American-born Larry Lopez, an obnoxious—if you’ll pardon the redundancy—Reconquista, who calls himself “Nativo,” so he’ll sound more authentic, has been charged with four felonies: fraudulent voter registration, fraudulent document filing, perjury and fraudulent voting. A warrant has been issued for his arrest, and he could do up to three years inside (I know; don’t laugh, you’ll choke on your food).

Investigators in the [California secretary of State's] election-fraud unit said Nativo V. Lopez, 57, of Santa Ana leased office space in Boyle Heights and registered to vote using that address although he lived with his family in Orange County. They also say Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Assn., cast an illegal ballot in L.A. in the 2008 presidential primary.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, which is working with the secretary of State, charged Lopez with four felonies: fraudulent voter registration, fraudulent document filing, perjury and fraudulent voting. A warrant was issued for his arrest and bail was set at $10,000. The offenses carry penalties of up to three years in prison.

Lopez is a longtime Latino political-rights advocate in Orange County who served on the Santa Ana school board. Lopez has been a vocal advocate for Latino [read: illegal immigrant] voting rights and supported immigrant amnesty and allowing undocumented workers to have driver’s licenses. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

In 1997, the Orange County district attorney opened a criminal investigation into allegations that a group in which Lopez was a leader registered some clients to vote before they took the oath of citizenship. No criminal charges were brought, and Lopez demanded an apology from critics.

[Veteran Latino-rights advocate charged with voter fraud, by Dan Weikel and Shelby Grad, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2009.]

No doubt, he’ll be demanding apologies this time, too.

A tip ‘o the hat to American Renaissance.

According to the British detective inspector, “Both victims were subjected to unnecessary physical violence in their own home…. However, I would like to reassure the public that such crimes are very rare.”

“Unnecessary physical violence” involved the woman, who lived in Clapham, in the South London borough of Lambeth, being sodomized and repeatedly raped over the course of three hours, and her boyfriend being subjected to, oh, being tied up and “repeatedly kicked and punched,” threatened with murder, while “computer cable was wrapped around his throat,” being repeatedly pistol-whipped, and “a hot iron [being] pressed against his forehead and thigh, and then lemon juice and bleach were poured and rubbed in to his injuries.”

The two 20-year-old black attackers, Reon Hall, alias Reon Wong, and Aaron Fitzgerald Gelly, were joined in their “unnecessary physical violence” by “several more men,” about whom we learn nothing. (“Several,” to me, means at least four.)

Gelly, Hall, & Co. also robbed their victims of £220, and “a small amount of property, including mobile phones, and made their escape by stealing the victims’ cars.”

Two automobiles isn’t exactly “a small amount of property.”

The case was a slam-dunk, as police were able to quickly recover both cars, and “a cigarette butt in the bedroom … contained DNA relating to the two men in court today.”

So, what did the two unnecessarily violent gentlemen—never mind their unnamed, and presumably at large accomplices—receive, by way of punishment, for multiple counts of aggravated assault, multiple counts of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, robbery and grand theft auto? During a backward, more civilized time, they would have been hanged. Instead, they got only nine years each, which will likely translate into only four years actually served.

The victims, er, criminals took a plea bargain. But with such a strong case, why offer a plea bargain?
I learned about this case from Larry Auster, who noted that the British mainstream press disappeared it, with only a few local papers, such as The Surrey Comet reporting on it at all, and declining to mention the victims’ races. British commenters and Auster assumed that the victims were white, which you can pretty much take to the bank, due to the savagery of the attack. Note too that this is not the first time that I have read of black felons pouring bleach on a victim in the UK, though they typically pour beach on a white female, after raping her. (In America, this is form of torture growing in popularity among racist black felons: see here and here.)

This was almost certainly a racial attack, by sociopaths who are likely immigrants or the children of immigrants. But no, can’t mention anything of significance. (And if the media don’t like people assuming that the victims are white, they have to stop suppressing such vital information.)

Speaking of the refusal to use clear, informative English, the aforementioned British detective inspector is named Mick Foote. Remember that name! That man is going places. Anyone who can turn a horrific, racist attack, the likes of which the UK sees all the time these days, into “unnecessary physical violence” and can, with a straight face, lie that “such crimes are very rare” is on his way, either to the upper reaches of the UK police bureaucracy, or to a BAFTA award for acting.

Auster writes,

“How many white people in the whole damned Western world will speak openly and publicly about the ongoing intifada of savage black on white racial violence? How many British and American ‘conservatives’ will do it? How many self-described ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’ American conservatives will do it?”

