Many Republicans are up in arms over Howard Dean’s slip -

“If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican Party.”

According to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan:

Howard Dean’s comments on race and gender today are disappointing and wrong. His efforts to divide Americans are an insult to all our nations citizens and have absolutely no place in the national dialogue.

Duncan would be well advised to listen to what Dean’s “white party” comments were prefaced by:

The fact is that the Democratic party is made up of lots of different people, and we’re all minorities in our party. That’s the way it’s been for a long, long time. We’re the party of opportunity. So the demographic trends favor the Democrats.

Were it not for massive Third World immigration, being the “White Party” would mean being “The Winning Party”. Dean simply recognizes that the more non-white the country becomes, the worse the “White Party” does.

The GOP’s obliviousness to this reality hurts them in two ways. They shy away from any sort of issue such as immigration and affirmative action that would galvanize the white vote for fear that they would “divide America”. At the same time, rather than try to reverse the “demographic trends” that will create more and more Democrats, they hold on to the fantasy that they can somehow pander their way into getting Hispanics to vote Republican.

To my knowledge, America has never had a president who was during his term of office a citizen of more than one country. The president may only be a citizen of the U.S.A., because he would otherwise have divided loyalties.

The Rocky Mountain News previously reported, but has since retracted, that Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen both of America and of Kenya.

Does that mean we should believe the Rocky Mountain News’ original story, or its current one? Or is this a variation on what my Autonomist editor, Rocco DiPippo, calls the “infamous Obama Media Memory Hole.” I’d like to see Obama prove he isn’t a Kenyan citizen. (What’s that, you say? You can’t prove a negative? Well, then, I’ve got him!)

Now, imagine a president who was simultaneously a citizen of three different countries. Impossible? Legally forbidden, but not impossible, to someone who flouts America’s laws.

The claims some bloggers make, such as that BHO was not born in America (e.g., Hawaii), but somewhere abroad, and that the birth certificate he has provided is a forgery, could give a fellow a headache.

But what of Barry Soetero (aka BHO)? Well, at “Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?,” Rocco DiPippo has posted a copy of, and placed a link to an enlarged image of a birth certificate showing one “Barry Soetero” (the name by which BHO was then legally known) to have been born in “Honolulu,” whose religion was “Islam,” and who was a citizen of “Indonesia.” The certificate was filled out by Obama/Soetero’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetero in 1968.

The original image is the property of the Associated Press (registration required). (As DiPippo suggests, check it out before it “disappear[s] down the infamous Obama Media Memory Hole.”)

Far be it from me to vouchsafe for the truth of AP properties. However, the AP is an operation that is considered by places like the New York Times, Wikipedia, and the Democratic National Committee, a “reliable source.” And AP Boosgate hoaxmeister Tom Hays does not appear to have any involvement in this story.

If I’m not mistaken, should Obama wish to be legally elected president of these United States, he would have to prove that he has already renounced citizenship to any foreign states, or immediately renounce his citizenship, and hence allegiances to those countries, forthwith, and those nations must confirm that he is not a citizen of theirs. Conversely, if he wants to claim that the AP and everyone else is lying about him (or racist), that’s fine with me, too.

Here’s my favorite Olympic sprinting picture: Barcelona in 1992, the 4×100 meter relay, Carl Lewis followed by the Nigerian anchorman and the Super Mario-looking little Cuban anchorman, all celebrating their medals after they crossed the finish line, not 40 meters in front of it as Jamaican Usain Bolt did tonight. With the race barely half over, Bolt dropped his arms to his sides like Muhammad Ali, thumped his chest to taunt his Jamaican rival Asafa Powell (and teammate in next Saturday’s relay, but who’s thinking ahead?), and mugged for the cameras, all before cantering across the finish line, still eight feet ahead of the field in a world record time of 9.69.

Sprinters …

Here’s my June post on Usain Bolt and the general topic of doping in Olympic sports, with some interesting comments on runners and swimmers (e.g., Dara Torres) by people who know a lot more than me.

In case you’re interested, here are some old articles I’ve written related to the Olympics:

Here’s my article on the 2004 Athens Summer Games from The American Conservative.

Why did the gender gap in Olympic running speeds between male and female medalists unexpectedly widen after the 1988 Olympics? My 1997 National Review article explains here.

Here’s my 2000 article from VDARE.com on the Sydney Games, including the media-induced psychological pressures that often keep the sports crazy Japanese from performing up to expectations, and the remarkable lack of interest in sports of Indians.

Here’s my 2006 VDARE.com article on why Bryant Gumbel doesn’t like the Winter Olympics — too many guys.

Here’s my 2000 VDARE.com article on why nationalism and the Olympics go together like bread and butter.

Here’s my 2002 VDARE.com article explaining why the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta were notoriously full of organizational snafus, while the 2000 Winter Games in Salt Lake City were a model of efficiency.

One interesting development I’ve noticed is the growing prominence of whites representing black countries, most notably swimmer Kirsty Coventry, who represents Zimbabwe (she’s lived in America since college, although she retains a slight Rhodesian accent–she pronounces her American college Auburn as OW-burn). She’s won seven of Zimbabwe’s eight medals in history.

Last night in the men’s 100m butterfly famously won by Michael Phelps by 0.01 seconds (i.e., it’s a Big Time event), the fifth place finisher, behind world record holder Ian Crocker, was Jason Dunford, a rich white kid whose family is big in the Kenya tourism business.

