Virginia Dare’s Birthday And The New Colonizers

A timely post about from www.Vdare.com about Virginia Dare. This follows this post about PEMEX, when a foreign nation STOLE U.S. Assets! In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Go to YouTubePlay video This is video illustration for song "They Coming To America". I used my own video which I have done at the Battery park of New York City and on the Ellis island and at the Museum of Immigration of… 00:04:16 Added on 6/10/09 215,766 views

Virginia Dare’s Birthday And The New Colonizers

Virginia Dare, after whom this webzine is named, was born on this date, August 18th, in 1587, the first English child born in the New World. Her date of death is unknown, since she, and the whole Roanoke colony, went missing, presumed massacred or enslaved, by local Indians.

Every American school kid once knew who Virginia Dare was. But this year, except for a couple of Today In History posts, the only thing I could find in the news that mentions Virginia Dare was Dare to do the impossible, By Richard Olivastro,[Email him] The Daily Caller, August 18, 2010.

Olivastro's slightly off-key column manages to associate the Virginia Dare story with sentimentalized mass immigration clichés, the kind of thing Steve Sailer calls “Ellis Island Kitsch”. Olivastro wrote:

"For centuries following our country’s founding 235 years ago, America has been freedom’s beacon.

“The Statue of Liberty has long symbolized our welcoming shores. Many popular patriotic songs recognize and celebrate this reality.

“One that comes to mind is ‘They’re Coming to America”.

“How does the opening line in the Neil Diamond song go?

“‘On the boats… and on the planes… they’re coming to America.’

“Yes, ‘They’re coming to America.’

“That’s been true for years, decades, indeed centuries.

“Long before the Declaration of Independence, ‘they came’ to the New World primarily for religious freedom.

“Way back – this upcoming fact deserves a ‘way, way back’ – on August 18th in 1587 Virginia Dare was born.

“She was the first child of English parents born in North America.

“Virginia was the daughter of Ananias and Elenor Dare, members of Sir Walter Raleigh’s ill-fated colony that settled Roanoke Island on the North Carolina coast. (Yes, in case you’re wondering, the cookie cake company still bears her name.)

“Today, a statue of Virginia Dare stands on the Outer Banks of North Carolina honoring her and all those who came to our shores seeking freedom." [Links added by VDARE.com]

Now there are several things wrong with that.  He doesn’t mention what happened to colony. But the main thing is that the Roanoke Colony and the settlement of Virginia, like the settlement of the West, were not what we now call “immigration”.

They were colonization.

There was this mostly empty country, populated by heathen savages, and the English came to settle there, whether the natives liked it or not. (Descendants of the Indians  will claim in court that they owned the land. The formulation I prefer is that they didn't own it—ownership of land being a civilized invention—they were just wandering around on the top of it.)

It's supposed to be different today. America is, as Ernest Van Den Haag wrote in 1965, (!) a "settled territory"—full of American, and not open for colonization. Americans are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want to be a colony of Mexico and/or the world.

Virginia Dare represents the beginning of what we call the “historical American nation”—a beginning largely forgotten today. Peter Brimelow wrote when he started this site that

“Today, Virginia Dare seems to be vanishing from American education too. But she was a fixture for earlier generations. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt felt free to give a speech commemorating the 350th anniversary of her birth. At one point, I planned to pay homage by bestowing her name on the heroine of a projected fictional concluding chapter in Alien Nation, about the flight of the last white family in Los Angeles. It seemed . . . symmetrical.

“I was dissuaded.”

Stuff like Olivastro’s Ellis Island cheerleading is what we hear from the kind of people who say "America isn't a nation like the other nations—it's an idea." But, once again, they have it wrong—America is more than an idea, it is a nation, with traditions and a political culture that go back to 1587.

On this anniversary, let’s remember that.

