Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
[VDARE.com note: Adapted from Steve Sailer’s presentation to VDARE.com’s first-ever Webinar, January 19, 2013. For other presentations, see here and here. Recordings will be available in a few days—or information when available, email firstname.lastname@example.org with “Webinar recording” in subject line]
Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address the first VDARE.com webinar. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.
I’m going to focus on voting by state because that is how Electoral College Votes are counted. For the GOP (or a GAP, “Generic American Party”) to ever take back the White House, it will have to figure out how to win more states.
I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about, the American Mosaic Poll. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.
Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.
For example, the Edison exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states—including Texas. But if you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas.
In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.
Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.
Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the two-party vote by race in each of the 50 states.
Note carefully: in the interest of simplicity, all the percentages here and in the rest of this article are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Third Parties—Libertarians, the Constitution Party, write-ins, and so forth. I used this approach in my post-election articles on the Marriage Gap (here and here) and on Romney’s fatal failure among Rust Belt whites.
I apologize for ignoring non-major party voters—I saw recently that Tom Wolfe reportedly wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012! But this expedient allows us to focus on just one issue: Romney’s share vs. Obama’s share. (If you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100).
In 2012, about 1.7 percent of the actual national Presidential vote went Third Party—about one percent for the Libertarian Party alone. This Third Party vote appears to have been heavily white. As a result, Romney’s actual white share is generally about a percentage point lower than I report it here. (I will post in a separate article a table reporting Romney’s actual white share, along with my reflections on the Third Party impact, shortly).
The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent of the two-party vote to Obama’s 52.0 percent.
(After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it
Recently-deceased black gunman Christopher Dorner is fairly typical of black mass murderers who feel that white society has wronged them, and deserves to be shot at.
- Colin Ferguson
- Omar Thornton
- Mark Essex, the 1972 Howard Johnson’s Sniper
- John Allen Muhammad, Beltway Sniper
- Jamie Foxx as the fictional Django Unchained.
And a whole bunch of guys you've never heard of, or if you'd heard of the incident, you'd say “That guy was black? I didn’t know that! Why didn’t anyone mention it?”
What makes Dorner different: for years, he was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, fired for lying about another officer’s alleged (by him) violence and racism. [LAPD records: Fugitive Christopher Dorner had troubled tenure, By Eric Hartley, LA Daily News, February 9, 2013]
Steve Sailer asked
Immediately after the New York Times headlined "Shooting Suspect’s Racism Allegations Resound for Some," the chief of the LAPD announced the department would re-investigate why Christopher Dorner was fired.
As usual, the opposite question from the one being obsessed over in the media seems more worthy of investigation: Why was this highly defective individual hired in the first place? Why did the LAPD, which is big enough to afford the most sophisticated screening processes, ever give this man a badge and a gun?
The answer, of course: Affirmative Action. In a piece for The American Enterprise, Jan Golab said
The LAPD was once known as "the world's greatest police department," due largely to its stringent character screening. Back in the era of Sergeant Joe Friday, LAPD candidates were checked out as thoroughly as homicide suspects. Even a casual relationship with any known criminal excluded a candidate from being considered as a police officer.
All that is now history. In a bid to appease racial activists and meet federal decrees, strict screening and testing measures were dismantled. New black and Hispanic officer candidates were hustled into the ranks at any cost. What former deputy chief Steve Downing called "a quagmire of quota systems" was set up, and "standards were lowered and merit took a back seat to the new political imperatives." [The American Enterprise: How Racial P.C. Corrupted the LAPD (alternate link) By Jan Golab, June 2005]
The reason for this decline: all those standards have a disparate impact on minorities. If you're going to hire more non-Asian minorities, you're going to have to lower standards.(Japanese-American police, by contrast, are actually good in LA, and as former LAPD officer Joseph Wambaugh pointed out in his 1972 novel The Blue Knight , would use Japanese martial arts to make up for their smaller size.)
There are many African-Americans who could be police, but they tend to not want to be police, because they think police work is racist by definition. Part of that they get from the media. Jan Golab wrote in the 2005 article that
"Today, cops all across the United States battle a foe as destructive as crime itself: the presumption of common prejudice… This view has been fanned by a media elite which has made 'diversity' its virtual religion."
