Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
President Barack Obama may be the greatest gun salesman in American history—and, as with most things in American culture and politics, the root cause is race. But an unnoticed related phenomenon is that white flight is now operating on an interstate level—and gun manufacturers are leading the way.
The FBI reported a record number of background checks for gun sales in 2013. [Obama backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records, By Emily Miller, Washington Times, January 6, 2014] The previous record was in 2012… which broke the record of 2011, and so forth back to the year of Obama’s election.
One of the few rights that Americans seem to have successfully defended is the ability to own a firearm. The Main Stream Media occasionally pushes gun control after some spectacular gun crime committed by a white shooter. But the real pattern of gun violence in this country can be seen in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York City, Memphis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Washington D.C. These cities, not surprisingly, already have strict gun control policies—and they have nothing to do with white people or Republicans.
Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2011, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation’s population, yet accounted for 50 percent of all homicide victims.
The devastation homicide inflicts on black teens and adults is a national crisis that should be a top priority for policymakers to address. An important part of ending our gun violence epidemic will involve reducing homicides in the African-American community.
For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns—usually handguns—are far and away the number-one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll, like America’s homicide toll as a whole, must put a focus on reducing access and exposure to firearms.
Any mention of the black face of America’s gun crime sends even the most militant NRA-member running for the hills. MSM Journalists also do their best to ignore the obvious when writing navel-gazing stories about gun violence. For example:
Among cities with at least 100,000 residents, Birmingham ranked No. 9 last year, according to the FBI data. That is higher even than Chicago, a city that has gained a great deal of attention as a place with an out-of-control murder problem.
Alabama’s other large cities – Montgomery, Mobile and Huntsville – ranked 30, 38 and 85. Only Huntsville’s rate was in the bottom half of the country’s big cities…
James Alan Fox, [Email him] a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, said the most murderous cities and states tend to have higher concentrations of black residents, who on average are six times more likely to be involved in murders.
“There are certainly patterns there,” he said.
But Fox cautioned that race often masks deeper socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, unemployment and low levels of education.
“Demographics is a big part of it, but it’s not the whole story,” he said. “Of course, it’s not race, itself. There’s a whole array of economic issues. … It looks like demographics, but it’s really socioeconomic issues.”
[Demographics? Guns? Southern culture? Reasons for regional homicide variations remain elusive, by Brendan Kirby, Al.com, September 20, 2013. Emphases added].
But if “socioeconomics issues” were at the heart of the debate, why didn’t National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson find poverty-stricken white Appalachia replete with gun-aided homicides? [The White Ghetto , January 9, 2014]
Presumably for the same reason the Kansas City Star editors couldn’t say the obvious in a recent editorial on violence.
The statistics for all 50 large cities do show a correlation
I recently needed to look something up in George H. Nash’s 1976 book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. I found what I wanted, then fell to browsing.
It is still fascinating to read about American Conservatism during the Cold War, but you can’t help noticing something missing in those debates, something that puts them at a distance from the headlines of today.
Headlines like this one, for example:
Commissioner wants citizens to “enjoy same rights they have at home in other member states”
Eurocrats will today demand that Britain give “rights without borders” to EU migrants.
In a move certain to spark a new row with Westminster, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding is pressing for a “fully functioning common area of justice.”
Most controversially, citizens would be able to “enjoy the same rights they have at home in another Member State”—potentially importing a string of onerous new rules and obligations to the UK …
[By James Slack, Mail Online, March 3, 2014.]
What’s missing from those Cold War debates is any foreboding that, fifty years on, the very concept of the nation-state would be under threat.
The word “nationalist” does not even appear in the index of Nash’s book. It does appear in his narrative, most significantly when he discusses the mid-1960s exchanges between Straussians like Harry Jaffa and states’ rightists like Frank Meyer over liberty versus equality.
