Obama Hands Palin a Game-changer

Republicans could do much to begin undoing the damage of the Rove-Bush-Gillespie years by seizing on President Barack Obama's politically misguided and economically ignorant attacks on "protectionism."

"I think it would be a mistake ... at a time when worldwide trade is declining for us to start sending a message that somehow we're just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade," Obama said on the Fox television network. [Reuters]

That's precisely the kind of gibberish George W. Bush was always spouting. The future of the Republican Party lies with anyone who will call Obama on it.

President God, house hymns, and the catechism of change

I'm working away at my desk, the internet playing in the background, and I hear it again: a song to the incoming president—snatches from a Barack Obama speech set to a powerful, reverent house beat.

"It was a creed written in the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation", you hear Obama intoning, "...it was whispered by slaves and abolitionists on the long road to freedom...shared by immigrants...pioneers...workers...women reaching for the ballot...a president who took us to the moon...a King who took us to the mountaintop... "Yes we can...achieve justice and equality...yes we can...yes we can....yes we can."

Note to President-elect Obama: We already did. So just what is it about the nation that just elected you president is it that you want to change?

Another note to guys who make house music: we are Americans; we don't worship politicians.

America's first half-white president

If Americans (and the West, in general) weren't so--what's the word--stupid? unsophisticated? about race, the half-whiteness of our new president would carry little more practical significance for the 44th American presidency than a youthful dalliance in pot-smoking was to the 42nd.

Vilifying E-Verify

Check out my September 23, 2008 VDARE article "Vilifying E-Verify—The ACLU's Campaign To Break The Only Unbroken Part Of Our “Broken Immigration System"

Rating the dishonesty in one ACLU paragraph

Please rate the dishonest components of the following paragraph from the "Immigrants' Rights" section of the ACLU website:

It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.

—from the "Immigrants' Rights" section of aclu.org

 

Two with points, a flat one, and a packet of gravel

Watching the media's reaction to the Sarah Palin interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson I was reminded of the stoning scene in 1979's classic, "Monty Python's Life of Brian". The part of the interview that I watched had Gov. Palin sticking to her answer regardless of the number of times Gibson rephrased a question: Media 101. The media types I heard commenting later criticized her for that, for crying out loud. I got the distinct impression they'd come to the auto-da-fe disguised as responsible journalists to watch this Alaska brood-hick get burned by an East Coast media sophisticate (you know, someone like them) and you could almost feel the disappointed fury when they were denied the blood-pleasure.

Counteractivist Strikes in Broad Daylight, Escapes Undetected

In a couple of daring counteractions occurring within minutes of each other this morning, a counteractivist struck two Washington, DC locations just blocks from the US Capitol. When it was over, the counteractivist had vanished, but the evidence of the counteractivism remained in plain view (see photos).

This e-VeriFILE "prod card", discovered Wednesday morning on the counter at a Washington, DC 7-Eleven, has been called the modern counteractivist's "calling card".

Just down the block, and only minutes before the 7-11 strike, a Starbucks found its counter the scene of a similar action.

Had this free decal been on display in its front window Wednesday morning, Starbucks might have avoided the counteraction, say experts on counteractivism.

The counteractivist's "calling card" is available at the e-VeriFILE website in packs of 50 for a $25.00 donation.

Starbucks and 7-Eleven

In an October, 2006 VDARE piece, Defending Starbucks, James Fulford noted that at Starbucks "they hire Americans who can speak English, unlike 7-Eleven, which spends millions lobbying for open borders, and has bad coffee 24 hours a day."

Less than two years later, precisely those two businesses were again targets in the nation's ongoing war between the pro-borders and anti-borders forces. "The symmetry is uncanny," said one Washingtonian, who was panhandling in front of the 7-Eleven at the time of the counteraction.

But a local teenager filling out an employment application at the Starbucks disagreed. "I don't think it's uncanny at all," said KeJuan Simms, a senior at nearby McKinley Technology High School. "It's not even symmetrical," he added, noting the divergent hiring practices between the two companies.

"Look, yo," he said, holding out his just finished Starbucks job application and pointing to the part that required proof of employment eligibility.