Also, Affirmative Action in the rest of society means that a qualified African-American is much in demand in other, better jobs—jobs in which, unlike police officers, he can stay home nights and weekends, and not get shot.
So what do you get instead on the police force? Well, aside from the late Christopher Dorner, you get the Los Angeles Rampart Police Scandal. Dorner mentioned it in his rantings, and it’s being picked up the “blame the LAPD” media:
After all, this is the city where the videotaped police beating of black motorist Rodney King—and the subsequent acquittal of the officers involved—sparked race riots in 1992. The department was also embroiled in a rash of corruption charges and civil rights violations known as the Rampart scandal in the late 1990s and early 2000s; eventually an independent monitor was set up by the LAPD and the federal government to guide and enforce reforms. “The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days,” Dorner claimed in his manifesto. “It has gotten worse.”
After Christopher Dorner, What Next for the LAPD?, By Jens Erik Gould, Time.com, February 14, 2013 [Links added by VDARE.com]
Well, here’s what the Rampart Police Scandal actually was—a bunch of LAPD officers engaged in a conspiracy to shoot, and frame, a Honduran immigrant gang member, Javier Oviando. He was sent to prison, but later released, and is now in a wheelchair. That’s the main Civil Rights aspect of the scandal, as opposed to corruption.
Here are the players:
Sam Francis died eight years ago today (February 15). To a significant extent, the Conservatism Inc. parasite that captured the movement to which he gave his life depends on a diluted version of his work--while struggling to prevent the emergence of another Sam Francis.
Until he was purged, Francis’ career could be regarded as a successful model for young Beltway conservatives. He worked as a faithful Cold Warrior and analyst at the Heritage Foundation (where he authored The Soviet Strategy of Terror ), did his time on Capitol Hill with Senator John East, and received awards for his commentary at the Washington Times—the newspaper to which Reagan gave partial credit for winning the Cold War,. Francis was not a marginal figure throwing bombs from the outside, but a product of the late, great Conservative Movement™ at the height of its power.
Francis frankly acknowledged his intellectual debt to his conservative predecessors, especially James Burnham of National Review. From Burnham, Francis took the concept of the “New Class”—the apparatchiks who actually run the managerial state. The “New Class” has an institutional hostility to traditional familial and patriotic loyalties, seeming them as a barrier to their totalitarian control of economics, culture, and government. Burnham's used this analytical framework to study Cold War geopolitics. Francis applied it to something ultimately more important—the Death of the West.
The thought of Sam Francis can be summarized in three words—“who not what.” The New Class is pushing through a cultural, economic and governmental program that dispossesses the historic American nation. In theory, this should lead to a purely rationalistic and materialistic order where Americans become disposable cogs in the global economy. In practice, because race at the least “carries and parallels culture” if it doesn't actually determine it, America as a meaningful national entity is being displaced and replaced by a distinctly alien order, gradually stripping white Americans of cultural, economic, and governmental power.
Whether the emerging non-white America will be in fact more amendable to technocratic rule, or whether short-sighted corporate elites are selling the rope that will be used to hang them, is a separate (and very interesting) question.
In Francis's view, Americans who want to keep their country must be
willing to challenge and derail the ruling class that gains money and power from the mass immigration it has permitted. It is doubtful that working through either of the two major political parties today can accomplish that, and Americans who seek to preserve their nation from the destruction that immigration brings will have to start
President Barack Obama has been chided for failing to keep his promise to visit the South Side of Chicago, which he dubbed “his Kennebunkport,” every six to eight weeks, [Obama's Chicago visits: Mixed feelings on infrequency of trips home, By Katherine Skiba and Becky Schlikerman, Chicago Tribune, April 12, 2011] But on Friday (February 15) he returns to one of the largest concentrations of black people in the world to push for more gun control. [Obama coming to Chicago to 'talk about the gun violence', By Ellen Jean Hirst, Naomi Nix and Jennifer Delgado,Chicago Tribune, February 11, 2013]
Obama will use the gun violence in Chicago, in particular the murder of 15-year-old Chicago public school “honor student” Hadiya Pendleton, whose majorette squad had participated in Obama’s inauguration festivities a few days earlier, as a symbol for restricting firearms all over America. Pendleton was gunned down not far from the Chicago residence of America’s First Family. Her four-hour funeral was attended by the First Lady herself. [Hadiya Pendleton funeral: Joyous memories, bitter facts about gun violence, By Dahleen Glanton and Bridget Doyle, Chicago Tribune, February 9, 2013] and Obama invited Cleopatra Pendleton, Hadiya’s mother, to Tuesday’s State of the Union address.