[Group of blacks hold white couple prisoner in London flat, repeatedly raping woman, torturing man by Lawrence Auster, VIEW FROM THE RIGHT, June 21, 2009.]

(Lest I be accused by non-black immigrants in the UK of ignoring their impressive contributions to violent anarchy, let me note Pakistani Moslems’ involvement in crime, particularly the gang rape of young women and the “grooming” rapes by older men of younger girls.)

And note how poor the victims were, even before the attack. Their poverty and victimization capture in a microcosm the fate of the white British working and lower-middle classes, in an era of mass immigration, racial socialism, and the class war of the elites against the British people.

But God forbid, you should publicly support the BNP. You’ll lose your job!

On the first day of the Major League Baseball draft, Los Mets actually drafted a local white kid: Steven Matz from Setauket, Long Island.

An analyst on Los Mets‘ MLB website felt the need to address General Manager Omar Minaya’s on-going neglect of (hostility toward) American kids in favor of Caribbean-born players. But he’s dishonest about the Mets insatiable desire to sign Caribbean players. So the analyst mentions that Los Mets have an interest in the Latin American free agent market but also and comes up with this novel bit of rhetorical flim-flammery:

“Guys in the Northeast are sometimes hard to scout.”[Video]

How is that? Is it because the Spanish-speaking scouts are down in Latin America, and the English-speaking scouts … have been let go?

Do high school baseball teams in the Northeast only play one game per season while wearing Arctic parkas and masks?

This is more complete nonsense from the Mets and Minaya to defend their indefensible position of preferring–and signing–Caribbean-born players over equally qualified Americans.

According to Associated Press reporter Judy Lin, the State of California is running a projected deficit of $24.3 billion deficit for the current fiscal year, “roughly 25 percent of the state’s general fund”—but immigration does not factor into it.

Lin quotes state Controller John Chiang arguing for the necessity of unspecified, “immediate and real fixes” to balance the once-golden state’s books, but nowhere in her 521-word article do the words “immigration” or “immigrants” appear.

“Failure to balance the state’s books quickly will trigger a financial storm much greater than the one the state endured this past winter, when it stopped infrastructure projects and delayed payments to vendors and refunds for taxpayers, state Controller John Chiang told lawmakers at a budget hearing Friday.

‘No matter how bad you thought February was, without immediate and real fixes to the state’s finances, sometime next year we will have a cash crisis that is four times as broad as what it would have been this fiscal year,’ he said.

Based on April 15 tax collections, Chiang said the state’s treasury will be $2.1 billion in the red in July. The projection does not include the rejection during Tuesday’s special election of five budget-related measures, which increased the deficit by $6 billion. It also does not include billions of dollars the state has borrowed from internal funds and must repay.

Chiang urged state lawmakers to pass a budget by their June 15 constitutional deadline. If they don’t act quickly to cut spending or raise revenue, Chiang said the deficit will hit $14.3 billion by December.

It is projected to be $24.3 billion for the entire fiscal year.

Illustrating how quickly revenue has dropped, the state Board of Equalization on Friday cut quarterly sales tax payments to local governments by $122.8 million. The total is nearly 20 percent less than what they had anticipated to hand out….

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s finance department had estimated sales tax collection would drop 7.4 percent, but actual receipts for the first quarter were down more than 18 percent.

‘Prior to this year, we haven’t seen this type of broad-scale reduction statewide,’ said Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for the Board of Equalization.

It’s too early to tell what effect the state’s temporary 1 cent sales tax increase will have since it took effect April 1. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers agreed to the two-year hike as part of a February compromise.

They also raised the state’s personal income tax rate and vehicle license fee….

Schwarzenegger issued a revised budget proposal last week that called for laying off 5,000 state employees….

Chiang said the deficit is only part of the state’s financial problems. It also owes payments on the borrowing lawmakers have used to make ends meet.

It’s been nearly two years since California has had more money coming in to its treasury than it pays out, he said.

[California could run out of cash in 2 months by Judy Lin, Associated Press/San Jose Mercury News, May 22, 2009.]

Lin’s article is textbook hard news, with no editorializing, not even through proxies, and yet it is of little value. The reader is given no explanation of how on earth the nation’s most populace state, once a middle-class Mecca, landed on the brink of financial collapse, nor is he told that the state’s budget deficit has tripled in one year. Thus is the reader left mystified, rather than enlightened.