Previous Virginia Dare Pieces, and External Links

The Fulford File | Virginia Dare, White Minority?
The Fulford File | Happy Birthday, Virginia Dare!
Emotion At Reason
(Nick Gillespie, editor at Reason magazine, doesn't get it.)
The New World, Virginia Dare, And The Historical American Nation
(Steve Sailer explains what Hollywood did to Pocahontas; and to the colonists who would be the heroes of the movie if Hollywood weren't so PC.)
Boy Scout Version of the Indian Legend: The White Deer named Virginia Dare
The Virginia Dare food company's explanation of why they picked her: Virginia Dare, A Legendary Symbol Of Purity
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site: this is where FDR saw the play, The Lost Colony, still performed there every year.
The Lost Colony": A Cure for Depression? (The National Park service's take on its play)
A statue of Virginia Dare, in the Elizabethan Gardens on the North Carolina Coast.
Marcus Epstein atop a fortunate coincidence.

Here is an interesting article from www.Vdare.com about Geroge Zimmerman as a White Hispanic. This follows this previous post about the Trayvon Martin case. In the meantime, you can read an interesting take on society's problems HERE and the interesting book being shown HERE.

Quiz: Can You Pick Out The "White Hispanic" From The Hispanic Hispanics?

http://www.vdare.com/posts/quiz-can-you-pick-out-the-white-hispanic-from-the-hispanic-hispanics

By Steve Sailer

With immigration reform and Puerto Rican statehood much in the news as Republicans mull how to shed their image as racist white men, I thought I'd go through my recent posts to find Hispanic experts in the media who have their finger on the pulse of What Hispanics Want, who know deep in their Latino bones how the masses of la raza feel: 

Charles Garcia, author of "Why 'Illegal Immigrant' Is a Slur" for CNN, and CEO of Garcia Trujillo, a consultancy for marketing to Hispanics

Cat del Valle Castellanos, writer and daughter of GOP Hispanic strategist Alex Castellanos

Jorge Ramos, Univision Anchorman and crusader for amnesty

Xochitl Hinojosa, former Obama Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division spokesperson:  "Xochitl and Scarlett were roommates in college. Scarlett was Xochitl's big sister in Alpha Sigma Alpha. They have shared so many good memories of Spring Break, boys, sorority life, and drinking wine in Napa Valley, and look forward to the many more memories to come!"

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Pat Buchanan Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

David Royston Patterson, author of "Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State?"

Luis Munoz Rivera Patterson's grandmother's cousin's father

Guillermo del Toro Joshua Treviño GOP activist

Don Johnson Jorge G. Castaneda Former Mexican Foreign Secretary, NYU Prof

The Rev. Pat Robertson Sen. Bob Menendez (D-DR) Because underpaying for "jobs Americans just won't do" is Good for the Economy

Steve Sailer Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

White Hispanic

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about assimilation of immigrants. This follows this post about the recall effort in Arizona. This follows this post about the environmental impact of the Senate amnesty bill.  This follows this post about the release of illegal immigrant felons from prison by ICE. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read the two very interesting books that are shown HERE.

Peter Schaeffer: The History Of Immigration And Assimilation

http://www.vdare.com/posts/peter-schaeffer-the-history-of-immigration-and-assimilation

By Steve Sailer     

Peter Schaeffer writes(in comments at Tyler Cowen's site): 

