The Naval Academy at Annapolis is where the U.S. Navy educates officers. So what do you think is the number one priority at Annapolis?

Would it be educating future naval officers to defend our nation? Learning the regulations and traditions of the U.S. Navy? Studying oceanography, navigation, the operation of seagoing vessels and new technologies that affect naval operations? Learning about the world situation and possible future challenges? All of the above?

No, of course not. According to Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, “DIVERSITY” is the institution’s number one priority.

Bruce Fleming, English professor at Annapolis, is not in agreement, however. Fleming submitted a guest opinion to HometownAnnapolis.Com which was actually published. It’s entitled “The Cost of a Diverse Naval Academy” and I just wonder how long Professor Fleming will have his job! Here are some excerpts:

The Naval Academy superintendent, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler… insisted recently that we needed to have Annapolis graduates who “looked like” the Fleet, where enlisted people are about 42 percent nonwhite, largely African American and Hispanic. The stunning revelation last week was that the Naval Academy had an incoming class that was “more diverse” than ever before: 35 percent minority. Sounds good, only this comes with a huge price tag. It’s taxpayers who bankroll the military. Yet nobody has asked us if we’re willing to pay this price. Instead we’re being told there is no price to pay at all. If you believe that, you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

A “diverse” class does not mean the Naval Academy recruits violinists, or older students (they can’t be 23 on Induction Day), or gay people (who are thrown out) or foreign students (other than the dozen or so sent by client governments). It means applicants checked a box on their application that says they are Hispanic, African American, Native American, and now, since my time on the Admissions Board of the Academy, where I’ve taught for 22 years, Asians.

So how about those white applicants?

Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them “qualified.” Athletics and leadership also count.A vote of “qualified” for a white applicant doesn’t mean s/he’s coming, only that he or she can compete to win the “slate” of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine “qualified” white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of “not qualified” for white applicants.

So, a SAT score below 600, or C grades, nearly always mean that a white applicant will not be accepted. Prof. Fleming continues…

Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our “number one priority.” For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of “qualified” for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They’re in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit. Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.By using NAPS as a feeder, we’ve virtually eliminated all competition for “diverse” candidates: in theory they have to get a C average at NAPS to come to USNA, but this is regularly re-negotiated.

So what happens after the applicants become midshipmen?

Once at Annapolis, “diverse” midshipmen are over-represented in our pre-college classes, in lower-track courses, in mandatory tutoring programs and less challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts. (I teach some of these courses.)Of course, some minority students are stellar, but they’re the exception. Despite being dragged toward the finish line, minorities graduate at about a 10 percent lower rate than the whole class, which of course includes them (so the real split is greater). Don’t want to believe me? Have a lawyer sit in on a year’s worth of Admissions Board deliberations. Or better still, pray that one of the stellar white students rejected to give a seat to a “diverse” candidate sues us. That’s the only way taxpayers will ever fully understand the price to them of “putting diversity first.”

Read it all here.

Professor Fleming is a brave man to publish this. What’s going to happen to him next?

On June 13th, 2009, speaking to an Arab-American group, former president Bill Clinton celebrated the rapid demographic transformation taking place in our country.

As reported in an article by Christine Simmons,“Bill Clinton: United States Growing More Diverse” :

Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that Americans should be mindful of the nation’s changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.

Clinton looks forward to the day when America’s historical majority is no longer the majority:

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world “this is a very positive thing.”

” A positive thing?” Sez who?

Did we ever get to vote on this drastic demographic transformation?

Why is it OK for it to be celebrated but not questioned?

Does the country’s (still) white majority have the right to decide its own destiny?

Despite Clinton’s assurance , the non-European majority is not a foregone conclusion. There is still time (though not much time) for a bold politician to make it a political issue. If a Republican doesn’t have the courage (and it currently looks as though none do) is it time to look elsewhere?

Allan Wall is scheduled to be interviewed on Chuck Wilder’s “Talk Back” Show (formerly the late George Putnam’s show). The interview begins at 1:05 p.m., Pacific Time. You can listen here .

