Phone & Ask The GOP Senators to Stop Irish Guest Worker Vote‏

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about allowing more immigration. This follows this post about preventing illegal aliens from voting. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Ask your GOP Senators to Stop Irish Guest Worker Vote


This new phone call request has been posted in your Action Buffet based on your answers to the Interest Survey.



You can find this phone call request by proceeding to

http://www.numbersusa.com/phones?ID=14218





Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is once again attempting to bring his Irish guest worker bill up for a vote before the Senate leaves for recess. The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add the Republic of Ireland to the E-3 visa program. If passed, an additional 10,500 visas would be available to low-skilled workers from Ireland to compete for U.S. jobs. These two-year visas can be renewed indefinitely.







This is bad legislation that would bring in more foreign workers to compete against unemployed Americans. Please call your Republican U.S. Senators and ask them to do all they can to prevent S. 2005, Sen. Brown's Irish guest worker legislation from coming up for a vote.

From Conservative Radio Shock Jock To “Defensor De La Raza”—The Ben Reed Story

A very insightful article from Allan Wall of www.vdare.com to follow up a previous post of here. You can get more interesting posts like this by following this blog here.

Memo From Middle America (Formerly Known As Memo From Mexico), By Allan Wall
From Conservative Radio Shock Jock To “Defensor De La Raza”—The Ben Reed Story
This is the story of a conservative white American who learned Spanish, moved to Mexico, married a Mexican, and became an immigration activist.
Is it my story? It could be. But it is also the story of talk radio host Benjamin Reed.
The difference between us is that my experience led me to believe that we need to protect our border and not merge with Mexico. Ben Reed’s experience resulted in his becoming a rabid open borders proponent and a “Defensor de la Raza”. Ben Reed now works openly to encourage illegal immigration, subvert U.S. immigration law and promote the Mexicanization of the U.S.A.
Ben Reed’s odyssey was the subject of a puff piece in the Los Angeles Times penned by one Hector Tobar, son of Guatemalan immigrants, entitled Walking a Mile in an Immigrant’s Moccasins, (November3, 2009). Let’s examine what Tobar has to say about Reed's story and read between the lines.
Benjamin Reed is from Idaho. As a Mormon (see my Mitt Romney and the Mormon Question) Reed did a two-year mission, was sent to Argentina and thus learned Spanish.
According to Tobar, Reed was once a staunch conservative from Red State America:
“I first met Ben Reed, a veteran Idaho radio DJ, while reporting a story for the Times nine years ago. Ben is not someone you easily forget. He's a former Mormon missionary and fluent Spanish speaker who used to be a conservative talk show host. .. Reed once was a devout Reagan Republican…. When I first met Ben Reed in 2000, he was railing against the Clinton administration on an English-language radio station in Rupert, Idaho. He grew up in Idaho with solid Republican values. Catching a glimpse of Ronald Reagan at the Idaho Falls airport in 1980 was one of the highlights of his childhood.”
So what happened to transform Reed from conservative activist into a White Anglo-Saxon Raza Booster? Basically, it was a result of mass immigration.
“[Reed’s] corner of southern Idaho filled up with Spanish-speaking people. He fell in love with his new neighbors. They were emotional people who always seemed ready to hug him. He became addicted to their music and their food. And he fell hard for Deyanira [whom he eventually married] too.”
Now this is interesting. It seems that one of the results of mass immigration is that, when foreign enclaves are set up in the U.S., some Americans wind up assimilating to the foreigners rather than the other way around. Like Reed, who liked getting hugged by “emotional people”.
Ben Reed was still a conservative talk show host when he also became a Spanish-speaking talk show host on a Spanish-speaking radio station. Reed’s Spanish-speaking persona was “El Chupacabras”, named after the legendary creature that supposedly kills livestock in Latin America.
So for a time, Reed hosted talk shows in both English and Spanish. According to Tobar,
“In Rupert [Idaho], [Reed] juggled his English and Spanish radio gigs for a while. Then he got to know the immigrant working people of southern Idaho. When he got sick, he said, only his Spanish-speaking listeners showed up at his bedside. I started to ask myself, 'Who am I?' Ben told me over the phone last week. ‘And the answer was I'd much rather be El Chupacabras than be Ben Reed the conservative shock jock—that wasn't me.’ Ben changed, and so did his radio style.”But it was more than his “style” that changed. Reed became an open promoter of the Mexican illegal alien agenda. As Tobar approvingly reports,
