Please scroll down to read the many articles on this page from different sources.

The incomparable Lawrence Auster posted the following this morning on his blog, . I think this really puts the whole Bush legacy into perspective... Bush and the four principles of America:

In thinking about the presidency of George W. Bush, let us recall the four principles of America as articulated by the late Balint Vazsonyi (pronounced VA-jhon-yi):

Rule of Law, not Social Justice; Individual Rights, not Group Rights; Security of Property, not Redistribution of Wealth; Common American Identity based on our Judeo-Christian heritage, not Multiculturalism. If these four principles define America, and if a devotion to them is our criterion of political virtue in America, how is President Bush doing?

In his August 2000 speech in Miami, candidate Bush made it clear he didnā?Tt believe in a Common American Identity, but welcomed the transformation of America through the steady growth of foreign language and cultures in our country, in short, Multiculturalism. He did the same when he left in place Clinton executive order giving people the right to be addressed in their native language when dealing with U.S. government agencies; when he incorporated Spanish on an equal basis with English at the White House web site; and when he repeatedly invited leaders of terror supporting U.S. Moslem groups to the White House and repeatedly described the religion professed by these enemies of America as a religion of peace.

In June 2003, in the wake of the Grutter decision, he endorsed the Supreme Court injection of Group Rights and Racial Proportionality into the U.S. Constitution, a radical attack on the principle of Individual Rights.

And now, in January 2004, in his call for the open-ended legalization of illegal aliens, including giving illegal aliens who have registered as temporary workers the ability to apply for permanent resident status, he has abandoned the principle of the Rule of Law in favor of the dissolute dream of Social Justice.

Bush has not so far directly attacked the Right and Security of Property or sought the Redistribution of Wealth. He is, nevertheless, a declared adversary of three of the four principles of America.

A correspondent sums it all up: We need to teach the Republican party for all time that betraying its base will cost it the election. If they get away with this, this country is finished. Posted by Lawrence Auster

George Putnam
Friday, July 4, 2003

It is this reporter's opinion that we have now reached the borderline of insanity as the Bush administration is contemplating granting amnesty to between 3 and 5 million illegal aliens! Giving large numbers of people who are unskilled, exploitable and dependent on taxpayers - people who have violated our sovereignty - an equal status as civilians, granted our immigration - legal and illegal - is insane! Why further complicate...
Based on fiscal estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences, it stated the lifetime net fiscal drain - taxes paid minus all services used - for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200. Mexican immigration acts as a subsidy to businesses that employ unskilled workers, holding down labor costs while you, the taxpayer, pick up the cost of providing services to a much larger low-income population. Like any subsidy, businesses that receive it want it to continue, but for this nation it's a BAD DEAL!

Recently Matt Wolfinbarger, a physics student at UCI, gave a convincing answer to the exploiters. Matt said, "The small benefits of reduced prices are greatly outweighed by lower wages and increased unemployment for the poor or higher taxes for the middle and upper classes." Matt asks, "What good are strawberries for 90 cents a pound to the average consumer when business benefiting from low labor costs, without paying benefits, pass on the cost of health care, housing and education to the same consumer in the form of taxes? Higher housing, education and health care costs more than cancel out the benefit of cheaper goods due to unskilled illegal labor."

Do George W. and his friends in Washington ever read the studies available - objective reports on the part of those who have lived this immigration fiasco on a day-to-day basis? Do they realize that illegal aliens are costing our state of California $5 billion a year? We've become a magnet for the unskilled that provide low-wage services in restaurants, fields and factories. Poverty remains pervasive. We are suffering from totally uncontrolled immigration, with an estimated 800,000 a year coming across our southern border from Mexico to Arizona. We need a complete re-evaluation of immigration, legal and illegal. It's time to face the dire results of massive, unskilled immigration and its effect on the native-born poor -disproportionately black, Latino and American Indian - unskilled immigrants competing for jobs with unskilled native-born Americans. The result: lower wages for the native-born poor and expanding the income gap between our rich and our poor. What is the solution to this mess?

· First, military patrol of our borders. We could stop illegal's and the Mexico-U.S. drug trade.
· Of course, forget about this proposed amnesty, which would only encourage more illegal immigration. Wall Street, the ball is in your court! You love cheap labor.
· It is time now to impose realistic penalties for hiring illegal immigrants and impose certain and massive fines for violations.
· Loosen those civil rights laws that directly interfere with employers' ability to filter out illegal immigrants. But most of all, get tough with border enforcement.
· It's time to tell the American Civil Liberties Union, and other special interest groups, to knock it off and to help with immigration reform.

