Monthly Archives: April 2010

Morning Reading

Pat Buchanan urges patriots to stand up for Arizona!

Kris Kobach writes in NY Times about many of the myths and half-truths surrounding the AZ immigration legislation.

Thomas Fleming discusses the nonsense today that passes for education.

As VDare predicted, Obama probably will not push for amnesty this year.

Edwin Rubenstein discusses another piece of Arizona legislation that will show the exorbitant tax-payer costs of illegals using public education in Arizona.

Richard Spencer interviews Craig Bodeker about his documentary “A Conversation About Race.”

Patrick J. Ford and ensuing comments show how the Arizona immigration bill demonstrates the politically correct, anti-Western tendencies of many libertarians.

Steve Sailer discusses the racial caste system of Mexico, and Central & South America.

Andrew Yeoman argues that the tea party folks should foster tribalism.

Chuck Baldwin, “Arizona Has It Right.”

Interview with Michael Hill.

Immigration: The Rule of Law Awakens in Arizona

By Frosty Wooldridge

After 30 years of the U.S. Congress and four presidents failing to enforce our immigration laws– Arizona, led by State Senator Russell Pearce and a brave band of lawmakers—passed SB 1070, the most diligent and forceful immigration law in the nation. 

In excess of 460,000 criminal illegal aliens find themselves facing, for the first time in 30 years, the rule of law. 

“We’re tired of tens of thousands of stolen vehicles,” said Arizona resident Michelle Dallacroce. “We’re the kidnapping capital of America.  Arizonans fear for their lives daily.  Illegals have destroyed our schools, hospitals and communities.  They fill our prisons.  They kill our cops, ranchers and ordinary citizens. We’re tired of it.”

On Friday, April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law.

Continue reading

It’s Working Already

From Yahoo News (h/t VFR):

Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law

PHOENIX – Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.

Arizona’s sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won’t take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state’s underground economy.

“Nobody wants to pick us up,” Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.

Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

More here.

New La Raza Study Paints Grim Picture of America’s Future

The National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), a pro-Amnesty, pro-open borders Hispanic advocacy group, has released a study that illustrates the folly of U.S. immigration policy, while painting a grim picture of America’s future should immigration from Central and South America not be curtailed.

The study, titled “America’s Future: Latino Child Well-Being in Numbers and Trends” (produced in partnership with the Population Reference Bureau) details the profound difficulties Latinos face in assimilating into American culture, and portrays the rather sorry prospects for those Hispanics who have managed to enter and remain in our country.

According to the study, the majority of Latino children “live in poor and low-income families”, they “are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system”, and “only 55% graduate from high school with a regular diploma”. The study finds that “Foreign-born Hispanic youth have higher poverty rates, are less likely to speak English well, have higher dropout rates, and are more likely to become teen parents, compared with second- or third-generation Latino youth”. Lest one be tempted to assume time heals these particular wounds, the study goes on to find that “third-generation Latino children fare much worse on certain indicators (health problems, living in single-parent families) compared with first- and second-generation Latino youth”. The correlation between academic and economic achievement and a stable home being what it is, it is disconcerting to read that the “proportion of Latino youth in single-parent families is higher than the U.S. average and is increasing”.

From the perspective of an American citizen, this study is a persuasive argument against unchecked immigration, and for strict border control. La Raza, though, has a different outlook, and a different agenda. The National Council of La Raza’s primary loyalty is not to the United States, but (unsurprisingly) to La Raza – to “The Race” (meaning the Spanish speaking peoples native to Central and South America), and their primary concern is advancing The Race’s interests. According to the study, the sorry state of Hispanic America is not due to any incompatibility between Latino and Euro-American cultures, nor to any genetic differences between ethnic groups, but rather is due to non-citizen Latinos facing “barriers to services”. It is for this reason that NCLR advocates for amnesty: citizenship, the study implies, is a means rather than an end – and the end is access to the vast bounty of federal programs funded by the American taxpayer. Citizenship, the study teaches us, “provides … access to services provided through the federal government… and protection from being deported” (not exactly Thomas Jefferson, is it). Lack of citizenship, we read, hinders the “ability to access important benefits to which (immigrants) are entitled [emphasis added - SLT], including education and health services”.

Unfortunately, according to the study, citizenship – and the “access” to “services” that La Raza contends is the object of citizenship – will not be enough. In keeping with the rest of La Raza’s leftist agenda, their remedy for what ails Hispanic America can be summed up in two words: government action. For low test scores, the study recommends “high-quality early education programs, such as Early Head Start.” For high obesity rates, the study recommends “effective child nutrition and exercise policies and programs”. NCLR (which has recieved over $8 million in federal education grants) has lobbied in favor of “the No Child Left Behind Act, the DREAM Act, and funding for key federal education programs” among countless other Big Government boondoggles.

