Sunday, July 19, 2015
ADIOS, AMERICA! THE LEFT’S PLAN TO TURN OUR COUNTRY
INTO A THIRD WORLD HELLHOLE (New York: Regnery Publishing, 2015)
By ANN COULTER
Rev. by Hugh Murray
Suppose Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, addressed the people of his nation and announced that the Han Chinese, by far the largest ethnic group in the country today, will become a minority in China later during this century. Then, imagine the audience, composed chiefly of Han, applauding! And then Xi’s response to the change: to better educate the new people who will replace the Han. Of course, the scene is hard to imagine, because if Xi were to make such a speech, he would be ousted from power within a week.
Imagine India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi speaking to his nation – he looks forward to the time when Indians will become a minority in India! And an Indian audience applauding! Such an announcement would be the death knell for Modi’s political party, and Modi would be driven from office in shame. But these two suppositions are simply inconceivable in reality, for neither Xi nor Modi would ever make such pronouncements.
On Bastille Day, 14 July 1997, then President Bill Clinton of the United States presented the commencement address at the Univ. of California, San Diego. He said, “Today, the State of Hawaii, …, has no majority racial or ethnic group. It is a wonderful place of exuberance and friendship and patriotism. Within the next 3 years, here in California no single race or ethnic group will make up a majority of the State's population…. A half-century from now, when your own grandchildren are in college, there will be no majority race in America.” Clinton’s audience applauded the notion that whites would become a minority by 2050. Whites, who had been the vast majority and dominant population in the US since its origins, and who composed 90% of the American population when Bill Clinton was born, were scheduled to become a minority in approximately 50 years. What was Clinton’s response? Appoint a commission to conduct a dialog on race (but John Hope Franklin, appointed to lead the group, demanded no dissent from his left-wing views on race), and Clinton urged better education for those who would be replacing the whites. Clinton’s approach was more like that of Jews in 1930s Germany, who as their factories were being confiscated, were to train the Aryans who were entering to replace them.
How could Americans applaud Clinton’s speech? Why did he and others not see the demographic statistics he presented as a threat to the Americans who had built America? Why did Clinton not react as Modi would if it applied to India? Or Xi if it applied to China?
Suppose there is a county near the Mexican border, we will call it Angoland; its population at the last census was 10,000 all Anglos. Suppose that since then there have been major border crossings, and for the next census, it appears the total population of the county will be 20,000, half of whom are basically illiterate in English (many just as illiterate in Spanish). Suddenly, there are demands for Spanish teachers in the schools. The courts require translators for the many new cases of drugs, drunk driving, driving without a license, stolen cars, etc. Then the liberals fight back – why are there no Hispanic police? Protests demand 50% of the police and fire departments be Hispanic. Appeals are made to the EEOC, and an agreement is made so no new Anglos will be hired in the civil service until the Hispanics have their “fair share” of 50% of the county’s jobs. If most of the new Hispanics are incapable of passing the exams that have been used for decades, the Feds will demand that those exams be scrapped; only simple exams that almost anyone can pass will be used. And then the racial quotas will determine who is hired, and the new hire will be declared “basically qualified,” (but never the best qualified). The same process will occur in schools and the community college. Moreover, hereafter new hires will have to be fluent in Spanish (not knowing that language is clearly discrimination against half the county’s residents.) Indeed, new hires should be bi-lingual (that is Spanish-English, no other languages will be considered). If most old residents do not know Spanish, they will have to learn it if they want a civil service job, or even as a clerk in Target or Burger King (because, to the newcomer, English monolingualism means discrimination). This will provide even more reasons to hire illegals. And never question their immigration status, for that is racial profiling, which the Feds deem discrimination, and they will fine any employer who engages is such an evil practice.
The result: in a short time Angoland County will be unrecognizable, from Angoland to Espanterra in a few years. This happens not only in an imaginary county – this is what is occurring all over America. Why?
Coulter begins her book by noting that the political fight over immigration is one of the elite against the American public (p. 1), and concludes that the public, despite its clear opposition to massive immigration, has been unable to change the open border policies.(270)
Of course, Coulter is persuasive with her zingers – why is the crowd who assure us that fences are ineffective live in gaited communities? She quotes various politicians with their counter-zingers: show me a 10-foot fence and I’ll show you an 11-foot latter. She counters, if the fences are so ineffective, why are the pro-immigration crowd so opposed to border fences? Israel has one, and it works. East Germany had one, and very few illegal immigrants got into, or out of, the old GDR. Border fences can work. That is why the elite so fiercely oppose them.
Of course the academedia complex, almost all leftwing, cover-up and lie about the immigration disaster. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Coulter adds to the lefty lies, “If you like your country, you can keep your country.” She exposes the deception used by the Democrats when they proposed the 1965 change in the immigration law – the assurances that it would not alter the ethnic composition of the US. In a later period, Coulter also exposes the many lies of the Republicans who run for election opposing massive immigration, but once elected, lobby for and vote for various forms of amnesty. In several place in the book, Coulter reveals some of the hypocrisy of Republican Sen. Marco Rubio on this issue.
