|
|
|
|
|
Media Watch
Christopher Donovan
The White Elephants of
Frank Rich
May 7, 2008 For today's mainstream media something is illegitimate by virtue of being all-white. Needless to say, something that's all-black or all-Hispanic is vivid, authentic and inspiring; anything all-white is stultifying, boring and evil.
The New York Times' Frank Rich, a Jewish liberal, complains Sunday that of the Republican Party's 247 senators and representatives in the Congress, all are white. This, Rich says, is "the elephant in the room of our politics" and is "rarely acknowledged". More on that in a second.
Rich's piece begins with a lengthy and flaccid complaint that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the black supremacist preacher and spiritual mentor to Barack Obama, gets far more attention than the anti-Catholic and fanatical Christian Zionist Rev. John Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain and whose antics are also caught on YouTube. (Hagee's anti-Catholic animosity seems directed at the Church for what he sees as the Church's misbehavior against the Jews.)
It's a sorry attempt at a comparison for reasons that are 1) almost too obvious to get into (McCain doesn't go to Hagee's church) and 2) blogged about already by countless liberals. It makes you wonder what justifies Frank Rich's paycheck. [more] Canada is a police state May 9, 2008
Eds.: Kathy Shaidle's Vdare article on the Canadian thought police is an excellent summary of the horrifying regime of political correctness that reigns in Canada. One incident is particularly striking. Richard Warman, who has made a career of bringing complaints to the Canadian Human Human Rights Commission (CHRC), was accused of stifling free speech by Paul Fromm. For example, Fromm wrote that Warman was "the high priest of censorship" and "the mortal enemy of free speech and free thought."
Warman then sued Fromm for defamation and won. The judge ruled that because Mr. Warman was acting legally in bringing complaints to the CHRC and because he had always been successful in these complaints, therefore he could not be reasonably accused of acting to stifle free speech.
There is an indisputable, thoroughly Orwellian logic to this. Canada has in fact outlawed certain types of speech. That's what the CHRC is all about. Mr. Warman, in collaborating with the CHRC, could not possibly be guilty of stifling free speech because the types of speech Warman is complaining about are not in fact allowed. One is not free to say these things.
Get it? In the opinion of the court, Warman could presumably be reasonably described as stifling illegal speech, but to say that he is stifling free speech is simply incorrect. Ergo, what Fromm wrote was defamatory. Pay up.
Perhaps Fromm should have phrased his complaints a bit differently: Warman (and the CHRC) are acting to stifle certain thoughts when they are expressed publicly. Minimally, at least some of the thoughts frowned on by Warman and the CHRC are completely reasonable and should be allowed in any civilized society. And first among such thoughts should be that criticism of the behavior of groups should be tolerated. It should be possible to criticize, say, the behavior of the organized Jewish community (which strongly supports the CHRC). And people should be able to note that in general Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into Western societies, or that blacks have lower academic achievement even after controlling for socioeconomic factors.
But Canada is now a police state, so don't even think about it. Literally. First They Came For… Canadian "Hate Speech" Totalitarianism Is Not NewVdare May 6, 2008
[article] Patrick J. Buchanan's "The Way Our World Ends"
Eds.: As usual, Pat Buchanan puts his finger on the critical problem. Basing his comments on a report from the National Policy Institute, Buchanan notes that whites are ceding territory to other groups and failing to replace themselves.
Low fertility by itself would not be a disaster if whites continued to control their ancestral homelands and other territories they have dominated since their expansion out of Europe.
But quite clearly white control of their traditional homelands is in dire jeopardy. White societies have been defenseless against this onslaught, largely as a result of the triumph in the West of the political and cultural left. At the present time throughout the West, voices advocating an end to immigration into Western countries and programs of repatriation of non-white immigrants are silenced with all the power that the forces of political correctness can muster.
Having a sense of white identity and white interests has been relegated to the political fringe even though having an ethnic identity and a sense of ethnic interests is absolutely normal for all other peoples.
