1. The Washington Post runs an unintentionally hilarious article interviewing white Obama supporters that calls to mind Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy.. One thing that’s clear is how little white Obama supporters know about their candidate

2. Mickey Kaus blogs on “Obama’s Pastor Disaster:”

Old CW: Not Black Enough; New CW: What’s All This Black Business? Tom Maguire wonders why Jodi Kantor’s front-page NYT piece on Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, hasn’t generated more controversy. Having now read it, I tend to agree. I’d certainly be more comfortable with a presidential nominee whose main spiritual man 1) hadn’t visited Col. Qaddafi (even back in ‘84); 2) talked less about “oppression” and “this racist United States of America;” 3) when discussing the solution to poverty, talked more about individual achievement and less about the role of “community”–including maybe even celebrating “middleclassness” instead of using it as shorthand for selfishness; 4) in general wasn’t so obsessed with race--as evidenced most negatively in talk of “white arrogance” and derogatory reference to the “Great White West.” … I suspect Rev. Wright is going to be a bigger problem for Obama’s campaign than has been conventionally perceived. When Obama declared “we worship an awesome God in the blue states,” were voters expecting this?…

That the Rev. Wright has been Obama’s “spiritual advisor” for the last 20 years is the equivalent of a white candidate having, say, the Rev. Bob Jones III, who got in so much trouble for banning interracial dating on his campus, as his spiritual advisor. “Wait a minute,” you say, “The difference is that white people have power and black people don’t, so racialism is bad when whites do it but fine when blacks do it!” Well, sure … except that Obama wants to be the President of the United States and that’s as powerful as you can get.

This paradox that Mickey identifies — that Obama isn’t very black by upbringing but is very black by avocation — isn’t terribly hard to explain. It’s precisely because he’s a preppie from paradise, and thus his black street cred is always in question, that he’s searched out black racialist organizations like the Rev. Wright’s church. If he was as culturally black as, say, James Brown, Don King, Charles Barkley, etc., he’d be more “comfortable in his own skin” and feel less of a need for a racialist community to validate his authenticity as a black man.

3. By the way, why has it become such a commonplace that Obama is “comfortable in his own skin” that there are 1,690 references to this cliché on Google, when the man himself wrote 442 pages about precisely the opposite? Wouldn’t a more plausible explanation for the gap between his autobiography and his current media image be that Obama is a talented actor? Cary Grant, for example, sure seemed comfortable in his own skin, but he wasn’t, at least not until the last eight years of his tremendous career, after psychoanalysis (using LSD, which was perfectly legal in 1958) helped him come to grips with his rampant insecurities.

This image comes from a pamphlet distributed by CASA de Maryland, and non-profit provider of illegal day laborers.
Note the ethnic identities. The two Americans making the arrest include one white and one black. Both are caricatured, the white man looking like Dudley Do-Right, the black agent looking like some of the distasteful caricatures of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.(Mexicans are behind the times on racial politesse–see Brenda Walker’s post on “Memin Pinguin.” )

The illegal being arrested, and the woman giving free advice, (”free” that is, if you’re not a net taxpayer) are clearly Hispanic. The point of this pamphlet is to help illegals stay in the US, through litigation, and various forms of resistance. This next image gives one of them.

The plan here, for legal immigrants and even American citizens to refuse to say that they’re legal is partly to use up enforcement resources, by making hard to distinguish the legal from illegal immigrants, and partly political, because it’s always good sob story stuff when anyone who’s either legal or an American citizen gets detained even for an hour in an immigration raid. The motivation for the legal employees to cover up for the illegals is presumably racial solidarity.

In Alien Nation Peter Brimelow wrote that if the government ever actually did anything do enforce the law, the “moral pressure” would be intense.

He wrote

A common argument will be that employed in mid-1993 by Representative Jose Serrano (D.-New York), the Puerto Rican-born chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, while denouncing an anti-illegal-immigrant amendment to the Clinton administration’s national service plan: “I resent having to prove I’m a citizen… “[Immigration Reformers Fearful of 2% Solution, By Ralph Z. Hallow, Washington Times, July 29,1993]

To this, the American answer must be: tough. Life is unfair, as another Democrat—President John F. Kennedy—once memorably noted. Representative Serrano has, presumably, ample means to prove his identity. I will be happy to do the same (I don’t mind now, actually) when there are 2 to 3 million illegal Englishmen crossing the border every year. Could any American politician be so callous? Well, do they want to keep their country?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin, and the Washington Times: Guide coaches illegals on raids By Jerry Seper, May 7, 2007,

While the Illinois media are busy running their daily dose of sob stories about “paperless migrants,” four foolish “lawmakers” were trying to - are you ready for this? - make it illegal for the state’s employers to comply with federal law prohibiting the hiring of illegal aliens.

In the words of the late comedian, Steve Allen, “I kid you not.”

The Foolish Four who pose a very serious challenge to the “intelligent design” hypothesis are: State Reps. Cynthia Soto, Richard T. Bradley, Monique D. Davis and Senate sponsor Iris Y. Martinez.

That’s right, you employers in the Land of Lincoln. The Foolish Four were all geared up to put you in the federal doghouse just so their illegal amigos could operate even more freely in Illinois. Forget about participating in any form of workplace verification, including the Basic Pilot Program now in operation in all 50 states on a voluntary basis.

At the moment, fortunately, it appears that both bills have been neutralized by amendments that undo the craziness initiated by their sponsors.