But the violence in Chicago and the “random” shooting of Pendleton—just one of the 51 homicide victims and 185+ gunshot victims in the city of Chicago in 2013 as of February 14—are a fatally flawed symbol of the need to force the American people to surrender the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms.
No—rather, the South Side of Chicago and the condition of the almost entirely black community there instead symbolizes why the Second Amendment must be protected at all costs.
Recall that Chicago was one of the first major cities to eliminate its citizens’ right to purchase handguns—in 1982, its city council passed what amounted to the strictest gun control laws in America. This coincided with Chicago’s black population overtaking the white population for the first time in the city’s history. Chicago was more than 85 percent white in the 1950s, but massive migration of blacks from the South and white flight from the city reshaped the demographics of Chicagoland.
It is the black population’s propensity to commit robberies, assaults, and murder using guns—even though they are illegal in Chicago—that threatens to destabilize the city, scaring away tourists, driving away capital investment, aborting gentrification. (There’s a riveting account of this mayhem in Sudhir Venkatesh’s 2008 book Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets).
This is a city where
- 94 percent of the gunmen who shot and wounded someone in 2012 got away without criminal charges [Most Shooters In Chicago Don't Face Charges, By Mark Konkol, DNAinfo January 24, 2013]. (The number was 91.5 percent in 2011).
- the embattled Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to pesky 9-1-1 calls that merely report “criminal damage to property, vehicle thefts, garage burglaries, or other crimes in which the suspect is no longer on the scene, and the victim isn’t in immediate danger” [Chicago Police Changing Response Plan For Some 911 Calls, CBS Chicago, February 4, 2013] in a bid to free up additional officers to patrol, ahem, majority black areas of the city.
- The Rev. Jesse Jackson—when he isn’t calling gun rights supporters “domestic terrorists” – is calling for the Department of Homeland Security to patrol the streets.
Incredibly, the death toll by murder in Chicago over the past decade is greater than the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan
Conservatism Inc. has already transformed from movement to business and finally to racket. However, like some kind of twisted political Pokémon, it's now evolving into a little known fourth stage: a joke. And one joke in particular—“What do you call a black person at a conservative conference?” The obvious answer – “the keynote speaker.”
The next Great Black Hope of the conservative movement: Dr. Ben Carson, who recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. These events are generally the stage for well-meaning banality, but Dr. Carson broke the nonpartisan tradition to condemn Barack Obama's political agenda even as the President sat only a few feet away. [YouTube]
Carson ripped the idea of a progressive tax system, instead suggesting that God mandates a flat tax through the institution of tithing. He blasted Obamacare and recycled the old conservative idea of Health Savings Accounts—an interesting concept that was strangely absent during the campaign. Finally, and refreshingly, Carson attacked Political Correctness, aptly observing that it “keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of their society is being changed.”
And so it does. But right now it is also working to the advantage of the good doctor.
Since the speech, the sober neocons of the Wall Street Journal published an editorial calling for Ben Carson to run for President. [Ben Carson for President, February 8, 2013] Sean Hannity, having lost half his audience because of his support for amnesty, urged the same and gushed “I'd vote for you.” Joe Concha at Mediaite called Dr. Carson the Republicans' “Dream Scenario.” Rush Limbaugh echoed Chris Matthews's reaction to Obama by saying, “Talk about a tingly feeling up your leg. I got it from Dr. Benjamin Carson.”
As Carson is now retiring so he can “educate” the American population, we can expect the good doctor (and the lab coat that he wears to his speeches and TV appearances) to at least try make Republican dreams of African-American advancing austerity come true.