“When immigration authorities conducted local raids, [Reed] confronted them on the air. When a local high school gym teacher confiscated a student's Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo, he organized a protest. He told his listeners to wear the colors of Mexico's flag to school. ‘I nearly lost my job over that,’ he said.”Reed was against the raids that rounded up illegal aliens (his listeners) and told the media that “I know there is racial profiling going on out there. If they are going after documents, why aren’t they asking everyone? Why are they only asking people with brown skin?” Maybe because the illegals have brown skin? Yes, it’s the tired old profiling argument.
But Reed was still living in Idaho. What drove him to move to Mexico was what happened to his Mexican fiancée, Deyanira.
Deyanira, it ought to be pointed out, is Mexican, but she wasn’t an illegal alien field laborer of the type Ben Reed makes such a show of defending. Oh no. Deyanira is a Euro-Mexican, a white Mexican. Reed met her when she was in Rexburg, Idaho, studying at a Mormon institution of higher learning, Brigham Young University-Idaho.
Notice that when it came time for courtin’ and marryin’ a Mexican, Ben Reed, “Defensor de la Raza”, went for an educated white Mexican woman. (So did I, but unlike Chupacabras I never claimed to be a defender of the La Raza cause).
Anyhow, Ben and Deyanira got engaged and planned to marry in a Mormon temple in Idaho. She went to Mexico and was returning to Idaho for the wedding when things didn’t go according to plan. Tobar explains:
“The bride had to go through immigration in L.A. before catching her connecting flight to Idaho. She thought her papers were in order. So when the immigration agent asked her the purpose of her visit to the United States, she responded truthfully, ‘I'm going to get married.’ Before she knew it, she had been deported and was on the next plane back to Mexico. …At LAX, she was told that returning for her wedding without having obtained a ‘fiancée visa’ constituted fraud. She was deported and her tourist visa revoked.”According to Tobar:
“This pushed her fiancé, the already excitable Benjamin Reed, nearly over the edge. ´They treated her very poorly,’ Reed said of the agents at LAX. Among other things, he said, they took wedding invitations they found in her purse and handled them as if they were evidence of a criminal conspiracy. ‘They treated her like a dog.’ … Before his wedding, he had consulted with attorneys and immigration officials in Idaho. ‘I was doing everything according to the letter of the law,’ he told me. ‘I was told that since she had lived in the U.S. legally, and since she had a tourist visa, we wouldn't have any problems fixing up her papers.’ ”Yeah, I know, life is rough and things don’t always turn out like we plan. That’s been true in my life too. However, there is such a thing as marriage fraud. It´s just one of many problems in our immigration system. And there is such a thing as a fiancée visa, which they could have availed themselves of. Or, as I did, they could have just gotten married in Mexico to begin with. After all, that’s where the bride was from!
Of course, in the Tobar article, all these experiences transformed Ben into the enlightened open borders Razista he is today:
“All of this has led [Reed] to put on ‘the moccasins of the immigrant,’ Ben told me. Now nothing looks quite as simple as it used to. Love and empathy will do that, which is why some people think love and empathy are as dangerous to America as the swine flu. ‘I've been radicalized by this whole experience,’ Ben told me.”
Tobar uses Reed’s experience as an excuse to zing American immigration policy:
“Don't feel bad, Ben—no one can make sense of our immigration bureaucracy. It's a cruel machine of contradictory rules and arbitrary decision-making that routinely tears marriages and families apart.”But, as we’ve pointed out numerous times, families could stay “united” by staying in their own countries. As for international couples, they´ll just have to figure out how to live in one country or another. That’s what my wife and I did. But Tobar puts it so much more dramatically:
“Ben Reed learned this the hard way. Eventually, he was forced …. to choose between his fiancée and his country.” [How dramatic!]
“‘I'll always love my chiquita,’ he said. ‘She is my life. Living separate was never an option. We were going to find a way to be together.’” [How romantic!]
“Over the years, love has often changed the way Ben sees things.”Excuse me, but it looks to me like Reed had already chosen the interests of La Raza over his own country. It was just that the Deyanira situation drove him to move:
“Ben tried for a year to get her papers sorted out. Then he moved to Mexico. ‘He gave up everything to be with me,’ Deyanira, 34, told me over the phone from Queretaro, Mexico.”Gave up everything? He didn’t give up his Chupacabras radio show (more on that later). Nor does it sound like his life in Mexico is that bad.It’s ironic that the same people who say Mexico is a great country say it’s terrible when people have to live there. Doesn’t make sense. Anyway, Ben and Deyanira finally did get married, in December of 2008. Here’s a photo of the happy couple. They were wed in the picturesque town of San Miguel de Allende, which I have written about before, and which has a sizeable expatriate gringo colony. It is a great place to live. Check out some photos here . So what’s so bad about Ben Reed’s situation? Here’s how Tobar melodramatically described it:
“These days … Ben is an American living with a Mexican spouse in immigration exile.” Exile? But in the very next sentence, Tobar says that“[Reed] says he's never been happier.”Once again, so what’s the problem? Besides, Reed’s still got his radio show, broadcast Monday through Friday from Mexico to Rupert, Idaho (which, coincidentally, is where Lou Dobbs grew up):
“His old Spanish-speaking friends still listen to him every day in Idaho's Magic Valley, because he still hosts his Rupert radio show via the Internet.”And, unlike many of the Mexicans the Chupacabras champions in Idaho, Reed is legal in Mexico:
“He applied for, and quickly received, Mexico's equivalent of a green card. ‘Now, I'm an immigrant too,’ he told me over the phone. ‘Frankly, it's an experience more gabachos should have,’ he added, using Mexican slang for white Americans. Ben has those immigrant moccasins firmly on his feet now. Sometimes I wish I had a pair or two I could lend out.”Well, I've spent a lot more time in Mexico than Reed has, and I came to completely different conclusions. See my previous articles Education of a Gringo in Mexico, How Can I Live in Mexico and Write for VDARE.COM? and Reflections of an American Immigration Reform Patriot Living in Mexico. Reed’s “Chupacabras” show airs over Rupert’s 970 AM “La Fantastica” station. You can visit the station’s website here . Notice the little Mexican flag up to the left of the URL. (This is an American radio station, remember). Also, if you click the little ad in the middle for the Chupacabra show, it calls Reed a “Defensor de la Raza” and says he will “defend your rights”. The show is broadcast from San Miguel de Allende, Mexico to Idaho, directed to Mexican colonists including illegal aliens. Spanish-language radio stations are a key part of the Mexican Reconquista of the U.S. The 2006-2007 illegal alien marches were organized through Spanish-language stations. These stations are important beachheads—after all, most Americans can’t even understand what they’re saying! Benjamin “Chupacabras” Reed, “Defensor de la Raza”, also has his own Twitter site. Just scroll down it and see the kinds of things he posts. Here are a few examples:
January 15th – “American Law Enforcement Must Demand the Removal of Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Duty”.
January 15th – “DON’T FORGET ! TOMORROW SAT JAN 16, bring human rights violator ARPAIO down!
January 9th – Nobody is illegal. An ill eagle is a bird with stomach problems. REFORM NOW!
January 5th – “Que gachos! ICE expels 359,455 Mexicans during 2009.”
January 5th – “U.S. has the world’s second-largest Hispanic population behind only Mexico…”
Dec. 17th – “GABACHOS DEJARAN DE SER LA MAYORIA EN 2050!” [“Whites will cease to be the majority of the U.S. in 2050”. Reed seems very excited about this.]
Dec. 16th – “Conservative Talk Radio Has Fewer Fans Than Previously Thought”. [Remember, Reed is a former conservative talk show host.]Besides all the Raza-boosting and white-bashing, Reed openly aids illegal aliens in the U.S. to avoid detention. A twitter posting from January 20th says:
“ALERTA: Mis radioescuchas confirman la presencia de la migra en la Highway 93 al sur de Twin Falls, ID. Parece que hay reten #immigration 11:04 AM Jan 20th
“(ALERT: My radio listeners confirm the presence of the “migra” on Highway 93 south of Twin Falls, Idaho. It seems there is an immigration checkpoint…”) My translation.The busy Sr. Reed also finds time to participate in internet discussions. On the John Birch Society website, he popped up and defended the Spanish use of the term América:
“An American is anyone who dwells on the North or South American continents. You might be a U.S. Citizen, but anyone who lives from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego is an AMERICAN! As Simon Bolivar said, ‘Our country is called AMERICA!’ Get it! Anything else is tired imperialism.”Thus Reed robotically repeats the standard Latin American Spanish view of the terms América and americano. But this view is being used to strip us of our identity, our sovereignty and our ability to control our own borders. I guess that’s why Chupacabras likes it.
In the English language, of course, the term “American” has referred to residents of the United States since even before independence—see my article Is it Wrong For Us To Call Ourselves Americans ? In his farewell address, George Washington said “The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism…” Personally, I attach more weight to Washington than Simon Bolivar.

