Return of the War Party

Return of the War Party

Patrick J. Buchanan

men go to Tehran
brayed the neoconservatives,
after the success of their propaganda campaign to have
America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war
that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War

Now they are back, in pursuit of
what has always been their great goal: an American war
on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their
collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:

On being chosen by Israel’s
President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s
“Bibi” Netanyahu

“Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and
constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since
the war of independence.”

Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last
week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by
the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon,
analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to
make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon
appeared imminent.

Asked about Iran’s nukes in his
confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta

“From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no
question that they are seeking that capability.”

Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
, a front
spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the

Iranian portfolio
. AIPAC’s top agenda item? A U.S.
collision with Iran.

In the neocon
Weekly Standard,
Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu,
urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the
Palestinians on a back burner. Why?

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in
the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli
withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to
Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.” [The
Path of Realism or the Path of Failure

The campaign to conflate Hamas,
Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist
cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a
nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has
begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling
on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it
destroys us all cannot be far off.

But before we let ourselves be
stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a
few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.

First, last week’s acknowledgement
that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb
does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.

To construct a nuclear device, the
ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be
run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges
to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).

There is no evidence Iran has
either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges
necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any
of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz. And the
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain
full access to Natanz.

And rather than accelerating
production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the
Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle.

Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the
IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to
negotiate with the United States, but without yielding
any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear
power plants.

For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and
India, none of which signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran
clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed
the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What
it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N.
Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and
sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.

Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who
heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus
of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran
does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear
weapons program.

Bottom line: Neither the United
States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran
either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active
program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear
device and has never demonstrated a capacity to
weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.

Why, then, the hype, the hysteria,
the clamor forAction
This Day
It is to divert America from her
true national interests and stampede her into embracing
as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.

None of this is to suggest the
Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and
progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with
nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to
break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter,
defend against or defeat enemies.

But that is no threat to us to
justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that
hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in
hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence
worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran
that has not launched an offensive war against any
nation within the memory of any living American.

Can we Americans say the same?



Patrick J. Buchanan


no introduction
to VDARE.COM readers;
his book
State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from His latest book
is Churchill,
Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its
Empire and the West Lost the World,



Paul Craig Roberts.

Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

By Linda Thom

“Octomom” Nadya Suleman, whose father is an Iraqi immigrant, received in vitro fertilization and delivered octuplets. Professors of ethics and fertility experts buzz about the negative health consequences for the children and there are many. But what about the social and economic costs of 14 children, all under the age of seven, who must be supported by an unmarried woman?

Even raising one child alone is challenging—and one of Ms Suleman’s older children is autistic. The public, monetary outlays will be immense, but the human costs will also be immense.

Right from the start, babies of single mothers are at a disadvantage. Fetal and Perinatal Mortality, United States, 2005” from the Center for Disease Control reads:

“In 2005, 49% of fetal deaths were to unmarried women, as compared with 37% of live births. . . .Marital status may be a marker for the presence or absence of social, emotional, and financial resources.”

Poor, fatherless children are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care and cognitive stimulation. The boys are more likely to commit serious crimes than their peers with a male presence in their lives. The daughters of unmarried women are more likely to be unwed mothers themselves. Archives of literature exist on this topic.

But unfortunately Ms Suleman is just one of the growing numbers of unmarried mothers—and the rising tide of uneducated, Third-World immigrants is a leading cause.

In January, lost amidst all the news about the failing economy, the inauguration and the war in Gaza, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a rather dry press release with the terse headline: Teen Birth Rates Increase in Over Half of States. [PDF]On the second page, one of the bullets reads: “The birth rate for unmarried women increased 7 percent between 2005 and 2006, reaching 50.6 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years. “

The underlying 104 page document “Births: Final Data for 2006” [Births: 2006] contains this stunning statement:

“More than 1.6 million babies were born to unmarried women in 2006, the highest number ever recorded in the United States. The 2006 total (1,641,946 births) was nearly 8 percent greater than in 2005 (1,527,034) and a 20-percent increase from 2002 when the recent steep increases began.”

This is dreadful news. The total number of births in 2006 was 4.3 million, so illegitimate births amounted to 38.5% of the total. Back in 1980, only 665,747 unmarried women gave birth, 18.4% of the total.

