Sunday, May 28, 2006

Bush: 'Read My Lips –
No New Amnesty'

By Nicholas Stix

The Bush-Senate amnesty plan is the ultimate in taxation without representation. It is revolutionary in its provocation and in its consequences. Perhaps we should stop calling the plan’s patron President Bush, and instead start calling him King George.


“A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.

“an act of clemency by an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individuals

“n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)”

Immigrants are Our Future

I didn’t watch the President’s May 15 national performance. I had a choice between napping with my son (“The children are our future”) and napping through the Liar-in-Chief (‘Immigrants are our future’). But the transcript of his current lies is all over the ‘Net.

When George Herbert Walker Bush was the Republican presidential nominee for the first time, in 1988, he told the Republican National Convention, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” It became his most effective campaign slogan, and one of the keys to his electoral victory.

But Bush the Elder ended up violating his campaign promise, and raising taxes. And so, on Election Day 1992, his base responded variously by staying at home or by voting for third-party candidate Ross Perot, which brought about the election of Bill Clinton.

Come on Down!

Bush the Younger fancies himself much smarter than his father. Thus, he did not announce, during either of his presidential campaigns, his plan to grant an amnesty to what now amounts to over 20 million illegal immigrants plus their parents plus their children plus their siblings plus anyone who will pay them to say they are blood relatives, much less his plan to bring in another 200 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, or to mention the tidal wave of new illegal immigration (another 100 million?) this amnesty would bring about. He knew it would cost him the election, if he did. And so, he bided his time.

Well, George W. Bush still isn’t taking any chances, and so when he finally did announce his amnesty plan, he did the equivalent of saying, ‘Read my lips: No new amnesty.’ (“What I have just described is not amnesty.”) He figures that if he lies enough about his planned amnesty, people won’t figure it out until it’s too late. “Too late,” meaning after the coming fall elections. And to sweeten the pot for his social and religious conservative base (or as Karl Rove would call it, "the suckers"), he will propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

This is all a word game. Bush is simply calling amnesty by other names: “temporary worker program,” “rational middle ground,” etc. He insists that he seeks amnesty, er, rational middle ground only for veteran criminals, but not for rookies.

“That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.”

And yet, as Bush well knows, under the plan he champions and the Senate just passed on Thursday, we will end up with amnestied, naturalized, “temporary workers”; amnestied, naturalized, recently arrived illegals; and amnestied, naturalized, long-term illegals.

That Burning Sensation

The man who for years portrayed himself as a straight talker, is peeing on our leg, and telling us that it’s raining.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and again in 2004. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

But I am not going to keep going down the same road. I have learned certain lessons, one of which is that, as with assertions made by the New York Times, I no longer accept as true anything the President says, unless and until I have found triple independent corroboration for it.

In a sophistic sense, I suppose President Bush can tell himself that his proposal isn’t really an “amnesty” for “illegal immigration,” because, along with immigration law and America’s borders, he is eliminating the very concept of American citizenship. No legal citizens, no illegal immigrants.

The President says he is sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to the Mexican border, but he is sending them unarmed, forbidding them from guarding the border or interdicting foreign invaders, and in fact, not stationing them on the border at all, but rather in offices, where they will do “paper work.” (Yeah, probably reading the daily newspaper.)

But that’s just a stopgap. Mr. Bush’s plan is, by the end of 2008, for the 6,000 do-nothing National Guardsmen to be replaced by 6,000 new, do-nothing Border Patrol agents. That’s over $400 million of nothing per year, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

At least in the old East Bloc, where people only acted like they were working, the state only acted like it was paying them. (Yes, George W. Bush has driven ne to find relative virtues in communist totalitarianism!)

If El Presidente gets to force his plan on what is still known as the American people, there will be no more American citizenship and no more America.

If Citizens Didn’t Exist, We’d Have to Invent Them

And yet, there will still have to be something. The ruling elites will need something to distinguish themselves from the rest of those whose pockets they’re busy picking. And so, there will still be illegal immigration in-between serial amnesties that will occur every few years, because the elites will demand ever cheaper baby sitters, gardeners, cooks, cleaning ladies, dog walkers, car washers, etc. The elites’ll show how morally superior they are to us paupers who can’t afford illegal servants, by periodically demanding amnesty for their servants. This will also endear them to the servants. Then, as soon as the newest mass amnesty goes through, they’ll fire their newly legalized servants, and replace them for even less with new illegals. (‘I’m sorry, Maria, but I just can’t afford you anymore.’)

In order to distinguish themselves from commoners (the people living in the shadows aka the people formerly known as Americans), members of the ruling elite will in all interactions with strangers make sure to mention their “immigrant” employees. Thus, if a member of the elite smacks a commoner who got in her way on the street in front of the Free Range Chicken Mart, when the police come she’ll mention that she must call her immigrant employees to tell them she’s being held up, so the cops will know to arrest her victim, instead of her. (That’s assuming the cops even speak English.)

The commoners will also be identifiable by virtue of their being increasingly dressed in rags, but not the chi-chi kind that costs thousands of dollars.

Soy Un Yahoo

Neocon godfatherette William Kristol has his own word for commoners: “Yahoos.”

Echoing the Liar-in-Chief, and apparently cognizant that consistency is one of the three laws of lying, Kristol denies that the Bush amnesty plan is, in fact, an amnesty plan. Unfortunately, however, like President Bush, Bill Kristol seems unaware of the first law of lying: Plausibility.

On Thursday, the Senate passed, 62-36, its own version of the President’s Treason Plan, known variously as the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” (CIRA) and as S. 2611.

At this rate, George W. Bush’s greatest political achievement will obtain in having rescued Bill Clinton from historical infamy. The Clintons’ reign of crime looks better with each passing day.


On Memorial Day, in honoring our war dead, from the Revolutionary War unto today’s War on Terror, we say “Lest we forget.” At Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln exhorted, “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

In the new dispensation according to George W. Bush, however, those men did die in vain. For all of the father and the son’s New World Order philosophical commonalities, the father is a patriot, who during World War II was the Army Air Corps’ youngest bomber pilot. I just can’t see the Old Man simply giving away our patrimony. Bumbling and stumbling and dropping it, perhaps, but not consciously, deliberately, surrendering it.

And yet, if the House goes along with the Senate, and the People permit it, this Memorial Day will prove to have been a time to grieve for America itself.

The new Bush plan is the ultimate in taxation without representation. It is revolutionary in its provocation and in its consequences. Perhaps we should stop calling the plan’s patron President Bush, and instead start calling him King George.

(Reader Michael R. Mallinson has pointed out that many illegals “don't pay taxes and are thus are in the enviable position of enjoying representation without taxation.”)

Let’s consider Abe Lincoln’s words once more:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

We the People survived a civil war, but can we survive George W. Bush?

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

October Surprise, Part II:
“Dr. Spin” Flips the Rand Report

By Nicholas Stix
November 3, 2000

George W. Bush's “Texas Miracle” in education is a “myth.” We know that, because Dr. Stephen P. Klein said so. Dr. Klein is the lead researcher of the report, “What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us?,” released on October 24 by the prestigious, "nonpartisan" Rand Corporation.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ABC News, and a host of other prestigious, "nonpartisan" news organizations, have repeated Klein's charges.