One thing I learned from Coulter’s new book is how sections of America are already occupied territory of the Mexicans. Parts of our national parks are closed to American citizens because they have become too dangerous, areas where drugs are grown, and sometimes refined and manufactured. Americans get out – this park is Mexican cartel country! Other areas are no longer the domain of American hikers, campers, and tourists; these American parks are the pathways to welfare for Mexican invaders. If they fear exposure from tourists or park officials, they will light matches intentionally trying to set wild fires. The Park Service then has to worry about the costly fires and abandon any attempt to halt the invaders. And what does the conservationist Sierra Club think of the invaders who seize American parks and burn our forests? They were opposed, of course, until a rich, pro-immigration donor presented the Sierra Club with a huge gift – so long as the SC avoided the immigration issue. Bottom line – Sierra Club sold out.
And the New York Times, which once opposed the open borders and massive illegal flow of immigrants changed its tune also. As the Times neared bankruptcy, Mexican millionaire Carlos Slim bailed out the newspaper of record. Then, suddenly, the Times became pro-immigration and opposed to border fences. Bottom line.
The influx of immigrants is made worse because of the dominant, left-wing, politically-correct culture. In the past, immigrants were expected to learn English and adapt to American ways. But now, under the absurd theory that all cultures are equal (except Western civilization, which is identified with racism, colonialism, sexism, and all forms of oppression), immigrants need not assimilate to such a rotten culture. Today’s immigrants need not adapt to American customs; Americans must adapt to theirs. So now, to get a job in the city, one may have to be bi-lingual (good at Spanish, barely tolerable at English). If you see your Hmong neighbor clubbing a puppy to death, don’t be alarmed. He is trying to save a sick relative through animal sacrifice, just as in the old country. (And did they use human sacrifice in the old country? If so, we should not be judgmental and adapt. Diversity is out strength!) Gang rapes? We must understand that such is common in various cultures. Honor killings? We must understand. Terrorism? We must understand…
Coulter makes the point – we must understand what kind of immigrants we are importing. If we do not stop it, America will become another 3rd world hellhole.
One reviewer on amazon complained that though Coulter’s book is excellent, it may be too late to stop the 3rd world invasion. Excellent as Adios, America! is, it is not the first such book. Recall anti-Vietnam war crusader, the liberal Democratic Minnesota Senator who in 1968 challenged Pres. Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. Sen. Eugene McCarthy did so well, that Pres. Johnson withdrew from the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy entered and fought McCarthy in various primaries. Finally, Kennedy won in California, only to be murdered that very night by a Palestinian immigrant. In 1993 liberal Eugene McCarthy published a book, A Colony of the World: the USA Today, stressing how we had lost control of our borders and were in many ways now a colony. That same year, and expert on civil rights legislation, Hugh Davis Graham, a liberal, published a tedious but fact-filled volume, The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America. And in 1995 legal English immigrant Peter Brimelow published Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster. We have been warned for at least 2 decades about the mounting crisis. What have we done about it?
The cost in crime and welfare and lost jobs to citizens because of an invasion by millions of illegals is a disaster. Coulter asks, what if all this money spent on invaders had been spent on Blacks? I ask, what if it had been spent on all of America’s poor citizens?
In 1965 we were duped by Ted Kennedy and the left into changing our immigration law, one that had worked well for 40 years. We were assured the new immigrants would be much like the old, and the numbers would not increase significantly. Lies. When average American citizens experienced the real changes, the loss of income, the new competition, the lower wages, the changes in the schools (wearing a USA t-shirt gets you suspended from some California schools for the shirt may offend Mexican invaders!), the rise in crimes, etc., they sought to stop the flow and close the border. But will America’s elite, the academedia Left and the corporate globalists (whose politics is only profit), continue to thwart the desire of the American people? If the people do not force a major change in immigration policy soon, then the American people will no longer be the people of America.
Friday, July 10, 2015
South Carolina's Gov. Nikki Haley, Republican, has led in demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol area. The State legislature approved the measure, and the Confederate battle flag was removed. The reason is that the Confederate flags are associated with slavery and segregation, and the symbols are hurtful to many Blacks. The NAACP has called for the removal of the flag for years, and the demand is spreading to other states and now federal cemeteries.
I am a Southerner and I was engaged in the civil rights movement in the late 1950s and 60s. And I was friends with other integrationists. After the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) expelled its white members, Southern white integrationists formed the Southern Students Organizing Committee (SSOC), to work to improve race relations in the South. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was limited to the North and West, SSOC was in the South. To indicate it was Southern, the button sold by SSOC showed two hands shaking in friendship, a Black hand and a white hand, and in the background was the Confederate battle flag. What other symbol could represent the South? The magnolia? No. The peach? No. The alligator? No. Cotton? No. Only the Confederate flag would indicate that SSOC was a Southern organization to cover the the entire South. How sad that the fanatics now seek to ban the Confederate flag.
On the other hand, what is more associated with the institution of slavery, and then Jim Crow segregation, than the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party sought to guaranty and then extend slavery. After the war, one of it's campaign songs was "We are the white man's party." Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan, to propel the Democrats to election victory through intimidation. The Democrats in power introduced legal segregation in the South, and took away the right to vote of Black citizens. When Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the US, Democrat Wilson introduced segregation into the federal civil service. The Confederate flag did none of these things; the Democratic Party did. If we are to ban the Confederate flag, surely we should also ban the Democratic Party.