Recent News

The Fulford File | Jan Brewer Says Businesses Can’t Refuse To Serve Homosexuals—The SPLC Says Businesses Shouldn’t Serve

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.

In other words: homosexuals (or at least their Cultural Marxist leaders) 1, Christians 0.

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:

‘Still a vicious anti-gay extremist’: Hate thrown at Jan Brewer in spite of #SB1062 veto, February 26, 2014

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

When Will America End Cash-for-Visas Racket?

When Will America End Cash-for-Visas Racket?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,

Democrat Wonders: When Will the WASHINGTON POST Ever Learn About Immigration And Unemployment?

The Washington Post did it again. While pretending to care about the jobless, it ignored the devastating impact of mass immigration on America’s unemployed.

Reporter Ylan Q. Mui (Email) writes:

"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]

Raise The Minimum Wage To $14 An Hour Using This One Weird Trick—An Immigration Moratorium!

Democrats believe they've hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage. 

Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a RepublicanApparently, 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. 

Of course, the reason American workers’ wages are so low in the first place is because of the Democrats' policies on immigration. Republicans might want to point that out. 

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:

Unemployment Rates By Race

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

Obama Wages Racial Socialist War on White-Owned Corporations, Taxpayers

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

Gay Rights, Civil Rights, And How Freedom Dies

“Religious Right Cheers a Bill Allowing Refusal to Serve Gays.”

Thus did the New York Times’ headline, leaving no doubt as to who the black hats are, describe the proposed Arizona law to permit businesses, on religious grounds, to deny service to same-sex couples.

Examples of intolerance provided by the Times:

“In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.”

The question Gov. Jan Brewer faces?

Should Christians, Muslims, Mormons who refuse, on religious grounds, to serve same-sex couples—that photographer, that florist, that baker, for example—be treated as criminals?

Or should Arizona leave them alone?

“Religious freedom,” said Daniel Mach of the ACLU to the Times, is “not a blank check to ... impose our faith on our neighbors.”

True. But who is imposing whose beliefs here?

The baker who says he’s not making your wedding cake? Or those who want Arizona law to declare that either he provides that wedding cake and those flowers for that same-sex ceremony, or we see to it that he is arrested, prosecuted and put out of business?

Who is imposing his views and values here?

What we are seeing in Arizona in microcosm is what we have witnessed in America for half a century: the growing intolerance of those who preach tolerance and the corruption of the concept of civil rights.

We have seen the progression before.

In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that segregation in public schools was wrong and every black child must be allowed to attend his or her neighborhood school. By 1968, the court was

Frank Borzellieri On White Liberal Hypocrisy: Smug Diversity Pushers And The Safe White Neighborhoods They Live In

The hypocrisy of white liberals over integration and the wonderful enrichment that mass immigration is supposed to bring is the gift that never stops giving. If there is one thing you can be absolutely sure of whenever you hear a white liberal espousing the vital importance of diversity, it is that the same person lives in a safe, lily-white community.

What was termed “white flight” in the 1950s and 1960s is a demographic fact of life and everyone knows it. No less an unwilling witness than the U.S. government has reported what everyone knows: when the non-white population of a community reaches between 10 and 20 percent, whites simply leave. Whites will not live in non-white neighborhoods in any meaningful percentage.[The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis, Housing Policy Debate,  January 1997(PDF)]

I personally, as a libertarian, think all people—black, white, Hispanic, or Asian—should be allowed to live anywhere they want without being browbeaten or forced to live where they don’t want to. My problem is with white liberals who claim that “diversity is strength” but whose actions are very different when it comes to their own lives, their own homes, their own children and their own neighborhoods.

All of this brings me to the particular white liberal hypocrites who have caused me to be fired as a Catholic school principal, not once but twice, for political writings that were never secret and which Monsignor Michael Hull, the “Censor Librorum” of the New York Archdiocese, had already approved as not in violation of Catholic teaching. (See Jared Taylor’s article on the incident [PDF] and this video interview.)