There is simply no public debate about these issues even though polls indicate that most white people are deeply anxious about the changes that are being foisted on them by political and cultural elites. As Buchanan points out, most Americans want to protect their culture and restrict immigration. But all of the presidential candidates [and, one might add, elites in the media and academic world] want to make millions of illegal aliens into U.S. citizens. Ending legal immigration isn't even on the table.
According to Buchanan, these trends are now irreversible: "Western Europe’s populations are being sustained by immigrants from the Maghreb and Middle East, Asia and Africa — and the baby boom among these black and brown peoples is lifting and changing the face of the Old Continent forever."
We're not as pessimistic. The same people who dominated and shaped the world for the last 500 years still have the energy and creativity to shape the future in a way that would secure their place among the peoples of the world. They are a sleeping giant that needs only to throw off the yoke of the political and cultural elites who have betrayed their interests over the last 50 years. Never say "forever".
Excerpts: An Augusta, Ga., group, The National Policy Institute, has meshed the figures on fertility rates with the continents and races on Planet Earth — to visualize what the world will look like in 2060.
In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world’s population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent.
More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in real terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth — a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany — will vanish by 2060.
The Caucasian race is going the way of the Mohicans. ...
Fleshing out the NPI picture is the U.N. population survey of mid-2007 that points to the 21st century disappearance of Western Man.
By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million. Such losses dwarf what Hitler and Stalin together did to these countries. ...
Western Europe’s populations are being sustained by immigrants from the Maghreb and Middle East, Asia and Africa — and the baby boom among these black and brown peoples is lifting and changing the face of the Old Continent forever. Islam is returning to Iberia, Italy and the Balkans. The Third World is coming to colonize the mother countries.
And America? According to the Pew Research Center, the Hispanic population of the United States will triple to 127 million by 2050, as Mexico’s population grows to 130 million. An erasure of the U.S. border, or merger of the two countries, or the linguistic, cultural and social annexation of the American Southwest by Mexico appears fated.
Yet, last October, in another Pew poll of 45,000 people in 47 countries, a majority in 46 expressed fear of a loss of their traditional culture.
Sixty-two percent of Americans told Pew we should do more to protect our way of life. Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration. Yet all three presidential candidates voted amnesty for the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens.
Hopefully, the peoples of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who are about to inherit the earth as we pass away, will treat us better than our ancestors treated them in the five centuries that Western Man ruled the world.
Otherwise, we all go out with a bang. [article] Notes from Quebec
Hasidic Jews take a hit! April 11, 2008
Surprise! An extremely courageous Quebec Court of Appeal has just castigated a colony of Hasidic Jews (nope, not Mormons, not Baptists, not Christian evangelicals, but JEWS!) and denied their attempt to use “freedom of religion” as an excuse for not adhering to a small Quebec town’s municipal regulations.
Can you imagine? A unanimous three-judge court upheld a previous Quebec Superior Court’s equally courageous decision and declared that a congregation of 200 odd Hasidic Jews had exhibited bad faith, evasion, false declarations, deliberate omissions, deceptive behavior, dissimulation, and, in contrast to the extreme patience of the municipality, a disloyal attitude. This decision was thoroughly celebrated by Marie-Andrée Chouinard in an editorial in Le Devoir, Quebec’s thankfully independent newspaper. (The Montreal Gazette, owned by the Jewish Asper family of CanWest, simply reported a few basic facts.) [more] Eds.: Jewish Double Standards Department A consistent theme of Jewish behavior is its lack of principle. That is, there is a long list of behaviors in which Jews exhibit double standards. In the contemporary world, this is most obvious with respect to Israel — a point that has been noted in these pages several times. This fits well with the general clichè that for Jews policies are evaluated according to whether they are "Good for the Jews" rather than whether they conform to moral principle. As Alison Weir notes in the following Op-Ed, what is good for the Jews in Israel is quite different from what is good for Jews in the U.S., and therefore Jews have quite different values in the two countries.
