Monthly Archives: April 2011

Pat Buchanan Says Obama Should Release His Long Form Birth Certificate

Ha! I dare my anti-birther critics to call Buchanan names. You know why Buchanan says Obama should just release his long form birth certificate? Because it is the common sense position. Notice the liberal host and the liberal commentator falling all over themselves with their pathetic apologia. Do you really want to be like the deliberately incurious Bill Press? “Move along. Nothing to see here.” Or do you have natural curiosity like that displayed by Pat Buchanan? The choice is yours.


Ron Paul is About to Announce

So says Lew Rockwell, who ought to know. Let’s hope he is right.

So far, Ron’s 2012 presidential vehicle has been his Liberty PAC, which can fund his travel, staff, etc. Once he sets up a presidential exploratory committee, just a niggling bureaucratic detail, he can raise money directly for his presidential campaign. And that exploratory committee must be set up to participate in the SC debate, which Ron will win hands down. Campaign manager Jesse Benton says Ron plans “to meet all the criteria and participate [in the debate],” reports the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. That means Ron Paul is running all-out for president.

BTW, be sure to check out Lew’s new purely political blog.

Subsidized Invasion

The Center for Immigration Studies has published a study by Steven Camarota (“Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children“). Some of the findings are:

- In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

- Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

- Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

- Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent)…Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

- The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

These are the “future Republican voters” we hear about from the likes of Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson and Jeb Bush.

HT: Mangan’s

The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding

The Heritage Foundation has actually funded an interesting study:  The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding by Jason Richwine.  The standard liberal talking point (that the inferior academic performance of minorities is due to inferior funding) has been completely refuted. In fact, whites receive the least amount of money per student. Hopefully the left will take up the cause of eradicating this injustice! Someone want to give Heidi Beirich a call?


Read the article here.


Open-Borders Fanatic Gary Johnson to run for GOP nomination

Open-borders fanatic Gary Johnson is entering the fray:

Former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president. He’s not testing the waters or forming an exploratory committee. Thursday, on the steps to the New Hampshire State Building, he announced he’s running for the Republican nomination.

While Johnson has some acceptable ideas (e.g. opposition to the war in Iraq and Libya) and is influenced by Ron Paul, he is completely unacceptable as a candidate.  On the issue of immigration, he’s dreadful.  He sides with the Third World against the historic United States.  Regarding Mexicans, Johnson parrots the neoconservative “future Republican voters” talking point, which is completely contrary to reality as third-generation Mexicans are less desirable than first-generation Mexicans.   I’d like to see how many mestizos would vote for a white candidate who wants to cut affirmative action, welfare, public education, free health care, etc.  No thanks.  I’d sooner vote for Obama (as a protest vote) before I’d vote for Johnson.

‘Moses of the Latinos’ calls out for change

Here’s another TOTALLY objective piece from the oh-so-politically correct Charlotte Observer on the Latinization of the South:

Roughly 1,000 Latinos and immigrants packed into a church near uptown on Wednesday to hear from the Illinois congressman one supporter calls “Moses of the Latinos.”

People clapped and cheered as U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez entered the church.

Later, a chant arose: “Si se puede. Si se puede. Yes we can. Yes we can.”

“Yes, we can” what? Assimilate to the majority culture? I don’t think so.

And what TOTALLY objective article on Latino colonization would be complete without a few inappropriate religious references? This story has ‘em!

Maudia Melendez, who heads Charlotte’s Jesus Ministry, said Gutierrez is the face of immigration reform.

“I call him the Moses of the Latinos because, as you see, he goes to the government continuously to ask, ‘Let my people go. Let the people stop suffering.’”

Wait a minute! Moses? Didn’t he struggle to free the Jews from slavery in Egypt so they could return to their own nation? So why — oh, never mind.

Gutierrez doesn’t even attempt to disguise his ethnic bias. He once told Newsweek, “I have only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.” So much for his duty to the majority of Americans, his constituents, or the Constitution. He recognizes that Congress isn’t about to pass amnesty, but this revealing and frightening passage makes clear what Gutierrez and others see as their best chance to achieve their goals:

He said at the chamber reception he’s urging Obama to use his authority to act independently and stop deportations of some groups of illegal immigrants, including undocumented students and the parents of children who are U.S. citizens.

“When the president of the United States decided there was possibly going to be an act of genocide in Libya, he bombed Gadhafi’s forces,” he said. “He didn’t call anyone in Charlotte or Chicago. He didn’t call the Congress of the United States. … He used his discretion.”

