In Nigeria, Boko Haram, which is Hausa for “Western education is sacrilege,” massacred 63 people in a terror campaign to bring about sharia law. Seven churches were bombed.

Sunday, the New York Times reported that Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan are suffering “horrific abuse” following last year’s pogrom.

Ethnic nationalism, what Albert Einstein dismissed as “the measles of mankind,” and religious fanaticism are making headlines and history.

Welcome to the new world disorder.

What has this to do with us? Perhaps little, perhaps everything.

In three weeks of my radio-TV tour to promote Suicide of a Superpower, no question has occurred more often than one about the chapter “The End of White America.” Invariably, the question boils down to this:

Why should we care if white Americans become a minority? America, interviewers remind me, assimilated the immigrants of a century ago — Italians, Poles, Jews, Slavs — and we can do the same with peoples from the Third World.

And perhaps they are right. Perhaps the year 2050 will see an America as united as the America of Dwight Eisenhower and JFK.

Yet there are reasons to worry.

First, the great American Melting Pot has been rejected by our elites as cultural genocide, in favor of a multiculturalism that is failing in Europe. Second, what we are attempting has no precedent in human history.

We are attempting to convert a republic, European and Christian in its origins and character, into an egalitarian democracy of all the races, religions, cultures and tribes of planet Earth.

We are turning America into a gargantuan replica of the U.N. General Assembly, a continental conclave of the most disparate and diverse peoples in all of history, who will have no common faith, no common moral code, no common language and no common culture.

What, then, will hold us together? A Constitution over whose meaning we have fought for 50 years?

Consider the contrasts between the old and new immigration. Where the total of immigrants in the “Great Wave” from 1890 to 1920 numbered 15 to 20 million, today there are 40 million here.

In 1924, the United States declared a timeout on all immigration. But for almost half a century since 1965, there has been no timeout. One to 2 million more immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive every year.

Where the old immigrants all came from Europe, the new are overwhelmingly people of color. But America has never had the same success in assimilating peoples of color.

The Indians we fought for centuries live on reservations. And if we did not succeed with a few million Native Americans, what makes us think we will succeed in assimilating 135 million Hispanics who will be here in 2050, scores of millions of Indian ancestry?

We have encountered immense difficulty, including a civil war, to bring black Americans, who have been here longer than any immigrant group, into full participation in our society.

This was a failing that the last two generations have invested immense effort and enormous wealth to correct. But we cannot deny the difficulty of the problem when, 50 years after the civil rights revolution, one yet hears daily the accusation of “racist!” on our TV channels and in our political discourse.

Ought we not first solve the problem of fully integrating people of color, before bringing in tens of millions more?

Another factor is faith. After several generations, Catholics and Jews melded with the Protestant majority. But Muslims come from a civilization that has never accepted Christian equality.

The world’s largest religion now, with 1.5 billion believers, Islam is growing in numbers, strength and militancy, even as Muslim fanatics engage in eradicating Christianity from Nigeria to Ethiopia to Sudan to Egypt to Iraq to Pakistan.

Is it wise to bring millions more into our country at such a time?

Will that advance national unity and social peace? Has it done so in the Turkish enclaves of Berlin, the banlieues of Paris, Londonistan or Moscow?

Here, again, are but a few of the differences between the old and new immigration:

Today’s numbers are twice as large. Where the old immigration stopped after 30 years, ours never ends.

Where the old immigrants were Europeans, today’s are Third World people who have never been fully assimilated by any Western country. Where those arrived from Christian nations, many of today’s come from a civilization that battled Christianity for 1,000 years.

Where Western powers ruled the world in 1920, today the West is aging and dying, and much of the world is on fire with anti-white and anti-Western resentment of 500 years of European domination.

In 1920, Western people were nearly one-third of mankind. Today, Western man is down to one-sixth of the world’s population, shrinking to one-eighth by 2050, and not a tenth by century’s end.

When did the American people assent to our taking this risk with their republic?

Patrick J. Buchanan is a TAC founding editor and the author, most recently, of Suicide of a Superpower. Copyright 2011 Creators.com.

A fair question. For Western peoples are growing increasingly reluctant to accept the sacrifices that the elites are imposing upon them to preserve that New World Order.

Political support for TARP, to rescue the financial system after the Lehman Brothers collapse, is being held against any Republican candidate who backed it. Germans and Northern Europeans are balking at any more bailouts of Club Med deadbeats.

Eighty-one members of David Cameron’s party voted against him to demand a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union altogether, the worst Tory revolt ever against the EU.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou imperiled the grand bargain to save the eurozone by announcing a popular vote on whether to accept the austerity imposed on Greece, or default, and let the bank dominoes begin to fall. The threat faded only when Papandreou cancelled the referendum.

But the real peril is Italy, No. 3 economy in the eurozone, with a national debt at 120 percent of gross domestic product.

After the plan to save the eurozone was announced, interest rates on new Italian debt surged above 6 percent, with 6.5 regarded as unsustainable.