Stephen Klein's Rand report examines dramatic claims made by Texas education officials and Gov. George W. Bush. The Texans had reported that on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), public school children showed gains in reading and math that were triple the gains made by their peers nationally. During the period in question, 1994-98, nationally the racial gap, whereby black and Hispanic children lagged far behind their white peers, widened. According to Texas officials, however, their state's gap was narrower to begin with, and black and Hispanic Texas children had come close to erasing it altogether.

In the October 25 Los Angeles Times, reporter Duke Helfand quoted Stephen Klein as charging that, “The soaring test scores in Texas do not reflect real improvement in students' ability to read and do math. Texas is doing better than the rest of the country in some areas, but nowhere near the miracle. It's a myth.”

Duke Helfand wrote further, that “The findings [from the National Assessment of Educational Progress] led the analysts to suggest that the widely ballyhooed gains on Texas' own tests may have been the result of extensive test preparation, a low standard for passing and some cheating prompted by pressure the system puts on teachers and administrators.”

Based on the press accounts and my own experience as an educator, I was tempted to believe Klein. But then I read and re-read his report, which made a disbeliever out of me.

Many education reporters don't seem to read the reports they write about. Apparently, they read only the press releases, and talk to the reports' authors and PR flacks. In other words, they consent to being used by spin campaigns. I've found that the actual reports often fail to prove, and at times even contradict the claims made by the press releases, “spokespersons,” and even the authors themselves. The Klein report is no exception.

Keep in mind, that while the Klein report never uses the phrase “test fraud,” the report has no point, except as an extended (if unfounded) allegation of massive test fraud in Texas.

For a point of reference, let's consider another recent case in which test fraud was alleged. Last December, New York City Board of Education Special Commissioner Edward Stancik published a report, “Cheating the Children: Educator Misconduct on Standardized Tests,” charging that conspiracies of teachers, administrators, and staffers in 32 public schools all over the city had been engaging in massive test fraud.

The tests in question were high-stakes, standardized exams, just like the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). The phrase “high-stakes” means that students' promotions and graduation, and educators' careers depend on the results.

The most popular method was for teachers to have children write their answers on scrap paper. The teachers would then correct the children, before having them write their "final" answers in their test booklets. Some teachers and administrators would “prompt” pupils, telling them, “That's wrong.” Others would “explain” questions, while some would simply tell the children the proper answers, or distribute typed “cheat sheets.” One teacher wrote the conclusion to a student's essay. An ambitious Manhattan teacher, Dennis Rej, made wholesale erasures on his students' examination “bubble sheets,” and entered the correct answers. Some enterprising educators managed to procure the actual exams in advance, which they then used to prep their students.

One teacher from Queens, Robin Smith, told investigators, “everyone does this and I never had a problem with it before.”

The investigation resulted in fifty-two New York City teachers and administrators being suspended for test fraud.

The 66-page Stancik report was full of smoking guns. Enjoying the cooperation of outraged teachers in the affected schools, the investigators had gotten eyewitness testimony, and gathered (and published photographs of) physical evidence such as “bubble sheets” full of erasures, essays in which a child's handwriting gave way to an adult's, and “cheat sheets.”

I searched Stephen Klein's report for smoking guns, but found only smoke and mirrors. No cheat sheets, no sheets full of erasures, no advance copies of exams, no eyewitness testimony, no cooperating educators.

Dr. Stephen Klein turns out to be a spin-doctor.

What he engaged in, was a textbook, three-step spin-doctoring campaign. What he didn't engage in, was research.

Klein sought to create an atmosphere of doubt about the Texas Miracle; exploit that atmosphere to rationalize undertaking what was not a research report at all, but in the words of Bush campaign communications director Karen Hughes, a “14-page opinion paper … [that] directly contradicts every credible, nonpartisan scientific evaluation, including Rand's own official study”; and then, confident that few prominent reporters would read his “report,” go in for the kill, as if his claims had actually been proven.

Step one: In a major Washington Post story in April, Klein suggested that the TAAS was fraudulent. He claimed that this was based on his research, but according to Rand's current story, Klein had just begun his research on TAAS in the spring.

Since Washington Post reporter John Mintz was writing an anti-Bush story, he didn't demand any proof of Klein's insinuations. And in getting a lengthy story published in one of the most influential newspapers in America, Klein could rest assured that most major media outlets would assimilate his claims.

Step two: In Klein's “report,” he observes that, “For example, the media have reported concerns about excessive teaching to the test,” as justification for his study. He neglected to reveal to the reader that HE WAS THE SOURCE of the media reports. (Disguising one's own previous statements as independent corroboration is a basic form of scholarly and journalistic fraud.)

As John Mintz reported in the April 21 Washington Post, six months before the Klein report's release, “‘We knew something strange was going on,’ Klein said. He believes that, without meaning to, Texas officials design TAAS tests so they're vulnerable to Texas teachers' coaching.”

Step three: The moment the “report” was released, Klein again spoke to reporters at major news organizations. Playing off the momentum he had built up in steps one and two, he denounced the Texas Miracle as a “myth.”

We cannot discount the help that mainstream media organizations gave Stephen Klein.
In July, the Rand Corporation had published a major, 250-page study, by a team led by David W. Grissmer, Improving Student Achievement: What NAEP State Scores Tell Us, that supported Texas officials' claims.

As thorough and well-documented as the Grissmer study was, Rand released it four months before the election, but somehow it didn't get much coverage. Conversely, Rand released the Klein paper exactly two weeks before the election, and it got tremendous play.

As we'll see tomorrow, the structure of the Klein “report” is much like that of the Klein spin campaign. In lieu of evidence, Stephen Klein uses suggestion and innuendo, and then, acting as if he had proved that which he only insinuated, he piles on ever more dramatic suggestions and innuendoes. Another favored technique has him equivocate in his use of terms such as “coaching,” “cramming,” and “test preparation,” so that they mutate from innocent, even positive words into euphemisms for “cheating.”

Sandra Stotsky, a veteran researcher at the Harvard School of Education (but don't hold that against her!), is the Deputy Commissioner of Academic Affairs and Planning of the Massachusetts Department of Education. She is the author of, among other works, Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction is Undermining Our Children's Ability to Read, Write, and Reason.

Arguably the foremost scholar of “K-12” reading curricula, Dr. Stotsky had earlier been commissioned to perform her own study of TAAS' reading component, and found it wanting. Stotsky said that since her study, the TAAS reading component had reportedly been reformed.

Of Klein's Rand study, Sandra Stotsky remarked, “There are various groups attacking Bush, because it's Bush. It's a political thing. … [The Klein report] destroyed their academic reputation. They shot their own person [David W. Grissmer]. It made Rand look terrible.”

Unfortunately, Stephen Klein is more interested in manipulating reality, than in discovering and describing it. That's why I call him, “Dr. Spin.”
Originally published in Toogood Reports.

