The white woman who on July 16 called in what appeared to be a break-in in progress at the Harvard University-owned property at which tenured racist Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. resides now wants the world to know that her 911 call was misquoted by the media, and the cable TV demagogue she has hired to be her spokewoman or lawyer is claiming that the caller isn’t white, anyway.
The caller, Lucia Whalen, insists that she did not say that “two black males with backpacks” were forcing their way into the residence.
During the 911 call, Whalen didn’t initially mention race or ethnicity, and acted as if she were embarrassed to be calling the police at all, except that there had been so many break-ins, and she was doing it as a favor to a concerned old woman. (That a burglary appeared to be in progress seemed to reckon last in her priorities.)
Only at the prodding of the 911 dispatcher did Whalen say that one of the men might be “Hispanic.” Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas supports Whalen’s version, but more importantly, the 911 tape does.
"Um, well, there were two larger men. One looked kind of Hispanic, but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried, thinking, 'Someone's been breaking in someone's house. They've been barging in.'"
People have reportedly denounced Whalen as a “racist!”; the “personally devastated” Whalen is seeking to assure them, ‘No, I’m as pc as you are.’
Why on earth is this even an issue? The race of a suspect is the second characteristic the police list, after sex. Just try describing a person to a third party, much less to police, without explicitly or implicitly giving his race. The description would be worthless.
Even in casual conversation, non-whites routinely use racial descriptors, e.g., “this white girl.” Whites, however, are supposed to somehow act as if race didn’t exist. (To which lefties will respond, “Because it doesn’t!” To which I will respond, Then affirmative action and diversity are based on fictions, too. So, why do you support such superstitions?)
This is ridiculous, but it starts with the media reports. In crime stories, the MSM have for years routinely refused to tell the public the race of perpetrators, even when they were violent criminals still at large. Then, when the MSM reported this particular story, they implied that Whalen was some sort of racist for providing necessary information, as if she were upset by the sight of two black males. Never mind that she saw what would look to any sensible cop or civilian—i.e., anyone who has not had his mind and will warped by racial socialist indoctrination—like a crime in progress.
While some news stories sneak in the necessary information by way of a mug shot or grainy surveillance video, the majority, which routinely suppress such information, are worthless to the general public, but invaluable to criminals (which is the point of the suppression).
That Whalen is “personally devastated,” is because she has reportedly been condemned as a “racist.” (For just that reason, I refrained from revealing her name in an earlier manuscript, and am only doing so now, because she has come out.) But unless they weighed 400 pounds each, a call referring merely to “two larger men” would have been worthless as a suspect description. Indeed, it sounded as if Whalen had sought to be as unhelpful as possible in her suspect descriptions.
If the MSM, instead of being obsessed with disarming potential white crime victims, and aiding and abetting black criminals, did their job and routinely identified criminals by race, no one would have thought anything of a 911 call description of “two black males.”
Whalen has engaged cable TV demagogue Wendy Murphy as her spokeswoman or attorney. Murphy is seeking to confuse matters regarding Whalen's race. In an AP report I read, Murphy denied that Whalen was white, saying she has “olive-colored skin and is of Portuguese descent ...”
Murphy’s claim will come as a surprise both to Sgt. Crowley, who identified Whalen as white, and to the millions of white Europeans with olive-colored skin.
Apparently, Murphy's strategy amounts to, 'She didn't give a usable description, and she's not white, anyway.'
While Murphy’s claim is still at google, it has since been censored from at least some of the articles in which it appeared, and sent down the memory hole.
I’m amazed that Cambridge police responded so rapidly. Skip Gates should have been overjoyed. While living in the predominantly black, Far Rockaway section of Queens, the first time I heard gunfire on my street, in 1994, I called 911, but no police ever showed.
I would hear gunfire about three times a week, but I never wasted my time calling 911 again, at least not over such an apparently piddling matter. Besides, New York 911 operators tend to be racist black women. Although at the time I taught diction, when I would call 911 for one reason or another, they would sometimes claim to not be able to understand what I was saying. I got a much nicer response once, when I affected a Spanish accent, and mixed in some Spanish swear words.
For me, the moral of the story is that if you must call 911, use an alias. And if you live in a town with racist, black 911 operators, and must call for help, affect a black or Spanish accent.
However, the moral that the MSM, leftwing blogosphere, and Skip Gates have sought to hammer home is, If you think you see two black males committing a crime, you damned well better not call 911.
In the East Austin section of Austin, Texas, someone threw a brick through the window of a four-year-old black boy’s bedroom window, with a message reading, read “Keep Eastside White. Keep Eastside Strong.”
Austin police insist, however, that the incident was not a “hate crime.” It’ll be all over the national media any minute, now.
Just kidding, folks. Actually, the victim was white, the message read, “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong,” and the national media could care less. But I wasn’t kidding about the cops denying that the attack was a hate crime.
Imagine you’re a parent of a four-year-old boy, whom black supremacists—with the passive collaboration of the police—are casually teaching that he is a second or third-class citizen. How do you explain that to your son? What do you do?
Jake Jacobsen has the story, over at Eric Holder’s favorite blog, Nation of Cowards.
I just love it, when jurists get caught lying, and prove to have no more talent at it than the average dumb street hood. And that is just what the Washington Times—with help from, of all places, the New York Times—is suggesting Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of.
Viewers of the hearings will recall all those times when Republican Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and Jeff Sessions (AL) asked Sotomayor about the controversial briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in cases involving abortion, during the 12 years she sat on PRLDEF’s board. Sotomayor claimed she “never reviewed those [abortion] briefs,” but the group’s minutes and reporting by the New York Times show her involved in litigation at such a detailed level for the group as to make her testimony utterly lacking in credibility.
Sotomayor’s prevarications on this and other topics (e.g., her racist statements) reminded me of Australian jurist Marcus Einfeld, whom I dubbed the judge who couldn’t stop lying, only Einfeld was much more (albeit unintentionally) entertaining. Sotomayor is a more banal, bureaucratic sort of liar.
So, will the Living Dead Party go for the jugular? Will they “Bork” her? Just kidding.
Maybe we ought to make jurists wear see-through robes. There’s something about the combination of wearing a black robe, sitting high above the rest of us, and being addressed as an institution (“the court”), that tends to go to judge’s heads.
One must always keep in mind, when talking about judges, that they are a class dominated by the grimiest political hacks, most of whom owe their positions to party machines and backroom deals. The majority are privately beholden, even as they speak publicly about “the independence of the judiciary.” They couch the most corrupt and politically partisan decisions in the language of moralistic sanctimony, as if they were speaking from Mount Olympus, rather than from the sewer. (The exception proves the rule.)
