Recent News

John Derbyshire Says The 21st Century May Belong To Japan—Because It’s Biting The Demographic Bullet Now

With a hat tip to the Human Stupidity blog, I have just been watching the BBC documentary No Sex Please, We’re Japanese.” It’s a one-hour program broadcast in Britain last fall\ in which a reporter visits Japan to do a quick run around the place touching all cultural bases. In what follows I tag quotes from the program with square brackets showing minutes and seconds into the video clip. [Click on the numbers to go to that point in the  video.]

The reporter in this case is Anita Rani, a thirtysomething Briton of Indian (mixed Hindu-Sikh) parentage.

Ms. Rani is presentable enough and does a decent job on the documentary, though from within the standard-issue multicultural journo-liberal mindset. My only grumble is that her speech sounds are occasionally irritating. She eschews lateral plosion so that “hospital” and “candle” come out as “hospi-tull” and “can-dull,” and she tortures the vowel of “you” into a triphthong: “yieuw.” These faults are common among Brits born after 1965, though, and it is probably fogeyish of me to mind them.

Japan is interesting to immigration patriots for an obvious reason: it is immigration-restriction heaven. Asked what we think an ideal U.S. immigration policy would look like, we tend to say (I once actually heard Peter Brimelow say it): “Like Japan’s!”

We get to the immigration issue towards the end of the program. First we take the 45-minute tour of modern Japanese culture, although minus the robots, which Ms. Rani somehow omitted.

Demographic decline. We begin with a trip to the far-north town of Yubari, which has lost most of its population since the last coal mines closed twenty years ago.

Not very surprising, I thought, but certainly melancholy. We see some old photographs of crowded streets at festival time; now the streets are empty.

Ms. Rani visits a shuttered school.

[02m09s]: “There used to be 21 primary schools in Yubari, and now there’s only one… All the children have disappeared.”

Then the maternity ward of a hospi-tull—sorry, hospital. Our reporter consults a staff member:

[06m37s]: She: “How many women in Yubari give birth now?” Answer, in Japanese: “In Yubari City it’s zero.

Off to Tokyo, where now we see streets bustling with traffic and humanity.

[09m29s]: But even in crowded Tokyo they’ve noticed a change.

Ms. Rani consults a Japanese demographer, who tells her:

[11m21s]: Year after year the number born is declining; and it seems like the speed of population decline is accelerating, and it’s going to continue for many years to come… In about 50 years we will lose one-third of the population.

 “That’s a catastrophe for Japan,” observes Ms. Rani. “So why are the Japanese having fewer children?” She cuts to the chase:

[14m22s]: Couples are thought to have very little sex. In one survey just 27 percent of them reported having sex every week—way less than us Brits. It appears that relationships between Japanese men and women are becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

That leads naturally to the next cultural base: the otaku, nerdy young males (mostly) who are obsessively interested in animated movies, shows, and video games.

Otaku. Ms. Rani meets two otaku (it’s the same in singular and plural) who have virtual girlfriends: anime figures in a game called Love Plus, on the screens of iPhone-size gadgets the guys carry around with them.

The otaku are very attached to their cyber-sweethearts.

[16m40s]: As she’s at high school she picks me up in the morning and we go to school together… After school we meet at the gates and go home together… When I go beyond the game and bring her to this side, I put her in the basket at the front of my bicycle. When I arrive where I’m going I take her out and we take pictures of each other.

The otaku who’s been telling us this is 39 years old— “but 17 in the game.” The other otaku is 38 (though 15 in the game), and… married.

[18m51s]: Ms. Rani: “What does your wife think about this, Nurakan?”

Nurakan: “Basically I’ve kept it secret from my wife. I’ve lied about it so I have to keep on lying.”

Ms. Rani: “If you had to choose between your wife and Rinko [the virtual cutie], who would you pick?”

[Long pause, laughter.] Nurakan: “I do my best not to get into that situation.