The history of assimilation can be looked at several ways, all of them revealing. 
1. Perhaps the single most important point is that mass immigration was ended around WWI. The restrictive legislation of 1917 (the literacy act), 1921, and 1924 (Johnson-Reed) ended the great wave of mass immigration. Immigration continued on a much smaller scale and the composition was shifted. Because the new laws were based on national quotas, some countries were de-facto unrestricted (the UK, Ireland, etc.) while other reached their annual quotas rather quickly.
The immigration restrictions had several positive effects. Wages and working conditions improved for immigrants over time. Since most immigrants worked in manufacturing, wage gains in manufacturing were particularly positive. Sectoral differentiation (by accident) favored immigrants in this period. Manufacturing was booming and farming was in decline. Since the immigrant population was predominantly urban and employed in goods production, this was a plus.
Living conditions for immigrants clearly improved after mass immigration ended. The horrific tenements slums of the 1900 period were largely empty by the 1930s. Without new massive waves of immigrants, the prior cohorts were able to move up the social ladder into better housing (among other things).
The immigration restrictions of the WWI period clearly aided assimilation in practical ways (waves and living conditions). However, they also sent a very important message to the immigrant communities. America rejected ‘diversity’ and demanded that the immigrants embrace America rather than the other way around. There points were were well understood back then and it was widely understood that the immigration cutoff (substantial reduction actually) had accelerated assimilation.
2. The America of the 1920s and later was vastly better suited to assimilating immigrants than our nation today. We had a booming job market, no welfare state, middle-class unions (starting in the 1930s), English imposition, disciplined education, no multiculturalism, no bilingualism, no victimization ideology, intact families, rigorous law enforcement, etc. Beyond that, ‘Americanization’ (assimilation) was a widely embraced ideal and promoted heavily. Now we have the pernicious and very dominant ideology of ‘diversity’.
3. In spite of much more favorable circumstances, assimilation took time. Some groups assimilated much faster than others, but three generations were typically enough to achieve earnings party with old stock natives. The mythology is that one generation was sufficient. It wasn’t. Even well after WWII, ethnic differences in earnings, social status, etc. were measurable.
The political assimilation of ‘Great Wave’ immigrants was relatively slow but did occur. In this context, I will use the Catholic vote as a proxy for ‘Great Wave’ immigrants. By some measures, 1928 marks the zenith of Catholic alienation from the political mainstream. Al Smith got 90% of the Catholic vote (apparently) and was still easily defeated by Hoover. Indeed, he failed to carry his home state of New York (he was a former governor or New York). By the time JFK was elected, Catholic support for the Democratic party had fallen markedly. He won the Catholic vote, but by a notably smaller margin than Al Smith. A poll of Fordham University students in 1960 showed that most of the Catholic students favored Nixon over Kennedy (the Jewish students at Fordham favored Kennedy). Students at other Catholic schools favored Nixon as well.
Perhaps more relevantly, Eisenhower captured a majority of the Catholic vote in 1956. In subsequent presidential elections, Republicans were able to easily capture the Catholic vote (if they could win at all).
It’s worth noting that in an earlier era, ethnics were polled separately and political differences by ethnicity were material. By the 1980s, this practice had essentially disappeared because ethnic voting patterns were no longer different enough to measure.
However, voting patterns are not the most important aspect of assimilation in my opinion. The assimilation of American values is far more important. Once again, studies show that ‘Great Wave’ immigrants embraced the values of old-stock natives (personal responsibility, individual effort, hard work and education as the keys to advancement, national loyalty, limited government, etc.). Basically, ‘Anglo-conformity’ worked.
It is wrong to suggest that Jewish Americans don’t like WASP America. More like they resent it. The American Jewish community remains (privately) obsessed with the efforts of WASPs to exclude Jews from elite society. The fact that many of these efforts were more than 100 years ago doesn’t appear to matter. Nor does the fact that even with Jewish quotas in place, Jews were vastly overrepresented at Harvard and other elite schools.
The bigger picture, that America has been a wonderfully hospitable nation with immense opportunities for personal and professional advancement is subordinated to resentment of country club prejudice in the 1920s. As a consequence, American Jews define themselves as outsiders and vote accordingly.
As these notes should indicate, America was once a much better place for immigrants and their families. The historic advantages of assimilation, ‘Americanization’, Anglo-conformity, immigration restrictions, and a strong economy are all gone (along with quite a few other historic virtues). It’s also true that the immigrants were better historically. They were much more likely to be skilled, educated, etc. The ‘Great Wave’ immigrants has much lower skill levels and the turn of American society against immigration was largely a consequence. Contemporary mythology emphasizes the role of nativism in the restrictions of the 1920s. Declining skill levels provides a different and more germane explanation.

Competing Interpretations of Fisher, the Affirmative Action case

Here is an interesting article from www.volokh.com (h/t Steve Sailer) about the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action Supreme Court case. This follows this post about various items in the news, including the Trayvon Martin Case. This follows this post about the book "To Kill a Mockingbird."  In the meantime, you can read an interesting take on society's problems HERE and more about the book shown HERE.