  • Corinne LetschCorinne Lestch, (email her )the New York Daily News reporter who wrote the defamatory 2011 article that threw the New York Archdiocese into panic, is a left-wing activist and who prides herself on destroying people who don’t toe the Politically Correct line on race.

Surely, if there is one white person who must absolutely certainly practice what she so devotedly preaches, it must be Corinne Lestch.

But where does Corinne Lestch live? Well, in Bronxville, New York, a town that is 92 percent white and just one percent black!

Bronxville, New York, a town that is 92 percent white and just one percent black!

No integration or diversity for Corinne Lestch and her family—just for everyone else!

Davies is another blowhard when it comes to the great wonders and benefits of racial integration and diversity.

Any diversity for her? Yeah, right. Davies lives

The Fulford File | Black History Month At Ole Miss, And The ROOTS Of The Anti-White Movie Industry

It’s another Black History Month and at Ole Miss the iconic statue of Civil Rights icon James Meredith was draped—by someone—with a noose, which is the wrong kind of icon, and makes people crazy.[Vandals put noose on Ole Miss statue of James Meredith; he speaks out, By Paresh Dave, LA Times,  February 18, 2014]

Just over half a century ago, in 1962, Meredith was the first black student to attend Ole Miss, formally known as The University Of Mississippi. Now blacks make up 15 percent of the students.

If this turns out to be a "hoax crime"—if the students who did the draping turn out to be minorities—nothing will be done to them, it will just be another exercise in consciousness raising. There was an earlier example on the occasion of the 40thanniversary of the famous desegregation: Another Fake Hate Crime - The Real Race Scandal In Mississippi, By Michelle Malkin on December 17, 2002.

But if the students who did it are white—the authorities have three white suspects—then their lives will be ruined. They could be sent to jail, on the theory that the noose constitutes a credible threat—which it doesn’t—or deprived of any chance for a higher education.

See “Hate Crimes”: Washington’s War Against White Working Class Dissent, and 2011 Campus "Hate Crime" Hoax Season About To Begin, by Nicholas Stix for details. editor Peter Brimelow once wrote:

It may be that before America can talk rationally about race, the generation that remembers segregation will have to die off.

But we’re never going to be allowed to forget it. There’s a burgeoning industry of anti-white remembrance.

As letters editor, I answer questions from readers about pieces we’ve run. This came in recently:

I read a column/article several years ago concerning the book Roots, and how it was exposed as a complete work of fiction. I did not print it out at the time and a few years later I did a search for it so that I could.

I did not find it, but did find another that stated basically the same thing, that Haley's book was complete fiction and that he had even plagiarized from another book, and had not even destroyed his notes.

Now I cannot find either of these columns. Have they been removed from the site, or am I just not typing in the correct words to search by? Thank you for your time.

We never remove anything from, our entire archives are freely available. However, we never did a full article on the Alex Haley plagiarism/fraud thing. We linked to something on the subject in an old Sam Francis column.

Alex Haley and his book

Sam wrote 

The guiltfest was sponsored by an organization calling itself the "Kunta Kinte-Alex Haley Foundation" after the late black writer who cranked out the book Roots back in the 1970s, a work purporting to explore the author's racial heritage in Africa and early America but which was later shown to have been mostly fabrication,

The Annapolis Guilt Wallow, October 4, 2004

At the time, I added a link on the words "mostly fabrication" to NBC Perpetuates Roots Cover-up  By Angela Zemla, AIM, February 11, 2002. That link is still good, scroll past the garbled HTML codes.

A more recent overview is Jack Kerwick's column Alex Haley’s Fraudulent Roots, on BeliefNet, March 2012, on the 35th Anniversary of the TV miniseries.

