Friday, September 3, 2010

American Conservatives Warn Fekter and Europe on National Radio !?

This is just an excerpt from the most popular Rush Limbaugh/Mark Steyn political radio show in the united states talking about MASS IMMIGRATION, Birth Rates etc... These radio hosts are very politically influential conservatives and have an audience of millions. It would be wise and sensible to follow these warnings. 


This is a from the radio in which Mark Steyn exposes the false environmentalist and liberal arguments related to birth rates and mass immigration. He states a true environmentalist would be against mass immigration and replacing advanced societies with the third world is not a long term solution. He also shows how Obama has devastated the economy so much and Arizona Law SB1070 is so effective that many immigrants don't even bother coming to the united states anymore.








Thursday, September 2, 2010

Republican Party Has Immigration Awakening ? (Better Late than Never)

"Can Conservatism Survive Mass Immigration... Ramesh Ponnuru And David Frum?"


By Jason McDonald



In 1997, Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein wrote a cover piece for National Review, Electing a New People, which argued forcefully that, if not checked, the demographic changes brought forth by mass immigration would doom the GOP to a minority status.



Brimelow and Rubenstein simply noted that, assuming the white share of the Republican vote and the Democratic share of the minority vote stayed constant at the level of 1988, the 2008 election would be the last year the GOP would have 50% of the vote.



This argument was ignored by the GOP Establishment. And shortly thereafter William F. Buckley purged Brimelow and Rubenstein from National Review, alongside Editor John O’Sullivan, and replaced them with the likes of David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru.



Both Ponnuru and Frum claimed to support some immigration restriction. But they attacked conservatives who really meant it. They both were particularly hard on Pat Buchanan, whom Frum called an "unpatriotic conservative" and Ponnuru accused of practicing "identity politics for white people".



Thirteen years later, on Wednesday September 1, the Center for Immigration Studies held a sobering panel at the National Press Club on the topic "Can Conservatism Survive Mass Immigration?" It featured University of Maryland Professor James G. Gimpel who wrote the February 2010 CIS backgrounder Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects, along with…David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru.



Gimpel’s backgrounder confirms much of what Brimelow and Rubenstein said in 1997 (without acknowledgement, of course). It adds a number of other insights by looking the 100 largest counties and comparing their change in immigrant population to electoral change. Not surprisingly, growing immigrant populations are inversely related to the success of Republicans.



For example, Los Angeles went 50.2% for Republicans in 1980 down to 32.7% in 2000 down to 28.8% in 2008. At the same time, its immigrant share of the population went up from 22.3% to 36.2% to 41%.



This same trend is the same right across the 100 largest counties.



Gimpel controls for other factors and summarizes.



"The conclusion is inescapable and uncomplicated. As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance. A typical drop in Republican support in a large metro area county is about six percentage points. In other words, an urban county that cast 49 percent of its vote for the Republican candidate in 1980 could be expected to drop to 43 percent by 2008." James G. Gimpel, Center for Immigration Studies, February 2010]



But Gimpel’s talk during Wednesday’s press conference barely touched his findings. He limited his comments to explaining some basic facts about party identification in relation to immigration, and to the 2010 election. He noted that, despite talk of swing voters, party identification is not very fluid. He sees it more akin to an identity—like a religion or ethnicity—than an opinion.



Both Gimpel and CIS executive director Mark Krikorian acknowledged that, whatever Karl Rove claims, it is highly unlikely that Hispanic voting patterns will change—and that therefore it is worth considering whether or not we want to increase their share of the population and, by extension, of the electorate.



More interesting than Krikorian and Gimpel’s comments, and certainly more inadvertently revealing, were those of Frum and Ponnuru.



Frum actually made some sensible points during his initial comments. He noted that the idea that Hispanics are going to become socially conservative Republicans is a myth. He said that is perfectly logical for Hispanics to support the Democrats because they offer more government goodies. He continued that there is very little upward mobility among Hispanics, which is unlikely to change, so they will continue to be a dependency class for the foreseeable future.



Frum made another pointed observation: as American whites are confronted with minority immigration, the working and middle class has come to the GOP. This has led to a situation where non-college educated whites are voting Republican, while the wealthy whites are voting for the Democrats.



