Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Memo From Middle America | The Homeschooling Romeikes Allowed To Stay—To Bolster Administrative Amnesty?
There’s been a dramatic turnaround for the Romeike family, the German homeschoolers the Obama/Holder Administration was fighting to deport. The Supreme Court refused to hear their case on March 3. So it looked like the end. But the very next day, the Department of Homeland Security granted the family “indefinite deferred-action status.”
Why did the Obama Regime, after going out of its way to deport the Romeikes, suddenly let them stay? And what are the ramifications?
It may have been due to public outrage. Critics of the Romeikes’ treatment embarrassingly contrasted it with the millions of illegal aliens being coddled by the Administration.
Tellingly, even Michael Farris, founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association [HSLDA], the group that defended the Romeikes, doubts it was a great victory for homeschooling. In fact, he sees it as containing the seeds for a future move against American homeschoolers. He writes:
Other than the Romeike family themselves, no one could have been more thrilled than me with the sudden reversal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which allowed them to remain in the United States…[But] this administrative victory needs to be understood for what it is. It is a victory for the Romeike family alone. No other German homeschooling family can benefit from the administrative grace that was shown in this one instance.
If our government contends that Germany did not violate the principles of religious freedom when it banned homeschooling in order to gain philosophical control over children, then it implies that it would not violate religious freedom or parental rights if the United States decided to ban homeschooling for the same purpose. After all, we would simply be promoting tolerance and pluralism. That is the subtle but dangerous message buried in the Romeike decision.
[Dangerous Policy Lurks Behind Romeike Triumph [by Michael Farris, HSLDA, March 11, 2014]
I strongly support homeschooling. But, just a few decades ago, American officials had about the same attitude toward homeschoolers as German officials do today. The HSLDA, to its great credit, did much to improve the legal standing of American homeschoolers.
What really bothered Americans about the Romeike case: the fact that the Obama Administration was going after a family of white homeschoolers, who had already been granted asylum, while simultaneously working to Amnesty millions of illegal aliens.
Personally, I support a shutdown of illegal and legal immigration. I don’t think we need immigrants. I don’t believe we are obligated to take in everybody in the world who has a problem in his home country.
But if, for some reason,
"There is a gay mafia," said Bill Maher, "if you cross them you do get whacked."
Instantly, he came under attack for having contributed $1,000 to Proposition 8, whereby a majority of Californians voted in 2008 to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was backed by the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and the black churches, and carried 70 percent of the African-American vote.
Though Eich apologized for any "pain" he had caused and pledged to promote equality for gays and lesbians at Mozilla, his plea for clemency failed to move his accusers. Too late. According to The Guardian, he quit after it was revealed that he had also contributed—"The horror, the horror!"—to the Buchanan campaign of 1992.
That cooked it. What further need was there of proof of the irredeemably malevolent character of Brendan Eich?
Observing the mob run this accomplished man out of a company he helped create, Andrew Sullivan blogged that Eich "has just been scalped" by gay activists. Sullivan went on:
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole thing disgusts me, as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society."
Yet, the purge of Eich, who, from his contributions—he also gave to Ron Paul—appears to be a traditionalist and libertarian—is being defended as a triumph of the First Amendment.
James Ball of The Guardian writes that far from being "a defeat for freedom of expression," Eich's removal is a "victory—the ouster of a founder and CEO by his own people, at a foundation based on open and equal expression."
Eich's forced resignation, writes Ball, "should be the textbook example of the system working exactly as it should."
This is how the democracy works now.
Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation,
National Data | March Jobs: Native-Born Americans Still Trail Immigrants In Obama-Era Employment Recovery
Payrolls expanded by 192,000 positions in March, beating the average for the miserable winter months, but still short of the rebound that many were expecting. With an average of about 90,000 legal immigrants entering the country each month, only 100,000 of this gain may be available for native-born Americans.
The math is depressing. In March more than 9 million native-born Americans were unemployed. At the current rate of job creation it will be 7.5 years before all these native-born unemployed find jobs. By then, of course, the population will be larger. And we haven’t even considered the millions who have avoided unemployment by dropping out of the labor force.
One good March sign: the labor force participation rate (LPR) picked up slightly, suggesting that workers are being lured back into the job hunt as hiring expands. Even this positive may pertain to foreign-born workers only, however. As we point out below, over the past 12 months participation rates for native-born workers have declined. Only immigrants have a higher LPR this March than last.
The Household Employment Survey—the only report where immigrant and native-born American employment figures are broken out separately—found a robust 476,000 jobs were added last month. Our analysis indicates that native-born American workers gained jobs at virtually the same rate as immigrants.
