199806 american renaissance

8/8/2019 199806 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/199806-american-renaissance 1/12

American Renaissance - 1 - June 1998

Continued on page 3

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— Thomas Jefferson

Vol. 9, No. 6 June 1998

Waging War on America

American Renaissance

A great nation is deliber-ately destroying itslef.

by Joseph E. Fallon

During the past 33 years, Con-gress has enacted laws on im-migration, citizen-

ship, and territorialpowers that are decon-structing the UnitedStates both as a historicnation and a federalpolity. Taken together,federal action amounts tothe dissolution of virtuallyevery tie that holds apeople together: language,culture, race, and nationalconsciousness. Up until the1950s and 60s, every one of thesevital elements of nation seemed unas-

sailable, but now, primarily because of immigration, the very foundations of na-tional unity are under assault. It is nolonger far-fetched to consider a possi-bility that would have been unthinkable30 or 40 years ago—the collapse anddisaggregation of the United States.There is probably no other nation in his-tory that has voluntarily adopted poli-cies that so clearly point towards self-destruction.

A “European” Nation

For nearly two hundred years afterindependence from Britain in 1783, theUnited States was demographically a“European” nation with never less than81 percent of the population white andoverwhelmingly Northern European. Asrecently as 1950, European-Americanswere still approximately 90 percent of the total population.

This began to change with the 1965Immigration and Naturalization ActAmendments. The congressional spon-

sors of this legislation repeatedly prom-ised that the law: (1) would not increaseannual levels of immigration, (2) wouldnot lower standards for admission, (3)would not redirect immigration awayfrom Europe, and (4) would not alter thedemographic make-up of the UnitedStates.

S e n a t o rRobert Kennedy stated that“the new immigration act would nothave any significant effect on the eth-nic composition of the U.S.” His brother,Senator Edward Kennedy, asserted:“This bill is not concerned with increas-ing immigration to this country, nor willit lower any of the high standards we

apply in selection of immigrants.” AndEmanuel Celler, a congressional oppo-nent of U.S. immigration policy since1924 insisted, the effect of the bill onthe U.S. population would be “quite in-significant,” and that the bill would notlet in “great numbers of immigrants

from anywhere,” including Africa andAsia.

What these men said proved to befalse. Between 1968, the year when the1965 immigration law fully took effect,and 1996, the annual level of legal im-migration rose from around 300,000 tonearly one million. At the same time,

the ethnic mix of immigrantschanged dramatically.

During the 147 yearsbetween 1820 and 1967,of the 44 million immi-grants legally admitted tothe United States, 80 per-

cent were from Europe withanother 9 percent from Canada.

As a result of the 1965 act, of themore than 19 million immigrants le-

gally admitted to the United States be-tween 1968 and 1996 approximately 83percent came from somewhere otherthan Europe or Canada. Asia and the Pa-

cific islands accounted for 34 percent;Latin America and the Caribbean islandsfor 46 percent; and Africa for about threepercent.

This precipitous decline in immigra-tion from Europe and Canada is evenmore pronounced than it looks. Since1968, not all immigrants from thosecountries have been Europeans. Afri-cans, Asians, and Latin Americans of-ten emigrate to various European coun-tries or Canada, then come to the UnitedStates under the quotas for those coun-tries.

When illegal immigration is included,the drop in European immigration iseven more dramatic. The Immigrationand Naturalization Service estimatesthat five million illegal aliens havesettled permanently in the United States,and that this population is increasing by300,000 a year. Illegal immigration, likelegal immigration, is almost entirelynon-white. As of 1996, of the 2,684,892illegal aliens granted amnesty by the

There may be no othernation in history that has

voluntarily adopted poli-cies that so clearly pointto self-destruction.




Letters from ReadersSir — In your interesting commen-

tary on the Le Pen phenomenon, yougave a number of reasons why you

thought racial nationalism had been somuch more successful in France than inthe United States, but you left out themost important: the charisma and forceof character of Jean-Marie Le Pen him-self. For a movement to succeed it is notenough for its leaders to be right. Theymust have the gifts and talents thatwould have taken them to the top in anyfield.

Here in the United States we havemany clever writers and thinkers. Whatwe do not have is anyone with the dy-namism and organizational ability of Mr.

Le Pen. Ideas are supposed to have con-sequences but they need the help of tire-less, dedicated supporters.

Arnold Rosen, Glens Falls, N.Y.

Sir —Yes, isn’t it odd that as soon asthe Front National wins a little support,French liberals start saying that (a) thereis something wrong with the electoralsystem, and (b) democracy is threatened.Germans are just as silly. An obscure,anti-immigration party wins 15 percentof the vote in Saxony-Anhalt and lo,

German democracy is under assault.It would be hard to find a more trans-

parent example of the hollowness of lib-eral claims to love democracy, revere thepeople, or promote “inclusion.” I do notdoubt that many liberals would happilytrample upon the will of the people if the people voted the wrong way.

Some years ago, a militant Islamicparty won free elections in Algeria. Thegovernment, displeased with the results,annulled the election and jailed the party

leaders. The United States, which fan-cies itself the world’s foremost fighterfor democracy, let out hardly a peep. Butwhen Burmese generals did exactly thesame thing with a liberal candidate,

Aung Sen Suu Kyi, Europe and Americawent into fits of indignation. They cutoff trade with Burma, gave Miss Kyi theNobel peace prize, and puffed them-selves so full of self-righteousness theynearly popped.

How I despise liberals! Their slogansalways have a contemptible little echoaudible only to the trained ear: Democ-racy! (so long as I approve of the re-sults), Diversity! (within the limits I set),Freedom of Speech! (for me and myfriends), Integration! (for everyone ex-cept me and my friends), Equal Oppor-

tunity for All! (and preferences forwomen and non-whites), etc.

How do they manage such transpar-ent hypocrisy? I believe it was Voltairewho said: “Man is a most deceiving ani-mal, and he whom he most deceives ishimself.”

Carla Fittipaldi, Phillipsburg, N. J.

Sir — Your articles on Le Pen wereexcellent. I read news about Le Pen inGerman publications, but your explana-tion of the French electoral system was

the best I have seen. Americans, of course, know virtually nothing of LePen.

It would be good to do a similar re-port on the catastrophic situation in Ger-many. The only real conservative withany stature there is Franz Schonhuber,former head of the Republican Party,who it totally ostracized. Germany, likeall of Europe, is being destroyed by itspoliticians and the leftist media.

H. E. Hays, Bainbridge Island, Wash.

Sir — Whether the races differ in in-telligence is a scientific question, andwill be resolved soon, whether liberalsgag on the results or not. Prof. R. Plominis already isolating genes that affect IQ,and we’ll soon know if they are evenlydistributed.

But genetics won’t be destiny for very

long. Some years hence we’ll have asmart shot or a smart vaccine or even asmart pill. [Editor’s note: It may not bequite so easy as that. See p. 8 of thisissue.] Any nation that declines to use itwill be left in the dust where it belongs.I understood the liberals a little whenthey were trying, however clumsily, toimprove IQ by bettering the environ-ment. But I predict they will hate anyeffort to do the same thing through ge-netic science. Their only fallback is toclaim that intelligence is unmeas-urable—yet they somehow manage to

measure it when crusading against leadpoisoning.