Competing Interpretations of Fisher

http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/24/competing-interpretations-of-fisher/

Ilya Somin • 

Commentary on today’s Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas seems to be divided between those who believe, as I do, that the ruling tightens judicial scrutiny of university affirmative action plans, and those who contend it will make no real difference.
Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog suggests that “affirmative action survives at least in theory..., but will be far more difficult to implement in practice.” Bill Mears of CNN reaches a similar conclusion, and affirmative action opponent Roger Clegg claims that the ruling will be “helpful” to litigators seeking to strike down racial preferences. By contrast, Gerard Magliocca believes that Fisher “said nothing,” and UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky concludes that it just reaffirms Grutter and other previous decisions.
I think the latter interpretation of Fisher is difficult to defend. It’s true that the Court did not hold that all affirmative action for diversity purposes is unconstitutional, and claimed that its decision was completely consistent with Grutter. On the other hand, as I explained previously, it ruled that affirmative action plans must be scrutinized by courts without giving any deference at all to the university’s judgment, and should be judged by the same standards as racial preferences in non-university settings (where the Court tends to be very tough). This is a major change from Grutter’s extension of a substantial “degree of deference” to university’s expertise. Essentially, in the opinion he wrote today, Justice Anthony Kennedy adopts the legal rule advocated in his Grutter dissent, where he took the majority to task for its “perfunctory” review of the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program, and for “deferring to the law school’s choice of minority admissions programs.” Today’s decision holds that a university “receives no deference” on such questions.
To determine the likely impact of today’s decision, it’s worth asking the following question: How difficult will it now be for a university to prove that it is permissible for it to adopt a program of racial preferences in admissions? I say it’s going to be pretty darned hard. Without any judicial deference to their educational expertise, schools will be hard-pressed to show that their programs are “narrowly tailored” or that there are no “racially neutral” alternatives that could have achieved the same goal. Many legal battles turn on the issue of who has the burden of proof and how high that burden is going to be. Fisher emphasizes that the burden is both high and clearly imposed on the university. By contrast, after Grutter, the conventional wisdom was that affirmative plans were largely safe from legal challenge so long as they did not include clear racial quotas or precise numerical bonus points for minority applicants.
This doesn’t mean that the legal battle over affirmative action is over. Far from it. In particular, there is likely to be litigation over the issue what qualifies as a “race-neutral” alternative to affirmative action.
As with other Supreme Court decisions on controversial issues, there is always a danger that commentators will interpret the ruling to align with their own preferences. For what it’s worth, my interpretation of today’s opinion is pretty far from what I would have preferred the Court to do. For example, Fisher reaffirms the doctrine that affirmative action preferences are at least sometimes permissible for purposes of promoting “diversity,” while leaving intact precedents holding that they cannot be used to achieve compensation for “societal” discrimination against minority groups. My view is exactly the opposite. Similarly, I believe that the Texas Ten Percent Plan is worse than conventional affirmative action, and likely unconstitutional. Today’s decision clearly leaves open the possibility that the Ten Percent Plan and other similar programs are acceptable “race-neutral” alternatives to explicit racial preferences. I find much to agree with in both Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in Fisher (which argues that Grutter should be completely overruled), and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent (which argues that the decision will lead universities to adopt deceptive admissions policies that pretend to be race-neutral, but really aren’t). Nonetheless, Fisher does make it significantly harder for universities to defend racial preferences in admissions. To that extent, it is a victory for opponents of affirmative action.
UPDATE: I have made some stylistic changes to this post.
UPDATE #2: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters also interprets the decision as making it more difficult for universities to defend racially preferential affirmative action policies:

To the relief of affirmative action supporters, the high court left intact existing court precedent that allows for limited consideration of race in university admissions.
But in a departure from its most recent precedent, the court ruled that when an appeals court rehears the case it must apply a more stringent legal standard in deciding whether the university’s policy violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, meaning the University of Texas program still hangs in the balance.

Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, adopts an intepretation that seems intermediate between the two described above:

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered lower courts to take a fresh look, under a more demanding standard, at the race-conscious admissions policy used to admit students to the University of Texas. The 7-to-1 decision was simultaneously modest and significant, and its recalibration of how courts review the constitutionality of affirmative action programs is likely to give rise to a wave of challenges to admissions programs at colleges and universities nationwide.....
The decision did not disturb the Supreme Court’s general approach to affirmative action in admissions decisions, saying that educational diversity is a government interest sufficient to overcome the general ban on racial classifications by the government. But the court added that public institutions must have good reasons to use the particular means they use to achieve that goal.
That requirement could endanger the Texas program when it is reconsidered by the federal appeals court in New Orleans.