In Friday’s issue of The Australian, a national newspaper down under, the subhed for an op-ed is, “Courts have to depend on lawyers being honest in order for the courts to function properly writes Ysaiah Ross.”
So much for that idea.
When my sister graduated from liar’s school 12 years ago, I congratulated her on stepping up from being an amateur to a professional liar. As a graduation gift, I gave her the foundation of all contracts: A baseball bat. (It was a miniature bat, for symbolism’s sake.)
Which brings me to Australian Judge Marcus Einfeld, an expert on ethics for public officials.
Judge Einfeld is a former Federal Court judge who in recent years has made a profession of lecturing public officials on honesty and ethics. He is also “an Officer of the Order of Australia and was voted a Living National Treasure.”
Judge Einfeld is what Harry Truman used to a call a “high hat.” A “high hat” is someone who’s got money and influence, and who publicly lectures everyone else on morality, but in private is the best customer at the local bordello. (Those are my words, not those of the old Missouri dirt farmer and failed haberdasher, but I believe they capture Harry’s sentiment.)
In January, Judge Einfeld’s Lexus was photographed speeding, and incurred a ticket for 77 dollars Australian ($100 U.S.). But Judge Einfeld had no intention of paying the ticket. What’s the point of being a judge, even a retired one, much less a Living National Treasure, if you can’t beat a traffic ticket?
Judge Einfeld insisted to Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court that he was not the driver at the time; he’d lent out his car to a "friend." But even if the story were true, it would be irrelevant. If you lend your car out to a girlfriend, and she gets a speeding ticket, you pay the ticket, and then take it up with her. The one thing you may not do is say, ‘Your Honor, the ticket isn’t my fault. You see, I lent my car out, and my girlfriend, she went speeding, and she got the ticket, because she’s a lousy driver, and so, I shouldn’t have to pay the ticket.’
Judges and lawyers hear dumb, convoluted stories like that all the time. Hell, they trade ‘em for laughs at dinner parties!
In 1992, I published a wonderful short story, “Morning in Bond Court,” in my since long-defunct magazine, A Different Drummer. The story, by retired Cook County cop Paul Pekin, was based on Paul’s experiences on “the job.”
In a story with a perfect balance of cynicism, wry humor, and poignancy, the narrator is a Cook County cop who spends a day taking various small fry back and forth from the jail to the courthouse for bond hearings. In court, one such small-timer is a
young black man, greasy upright hair. He stands before the bench, hands behind his back. Maybe he thinks he still has the cuffs on….
The young man with the ugly hair is charged with stealing eighteen packages of spark plugs from an auto supply shop. Even worse, he failed to appear at his last court date, failed to appear at the date before it, failed to …
“I can explain all that. They told me courtroom B and I went there and they said it was someplace else …”
“You’re saying you went to the wrong courtroom?”
“Six times?”
Only the young man with the ugly hair fails to be amused. He is led away, frowning.
Five thousand dollars bond. That’s a lot of spark plugs.
Next, we get a redheaded guy with no teeth. Charged with battery.
“It’s all her fault, your honor. She makes me go with her to her sister’s, it’s about the money they got for the car, and this guy her sister sold it to gets arrested and his old lady wants her purse back, and that’s when it turns out she’s the one with the …”
“You seem to hang out with complicated people,” the judge says.
“Yes sir, I certainly do.”
“Well, you hang around with complicated people, you get complicated results.”
Bond is twelve hundred dollars and the redhead is taken away.
Judge Marcus Einfeld has complicated friends, and he tells complicated stories.
His first story was that he had lent out his car to a visiting American professor named Teresa Brennan.
Professor Brennan was hunted down, and found to have died in February 2003, almost three years before she had gone speeding in the judge’s car. Now, that’s one complicated girlfriend.
When the little matter of Prof. Brennan’s being dead was brought up to Judge Einfeld, he had a ready answer: No, no, no, not that dead American Professor Teresa Brennan, it was a different dead American Professor Teresa Brennan!
The good judge insisted that his dead American Professor Teresa Brennan was alive long enough to go speeding in his car, but died shortly thereafter. (From grief over the ticket? Out of shame for having besmirched the ethical jurist and Living National Treasure’s driving record? Due to guilt over having dragged the first dead American Professor Teresa Brennan’s name through the mud?)
In the meantime, in his scorched earth campaign to beat a 77 dollar traffic ticket, Judge Einfeld is now up to four different stories, with no end in sight. He went into the wrong trade; he should have been a ditch digger, because he sure can dig himself a hole.
You can’t make this stuff up.
How many times does a judge, in the course of a year’s cases, see someone who, in trying to evade the long arm of the law, turns a minor infraction into a major felony? You’d think they’d learn from experience, and not want to come across like the spark plug thief with the bad hair or the hot-tempered, toothless redhead.
It doesn’t look as though Judge Einfeld is going to be prosecuted for perjury; such prosecutions are for "the little people" who have to obey the laws, not for jurists and ethics lecturers. However, legal observers in Australia are concerned that the Judge’s travails might tarnish the reputation of the judiciary. I say, the judiciary’s bad name is in no danger from Judge Einfeld.
Meanwhile, I think this is one of those rare cases in which the wheels of justice can’t grind slowly enough.
However, the judge might want to get some help for his necrophilia problem.
Sotomayor was a longtime board member of the racist, irredentist, Hispanic supremacist group, La Raza (The Race), which is the equivalent of a white being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK. She has a history of bullying lawyers. She has publicly made in-your-face racist and sexist statements about her approach to deciding the law, and publicly bragged, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, of legislating from the bench.
Not only did Sotomayor ignore the cast-iron cinch of an argument for the white firemen plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano that came before her three-judge appeals panel, but with her two colleagues engaged in unethical deception, in seeking to “bury” the case with “a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of … the ‘questions of exceptional importance’ raised in the appeal,” in an attempt to hide this fundamental constitutional case from the Supreme Court. And they would have succeeded, had Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a colleague from the full Second Circuit, not publicly dissented.
Sotomayor has repeatedly lied, in insisting that it has been “proven” that all mental and professional tests—on which she admittedly performed mediocrely—are “culturally biased.” “… my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”
That would be an Asian cultural bias.
As Larry Auster and others have pointed out (from here to here), Sotomayor has also repeatedly engaged in deception during her sworn testimony before the Senate this week, in misrepresenting her repeated racist (“wise Latina woman”) and unethical statements (about making policy from the bench). All the training in the world from David Axelrod, et al., couldn’t help her there. What has saved her, however, has been the cowardice of the Living Dead Party. If there were any men left in the Senate, they would have announced that Sotomayor’s racism disqualified her from the bench.
Any judge worth his salt would be ashamed to use his ethnicity as a “qualification” for the bench, because it would be a confession that he was an unqualified, incompetent interpreter of the law. Yet Sotomayor revels in her ethnicity.
