Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
The Daily Beast’s immigration enthusiast editor John P. Avlon is an idiot, but he just usefully expressed Main Stream Media conventional wisdom in a propaganda piece for the GOP House Leadership Leadership’s attempted Amnesty/ Immigration Surge sellout when he smeared its opponents: “[T]he increasingly isolated conservative populist base is pre-occupied with resisting cultural change…[the Leadership]—and the country—cannot be held hostage by the impractical ideological fervor of 50 or so House radicals…” [Will Immigration Reform Be John Boehner’s Legacy, February 2, 2014. Emphases added.]
Another example: with the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, the mindless description “far-right” has been tossed with more recklessness than usual. Thus Reuters and the Guardian, evidently believe that Le Pen is “far-right” because she is “anti-immigrant” (and anti-European Union: France's National Front readies mass showing for local vote, by Mark John, January 9, 2014; French polls show surge in support for far-right National Front, by Kim Willsher, October 10, 2013]
BUT THE TRUTH IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Being what the MSM calls “far-right” and “anti-immigrant” puts you in the mainstream of sensible Western popular opinion.
Of course, to be what the MSM calls “anti-immigrant” simply means that you favor some form of restriction or control on immigration into your country.
Whatever—if restricting or controlling immigration is “far-right,” then being “anti-immigrant” is undeniably a mainstream opinion. In a massive Pew Research poll of 47 countries around the world, majorities in 45 of those countries favored further restricting or controlling immigration.
Here is how the Pew Center described the results of its poll:
In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed
There’s a significant and sinister back story to the Cheerios Superbowl First Quarter ad [YouTube] featuring/ flaunting a biracial family that got an MSNBC staffer fired—allegedly—for gloating via Twitter that “the right wing will hate it.” [Cheerios Brings Back Interracial Family For Its First Ever Super Bowl Ad, by Aaron Taube, Business Insider, January 28, 2014.]
Ad agency Saatchi& Saatchi (email CEO Kevin Roberts) knew its masterpiece would get mindless praise in the Main Stream Media and from Politically Correct lumpen Leftists. (Thus Business Insider reader Vall announced: “Anti-white is a code word for pro-American.”)
But S&S took no chances, disengaging the YouTube “Down” vote option and engaging in massive censorship so that over 98 percent of the comments are supportive and criticisms swathed in ambiguous language. [An Interracial Cheerios Super Bowl Ad, Minus YouTube's Hateful Comments, By Joshua Brustein, January 31, 2014].
I tried to post three comments: they were all blocked. Two appear on my PC and at Google+, but with no votes or comments. When I checked using my son’s PC, nothing showed up. (The software that lets someone see something he has posted, but which has actually been blocked—called “ghosted comments” —has been around for 10 or more years.)
The surviving commenters’ stupidity was as appalling as their self-congratulatory, anti-white politics. The majority of the 2,872 comments that I found early Sunday morning did not even understand that the family in the commercial was fictional.
The argument: What if there were newspapers, but nobody read them? Especially with the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge legislation, and the recent GOP House Leadership’s attempt to sneak it past its base, the comment threads are more important, factually and analytically, as the MSM propaganda to which they are appended.
But the Empire knows this, hates it—and is striking back.
Here’s what the New York Times’ chief thread censor, Nigerian-American Community Manager Bassey Etim, [pictured right] [Email | Twitter] who supervises 13 (!) enforcers to fabricate the fake consensus you see on NYT comments threads, thinks of normal, patriotic, white Americans—the kind who fight and die in our wars, pay the taxes, do the productive, legal work (and research for me!):
Most of the newspaper comment sections I see are filled with racism, homophobia and barely literate anti-feminist rants…. The Internet is a big place, and there are a lot of spaces where you can say whatever you please, but nytimes.com is not the rest of the Internet. It’s a news Web site where the news is discussed in ways that don’t make you feel like you need to shower afterward.
[Comments on Comments by Samantha Henig, New York Times, September 20, 2013.]
