-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
-
GI Told He Can’t Read Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh
June 7, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Will Christie Appoint a Conservative?
June 6, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The always studious Ann Coulter has an amazing column out this morning on the nation’s immigration issue.
Found here in Human Events, Ann has spent some time poring through the fine print of the election returns.
Her findings, made in studying the stats from Pew Research, startle. They must become part of the immigration debate to come with Republicans.
Did you know, for example, that Romney carried the youth vote? With 54% of the vote? To Obama’s 41%?
Did you know that in fact Romney also carried, by a small margin, what Ann calls the “Lena Dunham demographic” -– women under 30?
All true.
Here’s the problem. That 54% of the under-30 vote that Romney got? White as a polar bear.
In fact, it was Obama who won the youth vote — and it wasn’t because he was “offering free tuition and contraception.” It’s because the under-thirty vote is “the knife’s edge of a demographic shift” to young immigrants who are turned into government dependents.
In Ann’s words: “The youth vote is a snapshot of elections to come if nothing is done to reverse the deluge of unskilled immigrants pouring into the country as a result of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act. Eighty-five percent of legal immigrants since 1968 have come from the Third World. A majority of them are in need of government assistance.”
It’s a stunning, must read column — and prefigures the immigration debate that looms ahead.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/12/06/ann-coulters-blockbuster-immig
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 12:10PM
It is not just unskilled immigrants. It also includes the millions of skilled IT and engineering work visas from India and China that found out that having babies here can anchor you and help you get a green card. Of course, our crony big government corporations are more than willing to ship them in by the millions, lay off Americans in the last 4 years in these fields of industry and work, and replace these Americans with new foreign recruits.
In fact, these groups are well organized and focused on taking over and changing the nation to their political vision. I have personally read their "national community" newspapers and magazines. Did you even know they had these? They stated VERY clearly their intentions and there plans to elect Obama in 2007 within these news rags.
So, Anne keep digging you have only scratched the surface.
Derek Leaberry| 12.6.12 @ 1:01PM
It may be hard for some of this site's more naive posters to accept, but another reason why non-whites voted so strongly for Obama is that white are resented sort of in the same way that the New England Patriots and the Duke Blue Devils are resented. To non-whites, whites are rich, successful and are at the top of the national pyramid. We are the enemy and voting for Obama rubs our collective faces in the manure pile.
Simon Templar| 12.6.12 @ 1:33PM
They are also perceived as the 'stupid white people', or 'stupid white men' to be specific. Most of these immigrants, green card holders, and illegals come from nations that are socialistic and have had long histories as being anti-western and having some kind of grievance with the USA or the West. Perfect Democrat voters.
They have no interest in assimilation or adopting the history or traditions of America.
It is not an accident that this is the case.
Kennedy and the Old liberal left saw the demographics and political landscape coming over the horizon in the 60's as the old democratic base was shrinking and the suburban middle class Republican was ever growing with economic affluence and social mobility in the post world war two era. It is a two prong strategy, immigration and illegals on the one side and takeover and enculturation via educational institutions on the other. The radicalized young and non-white vote.
The Clinton's have been talking openly about this for twenty years and looking forward to the end of the majority white society of America.
Realize, however that this is really not about color or race, it is about liberalism and the advancement of progressivism and its ultimate objectives.
aware| 12.7.12 @ 6:08AM
This time I agree with you completely. But I think Coulter is a Conservative, Inc. shill.
ncatty| 12.6.12 @ 3:15PM
Yes, Derek, it is an emotional response.
bluecollarbytes| 12.11.12 @ 7:45PM
Don't forget simple revenge. That wasn't just a throwaway line from Obama.
JmsA| 12.6.12 @ 1:03PM
"In 1980, Hispanics were only 2 percent of the population, and they tended to be educated, skilled workers who got married, raised their children in two-parent families and sent their kids to college before they, too, got married and had kids. (In that order.)" I believe I have a pretty good idea about who Ms. Coulter is referring to here.
To Wit:
http://evelio-perez.blogspot.c.....r-foe.html
And for those with intellectual courage and honesty, I offer a somewhat, tough hardly comprehensive historical perspective:
http://eddosrios.org/obras/english/cubans_us.htm
We as well as many others tried as hard and loud as we could to warn everyone as to the dangers to freedom, but hardly anyone heeded the warnings.
BobS| 12.6.12 @ 1:55PM
Pete Brimelow's VDare.com has been talking about this for exactly how many years?
(And Coulter told us previously that Romney didn't lose because he wasn't conservative, mean or articulate enough. No wonder Sam Francis called the Repugs the Stupid Party.)
Seriously. Can we get up to speed, folks? With all due respect, is that to much to ask from self styled conservatives?
Or is the Beltway like some kind of progressive/neo-con Twilight Zone that retards and warps all who enter it ala Angelo Codevilla in The Ruling Class? The apparatchiks only spoon feed the truth to the faithful under duress and when it becomes to obvious to ignore?
Thank you.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.6.12 @ 3:08PM
Sam Francis? You're quoting a racist with approval?
Ruling Class? That's just a term that anarchists and Marx popularized.
One problem for Republicans in speaking about the need for curbs on immigration (both legal and illegal) is to do it in such a way that they exclude those who want curbs on immigration for racial reasons.