A table of three young women, who said they were "Hill staffers", weren't surprised that the two local businesses had been targeted in that morning's counteraction. "We walk down here because we like the coffee and because Magic Johnson is the owner," said former Texan Emily Sanders. "But it would be great if Starbucks were registered with the e-VeriFILE program and had the e-VeriFILE decal on display in their window. Then we could feel twice as good about coming here. It's their own fault, the dumbasses."

Her friend, former Oregonian Lisa Weaver, agreed. "I hope there are counteractions at Starbucks all over the country until the corporate headquarters gets with the program," she said. "We go out of our way to support corporations that act responsibly."

All three made gagging sounds when asked about the coffee at the 7-Eleven down the block. "It sucks as bad as their hiring practices," said Ms. Sanders.

Panglossian ninny shrieking racist unwittingly proves my point

In the last ezine, I wrote that in any discussion of the coming minority status of whites in the United States, we should dismiss as Panglossian ninnies those proper, polite whites who affect to see no cause for concern in this event. Further, I wrote, a white reader already shrieking "racist!" shouldn't bother reading on as the discussion "will be over your head anyway."

Well, it didn't take long for a reader to prove my point.

I received the following email before the ezine was even finished sending:

SUBJECT: It is not "way over [my] head...

FROM: director_general_emeritus@socialjusticealliance.org

MESSAGE: The Alliance for Social Justice International..[something in Latin] you ARE a blatant racist. Pathetic !

I did a little googling (here's his user profile on wikipedia) and discovered that the sender is a white guy with lots of diversity cred, including "Native American" diversity associations.

So, I replied with a quote from Chief Sitting Bull as if it were my own, replacing words like "red" and "Sioux" with "white" and "American":

"Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is it evil for me because my skin is white? Because I am a native-born American?"

I received in reply the following under the subject line, "My final response to you, Racist...":

1. First, I did not know you are an albino. Only albino's have white skin. So must be very difficult for you...pink eyes and all. Which would explain your mental disturbances to a significant degree.

2. Secondly, [some more stuff in Latin]. So I have nothing more to say to you: no need; you are self-condemning.

(send him email: dr_ajb@post.harvard.edu)

This person proves my point: the discussion of what the response should be to the news that whites are about to become the minority in this country is over his head. In that discussion, I wrote, we should "start by assuming that white Americans share with all peoples throughout the world at all times throughout history the characteristic that being disempowered as a group is a negative--like being conquered, or being subjugated. Let's assume that it is the same disaster for whites that whites consider it to be for everyone else."

The racist-shrieking person who sent me the email believes the disempowerment of the Sioux and other Native Americans was a disaster for them; he would never call Chief Sitting Bull a racist. Yet he calls me a racist for quoting Sitting Bull back at him.

In other words, the sender does not seem able to abstract from the historical experience of the Sioux and apply his thinking consistently--to apply objectively his logic to the situation whites now face. This, to me, is a sign of a mediocre intelligence, i.e., the discussion is over his head.

The only other explanation I can think of to explain an email like this is a perverse form of racism on the part of the writer--an inverted kind of racism, which I addressed in the rest of the paragraph:

Let’s assume there is nothing magical about being white that permits whites the luxury of indifference to this disempowerment–this permanent disempowerment. Let's assume whites are not so superior that they can ignore gritty bloody reality--that they can ignore as if he were a precocious child, Willie Brown, the black former speaker of the California Assembly, when he says, "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else.” Let’s assume the United States is a nation not so exceptional that Americans of any color can opt out of the destiny that demography is.

This is not to say all Panglossian ninnies possess only modest intelligence or are the perverse products of inverse racism. They may not even be ninnies, though they are certainly unjustifiably and foolishly optimistic.

For example, a reporter at a mainstream daily responded:

To be clear, the central thrust of your concern is that when one group does not represent a majority, they are subjugated. That in years to come, whites will no longer be the majority (leaving aside that we will remain the plurality) and therefor will feel be subjugated and “conquered.” By your definition, other blacks and Hispanics, in minority status are “disempowered,” and whites hold a superior position. Public policy must be prescribed to maintain white superior position based solely on skin color. Dude. I’m not reaching to call that racist. I’m trying to figure out how it in any way, is NOT racist. It is the belief that one race should dominate others and the dangers if that dominant race is no longer white. You’ll note, I’m not calling you a racist but if you don’t want to be considered one, stop sending out e-mails like this.