What Nash calls “nationalists” here were the Straussians, whom the other side saw as:
… too Hamiltonian, even authoritarian, to satisfy a man [i.e. Meyer] for whom individual freedom and limited government were supreme, and for whom the Tenth Amendment was a good deal more than a “truism.” [Ibid. p. 226.]
From today’s perspective it all looks a bit naïve and parochial. Didn’t they see what was coming?
Well, no, of course they didn’t. We never do.
In a noteworthy exchange between Harry Jaffa and Frank Meyer in 1965, the debate was joined on the issue of Abraham Lincoln.
Not to a historian of conservatism writing in 1976. Neither Philip Hart nor Emanuel Celler appears in Nash’s 15-page index. Nor does Teddy Kennedy. Nor, for that matter, does the word “immigration.” Such innocent times!
There are of course allowances to be made. This was the Cold War. The nations of the West were huddled together like sheep in a storm, with the possibility of nuclear annihilation always just one crisis away. It was natural for the intellectuals Nash was writing about to think in terms of civilization, not nationality.
Nationalism had in any case suffered by association with fascist collectivism. To cherish one’s country was acceptable, but to regard it as the organic expression of a particular people was frowned upon. This was a time when people said—I think Russell Kirk actually said it—“I am a patriot but not at all a nationalist.”
The more one thinks about that assertion, the less sense it makes; but the technology and demographics
The evil Peter Brimelow
Al Cardenas (email him) the Cuban immigrant who succeeded the ethically-challenged David Keene as chairman of the American Conservative Union, must be breaking out the mojitos tonight! The trendy Leftist Daily Beast is writing favorably (or at least less unfavorably) about ACU’s flagship Conservative Political Action Conference, which starts in Washington D.C. on Thursday March 6. [Is CPAC Getting Less Crazy?, by Dean Obeidallah, March 4, 2014). What more could a Conservatism Inc. apparatchik want? (Oh, yes, more fees).
At VDARE.com, we’re kind of amused too: the nadir from which CPAC is allegedly climbing back is…moi!
Obeidallah (email him) writes:
[T]he American Conservative Union’s annual conservative political convention has increasingly become a showcase for the worst of the right.
Who can forget the 2012 CPAC panel, “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the Pursuit of Diversity is Weakening the American Identity”? This program featured Peter Brimelow, a person the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described as leading, “a race-baiting hate group that warns against the pollution of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.” [Link in original]
Of course, what unforgettably happened in 2012 was that, in its now-familiar Journolist-style orchestrated way, the Left/ Main Stream Media (is there any difference?) wanted to embarrass CPAC, followed Spencer Ackerman’s famous prescription (“find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear”) and found (absurdly) me. (See here and here and here).
In fact, Obeidallah has solved a puzzle for me: why so many echo-chamber MSM reports claimed I’d said immigration was “polluting” America. I didn’t, and there’s a recording to prove it. But I see now that they were just mechanically scalping the pre-written $PLC smear to which Obeidallah links. The SPLC itself didn’t even pretend to be quoting me, it’s just paraphrasing i.e. inventing
[VDARE.com note: Just a reminder that this issue is what caused Congressmen Joe Wilson to shout "you lie!" to Barack Obama, when during a speech to Congress, Obama claimed that "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those here illegally."Wilson apologized for shouting, and Obama...we're still waiting .]
You knew it was coming. I knew it was coming. When government expands entitlements, illegal aliens always end up with a piece of the pie. Obamacare promoters relented to GOP pressure to include an illegal alien ban on eligibility and vowed endlessly that no benefits would go to the "undocumented." But denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's the Obama way.
In Oregon this week, officials confessed that nearly 4,000 illegal immigrants had been "accidentally" steered from the state's low-income Medicaid program and instead were enrolled in Obamacare in violation of the law. Oopsie. The Oregonian newspaper's Nick Budnick reported that the health bureaucrats "discovered the problem several weeks ago and are correcting it." [Cover Oregon health insurance exchange fiasco spawns problems for low-income Oregonians' health plan, March 1, 2014]Get in line. The beleaguered Cover Oregon health insurance exchange has been riddled with ongoing problems, errors and glitches since last October that have yet to be fixed.
Take note: This wasn't a one-time computer meltdown. Because Oregon's health insurance exchange website has been offline and its software architects under investigation for possible fraud, the Oregon Obamacare drones have been processing each and every application manually. That means nearly 4,000 illegal alien applications with "inaccurate" data somehow passed through government hands and somehow ended up getting routed through as new enrollees with Obamacare-approved full-service health care.
How many Obamacare services did these nearly 4,000 illegal aliens avail themselves of, and at what cost?
Does anyone believe the same incompetent boobs who enrolled them will be able to track down the nearly 4,000 illegal alien beneficiaries, "correct" the "errors" and ensure that it doesn't happen again?
What a slap in the face to the millions of law-abiding Americans who have lost their health care coverage and work hours thanks to Democratic-sponsored federal health care regulatory burdens and mandate costs.
One Oregon Obamacare manager defended the unlawful illegal alien enrollment by explaining: "We were just getting people into the services." And there's the rub. The imperative of these government social engineers is to herd as many "clients" into taxpayer-subsidized programs as possible. Just last week, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson publicized an open letter to families with illegal alien relatives promising that no one would be deported for seeking Obamacare services.
"No one in America who is eligible should be afraid to apply for health coverage because they have a family with mixed status," Johnson assured. And in another sign of how the White House is still planning for mass illegal alien amnesty, Johnson also made clear: "Enrolling in health coverage ... will not prevent your loved ones who are undocumented from getting a green card in the future or who do not yet have a green card at risk."
As always, California Democrats are at the forefront of busting open Obamacare for the illegal alien population. Earlier this month, Democratic state Sen. Ricardo Lara introduced a bill to extend health benefits and a special online marketplace to one million illegals under an Obamacare-style program subsidized by state taxpayer dollars.
In case you forgot, President Obama had already paved the path for illegal alien Obamacare when he
Even Weatherman Al Roker Says That NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio is Incompetent—but De Blasio’s Incompetence Is Really Anti-White Animus
It’s unusual for notoriously pragmatic media mogul Rupert Murdoch, a resident of New York City, to burn a bridge like this:
NYC now totally managed by leftist activists with no experience in running anything beyond protests. Big mess ahead.
But, to borrow from Casey Stengel, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is amazin.’
In their 1962 maiden season, the New York Mets were the worst team in big league history. The team went 40-120, a record for futility that still stands. Someone asked Mets manager Casey Stengel to describe his team. In classic Stengelese, Casey lamented, “They’re amazin.’”
The Mets were trying hard to win, but they were awful. Mayor de Blasio, by contrast, is trying to lose. His incompetence is the expression of his racial hatred. He hates productive whites and Asians, and loves deadbeat and criminal blacks and Hispanics.
I’ve lived in New York City since 1985, and this is the worst winter that I or anyone I know has seen here. With 57 inches so far, the snowfall has already more than quadrupled the annual average of 13.4 inches, but the real problem has been the bitter cold. Most winters, New York has no days with wind chill factors around zero or below, but this year we’ve had several such school days since New Year’s.
In a city with functioning services and a mayor who cared about its citizens, such problems could be managed.
But New York is not such a city.
Like hundreds of thousands of city parents, I have kept my son home from school five times since January 3, based on the weather and the lack of reliable transportation. Only once (January 3) has de Blasio closed the schools, and that was only after dithering until after parents had already had to decide on their own what to do. During their first 30 school days in office, he and his schools chancellor Carmen Farina screwed up five times.
All but one of the five times Gov. Cuomo declared a state of emergency, Mayor de Blasio ignored him and kept the city’s schools open. Each time, hundreds of irate parents criticized de Blasio at the schools’ Facebook pages.
On Thursday, February 13, another snow storm hit. Yet again, de Blasio ignored the forecasters and Gov. Cuomo, who had declared another state of emergency, and kept the schools open.
A little before noon that day, at de Blasio and his schools chancellor, Carmen Farina’s press conference, de Blasio asserted that National Weather Service had wrongly forecast only two-three inches of snow. (The National Weather Service ate my homework?)
Chancellor Farina notoriously declared,
[A]s snow and freezing rain fell outside…“It’s absolutely a beautiful day out there right now.”
All of the local weathermen—whom de Blasio staffers constantly watch—had predicted up to 10 inches of snow over 24 hours earlier.
Weatherman Al Roker, a New York institution for 30 years, tweeted from the Sochi Olympics at 8:43 that morning:
@NYCMayorsOffice says snow was faster/heavier than expected. No, Mr. Mayor. It came as predicted. Don't blame weather for YOUR poor policy
De Blasio countered that Roker should stick to weather. Roker responded,
Conservatism Inc. may have failed to limit the power of the federal government, cut spending, or defend traditional values, but it can take credit for one thing—inventing an entire genre of journalism intentionally designed to mislead its own supporters. A typical example: in the March 10 treezine issue of National Review, Land of Inequality, [by Troy Senik (email him), webposted February 24, 2014] which discusses the cratering of California—without even mentioning the word immigration.
Senik, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, bemoans the decline of California from a “beacon to the middle class, a place where you could author the future on your own terms” to an overpriced, overregulated state dominated by a “regnant liberalism [supported by] a political alliance between the super-rich and the super-poor.”
So far so good, apart from the occasional standard Beltway Right talking point—I confess I started laughing at the sentence “CEO Magazine has ranked California the worst state in the nation in which to do business”! Still, Senik does clearly identify that California’s main problem is not oppressed Chief Executive Officers, but middle class Californians fleeing their home state:
These are not titans of industry looking to maximize profits in Texas or Florida; these are everyday citizens who’ve found themselves priced out of what was once called the California dream.
Senik also notes that “unemployment had stayed at or above 12 percent from September 2009 to February 2011.”
And he summarizes accurately what has happened to the Golden State:
As the economy faltered, the state raised taxes and continued to let regulation and litigation run riot. As the freeways clogged and housing prices climbed to astronomical levels, environmental activists called for high-speed rail and “sustainable communities.” As the state’s schools saw their performance plummet to national lows, the California Teachers Association — the state’s dominant teachers’ union and foremost opponent of education reform — remained the single biggest financial player in state politics.
Indeed, Senik even approaches a discussion of Steve Sailer’s “Affordable Family Formation” concept (without giving him credit, of course) in explaining why the GOP retains some influence in the Golden State. Senik notes that “many of the state’s inland counties have the political disposition of red states” and identifies the critical economic issue facing the struggling middle class is “finding affordable housing.” He mourns the loss of the California that once “beguiled the nation—one with abundant, affordable suburban housing, open roads, middle-class jobs aplenty, and good schools.” (My emphasis!)
Unfortunately, Senik falls into the usual conservative trap of blaming everything on the “fiscal, legal, and regulatory environment for business.” He says California isn’t permissive enough on new housing. The environmentalists won’t let California utilize its oil reserves. It is actually quicker for Carl’s Jr. (the famous California-based fast food chain) to build a new restaurant in Siberia than it is in California. As a result, Carl’s Jr. is “aggressively expanding in Texas.”
When I read news from the country of my birth, the emotions I experience (with rare exceptions) are disgust, horror, and despair.
This last week, for example, saw the sentencing of the Woolwich killers. These two young men, English-born to Christian Nigerian parents, converts to Islam, ran down an off-duty British soldier in May last year. Then, in a busy London street at half-past two on a mid-week afternoon, they stabbed and hacked the soldier to death, trying unsuccessfully to decapitate him, while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) [Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack, By Gordon Rayner and Steven Swinford, Daily Telegraph, May 22, 2013]
The killers did not take their sentencing well:
Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, had to be manhandled out of court by security guards after being told by Mr. Justice Sweeney that their crime was a “betrayal of Islam.”
Adebolajo screamed at the judge as he was manhandled down the dock stairs in the historic Court No 2 but, in scenes lasting several minutes, his co-defendant was held to the floor and cuffed before being carried downstairs head first.
Relatives of Drummer Rigby, who were sitting just three feet away from the dock, stood up and cowered away from the violence.
[Lee Rigby murderers sentenced to life in prison, By David Barrett and Clare Carter, Daily Telegraph, February 26, 2014.]
I would rather have read: “… after being told by Mr. Justice Sweeney that their crime was ‘obviously inspired by Islam’,” and that “Relatives of Drummer Rigby, who were sitting just three feet away from the dock, leapt forward to assist the court officers, taking the opportunity to gouge out the accuseds’ eyeballs and knock out their teeth…”
Had Mr. Justice Sweeney said what I wish he had said, he would have been stripped of his office and made the subject of a parliamentary enquiry.
Had Drummer Rigby’s relatives done what I wish they had done, they would themselves have been swiftly arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and jailed, to tremble in their cells at the mercy of the Muslim gangs who control Britain’s houses of correction, and who are welcoming the Woolwich killers as heroes even while I am writing this.
The Woolwich horror, and many others, flows directly from the decision by postwar British governments to open their country to floods of blacks and Muslims: the least assimilable of races, and the most intolerant of religions. When black resentment of the host society combines with Muslim fantasies of world domination, Woolwich is what happens.
It could all have been foreseen. We know that, because it was foreseen. Historians of the future will marvel at such an astounding act of national suicide—the more so because post-WW2 Britain was a quirkily conservative place, its culture as singular as Japan’s.
As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow wrote the other day:
DNA archeology has actually completely rewritten British historiography. It is not true that the English are descendants of Saxon invaders, except linguistically. The base population in England simply changed its language. It’s not even true that there is any ethnic difference between the Irish and the English. But 14,000 years of history is about to be overwritten by just a few decades of government policy. [Electing A New People in America and Britain, by Peter Brimelow; February 15, 2014]
Peter has been exploring his own ancestry, he tells me, using the 23andMe service. He (to be exact, his identical twin brother) reports in at 32.4 percent British and Irish, 2.2 percent Scandinavian, 59 percent nonspecific northern European, and 6.4 percent nonspecific European. And he is 3.2 percent pre-Homo sapiens, thanks to Paleolithic hanky-panky between our species and their cousins, the Neanderthals. Most Europeans are around 2.7 percent Neanderthal, according to 23andMe.
Curious about my own antecedents, a few weeks ago I signed up
Congressman Mulvaney talks to illegal aliens in their own language in Gaffney, South Carolina
The Treason Lobby seems to have complete control of the South Carolina GOP, as VDARE.com’s Patrick Cleburne just pointed out. He cited the recent gushing New York Times advertorial boosting Congressman Mick Mulvaney, who just held a “town meeting” geared toward “Latinos,” some of whom made clear they were illegal aliens. (So much for “living in the shadows”). Mulvaney spoke and answered questions entirely in Spanish. [G.O.P. Congressman in South Carolina Takes a Risk With a Foray Into Immigration, by Julia Preston, February 21, 2014].
“Risk”? Nowadays, opposing illegal immigration takes more guts. Of course, Julia Preston is a Treason lobby mouthpiece who has received many dishonorable mentions on VDARE.com. (See my Evangelical “Leaders” Need Reality Check—Evangelicals Don’t Support Amnesty)
We’re supposed to be impressed. But as a fluent Spanish-speaker long-resident in Mexico, who now teaches Spanish in an American public school, I most decidedly am not.
Why should any American politician be dealing with American political topics, for an audience in the United States, in any other language than English?
Even mass immigration boosters usually claim to support assimilation through the English language. And the various amnesty proposals give lip service to having Amnesty applicants learn English. So why should Rep. Mulvaney, supposedly a conservative Republican, be talking in Spanish? [Mulvaney dusts off Spanish skills for town hall in Gaffney, By Lynne P. Shackleford, GoUpstate.com, February 17, 2014]
But the Republicans have been following the trend of creeping bilingualism for several years now.
Preston’s portrait is breathless:
Even more surprising to the spellbound crowd at the First Baptist Church, Mr. Mulvaney said he and other conservative House Republicans were open to some kind of legal status, although not a path to citizenship, for many immigrants living in the country illegally. But he also said it would not happen this year: Republicans just do not trust President Obama to carry out any law they might enact.
“Spellbound crowd”? Wow.
But how revolutionary is the Mulvaney approach? The House GOP leadership appears to be for Amnesty - and for Bilingualism. How surprising is it that some lower-level flunkey would drink the Kool-Aid (especially considering there’s big donor money involved?).
Needless to say, “legal status but no path to citizenship” is a scam. If the illegals are legalized, how long until the Democrats figure out a way to naturalize them? And their American-born anchor babies, don’t forget, are already citizens.
Preston claims Mulvaney’s boldness is all part of a Trend:
The politics of immigration are gradually shifting in South Carolina
The Fulford File | Jan Brewer Says Businesses Can’t Refuse To Serve Homosexuals—The SPLC Says Businesses Shouldn’t Serve VDARE.com
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has cravenly vetoed SB1062, which would have prevented homosexuals from attacking people like, say, a Knights of Columbus Hall that didn’t want to host the nuptials of two women, or a wedding photographer who didn’t want to take part in a male/male wedding. SB1062’s title was “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The description of its intent: “Strengthens protections in Arizona law to defend against religious discrimination.” And that’s what Brewer vetoed.
Mark Steyn has a good column about Brewer’s capitulation, in which he mentions suspicions that Brewer vetoed the bill because of fears by Arizona businesses (=donors) about boycotts, and because she didn’t want to be known as “Jan Crow.” [If I Knew You Were Suing, I'd've Baked a Cake, by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline, February 27, 2014]
Of course, Brewer’s betrayal didn’t stop the hate against her even for a minute—Michelle Malkin’s Twitter curating site Twitchy has a roundup, of which this is a sample, from Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn [Email her] chosen because it’s not as obscene as most of them:
Just because Jan Brewer did good thing and vetoed #AZ1062 doesn't mean she's not still a vicious anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremist
Freedom of association means that people get to decide who they do business with. The famous “Lunch Counter Law” was designed to override the principle, because of the exceptional plight of American blacks, only with “public accommodations” in mind. The late Robert Bork discussed this in The New Republic before the Civil Rights Act was passed:
"The legislature would inform a substantial body of the citizenry that in order to continue to carry on the trades in which they are established they must deal with and serve persons with whom they do not wish to associate. In part the willingness to overlook that loss of freedom arises from the feeling that it is irrational to choose associates on the basis of racial characteristics. Behind that judgment, however, lies an unexpressed natural-law view that some personal preferences are rational, that others are irrational, and that a majority may impose upon a minority its scale of preferences."
“Civil Rights—A Challenge,” New Republic, [PDF] August 31, 1963
Bork doesn’t mean here a racial majority, but a political majority—the kind that passes these laws.
But nowadays, of course, a combination of judicial activism, Leftist agitation, and elite influence means that it’s a minority imposing its will on a majority.
In fact, as a person of mildly dissident views, I find that large, well-financed organizations are urging people to discriminate against me.
Leftist enforcers increasingly urge the firing of conservative writers who dissent
This may be the first and last time I ever write these words: America, follow Canada.
Our neighbors to the north finally have wised up to the international cash-for-visas scam. Last week, the country ended its foreign investor program that put residency up for sale to the highest bidder. We should have done the same a long time ago.
Canada's Immigrant Investor Program granted permanent residency to wealthy foreigners who forked over 800,000 Canadian dollars for a five-year, zero-interest loan to one of the country's provinces. The scheme turned out to be a magnet for tens of thousands of millionaires from Hong Kong and China. But as the Canadian Ministry of Finance concluded in its annual budget report this year, the program "undervalued Canadian permanent residence" and showed "little evidence that immigrant investors as a class are maintaining ties to Canada or making a positive economic contribution to the country."
In several provinces, the foreign investor racket was riddled from top to bottom with fraud. Whistleblowers in the Prince Edward Island immigration office exposed rampant bribery among bureaucrats and consultants, who helped their clients jump the queue. The government failed to monitor immigrant investors or verify the promised economic benefits of the "investments." The program didn't just fast-track supposed business people with dubious business backgrounds, but also their entire extended families, who walled themselves in segregated neighborhoods.
Ads in Dubai bragged that investors didn't even need to live in the country to take advantage of the citizenship-for-sale deal—and that their dependents could avail themselves of full health care and education benefits.
Fifteen years ago, an independent auditor hired by the Canadian government warned that he had "found that in many cases there was no investment at all or that the amount of that investment was grossly inflated." The auditor nailed the expedient commodification of citizenship: "Canadians gave up something of real value—a visa or passport—and received very little in return." He concluded: "A lot of people made a lot of money,
"The end to federal jobless benefits for nearly 2 million people has sparked a bitter debate in Congress about whether Washington is abandoning desperate households or simply protecting strained government coffers.
It is also providing real-time answers to a question economists have long pondered: How do people survive when they suddenly have no money coming in?
Studies show that about a third of the people cut off from long-term unemployment benefits will find help from Social Security or other government programs. Others will cobble together dwindling savings or support from family. But most baffling to economists are the people who appear to come up with more-idiosyncratic solutions, which are tough to identify and almost impossible to track.
Take Wessita McKinley of Capitol Heights. The Maryland woman had to think outside the box after her contract with a local school board ended last summer. An Air Force veteran, she earned a six-figure salary as a private contractor before the recession. But she took a series of increasingly low-paying jobs as the economy soured.
Now that her unemployment benefits are gone, McKinley relies on what she calls "legal hustling" to pay her bills and keep her daughter in college: helping friends’ children fill out financial aid forms, driving friends on errands, entering data for small businesses—all for a fee.
[What do the jobless do when the benefits end?, February 11, 2014]
Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage.
Apparently, increasing the minimum wage was not important for American workers during the first five years of Obama's presidency—least of all his first two years, when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed anything. (And did!)
No. The minimum wage did not become a pressing concern until an election year in which the public's hatred of Obamacare is expected to be the central issue.
As The New York Times explained, Democrats see the minimum wage as an issue that "will place Republican candidates in a difficult position," and also as a tool "to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off."
(Unlike Republicans, Democrats consider it important to win elections.)
To most people, it seems as if the Democrats are giving workers something for nothing. But there are always tradeoffs. No serious economist denies that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs. If it's not worth paying someone $10 an hour to do something, the job will be eliminated—or it simply won't be created.
The minimum wage is the perfect Democratic issue. It will screw the very people it claims to help, while making Democrats look like saviors of the working class, either by getting them a higher wage or providing them with generous government benefits when they lose their jobs because of the mandatory wage hike.
Since the late 1960s, the Democrats have been dumping about a million low-skilled immigrants on the country every year, driving down wages, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.
According to Harvard economist George Borjas, our immigration policies have reduced American wages by $402 billion a year—while increasing profits for employers by $437 billion a year. (That's minus what they have to pay to the government in taxes to support their out-of-work former employees. Of course, we're all forced to share that tax burden.)
Or, as the White House puts it on its website promoting an increase in the minimum wage, "Today, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third since its peak in 1968."
Why were wages so high until 1968? Because that's when Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act kicked in, bringing in about a million immigrants a year, almost 90 percent of them unskilled workers from the Third World.
Our immigration policies massively redistribute wealth from the poorest Americans
National Data| Employment Data Show Blacks Losing Ground To Immigrants During The Obama Years. But Apparently They Don’t Care.
Black Americans overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in his two presidential elections, but their employment prospects have, if anything, deteriorated during his term of in office. In particular, their position relative to other racial groups has worsened.
Historically, Blacks’ unemployment rates have been multiples of other major racial and ethnic groups. This relationship has not changed one iota during the first five Obama years. In fact, the latest unemployment report (January 2014) shows Black unemployment at 12.1%, or 2.12-times the white rate (5.7 %.) In January 2009 the black/white disparity was 1.79-times.
Of course the White House media machine would rather we all focus on the reduction in unemployment rates from the lofty levels of the early Obama years:
And unemployment rates for all groups are indeed below the highs reached in the early Obama years. Black unemployment is down the most—4.8 percentage points below the catastrophic 16.9% peak reached in March 2010. By comparison, Whites and Hispanics are now 3.5 and 4.7 percentage points, respectively, below their Obama-Era peaks.
The casual newspaper reader might take this juxtaposition as a sign that Blacks are gaining jobs at a faster pace than Whites or Hispanics. But this assumption ignores two major
President Obama’s Minority Occupation Government is shaking down companies around the country because of trumped up charges of “racism.” What’s worse, white taxpayers are financially subsidizing their own dispossession.
A typical example is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s lawfare on the trucking company YRC. Between 2009 and 2012, Obama’s EEOC shook down the long-ailing YRC Inc. no fewer than three times.
The EEOC simply presumed the white-owned firm’s guilt and attempted to destroy the company by initiating separate lawsuits and shakedown schemes against both the corporate headquarters and individual work sites. More importantly, even though the company repeatedly settled in order to avoid endless litigation, the EEOC kept inventing new charges. As is always the case with gangsters, no payoff was ever enough.
During the EEOC’s first attack in 2009, YRC was blackmailed into “voluntarily” paying indeterminate sums for minority outreach and additional affirmative action trucking and dockworker jobs for blacks, women, and Hispanics. Needless to say, just like every other large, white-owned firm, YRC was already wasting millions of dollars on affirmative action. At no point did the government even assert that the company had done anything wrong.
The investigation was concluded without a finding that YRC violated Title VII. [Of the Civil Rights Act.] 3-12-09 [Trucking Company YRC And EEOC Reach Agreement Addressing Diversity Efforts In Trucking Industry, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Press Release, March 12, 2009.]
This was just the beginning. Eight months later to the day, the EEOC again attacked YRC for allegedly tolerating racism.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, since at least 2004, black employees at the Chicago Ridge facility were subjected to hangman’s nooses, racist graffiti and racist comments…. [and] YRC subjected black employees to harsher discipline and scrutiny than their white counterparts, and gave more difficult and time-consuming work assignments to black employees than white employees. According to the EEOC… black employees made numerous complaints about discriminatory working conditions over the years, but YRC failed to take effective action to correct the problems… [N.S.: How do you “correct” unproven complaints?]
The lawsuit is the third [!] of three lawsuits brought by EEOC challenging alleged race discrimination at Roadway, Yellow, or YRC. Since 2006, the EEOC has been pursuing litigation against YRC, Inc as the result of [alleged!] discriminatory treatment of black employees at YRC’s (formerly Roadway Express’s) facilities in Chicago Heights … and Elk Grove Village, Ill... [EEOC Sues YRC, Inc. / Yellow Transportation For Widespread Race Discrimination At Chicago Ridge, Press Release, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, November 12, 2009.]
In March 2009, the EEOC had ignored pending lawsuits, misleading the firm