When Papandreou announced his referendum, the cost of Italian debt surged again. Should buyers of Italy’s debt go on strike, fearing a Rome default or write-down, that is the end of the eurozone and potentially the end of the EU.

But an even larger question hangs over Rome.

Will Italy survive as one nation and one people?

For the austerity demanded of Italy to deal with its debt crisis is adding kindling to secessionist fires in the north, where the Lega Nord of Umberto Bossi, third largest party in Italy, seeks to lead Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto, with the cities of Turin, Milan and Venice, out of Italy into a new nation — Padania.

The north has long resented Rome, Naples and Sicily, seeing them as lazier and less industrious. Bossi, who calls himself “Braveheart,” after the Scottish hero of the Mel Gibson movie, sees northern people as Celts who are ethnically different and separate from the rest of Italy.

The Northern League belief that people of Southern Italy caused their debt crisis, bringing on austerity, mirrors the belief of much of Northern Europe that Italy and Greece do not deserve to be bailed out.

As the north is also home to 60 percent of the immigrants who have poured into Italy — Gypsies from Romania, Arabs from the Mahgreb and Middle East — Bossi’s party is aggressively anti-immigrant, as are the other surging populist parties of Europe.

Americans who deplore the tough laws against illegal immigration in Arizona and Alabama might look to Italy, where the Northern League managed to have illegal entry into the country declared a felony.

The League was also behind a new law calling for sending back tens of thousands of Arab Spring migrants who arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, which is closer to Africa than Italy.

But while resentment against the south for alleged freeloading and causing the debt crisis is bringing the secession issue to a boil, demography may be the greater threat to the national future.

Italy, says Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the Italian Bishops Conference, is heading for “demographical suicide,” and the reason is a low birth rate caused by its “cultural and moral distress.”

According to Italy’s National Office of Statistics, in 2009 the fertility rate of Italian women was 1.41 children per woman. This is only two-thirds of what is needed simply to replace Italy’s existing population.

Italy’s fertility rate has been below replacement levels for 35 years. By mid-century, Italy will be a nation with a birth rate that will have been below, at times far below, zero population growth for 75 years.

Italy’s birth rate in 1950 was almost twice its death rate. But the death rate equaled the birth rate in 1985, exceeds it today and will be approaching twice the birth rate by 2050.

Italy is not only aging, with the median age of its population going from 43 today to 50 at midcentury, Italy is dying. If this does not change, what the world knows as Italy will not exist at the end of this century.

Like other European nations, Italy faces an existential crisis.

Her national debt is twice what the EU says is tolerable. She must undergo years of painful austerity to pay back what she has borrowed and spent. Yet a shrinking population of working age young and an expanding pool of seniors and aged to care for will make that increasingly difficult, and default on her debts increasing attractive, as it is today to the Greeks.

The Northern League, seeing the south as the source of its troubles, will grow in appeal, as those troubles grow.

If your debts are larger than your economy, your death rate exceeds your birth rate and every new generation will be one-third smaller than the previous one, what kind of future does your country have?

The kind of future Italy faces.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a TAC founding editor and the author, most recently, of Suicide of a Superpower. Copyright 2011 Creators.com.

“Providence,” he writes, “has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion … very similar in their manners and customs …”

Are we still that “one united people” today? Or has America become what Klemens von Metternich called Italy: “a mere geographical expression”?

In Suicide of a Superpower, out this week, I argue that the America we grew up in is disintegrating, breaking apart along the fault lines of politics, race, ethnicity, culture and faith; that the centrifugal forces in society have now become the dominant forces.

Our politics are as poisonous as they have been in our lifetimes.

Sarah Palin was maligned as morally complicit in the murder attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Terms like “terrorists” and “hostage-takers” are routinely used on Tea Party members who one congressman said want to see blacks “hanging on a tree.”

Half a century after the civil rights revolution triumphed, the terms “racist” and “racism” are in daily use. We remain, said Eric Holder in calling us a “nation of cowards,” as socially segregated as ever.

“Outside the workplace, the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays, America … does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago.”

He is not altogether wrong in that. In California’s prisons and among her proliferating ethnic gangs, a black-brown civil war has broken out.

Yet, by 2042, there will be 66 million black folks and 135 million Hispanics here, the latter concentrated in the states bordering Mexico.

What holds us together, then?

We are not now and will not then be “descended from common ancestors.” We will consist of all the races, cultures, tribes and creeds of Earth — a multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual stew of a nation that has never before existed, or survived. The parallels that come to mind are the Habsburg Empire that flew apart after World War I, and the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that disintegrated after the Cold War.

No more will we all speak the same language. We will be bilingual and bi-national. Spanish radio and TV stations are already the fastest growing. In Los Angeles, half the people speak a language other than English in their own homes.

As for “professing the same religion,” where 85 percent of Americans were Christians in 1990, that is down to 75 percent and plummeting. The old Christian churches — Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran and especially Episcopalian — are splitting, shrinking and dying.