At present, 70 percent of public school students in LA are Latino. The rest are a mix of Asian, black and a variety of others. The huge array of government services these newcomers expect and get are bankrupting the state! And if the population increase continues at this present rate, we will find ourselves at the level of a Third World nation. "Mexifornia" is only the beginning.

Virtually 100 percent of California's population explosion between 1990 and 2000 and continuing to the present is the result of the massive inflow of illegal's and births, not from internal growth. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, California grew from 29 million in 1990 to 34 million+ in 2000 - greater than the combined increase in population of all the northeastern states.

This ongoing problem demands a combination of border patrol and assimilation. But also, along with enforcement of our borders, we've got to eliminate all of the social welfare benefits that are attracting illegals to our country in the first place! This population growth is bringing traffic, pollution, overcrowded schools, lack of affordable housing and criminality as never before. ... and with all of this, the administration talks of amnesty for 3-5 million more. As if we needed more mouths to feed, more taxes to pay and more jobs to give away.

The legendary George Putnam is 88 years young and a veteran of 68 years as a reporter, broadcaster and commentator ... and is still going strong. George is part of the all-star line-up of Southern California's KPLS Radio - Hot Talk AM 830.

Craig Nelsen
December 5, 2003

Advocates for reducing immigration to traditional levels are often characterized as "right wing." However, a recent survey shows there are  "only modest partisan differences in opinion on tighter immigration controls." According to the study, released this month by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, "About eight-in-ten Republicans (82%) and somewhat fewer independents and Democrats (76% each) agree with the statement 'We should restrict and control people coming into our country to live more than we do now.'" (p. 36 of .pdf file) In other words, rank-and-file Democrats, like their Republican counterparts, overwhelmingly support a more moderate and realistic immigration policy.

Nevertheless, not one of the nine Democratic candidates for president has taken a stand on immigration that reflects the wishes of those on the American left.  In fact, the Democrats seem to be falling all over each other to see who can offer the most out of touch proposal (though, for sheer empty-headedness, it would be hard to top President Bush's 2000 campaign slogan, "Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande"). Looking over the candidates' positions on immigration, you'd think there is a conspiracy among party leadership to lose elections deliberately:

· Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has endorsed amnesty for millions of foreign nationals illegally in the country, and, while governor, signed a resolution opposing an automated border "entry/exit" system because it would have "disrupted the flow of goods, services, and people."
· Senator John Kerry, too, has said he supports amnesty for illegal aliens.  In addition, Senator Kerry's overall voting record exposes his commitment to massive immigration.  The non-partisan Washington, DC watchdog group, Americans for Better Immigration (ABI), gives Senator Kerry a grade of D-minus on his immigration voting report card.
· ABI also gives Congressman Dick Gephardt a D. In 2002, Rep. Gephardt introduced legislation (which he says he wrote with his "friends in the Hispanic Caucus in the House") to grant a blanket amnesty to illegal aliens.  "We're all immigrants unless we're Native Americans," explained Rep. Gephardt.
· Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich gets a grade of D, too.  And no wonder, if the following quote represents the sum total of his understanding of the complex issue of mass immigration: "We've forgotten about the optimism and hope that led so many people to sail under that light of Lady Liberty.  Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... Yes, I'm for amnesty...and making sure that those workers who come from Mexico [um...illegal aliens?] have all of the protections of federal law and including universal health care."
· Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who says "immigration is mi familia," blames America for the hundreds of deaths that occur every year along our southern border.  To solve the problem, he has offered "the most comprehensive, aggressive immigration reform plan.  Yes, earned legalization. Yes, temporary worker visas for workers from other countries. Yes, let's lift the cap on people coming here for family reunification or to seek refuge."  ABI gives Senator Lieberman a D for his voting record.
· Former Senator Carol Mosely Braun, who also earned a D from ABI while serving in the Senate, supports giving driver's licenses to those who entered the country illegally.  She reasons, "It doesn't matter if you came to this country on the Mayflower or a slave ship, across the Rio Grande or through Ellis Island."
· Senator John Edwards, after noting with approval that half the residents of his small hometown in North Carolina now speak Spanish, has said that hard-working Hispanic immigrants have earned the right to be American citizens [um, yes, but what about illegal aliens?].  Senator Edwards' voting record earns him an F from ABI.
· Reverend Al Sharpton is back to his old race-baiting tactics, saying on CNN, "Immigration laws have been used against Hispanics in the Mexican border."  We are disappointed to hear Reverend Sharpton talk like this, since he was almost the only public figure in New York City to defend ProjectUSA several years ago when the City forced down our billboards advertising Census Bureau statistics about immigration.
· Finally, General Wesley Clark, after noting that "we're a nation of immigrants," said, "We should be encouraging every person from the Indian Institute of Technology that comes to this country to stay in this country." Given that nearly eight out of ten Democratic voters want tighter immigration policies, it is perplexing, to say the least, that nine out of nine Democratic candidates advocate looser policies.

