Marco Rubio’s Immigration Con

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ed Martin writes: To win in the 2010 Tea Party Wave, Rubio ran as the anti-amnesty candidate despite an aggressive pro-amnesty record. Politico reports:

“Arturo Vargas, the executive director for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles born in Miami, blocked ‘scorched-earth’ legislation that sought to clamp down on illegal immigration. ‘He, as speaker, kept many of those from coming up to a vote,’ Vargas said. ‘We were very proud of his work as speaker of the House.’

“In 2006, Rubio even voted for a bill that would have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay the same tuition rates at Florida colleges as residents. Vargas now says Rubio, the candidate, takes a more pointed, less nuanced tone as he stresses border enforcement and his opposition to amnesty. ‘He’s become your typical candidate in terms of playing to his primary election base…’”

Rubio used amnesty opposition to get elected before coming to Washington to push the biggest mass immigration / amnesty bill anyone had ever seen. He declared of Gov. Crist’s position that “an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty,” and that illegals seeking citizenship should “return to their homeland,” and that “if you grant amnesty as the governor proposes that we do, in any form, whether it’s the back of the line or so forth, you will destroy any chance we will ever have of having a legal immigration system that works here in America.”

THE DREAM ACT

When Rubio came to Washington he immediately began working on the DREAM Act he campaigned against. He staffed his office with several of the most pro-amnesty individuals in Washington (like Cesar Conda) and was limp to the point of lifeless in his response when the President nullified immigration law with the DREAMer executive amnesty.


Then came the Romney defeat. Billionaire donors and their pollsters declared that the GOP must pass an amnesty and mass immigration plan. Rubio then joined the Gang of Eight — whose members understood that Rubio would be able to sell their disastrous product to conservative media in a way they never could. Rubio is now cashing in his chits with the big money open-borders crowd. Or, as The Hill put it: ”A group of Republican fundraising heavyweights and wise men in Washington’s business community are solidly behind Rubio, and see him not only as someone who could win the White House, but someone they can work with.”

LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA

Rubio’s repeatedly stated reason for joining the Gang was to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate; the reality, however, was that Rubio sold Republican lawmakers on a bill radically to the left of McCain-Kennedy: a bill that granted instant legalization, doubled annual foreign worker admissions (a much larger increase than McCain-Kennedy), issued 30 million green cards, provided mass amnesty, expedited citizenship for DREAMers without an age cap, removed the limits on family-based migration, etc., etc. Rubio’s bill was supported by every single Senate Democrat, every single liberal house lawmaker, every progressive politician and group in the country, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, Harry Reid, La Raza, Center for American Progress, George Soros, and on and on. Of course the White House was the biggest champion.

Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him. His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He declared: “if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: “you are meeting everybody honestly.”

Rubio told Hannity, on his media tour, that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.

Some of the most-repeated untruths flatly ignored the most basic features of the bill. For instance, in explaining his endorsement of Rubio’s product, Bill O’Reilly said: “Senator Rubio told me on the phone today that it would be at least 13 years, 13, before people in the country illegally right now could gain full legal working status and even longer to achieve citizenship.” In actuality, they gain legal working status the moment the bill is enacted, and the citizenship provisions begin in 5 years, starting with the DREAMers (who will then be able to get green cards for their foreign relatives).

Rubio pledged in an ABC news interview: “We are going to get the toughest enforcement measures in the history of this country.” When the bill was introduced, Rubio put out a fact-check — and linked up with donors to run ads to the same effect — which declared Schumer’s plan to be “THE TOUGHEST BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN IN U.S. HISTORY.” And people believed him.

As the Washington Times reported:

“Mr. Rubio’s main public role in the debate wasn’t about amendments or specifics; it was about selling the measure to a skeptical conservative electorate. As a face of the 2010 tea party revolution, Mr. Rubio had the kind of lingering good will that gave him the opening Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and another key bill author, had long since squandered with much of their party.

“Mr. Rubio’s office said he averaged three or four cable television news appearances a week, appeared on every major nationally syndicated talk radio program — often more than once — and visited smaller shows, too.

“He set what pundits said was a record by doing seven Sunday political talk shows the same weekend in April — all five English-language shows and two Spanish-language programs. Mr. Rubio also did four or five Spanish-language interviews a week during the immigration debate.”

When people started discovering how the bill violated every one of his promises, Rubio would just insist — without evidence, without page numbers, without citations — that charges were untrue. For instance: “In an interview with Ted Cruz, Mark Levin revealed that Rubio texted him about an hour before this interview and told him that what he is saying about the Senate immigration bill is not accurate. He told Cruz that Rubio flat out denies that Napolitano can ignore portions of the bill due to waivers and he asks Cruz if that is correct.”

And yet, to this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.

BACK TAXES AND BACKGROUND CHECKS

Rubio said, often and repeatedly, (and does to this day in pitching his immigration plans) that illegals would have to “pay taxes and undergo a background check.” As we know now from the executive amnesty, there is no such thing as “back taxes,” for illegal immigrants as most have no net tax liability. Giving illegals Social Security numbers and the ability to collect tax credits represents a huge net cost to taxpayers, whereby the IRS mails illegal immigrants thousands of dollars in free benefits. Those granted amnesty under the plan became immediately eligible for ACTC and EITC. Amendments to actually require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes were defeated in the committee.

As for background checks, his bill allows the Secretary to grant amnesty to serious criminals including known gang members; those with convictions for serious crimes such as drug trafficking, sexual abuse, prostitution; those with any type of arrest record; fugitives from deportation orders and those who have been deported — for any reason — and are no longer in the country, or have illegally re-entered after being deported.

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION

One of the big jokes in the behemoth bill was that the pointless enforcement mechanisms were all at the discretion of the Administration. Rubio explained: “the security triggers are not left at the discretion of politicians with agendas. Real measurable results must be achieved, and politicians cannot override them.” As it was, this whole thing was happening in a post-executive amnesty environment. But the bill drastically expanded executive discretion beyond imagination. In fact, Rubio’s immigration bill — designed by open borders advocates to end immigration law enforcement — had more waivers per page than Obamacare!

WE’LL FIX THE BILL

When criticism reached a point Rubio could not easily paper over, he adopted a new tactic: promising to fix the bill before it passed. In a closed-door House meeting, Rubio pledged to conservative lawmakers that he would oppose the bill unless it was fixed. As ABC wrote: “now that he’s hearing serious resistance to the bill from his fellow conservatives, he’s threatening to vote ‘no’ on the very bill he helped write unless changes are made to strengthen the border security provisions.” Washington Post wrote: “Rubio’s been saying for weeks that he can’t support the bill in its current form.” Rubio even launched a page on his website, saying: “submit your ideas below, on ways we can improve” the bill.

He even published a WSJ op-ed which began with this sentence: “intense public scrutiny has helped identify shortcomings and unintended consequences that need to be addressed.”


This was the new tactic: every time someone has a concern, just tell them it will get fixed in committee or on the floor. Consider this question from Sean Hannity: “Are you telling conservatives then to be patient with you? That the bill is not finished and maybe they’ve read too much into it too early?”

But this was another ruse: the Gang of Eight was working together to ensure no real changes were ever made to the bill.

The Washington Post reported: “the eight met in private before each committee hearing, hashing out which amendments they would support and which oppose as a united coalition. Senate aides said amendments were rejected if either side felt they would shatter the deal.” Politico reported: “During the Judiciary Committee markup in May, the Gang routinely met to decide which amendments they would support or oppose. In one meeting, the Senators thought they had all agreed to defeat a proposal from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to require a biometric exit and entry at points of entry before undocumented immigrants could secure green cards, according to one Senate Democratic aide.” A hot mic confirmed it to the whole world: “A hot microphone caught Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) coordinating which way members of the ‘Gang of Eight’ who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee would vote on immigration bill amendments… ‘Do our Republicans have a pass on this one if they want?’ the microphone caught Schumer saying.” What Schumer was referring to was that the bill — written with special interests like the Chamber of Commerce and La Raza — was to be protected from any amendment that advanced an interest other than those signed off on by these outside groups. The writing of the bill, in many major respects, was outsourced to industry groups.

When the bill came to the floor — before Reid completely shut down the amendment process — Rubio joined the entire Gang of Eight in voting down an amendment to require completion of the entry-exit tracking system and the border fence before the amnesty. Rubio even voted down Chairman Grassley’s amendment to require enforcement first — again, keeping with his private deal to protect the amnesty at all costs.

Reid then shut off all amendments and the Gang of Eight famously filed a new 1,200-page substitute bill — worse than original — and invoked cloture, ending all amendment and ensuring a final vote before anyone could read it. This broke Rubio’s other promise: “Sen. Rubio has said he would not support this legislation if it was rushed through.”

The final product surely was one of the worst bills mashed together in the history of legislation itself.

THE MERIT-BASED MYTH

One of Rubio’s constant selling points for the bill was that it transformed our immigration system from family-based to merit-based. He said this over and over. In many respects, it was one of the biggest deceptions of all. The bill issued approximately 33 million green cards in ten years. At an absolute maximum, under the bill, 2.5 million of those green cards would be issued on a merit basis (the merit-based section covered 120,000-250,000 visas a year). But it gets worse: even within the merit-system, it favors low-skilled and family-based immigrants. For instance: the foreign sibling of a U.S. citizen with no education would receive 10 points; an alien with a bachelor’s degree would receive five points. An alien from a country with low immigration rates to the U.S. with no education would receive the same five points as well.

