Democrats Prove Smarter At Platform Making

The platform issue has been frustrating, if truth be told. The Republican platform, as always, was a mess. It was fringey and utterly obsessed with social conservative issues. The Democratic platform is not a mess. Yes, their ideology is horrible, but they are much smarter about how they present it.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republican Minority Report

The Democrats are cranking up the “Republicans are all white” theme to get their convention started. The point man for this effort has been Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose liberal city is facing new allegations of LA cops beating black residents. This weekend, Villaraigosa ran into MSNBC host Chuck Todd, who finally did what journalists are supposed to do and pointed out some inconvenient facts. What facts you ask?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Smell of Disaster

Ya know, you take a week off to give the world time to refill its collection of news stories and then you come back to find nothing is going on. What the heck? Did the world get lazy? . . or sane? Well, no, not quite. There are a few things worth discussing. It seems things aren't going well on the left.

● Uh, Whoops (Part 52): Once again, Team Obama has stepped up to the plate with a new attack on Romney. And once again, it’s failing miserably. This attack involves calling Romney an outsourcer of jobs. The only problem? No one cares. . . if they’re even listening. Moreover, Romney has once again turned Obama’s attack back against Obama and made him look stupid. This time, Romney made the obvious counterattack by calling Obama the nation’s “Outsourcer in Chief” and pointing out that Obama’s policies have encouraged jobs to be sent oversees and resulted in taxpayer money being paid to overseas companies. Indeed, let’s not forget that the president of Obama’s President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jeffry Immelt of General Electric, sent 25,000 American jobs overseas in the two years before Obama appointed him. Whoops.

● Carolina Dreamin’: Speaking of Obama, here’s proof he’s going to lose North Carolina even though the polls show a neck and neck race. Democratic Representatives Larry Kissel and Mike McIntyre will both be joining the Republicans in voting to repeal ObamaCare this week. Neither will endorse Obama. And Kissel voted to impeach Eric Holder. Neither would be doing any of that if they didn’t think their constituents hated Obama.

● Uh. . . no: Carolina isn’t the only place either where Obama has problems. Consider this. Obama has decided to play a little class warfare before the election. Specifically, he’s calling for letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for anyone making more than $250,000. Sounds like a no-brainer for the Democrats, right? Well, not so fast. Several House and Senate Democrats are freaking out and want to raise that number to $1,000,000. Senators from Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Nebraska and Virginia all have taken this position. Interestingly, three of those are considered “battleground” states, and apparently, Obama is losing the battle.

● Turning Up The Hate: With Democratic frustrations mounting, they and their allies are starting to turn up the hate. A former Media Matters executive just put out a racist youtube video in which he says Romney is “too white” to meet with the NAACP, something Romney is doing this week. The ad features an actor pretending to be the man who created the Willie Horton ad, and he says this to Romney about trying to meet with the NAACP:

“You are so white, you are extremely white, you make Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”

He then tells Romney to “get all Mormon, Martin Luther King” on the audience. Is anybody really surprised by this? I doubt it. Not when James Earl Jones became the latest celebrity to label the Tea Party “racist.” Joy Behar says it regularly. Also this week, Biden said this to minorities: “Republicans have changed the law so you get arrested if you vote.” He claims he was joking, but how is race-baiting funny? Not to mention, he also told the National Council of La Raza, a race hate group: “Romney wants you to show your papers.” At the same time, Rep. Jim Clyburn called Republican attempts to trim the food stamp program, which exploded since 2008 through an administrative change, an “abomination” and implied Republicans want to starve poor children. David Letterman joked that Romney wants to put gays back in the closet. Barney Frank said something similar. And so on.

It’s amazing how consistently the Democrats try to bait minorities with false claims of racism or other –isms. It makes you wonder how they sleep at night spreading so much hate?

● Lost Faith: Finally, the MSM has hit another all-time low. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, the MSM was the undisputed arbiter of the truth. If they said it, Americans believed it. But like anything else liberals infest, the MSM has lost its way. And as alternative methods of staying informed have become available, people have started discovering just how biased our liberal friends in the MSM have been. That, in turn, leads to a huge erosion of trust.

That brings us to Gallup. Gallup has been asking people about their level of confidence in the MSM for years now. And surprise surprise, this year’s result shows that the American public’s confidence in the MSM is at an all-time low. How low? In 1993, 46% of the public said they trusted the nightly news. In 2012, only 21% trust the nightly news. In 1979, their peak year, newspapers were trusted by 51% of the public. In 2012, only 28% trust newspapers.

A lot of this is the result of liberals, whose trust in the news and newspapers fell from 30% last year to 19% this year. But even leaving that aside, it’s clear that something is very wrong with the MSM if only one in five Americans trust them. But maybe the better question is, what’s wrong with the one in five?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Gets There Firstest With The Mostest

Magic Man Barack Obama seems to have lost a great deal of his mojo since the Hope, Dope and Change campaign of 2008. His well-organized fund-raising and internet campaigning that made the difference against John McCain are coming unglued. But he hasn’t lost his ability to pander to “victim” groups, and for the first time in awhile his timing, however cynical, was excellent.

His method may be called into question, but his executive order to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was truly good timing. Figuring he won’t lose a single black vote no matter what, Obama has concentrated his demagoguery on the next largest ethnic voting bloc—Hispanics. He was losing support among Latinos for having done nothing to move the immigration debate along. Even with solid majorities in both houses of Congress, he couldn’t get his beloved DREAM Act passed.

So by fiat, El Presidente has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Napolitano has been ordered to cease all deportation proceedings against any illegal immigrants under the age of thirty who were brought to the United States by their illegal immigrant parents before age sixteen, have been in the US for at least five years, have no felony record, completed high school, gotten a GED, or served in the US military. An accelerated path to citizenship is not addressed in the order, cleverly avoiding the word “amnesty,” but the very nature of the executive order presumes that will come soon.

This move was both good strategy and good tactics. He couldn’t have picked a more sympathetic or blameless group than these particular shuttlecocks in the badminton game of immigration reform. Even those who are harshest on illegal immigration (myself included) have been trying to figure out a way to accommodate this particular immigrant demographic without rewarding them for their illegal status. “It’s not their fault” has to be balanced against “but nevertheless, they are here illegally.”

This was clearly a preemptive strike, and a good one at that. It is well-known among political insiders that Republican candidate Mitt Romney has been looking for a way to address this very narrow immigration issue. Senator Marco Rubio, considered to be a front-runner for the Republican vice presidential spot, had already proposed something similar to Obama’s executive order, albeit with more restrictions, emphasis on not creating a fast track to citizenship, and an act of Congress rather than an executive decision.