I think we are supposed to find this creepily sexual, but it came through to me as rather touching. As Nurakan explains:

[17m48s]: “I think I was most passionate about love when I was at high school… At high school you can have relationships without having to think about marriage.”

The take-away here: the burdens of adult life weigh more heavily on Japanese men than on anybody elsewhere. This has been noticed by every observer of the culture

What That Immigration Patriot Victory In Switzerland Means

An Anti-Minaret PosterThe Swiss get it! The majority of citizens in this small country recognize that the so-called “right” to migration is devastating this idyllic nation surrounded by the increasingly authoritarian European Union.

Unfortunately, as a February 10 article in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, the European Union will use economic sabotage to strike back against this exercise in democracy.

Switzerland was warned Monday of potentially serious repercussions in its relationship with its biggest trading partner, the European Union, after Swiss voters backed a cap on immigration in a referendum.

The outcome of Sunday's vote potentially undermines close ties with the 28-nation bloc that are crucial to the Alpine nation's economic success and that of its influential financial-services sector.

Switzerland now is highly unlikely to honor a pledge to scrap quotas for migrants coming from the EU's newest member, Croatia, on July 1—a move that would in turn trigger the suspension of other accords by the EU. Treaties governing relations between the two sides contain a guillotine clause that invalidates the entire package if one of component is terminated."

Swiss Migration Vote Threatens Europe Ties |European Officials Say Switzerland Can't 'Cherry-Pick' From Treaty Obligations; Concerns Raised About Economic Impact, By Vanessa Mock in Brussels and Neil MacLucas, February 10, 2014

Back home in the United States, our own illegal immigration invasion has always been subsidized by the cheap labor lobby. Similarly, many Swiss business groups were concerned first not about their country’s future, but about their company’s bottom line. The difference: in Switzerland, citizens can overcome the corpocrats.

Does this sound familiar, folks?  A solid 60% of US citizens have been against present levels of alien influx for decades. Nonetheless, the American majority is ignored by both Congress and the White House. The Swiss referendum is how an actual democracy should function.

Swiss citizens have made clear they require their government

…to renegotiate the treaty with the EU that guarantees free movement of workers. About Dominique Gisin, a Swiss Citizen, just won a medal at Sochi64,000 EU citizens have settled in Switzerland every year over the past decade, according to the Federal Office for Migration.

It wasn't immediately clear how the Swiss government would implement the new limits—the referendum calls for quotas within the next three years.

But senior EU figures made plain that Switzerland wouldn't be able to dismiss elements of the trade package that it later decides it doesn't like.

"Cherry-picking from its relationship with the EU isn't a durable strategy for dealing with Europe," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Michel Barnier, EU commissioner for the single market, said in an interview that the vote is likely to have heavy consequences. "We'll probably need to reconsider our approach with Switzerland in a general way." Mr. Barnier said."

Naturally, since all EU nations are feeling the pinch of alien migration, they are anxious to keep all doors open.

The larger question: whether there a comfortable limit on the alien percentage in any given country. The most ext

Amnesty: Is This Still America, Or Did I Move?

Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a RepublicanWith all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it's important to remember that Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration. 

So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns? 

The House Republicans' "Standards for Immigration Reform," for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: "One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents." 

As the kids say: WTF? 

That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country's history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could palm off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn't have to live in the shadows? 

Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn't know you guys had read the Constitution. We'll be quiet now. 

Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation's founding, it's a ridiculous concept. 

Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don't read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child's fault. 

But it's not the country's fault either. 

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to "punish the children," there's no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven—insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to "live in the shadows" because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught? 

How do you function like that? And how awful it must be when their dad is sent to prison! How do you think Jack Abramoff's kids felt? What about Martha Stewart's kid? 

Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn't we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26

The Fulford File | Deportation Has FALLEN Under Obama, Dammit—But Now The Treason Lobby Wants To Abolish It Altogether

The US does not have, as frequently asserted, a “broken immigration system”. It has a broken deportation system.

And plans are afoot to break it still further, because the Boehner/Obama amnesty drive appears to have stalled.