Here is a grisly crime, worthy of outrage. Two teenagers (13 and 15)
murdered an illegal alien by decapitation. Afterwards, the young murderers cast the victim’s body into an abandoned well, put the head in a backpack and dumped it on a pile 150 meters away. Thanks to a tip from a local citizen, police found the remains three days later and the boys are being prosecuted.
They aren’t, however, being prosecuted for commission of a hate crime . Why not? Because it happened in Mexico, in Ciudad Acuna (across the river from Del Rio, Texas). The illegal alien was from Honduras, had only been in the border town for a week, and was planning to cross over into the United States. The adolescent killers were Mexicans.
According to the report in El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, the victim was earning money in the border town by washing cars, biding his time to cross the border into the United States. However, soon after having arrived in Acuna, the Honduran had gotten crossways of the 13 and 15 year olds who later killed him. The killers also worked washing cars.
In Mexico, some young men work in the informal economy by washing cars in a public place . Given that the victim and his killers were car washers, is it possible that it resulted from some sort of work-related dispute? Was this Honduran illegal alien horning in on their work site, or washing cars cheaper and thus undercutting their earnings?
This is just speculation. But it’s a possibility. Whatever the specific causes, it’s yet another result of the international migration of illegal aliens which causes so much havoc.

The Mexican government, as I’ve reported before, complains about guns being smuggled from the U.S. to drug cartels in Mexico and even criticizes our gun rights as “absurd”. As Mexico’s Attorney General put it in 2007: “American law seems absurd to me, because ….the citizens can easily acquire arms. American society lives the consequences of this on a daily basis…”

Lately it’s been confidently asserted that 90% of weapons utilized for crime in Mexico were smuggled in from the U.S. Among others, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated this claim.

A new article on Fox News, however, disputes that claim: The Myth of 90%: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come from U.S., William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott, FOXNews.com, April 2nd, 2009

Here a few excerpts from this highly-recommended article:

You’ve heard this shocking “fact” before — on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States…There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one: It’s just not true. In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

Where then did the 90% figure originate?

What’s true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency’s assistant director, “is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.” But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S. “Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

The article reports that “Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar” with assorted weaponry floating in from South Korea, China, Spain, Israel, Russia and the former Soviet bloc, Central and South America. Some are from Mexico itself, provided by former Mexican soldiers who deserted and joined the cartels.

Of course, the 90% claim can be a useful ruse for U.S. politicians who want to restrict gun rights stateside. What ’s really laughable is that the American right to bear arms has been contrasted unfavorably with Mexico’s strict gun laws. But the high volume of weaponry entering Mexico from so many other countries really shows the failure of Mexican gun laws.

Besides, even if the U.S. restricted the right of its citizens to bear arms, how would that help the situation in Mexico? Are we to suppose that if the U.S. tightened up its own gun laws, then Mexican narcos would suddenly have a change of heart and start obeying Mexican gun laws. How ridiculous is that?

Forbes has come out with its latest list of billionaires.

The 2009 list includes nine Mexican billionaires.

Mexican telecoms tycoon Carlos Slim is currently rated as the world’s third-wealthiest man, with a net worth of $35 billion. Slim’s net worth dropped $25 billion in the past year. The world’s wealthiest man is Bill Gates, in the #2 slot is Warren Buffet, and both of their net worths dropped also.

A year ago, after the 2008 Forbes list came out, I wrote an article about the Mexican billionaires on that list. There were 10 on the list last year. On the 2009 list, two of them have dropped off, while a new billionaire has been added.

Who was this year’s addition? This list attracted a lot of attention for including, for the first time, none other than Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, chief of the Sinaloa drug cartel. El Chapo (whose nickname translates to “Shorty”) has an estimated worth of $1 billion dollars.

President Obama recently met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Here, in its entirety, is a statement released by the White House on
March 18th, 2009:

The President had a robust and strategic meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus today on the topic of immigration. The meeting lasted approximately one hour. The President discussed how the administration will work with the CHC to address immigration concerns in both the short and long term. During the meeting, the President announced that he will travel to Mexico next month to meet with President Calderon to discuss the deep and comprehensive US-Mexico relationship, including how the United States and Mexico can work together to support Mexico’s fight against drug-related violence and work toward effective, comprehensive immigration reform. Since their meeting in January, the President has repeatedly praised President Calderon for his extraordinary work to solve these challenges, which are important to communities and families on both sides of the border.