Leon Day, Oakland, Calif.

Sir — In his arguments about the ef-fects that a family can and cannot haveon a child, it seems to me that GlaydeWhitney draws the dividing line moreor less wherever it suits him. If I can’tchange my children’s IQs or personali-ties or even have much influence onwhat careers they pursue, how can I givethem a healthy group consciousness? It

is difficult for me to believe that if per-sonality is essentially impervious tofamily influence, attitudes toward inte-gration are, as Prof. Whitney asserts,almost completely under family control.

In the South, publicly-expressed at-

titudes towards integration changed ina single generation. Clearly the under-lying genes did not change; but if fam-ily influence controls attitudes towardintegration how could they change soquickly? The obvious answer is thatsome things are powerfully influencedneither by genes nor by family but bysociety at large. It is in this larger arenathat whites are weakest and most vul-nerable.

Name Withheld, Dover, Del.




American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: [email protected]

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor

1986 Immigration Reform and ControlAct (IRCA) more than 98 percent camedirectly from the Third World—Africa,

Asia, Latin America or the Caribbean.Many immigrants come for welfare.

Before the 1996 Welfare Reform Act,immigrants were participating in morethan fifteen major federal and state pro-grams, including Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC) and Sup-plemental Security Income (SSI). Asmore immigrants began to come from

the Third World, their welfare rates wentup. In 1970, immigrants were on wel-

fare at the same rate as native-bornAmericans—six percent. By 1990, im-migrant welfare rates were higher thanthose of natives (nine percent versusseven percent) and almost twice as highas for native-born whites (five percent).

Some immigrant groups have particu-larly high welfare rates: Chinese andFilipinos—10 percent, Mexicans—11percent, Ecuadorians—12 percent, pre-Marielito Cubans—15 percent, Viet-namese—26 percent, Dominicans—28

percent, and Cambodians and Lao-tians—nearly 50 percent.

From 1970 to 1990, immigrants wentfrom getting seven percent of all wel-

fare cash benefits to 13 percent, but threequarters of the total cost of welfare is“non-cash transfers,” such as Medicaid,Food Stamps, etc. In his recent analy-sis, Immigration and the Welfare State,Dr. George Borjas of Harvard calculatedthe cost of these transfers and found thatthe overall welfare dependency rate forimmigrants is actually 21 percent com-pared to 14 percent for native-bornAmericans and 11 percent for native-born whites. The rise in welfare ratesamong immigrants is expected to con-tinue, since current immigrants have less

schooling, less proficiency in English,fewer skills, and are earning less thaneither earlier immigrants or native-bornAmericans.

Today, nearly 40 percent of all adultsadmitted to the United States each yearare high school dropouts. In 1990, oneof every four high-school age immi-grants from Mexico was not in school,and some three million immigrant highschool dropouts living in the UnitedStates accounted for one-fifth of alldropouts in the labor market. This rep-resented a doubling of the immigrant

share of high school dropouts since1980.

Of the foreign born who arrived since1980, 60 percent do not speak English“very well” compared to 37 percent of those who arrived before 1980. Only 26percent of the European foreign born donot speak English “very well,” com-pared to 71 percent of Mexicans, 63percent of Central Americans, 48 per-cent of South Americans, and 43 per-cent of Caribbean islanders. In 1995, the

poverty rate for the foreign born was 70percent higher than that for native-bornAmericans.

The number of recently-arrived eld-erly immigrants more than tripled be-tween 1970 and 1994. This helps explainwhy, in 1992, immigrants received $2.7billion more in social security benefits

than they contributed. Donald Huddleof Rice University and David Simcoxof the Center for Immigration Studiesestimate that over the next decade thesocial security deficit caused by immi-gration will total $30 billion. From 1982to 1994, the number of elderly immi-grants who received SupplementarySecurity Income (SSI) grew from127,900 to 738,000 or by approximately580 percent.

According to Dr. Huddle, the net na-tional cost of immigration to U.S. tax-payers was $65 billion in 1996, or the

equivalent of $981 for every Americanfamily of four. The annual cost is pro- jected to grow to $108 billion within thedecade.

Despite Senator Robert Kennedy’sinsistence that the 1965 immigration law“can have no significant effect on the

ethnic balance of the United States,” itsimpact has been dramatic. From 1965to 1990—in just 25 years—it has re-duced the percentage of whites from 89to barely 75. The Census Bureau esti-mates that after 2050 whites will dropbelow 50 percent of the U.S. population.Even before that date, whites will havebeen reduced to a demographic minor-ity in California by the year 2000, inTexas by 2015, and in Florida and NewYork some time after 2015.

Official Multiculturalism

In the meantime, the impact of ThirdWorld immigration, through the conceptof “multiculturalism,” has already pro-duced a sustained attack on the historicidentity of the United States as a “Euro-pean” country. Pro-Third World mili-tants demand that since the United Statesis multiracial it must also be multi-cultural. The U.S. government agrees.The opening attack on the cultural iden-tity and political unity of the United

Nearly 50 percent of immigrants from

Cambodia and Laosare on welfare.




States was the federal assault on theEnglish language. In 1968, Congresspassed the Bilingual Education Act au-thorizing education of non-Englishspeaking children in their native lan-guages. By 1993, the annual cost of bi-lingual education was $12 billion. In its1982 “Plyler v. Doe” ruling the Supreme

Court only made things worse, by re-quiring the states to provide free publiceducation—often in their own lan-guages—to illegal aliens.

Despite federal law requiring a natu-ralized U.S. citizen to be able to “dem-onstrate an understanding of the Englishlanguage,” Congress amended the Vot-ing Rights Act in 1975 to require thatballots be printed in languages other

than English whenever 10,000 people of voting age or five percent of the totalvoting-age population in a district speak a language other than English (these fig-ures include non-citizens who are legallyprohibited from voting), and have an il-literacy rate that exceeds the nationalaverage. Local authorities can now berequired to print ballots in 320 languagesand an additional 100 dialects.

In 1990, Congress waived the Englishfluency requirement for citizenship forpeople who are over 50 and have livedlegally in the U.S. for more than 20

years, and for those who are over 55 andhave lived legally in the country formore than 15 years. Even before this,one third of immigrants who becameU.S. citizens during the 1980s were clas-sified by the Census Bureau as “linguis-tically isolated.” These are people wholive in “households in which no one 14years old or over speaks only Englishand no one speaks English ‘very well’.”Remarkably, over two percent of “na-tive-born” Americans (this figure in-

cludes Puerto Ricans) now do not speak English “very well.”

Language is one of the central battle-fields of the culture war. In 1982, then-mayor of Miami, Florida, Maurice Ferre,declared that “within ten years there willnot be a word of English spoken [inMiami]; one day residents will learn

Spanish or leave.” Mayor Ferre couldsay this because post-1965 immigrationhad so completely changed the demo-graphics of Miami. In 1960, whites wereapproximately 77 percent of the popu-lation. By 1990, Hispanics, who hadbeen an insignificant number before1965, were at 62 percent and whiteswere only twelve percent.

In November 1980, alarmed whitesapproved a referendum making Englishthe official language of Dade County(which contains Miami). In May, 1992,Hispanic militants successfully lobbied

the Dade County Commission to repealthe referendum.

