Tag Archives: anti-white

Blog

Problem, What Problem?

22 Comments

In The Eternal Obsession, Steve Sailer quotes Sarah Kaufman’s WaPo article, Ballet series has lots of talent, little diversity:

The companies are also overwhelmingly white and dotted with Europeans — as they have always been. Diversity in ballet remains a serious problem for the small companies as well as the large, on the coasts as well as in the heartland. In the 21st century, we can put a black man in the White House, but as last week’s survey shows, we can’t put a black ballerina in the Opera House. Clearly, not enough work is being done to foster African American dancers. But with public money in their coffers, ballet companies — and the local, state and federal funders — need to make equal opportunity in the dancer ranks a priority.

Sailer then witlessly tries to dismiss this as friendly fire:

I’m always struck by how white people are constantly admonishing each other

Sarah Kaufman thinks too many “white” people in ballet is a “serious problem”, but she didn’t have anything to say about that in Israel Ballet at Silver Spring Performing Arts Center. An all-jew troupe? That’s just splendid. In fact, in Paul Taylor’s Marvelous Melting Pot Kaufman gives the distinct impression she can’t get enough of jewish “diversity”. In To strengthen Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities Richard Siegel, “the Executive Director of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, an organization dedicated to enhancing Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities”, cites Kaufman’s article in defense of Taylor’s production. Defense from what? Well, it seems some jews think Taylor’s production wasn’t jewish enough.

Kaufman’s snide attack on “whites” in ballet echoes Harold Meyerson, who in Economy? What Economy? wrote about the “huge problem” of “whiteness” in politics, likewise using blackness as a proxy:

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

Meyerson is #48 in The (shockingly jewish) Atlantic 50.

I’m struck, like many of Sailer’s commenters, by a pattern of jews attacking “whites”. That they are funded and broadcast by mainstream sources only underscores the seriousness of the problem. Contra Sailer it appears Kaufman and Meyerson don’t consider jews “white”, otherwise we could find them criticizing the more lopsided voting of jews, the bipartisan power of the Israel lobby, jewish over-representation on SCOTUS, in law generally, in finance, in media, or in pushing an anti-White agenda. It seems to me that anti-White jews behave as they do precisely because they consider their “jewishness” distinct from Whiteness.

I’m also struck by Sailer, a proponent of “human biodiversity”, lamely describing this situation as “white people constantly admonishing each other”. Is political correctness making him stupid, or is it the jewish genes he suspects he carries? Either way he can consider himself admonished.

Kaufman, meanwhile, has just been lauded by her anti-White/pro-jew peers. The Pulitzer Prizes | Citation:

Awarded to Sarah Kaufman of The Washington Post for her refreshingly imaginative approach to dance criticism, illuminating a range of issues and topics with provocative comments and original insights.

Contrast this with Helen Thomas, who was excoriated and ultimately lost her job for making a provocative comment about jews.

Blog

The Great Faux-White “Liberal” Babbles Again

19 Comments

In The anti-white left and the non pro-white right Auster once again describes the aggression of “liberals”, like David Zirin, who he never identifies as a tribemate.

Once again Auster blames the “non pro-white right” “conservatives” for being worst:

The liberal-left’s bigoted campaign to delegitimize and dehumanize conservatives is thus total and absolute.

But the hell of it doesn’t stop there. The worst part is that the conservatives themselves are so much under the thumb of liberal-left premises that they never identify what the left is doing to them, and never attack the left for what it is doing to them.

. . .

But they never identify what the left is really up to, namely removing of any human value from conservatives by painting them as hopelessly sick and immoral racists who deserve to be racially marginalized and turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. The conservatives don’t identify it, because they themselves have no principle by which they can oppose being turned into a dispossessed minority in their own country. And the reason they have no such principle is that they themselves subscribe to the liberal view that any concern by whites about race is disgusting and immoral.

And once again Auster absurdly links all of this to his truest love, Israel. In conclusion an Auster commenter identifies the problem as a lack of “white” “tribal loyalty”.

Of course anyone who distinguishes jews from Whites, “left” or “right”, is violating Auster’s “liberal” view that any concern by Whites about jews is disgusting and immoral. In his view however, jews can be concerned about Whites – that’s perfectly normal. In “Larry Auster’s lies”, for example, Auster explains his motivation for removing any human value from “conservatives” by painting them as hopelessly sick and immoral “racists” against jews:

Here is my motivation: to expose the anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism that currently are harbored at the heart of the paleocon and immigration restrictionist movements, and to get conservatives and immigration restrictions to reject those evils, so that the cause of saving America and the West is not tainted and discredited by them and might actually have a chance of success.

By his own words and logic, what Auster is really up to is doing his part in the “liberal-left” anti-White cause he knows so well, campaigning to delegitimize and dehumanize the “racists” who identify jewish aggression against Whites. Auster wants Whites to feel tribal loyalty for jews (we’re all just one indivisible “white” tribe, ready to defend Israel) even though jews, far from reciprocating in kind, treat us not just as “others”, but as inferiors to be lectured, commanded, and ultimately punished if we disobey them.

Blog

Targeting Oath Keepers

5 Comments

An instinct for duty, honor, law and order, liberty, a government loyal to its citizens; like the Tea Party, Oath Keepers is a White thing. Thus the suspicious and hostile reaction from the usual anti-White suspects, projecting their own sneaky, malevolent tactics and motives onto their “wingnut” boogeymen.

This Mother Jones hitpiece, this series of cynical articles, is all about manufacturing fear and aiming it at their self-proclaimed adversaries. They want to wake up their “progressive” fellow travellers and right-thinking useful idiots. The “liberal” mask slips as they ridicule, insinuate, and fret about the motives and intentions of a growing movement of mostly confused Whites who cling as desperately to their deracinated, pro-Civil Rights, anti-Nazi liberalism as they cling to their guns and religion.

The fear MoJo stokes is that Oath Keeper rhetoric about Rosa Parks and the Warsaw Ghetto is insincere. MoJo sees through it. Likewise all that nonsense about opposing tyranny. Why? Because their own “liberal”, anti-racist rhetoric is insincere. They don’t trust White people. They don’t share our beliefs or values. They don’t like us. When Oath Keepers talk about upholding their oath to oppose threats to the republic and its constitution, MoJo and friends realize, “hey, that means us!”

The Tea Party’s Military Wing | Mother Jones:

Oath Keepers, which recruits soldiers and police to resist federal “tyranny,” has become a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement.

For our March/April 2010 issue, reporter Justine Sharrock got up close and personal with Oath Keepers, a fast-growing “patriot” group that recruits active-duty soldiers, police, and veterans to resist what its members consider an increasingly tyrannical government. Members reaffirm their service oath to uphold the Constitution and further vow to disobey any orders they deem illegal or unconstitutional. Unveiled last April, the group has already established itself as a hub within the larger anti-Obama movement, attracting a wide range of followers from politicians to Tea Partiers to militia enthusiasts—not to mention alienated soldiers like Private 1st Class Lee Pray, above. The group has also drawn praise from a who’s who of right-wing cable hosts including Glenn Beck.

Why Do Some Conservatives Play Footsie With Treason? | Mother Jones:

Wing nuts no longer: Right-wing celebs are helping anti-Obama militias go mainstream.

— By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery

IN THE FALL of 1964, not long after Barry Goldwater had clinched the Republican nomination for president, historian Richard Hofstadter penned penned an essay for Harper’s called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” It was an instant classic—not because it was so elegantly written, but because in just a few pages it described with deadly accuracy one of the major strains of our national dialogue.

“The paranoid spokesman,” Hofstadter wrote, “is always manning the barricades of civilization…Like religious millennialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse…He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised…Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish.”

Oath Keepers, the group featured in our cover story, would seem the classic case in point. Its members are cops, sheriffs, and military men and women determined to resist the tyrannical orders they believe are imminent from the Obama administration. The fantasies they spin—a “globalist” leadership intent on declaring martial law, putting God-fearing Americans in detention camps, and asking UN blue helmets to keep order while it imposes health care reform and who knows what else—replicate almost exactly the fears far-right cranks have peddled for generations. Replace “socialism” with “communism” and you are pretty much back to 1964 (or 1934 or 1884, for that matter).

But what was true then is true now: Dismissing one’s adversaries as wing nuts is myopic, both intellectually and politically. Like it or not, the Oath Keepers, and the myriad other “patriot” groups now emerging around the edges of the Tea Party movement, are tapping into a real strain of popular anger. And who wouldn’t be angry? Unemployment for millions, bailouts and bonuses for a few. A health care reform plan supremely undersold by a Democratic establishment unconcerned with the battle for hearts and minds (see: Martha Coakley). A GOP controlled by pro-corporate nihilists.

But righteous anger is one thing. Manufacturing fear, dare we say terror, is another—and over the past year, we have seen cynical politicians and talk-show demagogues increasingly willing to traffic in it. It’s no longer just handfuls of militia types trading overheated conspiracy theories; it’s America’s most popular cable news network giving gobs of airtime to people who all but advocate armed insurrection.