The answers to the mystery, reported in excruciating detail over the past nine years by VDARE.com, are that:

1. California’s rise, since 1980, from 24 million to 37 million residents, has been entirely immigration-driven. During the same period, millions of native-born Americans have fled the state;

2. In a report two years ago, Philip J. Romero, who had been economic advisor to California Gov. Pete Wilson, determined that “The average illegal immigrant receives $8-to-$12 in public services for every $1 they pay in taxes. Annually, this amounts to a special “tax” on legal Californians of tens of billions of dollars—perhaps totaling 20 percent of the entire state budget.” (Summary by The Social Contract’s Wayne Lutton);

3. In his report, Romero estimated illegal immigrants ate from $9.6 billion-$38.2 billion out of the state tax base annually. If we split the difference between Romero’s low-ball and high-ball numbers, we get $23.9 billion. Adjust that two-year-old figure for inflation, and the projected budget deficit is erased entirely, with “tip money” to spare;

4. Legal immigrants are also net tax eaters, rather than net taxpayers;

5. In 1994, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 187, which was then illegally sandbagged by liberal United States District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer and killed by Gov. Gray Davis;

6. The state’s fiscal problems derive from its illegal policy of offering sanctuary to criminal foreign invaders, and will never be solved, or even limited, as long as that policy is not reversed. In April 2008, economist-statistician Ed Rubenstein, wrote in his VDARE column, “Inescapable conclusion: Deport California’s illegal immigrants and the current $8 billion budget shortfall would become a $13 billion budget surplus.”

“Diversity” dictates that one never identify the central facts of public life, thus ensuring that problems become insoluble crises, and that public policy debate be replaced with a combination of silence, euphemisms, non sequiturs, outright lies and race-baiting. With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denying, even as a lame duck, that immigration has anything to do with California’s budget woes, the state’s economic collapse is inevitable.

Don Feder is a really bright Republican writer, which is to say, he often subordinates his intelligence to his loyalty to the Stupid Party. Case in point: His May 13 column, NY Times Hides Blame in Mortgage Market Collapse.

In a story today, The New York Times tries to explain the subprime lending crisis and why so many minority mortgages ended up in default. But full disclosure would have implicated the Democrats.

The paper notes that there have been higher default rates for blacks and Hispanics than whites. That’s because, in the boom years of mortgage lending, minorities were more likely to get subprime loans. The Times reports that in 2006, 17.5% of white homeowners got subprime (below the prevailing interest rate) mortgages, compared to 52.8% of blacks and 44.9% of Hispanics.

Because these were loans to borrowers who — in many cases — lacked the ability to repay them, when they defaulted, it had a ripple effect on the housing market and the banking industry.

The Times neglects to tell us the political origins of the crisis. It was the paper’s favorite party that forced these risky practices on lenders.

In 1977, Congressional Democrats decided that low rates of minority homeownership were due to discrimination. With the Community Reinvestment Act, they insisted that lending institutions had an “affirmative obligation” to meet the “credit needs” of the communities in which they were chartered

Regulators begin using minority lending as a criterion for approving mergers, acquisitions and branch openings. All of this exerted enormous pressure for banks to make high-risk loans.

[NY Times Hides Blame in Mortgage Market Collapse by Don Feder, Boycott the New York Times, Accuracy in Media, May 13, 2009.]

“Regulators begin [sic] using minority lending as a criterion for approving mergers, acquisitions…”? That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, it was from VDARE.com’s Steve Sailer, starting last year, in his ongoing series and budding book on the Minority Mortgage Meltdown/Diversity Depression (MMM/DD).

But Steve hasn’t been content only to smack around Democrats; he has repeatedly smacked around the GOP as well, pointing out that it was George W. Bush, beginning in 2002, who aggressively pushed lenders to throw all credit standards to the wind, where uncreditworthy, non-Asian minority borrowers were concerned.

When you tell only one side of the story, you peddle half-truths, and as the old saw goes, “A half-truth is a whole lie.”

I’d suggest that readers contact Feder, to demand he give Sailer credit, and tell the whole story about the MMM/DD, but while Feder provides readers links, with which to contact the New York Times, he provides them with no way to contact him. He has a regular column, “Boycott the New York Times,” which has been published since last October by Accuracy in Media.