Where three in four Catholics attended Sunday Mass in 1960, it is now one in four. One in three cradle Catholics has lost the faith. The numbers of priests and nuns are plummeting; religious orders are dying; Catholics schools are closing.

The moral consensus and moral code Christianity gave to us has collapsed. Since the great cultural-social revolution of the 1960s, there has occurred what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.”

What was morally repellent — promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion — is now seen by perhaps half the nation as natural, normal, healthy and progressive.

Socially, too, America is breaking down.

Where out-of-wedlock births in the 1950s were rare, today, 41 percent of all American children are born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent; among blacks, 71 percent. And the correlation between the illegitimacy rate, the drug rate, the dropout rate, the crime rate and the incarceration rate is absolute.

This helps to explain the four decades of plunging test scores of American children and the quadrupling of the prison population.

And while all this is happening, the state is failing.

We cannot control our borders, win our wars or balance our budgets. In three consecutive national elections — 2006, 2008 and 2010 — the incumbents have been repudiated. Confidence in politics, politicians and the future of the country has never been so low in our lifetimes.

There was a time not so long ago when the nation was united on a common faith, morality, history, heroes, holidays, holy days, language and literature. Now we fight over them all.

Neocons says not to worry, the Constitution holds us together.

Does it? Do we all agree on what the First Amendment says about the freedom to pray in school and celebrate Christmas and Easter? How can we be the “one nation, under God” of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the people “endowed by their Creator” with inalienable rights, if we cannot even identify or discuss or mention that God and that Creator in the schools of America?

Do we agree on what the Ninth Amendment says about right to life? What about what the 14th Amendment says about affirmative action? What the Second Amendment says about the right to carry a concealed gun?

The new secession that is coming, Rick Perry notwithstanding, is not like the secession of 1861. It is a secession of the heart from one another.

Copyright 2011 Creators.com

In his June 1998 commencement address at Portland State, President Clinton affirmed it: “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.” The graduates cheered.

The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

With publication today of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” this writer takes up what this portends. And while many on the left are enthusiastic about relegating the America of Eisenhower and JFK to a reactionary past, I concur with the late Clare Boothe Luce.

In this world, she said, there are optimists and pessimists.

“The pessimists are better informed.”

What are the seemingly inevitable consequences of an America where whites are a shrinking minority?

First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.

California is the harbinger of what is to come.

Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain’s share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.

When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.

In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.

For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods — from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.

Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?

Second, the economic crisis of California, brought on by an outflow of taxpayers and a huge influx of tax consumers — i.e., millions of immigrants, legal and illegal — will be mirrored nationally.

For though the majority of immigrants and illegals comes to work, and work hard, most now come from Third World countries and do not bring the academic or professional skills of European-Americans.

Third, the decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic. For though we have spent trillions over four decades, we have failed to close the racial gap in education. White and Asian children continue to outscore black and Hispanic children.

Can the test-score gap be closed? With the Hispanic illegitimacy rate at 51 percent and the black rate having risen to 71 percent, how can their children conceivably arrive at school ready to compete?

Should this continue for three decades, what will it mean for America if Asians and whites occupy the knowledge-industry jobs, while scores of millions of black and Hispanic workers are relegated to low-paying service-sector jobs? Will that make for social tranquility?

Affirmative action is one answer. But this is already causing a severe backlash, and the reason is obvious.

When affirmative action was first imposed, whites outnumbered blacks nine to one. The burden of reverse discrimination on the white community was thus relatively light. Today, however, not only blacks, but Hispanics and women — two-thirds of the entire population — qualify for affirmative action in hiring and school admissions.

And the burden falls almost entirely on white males, who are one-third of the country but three-fourths of the dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan.

Sociologist Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” has also found that the greater the racial and ethnic diversity in a community, the less social capital there is — i.e., people in diverse settings are far less disposed to cooperate for social goals. They retreat into enclaves of their own kind.

Putnam found social capital at the lowest level he ever measured in Los Angeles, the most diverse community on earth. Yet, by 2042, the demography of every American city will approximate that of L.A.

What is happening to America is happening across the West.

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind — slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide — may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a TAC founding editor and the author, most recently, of Suicide of a Superpower. A preview from the Suicide of a Superpower audiobook, read by the author, can be heard here, courtesy of Macmillan Audio:

Suicide of a Superpower Clip

Among other things, Unz points out why America’s immigration policy has been completely one-sided, however heated arguments over it have been: Republican business interests and the ideologies of libertarians and liberals alike all converge to support de facto open borders. If you actually want to restrict immigration, as opposed to merely expressing your feelings about immigration, this is knot that has to be untied. Read on, and you may find that Unz even indicates how that might be done. Hint: it doesn’t involve a spontaneous uprising of Middle Americans panicked by a lot of neighbors with vowels or z’s at the end of their names.