Meanwhile, in the crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, all the candidates are trying desperately to break out of the pack.  So why not use the immigration issue? A strong and common sense position on immigration could be the winning ticket for any Democratic candidate looking to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack.  He (or she) would tap into an enormous reserve of latent Democratic popular support, (not to mention the overwhelming support of Americans in general) while simultaneously setting the stage to exploit one of George W. Bush's greatest political weaknesses.

This article was written by Craig Nelsen, and originally appeared online at ProjectUSA, a non-profit Washington, DC watchdog group that encourages stronger enforcement of U.S. immigration law. ©2003 Craig Nelsen

What we owe to NAFTA
Pat Buchanan
 December 1, 2003
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Around Oct. 6, 38-year-old auto mechanic Jeff Cook decided to treat his wife and two daughters to dinner at Chi-Chi's in Beaver Valley Mall outside Pittsburgh. Within three weeks, Cook, suffering from acute liver failure, was fighting for his life. To save him, surgeons had a new liver flown in. They failed. Jeff Cook became, writes Lydia Polgreen of the New York Times, "the first person to die in what federal health officials say is the biggest food-borne outbreak of hepatitis A in the United States." Cook would not be the last. Since his death, two more Americans have died and 600 have been infected in Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia, as well as Pennsylvania. The cause of the hepatitis? According to the Centers for Disease Control, "hepatitis A is spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A. ... The virus is more easily spread in areas where there are poor sanitary conditions or where good personal hygiene is not observed."

As cases were being reported in locations hundreds of miles apart, the root of the outbreak was not some employee at the Beaver Valley Chi-Chi's who failed to wash his hands. The cause turns out to be green onions, trucked into the United States - from Mexico. A similar incident occurred in 1996, when 175 Michigan children came down with hepatitis A from the strawberries in their school lunches, which had also been trucked in from Mexico.

On the 10th anniversary of NAFTA's passage, perhaps some of its champions will pause to remember some of its victims. Open borders and unrestricted immigration - the agenda of Wall Street Journal globalists - have given us other benefits that ought not to go unnoted on this anniversary. The recurrence of tuberculosis here in America, where once it had been stamped out, has been traced to mass immigration from Mexico and other Third World countries where TB is pandemic. In 1999, 17,500 new cases were reported. The West Nile virus was probably introduced when 16,000 foreign birds passed unscreened through JFK airport in 1999. James Fulford, writing on, contends the disease could have had a human carrier from the Middle East, where it apparently originated.

Also writing on, Sam Francis reports on "Chagas disease," which kills 50,000 people a year in Latin America and now, according to the New York Times, threatens the U.S. blood supply. Mexico is also said to be the primary source of the heroin, cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine coming in. How does the stuff get in? "Via passenger car and tractor-trailers," according to the Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Mexican trucks, thanks to NAFTA, are free to roam America's roads. Another byproduct of open borders is violent crime. In the Los Angeles riot of 1992, worst in our history, thousands of arrestees turned out to be illegal aliens who had joined in the mass looting, pillaging and burning of America's greatest Western city.

The poster boy of open borders has to be Angel Resendez. As author-columnist Michelle Malkin writes, Resendez, for 23 years after his first arrest and deportation, slipped back and forth across the Mexican border, tallying up one of the most horrific rap sheets in U.S. history. From 1997 to 1999, Resendez was a rail-riding serial killer who murdered nine Americans, many of them women he raped as they were dying from his beatings. Then, there is the economic cost of open borders.

In the Golden State, where one in three illegal aliens from Mexico settles, native-born Californians have begun a mass exodus. During the 1990s, the white population fell for the first time since the gold rush. As middle- and upper-income taxpayers depart, and poor immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive, the burden on social services, from clinics to courts to schools, soars. This is a primary cause of the budget crisis Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to solve. But how can it be solved if the tax-consuming poor continue to arrive in huge numbers, while the middle class continues to depart, taking the tax base with it? According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2.8 million new immigrants, half of them illegal, arrived in the last two years. By 2010, America will be home to 45 million, a nation within a nation. "A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country any more," said Ronald Reagan. Welcome to Mexiamerica.

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books. See what else Pat Buchanan is doing these days.

Latin American States Give Aliens ID Cards in U.S.
Thursday, November 13, 2003;
By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Latin American countries plan to follow Mexico's example by issuing consular identification cards to illegal immigrants in the United States, despite FBI warnings that the cards pose a security threat, officials said on Thursday.