Obama took a position that has enthusiastic support among a large segment of the population, and little angry opposition on principle. Those who oppose the action entirely are comprised mostly of those who don’t want to discuss any kind of immigration reform beyond “deport ‘em all.” This is not the DREAM Act in disguise, but rather a bowdlerized version of one small portion of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was/is quite simply a complete large-scale rescission of existing immigration law replacing the law with the legalization of 12 or 13 millions illegals and putting them on a fast track to citizenship.

Obama’s executive action is both cynical and effective. It sends the message to the Hispanic community that he is finally addressing their issues. It’s a small but very highly visible step. And as always, he avoids proposing anything truly radical, having found one small niche in which he could operate while leaving the issue of massive changes for a later day.

It serves another purely political motive. He has managed to steal Romney’s thunder, and to a lesser extent, Rubio’s. Obama can now point out Romney’s stand on securing the borders and deporting (or "self-deporting") illegal immigrants while at the same time turning Romney’s potential views on this specific issue into a “me too” position at best. Obama can wink at Hispanics, indicating that this reasonable solution to a thorny issue is just the beginning of his slow-motion war to enforce complete illegal immigrant legalization. At the same time, it allows him to say that what he has actually ordered is simply fair and reasonable, without any serious implications for the immigration issue at large.

I have to give the devil his due. He has shored up his Hispanic base while at the same time putting his Republican opponent on the defensive. Romney accurately reacted to the news of Obama’s move, but it was just that—reaction. “First of all, we have to secure the borders; we need to have an employment verification system to make sure that those who are working here in this country are here illegally; and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents, through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. This is something Congress has been working on. And I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Sen. Marco Rubio and by Democratic senators. But the president jumped in and said ‘I’m going to take this action (emphasis added).’”

Romney also said accurately but reactively “I don’t know why he feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.” Well, let’s hope he does know, or we’re in for a rear-guard action on immigration throughout the upcoming campaign season. He has to come up with something better than this: “If he felt seriously about this, he should have taken action when he had a Democrat House and Senate. But he didn’t. He saves these sorts of things until four-and-a-half months before the general election.”

Romney got the thrust right, but failed to hammer at the real issue in a way that non-political junkies and non-constitutional scholars would easily understand. Not only did Obama have those majorities, but if he had really cared about his Hispanic base, he would have gone the proper route of getting Congress to act on this single, sympathetic issue rather than trying to ram blanket amnesty down America’s throat. Instead, he has used a highly-questionable and possibly unconstitutional executive order to accomplish a goal he should have been able to accomplish with the consent of Congress.

This is not a permanent victory for Obama, nor a serious loss for Romney, but it is a strong hint as to how this campaign will be conducted. Obama cannot run on his record, so he needs to attack Romney and put him on the defensive. Painting Romney as a “me too” candidate has a long history. Kennedy used it successfully against Nixon, and Obama used it successfully against McCain. Romney needs to get aggressively in front of these issues and present the real version of his agenda and platform before Obama can define them for him.

For one thing, Romney needs to work with his team and his PACs to hammer home the idea that the greatest critic of using an executive order to advance immigration reform was, you guessed it, Barack Obama himself. He told his Hispanic base that he had to work with Congress, blamed the Republicans for derailing immigration reform, but justified his own inaction by saying that a president doesn’t have the power to accomplish these goals by executive order. In fact, he said that such an overreach by the executive branch might be wholly unconstitutional.

Obama is going to try these same tactics with foreign affairs, race relations, expansion of government and the economy (I put the economy last because it is obviously the biggest issue of the campaign and Obama’s weakest position). But this preemptive attack on Romney’s immigration position is a very good thing to be used as a learning experience for Romney and his handlers.

Obama’s action, Romney’s position and Rubio’s proposals on this small part of the immigration debate are not really about blanket amnesty, or even about passing portions of the DREAM Act by stealth. They are about the cynical manipulation of a portion of the minority population by a master demagogue using extra-legal means to enhance his own image at the expense of his opponent’s. Romney needs to make that the issue rather than let Obama define the debate.

My advice (for what it’s worth) to Mitt Romney: “Attack, attack, attack. Never take a defensive position, and never allow yourself to be put into a defensive position.” Obama is a master at pointing out his opponents’ weaknesses while hiding his own. If Romney plots out an aggressive ahead-of-the-pack strategy rather than using defensive tactics, Obama will finally have come to the end of his political career. Let it be, dear Lord, let it be.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fixing Immigration

A couple weeks ago an issue came up in the comments, which I think should be officially raised in an article: how to fix immigration. This may be the most pressing issue of our time for a number of reasons and fixing the problem will prove to be incredibly difficult. But it can be done. Here’s what I recommend.

For starters, let me point out that there is no silver bullet to resolve this problem. Sealing the borders won’t work as most illegal immigrants find other ways here (plus the real problem is those who are already here). It’s a logistical near-impossibility to deport eleven million people. Big business wants workers and will fight anything which reduces illegal immigration, so will the Democrats who want voters. The public no longer trusts the political class because they’ve lied about this too much. Hence, an amnesty won’t work because no one trusts the promises that will be made to justify it.

All in all, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t and no one. . . no one is going to let you try anything.

That sounds bleak. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fix the problem, it just means it requires a more careful plan. Indeed, any effective plan will need to be done quietly at first, so people don’t freak out, and the goal must be to build the trust needed to implement the harder parts to come.

With that in mind, I think the best strategy would be this. . . spread over two Romney terms:

Step One: In the first week in office, Romney (and the Republican Congress where needed) should slash the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US each year in half. This shouldn’t be too difficult as Obama raised the number and Romney can explain he is simply reversing that, giving new immigrants time to join the melting pot, and preventing the environmental problems of importing enough people to populate Denver each year. He can also use high unemployment as a reason. The idea here is to reduce the number of immigrants who would otherwise be in the country over the next four years by about two million. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Step Two: As soon as possible, end all payroll deductions for any business which doesn’t use the eVerify system. This would provide a strong incentive for businesses to use the system, but wouldn’t freak out big business by making it a criminal offense to hire illegals. This “voluntary compliance” would go a long way to making it harder for illegals to find work and many will leave.

Step Three: Fix Mexico. This would take several years, but the idea would be to provide military and police assistance and heavy financial aid in exchange for more libertarian economic policies along with deregulation and the busting of massive corporate empires. The idea here would be to get Mexico on its feet and turn it into a magnet for workers from all over the Americas, i.e. instead of us. If this works, and it should, then Mexico could become the destination of choice for Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants and it could draw back a large chunk of the eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Step Four: Fix the guest worker program. One of the problems which has arisen is that with American paranoia over 9/11 and the border with Mexico, it has become increasingly risky for guest workers to leave the country again because there is a significant chance they won’t get back in come the next season (they are mainly farm workers). As a result, many of them have left Mexico permanently, even though they don’t want to, and brought their families here so they don’t need to run that risk. We need to make sure these people understand that they will be able to return to the US each season when needed. That way they have no reason to stay here illegally. Moreover, fixing this program will be essential to getting Big Business to stop fighting the other reforms because they can get the labor they need through this program.