When people in positions of great power play footsie with those who advocate treason—or claim that the elected commander in chief is a bastard foreigner with no claim to the office—they are not just engaging in a lively debate. They are actively negating a fundamental principle of American politics: that the government, no matter how much you might disagree with its representatives, is of, by, and for the people.

Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason | Mother Jones:

Glenn Beck loves them. Tea Partiers court them. Congressmen listen to them. Meet the fast-growing “patriot” group that’s recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.

— By Justine Sharrock

His belief that that day [when the US government declares martial law] is imminent has led [Pvt. 1st Class Lee] Pray to a group called Oath Keepers, one of the fastest-growing “patriot” organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Georgia Republicans.

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey “unconstitutional” orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

Most of the men’s gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn’t scare them so much at the time. “Too many conservatives relied on Bush’s character and didn’t pay attention,” founder Rhodes told me. “Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. Maybe you said, I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists.* But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, ‘I think you are a threat to the nation?'”

In Pray’s estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a “bug out” bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I’d be ready to go “when the shit hits the fan.”

When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their “fortified bunker”—the home of one comrade’s parents in rural Idaho—where they’ve stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers.

Rhodes stood on the common that day before a crowd of about 400 die-hard patriot types. He spoke their language. “You need to be alert and aware to the reality of how close we are to having our constitutional republic destroyed,” he said. “Every dictatorship in the history of mankind, whether it is fascist, communist, or whatever, has always set aside normal procedures of due process under times of emergency…We can’t let that happen here. We need to wake up!”

He laid out 10 orders an Oath Keeper should not obey, including conducting warrantless searches, holding American citizens as enemy combatants or subjecting them to military tribunals (a true Oath Keeper would have refused to hold José Padilla in a military brig), imposing martial law, blockading US cities, forcing citizens into detention camps (“tyrannical governments eventually and invariably put people in camps”), and cooperating with foreign troops should the government ask them to intervene on US soil. In Rhodes’ view, each individual Oath Keeper must determine where to draw the line.

The crowd was full of familiar faces from patriot rallies and town hall meetings, with an impressive showing by luminaries of the rising patriot movement. There was Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who had refused to enforce the Brady Law in the mid-’90s. Also present was Mike Vanderboegh, whose Three Percenter movement styles itself after the legendary 3 percent of American colonists who took up arms against the British. Rhodes singled out Marine Charles Dyer, a.k.a. July4Patriot—whose YouTube videos advocate armed resistance—as a “man of like minds.” When Rhodes finished, Captain Larry Bailey, a retired Navy SEAL, Swift Boater, and founder of the anti-antiwar group Gathering of Eagles, asked the crowd to raise their right hands and retake their oath—not to the president, but to the Constitution.

Rhodes has become a darling of right-wing pundits. In a column last October, Pat Buchanan predicted that “Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.” Glenn Beck has cited the group as a “phenomenal” example of the “patriot revival movement,” while Lou Dobbs declared that its platform “should give solace and comfort to the left in this country.” Conspiracy-radio king Alex Jones even put an Oath Keepers segment, including footage of the Lexington speech, on his hit DVD Fall of the Republic. “I can’t stress enough how much your organization is scaring the globalists,” he told Rhodes on his show.

All this attention has put Oath Keepers on the radar of anti-hate groups. Last year, the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center both name-checked the group in their reports on rising anti-government extremism. “They think the word ‘patriot’ is a smear,” Rhodes countered during his Dobbs segment. SPLC’s Mark Potok “wants to lump us in with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and of course make the insinuation that we’re the next McVeigh.” But such attacks have only raised Oath Keepers’ profile. After a combative Hardball interview in October—host Chris Matthews asked Rhodes whether Oath Keepers had the “firepower to stand up against the federal government”—the group says it gained 2,000 members in three days.

IT IS EASY ENOUGH to dismiss the Oath Keepers as (in the words of Britain’s Independent) “right-wing crackpots” or “extremist nimrods” (Huffington Post). CNN stressed the group’s conspiracy theories in its series on militias. But beyond the predictable stereotypes, “the reality is a lot of them are fairly intelligent, well-educated people who have complex worldviews that are thoroughly thought out,” says author David Neiwert, who has been following the patriot movement closely since the ’90s.

Rhodes’ vision is simple—”It’s the Constitution, stupid.” He views the founding blueprint the way fundamentalist Christians view the Bible. In Rhodes’ America, sovereign states—”like little labs of freedom”—would have their own militias and zero gun restrictions. He would limit federal power to what’s stated explicitly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; any new federal law affecting the states would require a constitutional amendment. “If your state goes retarded,” he says, “you can move to another state and vote with your feet.” The president would be stripped of emergency powers that allow him to seize property, restrict travel, institute martial law, and otherwise (as the Congressional Research Service has put it) “control the lives of United States citizens.” The Constitution, Rhodes explains, “was created to check us in times of emergency when we are freaking out.”

Much of this is familiar rhetoric, part of a continuous strain in American politics that reemerged most recently during the 1990s. Back then, a similar combination of recession and Democratic rule led to the rise of citizen militias, the Posse Comitatus movement, and Oath Keepers-type groups like Police & Military Against the New World Order. But those groups had little reach. Nowadays, through the power of YouTube and social networking, and with a boost from the cable punditry, Oath Keepers can reach millions and make its message part of the national conversation—furthering the notion that citizens can simply disregard a government they loathe. “The underlying sentiment is an attack on government dating back to the New Deal and before,” says author Neiwert. “Ron Paul has been a significant conduit in recent years, but nothing like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin—all of whom share that innate animus.”

Oath Keepers’ strength derives from what Rhodes calls “a very powerful common bond” (the vow of service) as well as the uniform—”a powerful source of credibility and respect” that allows members to “throw their weight into any movement…and tip any election.” Rhodes is wary of “old-party asshole RINOs” (Republicans in name only)—he mentions Dick Armey, the former House majority leader turned Tea Party sponsor—who in his view are merely out to hijack the grassroots.

In the months I’ve spent getting to know the Oath Keepers, I’ve toggled between viewing them either as potentially dangerous conspiracy theorists or as crafty intellectuals with the savvy to rally politicians to their side. The answer, I came to realize, is that they cover the whole spectrum.

Oath Keepers is officially nonpartisan, in part to make it easier for active-duty soldiers to participate, but its rightward bent is undeniable, and liberals are viewed with suspicion. At lunch, when I questioned my tablemates about the Obama-Hitler comparisons I’d heard at the conference, I got a step-by-step tutorial on how the president’s socialized medicine agenda would beget a Nazi-style regime.

From the podium, ex-sheriff Mack told the crowd that he wished he’d been the officer ordered to escort Rosa Parks off the bus, because not only would he have refused, he would have helped her home and stood guard there. These days, he said, it’s not African Americans who are under attack, but Christians, constitutionalists, and people who uphold family values: This time “it’s going to be Rosa Parks the gun owner, Rosa Parks the tax evader, or Rosa Parks the home-schooler.”

After an Oath Keeper who is also a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War touted IVAW repeatedly on Oath Keepers’ Web forum, Rhodes deleted the guy’s online testimonial. “The IVAW have their own totalitarian mindset,” he told me. “I don’t like communists any more than I like Nazis.”

There may also be serious downsides for a soldier who follows through on his Oath Keepers pledge. Disobeying orders can mean discharge or imprisonment. “You have every right to disobey an order if you think it is illegal,” says Army spokesman Nathan Banks. “But you will face court-martial, and so help you God if you are wrong. Saying something isn’t constitutional isn’t going to fly.”

A soldier like Charles Dyer, who in his July4Patriot persona advocated armed resistance against the government, could risk charges of treason. As a Marine sergeant based out of Camp Pendleton, Dyer posted videos to YouTube last year, his face half-covered with a skull bandana. “With the DHS blatantly calling patriots, veterans, and constitutionalists a threat, all that I have to say is, you’re damn right we’re a threat,” he said in one. “We’re a threat to anyone that endangers our rights and the Constitution of this republic…We’re gathering in defense of our way of life.” For a while, he ran a training compound in San Diego, teaching civilians his Marine combat skills.

Dyer, who with Rhodes’ blessing represented Oath Keepers at an Oklahoma Tea Party rally on July 4, was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with uttering “disloyal” statements. He ultimately beat the charge, left the Marines, and reappeared unmasked on YouTube encouraging viewers to join him at his makeshift training area in Duncan, Oklahoma—”I’m sure the DHS will call it a terrorist training camp.” In January, Dyer was arrested on charges of raping a seven-year-old girl. When sheriff’s deputies raided his home, they found a Colt M-203 grenade launcher believed to have been stolen from a California military base. He now faces federal weapons charges and is being hailed by fringe militia groups like the American Resistance Movement as “the first POW of the second American Revolution.”

Shortly after I asked Rhodes about Dyer—before his arrest hit the news—his testimonial vanished from the group’s website­. Rhodes once endorsed Dyer in glowing terms, but now claims he was never a member because he hasn’t paid dues. Yet Dyer publicly referred to himself as an Oath Keeper, and Rhodes had previously insisted—to Lou Dobbs and anyone else who would listen—that you didn’t need to pay dues to be a member.