And it gets worse still — despite making the “merit-based” system one of his central selling points, the bill substantially increased chain migration by allowing for an unlimited number of visas for children and spouses of green card holders (including all illegal aliens given green cards), leaving intact the unlimited visas for the parents of citizens (including for illegals, beginning with adult DREAMers parents, spouses and children in the first 5 years), and clearing the so-called backlog of 5 million immigrants (mostly low-skilled and family-based) with surplus applications to enter the U.S. beyond existing annual limits.

As the liberal Migration Policy Institute explained: “the Senate bill would lift numerical limits and increase the number of permanent visas issued on the basis of nuclear family ties… [and] would dramatically expand options for low- and middle-skilled foreign workers to fill year-round, longer-term jobs and ultimately qualify for permanent residence.” The Center for American Progress crowed that the family-based system would be three times larger than the merit-based system under the new plan (not even counting the amnesty).

Yet Rubio’s office claimed that: “Those given legal status will not be able to use chain migration or anything else to bring family members into the U.S.” This statement defies comprehension. Under current law, illegals cannot legally bring a single relative to the United States. Under Rubio’s plan, they are given green cards and made citizens, guaranteeing them the right to bring relatives to the United States. And the bill goes further, expanding dramatically the way that green card holders — including every single amnestied illegal — can bring their relatives to the United States.

“THE SIZE OF THE FUTURE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE IMPACTED”

One of the more extraordinary claims Rubio made was that the immigration bill would not increase (the already-record) rate of immigration into the United States. Rubio’s office put out a fact-check declaring: “the size of the future population of the United States will not be significantly impacted by this legislation.” Nevermind that CBO, Migration Policy Institute, NumbersUSA, Center For Immigration Studies, and Senator Sessions’ office all painstakingly documented the massive immigration increases in the bill.

Under the bill, had it been enacted in 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population would eclipse every known historical record by 2022. The total number of green cards issued would have tripled. Based on CBO data, the foreign-born population from outside the U.S. (not counting illegals inside the U.S. granted amnesty) would have grown 24 million in just a ten-year time frame. To put all that in perspective, during the first full decade of Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law, less than 5 million new immigrants were issued green cards.

But Rubio never discussed any of this openly. Instead he relied on vague euphemisms: saying his goal was “modernizing the legal immigration system to meet America’s 21st-century economic needs for both highly skilled talent and guest workers to fill labor shortages.”

Rubio’s entire career rests on the fact that no one will question his syrupy scripted bites and homeroom-president style rehearsed speeches.

NO WELFARE

To the end, Rubio declared that there would be no welfare allowed to illegals, and this was featured in a prominent ad on TV throughout the debate. For example, Rubio said: “And then they don’t qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare.” The rebuttal here is short: every illegal immigrant given a green card gains automatic, guaranteed access to federal welfare, every illegal alien given a work permit gains access to tax credits, and every illegal immigrant made a citizen gains access to everything. In the interim, the bill allows illegals to claim generous state and local benefits (along with federal tax credits). The benefits cost for the amnesty population would run into the trillions.

DECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT

Senator Rubio met with corporate interests to craft the Gang of Eight plan but not America’s ICE officers. Eventually, right before the bill was dropped, Rubio finally did meet with the ICE Officers’ President Chris Crane and promised him he would “fix the bill.” But Rubio did no such thing — in fact he made things worse — not better — for ICE, and Crane was livid. The bill would have permanently destroyed immigration enforcement while legalizing dangerous aliens and exposing citizens to a rash of crime that could otherwise be stopped in its tracks. Crane issued a press release which said:

“Senator Rubio, who promised ICE officers and Sheriffs that he would take steps to repair the bill’s provisions that gut interior enforcement, has abandoned that commitment. He directly misled law enforcement officers. Senator Rubio left unchanged legislative provisions that he himself admitted to us in private were detrimental, flawed and must be changed. Legislation written behind closed doors by handpicked special interest groups which put their political agendas and financial gains before sound and effective law and the welfare and safety of the American public. As a result, the 1,200-page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Gang of Eight members on the Judiciary committee killed an amendment that would have stripped the amnesty-for-gang-members provision in the bill — i.e. a simple amendment to deny amnesty to gang members was defeated, ensuring that Rubio’s bill would allow illegal immigrant gang members to become citizens and bring their relatives to join them in the United States.

Rubio, during his time as Florida Speaker, also let a bill die to block sanctuary cities — and Miami is one of the biggest sanctuary cities in the country.

Revealing Rubio’s character, it is also worth recalling that during his introduction press conference, Rubio stood frozen like a statue as ICE officer, council President, and former Marine Chris Crane was removed from the room for trying to ask a question. Shameful. Crane would later testify: “Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight.”

AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT

In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss. They explained: “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.”

Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.

FIANCÉ VISAS

Rubio’s bill opened the floodgates for fiancé visas — and fiancé children — an unprecedented security risk and another handout to the foreign immigration lobby.

DIFFERENT MESSAGE FOR SPANISH MEDIA

At the same time Rubio was pledging to conservatives his bill was enforcement first, Rubio had a different message in Spanish media. As Byron York reported:

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

“As for the legalization, the enormous majority of my colleagues have accepted that it has to happen and that it has to begin at the same time we begin the measures for [the border],” Rubio said. “It is not conditional. The legalization is not conditional.”

Of course, this presentation to Spanish media was accurate: the bill conferred immediate legal status on illegal immigrants that included work authorization, federal benefits, the ability to travel in and out of the country, immunity from deportation the second the bill was passed, and a path to citizenship.

Caught in the contradiction, Rubio had a new explanation for conservatives. Byron York writes again:

“Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.

“‘We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,’ Rubio explained. ‘If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.’”

Then Hannity did another interview. Highlights:

Fox News’ Sean Hannity: “You said in a Univision interview, Senator, that got a lot of play and a lot of anger among conservatives, you said ‘legalization is going to happen. First comes legalization, then comes measures to secure the border.’ Is that the priority? Shouldn’t it be secure the border first?”

Rubio: “Well, first of all, that’s not what the bill does. How the bill works is, permanent residency, which is the ability to stay in the country permanently and one day even apply for citizenship, for that to happen, E-Verify has to happen…”

Hannity: “Can I just get you to maybe reiterate — just because there’s been so much debate about this — you’re saying that you’re pretty confident tomorrow that the border will be secure first, with triggers, before there’s any path to legalization?”

Rubio: “Before there’s any path to permanent residency.”

—

Hannity: “Senator, I think a lot of people were surprised that — in previous interviews that I had with you — you said that you’d secure the border first, but a number of amendments have been voted on that would do just that, a couple yesterday, and you voted against them.”

Rubio: “The reason why Sean, is that I think the proposals need to go even further.”

Yet Rubio’s website still touted (and touts): “The most important thing that happens on day one is that the toughest border security and enforcement plan in American history will be the law of the land. Those who came here illegally after the December 31, 2011 cut-off date will be deported.” (How he was going to get President Obama to deport every illegal who arrived after 2011 was not clear.)

“WHITE HOUSE OFFERS STEALTH CAMPAIGN TO SUPPORT IMMIGRATION BILL”

Part of the song and dance show was the White House agreed not to publicly push the bill too loudly while Rubio was trying to sell it to conservative media. Of course, the White House knew they made out like bandits with the bill.

About a week before passage, the NYT ran an article entitled “White House offers stealth campaign to support immigration bill.” What Rubio never told anyone — what to this day he has never been asked about — is that the White House was running the show in the Senate. The NYT explained:

“The hide-out has no sign on the door, but inside Dirksen 201 is a spare suite of offices the White House has transformed into its covert immigration war room on Capitol Hill.

“Strategically located down the hall from the Senate Judiciary Committee in one of the city’s massive Congressional office buildings, the work space normally reserved for the vice president is now the hub of a stealthy legislative operation run by President Obama’s staff. Their goal is to quietly secure passage of the first immigration overhaul in a quarter century.

“‘We are trying hard not to be heavy handed about what we are doing,’ said Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and the president’s point person on immigration.” [and former VP of La Raza]

REFUGEES:

Rubio’s bill included language giving the President unprecedented power to expand refugee resettlement.

IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT:
Rubio’s lawyer who wrote the bill also enriched his clients through it.

RUBIO REVERTS AGAIN TO PASS THE BILL

Having done his best to delay and defer conservative criticism with one misdirection after the other, Rubio returned to his original pitch to pass the now 1,200-page monstrosity — filled with giveaways for the most powerful corporate interests on the planet — declaring once again: “The proposal mandates the most ambitious border and interior security measures in our nation’s history.”

Rubio’s pledges to “fix the bill” — were of course hollow. Again, the Washington Times writes:

“Heading into the debate, Mr. Rubio said he wanted significant changes, including to border security, to the entry-exit system to check visitors’ visas, and to the requirement that newly legalized immigrants show they have learned English before they earn green cards.

“Mr. Rubio called the English-language loophole ‘one of the bill’s shortcomings’ and vowed to fix it, and even wrote an amendment to require immigrants to prove English skills, rather than merely sign up for classes, which under the bill is considered acceptable.

“The Senate never considered that, nor Mr. Rubio’s other amendment to modify eligibility for the Dream Act.

“The Senate also ignored the list of nearly two-dozen changes Mr. Rubio’s office floated ahead of the debate in a three-page document designed to point out potential flaws and solutions to the bill.”

National Review wrote: “It is painful to watch Marco Rubio’s maneuverings on immigration. He is refusing to say whether he will vote “yes” on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending, and helping shepherd it to the floor. He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States” (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95-96 percent perfect.” Again: National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.

Of course, in the end, Rubio voted for it, ignoring every prior commitment and promise that he made.