At every step of the way, Sotomayor has benefited not from her ability, but from affirmative action, in other words, from racism. Indeed, she has bragged, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby.”
She has agitated for Hispanics’ “right” to be admitted to “highly selective” universities, despite demonstrably inferior test scores, and to be hired as professors despite a lack of scholarship, based on nothing more than their ethnicity, and for “Hispanic” litigants’ (who, since she assumes they do not know English, sounds like a euphemism for illegal aliens) “right” to have Hispanic judges preside over their court cases, i.e., take their side against non-Hispanics and American institutions. Thus would Sotomayor reduce all public life to a rigged ethnic spoils system, thereby throwing generations of valid mental and professional testing and scholarship, the merit principle, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 1964 Civil Rights Act out the window.
Is there a single positive reason why this woman should be sitting on the bench in traffic court? To ask the question is to answer it.
But Sotomayor is not only unqualified to serve as a traffic court judge. As former U.S. attorney—but please don’t hold it against him—Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, Sotomayor is unqualified even to serve as a juror in the lowest level court.
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
McCarthy then asks,
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request? Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
For what job, then, is this self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman” qualified? If she were a man with a strong back, I’d say digging ditches. But that’s not an option, though it would be fit punishment.
What do we do with racist, incompetent “persons of color” who are good for nothing? Why, we make them President!
Since I never get involved in the nitty gritty of political activism, you know things have to be bad, if I’m doing so now. And they are bad. Today, Thursday, July 16, the Senate was scheduled to vote on the totalitarian “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA),” aka the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” aka “S. 909.” The plan was to attach it to the Defense Authorization Bill, and sneak it through, but the attachment subterfuge, which was supposed to be done Wednesday night, at last report, had not yet been carried out.
Imagine that. Smuggling the Hate Crimes Bill in through the Defense Authorization Bill. The Hate Crimes Bill that, by Attorney General Eric Holder’s admission in his June 26 Senate testimony, wouldn’t cover the vicious racially and religiously-motivated murder, allegedly by black Moslem convert Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, of white soldier Pvt. William A. Long, 23, at a recruiting station in Little Rock.
The man calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” and his senatorial henchmen seek to attach the bill to the Defense Authorization Bill, in order to exploit support of the military on behalf of a bill that would not protect white, presumably heterosexual military victims of racist and political hatred such as Pvt. Long and Sgt. Jan-Pawel Pietrzak, the newly wed white Marine, who with his black bride was tortured and slaughtered, allegedly by a racist black gang, but not before she was gang-raped, because Sgt. And Mrs. Pietrzak had had the temerity to fall in love across racial lines.
I’m not condemning the Hate Crimes Bill because I want a hate crimes law that will protect whites, though I do demand of any Hate Crimes Law that is enacted that it be applied to crimes committed by blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, women, etc., against heterosexual white men and women, but because all such laws are unconstitutional, racist, and all the other “ists.”
Like so-called civil rights laws, so-called Hate Crimes laws are part of America’s growing system of Shadow Law, which forces most white Americans to live in the shadows, without legal protection, while racist blacks, Hispanics, illegal aliens, heterophobic homosexuals, etc., enjoy unconstitutional and illegal privileges. Shadow Law is no longer limited to laws with special modifiers (“Civil Rights”, “Hate Crime,” etc.), but have come to dominate all criminal and civil law, as those who belong to “non-protected classes” (a status which changes, based on the offender’s political identity) have been disenfranchised vis-à-vis members of “protected classes,” an unconstitutional designation, which nevertheless is routinely used by police and prosecutors.
“Barack Obama” knows that a substantial majority of the American people would not support S. 909, if they knew about its character. That is why he had Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (Racial Socialist-Maine) limit Senate hearings to two hours of dissimulation and sophistry by racist Attorney General Eric Holder, and has ordered his MSM henchmen to tell the American people as little as possible about the bill.
As powerful as “Obama” is, however, despite the 60 vote Senate supermajority that ACORN succeeded at providing him, through stealing a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat for Al Franken, after Norm Coleman had beaten Franken in the actual election, he seeks much more power. S. 909 is designed to give it to him. (Not that that will satisfy this aspiring totalitarian dictator; nothing will.)
In a nutshell, S. 909 would, if passed and enacted (and “Obama” will certainly sign it, if it passes the Senate), disenfranchise white, heterosexual, politically right-of-center men, while giving even more privileges to blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals and illegal aliens, the latter of whom, according to American law, have no rights. It would also pioneer new frontiers in the unconstitutional violation of double jeopardy. Not only would the hate crimes law “permit” the feds to re-prosecute whites who had been acquitted in state court, it would “permit” the feds to re-prosecute whites who had been convicted in state court, but whom political leaders felt had been insufficiently punished!
While Eric Holder claimed the law would protect Jews, this is one Jew who has been repeatedly racially assaulted by blacks in New York, yet who has always been treated like a criminal by Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau’s office. The only Jews who will benefit from S. 909 are racists like Morgenthau, who are already so wealthy and powerful, that privilege is second nature to them, and who have for generations done everything in their substantial powers to harm poor, working, and middle-class Jews. (Bernard Goetz, the man who defended himself against a mugging attempt in broad daylight in front of multiple witnesses by four violent, young, black career criminals, and against whom Morgenthau then directed an obsessive, years-long, persecution campaign, is a Jew.) The notion that “Jews” will benefit, as Jews, from S. 909 is a myth.
Minutes ago, my VDARE colleague Patrick Cleburne blogged that the Christian Family Research Council has just put together a powerful video update opposing the Bill, which they rightfully argue (as have I), is designed to intimidate Christians out of preaching the Christian Gospel. (That is but one of the bill’s nefarious purposes.)
We don’t know when the Senate’s Democratic leadership will try and sneak through the Hate Crimes Bill—perhaps Thursday, perhaps Friday—so my advice to you is to e-mail your senators now, call the Senate switchboard first thing in the morning, denouncing the Bill, and call your U.S. senators, demanding that they vote against it.
U.S. Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.
Telephone number and e-mail address for each individual U.S. senator: here.
The “bad news” is that in compiling its annual “best cities to live” list, CNN Money discriminates against towns and cities that are 95 percent or more white. That means that it also discriminates against cities that really are among “the best cities to live,” on behalf of inferior cities, like bloody Milton, Massachusetts.
Yes, folks, there is no bottom to the depths that white racial socialists and the boboisie will go, in order to inflict affirmative action on the rest of us!
