Without An Immigration Moratorium, How Long Can The GOP Hold Texas?

Without An Immigration Moratorium, How Long Can The GOP Hold Texas?

By Steve Sailer

The Conservative Action Political Conference has just concluded in D.C., with its Beltway Right management suppressing the immigration issue as usual, but amid another blaze of naive grass-roots enthusiasm.

Republican confidence heading toward the 2010 Congressional elections is, at the moment, high.

But the party’s long-term prospects rest upon demographic fundamentals that party strategists are afraid (see above) to discuss in public.

The most useful examples for thinking about the GOP’s future are the two superstates:

  • California (where Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state’s Congressional delegation 34-19);
  • Texas (where Republicans are on top 20-12).

The doomsday scenario for Republicans:  losing their grip on Texas’s Electoral College votes (which will likely rise from 34 to 37 after the 2010 Census) because of immigration.

McCain beat Obama 55-44 in Texas, by winning 73-26 among white voters.

But Obama won 54-45 among 18-29 year olds—suggesting the Texas GOP’s future a couple of decades down the road is not bright.

Two new articles discuss immigration and elections, with particular relevance to Texas and California.

Needless to say, they all agree that the GOP needs to let in more Hispanics for them to purport to represent.

In contrast, in the Center For Immigration Studies’ just-released study

  • Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects (PDF), University of Maryland political scientist James G. Gimpel looks at the correlation between the collapse of the GOP in America’s biggest counties from 1980 to 2008 and each county’s percentage of foreign-born residents a.k.a. immigration.

For example, strange as it may seem now, Ronald Reagan won 50.2 percent in huge Los Angeles County in 1980 (versus 50.7 percent nationally in a three-man race with Jimmy Carter and John Anderson). Yet John McCain couldn’t reach 29 percent in a two-man contest in LA County—whose foreign-born percentage, not coincidentally, has increased over those years from 22 to 41 percent.

Even more worrisomely for GOP strategists should be their decline in Texas’s top two counties, from 58 percent for Reagan to 49 percent for McCain in Houston’s Harris County (now 25 percent immigrant) and from 59 percent to 42 percent in Dallas County (27 percent immigrant).

The Republican drop-offs were less precipitous in 13 percent foreign-born Tarrant County (Fort Worth) and in 11 percent immigrant Bexar County (San Antonio).

Nationally, Gimpel finds in large counties a 0.58 percentage point drop in Republican share of the vote for every point the foreign-born share of the populace goes up.

In Texas, the effect size is even bigger: a 0.67 point fall.

Compared to California, the large-scale immigrant influx into Texas is fairly recent. The 1980 Census found that while 22.3 percent of Los Angeles County’s residents were foreign-born, Texas’s four biggest urban counties ranged from only 3.6 percent in Tarrant to 8.4 percent in Harris.

If the GOP is in long-term decline in Dallas and Harris counties (which have 6.4 million residents between them), my hunch is that it’s in trouble all over Texas.

In 1980, I met on a train through Italy a couple of English soccer hooligans who were headed for a post-match riot in Turin. When they asked where I was from, I replied, Houston, where I had just graduated from college. They had never heard of Houston, so I suggested Dallas as a reasonable approximation.

“Who shot J.R.?” the yobs exclaimed in happy unison.

Although Southfork Ranch, the fictional abode of Television Texan J.R. Ewing, was set in Dallas, Houston was even more the capital of capitalist exuberance during the 1970s oil boom.

By 1980, Houston’s Harris County was the third most populous in America, and the downtown business district had sprouted the most outlandish skyline west of the Mississippi (although Dallas wasn’t far behind).

Unsurprisingly, except apparently to the banks, oil prices eventually came down and the Texas bubble popped. Yet the modern Republican Party’s state electorate was forged in the 1970s. In contrast to the housing boom of the last decade in California, in Texas back then construction wasn’t considered “a job Americans just wouldn’t [or shouldn’t] do.” Nor was it yet universally assumed by the Establishment that high wages for American workers were an evil to be fought at all cost.