For my part, it seems to me that treating a country as an arbitrary job market is a bad idea, just as applying an economic mindset to every aspect of one’s family would be a bad idea. (A libertarian friend of mine once pointed out that within the family, the Marxist rule of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need actually does pertain, and rightly so.) A country is not a family, but neither is it a market. That there are vast disparities of wages and wealth between nations proves the point: if the only thing people wanted to get out of nations or citizenship was economic efficiency, we wouldn’t have the borders we have — or perhaps any borders at all. To say that governments are responsible for these divisions is true but not true enough: if Switzerland or Japan had no central government — the Swiss barely have one as it is — the peoples of those places would still insist on remaining distinct from the global mass and maintaining cultural-political frontiers.

The human-rights and fairness claims of the liberal ideologues are spurious too, and the Swiss are hardly motivated by hatred in preserving their place and customs. But in any event, liberal arguments for mass immigration are not the primary driver of immigration policy in this country: Rick Perry and his supporters among the class that demands cheap labor account for much more of the problem than university-based diversity-mongers or other rogues in the gallery of political correctness. In seeing this, too, Unz is a better restrictionist than his restrictionist critics.

And the poverty rate has inched up to 15.1 percent.

Both figures, however, should be put in perspective.

For example, a family can be classified as poor and own a car, a flat-screen TV and a computer, and have a washer-dryer and a garbage disposal.

Folks below the poverty line have their kids educated free in Head Start, for 13 years in public schools, then get Pell grants for college. They get free food stamps and health care through Medicaid. They get subsidized housing and earned income tax credits, are eligible for all other safety-net programs, and can earn $23,300 in pretax income and pay no income taxes.

Poverty in 21st century America is not poverty in the Paris of “Les Miserables” or the London of Oliver Twist or the Dust Bowl of Tom Joad.

The 15-year stagnation in the median income of the American family, however — a vanishing of the American Dream that one’s children will know a better life — is a more serious matter.

For there are causes of the stunted growth in the standard of living of the American family that neither party is willing to address, if either of them even recognizes those causes.

First is the immersion of the U.S. economy in a global economy. This plunged U.S. workers into direct competition with workers in Asia and Latin America willing to do the same jobs for far less, in factories where regulations are far lighter.

U.S. corporate executives leapt at the opportunity to close plants here and relocate abroad. This explains the 50,000 factories that disappeared in the Bush decade and the 5.5 million manufacturing jobs that vanished.

You cannot have a rising standard of living when your highest-paid production jobs are being exported overseas.

Now, to buy the goods of the foreign factories that used to be here, we are shoveling out more and more of America’s wealth. Our national bill for imported goods and services is $2.5 trillion a year. The U.S. trade deficit is back up to between $550 billion and $600 billion a year.

If President Obama wishes to know why his $800 billion stimulus bill didn’t have the kick he expected, he should look at the “seepage” problem.

How do you stimulate the U.S. economy when the workers you retain or rehire with your stimulus billions head for Walmarts on Saturday to buy goods made in Japan, Korea and China?

Our $6 trillion in trade deficits in the Bush decade stimulated economies all over the world, just not our own. Indeed, the most successful economies of the last decade were China and Germany. Not coincidentally, they were the world’s two largest exporting countries.

There are time-honored ways that nations have turned around such situations. What prevents us from adopting them? An ignorance of our own history, the immense investment of our transnational corporations in the new global arrangement, and the opposition of a World Trade Organization to which we have surrendered our national sovereignty.

A second reason why the median income of American families is back to 1996 levels and sinking is mass immigration, legal and illegal.

According to analyst Ed Rubenstein of VDARE.com, the United States, despite an unemployment rate above 9 percent, imports 100,000 immigrant workers every single month. Numbers USA contends that 125,000 foreign workers are brought in every month.

Thus, well over a million workers are added annually to our labor force when 14 million Americans are looking for work.

Why are we doing this?

Is it xenophobic to say our own citizens should come first, that the importation of foreign workers must halt until our own unemployed have found jobs?

A huge share of our immigrant population is Hispanic. And Rubenstein finds that for every 100 Hispanics employed in the United States in year 2001, 126 are employed today. But for every 100 non-Hispanics employed in 2001, only 98 are working today.

What prevents our politicians from putting Americans first, deporting illegal aliens and suspending the importation of foreign labor until our own workers are back on the job?

Politics is one reason. Democrats see illegal aliens and their children as future Democratic voters. Republicans are terrified of being called racists and alienating the ethnic lobbies.

Crass commercial interest is another reason.

U.S. companies see immigrants, legal or illegal, as an endless source of cheap labor to keep wage costs down. And they are right.

But who is looking out for the national interest, for all of the members of the American family, especially the unemployed?

If the median income of the American family is falling, already back to where it was in Bill Clinton’s first term, Middle America is one of the big losers in the global economy. And who are the big winners?

Copyright 2011 Creators.com

So you’d think the guys at the ATF who ordered Fast and Furious would be finished, right? Their careers completely destroyed and possibly facing prison time?

Well, that might be the just thing, but government is usually the enemy of justice, not its champion. Here’s what really happened:

The ATF has promoted three key supervisors of a controversial sting operation that allowed firearms to be illegally trafficked across the U.S. border into Mexico.