These numbers are not estimates. They are actual numbers compiled by the CDC from birth certificates generated at the local level and reported to the respective states and then to the CDC.

Why this huge increase in unwed mothers? The CDC says that the increase in the 80s and early 90s resulted mainly by an increase in the birth rate for unmarried women. In addition, the CDC states in Births: 2006, “the factor in the long-term increase in the number of births was the growth in the number of unmarried women of childbearing age.” [PDF](My emphasis)

The table below shows the percentage of births to unmarried mothers by race and ethnicity for years 1990 through 2006. (CDC, Vol 52, Num 19 and Births: 2006) Birth rates are not broken out by all races and ethnicities for this entire period.

All Races




Native Am























From this, one can see that the proportion of births to unmarried, non-Hispanic white women and the percentage to unmarried, Hispanic women rose the most—by 9.7 and 13.2 percentage points, respectively. Note, however, that the proportion of unmarried Hispanic mothers of newborns is considerably higher than that of non-Hispanic white mothers—almost double in 2006.

According to the CDC, the rate and “the growth in the number of unmarried women of childbearing age” caused the rise in out-of-wedlock births. Below is a table showing the change in all annual births between 1990 and 2006.


All births


NH All

NH White

NH Black

























“Non-Hispanic All” includes other women besides whites and blacks.

The numbers do not add to the total births because some women’s race and ethnicity are unknown and because some women are multiple races and ethnicities. Nevertheless, this table shows that births to non-Hispanic whites and blacks decreased between 1990 and 2006. But births to Hispanic women increased. (Annual Asian/PI births also increased, from 141,635 in 1990 to 241,045 in 2006).

During the same period, 1990 to 2006, births to unmarried women rose dramatically, from 1,165,384 (28% of all births) to 1,641,946 (38.5% of all births). And births to unmarried Hispanic women rose from an annual 299,733 births in 1990 to 518,125 births. In other words, 63% of the increase in births to unmarried women between 1990 and 2006 was to Hispanics. The table below summarizes these changes.

Births to Unwed women

Births to Unwed Hispanic

Hispanic as a % of all

















Who are these Hispanic women? In Births: 2006, Table 14 shows that 63% of Hispanic women were foreign-born, mostly Mexicans (69% of Hispanics) and Central and South Americans (16% of Hispanics).

Significantly, U.S.-born Hispanics have an even higher out-of-wedlock rate than do foreign-born women. For example, the last time the CDC broke out the rates by natality of mother was in Births: 2003. [PDF] In that year, Births: 2003 shows that U.S.-resident women born in Mexico had 41% of their births out of wedlock; Mexican-American women had 48% their births out of wedlock.

Birth rates for unmarried women are calculated by relating the total births to unmarried mothers, regardless of age, to the population of unmarried women aged 15-44 years of age. In 2006, NH-White women 32; all Black women 71.5 and Asian/Pacific Islander women 25.9—and Hispanic women had a birth rate of 106.1. In simple words, Hispanics have more children per woman than do all other groups of women.

How can America reduce the number of illegitimate births? Quit importing uneducated, Third World immigrants.

How can America change the behavior of American-born Hispanic women—often the children of those illegitimacy-prone immigrants? That is a Medusa of a problem.

Linda Thom [email her] is a retiree and refugee from California. She formerly worked as an officer for a major bank and as a budget analyst for the County Administrator of Santa Barbara.

Locust Says

Locust Says:

The peoples of the Western Nations are the strongest people in the world! We have fought the greatest of wars and have always triumphed over evil. Now the time is approaching when together we will unite the free loving nations of Earth and stand against the darkness that threatens to engulf us all. We must stay vigilant and never give in. the Politically correct would have us surrender our right to life, they would allow the Muslim insurrection to dominate us all, they would allow the masses of the Earths poor overwhelm our industrialized nations, I say we stand and fight, we go on the offensive and destroy those who would destroy us! The other civilizations want war, the Sinic (Chinese’s), Latin, Islamic, they all want War lets give it to them! The west is strong and will always remain so. 57% of Mexican in the US believe the Southwest belongs to Mexico. 66% of Mexican in Mexico see the US as an Enemy nation, that is not a small minority of enemies.