Mexico has issued around two million of the cards, known as the "matricula consular" to its nationals, whether they are in the United States legally or illegally, in the past two years. Guatemala began offering a similar card last year.

Ecuador recently started issuing cards to its nationals. Honduras expects to begin a program soon while Nicaragua, El Salvador and Brazil are studying the issue.

"We're looking to implement this project as soon as possible. We're expecting government approval any day," said Ramon Custodio, minister for political affairs at the Honduran embassy in Washington. The 2000 census showed there were around 217,000 Hondurans in the United States.

Nicaraguan embassy spokesman Arturo Wallace said: "We are also interested in providing some form of identification for our citizens in the United States and we are carefully analyzing the Mexican and Guatemalan experience."

Nicaragua has 600,000 to one million nationals in the United States.

The Mexican card has received growing acceptance from commercial institutions and state and local government. It is accepted as identification by more than 100 U.S. banks and at least 800 police departments. A handful of states accept them for issuance of driver's licenses and the Transportation Security Administration accepts them for air travelers.

But in congressional testimony last June, Steven McCraw, assistant director of the FBI's intelligence office, said the cards were not a reliable form of identification and posed a potential security hazard.

"There are major criminal threats posed by the cards and a potential terrorist threat," he said.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge in September also voiced concern. "There seem to be some mayors and financial institutions that are accepting it. For the time being, they do so at their peril," he said.

The White House has taken no position on the cards, pending the outcome of an inter-agency review. That leaves individual states, counties and cities free to make their own policies. President (George W.) Bush is anxious to court Latino voters before next year's presidential elections. On the other hand, he cannot dismiss security fears.

There are an estimated 8 to 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to the Census Bureau, the vast majority from Central America, particularly Mexico.

Part of the impetus for accepting the cards comes from banks and other financial institutions which see a vast untapped market. The U.S. Treasury Department recently issued regulations allowing banks to accept the cards from people wishing to open accounts.

"Having the card makes it easier for an alien to get work in the United States and transfer remittances back to their home country," said Jack Martin of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports limiting immigration.

Critics point to media accounts of Mexican ID cards being found in the hands of non-Mexicans. They say Mexico has 300 consulates in the United States but no unified data base so that one individual could easily get several cards.

But Mexican officials say there are stringent security precautions in place. Individuals must present an original Mexican birth certificate, a photo ID card such as a passport, and a utility bill or other proof of residence.

Custodio of the Honduran embassy said the card his country intends to issue would include more personal information embedded in a bar code and more security safeguards than the driver's licenses issued by most U.S. states.

By: Dan Bear

There are three ways to enter the lower 48 United States from abroad; by land, by sea and by air. We have the Coast Guard, a U.S. military branch backed up by the U.S.Navy, tasked to secure our coastal borders and NORAD, a Department of Defense military operation in Cheyenne Mountain and the U.S. Air Force, tasked to secure our airspace.  To secure our land borders we have the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs, both of which are run by bureaucrats and neither of which are under the control of the military or the Department of Defense/Pentagon.  We now have the newly created Department of Homeland Security added into the mix of our nation's defense, bringing in a whole new crop of bureaucrats and which may or may not take control of our land borders.

Is the task of securing our land borders a matter of national defence? Yes, absolutely.  Why then is this task not being handled by the U.S. military? Too much money?  Impossible logistics? Just too many men required on the ground?  Can't use the military to defend the United States? Can't use the Department of Defense for defense?

The land borders between Canada, Mexico and the United States amount to 5317 miles in total length excluding the Alaska/Canada border.  The land border between Canada and the lower 48 United States is 3987 miles in length and the border between Mexico and the U.S. is 1330 miles in length. For discussion purposes, let's use 4000 miles as the length of the U.S./Canada border and 1500 miles as the length of the U.S./Mexico border, 5500 miles total.

The primary goal of border security is to provide control and control gives us back discretion, the discretion to determine who enters our nation, on our choice and on our terms, not theirs. Razor wire and chainlink fences are not cost effective and are easily defeated by ordinary hand cutters available to anybody everywhere.  Why not use electronic sensors, of various types as needs and conditions dictate, like those already in use at thousands of secured locations worldwide, to build an invisible, impenetrable without detection, environmentally friendly barrier, that will alert us to all intruders. This fence would alert an immediate response team that then flies to the contact area and takes action as necessary.

With the electronic fence in place we can task the response teams, American soldiers one and all, to deal with intruder border crossing alerts and  then station those response teams with helicopters every ten miles along the border. That's 550 choppers to cover the entire length of the 5500 miles of land border.  Toss in 250 more helos as backups and that brings the total helicopters needed to secure our lower 48 land borders to 800.