Of course, none of what Carson said is particularly revolutionary—they were simply standard Republican talking points, a less sophisticated version of a policy panel at CPAC. Nor would a presidential candidate who makes the case that “God” commands a flat tax be likely to make much headway among socially liberal swing voters in this year of our Lord 2013 (or should that be 2013 CE?)
This hysterical reaction (“we found a black guy who agrees with us! Let's make him our leader and President!”) suggests deep self-loathing and fear among white Republicans who have internalized the Main Stream Media’s narrative that they are racist, hate-filled, and worst of all, backward.
The last round of the presidential primaries presented the unedifying spectacle
You know how it goes. We’re shown the House chamber, where the nation’s highest civilian and military officials wait in gathering expectation. 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.
Things haven’t improved any in the four years since I wrote that. Every year grows stronger my yearning for a return to the modest style that prevailed through most of the Republic’s history, of the President delivering a written report to Congress on the State of the Union. Vain hope, of course: the politicians of this age don’t do modest.
Well, well, what did the President have to tell us about the State of our Union? On the topic that most concerns readers of VDARE.com, next to nothing: there was less than 2½ minutes on immigration in a one-hour speech, and this came at well past the halfway mark, when many viewers will have given up.
“Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants [applause]; and right now, leaders of business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities, they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform [prolonged applause].”
Mostly true. Business leaders have no problem with private-sector labor markets being flooded to bring down wages. “Labor” nowadays means public-sector employees, to whom immigrants are clients, i.e. bread and butter. “Faith communities,” formerly known as churches, are in the nation-wrecking van of immigration romanticism and refugee resettlement, to the disgust of many patriotic congregants.
In confirmation of that testimony, there were illegal immigrants sitting right there in the House chamber as the President spoke, brought in as guests of congressmen. Why did not the Capitol police arrest them?
So perhaps not quite all leaders agree. And what about followers? Oh, the heck with them!
What exactly is comprehensive immigration reform, though? Let the President tell us:
“Real reform means stronger border security, and we can build on the progress my administration’s already made, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history . . .”
There flashed upon my inward eye at that point a stretch of southern border desert country with thousands of empty boots laid out on it in a line stretching all the to the horizon. Perhaps that’s
Gun control seems likely to figure as much as amnesty in President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Vice President Biden will certainly get his wish (“we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media”) for campaigning coverage from the Main Stream Media. And now the Administration can also count on Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently announced his conversion to gun control [Arnold Schwarzenegger On Gun Control: 'Leave No Stone Unturned', By Natalie Rotman, Huffington Post, January 17, 2013]
It’s worth contrasting Schwarzenegger’s sickening scuttle with the contrary evolution of another movie action hero, Charlton Heston, who began as a liberal and a supporter of “Civil Rights”—when most of Hollywood was afraid of getting involved—and ended as five-term President of the National Rifle Association. Indeed, Schwarzenegger seems finally have taken to heart the early advice of his Jewish publicist Charlotte Parker:
One person she advised avoiding was the forthrightly conservative Charlton Heston, who since The Ten Commandments had brought Moses-like authority to his political conventions. While Schwarzenegger’s political ideas weren’t that different from Heston’s [my emphasis—PK], and it would have seemed natural for the two conservative stars to stand arm in arm, Parker’s protective instinct was to keep Schwarzenegger away from the National Rifle Association’s Hollywood poster child. If Heston appeared as the same event, Parker insisted, Schwarzenegger must never allow himself to be photographed with Heston, or, she warned, he would become marked as a right-wing ideologue.
Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger, (2005) by Laurence Leamer, P.164
But back when Schwarzenegger preparing to take on the role of his life, Conan the Barbarian, director John Milius told him to hang out with Hell’s Angels to research the type of character he wanted Schwarzenegger to portray. And, Schwarzenegger biographer Leamer writes:
His natural sympathies were with those living on the wild fringes of American life. He fancied that these self-conscious outlaws were the torchbearers of a kind of liberty that those in corporate/bureaucratic America had long forgotten or considered mere indulgence. He was a skeet-shooting hunting control. He had, by his count, about fifteen guns in his house, including not only shotguns and pistols but an Uzi.” (p. 133) [my emphasis—PK]
Charlton Heston’s final book, The Courage to Be Free (2000), offers remarkable insight into the very different personality of the man who played Ben Hur. He wrote about his experience during the L.A. Riots of 1992:
Police couldn't stop the riots in the wake of the Rodney King trial verdict in Los Angeles. I know. I was there. I was at home in the Los Angeles area when those riots broke out just a few miles away. And I was armed. Like everyone within a radius of fifty miles of those riots, I was concerned when I realized that the Los Angeles police Department could not, or would not, control the carnage and vandalism.