So far so good. I was shocked to find myself agreeing with almost everything Frum said.



But then Frum regressed into his usual neocon self. He argued that the fact that the working class is supporting Republicans creates a huge gap where "A party that speaks about freedom and enterprise" is steadfastly "denying change to Medicare."



Frum is implying here that conservatives and the GOP have no right to say they support free enterprise if they oppose Obama’s socialist health care plan—because it was going to be paid in part by cutting Medicare benefits. While this was not the driving reason why conservatives and Republicans opposed Obamacare, a lot of senior citizens certainly did not want the benefits that they paid into taken away and then given to illegal immigrants and other members of the underclass for free. What hypocrites!



Frum’s larger implication: if the Republicans are going to be the party of "enterprise", then they need to be the party of the wealthy, and must abandon social conservatism to achieve this.



Frum’s attacks on Middle America continued: he insisted that this resentful Medicare-loving white middle class base were all racists. He said you didn’t need to be "hypersensitive" to see the "racial code" in the Tea Parties and Glen Beck.



But when asked about this secret code, all Frum could come up with is that many claim that Joseph Cao was a not a "true Republican" because of his left-wing voting record. (Even Ramesh Ponnuru called him out on this and noted that the GOP says the same about "Massachusetts Americans".)



Over the issue of birthright citizenship, Frum’s animosity to the South could not be concealed. He described pro-amnesty Lindsey Graham (a recent convert on birthright citizenship) as a "Senator from South Carolina" who says "Dred Scott was rightly decided."



Frum cannot honestly believe this. Dred Scott ruled that African Americans were not US Citizens. But Graham is merely suggesting that the 14th Amendment, which was meant to give citizenship to slaves, should not also be extended to give citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.



I have attended both a number of Tea Parties as well as some pro-SB 1070 rallies. The organizers go out of their way to invite minority speakers. The minorities in the crowd who are not speaking are welcomed. In fact, I see lots of Tea Partiers going up to them and thanking them for being there.



Those racist Dred Scott vs. Sanford-supporting white South Carolina Republicans nominated minority candidates Nikki Haley and Tim Scott in June.



It might be true that the mere fact of their being a tiny minority in the Tea Party does turn off non-whites. But that is the result of their co-ethnics not being conservative, not because any lack of genuine outreach on the part of white conservatives.



The bottom line: there is absolutely nothing the GOP and the Tea Party Movement can do to appeal to minority voters that they haven’t already done.



Like Frum, Ponnuru actually made some good points at first, but then descended into the usual triangulation and defeatism.



He began by agreeing that mass immigration is a real problem for the GOP in the long run. He agreed that it is unlikely that Hispanics are going to turn Republican anytime soon. And if we do want to make them assimilate and vote Republican, a pause in immigration would speed up the process.



After acknowledging all of this, he asserted we must ask if, "assuming that the GOP decided it was in their interest to have less immigration", could they enact such a policy?



Ponnuru claims the answer is “no”. He argues that, although the majority of voters oppose more immigration, "there is no intensity."



But if Americans’ reaction to the Bush amnesty drive in 2006 and 2007, and over Arizona’s SB 1070 today, isn’t "intensity", I don’t know what is.



Ponnuru continued: "Voters who vote on immigration are more likely to support more immigration." I have never seen any poll to this effect. I think Ponnuru just imagined it.



He went on that any "serious but unsuccessful" attempt to restrict immigration would worsen the problem. In other words we shouldn’t try to limit immigration—because we might fail.



Ponnuru claimed that conservatives can still do outreach to minorities without sacrificing their principles. When asked what this means, he suggested advertising on minority radio (which Republicans already do) and added that, while there are merits to the policy, ending birthright citizenship would appear to be a "mean spirited attack on children"



But abandoning a policy that you believe (or claim to believe) is right, which Ponnuru did in his October 8, 2007 NR piece Getting Immigration Right, because you think it will not fare well at the ballot box is the definition of abandoning your principles.



Besides, ending birthright citizenship is enormously popular.