Paradoxically, Etim then agreed with a reader—“the comments are where the real America is”—and added:
I spend a lot of my evenings in the world of comments too, and not just the night terrors. But I agree with that quote. The people who have access to media platforms are overwhelmingly likely to come from a [sic] certain cultural cliques,
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014
Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the notorious Eight Banditos, gave a revealing speech to the Center for American Progress about the Tea Party the other day. Conservatism Inc. types like Bill O’Reilly criticized Schumer’s remarkably blatant call for the IRS to be used against the Tea Party. But more important was Schumer’s equally blatant acknowledgement of the ethnic agenda behind post-1965 immigration policy—and behind the implacable drive for some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge, which the House GOP Leadership appeared to endorse this week.
Basically, according to Schumer, Tea Partiers are afraid of change. He drew an analogy with the Temperance Movement of the 1920s as a reaction to the changes wrought by the last 1880–1924 immigration Great Wave:
This reaction against social and cultural changes isn’t new to us. Edward Shils, a professor from the University of Chicago, wrote about the Temperance Movement identifying that it was about much more than abolishing liquor. In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean, God-fearing life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces.
And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs. Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.
Today, we see the Tea Party doing much of the same thing. Tea Party adherents see an America that's not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it. [Emphases added throughout].
The reference to Edward Shils is revealing: Shils, a member of the New York Intellectuals—a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in Chapter 6 of my book The Culture of Critique—was a leading theorist of the idea that attempts by majorities to resist the increase in the power and influence of other groups are contrary to the democratic process. A defining feature of the New York Intellectuals was their hostile reinterpretation of Populism, the anti-elite insurrectionary movement of the 1890s.
As I noted:
There were also real conflicts of interest involved. On one side
After the end of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s wildly chaotic term in office in 1963—think Jimmy Carter on steroids—shell-shocked operatives of his Progressive Conservative Party famously joked that they could only think of one possible re-election slogan: “Give the old b-----r another chance!”
(Expletives deleted throughout because of puritanical—and PC—corporate censorware).
There are moments in politics when one slogan can crystallize a mood and spark an explosion. The ADD-crazed GOP House Leadership, by releasing on Thursday a statement on immigration policy that effectively endorses Amnesty and a legal immigration Surge—as Red State’s Daniel Horowitz says in his incisive analysis, “a mirror image of the Senate ‘Gang of 8’ bill, albeit cloaked in even more deceptive and disingenuous language”—is creating such a moment.
The slogan immanent in the Main Stream Media comment threads: “F--- this s—t!”
The Republicans had better plan on some of these illegal aliens becoming Republicans because if this continues, I will leave the Republican Party, if this continues. I think it is just a matter of time. I wish this could be co-ordinated into a national action. For example, on the day the House passes such a bill, all of the like minded Republicans would resign from the party.
time to herd all these rinos into demonrat party... and rebuild the conservative republican party.....Consevatives need to run a 3rd party in 2014 Illegals amnesty will lower standard of living of The American Middle Class... seems like cantor ,ryan boehner are robbing the Middle class to please their big money donor bosses
Commenter “Dontbetrayus” in response to
Out of the Republican retreat on Maryland's Eastern shore comes word that the House leadership is raising the white flag of surrender on immigration.
The GOP will agree to halt the deportation of 12 million illegal aliens, and sign on to a blanket amnesty. It only asks that the 12 million not be put on a path to citizenship.
Rep. Paul Ryan and the Wall Street Journal are for throwing in the towel. Legalize them all and start them on the path to citizenship.
A full and final capitulation. Let's get it over with.
To understand why and how the Republican Party lost Middle America, and faces demographic death, we need to go back to Bush I.
At the Cold War's end, the GOP reached a fork in the road. The determination of Middle Americans to preserve the country they grew up in, suddenly collided with the profit motive of Corporate America.
The Fortune 500 wanted to close factories in the USA and ship production abroad—where unions did not exist, regulations were light, taxes were low, and wages were a fraction of what they were here in America.
Corporate America was going global and wanted to be rid of its American work force, the best paid on earth, and replace it with cheap foreign labor.
While manufacturing sought to move production abroad, hotels, motels, bars, restaurants, farms and construction companies that could not move abroad also wanted to replace their expensive American workers.
Thanks to the Republican Party, Corporate America got it all.