- Total employment rose by 476,000, or by 0.33%
- Native-born employment rose by 402,000 or by 0.33%
- Foreign-born employment rose by 74,000, or by 0.31%
So native-worker displacement was on hiatus in March. As a result, our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) remained at its February level—109.4. But the displacement of native-born American workers by immigrants during the Obama years is still painfully evident in the NVDAWDI graphic:
Native-born American employment growth is the blue line, immigrant
African would-be "Refugees"/Infiltrators stopped by Israel's fence. H/T CSM
GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s ominous squishiness in the face of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge drive, which has provoked a primary challenge from Economics professor Dave Brat, may be due to personal greed, but Jewish organizations clearly think he can be motivated by ethnic appeals. A friend recently forwarded me this email (links in original except where noted):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, March 24, 2014
CONTACT: Emma Stieglitz, emmaS@berlinrosen.com, (646) 200-5307
BEND THE ARC MARSHALS JEWISH VOTERS TO PRESSURE ERIC CANTOR ON IMMIGRATION REFORM
Jewish voters are ratcheting up the pressure on Majority Leader Eric Cantor to move comprehensive immigration reform [VDARE.com note: a.k.a. amnesty/ Immigration Surge] through the House. On Monday, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice launched a petition calling on Rep. Cantor to bring immigration reform to a vote. The effort, spearheaded by Bend the Arc, is a collaboration of many of the nation’s leading Jewish organizations.
“As American Jews, we believe in a nation that grants today's immigrants access to the same basic freedoms and opportunities that drew our ancestors and yours.”
Jewish organizations are unanimous in support of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge drive. This support for liberal immigration laws has a long history—the granddaddy of them all being the 40-year campaign to enact the 1965 immigration law that opened the door to heavy immigration of all the peoples of the world.
But what is striking is that Jewish immigration enthusiasts have portrayed themselves as motivated entirely by a set of ethical values that are unique and central to Judaism. Thus Bend the Arc proclaims:
We are building a national movement that pursues justice as a core expression of Jewish tradition….Jewish tradition is about liberation and love for humankind. We believe in the dignity and inherent right of all people to live in a just, fair and compassionate society. As Jews immigrated to America, this belief was stowed in their luggage. Throughout American history, courageous Jews have worked with others to hold the nation to its promise, whether in the abolitionist movement, the anti-sweatshop movement, the movement against child labor, the modern labor movement, the civil rights movement or the movement for LGBT inclusion (just to name a few).
And it boasts:
Over the past year, Bend the Arc has organized around the issue of immigration, arranging meetings between Jewish leaders and congressional staff, hosting immigration-themed Shabbats, organizing petitions and participating in marches, vigils and town halls to deliver the message that immigration reform is a top priority for Jewish voters. In October, Bend the Arc’s rabbi-in-residence was arrested at a national demonstration for immigration reform alongside members of Congress during an act of civil disobedience on the National Mall.
A similar wall-to-wall Jewish lobbying effort in California is aimed at limiting deportations of illegal aliens. Again, their motives are the purest:
“Is immigration a Jewish issue?” [a California Assemblyman] pressed skeptically.
[Rabbi Larry Raphael of Congregation Sherith Israel] answered, “We believe it is.”
[Jewish Values at Heart of Immigration Reform, by Rachel Heller Zaimont, Jewish Journal, February 12, 2014]
An April 2 Google search for ‘immigration “Jewish values”' resulted in over 81,400 links to a wide range of Jewish organizations, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (which is deeply involved in recruiting African refugees for resettlement in the US), the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Union for Reform Judaism.
Clearly, from the mainstream Jewish perspective, swamping the historic American nation with peoples from all over the world is nothing less than a moral imperative. The tacit assumption: Jews are
Funny Thing: “White Privilege Conference” Just Held In At Wisconsin U., But Its White Basketball Team Reaches Final Four Anyway
“White privilege” dominates everything in Wisconsin—even basketball.
Heavily-white Wisconsin is the unlikely center of anti-white political organizing in the United States, recently hosting the fifteenth annual “White Privilege Conference” in Madison. The conference, subsidized by taxpayer dollars, featured illuminating lectures (by whites) that informed European-Americans they were like “alcoholics” who could never be cured of racism, and if they didn’t want to work for “equity,” to “get the f*** out of education.” [Teacher ‘White Privilege Conference’: Whites Are Never Cured of Racism, by Warner Todd Hudson, Breitbart, April 1, 2014]
Of course, all this breast-beating by whites doesn’t seem to actually have much of an impact on African-American youth in Wisconsin. The state was recently declared the worst in the nation in “child well-being” for black children, with particularly glaring “black-white discrepancies in and around Madison, the relatively progressive and prosperous capital city.” [Study’s Low Marks on Youth Well-Being Stir States, by David Carry, Associated Press, April 1, 2014] (Needless to say, the responsibility of blacks for their own children went unmentioned).