Let's figure ten soldiers to every mile, 100 for every ten mile zone(TMZ). That's 55000 men needed to secure our land borders with Mexico and Canada compared to the more than 35000 servicemen we have stationed in the tiny Republic of Korea.  On duty in each TMZ, 24/7, would be a 10 man response team plus a three man flight crew, three support personnel and an officer in charge.  That amounts to 17 men per shift.  Figure three shifts a day, seven days a week and we need at least four shifts minimum but we will allow for five shifts.  5 times 17 is 85 which is less than the 100 men we have allocated and lowers the nationwide manpower commitment to 46750 from 55000 based on ten mile zones and 5500 miles of border.  

The ten mile zone, TMZ, is a very conservative starting point which places the response teams five miles away, on average, from any intruder. The zones can be expanded to fit the circumstances. For instance, just expanding the zones to 15 miles reduces the manpower requirements to less than 32000 nationwide along with reduced helicopter needs.  Not enough support personnel, you say? Every military base in the country will be in support of this operation with existing resources and additional outposts can be built, if needed, where required.

To get the border security system up and running, let's start with the shorter border, the less than 1500 miles of land bordering with Mexico. Now we need less than 15000 men and say one helicopter in reserve for every two choppers online, based on ten mile zones.  That is 225 helicopters and less than half the men we have in Korea.  The electronic fence can be built using off the shelf components in a very, very short time, less than six months, without invoking a National Security priority. Even if the fence cost was a million dollars per mile we'd only be talking about 15 billion in cost, the same amount we are giving to Africa to fight AIDS.  This fence technology is not star wars stuff. Walmart uses more complex electronics in everyone of its stores just to order stock, to say nothing about what the giant retailer uses for security.

So, to secure our southern border against intrusion we need 15000 soldiers, 225 helicopters and an off the shelf electronic fence.  And this is without even giving consideration to our current Border Patrol and Customs operations. Why hasn't it been done? Join me in the quest to secure our nation's borders. The future of our children and grandchildren is at stake.

Dan Bear is a new columnist for Ether Zone.
Dan Bear can be reached at:
Published in the October 8, 2003 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.

August 20, 2003
After The Bombing: To Hell With Iraq -
By John Attarian

Confession being good for the soul, I confess that I barely followed the controversy about making war on Iraq; that after the first day or two I followed the fighting for a few minutes a day, and have given it about two minutes daily ever since. Nor have I cluttered my mind with the recriminations about the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction or whether Bush lied us into war. Why should I? Compared to our real problems, Iraq is a trifle.

While pundits speculate on whether Saddam Hussein is still alive, multiple catastrophes are unfolding at home. To name a few: The federal budget is plunging into red ink. Entitlement and health care costs are exploding, and will soon become unaffordable as aging baby boomers flood Medicare and Medicaid. Like quacks bleeding a hemophiliac, our dunderhead politicians want to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The Social Security time bomb ticks toward explosion -and our "leaders" want to worsen the coming blast with a "totalization" i.e. subsidy agreement with Mexico. The natural gas crisis emphasizes that our way of life depends rapidly depleting fossil fuels. And the Jacobin left's holy war of hate against white people grinds relentlessly on. And one of our worst problems is immigration.

We are drowning in immigrants. According to the Census Bureau's March 2002 Current Population Survey,[PDF] 1.5 million immigrants arrive each year. This works out to 4,110 immigrants every day, 171 an hour, three a minute (2.85 for those of you who like precise figures), one every 21 seconds. There are 750,000 births to immigrant women a year: 2,055 a day, 86 an hour, one every 42 seconds. Our annual population growth from immigration, then, is 2.25 million, over two-thirds of total annual population growth of about 3.3 million, which is 1.2 percent of our 2002 population of 282 million. At this rate, America's population will double in 59 years. Immigration is exacerbating just about every other problem we have.

The economic argument for immigration is a self-serving lie. Immigration enthusiasts brag that immigration holds inflation down. They appear to mean that it increases the labor supply and causes wages to stagnate. Great. But immigrants also increase the demand for services, pushing up their cost. They use maternity wards and emergency rooms without paying for them. Hospitals push the costs onto Americans, whose health insurance premiums rise accordingly. So immigration squeezes American workers at both ends: worsening the health care crisis and driving up the cost of living while making labor incomes stagnate. The only Americans who benefit are immigration lawyers, vote-hungry politicians, and employers of cheap labor.