In November, 1988, at the state level,84 percent of voters approved an amend-ment to the Florida constitution to makeEnglish the sole official language, butthe amendment required enabling leg-islation in the state house to take effect.In 1989, Hispanic activists bottled up thebill in committee, effectively nullifyingthe amendment.

Hispanic activists are on the offen-sive in other states, too. At a January,1995, rally at the University of Califor-

nia, Riverside, to oppose Proposition187 (which denied welfare and otherbenefits to illegal aliens) Art Torres de-clared: “Remember, 187 is the last gaspof white America in California!” At thetime, Mr. Torres was chairman of theCalifornia Democratic Party. Partici-pants at the rally included XavierHermosillo, a Los Angeles radio talk show host, who boasted in 1993 thatMexican-Americans were taking politi-cal control of the “former Mexicancolony, California, house by house,block by block.” Among the many state-

ments made at this rally were “Englishshould be a foreign language”; “We arehostages in our own land, prisoners of war”; “We live under occupying alienforce,” “We’re in a state of war,” and“We live in the annexed territories of Aztlan.”

The success of the Aztlan movement,which would detach the Southwest andcreate an independent, all-Mexican na-tion, will depend on whether Americanimmigration policy continues un-

changed. In 1970, Hispanics were 12percent of the population of California.By 1990 they were 26 percent and areprojected to be 32 percent in 2000. Be-tween 1970 and 1994, the Hispanicpopulation in California grew from2,369,000 to 8,939,000, more than tri-pling in 24 years.

Meanwhile, the culture war againstthe “European” identity of the UnitedStates continues to rage. In 1991, Con-gress changed the name of the CusterNational Battlefield Monument in Mon-tana. It is now officially called the LittleBighorn National Battlefield Monumentand commemorates both sides—the 200U.S. troopers who were killed and mu-tilated, and the Indians who killed them.In Oregon in 1994, a state agency re- jected a monument called “The Prom-ised Land,” which it had commissionedto commemorate the 150th Anniversary

of the Oregon Trail. The statue depicteda white pioneer family.

In San Antonio, Texas, Mexican mili-tants are demanding that the monumentto the defenders of the Alamo—DavyCrockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis,etc.—be torn down or removed. In SanJose, California, in 1994, Hispanics suc-ceeded in having the city spend$500,000 to have a statute of the Aztecgod, Quetzalcoatal, erected in a publicpark. This replaced a monument to the

Liberty Bell. The State of South Dakotaand the City of Berkeley, California,

have abolished “Christopher ColumbusDay” and now celebrate American In-dians instead.

In Lady Lake, a Florida retirementcommunity, management prohibitedresidents from displaying the U.S. flagfrom their homes in 1996 because “in amultinational community, U.S. flagsmight offend some residents.” In NewYork City in 1996, Islamic militantsobjected to Christmas decorations inGrand Central Terminal. At their insis-

Hero of Little Bighorn.

What’s that old thing?




tence, most of the decorations were re-moved, and an Islamic flag with a starand crescent will now be put up everyChristmas season.

Universities are now part of the as-sault on America’s European identity. In1988 Stanford University changed itscurriculum when student demonstrators

marched chanting “Hey hey, ho ho,Western Civ. has got to go.” Now Ber-keley, Dartmouth, Mount Holyoke, andthe University of Wisconsin require stu-dents to study Third World cultures, butnot European culture.

Cheapening Citizenship

As the culture crumbles, Congresshas been at work undermining the mean-ing of citizenship. The citizenship testis multiple choice with two dictated sen-tences to determine English literacy. The

applicant need get only one sentenceright. Should an applicant fail, he cankeep on taking the examination until hepasses. The Federal Citizenship Text-book Series assures applicants that “re-tests are variations of the initial test.”

Some of the test questions demeancitizenship. One is “Name one benefitof being a citizen of the United States.”According to the U.S. government thethree acceptable answers are: “to obtainfederal government jobs, to travel witha U.S. passport, and to petition for closerelatives to come to the United States to

live.”One question asks “Whose rights are

guaranteed by the Constitution and theBill of Rights?” The U.S. governmentsays the correct answer is “Everyone’s(citizens and noncitizens living in theUnited States).” In fact, besides limit-ing the franchise to citizens, the Consti-tution does not allow aliens to run forPresident, Congress, or the Senate.

The INS itself makes a mockery of naturalization. Although the law re-quires FBI fingerprint checks of appli-cants for naturalization, since 1994 the

INS has let immigrants submit finger-

prints by mail! From August, 1995, toSeptember, 1996, an estimated 180,000aliens were naturalized without com-plete FBI background checks. A re-ported 71,500 became citizens despitecriminal records that should have dis-qualified them.

The franchise has gone the way of

citizenship. The National Voter Regis-tration Act of 1993, known as the “Mo-tor-Voter” law, does everything but ex-plicitly invite fraud. As columnistGeorgie Anne Geyer notes, it “requiresstates to conduct mail-in voter registra-tion, discourages states from verifyingeligibility or citizenship, and expresslystates that mail-in registration formsmay not include any requirement fornotarization or other formal authentica-tion.” The federal government also per-mits cities to let non-citizens vote in lo-cal elections. Five cities in Maryland do

this: Takoma Park, Somerset, Martin’sAdditions, Barnesville, and ChevyChase.

As it undermines citizenship, attacksthe culture, and encourages demo-graphic transformation in the UnitedStates, Congress explicitly recognizesthe dangers of all these things when itgrants special powers to American ter-ritories. The most important of these iscontrol of immigration, a power the Su-preme Court denied to the states in 1875.American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Northern

Marianas, and Palau can control immi-gration to their territories in order topreserve their racial, ethnic, and culturalidentities. Congress also permits Ameri-can Samoa, Federated States of Micro-nesia, Marshall Islands, NorthernMarianas, and Palau to restrict landownership. In effect, only the natives of these islands can own land.

Although the states of the union arelosing control to immigrants and aliens,Congress has granted American Samoa,Guam, Federated States of Micronesia,Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas,

Palau, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Is-lands independent representation in in-ternational organizations. Such marks of sovereignty are denied to the states.Multiculturalism and dispossession arefine for white Americans but would bea tragic loss of identity for non-whiteislanders.

In 1787, John Jay wrote of the goodfortune of the Americans in being “oneunited people, a people descended fromthe same ancestors, speaking the same

language, professing the same religion,attached to the same principles of gov-ernment, very similar in their manners

and customs.” Since 1965, the UnitedStates has thrown away all the advan-tages Jay so rightly appreciated. How-ever, the deconstruction of the UnitedStates is not an act of God or ordainedby any law of history. It is the result of policies deliberately implemented by thefederal government over the last 33years in blatant disregard of the ex-pressed wishes of the white majority. Itis a process, therefore, that not only canbe stopped; it can be completely re-versed. All that is necessary is forwhites, in the words of columnist

Samuel Francis, to “have the strengthand the will and the common purposeto take back our country and our cul-ture.” •

Joseph Fallon is a writer living in Rye, New York. This article is excerpted from Deconstructing America: Immigra-tion, Nationality and Statehood , Coun-cil for Social and Economic Studies,

Monograph Number 27, ISBN: 0-930690-56-7. To purchase a copy pleasesend $9.75 to Council for Social and

Economic Studies, 1133 13th St., NW

#C-2, Washington, DC 20005.