U.S. factories in the scores of thousands were shut down, shedding their American workers. Foreign-made goods poured in, filling U.S. stores and killing
President Obama’s SOTU Tuesday night was widely billed as focusing on “inequality”—a tempting but ticklish subject for class-warfare Democrats, because it’s substantially exacerbated by the immigration they are treasonously counting on to elect a permanent Leftist majority. So Dem enforcers in the Main Stream Media have sprung into action.
Case in point: former Joe Biden aide Jared Bernstein’s January 22 blog post Immigration and Poverty, which the Huffington Post subsequently recycled in its economical way (January 23, 2014). John Boehner take note: the HuffPo comment thread was hearteningly skeptical, especially for a fashionably Leftist site.
After conceding the unavoidable fact that the US is importing poverty—
…True: in 2012 (most recent data) the poverty rate for native-born persons was 14.3 percent while that of the foreign-born was 19.2 percent
Bernstein [Email him] spins:
But that's not much of an insight. Since you could say the same thing about any group with below average incomes, it's pretty much saying we'd have less poverty if only we had fewer poor people. I suppose the anti-immigrant [sic] argument is that immigrants are not like other low-income, native-born groups because we don't have to accept them here. But while I agree that we and every other country should have the ability to control immigrant flows, no serious or realistic voices in this contentious debate are saying those flows should be zero….
[Emphasis definitely not in the original.]
VDARE.com has, of course, called repeatedly for just that: an immediate moratorium on all immigration, such as the one the U.S. imposed from 1924 to 1965. That forty-year breathing space allowed the melting pot to do its thing and create the cultural and economic unity we enjoyed in the Eisenhower-Kennedy era.
But we don’t claim to be “serious” or “realistic”—just correct.
Bernstein claims that it’s “not much of an insight” that poverty has an immigration dimension. He doesn’t specifically say what that dimension is, but back in in 2003 (we’ve been doing this for a long time) I pointed out that about 16% of the U.S. poverty population at that time were immigrants—to which should be added (rarely mentioned) their Anchor Baby minor children (another 7.5%) and (never mentioned) the adult descendants of the post-1965 Immigration Act influx, which I then estimated at another 13%. Total immigration dimension of poverty in 2003: well over a third—36.5%. In 2010, the figure was 16.5 percent of immigrants living in poverty. [Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population, By Steven A. Camarota, CIS, August 2012.]
That sounds quite a lot of an insight to me. And that’s just the static effect. Immigration also has a dynamic effect: it increases labor market competition for native-born Americans. Bernstein admits he doesn’t deal with this—he calls it one of his analysis’ “significant omissions”—but he says he doubts it would “move the results in a big way.” This is completely implausible—see below.
Does immigration increase poverty in a given year? The answer, Jared acknowledges, is a simple “yes.” But “the more interesting and impactful” question, he insists, is: “What impact has immigration had on poverty over time and what might we expect in the future?”
Right again. And this graphic provides insight to the answer:
In 1947 nearly one-third (32%) of all families were officially classified as poor. [Have Antipoverty Programs Increased Poverty? By James Gwartney And Thomas S. McCaleb, Cato Journal 5, no: 1 (Spring/Summer 1985) PDF] In 1959—the year Census starting collecting poverty data—only one-fifth (22.4%) of persons had incomes below the poverty line. By 1973
As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. (The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it's too important to wait.)
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly's report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.
Immigrants—all immigrants—have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor andin need of government assistance. Also, they're coming fromsocieties that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)
Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.
No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.
The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.
According the 2012 National Asian American Survey,
John Derbyshire On Immigration Boilerplate, “Poetry,” And The Lies At Obama’s Stalinesque SOTU Extravaganza
In my 2009 book We Are Doomed (written pre-Obama, let it be noted) I described the State of the Union speech-ceremony as a “Stalinesque extravaganza.”
The Sergeant at Arms announces the President's arrival. The great man appears at last. In his progress through the chamber, legislators jostle and maneuver to catch his eye and receive the favor of a presidential greeting.
On the podium at last, the President offers up preposterously grandiose assurances of protection, provision, and moral guidance from his government, these declarations of benevolent omnipotence punctuated by standing ovations and cheers from legislators of his own party, and often from the others too, after every declarative clause.
As the years click by, each one bearing its SOTU speech, I more and more think that my descriptor was unkind to Stalin. The drilled adulation on display in the Senate Chamber is now at a level that would have brought a blush of embarrassment to the sallow, pock-marked cheeks of the vozhd.