If everything goes right, by the end of Romney’s first time, this program would have born the following results:

1. A reduction in the number of legal immigrants on the order of two million from those who would have otherwise been here.

2. A reduction in the number of illegal immigrants because of reduced job opportunities because of the eVerify system, improving conditions in Mexico, and the clean up of the guest worker program. Judging on the effects of the last recession, this could be anywhere from (rough guess) one to two million.

3. The pacification of Big Business as an opponent.

This means Romney can tell the public that his policies have reduced the number of “immigrants by up to four million” in his first term. This should buy him some good will with the public, for what is to come. Moreover, he can then show how the eVerify system worked, and he can make the case that those who are left likely are here for reasons other than just economics and probably have ties to the country. Thus:

Step Five: At the beginning of the second term, Romney makes the use of eVerify mandatory and imposes criminal punishments for employers who hire illegals.

Step Six: Romney proposes a long-term amnesty as follows: (1) Illegals will be required to report themselves within a month. Anyone who fails to report will be ineligible for the amnesty, as will anyone who arrives after the amnesty date (and those with criminal records). Those people will be deported immediately and local police will be required to report them to ICE. (2) For those who did report themselves, they will be issued a new “green card” which lets them act like citizens, except voting. They may work and must pay taxes. They can get drivers licenses, insurance, report crimes to the police, etc. (3) If you recall in Step One, we cut the number of legal immigrants in half. Now we do that again and allocate one half of those slots for legal immigrants and one half for converting illegals into legals, who can then apply for citizenship just like other legal immigrants. The goal would be to make them all legal over a decade long period.

Step Seven: Follow through and deport everyone who didn’t register.

Honestly, I think this is the only solution. Whether conservatives like it or not, there needs to be some way to make these people legal. Right now they can’t report crimes, can’t get car insurance (making them a road menace), and don’t pay taxes. And there just is no way to deport them. Making them legal fixes all of that -- it might also endear them to the Republican Party for making that happen. Not to mention, it will let them get on the social ladder to become property owners and stakeholders in the community, which will lead them toward conservatism.

Who would be upset by this? The left would be upset at the drop in immigration numbers, but the public won’t have a problem with that. The left will certainly be upset by the stepped-up, zero-tolerance deportations program, but they won’t have a leg to stand on since this will be given in exchange for making millions of illegals legal. The public be upset at the amnesty, but not as much as you might think because this method softens the blow considerably by reducing the number of immigrants overall to offset this amnesty. Indeed, at the end of his second term, Romney could report a “drop” (non-increase) of four million immigrants plus whatever illegals left because of eVerify and the stronger pull of Mexico. That should reduce the opposition to amnesty because it shows the public good faith that the political class is finally doing the hard part first.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Wedge Issues

I said a long time ago that the Democratic Party really isn’t a political party anymore. It’s become a collection of tribes held together by some common interests. The thing is, their common interests are really quite narrow and they glossed over significant disagreements in forming the coalition. Recent events, such as Obama’s embrace of gay marriage against the wishes of blacks and Romney’s discussion of education with Hispanics highlight this more than ever. It’s time for conservatives to start driving wedges into this coalition.

Conservatives need to spot the disagreements that were glossed over and start pointing those out relentlessly. The idea would be to cause enough friction within the Democratic alliance that the party ruptures into ineffective smaller groups. Here are some thoughts on where those disagreements might be and how to attack them.

1. Gays v. Feminists: At one point, gays should have been natural allies of conservatives. Conservatives believe in less government and individual rights, and the problems gays faced until the mid-1980s were sodomy laws, which made gay relationships criminal. But now that those laws have been struck down, the gay agenda has switched to forcing others to accept their lifestyles. That puts gays at odds with conservatism. Feminists similarly are at odds with conservatives because they too favor big government schemes to reshape society. So neither groups is likely winnable for conservatives. But that doesn’t mean we can’t drive a wedge between them.

The big issue for feminists is abortion. And as I mentioned the other day when discussing sex selection (something Planned Parenthood just got caught promoting), abortion means the end of homosexuality once genetics locates the “gay gene.” It would behoove conservatives to keep pushing this idea to the gay community that abortion = gay-genocide, and suggesting they seek to limit abortion.

2. Blacks v. Feminists: Blacks have very much tied themselves to the Democrats by making themselves wards of the state. Through either direct money transfers to poor blacks or race-based preferences in loans, housing, schools and jobs for middle and upper-class blacks, blacks as a group have come to rely on the government. So they are unreachable as a group. But as I pointed out the other day, abortion is killing blacks in massive numbers compared to all other races. Conservatives need to beat this drum that abortion = black-genocide to separate them from feminists. It would also be smart of conservatives to start pointing out that affirmative action has by far benefited upper-to-middle class white women more than it has blacks. This has the potential to set up a bloody fight between feminists and blacks over how to divide the spoils of affirmative action.

3. Blacks v. Gays: Blacks as a group are socially conservative when it comes to gays. Conservatives should push the message to blacks that the Democratic Party, which is dominated by the gay lobby, is looking to force the gay agenda on them and their churches.

4. Hispanics v. Everyone: Hispanics are an odd group to be jammed into the Democratic coalition. They are socially conservative and largely Catholic, yet the Democratic Party hates religion (atheists) and is dominated by the gay lobby (gay marriage) and feminists (contraception). Moreover, they are the second biggest victims of abortion, so they should be uneasy with that too (feminists). Unions have worked hard to keep them out of the country, to keep them from getting jobs, and have kept them out of the well-paying union jobs. Further, as Romney noted, the teachers unions are hurting their kids. They run a large number of small businesses, who find themselves attacked by unions, who are unable to obtain financing from the Democrats’ Wall Street friends, and who are crushed by environmental and labor regulations. Each of these issues should be made clear to them.

5. Bankers v. Socialists: By and large, the Democratic rank and file hate business, hate capitalism, and HATE banks. They despise Wall Street. Yet, most of the money the Democrats get comes from that very same Wall Street. And right now, Wall Street is upset at being vilified by the Democrats. Conservatives should keep pushing the Democrats on this point. They should force elected Democrats to make a choice, support Wall Street or do the bidding of the rank and file, by bringing up legislation which splits this coalition, such as elimination of banking fees. The more the Democrats are made to dance, the greater the chance they will lose one group or the other.