Back in the 1970s, strong demand bid up workers’ wages in Texas. That lured in large numbers of American workers to Texas from the declining cities of the Rust Belt. Although American newcomers to Texas in the 1970s typically came from places where the Democrats had ruled at least since FDR, they joined with native Texans in trending Republican.

After voting for Carter in 1976, Texas went for Reagan in 1980 and hasn’t wavered since. Texas kept the GOP viable at the national level when California, which voted for nine out of ten Republican Presidential candidates from 1952-1988, flipped Democratic.

Gimpel offers three reasons for why heavily immigrant counties have almost uniformly gone Democratic since 1980:

  1. Naturalized immigrants vote more Democratic. (The great majority are Hispanic, Asian, black, or Muslim, all groups that favor the Democrats. Moreover, illegal aliens’ American-born children are now automatically given the vote, so the effect in the next generation is even larger.)
  2. An influx of Democratic-leaning immigrants into a county suggests to native voters that the Democrats are the Party of the Future so they better get on the Democratic bandwagon now.
  3. Immigration drives out natives by lowering wages and raising land costs.

In the third quarter of the 20th Century, Southern California, with its ample room for development, had been the prime destination of Americans looking for a better life for their families. Strange as it seems now, Southern California became famous for its teeming hordes of white teenagers.

But as foreign immigration took off, Southern California began to fill up. Southern California housing prices surged from 1976 on and off for the next three decades.

Eastern Mexico had its own oil boom in the late 1970s. So back then there was, by recent standards, relatively limited illegal immigration into Texas (which had also long had a sizable Texican population, who appreciated the higher pay now available to them).

But by 1982, oil prices had tumbled, imposing a recession on Texas and a depression on Mexico. The 1980s flood of illegal aliens, and their subsequent post-Amnesty baby boom, focused upon California rather than Texas in the 1980s.

So Texas’s big counties are now about as foreign-born as Southern California’s were in the 1980s. And counting

Still, Texas’s suburbs are less hemmed in by oceans and mountains than California’s are, so a home and marriage are less likely to become as unaffordable so quickly.

I would add two more reasons to Gimpel’s list of why immigration to urban counties hurts the GOP.

  1. As immigrants take over private sector jobs, the remaining American citizens become more concentrated in public sector jobs. Dependent upon taxes for their paychecks, civil servants lean Democratic.
  2. By making housing less affordable for the prudent, immigration makes having a family less affordable. And that means Republican family values appeals are less appealing to family-less voters.

This suggests that immigration doesn’t just move Republicans around the landscape, it deters them from developing, or, in some cases, from even being born.

Nationally, the GOP used to do reasonably well in populous counties. Gimpel reports:

“In 1980 the largest counties, in the aggregate, gave about half of their two-party vote to the Republicans (ranging from 56 percent for the 10 largest counties, to 48 percent in the 100 larg­est). … By 2008, how­ever, the Republican two-party vote per­centages at these lo­cales hovered between 35 and 37 percent—in some cases a 20 percentage-point drop across the interven­ing election cycles.”

Republicans can bluster that they don’t need big counties and urban elites. But when driven out of urban areas by immigration, the GOP becomes less urbane. It loses role models. To be successful, a conservative party needs to appeal to people with the most to conserve.

Indeed, Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman pointed out in his 2008 book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State that in Republican states, the GOP carries the people at the top of society. In Democratic states, that’s less true.

For example, in 2008’s Texas exit poll, McCain, a mediocre candidate at best, won 61 percent of those claiming postgraduate degrees, and 65 percent with six-figure incomes.

That’s the mark of a dominant party. Each party likes to claim it’s the party of the underdogs, but the truth is that voters in each state tend to take their lead, as is only natural, from their most successful fellow citizens.

In California, however, the GOP candidate garnered only 33 percent of those asserting an advanced degree and 42 percent of those making over $100,000.

The most populous counties are going to continue to be home to many of the most influential people. For Republican policy to be using mass immigration to make those places less congenial to Republicans—which is what it was during the Bush-McCain years—is, in a word, suicidal.

How long does the GOP have?

For several years, various Democrats have been predicting that demographic trends mean that Texas will flip Real Soon Now.