October Surprise?
The Texas Testing Controversy

By Nicholas Stix
October 31, 2000

(Just before the 2000 presidential election, the socialist MSM, which was willing to do anything to help get Democrat candidate and then-Vice President Al Gore elected pressident, sprung two traps -- "October Surprises" -- on Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican candidate. The SMSM first published and broadcast reports that Bush had been arrested for driving while intoxicated over twenty years earlier, and then, on October 24, promoted a new "report" that insinuated that the "Texas Miracle" (Bush's phrase) in education was due to massive, institutionalized test fraud.)

Was George W. Bush caught cheating in school?

That's what four researchers at the prestigious Rand Corporation, a non-profit, education research organization based in Santa Monica, California, are claiming. In a report released on October 24, "What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us?," Stephen P. Klein, Laura S. Hamilton, Daniel F. McCaffrey and Brian M. Stecher suggest that there's something rotten in the state of Texas, and that the "Texas miracle" of educational progress, is really so much Texas bull.

Based on 1990-98 testing figures, Texas education officials had reported gains in reading, writing, and math among Texas public school children that tripled those made in the same subjects by children across the nation. And unlike the rest of the U.S., in which the racial educational gap between whites on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics on the other, has in recent years been growing, in Texas it was shrinking.

Texas Gov. George Bush dubbed the reported gains "the Texas miracle," and made them a pillar of his Presidential candidacy.

(The national figures I referred to above were those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the closest thing we have to a uniform, national educational exam, which is given in 44 states. The Texas figures were from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), which is unique to Texas.)

Immediately, one thinks: My, what a coincidence, just two weeks before Election Day. And only three months after a different team at the same Rand Corporation had published a major study, which wholeheartedly praised and endorsed Texas' educational progress.

Suspicious coincidences aside, the question is, Did Texas educators cheat, and fudge the results of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)? My initial judgement was that beyond partisan politics, we might never know the truth. But it didn't look good.

But accompanying the report, before it could even be criticized, Rand President James Thomson issued a combative press release insisting, "We don't produce findings for political reasons, we don't distribute them for political reasons, and we don't sit on them for political reasons. This is a scrupulously nonpartisan institution. He did protest too much.

As I read the report, I searched for evidence of cheating, of fraud, of misconduct ... and found none. Not one shred. What I found instead were loads of speculation, innuendo, and language weasely enough to fertilize all the onion fields in southern California.

And then I examined the orchestration of the media attacks on George W. Bush's education record going back months before the report's release, led by, among others, the "lead researcher" of the October 24 report, Stephen Klein, and I realized that there was no "aside" beyond the "coincidences." George W. Bush was the recipient of a political hit, pure and simple.

The guilty parties are, first and foremost, Rand Corporation "researchers" Stephen P. Klein, Laura S. Hamilton, Daniel F. McCaffrey and Brian M. Stecher, and Rand President James Thomson.

But they had help. Help came from, among others, Walt Haney, a Boston College professor of education, researchers Linda McNeil of Rice University and Angela Valenzuela of the University of Texas, and Washington Post reporter John Mintz, who provided the aforementioned players with the platform from which they initially attacked the TAAS. (Mintz, however, is the most morally ambiguous figure here, because he is a hero, too. Information he provided was crucial to this story.)

Walt Haney is a leader of the cabal of anti-testing ideologues among the radical professors who control virtually all of the nation's major teacher education programs, and which is now making inroads in independent testing and research organizations. Linda McNeil and Angela Valenzuela are likewise members of the "test bashing" cabal, in the phrase coined by education critic Richard Phelps. Politically, these professors are what is euphemistically referred to as "liberal" in some circles, "multicultural" in others, and what I call "racial socialist," since they combine socialism and racialism.

As we shall see, A) the "research" claiming to disprove the Texas Miracle is laughably incompetent and biased; B) the new report is contradicted by a much more thoroughly researched Rand report that was published just three months earlier, and whose lead author, David W. Grissmer has sharply criticized Klein & Co.; C) Rand Corporation President James Thomson's statement in defense of Klein, et al., has all of the credibility of New York Yankees manager Joe Torre's defenses of his pitcher, Roger Clemens,' attempts to maim the New York Mets' Mike Piazza; D) the leaders of academia's anti-testing subculture, e.g., Walt Haney, in Richard Phelps' words, "never met a test they liked"; E) and finally, we shall see the context of this "research"; a campaign — itself characterized by contradictory and outrageous statements — by anti-testing zealots to discredit George W. Bush's Presidential candidacy, and win the election for Vice-President Al Gore.

And yet with all that said, Gov. George W. Bush is not going to come out of this debacle smelling like the yellow rose of Texas, either. As we shall see, the TAAS is not without thorns. So pay attention, because there will be a test — on November 7th!

Originally published in Toogood Reports.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Please and Thank You
By Nicholas Stix

“Do this! Do that! Hurry up!... There’s just no good help any more.”

Imagine you could go through life surrounded by indentured servants on whom you depended, yet to whom you never had to say “Please” or “Thank you.”

In the cartoon series, The Backyardigans, five imaginative little children turn a backyard into exotic locales. In “The Secret of the Nile,” set in ancient Egypt, “Princess Tasha” sings “I love being a princess,” because her “servants” (slaves) must be at her beck and call. As the servants tell us, in asides, “Princess Tasha never says ‘Please’ … or ‘Thank you.’”

When the Nile suddenly dries up, the Sphinx teaches Princess Tasha the secret of the Nile: You must always say “Please” and “Thank you.” When the princess finally shows gratitude to her servants, the Nile is replenished.

America today has millions of real-life Princess Tashas – but they haven’t been enlightened by the Sphinx. (Enlightened by the Sphinx?! Oh, well.) One wealthy seven-year-old tells his illegal immigrant nanny, “You are our slave!” A privileged six-year-old, herself a Chinese-born adoptee, tells her immigrant nanny, “I’m going to tell my mommy to fire you!”

The Princess Tashas have picked up the attitude of their employer-criminal parents, who have come to believe that they are above the law.

Although you’d never know it from the feds’ refusal to enforce the law, knowingly hiring illegal immigrants is a crime. The parents of the princes and princesses are also guilty of tax evasion, for not withholding taxes for their illegal employees and not paying their portion of the employees’ taxes.

In one of the many stealth amnesties already in force, when an illegal is regularized in an “adjustment of status,” as per Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), he has to pay all of the back taxes he owes, totaling thousands of dollars, plus a $1,000 fine. His former employers are never dunned for the back taxes, or forced to pay statutory fines, much less prosecuted.

If the government collected outstanding back taxes, fined, arrested and prosecuted such employer-criminals, our illegal immigrant problem would be reduced to manageable levels, with most of the unemployed illegals heading home – to the nations to whom they are loyal.

Many journalists and editors are longtime members of the employer-criminal class. They rely on illegal immigrants to clean their homes, raise their children (they consider child-rearing beneath them), cook their meals, mow their lawns, and walk their dogs. No wonder media folk choose not to report honestly on immigration, and seek to demonize those who respect America’s laws as “racists,” “nativists,” and “xenophobes.”