She also discusses the fact that Israel does not have a constitution. It's really the same point: Constitutions, like moral principles, limit flexibility in the pursuit of interest. However, if a constitution is in place, as in the United States, the strategy is to mold it so that it conforms to Jewish interests. For example, it is well known that Jewish activists have successfully altered the standard interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to conform to Jewish interests in Church-State relations.
What Our Taxes to Israel are Funding Alison Weir, of If Americans Knew, writing in the Greenwich Citizen. April 4, 2008
While US media almost never report this, the fact is that their religions are routinely disparaged, their economic situation is far inferior, their children are taught in school that Jewish culture is superior to all others, and periodically there are outright attacks on their institutions and texts -- in 1980 hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly and ceremonially burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of a Jewish organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions. Today, thousands of Muslims and Christians under Israeli occupation are prevented from worshiping in their holiest churches and mosques.
I am continually astounded at the stance of people such as Rabbi Hurvitz, who support Israeli discriminatory practices. It seems to me that either one is against discrimination based on race, religion, and ethnicity, or one is not. It seems a bit hypocritical – or at least to reveal that one's behavior is governed by interest rather than principle – to be for such practices when one benefits, and against them when one does not.
It seems that when Rabbi Hurvitz is a member of a minority (Jewish Americans constitute approximately two percent of the American population) he applauds a secular state in which the majority religion relinquishes its traditional symbols and culture in the name of freedom of religion. When he is a member of the majority, on the other hand, he advocates a state where a religious symbol is on the very flag itself, and where individuals must carry ID cards denoting their religious background. . Second, it is odd that Rabbi Hurvitz brings up the Constitution, given that Israel itself has deliberately chosen not to adopt one – a far cry from the US system, in which fundamental principles and rights were codified at the very beginning of our national existence and can only be modified through a long and tedious process of public involvement. [more]
|
The “W-Word”
Greg Johnson
May 10, 2008
So there is a dirtier word than "Nigger," and that word is "white."
How else to explain the political establishment's consternation over Hillary Clinton's statement in a USA Today interview that she is more electable than Barack Obama because she has more support from working-class white people?
This, according to a Democratic Party leader quoted by Peggy Noonan, is "unleashing the gates of hell." According to an Obama supporter quoted by Noonan, "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white, even with the Southern strategy."
Noonan herself adds, “To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is—well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”
How dare you, Hillary? How dare you speak the dirty W-word?
Of course there is a glaring double standard here. Blacks, Jews, Mestizos, and other ethnic minorities are strongly conscious of themselves as distinct groups with distinct interests
— interests that often conflict with those of the white majority. None of these groups have any compunction about pursuing their interests, even at the expense of the white majority. Moreover, they select their leaders based on the strength of their ethnic consciousness and their willingness to pursue their collective interests.
But, according to Noonan, “If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over.” We whites, you see, are the only group that is not allowed to think of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests. We are the only group that is not allowed to select leaders based on their membership in our group and their commitment to our interests.
We whites are the race that dare not speak its name.
Instead, we whites are supposed to pretend that we do not exist as a people, but only as adherents of the abstract "color-blind" ideology of human equality. In the name of that ideology, we have to give away our wealth and power, debase our standards, corrupt our culture and institutions, and reduce ourselves to a minority. We have to do this any time members of selfish, race-conscious groups like Jews, blacks, Mestizos, etc. demand something from us, as long as they cloak their demands in the language of equality.
What kind of people has to surrender everything to others, upon demand? A conquered people. We whites have to behave as a conquered people in our own country. If we persist in this long enough, of course, we will physically cease to exist as a people. We will succumb to miscegenation, demographic collapse, or outright mass murder, as conquered and enslaved peoples often do.