6. Environmentalists v. Farmers/Miners/Workers: Since the days of FDR, the Democrats have done their best to buy farmers, coal miners, and skilled-labor workers with government handouts. But in the past thirty years, as ivory tower intellectuals and white-collar professionals have come to dominate the Democratic Party, they’ve adopted environmentalism as a religion, and with it they’ve put in place insane rules which cripple farmers, miners and workers. It’s time for Republicans to push this issue hard. They need to point out to auto-workers in Detroit and coal miners in West Virginia how much regulation the Democrats have imposed on their fields and what the cost is and why this lets China steal their jobs. Also point out how Democratic friends like GE are shipping their jobs overseas. Similarly, Republicans need to become fluent in the regulatory burden imposed on farmers and they need to go farm by farm explaining to these people how the Democratic agenda is crushing them.

7. The Elderly v. the Poor: The elderly are abandoning the Democrats already, and Republicans need to help push that along. Republicans specifically need to talk about Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to take Medicare because it doesn’t pay enough. Despite this, Obama plans to steal another $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare and its subsidies to the poor. Republicans need to make this clear that the Democrats are stealing from the elderly to hand out the money to other groups.

8. Jews: The Republicans have had little success winning over Jews. There are two reasons for this. First, many Jews are simply scared of the Religious Right starting a second inquisition. I know that specific outreach has begun on this issue and that needs to continue. More importantly, as I mentioned with Hispanics the other day, Republicans have wrongly been treating Jews as a single-issue people, with that issue being Israel. But Israel clearly isn’t that strong of a pull. A better approach would be to talk to them about issues like Medicare (which resonates in Florida), the attacks on Wall Street (which resonate in New York), and this: the Republicans need to establish a counterpart to the Anti-Defamation League to focus exclusively on all the anti-Semitism coming from the left these days. We’ve seen this at Media Matters, at OWS and just generally from the left.


If Republicans do these things right, they can create tremendous friction within the Democratic alliance, perhaps even enough to shatter the party. The way to do this is to relentlessly point out the issues above. Do that through targeted advertisements, in speeches, on webpages/blogs and through media stunts by having our talking heads demand explanations from the Democrats on these wedge issues. Further, the Republicans should start crafting legislative proposals which put the groups above on opposing sides and forces the Democrats to pick sides.

At the same time, as I said the other day, Republicans needs to start reaching out to each of these groups on the issues that we have in common. Even taking away 5% of Democrats would guarantee a permanent Republican super-majority.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanic Outreach Done Right

Romney is really impressing me. Last week, he gave a speech to The Latino Coalition at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. In this speech, Romney showed that he understands two vital points for the future of conservatism in America: Hispanic outreach and education.

Before I get into what Romney did, let me remind you of a post I did in 2009 (LINK) in which I criticized the Republican Party for its pathetic Hispanic outreach efforts. I pointed out that the problem with the way Republicans do outreach is that they buy into liberal group-identity theory. Republicans think of Hispanics as a monolithic, single-interest bloc, and they go about trying to woo them in the same ways the Democrats do. Specifically, they try to pass the occasional bill aimed at issues the Democrats claim Hispanics care about and then they try to be seen around election time at the occasional political rally with some well-known Hispanic person. This is pathetic.

By buying into the liberal view of Hispanics as a bloc, Republicans end up reinforcing the idea to Hispanics that they are a bloc and should not try to think independently outside their group. This all but guarantees that they will see themselves as inherently liberal. Moreover, being seen once every couple years with a famous Hispanic only reinforces the idea that Republicans see Hispanics as “other people” who must be approached now and then, but who clearly are not welcome otherwise.

A real Hispanic outreach program would treat Hispanics like any other voters. Republicans wouldn’t try to appeal to them on “Hispanic issues” but would instead try to appeal to Hispanics who happened to find particular issues of interest. For example, Republicans would try to attract Hispanic parents by improving the schools their children attend. Or they would try to attract Hispanic businessmen by making conditions better for small businessmen. Etc. The idea is to appeal to different groups of Hispanics on the issues that matter to them as individuals rather than trying to appeal to “Hispanics” as a group.

In light of that, what Romney did last week was very encouraging. Rather than going to the Latino Coalition and talking about immigration, affirmative action, tuition for illegals, or trade with South America, Romney spoke about education reform. Indeed, he never once brought up immigration. Instead, he said this:

“Here we are in the most prosperous nation, but millions of children are getting a Third World education. And America’s minority children suffer the most. This is the civil rights issue of our era. And it’s the great challenge of our time.”

Then he outlined his proposals, which mimic the things done by Republicans governors who have done strong work in reforming schools, such as increasing the availability of charter schools and tying federal funding to students “so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school of their choice.” He also included private schools, though this had to be clarified later.

He also noted that he supports the No Child Left Behind Act, but wants its accountability rules replaced by state rules -- very 10th Amendmenty. About this, he said:

“Parents shouldn’t have to navigate a complicated and cryptic evaluation system to figure out how their kids’ schools are performing. States are going to have to provide a simple-to-read and widely available public report card that evaluates each and every school. These report cards will provide accurate, easy-to-understand information about student and school performance. States will continue to design their own standards and tests, but the report cards will provide information that parents can use to make informed choices.”

Then he blasted teacher’s unions for blocking school reforms, calling them “the clearest example of a group that has lost its way” and he linked them to the Democratic Party:

“The teachers unions are one of the Democrats’ biggest donors — and one of the President’s biggest campaign supporters. So, President Obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses — and unwilling to stand up for kids.”

Finally, he pointed out that these same unions have stood in the way of vouchers, which have proven successful, because “success anywhere in our public schools is a rebuke to failure everywhere else. That’s why the unions oppose even the most common-sense improvements.”

So let’s break this down. First, Romney rejected the liberal idea that Hispanics are a bloc and he instead appealed directly to Hispanic parents on an issue that is dear to them. In fact, Hispanic voters regularly place education among their top issues, even higher than immigration, and they generally support vouchers and stricter school standards. Even Raul Gonzalez of race-hate group National Council of La Raza, said Hispanics consider education a civil rights issue and Romney’s push for vouchers “likely will play well.” This means, Romney stands to peel away Hispanic parents from the Democratic Party, and he is doing it without pandering, i.e. by treating them as Americans rather than Hispanics.

Secondly, notice how he drives a wedge between Hispanics and unions by pointing out that the unions are standing in the way of Hispanic children getting quality education. Given all the fights unions have undertake to keep Hispanics out, this pokes right at a source of antagonism within the Democratic coalition which makes Hispanics ripe to be pulled away. Finally, note that he then tells Hispanic parents that the Democrats and the teachers unions are the same thing, i.e. they won’t help you.

What Romney has done here is brilliant. He has finally started genuine outreach by finding issues which actually matter to a large group of Hispanics and he has addressed those without reinforcing the liberal propaganda that they are a voting bloc. Moreover, he’s told them point blank that if they wish what is best for their children, then voting for the Democrats is a horrible idea. This is how it needs to be done, not showing up at parades and promising to make immigration kindler or gentler. Start winning these people over on issues after issue and by treating them as Americans.