America’s upper classes – Left and Right alike – have used illegal immigrants to wage class war on the rest of America.

The employer-criminals not only economically displace American workers, enrich themselves by paying illegals below-market wages and engaging in tax evasion, and pick working Americans’ pockets by forcing them to pay the cost of educating, giving medical treatment to, and jailing their illegal employees and the latter’s families, but the employer-criminals add insult to injury by demonizing the very people they are disenfranchising.

Indeed, in a social world in which one must always worry about being denounced for “racism,” white, working-class Americans constitute just about the only group that upper-middle and upper-class American criminals can disparage without worrying about who might overhear them.

Oddly enough, millions of illegals have themselves become Princess Tashas, imitating their lawless employers. Across America, between late March and early May, over one million illegals marched, some of them several times, demanding citizenship while hoisting high Mexican flags, and turning American flags upside down, or burning them, and viciously assaulting Americans who disagreed with them. While announcing that their loyalty will always be to Mexico, they said that they are the “real” Americans, and that as part of their revanchist Reconquista, they will expel all white Americans.

And why shouldn’t illegals be arrogant? After all, their most powerful supporter dishonestly refers to them as “citizens.”

Mexico has a zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigrants; is America any less of a nation, or less deserving of respect?

Illegal immigration propagandists insist that the economy will collapse without illegals, but in fact it is only the criminal economy of employers of illegals that would collapse. Were the law enforced, employers would have to pay the sort of wages that they paid before they decided to cut them by half or more and disenfranchise the American working class. Americans would then return to those jobs.

The Federation of American Immigration Reform calculated that an amnesty and guest worker program would cost state and local governments $61.5 billion more per year in social services by 2010, bankrupting many of them. And that was before President Bush presented, in his May 15 speech, his amnesty/guest worker plan, which would, according to an analysis by the staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R, AL), let in over 200 million legal immigrants – several times more than FAIR had countenanced – over the next twenty years alone. And that’s still not counting the next tidal wave of illegals that Bush’s plan will encourage, if it is enacted.

Bear Stearns economists Robert Justich and Betty Ng (who, by the way, support illegal immigration) have estimated that illegal immigration may already be costing the tax base $65 billion annually. And since most amnestied immigrants would be low-wage workers, they would ultimately pay no federal taxes or even get refunds via the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Since the ruling elites have no intention of damming up the flow of illegals, just as the three million illegals granted amnesty in 1986 begat the 20 million (Justich and Ng's number) that now demand amnesty, these 20 million will beget yet another 50 million to 60 million in twenty years’ time. And that is without counting the millions of relatives of amnestied illegals who will come through chain migration.

America will face a revolutionary mix of ever-growing population pressure, declining wages, inflationary housing prices, inequality, interethnic strife, budget deficits and political instability.

America is a nation of immigrants, but not of illegal immigrants. And while demography may be destiny, a free nation chooses its own demography.

Thank you.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Are the Mets on Strike Against Their Fans?
By Nicholas Stix

During tonight’s otherwise inspiring, 4-3 victory over the Yankees, a development caused concern in this observer. When Carlos Delgado hit a three-run homer in the fourth inning, to turn a 2-0 deficit into a 3-2 Mets lead, the Mets faithful (there were thousands of Yankees fans who had also managed to sneak in) at Shea Stadium gave the lefthanded-hitting first baseman a long ovation, seeking a curtain call from Delgado. And yet, Delgado ignored the fans.

The next batter, David Wright, also hit a home run, but the fans did not clamor for a curtain call from him.

In years past, when the fans clamored for a curtain call, the Mets always obliged them. Always.

And so it remained, until April 6. That night, Carlos Beltran hit a big home run, to break an 0-for-9 beginning to his second season with the Mets, after signing the biggest free agent contract ($119 million for seven seasons) to join the team in 2005, and being a bust. He was paid $17 million per season to bat third, knock in 110 or more runs, and score 110 or more runs, as per his career stats. Instead, he knocked in only 78 runs and scored only 83, numbers that might justify a $2 million contract in today’s inflated major league baseball market. Beltran is lucky he wasn’t arrested and tried for grand larceny.

The fans had booed Beltran mercilessly at the beginning of the season, and reportedly had begun booing him late last season. But if you want the big bucks and the cheers when you produce, you have to accept the boos when you don’t.

Beltran evidently doesn’t see it that way. The camera caught him glowering as he walked in the dugout immediately following the home run, shaking his head that he would not give the fans a curtain call. The camera then caught 47-year-old player-monument-unofficial coach Julio Franco go to Beltran and talk to him once, twice, and even a third time, before Beltran would deign to quickly wave a helmetless hand to the fans from the dugout, to another huge round of cheers.

Since then, although the Mets’ MLB.com Web site has frequently featured one of Beltran’s rare smiles (perhaps from last year?), a scowl has been almost frozen on his face.

Beltran’s hostility, and Delgado’s snub of the fans bring back an issue that keeps coming up with Latin players – which team are they playing on? The team whose uniform they wear, or some invisible Latin Nation team of players who are paid by different organizations in different cities? You see it when Hispanic players flagrantly violate age-old rules against fraternization with opposing players and coaches on the field before games, when they set themselves up as a team-within-the-team (e.g., Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez in Boston) and when they snub their own non-Latin teammates for Latin players from opposing teams after the game.

The most obscene case I know of Latin chauvinism (so far) came three years ago, when Sammy Sosa’s corked bat exploded in a game when he hit a ground ball, and exposed Sosa to all the world as a cheater. Sosa was suspended for eight games, but rather than take his punishment like a man, he lied about the cheating, claiming that the corked bat was one he usually used to entertain the fans during batting practice, and then appealed his sentence, getting it reduced to seven games. At the time I wrote,

Sammy Sosa's two most vociferous defenders have been retired, Cuban-born slugger Jose Canseco, and Dominican superstar pitcher Pedro Martinez of the Boston Red Sox. Imitating the style of black race hustlers, Canseco and Martinez have attacked American whites as "racist" for criticizing Sosa's cheating.

Canseco is engaging in a form of racial demagoguery that is increasingly common among white Hispanics, who are notorious for priding themselves – among other Hispanics, in Spanish – on their whiteness. However, in public, the same proudly white Hispanics declare themselves "persons of color," and shamelessly race-bait non-Hispanic whites.

Martinez, who is brown, has been Sosa's most aggressive defender, suggesting that he would assault a writer critical of Sosa, and demanding that baseball apologize to Sosa.

Prior to the 2005 season, New York magazine published a puff piece on the Mets by feature writer Chris Smith, “Los Mets,” claiming that it was now a Latin team. “How Omar Minaya ensnared players like Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran to create a new Latin dream team.”

At the time, Smith’s claim was bogus. The team had only two Latin starting position players, shortstop Jose Reyes and newly signed centerfielder, Carlos Beltran. Its starting first baseman (Doug Mientkewicz), third baseman (David Wright), and catcher (Mike Piazza) were all white. Its starting second baseman (Kaz Matsui) was Japanese. Its leftfielder (Cliff Floyd) and rightfielder (Mike Cameron) were both black. Its starting rotation had two Hispanic pitchers, newly signed free agent Pedro Martinez and Victor Zambrano, the latter for whom they had traded late in the previous season, but the above-named players certainly did not make them a “Latin” team. The New York magazine writer, Smith, was clearly guilty of Hispandering.