First, in a democratic republic, or any system involving majority rule, the majority wields the power. Everything that occurs in a majority rule system occurs by leave of the majority unless it occurs through some kind of corruption or special interest pressure (and even then, arguably, it still occurs by leave of the majority).

If the majority loses majority status, whether it is Republicans in Congress, or whites in the United States, it is disempowered insofar as the system is democratic.

Moreover, losing majority status in any given geographical area is seen by everyone, including white Americans, as a negative regardless of whether the area is under a democracy. For example, ethnic Han Chinese are now a majority of the population in Lhasa, Tibet and in Inner Mongolia. This is seen by all (except the Han Chinese) as a negative for ethnic Tibetans and ethnic Mongolians. When the European waves rolled across the land of the Sioux, it was, it is widely agreed, from the standpoint of the Sioux, a negative. Thus, in most of the world--in Japan, in Israel, in Saudi Arabia--immigration policy (if immigration is even possible) today reflects a desire by the dominant ethnicity to maintain that dominance.

We implicitly acknowledge the negative quality of being in the minority by the mechanisms we have in place to ensure minority representation in the power sharing in this country. Significantly, these very mechanisms, instituted under a white majority, are by no means guaranteed forever (consider the rank injustice and racism of the reparations movement).

Perhaps I am wrong to be concerned about the disempowerment of whites in America, but I don't think, in all sincerity, that I am. In any case, if it is "racist" for a white person to be concerned, then I share with the rest of humanity the quality of racism, and the word itself has lost any useful meaning.

The White Minority

By 2042, the Census Bureau says, whites will be a minority in the United States, and among children under 18, whites become the minority in just 15 years.

How long is 15 years? Fifteen years ago, Bill Clinton was president.

So, just around the corner, whites in America are going to be disempowered (assuming we remain a democracy) through a radical and rapid transformation of the nation's demography on a scale unprecedented in world history.

In response to this news, individual whites--the proper, polite ones--will affect (or, if particularly ignorant of the world around them, evince) an attitude, at the least, of indifference and calm assurance, at the most, of celebratory enthusiasm.

For the sake of clear, adult thinking, let's dismiss these proper, polite whites as a bunch of panglossian ninnies and adopt a position more in line with everything we know about humans. Let's say that the Census Bureau projections are deeply troubling and cause for alarm for white Americans (and leave it to the other races in America to decide for themselves what this demographic shift means to them).

Now, if you are a white person reading this, and if you are the type of white person who is already looking around for someone to point and shriek "RACIST!" in front of, you might as well stop reading now. You don't matter to the following discussion, and it will be over your head anyway.

For everyone else, let's start by assuming that white Americans share with all peoples throughout the world at all times throughout history the characteristic that being disempowered as a group is a negative--like being conquered, or being subjugated. Let's assume that it is the same disaster for whites that whites consider it to be for everyone else. Let's assume there is nothing magical about being white that permits whites the luxury of indifference to this disempowerment--this permanent disempowerment. Let's assume whites are not so superior that they can ignore gritty bloody reality--that they can ignore as if he were a precocious child, Willie Brown, the black former speaker of the California Assembly, when he says, "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else.” Let's assume the United States is a nation not so exceptional that Americans of any color can opt out of the destiny that demography is.

If we make these assumptions--assumptions future generations will curse us for not making--then the new Census Bureau projections plainly demand an immediate and radical change in public policy, and an all out effort to accomplish this change. In particular, the projections demand an immediate time-out on mass immigration like the 40-year time-out the nation wisely implemented in 1924 at the peak of the last great wave of immigration.

There are many similarities between now and then.

A primary power driving the great immigration wave of the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries was American business, which steadfastly fought for increasing the supply of labor through mass immigration. As Samuel Gompers, an immigrant and the founder and president of the American Federation of Labor wrote in a 1924 letter to Congress.

"Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages. The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."

In 1912, the nation elected one-world utopian Woodrow Wilson, and over the next eight years of Wilson's presidency the nation's population grew by 15 percent while President Wilson repeatedly vetoed restrictionist legislation passed by Congress.

Wilson's successor, Warren Harding, increased the power of corporations in Washington, and the cheap labor wave would likely have continued but for the growing threat to the American system from imported anarchists and radicals.