Someone has to report this foolishness, though, and I drew the ticket at the VDARE.com New Year’s tombola. (Though a colleague intimate with the mysteries of “tweeting” generously agreed to share the burden.)
Well, at least I now have a kindred spirit. Fox News Channel’s panel of commentators on this year’s speech included George Will. Neither I nor my VDARE.com colleagues hold Will in very high esteem as an immigration patriot, but politics is full of surprises.
Asked what he thought of the SOTU ceremonies in general, Will replied: “How ghastly they are.” You may picture me leaping up from my chair and pumping my fist in the air. Yess!
Will has also opined that: “No [Supreme Court] justices or senior military officers should stoop to being props at these puerile spectacles.” I entirely agree. The sooner we revert to the 19th-century mode of an annual message delivered in writing to Congress, the better it will be for the Republic.
Saint Luke tells us that joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Let’s hope that George Will is on the path to full repentance.
That said, did this year’s speech have any content worth noting?
I can’t say I thought so. The pre-speech commentary from TV talking heads was all of low expectations, for reasons difficult to gainsay. The President’s signature policy initiative is losing altitude fast; his diplomacy is merely cosmetic; a once-orderly budget process has degenerated into a marathon stumble from crisis to crisis; federal debt is disgracefully high, labor force participation disgracefully low; the middle class is hollowing out; five years of war in Afghanistan have achieved nothing at a cost of 1,648 dead Americans; and Obama’s former Defense Secretary has scoffed at his military leadership.
Obama put the best face he could on it all. His delivery was
Whether or not Congressional Republicans are stupid or corrupt enough to offer their own version of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge legislation after their much-publicized retreat this weekend, the three Republican co-sponsors of the Amnesty proposal are worth examining as Republican profiles in treason. [Political notebook: David Valadao third House Republican to support immigration bill,, By John Ellis, The Fresno Bee, October 30, 2013]
The three, Representative Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), David Valadao (R- Calif.), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R- Fla.) have some interesting things in common: each is from a heavily Hispanic district, and each is under intense reelection pressure.
The three also express the instincts of the multicultural, denationalized elite condemned by Samuel Huntington [Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, The National Interest, Spring 2004].
They are apparently supporting Amnesty to placate Hispanic voters in districts that probably will soon elect Democrats anyway, because of demographic shifts. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that it’s what the big donors what.
The three also embody the failure of multiculturalism and immigration: Valadao brags about working “in an immigrant-dependent industry” and having immigrant parents. Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba. Denham has a Mexican wife and panders in Spanish on Univision.
- Jeff Denham
The Washington Post reported that Denham’s 10th district is 40 percent Hispanic [Jeff Denham, Political Outlier, by Sean Sullivan, Washington Post, October 28, 2013]. The 10th district includes Modesto, which Forbes Magazine named #5 of “America’s Most Miserable Cities.”
These backdrop for Denham’s craven decision to support Amnesty: At a forum on immigration held in Modesto when the Treason Lobby’s drums began to beat last year, most of those in attendance reportedly supported Amnesty. A photograph from the local news shows an audience largely made up of Hispanics, with a (white) farmer named James Duarte speaking on behalf of amnesty. [Ideas, emotions flow at Denham’s immigration forum in Modesto, by John Holland, The Modesto Bee, April 4, 2013].
One young Hispanic female cried while telling of her family’s “struggles,” which included the dreadful ordeal of paying non-resident tuition for college.
But despite Denham’s cringe-worthy gestures of appeasement
If you have been watching movies on DVD lately, you may have noticed a change at the beginning of the feature presentation: accompanying the FBI warning about piracy is a duplicative warning from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Victims Unit (ICE SVU, also known as ICE Homeland Security Investigations or HSI).
Of course, there is no point to the warning. Bootleg DVDs are commonplace, most often sold by illegal aliens, especially in New York City where Mexican, African, Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other street merchants know they have nothing to fear from ICE SVU—either for selling the bootleg DVDs or for being illegal aliens.
