Looks to me like the National Tea Party Convention currently under way in Nashville has got the Main Stream Media cowed. A surprisingly respectful report just appeared in the New York Times (Tea Party Looks to Move From Fringe to Force, by Kate Zernike, Feb 6 2010). I don’t see a lot of sign that immigration is being directly addressed, although Tom Tancredo got to attack voters who can’t speak English (required as a condition of citizenship, but of course ignored) and was accused of (gasp!) “racism” by Rachel Maddow.

But it’s still early days. Whiteopia author Rich Benjamin’s meme (White Racial Resentment Bubbles Under The Surface of the Tea Party Movement) may yet take hold.

Our postion: Benjamin is right, sort of. There is an unspoken race dimension to the Tea Party Movement, as there was to Scott Brown’s Senate victory and the Palin phenomenon. It’s what you get when you try to abolish an historic nation through immigration policy. Whites, formerly known as “Americans”, will band together, explicitly or implicitly, to defend their interests.

Get used to it, liberals.

GOP’s Whitman disavows ‘proud racist’ councilman.

That’s the headline the Washington Post put on the January 30 AP story, which contains the same smear:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman is severing ties with an elected official who described himself as a “proud racist.”

The Whitman campaign issued a statement Saturday disavowing Santa Clarita Councilman Bob Kellar. The statement comes one day after state Democrats called on the former eBay chief executive to distance herself from Kellar.

Of course, Kellar did not describe himself as a “proud racist” at the Save Our State rally against illegal immigration. It’s amazing that this sort of flagrant untruth can survive in the age of YouTube:

At about 2:05, Kellar explicitly cites Theodore Roosevelt on the importance of “One Flag, One Language“. (n.b. not “one race”). Then he goes on to say that when he mentioned this at a council meeting

“The only thing I heard back from a couple of people was `Bob, you sound like a racist’”.

“I said, `That’s good. If that’s what you think I am because I happen to believe in America, I’m a proud racist. You’re darn right I am’.”

VDARE.COM emphasis.

That’s IF. IF!!!!!!!!

In other words, this is exactly the same formulation that Patrick Henry used in his famous 1765 speech: “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

As far as I can see, no-one has pointed out this striking parallel.

I realize that immigration enthusiasts have no interest in American history. And, of course, what they’re doing is, in fact, treason.

And needless to say, we didn’t expect Meg Whitman to do anything other than betray her supporter and run away from this chance to rally her party’s white base and focus attention on illegal immigration.

But if her far-behind primary opponent Steve Poizner had any sense, he would denounce Whitman and seek Kellar’s endorsement.

Of course, the consultants who are battening on both multi-millionaires’ self-financed campaigns would certainly oppose anything so effective (and so cheap).

Tom Tancredo’s World Net Daily immigration moratorium column Ultimate Jobs Program: Immigration Timeout (Jan 30, 2010) made a brief appearance on the home page of the Google News aggegator thingy, which is supposed to reflect readership, this morning; but has now vanished. Hmmm. Bay Buchanan had a similar column posted in Human Events on January 29. Of course, Pat Buchanan called for a moratorium in his column back on December 7 2009. (And here’s my own Decemmber 3 World Net Daily column). It’s emerging as a consensus on the Alternative Right. But it’s mentioned nowhere else, not even to reject it, despite the rising jobs panic in Washington.

Has someone sent out a memo?

Let VDARE.COM know if you spot anything!

Here’s an interesting discussion in the Jan 25 Washington Post: Media Notes: Howard Kurtz on the Scott Brown story

If Martha Coakley’s defeat in Massachusetts was a political earthquake, most journalists were slow to hear the tremors…

But increasingly disaffected voters failed to follow the script. The Times didn’t run a piece saying that Coakley’s candidacy was in trouble until Jan. 8; The Post didn’t do so until Jan. 11; the Los Angeles Times until Jan. 14.

The network newscasts were a step farther behind. ABC’s “World News” reported Jan. 15 that Coakley was in a tight contest. The “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News” aired reports on Sunday, Jan. 17 — the day that President Obama campaigned for Coakley, and two days before the election.

Our Joe Guzzardi wrote on Scott Brown January 8.

Of course, even webzines have institutional inertia. Joe alerted me to this possible upset several days earlier, but we have our routines. However, Matthew Richer did blog on it Jan 3.

Internet 1, MSM 0.

I will discuss the prospect of increased Haitian immigration on The Chuck Wilder Show today at 3:20 p.m. ET. The show airs nationally on the Cable Radio Network and can be streamed here.(Link fixed.)

I’ve argued that Sara Palin is a cultural rather than a political phenomenon, although none the less powerful for that. But if she really wants to run for President–and I think she could win–at some point she will have to start talking about politics.

Of course, she didn’t really get much chance to say anything in her Fox interview with Bill O’Reilly last night–nobody does on O’Reilly’s show–but there was this deeply disappointing exchange:

O’REILLY: …All right. Now, Harry Reid gets in trouble with the Negro dialect remark and the light skin color.

PALIN: Yes.