In September 1920, a bomb one twelfth the size of the Oklahoma City bomb exploded in front of 23 Wall Street in New York City capping years of rising concern over the threat to the domestic order posed by the massive influx of foreigners. As James Fulford writes at VDARE, "Wall Street support for immigration takes a sudden drop" and within four years the great time-out had begun--thirty years after organized efforts to restrict immigration had begun.

It wasn't until the corrupting influence of the profiteers was sidelined that 1924 America could implement the necessary time-out.

The question we face now, then, is: must we wait for another bombing on Wall Street or its equivalent before the corporate profiteers will again loosen their grip on the nation's future and stop driving the country headlong into demographic meltdown for their own selfish benefit?

Or can we retake control of immigration policy before that happens?

Through the new e-VeriFILE program, Americans have the opportunity to bring the business community to heel by financially rewarding those business owners who follow the law, who understand the principle of enlightened self-interest, who understand that the kind of uncertainty into which some monied interests are selfishly driving the nation is not, in the long run, good for business.

The e-VeriFILE program could become enormously beneficial to the country, and every American should support it.

Cheering the defeat of the laws of their adopted land

Cheering loudest for the narrow defeat in Fremont, NE last week of a city ordinance that would have required local businesses to comply with US immigration law was Nebraska Appleseed—an illegal immigration advocacy group funded by the Ford Foundation and George Soros, among others, that is part of a "network of 16 public interest justice centers in the U.S. and Mexico".

It was a victory cheer: Nebraska Appleseed played a role in killing the "anti-immigrant" measure, which would have required landlords and employers to use the federal E-Verify system. In written testimony to the Fremont city council, Norman Pflanz, staff attorney for Nebraska Appleseed, argued that since it is well established that immigration is a federal matter "the proposed Fremont ordinance would unlawfully attempt to regulate immigration because private actors (landlords and employers) and city officials would determine who was lawfully present, instead of federal officials."

Here's the absurdity that Nebraska Appleseed wanted the people of Fremont to swallow:

Because a federal law is a federal law, local officials cannot take measures to increase public participation in a federal program provided by the federal government to the public for the purpose of increasing public compliance with that federal law.

How embarrassing for Fremont that some city council members were actually swayed by this hogwash.

It would be laughable if the flip side weren't so sinister. For while the Appleseedlings like to pretend the entire federal apparatus and the Constitution itself are threatened if a city council somewhere tries to mandate compliance with federal immigration law, non-compliance with federal immigration law, for Nebraska Appleseed, is entirely a local matter . The Appleseedlings have no problem with private actors not complying with federal immigration law—with millions of them, in fact, from other countries, no less, in blatant individual daily violation of it.

In fact, pushing local policies to help private actors not comply with federal immigration law is this outfit's raison d'etre.

On its website, Nebraska Appleseed lists some of the other projects that keep the Appleseedlings busy when they're not poisoning the local democratic process with rent-a-mobs and specious legal arguments:

• Nebraska Appleseed works to separate out immigration law from all the other laws and make immigration law enforcement off limits to law enforcement officers in Nebraska.
• Nebraska Appleseed advises banks and credit unions on how to make it easier for illegal aliens to use financial services in this country.
• Nebraska Appleseed "articulates and publicizes strong regional support for our newest neighbors and for the policy changes necessary to treat them fairly."
• Nebraska Appleseed complains that "Nebraska’s progress in welcoming newcomers and treating immigrant families equitably has been frustrated by the thousands of non-citizens detained in county jails across the state for immigration law violations and facing deportation without legal representation."
• Nebraska Appleseed works to ensure immigrants (to whom most social services and public benefits are denied by federal law) have access to social services and public benefits.
• Nebraska Appleseed works hard "to insure Nebraska is a welcoming state, with policies and practices that do not disadvantage newest Nebraskans."
• Nebraska Appleseed publishes helpful tracts like "Educational Opportunity for Undocumented Students: An Overview of In State Tuition Laws."

That is Nebraska Appleseed—enormous resources being used on one hand to encourage foreign nationals to violate US immigration law while on the other hand to frustrate efforts by citizens to see our immigration laws respected. And that's what won in Fremont last week—that and George Soros and the enormously guilty Ford Foundation.

