Next year should be a banner year for the GOP, and may yet be.
The White House is bedeviled by scandals, the second-term curse has caught up with the Obama presidency, and prospects for the U.S. economy seem dicier than a few months ago.
History is also on the GOP's side. In the second midterm elections, Presidents Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK-LBJ, Nixon-Ford, Reagan and Bush II all suffered big losses. It has become a tradition.
But if the GOP is favored to hold the House and make gains in the Senate, the long-term prognosis for the party remains grim.
First, libertarianism is breaking up that old gang of mine.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham call for air strikes on Syria. But no echo is heard, as the Republican Party becomes anti-interventionist.
Yet the acid test comes after Friday's Iranian election, as the neocon war drums begin to beat.
Libertarian Republicans believe the National Security Agency is Big Brother and the Brave New World at hand. National security Republicans back the agency's right to access private data banks to protect us from terrorism.
On how to deal with 12 million illegal aliens—send them home or grant them amnesty and a "path to citizenship"—the party's rancorous division will be starkly visible when the bill reaches the House.
But the existential crisis of the GOP, from which it has turned its eyes away since George H.W. Bush, is demography.
Yet the matter cannot be avoided now, for it is on page one.
In demographic terms, more white Americans died in 2012 than were born. Never before—not during the Civil War bloodletting, not during the influenza epidemic after World War I, not during th
We all know now what the vengeful Obama IRS has been doing to conservative nonprofits the past four years: strangling them in the crib. But do you know how much pampering and largesse far-left welfare-state charities have received while limited-government groups suffered? You don't know the half of it.