At the same time, the University of Wisconsin’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Team has advanced to the Final Four. Paradoxiically, the Badgers are overwhelmingly white, starting four white players out of five. Main Stream Media treatment of white athletes, especially in basketball, has rcently assumed the historic American nation’s presence in the sport they invented is a freak occurrence.
Part of this is a writing stereotype that demeans the athleticism of whites. A typical article will say the team “thrives on fundamentals.” [Wisconsin thrives on fundamentals, by Drew Davison, Star-Telegram, March 28, 2014]
The MSM’s amazed reaction to the Badgers reflects the conventional wisdom (and bigotry) that whites simply can’t compete on the court. In this area, reporters feel free to make blanket statements about the collective athletic abilities of entire races.
This ten years ago, Boston Globe reporter and ESPN contributor Bob Ryan said the Vanderbilt Commodores were “too white” to win (even though the team started three black players). [Tournament notebook: Ryan says Vandy is “too white,” The Seattle Times, March 19, 2004]
In fairness, though, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. And basketball players and coaches largely agree that basketball belongs to blacks. Thus white professional star Larry Bird said: “It is a black man's game, and it will be forever.” [“Bird: NBA a ‘black man’s game,”ESPN, June 10, 2004]
Even as far back as 1977, Jerry West, the white athlete that the professional NBA logo is based on, said:
When I first came into the league [in 1960], it was just starting to turn into a black league. And let’s face it. This is a black league now.
[Sport: The Black Dominance, Time, May 9, 1977]
For a team of overwhelmingly white players to compete for the NCAA Championship is a rarity:
Recruiting numbers spell it out in black and white: Since the 2000 tournament, 34 of 40 Final Four teams played consistently with no more than one white starter during that particular year. The 2003 Syracuse team, with white starters Gerry McNamara and Craig Forth, was the only one to win a championship.
The last championship team to rely on at least three white starters was Duke in 1991, its first of back-to-back championships thanks to Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner and Billy McCaffrey, who started most of that season.
Research shows white players lacking on recent Final Four basketball teams, by Jeremy Fowler, Orlando Sentinel, April 3, 2009
While (white) sports commentator Dick Vitale thinks the idea of race’s relevance in sports is “garbage,” players don’t seem to agree. The University of Arizona team, who fell to Wisconsin,
John Derbyshire Thinks Stephen Colbert And Suey Park Deserve Each Other. But What Happened To Alexandra Wallace?
Anyone remember Mr. Wong? Back in the summer of 2000, Mr. Wong was causing something of a stir: enough of a stir that I got a National Review column out of it. From which:
Mr. Wong [is] a series of animated comic strips on the Icebox website. [Still there!] The strips relate the adventures of a middle-aged Chinese immigrant named Mr. Wong, who works as houseboy for a wealthy, beautiful young American lady, Miss Pam.
The creators of Mr. Wong are both former writers for South Park, and it shows: the strip hits every button of tastelessness and racial offensiveness.
Mr. Wong is servile, devious and cheap: taken to a plaza with a fountain into which people have thrown pennies, Mr. Wong jumps in and starts scooping up the coins.
He is scrawny, has buck teeth, and speaks with a chop suey accent. In the first episode, Miss Pam announces she is going to Memphis for a cotillion, and will take Mr. Wong with her on condition he pronounces the word “cotillion” correctly.
“Cotirrion,” ventures Mr. Wong. “No, no. It’s ‘cotiLLion,’” says Miss Pam, laughing.
(The animations have to download to your machine before being played. This process is attended with a message that says: “rroading …”)
[I regret to say this last comment no longer applies.]
That was when the Wen Ho Lee case was still hot. Lee, an immigrant from Taiwan, had worked as a weapons-design engineer at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He had committed serious breaches of the security regulations he worked under, and been arrested by the FBI at the end of 1999. (Did I get a column out of that, too? You bet.)
Primed by outrage over Wen Ho Lee’s arrest—for, among other things, having met with a Chinese nuclear scientist in a Beijing hotel room and failed to report the meeting to his superiors—East-Asian Americans were weeping and sputtering all over the internet.
Fourteen years on, East-Asian Americans are suffering another flare-up of Irritable Victim Syndrome (IVS). The perp this time—in the sense of the guy bruising multicultural sensibilities, not the guy hobnobbing with ChiCom nuke-builders—is TV satirist Stephen Colbert.
Colbert is one of that crew that I privately think of as the Smirkers. The other crew members I know of are Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, but there are probably some I’ve missed—I don’t make an effort to keep up with this stuff. They sit at newsreader-style desks smirking, smirking at the cameras and mocking all that is conservative and/or uncool: whites, traditional marriage, Jesus, whites, oil companies, Southerners, whites, gun rights, freedom of association …
The Smirkers do for Cultural Marxism what the xiangsheng (“crosstalk”) acts on mainland-Chinese TV do for that nation’s ruling Party: provide comedic support. Cultural Marxism is hipper and looser than the actual Marxism of China’s control-freak ruling Party, so that Smirkers, unlike the generality of xiangsheng acts, are still occasionally funny. But the animating spirit is the same.
Last Thursday the Twitter account for Colbert’s show tweeted that “I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” This was in reference somehow—I can’t hold the details in my head: you can read them here [Stephen Colbert Fires Back at Racial Tweet Outcry by Philiana Ng, The Hollywood Reporter, March 31st, 2014]—to the controversy over the name of baseball team The Washington Redskins.
There is a backstory to “Ching-Chong Ding-Dong”—two backstories, in fact.
Backstory One: In November 2005 Colbert did a spoof live-mike segment in which he pretended to have an exchange with an off-screen aide, addressing her with a mock Chinese accent. Following the segment, Colbert did a spoof denial: “That wasn’t me. That was a character I was doing called Ching-chong Ding-dong.”
In America we do not talk on our cell phones in the library. Every … fifteen minutes I’ll be deep into my studying … typing away furiously, blah blah, blah, and then all of a sudden, when I’m about to, like, reach an epiphany [sic], over here from somewhere: ‘Ohhhh, ching-chong ling-long ting-tong, ohhhh …’ Are you freakin’ kidding me? In the middle of finals week …
That caused such a fuss, Ms. Wallace withdrew from her college after receiving death threats.
I have been unable to discover her present whereabouts.
This current brouhaha over the tweet from Colbert’s office
“Sheldon City”—Supreme Court’s McCUTCHEON Allows Adelson To Buy Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Even Faster
GOP Presidential Aspirants at the Adelson Las Vegas Primary. H/T Bookyourvacation.com
The Supreme Court’s McCutcheon vs. FEC decision today (April 2) will have one stark consequence, summarized by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig:
Already we have a system in which Congress is dependent upon the tiniest fraction of the 1% to fund its campaigns. I’ve estimated the number of relevant funders is no more than 150,000 (about the number of Americans named “Lester.”) If aggregate contribution limits are struck, that number will fall dramatically. More will be raised from a smaller number of contributors—maybe as few as 40,000 (about the number of Americans named “Sheldon”). So abolishing aggregate limits will move us from Lesterland to Sheldon City, increasing a dependence on the funders…
Originalists Making It Up Again: McCutcheon and ‘Corruption’, Daily Beast, April 2, 2014. Emphasis added.
As it happens, we know what “Sheldon City” looks like: the utterly sickening display in Las Vegas last weekend as GOP Presidential aspirants groveled for Jewish Plutocrat money. Thanks, Pat Buchanan, for laying out the basic facts in Sheldon Adelson, War Party Oligarch
For four days ending Sunday, a quartet of presidential hopefuls trooped to Las Vegas to attend the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Impresario: Sheldon Adelson the Vegas Macau casino mogul…who dumped $92 million into the election of 2012.
Adelson kept Newt Gingrich alive with a $15 million infusion of ad money, gutting Romney, and then sank $30 million into Mitt's campaign.
After discussing Adelson’s crazy proposal that America should nuke a section of the Iranian countryside as a demonstration Pat concluded
Is this what Republican presidential candidates must do now?
Kowtow to this fattest of fat cats who wants to buy himself an American war on Iran?
The only cheering aspect of this nauseating spectacle: the uninvited and discarded Newt Gingrich proved once again that he is exceptionally intellectually resourceful. (VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow noted this in early 2012 when Gingrich raised the issue of America’s legislating judiciary.) He struck back with Newt Gingrich says wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson have too much influence by Maeta Gold The Washington Post March 28 2014
"...if you're going to have an election process that radically favors billionaires and is discriminating against the middle class—which we now have—then billionaires are going to get a lot of attention."
Of course considering the 2012 Gingrich Campaign was entirely shaped by Adelson money—as were his Hispandering activities in the preceding years—this called for a certain amount of ethical flexibility.
But that does not mean he is wrong now. Furthermore
Last Sunday, The New York Times published a front-page article about the heartfelt need of California farmers for more illegal aliens. [California Farmers Short of Labor, and Patience, By Jennifer Medina, March 29, 2014]
The first tip-off that heinous public policy ideas were coming was that the Times introduced farmer Chuck Herrin, owner of a farm-labor contracting company, as a "lifelong Republican." That's Times-speak for "liberal."
Herrin admitted that he employs a lot of illegal aliens and bitterly complained that they lived in fear of "Border Patrol and deportations." (But, apparently, he doesn't live in fear of admitting he's violating our immigration laws.)
Sorry that running a country inconveniences you, Chuck.
He said his illegal alien employees deserved amnesty because if "we keep them here and not do anything for them once they get old, that's really extortion."
As the punch line goes, "What's this 'we,' paleface?"
Taxpayers have been subsidizing Chuck Herrin's underpayment of his illegal labor force for decades, with skyrocketing taxes to pay for schools, roads, bridges, food stamps, health care and so on. Now Herrin thinks "we" are supposed to support his illegal employees in their old age, too.
Here's another idea: How about a federal law mandating that employers of illegal aliens take responsibility for the people they hire? Why is the taxpayer on the hook for illegal aliens' food, housing and medical care, when Chuck Herrin got 100 percent of the profit from their cheap labor?
We don't allow chemical companies to dump pollutants in rivers, walk away and then say, "If we dump chemicals in rivers and we don't clean them once the plant is gone, that's really criminal."
No, you dumped the chemicals—not "we." And you, Chuck Herrin, got the cheap labor—not "we."
"We" got hospital emergency rooms jammed with illegal aliens when we came in with heart attacks. "We" got the crime, drunk-driving and drug trafficking associated with illegal aliens. "We" got the overcrowded schools filled with kids whose illegal alien parents don't pay property taxes. "We" got to press "one" for English.
This is even worse than the Wall Street bailouts—another example of fat cats
Catholic bishops have accelerated their anti-American Open Borders crusade to fluff up their scandal-scarred morality cred in the Main Stream Media and to nudge “immigrants” (legality immaterial) to attend the church that supports ethnic separatism and disdains assimilation. Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley and several bishops celebrated a photo-op Mass near the border today (April 1) to underline their dedication to “immigrants.” These conspirators in cassocks were also scheduled to tour a local shelter and visit with the Border Patrol.
The Cardinal, pictured, is giving communion through the fence.
[Cardinal O'Malley celebrates Mass along Mexico border, By Brian Skoloff, The Associated Press, April 1, 2014]
They emphasized the suffering of the illegal invaders—with no recognition that successful invaders steal jobs that should by law go to Americans; and no mention of America’s 20+ million unemployed.
O’Malley et al.’s deeply selfish and solipsistic view of morality: Hispanic foreigners (Catholic) should be cut extra slack—even though their law-breaking hurts innocent Americans.
Why is the American taxpayer supposed to support law-breaking just because the perps are poor foreigners? We have plenty of homegrown folks in poverty.
Why isn’t wealthy Mexico (#14 in world GDP) taken to task for its rotten treatment of its own poor?
Cardinal O’Malley posted his homily on his Facebook page—the same old demand that America taxpayers support the world’s (Catholic) unfortunates:
Pope Francis encourages us to go to the periphery to seek our neighbor in places of pain and darkness. We are here to discover our own identity as God’s children so that we can discover who our neighbor is, who is our brother and sister.
As a nation of immigrants we should feel a sense of
Question: Who are the most prominent public purveyors of Asian stereotypes and ethnic language-mocking in America?
Juan Elias Garcia, The New Face Of Crime In America
You have to wonder why MS-13 gangbanger Juan Elias Garcia, who landed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List last week, surrendered just one day later in Nicaragua? [Long Island murder suspect on FBI list arrested in Nicaragua, ABC, March 28, 2014] Then again, maybe not. Garcia may well expect President Barack Obama to free him from jail, then give him Amnesty, even if the Salvadoran murder suspect is a child killer.
In 2010, authorities allege, Garcia murdered Vanessa Argueta, 19, and her 2-year-old son, Diego Torres. As the FBI explained it:
According to prior court filings and testimony introduced during two recent MS-13 racketeering trials, Garcia was involved in a romantic relationship with Argueta, a woman who had ties to both the 18th Street Gang and the Latin Kings — two of MS-13’s principal rivals. After a dispute between Argueta and Garcia, rival gang members allegedly threatened violence against Garcia. When Garcia explained that he had been threatened by members of the rival gang as a result of information he believed Argueta had provided, Garcia and other MS-13 members, including Adalberto Ariel Guzman and Rene Mendez Mejia, obtained permission from their MS-13 leader, Heriberto Martinez, to retaliate against Argueta.
On February 4, 2010, Garcia contacted Argueta and invited her out to dinner. Later that evening, Garcia picked up Argueta and 2 two-year-old son, Diego Torres, in a vehicle. Garcia, Guzman, and Mejia then allegedly drove the vehicle to a wooded area in Central Islip and lured their victims into the woods. Once they were in the woods, the MS-13 members fired two shots with a .22 caliber handgun, striking Argueta twice in the head and chest. After hearing the gunshots and seeing his mother killed, Torres began crying. The defendants shot Torres in the head, which knocked the young boy to the ground but did not kill him. Torres got back up and clutched onto Garcia’s leg, but Guzman then fired a second shot that struck Torres in the head and killed him. On February 5, 2010, the bodies of Argueta and her son were found in a wooded area in Central Islip.
[Man Wanted for Murder of Young Mother and Her 2-Year-Old Son Added to the FBI’s List of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives , FBI, New York Office, March 26, 2014]
VDARE.com readers know MS-13. The gang is even reaching into such bucolic places as the Shenandoah Valley, where it murdered a prosecution witness, Brenda Paz, with unbridled ferocity, stabbing her 16 times and nearly decapitating her, leaving her for dead in an area where some residents had likely never seen a “Latino” until they started showing in droves to work in the area’s chicken factories. [ Hillbangers, By Matthew Brzezinski, NYT, August 15, 2004]
But what triggers this review of Garcia’s loathsome life isn’t his murdering a mother in front of her 2-year-old, then murdering the 2-year-old. Rather, it’s the news that when Garcia made the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted men, he brought to six the number of Hispanics on the list.
That’s right—60 percent of the Ten Most Wanted criminals were “Latinos.” They are:
- Eduardo Revelo, a Mexican reputed capo in the Barrio Azteca prison gang;
- Jose Manuel Garcia Guevara, a Mexican wanted in connection with the rape and murder of a 26-year-old woman;
- Alexis Flores, a Honduran wanted in with the kidnapping and murder of a five-year-old girl; and
- Fidel Urbina, a Mexican wanted in the rape and beating of one woman and the rape and murder of another.
The least dangerous guy in this pond of scum seems to be:
- Victor Manuel Gerena, wanted for the armed robbery of $7 million from a security company in 1983. And he was born in New York (of Puerto Rican descent).
One more foreigner, a Ukrainian,
Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, is a Culture War collaborator. Though he is a white male, he has built a lucrative career mocking his own. But even a cable Quisling is vulnerable to a multicultural witch-hunt, and now Colbert is being threatened by the same forces he exploited for so long. [The Campaign to “Cancel” Colbert, by Jay Caspian Kang, March 30, 2014]
Colbert was just a minor comedic celebrity until he became a key cast member on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, which achieved must-see-TV status among liberal whites and SWPLs during the presidency of George W. Bush. Stewart’s comedic technique alternately consisted of playing out-of-context clips of Republican politicians saying something stupid, or imitating President Bush with an over-the-top Southern accent. Stewart’s New York City audience loved it and it became a cliché in Main Stream Media and academic circles to proclaim that the Daily Show is better than real news.
Colbert played straight man in the midst of these hijinks. Then in 2005, he capitalized on this breakout with his own spinoff, The Colbert Report. The show was supposed to be a parody of Bill O’Reilly and other allegedly-conservative talking heads, but it actually served as a kind of inadvertent exposé of how conservatives were viewed by the political class. Colbert’s eponymous screen character was a self-important, casually racist blowhard who utilized over-the-top patriotic imagery and dismissed arguments with one-liners like “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Also needless to say, once Barack Obama was elected president, the MSM, in both real news shows and “satirical” news shows, quickly changed the target of its investigations from the Oval Office to random conservatives in flyover country. Both Stewart and Colbert essentially functioned as courtiers, mocking what resistance existed to the Ruling Party consensus, above all on immigration.