It’s part of a twofold Treason Lobby attack, coordinated in the usual suspicious way: the repeated claim that the Obama Regime has been deporting a record number of people [e.g. Barack Obama, deporter-in-chief, Economist, February 8, 2014]; and the aggressive assertion that, given the success of  DACA for young illegals—Obama’s not been impeached, has he?—he can stop deportations, effectively extending his Administrative Amnesty to every illegal in America.

Here’s a typical article, by Treason Lobby apparatchik Sally Kohn (note her full disclosure buried in the text):

The White House is deporting more than 1,100 illegal immigrants per day. Why Obama can—and should—stop sending away would-be Americans.

Currently, President Obama and his Administration are deporting more than 1,100 aspiring Americans every single day. That’s 1,100 mothers and fathers and hardworking folks who come to the United States because our economy desperately needs them, our businesses aggressively recruit them, and yet our laws have not kept pace with that reality.

The White House argues that it does not have the legal authority to stop or reduce the number of deportations in America—that the only possible recourse is passing comprehensive immigration reform.  But last week, advocates with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) filed a 41-page rulemaking petition with the Department of Homeland Security presenting compelling legal analysis of how the Administration can use its executive authority to dramatically reduce or halt deportations (full disclosure: I have consulted with and supported the activities of NDLON).  Most notably, the White House has already used this authority, enacting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program last fall to give temporary relief to young immigrants known as Dreamers.  The White House could very clearly, and very legally, apply such deferred action to other undocumented immigrants. [Links in original]

Obama Could Legally Stop Immigrant Deportations, By Sally Kohn, Daily Beast, February 11, 2014

Kohn [Email her] thinks all this is horrible, and that Obama has a “clear legal authority” to “unilaterally halt or reduce deportations “ which would be “welcome relief from letting Republican hand-wringing ambivalence drive the immigration debate.” (It’s called democratic debate, Sally.)

But let’s put this in perspective.

By any measure, deportations have been flat to down since the late Bush years

Hispanic Maternal Poverty—Another Problem That Amnesty Won’t “Get Behind Us.”

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has issued a report with the sleeper title, “Source of Payment for the Delivery: Births in a 33-state and District of Columbia Reporting Area, 2010”[PDF]. But that’s not the only reason the Main Stream Media did not pick the CDC report up—its bad news about our current immigrant inflow is just not “fit to print”.

Hispanic Maternal Poverty—Another Problem That Amnesty Won’t “Get Behind Us.”

The CDC report contains staggering data about health insurance coverage, or lack of it, for mothers giving birth in 2010. Note that “self-pay” really means no insurance coverage.

As the CDC puts it:

The majority of mothers with self-pay were born outside the 50 states and District of Columbia (55.8%), compared with 18% of privately insured mothers and 27.1% of mothers on Medicaid. The vast majority of uninsured Hispanic mothers (86.7%) were born outside the United States and District of Columbia. [Emphases added]

Simply stated, of the 742,401 immigrant birth-mothers included in this report, only 18% had private health insurance. The remainder funded deliveries using Medicaid (27%)…or they were not insured at all.

(Note that the insurance data come from birth certificates and are therefore 100% reliable. Birth certificates from only 33 states are included in the report on insurance because the federal government revised birth certificates in 2003 and in 2010 and not all states were using the new form with insurance information. But California and Texas—the biggies—were included in the report.)

Will Obama’s Affordable Care Act make a difference? Will granting Amnesty to illegal alien women make a difference?

No—because of the demographic composition of immigrants coming to the U.S. under current and proposed law.

From the CDC report: “Hispanic mothers (8.2% of Hispanic births) were more than twice as likely” as any other racial or ethnic group to be uninsured. Hispanic women

Welfare State Making Americans Dependent, Replacing Them With Immigrant Workers

The Congressional Budget Office did not exactly say Obamacare would cost the nation 2.5 million jobs.