It should also be noted that this is an interesting position politically for several reasons. First, it suggests that Romney is not moving left for the general election as conservatives feared. Attacking teacher’s unions and advocating a national voucher scheme is deeply conservative. Secondly, this tells us that Romney really has a broad reform plan for all of government, not just for budget matters. Indeed, he could have easily ignored education and just stuck with economic matters. The fact he didn’t and is pushing this issue is a great sign. And the fact his plans mimic those of reforming Republican governors is an even better sign.

All of this continues to raise my hopes that Romney may prove to be a special president and that he may leave the country in a much better shape than it’s been in a long, long time.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You're Not The Boss Of Me

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Latino Theme Parks

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has now been recruited to bring back the Hispanic votes for the post-racial President. They've largely failed on the Dream Act, and the economy is so bad that even the illegals are starting to leave. So what to do? Start creating more Latino-themed national parks and historic landmarks.

No, I'm not talking about more Taco Bells. They're about as Hispanic as Arby's Roast Beef. El Pollo Loco is closer, if only because I'd love to have a national landmark called "The Crazy Chicken." Salazar is talking about real parks and real landmarks. And while he's at it, he thinks parks and landmarks should also increase the representation of women, African-Americans and other "minority" groups. Obama has basically lost the middle class of all colors and ethnicities, so it's time to make a big splash to draw back the victim groups.

Obama first appealed to the Hispanic demographic during his famous Cinco de Cuatro speech. Things have been going downhill ever since. Now, he realizes that he has a built-in Latino to do his demagoguing for him. Pan y Circos (bread and circuses) are out, parks and landmarks are in. Obama and Salazar deny that this is about vote-getting. Salazar says "the White House meetings following Hispanic Heritage Month have nothing to do with electoral politics--and are instead designed to improve the country's poor preservation of Hispanic history and culture." And if you believe that, I still have that orange bridge in San Francisco I'm willing to sell you cheap.

I don't want to be difficult, but in California alone there are four major landmarks not named after famous Swedes--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego. Salazar doesn't care. His view is that "less than three percent of all the national landmarks we have are dedicated to 'minorities.'" So now, conveniently, is the time to start catching up because "that tells you that the score is not even." It's purely coincidental that the time to do it coincides with the nadir of Obama's popularity among minorities and the opening shots of the 2012 electoral wars.

It's also coincidental that on Wednesday, the White House held a major conference at the executive mansion to discuss Latino heritage. The mission statement of the conference: "To focus on whether the government is properly serving Hispanic students, small business owners, military veterans, and artists." The four California cities I mentioned aren't enough, so Salazar met earlier with California National Park Rangers to try to identify Latino-themed sites in the state. I hope they met at historic and tourist-popular Olvera Street in Los Angeles.

Salazar has said that there's a huge history of Latinos in the United States that's never been told. How that is going to be advanced by creating or altering national parks and landmarks he didn't say. One spot he would like to choose is the "Forty Acres" used by Cesar Chavez during his attacks on farms, farmers, and unwilling migrant farm workers. Here's a snap quiz: Name any California city with a population over 500,000 that doesn't have a street, avenue or boulevard named after Cesar Chavez.

Not to be outdone by the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial in Washington DC, Salazar has recently involved himself in the proposed National Museum of the American Latino. Salazar and multiple Latino special pleaders, with the enthusiastic support of the DC city planning commission are looking to locate the museum near the Capitol, at an estimated cost of $600 million. Now, Salazar has ordered a national study (cost unknown) of people and places worthy of national historic preservation.

I have a suggestion. The Alamo was designated a national historical landmark in 1960. Whites, Texans, expansionists, jingoistic norteamericanos, and xenophobes co-opted the site. So in 2011-2012, the Alamo should be re-designated a Latino Historical Landmark. After all, the Mexicans won that battle, didn't they?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

The Obama administration is entirely uninterested in protecting the rights of most Americans, but when it comes to protecting the rights of illegal immigrant workers, they're johnny-on-the-spot. In fact, last week Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed partnership agreements with a number of Latin American ambassadors to make sure the "rights" of their expatriates in the illegal labor market are fully protected.

We used to make agreements with foreign nations in the form of treaties, ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. But who needs treaties or the Constitution when you can have partnership agreements? Such agreements have been signed with the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The new agreements have been made with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Unlike treaties, which generally give and get from both sides, partnership agreements require no quid pro quo. We give, they get.

The agreements not only grant protections that are already in place as statutes and/or case law, but assures the ambassadors that the illegals will be guided to jobs, instructed on how to make maximum use of American labor law, and told how they can prevent "abuse" in the workplace. Most of all, Solis declares that these agreements are designed to protect "documented and undocumented workers" evenly under the law.

When leftist Democrats start talking about equal enforcement of the law, you know what is coming next is a complete distortion of the law. And Solis doesn't disappoint. All workers in America are already protected by volumes of statutory and case law. No employer, with or without these agreements, can violate the wage and safety rules legally. So why write these agreements at all?

Beside the obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote and the amnesty-now crowd, it's also a good way to draw the public's attention away from the real law. Nobody wants human rights abuses to go unnoticed, but employers who are criminals themselves can get away with it because of the ease of hiring so many illegals at poor wages and in poor working conditions. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. Barack Obama just signed an executive order stalling deportation for about 300,000 illegals

Solis says that "migrant workers have a right to a legal wage." Yes, they do, if they're here legally and have work permits. But the Immigration and Nationality Act says very clearly that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States." They're not entitled to any wage if they're here illegally. "The Act protects both U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals who are here with legal work visas from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship." That last sentence is on the Department of Labor website. Do you see anything in the Act about illegal immigrants working illegally?

Still, the United States is a generous nation. We do apply the same law to anyone within our legal jurisdiction, and that includes illegal immigrants, at least until they're identified and deported (small chance). Once an employer, knowingly or unknowingly, hires an illegal, that worker is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. No new law or partnership agreement is necessary to accomplish that goal.

So what Solis is attempting to do has two major elements. First, she wants to make it very clear that illegal immigrants are not only welcome, but they're entitled to good treatment and longevity on the job so that they can use their lengthy stay and work record later when the Future Democrats of America come to call. Oh, and then there are the lawsuits for back wages, harassment, and discrimination.

Second, she is making it clear that the United States is ready, willing and able to accommodate a wave of immigration from countries that are utter failures at doing what is necessary to create and encourage employment in their own sorry nations. All of this is being done without even an insincere pledge from the other nations that they will at least attempt to help stem the tide of emigration.

Solis also slipped and gave out another reason for her deep and abiding concern for the poor benighted illegal workers. Says Solis: "In many cases, taxes aren't being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our US Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we'll have more assistance to protect people." Aha! Get better wages for the illegals, identify the offending employers, and there will be more money for government programs. How did I miss that obvious jewel the first time around? Maybe some of that money that is being sent out of the United States by illegals should also go into the US Treasury.