For example, Democratic consultant Michael Lux of Progressive Strategies noted in the Huffington Post:

“At the beginning, people in [Democratic] targeting meetings are always saying things like ‘If you look at the demographics in Texas, it ought to be winnable’ …

  • Anglos will be down to 52% of the adult population by 2010, and 49.99% – less than half – by 2012.

  • 85% of the new adult citizens eligible to vote since 2002 are minorities, most of them Hispanics.

  • Barack Obama, who didn’t spend a dime targeting Texas in the 2008 general election, lost Texas by about 950,000 votes. Between 2008 and 2012, there are projected to be 1.2 million additional eligible minority voters added to the population of the state.”

But Democrats have a long history of being frustrated by erratic Hispanic turnout in Texas, especially in less glamorous midterm elections. Lux lamented:

“In 2008, Hispanics made up 32% of eligible voters in Texas, a number which will likely be about 35% by 2012, but they were only 20% of the electorate. In the 2006 off-year elections, while 45% of eligible Anglos voted, only 37% of African-Americans, 24% of Asian-Americans, and 25% of Hispanics voted.”

Why are Texas Hispanics somewhat less liberal and perhaps even less politicized than California Latinos?

First, Texas Hispanics tend to have roots in the more business-friendly northeast of Mexico.

But second, in contrast to California, Texas has a self-confident conservative white Establishment that draws respect from Latino voters. Hispanics aren’t oppositional blacks, whom Obama carried by a comic 98-2 margin in Texas, compared to 63-35 for Latinos. Black partisan voting behavior is often negatively correlated over time with trends among whites. But opportunistic Hispanics tend to follow the drifts of the white electorate, just much farther to the left on tax-and-spend issues.

Thirdly, white conservatives have done a decent job of running Texas. The cost of living and the cost of government remain relatively low, yet public school test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are typically better in Texas for each ethnic group than in expensive California.

Moreover, in former Congressman Tom Delay, the Texas GOP had a master of the arts of the gerrymander, and weren’t afraid to use his talents, even when his ploys annoyed Hispanic ethnic activists.

Finally, conservative voters placed a clever poison pill amendment in the Texas constitution in 1993 protecting the crown jewel of Texas policies, the absence of a state income tax. Even if the Democrats took control of the state legislature, an income tax would have to be approved by voters in an off-year referendum, when mostly whites show up to vote. That extra hurdle tends to discourage Democratic activists’ greed. What’s the point of going through all the toil of winning the legislature once, if the voters then have time to wake up and veto your handiwork?

This suggests that if Texas Republicans stay on top of their game, they can hold Texas for a few more election cycles.

In the long run, however, Texas is not at all immune from following California’s path.

At VDARE.COM, we’ve been writing about the consequences of immigration for party realignment since we began ten years ago. Indeed, VDARE.COM editor Peter Brimelow wrote the first analysis, Electing A New People, with our National Data columnist Edwin S. Rubenstein, in the pre-purge National Review back in 1997. (For their update after the 2000 election, click here.)

In a nutshell, our proposed solution:

  • Rally the white a.k.a. American electorate by proposing patriotic immigration reform (the “Sailer Strategy”);
  • Implement patriotic immigration reform, which at this point means an indefinite moratorium, thus (a) stopping the importation of more instant Democrats; and (b) giving the assimilation mechanism time to work.

In the case of Texas, I’ve suggested that the impact of immigration could be palliated, at the national level, by allowing Texas to exercise its arcane right to split into five states. (Sailermandering Texas: What to Do While We’re Waiting For Patriotic Immigration Reform, December 9, 2009)

In the long run, only an immigration moratorium can save Texas for the GOP —and for America.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

Liquidating The Empire By Patrick J. Buchanan

Liquidating The Empire

By Patrick J. Buchanan

A decade ago, Oldsmobile went. Last year, Pontiac. Saturn, Saab and Hummer were discontinued. A thousand GM dealerships shut down.

To those who grew up in a “GM family,” where buying a Chrysler was like converting to Islam, what happened to GM was deeply saddening.

Yet the amputations had to be done—or GM would die.

And the same may be about to happen to the American Imperium.