Accuracy in Media was founded in 1969 by one of my journalistic heroes, Reed Irvine, may he rest in peace, who practically invented the field of leftwing media bias criticism. I actually got to meet Irvine in October 2002, at an AIM conference at which I was one of the featured speakers. (I gave a speech on the Steven Hatfill case, on a panel that included Hatfill, the latter’s friend and spokesman, Pat Clawson, and anthrax sleuth Ken Dillon. Irvine’s other organization, Accuracy in Academia, which he founded in 1985, also published two of my articles ten years ago.) Just from that conference, I can tell you that Reed Irvine was an old Marine who was a perfect gentleman, and had perfect comic timing and the rare ability to nail a joke with a long lead-in. I believe that Irvine, who was by trade an economist at the Fed, got his “journalism training” at the same place I got mine, the good, old American University of Can-Do.

Reed Irvine got hit with a massive stroke on December 30, 2003, and died on November 16, 2004, at the age of 82.

AIM has since been run by his son, Don, who serves as its president, and Cliff Kincaid, who had come aboard a few years earlier, and serves as editor of the The AIM Report. I’ve been familiar with Kincaid’s work since the early aughts, and he has always been a conservative patriot who has uncompromisingly defended America’s sovereignty, and been independent of all parties. Thus, this is an odd turn.

(Like Reed Irvine, Cliff Kincaid is an anti-communist, which their MSM opponents, who have mocked them as “conspiracy theorists,” consider hilarious. Ask any lefty, and he’ll tell you that there are no communists, only good “liberals” and “progressives” maligned by “deranged” rightwingers.)

A number of months ago, I sought to AIM, but found that them unreachable. They want you to go through their PR rep. Actually, I have some old AIM addresses buried somewhere, but the corporate-style cyber-cocooning burned me, so I didn’t bother.

I suspect that having a GOP propagandist may have something to do with donor politics. (AIM gets much of its funding from the Scaife Foundation, though I do not know if Scaife is funding “Boycott the New York Times.”)

When you have a party hack trying to stir up populist anger against an institution of the other party, while using state-of-the-art technology and PR flacks to wall himself off from his readers, you’re treading dangerously on the precipice of astroturfing. What would Reed Irvine say about that, if he were still alive?

I’m not writing this as an antagonist; rather, I revere the memory of Reed Irvine, still find AIM a valuable site, and hope to encourage it to mend the errors of its increasingly corporate ways.

A mutual acquaintance of mine and the “Heretical 2”— writer Stephen Whittle (pen name Luke O’Farrell), and his publisher, Simon Sheppard—recently forwarded to me the letter below from Whittle.

I wrote in July and September about this pair, who had been convicted in July in England of thought crimes, specifically of “publishing racially inflammatory written material” on the Internet, and who fled the UK for the U.S., a country previously known—as England once was—as a haven for free speech. Upon their arrival, they immediately notified the authorities that they were seeking political asylum.

Their Web site, The Heretical Press, is not even hosted in the UK, but in Torrance, California. Whittle has persuasively argued that, based on English jurists’ expansive reading of their hate crime statues, VDARE.com writers could be arrested on hate crime charges, should they ever so much as change planes in England.

0800006408

c/o Santa Ana Jail

P.O. Box 22003

Santa Ana, CA 92701

5th April, 2009

Dear ………,

Well, that’s it: judge Rose Peters has firmly rejected our claim for asylum and there seems no point in appealing and waiting many more months for more judges to do the same. The government attorney, one Michelle Myers, conceded that we were credible witnesses, but otherwise was a fine example of the creeping Europeanization of the U.S. Her “rebuttal” to our claims consisted of a report on the European Community’s efforts to coordinate a crackdown on hate in all media, i.e. say only what Big Mother likes or go to jail. She orally argued that as U.S. Asylum laws were designed to protect refugees and we criticized refugees, we could not possibly be protected under said laws. The judge then announced she would make a written decision and I knew all hope was gone.

A further grotesque touch was the judge’s reference to Britain’s “legitimate laws” against free speech. About two years ago, apparently she granted asylum to an IRA man who had shot two policemen dead, ruling that his imprisonment under Britain’s (presumably illegitimate) laws against murder would amount to political persecution. I’ve seen America’s future, and it’s Euro-communism. We’ve belatedly had a request from the LA Times for an interview, but even if that materializes [it didn’t] it will come too late.

Thanks for your support over the past nine months and I hope you and your country’s future is good in at least the medium term. The short term does not look good anywhere in the West.