Tracey Halvorsen Turns Tail, But That Won’t Stop Baltimore (Or Something) Breaking Her Heart

[See also: "What Will Come Of The Race War That Roils The Streets Of Baltimore?"]

It’s becoming one of the more amusing rituals of American political life: a naïve white liberal Notices (or even implies) the Hatefact that crime is disproportionately black and is instantly lynched by his/ her own kind. Last year, it was Philadelphia Magazine’s Robert Huber, whose Being White in Philly cover story actually caused the black mayor of the city, Michael Nutter, to write to the Philadelphia Human Rights Commission demanding action be taken. This year, it’s Tracey Halvorsen, a white Baltimore woman who just published an article [Baltimore City, You're Breaking My Heart| This is why people leave,, February 7, 2014] in which she went to the very edge of the racial abyss in describing why the 63.5 percent black city is dying—only to turn tail under pressure.

Halvorsen appears to be the epitome of Stuff White People Like liberals. Her Twitter profile reads: President & Chief Visionary Officer at Fastspot. Artist, animal lover, writer, joker, traveler. Life's short, have fun. Perhaps to establish her PC credentials, she made it clear that she’s a lesbian.

Maybe Halvorsen’s passionate philippic was provoked by the murder earlier in the week of 51-year-old Kimberley Leto, a white female bartender. Leto was murdered in her home by two black males, aged 16 and 14—the 14-year-old, only an eight grader, asked the judge to be allowed out on bail to visit his daughter. [Police arrest teenagers in Ellwood Avenue homicide: Kimberly Leto found dead inside Patterson Park home,, February 3, 2014]

Halvorsen’s piece didn’t even mention race, but it’s 100 percent about the problems the black community causes in Baltimore, exacerbated by complete black control of City Hall:

Life takes you places, you follow a course that isn't completely of your own making. One day you wake up, and it’s really all up to you. So where do you want to live? I happen to live in a city. Baltimore, to be specific.

And I'm growing to absolutely hate it here.

I’m tired of hearing about 12 year old girls being held up at gun-point while they walk to school.,0,5595591.story [ note: URLs in original]

I’m tired of saying “Oh Baltimore’s great! It’s just got some crime problems.”

I’m tired of living in a major crime zone while paying the highest property taxes in the state. 

I’m tired of hearing about incompetent city leaders who are more fixated on hosting the Grand Prix than dealing with thousands of vacant buildings that create massive slums, and rampant crime.

I’m tired of being looked at like prey.

Halvorsen went on to supply more devastating details.

They don’t call it “The City that Bleeds” because

WEEKLY STANDARD Wakes Up: Acknowledges Immigration Income Impact, Sailer Strategy


Weekly Standard's Kristol: I need a GOP Presidency SOON!

A quite extraordinary piece has just appeared in the NeoCon vehicle The Weekly Standard. The Wages of Immigration By Jay Cost Feb 17, 2014 amounts to an unprecedented admission that mass immigration is bad for working Americans – and that condoning it is going to be bad for the Republicans.

…the Senate bill and House principles offer no protection for the wages and employment status of existing workers. This fact, often overlooked by critics of comprehensive reform, is its greatest weakness...

The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would scarcely affect the number of workers with average skills. As a result, the wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be depressed slightly (by less than 0.5 percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills… the burden would fall particularly on the low end of the socioeconomic scale.

Cost explicitly recognizes the redistribution effect of heavy immigration

…there are policies that can increase growth without broadening the middle class—and if the CBO’s analysis is correct, the Rubio bill is one of them. Wages would fall, unemployment would rise, and according to the CBO, per capita gross national product would fall by 0.7 percent in 2023. Thus, even as the aggregate economy would be larger, the average American’s share of that prosperity would be less than without the Rubio reform.

Of course the fact that excessive  immigration puts heavy pressure on working Americans has been a long term theme at, discussed for instance

National Data | The Jobs Report Is Getting “Weird,” But January Looks Like A Cold Employment Market For Both Immigrants And Americans

Was it the weather? The economy? The statistics themselves?