Its birth can be traced to World War II, when America put 16 million men in uniform and sent millions across the seas to crush Nazi Germany and Japan. After V-E and V-J Day, the boys came home.

But with the Stalinization of half of Europe, the fall of China, and war in Korea came NATO and alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Australia that lasted through the Cold War.

In 1989, however, the Cold War ended dramatically with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the retirement of the Red Army from Europe, the break-up of the Soviet Union and Beijing’s abandonment of world communist revolution.

Overnight, our world changed. But America did not change.

As Russia shed her alliances and China set out to capture America’s markets, Uncle Sam soldiered on.

We clung to the old alliances and began to add new allies. NATO war guarantees were distributed like credit cards to member states of the old Warsaw Pact and former republics of the Soviet Union.

We invaded Panama and Haiti, smashed Iraq, liberated Kuwait, intervened in Somalia and Bosnia, bombed Serbia, and invaded Iraq again—and Afghanistan. Now we prepare for a new war—on Iran.

Author Lawrence Vance has inventoried America’s warfare state.

We spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.

Our Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined. We have 100,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 in Afghanistan or headed there, 28,000 in Korea, over 35,000 in Japan and 50,000 in Germany. By the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report,” there are 716 U.S. bases in 38 countries.

Chalmers Johnson, who has written books on this subject, claims DOD is minimizing the empire. He discovered some 1,000 U.S. facilities, many of them secret and sensitive. And according to DOD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops are now stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories.

Estimated combined budgets for the Pentagon, two wars, foreign aid to allies, 16 intelligence agencies, scores of thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our new castle-embassies: $1 trillion a year.

While this worldwide archipelago of bases may have been necessary when we confronted a Sino-Soviet bloc spanning Eurasia from the Elbe to East China Sea, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons and driven by imperial ambition and ideological hatred of us, that is history now.

It is preposterous to argue that all these bases are essential to our security. Indeed, our military presence, our endless wars and our support of despotic regimes have made America, once the most admired of nations, almost everywhere resented and even hated.

Liquidation of this empire should have begun with the end of the Cold War. Now it is being forced upon us by the deficit-debt crisis. Like GM, we can’t kick this can up the road any more, because we have come to the end of the road.

Republicans will fight new taxes. Democrats will fight to save social programs. Which leaves the American empire as the logical lead cow for the butcher’s knife.

Indeed, how do conservatives justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan and the Gulf states—to defend Europe, Japan and the Arab Gulf states? Is it not absurd to borrow hundreds of billion annually from China—to defend Asia from China? Is it not a symptom of senility to borrow from all over the world in order to defend that world?

In their Mount Vernon declaration of principles, conservatives called the Constitution their guiding star. But did not the author of that constitution, James Madison, warn us that wars are the death of republics?

Under Bush II, conservatives, spurning the wisdom of their fathers, let themselves be seduced, neo-conned into enlisting in a Wilsonian crusade that had as its declared utopian goal “ending tyranny in our world.”

How could conservatives whose defining virtue is prudence and who pride themselves on following the lamp of experience have been taken into camp by the hustlers and hucksters of empire?

Yet, now that Barack Obama has embraced neo-socialism, Republicans are about to be given a second chance. And just as Rahm Emanuel said liberal Democrats should not let a financial crisis go to waste, but exploit it to ram through their agenda, the right should use the opportunity of the fiscal crisis to take an axe to the warfare state.

Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles.


Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.

Is America Becoming A Police State? By Chuck Baldwin

Is America Becoming A Police State?

By Chuck Baldwin

There is a classic story about how no one had been able to capture a herd of wild hogs that was rooting up crops from numerous farms. It got so bad that rewards had been posted for anyone clever enough to corral the critters. But even this resulted in only limited success.

One day a stranger (who was a wily old trapper) came into town and—entering the general store—ordered a truckload of fence posts and fencing, along with some feed. When asked what he was going to use it for, he said, “I’m going to get those wild hogs y’all are having trouble with.” Of course, everyone in the store laughed at the overconfident stranger. A few weeks later, however, the stranger rode into town with the back of his truck tightly packed with the smelly swine.