Here is what the head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, representing 12,000 USCIS employees, had to say about the final version of the bill as adopted:

“The amended 1,200-page immigration bill, if passed, will exacerbate USCIS concerns about threats to national security and public safety… It will allow immigrants to break the law in the future and still be eligible for citizenship, as it absolves prospective behavior, not simply past mistakes. It will do away with the applicability of certain grounds of inadmissibility as contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It will wipe away the enforcement process that compels law breakers who overstay their visas to return to their home country and restart the immigration process. This bill rewards immigrants who break the law, more so than the prior bill proposed by the Gang of Eight…It was deliberately designed to undermine the integrity of our lawful immigration system. This bill should be opposed and reforms should be offered based on consultation with the USCIS adjudicators who actually have to implement it. Hopefully, lawmakers will read the bill before casting their votes. I say put a cork in it.”

As the ICE Officers’ Council intoned about the final 1,200-page substitute bill:

“[The bill] became a wish list for special interest groups representing and profiting from illegal immigrants. Regretfully, the months of talking points by the Gang of Eight do not accurately reflect the content of this bill… Instead of empowering ICE agents to enforce the law, this legislation empowers political appointees to further violate the law and unilaterally stop enforcement…Far from fixing the bill, the [substitute bill] makes it worse… the 1,200-page substitute bill before the Senate will provide instant legalization and a path to citizenship to gang members and other dangerous criminal aliens, and handcuff ICE officers from enforcing immigration laws in the future…”

Or, as Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol put it in a joint op-ed: “[The Gang of Eight] bill, passed out of the Senate, is a comprehensive mistake. House Republicans should kill it without reservation… House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”

BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS

Running for President, Rubio now continues to deliver different messages for different audiences. Asked by Hannity about executive amnesty he said: “absolutely, that would be reversed,” under his presidency. Simple enough, right? Well, not so fast. Here is what he told Jorge Ramos: “DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.” So, Rubio’s message for Spanish media is that an illegal unconstitutional amnesty which provides work permits, tax credits, Social Security and Medicare to illegal immigrants will remain in place until a legislated amnesty takes its place, “God Willing.” So the voters don’t get a say: they’ve defeated the DREAM Act legislation over and again, but Rubio is saying: you only get two choices, an unconstitutional executive amnesty for DREAMers or you can make them citizens under the DREAM Act. President Obama says the same thing.

And what about border security first? Another continuing lie. Breitbart writes: “The chief spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an on-record interview with Breitbart News that the senator, if elected president, would not require a secured border before he gives legislative and permanent amnesty to recipients of President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program… ‘I mean when we were working on the 2012 bill, that was independent of the border,’ Conant said. ‘These are the kids that already — I mean, the kids are in a very unique situation because they didn’t willingly break the law.’”

Rubio continues to talk about modernizing our immigration system to make it “merit-based” without ever being called out on the fact that his idea of merit-based is 30 million green cards to mostly low-skilled foreign workers. And, he is the lead sponsor of legislation to triple H-1Bs and have functionally unlimited foreign hiring through universities — which translates to a huge green card increase sold to foreign nationals by college and universities with no accountability. And, just like his old Gang of Eight days, he’s pretending his foreign worker surge (of course he never admits it’s that, but uses the same misleading language as always) would help workers while his new bill — a legislative creature developed by technology tycoons for their benefit — would destroy them. The public vehemently repudiates a foreign worker surge, perhaps why Senator Rubio doesn’t mention that’s what his plan does.

Rubio also refuses to say whether he’d sign his own Gang of Eight bill into law if he were President (since, after all, he loses McCain’s 2010 Senate Campaign “trust” argument if he, not Obama, is President).

Rubio is also the only candidate in the race still advocating citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and all that necessarily entails in terms of fiscal costs and chain migration. (Jeb’s book did not call for universal citizenship, like Rubio.) To this day, Rubio has not backed off a single policy in the Gang of Eight bill (see more here).

Rubio has also backed the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States and OPPOSED efforts by conservatives to strip funding for refugees. And his new I-Squared bill — backed by his top tech donors like Larry Ellison — would massively expand Muslim immigration without limit. He has also called Muslim immigration a constitutional right.

Perhaps the single most telling fact is who reportedly joined Rubio’s campaign team as staff or advisor: the exact same team that brought you the Gang of Eight bill: the same attorney who wrote it (Enrique Gonzalez), the same communications staffers who sold it, the same Senate Chief of Staff who helped dream it all up (Cesar Conda) and, most importantly, the campaign strategist more associated with mass immigration than any consultant in America (Whit Ayres).

The open-borders donors, like Paul Singer, know exactly what they are buying with Senator Rubio. They are in on the con, and their mark is America.

CONCLUSION

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, John McCain or Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.

The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.

The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill. Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan. Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).

All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration. Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.

Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Marco Rubio’s Immigration Con

Steve Sailer: What Gremlins 2 Reveals About The Presidential Race

Posted on February 7, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

A 26-year-old movie that offers a surprisingly direct insight into dynamics of the Republican nomination race is Joe Dante’s 1990 horror comedy sequel Gremlins 2: The Next Batch. I recall it as being pretty funny, especially the publicity hound billionaire Daniel Clamp, owner of Clamp Center. The moviemakers started off intending Clamp to be the deplorable bad guy, but he winds up helping the kids from the original movie save the day.

Dante told Lou Lumenick of the New York Post recently:

“It was pretty obvious from the name who we were talking about,” says Dante, “though Clamp is also part Ted Turner, since he runs a cable empire as well. Clamp was originally supposed to be the megalomaniac villain of the piece, but he was so oddly endearing, he ended up becoming a semi-heroic figure.”

Comments:

* I actually walked into Donald Trump while leaving a Knicks playoff game in 1994. Madison Square Garden has these strange attached doorways that dump people directly into one another as you exit. We physically knocked into each other as he has escorting his kids to his limo. I expected to be given a nasty look or told to watch it. Instead, he apologized to me and laughed. This comports with other stories I’ve heard over the years. He paid off some guy’s mortgage when the guy helped his mom’s disable car. Also, my friend, who was an auditor of the Trump organization often crossed paths with him. He said he was pretty much down to earth. From what I hear, DJT treats his employee very well. He is no Leona Helmsley.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: What Gremlins 2 Reveals About The Presidential Race

Similarities Between Traditional Conservatives And Feminists

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).

So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?

  • Pussy pedestalization

That’s one. Feminists and (some) tradcons reflexively defer to the contradictory premises that female entitlement both a. doesn’t exist and b. must be catered to at all times.

  • Sexual desire uniformity

Tradcons, like feminists, wrongly assume men and women share reproductive goals, or that the triggers and the expression of their desires are similar. They are not.

  • Sinful male sexuality

Tradcons, like feminists, express a wanton cruelty toward male sexuality, never missing a chance to pathologize it. Where it really shows is in their hate for sex differences in attraction and arousal, which they dismiss by denying the biocentrality of visual stimulus and mate variety to male sexuality. Or, if they don’t deny those things, they demonstrate their contempt of male sexuality by deriding its emotional and sensate power over men, and belittling men who “can’t control” their natural urges.

  • Denial of female hypergamy

Female hypergamy is real, (and different in kind from male mate choice motivations). Maybe tradcons are upset by the science-y terminology. That’s another deficiency they share with feminists. If it helps them get over their anxiety about being mistaken for an autistic, they could call it “dating up”.

  • Denial of depraved female sexuality

No one in the “Sex Pill” community argues that male sexuality can’t be depraved. Gang bangs, facials, and homosex come to mind. But tradcons, like feminists, have a peculiar habit of denying the facets of female sexuality that tend toward depravity and darkness. For instance, female rape victims often go on to have consensual sex relationships with their rapists. And, oh yeah, there are all those coercive rape fantasies women indulge.

Similarly, tradcons (maybe not so much as feminists) tend to overestimate women’s inclination toward faithful monogamy. Studies consistently show women are less monogamous than tradcons assume and more monogamous than men as a sex.

  • Denigration of male sexuality as “entitlement”

Tradcons, like feminists, have a hysterical hatred of men trying to improve their romantic fortunes. They slander normal male desire for a quality dating life as entitlement, when it’s nothing of the sort. (Entitlement is the feeling one is owed something for nothing; most men who want to get better girls know that they have to put in the effort commensurate with the quality of girl they’re aiming for.)

The entitlement slur is one of the more toxic tradcon smears against men. The tradcon mercilessly mocks the man who strives for a cuter girlfriend, but lavishes praise on the woman who screens for Mr. Right. Self-discrediting.

  • Belief that marriage is an equal sacrifice

Tradcons, like feminists, want to believe that women sacrifice as much as, or more than, men do when deciding to marry. Not true. Men must tacitly renounce the heart of their natural, God-given sexuality to marry; women don’t. Women have a greater disposition for monogamy than do men, and a weaker urge for sexual variety and profligacy. Marriage is therefore an easier transition for women to make than it is for men to make. This sex discrepancy in monogamous marriage sacrifice demands an array of legal and informal cultural recompense for married men. (This recompense can take form in big and small ways; e.g., “king of the castle” privileges, wife taking his name, etc.)

Btw, Tolkien and CH are on the same page about men and their greater marriage sacrifice:

tolkienmonogamy

  • False equivalence between male and female cheating

Tradcons, like feminists, abhor sex-based “double standards”, refusing to accept that double standards are a fact of life when the species in question is sexually reproducing. Tradcons love to lump male and female cheating under one umbrella of equal awfulness, but the comparison deserves more nuance than that. One, female cheating can result in pregnancy (especially true before the Pill and latex condom, which was the environment humanity evolved in for most of its history). A cheating wife impregnated by her dalliance was a serious cuckold risk to her husband. The same cannot be said of a cheating husband.

Two, when women cheat, they tend to hypergamously cheat, (they turn the sex spigot off to their husbands). Men cheat in the harem-building style, mostly for physical pleasure (as opposed to the yearning for romance typical of cheating wives), and often retain love for their wives even during the times of their extramarital trysts.