In an interview prior to Dyer’s arrest, Andrew Sexton, another uniformed YouTube star who argues the need for armed resistance, criticized Dyer for making himself a target. Sexton, an Army reservist who served in Afghanistan with US Special Operations Command, also keeps his Oath Keepers ties under the radar. Most soldiers, he told me, don’t talk openly about such things, but it’s easy enough to tell which ones have been woken up. The Department of Defense, Sexton added, will be shocked by the number of service members willing to turn against their commanders when the time comes. “It’s an absolute reality,” he says. He views last April’s DHS report on right-wing extremists as a “preemptive attack because they know it’s coming.”

Rhodes isn’t calling for violence—indeed, he insists that his group is about laying down arms rather than turning them on citizens. Yet when he writes that “the oath is like kryptonite to tyrants, as the Founders intended. The time has come for us to use it to its full effect,” some followers take that as a call for drastic action.

Chip Berlet, of the watchdog group Political Research Associates, who has studied right-wing populist movements for 25 years, equates Rhodes’ rhetoric to yelling fire in a crowded theater. “Promoting these conspiracy theories is very dangerous right now because there are people who will assume that a hero will stop at nothing.” What will happen, he adds, “is not just disobeying orders but harming and killing.”

LEE PRAY thinks Rhodes downplays the threat Oath Keepers represents to a rogue administration. “They have to be careful because otherwise they will be labeled as terrorists,” he says. “You have to read between the lines, but I wish they were more up-front with their members.”

It’s not hard to see the appeal of Oath Keepers for guys like Pray and Brandon, frustrated young men nervous about their future prospects. They signed up to defend the greatest country in the world, only to be cast aside. Even their injuries were suffered ingloriously. Brandon can’t sit for long after being flung from a pickup truck; Pray now walks with a cane, possibly for good. The men sincerely believe their country is headed for disaster, but as broken warriors they are powerless to do anything about it. They have tried writing to Congress, signing petitions, and voting, all to no avail. Oath Keepers offers a new sense of pride and comradeship—of being part of something momentous.

And when the time comes, Pray insists he is battle ready. “If the government continues to ignore us, and forces us to engage,” Pray says, “I’m willing to fight to the death.” Brandon, for his part, is resigned about their odds fighting the US military. “If we take up arms, realistically we would lose, and they would label us as terrorists,” he says. Pray nods sadly in agreement. But they’ll take their chances. They consider it their duty.

MoJo talks about treason. Consider who and what MoJo thinks Oath Keepers are betraying.

What Is Mother Jones? | Mother Jones:

Mother Jones is a nonprofit news organization that specializes in investigative, political, and social justice reporting.

What’s with the name?

Mary Harris “Mother” Jones was a very cool woman who fought for the underdog and made herself up to look way older than she was so that when she got beat down by Pinkerton agents, she’d gain public sympathy. Brilliant! That said, it’s an odd name for a magazine. Our founders had originally wanted to call it New Dimensions (no comment), but when that name was taken, they pegged their ID to the radical reformer who’d been dubbed “the most dangerous woman in America.” Too bad not many people actually know who she was.

My brother says you’re a lefty pinko rag. True?

Here’s where we’re coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we’re not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. (We’ve noticed, though, that the people who resort to name-calling are often just trying to distract the public from their own misdeeds.)

See also, DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites.

Blog

A Brief Sample of the Anti-White Reaction to Arizona

38 Comments

ARIZONA’S DREADFUL ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of LA Cardinal Roger Mahony, 18 April 2010:

What led the Arizona legislature to pass such a law is so obvious to all of us who have been working for federal comprehensive immigration reform: the present immigration system is completely incapable of balancing our nation’s need for labor and the supply of that labor. We have built a huge wall along our southern border, and have posted in effect two signs next to each other. One reads, “No Trespassing,” and the other reads “Help Wanted.” The ill-conceived Arizona law does nothing to balance our labor needs.

The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That’s also nonsense. American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation. Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers? Are family members and neighbors now supposed to spy on one another, create total distrust across neighborhoods and communities, and report people because of suspicions based upon appearance?

This is delusional. The government has not finished the border wall, and the people at the top never intend to finish it. The government hasn’t effectively enforced immigration law since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback in the 1950s, and the signs the anti-White regime has been flashing for decades now read “Free Stuff, Come And Get It!” and “Welcome Non-Whites!”

More than anything else it is mass immigration that brings distrust and suspicions based on appearance, and more than anyone else it is the anti-Whites in media and government forcing this upon us. The Nazism-as-the-epitome-of-evil theme is ever popular, especially in the venom aimed at Arizonans. It indicates the depth and breadth of jewish influence on culture and thought.

The “Russian Communist techniques” were largely jewish techniques. The chilling totalitarian grip of political correctness has increased exactly as jewish influence and power has increased. To the extent “Russian Communist techniques” are already present in this country – be it laws against free speech, free association, or people being encouraged to turn in “racists” and “haters” – jews are the prime source. In earlier times, pre-Vatican II, a Catholic clergyman would have understood and might have forthrightly said as much. Father Coughlin also delved into economics and politics, but unlike Mahony Coughlin sided with the common man, not the aliens or plutocrats.

Obama Seeks Immigration Overhaul, Slams Arizona Law, Bloomberg, 23 April 2010:

“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said. It also may hamper trust between residents and law enforcement authorities, he said.

He said he has instructed U.S. authorities to monitor the state’s actions and to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the legislation.

“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”

Obama, the ostensible president of the United States and commander in chief of its armed forces, is obviously more concerned for the welfare of invading aliens than the citizenry of Arizona. In this Obama is only slightly worse than his pro-immigrant predecessors, Bush and Clinton. There has been no “failure to act”. The lack of action has been completely deliberate. Mission accomplished, as planned.

For years members of the anti-White regime have sympathized with a surreally constant “12 million” “hiding in the shadows”. Some now are beginning to pretend that the number has actually decreased. The truth is that nobody knows how many interlopers there are. All we do know is that they have no reason to hide. The regime has made it clear that they have no intention to find illegal aliens, much less deport them.

Not in my state: Anti-immigration law doesn’t reflect the beliefs of Arizona’s people, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Washington Post, 23 April 2010:

As an immigration bill that nationally embarrasses Arizona becomes bad law, our best hope in my hometown is that the rest of America doesn’t do to Arizona what Senate Bill 1070 requires our police officers to do to people with brown skin: “profile” them based on stereotypes and insufficient information.

Our state is frustrated. We have become ground zero in the battle over illegal immigration because of years of lapsed federal border security. This week that frustration exploded, thanks to hateful political opportunists such as state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the legislation, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is already under investigation by the federal Justice Department for alleged violations of civil rights.

We in Arizona do respect the Constitution, just as we respect the hard work and sacrifices of the many immigrants who have contributed to making our state a diverse, welcoming place. That respect has driven a series of massive, passionate counterprotests to this legislation, and it will continue to drive opposition from the center, the left and the moderate right. The opponents of S.B. 1070 are many in Arizona, a majority who can no longer be silent if the price of silence is allowing the vocal, spiteful few to rule: All of us, from business leaders to police chiefs, elected representatives to church groups, will continue to pressure Gov. Brewer. As we see it, the governor must call a special session of our legislature to fix the act’s myriad flaws.

Until she does, we will explore every option available to quell the fear and frustration that have become rampant here. Already, I have called a special meeting of the Phoenix City Council to establish standing to sue the state on the grounds that S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of the federal government.

Where the archbishop only alluded to appearance the jewish mayor lays it out plainly – he thinks the law is not good for people with brown skin. Whites in Arizona, and indeed the entire country, don’t want to be branded as “racist” or “anti-semites”. They don’t want to say “we don’t want to live around and be attacked by non-Whites”, lest they be attacked by non-Whites for saying so. So instead they say “we want our laws enforced”, and are promptly attacked by non-Whites anyway. The jewish mayor and other “people of color” are the ones who so bluntly associate illegal immigration with brown skin. It’s one of the few things they’re actually being honest about. Whites aren’t trying to be dishonest in avoiding the subject. They’re afraid of the consequences of discussing it.

Another common theme in pro-brown/pro-invasion rhetoric is the suggestion that politicians who seek to do what voters want are “political opportunists”. Oddly, nobody ever gets accused of that when they’re pandering to latinos or jews. Every politician, for or against, knows immigration, put to a vote, would lose. Full of hate and spite, members of the anti-White regime try to stereotype anyone who wants to restrict immigration as hateful and spiteful. We’re all equal, but they alone know best what’s in everyone else’s interests. They are more than willing to frustrate our desires and direct fear at us while they self-righteously defend their heroes, the invaders who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to invade our country.

Phoenix is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Hispanics fear profiling under new Arizona law, AP, 24 April 2010:

Arodi Berrelleza isn’t one of the targets of Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration – he’s a U.S. citizen, a high school student from Phoenix.

But the 18-year-old said he’s afraid he’ll be arrested anyway if police see him driving around with friends and relatives, some of them illegal immigrants.

“If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he’s going to stop me,” Berrelleza said. “What if people are U.S. citizens? They’re going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin.”

Berrelleza’s concerns were echoed by Hispanics across the state Saturday, a day after Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling despite Brewer’s assurances.