As silly as La Raza’s remedies are, the problems the study illustrates are tremendous and daunting. What’s more, they are the direct result of our failed open-borders immigration policy. There is no legitimate solution that does not have as its first and primary goal an end to illegal immigration. If La Raza were sincerely interested in assimilating the Hispanic population into the American mainstream – as opposed to subsuming that mainstream beneath a tidal wave of Hispanic immigrants, legal and otherwise – then La Raza would join us in demanding an immigration moratorium at least until we manage to assimilate those cultural aliens already here.

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio Bash New Arizona Immigration Law

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have both come out against Arizona’s new immigration law. I mentioned this in the post below but felt it was an important enough revelation to warrant its own post.

Now that Bob Smith has dropped out and it looks like Crist is going to run as an independent, I believe Rubio will be unopposed in the GOP primary. So his stand is unlikely to hurt him politically, but I hope some bloom is now off that rose. Conservatives have been gaga over Rubio because he represented a “conservative” alternative to RINO Crist, but those of us on the authentic right have always perceived Rubio’s movement/neocon sensibilities.

Bob Smith Drops Out of Florida Senate Race

I don’t know how I missed this, but I did. This statement is dated one month ago. I was looking for Smith’s website to tout him after I read that “conservative” candidate Marco Rubio has come out against Arizona’s new immigration law. This is too bad. Smith is far from perfect on the issues. He is a big spender on defense and seems to feels it is important enough to make number one on his list, but he is better than Rubio. And Rubio is definitely better than Crist, but he leans neoconish.

Thankfully conservative Floridians will have an authentic conservative to vote for in the general election, Prof. Marshall DeRosa. Dr. DeRosa’s conservative credentials are impeccable.

Coffee Time Round Up

Austin Lipari explores “Localism and the Restoration of Character and Community”.

Tom Tancredo on the hidden agenda of the SPLC.

Ray McGovern examines the “threat” from Iran.

Patrick Ford continues to explore the split between libertarians and traditionalists on immigration.

Keith Preston considers the issue of secession and the Alternative Right.


Henry Louis Gates Jr (!) on African culpability in the slave trade.

Enjoy With Your Morning Coffee

Professor Gottfried examines the “radicalism” of the Tea Parties.

Steve Sailer looks at the Texas schoolbook controversy, and and the state of history teaching in general.

Ron Paul argues that Iran sanctions are an act of war.

Lew Rockwell interviews Michael Boldin, founder and head of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Ron Paul on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Pat Buchanan argues that China resembles, in its seemingly inexorable rise, 19th Century America, while America resembles an empire in decline.

Mark T. Mitchell examines the relationship between the “neighborly arts” and a life well lived.


Jared Taylor argues that the Tea Parties should “dump Sarah Palin and make Patrick Buchanan their champion”.

Brian Doherty examines whether revolutionary, anti-government spirit is a thing of the past in America.

Don’t you cancel this meeting, I am paying for this university!

The University of Wisconsin is a public institution which has received both my donations in the past and my tax dollars in the present. It also receives plenty of federal money. Because of this, one would think that the First Amendment would be upheld in such a place.

Apparently not because the they symposium I was supposed to attend was reportedly canceled over the weekend because the meeting’s sponsors couldn’t guarantee nor pay for security for Cindy Sheehan.

“A distinguished group of panelists from across the American political spectrum will gather to discuss electoral reform, the peace movement, and the growing dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats. Panelists include Theresa Amato, Angela Keaton, Ben Manski, Sean Scallon, Cindy Sheehan, and Christina Tobin. The event will be moderated by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice. The event will be held on Monday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m. in the Memorial Union at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

In a last minute twist, Union Building Event Management Director Roger Vogts canceled the event organizer’s booking of the facility, citing “security concerns” that would accompany antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan’s visit. Free and Equal has attempted to contact university security officials, but Vogts stated that he could not contact security over the weekend.

In addition, event organizers were told on Friday they must pay a sizable fee for security, even though Sheehan never requested security. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (505 U.S. 123, 1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”

Because the Union’s Central Reservations presides over a viewpoint-neutral limited public forum at the Union and other facilities, the Union is bound by the same constitutional demands as the local government in Forsyth County. It is unconstitutional for any viewpoint-neutral limited public forum to deny any organization free speech rights on the grounds they are unable to provide for extra security costs related to the exercise of that free speech.

To add to the intrigue, these concerns were not expressed when Norman Finkelstein spoke at University of Wisconsin at Madison on April 13, a man known for his criticism of Israel and barred from visiting the country until 2018 because the country considers him a “security threat.” Not to mention, Cindy Sheehan has spoken in Madison several times in the past without incident.

