A few of the cynics on my mailing list will probably accuse me of finally selling out the cause because I am endorsing a bill that increases the number of nonimmigrant workers. The Weiner bill is an awesome idea because it increases the number of beautiful foreign ladies that can come to the U.S. for employment. Folks, this newsletter isn’t a joke, the bill is for real! Read on for details.

Remember when Bill Gates argued that if we don’t allow more H-1Bs into the country Microsoft will move engineering jobs overseas? Similar arguments are made for allowing more cute girls into the U.S. [VDARE.com note: Approach with caution.]

“If there are girls that we can’t get into the United States, the client is going to take that business elsewhere,” said Corinne Nicolas, president of Trump Model Management. “The market is calling for foreign girls.”

Weiner’s bill will move fashion models out of the H-1B category, which is in short supply, and into the P visa category, which has no yearly quota and offers unlimited yearly extensions. P visas are used mostly for entertainers and athletes. It has an anchor baby provision that allows spouses and unmarried children to accompany the P Visa holder.

Weiner’s bill effectively increases the number of available H-1B visas because 1,000 fashion models will no longer affect the yearly cap on H-1B. Fewere fashion models on H-1Bs means more visas that can be used to import engineers and programmers.

All of this sounds too good to be true (the more beautiful women part at least) so I did some research to find out if there is any truth to the two articles included below. The prospect of importing beautiful women into the U.S. got me so excited I worked throughout the evening to verify the existence of the bill (which explains why I’m sending it so late, Oink! Oink!).

Here it is:

H.R. 4080: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a separate nonimmigrant classification for fashion models

Unfortunately the bill doesn’t have any co-sponsors so it’s unclear if Congress is going to support it. When time permits, be sure to call your representative and ask why he/she hasn’t signed on as a co-sponsor. You might even ask Hillary Clinton if she will sponsor the Weiner bill in the Senate.

Click on the link to the NY Daily News article to see some pictures of the hotties that might use the new P visa category. After seeing those pictures you will probably agree that sacrificing an additional 1,000 programming jobs is a price worth paying!

Weiner: Bring on hotties from overseas

By Jo Piazza And David Saltonstall

June 11th 2008,

Give me your torrid, your pure, your totally smokin’ foreign babes.

Apparently, the 43-year-old Weiner - now going steady with Hillary Clinton aide and Vogue hottie Huma Abedin - thinks New York needs more professional catwalkers from Europe, Asia and other fabulous places.

“From Fashion Week to our vibrant publishing industry to the many designers that call New York City home, fashion is a vital part of our economy that drives thousands of jobs,” Weiner told the Daily News. [More]

More on the anti-patriot blacklist out there in the MSM. Mark Krikorian blogs in NRO:

D.A. King is a dynamo in Georgia, working tirelessly for tougher immigration enforcement. He’s a normal patriot — no Zionist conspiracy hogwash or anything like that — and has been published in the Atlanta paper and elsewhere and been on Fox, CNN, etc. Imagine my surprise, then, when I learned that he’s been blacklisted by the Washington Post. And I don’t mean that metaphorically. He submitted a letter in response to Jim Hoagland’s recent column about “pooling” American sovereignty (I blogged on the column here), got a positive response about publishing it from an editorial page staffer, then received the following:

“As you know, I liked the letter, but an editor here said that The Post will not print letters from your group.”

(D.A. tells the story here.) Now, papers don’t have to print anything they don’t want to. But maintaining this kind of formal blacklist for a mainstream group, however much the paper may not like its politics, is repellent. What’s worse, it looks like this isn’t the result of one editor’s prejudices, but rather the Post’s joining La Raza’s anti-free speech campaign, We Can Stop the Hate…

(Links in original).

VDARE.COM once had a close relationship with King. Unfortunately, it broke up over a business disagreement. I have never discussed this disagreement in public because I understand King continues to do good work for the cause of patriotic immigration reform in Georgia, and we still link to his group, the Dustin Inman Society. (He does not reciprocate).

But I can say that it is ludicrous on its face for him to be blacklisted on political grounds by the Washington Post, or by anybody else for that matter. King is the sort of naif who imagines that, by focusing only on illegal immigration, and endlessly claiming to have numerous black friends (quite truthfully, I’m sure), he will be spared the usual smear of “hate”. Presumably he knows better now.

The irony here is that Mark Krikorian and the post-purge National Review themselves have a long record of triangulating against other immigration reformers and conservatives in general, like trusties in a jail cell hoping to curry favor with their liberal guards by denouncing alleged “extremists” .