Thus, the CNN Money story is fraudulent. However, the really good news is that if you are in one of the “truly best cities to live” in America, the folks at CNN Money just did you a huge favor, in spite of their racist selves. Had they told the truth, you would now be inundated with wealthy, white racial socialists fleeing the wonderful, beautiful, vibrant, “persons of color,” to whom they are always paying lip-service. The privileged whites would descend upon your town, and commence to smear you and your neighbors as “racist.” But thanks to CNN Money, no one is going to hear about your town for another few years, until some enterprising realtor joins up with a racial supremacist group (e.g., the NAACP) to sue people for racial discrimination, and destroy the town.
[Postscript, Saturday, January 6, 2018, 4:21 p.m.: A Race Against Time has been one of the victims of Google's scorched-earth campaign against freedom of speech.]
I generally avoid reading Ann Coulter’s columns, though not for the reasons given by socialists and communists who have never read her: She’s nasty, stupid, suffers from hysteria, etc. (Full disclosure: I have never met, spoken, or corresponded with Coulter.)
The reason I can’t read her columns is that, although she’s funnier than I am, we’re spiritual twins. We’re practically identical: She’s tall and slender, while I’m … not; she’s a Christian, while I’m a Jew; she has oodles of long, blonde hair, while what’s left of mine is short and brown; she’s a lawyer, while I hate lawyers (and I’m not one); she’s every bit a lady, while I’m most definitely a man (except for when the wife casts doubt on that status); and while in a previous life, she was a Borscht Belt comic, in a previous life, I was a Borscht Belt busboy. But other than that, if you saw us standing next to each other, you couldn’t tell us apart.
I try to read only old columns of hers, so there’s no conflict of interest, but a couple of times a year I make the mistake of reading her current column.
Yesterday, I was thinking about how someone needs to start investigating the people investigating folks like Joe the Plumber, and the people making phony ethics complaints against, and maligning the children of Sarah Palin. But I didn’t write any of that, and I wasn’t even close to ready to say that. (If you must know, I was chicken to go that far.)
Democrats are a party of women, and nothing drives them off their gourds like a beautiful Christian conservative. (How much money has that other beautiful born-again, Carrie Prejean, been forced to spend on lawyers to respond to liberal hysteria?)
So the motives are clear, but the money is not. Who is paying the rent for the losers filing all these frivolous complaints against Palin?
At least when Richard Mellon Scaife was funding investigations of Bill Clinton, we knew who Scaife was, he was an American citizen, and his money was accessible to U.S. tax authorities and not stashed in offshore accounts like a certain Hungarian Nazi-collaborator I can name.
How about some modern-day Scaife investigate the investigators?
If you’ve never read Peter Brimelow’s brilliant, 1995 book, Alien Nation, never studied immigration in America, and never perused the thousands of pages (i.e., millions of words) of material at VDARE, and want to get the quickest possible introduction to the immigration conflict, I doubt you could do better than to spend about 24 minutes watching the following three-part interview that Jake Jacobsen conducted last October 6 with VDARE founder (i.e., my editor) Peter Brimelow. No one knows more about immigration in America, how to explain it succinctly, and is willing to talk about it as honestly as Peter.
Brimelow-Jacobsen I
Brimelow-Jacobsen II
Brimelow-Jacobsen III
Now that you’ve watched the interview, your work has but begun. You can download a PDF version of Alien Nation for free here. Once you’re done reading that, you can start reading VDARE, as well as Blogs4Borders,Freedom Folks, Larry Auster’s A View from the Right and 24 Ahead. Those blogs and sites will provide you loads of links to yet other excellent outlets.
Sonia Sotomayor is waging war on “racism.” If you don’t believe me, just ask her. Why do blacks and Hispanics not do as well as whites on standardized tests? “Racism.” (Never mind about the Asians.) Why are more blacks and Hispanics in jail than whites? “Racism.” We can’t have capital punishment, either. As The Urban Grind observes, “Judge Sotomayor also believes that capital punishment is racist.”
The Urban Grind observes, as well, that Judge Sotomayor “believes that denying felons the right to votewhile they’re still in prison is racist.” During the 2000 Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, as the overlapping groups of Democratic operatives, white leftists, and black supremacists sought to steal the election after the fact, they employed at least two different strategies:
• Telling ever more exaggerated race hoax stories supporting their claim that Republican forces in Florida had stolen the election via the disenfranchisement of black voters (in reality, some of the black voters claiming disenfranchisement, at three segregated black colleges, were found to be guilty of vote fraud, through having voted twice, but none was prosecuted); and
• Projecting their contemporary hoax onto the past, by inventing a white conspiracy to disenfranchise blacks through denying felons the vote, after they had served out their sentences.
(According to the Miami Herald, some 5,000 convicted felons, 75 percent of whom were registered Democrats, illegally voted in Florida in 2000. To my knowledge, none of the felons who committed vote fraud was prosecuted, either, as Florida officials backed off, in the face of black racial demagoguery.)
Back then, the purpose of strategy #2 was to get all black felons who had finished their jail sentences reinstated as voters, under the assumption that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic. (It wasn’t clear whether they had to have actually finished their sentences, i.e., including their terms of parole or probation, meaning that the hoaxers likely sought to get the convicts’ franchise re-instated while they were still convicts.) The Village Voice even made this racist strategy explicit, with references to Marcus Garvey and black power.
The Urban Grind quotes Ben Johnson:
Sotomayor’s position came in a terse dissent to the 2006 case Hayden v. Pataki. The case argued that New York’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole is racist and thus unconstitutional. Its supporters made this argument on the grounds that “[m]ore than 80% of the New Yorkers disenfranchised…are Blacks or Latinos, who lose their right to vote at more than ten times the rate of other citizens.” Plaintiff Joseph “Jazz” Hayden, before he began his humanitarian crusade on behalf of the disenfranchised, was convicted in 1987 of stabbing a sanitation worker to death.Most Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with him, but Sotomayor found Hayden’s objection supported by the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act.
Her minority opinion (no pun intended) puts into perspective precisely what a judicial activist she is and how deeply concerns of ethnicity color her view of the law.
Johnson then enters into a scholarly discussion of the ancient Greek roots of the practice of disenfranchising felons, and shows that, contrary to racial socialists’ phony claims, in America the practice is older than the black franchise.
Note Sotomayor’s further radicalization beyond the 2000 talking point. Back then, forbidding ex-convicts to vote was “racist”; now, forbidding current convicts from voting is “racist.”
And one may not disagree with Sotomayor, et al. Merely disagreeing with these people is “racist.” Referring to them as “these people” is “racist,” too! Given Sotomayor’s documented viciousness from the bench, just imagine oral arguments in a Supreme Court on which she sat. It would be like a contemporary university faculty senate meeting!
In case anyone should accuse me of hyperbole, the practice whereby black and Hispanic racists and their white allies constantly harass whites with charges of “racism” regarding the most innocent, trivial linguistic usage, in order to continuously keep them on the defensive, is an over 20-year-old tradition.