Obama’s white supporters want to believe that his candidacy transcends race. They hope that by electing a black man president, they will absolve themselves of the burden of spurious “white guilt” that they have accepted. They hope that electing a black president will cause blacks to stop hating them and America. They hope that an articulate, intelligent black president will finally induce blacks to set aside their sullenness, resentment, and excuse-making and actually participate in American society. And, since deep-down most liberal whites are quite uncomfortable with the majority of blacks, they hope that president Obama will be the role model who will finally get the gangbangers, crack heads, and welfare queens to abandon the bad manners, foul language, cornrows, gold teeth, doo-rags, silly names, and criminal mayhem and become like the blacks they see on TV.
Obama and his black supporters have no such illusions. Although Obama is half-black and half-white, he makes it clear in his books and speeches that he is obsessed with blackness and black authenticity. And the arbiters of black authenticity are not the “Oreos” white liberals celebrate, but the "inner city youths" that haunt their nightmares. An Obama administration would not be about transcending race, but about black authenticity and black empowerment. It would be the corruption, chaos, and buffoonery of the black city governments in Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington D.C., and Detroit writ large. With nukes. And “color-blind” whites will hand them the button.
As long as whites, and only whites, are not allowed to think of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, the ultimate result will be white dispossession. Imagine a card game where the whole country is the stake. Each ethnic group has a hand and a stack of chips, but only non-whites get a trump: the “race card.” No matter how huge the white pile of chips is at the beginning, as long as we play under those rules, we will eventually be left with nothing in the end.
Hillary Clinton is resisting white dispossession (well, just her own dispossession, but it is a start) in the only way possible: appealing to latent but real white racial consciousness and solidarity. And the establishment — and Republican lickspittles will trample and claw to take the lead on this matter — is in a frenzy to quash this insurrection.
The greatest threat to the establishment, after all, is frank discussion of white racial identity and interests along with the identities and interests of non-white groups.
The rule today is: If a black man wants something, whitey has to defer. Liberals were all for this, when the blacks only wanted those people's wealth, power, and prerogatives. You know who those people are: White males, particularly Southern, rural, working or middle class white males; putative Republicans; the ungrateful, narrow-minded, backward peasants and cannon-fodder in “flyover country”; the “rednecks” who claim that they are losing their jobs and futures to “illegal aliens” and “less qualified affirmative action candidates.” Extra points off for having more than two children or being serious about Christianity.
But now that a black man wants to ascend to the pinnacle of power, to which Hillary Clinton feels entitled (and, let's be honest, she is certainly much more qualified than Obama), Hillary will not quietly defer to the "less-qualified affirmative action candidate." Hillary Clinton has revealed that she is one Honky who is not going to back down. You go, girl!
It only takes a change of consciousness to halt white dispossession. Once whites awaken to the fact that they are a distinct group with distinct interests in competition with other groups, with incompatible interests, everything changes. We will refuse to play a game that we can only lose.
As liberals are constantly lecturing us, disadvantaged groups need "role models" to change their way of thinking. Could Hillary Clinton actually become a role model for feisty, active white racial consciousness? There have been greater ironies in history.
Thank goodness Hillary Clinton is selfish, ambitious, and doesn’t really believe her professed liberal egalitarian multiculturalism. Thank goodness she has a self-righteous sense of entitlement that cannot be dissolved in the acid of "white guilt."
This white woman will actually fight a black man for something valuable.
I wish more white people were like Hillary Clinton.
Permanent link: Johnson-White
Needs Saying
Virginia Abernethy
Population growth combined with immigration will lead to ethnic divisions
May 1, 2008
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in a speech yesterday that rising population around the world will lead to immigration into Western societies as well as increased racial and ethnic division.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Irresponsibly growing populations worldwide are a US problem only if we allow them to become so.
Civil wars abroad are a US problem only if we continue seeing ourselves as the world’s policemen. World policeman is an unrealistic role for us. Our resources are stretched too thin while unmet needs at home continue growing.
Immigration pressure is also a problem that we can deal with expeditiously. The laws to protect the border and monitor airport and port arrivals and departures are in place. Only ICE and Homeland Security incompetence prevent the US from stopping the illegal alien invasion of our country, and ridding ourselves of illegal aliens now here. Given the Bush Administration's record on immigration, this incompetence is quite possibly a deliberate strategy to undermine the popular will.