Immigration adds demographic clout to militant Islamic and Hispanic Fifth Columns. The huge influx of people to whom our European heritage is alien is breaking up our political and cultural cohesion; the celebration of Columbus Day has become controversial; Christmas is becoming a de-Christianized "holiday season." Immigration provides a handy rationalization for multiculturalist agendas such as diversity, affirmative action and the stigmatization and dispossession of whites. Immigration plus political correctness is a witch's brew of mischief and malefaction. Can you say "Balkanized"? How about "conquered"?

Ecologically, immigration spells catastrophe. Immigration is the major force driving our exploding population growth. It chronically strains our supply of housing, infrastructure, and public goods. We are forced to develop huge amounts of rural real estate to provide these things for the additional millions. And more people not only use more resources, but generate more pollution. Immigration will wreck America's environment as surely as breakneck economic growth is wrecking China's.

One of the most important concepts in ecology is "carrying capacity": the maximum population of a species which a habitat can sustain indefinitely. Signs are everywhere that America is not only populated far beyond carrying capacity, but is actually reducing it: the drawdown of aquifers faster than they are being recharged; recurring droughts and water shortages; our collapsing oil output (most American wells now pump ten barrels or less a day); the accelerating depletion of natural gas wells; our dependence on imports of oil and natural gas; widespread soil erosion and salinization. Since immigration is driving our population growth, it is also driving this ruinous trend.

Not only is immigration an economic, political, and cultural disaster, then, but the immigration-driven population explosion is wrecking America's ecosystem. And then what? Can you say "die-off?"

I couldn't care less about Saddam and his "weapons of mass destruction." But I care plenty about losing the Southwest to militant Mexicans. I care that the ranchers along the border aren't safe in their own homes. I care that the population boom is turning America into a human anthill. I don't want my little niece and nephew (and my still-hypothetical wife and children, if God's that good to me) members of a persecuted white minority dwelling in a Balkanized nation of depleted aquifers, ruined soil, and scarce energy, in an overloaded land lurching toward depopulation.

Immigration is far more of a threat to my country and everything I cherish than Saddam Hussein ever was. I don't care whether Bush was right about the war, either. This amnesty-seeking, pandering pol is as wrong as two left shoes about immigration. And that's the issue that matters. Forget Iraq. Stop immigration-now.

John Attarian [email him] is an independent scholar and writer with a doctorate in economics living in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He is the author of Economism and the National Prospect (American Immigration Control Foundation, 2001), Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis (Transaction Publishers), and Immigration: Wrong Answer for Social Security (American Immigration Control Press, 2003).

August 04, 2003
No Democracy For Whites In The New America
By Sam Francis

With a Hispanic majority emerging in the near future of California and other western states (not to mention the entire country), it's high time the emerging white minority learned its proper place in the New America, and the Bush-Ashcroft Justice Department is on the scene to help them learn it. 

Last week the Los Angeles Times reported that the Justice Department has launched an investigation as to just why it is that more whites don't vote for Hispanic candidates in the city of Vista, California. [Los Angeles Times, Vista Is Examined for Bias, By Beth Silver, July 28, 2003]

Vista, in San Diego County, is the home of 90,000 residents, 40 percent of whom are Hispanic. The problem, you see, is that despite the presence of a large Hispanic minority, not one "Spanish-surnamed candidate" has ever been elected to local office in the city's history. To the Bush-Ashcroft Justice Department, this is a problem.Therefore Justice munchkins have descended upon Vista to investigate the crisis.  It could be, you know, that it's due to that universal solution to all non-white problems, white racism.

"Justice Department investigators want to determine whether a pattern emerges in Vista," the Times solemnly reports. "They plan to check whether members of minorities and whites vote differently; whether whites in Vista vote as a block against minority candidates; and whether whites are able to beat minority candidates, even when minority voters are unified at the polls, said Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez."

And, if Justice "finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it could order the city to be divided into council districts, rather than conducting citywide votes for elected officials. The idea is that at least one district might be drawn to encompass a concentration of the city's Latino population, increasing the likelihood of the group's electing one of its own, Martinez said."

In other words, if the Justice Department doesn't like the outcome of elections, it will force the local community to change election laws and procedures until it gets the outcome it wants. So much for democracy in the New America.

It's not as though local Hispanics have been complaining to Washington about all the gimmicks the whites have concocted to keep them out of office. As the Times also reports, "an advocacy group for a predominantly Latino neighborhood in Vista said it had never heard a complaint" about the city's electoral system.  A city planning commissioner with the proper kind of surname, Frank Lopez, who has lost two elections for a city council seat, agrees. "I don't think there's a problem here and that's all I want to tell you," he says.