(When Sotomayor’s critics argue that she lacks “judicial temperament,” they are implicitly making the same sort of character requirement of jurists that was a given in pre-affirmative action, pre-“diversity” higher education, back in those benighted days before “diverse” faculty and administrators had their own goon squads, with which to terrorize colleagues. In City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College (1994), James Traub showed how tenured black supremacist Leonard Jeffries used his personal goon squad—almost certainly at taxpayer expense—to physically intimidate people, including Traub, at the City College of New York. Thanks to thugs like Jeffries, and the jettisoning of all moral and academic standards, in a few short years, City College deteriorated from America’s most rigorous undergraduate college, to a racist, ghetto hellhole.
How long will it be, at this rate, before Supreme Court justices have personal goon squads, with which to “persuade” their fellow justices as to the power of their arguments?)
Note too Sotomayor’s rationale: By assuming that any law that “impacts disproportionately” on blacks’ or Hispanics’ versus whites’ voting rights (or, apparently, blacks’ or Hispanics’ murder rights) is racist, she is applying what is called “disparate impact” to voting rights (and the death penalty).
“Disparate impact” is the pseudo-scientific fig leaf that has been used since circa 1970 to cover the racist power grab that successfully, more often than not, illegally violated civil service law, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in order to racially discriminate against qualified whites and East Asians on behalf of radically unqualified blacks and Hispanics, destroy the merit system, and turn America into a system of racial spoils.
According to “disparate impact,” any government action, regardless of intent, that results in rewarding “protected classes” (initially blacks, then Hispanics and American Indians, now the handicapped and homosexuals, and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women) in a smaller proportion than it does non-protected classes (white, heterosexual men and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women), is discriminatory.
“Disparate impact” made the counter-factual assumptions that, absent discrimination, all racial (and due to political alliances since) and other demographic groups which, due to political expediency will be counted in a given situation, will have identical average IQs, test scores, grades, poverty rates, school and college graduation rates, crime rates, etc. (Those indices, such as professional sports, in which “protected classes” have disproportionately higher success rates than non-protected classes are either to be ignored or attributed to the virtues of the protected class in question. ‘Heads we win, tails you lose.’)
The combination of using “disparate impact” and screaming “racist!” (or “sexist!,” etc.) at every critic, and if those tactics didn’t work, firing, “whitelisting,” and/or assaulting him, ushered in a counter-scientific revolution. “Scholars” and lawyers no longer had to marshal evidence and prove intent. All they had to show was inequality of results, in order to “prove” their case.
The sophistry of “disparate impact” is central to the racial profiling myth. If it is declared unthinkable, the facts be damned, that blacks and Hispanics could commit crime at higher rates than whites, and whites are blamed for every social ill, higher rates of black and Hispanic imprisonment must necessarily be the fault of white racism.
These are the logical consequences of disparate impact dogma, which Sonia Sotomayor and “Barack Obama” both embrace. If we accept disparate impact’s backwards theory of the law, whereby the law’s legitimacy is determined after the fact, based on whether its enforcement results in parity of imprisonment between minorities and whites, there can be no criminal law. It must be jettisoned, while anti-white civil rights laws must be retained.
“Disparate impact” dogma demands that the worse blacks and Hispanics conduct themselves, the more whites and Asians must be punished, especially when the original black and Hispanic misconduct entailed victimizing whites and Asians! And there must be ever more blacks and Hispanics, and ever fewer whites and Asians. “Disparate impact” is a weapon of ultimately genocidal race war.
“Disparate impact” is incompatible with science or any rational, fair system of law. For Sonia Sotomayor, as for the man who nominated her, there is no law or science; there is only race war.
The message is clear: Whether you’re in America, Canada, Europe, Oz or once-merry England, anytime someone says your country is “A nation of (im)migrants,” reach for your pistol (or knife) with one hand, and your wallet with the other.
“Germany needs more ethnic minorities in its political system, the police and its courts, and has to do more to tackle racism in daily life, a UN special rapporteur said on Wednesday.
‘My visit has convinced me that much remains to be done,’ Githu Muigai, UN special rapporteur for racism, said after a 10-day fact-finding trip across the country.
People with a migrant background ‘are under-represented in important institutions, including the political system, the police and the courts,’ Muigai said.
Last November, the Greens became the first major party to elect a Turkish-German as leader, Cem Ozdemir, but ethnic minorities are generally a rarity in German politics, making up fewer than 15 national MPs.
Muigai, who was paying a routine visit to Germany, also said that due to the historical experience of Germany with Nazism, there is a ‘tendency to equate racism with extremist politics.’ [NS: What was it, then? A “fact-finding trip,” in preparation for a report, or a “routine visit”?)
‘I think that this great country needs to turn its attention to the problems of daily racism and discrimination, that is the racism and discrimination to be found in daily life in schools, public places, in housing, in employment etcetera,’ he said.
He added however that he was ‘encouraged by the open recognition by authorities that Germany is nowadays a country of migrants and that migrants make a positive contribution to society.’
Kenyan-born Muigai, special rapporteur since August, also said that far-right groups in Germany ‘demand constant vigilance’ and should be banned ‘within the constitutional legal mechanism provided by German law.’
Germany also needs to do more to speed up the processing of asylum-seekers, Muigai said.
Muigai said that his full report, due to be presented at the Human Rights Council in 2010, will also focus on the plight of Muslims in Germany following the increase in security measures aimed at tackling Islamic extremism….
A government study published in June found that Germany had between 3.8 and 4.3 million Muslims - between 4.6 and 5.2 percent of the population – much higher than the previous estimates of 3.1-3.4 million.”
Right. So, in other words, Germany and other Western countries fund an organisation which sends this man from a poor, badly governed backwater to tell them that they need more Third World colonists, must promote more colonists into vital positions regardless of ability, must accept that they are 'a nation of migrants', speed up the taxpayer-funded processes which allow colonists to remain one way or the other and accept that the colonisation is desirable, inevitable and irreversible.
Despite all the statistical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, of course.
But then, who cares what Germans think, especially in their own country? If they step out of line, ban them, jail them - why not use water cannon and live bullets?
It worked for Odinga, after all.
My favourite line is probably the one that contains “the plight of Muslims living in Germany”….
I lived in Germany for nine months, and had the misfortune to teach English in a heavily-immigrant school - I can tell you now that the only “plight” Muslims in Germany face is self-inflicted.
Of course Muigai feels that if Muslims are unhappy in Germany, then the latter should change to accommodate them - rather than the former adapting or leaving.
For my part, I am far more concerned about the plight of Germans and civilised immigrants who find themselves trapped in Muslim enclaves.
The Lambeth Walk notes the “joy Muslim colonists bring”: “A soaring crime rate and a demand for more cash and concessions,” and terrorists.