All three have been heavily criticized for pushing the program forward even as it became apparent that it was out of control. At least 2,000 guns were lost and many turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and two at the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

The three supervisors have been given new management positions at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. They are William G. McMahon, who was the ATF’s deputy director of operations in the West, where the illegal trafficking program was focused, and William D. Newell and David Voth, both field supervisors who oversaw the program out of the agency’s Phoenix office.

This illustrates one of the many reasons the government fails so consistently and so thoroughly. Everyone accepts a CYA mentality, whenever someone screws up royally, his superiors have to pretend that all the screw ups responsible are actually super competent and fete them with promotions and awards. Remember when President Bush honored George Tenet and Paul Bremer with the Presidential Medal of Freedom after Tenet told us the case for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” and Bremer horribly mismanaged the early days of Iraq’s occupation? That wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s a pervasive feature of government: pretend your mistakes are actually accomplishments. Even if no one believes you, you might be able to say it enough to convince yourself.

Story via Radley Balko.

For some, the modern Olympic Games have served the purpose, with the Cold War rivalry for medals between the United States and the Soviet Union, and, lately, between America and China.

But the Olympic Games, most of which involve individual athletes competing against each other, have never aroused the passions of soccer, where teams serve as surrogates for the tribe or nation.

Perhaps the most intense rivalry today is between Real Madrid and F.C. Barcelona, teams representing Spain’s largest cities, with the former a stand-in for nationalism and centralism and “Barca” a surrogate for Catalan separatism. During the Civil War, when Catalonia was a bastion of loyalist resistance, the head of F.C. Barcelona was executed by troops loyal to Gen. Franco.

Early this month, Etgar Keret of The New York Times attended a match between Beitar Jerusalem, which is associated with right-wing Israeli politics, and Bnei Sakhnin, the only Arab-Jewish team in Israel’s first division.

Keret volunteered to a loud, visibly anxious Arab he met, “It’s only a game,” and got this blistering reply: “For you, maybe, because you’re a Jew. But for us, soccer is the only place we’re equal in this stinking country.”

Throughout the game, Israeli and Arab fans shouted ethnic slurs and curses in the other’s language to be sure they were understood. As Keret writes, “The bad blood between the two teams has caused many of their matches to end in rock-throwing brawls.”

“Soccer is often more deeply felt than religion,” says Franklin Foer, author of “How Soccer Explains the World.” “I don’t see tribalism ever really disappearing. … People are almost hardwired to identify as groups. And … group identity always runs the risk of being chauvinistic.”

Which brings us to Saturday’s match in the fabled Rose Bowl, with 93,000 in attendance, between the United States and Mexico.

According to Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times, when the U.S. team took the field it was “smothered in boos. … Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.”

How did U.S. coach Bob Bradley respond to the reception his team received in America’s largest county? “Obviously … the support that Mexico has on a night like this makes it a home game for them.”

“A home game” for Mexico — in Pasadena?

“It’s part of something we had to deal with,” said the coach.

“I have never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here,” wrote Plaschke, “from the air horns to the ‘Ole’ chant with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of low throbbing that began in the parking lot six hours before the game and continued long into the night.”

After the 4-2 win by Mexico, for the first time, the trophy award ceremony was held in the Rose Bowl. When the losing U.S. team was introduced, the stadium rocked again with boos.

“We’re not booing the country. We’re booing the team,” one rooter for Mexico told Plaschke. “There’s a big difference.”

But why would scores of thousands boo a defeated team after a game?

Why would spectators raise a ruckus during a national anthem, except to manifest contempt for the country whose anthem it was?

U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard credited several Mexican players with the win, but he was disgusted at how the officials conducted the ceremony awarding the Gold Cup title to Mexico.

They “should be ashamed of themselves,” said Howard. “It was a disgrace that the entire post-match ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your (expletive) that if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn’t be all in English.”

Indeed, were U.S. fans in a Mexican town to boo, jeer and chant obscenities at a Mexican team before, during and after a match, and blow horns during the Mexican national anthem, they would be lucky to get out of the stadium alive.

What does this event, in which Plaschke estimates 80,000 fans in the Rose Bowl could not control their contempt for the U.S. team and for the U.S. national anthem, tell us?

We have within our country 12-20 million illegal aliens, with Mexico the primary source, and millions of others who may be U.S. citizens but are not truly Americans. As one fan told Plaschke, “I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be.”

Perhaps he should go back there, and let someone take his place who wants to become an American.

By 2050, according to Census figures, thanks to illegals crossing over and legalized mass immigration, the number of Hispanics in the U.S.A. will rise from today’s 50 million to 135 million.

Say goodbye to Los Angeles. Say goodbye to California.

Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback. Copyright 2010 Creators.com.

“State multiculturalism has had disastrous results,” says Britain’s David Cameron.

Is multiculturalism a failure in France? “My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure,” says President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.

Only in Canada and the U.S., it seems, is the issue still in dispute.

Yet these European leaders are not leading anyone. They are far behind the people, and their belated appreciation of the idea of national identity is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.

Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the title of which may be translated as “Germany Abolishes Itself.”

Sarrazin argued that Germany’s gastarbeiters, guest workers — Turks, Kurds, Arabs — are dumbing down the nation. While Germany’s birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.

“It is a matter of culture,” said Sarrazin, and “Islam is the culture.” This is why Muslim immigrants are “socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else.” Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a “genetic minus” to describe migrants from the Middle East.

Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.

With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and “Germany Abolishes Itself” has sold over a million copies.

It was in response to the firestorm of the Sarrazin affair that Merkel discovered that multiculturalism was a failure. Her EU colleagues have since been falling all over one another to agree.

Another factor has contributed to the sudden awakening of the EU’s elite — an explosion of anti-immigrant parties that are siphoning off working-class voters from socialist parties and nationalist voters from conservative parties.

Among these are Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France, the British National Party, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in Holland, the Swiss People’s Party of Christoph Blocher, which won the battle to ban the burka, the Austrian Freedom Party and Alliance for Austria’s Future, the Jobbik Party of Hungary, the Lega Nord in Italy, which favors secession, the Danish People’s Party, and the Sweden Democrats, who just won a toehold in parliament.

What these parties share is that all are anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and ethnonational. They want to retain, or restore, a nation of, by and for their own kind, with its own history, holidays, heroes, language, literature, music and art. They are fiercely resistant to any dilution of the ethnic composition or cultural character of their countries.

What is the menace of multiculturalism these people see?

From Moscow to Marseilles, from Stockholm to Sicily, they see the Muslims pouring in and creating tiny nations within the nation, and being unwilling to embrace a new identity as Englishmen, French or German.

And their fears are not unjustified.

For just as the populist parties are deeply ethnonational, proud of their identity as Swiss, Austrian, German, English, Dutch or Flemish, the newcomers, too, are deeply ethnonational: Turkish, Arab and African.

And Islam is a faith that is itself anti-multicultural.

Devout Muslims do not believe all religions are equal. They believe there is one God, Allah, and submission to his law is the path to paradise. They do not believe in freedom of speech and the press if it means mocking the Prophet. They do not believe in Western dress codes or mixing men and women in schools and sports. They do not believe all lifestyles are equal. Some think adulterers should be stoned and honor killings are justified for girls who disgrace the family.

They wish to live their faith and their culture in our countries, to live alongside us but to dwell apart.

“If you come to France,” said Sarkozy last week, “you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.”

A little late for that. Some 5 million to 8 million Arabs and Muslims are in France, their birth rate is higher, and more are on the way.

The real questions: Whose idea was it to bring these people in? And what do France, Britain and Germany do if they say: This is a democracy, we will live as we wish to live, according to our beliefs, not yours.

How does a liberal, permissive society that celebrates diversity impose its values on a militant immigrant minority that rejects them?

Answer: It doesn’t. All the rest is chatter.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

Consider his latest excursion into the history of the republic, at Southern Methodist, where the Great Man’s papers are to be housed.

“What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the ’20s, for example, there was an American-first policy that said, ‘Who cares what happens in Europe?’ … And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and nativism. I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these ‘isms’ pass.”

Where to begin?

First, “America First” was the antiwar movement begun in 1940 and backed by the young John F. Kennedy and his brother Joe, Gerald Ford and ex-president Herbert Hoover. It had nothing to do with the 1920s.

In the Harding-Coolidge decade, America was deeply interested in “what happens in Europe.” It began with Hoover rushing U.S. food aid to the defeated nations of World War I and even to the USSR, for which Lenin personally thanked the Americans.

In 1921, President Harding called a Washington Naval Conference that produced the greatest disarmament treaty of modern times, in which America, Britain, France, Italy and Japan agreed to deep cuts and severe limits on the strategic weapons of the day, battleships.

In 1924, Charles G. Dawes advanced the Dawes Plan to ease the reparations burden on Germany, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1927, Coolidge convened a second naval disarmament conference to bring cruisers under the same limits as battleships — but the British balked.

In 1928 came the Kellogg-Briand Pact, by which scores of nations renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Undeniably utopian, it was hardly a mark of an isolationist America. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg won our country’s fourth Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1929 came the Young Plan to further ease a reparations burden on Germany then being exploited by the rising Nazi Party.

Wrote British historian A.J.P. Taylor: “American policy was never more active and never more effective in regard to Europe than in the 1920s. Reparations were settled; stable finances were restored; Europe was pacified, all mainly due to the United States.”

What is Bush talking about, and why is he trashing this Republican record like some court historian of FDR?

As for “protectionism,” Harding did approve the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922, doubling rates to 38 percent. But he also slashed Woodrow Wilson’s income tax rates by two-thirds, back to 25 percent.

Result: Unemployment, 12 percent when Harding took office, was 3 percent when Calvin Coolidge left. Manufacturing output rose 64 percent in the Roaring Twenties. Between 1923 and 1927, U.S. growth was 7 percent a year. At decade’s end, America produced 42 percent of the world’s goods.