Briefly, Haley claimed to descended from a Gambian slave named Kunta Kinte, who had

The Enemy Of Ukraine’s Protesters Is Not Necessarily The American Right’s Friend

I am a Ukrainian-descended American software developer, based for the last two years here in Lviv, in western Ukraine, about 300 miles from the capital, Kyiv, where the worst of the recent civil unrest has taken place.

My lead developer travels to Kyiv every time violence flares up. He, like many Ukrainians, considered it his duty. Two days ago, when the latest and most intense fighting flared up, I texted him: “Should I wish you a safe journey?” He texted me back: “You’re late. I’m already on Maidan.”

I pay him well, though he could probably earn even more elsewhere. His enthusiasm for Bitcoin keeps him with me. (I’m particularly interested in Bitcoin—see here and here).

He’s part of Ukraine’s miniscule middle class. He owns an SUV and a three-story home where he lives with his wife and two children. We go skiing together. He is not the type of person who’d be motivate by the thirty Euros a day which Paul Craig Roberts (alas!) claims was sustaining the protests. [US and EU Are Paying Ukrainian Rioters and Protesters,  February 17, 2014]

Nor was Yuriy Verbytsky, a seismologist from the Geophysical Institute in Lviv and mountain climber who, after being injured in the protests and hospitalized, was kidnapped from the hospital, severely beaten, and left in the woods where he froze to death. Nor was Bohdan Solchanyk, a university lecturer killed on February 20th.

Today (Friday February 21) reports have been circulating of a deal negotiated between the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition parties. The deal would include immediate presidential elections, plus a roll back of presidential powers. (Fluctuating presidential powers are a sign of the volatility of Ukrainian democracy: In 2004, when the Orange Revolution brought Victor Yushchenko to power, the Rada [congress] limited presidential powers, but in 2010, when Victor Yanukovych, the Russian-backed villain of the Orange Revolution, returned to office, they were restored.)

Chances are that the protesters in the streets will allow the opposition politicians to speak for them, though they've scorned them in the past. (But there are also reports that the protestors are resisting, and even a rumor that Yanukovych has fled to his power base in the Eastern and proclaimed a separate state).

Personally, I believe the best thing for Ukrainians would be a dismantling of the hyper-centralized, corrupt, ineffective government bureaucracies and the development of local or private solutions. (I am skeptical of the European Union, which I don’t think Ukraine needs, and regret so many Ukrainian nationalists have persuaded themselves that it offers protection against Russia). But both sets of politicians contending for influence want the bureaucracy to remain intact so that they can simply affect the leader.

In this regard, the peace deal could be a lost opportunity. But, on the positive side, the people have shown their strength. The fact that they were able to overthrow a corrupt government will be a restraint on all future regimes and, because of Ukraine’s vertical power structures, there’s going to be a lot of change.

There seems to be unusual awareness in the US Main Stream Media that Ukraine has deep demographic divisions and that the Russian-speaking Donbas in the East, and possibly the Crimea, could secede. (Unusual because the American Establishment and MSM has a bias against secession at home and abroad—remember George Bush’s notorious 1991  “Chicken Kiev” speech urging Ukraine not to leave the Soviet Union).


This map (click to enlarge) is from Is It Time for Ukraine to Split Up?, by Brian Whitmore,, February 20, 2014. It’s an interview with Rutgers University’s Professor Alexander Motyl, concluding that, while Ukraine probably won’t split up, Western Ukraine—overwhelmingly Ukrainian-speaking—would be better off if it did. I agree—it’s a good and insightful analysis.

Note that this map includes Ukrainian- and Russian-speakers—and also ethnic Ukrainians who speak Russian. This may be a hard concept to grasp. It was strange for me. As the child of Western Ukrainian exiles—my mother’s family fled when the area was seized by the Soviet Union after World War II

John Derbyshire: “Racism” (The Word) Becoming Obsolete Because Of Racism—Anti-White, That Is

Now here’s an interesting thing. Using the handy Google Ngram Viewer, which shows you how the frequency of words and phrases has changed over time in “lots of books” (the ones archived in Google Books), I see that racism is in decline!

