Here’s more proof that Mexico is a rich country, not wracked by poverty as we are led to believe by the open-borders hacks. When Mexicans were poor, they ate beans and tortillas, a healthy combination that creates a complete protein.

Now they have excess money to spend on obesity-causing junk food, just like Americans. When you live on Cokes and potato chips, you are headed toward blimpdom. The most obese person on earth is a Mexican.

MEXICO CITY – Fueled by the rising popularity of soft drinks and fast food restaurants, Mexico has become the second-fattest nation in the world. Mexican health officials say it could surpass the United States as the most obese country within 10 years if trends continue.

More than 71 percent of Mexican women and 66 percent of Mexican men are overweight, according to the latest national surveys.

With diabetes now Mexico’s leading cause of death, activists and leaders hope to renew efforts to crack down on fatty-food consumption and encourage citizens to exercise more. But it will be a tough battle, as industry groups are expected to put up a fight.
[Where hunger once prevailed, diabetes is leading cause of death, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 24, 2008]

Kathleen Parker, writing on NRO, thinks that evil that white people have done is responsible for black paranoia:

Black history, meanwhile, makes it possible for many to accept the theory advanced by Wright that white men invented the AIDS virus to destroy black populations. After all, the 40-year Tuskegee syphilis study, in which about 400 black men with syphilis were left untreated and uninformed as part of an experiment, was conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Given that history, the AIDS theory doesn’t require much of a leap for many in the black community. The AIDS virus has hit African Americans harder than any other group. For blacks in the United States, HIV/AIDS is a leading cause of death, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).[PDF] Even though blacks account for about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 49 percent of those who get HIV and AIDS. Whites account for 31 percent.

A white person might view these statistics on the CDC website and understand that blacks suffer more in part because of barriers such as poverty, sexually transmitted disease, and cultural stigmas that put blacks at higher risk. Blacks — especially those under the spell of Wrighteousness — might view the same information and at least wonder if something else is going on.[White America’s Blind Spot Racial harmony will require more than hope. By Kathleen Parker, March 26, 2008]

Of course, the problem with this is that the general belief about the Tuskegee Study is simply not true, and has been debunked here on VDARE.com by Jared Taylor, and by anthropologist Richard Shweder in the pages of Spiked Magazine.[Tuskegee Re-examined, January 8, 2004] It was conducted at least partly under the auspices of Booker T. Washington’s famous Tuskegee Institute, hence the name. The study was run at least partly by Dr Eugene Dibble, and Nurse Eunice Rivers, who were black, and associated with the Tuskegee Institute’s John Andrew Hospital.

The reason for allowing some people, (who, if I have to say this, were not infected by the government, but had acquired the disease themselves in the ordinary way) to remain untreated was that was one of the normal options for dealing with a disease that, pre-antibiotics, had few good or safe treatments. Shweder writes that syphilis therapy in the 1930’s was “so weak, hazardous, lengthy, costly and difficult to administer that very few people with syphilis were willing to tolerate the drugs for the full course of the treatment.”

In layman’s language, this included things that didn’t work, things that made you sick, and things that made you scream when the doctor did them to you. Arsenic was involved.

The problem with the Tuskegee Institute study and the black community isn’t the study itself, but the black community’s reaction to it, and that’s caused by men like Jeremiah Wright, preaching on it day after day, and year after year. And it’s wrong for Kathleen Parker [Email her] to suggest that it’s somehow OK for Jeremiah Wright to be preaching that AIDS was deliberately invented by whites as an attack on black people.

To the huge disappointment of Japanese fans and the Beantowners who paid $5,000 for a VIP package to fly to Tokyo, the Oakland Athletics bounced back this morning to beat the Boston Red Sox 5-1 in the second game of the two-game Globalism Opening Day Series.

This is sweet revenge for the A’s whose brass is irked that its second home game of the season, April 2nd against the same Red Sox, was moved from a night game to a day game at the request of the insufferable Sox players.The Red Sox claim it needs the extra travel time to readjust to eastern daylight time. But this is more nonsense from the pampered players since after returning home, the team has a full day off before playing a night game–essentially forty-eight hours–to rest up.

The switch from a night start to day eliminated a television date from the cash-poor A’s and angered the many local fans that bought tickets. But who in the “Red Sox Nation” would care about that?

Carping about travel is one more reason to laugh at the players. To hear them tell it, the experience is like taking a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Miami with a plane change in Houston instead of the charter airline comfort it really is. Someone packs their bags, the airport bus is waiting for them at their luxury hotel, the food is first class, etc.

Although Daisuke Matsuzaka was the focus of all the fan and media attention, what his start yesterday proved is that he can’t get much past the fifth inning even with a considerable hometown advantage.