Compare this economic triumph with the fruits of W’s free-trade policy that wiped out 6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had, and put America in hock to China.

The protectionism Bush calls “evil” was the policy of 12 Republican presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Coolidge, who made the GOP America’s Party and converted this country into the industrial marvel of mankind.

Is Bush oblivious to this? Did someone at Phillips Academy, Yale or Harvard Business School tell him Lincoln, William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt were free-traders?

As for “nativism,” the term dates to the mid-19th century and had to do with hostility to Catholics and Irish, not Italians and Jews.

The 1924 Immigration Act, to end the Great Wave of the previous 30 years from Southern and Eastern Europe, did seek to preserve the ethnic character of the country. Yet, after 40 years of that moratorium, the Melting Pot having done its work, America was more united and socially at peace in the Eisenhower-JFK era than she has been before or since.

Is every immigration restriction law “evil,” Mr. Bush? Are Japan and South Korea evil because they have never accepted immigration? Has mass immigration benefited Europe, where David Cameron and Angela Merkel are bewailing the disaster of “multiculturalism”? Is your successor, Gov. Rick Perry, evil for calling for troops on the border to stop the invasion you failed to halt?

For eight years, Bush pursued interventionism, free trade and open borders. Result: two wars that have bled his country and reaped a harvest of hate, the deindustrialization of America and a republic on its way to becoming the new world order’s Tower of Babel.

Political result: A wipeout of the GOP in 2006 and 2008, and Bush going home to Texas with the lowest job approval in presidential history.
Bush ought to sue Phillips Academy for educational malpractice.

Is “Big Sis” one of us?

Janet Napolitano, secretary of homeland security — Big Sis to regular readers of the Drudge Report — held a press conference last week that might cause critics to reconsider their views.

Napolitano claims that in fiscal year 2010, ending Sept. 30, the Obama administration set a record for deportations of illegal aliens, 393,000, breaking the old record of 389,000 in 2009.

The 2010 deportations represent an increase of 81,000 over the number in George W. Bush’s final full year in office.

More important, half of the deportees, 195,772, had criminal arrests. Of these, one-third had committed serious felonies such as murder, rape and major drug offenses. If these figures are precise, Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security ran the equivalent of five army divisions of criminal aliens out of the United States.

In making deportation decisions, said Napolitano, we focus on “removing those who pose public safety threats to our communities.”

Not only is this a fine record compared with the Bush administration, Napolitano’s priorities, criminals out first, are what immigration reformers have demanded for decades.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement audited 2,200 businesses to check for illegal immigrants. Criminal charges were brought against 180 employers.

Yet the report on Napolitano’s press conference was buried in The New York Times, which raises a question. Why has the White House not itself been boasting about this record? For this crackdown, of which Hispanic communities are surely aware, seems not to have dented Barack Obama’s popularity in the barrio.

The Democrats’ problem among Hispanics is apathy.

From a new Pew poll of Hispanics, The Washington Post reports: “There is good news and bad news for Democrats. … Latinos support the party, but about half of those questioned say they might not show up at the polls on November 2.”

As political analyst Steve Sailer, who looked deeper into the Pew poll, discovered: “Actually the Pew findings are even worse for the Democrats. … Of 1,375 Hispanic adults interviewed, only 44 percent claimed to be registered voters. And only about half of those said they were certain to vote. And Republican Latinos, while rather thin on the ground, are more fired up to vote … than are Democratic Latinos.”

This replicated Census Bureau data from the McCain-Obama election. While Hispanics were about 15 percent of the population, they cast only 7.4 percent of the ballots.

Moreover, John McCain’s pro-amnesty fight, which almost cost him the Republican nomination, did nothing to help him in November, when he lost Hispanics 67-32 to Obama.

But when the McCain of 2010 ran that ad demanding that the government “complete the danged fence,” he crushed conservative rival J.D. Hayworth and is on his way back to the Senate for a fifth term.

McCain’s record these past three years makes the point: Pandering to Hispanics on illegal immigration is no automatic winner for the GOP among Hispanics, and a tough line against illegal aliens is no automatic loser.

Even Democrats are catching on.

In the gubernatorial race in New Mexico, the most Hispanicized state in the union, Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish has promised to deny driver’s licenses to illegals. Her Republican opponent, Susana Martinez, goes her one better. She will take away driver’s licenses from illegal aliens who now have them. Martinez is running ahead and likely to be the first elected Latina governor in U.S. history.

Looking further into the Pew poll, Sailer found that of the seven issues of greatest concern to Hispanics, immigration ranked just fifth, barely ahead of the environment. Fewer than one in three Hispanics named immigration as extremely or very important.

The issues of greatest concern to Hispanics are education (58 percent), jobs (54 percent), health care (51 percent) and the budget deficit (35 percent).

With the exception of an intense concern over the crisis in public education affecting their children, Latinos share the concerns of other Americans. Perhaps it is time we began to treat these as our fellow Americans, rather than doing the Rovian thing and cross-dressing as La Raza Republicans.