The word, that is. After taking off around 1940 the word peaked in 1998. Then over the next ten years, which is as far as Ngram goes, occurrences of “racism” dropped off by 18 percent—nearly a fifth. Curious! [Click on any chart to be taken to the Ngram View.]

After taking off around 1940 the word peaked in 1998."Racism"

Not really that curious. Words and phrases with some social or emotional charge tend to lose that charge over time as people get used to them, like batteries running down. The charge then needs to be transferred to some newer term.

Accordingly, check out the Ngram for “white privilege.” Across those same ten years, 1998-2008, occurrences of “white privilege” show a remarkable 72 percent rise.

Check out the Ngram for “white privilege.”

"white privilege"

Not all these things are clear-cut. I tried to go from the social phenomenon (racism) to the individual (racist) but got ambiguous results. Occurrences of “racist” sure enough dropped 18 percent across 1998-2008, the same as for “racism.”


I thought “white supremacist” would be the recharged version, but it followed a different track, rising to five percent above the 1998 baseline in 2004, then dropping to two percent below it in 2008.

image"white supremacist"

The dwindling use of the words “racism” and “racist” anyway means a net increase in honesty…I think. Or at the very least, a net decrease in confusion. That’s because people who used “racism” and “racist” always had to wrestle with a dread possibility: that these words might be applied to nonwhites!

Dictionary definitions seemed to leave this possibility open. The common essence of those lexicographical rulings was captured by the black historian Nell Irvin Painter. [Email her.] Racism, she wrote,

Montana’s Steve Daines: So Far, More Of The GOP Establishment Same—Will That Include Amnesty?

[See also Astonishing Immigration Patriot Victory In Montana—No Thanks To GOP, Which Ran Away (And Lost), by Paul Nachman. Steve Daines' NumbersUSA ranking is C+. ]

Montana’s lone U.S. House member, Steve Daines, is serving his first term as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And there is absolutely no doubt that Daines will soon declare his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Max Baucus.

When Daines ran for the U.S. House seat in 2012, he had no political voting record, as he had not yet been elected to public office. He ran—as most Republicans do—as a “conservative.” His campaign slogan was “More Jobs—Less Government.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? Politicians’ slogans always sound good. Well, now Steve Daines has a voting record; and, so far, that record is only more of the same.

Montana’s Steve Daines: So Far, More Of The GOP Establishment Same—Will That Include Amnesty?In the first place, if a politician (at any level) does not comprehend the existence of the so-called New World Order and the propensity of government to construct a police state, he or she is totally incapable of defending our liberties. In the second place, if the politician does not have a basic understanding of, and a commitment to, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and U.S. Constitution, he or she is incapable of defending our liberties. And in the next place, unless the politician is truly honest, selfless, and without personal ambition, he or she is incapable of defending our liberties. I suppose we should also add the necessity of a politician having no skeletons in his or her closet that the enemies of freedom could use to intimidate and manipulate them with. That’s a tall order; I know. But it is exactly the lack of these qualities that has brought our country to the brink of ruin.

Whether Steve Daines is truly honest, selfless, and without personal ambition—and whether or not he has any skeletons rattling around in his closet—is yet to be seen; but if his votes on Capitol Hill during his first term in office are any indicator (and they are), Daines is seriously lacking in his understanding of both the New World Order—and elements of a police state—as well the fundamental principles contained in America’s founding documents.