This year, however, with Minaya’s acquisitions of slugging starting first baseman Carlos Delgado, starting right fielder Xavier Nady, and relief pitchers Duaner Sanchez and Jorge Julio, and manager Willie Randolph’s decision to start the since-injured Anderson Hernandez at second base, the team opened the season with a majority-Latin starting lineup. Minaya also signed several Latin bench players -- Julio Franco, Jose Valentin, and Endy Chavez this year, in addition to Ramon Castro, whom he signed last year. (Last year he also signed second baseman Miguel Cairo, who this year returned to the Yankees.)

Minaya has put together a good team; it would be an even better one, if its starting rotation could stay healthy. But is he biased against non-Latin players, and is the team he put together hostile towards its predominantly white fan base? Is Omar, like so many decision-makers in today’s America, looking to elect a new, non-white base? Things are not looking good for Minaya, in either case.

Although Carlos Delgado is an American by birth, he had long snubbed the playing of “God Bless America” during ballgames, by refusing to stand for the song. He claimed it was due to his opposition to the War in Iraq, a claim that the socialist MSM has let him get away with. In fact, the singing of “God Bless America” didn’t begin with the War in Iraq; it began with the first game played after 911 had caused the 2001 baseball season to be temporarily suspended.

(Delgado is from Puerto Rico, and was opposed to the U.S. Navy using the island of Vieques for live ammo naval maneuvers, a practice that was ended, to the detriment of the nation’s military readiness. However, Delgado has never opposed the millions of dollars in show-no jobs that Puerto Ricans continue to make from the now useless U.S. Navy base in Vieques.)

One of the reasons why Hispanic players feel emboldened to insult the people who pay them tens of millions of dollars to play a boy’s game, is due to politically correct whites who encourage Hispanic racism and anti-Americanism, in order to insult American whites who love their country.

One such white enabler is Dave Zirin, a columnist at The Nation magazine.

Carlos Delgado’s acceptance of the fact that Fred Wilpon is the Mets owner and thus that Wilpon, who loves his country, gets to determine team policy, upset to no end Zirin, who had wanted to politically exploit Delgado. In the same editorial in which Zirin recounted how Delgado suffered no consequences from his previous corporate masters when he snubbed the playing of the song, Zirin complained that Delgado was now giving in to his corporate masters. (No logic, please, we’re leftists.)

Zirin desperately insults Fred Wilpon’s son as “baby-boy,” the Wilpons as “little more than mosquitoes,” and conscripts Roberto Clemente for his jihad. He takes for granted that Fred Wilpon should pay Carlos Delgado $13.5 million this season, while letting his new player humiliate him and his country before millions of fans watching the game on TV.

(It is hardly surprising, then, that Zirin would seek to cut Babe Ruth down to size, in order to try and inject Barry Bonds with humanity.)

Zirin claimed, histrionically, that the necessity of Delgado sticking it to his boss and the New York fans was a matter of democracy, social justice, and freedom of speech. I am not aware of him ever defending the right of employees of leftwing enterprises (including universities and public schools) to dissenting “freedom of speech,” “democracy,” and “social justice.”

If the Mets don’t get some sense in a hurry, and start treating their fans with some respect, it might be curtains for the team from Flushing. After all, the local Latin population is not exactly stampeding to buy Mets tickets.

And remember, guys, fans can go on strike, too.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Randy Johnson’s MRI Results are in
By Nicholas Stix

After a series of poor outings, the Yankees brass had the 6’10” lefthander and future first-ballot Hall of Famer undergo an MRI. The MRI detected the cause of the Big Unit’s decline, and cast doubts on his future as an effective big-league pitcher. The MRI revealed that … Randy Johnson is 42 years old!

Gentlemen, Get Out Your Asterisks:
Bonds Hits Tainted 714th Home Run to “Tie” Babe Ruth
By Nicholas Stix

Barry Bonds hit his “714th” home run yesterday, against the Oakland A’s.

On Fox, Tim McCarver was even more pathetically pc than usual. “And you’d think there’d be positive thoughts behind that home run, but there are almost as many negative ones.”

McCarver was talking about other people’s thoughts, not his own.

I don't know if it is due to the greater relative freedom local broadcasters have (at least to pontificate over non-home team players) over national corporate drones, but Gary Cohen, one of the regular Mets announcers at cable's Sports Net NY, has engaged in some straightforward commentary about Bonds, based on what is known about the Bonds case.

The only solace we can take from Bonds' case is that he (probably) isn't going to pass Hank Aaron. On the other hand, I half-wish Bonds would make a serious run at 755, because it would either force the phonies in the Commissioner's Office and Congress to confront Bonds' reported perjury, tax evasion, and purchase (via barter) and use of illegal substances, or would humiliate them.

(Bonds reportedly got his illegal drugs from Victor Conte, who ran the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) for free, in exchange for making celebrity endorsements for Conte’s worthless zinc and magnesium supplement, “ZMA.”)

On the eve of the season, Sports Illustrated’s Jacob Luft quipped,

“Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire, Bonds. That's your cast for George A. Romero's next B movie, Zombies from the Steroid Era.

When the book Game of Shadows : Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports was published in March, it corroborated what any honest baseball fan by then already knew to be true: That Bonds’ late-career home run and slugging percentage records, and yearly batting averages that were up to 80 points higher (.370) than the lifetime batting average the then 13-year veteran had had from before he “bulked up,” was due to felonious cheating. Miami Herald sports columnist Greg Cote satirized Bonds thusly,

Bonds has denied the allegations in the book, denied the existence of the book itself, denied he has ever ingested anything into his body at any time, including oxygen, and also denied his name is Barry Bonds.

When a baker's helper is caught (or confesses to or refuses to testify under oath about) committing crimes – including crimes involving illegal drugs – the authorities arrest and prosecute him. Why is it that the authorities have consistently said they aren't interested in prosecuting players for buying (or bartering for) and using steroids? According to Game of Shadows authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, Bonds also committed perjury, by denying steroid use to a federal grand jury, and tax evasion, by earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for signing baseballs at memorabilia shows, and not declaring the income to the IRS.

Oh, I just remembered – most of the laws that apply to you and me don't apply to professional athletes.

And yet, Pete Rose not only was prosecuted for income tax evasion, but went to prison for it. And unlike Bonds, Rose had nothing to show for his crimes. Rose was a compulsive gambler who lost millions of dollars betting on sports. The tax evasion charges were because he sometimes won on his bets, although he lost much more frequently. (Because the bets were illegal, Rose didn’t get to deduct his losses from his taxes.)

Let’s see. Pete Rose commits tax evasion on net losses, and goes to jail. Barry Bonds allegedly commits tax evasion while making a tidy net profit, and isn’t even charged.

What, pray tell, distinguishes Barry Bonds from Pete Rose?