Reed seems happy in Mexico and is somewhat of a celebrity. Everything about him indicates that he prefers La Raza interests to American interests.
So why doesn’t he go the whole way—become a Mexican citizen and renounce his American (excuse me, his U.S.) citizenship?
Wouldn’t that be the honorable thing to do?
In the meantime, why should we give a hoot what Benjamin “Chupacabras” Reed, “Defensor de la Raza”, has to say about U.S. immigration policy?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here and his website is here.

The Edsall Strategy

A very insightful article from Steve Sailer of http://www.vdare.com/ to follow up a previous post of his here. also wrote a book called Barack Obama: America's Half-Blood Prince which you can get here.

The Edsall Strategy
From my new VDARE.com column:
Among the most interesting of the countless postmortems on Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race was veteran Democratic journalist Thomas Edsall’s Ghost Story in The New Republic on January 20, 2010.Edsall’s article is one of the more realistic (if inadvertent) works of political advice the GOP has received—outside of the pages of http://www.vdare.com/.
From a tsk-tsking Democratic perspective, Edsall outlines the inexorable logic of what Peter Brimelow calls the Sailer Strategy: as the non-white percentage of the electorate increases, the Republicans must (and can) win a growing share of the white vote.Of course, the Republican leadership (such as it is) will find Edsall’s insights offensive rather than illuminating. They are less likely to appreciate them than to try to refute them, by more brilliant stratagems such as making Michael Steele head of the Republican National Committee.
Edsall writes:
"As everyone knows, the United States is undergoing a profound demographic transformation. Non-Hispanic whites are likely to become a minority by the year 2042. This shift underlies the theory of a Democratic realignment: Pro-Democratic groups are growing while the pro-Republican white population is declining."Edsall goes on, however, to note that just twelve months of the Obama Administration demonstrated to many white voters even in liberal Massachusetts that they might not be happy with their ordained future. Over the course of 2009, he says, "White, middle-class voters ceased to think of Obama as a protector of their interests."Over the years, Edsall has repeatedly tried warned liberals that the diabolically clever Republican leadership is going to attempt to please the white majority by acting as "a protector of their interests."That would make sense. But I’ll believe it when I see it. ...Edsall wrote in Chain Reaction in 1992:
"Together, the twin issues of race and taxes have created a new, ideologically coherent coalition by pitting taxpayers against tax recipients, by pitting the advocates of meritocracy against proponents of special preference, by pitting the private sector against the public sector, by pitting those in the labor force against the jobless, and by pitting those who bear many of the costs of federal intervention against those whose struggle for equality has been advanced by interventionist government policies. "Personally, I’ve long felt that Edsall’s alarums sounded like an awfully good strategy for the GOP—politically, but also morally. After all, what’s the point of majority rule if not to benefit the majority?
More

Scott Brown's Pickup Truck... Is Racist????

A timely article from www.vdare.com analyzing the election of Scott Brown, which follows this post about New Jersey and this about the upcoming election in Arizona. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Scott Brown's Pickup Truck... Is Racist????
See alsoScott Brown’s Victory: New Englanders Love Their “Little Platoons”. Immigration Is Hurting Them and Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Massacre: The Unspoken Race Dimension
Scott Brown drives a pickup truck. He put it in his ads.Keith Olbermann thinks the “pickup truck” is a coded racial attack on the President.Actually, said truck was the subject of a not very coded, just as racial, attack by the President. As Michelle Malkin wrote
“While a self-satisfied and entitled Coakley vacationed or partied with D.C. lobbyists, Brown drove around in his GM truck, shaking hands in the cold outside Fenway Park — earning the scorn of Coakley and Obama, who mocked Brown’s truck six times at the Boston rally this weekend to the delight of blue-nosed Democrats.”Perhaps Obama and Olbermann were remembering, Howard Dean, who said he wanted to be “the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” causing Al Sharpton to launch an attack on him.
VDARE.com: Blog Articles — proudly powered by WordPressThe articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDare Foundation.