The deconstruction of theUnited States is not an act

of God or ordained byany law of history.

How New Americans are Made

by Jared Taylor

There are many ways to become aU.S. citizen but the final step inthe process is a naturalization cer-

emony conducted by a federal judge. I

have long wanted to observe the cer-emony, and recently attended one at thefederal district court in Alexandria, Vir-ginia.

On this occasion, there were 60 citi-zens-to-be, accompanied by perhaps 40

guests and friends. A few people werein business clothes, but most weredressed for shopping or a sports event.The courtroom was full, but the citizens-to-be were seated separately, away fromtheir friends, so there was very little




chatter as we waited for things to begin.A lawyer from the INS was mistress of ceremonies. She was Hispanic, with adistinctly Spanish accent, and men-tioned at the outset that she, too, was animmigrant. She covered a few practicalquestions, like how to apply for a U.S.passport, and then got down to business.

She apologized in advance for any mis-pronunciations, and then called out thenames of each of the aliens and askedthem to state their original nationalities.She spoke the large number of Hispanicnames in a clear, Spanish accent. No oneseemed to think it odd that she not be anative American or that she shouldspeak accented English.

I listened carefully as 60 people saidwhere they were from: Guatemala, So-malia, Lebanon, Panama, Ghana, China,Egypt, Korea, Vietnam, Peru, Turkey,Honduras, Sierra Leone, etc. There was

just one European, an Englishwomanwho later left the courtroom with whatappeared to be her American husbandand child. There was also one “Russian”who looked more Armenian or Azerithan European. From the back of thecourtroom, this collection of Americans-in-the-making was a virtually unbrokensea of jet-black hair.

As we waited for the judge to arrive,the INS lawyer remarked approvinglyon how many countries were repre-sented. “The worth of the United Statesis that we come from all parts of the

world,” she said. “That’s what makes usspecial.” She urged everyone to get ac-quainted with his neighbor, so as to beable to tell grandchildren that on thatgrand day when the family becameAmerican “I was sitting next to some-one from Egypt—or from Guatemala.”The INS lady ran out of things to say,and after about six or seven fidgety min-utes the Honorable Barry Poretz arrivedin his black robe to administer the oathof citizenship.

He considerately broke the oath upinto short pieces so those whose English

was a little new could follow along.They all raised their right hands and re-nounced all former loyalty to any“prince, potentate, state or sovereignty”and promised to bear “true faith and al-legiance” to the United States Constitu-tion. They also swore that they wouldbear arms in the service of the UnitedStates should the law require it, and thatthey took the oath of citizenship “freely,without mental reservation or purposeof evasion.”

Judge Poretz then gave a little talk,saying that his grandfather had been animmigrant and that it always makes himhappy to welcome new citizens to theUnited States. He noted that althoughin the past people had thought of theUnited States as a melting pot he thoughtthe country was more like a stew. “The

recipe is better because youall maintain your ethnicbackgrounds, and the coun-try is better for that,” he said.He urged everyone in theroom to cherish his nationalheritage, explaining that“that’s what makes the stewbetter and the country bet-ter.” He did not mention theConstitution, to which 60people had just sworn faithand allegiance, nor did he discuss whatconstitutes evasion or mental reserva-

tion. Not once did he mention the mean-ing or contents of the oath of citizen-ship; no one else did either.

After the judge left the courtroom, theINS lady congratulated the new citizensand spoke about the importance of vot-ing. She explained that there were vol-unteers in the courtroom who could helpthem register. The next speaker wasLynette Anderson, a Daughter of theAmerican Revolution. Her subject wasfreedom—how her Revolutionary an-cestor had fought for it, and how gladshe was to have been “born into” it. In

remarks that could have seemed mildlyoffensive to the former nationalities rep-resented in the room, she told the newcitizens that they were “very special”because “now all of your descendantswill be born into freedom.” She alsourged them to write letters to their de-scendants, describing “your Americandream.” She said she wished she had aletter of that kind from her Revolution-ary ancestor, and promised the formerSomalis and Vietnamese that their de-scendants would, one day, be thrilled tohave such a thing.

Miss Anderson then led the group inpledging allegiance to the flag. This wasan awkward, mumbling business, andthough the Daughter explained that theright hand was to be placed over theheart, quite a few—demonstrating onceagain the newness of their English—raised their hands in the air as they hadfor the oath of citizenship.

The 60 names were then called outagain, and the new Americans marchedup to the front of the room to collect

certificates of naturalization. As eachperson filed by, a representative of agroup called Alexandria Voter Registra-tion handed out registration forms, andMiss Anderson gave each person a smallAmerican flag. I glanced at the certifi-cate of a former Egyptian. It was attrac-tively engraved, with a color photograph

attached, and did not look easy to counterfeit.One of the voter registra-

tion people stood at the doorof the courtroom, shakinghands and saying “congratu-lations” to each new Ameri-can on his way out. I men-tioned to her that not manyseemed to be registering tovote. “A lot of them don’tunderstand what it’s about,”

she replied pleasantly. Then, gesturingtowards the INS lady who had called the

roll, she said, “Isn’t it remarkable howshe pronounces all those names?”

The ceremony straggled to a close. Iwas surprised to have observed no emo-tions of any kind. Although the ladiesfrom the INS and the DAR tried to givethe ceremony some kind of significancethey got no reaction from their audience.It could have been a crowd waiting fora bus or a jury pool waiting for a case.As I watched my fellow citizens—justabout every possible race but white—walk out of the courtroom, I couldn’thelp thinking that what should have

seemed like an odd, alien collection of un-American-looking people didn’t look that way at all. It looked, in fact, like just about any big-city crowd waitingfor a bus. •

Moving?

Be sure to send usyour new address.




We Have Been WarnedCalifornia Coalition for Immigration Reform,

Reconquista!: The Takeover Of America, 1997, $7.00, 40 pp.

What Hispanics talk aboutwhen whites aren’t listen-ing.

Reviewed by James P. Lubinskas

How do Hispanic activists see thefuture of the United States?

Reconquista!: The Takeover Of America lets them speak for themselves.It contains pages of quotes from univer-sity professors, activists and elected of-ficials that betray an openly racialist planto “reconquer” the Southwestern UnitedStates. These leaders understand that

demography is destiny, and are eager totake power and land from “Anglos.” Foranyone who doubts that Hispanics aresaying these things, or who may simplywant to hear the tone in which they dis-cuss reconquista, the California Coali-tion for Immigration Reform (CCIR)offers an audio tape that includes everyquotation in the booklet.

Here are excerpts from a few of thequotations.

Professor José Angel Gutierrez of theUniversity of Texas, 1995: “We have anaging White America. They are not

making babies. They are dying. It’s amatter of time. The explosion is in ourpopulation. You must believe that youare entitled to govern . . . . Don’t youfind it curious that in the midst of allthis harassment and repression that thereare those who are saying that they areconcerned because we’re Latinizing LosAngeles? That there’s too many Mexi-cans here? That we’re the biggest na-tional security threat to the UnitedStates? I love it! Se estan cagandocabrones de miedo! (They are sh******in their pants with fear.) I love it!”