***

My evidence for tradcon resemblance to dumbfuck feminists comes from reading what a lot of them who are normally straight thinkers on a number of hot button topics have to say about sex, love and women. I don’t attack all tradcons, but I do note there are quite a few of them who are as dumb about sex as shitlibs are about race.

(This is a good point to remind tradcons that one can be both clear-eyed about innate sex differences in desire AND about the importance of monogamy/marriage to Western Civ.)

The reflexive tradcon white knighting for the female sex finds its source in the same place all people tap when considering the lamentations of the women. It all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the reproductively more valuable sex (by order of the cosmic overlord), and this eternal truth explains innumerable societal phenomena related to the instinctive urge by both men and women to favor women’s concerns at the expense of men’s concerns.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on Similarities Between Traditional Conservatives And Feminists

Discussing The Republican Debate & Will The Super Bowl Turn Into A Race War?

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Have you seen ESPN trying to make the Super Bowl into a race war?

On the ticker last night, they conducted a “fan poll” seeing whether Cam Newton is disliked because of his race.

A couple days before I saw Newton in a press conference, he says he doesn’t want to talk about race, that he was misunderstood. And the sportswriters won’t stop talking about it!! Why? Isn’t it a big issue?!? Don’t you think there are still stereotypes about black quarterbacks?!? They were really treating him like a child unable to understand how truly important all this stuff is.

Never mind that the “criticism” of Cam Newton is never attached to names of actual people, except one unfortunate women who wrote a letter to a newspaper. Journalists literally imagine criticism, then they literally imagine that this criticism must be about race. I hate these jock sniffing losers. The sports media is like the regular media, just much stupider.

There is a market need for a right wing sports media.

* Christie has been giving Rubio a good old Jersey style beat down. I am no fan of Christie, but he is refreshingly gruff and successfully brought the Establishment’s current candidate down a notch.

* Surgeon delicately yet effectively cut open Snake Oil Salesman, Fat Man nuked Little (bubble) Boy, and Donald can just look on and let his competitors tear each other apart.

* Peyton Manning has looked like a 39 year old quarterback this season, and he knows it. All indications are that this Super Bowl will be his last game.

Thing is, when an athlete gets old, it’s not as if he goes out there and stinks out the joint all season. Rather, he starts having a lot more bad weeks. He’s still capable of throwing for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns. Unfortunately, he’s equally capable of going 8-20 for 120 yards with 3 picks.

That’s where Peyton Manning is now. It’s also where John Elway was in his last season. Old Elway was over the hill, but still capable of playing great games. He had one of his best games ever in that Super Bowl against the Falcons.

Manning may be awful tomorrow, but it’s not at all unlikely that he’ll have one last great game in him and retire a champion, as Elway did.

* The “Unforgivable Camness” meme was so totally contrived and pre-fab that even their own contract radio hosts (ESPN) seemed to be doing it by rote and with mock theatrical concern by the end of the week: “Top of the 2nd hour, a divided nation asks for the umpteenth time whether black QBs should be outlawed” It just shows what happens when you try to construct a 24-hour highlights + filler channel 50% produced & staffed by gay men from the Walt Disney Corporation. I almost miss Olbermann now.

* About half of typical football games are unpredictable – as even Colin Cowherd understands, there are about fifty non-QB guys who make it on to the field who have a one in hundred shot of changing the outcome of the game. That being said, when you talk about QB v QB, you are basically talking about those one third to one half of postseason games where the outcome is decided by Quarterback A and his caddies (the other 10 guys on the field) having a better day than Quarterback B and his caddies. If you are a Broncos fan, you either hope that poor young Peyton has been saving up his best moments for tomorrow, or that this is not a Quarterback A and his caddies versus Quarterback B and his caddies game (Redskins and Ravens and Bucs and Bears(? ) have all won on the let-the-caddies-win-it strategy, and Elway has surprised me before, but I don’t think he has the football wisdom to prepare a team for that strategy). After all he fired Tebow after Tebow showed he knew how to win in the postseason with an otherwise mediocre team.

* Even though, if I were a betting man, I’d definitely put my money on Carolina, they are certainly getting overrated. Hardly anyone adequately accounts for the small sample size and differences in scheduling that complicate NFL analysis. It’s difficult to convey how weak Carolina’s schedule was. Softest in the league, bar none. They played exactly 4 teams with winning records in the regular season, including Houston and Washington, neither or whom would’ve managed their mediocre 9-7 records were they not playing in the two worst divisions in the NFL. And they beat Green Bay the week after they were brutally exposed by Denver and started their massive slide. The Panthers played very well in the playoffs, no doubt about it, but building up the huge leads they did was fluky, with 7 mostly unforced turnovers from Arizona and two huge early plays digging Seattle into an enormous hole. Carolina is the best team of the 3, but the games playing out that lopsidedly was surely anomalous.

People are also surely overestimating how much Newton has improved. Examining his numbers it’s hard not to note that there’s a massive increase in the TD passes while most everything else remains about the same. (He has cut the picks a bit, too.) Did he suddenly develop some magical touchdownability while not changing otherwise? Or is it that Carolina had a very good defense, an incredibly soft schedule and an unsustainably positive turnover ratio that combined with a modest improvement in passing ability to result in a dramatic numerical improvement? It’s much like how Manning had two huge TD seasons where he got 49 and 55, whereas for the overwhelming majority of his career he got somewhere in the high 20s to low 30s. He was better in those seasons than the others, sure, but the difference isn’t nearly as dramatic the TD totals would suggest. It’s just a relatively small number that is more readily influenced by other factors and randomness than most other statistics. I’m confident Newton will regress somewhat next year, at least in terms of TDs and passer ratings, as the increase in the latter was largely a result of the increase in the former. I’d still expect it’ll be his best season yet other than this one, though.

That said, the Denver offense simply stinks. Carolina aren’t the juggernaut they are now being portrayed as, but Denver are shockingly mediocre for a Super Bowl team. They played a fairly tough schedule but virtually everything was a squeaker. Combine this with Dalton breaking his thumb, a bunch of Pats/Steelers injuries, Indy in the toilet and a generally weak AFC and then you have Denver with home field. I can still see them winning. I’d give them maybe a 35% chance, to pick a way too specific number. The defense is really goddamn good, especially when you consider how the offense consistently left them out to dry. Manning has cleaned up the picks the last few games, and had a few quality performances mixed in with the generally abysmal year. Maybe he’ll have another good one tomorrow . . . But probably not.

* You get him off his talking points, and as Christie said, things get ugly. You can see why Cruz went to Harvard, Christie as able to be a federal prosecutor, and Rubio went to a TTT school.

* Forget Peyton vs. Cam, its Wade vs Mike. Wasn’t Wade Phillips today made Assistant Coach of the Year? Beating out Carolina’s Mike Shula?

I expect Peyton to be a better QB during the Superbowl, absent being a big hole early, than Newton. Peyton is suited to Phillips ferocious defense, being a game manager at his age and ability level.

I figure Denver will cover deep, rush Newton, the Panther’s principal running weapon, and try and strip the ball every time, and win more than a few of those opportunities — Newton does not protect the ball well. Then make Newton do the thing he does NOT do well — make the soft pass to the sidelines for a first down; gambling that his inability to make the touch pass as a function of just not practicing it very much will continue in the game under pressure.

The NFL certainly WANTS Newton as the face of the NFL; first off he’s Black and that plays to the PC crowd and a non trivial portion of the White female audience (and that’s just a fact, sadly, see Kardashian, Kim, Trash Princess); but more importantly Newton types are cheap.

Paying a QB like Manning say, $10 million a year for ten years guaranteed or very nearly is expensive (in his prime). Paying a disposable running QB about half that for five years, disposing of him when he does suffer catastrophic knee injuries (Robert Griffin III, Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, and Donovan McNabb all come to mind) is a lot cheaper.

The only “running” QBs who were successful long term were Warren Moon and Bret Favre, and they were scramblers trying to gain time for one last throw. They didn’t run downhill like Newton does. Newton is a bull now, get back to me in three years when the injuries pile up.

As Coach Brian Billick said, there are not 32 men on the earth who can play QB in the NFL, properly.

Manning’s weaknesses are physical limitations, lack of arm strength to consistently stretch the field. Against that he studies constantly for defensive tendencies and has great focus. Newton is a showboat, has failed to lead comebacks all season, gets distracted, does not study the defense, and relies like many if not most Black athletes on pure athletic ability and not film study and game plans to win matchups.

Yeah Wade Phillips did not work out in the Jerry Jones circus — who has? But I figure he’s learned a thing or two and has the more coachable defense vs. Shula having to dial down Newton, who is liable to be caught showboating by a cagey defense.

Put it this way — Manning has been no doubt studying film of his debacle against Seattle for two years; and film of Carolina’s D for two weeks. Newton has likely been at every single party. We will get an answer if all it takes is raw athleticism of one individual or if football is still a team game not basketball.

* Rubio really is not very bright. He seems to have coasted through his career through looks and affability. You can tell why he hasn’t had any real jobs outside the sponsorship of that billionaire car dealer.

* Jeb! has had his mother campaigning for him in NH, and is having his older brother campaigning for him in SC.

Notice, that he seldom ever has his wife campaigning on her own for him in say, FL or even in NH? Why his mother? He just looks like the “low energy” beta having to have his mommy by his side “please vote for my boy, please, please.”