Scott Brown’s Victory: New Englanders Love Their “Little Platoons”. Immigration Is Hurting Them

A timely article from www.vdare.com analyzing the election of Scott Brown, which follows this post about New Jersey and this about the upcoming election in Arizona. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Scott Brown’s Victory: New Englanders Love Their “Little Platoons”. Immigration Is Hurting Them
See Also:Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Massacre: The Unspoken Race Dimension
By Matthew Richer
“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections”, wrote Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France.
New England has always been a region of “little platoons”, where people proudly retain their local customs and accents. It’s not a place you can just move to and suddenly “belong” (as my California-born wife can attest). You have to put your time in here before you can become a bona fide New Englander.
That is something we both love about New England—and it is also one of the many things our elites can’t stand about it.
During his 1831 visit to America, Alexis de Tocqueville was the most impressed with New England. It was in New England’s “little platoons” that de Tocqueville found the American spirit of self-reliance and volunteerism to be the strongest and most admirable.
Unfortunately, New England—and Massachusetts in particular—has also produced an elite culture, a class of people who are largely the product of the region’s many prestigious universities and prep schools.
In recent decades, however, there has been a growing antagonism between everyday New Englanders and the post-American elites who claim to represent them. Granted, we rarely read about it in the press, but the tension is definitely there.
Just ask the good people of Lewiston, Maine and Nashua, New Hampshire who never voted to have Somali Bantu refugees forced into their neighborhoods at their own expense.
In my opinion, and I travel extensively though New England, the forced introduction of refugees into New England communities whose only crime was being too white and well-functioning has jolted the political awareness of people here more than any other public policy trend in my lifetime.
In a recent interview, Peter Brimelow said that people are drawn to VDARE.com because they feel especially discouraged about the way their country and culture are being forcibly dismantled, “and they feel also that something is being done to them”.
That is certainly the way people feel in places like East Boston, which was until recently a charming neighborhood with great Italian restaurants, but has been transformed by Salvadoran immigrants and turned into a stronghold of the MS-13.
It is this sense of helplessness and frustration that has drawn many people together to support Scott Brown.
I can’t tell you how many Scott Brown signs I’ve seen in places I would never expect to vote Republican—even handmade “Vote for Brown” signs made out of plastic, wood, and cardboard. The farther you go from Boston, the more Brown signs you see.
Prior to this election, the closest thing I have ever seen to this level of voter enthusiasm was Mitt Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy. Back then, vast numbers of Massachusetts voters were enormously enthusiastic about the chance to finally unseat Kennedy.
Unfortunately, as I wrote in my VDARE.com obituary for Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney ran a poor campaign. He also came across as a polished out-of-town CEO, which hampered his ability to connect to voters.
But Scott Brown is a local guy who comes across like someone you might know. He retains his regional accent and mannerisms. He is married with kids and serves in the National Guard. In other words, he is not your typical senator, and that’s a big reason why people like him-and dislike him.
“We are running against the machine” Scott Brown and his supporters keep saying, a reference to the Democratic Party Establishment that has had a stranglehold over Massachusetts for generations.
For example: One piece of the Massachusetts machine who excelled at pretending he was “one of us” was former Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas “Tip” O’Neill.
“All politics is local” was Tip O’Neill’s famous phrase. And for years now many Democrats, especially in Massachusetts, have tried to ride the strength of this feel-good slogan into elected office, repeating it ad nauseam.
The problem is that most people actually believe that Tip O’Neill was giving advice on how to govern. Actually, it was only advice on how to campaign.
In 1936, Tip O’Neill ran for the Cambridge City Council. He campaigned everywhere except in the neighborhood where he was born and raised simply because he assumed that he already had those votes in the bag.
After O’Neill lost the race, he reviewed the vote totals by precinct and discovered that he had actually done worse in his own neighborhood. “People like to be asked,” a neighbor explained to him.
O’Neill never made that mistake again. And he never lost another race.
When it came to governing, however, Tip O’Neill believed that all politics was really national, or rather, international. O’Neill cared little about the people in his own congressional district, as is clear from his life-long support for Open Borders.
“We have committed our nation to the preservation of freedom for all peoples of the world; not only those of Northern Europe” he loftily told the House of Representatives during the debate over the 1965 Immigration Act.