Notice how it says that Obama plans to “work with” the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to “address immigration concerns”. That’s not a good sign.
Obama announced that he plans to go to Mexico , to talk with President Calderon about how the U.S. and Mexico can “work toward effective, comprehensive immigration reform”.
Excuse me, but U.S. immigration policy is the responsibility of American citizens and their leaders, and should be no business whatsoever of the president of Mexico. Americans need to remind Obama, and their Senators and Representatives, of this fact.

Allan Wall was recently interviewed by Silvio Canto, Jr. Topics included the Mexican drug war, the weapon smuggling situation and Allan’s recent “Should Americans Visit Mexico?” article. You can listen to the interview here.

The war in Afghanistan continues, and the British have been with us there since the beginning. Just the other day three British soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in Helmand Province. Since 2001, when we invaded Afghanistan, 148 British soldiers have died there.
But besides the British Army, another “British” contingent is deployed in country. That force consists of thousands of British-born Muslims who have gone to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban.

The UK’s “Daily Star” reports in its article “4,00 Muslim Brits Join Taliban” that

THOUSANDS of British-born Muslims have joined the Taliban in Afghanistan. UK troops say they are facing a mini civil war as more Brits head out to fight for the enemy.

One of the reasons they discovered this was listening in to Taliban communications and hearing West Midland accents:

Senior officers said British-born Muslims from the West Midlands and Yorkshire have travelled to Helmand province and other parts of southern Afghanistan. Interception of Taliban communications has revealed the sound of jihadists speaking with West Midlands accents. One senior military source said: “It is the Punjabi and Kashmiri Urdu speakers who fall back into English in, for example, Brummie accents. “You get the impression they have been told not to talk in English but sometimes can’t help it.”

The term Brummie, refers to the the accent of Birmingham, in England’s West Midlands . That’s how they figured out that speakers of Brummie and other regional dialects were in the Taliban.

Brigadier Ed Butler, the former commander of the British forces in Afghan-istan, said: “There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar.” Robert Emerson, a security analyst, added: “There is ample evidence British Muslims trained in camps in Pakistan. “What is emerging now is a picture of them being more active in Afghanistan, either providing support and logistics or in active service.”

A Conservative party politician was quoted by the article:

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons’ sub-committee on anti-terrorism, which has been examining the activities of British Muslim extremists, said: “We know the problem we have with UK-based jihadists. “With the UK intelligence services at full stretch, it is not surprising some of these ended up in Afghanistan.”

Well, yes indeed, MP Mercer. But you might take it a step further and ask why there are so many Muslims in the UK to begin with, and why even many British-born Muslims are more loyal to the Taliban than the UK. How about bringing that up in the House of Commons?

In the budget battle over the “Stimulus”, a new Republican spokesman/leader has emerged, Eric Cantor, a Jewish Republican who holds James Madison’s old seat in the Virginia congressional delegation.

(See International Herald Tribune piece here).

So how is Cantor on immigration?

In their evaluation system, Numbers USA / Americans for Better Immigration give Cantor a grade of B, which is above average for the Virginia delegation.

More specifically, Cantor has a career record of A+ in the areas of Border Control, Reducing Chain Migration, Reducing the Visa Lottery, Reducing Refugee and Asylum Fraud. The congressman has an A in Interior Enforcement, though that’s dropped to an A- in recent the (2006-2009) evaluation. Cantor has a career B+ in the area of rewarding illegal immigration though that’s increased to A- in the recent evaluation. On the other hand, Cantor has a career grade of C in the area of amnesties, and a career F- in foreign worker visas.

Some advice for Cantor: use the current emphasis on the economy to point out repeatedly that rewarding illegal immigration has no place whatsoever in any sort of stimulus or economic improvement bill.

If you’d like to call Cantor’s office and offer some advice, the congressman’s phone number is (202) 225-2815.