Our immigration crisis is not an insoluble problem, if we have the will to resolve it. Not only has Homeland Security deported 780,000 illegal aliens in two years, an estimated 1 million have departed due to the Great Recession and an absence of jobs.

Yet with 8 million U.S. jobs still held by illegal aliens, 15 million Americans out of work and another 10 million seeking work or having given up, the needed steps are simple, if not easy.
First, “complete the danged fence” on the border. Second, accelerate the deportations. Third, step up the audits and raids on scofflaw businesses that hire illegals. Fourth, enact a law in the new Congress denying automatic citizenship to babies born to parents who are in our country illegally, and dare President Obama to veto it.

Finally, demand a national moratorium on all immigration, until unemployment among all of our Americans falls to 6 percent.

Send the illegals back home, and send the Americans back to work.

Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback. Copyright 2010 Creators.com.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) invited Colbert to take part in the hearing on account of the comedian’s participation in the Take Our Jobs campaign sponsored by the United Farm Workers. The Comedy Central host attracted a flock of media and young people unlikely to attend a hearing sans Colbert, requiring an overflow room to house all attendees. (Which is where I watched the event, missing the committee room cutoff by two people.) I imagine reactions in the committee room are much more subdued than in overflow rooms. Laughter followed many of the more inane comments offered up by both witnesses and congressmen.

Rep. Lofgren expected decorum to deteriorate during Colbert’s speech, as evidenced by the warning she gave to the audience. But in the wilderness of the overflow room, free from gavel bangs and looks of disapproval, unfettered reactions became the norm early on. Iowa representative Steve King questioned the national-security impact of food production by comparing U.S. food production to food production by Eskimos. (Cue Studio Laughter.)

But the Helpmann winner for best committee performance goes to Judiciary Committe chairman John Conyers Jr. The congressman from Michigan opened his remarks by asking Colbert to leave, a perplexing display that was met with equally perplexed laughter. Conyers’s mumbling questioning of Dr. Carol Swain seemed equally odd. While I’m not too sure if many in the room were sympathetic to Dr. Swain’s proposal, almost all sympathized with her as she endured a barrage of incoherent babble from Conyers, who resembled a parody of a congressman as much as Colbert resembles an authentic pundit.

Colbert’s speech seemed plucked from the script of a segment of his television program. It delivered in the way a Colbert fan would expect, funny, but oddly poignant. Hidden under the rhetoric of Colbert’s speech was probably, and sadly, the most lucid observation by any person in attendance. Colbert noted that helping to raise conditions of working illegals might attract more Americans to farm work, which would effectively achieve the ends of both “sides” of the debate.

It is a sad mark on Congress that the most lucid comment comes from the entertainer who makes a living mocking congress and political types. Lost in the entire discussion of agriculture jobs is a discussion of comparative advantage. As UFW head Rodriguez noted, many of these immigrants have been working in fields since the age of fourteen. Hiring unemployed urban American workers for higher wages seems silly when cheaper and better skilled workers exist on the labor market. Not only do immigrant workers hold a pay-scale advantage, but because they have been working in fields for longer periods of time, they more than likely hold a comparative advantage in farming over urban or suburban Americans — a difference that may be important given the seasonal nature of agriculture, but a fact none of the people in attendance seemed to grasp.

Last week, Jim scrutinized “Hawks for Peace” — today our spotlight is on the equally unexpected phenomenon of “Minutemen for McCain.”

No other conservative outlet brings you articles quite like these, so if you enjoy ‘em, show your support (and keep us in the fight) by making a tax-deductible contribution.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America’s economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

There is nothing particularly remarkable about Webb’s article but it has provoked some interesting responses. Stephen Green of Pajamas Media thinks that it is some sort of broadside against the White House. He asks, “Why now? Why write this column today? What brought this particular issue out at this particular moment?” I’m guessing that Green has little experience with real writing or publishing, or he would know that Webb didn’t simply get up one morning and and decide to post his thoughts at the Wall Street Journal. Editors make these decisions, and Webb’s article may have been written weeks ago. And I’m not really sure as to why it is a “virtual declaration of war on President Obama.”

Glenn Reynolds quotes a reader’s conspiracy theory that can charitably be described as absurd. “Let’s not get so worked up over Sen. Webb’s comments on race and affirmative action programs. Its very likely that his Op Ed was calculated by the White House as an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging of white voters and to bring enough of them back into the democrat party’s fold to rescue their candidates in November.” Of course, Webb appears the sort of spineless milk toast willing to attach his name to ideas that he doesn’t endorse because the president demands it.

Reynolds also links to a whiny screed from Moe Lane who may still be smarting from Webb’s defeat of George Allen in 2006. Lane predicts that the Webb will be punished for committing a “thoughtcrime” and he linked to a mildly critical post from NPR. It seemed like weak evidence, so I checked some liberal blogs and found sympathetic posts from John Cole and Kevin Drum. I’m sure that there are some leftist diversitycrats out there who disagree with Webb, but I see no evidence that they have the power to, as Lane puts it,  “utterly destroy Jimmy Webb’s career.”