Muigai isn’t concerned about “migrants” (non-Moslems, 6.1 percent), let alone Germans (91.5 percent of citizens), but about the largely Turkish Moslem Fifth Columnists with German citizenship, reported at anywhere between 2.4 percent and 5.2 percent of the population. As The Lambeth Walk observed, Muigai demands that Germans be disenfranchised and dispossessed in their own country, and persecuted, if they complain about what is being done to them.
Muigai wants Moslems “represented” in “important institutions,” including “the political system, the police and the courts," and engagement with “the problems of daily racism and discrimination,” in order to effect a vicious circle:
1. Privileging Moslems, by giving them a veto right hamstringing all German institutions;
2. Bringing about accelerated Moslem in-migration and naturalization;
3. Waging demographic war through astronomical Moslem birth rates vs. the German rate, which has for generations been under replacement level (paid for by the Germans, natch); and
4. Repeat cycle, with every step worse than the previous run, until the Moslems take over, and institute Sharia.
You won’t see Muigai going to countries like the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, or Kuwait, and announcing that they are “nations of migrants,” even though those three countries rank #1, 3, and 4, respectively, in rates of net in-migration, because they are Moslem. He’d be arrested. Say what you will about Islam, Moslems don’t cotton to furriners coming into their countries and disrespecting them. Americans used to have that sort of self-respect.
If Muigai’s routine sounds familiar, that’s because it’s Made in America. The communists used Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement, in order to mainstream communism, while King, et al., used communism, er, liberalism, in order to mainstream black racism. The movement was later re-branded as “multiculturalism,” which first showed up in educationist propaganda in 1970. In the interests of clarity, I call it, racial socialism.
As the consequences of the 1965 Immigration Act began kicking in, the “racism” attack against critics was extended to any American who believed in American sovereignty, and then exported to the Anglosphere and Western Europe.
Critics will counter, “But Islam isn’t a race.” True enough, but most Moslems are racists, most are non-white, and all over the Western world (and not just the Western world), they target whites for rape, murder, and dispossession, based on the color of their skin.
I lived in the former West Germany for over five years (1980-1985), and while I had a few brushes with anti-Semitism, Left and Right, including getting sucker-punched by an old Nazi, I have many fond memories of the place. I’d hate to see it destroyed.
Don Feder is a really bright Republican writer, which is to say, he often subordinates his intelligence to his loyalty to the Stupid Party. Case in point: His May 13 column, “NY Times Hides Blame in Mortgage Market Collapse.”
In a story today, The New York Times tries to explain the subprime lending crisis and why so many minority mortgages ended up in default. But full disclosure would have implicated the Democrats.
The paper notes that there have been higher default rates for blacks and Hispanics than whites. That’s because, in the boom years of mortgage lending, minorities were more likely to get subprime loans. The Times reports that in 2006, 17.5% of white homeowners got subprime (below the prevailing interest rate) mortgages, compared to 52.8% of blacks and 44.9% of Hispanics.
Because these were loans to borrowers who — in many cases — lacked the ability to repay them, when they defaulted, it had a ripple effect on the housing market and the banking industry.
The Times neglects to tell us the political origins of the crisis. It was the paper’s favorite party that forced these risky practices on lenders.
In 1977, Congressional Democrats decided that low rates of minority homeownership were due to discrimination. With the Community Reinvestment Act, they insisted that lending institutions had an “affirmative obligation” to meet the “credit needs” of the communities in which they were chartered
Regulators begin using minority lending as a criterion for approving mergers, acquisitions and branch openings. All of this exerted enormous pressure for banks to make high-risk loans.
“Regulators begin using minority lending as a criterion for approving mergers, acquisitions…”? That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, it was from my VDARE colleague, Steve Sailer, last year, in his ongoing series and budding book on the Minority Mortgage Meltdown/Diversity Depression (MMM/DD). But Steve hasn’t been content only to smack around Democrats; he has repeatedly smacked around the GOP as well, pointing out that it was George W. Bush, beginning in 2002, who aggressively pushed lenders to throw all credit standards to the wind, where uncreditworthy, non-Asian minority borrowers were concerned.
When you tell only one side of the story, you peddle half-truths, and as the old saw says, “A half-truth is a whole lie.”
I suggest that readers contact Feder, to demand he give Sailer credit, and tell the whole story about the MMM/DD. Feder has a column, “Boycott the New York Times,” published by Accuracy in Media. When he started writing for AIM, he left no link to reach him, but he has since rectified that: He can be reached at Boycott the New York Times.
Reed Irvine
Accuracy in Media was founded in 1969 by one of my journalistic heroes, Reed Irvine, may he rest in peace, who practically invented the field of leftwing media bias criticism. I actually got to meet Irvine in October 2002, at an AIM conference at which I was one of the featured speakers. (I gave a speech on the Steven Hatfill case, on a panel that included Hatfill, the latter’s friend and spokesman, Pat Clawson, and anthrax sleuth Ken Dillon. Irvine’s other organization, Accuracy in Academia, which he founded in 1985, also published two of my articles ten years ago.) Just from that conference, I can tell you that Reed Irvine was an old Marine who was a perfect gentleman, had perfect comic timing and the rare ability to nail a joke with a long lead-in.
I believe that Irvine, who was by trade an economist at the Fed, got his “journalism training” at the same place I got mine, the good, old American University of Can-Do.
Reed Irvine got hit with a massive stroke on December 30, 2003, and died on November 16, 2004, at the age of 82.
AIM has since been run by his son, Don, who serves as its president, and Cliff Kincaid, who had come aboard a few years earlier, and serves as editor of the The AIM Report. I’ve been familiar with Kincaid’s work since the early aughts. He has always been a conservative patriot who has uncompromisingly defended America’s sovereignty, and been independent of all parties. Thus, this is an odd turn.
(Like Reed Irvine, Cliff Kincaid is an anti-communist, which their MSM opponents, who have mocked them as “conspiracy theorists,” consider hilarious. Ask any lefty, and he’ll tell you that there are no communists, only good “liberals” and “progressives” maligned by “deranged” rightwingers.)
A number of months ago, I sought to reach AIM, but found that them unreachable. They want you to go through their in-house flack. Actually, I have some old AIM addresses buried somewhere, but the corporate-style cyber-cocooning burned me, so I didn’t bother.
When you have a party hack trying to stir up populist anger against an institution of the other party, while using state-of-the-art technology and PR flacks to wall himself off from his readers, you’re treading dangerously on the precipice of astroturfing. What would Reed Irvine say about that, if he were still alive?
I’m not writing this as an antagonist; rather, I revere the memory of Reed Irvine, still find AIM a valuable site, and hope to encourage it to mend the errors of its increasingly corporate ways.