Here’s a summary of the bills’ language:

HB 1743

Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. Provides that it is a civil rights violation for an employer, based on the receipt of information from the Social Security Administration or from any other government agency that an employee’s name and Social Security number do not correspond, to require that employee to reverify work authorization documents, to inquire as to that employee’s work authorization, or to otherwise take any adverse action against that employee, unless the Attorney General of the United States issues final regulations to the contrary. Provides that it is also a civil rights violation for any employer, any agent of any employer, any employment agency, or any other entity to use the Basic Pilot program for Employment Eligibility Confirmation to conduct certain employment verification or reverification or to take certain adverse actions against the employee.

House Amendment No. 1
Deletes the changes made in the bill. Provides that it is a civil rights violation for an employer participating in the Basic Pilot Program for employment eligibility confirmation to refuse to hire, to segregate, or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms, privileges or conditions of employment without following the procedures under the Basic Pilot Program.

HB1744

Amends the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. Provides that employers are prohibited from enrolling in any Employment Eligibility Verification System, including the Basic Pilot program, as authorized by federal law, until the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases are able to make a determination on 99% of the tentative nonconfirmation notices issued to employers within 3 days, unless otherwise required by federal law. Provides that an employer who enrolls in the Basic Pilot program is prohibited from the Employment Eligibility Verification Systems, to confirm the employment authorization of new hires unless the employer attests, under penalty of perjury, on a form prescribed by the Department of Labor, to certain specified information. Preempts the exercise of home rule powers. Provides that the Department of Human Rights shall establish a statewide advisory council to study the effects of Employment Eligibility Verification Systems, including the Basic Pilot program, on employers and employees in Illinois. Provides that the advisory council shall, 18 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act, submit a report to the Department of Human Rights and the Department of Labor.

House Amendment No. 1

Deletes provision that states that it shall be unlawful for any employer to collect and maintain data that is not required by the Basic Pilot Program. Deletes provisions creating the statewide advisory council to study the effects of Employment Eligibility Verification Systems.

“Honest Abe” must be bouncing off the walls of his tomb.

Libertarian Vin Suprynowicz, writing yesterday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal,pointed out that the Federal Government will at least try to enforce unenforceable and pointless laws, like the laws against drugs, or the laws restricting guns, without throwing up their hands in helplessness. At least, they do when the victims of these laws are Americans.

Gov. Richardson parroted every other mainstream politician of our time, asserting, “You can’t deport ‘em all. How are you going to do it?”

This is an interesting position, which does appeal to my libertarian side. If we got rid of all the welfare programs, I would indeed favor open immigration. I pretty much favor abandoning all unenforceable laws.

What strikes me odd is that these politicians seem to want to abandon only this one (supposedly) unenforceable law.

Drive down any street in Vegas traveling at precisely the posted speed limit. Unless there’s a black-and-white in sight, traffic will be zooming past you on both sides. So why don’t these same politicians say, “What are you going to do, arrest them all? The battle is lost.”

What about the war on drugs? Why don’t these same politicians say, “It’s obviously a lost cause. What are you going to do, round up every pot smoker? How many more prisons you gonna build?”

I proposed that to Gov. Richardson on Monday. He replied: “I’m not in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. I’m in favor of sentencing enhancements.”

They continue to pester us with hundreds of unenforceable laws. So why is this the one law they won’t even try to enforce?

If they brought all the nation’s immigration cops to Las Vegas tomorrow and started raiding hotels, they could have thousands of seasick illegal maids dumped on the beach in Acapulco next week. The river of trespassers would slow and — when they saw the celery fields of California getting the same treatment next week — might actually reverse.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower did it a year after taking office in 1953, with far fewer men than the U.S. Border Patrol has today. It was called “Operation Wetback,” and it worked. Arrest and deport the first 10 percent; the rest get wise pretty quick.

No, the real fear here is that if they rounded up and deported and otherwise drove away all the illegal Mexicans and Guatemalans, “Who would make the beds in the hotels?”

The best answer is: “The children of the people who used to do it, who are mostly currently on the government dole.”[ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Are you PC? If so, stop reading here May. 06, 2007 ]

Bruce Bawer (author of While Europe Slept) reminds us of the May 6 anniversary of the political assassination of Dutch candidate Pim Fortuyn in 2002.

At the time of the murder, Fortuyn appeared to be on a path toward becoming the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. If that event had come to pass, it would have required recalibration of the usual tired categories of who supported sensible immigration restriction. Pim Fortuyn was a unapologetic gay man — complete with a pair of King Charles spaniels — and hardly a jack-booted fascist. He condemned Muslim immigration because those newcomers to Holland refused to assimilate to the socially liberal Netherlands society, in which gay sexuality is as acceptable as straight.

He was shot in the back by “animal rights activist” Volkert van der Graaf who later admitted that he committed the assassination to protect Muslims.

As Bawer notes, after five years time the shock of what the assassination meant has worn off, and the bad habits of appeasement to the slow-motion Muslim invasion via immigration have returned to Dutch life.

Yes, some politicians, notably Parliament member Geert Wilders, are carrying on Fortuyn’s battle. But momentum has given way to malaise. Politicians and journalists who once kept mum on Islamization now openly defend it as preferable to culture clash: Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen has called for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including toleration “of orthodox Muslims who consciously discriminate against their women.”

Only last week, Mr. Wilders was called in by Dutch intelligence and security officials who, he said, “intimidated” him by pressuring him to tone down his rhetoric on Islam. Fortuyn’s brief shining moment seems very long ago.

Many political assassinations leave behind haunting questions. How would Reconstruction have gone under Lincoln? Could the Vietnam debacle have been avoided if President Kennedy had lived? Five years after Fortuyn’s murder, it can feel as if Volkert van der Graaf robbed Europe not only of a brilliant champion of liberty, but of its one great chance to save itself before it’s too late.
[Europe's Champion of Liberty, New York Sun 5/4/07]