And then the ultimate insult from Solis and the ambassadors. The agreements also promise that the Labor Department will work closely with the embassies and consulates to enforce OSHA and Wage/Hour provisions in American law. That's just what we need. Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic "assisting" us in enforcing our laws.

Also assisting the foreign governments in deciding how to enforce American law will be the thuggish SEIU and the reprehensible United Food and Commercial Workers Union, both of which were in attendance at the signing ceremony. The whole ceremony was timed to coincide with Labor Rights Week, and that's a traditional American thing, isn't it? Well, no. It was started in 2009 by the Mexican consulate, and as Solis says: "The Labor Department works in conjunction with fifty Mexican consulates across the nation to bring US labor law education to migrant workers and their employers."

While signing the agreements that give away more American sovereignty, Solis spoke Spanish exclusively at the event. The theme of Labor Rights Week this year is the plight of migrant women in the workplace. Solis invoked the name of that great Spanish-speaker, Cinco de Cuatro Obama by saying (in Spanish, of course): "On behalf of President Barack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace." Well, who wouldn't want to get behind that noble cause?

One final note. Solis, Obama and the whole illegal immigrant claque are so pleased with these agreements that Solis is headed off to Asia next month to sign more of them.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

El Jefe Bombs With Latinos

After celebrating his favorite holiday, Cinco de Cuatro, Presidente Barack Obama realized that he had been neglecting his fund-raising among Hispanics in the West. Confident that the monolithic Latino community would swoon with gratitud for another message from El Buen Pastor de Chicago, Obama sent an e-mail to Hispanic organizations throughout the West asking for more of their time and money.

The response was not exactly enthusiastic. Nary a si, se puede. Obama's e-mail was in two parts. First the pandering, then the request for money. "I want to sign the DREAM Act into law, but I need your help to do the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one at a time." "Now gimme your pesos," or something like that. Perhaps some recent legislative history would serve to illustrate why the Hispanic community might not think that Obama's amor por la raza is entirely genuine.

Leaving Congressional Democrats to do whatever work was to be done to maintain the support given to the Democratic Party in 2008, Obama has talked the talk, but hasn't shown that he can walk the walk. Instead of the DREAM Act that would legalize huge numbers of illegal immigrants and future Democrats, the new Congress has been busy doing quite the opposite. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California) called the bluff of the Democrats on an up or down vote on the proposed amendments to the 2012 Homeland Security Act. The substitute wording diverts current social welfare moneys to immigration law enforcement. With the able assistance [snark intended] of Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado), the Democrats' original Amendment 287(g) which would have ended federal cooperation programs with the states was defeated on a 267-151 vote. Polis had intended the exact opposite result. The substitute wording increasing funding for the program passed by the same margin.

Obama was nowhere to be seen or heard from as this debate went on. He was too busy pounding out e-mails. The new bills from the House, passed handily, include setting aside money for the Border Patrol along the Mexican border. They prohibit the administration from offering amnesty by stalling on deportations of illegals in federal custody. They require that all DHS contractors use E-Verify to monitor their new and current employees. They increase funding for all federal enforcement programs by 20%. They created special set-asides for hiring more "Shadow Wolves" (agents who track smugglers and narco-terrorists on the border). They set aside funding for enforcement of extant federal law requiring the detention and deportation of illegals who are convicted violent criminals. And my favorite, they withhold funding from cities that have "sanctuary city" policies. And they did it without adding a single dollar to the taxpayer burden.

Instead of herding the cats of the Democratic and RINO parties into concentrating on the ill-fated DREAM Act, Obama simply stayed completely clear of any involvement in the ongoing immigration activities. After all, those e-mails have to get written. His habit of staying above the fray (i.e., cowardice in the face of opposition) is not going to cause Hispanics to rush to the Republican Party for comfort. Most of these measures were proposed and enacted by Republicans attempting to stem the tide of illegal immigration. At least they're honest about their position. But Obama's inactivity has thrown a wet blanket on the previous enthusiasm for him that the Latinos exhibited during the hopey change 2008 election.

After receiving the Obama empty promise e-mails, Latino activist groups in California, Arizona and Colorado reacted with everything from bored indifference to outright challenge. There were "no thanks" letters and e-mails. "F--- you" letters and e-mails. Paid ads on TeleMundo asking why Latinos should support an "immigration President" who is all show and no go. One e-mail, allegedly from a MAPA (Mexican American Political Action) group in Los Angeles said: "You want our help? Where was your help when the DREAM Act was still a possibility?"

Ricardo Martinez, founder of political advocacy group Padres Unidos and a precinct walker for Obama in '08 said: "When the elections come around, they always come courting us, and this is proving to be no different. Did Obama put as much effort in the time to pass the DREAM Act? I didn't see him. Was he out there twisting arms? I didn't see that. Was he out there stomping around? I didn't see that. All we see is that we're an expendable voting population."

"We're Pissed Off" Latino rallies are scheduled later this month at Democratic headquarters in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Denver, and other spots not yet fully organized. Republicans are not expecting to pick up any significant number of Hispanic votes. They figure that now that the Obama honeymoon is over, and the Latinos have discovered that the emperor has no clothes, they'll probably return to George Bush levels. But the Latino voting community is large and growing. It is also heavily impacted by the ongoing recession and unemployment.

If Obama's sleepwalking through the immigration debates continues, a lot of those former Obama voters are going to stay at home during the campaign and on election day. At this point it's hard to know what Obama will do about it. If he becomes actively involved in the immigration debate, he risks alienating an even larger group of unaffiliateds and independents who are fed up with the lack of a coherent immigration enforcement policy. If he continues to mouth the words but not act on them openly and publicly, he risks bleeding more Latino votes. It's a dilemma which couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Obama has some time. It is unlikely that the Senate will pass the measures from the House in anything close to the form they are now in. And even if the Senate went along with it, it is doubtful that Congress could override a presidential veto. That might be the only thing that would help Obama with Hispanics, since even something as simple as a veto could be spun into "positive action" on comprehensive immigration reform.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Say It Ain't So, Joe

Attorney General Eric Holder has been investigating Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for being mean to illegal immigrants and various other charges of racial profiling. Sheriff Joe ("the toughest sheriff in America") has ticked off thousands of miscreants and their bleeding-heart supporters, but when Eric Holder thinks you're a racist, it's time to cash in your chips, isn't it?

To paraphrase our Race-Baiter-in-Chief, Barack Obama, Eric Holder is a typical black person, with all the prejudices that implies, who has seen a white man, and acted stupidly in trying to discredit the sheriff. Hmmmm. Sound familiar? With the shoe on the other foot, I'm quite sure Holder would not see the parallel. Perhaps instead of trying to persecute Arpaio, he could have his boss throw a beer summit at the White House and make the whole thing go away. Fat chance. Obama, Holder, and the open borders/amnesty now crowd are on a mission, and the opinion of the vast majority of Americans of all colors and ethnic backgrounds be damned.