When asked how he was able to accomplish what no one else had been able to do, the old trapper replied, “Simple. I started putting the feed out in a small clearing and the hogs began freely eating the feed. It didn’t take long and they were there every day. Then I put up the fence posts, but with no fencing. At first the hogs were a little skittish, but it wasn’t long and they ignored the posts. Then I began putting the fence up, but I left the gate off. Again, the hogs were skittish at first, but soon realized they could come and go freely, and before long, they were devouring the free food with a vengeance. Then, one day when the hogs were aggressively consuming the vittles, I slammed the gate closed.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what the old trapper did to the wild hogs is exactly what our soon-to-be oppressors are doing to us! What is worse, most Americans seem about as oblivious to the whole thing as that bunch of pigs. For anyone who is paying attention, however, the signs of growing enslavement are everywhere.

Inside my web site is a link page that is constantly updated with pertinent information relating to how America is quickly being turned into Huxley’s Brave New World. I invite readers to regularly visit this page. It is entitled “The Emerging Police State.”

See the web page here.

Here is a sampling of just this year’s relevant headlines to date:

Those are just some of the headlines from 2010 so far. Check out the headlines from 2009 and backward to discover that the list of relevant news stories is extensive. And as you peruse those news stories, keep reminding yourself about what you are actually seeing: you are watching the old trapper put the fence around the hog feed.

Again, the web page address is: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/patriotact.html

Only a blind or deliberately naïve man cannot see that America—the once-proud “land of the free”—is being systematically turned into a twenty-first century police state. Good grief! The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom notes that America is not even listed among the “free” countries of the earth. We are ranked in the second tier, of “mostly free” countries. Beyond that, the Heritage index ranks the US as only the 8th freest nation on the planet.

And both the Republican and Democrat parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable for America’s slide into socialism and oppression. And so are many local and State leaders—including political, business, and law enforcement leaders. Suffice it to say that most big city governments have become almost totalitarian. Government buildings—even local ones—are sealed fortresses, not unlike the old palace-forts of antiquity. In big and not-so-big cities, cameras monitor virtually everything we do. Even here in my hometown of Pensacola, Florida, a nearby city (Gulf Breeze) has recently installed traffic cameras, which issue automated tickets for red light runners. (How unconstitutional can one get? Surely someone will aggressively challenge the legality of these cameras in court!) What is worse is that many residents and local authorities see nothing wrong with it. These people are behaving just like those wild hogs that nonchalantly ate their food while the fence was being built all around them.

In the name of “security” or “safety” or “protection,” Americans are surrendering their liberties. Ladies and gentlemen, face it: freedom is risky business! If our Founding Fathers had wanted security or safety, they would have stayed in Europe—or at least remained a compliant colony of the Crown. So, if one wants government enslavement in twenty-first century America, one should move back to Europe—or better yet, to Red China or North Korea!

Instead of demanding that government take care of us, we should be demanding that government get out of our wallets and off our backs, and let us live free, as our Creator intended we live! But how can we do that when we constantly clamor for more and more government handouts and benefits? By demanding welfare checks, food stamps, government-assisted housing and medicine, etc., Americans are putting the shackles around their own throats. Even churches and religious institutions are gorging themselves at the government teat. America doesn’t need to worry about terrorist attacks from Baghdad or Tehran as much as we should worry about the terrorism from Big Brother—brought about with our own approbation—right here at home.

When will we say, “That’s enough”? When will we truly rise up against this out-of-control federal monstrosity? When will we demand that government once again be our servant and not our master? When will we begin to see through these Big Government politicians from both major parties that are selling our posterity into tyranny for their own selfish pursuits? When will we wake up to what both Big Business and Big Religion are doing to us? Why do we have to shop at the “Super Center”? Why do we have to worship at the “Mega-Church”? Why do we have to believe everything ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN—and yes, FOX News—tell us? Why do we have to keep reelecting these career politicians? And when we do replace them, why do we have to replace one dirty, rotten scoundrel with another dirty, rotten scoundrel?