The fear ran so quickly and so deeply throughout the Los Angeles basin that even my liberal friends were frightened. My phone rang day and night. As TV news choppers hacked through smoke-darkened skies over L.A., I got a phone calls from firmly anti-gun friend in clear conflict.
"Umm Chuck, you have quite a few... ah guns, don't you?"
"Yes, I do."
"Shotguns and... like that?"
"Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one but they have this 15 waiting day period..." (p.73)
One can only guess that many of those who called Heston asking for guns had been clients of Charlotte Parker.
The message from the cultural warlords is everywhere, delivered with the arrogant swagger of absolute confidence. Summarized, it is this: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant (or even worse evangelical) Christian, the Midwestern or southern (or even worse rural) hunter, apparently straight or admitted heterosexual gun-owning average working stiff, or even worse still male working stiff, because not only do you not count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as welcome and green as you hand them over, but your voice deserves no hearing, your opinion is not enlightened, your media access is virtually nil, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something about your new America.
And until you do, why don't you just sit down and shut up! (p.5-6)
Sounds like the anti-white MSM chest-thumping after Obama’s 2012 re-election.
But, just as Schwarzenegger has finally steered clear of Heston, the David Keene NRA, now very much a part of Conservatism Inc., would certainly distance itself from Heston’s frank defense of white peoples’ right to exist.
I followed the presidential campaigns that year with great interest and accepted happily when I was invited to take part in the Republican National Convention in New Orleans in August. My assignment was to add celebrity power to one of the “caucus teams” of Reagan administration officials and Bush supporters whose job it was to glad-hand the state delegations and chat them up on key issues.
I’d been to Republican conventions before, but this was the first since I’d married a Shriver. Maria and I believed that we should continue as we always had: she would go to the Democratic convention and to gatherings for all the things she believed in, and she would cover Republicans as a journalist, and I would keep going to the Republican convention. But we needed to be careful to avoid unnecessary controversy. Everything went well in New Orleans until my friend and trapshooting buddy Tony Makris, the PR guru of the National Rifle Association, mentioned that the NRA was holding a brunch in honor of Texas Senator Phil Gramm—would I like to stop by? I’d gotten to know Gramm well by then. When I showed up the next morning, other celebrities were there also, but the reporters converged on me. The Kennedys, having endured two tragic political assassinations, were very antigun, so what was I doing at an NRA reception? I hadn’t even thought about it. If I had, I would have been sensitive enough not to attend this NRA event. They also asked, as a Kennedy by marriage, was I supporting the NRA? What was my position on automatic weapons? Saturday night specials? Sniper rifles? Cop-killing bullets? I didn’t know how to respond. I belonged to the NRA because I believed in the constitutional right to bear arms, but I hadn’t though through all those issues and details. There was even a question about my very presence at the 1988 Republican National Convention: was it some kind of statement in defiance of the Kennedy family? (p. 368)
"To govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me."
We all have our guilty pleasures in life, the kind of indulgences that we are half-embarrassed, and half-amused, to admit to others. For my wife and me, it’s watching ABC’s The Bachelor. —the latest episode of which airs Monday, February 11 (8 pm ET!)
In case you haven’t seen it, The Bachelor (and its corollary, The Bachelorette, with the genders reversed) is a reality show where a group of women spend several weeks vying for the affections of one man. The initial 25 contestants advance to the next round if they receive a rose from The Bachelor by the end of each episode. But there are a dwindling number of roses to dispense each week, so each episode has winners and losers. Those who receive a rose are typically ecstatic and relieved, and those who do not are typically heartbroken.