If anchor babies are off limits, what policies can we pursue successfully? Ponnuru was asked if he would simply agree to end the visa lottery and chain migration as well as crackdown on illegal immigration. He said this was not politically feasible.



In 2001, Ramesh Ponnuru attacked Peter Brimelow and Pat Buchanan for advocating a moratorium and daring to mention the ethno-demographic changes caused by mass immigration. He instead called for a "restrictionism that could succeed". Today, it appears that even the most modest restrictions can’t succeed.



Based on the good things Frum and Ponnuru said towards the beginning of their remarks, it is clear that they understand that mass immigration poses a huge threat to this country. But not only are they unwilling to fight for this country, they are undermining and attacking those who do.



The Center for Immigration Studies should be congratulated for publishing Gimpel’s excellent paper. It is a shame that it let his insights be lost in a cloud of fashionable Beltway defeatism.


http://www.vdare.com/misc/100901_mcdonald.htm
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRUE REFORMERS for Immigration Reduction Had Great Showing in Tuesday Elections





By Roy Beck, Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 4:15 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA



We saw some exciting results in the primary elections yesterday as many candidates won who had pledged to support all 12 of NumbersUSA's top immigration priorities.



The chances are going up with every Primary election for a much-improved Congress in terms of sensible immigration policy and reduced numbers.



The 5th worst Republican in the Senate may have lost her seat, for example.



Let me be clear that NumbersUSA never endorses candidates. But we work vigorously to make sure voters know which ones will work for less immigration and less competition for our unemployed U.S. workers.



DEMOCRATS



Throughout the Primary season, Democratic incumbents have been beating Primary challengers from the left who would be more in line with the pro-amnesty, high-foreign-workers positions of Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.



We've been especially gratified to see Primary challengers fail at toppling Democrats who have been politically brave enough to oppose their Party's top leaders on immigration.



A strong case in point was yesterday in Florida where Blue Dog Democrat Allen Boyd beat a challenge from the left. Boyd works with us more than he works against us. And he has a better career Immigration-Reduction grade than 225 House Democrats. He prevailed with the voters yesterday.



The main reason that we did not have to face a congressional vote on the giant "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) the last two years is that Democratic leaders knew they would have major opposition from their own Democratic Members. We are especially happy to see that Democratic voters in Primaries are not punishing our Democratic allies for opposing Party leaders on immigration.



ALASKA



Most of the excitement yesterday on the immigration front was in Republican Primaries.



We have been emailing candidate comparison pages almost daily to our 2,500 activist members in Alaska -- making sure they knew the immigration differences between their U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and her Primary challenger newcomer Joe Miller -- encouraging our activists to spread the word.



Joe Miller took the NumbersUSA Candidate Survey and pledged to support all 12 of our top priorities!



View the 12 priorities that True Reformers pledge here.



At the moment, Miller has a lead of around 2,000 votes over Sen. Murkowski. There are still thousands of absentee ballots to count.



If Miller prevails in this stunning upset, the 5th Worst Immigration Republican in the Senate will be removed.



The only Republican Senators who have voted more consistently than Murkowski for increased foreign workers, for amnesty and against tough law enforcement are:



Lugar of Indiana (the worst)

Voinovich of Ohio (retiring)

McCain of Arizona (renounced amnesty to win re-election yesterday)

Brownback of Kansas (retiring)

Murkowski acted regularly for amnesties for illegal aliens once her father appointed her to the U.S. Senate and was one of McCain's dependable pro-amnesty votes when the Senate passed his giant amnesty in 2006 (you NumbersUSA activists helped persuade the House to refuse to take up the bill).



Under intense pressure and after seeing that the 2007 Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty was going to fail, Murkowski cast her vote against it. But her grades since then have been no better than before. Joe Miller certainly promises to be an incredible improvement. We'll anxiously await the final count.



FLORIDA



In the 24th District Republican Primary, the well-financed restauranteur Craig Miller had been favored to win this winner-take-all contest among four candidates. There are lots of patriotic restaurant owners who obey the law, but we will admit to being concerned about Miller's ties with restaurant associations that are among the loudest lobbyists for amnesties and higher foreign-worker importation.



The fact that Miller was the only one of the candidates who refused to take our immigration survey concerned us even more.