Depending on which numbers you look. at the January Jobs Report was either very disappointing, really fantastic—and/or just weird, a possibility we can dare acknowledge because a card-carrying Main Stream Media Big Foot, Derek Thompson [Twitter] of  The Atlantic, has been also been saying it recently [7 Fascinating Nuggets From Another Bewildering Jobs Report |The first Friday of each month just keeps getting weirder, February 7, 2014].

Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics asks businesses how many people are on their payrolls, and then asks ordinary folks how many people in their household were working.

The Household Survey invariably reports higher total employment than the Payroll Survey, a result attributable in part to the reluctance of employers to acknowledge illegal alien  workers.

Over time, the two reports have tended move in tandem. But not this January.

The Employer survey was widely viewed as disappointing, with only 113,000 jobs created. [Payroll Data Shows a Lag in Wages, Not Just Hiring, By Nelson D. Schwartz, NYT, February 7, 2014] After December’s pathetic job figure (75,000) most economists were expecting a rebound closer to 200,000. But, be it weather or a weaker economy, the Employer survey reports slow job growth.

By contrast, the Household survey was quite strong. Employment was up by an amazing 638,000, the labor force increased by 523,000, and the unemployment rate fell to 6.6%. The labor force participation rose, albeit from the lowest level in the past 35 years.

As usual, only looks at the immigrant impact on the job data. About 90,000 immigrants enter the US labor force each month, often exceeding job creation. But this fact has still not entered the MSM employment-story template.

What we find in January is a deviation from the long-run trend: the immigrant share of household employment fell in January for the fourth consecutive month. More importantly, the number of immigrants holding jobs fell significantly:

In January:

  • Total  employment rose by 638,000, or by 0.44%
  • Native-born American employment rose by 707,000 or by 0.59%
  • Foreign-born employment fell by 69,000, or by 0.29%

Possibly January’s anomaly reflects the concentration of immigrants in construction, landscaping, and other occupations sensitive to weather.

Certainly it does not yet threaten the major trend: the chief legacy of Barack Obama seems likely to be the displacement of native-born Americans by immigrants.

This January marked the fifth year of the Obama era. The tilt against native-born American workers during this period is made clear in our New American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI):

National Data | The Jobs Report Is Getting “Weird,” But January Looks Like A Cold Employment Market For Both Immigrants And Amer

Native-born American employment growth

Democrat Notes Plain Language From Immigration Patriot WSJ Letter Writers

The immigration patriot movement generates a sophisticated rationale about why the historic American nation should militantly oppose so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty/ Immigration Surge. Unfortunately, the Main Stream Media runs shrieking away from rational discussion of this important issue.

But the public can still break into the MSM through writing Letters to the Editor—and these days, the letters to the editor and the comments sections contain the only things worth reading in the Establishment media.

With the economy listing to port, citizens below decks growing restless, and Captain Obama seemingly deliberately seeking out icebergs, the American ship of state seems likely to sink at any moment. Luckily, at least some people are sounding the warnings.

The letters section of the February 5, 2014 Wall Street Journal is headlined with the timely words: "The GOP Should Be Wary of An Immigration 'Breakout'.” 

Reader Jonathan Rothenberg of New York City lays out some common sense principles that instantly cut through the thousands of words of corporate propaganda littering the Journal:  

Regarding your editorial "Immigration Breakout" (Jan. 30): American citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and handing it out en masse to illegal immigrants is simply indefensible. They do have a "path to citizenship" today and will continue to do so under a plan that provides legalization without a path to citizenship: the current legal process.

As faulty as the policy logic is, however, the political logic is worse. Leave aside the fact that immigration is unimportant to most voters. With ObamaCare

CA GOP Gubernatorial Hopeful Tim Donnelly Threatens To Raise Immigration Issue--Establishment Strikes Back

CA GOP Gubernatorial Hopeful Tim Donnelly Threatens To Raise Immigration Issue--Establishment Strikes Back

California is rapidly being transformed from the Golden State to the Awful Warning State—coming to an America near you if the GOP House Leadership succeeds in smuggling though its version of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge. But at least one Republican hasn’t given up. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a one-time Minuteman, is running to be the Republican nominee for Governor. Incredibly, he would be the first GOP candidate for state-wide office directly to oppose any part of America’s immigration disaster since Governor Pete Wilson seized on Proposition 187 to win a come-from-behind re-election victory in 1994.