Remember that virtually every vote any politician casts either helps to preserve and secure our liberties or helps to diminish and dismantle our liberties. And at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam how sincere the politician seems to be, or whether he has an “R” or “D” behind his name, or whether he claims to be a Christian, or where he goes to church, or how well-intentioned he says he is.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the way he or she votes. The American people don’t have to live with a politician’s sincerity, or party affiliation, or his or her religion, or good intentions. But what we do have to live with are the laws that he or she helps enact. Every law has the power of a gun (or a whole bunch of guns) behind it. Every law has the potential to take our property,

More Evidence Refutes “Record Deportations” MSM Myth

Everybody has an opinion about immigration, but most people know nothing substantial, beyond a few canonical-boilerplate bromides:

Then there are specific false "facts"—the opposite of Hate Facts, should we call them Good Lies? PC Factoids? Myth Memess? [ suggestions here please]—that come and go, depending upon the political season and the needs of the Treason Lobby. One has been repeated ceaselessly during the last couple of years to soften up our inattentive and gullible fellow citizens for a final, ruinous mass Amnesty: the claim that the Obama Administration is deporting illegal aliens at a record rate.’s James Fulford recently refuted this here. But it popped up again immediately, e.g., in George Will's view-from-Olympus diktat on immigration for Republican lawmakers [Why immigration reform matters February 13, 2014], in an ill-informed and tendentious op-ed by David Nakamura, whoever he is, at the Washington Post [For more than 25 years, it’s never been the right time for immigration reform, February 5, 2014] as well as earlier in the headline of a February 5 Fox News Latino (urrrp!) article: Despite Record Deportations On His Watch, Republicans Don't Trust Obama On Enforcement.

The claim results from the administration's book-cooking. Border Patrol [BP] agents, who operate around the country's periphery between the various entry ports, and Customs and Border Protection officers, who man the ports, airports, and border portals, "return" many illegal crossers right back across the border when they’re caught. This stream of evicted illegal used to be counted separately. Now this same stream is laundered through Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] to bulk up ICE's aggregate "removal" numbers, which are what the Administration has been touting.

The year-by-year numbers are available from an October 2013 "backgrounder, Deportation Numbers Unwrapped [link; PDF], by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies [CIS]. Her data are taken from "mostly unpublished internal Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and ICE statistics."

However, a skeptical correspondent of mine pushed to see whatever "raw" figures were directly available online in official government documents. Using three such sources (see below), unearthed by one or other of us, I assembled the results for 2008 through 2013 into the following table of "removal" statistics for ICE:

Could Cantor, Goodlatte Primary Challenges Kill Amnesty/ Immigration Surge?

Goodlatte, right, and Cantor, left.

Goodlatte, left, and Cantor, right.

Immigration patriots inside the Beltway report that, despite deceptive noises, the GOP House Leadership version  of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is not dead—Speaker John Boehner is just lying low after his plan’s disastrous roll-out  and will resume the offensive after the primaries. In Virginia, that’s June 10, and two key Boehner lieutenants there do indeed have challengers: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Richmond-area 7th district and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in the Shenandoah Valley’s 6th district.

Cantor’s challenger: Dave Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College and something of a political veteran

Goodlatte’s challenger: Paul Bevington, an earnest 51-year-old high-school teacher and libertarian-leaning tyro.

Cantor has spouted awful Conservatism Inc. boilerplate about legal immigration and both he and Goodlatte also support some form of Amnesty for the millions of illegals who have crossed the border to do the jobs Americans won't do, from slashing suburban soccer moms and tearing their hair out to murdering potential prosecution witnesses who will testify in gang trials. Cantor’s KIDS Act, which would give Amnesty to the illegals brought here as children, is particularly mendacious: apart from the inevitable fraud, it inevitably means Amnesty for the parents as well. How could one offer the former without the latter?

On immigration, Cantor’s opponent, Dave Brat, sounds like he’s been reading “Cantor is following the agenda of the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce—pursuing policies that are good for big business, but come at the exclusion of the American people,” he told’s Virginia reporter. He called Cantor’s support for Amnesty an example of “crony capitalism,” the website reported, and noted what everyone knows by now:

It’s incredibly unpopular. It lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in. This is not equal treatment under the law. People who are waiting in line [to immigrate] are fuming.