Quoting Sam Francis would not be a very good start.
Derek Leaberry| 12.6.12 @ 5:26PM
Sam Francis is one of the few modern conservative thinkers to combine intelligence, brilliant writing and guts. He is missed in this age of squirrelly-hearted conservatism.
C. Vernon Crisler | 12.6.12 @ 11:42PM
And he was also a racist.
Dai Alanye | 12.7.12 @ 5:03AM
I know nothing about Sam Francis, not even his name. But I do know there are more racists among the non-white population of the US than among the white. Obama could not have been elected in '08 had not that been true.
We all ought to take that into consideration when either commenting or evaluating the comments of others.
Derek Leaberry| 12.7.12 @ 9:30AM
That term is thrown out a lot. For instance, in my youth, I never considered dating a black girl. I guess that makes me racist. Boo hoo.
aware| 12.7.12 @ 6:02AM
Yeah, Vern, it's nice to see you doing your part for the globalists in narrowly defining the "acceptable" opinions. You are a good little neocon.
Kinda like how Lord and Coulter conveniently leave out the great service Reagan's 1986 "reform"(amnesty) in getting us to this sorry point. With "friends" like this....
JmsA| 12.6.12 @ 3:18PM
This clearly demonstrates the true agenda of the so-called Hispanic immigration lobby:
http://www.theamericanresistan.....audio.html
Grzmlyk| 12.6.12 @ 4:01PM
Debate? Debate? HILARIOUS.
Here's the debate:
GOP: We have to hold the line on illegal immigration.
DEMS: You mean hard-working undocumented workers who are the future of this country? No! Amnesty for all!
GOP: How about amnesty for some?
DEMS: No! Amnesty for all!
GOP: Pretty please, with sugar on top?
DEMS: No! Amnesty for all.
GOP: Yes! Amnesty for all! Now we REALLY have to hold the line on welfare benefits for undocumented workers before they become documented.
DEMs: You mean those same hard-working undocumented workers who are the future of this country? No! Welfare benefits for all!
GOP: How about welfare benefits for some?
DEMS: No! Welfare benefits for all!
GOP: Pretty please, with sugar on top?
DEMS: No! Welfare benefits for all.
GOP: Yeah! Welfare benefits for all! Now we need to do something about undocumented workers voting before they're citizens.
DEMS: You're still talking about those same hard-working undocumented workers who are the future of this country? No! Voting for all!
GOP: How about voting for some?
DEMS: No! Voting for all!
GOP: Pretty please, with sugar on top?
DEMS: No! Voting for all.
GOP: Yeah! Voting for all!
Anybody see a pattern with the GOP? The policies they oppose today are the policies they'll embrace tomorrow. It's just that, the more it helps the Democrat party, the longer it takes for the GOP to come around.
JmsA| 12.6.12 @ 4:23PM
Great News!!! The House of Representatives just voted to remove the word: Lunatic, from federal law.
I can't wait to share the news with all of the mental health specialists, including psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, psychologists, neurologists, etc., that utilize my med-legal services company.
(In case any of you geniuses, and you know who you are, don't get it, that was sarcasm.)
Grzmlyk| 12.6.12 @ 4:32PM
Next, the GOP is going to change the procudural rules for voting in both houses of Congress. Instead of saying "Yea" for votes in favor of Democrat legislation, they'll now say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?"
The GOP is nothing more than slight drag on the progressive juggernaut.
btims86| 12.6.12 @ 5:41PM
Hardly anyone is against all immigration but....... the issue of mass immigration has two main components:
1) The sheer huge numbers
2) Yes, the racial/ethnic (or cultural) shift due to admitting large numbers of people who are, repeat, very different from traditional, Western and American traditions.
Now today, especially with a lousy economy, what is the real reason for high immigration?
Answer: mass immigration feeds Big Government, the expansion of government and thus more centralized power given to politicians and the general "Beltway Class".
For these reasons, I advocate reducing all immigration into the US for the next 20 years. I also advocate deporting illegal immigrants. Period.
Dai Alanye | 12.7.12 @ 5:13AM
We need to note that a segment of even the Republican or so-called conservative business community, led by the Wall Street journal, favors high immigration. Whatever their stated reasons, the main one is to keep wages down and assure a docile workforce. It's shortsighted, of course, but in my experience most business types mainly concern themselves with this THIS YEAR or even THIS QUARTER, paying no attention to the next decade or coming generation.
Lenin was referring to this tendency with his comment about buying rope.
jim123| 12.7.12 @ 3:22AM
THIS ANN COULTER COLUMN IS STUNNING JUST LIKE THE BRAINY STUNNER WHO WROTE IT......leave it to ANN to :
1. DISCOVER THE TRUTH
2. TELL US
2. TELL US THE TRUTH
Truly a national treasure...
Jimbobogie| 12.7.12 @ 5:50PM
Caveat emptor:
Given the exuberance and confidence with which the "Evil Conservative Media" :) including Ms. Coulter proudly welcomed President Romney to Washington (based on more than one pollster), I might want to see some corroborating evidence, (in the form of a few more polls from both Liberal and Conservative agencies perhaps?) before I put all of my eggs into one basket. Having said that, if Ms. Coulter is indeed correct (insert pound of salt here) then the GOP is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror before they choose somebody to run against Hillary in 2016.