UPDATE #3: At Salon, Jillian Rayfield rounds up reactions from a number of experts and commentators, including several whose interpretations of the ruling are closer to mine than Chemerinsky and Magliocca’s:

Damon Hewitt, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that this decision means that they “all live to fight another day on this.” Ben Jealous, the president and CEO of the NAACP, said the group is “pleased” with the court’s decision....
But, as Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund put it in the same conference call with reporters, the Court’s decision creates a “sharper and tighter standard” for schools that wish to implement affirmative action policies....
Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog writes that the Court’s decision is “hardly enthusiastic” on the part of affirmative action:

Justice Kennedy repeated a statement that the Court has often reiterated in race cases: the standard of “strict scrutiny” must not be “strict in theory, but fatal in fact.” But, he went on, “the opposite is also true. Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact.” The emphasis was different, and it obviously was intended to be a meaningful difference.
Whether a university program that takes any account of race can run this legal course and survive, whether at the University of Texas or elsewhere, will depend upon cases that are now likely to unfold across the country. There is a strong new incentive for opponents of “affirmative action” in college admissions to test virtually every such program; indeed, in some ways, the tone of the opinion would seem to invite such further testing.

IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE

A very interesting post from www.anncoulter.com about Republicans and their waffling immigration position. This follows this post about Republicans voting for S.744 Amnesty. This follows this post about a HOUSE amnesty threat that you should click on and call about! This follows this post about the 15 PATRIOT Senators. ONLY 15 out of 45 RUBUBLICANS! This follows this post about the release of illegal immigrant felons from prison by ICE. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read the two very interesting books that are shown HERE.

IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-06-12.html

June 12, 2013

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.
Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")

Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on www.Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."

But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about Marco Rubio's TREASON on the "Gang of Eight Bill" S.744. This follows this post about a rally against the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill S.744.This follows this post about the racial componant of the "Gang of Eight" Bill.  This follows this post about the release of illegal immigrant felons from prison by ICE. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read the two very interesting books that are shown HERE.

Rubio Asserts Gang Bill Is Unconditional Amnesty (But Only In Spanish).

http://www.vdare.com/posts/rubio-asserts-gang-bill-is-unconditional-amnesty-but-only-in-spanish

By Patrick Cleburne

Marco Rubio: "But I thought only our people spoke Spanish!"

Byron York seems to have emerged as Marco Rubio’s nemesis. First he points out that the Gang bill embodies no powerful Border Commission – so that Rubio’s talk show barrage claiming it did appears to have been just lies.

Now in Marco Rubio: In immigration reform, legalization comes first — ‘It is not conditional’ The Daily Caller June 10, 2013 York reports

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place

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…The legalization is not conditional.”

In other words, U-N-C-O-N-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L  A-M-N-E-S-T-Y.

As York politely notes

In most of his public appeals for the Gang of Eight bill, Rubio has stressed its enforcement provisions, saying that border security must come before immigrants are granted legal permanent resident status

That Rubio is happy to lie about his Amnesty views is now incontrovertible. The only question is why he chose this delicate moment, with the Bill going to the full Senate tomorrow, to tell his Spanish language audience this. Did he think no immigration patriots can speak Spanish?

My view is that he is dumb as well as dishonest. Steve Sailer appears to agree - and we are not alone.

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about the true demographics of the 2012 presidential election. This follows this post about rallying to oppose the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill.  This follows this post about the release of illegal immigrant felons from prison by ICE. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read the two very interesting books that are

shown HERE.