Congressional action to legislate a 10-year immigration moratorium would complete the required legal foundation for keeping worldwide population pressure from impacting the United States.
None of the three front-running presidential candidates come close to recognizing the worldwide population emergency or what the U.S. must do to protect itself, its people, jobs, environment, and standard of living. Congressman Ron Paul, GOP dark horse, is very close to solutions.
Today, Congressman Ron Paul’s newly-published book, Revolution: The Manifesto, reached No. 1 on Amazon. The last chance to select him as the GOP standard bearer will come at the National Convention in Minneapolis.
CIA
Chief Sees Unrest Rising With Population
Washington Post
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Swelling populations and a global tide of immigration will present new
security challenges for the United States by straining resources and
stoking extremism and civil unrest in distant corners of the globe, CIA
Director Michael V. Hayden said in a
speech yesterday.
The population surge could undermine the stability of some of the
world's most fragile states, especially in Africa, while in the West,
governments will be forced to grapple with ever larger immigrant
communities and deepening divisions over ethnicity and race, Hayden
said.
Hayden, speaking at Kansas State University, described the projected 33
percent growth in global population over the next 40 years as one of
three significant trends that will alter the security landscape in the
current century. By 2050, the number of humans on Earth is expected to
rise from 6.7 billion to more than 9 billion, he said. [more]
The Absolut World ad: Memories of white ethnonationalism
April 14, 2008
Eds.: Gregory Rodriguez's op-ed (Absolut Canard, L. A.
Times, April 14) reminds us that there was a time when whites had a sense of racial pride and a sense that the United States was theirs. Rodriguez writes:
Here in the U.S., our nationality is not supposed to be defined by ethnicity
or race. But for much of our history, it was. Despite our diversity, the U.S.
was long in the grip of white racial nationalism, which held that only whites
were true citizens of this land. By the early 19th century, many white
Americans believed that they were members of a superior Anglo-Saxon "race"
destined to shape the world. The nonwhites they encountered on their way were
deemed inferior and doomed to subordination or extinction.
It so happens that it was during early conflicts with Mexico that Americans
began to understand territorial expansion in racial terms. Rather than view
the Texas Revolution of 1836 as a struggle by aggrieved American colonists
against tyrannical rule in Mexican territory, white Americans largely saw it
as a racial clash. As historian Reginald Horsman has written, even Sam Houston
saw the struggle, which resulted in the creation of a short-lived Texas
Republic, "as one between a glorious Anglo-Saxon race and an inferior Mexican
rabble." Likewise when considering the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845, James
Buchanan, President Polk's secretary of State, argued that "our race of men
can never be subjected to the imbecile and indolent Mexican race."
Rodriguez, of course, views this as the bad old days and promises that today's Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have absolutely no interest in retaking the territory Mexico lost. We'll see.
The article brings home the fact that the vast majority of whites today condemn the history of white ethnonationalism so apparent in the early decades of the 19th century and still lingering in the early decades of the 20th century. Yet, ethnonationalism is alive and well throughout the rest of the world. And many of the ethnic activists who are the deadly enemies of white ethnonationalism actively promote their own ethnic interests.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that a people without a sense of ethnonationalism is defenseless against the onslaughts of others. The percentage of whites in traditionally white countries continues to decline, and the white percentage of the world population is now around 10%.
Whites feel guilty for the accomplishments of their ethnonationalist ancestors. Yet their own place in the world is due in large part to the exploits of their ancestors. If they don't wake up, they are going to lose a lot more than Mexico lost.