But if Barry Bonds approached Hank Aaron's magic number, would the authorities stand back and allow him to make a mockery of baseball's most hallowed record? Probably, because they are scared to death of being called racists. But Hank Aaron wouldn’t remain quiet.

Did you ever see what Frank Robinson looked like in his playing days? I'd long ago forgotten, but during a recent game on TV, the producers showed a video of Robinson, in his 15th or 16th season (1970 or 1971), hitting a home run in the World Series for the Orioles. He didn't have a drop of fat on him, and was much leaner than today's leading sluggers. He was Perfectly Frank. Nothing about him came from an illegal syringe, cream, fluid or pill.

Speaking of Frank Robby, I stand with him on the record books: The entire statistical career record of a player who was caught at any time using steroids should be erased.

That practice needs to be applied to the career stats of Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi and Gary "I-didn't-know-it-was-steroids" Sheffield, and players to be named later.

Robinson earned every one of his 586 dingers, and is still in fourth place on the list of legitimate All-Time Home Run leaders, behind only Aaron, Ruth, and Mays.

In a scorched-earth attempt to defend Bonds, some folks have claimed “everybody’s doing it.” They seem to think that such a defense will intimidate critics. But it merely calls forth an equally scorched-earth response: If the seemingly Herculean feats of a generation of ballplayers in comparison to their predecessors are based on fraud, then we need to erase that generation from the record books.

But the “everybody’s doing it” crowd are liars. Look at Greg Maddux’ body over the years, and tell me he’s been on the juice. Or Pedro Martinez’ spindly build in younger days, and his current combination of boniness and paunchiness.

There are a number of other great, veteran players of recognizably human dimensions: Mariano Rivera. Manny Ramirez. Derek Jeter. Tom Glavine. Carlos Delgado.

The Legal All-Time Home-Run List (Top 20) reads as follows:

Hank Aaron, 755
Babe Ruth, 714
Willie Mays, 660
Frank Robinson, 586
Harmon Killebrew, 573
Reggie Jackson, 563
Mike Schmidt, 548
Mickey Mantle, 536
Ken Griffey Jr. , 536 (active)
Jimmie Foxx, 534
Ted Williams, 521
Willie McCovey, 521
Eddie Mathews, 512
Ernie Banks, 512
Mel Ott, 511
Eddie Murray, 504
Lou Gehrig, 493
Fred McGriff, 493
Stan Musial, 475
Willie Stargell, 475.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Illegal Human
Beings on the March

By Nicholas Stix

The Gathering Storm

Was May 1 America’s version of Hitler in the Rhineland?

On March 7, 1936, Hitler illegally marched into the Rhineland at the head of his then ragtag Reichsarmee (Imperial Army). The Rhineland had been permanently demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I – then known as “The Great War.”

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, journalist-historian William Shirer told of how on March 7, instead of taking the Fuehrer and his troops prisoner, complacent French troops nearby played soccer. Although the French had heroically held off the Germans for four years during World War I, in June 1940, French troops in the Rhineland would offer at best token resistance before surrendering to the Germans, who steamrolled the entire country in a mere six weeks.

Although we eventually bailed out France, she never recovered from Hitler. You wonder if, had the French stood up to Hitler in 1936, whether they would be bending over for Moslems in 2006.

If America does not stand up to the illegal human beings in her midst, and send them back from whence they came, America will be destroyed within a generation, by which time she will exist in name only.

May Day! May Day!

May 1 was supposed to be a “Day Without Immigrants,” and yet all we heard or saw all day via the media, was “immigrants” telling us that we were without them, and that our withoutness was hurting us terribly. It didn’t hurt me or mine one bit. Had it not been for the saturation media propaganda, we wouldn’t even have known about it. (Mind you, we had no need to go to Manhattan.)

Had the illegals been serious about making us do without them, they would have slinked off into the proverbial shadows in which they live in the cliches of MSM propagandists. If only they lived in the shadows! It is American citizens – including millions of American workers who have been unemployed for so long that they long ago exhausted their benefits and no longer show up in unemployment statistics, or are chronically underemployed in part-time, low-wage jobs – who have been forced into the shadows by the motley anti-American alliance of the MSM, America’s alleged educators, communist organizers, the cheap labor lobby’s stooges in the U.S. Senate, and the traitor in the White House.

On May 1, alleged TV journalists kept saying that the “boycott” marchers were demonstrating their “power.” At the immigration-restrictionist Web site VDARE, columnist-blogger James Fulford heard and read the media use the phrase “show of force”, though he reports that at least one outlet, the Los Angeles Times, thought better of it, and changed its photo caption from “Show of Force” to “Images of Protest.”

Fulford wrote, “It should worry you that Mexico is deploying a “show of force” in American cities, and it should also worry you that the American media doesn’t think anything of it.”

“Worry” is not the emotion I’m feeling these days.

I wonder how many American patriots, watching the celebratory May 1 TV “news” coverage of lawlessness, shot out their TV sets.

I don’t know what was more disgusting that day. Was it the millions of criminals who have impoverished millions of law-abiding, working-class Americans, flaunting their contempt for American law, and demanding that they be rewarded for their crimes?

Was it the alleged journalists who gave up all pretense to objectivity and became shameless, slobbering, illegal immigration cheerleaders? (I’m sure that pleased their own illegal nannies, cooks, gardeners and cleaning ladies.) They tried to avoid showing Mexican flags, but it was impossible! They were more successful, however, in editing out the racist America-bashers.

Was it the communist organizers egging on the illegals?

Or was it the alleged parents and alleged educators who again committed the crimes of educational neglect and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, by telling tens of thousands of students to commit truancy that day, as they had previously done in March and April?

As a legal immigrant I know said, if legal citizens (well, white or Asian legal citizens) encouraged their kids to be truant, they’d be brought up on charges.

Candy and Flowers

The New York TV news broadcasts I saw gave no time to critics of illegal – much less, legal – immigration. They let invasion advocates claim that people whose very existence on American soil is a crime, were exercising their “constitutional rights.” Alleged reporters lied, in claiming that most Americans support an illegal immigrant amnesty “under certain conditions,” as a WNBC reporter asserted.

(The WNBC reporter was probably speaking on the basis of the rigged Time magazine “poll” that moderate Democrat blogger Mickey Kaus made a mockery of.)

Neither that nor any other “journalist” I heard that day would report on the demand three weeks earlier, on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, by boycott organizer “Nativo” Lopez (whose real name is Larry), the president of the Los Angeles-based Mexican-American Political Association, for "full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States."

DOBBS: And will you accept anything less than amnesty?

LOPEZ: Absolutely not. We're looking for full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States. They've already paid their way, Dobbs. They paid their way more than enough, than anybody can expect of them, we don't need earned legalization, we need legalization right now of all our folks here….

And May 1st, you are going to feel the effects of nobody going to work, nobody going to school, shopping or selling, because we're calling it The Great American Boycott: A Day Without Immigrants. Marching in the street for full, immediate, unconditional legalization of all working people that are here currently without documents.

DOBBS: Nativo, you're talking about feeling the impact, you're talking about a boycott of all illegal aliens in this country?