That can't be allowed to win. The 25,000 people living in Fremont, Nebraska need to take that victory away from the Appleseedlings and reclaim their town.

Snatching Victory from Defeat

Fremont is the county seat of Dodge County where there were, in 2002, according to the Census Bureau, 25 gas stations employing 187 people. Imagine what might happen if some Fremonters started leaving e-VeriFILE prod cards with the station attendant every time they filled up their cars.

It's my guess it wouldn't be long before a few of those stations signed on to the E-Verify system.

Then imagine if those stations put the e-VeriFILE decal in their windows and on their pumps so that their customers knew that the stations were using E-Verify—so that their customers knew that when they bought their gas there, they were supporting a business that played by the rules.

And imagine if a whole bunch of Fremonters started going out of their way to buy gas from the stations that displayed the e-VeriFILE decal. Well, pretty soon, you'd have more stations signing up, and it wouldn't be long before 20, maybe all 25, of the gas stations in Dodge County would be using the E-VErify system, hiring all 187 employees legally, and displaying the e-VeriFILE decal in their places of business.

And suppose the same thing happened at the 17 clothing stores in Dodge County with their 204 employees, and at the ten new car dealers with their 311 employees, and at the 36 fast food restaurants and 27 bars.

Pretty soon, every resident of Dodge County would know what E-Verify was. They'd know what the e-VeriFILE decal meant, and they would be able to recognize it at a glance and at a distance.

They would know that there is no excuse for an employer to undercut his neighbors by hiring illegally.

And, especially, they would know which businesses were using E-Verify. They would know which businesses were good neighbors.

Finally, citizens could reward law-abiding employers with their consumer dollars.

The popular will, in other words, could impose its desire that immigration laws in this country be respected. The whole town could begin using the E-Verify system, without any city ordinance, and there wouldn't be a thing the Appleseedlings down in Lincoln could do about it.

Wouldn't that be sweet? Let them squawk.

Tomorrow, an ad for e-VeriFILE begins running in the Fremont Tribune. But we need to pour it on, now, so I'm hoping you take action immediately on this:

1. Help us raise the money to promote e-VeriFILE in Fremont. Order prod cards (and use them to get an effort going in your own town).
2. Send a straight donation to get this effort off to the strongest possible start.

Please act today.

By the way, if you don't think this whole immigration thing has gone far enough, check out this quote from a fellow American as quoted in a news story about the Fremont ordinance battle:

"Thankfully now, I'm a U.S. citizen, and that's why I'm supporting the illegal immigration," Fremont resident Gabby Ayala told a local television reporter. Ms Ayala then explained why she opposed the proposed city ordinance. The ordinance "would tear the city apart by making it illegal to harbor, hire, or rent to any illegal immigrants," she said.

She's one of us?

Washington fixing broken immig system by killing E-Verify, only unbroken part

In the wake of the murder in San Francisco of a father and his two sons, ages 20 and 16 years old, by an illegal alien, Mayor Gavin Newsom blamed his city’s illegal alien sanctuary policy on our "broken immigration system". If our immigration system weren’t broken, argued the mayor of the city that kicked off the sanctuary movement back in 1989, we wouldn’t have needed to break federal immigration laws in the first place.

Oh, those wacky San Franciscans.

Nevertheless, Washington, stung into action by the rebellious teenagers running San Francisco, did eventually decide to fix the nation’s broken immigration policies. The nation’s capital stepped back and looked up at the mountain of brokenness.

Let’s see. Which broken part of immigration policy should we fix first?

Should we fix the broken refugee part, which has spawned a refugee resettlement industry in this country that’s paid by the head?

Or should we fix the broken labor and employment visa part, the SD2, H-1B, H-1B1, R51, T51, E14, H-1C, SM4, E11, H-2A, E22, SM1, E23, SM2, H-2B, L, O-2, E15, O-1, EW5, E32, P-1, P-3, E35, Q-1, T53, E31, SR3, T52, SJ2, E21, SR2, EW4, SR1, C53, SM3, SJ1, E34, SD3, E13, SD1, C51, P-2, H-3, EW3, E12, SM5, and C52 visas part, which generally benefits a rich few at the expense of an insufficiently corrupt many?

Or should we fix the broken ethnic preferences part, which has members of ethnic caucuses in Congress coordinating legislative activity with foreign governments and running citizenship mills out of their district offices?