News and Views from around the Web Letter to the Free Palestine Alliance
James Sanchez European American Issues Forum
I was
reading about the
Peoples Summit New Orleans
Barnbrook's electionEds.: The election of Richard Barnbrook to the London City Council is certainly welcome news. At the same time, one can sense the enormous resistance that the BNP provokes in the leftist establishment — with one columnist Johann Hari, calling it an "ugly protest vote."Hari claims that most BNP voters are axnious about immigration for economic reasons, not because "they don't want different-looking people walking the streets." As Barnbrook notes in the article below, "Maybe people not just in the UK but across Europe and the world are saying their [national] identities are being abused.”
BNP's Richard Barnbrook calls for flying of Union Jack and a ban on burkasMay 5, 2008 Times [London] Online
The mainstream party candidates walked off the stage when Richard Barnbrook stepped up to speak after becoming, early on Saturday morning, the first member of the British National Party to win a seat on the London Assembly. Mr Barnbrook was unpeturbed.
He expects to be treated as a pariah for the next four years, but insists that he will not be cowed. “If I have to be a lone wolf I will be one,” he told The Times.
Mr Barnbrook, 47, said that he intends to become the voice of “true Londoners”, fighting against political correctness and preferential treatment for racial minorities. He will press for the Union Jack to be flown permanently over City Hall, for burkas to be banned from public buildings and for official celebrations to mark St George's Day. He will resist the planned construction of a huge new mosque, the biggest place of worship in Britain, in Newham, East London. [more]
New Video: Arthur Kemp of the British National Party on the right of Brits (and other whites) to have their own ethnostate and end immigration.
Jimmy Carter’s recent visit to the Middle East
Eds: The treatment Jimmy Carter received during his recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories should shock all Americans. Israel, supposedly an ally of the United States, repeatedly refused requests for adequate security during his visit. Given the hatred of many Israelis toward Carter for his criticism of the brutality of the occupation and the apartheid state that Israel has erected on the West Bank, Carter surely needed protection.
Nevertheless, one comes away from reading the report impressed by Carter’s calm, articulate explications of the situation in the Middle East.
Trip Report by Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan: April 13–22, 2008
Excerpts: Since Israel had declined to approve a previously planned visit by three of us Elders (Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, and me), I expected a similar negative reaction when I substituted this trip on behalf of The Carter Center. Sure enough, all my requests to meet with ministers of the government were publicly rejected and, more seriously, three requests from our Secret Service detail to work with Israeli security were rejected. This was our first experience of this kind in more than 125 foreign nations we've visited since leaving the White House. (After several news stories on this subject, when we returned to Israel, Shin Bet security met us at the airport and worked with us.) [more] Israel's UN ambassador calls Jimmy Carter 'a bigot' Yahoo News April 25, 2008
Eds. The Jimmy Carter is "a bigot" comment of the Israeli ambassador is clearly an attempt to interpret Jimmy Carter's actions within a traditional Jewish ideology of anti-Semitism rather than in the context of international relations and human rights. For example, China has been recently been heavily criticized for human rights abuses. But not even the Chinese accuse these critics of anti-Chinese bigotry.
To call it bigotry is to make a special claim — that the long history of anti-Semitism gives Israel a unique sacrosanct status which makes it immune from normal scrutiny.
And it makes people who have the temerity to make such charges into anti-Semites worthy of being consigned to the lowest regions of Hell. Indeed, the fanatically pro-Israel Frontpagemag.com has pulled out all the stops in its campaign against Carter. Check out Jimmy Carter's War Against the Jews. Great photo of Carter. Political propaganda at its worst. Rap Sheets over Sheepskins
Eds.: Anyone connected to the internet receives a plethora of messages hawking homestudy courses to become a Crime Scene Investigator.
Well, CSIs have a promising future — and not just on television.
According to a report by the Pew Charitable Trust five states are now spending more on prisons than on colleges.
They were (listed in order of spending the most proportionally on prisons for 2007) were: Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware.
Minnesota, which interestingly also has one of the highest average IQs among the 50 states, spends the least on prisons relative to higher ed —17 cents on orange jumpsuits for every dollar on caps and gowns.