LOPEZ: Well first off, I refute your terminology. You don't say kike, patty, WOP, OK, you don't say nigger.

DOBBS: Partner, I don't even listen to that kind of language. You pollute the air.

LOPEZ: You're using language that's offensive to me and offensive to my people.

DOBBS: You are wrong.

LOPEZ: You pollute the air every day, Dobbs. You are absolutely wrong….

DOBBS: ... Let me tell you what. If you're going to boycott the country … what do you expect the impact to be?...

LOPEZ: Basically to send a message to Congress, send a message to America, send a message to you, to appreciate the labor of immigrants in the United States, appreciate us, the same way when you lose a loved one, and you -- and you try to...

DOBBS: Nativo, let me ask you something.

LOPEZ: ... recoup that love of that person with flowers, with candy, because you now appreciate you've lost her. And that's essentially the effect of a political message to Congress on May 1st. We won't go to work, we won't go to school, we won't be buying products, we'll be marching in the street for legalization.

DOBBS: What would you do, do you suppose, Nativo, you and anyone who would join in such a boycott -- what do you do without America? You're suggesting what we would do without illegal aliens, what would you do without America?

Lopez evaded Dobbs’ question, repeating his baseless claim that America needs illegals.

DOBBS: Nativo Lopez, an organizer -- Nativo, let me ask you just one thing as we sum it up. How do you say chutzpah in Spanish?

LOPEZ: I don't know. It takes a lot of brains, that's for sure.

DOBBS: You've got that right.

LOPEZ: We've got it, because we're out in the streets.

Lopez also considers the notion of assimilation deeply offensive. He condemns amnesty requirements that illegals must learn English or American history, pay a fine and back taxes, swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, or give up their allegiance to the nation of their birth. In other words, he opposes all of the duties that America has always required of all new citizens.

Lovers or Rapists?

Big Media likewise refused to report on the outrage felt by millions of American citizens at Nativo Lopez’ criminal circus.

During the Passover seder, one of the four questions the youngest boy at the table must ask is, “How is tonight different from all other nights?” And so it was with the so-called boycott. How was the strike different from all other days?

Illegal aliens made it impossible for Americans and legal immigrants to drive in the cities where the criminals marched. They refused to serve Americans, and successfully pressured American businesses whose customers are virtually all Americans, to shut their doors to them, or to refuse to make deliveries to them. In other words, they were obnoxious.

And yet, illegals now expect us to love them all the more. Well, here’s how it works in the real world. Back in 1995, I used to write in defense of “immigrants.” Since then, I have made a point of researching the reality of “immigration,” but my most dramatic lessons have come at the hands of the “immigrants” themselves. And tens of millions of Americans have learned the same lessons the same way.

On May 1, alleged reporters all repeated the illegal alien talking points asserting that illegals are essential to the U.S. economy. And yet, what contribution do they make? They don’t do jobs that “Americans won’t do”; before the illegals came, all of those jobs were either done by Americans (by American employees, or in cases such as mowing lawns, or small-scale home repair, often by American homeowners themselves), or simply not done, because employers would not pay even a subsistence wage. Is it a good thing that there are millions of people who will now work for less than subsistence wages?

An economics student will respond, “But that’s impossible. No one can work for less than a subsistence wage.”

Wrong. A law-abiding person cannot work for less than a subsistence wage, because he cannot pay his taxes, rent, medical bills, subway fare, etc., on those wages. (Unless, that is, he is virtually homeless, as I was when I worked for below-subsistence wages teaching college during much of the 1990s, had to give up my apartment, and ended up having to sleep on an army cot in my mother’s studio apartment.) But a person willing to break any number of laws can live on below-subsistence wages. A person who is in the country illegally, getting paid under the table (i.e., not paying any taxes), and living in an illegally overcrowded house (paying way below market-level rent), who illegally rides the subway without paying his fare, and who, when he gets sick, instead of going to the doctor and paying for his care, simply shows up at a hospital emergency room and freeloads off of paying Americans, can work for less than subsistence wages.

As economist Thomas Sowell has shown, illegals don’t even provide cheap lettuce.

Oddly enough, however, increasing numbers of illegal immigrants are doing quite well. The workers at IFCO Systems, the company that was raided by the feds in a propaganda op last month, were making $600-700 per week, better money than I ever made teaching college with a master’s degree.

That employers would hire illegals to even well-paying jobs is due to three factors: 1. The employers do not pay taxes or benefits for the illegals; 2. Illegals are seen as more pliable, diligent workers than Americans, especially compared to American blacks; and 3. A fashionable, socially acceptable hatred of the white American working class.

And yet, illegals do not contribute at all to “the economy.” They do better or worse for themselves – and since their mere existence in these United States is a crime, they don’t count – send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, which also does not count, and contribute to their bosses getting rich – who, because the latter are criminals, also don’t count. American businessmen-criminals, foreign illegals, and foreign economies, si. The American economy, no.

Illegal immigrants only contribute to the American economy in a parallel universe, in which what is good for Mexico and good for a lawless employer class is good for the United States.

So, what businesses were hurt by the illegal aliens’ strike? The same businesses that have made millions off the hiring of illegal aliens, or who profit indirectly from them. For instance, Home Depot indirectly profits off of the illegal aliens who loiter in front of its stores, because Home Depot’s customers use them as indentured servants. Those are the same businesses that expressed their support for the illegals’ boycott. Nowadays, self-righteous opportunists always seem in a hurry to express their impassioned support of crime and evil – while others must foot the bill.

Businesses hurt by the “boycott”? Cry me a river!

Dreams and Delusions

Unlike in 1940 France, America’s surrender will not take place over six weeks’ time. It has already been underway since circa 1970, and will require another thirty or so years to complete.

And yet, even if the invaders do win, their Reconquista will be a pyrrhic victory. Reconquistas’ revanchist wishes and dreams are synonymous with what they define among themselves as the true meaning of “bilingualism.” In this political fantasy, they assume that the whites and Asians whom they hate will remain in the states that the Reconquistas have taken over, and be forced to live as virtual slaves, with most of their income confiscated by the government and given to Hispanics. (In 1995-96, when I taught at “bilingual” Hostos Community College in The Bronx, a tenured activist professor had propaganda fliers explicitly promoting the above sense of “bilingualism” placed in our mailboxes. Reconquistas hold blacks in contempt, but know they can’t squeeze nearly as much out of them as they can out of whites. Interestingly, while blacks have for forty years looked down on Hispanics, while using them as political pawns, Hispanics presently seek to force that same subordinate role on blacks.)

It’ll never happen. For one thing, it’s economically impossible. The only way you can have lavish social welfare programs is if almost every able-bodied person is working at a well-paying, or at least decently-paying job, while very few people qualify for welfare programs. Otherwise, you end up in a vicious circle of increasing taxes, private sector de-investment and flight, a shrinking tax base, increasing illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and illiteracy, all leading to additional tax increases, leading to…

The other reason it won’t happen, is that whites and Asians will leave for states in the Northcentral and Northwest regions, which will then engage in their own immigration enforcement, the feds be damned. Thus will there be high-tax, high-crime, high-illegitimacy, low-education, predominantly brown states and predominantly white/Asian states with much lower tax rates and rates of social pathology. (Where will blacks live under the Reconquista? Beats me.) America might still exist on paper, but terms like “U.S.A.” would be meaningless, except to foreign postal services.