Supporters dismiss concerns about racial profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. The measure’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, said opponents are using racial profiling as a cover for their true concern – deportation.

“This is not about profiling. They’re worried about the laws being enforced,” Pearce said.

Immigrant advocates say the bill could worsen an already tenuous relationship between law enforcement and Hispanics in Arizona.

State Sen. Rebecca Rios, a Phoenix Democrat and fourth-generation Arizonan, said she’s concerned about her 14-year-old son being harassed by police because of his brown skin, black hair and dark-brown eyes.

“I don’t want my son or anyone else’s son targeted simply because of their physical characteristics,” Rios said. “There’s no reason I should have to carry around any proof of citizenship, nor my son.”

Fear is another major theme. The conventional anti-White wisdom is that White fears are imaginary and illegitimate because they are based on greed, laziness, or ill-will toward others; but brown fears are tangible and legitmate because they reflect a sincere fear of those crazy, nasty White people. This skewed view filters down even to 18-year-olds who, if they’re brown, feel free to express themselves about everything the regime has deliberately and actively encouraged them to fear. Meanwhile 18-year-old Whites are indoctrinated to fear their Whiteness and the thought that they might have interests as a White person.

One deliberately encouraged false fear is that illegal aliens will stop cooperating with the police. It ignores the reality that the invaders have defied the law to get here, and if they were interested in cooperating they would leave. Deporting them would prevent them from being either perpetrators, witnesses, or victims of crime – making the whole issue of cooperation with the police moot.

In Rebecca Rios we also see clearly the Trojan Horse nature of immigration. After four generations Rios still feels like an alien, despite her political power. She blames us for this, and sides with the aliens, “brown” like her, even though they just snuck across the border. I can understand that. I have similar feelings, except my distrust is for “people of color”, and my affinity is for Whites.

Fifty years ago the census didn’t even count latinos. Now we’re informed that they’ll be taking over. It’s entirely due to immigration. Why should Whites stand by and watch this happen? Why shouldn’t we do something to prevent ourselves from being overrun by people who so dislike us, even after spending generations among us? We shouldn’t.

Arizona immigration law protesters urge action, Reuters, 25 April 2010:

Representative Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, called the new Arizona rule that police determine if people are in the country illegally a “serious civil rights catastrophe that Republicans in Arizona are unleashing on immigrants.”

“I am going there to let the people of Arizona know that they are not alone in fighting against bigotry and hatred,” said Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat.

“I have not seen the Latino community nationwide react in such a forceful way to an attack on immigrants since 2006, just after House Republicans passed a measure to criminalize and deport all undocumented immigrants and their families,” he added.

Immigration is a bitterly contested issue in the United States, where some 10.8 million illegal immigrants live and work in the shadows. But until recently it has been eclipsed at the national level by issues including healthcare and financial reform, angering many Latino supporters of Obama.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, asked on CNN’s “State of the Nation” if Hispanic-American voters might be stay home without a serious effort by Obama to deal with immigration this year, said that although it was a national issue, “there is a problem in the Latino community. They see it as a civil rights issue of their time.”

ARIZONA PROTESTS

Echoing this sentiment, Ramon M. Garcia, an activist who traveled from Tucson to take part in Sunday’s rally said, “I feel very strongly that the law is extremely unconstitutional and racist, and it violates both human and civil rights.”

More hate-filled latino supremacist bigots hypocritically hyperventilating about bigotry and hatred. Like Phil Gordon, and in strong contrast to White pundits and leaders, these non-Whites unabashedly see politics, and immigration in particular, through a brown lens. If non-Whites are so disturbed by the supposed bigotry and hatred of Whites, then why do they want to live among us? I don’t think they are disturbed. But they know we are.

Note Reuters’ sympathetic reference to the supposedly shrinking number “in the shadows”. The major media outlets keep immigration in the shadows when it suits their agenda, which is most of the time. Throughout the last presidential campaign there was a virtual media blackout on the subject. What they do report is hopelessly biased in favor of immigrants and immigration. Immigration hasn’t been “eclipsed” by healthcare or the bailouts either. It is considered “racist” to mention the links between these things, and other than an occasional “YOU LIE!” the links are actively ignored by the media and politicians. Immigration has thus been effectively disassociated from its role in both healthcare and the bailout ripoff. In a healthy country, with a government loyal to its citizens, the wisdom of extending free medical coverage and credit to “undocumented migrants” would have been strenuously debated.

Arizona rep.: Overturn ‘this unjust, racist law’, Philadelphia Daily News, 26 April 2010:

Civil-rights activists called on President Obama yesterday to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants and promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure takes effect.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.

“We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law,” said Grijalva.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking yesterday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize “freedom walkers” to challenge the Arizona law.

“We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest,” Sharpton said.

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants, AP, 26 April 2010:

The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.

Currently, many U.S. police departments do not ask about people’s immigration status unless they have run afoul of the law in some other way. Many departments say stopping and questioning people will only discourage immigrants from cooperating to solve crimes.

In a statement Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the state’s new law would probably hinder law enforcement in dealing with more serious crimes. Napolitano vetoed similar proposals when she was Arizona governor.

“They would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve,” she said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton.

More alienated bigots openly advocating in favor of lawlessness. This is why what used to be immigration is more properly seen as an invasion. We ask them to get documents and show them and it’s painted as a catastrophic violation of their “civil rights”, which in effect means their rights to inflict harm on us, to displace and dispossess us. Meanwhile, what they’re doing – violating laws, advocating for brown interests – is painted as perfectly normal and just. It’s simply “people of color” doing what’s best for “people of color”.

Breathing While Undocumented, Linda Greenhouse, NYTimes.com, 26 April 2010:

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

The intent of the new Arizona law, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.” Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Tucson, has already called on the nation’s business community to protest the law by withholding its convention business. Such boycotts can be effective, as demonstrated in the late-1980s when the loss not only of convention business but of — horrors! — the Super Bowl prompted Arizona voters to reinstate a Martin Luther King holiday in the state.

But a boycott is a blunt instrument that can hurt innocent business owners and their employees. So I will stick to my own personal protest without presuming to urge anyone else to follow my example.

Rather, I’ll offer a reflection on how, a generation ago, another of the country’s periodic anti-immigrant spasms was handled by the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.

The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major debate within his administration over whether to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the admirable solicitor general, refused to do so.

In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. The law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents,” he wrote.

I have no doubt that but for that ruling, public school systems all over the country would be checking papers and tossing away their undocumented students like so much playground litter. Blocked from that approach, local governments now try others.

Here’s a modest proposal. Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: I Could Be Illegal.

Believe it or not the creature who wrote this turgid little fulsome screed

is the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School. She was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

If it wasn’t clear from the characteristic hyperbole, melodrama, and history lecture, yes, Greenhouse is jewish. Against the odds she somehow managed to find and marry another jew, depriving an “undocumented” of untold joy.

As Greenhouse herself recounts, as far back as 1975 the American government at the highest levels was already reneging on in its duty to protect its citizens. Yet Greenhouse pathologizes us for trying to do something to protect ourselves. Americans haven’t migrated to Mexico and forced Mexican kids out of their schools. It’s the Mexicans coming here, illegally, overcrowding our schools, squeezing out our children. Today we’re still pathetically attempting to defend ourselves. Meanwhile latinos and jews openly scheme how to best impose more hardship on us. Here’s a modest proposal for the invaders and their anti-White apologists. Go live and walk the streets among your own kind. If you think that’s an insult, an unthinkable curse, then why should we want your kind walking among us?

New Arizona law brings renewed attention to immigration reform, JTA – Jewish & Israel News, 26 April 2010:

Jewish groups are slamming Arizona’s stringent new immigration-enforcement law, but hope outrage over the measure will reignite efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform on a national level.

“I believe that it has absolutely ignited a movement across this country for comprehensive immigration reform,” said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the daughter of Jewish immigrants, who is a co-sponsor of a bill that would provide illegal immigrants with an opportunity to normalize their status. “You see people pouring out of their homes and into the streets and halls of government rejecting this notion of allowing our country to become a police state.”

The new law has been criticized by an array of Jewish groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a public policy umbrella group comprised of the synagogue movements, several national groups and scores of local Jewish communities across North America.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Jewish Democrat, referred to the immigration bill as one that “nationally embarrasses Arizona” in an Op-Ed piece published Saturday in The Washington Post.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a statement that “Allowing an individual’s accent or skin color to precipitate an investigation into his or her legal status is an anathema to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants. The bill is also likely to endanger our communities by discouraging immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement on issues of national security.”

Along similar lines, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a statement saying that “This law makes no sense — it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”

Amy Laff, chair of the Arizona chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, told The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix that she has lingering concerns about the new law.

“I’m concerned that the law will be viewed by many as mean spirited and hostile to minorities,” she said. “I’m also disturbed by the prospect of Arizona residents filing actions against law enforcement personnel whom they deem not to be enforcing federal immigration statutes to the full extent of the law.”

Whites have been indoctrinated to walk on eggshells around jews, even jews who go around “slamming” us with “outrage”. Here they are trying to stigmatize, intimidate, endanger and discourage us – all while they accuse us of doing exactly that. Here’s another modest proposal. Let’s see and understand their behavior as the anti-White “hate” it is.

Jews have an even stronger Trojan Horse tendency than latinos. Of all people it is jews who have an historic status as a nation of immigrants. Certainly Israel is more a nation of immigrants than the US. Schakowsky, Gordon, Saperstein, Hier and any jew who thinks like they do should make aliyah so as to better preach to their own people about getting brown-skinned immigrants to cooperate with Israeli authorities.

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona, San Francisco Chronicle, 27 April 2010:

Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

Newsom, while blasting the Arizona law as “unacceptable,” has expressed skepticism about unintended consequences from a city-instituted boycott, including opening up San Francisco to lawsuits if it includes rescinding already-awarded contracts. He also questioned what companies it would cover.

To address those questions, the mayor today convened a taskforce that includes representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, Controller, city purchasing office and his chief of staff to look at a “smart and effective” targeted boycott, Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker said.

Treasonous latinos and a useful idiot White mayor. Whether we see politics in us and them terms or not the “people of color” do, brazenly exploring “smart and effective” ways to target us.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law, Bloomberg, 27 April 2010:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”

In 2007 Calderon said:

I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said. “And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.

Aliens in Mexico are required to carry their documents. They are forbidden to protest or otherwise try to influence government policy.

Napolitano: Ariz. law could stretch fed resources, AP, 27 April 2010:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says Arizona’s new immigration law could siphon federal money and staff needed to go after dangerous immigrants.

Napolitano says Immigration and Customs Enforcement fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Napolitano’s department oversees border security.

First of all, the cost of enforcing immigration laws is vastly outweighed by the cost of not doing so. More on those costs at the end of this post.

Second, the expense is small compared to other government spending. For example, it costs US taxpayers about a million dollars a year per soldier to protect poppy farmers on the other side of the globe. The ICE budget for 2010 is around $5.7 billion for some 15,000-17,200 employees. Obama’s 30,000 man surge in Afghanistan will cost an extra $30 billion per year on top of whatever was already being spent there. The argument that enforcing immigration laws is too expensive is made in bad faith by people who know better. A loyal and legitimate regime would put our soldiers to work defending our country from invasion.

Is Arizona’s new immigration law unconstitutional?, The Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 2010:

US Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters on Tuesday that he has assembled a group of lawyers from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to weigh a possible federal lawsuit.

Last week, President Obama called the Arizona law “misguided,” and instructed administration lawyers to “examine the civil rights and other implications.”

Holder voiced similar concerns. He said the measure was “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials. He declined to offer a more detailed legal analysis of the law’s ability to survive a constitutional lawsuit.

“We are reviewing the law right now,” the attorney general said. “We have a group that has been together over the past few days to examine exactly what our reaction is going to be.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. He did not say why.

“What happened in Arizona is that good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law that I think is unconstitutional,” he said during a hearing with Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano told the Judiciary Committee she had deep concerns about the law from a law enforcement perspective. “We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes,” she said.

This is another surreal take on immigration. Potential abuse by law enforcement officials is more important to prevent than the actual costs and crimes imposed by the invasion.

What is the benefit of waiting until the invaders commit a serious crime? It doesn’t save money. Our country is our collective home, and home invasion is a serious crime. Discrimination is supposed to be a bad thing, so stop discriminating and deport all the invaders ASAP, before they have a chance to commit more serious crimes.

Bill Clinton Sees ‘More Immigrants’ As A Way To Reduce Deficit, Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 28 April 2010:

Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants — not fewer — to ensure its long-term fiscal future.

At a symposium on deficit reduction today (see my earlier story), Clinton said that one key to avoiding massive debt is to maintain a good ratio between people paying into the system, and those receiving payouts (through such programs as Social Security.)

That means more jobs and more people working, he said. “Which to me means more immigrants.”

Clinton spoke glowingly of the immigrant experience in the United States. “We’ve got somebody from everywhere here, and they do well,” he said.

And looking at the overall budget numbers, comparing money in to money out, “I don’t think there’s any alternative for us but increasing immigration,” he said. “I just don’t see any palatable way out of this unless that’s part of the strategy.”

Clinton didn’t mention it, but it’s not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury’s balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits.

Clinton justifies genocidal levels of immigration by claiming it’s profitable and beneficial for the immigrants. Froomkin thinks even illegal immigration is “lucrative”. No doubt it has enriched some people, including the invaders, but it has cost the rest of us our country.

AZ cities consider fighting immigration law, AP, 28 April 2010:

The cities include Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff. Their possible legal action could lend momentum to the backlash over the harsh immigration crackdown.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon criticized the measure as “economically devastating.” But he was unable Tuesday to muster support from Phoenix City Council members to jointly file suit to block implementation of the law.

The mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.

The Arizona legislature and governor passed the law because Arizona is being bankrupted by immigration. Just like California. If stopping immigration turns out to be “economically devastating” to Arizona it will most likely be due to boycotts and other economic sabotage organized by latinos and jews.

Mega March leader fears ‘ethnic cleansing’, WFAA.com Dallas, 28 April 2010:

The streets of downtown Dallas were filled with several hundred thousand people in 2006 to protest immigration reform.

At a news conference Wednesday, a diverse group of activists vowed to march again to promote justice for everyone.

“If they come in the morning for brown-skinned people and we remain silent, they may come in the evening for us,” said Peter Johnson, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “So we must stand against Arizona.”

Johnson marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. He strongly disagrees with Arizona law that now lets police check immigration status at any time.

The biggest fear? “There will be an ethnic cleansing in the State of Arizona,” said march organizer Domingo Garcia. “Once we have ethnic cleansing like we had in the Balkans, next there will be Oklahoma that has bills pending, and other states could follow.”

California is already being ethnically cleansed of Whites. The media and politicians don’t care. If anything they blame White Flight on Whites.

The following articles from various NBC affliate come with sidebars indicating reader feedback. As usual, wherever public feedback is permitted it clearly demonstrates how displeased the public is with the media and government.

Top Calif. Lawmaker: Cut Ties With Arizona, NBC Bay Area, 28 April 2010:

69% LAUGHING
16% FURIOUS
8% THRILLED

Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state’s contracts with Arizona.

Steinberg also wants to, “ensure that no new contracts are negotiated until Arizona’s law is effectively repealed.”

Rep Wants AZ Immigration Law in Texas, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, 28 April 2010:

86% THRILLED
7% FURIOUS
2% INTRIGUED
2% LAUGHING
2% SAD

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat and former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, called the law “extremely damaging and hateful.”

Van de Putte predicted failure for any similar measures in Texas and said the GOP would suffer politically for such a move.

LA Could Pass Arizona Boycott, NBC Los Angeles, 29 April 2010:

56% FURIOUS
22% THRILLED
16% LAUGHING

“More than half of the folks living in Los Angeles are Latino, and for us to do nothing is unacceptable,” he said. “For us to not to take heed to this action, which essentially is promoting this concept that every state can establish their own federal immigration laws, is just wrong and dangerous.”

The resolution introduced by [Los Angeles City Council member Ed] Reyes and Councilwoman Janice Hahn calls for the city of Los Angeles to “refrain from conducting business with the state of Arizona including participating in any conventions or other business that requires city resources, unless SB 1070 (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Acts”) is repealed.”

“On the boycott, what we want to do is make sure we understand and review every monetary transaction, any kind of funding that comes from Los Angeles (to Arizona), evaluate it, refrain from conducting business with them and make them aware that their actions have real consequences from a monetary view,” Reyes said.

“The Spanish-speaking community is the largest part of the economy. Without our participation, (Arizona) will be hurt, and if every state in this country took the same road, we could isolate (Arizona) economically so they can understand how they are mistreating and abusing people in America,” he said.

This again illustrates the willingness to work collectively to deliberately inflict harm, to force immigration upon the White community which doesn’t want it.

How Arizona’s law will hurt America: Mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute, New York Daily News, 28 April 2010:

A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.

The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently – or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Already, stories are appearing about foreign travelers crossing Arizona off their vacation lists. Who wants to visit the Grand Canyon if you could end up getting hassled by the police – or arrested – if you leave your passport at the hotel? Foreign business leaders may also think twice about visiting or investing in Arizona.

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona’s lead – as some are now discussing – the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

What’s at stake here is nothing less than America’s international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world’s strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona’s anti-immigrant law: ‘We are committing national suicide’, New York Daily News, 29 April 2010:

“This is not good for the country. I don’t agree with it,” he said. “We love immigrants here.”

Bloomberg said that because federal lawmakers have failed to tackle the thorny issue, lawmakers in states like Arizona have taken matters into their own hands.

“This country is committing national suicide,” Bloomberg said.

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can’t prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Bloomberg deemed it an invitation to harassment.

“We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here,” the mayor said. “We’re not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don’t make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let’s get on with this.”

Bloomberg long has been a supporter of immigration reform, saying current law deters international companies from sending employees through border hassles to work in the U.S. – and freezes out the highly skilled immigrants America needs.

“We don’t have doctors, and we’re not allowing people who want to come here and be doctors to come here,” the mayor said. “This is just craziness.”

National suicide? If we need more doctors, or more of anything else, it’s only because the population is larger. And that growth is driven entirely by immigration.

What’s crazy is the number of prominent politicians who will openly admit that they think genocidal levels of immigration are justified by economics and profit. It is the immigrants, and the Trojan descendents of immigrants, who are balkanizing America. More precisely it is latinos and jews who are here openly arguing that for their own good they will harm Whites who stand in their way. It is not suicide. It is two nations trying to destroy another.

New York is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Michael Bloomberg, Wikipedia:

Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is the current Mayor of New York City, and the 8th richest person in the United States with personal wealth of US$18 billion in 2010.[2] He is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial news and information services media company.

His father, William Henry Bloomberg, born in Chelsea, Massachusetts on January 19, 1906, was the son of Alexander “Elick” Bloomberg, a Russian Jewish immigrant and a real estate agent. His mother, Charlotte Bloomberg (nee Rubens), born January 2, 1909 in New Jersey, was the daughter of a Russian immigrant and a New Jersey–born mother.

In March 2009, Forbes reported Michael Bloomberg’s wealth at $16 billion, a gain of $4.5 billion since the previous year, which makes him one of the most successful billionaires in the United States during the recession, and the world’s biggest increase in wealth in 2009.

Bloomberg’s Offshore Millions, The New York Observer, 20 April 2010:

According to an extensive review of the mayor’s financial records by The Observer, even as Mr. Bloomberg was trying to counter the loss of taxes and other income from the richest New Yorkers, the foundation he controls was in the process of shuttling hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city and into controversial offshore tax havens that would produce nothing at all for the city in terms of tax revenue.

By the end of 2008, the Bloomberg Family Foundation had transferred almost $300 million into various offshore destinations—some of them notorious tax-dodge hideouts. The Caymans and Cyprus. Bermuda and Brazil. Even Mauritius, a speck of an island in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar. Other investments were spread around disparate locations, from Japan to Luxembourg to Romania.

Bloomberg says we can’t deport the aliens or the aliens will stop visiting and investing in America. He has already shipped his money overseas. Now if we can just get him to leave…

Mack (R) compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany, The Hill, 29 April 2010:

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) ripped into the new Arizona immigration law today, comparing it to Nazi Germany.

“This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause,” Mack said in a statement.

“This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in,” he added.

The country I grew up and believe in and want my children to grow up in is one where the government is loyal to their nation and defends it against all attacks. We don’t need to go back in time. Israel is the best current example of what Mack so vehemently opposes. Until Whites once again have an ethnostate of our own Mack should feel free to denounce Israel.

Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost State Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game; Some Push Boycotts, ABC News, 29 April 29 2010:

A New York congressman who called for the league to move the 2011 game from Phoenix is the latest person to push for an economic boycott against the state in protest of the new law.

“I think that when people, states, localities make decisions this monumental, they should know the full consequence of that decision,” Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y., said. “I think Major League Baseball, with 40 percent Latino ballplayers at all levels, should make a statement that it will not hold its All-Star Game in a state that discriminates against 40 percent of their people.”

Our country is flooded with aggressive, imperious immigrants as a consequence of previous decisions not to enforce immigration laws. As their numbers increase we should know that they will only become more aggressive and imperious.

Editorial – Stopping Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law, NYTimes.com, 29 April 2010:

A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects. And this is not a local fight. The poison is spreading; there is talk in Texas of passing a version of the Arizona statute.

President Obama has called the law “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. But when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize. He should act. Here’s a partial but urgent to-do list:

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS The Justice Department needs to challenge this law forcefully in court. The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.

The mainstream jewish paper of record weighs in with it’s own racial double-standard: doing what Whites want is “spreading poison” while doing what latinos want is “defending civil rights”.

At this point in the one-sided “debate” polls reveal that Arizona’s new law has strong support throughout the country.

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law, UPI.com, 29 April 2010:

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they’d support requiring their own police to determine people’s U.S. status if there was “reasonable suspicion” the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn’t prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, Gallup, 29 April 2010:

More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona’s new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

In politics numbers like this are commonly interpreted as a landslide. With immigration it is interpreted as meaning 51% of the population is “racist”.

Gallup’s puzzling new Arizona immigration poll, Media Matters, 29 April 2010:

Gallup polled adults nationally about a law that only applies to one state and that, at the time of the survey, had only really been in the national news for a few days, and assumed people who had “heard” of the new law knew what the law was about? That strikes me as odd.

It strikes me as odd that this skepticism is aimed at the people who were polled rather than at the politicians and media pundits who are paid to know these things, and who from the start have been spewing blatantly ignorant and biased views uncritically amplified and broadcast by the mainstream media. What the people polled have “heard” has been overwhelmingly opposed to the law, and yet they still strongly support it.

Immigration debate shakes US to the core, AFP, 30 April 2010:

Some of the strongest criticism has come out of New York, an immigrant magnet where 60 percent of residents are foreign born, or children of foreign-born parents.

A group of Latino members in the New York state assembly is even planning to go and chain themselves to the US-Mexico border fence.

“We’re willing to risk ourselves for the people of Arizona and other immigrants across the country,” local lawmaker Felix Ortiz told Cityhallnews.com.

Entertainers speak out on Ariz. immigration law, AP, 30 April 2010:

“Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down,” singer Linda Ronstadt, a Tucson native, said at a news conference on a lawsuit planned by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.

Colombian singer Shakira visited Phoenix to meet the city’s police chief and mayor amid her concerns the measure would violate human and civil rights.

“It goes against all human dignity.” she said.

At the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony in Puerto Rico, singer Ricky Martin denounced the law, too, saying it “makes no sense.”

In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the measure “a planned Apartheid against Mexicans.”

And officials in El Salvador urged countrymen to avoid traveling to Arizona, according to the Foreign Ministry. In Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States and the United Nations “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders also sued Thursday, and sought an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argued that federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they’re convicted.

In filing his suit, [15-year Tucson police veteran Martin] Escobar, argued that there’s no way for officers to confirm a person’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates constitutional rights. Tucson police said Escobar acted on his own.

More Trojan latinos coming out of the woodwork to side with their people.

Guillen Says Immigrants Deserve to Be Praised, NYTimes.com, 30 April 2010:

“This country could not survive without Mexicans, all the Latinos,” [manager of the Chicago White Sox Ozzie] Guillen said. “They cannot live without us. A lot of people from this country, they’re very lazy. They want to be on the computer and sending e-mail, and we do the hard work. We’re the ones who work in the sun all day long to make this country better.”

Guillen said laborers who do not speak English were sometimes exploited in the United States. “We’re abused,” he said. “They’re cheaper, or they can’t say no. They are underpaid and they are still working.”

“Believe me, we’re pretty smart,” Guillen said. “We come all the way from Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and you’ve got to cross the border and we did it. We’re going to spread all over the place. We’re going to keep moving around. We’re not leaving because we’re not doing anything wrong.”

Numerous Whites have lost their jobs for making less “supremacist” statements. Guillen won’t even be reprimanded. He’s special. He’s latino. More importantly, the Chicago White Sox owners are, guess who – Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn.

Keep Protesting The Arizona Diamondbacks, Thomas Alter, Huffington Post, 1 May 2010:

This issue does not start or end with the Diamondbacks. Major League Baseball has turned a blind eye to players with murky immigration status such as Joakim Soria, all-star closer for the Royals. There are dozens of players in the big leagues alone whose citizenship is in question. What happens when the Royals come to Arizona? What happens if Soria makes the all-star game in 2011 which is scheduled to be played in Phoenix? If a police officer sees Soria are they legally bound to arrest him? If not, than the bill is pointless. It says that you can pick on the poor migrant worker but not the million-dollar baseball player. This is precisely why the MLB Players Union has come out strongly against the bill. They realize how absurd it is that a quarter of their league would be racially profiled if they lived in Arizona. For a league that’s very conscious of their image within the Latino community, this issue could be devastating.

It’s not hard to imagine there are dozens of players in the big leagues whose citizenship is in question. We’ve got a president who’s in the same boat, in a manner of speaking.

In response to Alter’s sympathetic post someone left a pointed comment that applies just as well to all of these vapid apologists:

Like it or not, everyone on the planet cannot live in the United States.

The Associated Press: MLB players’ union opposes Arizona immigration law, AP, 1 May 2010:

Given a chance to take part in the 2011 All-Star game at Arizona, Ozzie Guillen insists he won’t go.

“I wouldn’t do it,” the Chicago White Sox manager said Friday. “As a Latin American, it’s natural that I have to support our own.”

“It’s a bad thing,” said Baltimore shortstop Cesar Izturis, born in Venezuela. “Now they’re going to go after everybody, not just the people behind the wall. Now they’re going to come out on the street. What if you’re walking on the street with your family and kids? They’re going to go after you.”

“These international players are very much a part of our national pastime,” MLB union head Michael Weiner said. “Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status.”

Nonsensical phrases like “international players are very much a part of our national pastime” are hardly surprising coming from a self-consciously ethnocentric jew like Weiner. He’ll surely have a good laugh about it with his jewish students.

Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies, AP, 1 May 2010:

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and “came out” about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t.”

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona’s new law targets Mexicans.

“This country doesn’t seem to be anti-immigrant,” said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. “It seems to be anti-Mexican.”

Here we have Mexicans breaking laws to help other Mexicans who have broken laws because they perceive the laws to be anti-Mexican. And nobody in government or media is hectoring them about “racism”.

An estimated 8,000 people protest Arizona immigration law in Chicago, chicagotribune.com, 1 May 2010:

Poland-born Ursula Domaradzki of Lombard, who became a U.S. citizen about a decade ago, said she worries authorities could use the law to harass people based on the color of their skin or thickness of their accent.

“This is a country of immigrants,” said Domaradzki, who had come downtown for the Polish Constitution Day parade and stayed for the immigration march. “I’m concerned about what’s happening in Arizona, and I fear it’s going to lead to discrimination.”

For every self-interested immigrant like Domaradzki there are surely others who don’t want to see America overrun by immigrants, because after all, if they wanted to live with latinos or Poles they would have immigrated to Mexico or stayed in Poland. Of course the media does a good job of lending their megaphone mostly to open border fanatics.

Hispanics decry Arizona law at May Day rallies, Reuters, 1 May 2010:

Activists want a repeal of the law that seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of the U.S.-Mexico border state and they want Obama to fulfill his election promise to overhaul immigration laws. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Latin America, live in the United States.

“What is happening in Arizona is making the community come out to the street,” said activist Omar Gomez in Los Angeles.

Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States and a powerful voting bloc, particularly in Southwestern states.

“Laws that make suspects out of people for no other reason than the color of their skin have no place in our country,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Mexican-American, told marchers packing into the city center.

“We must show that bigotry has no place in the United States of America,” added Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful Hispanics in U.S. politics.

In Washington, Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez from Obama’s home state of Illinois, was arrested with 34 others after they locked arms and sat in front of the White House fence, chanting Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes we can” in Spanish. The congressman was later released, a spokesman said.

In Chicago, where activists turned out to protest the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team at a game this week, tens of thousands of marchers turned out. In the Boston area, some 2,000 people marched in favor of legalizing undocumented migrants.

Anger at the law spilled over the border to Mexico on Saturday, where activists toting placards reading “Justice for Migrants,” gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Self-interested invader is closer to the truth than “undocumented migrant”.

Los Angeles is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected, AP, 1 May 2010:

A veteran sheriff’s deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

On 4 May 2010 the title had changed to “17 caught in search for deputy’s attackers” the text above was replaced with the following:

Authorities have captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants in southern Arizona as they continued their manhunt Saturday for smugglers who they say shot and wounded a sheriff’s deputy in a remote desert area 50 miles south of Phoenix.

Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop the smuggling and murders.

Thousands across Bay Area protest new Arizona immigration law – 5/01/10 – San Francisco News, abc7news.com, 1 May 2010:

In San Jose, thousands of marchers headed to an evening rally at city hall. In San Francisco, a separate demonstration wrapped up in the afternoon, but not without a bit of trouble.

Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.

They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.

“They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco,” said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. “What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.”

“Nobody is trying to make this a Nazi police state or anything,” said Minutemen member Steve Kemp. “That’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is giving police the authority to be able to question people if they’re in this country illegally.”

But, Andres Balkan of San Francisco believes, “Minute Men is a neo-Nazi organization.”

The regime encourages everyeon to see any White who stands up to defend their interests as “Nazis”. In practice it means we are subhumans who deserve to be assaulted and worse. Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop these attacks.

Dallas immigration Mega March: ‘Education not deportation’ chant thousands of students for Dream Act, Examiner.com, 1 May 2010:

[student co-cordinator, Ramiro Luna] acknowledged seeing anti-immigration reform protesters with signs, “that we would rather not have seen,” at the same time he conceded that there were some marchers, though not in the student group, with swatiska signs depicting Governor Brewer of Arizona as a Hitler with a Nazi band on her arm and Sheriff Arpaio as a KKK leader in front of a burning cross. Although Luna didn’t see any flags that were from other countries, he understood that for every 100 American flags, there was maybe one from another country and he seemed disappointed but resigned that the positive message couldn’t be 100% controlled.

Op-Ed Columnist – If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem, Frank Rich, NYTimes.com, 1 May 2010:

In this Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality, it’s politically incorrect to entertain a reasonable suspicion that race may be at least a factor in what drives an action like the Arizona immigration law. Any racism in America, it turns out, is directed at whites.

Rich, another self-righteous jew, sees the link between the Arizona law and the Tea Party, and like most “people of color” he more clearly sees that it’s about Whites trying to do what’s best for Whites than most Whites do. And he doesn’t like it one bit. In his Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality what Whites are doing is “hysteria”, “a politcal virus”, “vicious”, “bigoted”, “extremist”, “latino-bashing” – and of course we’re only imagining there is any “racism” directed at us.

It has become quite common to find Whites bashed like this in the mainstream media, with Rich and the New York Times being a steady source. However you won’t find any critique of group-obsessed latinos or jews, no matter how openly and aggressively they pursue their group interests.

Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law, Byron York, Washington Examiner, 1 May 2010:

– New York Times editorial
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post
– Cardinal Roger Mahony
– Michael Gerson, Washington Post
– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
– Washington Post editorial
– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post
– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”
– President Barack Obama
– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”

Phoenix Suns to wear ‘Los Suns’ on jerseys on Cinco de Mayo, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

[Phoenix Suns owner Robert] Sarver, who was born and raised in Tucson, said frustration with the federal government’s failure to deal with the illegal immigration issue led to the passage of what he called “a flawed state law.”

“However intended, the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question,” he said, “and Arizona’s already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them.”

Phoenix general manager Steve Kerr said he and Sarver talked about making the gesture as the team flew home from Portland last week.

“We just felt like it was important,” Kerr said. “We’re in the public eye and this is obviously a huge issue. We acknowledge there are two sides to the issue and there are a lot of dynamics. It’s a difficult thing to sift through and there are going to be differing opinions. But what we’re focusing on is we want to celebrate the diversity that exists in our state and the diversity that exists in the NBA, make sure that people understand that we know what’s going on and we don’t agree with the law itself.”

The NBA Players Association released a statement criticizing Arizona’s immigration law and praising the Suns for the gesture.

“We applaud the actions of Phoenix Suns players and management and join them in taking a stand against the misguided efforts of Arizona lawmakers,” the NBAPA said. “We are consulting with our members and our player leadership to determine the most effective way for our union to continue to voice our opposition to this legislation.”

But Kerr said “this isn’t a huge political stand as much as it is just a celebration of diversity.”

He said the Suns called the NBA for approval “and they were all for it.”

Suns coach Alvin Gentry didn’t want to comment on Arizona’s immigration bill and said he was focused on showing appreciation for the Latino community and Arizona’s diversity.

“I’m not trying to duck it,” Gentry said. “I don’t know enough about it to really comment on it. I would think that if it had anything to do with racial profiling, then obviously as an African-American I would not be for anything that had any hint of racial profiling.”

The Suns wore the “Los Suns” jerseys twice in the regular season, and won both games.

“It’s going to be great to wear Los Suns,” Phoenix’s Amare Stoudemire said, “to let the Latin community know that we’re behind them 100 percent.”

No surprise here considering who owns the Suns.

Jews good for the Suns…and vice versa, Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, 12 December 2008:

Although this game marked the first official event geared toward the Jewish community, the Phoenix Suns organization has had ties to the Jewish community since the team’s inception in 1968. Donald Diamond, one of the team’s original owners, is a Jewish real estate agent from Tucson. In fact, Sarver, whose family attended services at Temple Emanu-El in Tucson when he was a child, has said that he first became a basketball fan after receiving Suns tickets as a birthday gift from Diamond, who is a family friend of the Sarvers.

Sarver then asked the children in the crowd if they liked going to Hebrew school. When only a couple said yes, he turned to one of his sons and asked where he would be the next morning. “Hebrew school,” his son muttered despondently into the microphone.

“Our religion teaches about the importance of giving back to the community,” Sarver said to the crowd near the end of the session. “That’s very important, and it’s important to the Phoenix Suns as well.”

Sarver is of course talking about giving to the jewish community.

It’s likely that as Phoenix’s latino community grows and its White community shrinks “Los Suns” ticket sales will dwindle toward zero. In the meantime don’t expect any White, American, or European Heritage Nights.

What’s the proper response to Arizona’s new immigration law? Turn it on its head, Jeff MacGregor, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

If they were smarter, maybe they’d see that baseball offers an answer, a way out. Or a way in. Let life mimic the game. Because at its best, the game is color-blind. Apolitical. It’s a gesture of mind and body that recognizes only mind and body. Run. Hit. Throw. It transcends language and culture and country in the way all sports do. Maybe they’d see it if they were smarter. Maybe they’d see it if they weren’t so frightened and angry. You know how hot-headed and hot-blooded they are.

I mean, it’s not like I’m suggesting we stitch some kind of symbol to their clothes or anything. That’s crazy. A simple laminated card. Maybe with some sort of DNA coding. Or an embedded computer chip. GPS. Make it part of a digital national database. You just carry that special ID card at all times — or maybe wear it around your neck on a lanyard so the police can see it — and be prepared to show it to anyone who asks, and everything will be OK.