In other words, Obama can just refuse to enforce existing immigration law, or even grant American citizenship to illegal aliens with the stroke of a pen. Gutierrez has a point: If the president of the United States can openly defy Congress and ignore the Constitution by declaring war, what’s to stop him from bypassing other Constitutional limitations? One thing the pro-war, any war crowd never quite grasped is that when the president illegally usurps power to provide them with entertaining wars, the path is cleared for even more unconstrained power, to be used in ways they hadn’t contemplated.

We may recover from illegal and counter-productive wars. But forced demographic revolution will permanently change this country.

Roy Moore on the Issues

Here is Roy Moore on the issue. (This will take you to the main page where you can click on issues. It is a page within a page so it doesn’t have a separate URL.) There is very little here to object to. I think he is easily the most “paleoish” candidate so far. You can read his issues yourself, but here are some highlights.

He addresses trade specifically which should warm paleo hearts.

We also need to return American manufacturing to our Country by revoking unfair free trade agreements which have severely damaged our economy through loss of jobs and skill development. We need the phrase Made in America to mean something again.

On immigration.

We must stop the flow of illegal aliens across both our northern and southern borders. Open borders are a threat to our national security and to our economy. We must allow willing states (like Arizona) to do their own job of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.

On the military he takes a typical “strong defense” stand, rhetoric which is unfortunate but probably a necessary condition of entry into a Republican primary. 

As a former military officer, Vietnam veteran, and graduate of West Point, I believe in a strong military defense, and I have always been a strong advocate for the men and women who now serve in the Armed Forces. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to bring back our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines and Coast Guard to the most modern technological advances including weapon systems.

But this is better.

Only in dire emergencies should a President as Commander-in-Chief employ the use of arms as set forth in the War Powers Clause.  In all other cases action by Congress is required under the Constitution.

And this is highly encouraging.

America should serve as a good example to other nations, not as a police force to force our will upon others. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. Respect for our strength is our best defense.  Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide. We should not be subject to UN control and direction and should not rely or support UN treaties like LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty), Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Kyoto Protocol, which Barack Obama unsuccessfully tried to force on our Country.  Such treaties only undermine our sovereignty as a nation. We must stand strongly with our allies and act with authority and discipline with those who would undermine and destroy our national security. We must maintain a strong nuclear defense and not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which will leave us vulnerable to foreign powers.

Yeah the Skeptics are Right, Who Cares About Literary Fraud Anyway?

Some would have us believe that the near certainty that Obama didn’t actually write his “memoir,” Dreams From my Father, is no big deal. But 60 Minutes seems to think literary fraud is a big deal.

This incident of literary fraud now exposed, I’m sure Steve Kroft will next be turning his attention to the Obama “memoir.” I anxiously await that sure to be upcoming 60 Minutes segment.

Birtherism and our Deliberately Incurious Press

Incurious - Lacking intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity; uninterested.

One reason I am so emotionally invested in the birther issue despite the fact that I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, is because the failure of our press to do their basic job infuriates me. I have called our press “deliberately incurios,” and I think that label fits perfectly. It’s not that our journalists are incurious by the definition above. If they were they wouldn’t be journalists. It is that they have willed themselves to be incurious in this case.

This blog post by Jack Cashill illustrates perfectly this dynamic. George Stephanopoulos interviewed Obama on the Thursday (14 April 11) edition of Good Morning America. Stephanopolous brought up Trump and his pursuit of birtherism. This was Stephanopolous’ hard hitting question:

“I mean all of us have been struck by Donald Trump rising to the top of the Republican field by feeding fantasies about your background. What do you make of that?”

I think the idea that Obama was born in Kenya is highly implausible at best, but the use of the word “fatasies” by Stephanopolous is inexcusable and clearly reveals his bias, especially since the “fantasies” being referred to are about Obama’s “background” (which is much in question) in general and not his alleged Kenyan birth specifically. 

Obama told Steph he was born in Hawaii and doesn’t “have horns.” (Yuck, yuck. What a funny guy. That was a real side splitter.) Would it have killed Steph to just ask the simple follow-up “Mr. President, why don’t you just release the long form to put this issue to rest?” There is a name for an obvious and simple follow-up question of that sort. It’s called journalism. Obama shouldn’t be able to put his face in public without 100 mainstream journalist yelling “Mr. President, why don’t you just release the long form?”

I know I’m pretty much just making the same point Cashill makes in his post, but I had had this conversation with someone before I saw the Cashill post. I guess great minds think alike. :-)

Libya conflict: Gaddafi ‘cluster bombing Misrata’

Gaddafi has proven himself a monster who deserves to be removed from power:

Pro-government forces in Libya have been accused by a human rights campaign group of using cluster bombs, which are banned by more than 100 countries.