Assisting the attorney general are local Maricopa County "officials" who are not in the sheriff's inner circle, who answer to special interest groups, and who claim that the corruption investigations by the sheriff against them are triggered solely by Arpaio's alleged vendetta against all who oppose him. In other words, they appear to have their hands in somebody else's pockets, but that's only because Sheriff Joe doesn't like illegals or the supporters of illegals. It couldn't possibly be that they are actually corrupt or serving the interests of illegals. Remember that within the professional "civil rights" establishment, only one word is necessary for a complete defense against corruption charges: "racism."

The same civil rights establishment would never, not now, not later, but never, accuse Holder of doing exactly what he accuses others of. Arpaio has thrown a real monkey wrench into the machinery of professional victimhood, and the left simply can't allow that. Holder hasn't proven a thing, and the charges against Arpaio are so nebulous and so one-sided that the only thing Holder can find to charge Arpaio with is not assisting in his own public hanging. And even that's only what Holder and his sycophants and leftist shysters say. Arpaio and his attorneys deny the charge, and have risked further persecution by publicly announcing that "the office has always fulfilled its responsibilities truthfully, honorably, and in full compliance with state and federal law."

At least now we know the source of the allegations. Arpaio and his lawyers have stated under oath that they have been completely cooperative with Holder's witch hunt, and have scrupulously obeyed the law. The poor benighted souls simply don't realize that the law as it is is irrelevant to an attorney general who thinks the law is what he says it is. If Holder charges you with something, you're guilty. In fact, in the matter of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and the other terrorists who will receive pretty civilian trials, he has indicated that it's all just a show anyway, since he knows they're guilty and will be convicted. So watch out, Joe.

Turnabout is fair play, so Arpaio's attorneys have responded with: "While we have no quarrel with the assistant US attorney's handling the investigation, the attorney general's comments appear to violate federal regulations, departmental policy and state ethical rules designed to ensure the fairness of the criminal investigation." Aw, there they go again citing law, rules and ethics. Those are the concepts of dead white men. They're out of date and get in the way of true "justice."

We all know that anyone who would round up illegal immigrants is by definition a racist, guilty of crimes against humanity, and doesn't deserve the ancient Anglo-American concept of innocent until proven guilty. Pursuit and incarceration of illegal aliens is inherently wrong, and we'll change the law and persecute anyone who gets in the way to prove it.

So why pick on Arpaio? Two reasons. First, he is the most visible and outspoken law enforcement officer in the nation whose success rate in catching illegal immigrants is a slap in the face of the amnesty crowd. Second, he is a sheriff in a state which dared to defy the federal government over enforcement of immigration law. Holder already filed suit (successfully, at the early stages) against the state, so what the hell, let's go after the state's most successful cop.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Forget The Minority Take Over Of America

You’ve all heard how there will be more minorities in the United States by 2050 than there will be whites, right? Forget it. It’s not happening. Moreover, expect the illegal alien problem to start going away soon all on its own. Why? Because demographics don’t move in a straight line.

If you do as the left does, and you look at demographics as a straight line, then you see that 30 million Hispanics in 1980 turned into 45 million Hispanics in 2000 and will turn into 67 million in 2020 and 104 million in 2040. That, combined with blacks and Asians (groups that are not experiencing growth), results in about 50% of the population by 2050.

But that’s not how demographics work, and recent developments have shown the problem with this assumption. First, when the recession hit the United States, large numbers of Hispanics left the United States. So many in fact, that the Census Bureau had to revise its estimates downward for the future take over of the United States by a decade. They now estimate that there will be only 105.1 million Hispanics by 2050 -- a full decade later than expected.

But there’s another problem with this that hasn’t been considered yet. The key to Hispanic growth has been Mexico. Indeed, almost all of the growth in the Hispanic population in the United States has been the result of Mexicans coming to the United States. When Reagan granted an amnesty in the 1980s, there were about five million Mexicans illegally in the United States. By 2000, we’d added another 12 million. That seventeen million is more than one-third of the forty-five million Hispanics in the United States today, and it represents almost the entire growth in the Hispanic population since the 1980s.

Indeed, if you look at the map to the right, you’ll see that consistent with this, Hispanics are almost entirely concentrated along the border with Mexico.

So why does this matter? Because things are changing dramatically in Mexico.

Mexicans first started coming to the United States in vast numbers in the 1980s. There were two reasons for this. First, with the end of the oil boom, Mexico’s economy tanked. At the same time, the American economy boomed. Thus, with few jobs south of the border and large numbers of jobs north of the border, people fled Mexico for the United States. This was made even worse by the fact that Mexico’s economy was almost entirely dependent on the oil industry and that its government is one of the most corrupt in the world -- leading to a lack of opportunities and huge disparities in income, which creates a large underclass.

The second reason was that Mexico’s collapse coincided with a baby boom that began in the 1950s, similar to that experienced by the United States. Indeed, in the 1960s, Mexico had the highest birth rate in the world, with Mexican mothers having on average seven children each. Thus, in addition to its economic collapse, Mexico was awash in young people, who are by-their-nature more willing to emigrate to find work. These were the people who began coming in the 1980s.

So what’s changed? Mexico’s birth rate has plummeted. It is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. That means that the supply of people to head north is quickly running out.

Moreover, because of this change, the population is aging much quicker, which will accelerate the decline in the number of people willing to go north. Not only is an older population less interested in emigrating, but this also means that there will be more opportunities for Mexico’s young to find solid, long-term employment. Also, a smaller, older population tends to lead to greater personal wealth because the competition for employees drives up wages. This again, reduces emigration because it makes it more profitable to remain in Mexico. It also may draw people back to Mexico, just as this recession has done, because they can do better in Mexico.

What all of this means is that there will be fewer Mexicans very soon, and fewer of them will want to come to the United States to find work. That means that American Hispanics will no longer be receiving the mega-demographic boost that illegal immigration has been providing. When you exclude those numbers, the rest of Hispanic America is growing at about the same pace as white America.

Thus, the Hispanic growth rate will soon start to fall from 50% every twenty years to around 4%, about the growth rate of everybody else.

Hence, reports of the minority take over of America have been greatly exaggerated.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Immigration Debate

Ever since Arizona passed its immigration enforcement law, the left has gone crazy trying to stop this. They are terrified that this thing might actually work and will, in the process, expose the lie that immigration reform is such a complex, impossible issue that only an amnesty can work. Sadly for them, they have no idea how to persuade the public. Observe.

The first thing they tried was to tell us that this law was written by angry white extremists who hate Hispanics. But that didn’t fly because polls showed that 70% of the public supported it -- even blacks and many Hispanics. Moreover, the governor’s approval ratings surged 20% after she signed it. So much for the white racists.