The determination to find a problem in Vista and rig the election to make sure fewer whites get into local office comes straight from Washington itself, and it's not Janet Reno that started it but John Ashcroft and his boss.

It's interesting Justice is making use of the Voting Rights Act to impose its will on a city in California. Passed at the height of the "civil rights" movement and the Great Society regime of Lyndon Johnson, the act originally applied only to southern states and Arizona (which just happened to be those that had voted for Mr. Johnson's opponent in the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater).

A transparent violation of the principle of equality before the law, the act was renewed in 1982 when support for its extension was led by yet another Republican stalwart, Rep. Newt Gingrich.

Republicans and others Americans who hailed the act when it was directed only against the South will no doubt today rejoice to learn that it is about to be applied to them and their own communities.

Hence, they need to learn how this masterpiece of progressive legislation works. As Vista city attorney Wayne Dernetz told the Times, "the Justice Department needs to determine only that white voters in Vista tend to favor white candidates and dilute Latino voters' preferences to find a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Intent and cause are irrelevant, he said."

In other words, there need be no "intent" to deny Hispanics what apparently is their inherent right to win elections. All that is needed is to show that "white voters tend to favor white candidates."

And of course they do. Black voters tend to prefer black candidates, and Hispanic voters tend to prefer Hispanic candidates. That may not be quite consistent with the mythology of "color-blindness," but it's an obvious fact from Political Science 101.

So it ought to be equally obvious what the Justice Department finding will eventually be and what the outcome of the next "election" in Vista will be.

Keep a close eye on what happens, because it will be happening soon in your own city as well, as whites start losing the right to be governed by the candidates they want to vote for.

[Sam Francis [email him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection of his columns, America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The Disintegration Of American Culture, is now available from Americans For Immigration Control. Click here for Sam Francis' website.]

Looking for America in Chicago
Herbert London
October 14, 2003

Recently I was asked to give a speech at the Midwest Conference Center in the Melrose Park section of Chicago.  What I experienced, however, had little to do with the Midwest and a lot to do with Mexico.

            Arriving in that area during the lunch hour, I searched for a place to eat.  Since I am not favorably disposed to Mexican food, I searched for a luncheonette or diner where I might order a sandwich or salad.  But I searched in vain.  A twenty mile drive on Lake Street yielded nothing but taco and burrito establishments.

            At long last I found a Burger King. I was relieved.  Nevertheless, the employee behind the counter spoke Spanish exclusively.  I asked for the Chicken Caesar Salad, but the counter employee looked at me quizzically. Finally, I simply pointed to the sign.

           This was merely the beginning of my adventure.  After delivering my speech, I wanted to get to Midway Airport to catch another flight. My host said all I had to do was take interstate 290 to Cicero.  Unfortunately for me, he neglected to indicate whether I should be going east or west on 290.  I guessed wrong.

            After traveling in the wrong direction for about five miles I decided to ask for help at a gas station.  As soon as I started to speak, I realized the attendant did not speak english.  I went on to another gas station where I encountered the same problem, then another and another.  After seven stops, I finally relented. In pidgeon spanish, I pleaded for assistance.

            To my astonishment, none of these attendants ever heard of Midway.  They insisted that I really wanted to go to O'Hare.  I argued that there is another airport in Chicago despite their claims.  After an hour of frustrating encounters I made it to Midway.

            All through this experience I kept asking myself in what nation was I traveling.  I am persuaded I was actually in Little Mexico, a colony of Big Mexico.

            Although proponents of immigration contend diversity is a healthy consequence of the new immigration, it really doesn't exist. Diversity has dramatically declined among new immigrants.  During the last decade - as my experience indicates - immigrants from Mexico account for more than 30 percent of the foreign born in the United States.  Moreover, Mexicans accounted for about 43 percent of the growth in the nation's foreign born population.

            In Illinois, for example, the Mexican population increased from roughly 275,000 in 1990 to 680,000 in 2003, almost all of these Mexicans are in the Chicago area.  Surely many of these new immigrants play a significant role as employees in the hospitality industry, the restaurant business and heavy industry.  But there are other implications that should be considered.

           The most imposing issue is that a large, less diverse immigrant population living as an island within an urban area often hinders integration by fostering linguistic and spatial isolation.  When one group dominates in a neighborhood such as Melrose Park, the chance of having immigrants Americanize is substantially reduced.  Clearly ethnic groups prefer being with those who speak their language and share their cultural habits.  But in the process, this nation is being balkanized in a manner the founders never predicted.

            This condition is particularly pronounced when through inadvertence you are thrust into an immigrant community and cannot communicate.  What I found particularly troubling is that many young people I addressed could not speak english.  I would have guessed that bilingual programs in the public schools would have acquainted youngsters with the national language.  I was wrong.  There isn't any need to speak english in Melrose Park.