Or should we fix the broken chain immigration part, which is doubling US population within the lifetimes of today’s children on one hand, while radically remaking the country’s demographics on the other, both with entirely unpredictable consequences, both against the wishes of the majority of Americans, and both in direct contradiction to the promises made by Sen Ted Kennedy, the policy's primary architect and recipient, it was announced Friday, of the Aguila Azteca, the highest honor Mexico can give a foreigner?

Or should we fix the broken "anchor baby" part of immigration policy? Or the broken visa fraud part? Or the broken "free trade business immigration" part? Or the broken political asylum part? Or the broken welfare abuse part? Or the broken borders part? Or the broken secure ID part? Or the broken "sham marriages" part? Or the broken "birth tourism" part? Or the broken "diversity lottery" part? Or the broken "affidavit of support" part? Or the broken EOIR part? Or the broken AILA part? Or the broken PERM part? Or the broken VAWA part? Or how about even the broken "sanctuary city" part?

Well, with so many choices between what to fix, the Washington politicians, and the Washington influence-peddlers, and the Washington Post, and the Washington headquarters of the US Chamber of Commerce, and various other profiteers, parasites, and trough-squatters all got together in a big meeting (What, you weren’t invited?) to decide where to start.

After some influence-peddling in an amount appropriate to the size of the task, Washington came up with a course of action.

The Washington establishment’s fix for our broken immigration policies, the one significant action on immigration in Congress this year, turns out to be an effort to kill the one part of immigration policy that isn’t broken—the E-Verify program.

The E-Verify program is more than just not broken, in fact. The program is actually in the process of fixing a big chunk of our broken immigration system. But it’s the E-Verify program that’s on the congressional chopping block this year instead of one of the dozens of other broken, harmful, costly, and dysfunctional components of immigration policy Congress might have chosen.

Oh, those wacky Washingtonians.

We’re probably not going to get much from Washington in the way of fixing immigration policy any time soon. And though we’re probably in for a few more rounds of moral grand-standing, subversive foot-stamping, and tragedies that could have been avoided, we’re probably not going to get anything helpful from San Francisco, either.

So, it’s up to those Americans in between, the ones clinging to their guns and their religion and fearful of people who don’t look like them, to pull the nation through, again—to fix the mess Washington and San Francisco created.

It’ll be up to the general contracting company in Fort Collins, Colorado and the furniture maker in Suffolk County, Long Island, and all the other tens of thousands of American businesses that are now voluntarily using the E-Verify system, even when doing so puts them at a competitive disadvantage against competitors who hire illegally.

They are special, these employers, and their swelling numbers could save E-Verify, in spite of Congress’ best efforts to fix it.

Imagine how truly bold an affront it would be to these employers if lawmakers in Washington dared let E-Verify die, how brazenly corrupt Congress would appear if it pulled the rug out from under employers playing by the rules and killed their best hope that, eventually, they’ll be able to compete again on a level and legal playing field in the Unted States.

The momentum behind the E-Verify program is building, and, it’s to be hoped, will continue to build. If efforts catch on like those of e-VeriFILE.us, a new service that registers and identifies publicly employers who use E-Verify, if employers who play fair begin to be rewarded for it rather than penalized, the use of E-Verify will continue its explosive growth, and Congress won’t dare try to fix it.

Annals of legible clothing

In huge letters on the back of a t-shirt I saw today: "It's time for a black president."

A black president? Who cares? It's time for a good president.

Advertising anti-US worker members of Congress

Despite the obvious detriment to US workers, business interests in the United States are allowed to import hundreds of thousands of cheap foreign workers every year.

These business interests enjoy all the advantages of doing business in the United States. They benefit, as we all do, from a stable political climate, transparent judicial system, first rate infrastructure, well-developed banking system, advanced educational opportunities, and a wide array of social services. Such advantages cost money, of course, which we all pay for as members of this society. `

Unfortunately, too many businesses don't want to pay their fair share of the costs for our expensive quality of life. Rather than pay their neighbors a suitable wage appropriate to an advanced social structure, they choose to import cheaper humans from abroad.