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles CityCouncil, September, 1996: “[T]hey’reafraid that we’re going to take over thegovernmental institutions and other in-stitution. They’re right, we will takethem over, and we are not going to goaway, we are here to stay . . . .”

Art Torres, former California StateSenator and current chairman of theCalifornia Democratic Party: “Remem-ber, 187 is the last gasp of white Americain California. Understand that. And

people say to me on the Senate floorwhen I was in the Senate, ‘Why do you

fight so hard for affirmative action pro-grams?’ And I say ‘Because you’re go-ing to need them [when whites becomea minority].’ ” (laughter)

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles CountySupervisor, June 1996: “[W]e are po-liticizing every single one of those newcitizens that are becoming citizens of

this country. . . . And our vote is goingto be important. But I gotta tell you thata lot of people are saying, ‘I’m going togo out there and vote because I want topay them back.’ ”

Antonio Villaraigosa, MajorityLeader in the California State Assem-bly, June, 1997: We know the sunny sideof midnight has been the election of a

Latino speaker [in the state house], wasthe election of Loretta Sanchez againstan arch-conservative, reactionary, hate-mongering politician like CongressmanDornan.”

Mike Hernandez, Los Angeles City

Council, June, 1996: “Somos Mexicanos(we are Mexicans)! Mexico, some of ussay, is the country this land used to be-long to! . . . We are the future, we willlead the Western hemisphere!”

Fernando Guerra, Professor, LoyolaMarymount, Jan. 1995: “[W]e need toavoid a white backlash by using codesunderstood by Latinos but not offensiveor threatening to others.”

Armando Navarro, Professor, Uni-versity of California, Jan. 1995: “[T]ime

is on our side, as one people as one na-tion within a nation as the community

that we are, the Chicano/Latino commu-nity of this nation. What that means is atransfer of power. It means control.”

Ruben Zacarias, Superintendent, LosAngeles Unified School District, June,1997: “And I’ll tell you what we’ve donewith the INS. Now we’re even doing the[citizenship] testing that usually peoplehad to go to INS to take, and pretty soon,hopefully, we’ll do the final interviewsin our schools. (laughter) Incidentally, Istarted this very quietly because thereare those that if they knew that we werecreating a whole new cadre of brand new

citizens it would have a tremendouspolitical impact.”

Street activists use more colorfulterms than elected officials and collegeprofessors. Here is Augustin Cebada, aleader of the Brown Berets, on July 4,1996:

“Go back to Boston! Go back to thePlymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! Weare the future. You are old and tired. Goon. We have beaten you, leave likebeaten rats. You old white people, it isyour duty to die. Even their own ethi-cists say that they should die, that they

have a duty to die. We are the majorityin L.A. . . . Through love of having chil-dren we’re going to take over.”

Anonymity permits the greatest can-dor. This is the beginning of a messageleft on the answering machine of animmigration reform organization in1996: “I’m a Mexican-American, andyou being a white bastard, you are amother-f****** trespassing son-of-b****. And if you don’t watch yourself,like all other white mother-f****** herein Aztlan, you’re all going to be blownaway, son-of-a-b****.”

The only non-Hispanic quoted in Reconquista! is Albert Gore. He was thekeynote speaker at the 1995 conferenceof the Southwest Voter RegistrationProject, which helped speed through onemillion new naturalizations in time forthe 1996 elections. He said: “This Presi-dent [Clinton] wants to put the ‘N’ back in INS. . . . The President and I look forward to hearing your views on everysingle step we take to create a balancedimmigration policy that makes the most

We are a people, Without borders!

“We are the future. Youare old and tired. You old

white people, it is yourduty to die.”




of our diversity. We are all the descen-dants of immigrants, whether our fore-bears came on the Mayflower, or insteerage from Eastern Europe, or walkedacross an unmarked border in Texas orCalifornia.”

For some reason, Mr. Gore is the onlyspeaker who has anything to say about

“diversity.”This excellent little booklet containsphotographs of many of the people itquotes, along with samples of the ag-

gressive graphics that Hispanics oftenuse in connection with their cause. TheCCIR has done a first-rate job of gath-ering information that is almost neverreported. This collection deserves thewidest possible distribution. •

To order Reconquista!: The Takeover of America please call (714) 921-7142,

or send $7 for the booklet and $10 forthe booklet and audio tape to CCIR, P.O.Box 2744-117, Huntington Beach, CA92649. ·

Improving on NatureLee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World,

Avon Books, 1997, 317 pp., $25.00.

What genetic engineeringcould mean for our species.

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

What can we expect from hu-man genetic engineering?How will cloning change our

species? Can governments misuse ge-netic technology? These are some of thequestions Lee Silver tries to answer in

Remaking Eden. This book is so breezyit reads as if it were pitched to readersof Mademoiselle, but Prof. Silver clearlyknows his field and makes no secret of his enthusiasm for using science to im-prove on nature. Whatever scruples—

religious or otherwise—one may haveabout the advisability of tinkering withhuman reproduction, this book leaveslittle doubt that human cloning and de-signer babies are likely to be commonin the next century.

Just a Small Business

Prof. Silver explains that cloning willbe a crucial step in our ability to ma-nipulate reproduction. Last year’s suc-cessful cloning of a sheep means thereshould be no scientific obstacles to do-ing the same thing with humans, butwhat is a clone and how does cloningwork? A clone is an exact genetic copyof an organism. Clones are easily pro-duced by plants that can be propagatedfrom cuttings, but animals don’t repro-duce that way. A clone of a person wouldbe made by putting his genetic materialinto an embryonic cell, implanting thatcell in a womb, and letting it develop toterm. Biologically, a clone is no differ-

ent from an identical twin, except that itis born later—perhaps many years later.

The news of the sheep cloning wasmet with widespread hostility, and

people from President Clinton on downurged that cloning of humans be prohib-ited. Prof. Silver thinks opposition isboth futile (because cloning will be im-possible to ban) and misplaced (becausecloning will be good and useful). Heargues that fancy reproductive geneticscannot be prevented because it does notrequire large-scale investment, and canbe done virtually anywhere. If theUnited States bans it, Singapore or NorthKorea or the Cayman Islands will wel-come the small businesses that will in-evitably spring up to provide it.

According to Prof. Silver, cloning andits associated techniques are good, partlybecause only individuals, not govern-ments, are likely to use them. There areseveral reasons for this. First, humancloning starts with a single cell that mustbe grown into an adult, so it takes 18 to20 years. Champion athletes or obedi-ent soldiers cannot be cranked out of aclone factory fully-grown, and Prof. Sil-ver suspects that few governments havethe patience to wait for clones to growup. He also reports that in the foresee-able future the chances of creating anartificial womb are slim to none, sincethe chemical communications betweenmother and fetus are too complicated toreproduce. Cloning will therefore re-quire human wombs, and large-scalegovernment cloning would require aslave army of young women compelledto produce and rear government-issuebabies. This is improbable even underthe worst dictators.