In spite of Vogts attempts to cancel the event, the organizing committee and panelists have decided the event will still take place at the Union. If university officials do not permit panelists and guests to congregate at the room originally booked, the event will take place on the front steps of the Union or in the lobby of the Union.

At this time, event organizers are still undecided on filing a lawsuit against the Union on grounds of a violation of their First Amendment rights.

When one considers the kinds of controversial people and groups (including George Wallace,  the Weathermen and a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon) who have spoken at meetings, mass or otherwise, at the University of Wisconsin over the years, particularly at the Memorial Union, the idea that our little group somehow merits cancellation because of “security concerns”, is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.  Hopefully this will be resolved by tomorrow morning but one has the feeling that there’s something else going on behind the scenes that triggered this mess. I do not know what is going to happen, nor do I desire or wish to be a part of any confrontation, but I am also not going to back down either. In words of Ronald Reagan, I am paying for this university and I will be damned if I can’t speak my mind on it.

Gee, I didn’t realize a Left-Right meeting would be so controversial as to be considered dangerous.

Here’s the Wisconsin State Journal story on this.

Ronald Reagan \”I am paying for this microphone Mr. Green!\”

AZ Immigration Bill and Racial Profiling

Many bloggers have  suggested that the Arizona Immigration Bill entails racial profiling, and many immigration restrictionists have bent over backwards to argue it does not entail racial profiling. Frankly, I do not care if it does entail such profiling. As most of you know, the Latin etymology of ‘nation’ implies link by blood; the traditional understanding of a nation, one rooted in the extended metaphor of the family, implies that compatriots are supposed to look alike and that you should question the status of those who do not resemble you. Thus, in the traditional understanding of a nation – you know, the type that has existed for the last 3,000 years – there would be nothing wrong with ethnic profiling. Only under the modern, left-wing propositional state would anyone find fault with a type of “profiling” that has existed since the beginning of human civilization. The tendency toward this profiling (which is probably sociobiological) of in-group vs. out-group is completely normal by historical standards. It seems rather utopian for conservatives to oppose it.

On a related note, I find it confusing that proponents of localism – both at this site and elsewhere – would find fault with this legislation. Localities will differ from each other on how they want to govern themselves. It is quite natural for localities to want to police who can and cannot be there. To seek to overturn local initiatives by an appeal to an abstract position of individual liberty, one could rob a locality of the basic function of self-preservation. One might end up usurping localism in the name of (Enlightenment) abstract principles. This self-destructive ennui in the face of a workable solution, unfortunately today endemic to the West, must be extirpated.

O’Toole Joins Connelly in Criticizing Obama’s Northern Ireland Policy

Here is an interesting post on America’s Northern Ireland policy from Seamus O’Hare who blogs at the United States Onlooker:

Democratic Sen. Liam Connelly made waves yesterday, when he blasted the Obama administration for its “counter-productive” Northern Ireland policy that he said “has to stop.”

Today, fellow Boston Democrat Sean O’Toole echoed this criticism, saying:

“Instead of continuing to lash out publicly at our closest ally, the Obama Administration should be listening to what Senator Connelly says. Connelly is right, and the White House is wrong on Northern Ireland.”

“Norther Ireland is our closest ally in the region, yet they continue to receive more criticism than deserved and less support than is required.”

The White Shadow

Stanford’s great running back Toby Gerhart was drafted in the second round of the recent NFL Draft by the Minnesota Vikings.  Despite his impressive stats his senior year, the fact Gerhart was not draft until the second round may well have been due to this fact about him: He’s running back. A white running back.

As the NFL draft approached this weekend, scouts from around the league had reservations about Gerhart because … he was also an accomplished baseball player. Yeah, that’s it.


We began this post rather haphazardly to highlight an issue that is very much a part of Gerhart’s story as the Minnesota Vikings’ pick at No. 51 Friday night, yet doesn’t get nearly the same scrutiny — more like microscopic biomolecular inspection — that most elements of most draftee’s games receive.

Instead, it gets dealt with sideways, cautiously, even self-consciously casual, although it has much to do with where and when Gerhart was drafted and even more so with the projections all the experts have for his career.

Gerhart, if you didn’t know by now, is white. Which is a rarity these days, akin to being a black Olympian in the butterfly or a fifty-something journalist with two job offers. It was backdrop heading into the draft — as much as his runner-up finish in the Heisman Trophy balloting or his 27 touchdowns and 1,871 yards gained last season at Stanford.

And it figures to be subtext to his pro career, good, bad or indifferent. Whether folks ‘fess up about that or not.”

This excerpt was taken from a very good article on Gerhart and the “elephant in the room” factor about him.  In fact some have said that he will be Adrian Peterson’s “shadow” in the backfield. Yes, the White Shadow right?