When will we recognize that the Department of Homeland Security would be more properly named the Department of Homeland Enslavement? When are we going to wake up to the fact that the Patriot Act is nothing but a tool of the federal government to usurp constitutionally protected liberties? When are we going to realize that the federal “war on drugs” inflicts more damage on the Bill of Rights than it does any major drug dealer? When will we get fed up with these random police checkpoints (manned by agents from virtually any and every police agency, including federal agents) going up everywhere? When will we tire of our local policemen and sheriff’s deputies more resembling military commandos than peace officers? When will we demand that our State and local officials stop begging the federal government for “stimulus” money? In other words, when are we going to decide that we want to live in FREEDOM?

Until we Americans get serious about answering the questions above, we are only fooling ourselves when we talk about the United States being a free country. We are not free, and we are getting less free by the day. We are as those wild hogs that were first fed by—and then enslaved by—a wily trapper. When will we see it?

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.

The Road to Armageddon By Paul Craig Roberts

The Road to Armageddon

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” [By Jennifer Harper, February 22, 2010]about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.

I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.

How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.

The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”

The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: “Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.”

There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Erik Lawyer, the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.

Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.

Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.

Before we yell “conspiracy theory,” we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.

If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi “Mushroom Cloud” Rice.

There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.

Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 “mastermind” emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack.

In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.

If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, “V for Vendetta.” Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth or all of them combined was a match for Sheik Mohammed.

Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control.

He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft interceptor aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.

Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.

Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Pentagon.

How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?

If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.

What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.

The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21  that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?

Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost.

Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something?

Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it?

If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it.  Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?

Many Americans would reply that “their” government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary.  Just straight out murder.

Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.

Americans who think “their” government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:

“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”

Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required “a new Pearl Harbor.”

For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. [See Impending Explosion: U.S. Intensifies Threats To Russia And Iran, by Rick Rozoff, Global Research, February 19, 2010]  U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”

The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil.

This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.

The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American “superpower.”

The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.

America’s First Suicide Bomber

By Paul Craig Roberts

Joseph Stack, frustrated American, flew his airplane into an Austin, Texas, office building. He was one of the 79 percent of Americans who have given up on “their” government.

The latest Rasmussen Poll indicates that the vast majority of Americans are convinced that “their” government is totally unresponsive to them, their concerns, and their needs. Rasmussen found that only 21 percent of the American population agrees that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, and that 21 percent is comprised of the political class itself and liberals. Rasmussen concludes that the gap between the American population and the politicians who rule them “may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

Indications are that Joseph Stack was sane. Like Palestinians faced with Israeli jet fighters, helicopter gunships, tanks, missiles and poison gas, Stack realized that he was powerless. A suicide attack was the only weapon left to him.

Stack targeted the IRS, the federal agency that had gratuitously ruined him. He flew his airplane into an office building occupied by 200 members of the IRS. This deliberate plan and the written explanation he left behind segregate him from deranged people who randomly shoot up a Post Office or university campus.

The government and its propaganda ministry do not want to call Stack a terrorist. “Terrorist” is a term the government reserves for Muslims who do not like what Israel does to Palestinians and the U.S. government does to Muslim countries.

But Stack experienced the same frustrations and emotions as Muslims who can’t take it any longer and strap on a suicide vest.

“Violence,” Stack wrote, “not only is the answer, it is the only answer.” Stack concluded that nothing short of violence will get the attention of a government that has turned its back on the American people.

Anger is building up. People are beginning to do unusual things. Terry Hoskins bulldozed his house rather than allow a bank to foreclose on it. The local TV station conducted an online survey and found that 79 percent of respondents agreed with Hoskins’ action.

Perhaps the turning point was the federal government’s bailout of the investment banks whose reckless misbehavior diminished Americans’ retirement savings for the second time in eight years. Now a former head of the most culpable bank is campaigning to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits in order to pay for the bailout. President Obama has obliged him by creating a “deficit commission.”

The “deficit commission” will be used to gut Social Security, just as the private insurance health plan is paid for by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare.

It could not be more clear that government represents the interest groups that finance the election campaigns.

Conservatives used to say that Washington’s power should be curtailed in behalf of state and local governments that are “closer to the people.” But of course state and local governments are also controlled by interest groups.