Who, then, would clone and why?Since cloning will be labor-intensive,

only the rich will be able to afford it.Some people—and not necessarily ego-maniacs—will want the nearest thing yetto another chance at life: the opportu-

nity to rear a genetic carbon copy of themselves. Prof. Silver offers othermore exotic possibilities: A couplecould go infertile before it had all thechildren it wanted and could decide toclone the one(s) it already had ratherthan adopt. A lesbian could decide toclone herself and implant the embryo inher “partner” ’s womb—both women

would then be “biological” mothers of the resulting child. If the only child of acouple were killed in an accident theparents might decide to clone the child(from its remaining tissue) rather thanstart over. At a more gruesome level, aclone might be produced because itwould be a perfectly compatible organdonor for someone who needed newparts. Some types of useful tissue arealready present in the fetus, so the clonecould be aborted and all its useful bitsharvested.

Cloning makes for startling possibili-ties. A woman who particularly admiredher parents could clone them, have themimplanted in her own womb, and rear

Heather has two mommies.




them. She would then be the birthmother of people who were, genetically,her own parents. Also, since human tis-sues can be stored indefinitely in thedeep freeze, a long-dead ancestor’sgenes could be thawed out and given an-other try. A child could grow up to learnthat what he had always thought was his

brother was—genetically—his great-grandfather.

Prof. Silver points out that it is pos-sible to clone someone who has neverbeen born. An aborted fetus has all thegenetic material anyone needs for clon-ing. Spookier still is what could be donewith the fact that male and female fe-tuses already contain eggs and the pre-cursors of sperm. If these were harvestedand used for in vitro fertilization, some-one could be born of parents who were,themselves, never born. Prof. Silverdoes not necessarily endorse any of this—he is simply explaining what is

now or soon will be possible. And tothose who find these ideas repulsive, hepoints out that when in vitro fertiliza-tion was first achieved in 1978 it wasdenounced as “playing God.” It is nowpracticed without controversy in 40 dif-ferent countries, and by the end of 1994some 140,000 people had come into theworld that way.

He also notes that surrogate moth-ers—women who rent out theirwombs—continue to ply their trade,despite bad publicity. In 1986, MaryBeth Whitehead refused to turn over a

contract baby she had agreed to carryfor an infertile couple, and the saga of “Baby M” wore on for months. Sincethen, states have passed laws governingcommercial surrogacy, some banning itoutright. Others, like Arkansas, are re-ceptive to reproductive contracts andwill enforce them even if the surrogatemother does not want to hand over thebaby. Prof. Silver reports that surrogatesare now selected with such care thatthere are no more battles over posses-

sion. His point is that a procedure thatonce provoked an outcry is now quietlyflourishing. He predicts that other repro-ductive techniques that now seem out-landish will also gain wide acceptance.

Whatever happens, this will be sportfor the rich: In vitro fertilization costsanywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 and

the total costs of hiring a stranger tocarry your child run to about $50,000.

Improving on Nature

Even more troubling for some peopleis the prospect of human genetic im-provement, but simple techniques of thissort are already being used. If parentsuse amniocentesis to test an unborn childfor genetic diseases, they have the op-tion of aborting the fetus rather thanhave a baby with a serious defect. Thisis crude, all-or-nothing selection but it

is still a refusal to leave reproduction tochance. Embryo selection is similar butmore complex. When infertile couplesresort to in vitro fertilization, they usu-ally fertilize several eggs at once tomake sure at least one will be usable. If several embryos are left to develop theycan be examined and the most promis-ing chosen for implantation. Soon it willbe possible to change the genetic con-tents of the embryo so as to eliminatehereditary diseases and even add desir-able qualities.

Prof. Silver notes that cloning will be

central to this process because at the pre-implantation stage that will make it pos-sible to work with batches of embryosrather than just one. Biological proce-dures are never 100 percent reliable, soreproductive genetics needs the marginfor error that comes with geneticallyidentical copies. A technician whowould never attempt an uncertain ma-neuver on a single, laboriously-har-vested, fertilized, and partially-devel-oped embryo could try it confidently on100 identical embryos.

Needless to say, there is much con-

troversy about all this. Some peoplewould view the 99 failed-and-discardedembryos as 99 abortions. Likewise,there are doubts about the advisabilityof tinkering with genetic characteristicsthat could be passed on to succeedinggenerations. Indeed, some of the prob-able methods do seem strange. For ex-ample, it should soon be possible tomodify the precursor cells that producehuman sperm. Harmful characteristicscould be eliminated and helpful ones

added. These cells could then be im-planted into the testes of a pig or mouse,which would produce improved humansperm, which could be harvested andused for in vitro fertilization.

Whatever techniques are used, Prof.Silver suggests that in 100 years or so,true designer babies will be possible. A

couple could select their own most de-sirable traits and add nice features fromother people and even other species.There is no theoretical obstacle to stitch-ing into humans the genes that give dogsa keen sense of smell or even those thatpermit echolocation in bats or dolphins.Humans may some day be able to seeradio waves and infra-red light, or evenperform photosynthesis.

Prof. Silver recognizes that the chil-dren of people who can afford thesetechniques will dominate society. Everyparent with enough money could have

beautiful, talented, genius children. Prof.Silver even recognizes that these im-proved humans could quickly become adistinct species, or even several distinctspecies, depending on the set of charac-teristics they selected. Is this eugenics?

Indeed it is, says Prof. Silver, who ar-gues that even if the Nazis gave it a badname, it would be irresponsible not totake control of our genetic destiny nowthat we are able.

Fantastic as all of this may sound,Prof. Silver is probably at his most con-vincing when he argues that unless the

United States or some other superpowerlaunches a global effort to prevent any-one anywhere from perfecting and prac-ticing these techniques, reproductiveengineering will surely come to pass.Parents want the best for their children,and with or without their government’spermission they will find a way to getit. Although there will not be new, im-proved human super-species in our life-time, Prof. Silver argues that there is noharm in getting used to the idea now. •

Made to order.

Abilities we could use?




O Tempora, O Mores!

Sierra Club Vote Fails

The members of the Sierra Club, one

of the country’s largest and best knownenvironmental groups, have defeated aresolution that would have required theclub to work toward reducing immigra-tion. About 78,000 of the club’s 550,000members voted 60:40 against the reso-lution. Proponents of immigration con-trol argued that overpopulation is a se-rious environmental problem in theUnited States, and opponents—of course—accused them of racism. Theadministration of the club, which wasbitterly opposed to taking a position onimmigration, was afraid to put the mea-

sure to a straight, up-or-down vote. In-stead, it added an alternative that pro-posed global population-control mea-sures and did not mention immigration,and asked members to choose one or theother. Population control is somethingmany immigration activists also favor,and they argued that putting an attrac-tive alternative on the ballot falsified theresult. (William Branigin, Sierra ClubVotes for Neutrality on Immigration,April 26, 1998, p. A16.) It is actuallyencouraging that 40 percent of what isan overwhelmingly liberal group voted

to reduce immigration despite the club’sunderhanded tactics.