Donnelly has a tough job. Partially because of mass immigration, California is facing a systemic crisis. The state

Staying Out of Other People's Wars

Sen. Jeff Sessions Winning Fight To Make GOP A “National Conservative” Party

Sen. Jeff Sessions Winning Fight To Make GOP A “National Conservative” Party

Senator Jeff Sessions (Numbers USA grade A+)

The Main Stream Media is missing the real story on the Republican Party’s suicidal push for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge.  The Party may be on the brink of a sweeping realignment—and the critical transformative figure is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

This realignment is likely because, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming battles over legalizing the tens of millions of illegal infiltrators in Occupied America, the Republican leadership has already failed.  Key Treason Lobby figures within the GOP are clearly feeling the heat.  Even if the disaster of an Amnesty/ Immigration Surge passes, the GOP base is well aware of the treachery of its own leadership and is looking for alternatives. 

Thus according to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller (whose days as a journalist within the Beltway Right are surely numbered), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor frantically changed the subject when pressed by CBS reporter Major Garrett “if the GOP plan would allow the 12 million illegal immigrants to get citizenship.”  Instead, Cantor began babbling about “job growth and the lack of job growth,” without making any connection between those subjects and the likely consequences of flooding the labor market with helots.  [GOP Leaders Hide Immigration Plans, February 3, 2014]

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan has attempted a bit of misdirection by claiming that that it is “clearly in doubt” that Congress can pass an immigration bill this year.  [Are immigration reformers talking down chances so opponents will drop guard?  By Byron York, Washington Examiner, February 3, 2014]. However, what is significant is that this tactic is openly being called out as possible misdirection.

The Republican leadership’s sudden cowardice has been triggered by the surprisingly stiff resistance of the GOP House Caucus to passing Amnesty.  According to Jonathon Strong of, a closed door session of Republican Congresscritters revealed that 80% were opposed to moving on a bill this year.  Speaker John Boehner and Ryan were apparently both restrained in their rhetorical support for amnesty in this meeting, as ordinary Congressman neither trust Barack Obama to enforce security measures nor the leadership’s promises that an Amnesty/immigration Surge would be politically beneficial.  [Did Showdown Kill Boehner’s Immigration Dreams?January 31, 2014] 

Hilariously, Ryan is even saying that for an immigration bill to go anywhere, it has to be based on “security first, no amnesty” and only “then we might be able to get somewhere.”  [U.S. immigration bill “in doubt” this year, Republican Ryan says, by Margaret Chadbourn, Reuters, February 2, 2014] (Mickey Kaus catches Ryan outright lying about this (“distorting and dissembling weren’t getting the job done, I guess”) on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos).

The conclusion – the Republican leadership isn’t composed of “leaders”

Chris Christie Won’t Block Obama’s Bridge To Amnesty

Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a RepublicanNew Jersey governor Chris Christie deserves to be defended.

The gravamen of the media's case against Christie on Bridgegate seems to be that he is a "bully"—which I painstakingly gleaned from the fact that the governor is called a "bully" 1 million times a night on MSNBC and in hundreds of blog postings and New York Times reports.

Christie is not a bully. If anything, he's a pansy, a man terrified of the liberal media, of Wall Street, of Silicon Valley, of Obama, of Bruce Springsteen, of Mark Zuckerberg, of Chuck Schumer. It's a good bet he's afraid of his own shadow. (In fairness, his shadow is probably pretty big and scary.) About the only thing Christie doesn't seem afraid of is the buffet at Sizzler.