Human Rights Watch said one of its photographers saw three mortar-launched projectiles explode over a residential area of Misrata, in western Libya.

How much more proof do we need of Gaddafi’s illegitimacy? No civilized people can support a regime that behaves this barbarically.

Oh, wait a minute …

Twenty years of the Bloc, will there be 20 more?

Canadians used to brag to their American counterparts about how high their rates of voting in elections were in comparison. Yet in the last Canadian general election in 2008, only 59 percent of Canadians voted, well below U.S. vote totals for that year. Once upon a time, as much as 75 percent of Canadians voted in national elections.

There are many reasons why people don’t vote in any election and one is lack purpose and meaning. People don’t bother to vote for crap and for the past 20 years voting rates in Canada have been falling because many north of the border see no point in participating in politics they can’t connect, much less bother, with. And a good reason for this is Bloc Quebecois.

This is the 20th anniversary of the Bloc, formed when Quebec MPs who were part of Brian Mulroney’s PC majority in Parliament, led by Lucien Bouchard, bolted his government in 1991 after the failure of the Meech Lake Accords. Meech Lake’s failure, in their minds, was the beginning of the end of Canada and they chose their side accordingly, a ethno-linguistic-nationalist party which was a part of a revival of such parties in the West at the end of the Cold War. What made it unique was that unlike Parti Qubecois, it competed in national elections devoted to just one sole province and one sole language and ethnic group rather than that of the nation as a whole, as if though it was PQ’s federal wing (which it later pretty much became given its Leftish orientation).

What the Bloc did was essentially take at least 50 Quebec seats off the table in each Canadian parliamentary election, led to the destruction of the Progressive Conservative Party (which allowed for 13 years of Liberal rule under the hardly remarkable Jean Chretien and Paul Martin) and led to three minority governments in a row (and now potentially a fourth). Canadian politics is stalemated so long as the Bloc exists and everyone in Canada knows it which is why this election, along with the previous elections in the past decade, has drawn little interest from voters, at least so far.

The questions is whether it will remain this way. There’s a good chance the Bloc will be asked to be a part of a coalition government along with their traditional enemies, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party. A national government with avowed separatists in it? Exactly, which is why the Tories still lead in the polls but not so much that the possibility still exists. But if given this opportunity to be a part of the government, would the Bloc basically lose it itself in the process? That is a question they have to ponder very carefully because it comes down to the whole point of their existence. Not to mention the fact a party like the NDP or  even the Greens for that matter, may cut deep into their Quebec majority where their very survival becomes at stake. Ultimately what happens to the Bloc depends on whether Quebec voters feel the Bloc is still necessary even at a time when separatist sentiment in the province is at an all-time low or whether they feel it’s time to participate more fully in Canada’s politics by voting for one of her traditional political parties. Ultimately it comes down whether, in this case, whether voters choose between tribalism or national/globalism.


World’s Largest Bondholder Shorts U.S. Treasuries

The Obama regime has been printing money like crazy for the past two years and finally investors are starting to panic:

World’s Largest Bondholder Shorts U.S. Treasuries

This past weekend it was revealed that Bill Gross, manager and co-founder of the $1.2 trillion Pimco family of bond funds, began shorting U.S. government treasuries. It is a startling development because it shows that the world’s most sophisticated investors are losing faith in America.

Last month, Gross revealed that his premier total return fund sold all of its U.S. government treasuries—a couple of hundred billion’ worth! The announcement shocked market commentators, with one analyst claiming the move was akin to Hershey’s getting out of the chocolate business.

Now it is revealed that Gross has not only sold his whole position, but he is doubling down by borrowing and selling treasuries from other investors, with the strategy of paying them back later when the treasuries plunge in price.

For many bond investors, U.S. treasuries are considered the new gold standard—the safest of investments. No more, says Gross. They are grossly overvalued and set for a major crash.

Why is Gross so negative? In essence, it is because the world’s largest economy is acting like Zimbabwe. Instead of balancing its budget by bringing tax revenues and spending into alignment, the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt by creating money out of thin air.

In December, the Federal Reserve embarked on a second round of “quantitative easing,” which is really just a complicated term for Zimbabwe-style money printing. Since then, approximately 70 percent of all government spending has been provided by money brought into existence by fiat by the Fed. Over the past two years, the Federal Reserve has become the biggest lender to America—dwarfing even the Chinese and Japanese.