Nurse Walks the Plank

In April, a 90-year-old senile whiteman was admitted to Sinai Hospital inDetroit. In response to a special requestfrom the man’s family, a nursing super-

visor posted the following notice in thenurses’ lounge: “Until further notice,please assign the patient to white staff members. This is per family requests in

an attempt to decrease his confusion andagitation. Per his sister, this patient wasattacked by a black man some years ago,

and they aren’t sure what to do.”The request was not honored, and thenote soon came down—and so did astorm of criticism. The supervisor wasduly reprimanded and counseled, andthe Detroit City Council voted a unani-mous resolution saying that it viewedthe incident “not as a ‘mistake’ but as asorry commentary on the current stateof race relations in southeastern Michi-gan.” The resolution went on to call forthe hospital to acknowledge a “patternof racism” and to take steps to overcomeit. Thirty protesters gathered in front of

the hospital shouting that the nursingsupervisor be fired. She groveled in theusual way, but could not hold out againstthe pressure. Three days after she postedthe note, she resigned. (David Goodman,AP, Hospital Apologizes for Racist Act,April 23, 1998. AP, Nurse Quits AfterRacial Furor, April 24, 1998.)

Easy Solution

On February 15th, a huge crowd of Mexican-“Americans” attending a soc-cer game in Los Angeles between the

Mexican and U.S. national teams booedand hooted during the national anthemand pelted the American players withtrash (see AR, April, 1998). When re-porters later asked Mexican ConsulGeneral Pescador Osuna what hethought about this show of disrespect heoffered a simple solution: stop playing“The Star Spangled Banner” at soccergames. (Georgie Ann Geyer, Dual Na-tionality Undertow, Washington Times,April 18, 1998.)

Dramatic Exit

Earlier this year, Captain Paul Prokopretired after 32 years with the CoastGuard. His farewell speech started con-ventionally, with praise for his ship-mates and stories from his career, but itended with a bang. With his boss, RearAdmiral Timothy Josiah looking on,Captain Prokop explained why he wastaking early retirement:

“Unfortunately, our commandant isaccelerating us headlong down the path

of political correctness. Primary consid-eration in selecting officers for assign-ments and promotion are now gender

and race. . . . I have come to realize thatI am far out of step with my superiorsand can no longer support them or thisorganization that I value and love.”

Capt. Prokop has since been ostra-cized. The videotape of the ceremony,which is usually given to a retired of-ficer, has been confiscated. He receiveda sharp letter from former friend andCoast Guard Academy classmate, Adm.Josiah, criticizing his “unexpected,highly offensive remarks.”

Capt. Prokop is not backing down.“They know there are other officers who

don’t like this [race and sex preferences],and they want to suppress it. Somebodyneeded to say it, and nobody on activeduty can say it or their career will beover. Look at what they did to a guy whoretired. Think of what they’ll do to a guyon active duty.”

The Coast Guard has been underheavy pressure from the Clinton Admin-istration to appoint a black and a femaleadmiral. Current commandant Adm.Robert E. Kramek apparently promisedhe would appoint one of each before histerm expired. The Coast Guard is part

of the Department of Transportation,whose former secretary, Frederico Pena,put great emphasis on “diversity” andhiring homosexuals. (Rowan Scar-borough, Washington Times, CaptainMakes Waves At Retirement, April 7,1998, p. A1.)

Black Israelis

Since 1984, the state of Israel has paidto bring in over 25,000 black Jews fromEthiopia. They are not assimilating, andthe sense of separateness appears to be

mutual. Younger Ethiopians, who havelittle recollection of life in Africa, saythey feel much closer to black Ameri-cans, Jamaicans and Africans than toIsraelis. Others complain that Israeliswill not sit next to them on buses. Fortheir part, immigration authorities houseblack immigrants in trailer parks ratherthan apartments, explaining that keep-ing Ethiopians together helps ease thetransition. Ethiopian discontent eruptedlast year in riots when it was reported




that Israeli blood banks were throwingaway blood donated by Ethiopians forfear it might be contaminated with theAIDS virus.

Some Israelis wonder if bringing inAfricans may not have been a mistake.“No other Western-type country inviteda black immigration, and this country

did,” says Zvi Sobel, head of the socialsciences department at Haifa University.“We did it on an ideological basis. Thequestion is whether we were realistic.We are not Superman.” He argues thatIsrael has problems enough without ra-cial friction. “Do we have too much onour plate to add the color dimension?”he asks. “No society has dealt with colorwell. To think we could do it was chutz-pah.” (John Donnelly, Miami Herald,

Religious Bond, Cultural Divide, March22, 1998, p. 1A)

Carefree College Days

Last March, three football players atIllinois State University at Normal werevisiting the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fra-

ternity house. One of the fraternity mem-bers asked them to leave after he saw aplayer urinate in a shower stall. The foot-ball players started hitting the frat menwith beer bottles, were injured in theensuing fight, and withdrew. The nextday, 15 men dressed in black chargedinto a chapter meeting of the fraternityand attacked the members. They blud-geoned them with pipes with nails intheir ends, car antennas, and socks

stuffed with batteries. Frat men who ranout of the house were met by 10 moreassailants who beat them as they triedto escape. No one was killed, but therewas so much wreckage and gore in thefrat house a police photographer vom-ited at the sight.

Six football players have been ar-

rested in connection with the attack andmore suspects are sought. Police haverun into a wall of silence among foot-ball players, and lawyers hired by sus-pects are making the investigation asdifficult as possible.

Everyone arrested in the incident sofar is black. The fraternity is white.Campus authorities insist that this wasnot a racial incident. News coverage hasbeen strictly local. (Jennifer Jones, UglyScene at ISU, Chicago Sun-Times, April5, 1998, p. 15A.)

Why Wait?Hispanic students in the schools of

Fremont, California, have been protest-ing the curriculum, which they say isoutdated because it concentrates onwhites and Europeans. Recently 75 stu-dents left classes and marched to theschool district headquarters, insistingthat Cinco de Mayo—a Mexican holi-day—be declared a school holiday.(They were, of course, not disciplined.)In April, the school board voted unani-mously to recognize Cinco de Mayo

with official school celebrations, butstopped short of giving students the dayoff. They also promised to work “Latinoheritage” into the social studies curricu-lum at every school in the district, andto offer classes in ethnic studies. Vid-eos on Latino culture will now circulatein all junior high and high schools, andthe Fremont public library will displaymaterials on Hispanic culture. A book-mobile with similar collections will visitthe district’s four elementary schools.(Sandy Kleffman, Schools Add EthnicStudies in Fremont, San Jose Mercury

News, April 10, p. 1B.)How many Mexicans does it take to

push around a white school district? Of the 30,000 students in the Fremontschools, only 13.5 percent are Hispanic.

Mysteries of Jurispru-dence

In the state of Louisiana, members of grand juries are chosen at random, butforemen are appointed by judges. Some-

During the very hours thatPresident Clinton and his racepanel were spouting the usual

nonsense about the lack of blacks insports executive positions, a real dia-logue on race was taking place in thestudios of WABC, New York City’smost powerful radio station. MichaelLevin, author of Why Race Mattersand I were debating two black broth-ers, Mark and Clayton Reilly, whohave worked as radio hosts on a noto-riously anti-white black-owned sta-tion. As is often the case with blacks,the discussion was so tense and hos-tile that it carried over during everycommercial break, becoming verynasty and personal.

The tone was set early when Clay-ton Reilly refused to shake hands withProf. Levin and me. The Reilly broth-ers had the opening say, but whenProf. Levin’s turn came, they did whatblacks often do on these shows—theyinterrupted, shouted, and tried todrown Prof. Levin out. During a com-mercial break Prof. Levin told the

host, Curtis Sliwa, that if he didn’tkeep the Reillys in line he wouldleave. Clayton Reilly took Prof.Levin’s remark as some kind of racialslur and barked that he would “settle”it with him. Prof. Levin asked, “Is thata threat?” “No,” Mr. Reilly replied,“It’s a promise.”