And reprising the thoughts, no doubt unintentionally, of the dear departed Sam Francis, Brat told the website, “[a]t every turn, the GOP establishment is favoring the elites.” Brat knows what anyone with anyone sense knows:  “A change in immigration policy means Amnesty.”

That’s what The Richmond Tea Party, which is fed up with Cantor’s move to the left, wants to hear, according to

Larry Nordvig, executive director of the Richmond Tea Party, says Brat has his group’s “100 percent” backing.

“Cantor is actively pursuing Amnesty,” Nordvig charges. “He participated in [link added] the ‘Becoming America Tour’ this summer with radical left politicians. He also had his chief of staff host a ‘summit’ with representatives from rabid Amnesty groups, like La Raza and the ACLU.”

GOP challenger rips ‘crony’ Cantor on immigration, By Kenric Ward February 6, 2014

Virginia Right agrees. “Frankly, Cantor is an embarrassment and a spineless representative,”

Obama(S)care: Con Artists And Criminals In Charge

Question: If Obamacare officials cannot prevent accused embezzlers from infiltrating their offices, how can they protect enrollees from grifters, con artists and thieves in the federal health insurance exchange system?

Was Frank Borzellieri Fingered By the SPLC $ecret Police?

imageIs Obama’s Cultural Marxist America worse than Communist Eastern Europe? In Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Tomas, a renowned Czech surgeon, pseudonymously criticizes the Communism regime. After the Soviets crush the 1968 Prague Spring, the Party uncovers Tomas’ identity and has him fired and blacklisted. He is reduced to working as a window-washer.

But is even that option open to Frank Borzellieri, who legally changed his last name to Bella, coupling it with his middle name Mario, after being fired in 2011 as principal of a New York Catholic school solely because political opinions he had publically expressed years earlier were rehashed in a New York Daily News “expose"—but has now been fired again as a principal of a Pennsylvania Catholic school after another MSM expose revealed his history? [Ex-Bronx principal fired from Pennsylvania Catholic school after identity revealed by Edgar Sandoval and Corky Siemaszko, New York Daily News, January 28, 2014]

It is critical to realize that, although Bella is blamed for speaking at American Renaissance conferences—legal last time we looked—the only speech crimes he is specifically alleged to have committed are quotations from columns he wrote for a Main Stream Media outlet—the Queens Ledger—while he was an elected official.

Bella served three tumultuous terms on New York City's District 24 School Board from 1993-2004 (when the board was abolished and power centralized in the Mayor’s hands). Under its president Mary Cummins, a political liberal although depicted by the New York MSM as a raging reactionary, the Board fought off attempts by Schools chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez to promote homosexuality to children as young as six, via the so-called “Rainbow Curriculum.” [Queens School Board Suspended In Fight on Gay-Life Curriculum, By Steven Lee Myers, NYT,  December 2, 1992]

Swiss Vote A Fire Bell In The Night For The EU—And Globalism

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has apologized for her undiplomatic "(bleep) the EU!" remark intercepted on her phone call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Yet it appears that tens of millions of Europeans share her feelings about the European Union, which they believe has arisen to rule over them.

And Feb. 9, the Eurocrats heard a fire bell in the night.Europe's Tea Parties: The ECONOMIST doesn't mean it as a compliment.

In a referendum backed by the Swiss People's Party, a clear majority voted to impose quotas on all immigration, even from other European nations.

Though Switzerland is not a member of the EU, it has signed the Schengen Agreement on freedom of travel across European borders. Now it wants to be rid of Schengen—and any more immigration.

The Swiss vote was not just a shocker for the champions of "one Europe." It has given a tremendous boost to the populist parties on the continent. Hailing the Swiss vote, many are demanding similar referendums in their own countries.

Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party, which wants a referendum to quit the EU entirely and is pressuring the Tories of David Cameron, hailed the referendum.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, is praising the "great courage" of the Swiss and has launched a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in France.