Sometimes, doing what seems like a cowardly thing takes a lot of courage. A lot of courage. And then you get used to it and it’s OK. I mean, it gets easier, right? It’s not cowardly anymore. To do these things we have to do to protect ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no bigot. Some of my best friends are from Arizona. Really.

Isn’t that clever? You can safely write all the nasty things you want for ESPN – as long as it’s about “Arizonans”. MacGregor knows how to please his bosses. But his readers weren’t pleased. See Conversations: Razing Arizona.

Arizona’s Short-Sighted Immigration Bill, Joel Kotkin, Newgeography.com, 4 May 2010:

In terms of the Arizona law, this is not simply a case of one wacko state. The most recent Gallup survey shows that more Americans favor the law than oppose it, with independents and Republicans showing strong support. Despite the negative coverage in the media, the Arizona gambit could somewhat pay off in November. A weak economy tends to exacerbate nativist sentiments, something that has been constant throughout much of American history.

You don’t have to go very far–in fact just across the California border–to see what awaits Arizona’s nativist Republicans. The Grand Canyon state’s future has already emerged there. In the 1970s and 1980s California’s generally robust economy made it a primary destination for immigrants from both Asia and Latin America. Comfortable in their Anglo-ness, papers like the Arizona Republic were dismissing California as a “third world state,” particularly in the wake of the 1992 LA riots.

Like their Arizona counterparts today, many white Californians then were sickened by pictures of mass Latino participation in looting during the riots. Many were also concerned with soaring costs of providing social services to a largely poor immigrant population. Sensing an opportunity, in 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson–locked in tough re-election battle amid a deep recession–endorsed Proposition 187, a measure designed to prevent illegal aliens from accessing public services. The measure passed easily, with support from both whites and African-Americans. The strong backing among Independents and even some Democrats helped Wilson win re-election with surprising ease.

But the long-term consequences of 187 reveal the longer-term consequences for the GOP. During the Reagan era and even the first Wilson term, Latino voters split their votes fairly evenly between the parties. But after 1994 there was a distinct turn toward the Democrats, with the GOP share at the gubernatorial level falling from nearly half in 1990 to less than a third in subsequent election. In some cases, right-wing Republicans garnered even smaller portions of Latino voters.

This is a classic case of the past waging war on the future. Since 1990 Latino and immigrant population has continued to grow. Overall, the percentage of foreign-born residents, according to USC demographer Dowell Myers, has grown from roughly 22% to 27%. One-third of Californians in 2000 were Latino; Myers projects Latinos will constitute almost 47% of the state’s population in 2030.

Of course, as Latinos integrate and intermarry, they may become less particular in their world view and share more in common with other middle-class Americans. Yet memories of slights against a particular group can overcome even economic self-interest. Blood often proves thicker than bank accounts. The tendency of Jews, a largely affluent and entrepreneurial tribe, to back often harshly anti-business Democrats has its roots in old world scars left from the pogroms in czarist Russia as well as the right-wing genocide in Nazi Germany. Some older voters recall the rabid anti-Semites once prominent in the American far-right as well as the more genteel exclusionism practiced by more refined upper-class Republicans.

In the future, today’s images of shrill, anti-immigrant right-wing activists could resound for coming generations of Latinos as well as Asians and other newcomer groups.

But instead of fighting for their economic interests, the Arizona law has handed the Democrats a golden opportunity for to engage their own demagogy on race issues. Instead of having to defend their plans to restart the economy and reorient them to middle and working class needs, Democrats now can play to narrow racial concerns among Latinos while further bolstering the self-righteousness of their affluent, white, left-wing base.

The reversion to racial politics prompted by the Arizona law ultimately does no good for anyone except “base-oriented” partisan campaign consultants, nativists and ethnic warlords. With all the long-term economic and social challenges that face this growing country, Phoenix’s folly marks an unfortunate step backward to our more shameful past and away from a potentially promising future.

Proposition 187 was never enforced. The will of all those California voters, including my entire extended family, was nullified by a single judge. Immigration fanatic and billionaire jew David Gelbaum was so freaked out by 187 that he paid the Sierra Club $100 million to stop opposing immigration. Pete Wilson supported 187 because he could see California was being bankrupted by immigration. Wilson was right. Today California is bankrupt, Los Angeles is for all intents a Mexican city, and frustrated Whites are leaving the state in droves. The cause is immigration.

Joel Kotkin echoes his tribemate Frank Rich. They see that what they face is a broad White problem, not confined to Arizona. Kotkin isn’t concerned at all about the shrill anti-White activists. But we should be. Kotkin wants us to relax and accept our fate at the hands of groups (especially latinos and jews) who nurse historic race-based grudges against Whites. Whether we relax and forget the past or not, they won’t.

Kotkin is an enthusiastic cheerleader for genocidal levels of immigration. See Another 100 Million People for the U.S., Mangan’s, 26 March 2010.

Kotkin has also thought deeply about how his own tribe has and will continue to cope with immigration and “the reality of L.A. city schools”. Q & A With Joel Kotkin, Jewish Journal, 5 May 2005:

JJ: What do you think the future holds for L.A. Jews? Do you expect them to grow in number or flee to other cities or states with better schools?

JK: Jews are weird. They will stay around long after their counterparts by class and education from other groups, including Latinos, Asians and African Americans, flee. The growth of Hebrew day schools, even among Reform congregations, may stem the outflow a bit as well. Long term, the economic conditions in L.A. may deal the worst blow, as people seek opportunity and more affordable housing elsewhere. But the Jews will be around in L.A. for quite a long time. We’re not so easy to get rid of, and I think even the next mayor, however noxious his politics, will recognize this and will try to appeal to us.

This interview contains an answer for those people who might wonder, “gee, why would jews want to support open borders and ruin their own home in the US?” Jews like Kotkin are acutely aware of their long history in diaspora, as a minority among other people, White or brown.

– – –

Here are a few recent links concerning the costs of the invasion.

snopes.com: Just One State – Cost of Illegals in Los Angeles.

The Signal – Santa Clarita Valley News – County welfare for kids of illegal aliens tops $50 million in January:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich released figures from the Department of Public Social Services showing that illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits (CALWORKS + Food Stamps) for the month of January.

Approximately 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children.

“When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education,” Antonovich said.

County seeks $2.9 million to jail illegal immigrants | Houston Politics | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

UPDATE 7 May 2010: Activists launch boycott of Arizona over immigration law, AFP, 6 May 2010:

The boycott was called by the National Council of La Raza, the largest US-based Hispanic civil rights group, which also urged President Barack Obama to redouble his efforts to see that immigration reform becomes law.

“We are calling for a boycott because this law will blow open the door to increased racial profiling, wrongful arrests, and other discrimination,” said Janet Murguia, the president of the group, who criticized the Arizona law as “not American.”

“There is a right way and a wrong way” to achieve an overhaul of US immigration policy, she added.

“The right way is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to properly regulate immigration,” she said, urging Americans not to travel to the southwestern US state.

If it gains support, the boycott could put a major crimp in Arizona’s coffers.

The boycott has received strong backing from scores of labor, immigrant and minority rights groups, and since its enactment last month, individual tourists and large companies alike have been canceling conventions and pulling hotel reservations in Arizona.

“We need to send a message to other states,” said Karen Narasaki, of the Asian American Justice Center, giving the boycott her full endorsement.

“There is a price to pay when they abuse the law,” she said.

Meanwhile, the largest US civil rights group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the law “tramples on the civil rights of Hispanic persons and… cannot be enforced without resorting to racial and ethnic profiling.”

President Barack Obama on Wednesday issued his toughest criticism yet of the law, urging Republicans to join him in beginning work on a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.

The US leader said the new law undermines “fundamental principles that define us as a nation.”

“You can’t start singling out people because of who they look like or how they talk or how they dress,” Obama said at the White House, at a reception marking the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

“You can’t turn law-abiding American citizens and law-abiding immigrants into subjects of suspicion and abuse,” Obama said.

“You can’t divide the American people that way. That is not the answer,” he said adding that he had instructed his government to carefully monitor the new law.

This rhetoric, especially Obama’s, is like Frank Rich’s Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality – angry “people of color” unite for their “civil rights” to make “racial profilers” (ie. Whites) pay, while petulant illegal aliens and their bald-faced ethnocentric enablers are magically transformed into “law-abiding” by a treasonous non-White-community-organizer-in-chief who simultaneously accuses White citizens of being paranoid, abusive, and divisive.

“Civil rights” is about “people of color” making Whites pay for being color-blind.

Blog

Sport and Race – Toby Gerhart

4 Comments

Race factors into evaluation of Gerhart – NFL – Yahoo! Sports:

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? – The Huddle: Football News from the NFL – USATODAY.com:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart said. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn’t especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart’s pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it’s a “perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed” and his “pigmentation” is “working against him”.

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname – NFL – Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn’t describe the problem as “the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros”. He’d describe it as “anti-semitism”. He’d be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn’t a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor “African-Americans” over “whites”. We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It’s not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. “People of color” are discriminated against and biologically superior and it’s right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they’ve been discriminating against superior “people of color” for ages.