Consider Florida, for example. In 2004 the storm surge from Hurricane Ivan did considerable damage to the Gulf Coast of the Florida panhandle. At Inlet Beach in Walton County, the surge claimed two beachfront homes and washed away enough of the high ground as to leave other homes vulnerable to the next storm.

People wanted to armor their homes with some form of sea wall. When the county gave the go ahead, two houses on the West end hired engineers who constructed a barrier made of rows of tubes 60 feet long filled with sand, each weighing about 70 tons. The sand-colored tubes were buried under many tons of white sand trucked in, and sea oats were planted. It was a perfect solution, and an expensive one—$250,000.

Just East of the two homes, Ivan washed away a section of beachfront road and left three houses built on pilings sitting on the beach. Last year government with FEMA money rebuilt the section of washed away beachfront road and armored it and two adjacent houses. The government used interlocking iron or steel panels that it drove down into the sand, leaving six to seven feet of the rusty metal above ground. Hundreds of truckloads of sand were brought in to cover the unsightly sea wall.

It didn’t require a storm to wash away the loose sand and leave the ugly rusty metal exposed on the beach. The first high tide did the trick. Residents and vacationers are left with an eyesore on a beach ranked as the third most beautiful in the world.

The ugly rusty barrier built by government is still there. But the intelligent approach taken by the private homeowners has been condemned to death. As I write heavy equipment is on the beach slashing open the tubes and piling up the sand to be carried away. The homes will be left standing on the edge and will be undermined by the next hurricane.

Why did this happen? The official reason given by Florida’s Department of Environmental Policy is that the county could only issue a temporary permit. Only DEP can issue a permanent permit, and as the homeowners don’t have DEP’s permanent permit, out goes the expensive, carefully engineered and unobtrusive sea wall.

This is the way government “works” for ordinary citizens. For the vast majority of people, government exists as a persecution mechanism that takes great pleasure in ruining their lives and pocketbooks. The DEP has inflicted heavy stress on the homeowners, now elderly, and could bring on a heart attack or stroke.

The real explanation for DEP’s merciless treatment of citizens is that the agency is powerless against developers. It cannot stop them from destroying the Everglades, from destroying wetlands, from polluting rivers, or from building in front of the coastal setback line. As the state politicians protect developers from the DEP, the only people against whom the DEP can use its authority are unrepresented citizens. Frustrated itself, the DEP lashes out at powerless citizens.

In the small settlement of Inlet Beach, there are numerous examples of developers getting what they want. Over the years hurricanes have eaten away the beach and the dunes. As this occurs the setback line for construction moves inland. Back when the real estate bubble was being created by Alan Greenspan’s irresponsibly low interest rate policy, small beach front lots were going for one million dollars. In the midst of this frenzy, a well-connected developer bought a beachfront lot for $30,000.

The lot was not recognizable as such. It sits on flat land on the beach. Decades ago it was a lot, but as the Gulf ate away the coast, the lot is now positioned in front of the setback line. The developer got the lot for the low price, because no one had been able to get a building permit for years.

But the developer got a permit. According to the head of the neighborhood association at the time, the developer went to a DEP official, whose jurisdiction was another part of the state and who was a former employee of the developer, and was issued a permit. Because of its exposure, during the real estate boom the house sat unsold for years. The community, which had opposed the project, concluded that the developer just wanted to show that he was more powerful than the law.

Currently, on six acres next to a state park on the East end of Inlet Beach another well connected developer has obtained DEP permission to compromise Walton County’s highest and last remaining sand dunes held in place with native vegetation in order to build 20 houses. To protect the houses, DEP has issued a permit for the construction of a 15-foot high man-made sand wall, a marketing device that will offer little protection.

According to information sent to me, nine of the houses will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control line. Apparently this was a result of the developer being represented by a former county attorney, who convinced the commissioners to allow the developer to plan on the basis of the 1996 FEMA flood plain maps instead of using the current 2007 maps. Since 1996 there have been a number of hurricanes, such as Dennis and Ivan, and the set back line has moved inward.