Without the Fed’s funny money, Republicans and Democrats would not be bickering over how to cut $60 billion in spending—it would be more like how to cut $1.5 trillion.

Trump Embracing Birtherism Because He is … You Guessed it … a Racist!

You knew this was coming. But here is a surprisingly good rebuttal. I say surprisingly good because it appears at the mainstreamish Big Journalism website. Mainstream conservative websites usually fall all over themselves to prove their anti-racist bona fides, but here the author essentially ridicules the allegation and gives us a very astute analysis of just how the MSM Obama Protection Racket works. I don’t like the way he characterizes the Ann Coulter vs. the birthers clash, but besides that he makes some real common sense observations. (I agree with Coulter that “orthodox birtherism,” meaning that Obama was born in Kenya, is highly implausible, but I think you have to be careful about denouncing birthers in general because the term has come to mean more than just orthodox birtherism and has come to include the “He may be hiding something” crowd. For this reason I have essentially adopted a no enemies to the right of me position, although I am more than willing to correct misstatements of fact and have highly discouraged dogmatic assertions where dogmatic assertions are not warranted.)

A few weeks ago, Trump came along and asked simply, “Why doesn’t Obama clear this up once and for all and release his long form birth certificate?” Naturally, Obama’s MSM Palace Guards immediately became obsessed with Trump (Trumpers?) and tried to marginalize the billionaire as one of those “crazy birthers.” But the problem for them (and Obama) is that Americans already know Trump. They know he’s no fringe extremist and so a lot of reasonable voters are now starting to ask, “Yeah, why won’t he release it?”

Articles for your consideration

From Harry Beadle:  “The New Scarlet Letter”

From SARTRE at BATR: “Playing the Lyre of Budget Madness while the Nation Burns”

From J.J. Jackson:  “The Smart Meters Cometh”

From Chuck Baldwin: “My Answers to a University Student”

From TAC:  “Mr. Buckley Goes to Washington”

Also from TAC:  “The Why and the How”

From Dr Srdja Trifkovic at Chronicles: “Liberal Hawks’ Neoconservative Allies”

And from Jason Peters at Front Porch Republic: “Let’s Build a Dumber Planet”


Yes, culture matters

If you wade through the self-promotion and pomposity, you can occasionally find some useful nuggets in Thomas Friedman’s articles. Today’s piece in the New York Times is one of his best:

Think about the 1989 democracy wave in Europe. In Europe, virtually every state was like Germany, a homogenous nation, except Yugoslavia. The Arab world is exactly the opposite. There, virtually every state is like Yugoslavia — except Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco.

That is to say, in Europe, when the iron fist of communism was removed, the big, largely homogenous states, with traditions of civil society, were able to move relatively quickly and stably to more self-government — except Yugoslavia, a multiethnic, multireligious country that exploded into pieces.

In the Arab world, almost all these countries are Yugoslavia-like assemblages of ethnic, religious and tribal groups put together by colonial powers — except Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, which have big homogeneous majorities. So when you take the lid off these countries, you potentially unleash not civil society but civil war.

Friedman correctly notes that an organic, homogeneous population possesses inner strength that a heterogeneous population does not. Without shared values to unite them, a fragmented people will remain just that, fragmented — exactly the way autocratic governments want them to be. All the better to control them so the parasitic class can remain in power.

That’s why many Arab nations recently proved themselves unable to unite and dispose of their oppressors. Just as Friedman says, it was European colonizers who imposed artificial borders on most Arab nations to keep them weak. Similarly, it was the anti-human ideology of communism that imposed multiculturalism on the peoples of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, which is why those artificial entities broke up.

Here in the rapidly dissolving remnants of America, the native population is allowing itself to be corralled with hostile alien populations (click here and here for examples of how hostile). It took the lies of Ted Kennedy to launch this trip, propelled by heavy-handed and continual propaganda and threats of punishment, but America is now rolling down the tracks toward its own multicultural future.

Obama: Slash Spending for Old White People

Despite the rhetoric, there are indications that Obama is willing to make deep cuts in both Medicare and Social Security. Regarding Social Security, he already has said that “changes” (i.e. cuts) to the popular retirement program “are necessary,” and he already wants to cut $340 billion in the next 10 years from Medicare. All the while, of course, Obama seeks to “protect education” for children. See the pattern? The modus operandi of Obama is:

Slash programs for old white people.

Save programs for younger non-whites.