In 1983, Speaker O’Neill continued to defend America’s open borders immigration policy, claiming that “The pluralistic society which has resulted from the amalgamation of so many cultures has enriched the lives of all Americans and has strengthened our national character.”
But when O’Neill resigned from office in 1985, he immediately sold his Cambridge home and moved to a racially homogeneous Cape Cod village—Harwich Port, MA, six-tenths of one percent black, nine-tenths of one percent Hispanic. So much for being a local guy (with an “enriched” life).
Martha Coakley’s biggest mistake was that she ignored Tip’s advice and did not ask for our votes. In fact, Coakley took a week-long vacation between Christmas and New Year’s Day, so sure was she of being elected senator.
While Martha Coakley was on vacation, Scott Brown was driving his now-famous truck across the state. In freezing-cold temperatures, he stood on street corners and in front of supermarkets. Brown shook hands, he listened to voters, and asked for their support.
One of Martha Coakley’s more revealing moments was when a reporter asked her why she wasn’t spending more time on the stump like Scott Brown.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?” Coakley sneered, referring to a recent Brown ad that showed him talking to voters outside Fenway Park.
Standing outside in the cold is not unusual for people around here. Most of us do it every day.
Michael Kinsley defined a gaffe as the moment when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. Perhaps Martha Coakley’s most revealing gaffe was when she told a radio host that former Red Sox ace Curt Schilling was a “Yankees fan.”
The Schilling remark vividly illustrates that Martha Coakley is really not a member of one of the New England’s little platoons, but a post-American elite who wishes only to preside over them. It’s hard to imagine how anyone can be both a diehard Red Sox fan and a “citizen of the world”.
You will not find people like Martha Coakley or Ted Kennedy cheering on the local high school team, attending the church fair, riding the subway, or having coffee at the local diner. They look down on local customs as bourgeois.
Some Republican elites, of course, are just as good at pretending to be one of the gang as Tip O‘Neill. For a time, George W. Bush convinced millions that he was regular Texan who loved Jesus and baseball. In reality, Bush was actually a fan of Hispanicizing the game, attempting to turn baseball into the “international pastime”.
Last week, I wrongly predicted that Brown would lose the election after his last debate performance because of his stammering delivery, and reluctance to attack Martha Coakley, especially on immigration (where his position was actually quite good).
However, Brown scored a knockout punch with the now-famous line: “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat. It’s the people’s seat.”
What people don’t seem to realize about this oft-quoted remark is that Brown did not direct it at Martha Coakley, but at the debate moderator, David Gergen—a permanent fixture of the political establishment, who clearly leaned toward Coakley.
It was David Gergen [email him] who referred to the open Senate seat as “the Kennedy’s seat”. And he obviously did not enjoy being corrected. Our elites never do.
Another cog in the Massachusetts machine that is now slowing is the Open Borders Boston Globe, which has been lording over the commonwealth for more than a century.
For weeks, The Boston Globe has been shrilly denouncing Scott Brown’s ascendancy, furious that the public is no longer listening to them when it comes to electing people to public office.
Have you ever seen the look on someone’s face when they’re giving a public speech, and people suddenly start getting up and leaving the room? That has been the tone of the Boston Globe lately.
The Boston Globe is reportedly losing $1 million per week and has had to lay off much of its staff (although it still has a full-time immigration reporter). They have only themselves to blame for their declining influence.
Quietly, immigration has been no small factor in this election. I’ve talked to several workers in the Brown campaign in recent days and they all say that frustration with out-of-control immigration is a top voter concern. Brown used illegal immigration in his push-polling. And we have the testimony of liberal policy analyst Karen Dolan [Email her]that many of the her Massachusetts female friends were supporting Brown, to her disgust, not merely because “he looks good naked” (in his celebrated 1982 Cosmopolitan centerfold) but because “they think [Coakley] wants to bus in immigrants take over their schools…They think she will take their tax dollars and give it to an "illegal alien" in Arizona for an abortion.”[ Scott Brown’s Body seduces. Take A Cold Shower, Huffington Post, January 19, 2010.]
And, over the last few weeks, I’ve also been asking lots of voters why they support Scott Brown. Significantly, they are not primarily motivated by popular issues like healthcare, taxes, or terrorism, important as these are.
Rather, what motivates a great many Brown supporters is the preservation of their way of life—a way of life that has gradually been undermined by a political class that cares nothing for them.
People love their little platoons. The Scott Brown phenomenon was really their opportunity to band together to defend and reclaim them.
Is this a great country or what?
Matthew Richer (email him) is a public relations specialist who has recently returned to his native Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.

Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Massacre: The Unspoken Race Dimension

A timely article from www.vdare.com analyzing the election of Scott Brown, which follows this post about New Jersey and this about the upcoming election in Arizona. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Massacre: The Unspoken Race Dimension
See also Today’s Letter: MIT Graduate Reader Says Race (Etc.), Not Income, Determined MA Vote
By Washington Watcher
Scott Brown’s stunning victory over Martha Coakley is filled with national implications. Of course, what makes his win so dramatic is that Massachusetts is one of the bluest states in the country. Brown underlined this in his victory speech when he said "When there's trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured, there's trouble everywhere, and they know it."
Democrats control Massachusetts’ entire Congressional delegation and Obama won the state with a 26% margin in 2008. That a Republican can now win a statewide election by over five points is truly remarkable.
But if the GOP is to learn any lessons about this election, they need to look at what really makes Massachusetts different.
Massachusetts is blue—but it is also still White. According to Census estimates, 79.2% of the population is White, 8.6% is Hispanic, 7% is Black, and 5% are Asian. In 2008 exit polls, Blacks made up 9% of the electorate (probably disproportionately high because of the Obama effect), whites made up 82% and Hispanics and Asians both made up 3%.
While no one took exit polls on Tuesday night, it is a very safe bet to assume that Whites made up an even greater percentage of the electorate this election than they did in 2008. Brown won by getting huge numbers of white independents and white Democrats to shift the GOP.
Whites are the only swing voters in America. There is not, in fact, "trouble everywhere."

Democrats do not need to worry about losing in Detroit, DC, or Atlanta.

William F. Buckley famously quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University. But even the random white names in the Boston phone book would normally have voted Democratic. In 2008, Barack Obama won 59% of the white vote in Massachusetts and John Kerry won 64% to retain his senate seat. In contrast, only 43% of whites nationwide voted for Obama.
However, aside from the Harvard professors, most of the white Democrats in Massachusetts are not liberals who are tied to the party out of ideology. Rather, they are Irish ethnics and union members wedded to the Democratic machine for cultural reasons. These people were rioting when blacks were bussed into their schools, but they still voted for Ted Kennedy.
Republicans will never win the Harvard professors over. But they can win over the white ethnics and Union members, as Reagan and Nixon did in their landslide reelections. Scott Brown did an outstanding job appealing to this demographic. His campaign became synonymous with his GMC Canyon pickup with 200,000 miles on the odometer. As Peggy Noonan noted, "He is a regular guy, looks like an American."
Coakley made it clear she was with the Harvard professors, not the phone book, when she insulted Brown for shaking hands outside Fenway Park, called Red Sox hero and Brown supporter Curt Schilling a "Yankee Fan," and said that the American people were wrong on Health Care.
But as much as the national Democrats want to put all the blame on Coakley, Brown would not have been able to win were it not for the enormous unpopularity among Barack Obama among whites. And we cannot forget that Obama’s fall from grace among whites began when he sided with black Harvard Professor Henry Gates against Irish-American Cambridge Cop James Crowley.
On July 22, when Barack Obama’s approval ratings among whites was still well above 50%, he said Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting black Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates for disorderly conduct and suggested that racial profiling was involved.
Only 20% of whites believed Obama’s comments on the incident were appropriate and his approval ratings immediately plummeted among them.
Obama has not held a press conference since.
Brown made absolutely no comments on Gatesgate or any other racial issues. But MSNBC mudslinger Keith Olbermann still called him a "racist" and "reactionary" because he accepted support from the Tea Party movement, which Olbermann is "the saddest collection of people who don’t want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the sixties insisted they were really just concerned about states’ rights." [Olbermann: Scott Brown's A 'Homophobic, Racist, Teabagging Supporter of Violence Against Women', NewBusters.com, January 18, 2010]
Olbermann’s comments actually have an indirect relationship with the truth. With the Democratic nomination in 2008 between a black man and a white female and then Barack Obama appointing that woman as Secretary of State, an African American as Attorney General, and a Hispanic Woman as his first Supreme Court Justice, white men are legitimately concerned.
As Donny Deutsch said, appearing on the same TV show as Peggy Noonan:
"[Brown] is a traditional looking middle-aged white male. We're going back to basics. You know, we obviously have our first African-American president, we've had the female candidates and what not. You look at him, he looks like the candidate, the traditional view of the candidate."
No doubt some voters were indeed happy to go "back to basics" with Brown.
Furthermore, there is an unspoken but obvious racial dimension aspect to Obamacare: it is not just an increase of government power and spending—it is also a transfer of that spending from whites (who are the main benefactors of Medicare benefits that will be cut; and of course the bulk of taxpayers) to minorities (who make up over half of the uninsured.)
As the white share of the population of the country continues to decline, there is only one way for the Republicans to get back into to power: to win the James Crowley vote in Massachusetts.
And while voters may have told pollsters that health care was the number one issue in this campaign, Republicans should not think that parroting the Club for Growth talking points is going to be a consistent winner among this demographic. While these people opposed Obamacare, they also oppose free trade and support tougher regulations on Wall Street.
There are two issues that James Crowley voters are most at odds with the Democratic Party: immigration and affirmative action. Scott Brown did not mention affirmative action. He took a pretty strong position against illegal immigration in his platform, but did not make it a campaign issue (although he seems to have used it in his push-polling).
Martha Coakley’s weakness and public opposition to Obama made it possible for Brown to win by making populist appeals with free market economics. But this will not work in every election.
If Republicans want to make Brown’s takeover of the James Crowley vote permanent, they need to make opposition to mass immigration and affirmative action the centerpiece of their agenda.
"Washington Watcher" [email him]] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