When state and local governments allow developers to set aside the rules governing flood-plain development, they create insurance losses that drive up the insurance premiums for everyone in the community. The disturbance of the natural dunes could result in a breach through which storm surge can damage nearby properties. Instead of protecting people, government is allowing a developer to impose costs of his project on others.

Joseph Stack, Terry Hoskins, and 79 percent of the American population came to the realization that government does not represent them. Government represents moneyed interests for whom it bends the rules designed to protect the public, thus creating a legally privileged class.

In contrast, as at the West end of Inlet Beach, ordinary citizens are being driven into the ground.

This is what we call “freedom and democracy.”

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct. His latest book, How The Economy Was Lost, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.

A Hungarian Immigrant Is Shocked By “Un-American” Los Angeles, Suggests We Emulate Singapore; etc.

Saturday Forum

A Hungarian Immigrant Is Shocked By “Un-American” Los Angeles, Suggests We Emulate Singapore; etc.


From: Chris (e-mail him)

Re: Saturday Forum: A Liberal Immigration Patriot Is Shocked By Attacks Against Him in Huffington Post

I want to send a word of encouragement to letter writer Mick Jones.

I’m a Hungarian who has been over the years a legal, though temporary, immigrant to India, Ireland and Singapore. Some would call me an expatriate but I maintain that “foreign talent” as they put it in Singapore, is a better description.

Coming from a not-so-rich eastern European country, I was shocked when I first saw Los Angeles. From the movies, I always assumed it was a glitzy sort of place. I liked Beverly Hills, Hollywood and Malibu.

However, one day I took the wrong public transportation from Universal Studios and ended up in a Latino slum.

There were sick, homeless people everywhere. We did however see a pet ambulance, something unknown outside of Los Angeles.

Apparently, in America, rich pets get excellent medical care; poor, homeless people not so much.

What baffled me the most was how un-American Los Angeles is.

I thought I was in Mexico City and I have never felt so unsafe in my life, not even when I was in the slums of New Delhi.

As for Beverly Hills, I was taken aback that in a shopping mall near our hotel the shoppers were almost exclusively Asian. Again, I felt I was in Bangkok or in Singapore, but certainly it did not seem like America to me.

I am puzzled why Americans don’t see the obvious truth that California, and some other parts of the country, is being un-Americanized at a rapid pace.

I will never understand why you let it happen.

For starters, America could adopt the very enlightened immigration policy of Singapore. Unskilled workers are given temporary work permits and must by law be housed in worker’s dormitories.

Temporary residents never get the right to stay permanently and must leave the country when their labor is no longer needed. Illegals are jailed, caned and then deported.

A separate system exists for skilled workers called an employment pass. This can only be given to workers earning a minimum of $3,000 monthly.

Employment pass holders need to have at least a Bachelor’s Degree and perfect command of English. They can apply for a permanent residency permit that allows them to stay indefinitely, though only their children can become citizens.

Singapore has by far the world’s best immigration system. America should adopt it.

Pay-Back for the BNP, who needs the BMP?

Pay-Back for the BNP

by Rod Cameron

New Labour’s decision to put the EHRC dog onto the BNP has cost New Labour dearly. Not only has New Labour disowned its Working Class roots, but also it has handed over on a silver plate the most precious part of its history, its formative years, to the BNP. History of a century and more ago has repeated. The danger inherent to becoming part of the Establishment is to forget your forebears and their struggles, and then you surrender your political soul. I offer you this analogy.


The decision by Nick Griffin to change the constitution of the BNP to allow blacks and Asians to join, following pressure from the EHRC, should be received by the BNP with a certain sanguinity. Knowledge of the rise of the British Labour Movement will result in a wry acceptance that this is “par for the course”. Not for the first time social realities are being ignored and Establishmentarian forces are arrayed against the political newcomer.

The Social Reality

Trade unionism and opposition to immigration were preservationist/survivalist reactions to social realities. The Labour Movement was motivated by the need for working-class preservation. The BNP arises from the desire for ethnic self-preservation.

Establishmentarian Reactions


Who needs the BNP?

by Alexander Baron

Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter?

There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities.

The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin.