“Birthright Citizenship” And The Cheating Of America

“Birthright Citizenship” (A.K.A. Jus Soli) And The Cheating Of America

By Steve Sailer

You know it’s the dog days of summer when the MainStream Media permit debate on a sophisticated policy issue deeply affecting America’s future. In this case, it’s cheaters misappropriating the legal privileges of being an American.

What is commonly called “Birthright citizenship” is a legal loophole that has been discussed among patriotic immigration reformers for many years. But, given the extreme parochialism of our political elite, maybe the first time Senator Lindsey Graham (Scalawag-SC) heard of the issue really was independent-minded reporter Keith B. Richburg’s July 18, 2010 Washington Post article For many pregnant Chinese, a U.S. passport remains a powerful lure.

(See also Turkish “Birth Tourism” And Its Entrepreneurial American Enablers, Turkish Birth Tourism In New York, and Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship, all on VDARE.com.)

Richburg described a Shanghai partnership that has charged 500 to 600 Chinese women $14,750 each to have their children born on American soil so they can later reap the benefits of being an American. Richburg observed:

“There are no solid figures, but dozens of firms advertise ‘birth tourism’ packages online, many of them based in Shanghai, and Zhao said the number has soared in the past five years.”

As Michael Kinsley liked to say, the real scandal is not what’s illegal, it’s what’s legal. Richburg went on:

“U.S. officials confirm that it is not a crime to travel to the United States to give birth so that the child can have U.S. citizenship. ‘You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children,’ said a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing,

Richburg wrote:

“Zhou and Chao insist that everything they do is legal, noting that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, says anyone born on U.S. soil has the right to citizenship. ‘We don’t encourage moms to break the law — just to take advantage of it,’ Zhou said.”

Richburg is an African-American, the author of the brave book Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa. I suspect he feels (quite correctly) that the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott decision and guarantee citizenship to his ancestors and their posterity, e.g., Keith Richburg—not to bestow the blessings of American nationality on foreign con artists. Thus Richburg noted:

“Some argue that the 14th Amendment—aimed at guaranteeing citizenship rights to freed black slaves—was never meant to provide an instant passport to the children of people who are in the country illegally or who travel there expressly to gain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

Now, you knew and I knew that the current interpretation that anybody born here gets American citizenship (no matter what other country they pledge allegiance to) is a scandal. But the MSM has seldom called attention to this long-running abuse.

For example, Richburg reported that Chinese taxpayers are getting increasingly enthusiastic about having their offspring fleece American taxpayers:

“In their pitch to prospective clients, Zhou and Chao point out that as a U.S. citizen, a child has access to free public education from primary school through high school and that a full education in the United States can be much cheaper than at the top Chinese private schools and universities.”

Something Richburg failed to mention, however, is that abuse of the current American citizenship regulations permits bizarrely self-recursive forms of chain migration. For example, the Chinese scion born on American soil can eventually grow up to import his own parents as immigrants under our “family reunification” law. They, in turn, can bring in their own parents and plunk them in public housing for seniors and put their health care on Medicare’s tab. It’s like a Confucian conman version of that old Robert Heinlein science fiction story, All You Zombies, about a man with a time machine who turns out to be his own grandpa.

The effect of the “Birthright Citizenship” loophole is immense. The Pew Hispanic Center issued a report on August 11, 2010, Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children, stating that illegal aliens’ progeny comprised eight percent of all births in the U.S. in 2008. The way to put that into perspective is to think of it as a percentage of the entire population of 310 million. Thus, illegals in the US are having the same number of children as a group of 25 million Americans

Of course, the full effect is even worse than that because these immigrants are making the population grow beyond their own numbers. People cheat to get into the U.S. to have more children than they could afford to have in their own countries—far more than the replacement rate. The Pew Hispanic Center says:

“Data limitations do not allow for an analysis in this report comparing the fertility rates of the unauthorized with those of legal immigrants. However, the fertility patterns of other demographic groups are instructive. Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians. And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born (3.1 versus 2.3).”

And that likely understates the offspring-per-lifetime birthrate of illegal aliens. In contrast to the Pew number, demographer Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California pointed out in 2007 in Birth Rates in California:

“Fertility rates are higher in California than in any developed country in the world. This is partly due to the composition of the state’s population, which includes large numbers of foreign-born women, who tend to have more children than U.S.-born women. Thus, in addition to its direct contribution to state growth, migration also plays an important indirect role in its effect on fertility rates. Among foreign-born Latinas, total fertility rates—a measure of completed family size—average 3.7 children per woman. In contrast, the state’s lowest fertility rates are among U.S.-born Asians, who have an average of 1.4 children per woman.”

The low fertility rates for American-born women in California reflect in part the high cost of family formation (such as housing in an exclusive school district or private schooling) in a state crowded with illegal immigrants and their descendants.

And if the illegals were to get amnesty, their birthrate would go through the roof again—as it did after the 1986 amnesty, when the total fertility rate for foreign-born Latinas in California shot up from 3.2 in 1987 to an amazing 4.4 in 1991.

The cost of building hundreds of public schools for this Amnesty Baby Boom (and, now, their kids) has been a key, if unmentioned, factor in the breaking of California’s budget. John Seiler reported last week that, when capital costs are included, the Los Angeles Unified School District spends almost $30,000 per student per year. [LAUSD spends $30K per student, CalWatchDog.com, August 20, 2010] For example, converting the old Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard into a school is costing $578,000,000.

These are not, however, the sort of thing you are supposed to think about. Because when you do think about how you are being cheated, you don’t like it. Human beings don’t like being taken advantage of. We understand, deep down, that rewarding the dishonest just increases dishonesty.

The Democratic Party is devoted to the current iniquitous system for one simple reason: it generates more Democrats. In other words, private cheating helps Democrats win in public. It is crucial to point this out whenever discussing the issue. No matter how much they swaddle themselves in their self-anointed righteousness, Democrats do not have a principled stance on this question—just a self-interest in seeing deviousness thrive.

Democrats can’t win a rational debate by defending the current system. It’s indefensible. You’ll notice that many of the more logical liberals, such as Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias, simply try to dismiss the entire subject out of hand: Why are Republicans even bothering to bring that up? They shouldn’t waste their precious political capital on that!

The only way Democrats can win on this is through obscurantism, soft-headed sentimental rhetoric, and character assassination.

That leads me to a few suggestions about terminology. As long as we can keep reminding the American public of the reality that they’re being ripped off, we’ll have the upper hand. Therefore, emphasize the dishonesty.

In contrast, be careful about using phrases full of positive-sounding words.

“Birthright citizenship” is a phrase loaded with good connotations. People tend to react well to the words “birth”, “right”, and “citizenship”. (Consider their antonyms—“death”, “wrong”. and “treason”.) The Boy Scouts award three merit badges with the word “citizenshipin the name. The Scouts emphasize the duties and obligations beholden in citizenship. That’s what “citizenship” sounds like to the average patriotic American: doing right by your fellow Americans. They need to be reminded that, to the Zhous and Chaos of the world, it’s just a sweet scam.

When you need a technical term for the current state of law, call it jus soli. That’s Latin for “law of ground”. Nobody has a warm and fuzzy feeling about a couple of words they aren’t sure how to pronounce. (It’s pronounced yüs-sō-lē.)

Similarly, let’s use “anchor offspring” rather than “anchor babies”. Babies are cute.

In contrast, we need to find an overgrown baby to make the poster child of nationality cheating.

For example, what about Major Nidal Malik Hasan—who in fact does look rather like an overgrown fetus? Although he murdered 13 Americans at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009, he has yet to be tried. Indeed, he is still being issued his U.S. Army paychecks!

We know that Major Hasan was born in Virginia in 1970 to Palestinian immigrant parents. Were they legal or illegal immigrants? A little research shows that nobody seems to have bothered to ask this question. In modern America, it’s considered insensitive to inquire about the background of a mass murderer.

Or how about Major Hasan’s spiritual advisor, Anwar al-Awlaki? He also provided inspiration to the Christmas Day Underpants Bomber and three of the 9/11 hijackers. This al-Qaeda operative is a dual citizen of Yemen and the United States because he was born in New Mexico in 1971.

As these top-of-the-head examples show, it shouldn’t be that hard to find an incredibly unsympathetic figure to exemplify the issue.

Is jus soli protected by the 14th Amendment, or could it be modified by legislation (as happened in Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)? Howard Sutherland argued in VDARE.com (on August 31, 2001!) that it should not require a Constitutional amendment to eliminate jus soli. (Weigh Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause)

Now, I’m no legal expert, so I don’t know whether the law could be changed through legislation or whether it would require a Constitutional amendment. Yet I don’t see that it’s all that important of a political strategy question. Why shouldn’t both tracks be pursued simultaneously? (In fact, this is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul has advocated.)

In the 1970s, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg shamelessly argued both:

She was rewarded for talking out of both sides of her mouth with a seat on the Supreme Court.

A dual track attack on nationality cheating will keep generating news about cheating, which is all to the good.

Spending political capital to demonstrate how we are being conned just creates more political capital.

[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.]

White People Are Becoming Extinct

White People Are Becoming Extinct

How Many Guns Are Too Many?

After responding to a burglary call at a Rockford, Illinois home, police failed to apprehend the thief but found something that is perhaps much more interesting. WTVO reports that upon entering the home of an unnamed 67 year old resident they were surprised to find a weapons cache of over 300 weapons ranging from shotguns to rifles.

The homeowner, a registered firearm owner, was out of town at the time of the burglary. According to police, the weapons were taken for safekeeping. The guns will be cross-checked against police databases to ensure they have not been used for criminal activity.

While it’s probably a good idea to take the weapons for safekeeping, considering that the house was broken into and the homeowner was out of town, what’s equally as interesting is the reaction of the neighbors:

“It’s just un-real to see this many guns involved a regular residential neighborhood,” says concerned resident McArthur Tennin.

Coley Woods lives across the street from the home. He says, “I’m thinking it’s an accident or something, but I look over and I see them with all them rifles.”

Woods’ says, “Even if he’s a registered gun owner or not, that just seems like its too many rifles.”

This brings to the forefront the question of how many guns are too many?

Three hundred may seem like quite a large number to the average, non-gun collecting American. But the homeowner in this particular case is 67 years old, suggesting he may have been a collector of fine weaponry for several decades. Considering this, it is not out of the question for a retiree to amass a large gun collection.

Hopefully the homeowner will have his guns returned when he gets back to town, but he’ll most certainly have a lot of questions to answer at the local police station.

A recent Austin, Texas search warrant executed against a resident who had been involved in digging an under ground bunker yielded a variety of self defense armaments, including large amounts of ammunition and 19 weapons, as well as compressed gas tanks used for welding.

The neighbors in this case also responded with fear:

“It’s scary to know that he had all that down there. What if something had exploded,” Landon said.

Another example of police seizing weapons for “safe keeping” was recently reported in Anatomy of a Police State Setup and Coverup, where police arrived at the home of a San Luis Obispo, California resident who was legally target shooting on his land. After executing an illegal search warrant, police found a safe containing several weapons and subsequently seized those weapons for safe keeping. The justification for the search and seizure was that the homeowner negligently discharged his firearm, something he had done for years without issue.

It seems that anytime law enforcement enters a home, be it legally or illegally, and a weapons cache is found, anything more than perhaps a handgun and a rifle rings the alarm, resulting in a painstaking process for the gun owner if they ever want to retrieve the weapons.

Since the second amendment of the Constitution makes no specific reference the number of arms an individual can store for personal defense, there should be no question as to how many weapons one can personally own and keep at home. Has law enforcement and the citizenary come up with an imaginary and arbitrary number that’s safe for everyone? Perhaps one gun per household, or maybe a bit more leniency and we can make it one gun per resident of the home?

Where should we draw the line?

Maybe the best thing to do is to first determine if the individual in question has or had ill intentions with the weapons before we use the media to spread fear about extremist, right-wing pistol packers.

One thing’s for sure, however. Because of failures by our federal policing agencies to stop the flow of illegal aliens through our southern border, namely those related to drug smuggling and violence, ranchers in states like Texas and Arizona should probably be heavily armed, lest they end up either stabbed to death or have their land taken over by paramilitary drug organizations. If those living in violence prone areas ever need to call upon neighbors or local militia to assist with defending their land against would-be drug smugglers, kidnappers and thieves, it’s better that they be armed to the teeth with 300 shotguns and rifles than sling shots and BB guns.

Hat tip Check It News

//

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: August 13th, 2010
Visit the Author’s Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

The Worst Case Scenario

by Egon von Greyerz
Matterhorn Asset Management

Note: Although I disagree with some minor techinical points with the below analysis, I believe that it overall paints a fairly accurate picture in terms of the current economy and what could happen in one type worst case scenario ~ Robert Wenzel

No, there will be no double dip. It will be a lot worse. The world economy will soon go into an accelerated and precipitous decline which will make the 2007 to early 2009 downturn seem like a walk in the park. The world financial system has temporarily been on life support by trillions of printed dollars that governments call money. But the effect of this massive money printing is ephemeral since it is not possible to save a world economy built on worthless paper by creating more of the same. Nevertheless, governments will continue to print since this is the only remedy they know. Therefore, we are soon likely to enter a phase of money printing of a magnitude that the world has never experienced. But this will not save the Western World which is likely to go in to a decline lasting at least 20 years but most probably a lot longer.

The End of an Era

The hyperinflationary depression that many western countries, including the US and the UK, will experience is likely to mark the end of an era that has lasted over 200 years since the industrial revolution. A major part of the growth in the last 100 years and especially in the last 40 years has been built on an unsustainable build-up of debt levels. These debt levels will continue to swell for another few years until the coming hyperinflation in the West leads to a destruction of real asset values and a debt implosion.

In the last 100 years the Western world has experienced a historically unprecedented growth in production, in inventions and technical developments leading to a major increase in the standard of living. During the same period government debt, as well as private debt have grown exponentially leading to a major increase in inflation compared to previous centuries.

Until the early 1970s the growth in credit to GDP had been going up gradually since the creation of the Fed in 1913.. But from 1971 when Nixon abolished gold backing of the dollar, virtually all of the growth in the Western world has come from the massive increase in credit rather than from real growth of the economy. The US consumer price index was stable for 200 years until the early 1900s. From 1971 to 2010 CPI went up by almost 500%. The reason for this is uncontrolled credit creation and money printing. Total US debt went from $9 trillion in 1971 to $59 trillion today and this excludes unfunded liabilities of anywhere from $70 to $110 trillion. US nominal GDP went from $1.1 trillion to $14.5 trillion between 1971 and 2010. So it has taken an increase in borrowings of $50 trillion to produce an increase in annual GDP of $13 trillion over a 40 year period. Without this massive increase in debt, the US would probably have had negative growth for most of the last 39 years.

Read the rest of the article

2010. The Year Whites Lost America?

2010. The Year Whites Lost America?

http://malevolentfreedom.org/

2010, the year we lost it all?

Many demographers believe that this may be the year that minority births outnumber white births in the United States.

According to census estimates, minorities made up about 48% of all births in the U.S. in 2008.

The reasons for this are pretty simple. Whites for the past several decades have slowly trended towards waiting until they are much older than

minorities before considering having children. Whites tend to wait for financial reasons. My personal situation points to the obvious truth. It is

far too expensive to raise a child in the U.S.. When taking into account average housing costs, food, transportation, clothing, healthcare, child care

education, and public college in my region I’m looking at a bill of 236,000. For one child.

So what’s the difference between whites and minorities than? Why would it be any cheaper for minorites to support their children? Once again the answer

is simple. Whites collect about 39% of welfare, yet make up 70% of the overall U.S. population. All minorities combined make up about 30% of the U.S.

population, yet they collect over 60% of welfare money.

What does all this mean? Well, think of it this way. If you are working 40+ hours a week and counting every penny in order to be able to put food on the

table and keep a roof over your families head. While your neighbor is simply waiting on that government check every month. Which one of you would be more

likely to have another child?

Healthcare, food, clothes, rent (maybe even mortage if Obama gets his way) all paid for by YOU the working taxpayer, for the benefit of minorities.

Take into account the fact that over 350,000 births to illegal aliens take place in the U.S. every year, costing an estimated $118 billion, and it’s

not hard to understand why we’re losing our country. Almost 8% of all births in the U.S. are from illegal aliens. The child is born a U.S. citizen,

entitling it to welfare benefits.

According to the census, Hispanic woman average 2.99 children, Black woman 2.13, Asian woman 2.04 and White woman just 1.87 children. These numbers

are pretty clear indicators that whites are very close to losing their future in America and around the world.

What a tragedy it is that White families face today. We all want the very best for our children, and in order to give it to them our costs skyrocket.

The government continues to tax us to death and give the money to foreign invaders. All the while telling us how “tolerant” we should be of other races

and cultures that do nothing but rot our country from the inside out.

I fear for my daughters future.

The Effects Of Racism

You cant turn on the television or pick up a newspaper these days without somebody insisting that something is Racist. Supposedly the Tea Party attendees are racist, those who would like to see our National border secured are racist, even  scientific references to “Black Holes” in a greeting card are construed as racist. It would seem that racism is all around us.

The dictionary partially defines “Racism” as A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various Human races determine individual or cultural achievement. When you apply this to the animal kingdom- you arrive at the widely accepted notion of “Evolution” or at least “Natural Selection”. This idea of natures differences propelling one faction of a spices above another is taught as fact to children all over this country, and is the subject of countless thesis’s that have been published in numerous scientific journals. The idea of Evolution and Natural Selection not only applies to our furry little friends in the animal world- but to the development of the Human species as well.

So what are the true effects of Racism on the individual? I can only speak for myself in this regard. Each person is free to adopt whatever personal philosophy they choose to live by. This can observed in some, especially if they “Wear Their Politics On Their Sleeve”- and yet with others, it is hidden from view and doesn’t become apparent until after one person gets better acquainted with another.

Myself- I’m with the “Politics On Their Sleeve” crowd. I don’t hide the fact that my interest in my cultures survival define me as a person. Almost every act is dedicated to the idea that I am the product of the sacrifices that those before me made, and its my duty to honor them by perpetuating the ideals that were passed down through tradition to me. I fully believe that I stem from a unique culture, and that culture deserves to stand alone as a distinct entity- and not fall victim to the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism.

But what are the effects of living a lifestyle governed by that doctrine? What has living a life of “Racism” gotten me?

To be absolutely honest- it has pushed me further, and made me become a stronger person than I could have ever imagined myself to be. The philosophy of racism has instilled within me a strong sense of identity. Racism has led me to explore my family’s past, lending to me a sense of “Where Ive Been”- and as the old saying goes- “You Don’t Know Where Your Going- If You Don’t Know Where You’ve Been”. Racism has taught me to honor my family- they are the closest link I have to my history, and it is because of their effort and achievement that I am here today. Believe it or not- racism has taught me the true meaning of “Love”. I used the term True Meaning because it isn’t the type of love motivated by consumerism and greed, but rather by honesty within ones self, and a deep sense of loyalty to those who are close to me.

A life or racism has led me to not only develop myself emotionally- but mentally and physically as well. The constant thirst for knowledge is the hallmark of the Aryan, and I drink its nectar with enthusiasm! I am currently in the process of attaining my degree, and soak up every bit of information that comes my way. This drive to constantly better myself stems from the philosophy of racism- to be the best example of my people that I can be.

The drive to maintain a favorable physicality is also driven by my ideal of racism. Where once I was an out of shape man of about three hundred pounds- I now stand before you trim and tight, driven also by the “Racist” idea of becoming the ultimate example of my Folk. Today, I am leaner, healthier, and better developed- all due to racism.

So- it has been proven by example that a life of “Racism” (as lived by those who actually welcome the label) has led to a stronger person- both in mind, body, and spirit. Racism motivates- it pushes the individual. It instills a sense of pride, belonging, and responsibility that leaves little option than to transform the practitioner of its ideology into the best person they could possibly be.

So- if you were to ask me “What Are The Effects Of Racism”? I would be forced to answer “The development of the individual beyond their wildest dreams. You should look into it”

Are you really a white nationalist?

I know a lot of people who are white nationalists.  Most of them are damn good people who walk the walk and talk the talk.  Their actions speak louder than any words ever could as to who and what they are, and to be honest, that’s the way it should be.  There are also a lot of people who claim to be white nationalists, they say the right words, yet their actions speak louder than anything they say.  They don’t live by what they’re saying, and people see this, and judge every single one of us by this.  It isn’t something easy to overcome.  Remember, we must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.  I really don’t give a damn about your religious beliefs, nor do I care about your political beliefs, because if you are a white nationalist as you claim, your race should come before anything else.  You can call it a religious or political edict ordained from on high if you like, but that’s the plain, simple truth.  There are those who will be angered by this statement, and take offense, and if you’re one of those, then I have to ask you, are you really a white nationalist?  Do you go out and offend those of your race who’s views aren’t yours?  Do you chastise and criticize them because they don’t share the same exact views as you?  If you do, then you really, really need to ask yourself if you are living by the 14 words.  You see, to me, my race is everything.  Fighting for it, dying for it if needs be, but most importantly, living for my race is what drives me, compels me, and propels me onward.  I have full well studied the risks, I know everything I stand to lose by being who and what I am.  I accept this, and push on, because there are no rewards without risk.  While I can understand that a person has to provide for their family, I understand that people have to make a living, I also understand that there comes a time when it’s put up or shut up.  There comes a time when it’s your turn at the plate, and you can either be hero and hit the game winning home run, or you can be a zero and strike out.  It’s really up to you what you do, as no one can do it for you.  Are you active?  Activism comes in many forms, and there are many ways to help.  While you may not be out in the street protesting and marching, what are you doing to support the cause?  What are you doing to help out your brothers and sisters?  Even if it’s something as simple as making up flyers or signs, are you doing that?  Because if you think posting a few words on the internet and maybe going to the occasional meeting at an undisclosed location is being active, I have bad news for you, you’re wrong.  This is about solidarity, about showing a solid front, and if you aren’t willing to do that, we don’t need you.  Even if you’re sending a good org a few dollars to help out, it’s doing something.  If a brother or a sister have something useful to offer, support them.  If you aren’t willing to help out your own, what good are you?  If this touches a nerve with you, if it angers and offends you, then I’ve done my job.  We don’t need people straddling the fence, we need people who aren’t afraid to do something to help out.  Well, it’s real easy for you to say this, what the hell are you doing?  Well for one thing, I’m writing this.  For another, I’m spending a boat load of money I really don’t have driving all over the south east to attend events, and get out and meet and network with other white nationalists.  This is what it’s going to take to win this.  I know people who used to get and do the same thing, then they got families, and despite all of that, they still support the cause by sending out flyers, and flags, and making things to help the cause.  There’s something for everyone to do, besides sit in mommy and daddies basement and type words on a computer.  I’m still getting out, I’m still being active, and I’m going through a lot of things right now.  I had a family member who I loved dearly recently pass away, and I’ve got 2 grandparents who are terminally ill, and I’m doing everything in power to help them, to support them, and to try to make their last few days, weeks, or months on this earth a bit easier before they cross on to the other side and whatever it is that may await them there.  So you’ll have to forgive me if I haven’t been around as much, as I’ve had a pretty full load here lately.  However, despite these things, I’m still getting out, going to rallies, and next month I’m going to a meet and greet we’re having here in the south east.  For those of you who post on this forum, I’m going to go and post some of the pertinent details when I get done writing this.  I hope to see those who can make it there, but I understand if you don’t make it.  However, you need to make something close to you, or get out and meet people close to you, and organize things so that other people can get involved.  I understand that there are organizations that can’t stand one another in this movement.  I understand that power tripping and egos sometime get in the way, but people, we are coming upon a time when we’ll have to put all the petty childishness aside, and settle our differences like adults.  If we are united, nothing , and I mean nothing can stop us.  Our wills are strong, our cause is right and just, but if we’re divided, we’ll ultimately fail.  Hate me if you want to, but damn it, get off your butts and do something.  It angers me to no end to see the pettiness, and childishness get in the way of progress.  If one of this persons members offends one of your members, don’t run away, and don’t quit, work to resolve the problem.  It may take time, and the words may get heated, making it seem like it’s more trouble than it’s worth, but things worth doing aren’t easy ones.  They’re tough, and to do them, we’ve got to be tough as hell as well.  The way I see it, we can either be a part of the solution, or we can be a part of the problem.  It’s time to wake up people, and realize that the clocks ticking.  We have a person in power who want to limit our freedoms, who wants to take away our rights, and before you know it, it will be to late.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who’s behind it, and before you know it, we’ll have laws like those found in Canada and Germany.  We can just sit there and take it, and be divided, or we can unite and make our voices heard behind a solid wall of brothers and sisters.  However, that decision is ours, and our alone, so what’s it going to be.  Robert Lassiter aka Carolina Patriot

Has Rupert Murdoch Betrayed Glenn Beck and the Tea Party?

Glenn Beck has a dilemma, an epic dilemma. The rising star of quasi-news, who blends current events, history, and opinion into a savory cup of tea is about to come up against a big obstacle—his billionaire boss, Rupert Murdoch. It seems the conservative media mogul and owner of Fox News Corporation is about to dip his crumpet right into Beck’s cup of tea. This tea party is about to get interesting.

Murdoch has announced that he sides squarely with Barack Obama when it comes to amnesty for illegals. Rupert’s organization, the Partnership for a New American Economy, met in New York last week to discuss how they can influence Congress and the American people. Here’s Rupert’s approach:

We’re just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen. I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.

Given that conservatives who identify themselves as patriotic make up the bulk of FOX viewers, and this group of flag-waving, tea party supporting Americans are steadfastly against giving millions of criminals amnesty based solely on the color of their skin, Beck could be facing a mutiny—his or theirs. To them, illegal means just that. So, why haven’t we heard even a peep about this from the Fox talking heads? Hannity, Malkin, Huckabee, no one? Because they are talking heads, not patriots, and certainly not conservatives. But what about Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck is making impressive inroads into the mainstream mindset. His Founders Fridays segment is wildly popular, and he can sell a book better than anyone—even Oprah. But will he abandon the people that lifted him onto his pedestal of conservative ideology, or will he contravene and split Fox News apart?

Beck’s moment of truth is coming. Will he stand against elitists like Rupert Murdoch who want to abandon the American people in favor of cheap labor? Will he stand by and watch as we are overrun from the South, and our culture is consumed? My guess is yes. That’s right. You heard it here first. I predict that in the coming weeks Glenn Beck will start subtly changing the conversation, tilting it towards mass amnesty for Mexicans.

Story courtesy of the hard working staff at RFDAmerica

Rewriting Our History

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”- Edmund Burke

History is no longer the depiction of events that have already transpired, but instead its become the interpretation of those events presented to you and your children by representatives of this nations educational system.

As our countries true history gets diluted by layers of political correctness and bureaucracy, those who try to inquire about our countries past greatness will have those questions sanitized by those who’s views of our past as well as the vision of our future may be at odds with true historical fact- and maybe detrimental to those who wish to build upon the foundation of that history in an attempt to further our advancement as a civilization.

Currently in Texas, there are votes being cast that will determine what will be displayed as fact in text books used throughout the state. Being one of the countries largest buyers of these books, the standards set by this panel is generally adopted by school districts across the nation as an unintended consequence of their majority.

At the expense of our children’s education- the learning materials provided to them has been politicized to the point of being incomprehensible, even by those well versed in Orwellian Double Speak. Examples like Snow men being changed to “Snow Person” to accommodate those who may object to the gender classification of the term, and Senior Citizen getting changed to “Senior Person” to avoid any connotation regarding national origin- we are committing the highest of crimes by teaching ambiguity in place of fact and allegory instead of straight forward questioning. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if if they knew their importance was in the process of being removed from the pages of history as “All people are created equal” is taught to replace “All men are created equal”.

History, with all its culture and tradition, is being stolen right out from under our noses- hold onto it any way you can. Treasure it. Learn from its root sources, and then pass that knowledge onto future generations of your children. Scrapbook copies of the Declaration Of Independence, The Constitution, and The Gettysburg Address- because one day you may pick up a newly printed copy…and not recognize them.

The “Political Structure Doctrine” Yet Another Excuse to be Anti-White

The “Political Structure Doctrine”

Yet Another Excuse to be Anti-White

On August 3, the Supreme Court of the state of California handed down a decision that was widely welcomed by conservatives. In Coral Construction v San Francisco the court found that California’s anti-affirmative-action Proposition 209 was constitutional. Passed at the time of the general election in 1996, ballot initiative 209 amended the state constitution to include a ban on race or sex preferences in “public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

The ruling sailed through with a comfortable 6-1 majority, but the lone dissent—by Hispanic justice Carlos Moreno—was unsettling. He wrote that Prop 209 was unconstitutional because it established “a steep hurdle” for non-whites seeking race preferences.

This sounded like special pleading of the most outrageous kind. Why shouldn’t non-whites face “a steep hurdle” if they want to discriminate against whites?

In fact, however, Justice Moreno’s dissent [PDF, P. 35] is a carefully reasoned argument that may actually be right—given the peculiar anti-white premises that are increasingly pervasive in American racial jurisprudence.

Moreno acknowledged that race preferences are controversial. But he pointed out that it was not the court’s job to decide if they were good or bad—only to decide whether the proposition that banned them was constitutional. In deciding that it was not constitutional, he relied on an obscure set of US Supreme Court precedents that have come to be known as the “political structure doctrine.” Like the concept of “disparate impact” , it was conjured up out of the Constitution as part of the tortured jurisprudence on race that goes back at least to the Brown decision of 1954.

First, though, what were the facts in Coral Construction v San Francisco? San Francisco has built race and sex preferences into city contracting for at least the last 26 years. A business owned by a white man can get a contract with the city only if it underbids proposals from favored groups by at least 5 to 10 percent (the percentage varies according to how many favored contractors are bidding). White men also have to pass very strict muster on how many women- and minority-owned subcontractors they will hire, whereas favored groups can subcontract with whomever they like.

San Francisco has been bizarrely thorough about including just about every conceivable non-white in the favored group: not just the usual blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics (in this case everyone from south of the Rio Grande, including Brazilians, but not Spaniards from Spain), but also Arabs, Iranians, and every possible Asian, including Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese. In 2005, whites were still a majority of the city at 53 percent, with Asians coming in second at 33 percent. But the city had no intention of scrapping discrimination against whites just because they become a minority.

Ever since the 1989 US Supreme Court decision of Richmond v Croson, this kind of official discrimination is legal only if a city can prove it is compensating for its own past acts of discrimination. Accordingly, every so often, the city searches itself for discrimination—which it invariably finds. It holds hearings in which non-whites claim that San Francisco froze them out and gave all the business to the white “old boys” network. Despite the preferences that began in 1984, we learn that what may be the most “diversity”-crazed city in the country has been discriminating indiscriminately against Iranians, Egyptians, Uruguayans, Koreans etc. The city is delighted, because such wickedness means it can keep freezing out white men. The most recent such public spectacle—no fewer than 134 people testified—was in 2003.

Coral Construction Company has been fighting this nonsense since 2001, and after nine years of twists and turns, finally got to the California Supreme Court. The city of San Francisco badly wants to keep discriminating against white men, so it made a number of creative arguments against the racial preferences ban, but its most creative was based on the aforementioned “political structure doctrine.” In brief, the doctrine holds that any measure that makes it more difficult for racial minorities to get laws passed in their favor violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and unfairly upsets the “political structure.”

The doctrine is based mainly on two US Supreme Court cases. The first, Hunter v. Erickson was about “fair housing” in Akron, Ohio. In 1964, the city passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination in apartment rentals and house sales. In the 1960s, whites still sometimes acted in their own interests, so the voters of Akron repealed the ordinance and amended the city charter to require a referendum on any new “fair housing” ordinance. It was a classic case of elected representatives acting against the interests of their constituents, but in this case the constituents struck back.

In 1969, the Supreme Court not only reinstated the non-discrimination ordinance but found that the voters of Akron had upset the “political structure” in a way that hurt minorities. It noted that it was only housing ordinances that banned racial and ethnic discrimination that required approval by referendum. Renters with children or dogs, for example, or people who wanted rent control could get ordinances passed by the city in the usual way, without having to clear the additional hurdle of a referendum. Thus, people with dogs could more easily get laws passed in their favor than people who were black. And that, said the court, was unconstitutional.

The other important “political structure” case was Washington v. Seattle School District, which the Supreme Court decided in 1982. In yet another case of government spurning the electorate, the city of Seattle started mandatory school busing to even out the racial balance. Whites didn’t like this, and in 1978 they passed a state initiative that banned busing for racial reasons but permitted it for other reasons, such as alleviating overcrowding or getting special Ed students to special Ed classes.

The US Supreme Court reasoned just as it had in Hunter. The state initiative made things tougher for non-whites than for anyone else who wanted to persuade the district to send them a bus. Blacks who wanted a free ride across town to the white school had to change a state-wide law, not just lobby the school board the way the special Ed kids could. Again, the “political structure” had been changed to their disadvantage.

That, of course, is exactly where Justice Moreno was going in his dissent in the San Francisco case. As he pointed out, Prop 209’s ban on racial preferences amended the state constitution in a way that was explicitly racial. Non-whites (and women) would have to change the constitution to get their preferences back, while other groups could help themselves to public handouts with less effort. Veterans, cripples, poor people, and slow learners can persuade government at all levels to discriminate in their favor without going to the enormous bother of a ballot initiative.

Ergo, Prop 209 put a unique political hurdle in the way of non-whites (and women) who want laws and ordinances passed in their favor, and is therefore unconstitutional under the “political structure doctrine.”

Justice Moreno is not saying that preferences must last forever—only that they should be removed through normal political procedures that do not disadvantage non-whites. If it wanted, the city of San Francisco could abolish its preferential contracting, and might do so if the political balance ever tilts towards a ban. But non-whites should not have to change the constitution in order to keep their preferences or get new ones.

Justice Moreno conceded that there have been some recent US Supreme Court decisions that suggest the court is moving away from the “political structure doctrine.” But he pointed out, correctly, that as long as the Supreme Court has not yet disavowed the doctrine, it is not a state court’s job to try to read its mind. The doctrine is still law. It must be enforced, whatever one thinks of racial preferences.

And in fact the five justices in the majority in the San Francisco case did not ignore the “political structure doctrine.” They just said it did not apply. They argued that in the Hunter and Seattle cases, discrimination against non-whites had been enshrined in ways that upset the “political structure,”and that the doctrine did not cover cases in which a ban on discrimination was so enshrined.  (Needless to say, further complexities mean that San Francisco’s anti-white discrimination is still in place and must be litigated further).

Justice Moreno may well have been right to argue that that the California Supreme Court had no business drawing that distinction. So long as preferences are legal—and the US Supreme Court has said they are legal if they compensate for past discrimination or achieve “diversity”—then all that matters is whether the measure brings an advantage to non-whites—and that can be either a ban on discrimination against them or promotion of discrimination in their favor. It is unconstitutional to tilt the political process in ways that make it harder for the poor dears to get either form of advantage.

In my opinion, from a legal point of view, Justice Moreno is right. Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, American law has been full of pompous jabber about banning racial discrimination, but this has not stopped courts and governments at all levels from discriminating against whites in the name of non-discrimination against everyone else. To judges, non-discrimination does not mean what it means to the rest of us.

Furthermore, the “political structure doctrine” favors only racial, ethnic, and religious groups. For example, if the voters of California amended the state constitution to ban skeet shootings within 100 miles of an elementary school, it would change the political structure for skeet shooters by making it impossible for them to seek relief through city ordinance or state law. But the “political structure doctrine” would be no protection for them because skeet shooters are not a race or a religion. The doctrine itself, with its benefits and protections only for favored groups, is one of those special-treatment hoaxes that are always being perpetrated in the name of equal treatment.

We come now to a delicate question: Did Justice Moreno read the law the way he did only because he is Hispanic and likes preferences for his people?

Maybe—but maybe not. As even this oversimplified account shows, the law is a complex thing, and what can appear to be a minor hallucination, such as the “political structure doctrine”, can be trotted out to justify what would otherwise be clearly seen as blatant discrimination.

When it comes to race, constitutional law is a briar patch of ad hoc doctrines. A Moreno or a Sotomayor or a Kagan can go dowsing for anti-white arguments any time he or she wants. Just because “political structure” was not cited in the San Francisco case, does not mean it will not be decreed to be determinative in the future.

The great legal irony of the 20th century is that American whites institutionalized racial discrimination against themselves at a time when they were the overwhelming majority both on the bench and in Congress.

In doing so, they established a legal tradition that will make it child’s play for any future non-white majority to expand that discrimination into any part of our lives they choose.

What, then, is to be done?

Fortunately, the swine who pass our laws, and appoint and confirm our judges care about only one thing. It is not justice, it is not truth, and it certainly isn’t the country. It is reelection. That means that every so often they have to get our permission to keep making a mess of things.

When enough people stop watching television, and start reading VDARE.COM (and American Renaissance!) the political landscape will change and we can start fixing things.

We could begin by making sure that our rulers no longer think the Constitution is an inexhaustible fund of justifications for discrimination against whites.

Originally published at VDARE.com

Justice Carlos R. Moreno

Justice Carlos R. MorenoWhen he was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California in 2001, Justice Carlos Moreno chose to relinquish his lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court where he had presided over a broad range of complex civil and criminal matters since his appointment in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. On the state’s highest court, he has the opportunity to “really address critical cutting-edge issues involving social policy,” and his service allows him to contribute to “decisions about what direction the law is going to take.”

As an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Moreno reviews on appeal a wide range of civil and criminal cases, which have substantial state and federal constitutional implications. With his appointment to the Supreme Court of California, he became only the third judge of Hispanic heritage to serve in the Court’s nearly 150-year history, and the first in more than a decade. Apart from raising his family, he considers his appointment to the Supreme Court as his proudest accomplishment. “The appointment to California’s highest court is the dream of a lifetime for any lawyer who loves the law.”

Justice Moreno earned his excellent reputation as a jurist through years of service in the judiciary, beginning with his appointment in 1986 to the Municipal Court, Compton Judicial District, by Governor George Deukmejian. In that capacity, he adjudicated criminal matters, with an emphasis on serious felony offenses, and supervised the court’s civil department until 1993, when Governor Pete Wilson elevated him to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where he presided over felony trials. Justice Moreno is unique in that he has been nominated to judgeships by four different appointing executive authorities, two of whom are Democrats, and two who are Republicans. This is a testament to his fairness and impartiality in the view of many observers.

A native of Los Angeles, Justice Moreno attended local public schools before going east to Yale University, from which he graduated in 1970. He realized early in his education that he had a skill which enabled him to navigate through complex procedures as he assisted various relatives in responding to requests for additional information regarding insurance claims and applications for benefits. He was later drawn to the study of law so that he could help others on a larger scale and with a broader range of issues. After graduating from Stanford Law School and being admitted to the Bar in 1975, he served in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. As Deputy City Attorney, he prosecuted criminal and civil consumer protection cases, and handled politically sensitive and legislative matters for the City Attorney. In 1979, he joined the firm of Mori & Ota (now known as Kelley, Drye and Warren) representing the firm’s business clients in its general commercial litigation practice.

Formerly the president of the Mexican American Bar Association, Justice Moreno serves the community in a variety of ways. He has been a member of the California Judges Association, the Presiding Judges Association and the Municipal Court Judges Association of Los Angeles County and was also the president of the Yale Club of Southern California, and a member of the Stanford University Law School Board of Visitors. He currently serves as a director of the Arroyo Vista Family Health Center and the Western Justice Center Foundation.

Justice Moreno was honored with the Criminal Justice Superior Court Judge of the Year Award in 1997, from the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and was presented with the “For God, For Country, and For Yale” Award in 2001, recognizing him as a distinguished alumnus of Yale University. He also received an honorary degree from Southwestern University School of Law in May 2002 for his devotion to the justice system, young people and the community.

When addressing new graduates at Southwestern University School of Law last Spring, Justice Moreno urged his fellow members of the legal profession to take significant steps to ensure that access to justice is foremost in their professional lives. He went on to stress the need to enforce and exercise significant rights, as provided in the Constitution and statutes, to give those rights meaning in actual practice, for all members of society.

Justice Moreno hopes that his appointment to the California Supreme Court “serves as a reminder to everyone that anything is possible in this great country.” He also hopes that during his tenure on the bench he will be able to “improve the quality of equal justice for all by ensuring that access to justice in our state becomes a reality for all.”

Justice Moreno and his wife Christine live in Los Angeles with their two children, Keiko and Nicholas, and their niece, Heather, who suffers from an autistic disorder.

The ABA is honored to include Justice Carlos Moreno in our commemoration of National Hispanic Heritage Month.

Photo Usage:
Permission to use the above photo was granted by Justice Carlos Moreno.

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

30,000 line up for housing vouchers, some get rowdy:

Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, called Section 8, subsidized the rents of low-income families living in apartments and houses that are privately owned. The federal program makes up the difference in rent that the poor can afford and the fair market value for each area.

The same media pundits who pathologize the Tea Party as violent and greedy and too White won’t be saying anything like that about this seething crowd of self-interested blacks, or how desperate they are to be delivered from their own kind.

Hanna Rosin’s American Murder Mystery tries to bury the answer to the “mystery” of the relationship between Section 8 and crime in paragraphs of tedious, turgid obfuscation. I’ll try here to cut through it.

Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? [Lieutenant Doug] Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.

Note that neither Rosin or any of the people she quotes in this article, except perhaps the police, sympathize with the “fearful” Whites. Never once is the terrible cost to Whites mentioned. The main reason this is a “dismal” tale “they don’t want to hear” is that Section 8 has not helped non-Whites as much as they would have liked.

[University of Memphis Criminologist Richard] Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country.

After decades of pathologizing millions of “fearful” Whites who objected to Section 8 and other government-imposed racial integration programs as morally and/or mentally defective, statistics show that our fears were justified. But that isn’t what Betts is “discomforted” or “deflated” about. What’s such a “hard thing to say or write” is that crime and poverty and blackness are connected.

Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

It could be argued that the genocidal monsters who imposed this nightmare might have done so out of ignorance. At least as first. For those who continue to support it now there is no explanation but anti-White animus. Here we can see that animus in the depiction of White violence, decades past, in the same tired pathologizing terms. Why else ignore the self-defensive motivations of Whites long since proven justified, and why present White violence as worse than the more brutal, more enduring, and more widespread black violence perpetrated since?

A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”

If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute.

More fitting words for “the whole grand experiment”, as well as those who aid and abet it: mendacious, fraudulent, genocidal. Criminal.

The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”

For Popkin, Rosin, Janikowski, Betts, Polikoff, Rosenbaum, The Atlantic, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, and their fellow travellers, what’s really important is that non-Whites haven’t benefitted enough. No apologies to the victims of their violence. No refunds for those who have been forced to fund their own genocide.

The article concludes with a talmudic shrug, magically transferring the blame to Whites:

It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”

Pathologizing Whites as “paranoid” is how these issues have long been framed.

Alexander Polikoff’s Gautreaux Proposal, written in Nov/Dec 2004, puts it this way:

Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.

Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.” Decades later, sociologist Elijah Anderson’s studies of a ghetto and an adjacent non-ghetto neighborhood led him to conclude: “The public awareness is color-coded. White skin denotes civility, law-abidingness, and trustworthiness, while black skin is strongly associated with poverty, crime, incivility, and distrust.” In American society at large, most whites act like the ones Anderson studied — their public awareness is also color-coded, and they steer clear of poor blacks and keep them in their ghettos. Predictable ghetto behavior then intensifies whites’ sense of danger, validates their color-coding and drives their conduct.

Sixty years ago this kind of anti-White guilt-tripping might have seemed brave or iconoclastic. Today the government and blacks are the ones inflicting violence on Whites. We can see that “prejudice and discrimination” don’t cause black poverty, crime, and incivility. Blacks know it. They prove it by suffering through hours in the hot sun to get an application to be put on a waiting list so they can escape and live amongst Whites. We know that they bring their poverty, crime, and incivility with them.

Knowing all this, we are justified in distrusting, opposing, and even despising the professional grievance mongers who are complicit in it. Their sympathies for blacks, even if sincere, don’t excuse the harm their twisted thinking has caused Whites.

UPDATE 12 Aug 2010: More on Janikowski and Betts via James Edwards.

Couple’s findings link crime in Memphis to Section 8 voucher renters » The Commercial Appeal, by Fredric Koeppel, 11 Sept 2008:

In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.

“Well, that’s a bit of a simplification,” said Janikowski, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis and director of the Center for Community Criminology and Research, “though that’s the way our studies have been interpreted. Crime and poverty are inextricably linked, there’s no question, but it’s not that poverty causes crime. Poverty creates a contact point that exacerbates all sorts of stresses on people. It’s not that there’s any one cause. It’s a confluence of stresses.”

In other words, crime and poverty and other stresses follow blacks wherever they go. There is no question that Section 8 has shifted crime and poverty to neighborhoods previously unafflicted by such problems. There is no question this has exacerbated all sorts of stresses on the people in these predominantly White neighborhoods, impoverishing them and making them miserable enough to leave, if they can. Clearly Janikowski isn’t talking about these stresses. The attempt here is to obfuscate the link between blackness and crime and poverty. And it is done even while the problems are deliberately simplified and explicitly linked to Whiteness, which is consistently offered both as the only cause for the problems and as the only obstacle to ending them.

As outsiders to Memphis and as a couple committed to public service, Betts and Janikowski feel keenly the ambivalence of their position. They have, after all, and almost inadvertently, delivered the bad news that the Section 8 housing program in Memphis is not working. They are white college professors, trained in academic research; most residents of public housing are poor and black and uneducated.

The “bad news” here is not that Section 8 has been foisted on Whites who don’t want it, justified by historic anti-White stereotypes and libels, and when it is empirically demonstrated not to lift blacks out of poverty and crime, that this too is blamed on Whites. That’s just how the “bad news” (i.e. blackness is linked to crime and poverty) has been framed. It is classic blame-the-victim apologia from fulminating hypocrites who make their living sniffing out and pathologizing stereotypes, libels, and blaming-the-victim. The bad news for Whites is that Section 8 exists – that there’s no question we, as a group, pay for it and are harmed by it.

At that meeting [where Betts and Janikowski presented their findings to the Memphis City Council] was Robert Lipscomb, director of the city’s Housing and Community Development division. He remains among their most vocal detractors.

Lipscomb is black. He unequivocally describes Section 8 participants as “the victims of crime, not the cause”.

“Well, Robert has his viewpoint,” said Janikowski. “Maybe we should have put it differently, not emphasized vouchers so much. We have gotten local feedback that has been much more positive, but people have been saying racist things.”

“There’s been so much follow-up at the national level from people who have no background at the local level,” said Betts. “The feeling that we share ideas with right-wing bloggers is devastating.”

Janikowski regrets that he didn’t try sooner and harder to frame the problems even more simply and explicitly as being caused by “racists” and “right-wing bloggers”. The fact is that Whites at the local level have been deliberately harmed by the anti-White/pro-black policies. These policies are advocated by dishonest snake-oil salesmen operating at the national level, who are provided megaphones by media and academia and courts to broadcast their poisonous ideas.