I could not help but notice that America, at least in the southwest has become something akin to a large Wal-Mart. The border remains as porous as a sponge, people entering and leaving as they please, overcrowded lines in ever checkout station, and most of all everything is for sale at dirt cheap prices. The graveyards of our fallen soldiers in aisle one, the constitution in aisle two, our education system in aisle three, get their quick they-re nearly sold out, and the birthright of our children in aisle four. An endless mega mart of America, the sellers think nothing of the end result of their sales, they look to the bottom line, family oriented façade that stands for nothing, they may wave an American flag here or there, but its meaning is lost unto them. The dizzying bombardment of advertisements shaped by multicultural perversion, celebrated by the ignorant masses of self-defecating parasites. Draining all surrounding communities of life, spreading the wholesale destruction of existence. Clearing the aisle with the sponge and mop of political correctness, and whitewashing everything with hypocritical progressive hot air. The customers, in true parasitic fashion, like the busy little ants they are, scurry about from aisle to aisle engorging their progressively obsess mass with the blood of True Americans, with little thought of the victim in each transgression. As in every superstore there are no regulations concerning cart-driving behavior, similar to the off road-raging streets of Tijuana. The dirty looks and gross anti-Americanism around every corner. Trickery and deceit lure each victim further down the aisle of no return, leaving each victim bankrupt and devoid self-identity. No identity, no soul, no value, and no origin, everything is made somewhere else, usually in China. Each sector designated a specialty, although this promotes organization, it also promotes separation akin to separate but unequal turn of the century hell holes in the Deep South. Deep in the backwater aisle, crime and thievery are rampant, absolute disregard for order; these parasites at will take what they can to far-off backwater aisle and engorge themselves with the fruits of their contempt for capitalism. Almost daily sales celebrating this holiday and that, no mention of historical reference or name or dates, just exploitation of the soul of history. Their children are taught at birth the pecking order, each one jealous of the others cart. Massive parking lots, overhead lighting and long walks through the noise and oblivion of hell itself, only to be run down by an obese parasite scampering into a parking space. Everyone knows the value of the dollar, don’t ask whose face is on it or why, just spend uncontrollably, bleed your accounts, trim your belts, and fatten your faces. Like a continued plague of locusts, for each parasite leaving, two more are entering promoting the growth of further superstores, like a cancer it spreads throughout the body nation, killing vital organs of healthcare and education, and cutting of circulation to the political brain, depriving it of oxygenation and nourishment it badly needs for continued function. Each parasite has little if no effect on the body, but 12-25 million (illegal aliens) that’s a different story.

Upside Down Economics

Upside Down Economics

More news stories on Pandering Politicians

Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate, February 27, 2009


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to “encourage” banks and other lending institutions “to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.”


The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required “innovative or flexible” mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed—and if some people didn’t meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bakers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well.

But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else’s approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other “creative” financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.


Original article

Hate Group Numbers Up by 54% Since 2000

Hate Group Numbers Up by 54% Since 2000

More news stories on Real Hate Speech

Press Release, SPLC, February 26, 2009

The number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000—an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama, according to the “Year in Hate” issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report released today.


Two new factors were introduced to the volatile hate movement in 2008: the faltering economy and the Obama campaign.

“Barack Obama’s election has inflamed racist extremists who see it as another sign that their country is under siege by non-whites,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right. {snip}


Extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the subprime mortgage meltdown. {snip}

{snip} The issue examines the widespread media reporting of a false claim that undocumented immigrants held 5 million bad mortgages and were, therefore, responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.


Original article

(Posted on February 26, 2009)


It’s not that new “hate groups” started, it’s that, over time, the SPLC has an increasingly loose definition of “hate” and “group,” so that each year, more and more existing groups can qualify as “hate groups” in their lexicon.

Also, who is to say that most of these “groups” actually exist? Be, for an example, the CEO of a major conservative national organization, especially one that deals with racial issues in a conservative way, and you’re going to be on everyone’s mail list, and by “everyone,” I mean everyone on the racial right wing. Most of the organizations that the SPLC claims to exist, you’ll never get any mail from. How does the SPLC know they exist when right-wing professional activists have never heard of them? Either the Center is making stuff up, or through several intermediaries they’re having people dress up in funny uniforms.

We know that a certain bent cross group in Florida was led and organized by an FBI informant, including public marches and rallies. Most of their members were probably FBI, too. Meaning no FBI, no bent cross group. The infamous 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four black girls — FBI informants, dressed up in funny uniforms. The reason is obvious — when LBJ wants civil rights laws, when ADL/SPLC want money, all sorts of bombs are going to go off somewhere.