            Despite my dislike of Mexican food, I don't share any animus towards Mexicans.  What concerns me is that without any policy discussion or national plebiscite, this nation is undergoing a fundamental change.  If one were to engage in a demographic extrapolation based on relative birthrates, several states, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, will have a majority of Mexicans by 2050.

            The questions that emerge from this condition are worthy of further analysis.  Should the U.S. be a bilingual nation?  What are the consequences of Balkanization?  What does it mean to say we are "one nation, indivisible?

            Having returned from the Chicago area, I feel confident I have been to the future.  For someone who loves America and admires its immigrant tradition, I have my doubts about present trends.  I am not reticent to say, I prefer to live in the United States rather than Little Mexico.  I suspect I am not alone in expressing this point of view.

Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute and John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, and author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, Lexington Books. He can be contacted through ©2003 Herbert London

America is for aliens
Paul Craig Roberts
October 1, 2003

So you think your government looks out for you? Not nearly as much as it does for aliens. On Sept. 24, Robert Pear reported in The New York Times that the Bush administration has quietly decided to stiff 6 million poor elderly and disabled Americans by denying them Medicare drug benefits. According to the Bush administration, these Americans are already covered under state Medicaid programs.

President Bush should read the newspapers. On Sept. 23, Robert Pear reported in The New York Times that "rising costs prompt states to reduce Medicaid further." It seems that the jobless recovery has forced virtually every state to take action to cut back on Medicaid.

Not to worry. All the 6 million poor and disabled Americans need to do is acquire Mexican citizenship and re-cross the border as illegal aliens. Once Americans acquire the status of illegal aliens, their medical care is provided free without even a co-pay.

American veterans can take recourse to the same solution for their plight. The Bush administration plans to cut veterans' benefits by $28 billion over the next 10 years. Democrats claim the cuts could cause half of all veterans to lose their only source of medical care and could even prevent them from receiving their disability pensions.

Not to worry, veterans who defended your country, just become Mexican illegals, and you will be cared for.

Are you the parent of a college-aged student whom you would like to send to your alma mater, but can't as you have moved away from home, placing out-of-state tuition between you and your old school? Not to worry. Just send your offspring in search of Mexican citizenship. Depending on the location of your alma mater, once your son or daughter re-crosses the border as an alien, the state's taxpayers will cover the out-of-state tuition charge.

Not to worry about being caught crossing the border. Sen. Robert Byrd's amendment to the homeland security appropriations to provide $125 million to put 1,300 customs inspectors to help patrol our borders was rejected by the Bush administration as "too expensive." The same day, President Bush made an "emergency request" for $150 million to pay for "border inspections personnel" on Iraq's borders.

Meanwhile, as our caring government stiffs veterans, the poor and the disabled, Bush intends to spend $15 billion on AIDS in Africa and wants $87 billion as a mere down payment for Iraq.

The Washington Post reports that hidden in the $87 billion for Iraq are "$100 million to build seven planned communities with a total of 3,258 houses, plus roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, a place of worship and a market for each (planned community); $10 million to finance 100 prison-building experts for six months at $100,000 an expert; 40 garbage trucks at $50,000 each; $900 million to import petroleum products such as kerosene and diesel to a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves; and $20 million for a four-week business course, at $10,000 per student."

Every conceivable Republican contributor is being rewarded. But our 1,500 wounded soldiers -- many missing an arm, leg or eye -- are being charged for their meals during their hospital stays. And the Pentagon wants to cut the pay of our troops in Iraq, denying them $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

As any fool can see, Americans come first with their government.

Leaders on the Pentagon handpicked "Iraqi Governing Council" say the $87 billion is 10 times the amount required. "Where they (the Americans) spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 million," said Ahmad al-Barak, a human rights lawyer and a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. Just give us $8.7 billion and go home, he recommended.

Did you know that only $20.3 billion of the $87 billion -- merely 23 percent -- is dedicated to Iraq's reconstruction? You can imagine the rake-offs in the remaining 77 percent. This is the greatest pork-barrel rip-off of the American taxpayer in history.

Not to worry. Bush is going to take it out of Medicaid and veterans' benefits. Now that we are going to conquer the world and have an empire, we have to cultivate a more hardy breed of people here at home. Welfare is for Muslims. To soften them up, you know.

According to economist Thomas Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of U.S. Middle East policy commissioned by the U.S. Army War College for a conference at the University of Maine, since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion, or $5,700 per American. Let's see, that covers 5 million Israelis. Imagine what we can spend on 600 million Muslims.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.