Even Christie's defenders call him a bully, but in an admiring way. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly recently said of the governor: "One reason Mitt Romney lost to President Obama was that Governor Romney is too much of a gentleman. He apparently did not have the 'fire in the belly' to deliver a knockout blow. But Christie does and is therefore a threat to the Democratic Party."

O'Reilly thinks Christie would have gotten in Obama's face? (I mean other than for a quick make-out session with Obama during Hurricane Sandy?)

By sheer coincidence, that was Christie's job at the 2012 Republican National Convention. As the keynote speaker, it was his assignment to "deliver a knockout blow" to Obama.

Let's see how he did.

In Christie's entire gaseous convention speech, [Transcript] he talked about New Jersey (ad nauseam), his parents, his kids, his upbringing, every tedious detail of his tedious life—"I coached our sons Andrew and Patrick on the fields of Mendham, and ... I watched with pride as our daughters Sarah and Bridget marched with their soccer teams in the Labor Day parade."

Just before I dozed off, I seem to remember Christie sharing his seven-layer dip recipe.

The guy whose role it was to attack the president mentioned Obama exactly one time. Once. And even then, not by name.

Here is Christie the Lion-Hearted

DEATH WISH At Forty: Are We Allowed To "Notice" Race NOW?

DEATH WISH At Forty: Are We Allowed To "Notice" Race Now?Forty years ago, a movie was released in theaters that late film critic Roger Ebert immediately knew represented something “scary.” [Review, January 1, 1974]

In contrast to Obama’s America, where Hollywood, television, and the Main Stream Media are working overtime to promote false consciousness about crime in America (just watch an episode of Law & Order or remember what the producer of COPS said about wanting to show only reversing the ratio of white and minority criminals (“I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes”)  this movie packed a powerful reminder: no matter how much incessant propaganda tries to make people believe a lie, one perfectly-packaged dose of truth is enough to make it all go away.

That movie: Death Wish. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of its theatrical release, a special edition Blu Ray version was released today (February 4). [Purchase here and direct a commission to at no cost to you!] Never has the response of the Charles Bronson character (named, by an amazing coincidence, Paul Kersey) to the rape-murder of his wife and rape-mental ruin of his daughter looked better.

Based on a novel by Brian Garfield (interestingly, its protagonist was named Paul Benjamin and was Jewish), Death Wish spawned four sequels. But it was the compelling manner in which the original movie portrayed Bronson’s actions as justified that frightened Ebert. He said:

There's never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury—and executioner.

That's what's scary about the film. It's propaganda for private gun ownership and a call to vigilante justice. 

No doubt this was exactly why the great Murray Rothbard praised the movie so much:

Death Wish is a superb movie, the best hero-and-vengeance picture since Dirty Harry. Bronson, an architect whose young family has been destroyed by muggers, drops his namby-pamby left-liberalism, and begins to pack a gun, defending himself brilliantly and uncompromisingly against a series of muggers who infest New York City. Yet he never kills the innocent, or commits excesses. Naturally, even though he is only defending himself against assault, the police, who have failed to go after the muggers and who acknowledge the fall in the crime rate due to Bronson’s activities, devote their resources to pursuing him instead of the criminals who terrorize New York. It is a great and heroic picture, a picture demonstrating one man’s successful fight for justice.

As might be expected, Death Wish has been subjected to hysterical attacks by the left-liberal critics who acknowledge the power and technical qualities of the picture, which they proceed to denounce for its “fascist ideology” (self-defense by victims against crimes) and its “pornography of violence” (in a just cause).

Don’t miss Death Wish; it says more about the “urban problem” than a dozen “message” documentaries, and it helps bring back heroism to the movies.

August 1974 issue of The Libertarian Forum

One line of dialogue in Death Wish cuts to the heart of America’s crime dilemma. While Bronson’s character is at a dinner party in New York City, he overhears a conversation between two guests about his vigilante actions:

Man: I’ll tell you one thing: the guy’s a racist. You notice he
 kills more Blacks than Whites.

Woman: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Harry. More Blacks are muggers