Another thing: Notice, at each of the debates you seldom see the cameras showing Jeb! with his wife. Wonder why? In other words, you see most of the other candidates with their families and wives prominently displayed. Melania, obviously, you can’t miss her she’s front and center and the cameras always make sure to highlight her. People magazine just did a front page article interviewing her on life with the Donald. A puff piece to be sure, but it does bear asking the question: How come Columba is never prominently displayed with Jeb! on the stage OR that she is never asked direct questions (in English) about the candidate, or even puff pieces about the campaign?

Why is Jeb! hiding her? We see Barbara and W, but not Columba.

Wonder why? Why is Jeb! hiding her? What is ashamed of?

* Kaus called it Marcodammerrung. James Fallows said it was the worst debate performances since Quayle in ’88.

* She’s never on stage with Jeb! post-debate. Columba has not been on stage post-debate, ever. Or the cameras have not seen fit to show and highlight her on stage with Jeb!, whereas most of the other candidates’ wives and immediate families have been shown coming onto the stage area to embrace their spouse candidate, do the group hug w/family for the photographers, etc.
But you never ever see Columba front and center on the stage with Jeb! This leads one to ask: Why? What is Jeb! afraid of? That the press might ask Columba some extended questions in English of which it will only show just how awkward her command of English is? Say what one will, at least Melania has consistently been seen front and center on stage with Donald, sometimes the media does in fact ask her some questions, and as before, she just did an extended interview with People magazine. Say what you will, but one gets the feeling that if asked to, Melania would at least give brief speeches for Trump on the campaign trail for like, five minutes or so before small audiences. On the campaign trail, a wife is an added benefit: she can reach women voters. So why isn’t Jeb! making use of that with Columba?

Have to say that it appears as though this is calculated on Jeb!’s part, namely, that Columba is not considered to be an asset to his campaign whereas his mother and brother are.

From a practical standpoint, it only serves to reinforce the “low energy” barb from Trump, Jeb! has to have his 90+yr old. mommy with him on the campaign trail, rather than have his wife front and center with him by his side and answering some questions from the media like all the other candidates’ wives do; she doesn’t and isn’t to be seen.

Very strange indeed. What is Jeb! afraid that Columba will say? Or rather, is he that much afraid of the way she would have to respond to questions that require extended answers in English?

Why doesn’t Jeb! let Columba make speeches on the campaign trail for him to women’s groups (in English of course)? Wasn’t she first lady of FL when Jeb! was governor? So, she’d be used to making speeches before audiences in English, right? Just seems that Jeb! isn’t making full use of one way to bring in voters that like, 99% of all candidates for president have done for like, a century, namely, have his wife campaign/make speeches of her own for her husband. After all, women vote.

* Christie is auditioning to be Trump’s hatchet man, or Cruz’s if it goes that way. And he did superbly tonight.

Imagine Donald Trump playing the eminence grise who utters occasional witticisms, to Christie’s former supreme federal prosecutor playing the crazy man.

I’d foresee at least a two term Trump administration, and probably a followup one for the VP after that. We could have a different country in eight years.

* I noticed after the debate that Trump was quite friendly with Christie. I am just guessing, but I think they struck a deal. If you noticed, Christie did not attack Trump during the debate. I think Christie is smart enough to read the polls (NH was considered his best shot, and he is lagging rather than leading) and realize that he won’t be getting the nomination and that there is a very good chance Trump will be the nominee. I think the deal is that President Trump will nominate Christie for Attorney General. I thought earlier that there was a chance that Cruz might get that post, but I think Trump got pissed at Cruz’s attacks on him. He went out of his way to make it clear that Cruz won’t be his VP choice (because of the “uncertainty” created by his “Canadian citizenship”). So, in exchange for attacking Rubio, Christie got promised the AG spot. Rubio got exposed as the total lightweight I figured he was back in 2010 when I refused to vote for him for U.S. Senate. Very glib but very shallow.

BTW I am not shallow at all, but I would vote for Trump just so we can have Melania as First Lady. She really is a lovely woman. But then I recently came across a picture of Donald Trump in his mid 30′s to early 40′s, and I was stunned by how handsome he was as a younger man. I guess I just wasn’t paying attention all those years.

* GQ discovered around 1985 that when they put Trump on the cover, newsstand sales shot up.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Discussing The Republican Debate & Will The Super Bowl Turn Into A Race War?

White Flight (Comedy Central)

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

Review: CC Studio’s newest digital series White Flight fails miserably. White Flight takes us to the year 2042, at the exact moment when white people are no longer a majority in the US. The solution devised by the “Dan Company” ( it gets a little Truman Show-like here, with “Dan” popping up at his leisure to deliver messages to his people) is to ship all white folks to Canada, with the exception of a few white “emissaries” left behind to answer any and all questions the remaining non-whites may have. Yup, white guys should have all the answers. There is no chemistry from the cast, and while the concept had great potential to put white folks in situations to understand what it is like to be a minority, it just gives shitty white racist jokes to people of color.

Posted in Whites | Comments Off on White Flight (Comedy Central)

Who Plays The Victimhood Game Best? Blacks Or Jews?

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

From CampusReform.org:

Earlier this summer, Boston University Sociology Professor Saida Grundy was the center of controversy over comments she made on social media disparaging white males. And just across the Charles River, an academic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been making similar statements on social media.

MIT Postdoctoral Fellow Chanda Prescod-Weinstein has consistently directed denigrating Twitter and Facebook posts at America, the Founding Fathers, and white males.

On June 25th, Prescod-Weinstein tweeted that she wants “to burn the tent of whiteness down.”

A few days later, Prescod-Weinstein sent out a tweet declaring that all America has ever stood for is white power.

In a July 6th tweet, Prescod-Weinstein denounced Thomas Jefferson as a “rapist.”

“To address white power,” Prescod-Weinstein said, “is to look evil in the eye and to challenge everything this country has stood for in the last 250 years.”

Prescod-Weinstein immediately followed that tweet up by stating that “white power” was a principle of the American founding.

Many white people, according to Prescod-Weinstein, celebrated the gay marriage decision more enthusiastically than they should have, something she chalks up to “white tears.”

In a series of July 10th tweets, Prescod-Weinstein—who identifies as a “black queer ciswoman”—stated that although she was happy about the decision, “a lot of white people went overboard.” Why did so many white people go overboard with their celebration of the Supreme Court decision? This, Prescod-Weinstein says, is “related to white tears: [white people] just really wanted to feel good. And feel entitled to.”

Prescod-Weinstein also directed anger towards “men of color.” On July 13th, Prescod-Weinstein tweeted that “men of color” need to “work on [their] fucking sexism. It is bullshit. You are not magical unicorns just because you are not white.”

On July 4th Prescod-Weinstein tweeted that she “[m]ade it home to the U.S. just in time for a holiday I don’t celebrate. America never was America to me.”

According to Prescod-Weinstein’s personal website, she is the “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Postdoctoral Fellow & Visiting Scholar” at MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics. However, according to a July 16th tweet from Prescod-Weinstein, she will begin working at the University of Washington next spring.

Less than a month ago, the Huffington Post ran a feature on Prescod-Weinstein as the 63rd black woman in America to receive a Ph.D. in Physics.

In the Huffington Post feature, Prescod-Weinstein complained that the discussion of women in astronomy does black women a disservice by not looking at astronomy statistics by race.

“For decades, this discussion about women in astronomy has centered essentially on white women,” Weinstein said. “They don’t say white women, but when the statistics are trotted out, they don’t disaggregate for race.”

As recently as July 16th, Prescod-Weinstein tweeted that because there are “fewer than 100 Black American women ever to earn a PhD in physics, each one of us is unusual [and] should be nurtured.”

Comment to Steve Sailer:

* Jews got it down pat.

They want First World power as the ruling elites of the West… but they want Third World status as victims.

In the past, to be the ruling elites of the West that was triumphant and victorious around the world came with pride and prestige. To rule and to have the power meant you were made of glory and greatness.

But that was then, this is now. Now, the West is in repentant mode, and much of Western history is seen as one of oppression, conquest, exploitation, imperialism, slavery, genocide, murderous wars, and etc. So, the West must feel shame about the past. Pride and prestige are out(except when Zionists want the West to bash the Muslim world, Russia, and maybe China).

What is admired today is victim-hood. So, if you’re non-white or Jewish, you cry victim-hood to score easy points. And if you’re white, you have to exhibit redemptive ‘white guilt’ to show that you’re morally superior to whites who aren’t as sorry.

Still, as always, people want power and privilege. And no people have as much power, privilege, and wealth as Jews do. That means Jews are now the ruling elites of the West. They own and control the bulk of power, influence, wealth, and clout in the West.
But, this poses a problem because, in the New West, it is victim-hood that counts in terms of moral credit whereas having power and privilege means you’re a oppressor and exploiter.

Jews want first world power as ruling elites but they want third world protection as tragic victims. Jews want(and have gained) the ruling-elite-power that the white gentile elites once had. But they want to be perceived as part of the ‘victim’ class. For awhile, it was enough for Jews to scream ‘Holocaust’.
But it’s not as effective as it used to be. Why?

1. WWII grows more distant.

2. Holocaust guilt is something only white gentiles might feel as it was a European affair. As the US and EU(with massive Muslim/African influx) becomes demographically less white, this Holy Holocaust guilt matters less and less to people of color or ‘diversity’, especially as non-whites come from non-Christian cultures with no concept of repentant guilt.

3. The rise of pop culture and homo/tranny silliness have made people trashier and shallower. So, no one knows anything about history anymore. And in a world where rap and tranny exhibitionism are the thing, Holocaust is just boring and uncool for a lot of millennial dolts. It is too ‘European’.