Peggy Lee - Mañana

Go to YouTubePlay video "Mañana" - Peggy Lee and the David Barbour Quartet, 1950. From "The Snader Telescriptions". Copyright 2011 Peggy Lee Associates, LLC, under exclusive license to South Bay Music, LLC. 00:03:04 Added on 5/18/11 10,051 views

 

Census Bureau Refutes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” Mantra—Obama Won Because Of Old Black Ladies (And Turned-Off Whites)

http://www.vdare.com/articles/census-bureau-refutes-comprehensive-immigration-reform-mantra-obama-won-because-of-old-blac

By Steve Sailer

Ever since last November’s election, we’ve been hearing that Hispanics comprised a record 10 percent of the vote—which therefore obliges Republican Congressmen to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” a.k.a the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill RIGHT NOW.
For example:

National exit polls showed that 10 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, compared with 9 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2004. … A growing perception of hostility toward illegal immigrants by Republican candidates is driving many Latinos to the polls.
[Growing share of Hispanic voters helped push Obama to victory, By Donna St. George and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, November 7, 2012]

But what if these nice, round turnout numbers provided by the Edison exit poll company weren’t true? What if the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” clamor is based on exit poll error?
What if in 2012 the Sleeping Giant of the Latino Vote didn’t actually awake—but instead rolled over and started a new siesta?
In short, what if the Main Stream Media exaggerated the Hispanic share of the 2012 vote by a factor of almost 20 percent?
Well, we now have the numbers. We now know that the suppositions behind these awkward questions are true.
After every national election, the Census Bureau conducts a massive survey of voter turnout. Then it bureaucratically mulls over the results for months—while the conventional wisdom congeals around whatever slapdash numbers the exit poll firm emitted in the early going.
In contrast to the Census Bureau survey, though, exit polls aren’t designed to measure turnout. Heck, exit polls aren’t even very good at figuring out who won the election—just ask President John F. Kerry.
Exit polls can’t be based on the random samples that would be needed to measure turnout accurately, because the exit poll company has to bake a forecast of the electorate’s demographics into its plan of which precincts to send workers to cover. Not surprisingly, it tends to get back the results it anticipated.
Moreover, Hispanics are both of interest to sponsors and difficult to survey (they can need Spanish-speaking pollsters). So their needs are typically given more weight in planning the exit poll. The result:  national exit polls have overstated the Hispanic share of the vote at least since 2000.
Now, finally, on May 9, the Current Population Survey division of the Census Bureau has issued its turnout report, scintillatingly titledThe Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)[PDF]
Despite the title, it makes compelling reading.
It turns out that the official best estimate of the Latino share of 2012 voters isn’t 10 percent—but merely 8.4 percent:

So the standard story you’ve been hearing in the MSM for almost seven months is indeed inflated by 19 percent.
But what can you expect … because the conventional wisdom as embodied in that Washington Post story has been exaggerated for, roughly, ever.
Hispanics didn’t account for 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, but 7.4 percent. And in 2004, they weren’t 8 percent, but 6.0 percent. Way back in 2000, the exit poll claimed that Hispanics made up 7 percent, but the real number turned out to be 5.4 percent, as I reported for UPI on July 24, 2001. [Mexican-American Vote Smaller than Many Think]
But who did turn out in 2012 to drive Obama to victory? Who was the fresh new face of the American electorate in 2012?
Old black ladies.
According to the Census survey, fans of Tyler Perry movies voted in remarkable numbers in 2012—even more than in Obama’s first victory in 2008.
Unsurprisingly, given Obama’s candidacy, from 2004 to 2008 the number of black voters had grown 15 percent.
Unexpectedly, however, blacks added another 10 percent to their vote total from 2008 to 2012. Nationally, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted compared to 64.1 percent of whites, 48.0 percent of Hispanics, and 47.3 percent of Asians.

Thus in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, blacks achieved a voting rate of 71.7 percent compared to 61.9 percent for whites.
Overall, the raw black vote total grew more than even the Hispanic vote from 2008 to 2012: an incremental 1.68 million for blacks versus 1.44 million for Hispanics, and a decline of 2.00 million for whites.
Among blacks, older women were the most diligent at increasing their turnout in 2012.
The Census Bureau explains:

In 2012, overall turnout rates decreased in comparison with both 2004 and 2008, a drop in voting characterized by large decreases in youth voting rates for all race groups and Hispanics. The only subgroups showing voting rate increases in 2012 were blacks between the ages of 45 to 64 and 65 years of age and over.