In 2010, Colbert actually testified before Congress, in character, about the need for foreign agricultural workers, before dropping the mask and trying to morally shame immigration patriots over migrant workers who “don’t have any power” and “suffer.” [Stephen Colbert, in GOP pundit character, testifies on immigration in D.C., by Dan Zak, Washington Post, September 25, 2010] Predictably, the agricultural businesses reliant on helot labor escaped his devastating wit.
In the Age of Obama, Stewart has tried to transition into a kind of center-left self-conscious moderate, disingenuously putting on and abandoning the mask of clown when it serves his interests.
In contrast, the more aggressive (and, in my opinion, far funnier) Colbert has doubled down on his character.
In his own words, Colbert says his character is a “well-intentioned…poorly informed, high status idiot.” [Stephen Colbert: Bill O’Reilly Inspired my character, Huffington Post, October 1, 2012] But what Colbert really provides is a White Minstrel show—a portrayal of the Middle American soul as the MSM wants to see it. His character, and the reaction to it, is less about satirizing Conservatism Inc. talking heads and more about taking shots at the type of people who watch Bill O’Reilly.
Another comedic parallel:
Democrat Suggests Immigration Patriots Should Support “Patriotic Capitalism”—German-Style Codetermination
American unions are in full retreat, as organized labor suffers another defeat in Tennessee.
The Birth Of Prudence ($19.99) can be purchased here. A Kindle version will be available shortly.
It’s not just that the personal is political. It’s that the personal determines the political.
First-time author Ryan Andrews attacks some of the most difficult questions facing Western Man in The Birth of Prudence—just published by VDARE.com Books ($19.99). This is a novel that is going to make you uncomfortable, uneasy, and maybe even outraged. But it’s a story that cannot be ignored.
The eponymous Prudence is a Korean-American university student who identiﬁes with the glory of Western Civilization. She is a perfect example of what Establishment conservatives would consider the ideal—a foreigner who has come to identify with the West as a concept, as an abstract construct. And of course, there is much legitimacy to her approach—after all, as Prudence says, beyond the questions raised by the great minds of Greece and Rome, “there is nothing more worth knowing.”
This is the terrible temptation of Western universalism—the oddly imperialist notion that Western Civilization is not a distinct culture at all, but simply the highest development of human culture. Andrews addresses this head-on in the book, which begins with a short faux-academic essay on how imperialism has mutated from a forthright ideology of Western superiority into a subversive program of Western domination cloaked in universalistic and egalitarian terms.
Mark, a confused and alienated young white American, falls for Prudence after seeing her in a bar. Mark is not a bold paragon of Europa—indeed, he’s what we might call a “beta.” It’s to the credit of the author that this kind of character works in the book. The monologuing, overanalytical, and oddly romantic male is actually a kind of “type” on the Dissident Right, found throughout the forums, conferences, and meetings that characterize the subculture. For that reason, Mark actually seems relatable, or at least understandable.
For example, I stated laughing in recognition when Mark starts mentally berating himself and his friends for wasting time drinking at a bar. He then turns his rage on the other patrons.
A man sitting a few tables over had let his shirt ride up so high that a third of his back was exposed. ‘He is like three hundred pounds, he probably just doesn’t care. But, how can he be comfortable like that?... Jesus Christ. How pathetic this all this.”
Of course, Mark also was the one who agreed to go out drinking.
Mark’s scorn, though justiﬁed, is partially a cover for his own insecurity—the insecurity of self-conscious ignorance. By his own admission, he is looking for something, but he can’t even
Lawrence Matthew Auster January 26 1949—March 29, 2013, picture taken shortly before his death.
America lost Lawrence Auster to pancreatic cancer one year ago today— March 29, 2013.
VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow immediately noted Larry’s passing, VDARE’s Henry McCulloch wrote a lengthy obituary, and several Dissident Right bloggers, some of whom began maintaining vigils for Auster during the last days of his struggle, paid their last respects here, here, here, here, and many more, including my partner-in-crime, David in TN, and yours truly.
The American Conservative’s Scott McConnell had already written a sort of pre-obituary bizarrely claiming that Auster was reminiscent of Meir Kahane, Sam Francis, and “various European fascist intellectuals” like Robert Brasillach and Julius Evola (though he admitted to not even being familiar with the last two). [Extremism in the Defense of Tradition, February 15, 2013.] Auster responded with characteristic savagery—remember, only days before he died—here.