"Similar calls have come from the Dutch Freedom party leader Geert Wilders, who is ahead in several recent polls; the Austrian Freedom party, which showed strong gains in September's national elections; the Danish People's party ... and Sweden's Democratic party," writes the Financial Times.

In Norway, the Progress Party, which is part of the government,

Democrat Discovers MANGAN’s And Catholic Dissent On Immigration

As a Democrat and (in my opinion) a liberal, I have been very critical of the Roman Catholic Church. But I am deeply impressed by a recent post at Mangan’s, a site previously unknown to me, and subsequent reader comments.

Mangan’s began

It would be an understatement to call the writers at Open Borders immigration enthusiasts; they make the Democratic and Republican parties look like pikers. And even they have found an organization that appears at least as enthusiastic about immigration as they are: the U.S. Catholic Church: The Coming Catholic Movement for Freedom of Migration.

This quote is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241. [ emphasis added]

Mangan’s continues acerbically:

Got that? The "first duty" of government is not, to provide for national defense against armed invasion, nor protect its citizens from crime, not even to provide a social welfare safety net. No, it's to facilitate the entry of any foreigner who wants to enter the country.

This is actually more of the opposite of what a government should do; if it's going to allow foreigners entry at all, then the government should be charged with strictly vetting them.

Somehow I doubt that Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two doctors of the Church who wrote on the proper functions of government, would agree.

But these days we can safely ignore those two, because, er, because they lived so long ago.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Open-Borders Church,   January 26, 2014,

What I found especially encouraging was that this post attracted excellent commentary from its readers.

In all, there were 35 comments. Of course, I found some inane or even vaguely

Peter Brimelow On “Electing A New People in America and Britain”

[Peter Brimelow writes: This is an adaptation of a talk I gave on December 15 to the Intellectual Minds Conference at London’s Syon Park Hilton, organized by Andy and Emma Curzon. My thanks to everyone involved.]

Peter Brimelow’s speech starts at 42m20s.

Click here  to go to that point in the video on  on

As some of you will be able to tell from my accent, I am actually an immigrant/ emigrant myself. I was born in the U.K. but about 40 years ago my twin brother and I decided that all was lost here and we moved ourselves to the Anglosphere’s last redoubt—the U.S.

Now, of course, we think that all is lost there too! But we’re going to go down fighting.

Actually, what the last 40 years have really taught me is the truth of a wonderful book about screenwriting in Hollywood, Adventures in the Screen Trade written by William Goldman. The central point of this book is that, as he puts it, nobody [expletive deleted] knows what’s going to work in Hollywood. They just don’t know whether a movie is going to make money or not. Similarly, no-one [expletive deleted] knew that the West was going to win the Cold War. After the fall of Vietnam in ’75, it was a universal if unspoken assumption among the American Conservative movement, in which I was by then deeply involved, that we were going to lose and that the Red Flag would one day wave over the world.

But it didn’t happen.

Now I know that none of you Millennials here believe this, because you’ve never heard of the Cold War. No one under 40 knows anything about the Cold War, except possibly my wife Lydia [Brimelow], who’s heard me going on about it a great deal.

The moral I draw from this is that Cultural Marxism can be defeated just like the classical Marxists were.

(One of the variables that nobody knows about, in fact, is demographics, or population growth. Nobody really knows why fertility rates fluctuate. There was this amazing period after the Second World War when the Baby Boomers happened. For a period of nearly 20 years, women did have well above-replacement fertility all over the Western world. It is something that seems to happen after wars, so maybe we need a good war! The point is we don’t really know what’s going to happen with fertility rates; we don’t really know what will happen next.)

The title of my talk is a reference to the famous poem that Bertolt Brecht wrote after the ’53 risings against the Communist government in East Germany. It goes:

After the uprising on the 17th of June

The Secretary of the Writer’s Union

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

Stating that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could win it back only

By redoubled efforts.