If we let the invaders and their Marxist and elite allies destroy America, they will ultimately turn certain states such as Texas and California into huge slums – like much of today’s Mexico and Central America – and thus expand the Third World. The American Dream will then be dead, and the Reconquista Dream will turn into just another Banana Republic nightmare.

But I'm not ready to surrender, are you? In future columns, I'll talk about what we can do to turn back the invaders.

There is still time to save America … but not much.

Technorati tags: immigration, boycott, illegal aliens, law, immigration reform, amnesty, media bias, politics, border, Mexico, terrorism and homeland security.

It's Lima Time!
By Nicholas Stix

“It’s Lima time tomorrow, so set your clocks ahead or back, depending on which Lima-time you’re in.”

Sports Net New York host Steve Berthiaume during Saturday’s Mets’ postgame show, on the team’s call-up of erratic, flaky, yet immensely likeable righthander Jose Lima to pitch Sunday’s game.

Due to an elbow problem, the Mets lost Victor Zambrano after four batters in Saturday’s game. And yet, with a patchwork of heroic relief pitchers led by Darren Oliver, and with Jorge Julio as an improbable closer in a nail-biting finish, they still managed to beat the Braves, 6-5, for a sweep of their three-game series. (With Zambrano’s history of early exits, it remains to be seen how long the Mets’ bullpen can survive bailing him out.) Meanwhile, rookie righthander Ryan Bannister is still on the DL with a pulled hamstring, and his replacement, John Maine, is out with an inflamed middle finger on his pitching hand, which makes it impossible for him to throw breaking balls – or to communicate with his fellow New Yorkers.

Lima, who is officially 33 years old, but looks about ten years older, has a history mixing dazzling seasons, such as 1999, when he won 21 games for Houston, with atrocious ones, such as 2000 in Houston, when he went 7-16, and last year in Kansas City, when he went 5-16 (with a 6.99 ERA!). He has not pitched for a major league club since 2004, when he went 13-5 for the Los Angeles Dodgers. His lifetime stats are 89-98 and 5.21, respectively, so the Mets had better wear body armor when they go out to their positions, since they could find themselves in the middle of a missile attack.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

NY Gov. Candidate Eliot Spitzer:
Vote for Me -- I Love Illegals!
by Nicholas Stix

On April 28, New York State Attorney General and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer decided to let the whole world knows how he feels about illegal immigrants, by issuing the following statement of support on the eve of the nationwide May 1 strike by illegal immigrant workers:


This Office has received inquiries about the legal obligations of employers to accommodate employees' requests to take time off to participate in activities scheduled for May1 recognizing the contributions of working immigrants to the national economy and local communities. Some businesses will be closing for the demonstrations, while others will remain open.

My office has received information that some employers are threatening to fire or take other action against employees who take time off for this purpose. There have been reports in the press that workers who attended previous demonstrations were fired solely for their attendance at those events.

Federal labor law protects every employee's right to engage in concerted activities for "mutual aid and protection," including calling for change in existing laws to improve working conditions. The courts have held that participation by employees in demonstrations and rallies like those planned for May 1 are protected activities under that provision.

Employers may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning, and employees must comply with those requirements. However, if adverse action, including discharge, is taken against employees solely because of their participation in these activities, the employer may be found to have violated the rights of those employees and could be subject to legal action.

Employers need to carefully consider what reasonable limitations on their employees' participation are truly necessary to the functioning of their businesses. Employers and employees are urged to cooperate to avoid violations of law.

Shame on AG Spitzer for demagoguing, lying about the law, abusing the powers of his office, and violating employers' legal right to fire workers who refused to show up for their regular shifts on May 1. The law in question was enacted to protect legal workers, not illegal immigrants. And the law did not give workers the right to skip work.

Even those workers who are legal, i.e., who are lawful permanent resident aliens (green card holders) or American citizens have no right to skip work to attend political demonstrations. Private employers may legally terminate any employee who skips work to attend a political demonstration, even if it is in support of unionization or labor-friendly laws. But of course, the demonstrations were a one-day strike, and had nothing to do with forming unions. In any event, illegal workers have no standing to engage in any of the activities protected by the law Spitzer cites.

Note how Spitzer contradicts himself in the following paragraph:

"Employers may impose reasonable requirements needed to keep their businesses functioning, and employees must comply with those requirements. However, if adverse action, including discharge, is taken against employees solely because of their participation in these activities, the employer may be found to have violated the rights of those employees and could be subject to legal action."

The second sentence contradicts the first. If an employee skips work to attend a strike demonstration, and his employer fires him, of course the latter fired the former "solely because of [his] participation in these activities." But the employer will not have broken any law, except in Spitzer's world of fantasy law. Unfortunately, we who live in the real world are increasingly the prisoners of political fantasists.

If Spitzer were right, the employees would be the bosses. Or rather, "immigrant" employees would be.

Since when can you refuse to show up for your shift at work? If you're an illegal alien, that's when. They can spit on the law, but the rest of us suckers (at least those of us who are white) must bear the full brunt of the law, enforced without mercy, should we so much as jaywalk. Spitzer not only has contempt for the rights of employers, but he crushes under foot the 14th Amendment's guarantee to citizens of equality under the law, as well as all civil rights, which are the rights due to citizens. He is in the business of disenfranchising American citizens, and transferring their rights and privileges to foreign invaders.

Since Spitzer even lies about his topic, in misrepresenting illegal immigrants as "immigrants," as if he were talking about lawful permanent resident aliens or even naturalized citizens, the self-righteous AG is telling lies within lies. As an officer of the court, Spitzer should be disbarred for such misconduct.

Has the phrase "honest prosecutor" become an oxymoron?

Spitzer has turned the law on its head. His statement closes, "Employers and employees are urged to cooperate to avoid violations of law." The entire point of his statement was to support criminality, and threaten to prosecute employers who exercise their legal prerogatives, so that he might gain the votes of illegal immigrants engaging in voter fraud, and of those voters who support illegals. In Spitzer's world, and the world of those voters whom he courts, the criminals are the good guys, and those who act within the law are the criminals.

Although I cannot support Spitzer's criminal abuse of the law, there is a certain two-wrongs-make-a-right poetic justice to his breaking the law on behalf of criminals, who were themselves hired by criminal-employers. In hiring illegal immigrants, employers made a deal with the Devil, and Eliot Spitzer has come to enforce the contract.

Technorati tags: immigration, boycott, illegal aliens, law, New York State,
immigration reform, amnesty,
politics, border, Mexico, terrorism and homeland security.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

The Book, Alien Nation, now available online in .pdf

  • Zebra: The True Account of 179 Days of Terror in San Francisco, by Clark Howard (free download!)
  • Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
  • Wikipedia Follies
  • A Different Drummer
  • Chicago Newspapers, the Blog
  • Archives