So, we are gratified that the winner -- Sandy Adams -- is a True Reformer who pledged to support all 12 of our priorities.



Furthermore, Adams has a record in the Florida legislature of pushing to require businesses to use E-Verify to make sure jobs are restricted to legal U.S. residents.



Now, Adams will be competing with the Democratic incumbent Rep. Suzanne Kosmas in the November election. Rep. Kosmas is one of those freshman Democrats who bucked the Democratic leadership and refused to get caught up with supporting any amnesty or any increase in foreign workers. But she has taken very few of the opportunities to actually improve the situation. Her "B" grade puts her among the better Democrats. Those voters who like Kosmas for her work on other issues now have a strong argument to make to her that she had better start showing some leadership on the immigration issue or Sandy Adams is going to beat her on the immigration/jobs front.



Here are other Florida Republican Primaries won by a True Reformer who pledged support for our immigration priorities:



FL 2 - Steve Southerland



FL 6 - Cliff Stearns



FL 8 - Daniel Webster



FL 11 - Dennis Ross



FL 20 - Karen Harrington



OKLAHOMA



In the 2nd District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER Charles Thompson won his runoff.



This is another piece of good news. The man he beat only pledged support on one of NumbersUSA's 12 immigration priorities.



But Thompson pledged support for all 12. And he won.



ARIZONA



The big disappointment for most immigration-reductionists who have been involved with the issue for many years is that Sen. John McCain won this Primary handily. With $20 million, McCain outspent former congressman J. D. Hayworth by almost 8-1.



Hayworth's top issue was McCain's career of favoring illegal aliens and foreign workers over American workers. Since Arizona has led the nation with state referenda and legislative laws getting tough on illegal immigration, McCain's political survival has flumoxed many immigration reductionists.



But "Open Borders" McCain did not run in this Primary.



Instead, it was "Secure Borders" McCain who showed up. His talk against illegal immigration was so tough that one open-borders advocate lamented last night that the Primary had actually been won by J.D. Hayworth inside John McCain's body.



We know that John McCain does not emotionally support the tough things he promised about illegal immigration.



But J.D. Hayworth and all the Arizonans who scared $20 million out of McCain forced the Amnesty King to make promises that will be difficult even for him to break after making them so publicly.



McCain's victory yesterday was definitely an immigration-reduction electoral loss that nonetheless will make -- and has already made -- the U.S. Senate a more hostile place for rewarding illegal immigration.



In the 5th District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER David Schweikert won the right to challenge Democrat Rep. Harry Mitchell in November. In his two terms, Mitchell has sidestepped nearly all immigration issues and stayed out of the grasp of Speaker Pelosi's open-borders henchmen. But he has done nothing to help the horrible situation in Arizona. He now has a real challenger in Schweikert.



In the 8th District Republican Primary, TRUE REFORMER Jesse Kelly can barely restrain himself now that he won the nomination to challenge Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords who talks a tough line on illegal immigration but has earned a "D+" grade during her two terms, including pro-amnesty work.



Quite an election day. Much more to come in the next few weeks.



ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA



NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.



Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
 
 
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/august-25-2010/true-reformers-immigration-reduction-had-great-showing-tuesday-electio     
 
 
As you can see, the unpopularity of Obama has caused massive divisions and economic crisis and caused many americans to think differently about Race and immigration. This is most evident with democratic party's collapse in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has traditionally been a state dominated by blue collar Whites who traditionally voted democrat, but the anti-white racist policies of Obama have caused the White demographic to turn away from the democratic party in droves and back Pat Toomey with over a 10% lead. PA Republican senate candidate Pat Toomey is on record praising the Arizona Immigration law.
 
 
It is also evident that my previous assertions that mass immigration to Austria would destroy the OVP is correct. A Free market party would not survive massive Black, Latino and Arab immigration which the OVP wants. The OVP would have to compromise principles to appease the new immigrants and become a carbon copy of the SPO or Grunen or would dissapear. At the same time masses of upset native Austrians would flock to the FPO strengthening that party and causing further polarization and weakening the OVP more. Massenzuwanderung is clearly political suicide for the OVP and the OVP should learn from the American Republicans.