Then Brecht concluded:

Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

How many of you have heard of this poem? [Almost none, I was surprised]. Well, I’ve been talking about this poem for 30 years. I think it makes a great point because it’s exactly what is happening in the Western world. The governments are dissolving the people and electing a new one—specifically in this case, in the U.S. and the U.K.

Many libertarians dogmatically assume that the right to cross borders is a Good Thing and they don’t think about it much more than that. But it’s vital to grasp that what we are looking at here is a government policy—the US and UK governments determine who can come in (now primarily non-traditional and Third World) and how many can come in (a lot—much more than was ever anticipated).

When Senator Teddy Kennedy put through the ’65 Immigration Act, they said that immigration may increase by a couple hundred thousand, and that it would die away. In fact, it has been a million a year since then—the greatest influx in American history. The same in the U.K. There was a serious study [PDF] done in 2003 when they were thinking about possibly stopping the Poles from coming in after Poland joined the European Union, which they had the right to do. The Home Office estimated that the flow would be miniscule. But in fact, a half million Poles moved to the UK—the largest immigration into U.K. in the last thousand years.

In both the UK and the US, “Electing a New People” has

Walter Block, Rand Paul, And The Lost American Principle Of Freedom Of Association

See also: Jared Taylor Announces The 2014 AMERICAN RENAISSANCE Conference

Does Kentucky Senator Rand Paul think slavery was “not so bad,” and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made partial slaves of us all? The New York Times wants you to think so. It recently resorted to the oldest trick of slanted reporting to make a political enemy out to be something he is not—something Leftists do instinctively when they are alarmed about someone. If the Senator is not a certified enemy of the Republic, at least he is good pals with people who are. [Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance, By Sam Tanenhaus And Jim Rutenberg January 25, 2014]

Part of that “mixed inheritance” is, of course, libertarianism, which Leftists have never liked anyway. The NYT’s Tanenhaus and Rutenberg say Paul was “steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology.”

But the other part of the mix is even worse!— “Provocative theories on race, class and American history”!!!

These “provocative theories” allegedly come from a libertarian organization called the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Some scholars affiliated with it have said naughty things.

Tanenhaus and Rutenberg write:

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act [of 1964]. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”

Just to make sure you are sufficiently shocked, Tanenhaus and Rutenberg explain that views like this “champion the Confederacy.”

Of course, Professor Block speaks for himself, not for Rand Paul. But there is nothing Leftists like better than sniffing out the fact that someone they don’t like actually had lunch with a former neighbor of the girlfriend of a man whose father once voted for George Wallace.

Rand Paul is a libertarian and Walter Block is a libertarian, so if Walter Block says something the NYT doesn’t like, then Rand Paul might as well have said it, too.

But this is what Prof. Block actually wrote about slavery:

Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to "associate" with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.[Chris Selley Is a Pussy Libertarian; I’m Not, February 25, 2013 ]

Dr. Block has commented that he can’t decide whether it was “stupidity or maliciousness” that explains the NYT’s claim that he thinks slavery was “not so bad” and that he “champions the Confederacy.”

He now also says he thinks slavery was “one of the worst things that man has ever perpetuated against man.”


Nevertheless, entirely aside from the NYT’s using Prof. Block to discredit Rand Paul, it is refreshing to see anyone writing about slavery or the 1964 Civil Rights Act from something other than the now-obligatory Cultural Marxist perspective.  

Slavery, of course, is thrown in our faces as America’s “original sin”—as if we invented it or were the only people in history to practice it. It is now the sin than which none is blacker, and anyone who, like Prof. Block, looks at it objectively is a loathsome opponent of human decency.

(When the NYT article appeared, 18 of Dr. Block’s fellow teachers at Loyola wrote a letter to the campus paper to say they were “outraged,” and to urge the university to “to condemn and censure Professor Block.” Apparently they didn’t know he has been writing on