Won’t work, of course. If King’s fate hasn’t convinced Mark, he should consider his own former employer the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which removed its hyperlink to VDARE.COM years ago and has not restored it despite FAIR president Dan Stein’s repeated personal promises to me [ask FAIR why not], but was just named a “hate group“ by the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center.

The reality remains as I described it in Alien Nation thirteen years ago (p. 9):

Anyone who says anything critical of immigration is going to be accused of racism. This is simply a law of modern American political life.

Elsewhere, I got into an argument with a blogger who wants to publish the real name of a moderately well known pseudonymous Internet pundit. A couple of years ago, I publicly pointed out that this self-assured opinion writer had once been a close associate of a famous crackpot. That information provided readers some useful perspective in how seriously to take his complicated views on foreign policy. But I didn’t publish his name because that kind of thing has a “chilling effect” on free speech.

In general, in this era of Watsoning, I am against revealing the identities of pseudonymous writers, especially ones with day jobs. My blogroll has a lot of pseudonyms on it, and I don’t make much of an effort to figure out who is La Griffe du Lion or Audacious Epigone. Five years ago I put some effort into figuring out who the War Nerd really was, but then I stopped. I knew who clander of Stuff White People Like was, but didn’t tell anybody until he started giving interviews as Christian Lander.

We’re in an era when there’s not much you can reveal about your behavior that can get you into trouble, but there’s plenty of danger in speaking your mind honestly.

Indeed, I advise anyone thinking of becoming a regular opinionator to strongly consider picking a pseudonym and sticking with it. If I had to do it again, I would have picked a pen name, although that raises its own problems, such as depositing checks from editors made out to your pseudonym. And there is the fear that somebody else would horn in on your work–that’s why, when Vladimir Nabokov was considering publishing Lolita anonymously, he created the anagrammatic character “Vivian Darkbloom” to prove his authorship.

From the New York Times:

Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

By ADAM LIPTAK

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”

“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”

Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.

By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve M. Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

It’s totally obvious how Liptak is slanting this New York Times article to get readers to presume that Steyn’s article is “hate speech.” There’s not a single quote from Steyn’s essay “The Future Belongs to Islam” in Liptak’s entire 1,838 word article. On the other hand, Liptak uses the word “hate” (or “hateful”) appears 18 times, “Nazi” three times, and “Hitler” once.

The real story here is, once again, about how diversity dooms free speech.

And it’s time we did something about Canada’s repeated violations of the basic human right to free expression. It’s time to boycott vacationing in Canada until Canada improves its human rights situation.

Granted, I can only afford to vacation places where I can pitch a tent; but let the word go out to Canadian firewood retailers that they won’t be getting any of my business until they help pressure their government to stop persecuting writers.

Nicholas Kristof opines in the NYT:

“One of the missed opportunities of the primary season was that Hillary Clinton never gave a speech about gender comparable to Barack Obama’s speech about race.”

For awhile, a story has been going around that Sen. Barack Obama Jr. isn’t really African-American at all, that he’s 7/16th Arab and only 1/16th sub-Saharan African. Well, it’s not true. Here’s a picture of his parents.

It’s quite possible that Barack Obama Sr. might have been a little bit Arab, and it’s certainly possible that some of Sen. Obama’s ancestors sold their fellow black Africans to Arab slavetraders. But this rumor that Barack Obama Sr. was 7/8th Arab is silly.

The Atlantic Monthly article by Hanna Rosin about how tearing down inner city housing projects just disperses crime to the suburbs is now online.

Tim Wise describes himself on TimWise.org as:

Tim Wise is among the most respected anti-racist writers & educators in the U.S., having spoken in 48 states and on over 400 college campuses. He has trained teachers as well as corporate, government, media and law enforcement officials on methods for dismantling institutional racism, and has served as an consultant for plaintiff’s attorneys in federal discrimination cases in New York and Washington State. Wise has contributed essays to fifteen books, and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows worldwide to discuss race and racism.

Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son and Affirmative Action: Racial Preferences in Black and White.

So, in honor of Tim Wise, it’s right and fitting to coin the term “an Uncle Tim.”

Here’s to you, Tim. Of all the Uncle Tims out there making a living off the race racket, you are the Uncle Timmiest.

(This picture by the way, was picked out by the man himself — it’s on the top of the homepage of TimWise.org. I must compliment him on finding a picture that so epitomizes an Uncle Tim’s slightly demented combination of self-righteousness and self-satisfaction. He looks like a man who has Got The Microphone and won’t be giving it up for a long, long time.)