In so doing they cheat their neighbors. They leave American workers with the high cost of being an American while simultaneously undercutting their wages. Further, they increase the burden on American families by dumping the medical, educational, and other social costs of their imported workers on taxpayers.

Why does Congress allow some special interests to abuse Americans so unfairly?

The answer lies in the influence of business lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress can allow themselves to be influenced by the nine million dollars per day special interests pour into Washington, DC without concern that our somnambulent corporate media will inform the voters back home.

That's where we come in. ProjectUSA puts up billboards in the home districts or states of members of Congress whose actions help special interests undermine American workers. We identify the worst offenders by looking at their voting records, then factoring in their sources of campaign funds. Then we factor in the demographics of their districts or states to determine in which five or six members' districts would a billboard be most effective.

Users of this site can then vote for which member they'd most like to see face an informed constituency. Since we don't have anything like nine million dollars per day to play with, we ask voters to pay for each vote as a way to fund the billboards.

Trust us, this isn't a way for us to become rich. And it's a lot of work But there are a lot of people in this country experiencing real pain thanks to the greed of a few, and they deserve help. They can count on ours. We hope they can count on yours, too.

Embittered do turn to religion--in Chicago, not PA

Pennsylvanians facing tough times are embittered, according to Barack Obama, and so they turn to guns, and religion, and hold anti-immigration and anti-trade views. But the Pennsylvanians I've come across don't seem all that bitter to me—they seem pretty normal, in fact. And compared to a famously bitter Chicagoan named Jeremiah Wright, Pennsylvanians seem downright suffused with Christian joy.

Granted, the bitter ravings of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright have about as much to do with real religion as a rain dance has to do with real science, but the Obama family, including the manifestly bitter Michelle Obama, turned to that embittered fount for its religious needs. For my money, the south side of Chicago is where the embittered "turn to religion."

In fact, I'd say it's the south side of Chicago where the embittered turn to guns, as well. Small-town Pennsylvanians can be determined defenders of their right to keep and bear arms, no doubt. But it's a trait their fathers had before them, as did their grandfathers, and generations of fathers going back to the Pennsylvania of the Founding Fathers, who enshrined their right in the Constitution. I don't see the bitterness there. But I do see the bitterness of the angry young man who grew up listening to Jeremiah Wright and learning to blame others for his failings. I see the bitterness when he turns to guns and winds up shooting to death a liquor store owner on the south side of Chicago for the $140 in his cash register.

Chinese-Americans demonstrate for brutality

The Olympic torch passes through San Francisco, and Chinese-Americans turn out en masse in support of Chinese brutality and the cultural genocide being committed methodically against the Tibetan people.

When I was teaching in Shanxi, Taiyuan, I had dinner at the house of a headmaster at a local school for Tibetan kids. Tibetan kids? Why are Tibetan kids being schooled so far away from Tibet?

I was told the kids are taken from their parents at about age six, brought up as Han Chinese, required to speak only Mandarin, completely cleansed of their Tibetan cultural identity, and then returned to their parents at age eighteen.

Americans condemn this as cultural genocide. Oh, except for Chinese-Americans. They condemn citicism of China's cultural genocide against the Tibetan people as "anti-Chinese."

Anyone recall the American surveillance plane that was attacked in international waters by Chinese fighter jets? It was forced down on Hainan Island, an uproar ensued. Against international law, and the law of human decency, the American crew was paraded on Chinese television for propaganda purposes (the captain, I am proud to report, who graduated from the same high school I did, acquitted himself honorably).

One of the San Francisco papers did a poll asking some blunt question along the lines of, "Do you think Beijing should release the American crew?" Something like 99% of all respondents answered "yes." Except Chinese-Americans. Including American-born Chinese, they lined up behind Beijiing.

Chinese-Americans need to grow up and decide whether they are, indeed, American. If they can't, if they are incapable of participating in the American story, if they are incapable of relinquishing allegiance to the old country, then Americans need to grow up and institute an immigration time-out until a more sober-minded and responsible generation comes to power.

Fox News: "Less high schools offer drivers ed classes"

A graphic accompanying a March 29 Fox cable news story on teen drivers read, "Less high schools offer drivers ed classes."

That means, apparently, that schools at normal levels of highness don't offer such classes, which makes sense from a safety point of view—clear evidence our educational system is working.

So let's have fewer griping about the state of our schools.