4. With Israel-Palestine issue in the news, Jews are seen less as victims and more as nasty oppressors of Palestinians.

5. Even with all the PC and ADL witch-hunting, it’s getting pretty obvious to everyone–whites, Asians, Muslims, Mexicans, etc–that Jews are immensely powerful and rich in Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Ivy League elite schools, top law firms, US government, the Fed, intelligence networks, and etc. Rick Sanchez was fired and blacklisted by Jewish power for his noticing of Jewish power/privilege, but it may not be so easy to do so in the future as ‘diversity’ makes greater headway into the media. The replacement of Jon Stewart Lebowicz seems to have weathered the storm. But then, he’s part Jewish.

This Prescod Weinstein seems like she’s playing a dirty game.

By bitching about ‘white privilege’, I think she’s trying to divert our attention from the real power and privilege that rules much of the world: Jewish Power. In this, she is like Matt Stein of Mad Men fame who say poor poor Jews should not be confused with ‘white privilege’. His complaint is hilarious since in today’s America, Jewish power is many times that of ‘white privilege’. Pound for pound, nothing comes anywhere near Jewish power and privilege. It is white people who should be demanding that they not be confused with Jewish privilege. When someone says, “white males control Hollywood”, it is total bullshit since the ruling elites of Hollywood are really Jewish elites and Jewish homo elites who are NOT representative of the white population as a whole.

Funny that she bitches about the Founding Fathers, but what were ruling elites in other parts of the world like at the time of the Founders? Were Asian, African, Latin American, Jewish, Arabian, Hindu, Muslim, Ottoman, and etc ruling elites any better or more advanced? It seems to be that the Founders, for all their faults, were comparatively forward-looking men of great character, fortitude, and wisdom.

Seriously, suppose US had been founded by the ruling elites from other parts of the world. Would US have turned out better if the Founders had been African tribal chieftains, Chinese overlords, Ottoman Sultans, Japanese samurai feudalists, Arabian princes, Spanish aristocrats, and etc? Some of these men has eunuchs serve them galore and harems in the hundreds or even thousands.

And I wonder how Weinstein would react if people were to point out all the powerful Jews who were not so pristine in character all throughout history. Surely, there were Jews who had slaves, sold slaves, raped, conquered, exploited others, took part in communist mass murder of Christians, took part in Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, took part is espionage that sent Stalin the secrets to the atomic bomb, ran casinos to rip off the public, ran pornified pop culture to corrupt young girls into whoredom…

And I wonder how Weinstein would react if someone pointed out that MLK was a liar, plagiarist, a beater of woman, and braggart of abuse of women.

Personally, I’m for bashing all people equally OR, if we’re gonna go easy on non-whites, I say let’s go a little on easy on whites too.
It’s not right to hold the Founders to the highest standards while overlooking all the mass killings and slavery practiced by non-whites and Jews throughout the ages.

Posted in America, Blacks, Jews | Comments Off on Who Plays The Victimhood Game Best? Blacks Or Jews?

The World’s Worst Rapper

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A Sudanese immigrant to Australia whom Jimmy Fallon called one of the world’s worst rappers is being praised by the Australia media. Even though his music is objectively terrible, the National Media of Australia can’t get enough of him — because he’s black.

Like Tessa Kum, he has a very “problematic” history of posting things onto the internet. He likes to refer to the scores of white women he beds as “white bitches”.

View post on imgur.com

But because he is a black immigrant to Australia, he get’s a pass on his racist and sexist tweets.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on The World’s Worst Rapper

The Unending Influence of O.J. Simpson’s White Bronco Chase

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

Being a Los Angeles helicopter pilot traffic reporter, such as Chopper Tim above, is one of the more marginal forms of celebrity, ranking down there with being a 1970s Olympic hero. Perhaps it’s not surprising that veteran L.A. attention-seekers now seem driven to ever more desperate gambits. But this harmonic convergence around the most famous (if least thrilling) car chase of all time is still pretty funny:

Two rival male TV helicopter pilots who covered O.J. Simpson chase now are transgender women

New York Daily News

Once fierce rivals, Dirk Vahle is now Dana Vahle, while Bob Tur * is now Zoey Tur. The two were the first to broadcast above O.J. Simpson’s white Bronco in Los Angeles on June 17, 1994.

O.J.’s white Bronco ride began, of course, at the home of his lawyer, the late Robert Kardashian, the father of Kim Kardashian and ex-husband of Kris Jenner, the now ex-wife of Bruce Jenner.

O.J., whose father was a transvestite, is eligible to get out of the pen in 2017. He’s vowed to the other cons that he will then push Kanye aside and make Kimmie his bride. So we can only hope that this central epic of contemporary pop culture will then come full circle with O.J. transitioning to O.J.J. and gay-marrying Kim Kardashian on national TV.

————

* Tur called himself “Chopper Bob,” but is now Zoey. Whether he/she is Chopped Zoey is not something I really want to know. Tur recently threatened to send pundit Ben Shapiro “home in an ambulance” for pointing out that Jenner hasn’t had a chromosomectomy (which, by the way, isn’t a thing).

COMMENTS:

* Two rival male TV helicopter pilots who covered O.J. Simpson chase now are severely mentally ill psychotics who are pretending to be women.

* But will Dana and Zoey make a lesbian sex tape?

* Since transsexuals are mostly high-T men and since they seem to be becoming more common in America, I have to ask: what is it about this culture that is causing some of its manly men to go in this direction? (Then again, maybe it’s just biological and only appears to be becoming more common due to media hype. And of course the advance of technology has made “transitioning” easier than ever.)

* Endocrine disruptors. There are byproducts of plastic production that look chemically similar to estrogens.

We know this is causing changes in frogs and fish, and more and more boys are being born with genital anomalies. If they estrogenize the brain…

I’m afraid this is one of these weird cases where the left doesn’t want to admit transgender is wrong and the right doesn’t want to admit industrial pollution is important, so it gets hushed up. But someone needs to speak out about it–whatever the left wants to say, being born with a ‘feminized’ brain if you are a man leads only to misery either way. It’s a medical condition, like diabetes or arthritis, and our bizarre attitudes about it don’t make it any less painful.

If you can use your outlaw-megaphone to start awareness in the general public, this could be a chance to make some real change, and if they, say, ban these chemicals, a lot of kids could be spared some very painful identity problems.

* “For guys like Jenner (and, from what I’ve seen, Vahle and Tur) it has nothing to do with having a “feminized” brain.It’s just autogynephilia. They are sexually aroused by the idea of looking (vaguely) like a woman, and cross-dressing just won’t do the trick any longer.”

Do you think they are having sex with
a) women?
b) men?
c) others like themselves?
d) none of the above?
e) robots?

* So when are they completing the border fence that McCain promised us?

* McCain has changed his view since his last primary challenge–now only “crazies” want border control. I have enjoyed Trump’s eruption of Elderly Tourette’s (TM iSteve) on immigration, but I love it even more when he goes after McCain. McCain is a sacred cow among the neocons and he really needs to be taken down a few notches.

* For guys like Jenner (and, from what I’ve seen, Vahle and Tur) it has nothing to do with having a “feminized” brain. It’s just autogynephilia. They are sexually aroused by the idea of looking (vaguely) like a woman, and cross-dressing just won’t do the trick any longer.

* McCain like all incumbents benefits from slinging the pork around, big time, thus getting big endorsements from various groups, and by name recognition, and by political patronage otherwise known as Machine Politics. This is how Teddy Kennedy held onto his seat, despite plenty of Black/Brown challengers.

EVENTUALLY incumbents either die in office (Kennedy, Robert Byrd) or get too old and out of touch to maintain the pillars of general pork, political patronage, name recognition, etc. to fend off challengers. This can take decades however.

McCain was endorsed by all the “leading” Conservative organizations and publications, no surprise as he offers a lot of patronage to both by hiring off the organizations and publications. It takes a huge amount of publicity, money, and long time public exposure (so that incumbents and media allies cannot define challengers as “kooks”) to fight machine politics. This is why Trump is so threatening — his decades in public life have given him sky high name recognition and his character is already well defined. The Media can’t suddenly define Trump as a kook when he was just a few years ago part of a jokey Golden Oreos commercial with the Manning Brothers. And had a long run on NBC with his reality show.

* I have another theory about “Caitlyn” Jenner and her remarkable transubstantiation as a “woman” at age 66. Most men I know older than 55 have problems with prostate enlargement. The standard medical treatment is Finasteride (or an equivalent), which slowly feminizes men. Most start growing breasts, which range from breast buds to something a teenage girl would envy. If you doubt, take the standard philosophical maxim regarding truth … “look and see”, paying careful attention to men in polo shirts or the more adventurous who will shed their shirts at the beach or the swimming pool.

This is a tradeoff. A friend of mine with prostate problems noticed he was growing breasts. He stopped his treatments. He was later diagnosed with prostate cancer. In prior eras, men with enlarged prostates eventually died from uric poisoning if cancer did not get them first. Again, feminization of aging males to extend life is a tradeoff.

Add this to the virtual sea of estrogenic compounds found in pesticides, plastics, and the female hormones used to tenderize meat and the male of the species in Western industrial culture is being slowly “trannied” and feminized … or whatever you want to call it … from the womb.

This is not unique to men. After a bout with breast cancer (perhaps caused by the sea of estrogenic compounds in our environment … nothing else tracks), my wife has been put on a regime of “anti-estrogen” medication. Yes, it is changing her personality. She is more aggressive and makes furtive attempts at being in control and being rational, dispositions she had never expressed before. As other evidence of estrogen poisoning in our environment, we have only to look at the ages in which young girls start their periods today and become susceptible to impregnation … as early as 8 years old.

The root causes of all of this? Industrial pollution and a predatory capitalism that seeks to maximize profits regardless of the consequences.

Caitlyn, enjoy your new life. You will soon have lots of company.