An AZ Reader Predicts RINO Gov. Jan Brewer Will Be Replaced By Immigration Patriot Dean Martin; etc.

A timely article from www.vdare.com about illegal students in Arizona, which follows this post about New Jersey and this about the election in Massachusettes. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

An AZ Reader Predicts RINO Gov. Jan Brewer Will Be Replaced By Immigration Patriot Dean Martin
From: Sandra Miller (e-mail her)
Re: Rob Sanchez’s Column: Close The Schools And Dump The Criminal Aliens On Obama’s Doorstep
I accompanied Sanchez when he confronted the Kyrene School Board members on the subject of how many illegal aliens they have enrolled in their district. Their runaround was truly impressive, even for liberal politicians.
Like Sanchez, I wish Republican Governor Jan Brewer would do something about the illegals aliens in our Arizona schools. Her long history as an elected official shows no evidence of it, however.
Brewer was elected Secretary of State in 2002 so she held office when Proposition 200 was the talk of Arizona and when it eventually passed. Brewer implemented its provisions but was careful to do only what the law required and no more.
Despite her insistence that she’s a conservative, her total silence on illegal immigration issue identifies her as a RINO (or as we call it here in Arizona, a McCainiac). Brewer is so bad that I was amazed to be approached at the library with someone collecting signatures for her candidacy petition.
Now that Republican Dean Martin has declared himself a candidate for Brewer’s job, I expect her to quietly fade into the woodwork rather than enter the primary and get her rear kicked.
Martin is popular and the only one who has a chance of defeating Janet Napolitano's heir apparent and current Attorney General Terry Goddard.
The best news is that Martin is our strong ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Recently, he sent Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a bill for $1 billion for the expense of housing illegal immigrants.
Certainly Brewer has no chance because she repeatedly made the same mistake as McCain. Brewer, like McCain, thinks that by catering to the left, she'll grab centrist votes from Independents.
That strategy, which might have worked for an established figure like McCain, will fail for Brewer.
In the unlikely event that Brewer prevails in the primary then, if nothing else, concerned Arizona Republicans could always write in on their ballot Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a good Republican. A vote for Arpaio deprives useless RINOs like Brewer of votes.
Thank you for publishing Sanchez’s column. It should get people all over American to thumb their noses at unfunded federal mandates.
If Obama wants illegal immigration, let him pay for it.
S. J. Miller is a veteran of the IT industry and a lifelong resident of border states of California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. Miller volunteered in Arizona's Prop. 200, a ballot measure passed by Arizona voters to exclude illegal aliens from voting and receiving publicly funded welfare benefits.
Read her VDARE.COM column about Home Depot here and her letter about former New York governor Eliot Spitzer here.