I’ve seen other whites representing West Indian and African countries as well. Some of them live in those countries, some are presumably claiming ancestry by descent. It’s often easier to get to the Olympics as the sole representative of Tanzania in your sport than by making the British or Australian Olympic team, which is typically limited in number (e.g., a maximum of three from a country in track events).

An Indian won a gold medal in one of those shooting events that nobody cares about (unless he is a pistol shooter who has his right hand blown off by a hand grenade, so he trains himself to shoot left handed and comes back to win two gold medals, then it’s pretty cool), causing the billion people of India to notice, hey, there’s an Olympics going on!

Why are Indians so underrepresented in sports?

In 2000, I wrote in VDARE.com:

Once again, however, the biggest loser in the Olympics was India. For the second straight Games, its one billion people brought home - a single bronze medal.

Indians just don’t seem to care about any sports besides cricket. Even in field hockey, a game they ruled through the middle of the 20th Century, they stunk up the place again.

Perhaps Indians are just too cheerful, friendly, and polite to care much about winning at sports. Interestingly, their few sportsmen tend to come from the traditional warrior racial groups like the Sikhs. The British recognized that the Sikhs, along with the East Asian Gurkhas of Nepal, made the finest fighting men in South Asia. Sikhs remain the backbone of independent India’s officer corps. Similarly, guys named Singh (i.e. Sikhs) hold about half of India’s national track records.

(more…)

Theodp writes on Slashdot:

“Judge Faith Hochberg has denied a preliminary injunction sought by the Programmers Guild to put a hold on a controversial ‘emergency’ rule change by the Department of Homeland Security to permit foreign students to work continuously in the US for two-and-a-half years after graduation without an H-1B visa.

Faith S. Hochberg isn’t a stranger to controversy. Her husband was questioned in a matter of insurance fraud when her confirmation to the district court was pending.

When I was an undergraduate, Maynard Krueger once told me in a private conversation that he felt accounting courses should be required of all law school graduates–since so many of the errors committed by attorneys related to accounting problems. Decisions like this recently one make me think that economics courses should be required of all federal judges ruling on major policy decisions.

This decision shows that specific discrimination against unpopular groups of citizens is alive and well in the United States judiciary. What I think is hopeful here is that the Programmers Guild is forcing Federal Judges to go on the record here. Any actions that show these folks up in any way is probably helpful. I also think it is hopeful that this story made it into Slashdot.org. There are still some ideologues in the technical community who support open borders in the US–but their ranks appear to be shrinking as the real effects of H-1b expansion become more apparent.

It should come as no surprise that the Weekly Standard, which  proclaimed Winston Churchill Man of the Century and whose editor says he prefers John Kerry to Pat Buchanan came out with a negative review of Pat’s Last Book; Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, even calling parts of it “outrageous, if not despicable.”

What is particularly amusing, however, is how the reviewer Winston Groom accuses Buchanan of hypocrisy because he mentions Churchill’s immigration policy;

“Had Churchill endured in office,” Buchanan writes, “London would look entirely different today.” When, in 1955, Churchill retired as prime minister, he “was no longer able to lead a campaign to ‘Keep England White’–an astonishing slogan in a day when Dr. Martin Luther King, a disciple of Gandhi whom Churchill detested, was starting out in Montgomery.” Only after Churchill left office, Buchanan declares, was Britain “on its way to becoming the multiracial, multicultural nation of today.”

What smarmy cheek from the man who has written The Death of the West, bemoaning the doom of Western Civilization because of the population explosion among so-called “dark peoples,” and State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, in which he forecasts the end of life as we know it, owing to the flood of immigrants across the Mexican border and from Asia! Winston Churchill had many faults, all of them meticulously scrutinized by serious historians; but his reputation doesn’t warrant being besmirched by a goat-roper like  Patrick Buchanan.[World War II Revised , By Winston Groom, August 11, 2008]

Groom thinks that opposing Third World immigration is such an inexcusable position to take, and/or that Pat’s sole purpose is to “smear” Winston Churchill rather than simply make an honest appraisal of his place in history; that those lines must be pejorative

In full context, what Pat wrote was,

In 1968, Enoch Powell…would take up the banner of [restrictionist Lord Robert Gascoyne-Cecil] Salisbury and Churchill and deliver his “Rivers-of-Blood” speech. By then, time had passed the restrictionists by, and England was on its way to becoming the multiracial, multicultural nation of today, no longer Churchill’s England.

It’s hard to see how anyone outside of the Weekly Standard could view this as celebrating England’s demographic transition. Pat has called The Rivers of Blood Speech “prophetic” where Powell “spoke truth to power.”

The opening page of The Unnecessary War says that “Having lost the will to rule, Western man seems to be losing the will to live as a unique civilization as he feverishly indulges in La Dolce Vita, with a yawning indifference as to who might inherit the earth he once ruled.”

Buchanan attributes this change as a not so good outcome of the “Good War.” Peter Brimelow calls this Hitler’s Posthumous Revenge.

What Groom fails to see is that rather than viewing Churchill as some monster, Pat sees him as a “Great Man at the cost of his country’s greatness.”

For more on this, see my VDARE.com column, Buchanan On World War II, The National Question And Hitler’s Posthumous Revenge