* The vocation of traffic helicopter paparazzo is already a kind of outlandish, inane job… So maybe getting struck by the stray gnostic suggestion of belonging to the transformer elite appealed them. It’s like the ultimate rush.

ESPN 30 for 30 did a stream-of-consciousness documentary entitled “June 17th, 1994″ which assembled the various TV feeds from that day, including the off-air bits of blow-dry news personalities screaming abuse at each other. During the ending montage they used a live version of the Talking Heads’ “Heaven” to great effect, while showing the surrender in Brentwood & the multiple media streams blending incoherently.

* I missed the White Bronco Chase on TV: I was in Waterloo, Belgium on a business trip (oddly enough, on the anniversary of the Battle of …). I read about it, agog, in the Financial Times while flying to Heathrow. I was an OJ fan so I sure hoped he didn’t do it … but it was kind of hard to come up with a rationalization of his heading for the border. Funny how the crack L.A. district attorneys never brought up his run for the border during the trial.

* So, OJ’s famous ride started off at a guy’s house whose widow married a man who’s now a woman, and was filmed from a helicopter by two men who are also now women.

Huh.

History and its connections, huh? How about that. James Burke would be proud.

* Was it a coincidence that ‘gay marriage’ became a huge issue just when the 1% was growing richer and more powerful?

* Such is the power of the black body that OJ’s fleeing black body in the white Bronco, escaping the white supremacist legal and police system who had framed him for the murder of two white bodies, turned three white men into transexuals, neutered white bodies, and the Kardashian sisters into coal burners, servile worshippers of the black body.
OJ’s black body is in jail now, to prevent further disruptions in white bodies. For the Black Body is powerful juju. White man’s fear of its powerful magic makes him take as many black bodies as possible away from white gazes.

* The peculiar nature of autogynephilia is that it tends to only afflict men who up till middle age were successful alpha status, sexually active, if not over sexed, males.

Name another infectious decease or environmental factor that is so very very selective on who affects???

Autogynephillia may certainly have a genetic component, but it seems to be primarily a narcissistic mental delusion. And Lord knows we have no shortage of delusions around that are most common to specific sub-populations and are culturally informed.

Science fiction geeks when under extreme mental duress believe they have been abducted by “Aliens” and been subjected to “anal probing”.

Under the pressure of life’s ups and downs, Christians believe they have seen Jesus. Muslims are told by Allah to go on Jihad.

Anxiety riddled Jews are certain that they seeing antisemitism everywhere.

Michael Shermer’s book “The Believing Brain” is really good on just how commonplace and yet specific mental delusions are.

Ultra masculine men, who have been use to being able to have access to just about any female they desire and being recognized as being at the top of their professions, are vulnerable to a specific delusion during the middle life crisis that all men go through that their diminishing alpha dog status is due the fact they are a woman trapped in a man’s body. Once they have undergone their transformation to a female however it will be once again clearly obvious just how amazing and attractive they truly are. And nobody, under the threat of abuse or worse if necessary, will be able to deny it!!!

Remember how painful being rejected by females was when you were a skinny teenager???

Now what if your whole life you have been rarely if ever rejected. Your career had been one greater achievement after another. You have been use to a life of bedding dozens of very very attractive and ever younger women. Suddenly, you find yourself, divorced, your ex-wives were sick of your infidelities, and that that younger women you so badly desire and are addicted to to sooth your emotional pain are now not only no longer enthralled with your alpha male status but see you as a just creepy old man their father’s age. Add on top of that the other signs of middle age, a bulging waistline, hair loss, wriggles, fatigue, loss of sexual desire and stamina….. you have the makings of a first class mental breakdown.

Is it not more likely that this sort of extreme midlife mental breakdown leads to the embracing of the delusion of autogynephillia????

* If Joe wakes up tomorrow believing that he is Napoleon, he will be placed on a powerful mix of drugs to make his delusions conform to reality.

If Joe wakes up tomorrow believing that he is Josephine, he will be placed on a powerful mix of drugs to make reality conform to his delusions.

* Marvin Gaye’s dad also liked ladies clothing. I believe he was wearing pantyhose when he shot Marvin. Were they riding up?

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Unending Influence of O.J. Simpson’s White Bronco Chase

The Trial Of The Century

Posted on February 6, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Nah, the Fatty Arbuckle trial was just as big – if not bigger – back in the 1920s. It sold vast forests’ worth of scandal sheets.

There was no doubt that Arbuckle savagely raped that woman (with, among other things, a champagne bottle and a long, jagged piece of ice). He tore her insides apart – ruptured her bladder. She died the next day.

Despite his denials, there were numerous witnesses who testified that he got her drunk, then dragged her up to his hotel room to have his way with her. (They were at a crowded party at a hotel.) He’d been going after her for some time, and he finally got her.

The first two juries deadlocked; the third returned an acquittal after a few minutes’ deliberation and then lined up for autographs.

Television news was once a lot more serious-minded and professionally-presented (whether it was “better” depends on your ideological perspective) than it is now. But that was not meant to last.

The Cronkite-Huntley/Brinkley era of the ’60s and ’70s was an aberration – the high-water mark of “serious” mainstream American journalism. The two networks were a virtual monopoly, gorging on a smorgasbord of national advertising revenues. (ABC was not fully competitive, especially in news, until the mid- to late-’70s.) They could afford to maintain vast worldwide news-gathering organizations.

Paley and Sarnoff took pains not to come across as stereotypical money-grubbing Jews – they wanted to make gobs of money, yes, but they also wanted to show off how classy they were. They also wanted to keep the FCC – one of whose commissioners famously denounced the prime-time landscape as a “vast wasteland” – off their backs. The easiest way to do that was by putting Cronkite on the air every night and saying, “See, we’re as respectable as anybody!”

They were utterly unlike someone like Larry Tisch, who took over CBS and dismembered it in the late ’80s. Tisch destroyed the news division and nearly destroyed the sports division, as well – during his tenure, CBS lost the rights to the NBA, the MLB, and, most disastrously, the NFL.

(Shortly after Fox outbid CBS for the NFC contract, ending 40 years of the NFC on CBS, Rupert Murdoch bought an independent company that owned a number of big-city CBS affiliates – all NFC markets. This double-barreled punch – losing pro football *and* many high-rated local stations that provided powerful lead-ins – was a staggering blow that left the network an also-ran for years. Even after CBS snagged the AFC away from NBC in ’98, it took a few more years – and new shows called CSI and Survivor – for the prime-time ratings to show any signs of life.)

Everyone remembers the hard-hitting Murrow documentaries of the ’50s*, but the nightly news back then was typified by easygoing John Cameron Swayze’s cheerful “Let’s go hopscotching around the world for headlines!” It wasn’t until the ’60s, when CBS and NBC expanded their evening newscasts to half an hour, that the daily news operations became something more than a joke.

*Even Murrow did Person to Person, a frothy interview show.

* It’s often pointed out that Nicole Brown was in life everything a middle class black woman would hate. Well. Nicole was not going to be liked by middle class white women either.

Something not often mentioned is that O.J. was still married to his first wife Marguerite when he took up with Nicole and Marguerite was pregnant with her and O.J.’s third child.

Woman I know always tell me any woman stupid enough to go with a married man deserves what happens, maybe not being murdered, but it won’t turn out well.

And Nicole’s parents encouraged her to go with the married O.J. Simpson. The Browns weren’t looked upon with much sympathy by white people in my experience. They still wanted Simpson found guilty.

* For Nicole’s parents, its always been about the money. OJ was their meal ticket and he set a number of them up quite comfortably post-NFL retirement in various endeavors.

Even when he was found guilty in the civil trial, they fought tooth and nail to get their hands on the millions of dollars to get whatever money they thought was due them. Remember, it was Nicole’s parents who tried to talk her out of divorcing OJ because they saw their gravy train coming to an end when she left.

So basically Nicole supported her family during her life, and if they ever do receive the money from the civil case, she will be supporting her family in her death. At least Denise has stopped attempting to go on TV every chance she can get to try and get her hands on the money because its not going to happen. OJ doesn’t have that kind of money anymore, so the extended Brown family will have to get honest paying jobs and not use their dead sister as a ploy to get money.

If they truly had cared about Nicole, they never would’ve encouraged their daughter/sister to go with him.

* O.J. was enormously popular with the sports media. He was always cooperative and willing to be interviewed and this had a lot to do with his favorable public image. The one thing known for sure about his relationship with teammates is that by 1977 the Bills players were glad to see him gone.

This is according to Larry Felser, long time Buffalo writer and Sporting News columnist. The Bills probably enjoyed the reflected glory of playing with the Great O.J. Simpson for a while but something like that eventually wears thin.

* Some impressions:

* Federal welfare reform was passed soon after (the GOP’s last act off assertion before full-on cuckservatism set in); wonder if black misbehavior in so jubilantly celebrating the verdict hardened some hearts
* distinctly remember a struck jury member- professional-looking black guy- having a small, adopted white child on his arm while talking to reporters
* Howard Stern (God bless ‘im) for years after ran a schtick where he or one of his ambush reporters would ask a black celebrity if they though OJ did it; I cannot recall a single one willing to admit OJ’s guilt, though several were so visibly discomfited it was obvious they were caught in a lie
* liberalism was still not SJW-overrun, and some outposts (NEW REPUBLIC, which of course had pre-existing bones to pick with black activists over quotas, Israel, Crown Heights riots, etc.- but several others as well, I think) had the decency to be embarrassed by the outcome
* LUV, LUV, LUV how sh!tlibs keep telling us- but always retroactively!- how we deserve to be outlaws in our own country, and any violence or crime directed at us is always just retaliation for the sins of our society, but in the meantime are more than happy to partake in all the amenities of said exploitative society; like how America had it coming to it on 9/11, but on 9/10 were more than happy to rub shoulders with all those New Yorkers later burned, crushed, or blown to death while going to see Lion King on Broadway.