O’REILLY: I — what would you — say, I’m Harry Reid, OK?

PALIN: Yes.

O’REILLY: And say — no, I’m not going to say that. Say I’m — what would you say to me?

PALIN: Well, obviously those were — you can’t defend those comments.

O’REILLY: But he’s sorry. He’s sorry. Is that enough?

PALIN: Well, he says he’s sorry. That — that way of thinking is quite foreign to, I think, most Americans today. I — I come from a…

O’REILLY: Do you think it was a racist statement?

PALIN: I come from a very diverse state. My family is diverse. I’m married to an Alaska native. A lot of us don’t think along those lines that somebody’s skin tone would be criteria for a qualification for the presidency. So his — his thinking and his articulating of that — that thought was — is quite perplexing. It’s quite unfortunate. And I think it’s unacceptable.

O’REILLY: Do you think it was racist?

PALIN: I don’t believe that he’s a racist. But I don’t believe that Trent Lott was a racist, either. And that double standard…

O’REILLY: No, we did that last night. Right.

PALIN: I know. And that double standard is — and that hypocrisy is another reason why so many Americans are quite disgusted with the political games that are played, not only on both sides of the aisle, but in this case, on the left wing, what they are playing with this game of racism and kind of letting Harry Reid’s comments slide, but having crucified Trent Lott for essentially along the same lines (inaudible). [VDARE.COM links added].

Palin is right that the 2002 Lott Lynching reflected a double standard, but to say that Reid’s comments were “unacceptable” just strengthens the Political Correctness that is the great curse of American public discourse. As Paul Gottfried argues here, Reid was manifestly correct and anyway the Sensitivity Stalinists are opposed to everything Palin stands for. Why is she trying to appease them?

The sad reason: she is falling into the hands of the same type of conventional campaign consultants who have persuaded Scott Brown to eschew the immigration issue–and, for that matter, Lou Dobbs and O’Reilly himself.

Sarah Palin can go only so far as the purely symbolic leader of the American implicit community. Eventually, she will actually have to lead.

My suggestion: next time O’Reilly announces “I’m saying to myself, ‘If Sarah Palin and John McCain were in, could they bring unemployment down under 10 percent?’ And I’m not sure you could”, don’t change the subject to Obamacare. Say “Immigration Moratorium!“

H/T RC who sent me this startling You Tube clip of Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly piously sweeping their skirts away from any possibility of stain by patriotic immigration reform movement. It ran January 7. There’s a good discussion by Glenn Spencer of American Patrol here.

VDARE.COM readers know that we never regarded Dobbs as anything other a modestly good thing, partly because of his habit of trying to buy cover by praising legal immigration. (Which didn’t work, of course). O’Reilly has been even less of a factor in the immigration debate in recent years, although I remain grateful for his support on my Teacher Union book. (Dobbs kept scheduling and cancelling and eventually went away. Stuff happens).

But this interview is appalling. Both O’Reilly and Dobbs agree that the current illegal immigration population cannot be deported (“absolutely not”, says Dobbs), with no discussion of the attrition option. Dobbs flat-out endorses amnesty and a guest-worker program and seems to be suggesting tripling legal immigration, an idea he’s flirted with before. (It’s hard to tell because O’Reilly, typically, keeps interrupting him). In his introduction, O’Reilly is quite clearly shaping up to do the same (“now we have the border fence”–what border fence?), even speaking favorably of the recently-introduced Guterierrez Reconquista Acceleration Bill.

To me as a long-time print journalist, it’s always amazing how careless with facts these TV talking heads are. Dobbs said there are three million legal immigrants a year (it’s actually about a million). O’Reilly seems not to realize that legal immigrants can sponsor in their relatives. Both confuse legal immigration with citizenship. On legal immigration especially, they just don’t know what they’re talking about. And it doesn’t matter.

Based on this performance, I’d guess that Dobbs does indeed plan to run for office, but has put himself in the hands of conventional, difference-minimizing Karl Rove-type political consultants who have talked him into the usual grovelling. It won’t work as well for Dobbs as a Jesse-Helms style polarizing campaign on immigration, but it’s all they know, or care to know.

The broader point: put not your trust in [Main Stream Media] princes. As I’ve noted before, any deviation from the immigration enthusiast party line is met with such intense pressure from peer groups and publishers that as a practical matter no-one who wants to survive in the MSM can stand it.

Only the alternative media, like VDARE.COM, can carry this issue. There is no other way. That’s why I am so grateful to those of you who helped us in our Christmas fundraising drive.

“Youths”, eh?

PARIS (Reuters) - Youths burned 1,137 cars across France overnight as New Year’s Eve celebrations once again turned violent, the French Interior Ministry said on Friday.

Car burnings are regular occurrences in poor suburbs that ring France’s big cities, but the arson is especially prevalent during New Year’s Eve revelry.

The number of vehicles torched was only 10 short of the record 1,147 burned this time last year, even though the Interior Ministry mobilized 45,000 police during the night — 10,000 more than 12 months ago.