This growth in black turnout was particularly concentrated among those over age 65. Also, black women traditionally vote at significantly higher rates than black men, and the black gender gap in turnout hit a new record in 2012.[For First Time on Record, Black Voting Rate Outpaced Rate for Whites in 2012,By Sarah Wheaton, New York Times, May 8, 2013]
So why did so many old black ladies bother to vote in 2012?
To express racial solidarity. To win. To ensure the White House stays black.
Old black ladies are American citizens. They are more than entitled to show up at the polls and vote for a credit to their race like Barack Obama.
But they are not exactly The Wave of the Future. The vast enthusiasm that Obama excited among aged African-Americans is not a logical reason to put Hispanic illegal aliens on the voting rolls.
But that is in fact the standard logic.
It’s worth noting that the Democrats are perfecting racial dog whistling with their constant claims that Republicans are trying to strip the vote from minorities, assertions that seemingly resounded with elderly blacks.
Black news site The Root reported:

The NAACP also credited its leadership in the pitched battle against Republican-led state voting restrictions such as photo-identification laws. Numerous civil rights groups and the Obama team fomented a backlash among black voters with a "Don’t let them take away your vote!" message.
[Black Voter Turnout Is Up. Will That Persist?, By Corey Dale, May 12, 2013]

This crowing by the NAACP, normally a dusty yesterday’s-news organization, is not unreasonable: The Census Bureau study suggests the NAACP really did help generate a backlash among elderly blacks.
From a game theory standpoint, the Democrats would want to cheat at least enough to cause Republicans to react to their cheating by proposing legislation to protect the validity of the vote. The Democrats can then rile up blacks with the message that Republicans are trying to take their votes away.
It seems to have worked.
In contrast to the fervent black effort to re-elect Obama, whites were strikingly unmotivated by Romney. The total white vote dropped from 100 million in 2008 to 98 million in 2012 (down two percent). Only 64.1 percent of eligible whites voted in 2012, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in the recent high-water mark year of 2004. This was the first time in the history of the Census survey that whites were not the highest-ranking group in terms of their rate of voting.
Among Hispanics eligible to vote, gross numbers continued to rise—but the rate of those taking the trouble to vote dropped from 49.9 to 48.0 percent. The number of Hispanics who claimed to be eligible but didn’t bother to get to the polls soared from 9.8 million to12.1 million.
In a strikingly independent-minded column in the Washington Post, of all outlets, Esther J. Cepeda noted the slack Hispanic turnout in 2012:

After nearly a year of breathless reports about how Latinos were going to trip over themselves to get to the polls and vote against Mitt Romney’s hardline immigration stance — remember Time magazine’s Spanish-language cover “Yo Decido”? — the reality is less dramatic.
[The GOP’s Hispanic problem, May 15, 2013]

Cepeda noted, for perhaps the first time in the history of the Washington Post, the self-interest behind the spin:

The reason you don’t hear much about these sobering numbers from the Hispanic advocacy organizations—as opposed to how they react with any statistic even remotely suggesting an impending Latino supremacy—is obvious. After all, immigration reform is only in play because Republicans are scared witless that unfavorable Latino voting power will sink their party in upcoming elections.
But how true can this be when fewer Latino voters bothered to vote in a contest featuring an incumbent Democrat and a Hispanically tone-deaf Republican candidate who could never quite get past “self-deportation” than in 2008, when Barack Obama and John McCain—a longtime supporter of immigration reform—were running?

Some other points from the Census survey: Naturalized immigrants made up only 7.0 percent of the 2012 electorate. Conversely, native sons and daughters comprised 93.0 percent of the vote.
Even among Hispanics, immigrants accounted for only 27.3 percent of their voters (in other words, 72.7 percent of the Hispanics who voted in 2012 were born in this country).
Needless to say, this ought to raise the interesting question: just how much do actual Hispanic voters care about immigration?
After all, Hispanics who vote tend not to be terribly young, so they are generally removed from their ancestors’ immigration by quite a few decades.
The GOP has dug itself quite a hole by its complacency about immigration.
But the conventional wisdom that it must immediately consent to “a path to citizenship” for illegal aliens—let alone, for reasons that are never explained, simultaneously increasing legal immigration from its already record level—is a transparent Democratic Electing-A-New-People ploy that persuades only the innumerate (or corrupt) among the Republican Brain Trust.
Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative and writes regularly for Takimag. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here and here (Kindle)