If it was wrong to say blacks could not be quarterbacks it’s equally wrong to say whites can’t be running backs, wide receivers or cornerbacks. No one should be stereotyped or steered into positions just because of race. If the NFL about the best football players in the country playing at the highest level, then Gerhart’s talent to play running back should be acknowledged and encouraged, not treated like a rare animal exhibit at the zoo. Hopefully when Gerhart plays in his first Super Bowl, no one will ask him, as some idiot reporter once asked Doug Williams, what is was like to  “How long have you been a black (white) quarterback (running back).

Culture War Thoughts: Restaurant

Maurice’s BBQ is famous for its refusal to take down the flag (a costly stance), but it also once sold books defending slavery, seeking to educate its customers [thus freeing Southerners from guilt]. Now, were I in the same position I likely wouldn’t defend slavery in the restaurants (though there’s nothing inherently immoral about it provided a society treats its slaves well), but my point is culture war books were sold with the Southern cuisine. Select music and videos (e.g. “Gone With the Wind” and perhaps “Braveheart”) could be added too. Where is the Olde South today? Most of it stops in at a BBQ joint at least a few times a year. A local Greek restaurant has a map of Greece on its wall, and a group of Vietnamese has declared its presence with a restaurant of its own. These are culturally important.

There’s one demon in particular I’d like to slay though: unhealthy Southern food. The philosophy of New Orleans chefs is “anything worth doing is worth overdoing”, and that might extend to the South as a whole. However, I wish this spirit were moderated by health concerns. I can think right off of Low Country dishes that are as healthy as what one finds in a Whole Foods without sacrificing the taste. It’s certainly possible to gather them up, and an enlightened Southern restaurant would promote good health for its patrons (e.g. fewer fried foods and no soft drinks).
Continue reading

Three cheers for AZ Immigration Bill

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer today signed Arizona’s common-sense immigration bill into state law, which will make it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.  Third World cheerleader Barack Hussein Obama already schemes to torpedo this legislation, but let’s hope that Arizona just ignores his anti-occidental connivances.  And let us hope that more states follow suit.  Perhaps states could add language to future bills stating that they do not recognize the authority of federal courts or the attorney general to review state immigration laws. Now, that would be impressive.

Rand Paul and Israel

Recently Rand Paul released a statement outlining his position re. Israel. The statement is generating some controversy on the non-interventionist right.

If nothing else, the statement is clever. Read superficially it could easily be interpreted to mean that Rand Paul is “pro-Israel” and supports policies vis-à-vis Israel that are similar to those supported by “mainstream” movement conservatives. However, parsed more closely, he arguably says nothing that runs gravely afoul of non-interventionist dogma. He denounces foreign aid to Israel’s enemies. (But doesn’t denounce explicitly foreign aid to Israel. Meaning what?) He denounces American pressure on Israel regarding what actions they can take concerning Iran. He states he would never denounce Israel. He denounces subsidies to Israel’s enemies. Etc. This is all consistent with non-interventionism and differs not at all from the positions of his father. The only part that may run afoul of non-interventionism is his calls for greater “pressure” on Iran, although non-interventionists don’t denounce normal diplomacy so even that could be consistent. The tone and language regarding Iran are troubling to me, however, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that “pressure” does not mean more saber-rattling and chest-thumping. Also his approving use of the term “special relationship” is troubling.

But here is my biggest problem with the statement even if we give Rand the benefit of the doubt policy wise. The Good Book tells us that we are to “avoid the appearance of evil.” Well this statement does not “avoid the appearance of pandering.” In fact, it reeks of pandering. If an Israel Firster like the author of the post, Philip Klein, thinks it may concede enough, then it concedes too much. Perhaps I should appreciate the political acumen of Paul for being clever enough to make people think he is saying something he really is not, but in the current political climate, where everybody panders to Israel supporters, what is desperately needed is someone who will visibly stand up to and buck that trend. Here, I believe Paul concedes too much rhetorically if not actually.

As I have stated before, paleos and other non-interventionists have become so upset with the influence of the Israel Lobby that some have allowed themselves to become openly hostile to Israel and supportive of the Palestinians. This has not served us well. I am not arguing that Rand Paul should be openly hostile to Israel. I would not even argue that Paul not indicate his own personal support for Israel if he in fact feels that way. What I am arguing is that we need to foster an environment wherein what one thinks personally about Israel is of no more consequence than what one thinks about Cameroon. An environment in which Israel is just one of many other countries. (This is what I was getting at with my snide remark in the thread that I wonder when Paul is going to be releasing his statement on what he thinks regarding our policy toward Cameroon.) Paul’s statement does not foster that environment. It actually perpetuates the status quo. For this reason primarily I find the statement highly unfortunate.