For the 50-state box score on Cell Blocks versus Campuses see the report in Inside Higher Education. Food Or Immigrants? That’s America’s Choice On Earth Day 2008April 21, 2008
J ust 40 years ago, Enoch Powell began his so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech on April 20, 1968 with a comment that could have been made by an environmentalist: "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils."Thought for Earth Day, April 22 2008: Isn’t the immigration-fueled overpopulation of our beautiful country the most preventable evil of all? What a concept—that elected officials should actually look forward, and plan to reach an optimum future for the citizenry. Of course P-L-A-N is the four-letter word that has eluded the vocabulary of Washington, whose denizens can hardly foresee their way to the next election cycle. If America’s elected representatives cared about the country they have sworn to defend, they might consider the future prospects of Americans having an adequate food supply. The increasingly expensive commodity in the headlines recently is gasoline, but food prices are following close behind, with prices for basic staples like rice, wheat and corn rising over 80 percent worldwide in three years. [more] Pat Buchanan hits a home run Human Events
Excerpt: [Obama] says we need to have a conversation about race in America?
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids.?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Notes from Canada April 17, 2008
Eds: We at TOO have a hard time believing that any substantial number of whites really wants massive immigration. There is some encouraging news in that direction. A recent Canadian poll reports that 61 % of Canadians agree that “we make too many accommodations to visible minorities”. This suggests some reservation.
But only 9% say they consider it “negative” that 5 million Canadians “are members of visible minority groups.” And 61% consider that “accepting new immigrants of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds [is] a defining and enriching part of our Canadian identity.”
Of course, a large proportion of those responding are themselves, part of all that diversity and doubtless have nothing but positive thoughts about immigration. It would be much more interesting to find out what just the white folks think.
But if we believe these results, it doesn’t seem that very many Canadians are seriously disturbed by what immigration is doing to their country.
But we at TOO are optimists. It's certainly possible that many white people are giving the politically correct response to the pollsters. Being considered a racist, even by an anonymous pollster, is a horrifying thought for quite a few whites.
Then, after giving the politically correct response, they hunker down in their white neighborhoods (if they can afford them) and hope for the best. Maybe they'll start to act in their interests when they realize that hunkering down is not a viable strategy Eds.: L.A. Times article on liver transplants for illegal aliens: The Ethics of Open Borders April 13, 2008
Today's L.A. Times has a heart-wrenching article that depicts an illegal alien who came to the U.S. to get a liver transplant. She received two transplants in 1989, shortly after her arrival, and then another in 1998. Now she's 21 and she needs yet another transplant. The problem is that her state-funded insurance has run out. But the situation is not hopeless. All she had to do was to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service that she is illegal and presto, she might be eligible for another round of free medical insurance. But it's not certain that she will qualify, and that presents the moral drama that the article is designed to highlight. Liver transplants aren't cheap. Each costs $490,000 plus $30,000 per year for medication. And livers for transplant are in short supply, so transplants for illegals prevent American citizens from getting them. No problem. Giving transplants to illegals is entirely ethical according to D. Michael Shapiro, vice-chairman of the ethics committee for the donation program. "People are people, and when you make an incision in an organ donor, you don't find little American flags planted in their organs." We wonder if Dr. Shapiro would have a similar sense of ethics for a donor program in Israel that would result in a Palestinian getting an organ from an Israeli while Israelis die because they can't get organs. People are people. Shapiro's ethics is the ultimate in open borders ideology. The logic would seem to imply that recipient lists should be expanded to include all of humanity. After all, with this logic, there is no ethical reason why the program should be restricted to those who managed to get to the U.S. And surely there must be some law that would make U.S. tax payers foot the bill. After all, people are people. Finally, the article presents the issue as a moral imperative for Americans. The print version of the article (but not the internet version) is headlined "Spared as children — then cut loose." The article appears under the heading "Life in the Shadows." The idea seems to be that if illegals were made legal this moral catastrophe in which illegal immigrants might be on their own for medial insurance at age 21 could be ended at last. [article] |