Retirees are mostly European American (i.e. white).  For instance, the 1960 census put the U.S. at more than 90% white. The inundation of non-whites is a product the Immigration Act of 1965 in general and more recent waves of illegal immigration starting in the 1990s.  Thus, today, there are two vested interests:  mostly white retirees, and not-so-white children (depending on the state) and their numerous federal aid programs. It’s unsurprising that Obama is siding with the latter.

If one doubts this is what’s taking place, it’s indeed the strategy of the new anti-Western left. Europeans have been aware of it for some time, and the Swedish Democrats even ran political advertisements about it.

Of course, the Stupid Party (i.e. Republicans) are going along with Obama, calling for even more cuts for old white people (while implicitly protecting programs for younger non-whites). Are they engaging in another wave of political suicide? Steve Sailer’s advice to the Republican Party:

You know, Republican Congressmen, you are back in the majority in the House now in large part because a whole bunch of older white people got worried in 2009-10 that, having paid taxes for Medicare for decades, Medicare would now suddenly get whittled down by this black liberal guy to pay for health insurance for a whole bunch of younger and not so white people who aren’t very related to them.

Apparently the Republicans don’t “get it,” unlike the Swedish Democrats who do get it:


And the future will probably be even worse for white children than for white senior citizens.

The Media’s War Against European America

How the Media Presents the 2050 White Minority Timeline


Every night I peruse a number of mainstream news sites, blogs, and other media outlets like or HuffPo looking for relevant content. Tonight’s outing seemed somewhat repetitive, as one particular story kept popping up:

Blackvoices: Census Gives the American Child a New Face
WSJ: Census Shows Hispanic, Asian Children Surging
CNN: White Children the minority in 10 states
Boston Globe: Asian, Hispanic numbers increase dramatically

And here’s more coverage from my google search. As you can see, this is quite a popular story. Many of the articles simply summarize the recent findings of a Brookings Institute analysis of the 2010 census. The articles just regurgitate the relevant numbers, enumerating the various gains or loses of each racial group. It’s all very boring really, with essentially none of the articles expounding upon the social or economic ramifications.

As I noted above, the articles are devoid of commentary independent of hyperbolic code words like “surging” and “dramatically.” By focusing solely on numbers, the leftist media obscures the bias of their coverage, which, in this case, exists due merely to the ubiquity of the story. Note the difference here between focused attacks on public information, ala Journolist, and the more sly avenue taken here. Instead of going on MSNBC and engaging in the intellectual equivalent of chanting “na-na, na-na, you can’t do anything about it”, they merely inundate the public with these types of stories.

So what then does this “over-coverage” strategy accomplish? By constantly discussing the coming white minority, they make it seem inevitable. This implies the 2050 white minority timeline is unavoidable, no matter what. They have these fancy graphs and lots of numbers. It all looks very official, with a very scholarly feel to it. And the incredulous public, the apathetic masses, believes it because the experts have divined it as such. They believe that all those graphs are set in stone, due to the authority conferred upon our academic and media classes proferring this information and the constant stream of stories telling us that’s the way it will be.

And this enervates their opposition. They keep seeing the timeline, the numbers, the graphs, and they can’t imagine any intervention will suffice in reversing the apparent trends. So the masses acquiesce without recourse because they simply can’t imagine any alternative. Of course, the media has consciously silenced any mention of the alternatives and replaced it with a cohesive diversity narrative. In the end, new media provides an invaluable source for combating the mainstream’s distortions.

[Original article]

Equality: The Next Frontier

A reporter asked P. David Lopez, general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about the “big, cutting-edge discrimination issues facing the EEOC.” It seems our government is blazing new trails in the never-ending struggle to end discrimination. Mr. Lopez proudly listed these cases to prove his point:

Another case we filed is a nationwide challenge to criminal arrest and conviction screens. We challenged that as having a disparate impact against African-Americans and Latinos. That is still pending in Baltimore.

Another one was filed in Ohio and we’re looking at the use of credit reports to screen out applicants. We allege it has a disparate impact against African-Americans.

We are better people, and truer to the American ideal of equality, thanks to the EEOC’s actions in preventing employers from discriminating against criminals and those who do not pay their bills. What possible reason would a company have to NOT want employees like that? I can’t think of any — at least, I’m not supposed to, because that would be SO anti-egalitarian of me.

But as cutting-edge as Mr. Lopez imagines his department to be, he can’t hold a candle to President Evo Morales of Bolivia. His ruling party, the Movement Towards Socialism, has pushed through legislation granting equal rights to animals, trees, and jungles. No, really:

Bolivia is set to pass the world’s first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. …

The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

Gee, what’s next? Equal rights for viruses?

Oh, wait a minute…