All best,

Stephen Whittle

My acquaintance wrote last month,

The situation is grim for Whittle and Sheppard. They never had much support materialize, which could have made a difference, especially in an appeal, where funding is so important. I wrote to Stephen today and quoted Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over,” in urging him to reconsider an appeal. It’s unfathomable to me that he and Simon could spend the next couple of years in jail for the writings on their site.

Your writings on this case have, I believe, been the most high-profile to appear, and as one who has corresponded with Whittle for nine months (averaging almost a letter a month), I appreciate what you’ve done–and I know he does too.

The American MSM have ignored Sheppard and Whittle, who could be deported any day now to the UK, where Sheppard was convicted on January 8 in absentia of yet another five charges regarding:

• publishing racially inflammatory material;
• distributing racially inflammatory material;
• possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distribution.

[Two guilty of inciting racial hatred against Jews, Crown Prosecution Service, January 8, 2009.]

The legal language sounds like something out of a prosecution of drug lords. The two have yet to be sentenced, but could be sent to prison for as many as seven years.

In a separate article, I will show Sheppard and Whittle’s significance for the debate on the hate crime bill, HR 1913, which was passed by the House on April 29, and which will now be taken up by the Senate as S. 909.

Say what you will about Wendy Kaminer, but she’s her own woman. And yet, she’s also a longtime woman of the Left. Houston, we have a problem. While one can argue about how much independence of spirit the Left could tolerate in the past, the answer regarding the present is, “None.”

Kaminer, a lawyer, social critic, and author of seven books, was from 1999-2006 a member of the ACLU’s national board, and is still a member of the ACLU of Massachusetts board.

In a 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kaminer recounted how the organization, whose reputation has long been based on its defenses of freedom of speech, had switched to supporting censorship, even of the legal variety, as long as it was imposed on conservative Christians, critics of homosexuality, and even critics of Islam. Kaminer quoted ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero’s self-contradictory 2006 statement to the New York Times. “Take hate speech. While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.”

The phrase “hate speech” is part of civil rights speak. It refers to anyone who opposes the war on (non-leftist) white heterosexuals. Thus, anyone who says he is opposed to “hate speech” is saying that he opposes free speech. Romero was simply too dishonest to admit it. (more…)

During the mid-1990s, while living in Far Rockaway, Queens, for a time I would share taxis with black ladies who, like me, had just taken the A train from Manhattan or Brooklyn to the last stop at Mott Avenue on “The Rock.” (The taxi stand’s unofficial policy was to not take black males, because they would either skip out on paying, or rob the drivers.)

One night I got into a conversation with a black matron about a drug-related mass murder that had taken place in Brooklyn the previous week. After a few minutes, it became clear that we just weren’t clicking. I was able, eventually, to determine that each of us was talking about a different drug-related mass murder that had been carried out in Brooklyn during the same week.

That situation was unique; I can’t recall any other time during the mid-1990s that saw two drug-related massacres in Brooklyn in the same week. About contemporary Ciudad Juarez, however, I make no such assurances. On either Friday or Saturday—the 123-word AP story wasn’t clear—the border town, Mexico’s murder capital, had another mass corpse find, seven and counting (as well as a policeman’s badge).

“State security official Enrique Torres Valadez said that 1,500 more troops are expected to arrive Saturday, and 2,150 arrived Friday.”

[ Police find 7 bodies in Mexican border city, by Marina Montemayor, Associated Press, March 14, 03:48 PM US/Eastern.]

In Southern Mexico, just before Christmas, two sets of eight victims each of drug gang massacres—eight civilians in one case, and eight soldiers, in the other—were found just two days apart. Thus, it would have been possible for two Mexican strangers in a taxi to start talking about a drug gang massacre that had just occurred, and find that they were talking about different drug gang massacres altogether.

This is just the sort of conversation that President-for-Life “Barack Obama” wishes for Americans to have more often.

Unconstitutional, illegal, anti-white discrimination/pro-minority privilege is even institutionalized within law dictionary definitions! The following passage comes from a Tennessee study on the costs of capital vs. non-capital first-degree murder cases.

The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure differentiate between capital and non-capital trials by entitling both the prosecution and defense to additional peremptory challenges when the offense is punishable by death. Rule 24 requires that both parties receive 15 peremptory challenges for capital offenses, compared to eight for offenses punishable by incarceration for one or more years. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a peremptory challenge as ‘one of a party’s limited number of challenges that needs not be supported by any reason, although a party may not use such a challenge in a way that discriminates against a protected minority.’ The higher number of challenges may increase the size of the potential jury pool and the duration of the jury selection process.