Posted by Question Diversity at 5:36 PM on February 26

And in other news, black-on-white violence continued unabated during the same period.

Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 5:39 PM on February 26

Well, I mean, if that icon of integrity, The Southern Poverty Law Center says that “hate crimes” are up, then who are Americans to question them? The truth is, it is exactly European Americans who should be question them, and questioning them, and questioning them more. However, as individuals it will accomplish nothing, like a fork hitting water. As a united group it would stop these abusers of basically European Americans—cold. That is who they are forvever focused on.

Posted by Bobby at 6:01 PM on February 26

This is soooo depressing. “Hate group” membership should be up by way more than 54%! 80,000%, here we come!

The SPLC has decided to define deviancy down. Where “hate group members” used to mean violent, ignorant thugs like Klansmen and skinheads, today they consider anyone with a valid critique of mass immigration, multiculturalism and/or affirmative action to be a member of a hate group. Gotta keep those contributions flowing in…

Posted by Wally at 6:02 PM on February 26

How many groups are actually individuals?

We had an incident in which a ‘group’ sent questionable mail. When they tracked down the ‘group’, it was one person.

These people define ‘hate group’ as any individual with a computer, a printer, and access to envelopes and a mailbox.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 6:24 PM on February 26

i wonder if that 54% includes any new readers of hate sites like American Renaissance and VDare? i kid. seriously though, considering how groups like $PLC consider anyone who so much as criticizes minorities a hater, then we should have plenty more people who are willing to stand up for America and their white heritage when the next election comes.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:38 PM on February 26

Behold the Gospel according to the SPLC. What is a hate group? Why, any organization that doesn’t agree with the SPLC’s multi-culti, extreme liberal, Whites-are-always-to-blame philosophy, of course!

The gall of this White-bashing, minority-loving gang is just incredible. They act as if the sun rising and sets on their opinions about what constitutes “hate.” That is one of the favorite words of the left wing in this country. It’s greatly aided and abetted by large segments of the news media who parrot the term “hate group” without even a hint of quotes, as if all and sundry were 100 percent agreed as to what it means.

Posted by Wayne Engle at 6:58 PM on February 26

Locust Says:

Has Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, read the minority housing meltdown? If you have not its on this site, or you can read it on

Black: The New Color of Privilege

Black: The New Color of Privilege

More news stories on Black Culture

Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2009


Most Americans, I believe, thought all the race-baiting rhetoric might have finally come to an end. Apparently they were wrong.

Eric Holder says we need to keep on talking about race—having frank conversations.

OK, I’ll take the bait. Let’s talk frankly about race.

During the last presidential election, Barack Obama, the first black presidential candidate nominated by the Democratic Party, won the largest percentage of white voters of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.

Some 43 percent of white votes went to Obama—55 percent going to John McCain. Among younger white voters, 54 percent voted for Obama. To put that in perspective, in the past 30 years, no Democrat presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young white votes.

That suggests to me that white Americans are more than willing to put the racial divide behind them.

But what about blacks?

The sad reality is that 96 percent of black Americans voted for Obama—96 percent!

Where is the evidence of white racism in the presidential vote?

Not only did white Americans vote willingly for a black man for president, they voted for one with no qualifications {snip}.

So when are Barack Obama and Eric Holder and the rest of their divisive, America-hating gang of race hucksters going to give white America a break?

Far from being racist, American culture has so romanticized blackness that American white children now wish they were black. The hideous gangster culture of black hip-hop serves as their soundtrack, their speech riddled with ghetto language and their baggy pants falling off their flat behinds.

Why are white kids envious of blacks?

Maybe, in part, it’s because black is the new color of privilege in America—at least insofar as government is concerned. Blacks and other so-called minority groups get preference in hiring, for contracts, for educational opportunities, for grants, for student aid, for ownership of broadcast outlets and other businesses regulated by government. Yes, we’ve come a long way, baby—from racial preferences for whites to racial preferences for blacks.


If we’re a nation of cowards on matters of race, as Eric Holder suggests, it’s because too few of us are willing to point out the new institutional anti-white racism imposed by government.

[Editor’s Note: Other AR stories and comments on Eric Holder’s “National Cowards” speech are listed here.]

Original article

(Posted on February 26, 2009)