I refuse to be pushed around byhostile blacks and began giving theReillys a taste of their own medicine,frustrating them at every turn and

never letting them get the better of adiscussion or more air time. The dis-cussion itself was as expected. TheReillys denied that people generallywant racial segregation and, of course,refused to acknowledge racial differ-ences in IQ. Prof. Levin and I cut theirarguments to shreds, while Mr. Sliwa,who is normally uninhibited aboutstating opinions, uncharacteristicallyrefused to take sides.

In the final segment, ClaytonReilly, in a very loud and threateningmanner, accused me of being a fas-cist, nazi, white supremacist, etc. I re-plied, “I know you’re used to whitesbeing intimidated by you and back-ing down. But that will never happenwhile I’m in the room. You can’t re-fute our arguments, so you resort toname-calling.” I taunted Mr. Reilly bysaying, “Why don’t you lose that mas-sive chip on your shoulder?” He gotup, touched his shoulder and said,“Here it is, what are you gonna do,man?” I just laughed and said, “Youdon’t scare me, so sit down.”

The next day, the newspaper thatcarries my column, the Queens Led-ger , was inundated with calls of sup-port, many expressing amazement thatour views even got on the air. It was agood evening for the AR point of view.

—Frank Borzellieri Mr. Borzellieri is an elected school

board member in Queens, N.Y. He and Prof. Levin will speak at the AR con-

ference, August 28-30.

Teaming Up for the Cause



A i R i 12 J 1998

one discovered that blacks are not ap-pointed as often as their numbers indi-cate they should, so the system is hope-lessly “racist.” A white man who wasfound guilty of murder has therefore hadhis conviction overturned because thegrand jury that indicted him was part of this tainted system. The U.S. Supreme

Court, in one of its goofiest race deci-sions in a long time, upheld the lowercourt that threw out the conviction, be-cause a black might have suffered dis-crimination when a judge appointed thegrand jury foreman. Justice AnthonyKennedy wrote that a murderer, “likeany other white defendant, has standingto raise an equal protection challenge todiscrimination against black persons inthe selection of his grand jury. Regard-less of his or her skin color, [a defen-dant] suffers a significant injury in factwhen the composition of the grand jury

is tainted by racial discrimination.”As usual, the one black justice

showed the most sense. Even assumingthat prejudiced white judges really werekeeping blacks from becoming foremen,Clarence Thomas wrote: “I fail to un-derstand how the rights of blacks ex-cluded from jury service can be vindi-cated by letting a white murderer gofree.” Justice Antonin Scalia joined Jus-tice Thomas in this dissent, but eventhese two justices agreed that althoughthe conviction should not be overturned,the murderer had grounds to challenge

the indictment on due process grounds.(Laurie Asseo, AP, Court Backs WhiteDefendant Rights, April 21, 1998.)

The Spoiled and the Sensi-ble

California’s Proposition 209, passedby voters in 1996, bans racial prefer-ences in state institutions. This is the firstyear it has affected undergraduate ad-missions at California universities, andthe results were predictable. Last fall,1,045 Hispanics, 562 blacks and 69

American Indians were admitted to Ber-keley, but this year the numbers are 434,191 and 27 respectively, for an overalldrop of 61 percent. The administrationseems to think the university will be afailure if there are not lots of blacks andHispanics on campus (it gets plenty of Asians without affirmative action), soit has pulled out all the stops to try toget them in. It sends them videos of thecampus, and treats them to evenings of dinner and dancing. Chancellor Robert

Berdahl himself telephones some of them, pleading with them to come toBerkeley. “They really want us,” ob-served Rafael Farais with a smile as hesat in Berkeley’s Alumni House, watch-ing the sun set over San Francisco Baywhile a mambo band played in the back-ground. He has an offer from Stanfordas well, and will not make up his minduntil he sees how much money theschools offer him. (Michelle Locke,Recruiting for Minorities Intense, AP,April 27, 1998.)

Blacks who are already at Berkeleyhave decided to sabotage the school’sefforts. Although the abolition of affir-mative action was a voter initiativeforced upon reluctant administrators,blacks now say Berkeley doesn’t likethem any more. Students and facultywho used to get on the telephone andurge students to come to Berkeley re-fused to this year despite special plead-ing from the chancellor. Dana Inman isa senior and works at the Black Recruit-ment and Retention Center. When someblacks visited the campus, she and other

staffers said they shouldn’t come: “Wetold them that it’s a very hostile envi-ronment and that we’re not welcomehere, and they don’t want us here be-cause they’re not letting us in.” It is hardto imagine a more spoiled and thank-less attitude toward a university that hascoddled them from the beginning.

Hispanics have been much more sen-sible. After a vigorous debate they de-cided they would be just as active asbefore in helping persuade Hispanics to

attend. They even seem to understandwhat the new admissions policy reallymeans. As one junior said to a prospec-tive freshman, “We really admire youguys. You got in without any affirma-tive action or anything.” (Frank Bruni,Berkeley Blacks Suggesting to Black Recruits They Might Be Happier Else-

where, New York Times, May 2 1998.)

Voodoo Comes To Jersey

Sheila DeGraff, a 28-year-old Haitianimmigrant living on Long Island, wasconvinced that sounds coming from herbasement were caused by spirits un-leashed by her father. She hired PierrotCharles, a voodoo priest living in NewJersey, to cast out the spirits. After Mr.Charles spent eight nights trying tochase away spirits, he tried somethingdifferent on the ninth. He threw a sheet

over Miss DeGraff, doused her withFlorida Water—a cologne often used in“African” religions—and set her on fire.Mr. Charles took Miss DeGraff to hishouse but did not take her to the hospi-tal until the next afternoon. She had thirddegree burns and required two opera-tions and skin grafts. Police havecharged Mr. Charles with attemptedmurder, in an incident that has broughtunusual attention to practices that areordinarily cloaked in great secrecy.

James Weinberg, Mr. Charles’ law-yer, says his client was just practicing

his religion and calls the indictment “ri-diculous.” “It’s like charging a rabbi ora priest with murder,” he explains. Oth-ers note that voodoo is common amongimmigrants from Haiti. Henry Frank,who runs the Haitian Centers Councilin Brooklyn says, “Like a lot of ethnicgroups who’ve migrated here, we’vebrought our culture with us.” (GarryPierre-Pierre, A Voodoo Priest isCharged in the Burning of a Woman,New York Times, April 8, 1998.) •

CCC Conferencein Charleston

The Council of ConservativeCitizens will be holding anational conference in

Charleston, SC, on June 5 and 6.

Panel topics include “America’sProblems,” “Turning AmericaBack to God,” “Southern PatriotsReport,” and “Focus on SouthCarolina.” Jared Taylor will be partof a panel called “Immigration—the Changing of America,” alongwith Brent Nelson, Louis March,and Wayne Lutton. Registration isonly $20.00.

For information please call(314) 291-8474. For hotel reserva-tions ($65/night) please call (803)744-8281.

199806 american renaissance

Documents