[Tennessee’s Death Penalty: Costs and Consequences (PDF), by John G. Morgan, Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Research, July 2004, 37.]

Racial discrimination against whites, and on behalf of blacks and Hispanics is unconstitutional, in violating the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and illegal, in violating the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, the very statutes that racial egalitarians purportedly treat as holy writ. In reality, the “egalitarians” are just like the majority of Supreme Court justices, about whom the old law professor—but don’t hold it against him—Lino Graglia, at last month’s Preserving Western Civilization conference said, “They just make it up as they go along.”

FAIR reports that “Barack Obama” has promised a new mass amnesty:

This week, as a guest on a Spanish language radio show, President Obama stated his continued support for giving amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, which would force Americans looking for a job to compete with amnestied aliens for work.  (El Piolin Interview, February 18, 2009 and CBS4 — South Florida).

… President Obama said: “We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current [immigration] system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens … are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.” Following that, President Obama acknowledged what legal American workers already know intuitively — that amnesty is not in their best interest — but then endorsed amnesty anyway.  President Obama said: “And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. … Politically it’s going to be tough.  It’s probably tougher now than it was, partly because of the fact that the economy has gotten worse.”  (El Piolin).

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, over 11.6 million Americans are currently unemployed and the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 4.1 million over the past year.  (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2009).  Millions more have simply stopped looking for work.  Just last month, 598,000 Americans lost their jobs.  Particularly troubling among the unemployment data is the fact that certain minorities such as African-Americans are experiencing greater unemployment (12.6 percent) than the nation as a whole.

President Obama also said his staff was working on amnesty already … Earlier this week, open-borders advocates suggested that they expect that Congress will debate amnesty legislation in the fall of 2009.  (NDN, February 20, 2009).  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s director of Hispanic media has confirmed the likely timing for debate as well.  (O Jornal, January 30, 2009).

[Despite High Unemployment, Obama Puts Amnesty on the Agenda, FAIR Legislative Update, Federation for American Immigration Reform, February 23, 2009.]

Even if one hadn’t heard “Obama’s” bizarro world, economic lies speech (really, a State of the Union address) on Tuesday night, or read his $275 billion Black and Hispanic Deadbeat Homeowner Protection Plan (which receives additional funding within the “stimulus” plan, one would still know, based on his immigration policy and $787 billion, so-called stimulus plan, that that man has no intention of rescuing the American economy. The “stimulus” plan has no provision for e-verify, and will pump hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure boondoggles which will hire millions of unskilled workers. Since “Obama” has made it clear to Latin America that he plans to amnesty all illegals and bring in all of their relatives, and no illegal immigrant need worry about being exposed via e-verify, the stimulus plan will be not an economic stimulus plan, but an illegal immigration stimulus plan, and an economic exhaustion plan.

“Obama’s” plan will draw millions of new illegal immigrants. And he has made it clear that every black or Hispanic immigrant automatically gets to cut to the front of the line ahead of white Americans, a practice which, as Paul Craig Roberts reported already in 2001, has been in effect for many years.

Who will pay for this plan? Predominantly, whites. Who will benefit from it? Predominantly, blacks and Hispanics.

In 2006, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimated that the initial mass illegal immigration amnesty proposal (S. 2611) would result in almost 200 million new legal immigrants over the next 20 years, “over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.”

In working from a base of 11.9 million illegals, Rector was being extremely conservative. Based on open borders Bear Stearns analysts Robert Justich and Betty Ng’s January 2005 estimates, I figure on there being over 22 million illegals at present. Obama wants to amnesty all illegal immigrants already here, bring in their every real and imaginary relative, throw open the borders to every Third World immigrant, and has emphasized his desire to import untold millions of blacks from Africa, the West Indies, and Haiti. (No white immigrants need apply.) I believe his plan is to bring about a NAM (non-Asian minority) majority during his reign, thereby create a racial dictatorship, and retain power for life.

“Obama’s” spending and immigration plans add up to economic collapse. Even without his scheme to politically corrupt the census , “Obama’s” plan is a demographic transformation acceleration plan, in which whites are paying for their own displacement, bankruptcy, and disenfranchisement. And what else would one expect from someone who decided early in life to hold a racial grudge against whites (who had done nothing but help him), who admired people only to the degree that they were anti-white racists, and who embraced his father’s economics of racial socialist expropriation and redistribution?