White Americans are now the preferred target for ICE SVU. One recent disturbing story: ICE SVU Special Agents were called by officials of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and AMC Theaters to a movie theater in Columbus, OH, where they dragged a man wearing Google Glasses off to be questioned by ICE SVU, local police, and MPAA officials. [Ohio Man Questioned Over Google Glass In Theater AP/ Washington Times, January 21, 2014. Emphases added to quotes throughout.]
Remember, no-one bootlegs movies by filming the movie on a screen anymore. This is not 1990s Seinfeld, where Jerry bootlegs Death Blow at the instance of one of Kramer's friends. Nowadays, most bootleg movies come from the Philippines—notoriously corrupt and with immediate access to English-language movies—and are digital copies of the actual releases. But ICE SVU is not interested in stopping the influx of bootleg DVDs from the Philippines—because that might involve arresting an alien or two.
It’s especially interesting that this incident occurred on a Saturday. ICE SVU agents don't work Saturdays. They also don't work Sundays or holidays. ICE SVU works a 9-5, Monday through Friday, schedule.
And note this:
The man had recently had prescription lenses fit to his Google Glass and wore them in to see the movie. According to his testimony published at The Gadgeteer, an agent approached him an hour in, “yank[ed] the Google Glass” off his face and commanded the man to follow him. Outside the theater were 5 to 10 cops and mall security personnel.
Homeland Security Special Agents Hold Up A Google Glass Moviegoer, by Casey Johnston, Ars Technica, January 21, 2014
Frankly, this is amazing. ICE SVU has agents assigned after-hours duty responsibility. Calls from ICE Headquarters, the local Special Agent-in-Charge, or other law enforcement agencies go to the National Law Enforcement Communications Center, a dispatch center run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center, a 24-hour service.
But ICE SVU agents now generally refuse to respond to calls for assistance from State or local law enforcement agencies when they encounter an illegal alien. And ICE SVU does not respond to inquiries from law enforcement agencies about illegal drugs, unless it is a major seizure.
Moreover, it must have taken the two ICE SVU agents at least 45 minutes
John Derbyshire Asks: If THE ECONOMIST Thinks Automation Will Destroy Jobs, Why Is It So Fanatically Pro-Immigration?
You know a topic has attained the level of Mainstream Concern when it gets a cover story at The Economist magazine. The last (January 18th) issue of that magazine features as first leader a 1,300-word warning about imminent technological changes destroying great swathes of the market for human labor, in particular the office-worker sector of that market.
When Instagram, a popular photo-sharing site, was sold to Facebook for about $1 billion in 2012, it had 30m customers and employed 13 people. Kodak, which filed for bankruptcy a few months earlier, employed 145,000 people in its heyday. [Coming to an office near you, The Economist, Jan. 18th]
The leader comes with a longer (3,800-word) inside article and a lurid cover picture showing tornadoes sweeping destructively through an open-plan office. In a metaphor-switch almost as jarring as a pink slip from Kodak, the inside article is titled The onrushing wave and is illustrated with a tsunami.
VDARE.com’s Don Collins has been making this point about automation for a while. Now it seems to have arrived in Main Stream Media. Down at the other end of the gentility spectrum in journalism, MailOnline wants to make your flesh creep:
Claims made by an expert in artificial intelligence predict that in less than five years, office jobs will disappear completely to the point where machines will replace humans.
[Is your job under threat from ROBOTS? Expert warns that office jobs could vanish by 2018, by Victoria Woolaston, MailOnline, November 14th, 2013]
Warnings about automation destroying jobs are of course as old as the steam engine, as The Economist’s anonymous writers point out.
The indicators are, that this time it’s for real. Job-wise, economic
Justin Bieber being restrained from attacking paparazzi.
86 the O-1 or Fight! I used to think Justin Bieber's increasingly erratic behavior was some sort of Miley Cyrus-type publicity stunt to re-tool his image as he gets older and soon won't be able to rely on pre-adolescent girls to buy all his junk when he finally is able to grow facial hair.
TMZ, a paparazzi outfit, reports him admitting to cops during the arrest that he was under influence of prescription drugs, for which he doesn’t have a prescription. This is important because combining alcohol and drugs amplifies alcohol’s effects on one’s nervous system and further impairs the ability to drive safely.
At this point you may be asking, "So what? Is VDARE.com jumping on the celebrity-obsessed Main Stream Media’s bandwagon?"