So they switched to “this is anti-immigrant.” Polls show that the public supports immigration and we all know that a great many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants, hence, this should upset the public, right? But something went wrong on the way to the victory parade. The public laughed this off. That’s because the left missed the part of the polls that said that while Americans like immigration and love immigrants, they despise rule breakers and illegal aliens.

So the left switched to ridicule, as all sour-grapes types do when they can’t win. Don’t you stupid Arizonans know this is unconstitutional? Well, that’s probably true, at least in part. States can’t conduct their own foreign policy, and deciding who can or cannot be in the country is foreign policy. But, the public says, so what? We like the fact that they’re trying to do something. . . when the Federal government won’t.

So they tried the racial angle again: “This will lead to racial profiling of legal Hispanic residents.” Uh huh, except the public doesn’t see “racial profiling” the way the left does. We find it ridiculous that little old ladies get searched when they board airplanes when the only people who blow up plains are Muslims. We also don’t see any problem with anyone asking you to prove that you live in this country legally. I had to give more information to my cable company than the Arizona cops are going to demand. And how come the left isn’t upset when the IRS pulls out the rubber gloves and flashlights on average taxpayers?

As the left continued to strike out, they switched to another of their favorite tactics: the boycott. But leftist boycotts are a joke. No one cares if places like San Francisco are upset at Arizona, in fact, that’s a badge of honor. Arizona Iced Tea? That stuff’s made in New York idiots, so boycott away! Now they’re going to boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks, as if anyone still watches baseball, and the Arizona Cardinals, who won’t play a game until August -- and who don’t play in the NFL as far as I know.

For obvious reasons, none of this worked. So now it’s time to call out the big guns: the “unintended” consequences. Suddenly we are being treated to articles that tell us how people are no longer willing to hire illegal day laborers in Arizona for fear of arrest and that illegal aliens are leaving Arizona in droves. Take that Arizona!

And if that isn't enough, they're promising massive rallies in liberal cities all across America. . . rallies with lots of Mexican flags and anti-American speeches and posters. . . just the thing to swing the public to their side.

Frankly, the left should have stopped while they were behind. But they didn't. The more they whine, the more this law spreads. Texas will be next. Even people in California are looking at this too. And when California is considering something rational, you know the left has lost.

So keep whining lefties, you're doing fine. . .

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Annual Spanish Invasion Day

When I was growing up, Columbus Day was a semi-historical celebration to which most Americans paid little attention. Though he sailed under the Spanish Flag, he was Genoese, and that did produce a day for the Italian-Americans to celebrate much like St. Patrick's Day for the Irish-Americans. In San Francisco, with its large Italian immigrant population, it was always a big day for celebration.

Since I have neither Spanish nor Italian ancestors, I had simply been taught the traditional couplet "In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Of course we quickly developed our own obscene versions of the next line, but that's another story entirely. It wasn't until late in elementary school that I got to exercise my first ethnic indignation when I found out that Columbus wasn't even the first European to discover America. In fact some of my ancient ancestors had sailed in their long boats to the North American mainland long before Columbus ever set foot on that worthless island south of Florida.

I immediately demanded to know why we don't celebrate Leif Erikson day. It didn't last long. First, my ancestors were mostly busy running around in animal skins in the Teutoburg Forest and were probably as delighted at the arrival of the Norsemen as were the Native Americans. And apparently, the distinction has always been made that the Spanish permanently settled America, while my "Germanic" forebears split back to Greenland, Iceland, and Scandinavia. This year's Leif Erikson day celebrations were overshadowed by the announcement that the president had received the Nobel Peace prize.

So--big holiday for Italian-Americans, official holiday for the rest of us. That is right up until political correctness and ethnic grievances became the norm, starting in the late Sixties. Contrary to current received wisdom, those of us who attended school prior to the great leftist awakening actually were taught about Columbus's great accomplishment along with his horrible treatment of the natives and the forced conversions supervised by The Inquisition. Those of us who are Protestants (particularly those of us who are Lutherans with historical perspective) related to their plight, especially when it came to The Inquisition. Our Jewish friends weren't too thrilled with the forced conversion idea, either. But we felt none of the vitriol to come concerning the man who eventually became described by the leftist establishment as Satan's right hand man and the great destroyer of indigenous cultures.

Interestingly, with all the anti-Columbus, anti-European rhetoric of the leftists, the original purpose of enhancing Columbus day was formed in the latter half of the 19th century. Catholic immigrants were a particular target of nativist organizations including the Populists and the Ku Klux Klan. In order to fight discrimination, Catholics developed social organizations to fight prejudice. One of the most famous is the Knights of Columbus, which was instrumental in establishing Columbus Day first as a series of state holidays, and finally in 1934 a federal holiday. Leftists who go into high dudgeon at the mere mention of Columbus's name support unrestricted immigration. Yet they don't see that the original Columbus Day celebrations were all about immigration and non-discrimination (admittedly ignoring the slavery and oppression thing for the most part).

Another interesting sidelight is the vociferousness of the Columbus attacks which come from the Mexican-American leftist organizations. Considering that the vast majority of Mexicans are Spanish-Indian mix, I'm trying to figure out exactly whom they're protesting. Do they march in Columbus Day parades, but only half of the route? Do they object to Columbus attempting to enslave or exterminate half of each of them? Do they punch themselves in the nose? The North American Native American groups are always full-throated about how they were oppressed by Columbus. Of course, the only North American Indian group which had much contact with the Spanish were the Seminoles, with whom the Spanish generally got along very well. Perhaps they don't understand that "Anglo" refers to a specific ethnic group which is not Spanish.

Through the Seventies and Eighties, as radicalism became mainstream and entrenched in the schools of higher "education," Columbus went from hero to villain, and his holiday was continuously demoted to minor status. By 1992, the National Council of Churches, the largest ecumenical religious body in the United States, called on Christians to refuse to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the New World. Columbus shouldn't feel too bad, though. Christ was lowered to a level of secondary importance in the same Council years earlier.

Some sense has started to return by the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. The left has bigger fish to hate. With their blood-lust fed by the riots of the Sixties through the Nineties, it suddenly became fashionable to mention the bloodthirstiness and warlike habits of the native American populations. Once Columbus ceased to be the oppressor of a horde of loving shepherds and sweet agrarians, his evil didn't seem so evil anymore. Michael Berliner of the Ayn Rand Institute was able to make a statement about Columbus and his successors that didn't even get him put on a leftist hit list: "The European conquest brought reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, and productive achievement to a people who were based in primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism and to a land that was sparsely inhabited, unused and underveloped." The best criticism the radicals could come up with was "the statement was Eurocentric.

Having gotten all that out of the way--HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...