Eventually, it reaches the point where The Bachelor must choose the woman he wants to marry, and reject the runner up. Usually, The Bachelor proposes marriage, and the runner up walks away in tears. And it makes for great theater.
The show is ridiculous; the melodrama is intense. The women can be catty and backstabbing. They have teary meltdowns over the prospect of being rejected by someone they barely know (and the men on The Bachelorette are often just as bad). And, while some of the joys and sorrows experienced by the contestants seem genuine, much of it is way over the top, which is what makes it so entertaining.
Granted, only three of the bachelors/bachelorettes have actually gone on to tie the knot. But many of the male and female runner ups (known as "Bachelor alumni”) have dated and a few have actually gotten married. Given the decline in the institution of marriage nationally, that’s not so bad.
My wife and I started watching the show three years ago, right after our first child
Memo From Middle America| Mexican Foreign Ministry Meddling In Amnesty Debate—Where Is U.S. Government (And GOP)?
Over ten years ago, when I was teaching in Mexico (see The Education of a Gringo in Mexico), a sixth-grade student in my English class told me there was going to be an amnesty. Now where had he gotten that idea?
Not that it makes a great deal of difference—all recent Mexican presidents, regardless of party, have supported amnesty for Mexican illegals in the U.S.
Pena Nieto now has his team in place, including Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade Kuribrena. And the new ambassador to the United States, who presented his credentials on January 15th, is Eduardo Tomas Medina Mora Icaza. (Medina Mora was formerly Mexico’s ambassador to the UK during the farcical Top Gear imbroglio).
While still in Mexico, at a January 10th press conference, Medina-Mora cited “the presence of Mexicans in the United States of America, as much those of Mexican origin [i.e. U.S.-born] as those who were born in Mexico and reside there” and the 2010 U.S. Census—how many Hispanics are in the U.S., what percentage are of Mexican origin, the importance of the Hispanic vote etc. [Transcript, in Spanish |Google Translate]
A Mexican diplomat studying the U.S. census? Of course. After all, the Mexican foreign ministry was a “partner” with the U.S. Census Bureau in carrying out the 2010 U.S. Census. See 2010 Census Already Politically Correct—But Mexico Is Meddling Anyway.
At the same press conference, Medina-Mora was asked:
What role do you think that you will play in Washington over that debate [amnesty] and what is the Mexican government going to say to President Obama and the [U.S.] Congress over the possibility of reforms to the migratory policy in the United States?
That is a subject of the agenda and of the internal policy of the United States, and not a subject of the bilateral [Mexican and American] agenda…
Wow! That sounds like Medina-Mora respects our sovereignty and says he’s not going to meddle!
Yes—until you read the rest of the sentence:
…..we [Mexicans] nevertheless, have a very great interest, an inescapable responsibility to defend the interests of our fellow Mexicans and for asserting an argument that increases the opportunities for them.
In others words, yes, Mexico is meddling. And with its
Here on New York City’s Rockaway Peninsula, Ground Zero for Hurricane Sandy, my majority-Irish, overwhelmingly Catholic, white working/middle class community will hold its annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, one of the biggest in the country, on March 2. It will showcase many of the same pipe-and-drum marching bands that will perform in the even bigger parade down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue 14 days later.
And the Stix Family will be there, as usual.
When Michael Bloomberg, whom some neighbors call “the Mayor of Manhattan,” marches up front, no one will cheer. Some of my neighbors will boo him, and some will give him a one-finger salute. I will engage in my annual ritual of turning my back on him.
A colleague (Steve Sailer?) wrote that in supporting Giuliani, whites were creating an implicit racial community. They did that with Beame, Koch, Giuliani too, but their beneficiaries never repaid them. (Koch clashed publicly with blacks because he refused to suck up to them and they hated him with a passion, but he hired blacks like crazy.)
Conversely, although Bloomberg apparently calculates that the white working class has no place else to go
Question: How many times over the past four years have exploitative liberal journalists and Democratic leaders rushed to pin random acts of violence on the tea party, Republicans, Fox News and conservative talk radio?
The Fulford File | Rubio, Republicans, “Our New Spanish-Speaking Overlords,” And How To Fight Creeping Bilingualism
Conservatism Inc. is falling over itself to welcome “our new Spanish-speaking overlords”—to adapt the famous scene from The Simpsons (itself adapted from the 1977 movie Empire of the Ants). The Republican Congressional leadership has chosen newly-minted Florida Senator Marco Rubio to give the response to President Obama’s February 12 State Of The Union—half in Spanish.
Does this mean the United States is turning into Mexico?
No, it’s worse—it means the United States is turning into Canada.
Canada has a lot of experience with bilingualism, all of it bad.
I’ve noted before that the ludicrous Canadian custom of making speeches in both languages—saying everything twice, once in English and once in the minority language—is coming to America.
Well, the Canadians have invented an even worse absurdity: the speaker alternates between languages, leaving large parts of the audience unsure what he’s saying.
Thus Ottawa Citizen columnist Dan Gardner blogged acidly (April 19, 2010):
John Ralston Saul's public speech entitled: "Reinventing the language of citizenship/ inventer la langue de la citoyennete" will be presented in Canada's two official languages Please note the speech will alternate between French and English with no simultaneous translation.
John Ralston Saul is a member of the globalist elite, born in Ottawa, educated in Montreal and London. He writes books in English, but his website offers visitors the choice of English, French, or Spanish.
I can understand why the lecture might be given in French. Or in English. Or in either with translation. But both with no translation? Do that and you will ensure that more than nine out of ten people in the city [VDARE.com note: Vancouver, B. C.] in which you are giving the lecture will be unable to understand what you are saying. So what is this except a symbolic gesture of... Of what, exactly? Bilingual idealism? Contempt for the unilingual?
The explicitness of that notice is rare but neither the attitude nor the practice are, at least not in Ottawa. Years ago, after moving here, I was amazed at how, in Official Ottawa—i.e. the Ottawa of the federal government—it's perfectly acceptable for public speakers to switch back and forth between languages, without translation, even to the extent of setting up a joke in one language and delivering the punchline in another. This would be admirable in an ideal world in which all Canadians could laugh along. But in this world, this is a very effective way to shutting out the overwhelming majority of Canadians who are unilingual.
Funny. But in fact creeping bilingualism is not funny at all. It’s a serious threat to unilingual members of the majority language community a.k.a. English-speakers, in both Canada and the U.S.
Among other things, bilingualism ultimately means job preference for the minority language group—and years of language lessons for English-speakers who want those jobs.
Thus in Canada, many federal civil service jobs are reserved for people who speak both languages, which means, de facto¸ it is dominated by French speakers.
If Canada was to be a bilingual country with most power concentrated in Ottawa's federal government, in the nature of things it would be Francophones [VDARE.com note: CanSpeak for French-speakers, but really it’s a matter of blood] who would end up occupying most positions of authority in it. The inclination is always stronger for minorities to learn the language of a majority. Anglos weren't going to be bilingual in significant numbers. Francophones would be, and so rule the land.
[Unintended Consequences, by George Jonas,
In fairness to our nation's first black President, Harding's speeches weren't that bad. (You can actually listen to a small selection here.) He at least revivified an almost-forgotten word—no small achievement for an orator.
In the present concussed state of the Republican Party, even a Hardingian level of political rhetoric may be too much to hope for. Such at any rate was the impression I took away from Tuesday's speech at the American Enterprise Institute by Eric Cantor, a congressman from Virginia and current House majority leader.
I made the following random notes while watching the Real Clear Politics video of the speech. Numbers in parentheses refer to minutes and seconds into the video.
There is an introduction 1m50s long by Arthur Brooks, president of the AEI (and to the best of my knowledge, no relation to David Brooks.) Then comes Cantor's speech, 36m15s long, title "Making Life Work." The video closes with a brief Q&A period, 10m17s (eight questions).
After some preliminary routine flourishes—social mobility, the Wright Brothers, huddled masses, blah blah—we get to the first big segment, on education.
(11m00s) Since 1965, the federal government has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into improving schools, especially in low-income areas—over $15 billion last year. And frankly, the results have not matched the investment.
Still on education, at 11m17s we get the first of a parade of Lenny Skutniks. This first is one Joseph Kelley of Washington, D.C., whose son Rashawn was falling behind at school.
Joseph would try and sit in on classes in order to help Rashawn, but was met with hostility …
I should certainly hope so. Having taught inner-city kids myself, I can assure Mr. Cantor that no teacher could do his job with parents sitting in the classroom, even in a society less litigious than ours. If Mr. Kelley had shown up in mine, I'd have been yelling for the security guards.
When—I am asking rhetorically—when did it enter the heads of GOP panjandrums that being anti-schoolteacher is a good electoral strategy? I imagine that the train of thought pursued its sluggish course through their brains somewhat like this: The schools are lousy. Whom should we blame? The parents? Good grief, no! The school boards? They ARE parents. The students? Perish the thought! I know: Let's blame the teachers!
Even the premise is incorrect. When results are disaggregated by ethnicity, our schools do well in the international comparisons. We educate white kids as well as any white country, Hispanic kids as well as any Hispanic country, and so on. True, we have a fair proportion of ineducables, but so does everyone else. Our current approach to the ineducables—make them take Algebra!—is borderline insane, but you won't hear that from Cantor, only feelgood claptrap about "opportunity."
… and even had to obtain a court order so Rashawn could have a tutor.
Really? As detailed in Bob Weissberg's book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools, pp. 208-210), there is a huge array of affordable non-school options—online tutoring, "cram academies" and the like—even in the poorest neighborhoods. Some were made free to students from failing schools under the original No Child Left Behind Act. Weissberg:
City after city reported a nearly identical experience: huge numbers of lagging students were offered a free tutoring option, often in the school they already attend, but only about 10 percent signed up, and even then, most dropped out after a few sessions.
(12m00s) Violence was so prevalent in Rashawn's schools
Liberals in the Main Stream Media have been up in arms over an official White House petition to
STOP WHITE GENOCIDE: Halt MASSIVE third world immigration and FORCED assimilation in White countries!
The petition states
Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY? White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to "assimilate," i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence…Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It's anti-white!
Followers of the Dissident Right will likely recognize this text. It frequently appears in the comment threads of race-related news articles and YouTube videos.
But it’s news to many on the Left. They are utterly outraged that anyone would think such thoughts:
- Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed tweeted on the petition with the words: “Is this the most racist White House petition ever created?”
- Jonathan Capehart, a black Washington Post columnist, answered: “I would have to answer yes. Yes, it probably is.”
Capehart was particularly upset that some of the signers come from “unlikely places such as New York City, New Haven, Conn., Silver Spring, Md., and Berkeley, Calif.” A petition to ‘stop white genocide’?, January 18, 2012].
Capehart even appeared on MSNBC to express his outrage that 405 people had signed the petition— “not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things” but “way too many” for such unacceptable thoughts. [Conspiracy theories a way of life for conservatives, January 18, 2013]
Host Karen Finney (who is considered, but doesn’t look, African-American, see picture RIGHT) snarked that Rush Limbaugh probably had the same thoughts. And black commentator Touré, appearing on the same show, suggested that the entire GOP base agreed.
Unlike Capehart, I cannot manage to get outraged that four hundred people (or currently, almost 950 people) are willing to sign their name on the petition.
The Westboro Baptist Church is a fringe church led by Fred Phelps. Phelps began his political activism as a left-wing civil rights attorney. Among his many cases, he filed a class action lawsuit to compel forced busing, as well as forced integration of the American Legion. [As a lawyer, Phelps was good in court, By Joe Taschler and Steve Fry, Topeka The Capital-Journal, August 3, 1994]
Fox News has referred to the Westboro Baptist Church as a “left wing,” but did it not mention any of Phelps’ civil rights activism, leading the fashionista Leftists at Gawker to mock its claim. [Fox News Refers to the Westboro Baptist Church as a ‘Left-Wing Cult’, by Neetzan Zimmerman, December 26, 2012] Fox could have made a much stronger case had it mentioned Phelps’ past legal work—but that would involve an un-neoconservative concession that civil rights litigation is “left wing.”
Phelps and the Church gained fame in the 1990s when he began protesting “Gay Pride” events with signs emblazoned “God Hates Fags.” Eager for more and more attention,