Well, this is where things get interesting. Bieber is a Canuck here on an O-1 visa. And U.S. law has provisions to tell the likes of The Bieb to "take off you hoser!" all the way back to the Great White North from whence he came.
But as we all know, the follow-through on this simple duty of the U.S. government to protect its citizens from problematic foreigners is practically non-existent, especially after Obama's extra-constitutional refusal to enforce immigration law.
If I had to speculate, assuming his breathalyzer test results aren't "lost", I’d guess that Bieber will be convicted and if any immigration action is taken against Biebs, it will be some pro forma "investigation" that will ultimately go nowhere. Bieber will continue on the clichéd downward spiral of a young celebrity insulated from the consequences (for now) of his fast living by his enormous fortune and fame.
This is because Obama doesn't want it to go anywhere. You see, as an immigration enthusiast, Obama really doesn't believe in enforcing essentially any immigration law, and he wants the immigration authorities overwhelmed to the point where any immigration enforcement is some kind of quixotic effort in futility.
To some degree, all law enforcement depends on making an example of people who are caught doing what the authorities’ don't want done. Think about it. The police can't be everywhere all the time. The idea must be put in people's head: "Maybe I shouldn't do that, look at what happened to that guy."
It's as old as time. Back before the enlightened practice of incarceration and its attendant expense,
For those of you who do not follow football, Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman made a game-saving interception in the NFC championship game against the San Francisco 49ers on Sunday. But shortly afterwards, ESPN reporter Erin Anderson interviewed Sherman and he responded like a professional wrestler:
Andrews: Richard, let me ask you about the final play; take me through it.
Sherman: Well I’m the best corner in the game! When you try me with a sorry receiver like [San Francisco 49ers’ Michael Crabtree] that’s the result you gonna get! Don’t you ever talk about me!
Andrews: Who was talking about you?
Sherman: Crabtree. Don’t you ever open your mouth about the best! Or I’m gonna shut it for you real quick! L.O.B!
Sherman also made a choking gesture towards Crabtree.
Suffice to say, this is not exactly great sportsmanship. Many NFL fans did not like Sherman’s boorish behavior, and, as it’s the Age of the Internet, some posted Politically Incorrect language about it.
Significantly, almost all the ensuing Main Stream Media commentary about the Sherman incident, both positive and negative, focused on how smart Sherman is and how racist his detractors are.
In a Forbes Magazine article that went viral, 22 Brief Thoughts About That Richard Sherman Interview, January 19, 2014 Thought # 4 was
Sherman graduated second in his class in high school and also graduated from Stanford. So not only is he not a fool, odds are he’s smarter than you and me.
(In case you are wondering, Thought # 3 was “Sherman is black, and so of course there was an undercurrent of race to some—OK, a lot—of the discussion.”
Writing in the Washington Post’s black-oriented website The Root, Stephen Crockett wrote:
If being a thug means being salutatorian of your high school with a 4.2 GPA and 1,400 SAT scores, graduating from Stanford, delivering on your promise of greatness and showing no ability to humble-brag—then the black community could use more thugs like Richard Sherman.[ Seahawks’ Richard Sherman Is Not a Thug. Stop Calling Him One, January 21, 2014]
All in all, Crockett used the some variant of “intelligent” or “smart” 17 times in his article.
Seth Stevenson, one of the few MSM writers to come out against Sherman’s rant, still had to qualify: “The fact that Sherman is very smart and attended Stanford and
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a politically entrenched synod of special interests. These fat cats do not represent the best interests of American entrepreneurs, American workers, American parents and students, or Americans of any race, class or age who believe in low taxes and limited government. The Chamber's business is the big business of the Beltway, not the business of mainstream America.
If you are a business owner who believes your country should strictly and consistently enforce its borders and deport illegal immigrants who violate the terms of their visas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't represent you.
If you are a worker who believes the feds should punish illegal aliens who use fake documents to obtain jobs instead of rewarding them with "legal status," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't champion you.
If you are a parent or educator who opposes top-down federal education schemes such as Common Core that undermine local control, dumb down rigorous curricula and threaten family privacy while enriching big business and lobbying groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for you.
Last year, the Chamber poured more than $52 million into K Street lobbying efforts on behalf of illegal alien amnesty,