(This is a re-run from April. We in the Stix household viewed John Wayne's swan song, The Shootist, twice over Independence Day weekend, but that's another essay.)
We in the Stix household recently watched the classic John Wayne western, True Grit. In Wayne’s unsentimental yet raffishly charming portrayal, protagonist Marshal Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn is an occasional coward, occasional thief, occasional perjurer, maybe even an occasional murderer, and a full-time drunk. But Rooster Cogburn has grit.
Cogburn may be a fictional character, but he is a recognizable type to anyone familiar with American history, by which I do not mean the propaganda currently promoted in our schools and universities.
In this country, men with grit and greatness—most of whom were not cowards, thieves, perjurers or murderers, though quite a few were drunks—used to practically sprout out of the soil like corn. America’s first census, in 1790, showed a combined three million freemen and slaves, and yet there was probably more greatness then than there is now, with 100 times as many warm bodies.
Well, I’m not George Washington, and you’re not Thomas Jefferson; we can only try and be the best we can be. But we have to try!
Various powers aim to rob Americans of their patrimony. VDARE.com aims, as one of the leading forces in the patriotic immigration reform movement, to stop them. Will you join in helping us, with a tax-deductible donation?
History for Patriots—or Traitors?
My son recently turned nine. When he started school, in pre-K, I resolved not to fight with his teachers, until he was along a decent piece. No use confusing the child. And the public school he attends is one of the most patriotic in New York. Whereas school administrators on Manhattan’s Upper West Side would have kids sing the “Internationale” or kneel facing Mecca before they’d have them say the Pledge of Allegiance, every day at assembly at my boy’s school, they say the Pledge and sing Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America.”
But the books the children are given to read are often another story, entirely.
During the First Grade my son, then six, had a wonderful young teacher, just a couple of years out of teacher’s college. As I later told her, I was glad that she didn’t have any kids of her own yet (and, though I kept it to myself, glad that she wasn’t a party girl), because once she did, she wouldn’t be able to devote herself completely to her pupils. She smiled and nodded in agreement.
But some of the books my son was bringing home from school were abominations which had to be contradicted. One, that was assigned for class, claimed that (white) Americans, in their terrible wastefulness—in contrast to the Indians—had almost killed off the bald eagle. As if the Congresses that passed conservation laws were full of Indians! And what was the racial background of that great conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt? (I don’t know if my son’s teacher or the head of social studies assigned that book, and I’d just as soon not know.)
At about the same time, my son brought home an oversized, illustrated library book that portrayed the Indians as angels, and the white man as a cut-throat savage.
That did it. I ranted against that book to my son, and purchased the 1956 John Ford masterpiece, The Searchers, which we watched together. In that story, Indians massacre a settler family. They scalp the husband, rape and scalp the mother, murder their little daughter, and kidnap their beautiful, teenaged daughter, Debby (Natalie Wood). The husband’s brother, Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) and half-breed, adopted son, Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter), set off to find Debby and bring her back. It takes years, but they rescue her.
The thing about The Searchers is that, unlike the supposedly non-fiction book my son had brought home, it was based on the true story of Cynthia Ann Parker. (Unfortunately, the Comanche had kidnapped Parker for so long—25 years—and married her off to a Comanche leader, so that when she was found, she no longer knew English, had two children, and did not want to return to her family. PC biographies now speak of her as having been “adopted” by the Comanche.)
In its Golden Age, Hollywood was never known as a reliable source of history, but those old pictures are today often more accurate than the “history” books that are foisted on our children.
I want my son to grow up loving and honoring his country, but first he’s got to have a country. If this nation’s policies—policies promoted, for different motives, by Right and Left elites alike—continue apace, not only will America soon be a nation unfit to be loved, but it won’t be a nation at all. Giving schoolchildren anti-American propaganda is meant to sap their wills, so that they won’t have the necessary desire to fight for their country that had my late Uncle Irwin Simpkins, later a mild-mannered, college librarian in civilian life, enlist in the Army for World War II, and re-up for the Korean War. (What about me, you ask? Four months after the last chopper took off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, I turned 17 and volunteered for the Regular Army. I may have set a record for the most possible ways a man can flunk an Army physical.)
VDARE.com does not promote itself as a history site, but its writers must often treat of historical issues, because so much of anti-American propaganda involves lying about the past, in order to conquer and enslave the American people now and in the future. And since the movement to destroy America has long employed the means of race war, it manufactures a steady stream of racist, anti-white propaganda.
Let’s return to True Grit for a moment. The area where it was shot, in Ouray County, Colorado, already had some period buildings, such as the Ouray County Courthouse, built in 1888, and the movie crew either constructed or converted some Western buildings in the style of the period, in the towns of Ouray and Ridgway. Ridgway preserved quite a few of them. In her short documentary, True Grit: Then and Now, “JeepsterGal” will show a building or a rock in a movie scene, and then show the same landmark now, in most cases looking exactly the same, 40 years later. And the countryside in the San Juan Mountains that dominate Ouray County (542 square miles, present population, 3,800), and where most of the outdoor scenes were shot, is as spectacular now as it was then.
But imagine what the area might look like in a generation, in an America with between 500 million and one billion people. Instead of being virtually unsettled, it could have hundreds of thousands of people living in semi-attached and attached homes and apartment buildings, with the only reminders of places like Owl Creek Pass and Deb’s Meadow the street signs, strip malls, and highways named after them.
You might think that environmental groups like the Sierra Club—which until 1996 pledged its support for population stabilization—would fight to protect America’s natural treasures, but as Brenda Walker’sVDARE exposés revealed, the Sierra Club was bought off for $100 million by hedge fund entrepreneur and Open Borders fanatic, David Gelbaum.
The fox is guarding the henhouse.
No Americans Welcome!
Someone might counter, “Well, at least we’ve still got our national parks!”
Not really. As Brenda Walker has also detailed in reports over the years, America’s most beautiful national parks have for over ten years increasingly been stolen and plundered by illegal Mexican immigrant drug gangs, the franchisees in El Norte of Mexico’s narcoterrorists, who have taken over large swathes of the parks for the cultivation of marijuana, and turned them into no-go zones for the Americans who pay for their upkeep, and who are their owners. But in addition to stealing our parks, the harm spreads to ten times the area actually cultivated:
These Mexican marijuana messes are an ecological disaster. They are not innocent little plots that leave a minimal footprint. They are industrial grow sites, toxic stews where the gangsters use dangerous and illegal chemical herbicides, pesticides and growth hormones that result in long-lasting environmental damage.