In fact, Dice-K was out-pitched by both A’s starters, the comparatively obscure Joe Blanton and Rich Harden.

The truth about Dice-K is hard for many Sox fans—both here and in Japan— to come to grips with.

Here it is from ESPN announcer and Hall of Fame great Joe Morgan.

Last year, while I was listening to the World Series, Morgan in a moment of unusual candor said this about Matsuzaka:

“He’s not as good as the Red Sox thought he was.”

Matsuzaka isn’t responsible for the media frenzy that continues unabated despite his mediocre pitching. But it would be refreshing if sports reporters could tone down their enthusiasm to face the facts about Matsuzaka–he’s just another run-of-the-mill pitcher.

The blog “Chris Matthew’s Other Leg” offers an Irish analogy providing some perspective on the molding of the tres cafe au lait Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.:

Hugh Leonard Thompson Murphy, known to history as Lennie, was born in The Village in East Belfast in 1952, a fanatically loyalist Protestant area … Now little Lennie was stuck with that quintessential emblem of Paddydom, his very name. Murphy ( from the Gaelic Ó Murchú) is as Irish as “Danny Boy” and as Catholic as the Rosary.

In the lunatic environment in which he grew up there were widespread suspicions–and suspicions in Belfast, like unexploded bombs, tend to tick away if not swiftly disarmed - that his father William, a mild inoffensive fellow, was a ‘Teague’ (= Catholic, from the Irish name Tadhg =Thaddeus, Timothy). Hence Lennie, carrier of tainted blood, was called “Murphy the Mick” (Mick = Teague)…

Lennie, the emotional type, as will become clear, reacted by becoming Proddier than the Proddiest of the Prods… His obsessive hatred of Papists galvanized an essentially psychopathic nature and by the age of twenty he was slaughtering innocent Catholics at the head of a bunch of thuggish misfits who over the bloody years came to be known as the Shankill Butchers….

Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama come to mind though not because they are psychopathic killers, let me add. They are perfectly sane and not in the least criminal or violent. They are in fact pillars of their community. But they have something in common with the unlovely Lennie–a need to prove to themselves and the world that they are totally committed to their assigned identities. In an historically divided social environment, such as Belfast, fencing sitting was not a recognized way of achieving prestige in one’s community or establishing the basis for a political career. Life in general, especially as regards politics and religion, was a zero sum game. … Unimpeachable political-religious tribal credentials were necessary because absolute loyalty to and identification with the tribe was the be all and end all. …

Jeremiah Wright, a generation before Obama, had a similar but more subtle problem that might not occur to whites who see all people of African descent as just black. Black people themselves of course are naturally more discerning. … As anyone can attest who has seen him in his pulpit against the congregation massed behind him Pastor Wright is extremely light-skinned even to the extent that one can easily discern him actually flushing with passion at the more emotionally charged moments of his sermons, a phenomenon not to be observed with the vast majority of black preachers however riled up they get.

This might seem trivial but in the American context it can have significant psychological effects. (This whole question is explored with great subtlety by Philip Roth in The Human Stain, a true American masterpiece.) The 1960s - the seed-time of so many of today’s more florid neuroses - was a period when emerging black activists, understandably enough, over-compensated for the shame historically associated with their race by proclaiming an overweening pride in their blackness or rather Blackness. “Black”, they declared, “is beautiful”, as indeed in so many ways it is because a socially and morally coherent black community is one of the glories of American civilization.

This radical attitude was a necessary corrective to the marginalization by law and by racial stigmatization which blacks had endured for centuries. However this was the Sixties, so in about 3.2547 seconds everyone involved went OTT and healthy radicalism transmogrified into a rabid fanaticism at the core of which throbbed a racism which was the mirror-image of that which it sought to eradicate.

Within this heady scene young Jeremiah Wright, a middle-class graduate of a white Philadelphia high school, was coming into his own. It is not to be wondered at if he felt a psychological imperative to more than emphatically establish his ethnic authenticity in the face - no pun intended - of the paleness of his own complexion when all the cadres of the cause were sporting chic afros the size of the Super Dome and wearing as a badge of honor the very blackness of which he barely possessed enough to bring a scowl to Bull Connor’s unpleasing countenance.

He thus became a Super Black, the ranting, rabble-rousing Moses of an Unchosen People for whom no anti-American (because ipso facto anti-white) delusions, however demonstrably paranoid, were off limits.

So, each riding his own distinct yet not very different demons, the pale black Preacher and the half-white black Politician came together and added their own chapter to the Great Adventure that is America. [More]

I keep hearing about how environmentalism is so trendy here in LA, but one obvious way to reduce your carbon footprint is to get over in one of the right hand lanes on the freeway and drive 65 mph instead of your usual 78 mph. Watch your tachometer and you’ll see a big difference in your RPMs–there are rapidly diminishing marginal efficiencies in pushing air out of the way as your speed increases, especially if you have an SUV or other non-aerodynamic vehicle. You can drive 15 miles at 65 mph instead of 78 mph and arrive at the same moment if you leave 2 minutes and 20 seconds earlier.