But the Main Stream Media, Leftist and “conservative”—including outlets like National Review and Front Page Magazine—completely ignored Auster’s passing. Never mind that he had written for them, or that his blog, View from the Right, was one of the most popular, free-standing political blogs on the Web. Never mind the depth and breadth of his postings, covering multiculturalism, black-on-white crime, politics, Christian theology, Homer, popular culture, immigration and the damn Yankees, or his prominent, pre-Internet writing career.
Auster was born a Jew in 1949, but was never observant. He became a hippie in his twenties, and in middle age converted to Christianity, progressing from Episcopalianism to a deathbed conversion to Catholicism.
During the 1990s, Auster was one of the first major writers—with Peter Brimelow and Chilton Williamson—to warn Americans about the dangers of mass Third World immigration. He wrote a series of rigorously-argued essays for the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF): Path to National Suicide (PDF, 1990); Huddled Clichés (1997); and Erasing America: the politics of the borderless nation (2003).
Path to National Suicide showed, among other things, how the 1965 Immigration Act applied the attitude behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the entire world. If one of the consequences of the CRA was that American blacks were to be treated in effect as American whites’ superiors—because whites were to be denied freedom of association—the consequence of the Immigration Act was to make all foreign non-whites legally superior to white American citizens. Auster wrote:
“At a time when increasing racial and ethnic diversity makes the re-affirmation of our common culture more vitally important than ever, we are, under the mounting pressure of that diversity, abandoning the very idea of a common American culture. We are thus imperiling not only our social cohesiveness but, as I will try to show, the very basis of our national existence….
Under this new dispensation we owe, as it were, an obligation to all the peoples in the world to let them migrate here en masse and recreate American society in their image….
“One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences….
But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice….
[A Word to the Reader, introduction to The Path To National Suicide]
Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) — later, ironically, to become a liberal hero because
Obama Extending Unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty To Former Deportees And (Get This!) Terrorists
Senator Jeff Sessions just released a report [pdf] documenting that the Obama Regime’s Administrative Amnesty is much wider that previously understood. [Sen. Jeff Sessions: Obama Giving De Facto Amnesty to 12 Million, by Melanie Batley, Newsmax.com, March 26, 2014.] But, incredibly, the Regime is planning to widen it even further. Until recently, its primary beneficiaries have been illegal aliens in the US—because of the effective end of interior enforcement; the reorientation of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigation to enforcement of any local, State, or Federal law other than immigration law; the DREAM Act Administrative Amnesty; etc.. Now, however, the Regime, observing the lack of pushback, has floated trial balloons that Administrative Amnesty will be expanded to include aliens outside the US—specifically, former deportees and (get this) aliens with links to terrorists.
- “Family Separation” As An Excuse For Admitting Former Deportees
TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — A Mexican immigrant rights advocate who gained international attention in 2007 when she took refuge in a Chicago church before being deported from the United States has presented herself to U.S. border inspectors and asked for asylum on Tuesday.
Elvira Arellano and 20 other Mexican and Central American migrants crossed into the United States from the border city of Tijuana as part of a protest to demand an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and an end to deportations.
Arellano was deported to Mexico after seeking sanctuary at a Chicago church for a year. She was deported without her U.S.-born son.
Arellano, 38, said she is asking for asylum in the U.S. because she has received threats in Mexico because of her activism and because she wants a better future for teenage son.
"I am requesting asylum in the United States on humanitarian grounds, because I am a defender of human rights in Mexico and I have received kidnapping and violence threats," Arellano said before entering the U.S. and violence.
Arellano was deported on Aug. 19, 2007, to Tijuana, where she founded a home for deported migrants and began speaking publicly speaking about the complex reality of migrant families and how deportations are making their lives more difficult.
Deported Immigrant Activist Asks For US Asylum, by Omar Millan, MySanAntonio.com, March 18, 2014
Arellano’s claim for asylum is absurd. No-one in Mexico would threaten her for supporting illegal immigration. Everyone in Mexico supports illegal immigration, from El Presidente on down. [ Mexico Criticizes U.S. Deportation Policy | Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said the deportations make him "indignant.", TRNS, February 27, 2014] Remember, this is a country where half the population wants to immigrate to the United States. The truth is that she just wants to return to the US.
She is quoted as saying:
"But more importantly, because they have separated my son for his chance to have a good upbringing."
My emphasis. But Arellano’s son, whom she abandoned in Chicago, will be 16 in December—almost done “upbringing.” And her insinuation that she has been “separated” from her son is not true: as a Mexican citizen
What happens when an institution becomes more important than the cause for which the institution was formed? How long should people who believe in the cause remain loyal to such an institution? And at what point does loyalty to such an institution comprise an abandonment of the cause itself?