When Americans, the owners of those national parks, visit them, they increasingly take their lives in their hands. As Brenda just reported today, two campers in Santa Barbara’s Aliso Park area, west of New Cuyama, barely escaped an April 17 encounter with alleged narcoterrorists with their lives. (Aren’t we always hearing that drug offenders are non-violent?!) The campers stumbled onto a marijuana patch being tended by two “immigrants.” When the “immigrants,” who spoke only Spanish, gestured to the campers to wait for “Boss,” the campers fled in their vehicle. They barely escaped a chase by two men in a truck equipped with five high-powered rifles. Police went back to the crime scene, and arrested the men in the truck.
Local parks are also being stolen and destroyed. In 2007, VDARE’s Steve Sailer observed Los Angeles’ “public” Hansen Dam Park, which had been seized from the American taxpayers, and privatized by illegal aliens from Mexico, who made no tax contribution to its support, and who wrecked it. They buried the grass in garbage and excrement, set fires that caused massive damage, brought in horses that were illegal, unhealthy, and extremely dangerous, in an area jammed with families and many small children, for an illegal trade selling rides for kids.
Where were the police, you ask? In his pioneering, postmodern/New Age/PC management style mixing sanctuary policy and de-policing, LAPD Chief William Bratton had long ago ordered the police to surrender most public space to the criminal invaders. Bratton, a Boston-born and raised carpetbagger himself, had earlier announced that if any native Los Angelenos didn’t like illegal immigration, they should leave the state. And millions of native Californians, including VDARE’s own Joe Guzzardi, have called Bratton’s bluff!
Meanwhile, that man presently occupying the White House just announced that he will seek to pass an illegal immigrant amnesty in his first year in office, just as I predicted he would in February.
America is currently well on the way to the worst economic depression in her history, with 6.14 million jobless workers receiving unemployment benefits, millions more having exhausted their benefits (and no longer being counted by official unemployment figures), additional millions underemployed, and millions more soon to lose their jobs, at a current rate of over 600,000 per month. Not only would a chief executive seeking to bring about an economic recovery never dream of pushing for a mass amnesty, but he would be undertaking accelerated mass deportations, so as to rid America of the multibillion-dollar welfare, education, and criminal justice costs that illegals incur, and to put an end to their stealing of jobs from American citizens and legal immigrants alike. Instead, that man wants to amnesty over 22 million illegal aliens?! And just who will pay for these illegals? If he gets his way, you and I will. In perpetuity.
Of course, the amnestisiacs are lowballing the numbers, claiming that only 12 million illegals are in play. Only. They always lowball the numbers and the costs.
The real numbers are closer to 30 million illegals, because the over 22 million I cited above have several million illegal children who were born here, and whom a rogue federal judiciary has redefined from illegal immigrants (per the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment), to native-born American citizens.
But for the Usurper-in-Chief, an illegal alien amnesty is only the beginning.
In a 2007 interview, “Obama” told NPR’s Farai Chideya that as far as he is concerned, any immigrant who is a descendant of slaves or who came from anyplace in the world that had ever been under colonial rule has an eternal and unlimited claim against America (though not in exactly those words), which to him means white Americans.
“I mean, you know, black people didn't end up in the Caribbean by taking a yacht there. They came on slave ships. Back in Africa, my grandfather was a cook for the British army and suffered under the colonialism there.”
Never mind that colonial rule was often the only bright spot in such misbegotten nations’ history. Never mind that in Kenya, “Obama’s” paternal grandfather benefited tremendously from colonialism. “Obama” has instead fabricated a bizarro universe history, in which his grandfather “suffered” under colonialism.
Look for “Obama” to seek to airlift in millions of sub-Saharan African “refugees,” the lower their IQs—the average in black Africa is 67 or 70, depending on whose research you read—and the less suited for modern life, the better.
What is his goal? In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, “Obama” says that his father’s dreams are his dreams. Fortunately for us, his father had clearly detailed his dreams in 1965, in an academic paper entitled, “Problems Facing Our Socialism.”
Barack Obama Sr. expressed his rage at seeing that virtually all private property in Kenya was owned by whites and Asians (Indians). His solution: Use the government to steal every last inch of it from them. The elder Obama also suggested possibly levying a tax rate of 100 percent—a rate of confiscation twice as bad as under American chattel slavery—as a realistic option.
Such a mad plan might make a sort of sense coming from a racist, petulant child lacking the slightest grasp of economics, but Obama Sr. had a master’s degree in economics from Harvard! (How did he ever manage that?)
Obama Sr. does at one point acknowledge that seizing the businesses of experienced, capable white and Asian businessmen, and turning them over to black men lacking both in business experience and aptitude might not be economically fruitful, but emphasizes that he doesn’t care. The elder Obama was motivated purely by the politics of hate, and that is the motive now in charge in the Oval Office.
VDARE.com was founded at Christmastime 1999, by that wandering Englishman, Peter Brimelow. Peter had seen socialism and mass immigration destroy his native land, and bilingualism and biculturalism slowly destroying Canada. Peter fell in love with America, became a naturalized citizen, and didn’t want to see her destroyed, too.
Peter may not be riding a horse with the reins in his teeth, guns ablaze, and he’s not a drunk. But he’s a real man, not a movie character.
Actually, if you’re old enough to recall a kinder, gentler time when academics were scholars, rather than self-styled community organizers, Peter gives the impression, in person, of an absent-minded professor. But impressions aside, I think he has grit. And there’s no man whom I would rather have my back in a barfight.
More to the point, unlike Rooster Cogburn, Peter can’t hold up a federal paymaster or a bank, whenever he needs a “road stake” for VDARE. He needs your help. Please give generously to VDARE.
I realize that times are hard. But they’re going to get harder. I’ve written at least 11 previous fundraising appeals for VDARE, without ever employing such dramatic language, but if we can’t fight off this next amnesty push… I’ll leave the future to your imagination.
Spoiler alert: The last four minutes of the 11:32 video that follows show the movie’s climactic gunfight and fadeout. If you’ve yet to see True Grit, you might want to pass on seeing those scenes just now.
But whether or not you watch the documentary, you should first mosey on down to VDARE.com’s donation page here, to make a tax-deductible donation to The VDARE Foundation, the 501(c)(3) non-profit that operates VDARE. Thank you for your generous support.
VDARE editor-publisher Peter Brimelow has commissioned and published much of my most ambitious work, and is one of the few serious publishers who is standing up to the man who presently is holding the White House under an illegal occupation.
This is Peter Brimelow, one of the good guys. Peter talks with an almost impenetrable accent, because he was born in England, but he's an American citizen, and loves America more than most native Americans do. Besides, I don't hate immigrants. Heck, I liked one so much, I married her!
This guy, who is definitely not one of the good guys, looks like a minister from the Nation of Islam. (I don't think he is, but with him, you can never be too sure.) I’m not sure what his real name is, or what country he was born in, but I do know at least one of his aliases.
I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.