Funny, though, how you never see anybody trendy-looking in the slow lane. I have to drive one long, steep uphill stretch of freeway a lot lately at midday when there’s not much traffic. I’ve found that if I take it at 62 mph the whole way, the automatic transition won’t ever have to downshift and push my RPMs through the roof. I’ve noticed, though, that I’m sharing the slow lane with more Datsuns than Infinitis. Typically, I go up the mountain behind a dilapidated small pickup truck with a lawnmower in the back, while to the left, hand-detailed Volvos and Priuses zoom past us losers.

As far as I can tell, environmentalism in LA is mostly about shopping, buying stuff white people like to flaunt your social conscience and income, about showing the world that you’re living life in the fast lane. Driving slower so you can save money at the pump, in contrast, is seen as just sad.

In November of 2007, Oklahoma’s state law H.B. 1804 took effect.

The law prohibits illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses and specific government benefits, it prohibits the sheltering and transport of illegal aliens, and it allows local police to enforce immigration law in the normal course of their duties.
Several months later, it certainly looks like the law has been successful. FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) has reported that since H.B. 1804 was enacted, 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state of Oklahoma, either returning to the home country or to another U.S. state with more liberal laws.

This shows the effectiveness of state laws designed to crack down on illegal immigration, which show what can be done when a government is determined to enforce the law.

The Immigration Lawyers Website just published their opinion of which one of the presidential candidates is most likely to deliver “immigration benefits”. ILW didn’t define what they mean by “immigration benefits”, but it’s safe to assume they are talking about amnesty, large increases in guest worker visas, F-4 and OPT for foreign students, H-1B, green cards, and anything else that increases the volume of business and wealth of immigration lawyers.

It’s a tough choice for ILW because all three candidates agree to the agenda of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes H-1B visas.

The ILW winners are:

• #1 McCain
• #2 Obama
• #3 Clinton

Fortunately for the ILW, and unfortunately for us, they get to choose the best of the three instead of the least of three evils. Keep in mind that the ILW choices have nothing to do with policy or ideology because all three of these presidential candidates are globalists who want to destroy our country by opening our borders to unlimited immigration (in WTO terms they want unimpeded flows of “natural persons”). The ILW choice boils down to who is most likely to get the dirty job done, not who has the most desire to do it.

In their opinion, McCain is the best option. That’s an excellent choice based on McCain’s record. Two examples of McCain’s open borders voting record was his co-sponsorship of H-1B in 1990, and the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill. To read more about McCain’s voting record on foreign worker importation go here.
Out of the two Democratic candidates, ILW thinks Obama is most likely to deliver the goods. Their reason for picking Obama is that Clinton is so polarizing the Republicans, and possibly some Democrats, will try to thwart anything she does on immigration, or probably anything else — even if it means filibusters. Obama on the other hand might not have as many problems with partisan politics, which means he may be able to push amnesty and open immigration bills through Congress more rapidly than Clinton.

Obama Clinton McCain, ILW.com, March 26, 2008

The three major contenders for President this November are Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain. Here is a quick preview of how immigration benefits might fare under these three possible presidencies (bear in mind that immigration legislation is controversial and generally difficult to muster votes for).

The analysis begins with the likely shape of Congress next year. Here, the ground appears to favor Democrats. In the House of Representatives, the Democratic majority will likely increase by the low single digits or decrease by the high single digits. Either way, it appears that the Demcrats will keep their majority in the House. In the Senate, Democrats appear poised to increase their majority by 3 to 6 seats. Either way, the Democrats will likely fall short of a filibuster proof majority, thus guaranteeing that on some issues, the Republicans will be able to block bills. Thus the three possible presidencies should be viewed within the context of Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate in the next Congress.

If Sen. Clinton were President, Senate passage of immigration benefits could be problematic since a Republican filibuster against an initiative from a President Clinton may be easier to sustain than against another Democrat. The fundamental issue if either Democrat were to be elected President - Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama - is that immigration will likely not be high on the list of Presidential priorities in the next Congress. The Iraq war, health care, energy, the economy - all these might prevent any Democratic presidential push on immigration. If Sen. McCain were President, however, the list of Presidential priorities would be quite different: war against Al-Qaeda, tax cuts, and spending cuts. A President McCain may well want to work on immigration early on to show that he is a centrist President and does not govern from one end of the political spectrum. To sum up, from a purely immigration benefits perspective, an Obama presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency, and a McCain presidency would likely be the best option.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.