* Christopher Caldwell wrote a terrific review of Bugliosi’s book and brought out two legal points I remember.

1. Garcetti threw the case by ruling out the death penalty for political reasons. This eliminated the incentive for the Juice to plead guilty. Also, jurors in capital cases can be rejected if the D.A. can raise doubts about their willingness to implement the death penalty. That is an important method that prosecutors use to get the church ladies off the jury.

2. Barry Scheck was playing with fire by basing the defense on doubts about D.A analysis since he has made it his life’s work using DNA evidence to get the wrongfully convicted out of jail. I guess, fortunately for Project Innocence, DNA is so overwhelmingly useful for prosecutors that they never raise doubts about exonerations based on decades old DNA evidence.

* Dr Bennet Omalu, portrayed in the movie “Concussion”, has stated that it’s his firm belief that OJ has CTE and that much of his volatile behavior was due to that. Also, OJ was paying his ex-wife $10,000 p/mo in child support which might have set him to thinking about how to remove this burden upon him, particularly in view of the fact that she was dating other men freely, all on his dime.

* I remember at the time of the trial wondering if this was a case of “‘roid rage”. At the time Simpson was involved in making an exercise video and it is also known that the suffered from arthritis, so he might have been taking some steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for it. I know that even the relatively mild and common steroid prednisone can cause mood changes and behavior changes. (I have had to use the drug myself.). If not that, then perhaps cocaine, or an admixture.

* Ken Kesey said it sounded like cocaine and steroids.

* The cocaine/steroid angle sounds right. My brother was a prosecuting attorney for 12 years. He said that he could sense cocaine-fueled crimes because they so often involved senseless and extreme violence … absolutely over the edge. I would appear that the OJ case was one of these … manic RAGE!

* There could’ve been post-concussive brain trauma as well. Odds are that he has it, to some degree. Makes a lot of people paranoid, impulsive, and potentially violent.

* Several years ago then Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney (and now defense attorney) Jack McMahon (who is a very colorful character) gave a taped seminar to the office’s younger Assistant District Attorneys to explain the strategy of jury selection for prosecutors:

It is naturally full of real talk. It caused a bit of a row when a subsequently elected District Attorney (Lynn Abraham) released the video.

It probably tracks with Bugliosi’s views but McMahon holds that you don’t want intelligent or educated people because they try to apply their intelligence to legal concepts like “reasonable doubt” and therefore tend to be riskier.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Trial Of The Century

Israel’s Unwanted African Migrants

Posted on February 5, 2016 by Luke Ford

Kathy Harcombe, BBC News, February 3, 2016

For nearly a year Israel has been offering African migrants cash and the chance to go and live in what is supposed to be a safe haven in a third country–but the BBC has spoken to two men who say that they were abandoned as soon as they got off the plane. One was immediately trafficked, the other left to fend for himself without papers.

Adam was 18 when he arrived in Israel in 2011. Attackers had burned down his home in Darfur at the height of the genocide, and he had spent his teenage years in a UN refugee camp in another part of Sudan. With no prospects in the camp and no sign of an end to the conflict in Darfur, he made his way north through Egypt and the lawless Sinai peninsula to Israel.

But Israel–which has approved fewer than 1% of asylum applications since it signed the UN Refugee Convention six decades ago–has not offered asylum to a single person from Sudan. It turned down Adam’s application, and last October, when he went to renew the temporary permit allowing him to stay in the country, he was summoned to a detention centre known as Holot, deep in the Negev desert.

This was no surprise for Adam. As most Sudanese and Eritreans in Israel know, it’s just a matter of time before they get the call to Holot.

The government calls Holot an “open-stay centre”, but it’s run by the prison service and rules are strict, including a night-time curfew, which, if broken, will land you in jail.

It’s in such an isolated area that there’s very little to do and nowhere to go.

I talked to Adam and a group of his friends just outside the gates of Holot, where, at that time, they spent most of their day playing cards or snooker, and eating and cooking in makeshift restaurants.

They told me they took turns to make the hour-long bus ride into the nearest town, Beersheva, where they bought food. The meals served in Holot were insufficient, they said, and contained little meat or protein.

Most of the men there were young–in their 20s or early 30s. Some had been teachers, activists or students in their own countries.

“We are wasting our youth here,” Adam says. “If someone lives in Holot, they have no future . . . You find many people here go crazy.”

Since I visited Holot, those makeshift restaurants and game areas have all been demolished on the orders of the government, leaving those inside with even fewer ways to pass the time.

Adam will be held in Holot for 12 months. Then he is likely to face a stark choice:

Go home to Sudan
Stay in Israel, but be imprisoned indefinitely
Accept departure to a third country
The Israeli government has deals with two countries in Africa to host its unwanted migrants.

It promises that people who take the option of “voluntary departure to third countries” will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.

As an extra incentive, they’re given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv.

Israel refuses to name the two African countries but the BBC has spoken to migrants who say they were sent to Rwanda and Uganda.

One is Tesfay, an Eritrean who was flown to Rwanda in March 2015, and he told me that far from being offered legal status, a home and the chance of a job in Rwanda–as he had been promised in Israel–he became a victim of trafficking.

His identity papers–a travel document and a single-entry visa to Rwanda, both issued in Israel–were immediately confiscated at Kigali airport, he says.

Then, along with nine other Eritreans, he was taken to a “guest house”. None of them was allowed out. It would be dangerous without papers, they were told. Then, two days after arriving, the men were told it was time to leave.

“You are going to Uganda. But before you go, you need to pay $150,” said a man who introduced himself as John. “Then from the border to Kampala you need to pay again.”

Crammed into a minibus, they made the six-hour journey to the Ugandan border, where they were told to get out of the bus.

“When we crossed the border, that’s when I understood that we were being smuggled,” Tesfay says. “We went on foot, silently. We were being smuggled from one state to another.”

As promised by “John”, they had to pay another $150 to continue their journey to the Ugandan capital, Kampala.

But inevitably, having entered as illegal immigrants, they were arrested on arrival and put behind bars–after police had relieved them of about half the cash in their pockets, Tesfay says.

With what was left, Tesfay managed to post bail. He was due to appear in court five days later and having already been warned he was likely to be deported to Eritrea–the repressive authoritarian state he had fled in the first place–he decided to take no chances. He paid another smuggler to get him into Kenya, where he is now seeking asylum.

Rwanda has never confirmed that it struck a deal to host Israel’s unwanted migrants. The Ugandan government, for its part, has denied outright that such a deal exists–it told the BBC it was investigating how migrants who claimed to have been sent from Israel were entering the country.

The BBC spoke to a man from Darfur who said he was flown to Uganda from Israel with seven others in 2014, before the third country policy became official.

For safety reasons, he asked to remain anonymous.

“None of the things I was promised were given to me,” he said. “No documents, no passport, no assistance–nothing. (Israel) just wants to take people and dump them.”

In October, Israeli immigration authorities said 3,000 asylum seekers had left Israel for a third country. But the BBC has learned that only seven have registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Rwanda, all of them Eritreans, and only eight, mostly from Sudan, in Uganda.

Meanwhile, there are about 45,000 Eritreans and Sudanese in Israel. The government won’t deport them–that would be a clear breach of the UN Refugee Convention, which it signed in 1954. Under the Convention, no-one can be forcibly returned to a country where they have a justified fear of persecution.

But if Israel treats them as refugees at least in this respect, why does it then refuse them asylum?

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon says the migrants threaten the security, and the identity, of the Jewish state.

“It’s obvious that we live here in a situation which is rather complex and complicated. And if you add this element of migrants who come here and who want to stay here–undoubtedly because this is a rich and prosperous country–then it could become also a challenge to our identity here in Israel.

“It’s not only about the 45,000 or 50,000 people that already are here in Israel, it’s about the potential. Because those people tell their friends and families back home–‘Look, this is a very nice place. Do come over.’”

And, of course, in Israel there is also the ever present issue of security.

“Open borders through which migrants can pass mean also open borders through which terror organisations can penetrate Israeli territory and commit terror acts,” Nahshon says.

But lawyers fighting against the Third Country policy in Israel’s Supreme Court argue that the country is in breach of its obligations under the UN Refugee Convention.

“[Migrants] are stigmatised as ‘infiltrators’ and then have their asylum application adjudicated in sort of a conveyor-belt system which rejects everyone,” says one of the lawyers, Anat Ben-Dor.

“And then the whole idea of asking them to give their ‘voluntary’ consent to something they do not know because this is a secret arrangement . . . Of course this is not voluntary because you are using the threat of putting them indefinitely in prison if they refuse to go.

“And then when they land in one of those two countries the lack of proper monitoring cannot really secure, in the necessary certainty, that those people would not end up either without [legal] status, or in prison, or–worst of all–being returned to places where they would face danger.”

Sigal Rozen, from the Israeli human rights group Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, says that the failure by Israel to guarantee the migrants’ security in Rwanda and Uganda means they are forced to risk their lives elsewhere.

“Some of them continue to South Sudan, others to Kenya, to Ethiopia, and many end up in Europe after they take the route through Libya and Italy. Unfortunately many others die on the way and we never hear from them again,” she says.

There’s a joke among the migrants, she says, that the Israeli government’s departing “gift” of $3,500 is just enough money to get to Europe.

But the Israeli government is adamant that it’s acting within the framework of international law and is offering a fair deal to the migrants.

But in Tesfay’s opinion, he did not get a fair deal.

“The Israeli authority–it’s not what they promised. I have no safety–I have no protection at all,” he says.

Posted in Africa, Israel | Comments Off on Israel’s Unwanted African Migrants