It said police detained 549 people overnight, compared with 288 in 2009 New Year celebrations. However, unlike in previous years, there were no direct clashes between police and youths. “The few disturbances that did take place were brought swiftly under control,” the ministry said in a statement.

Hundreds of cars torched in France at New Year, by Crispian Balmer, Reuters, Jan 1 2010.

Know what? We don’t think that’s the whole story.

Freedom of the press–ain’t it glorious?

Tonight, as Hannukah candles are lit, we post a piece by Tom Piatak on whether Hanukkah is a deep-structure effort to upstage Christmas.

How Hanukkah Came to the White House: Now and Then, an interesting December 2 piece in the Forward by Jonathan D. Sarna, coincidentally documents the (much denied) decline of Christmas:

For most of the 20th century, the only December holiday that gained White House recognition was Christmas. Calvin Coolidge inaugurated the practice of lighting an official White House Christmas tree in 1923, and he also delivered the first formal presidential Christmas message. He assumed, as most Americans of his day did, that everybody celebrated Christmas. In 1927, he proclaimed that “Christmas is not a time or a season, but a state of mind.” If we focus on its message, Coolidge explained, “there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope to the world.” Silent Cal, so far as I can determine, uttered not one word about Hanukkah.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom the American Jewish community adulated, proved no more sensitive when it came to Hanukkah. He sent evocative Christmas cards to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and other friends in the Jewish community, and declared that Christmas was a national holiday “because the teachings of Christ are fundamental to our lives.” His successor, Harry Truman, another favorite of the Jewish community, echoed Roosevelt in his Christmas message to the nation. He called upon Americans to “put our trust in the unerring Star which guided the Wise Men to the Manger of Bethlehem.”

Perhaps the most astonishing of all White House Christmas messages was delivered by a man who should have known all about Hanukkah since he was born just blocks away from a large synagogue in Brookline, Mass., and had many Jewish friends and supporters. Yet John F. Kennedy egregiously declared in 1962 that “Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, as well as Christians, pause from their labors on the 25th day of December to celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace.” He believed (or, at least, his speechwriter believed) that “there could be no more striking proof that Christmas is truly the universal holiday of all men.”

Particularly significantly in the light of Tom’s article, Sarna notes:

“The first president to host an official White House Hanukkah party, and the first to actually light a menorah in the White House residence, was George W. Bush, beginning in both cases in 2001…The annual Hanukkah party also underscored Bush’s deepening bonds with Orthodox Jews, the Jewish religious stream most sympathetic to his “faith-based” agenda. Hasidic leaders in distinctive garb regularly appeared at these parties, and beginning in 2005 (after an embarrassment in 2004 when kosher and non-kosher foods were mixed up), the parties became completely kosher.

“Barack Obama is thus only the second president in history ever to hold a White House Hanukkah party.”

The terrible time that Obama is having about how many invitations have been issued to his Hanukkah party is quite enough to make anyone feels sorry for him.

But perhaps we should feel sorrier for Christmas.

From the November 27 Los Angeles Times:

Having been preoccupied with passing a healthcare bill, the White House is eager to demonstrate it is sensitive to the economic hardship Americans face. To that end, the White House will host a jobs summit Thursday. And the next day, Obama will travel to Allentown, Pa. — the first stop in a kind of economic “listening tour.”

Polling shows that the healthcare overhaul is not as important to Americans as an economic recovery that yields jobs. With a midterm election next year, Democrats in control of the White House and Congress can’t afford to look out of touch.

A Senate Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “Democrats have to address the No. 1 concern of their constituents — and that is, by a long shot, jobs.”

Democrats work on multibillion-dollar jobs package: Lawmakers say they’re moving fast to get a job-creation bill to Obama by January. It’s unclear how much of the effort would be funded with deficit spending, by Peter Nicholas.

Jobs, eh? By “a long shot”? So how exactly do Democrats propose to demonstrate that they’re not “out of touch” on jobs?

Lawmakers are considering myriad ways to accelerate job growth. In interviews, they mentioned road projects that can be counted on to employ people right away, loans to small businesses, incentives for companies that agree to manufacture products in the U.S., and special partnerships in which government tries to avert private sector layoffs by picking up a share of employee wages.

House members are also considering a plan to funnel aid to state and local governments with the assurance the money would be used to preserve jobs. Senate aides said the jobs plan would give priority to labor-intensive “brick-and-mortar” projects.

Yawn. The conspicuous absence from these “myriad ways to accelerate job growth”: an immigration moratorium–stemming the flood of 150,000 legal immigrants who enter the US job market every month.

This conspicuous absence is bipartisan. Former Congressman Newt Gingrich is attempting to upstage President Obama with his own “Real Jobs Summits“, held by his Americans Solutions organization on Wednesday December 2 and Thursday December 3 in Cincinatti, Ohio, and Jackson, Mississippi — but he’s just emphasizing tax cuts rather than spending. (Yawn again.) No mention of an immigration moratorium either.

Ask American Solutions press secretary Dan Kotman why not. No point in asking the Obama Administration.