This excerpt is from my new WND.com column, “Israel: Role Model For America”:

[T]he majority that dare not speak its name is on the wane.

“A couple of election cycles down the road and [Anglo-Americans] will comprise less than half the population. If mass immigration continues at current levels, predicts the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2050, approximately 130 million people will have been added to the United States, mostly from the Third World. Embittered Americans may still cling to guns and God, as their founding fathers did, but they will no longer decide elections.

Ironically, Bill Clinton has spoken glowingly about the prospects of the demise of the very historical majority upon which his wife’s candidacy now depends. Likewise, Barack Obama would hardly be inconsolable. If his immigration policies are any indication, McCain, to whom Bush has passed the baton, has also embraced this end-of-days scenario.

Israel hasn’t. The plucky Jewish state can teach the US a thing or two about cultural and creedal survival. Israel has endured to celebrate its sixtieth birthday in so small part because it has rejected American style immolation by immigration…”

Comments are welcome.

As Israel celebrates its 6oth birthday, it is also conducting an ongoing investigation into the master of ceremonies: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

This is what I admire about the place in which I grew up: No authority is above the law, especially not the most powerful politicians in the land.

Americans think that because their top-tier leaders remain untouched, they’ve probably above board. Not so: It’s just that the American presidency and the cabinet are impenetrable. They’re allowed to take shelter behind the Scooter-Libby minions who take the fall for them.

Another front on which “conservatives” have joined forces with the Democratic berserkers is in placing the blame for gas prices on the oil companies. Not on government, God forbid—it has spent us into oblivion, causing the dollar’s devaluation, and, consequently, the prices of all commodities to rise. No sirree. Like Obama and Clinton, dittoheads lay in to “Big Oil.”

Do me a favor; leave off that bogus bugbear.

Exxon Mobil and the rest have done a smashing job of bringing a product to market despite the fact that they’ve not been allowed to build a refinery for 25 years. Who has outlawed drilling in the artic tundra or off the coast of California and Florida?

Not one nuclear power plant has been constructed since Three Mile Island. That’s due to the energetic efforts of your government and the environmental antediluvian interests it heeds. But chiefly government. Why? Because it has a duty to say “no” to the anti-civilization lobby. (McCain is a pinko to rival all pinkos when it comes to understanding energy.)

To the list of our government’s energy infractions, Pat Buchanan, in Day of Reckoning, adds the tearing down of “great dams like Hoover and Grand Coulee.”

Reduced supply and increased demand means higher prices. Cheer a Democrat-led attack on oil companies and you’ll be penalizing their ability to bring gas to market. Lines around the block will ensue.

Writing in the New York Times, Ben Stein deconstructed the “Us vs. Them” myth of oil ownership, also a component in the demonization of “Big Oil”:

“First, Exxon Mobil, like all the other gigantic integrated energy companies in this country, is owned not by a cabal of reactionary businessmen holding clandestine meetings in a lodge in the Texas scrublands (as Oliver Stone so brilliantly illustrated in “Nixon”).

Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.

When Exxon Mobil earns almost $12 billion in a quarter, or $41 billion in a year, as it did in 2007, that money does not go into the coffers of a few billionaire executives quaffing Champagne in Texas. It goes into the pension and retirement accounts of ordinary citizens. When Exxon pays a dividend, that money goes to pay for the mortgages and oxygen tanks and in-home care of lots of elderly Americans.

So, Mr. Obama, which union pension plans — and which blue-collar workers who benefit from them — will be among the first you would like to deprive of the income that flows from Exxon’s rich dividends?

When Mr. Obama or his Democratic rival, my fellow Yale Law School graduate Hillary Rodham Clinton, go after the oil companies and want to take away their profits, they are basically seeking to lower the income of the ordinary American. Why do that? It’s just cutting off one end of a blanket and sewing it to the other.”

An analysis of the divided democrats by the always-edifying William Schneider, CNN senior political analyst:

Well, we are seeing a red/blue split in the Democratic Party, and that could create a serious problem as we head towards the general election.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (voice over): You’ve heard about the red/blue divide in American politics. Barack Obama condemns Republicans for exploiting it.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: … to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white, black, brown, young, old, rich, poor.

SCHNEIDER: Well, it’s happening already inside the Democratic Party. Barack Obama is winning the blue Democrats, young voters, upscale urban professionals, well-educated liberals and African-Americans.

Hillary Clinton is getting the red Democrats — seniors, whites, blue collar and rural voters, and more conservative Democrats. The split has gotten bigger since Clinton became a gun-toting, whiskey- drinking, street-fighting, tax-cutting populist.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I know how hard you’re working, working for yourselves and working for your families. And I will never stop fighting for you.

SCHNEIDER: In Indiana, nearly half the Democratic primary voters said they have a gun in their household. They voted for Clinton. And the half of Democrats who did not own a gun? They voted for Obama.

Red versus blue means left versus right. In Indiana, lost liberal Democrats to Obama. They are the blue voters. Clinton and Obama split the moderates. Conservatives, or red Democrats, voted heavily for Clinton.

This is the first time this year we have seen such a sharp ideological division among Democratic voters. The deeper that split becomes, the greater the risk to Democrats in the fall if Obama wins the nomination. Among Clinton voters in North Carolina on Tuesday, fewer than half said they would support Obama over McCain, whereas 70 percent of Obama voters said they would vote for Clinton over McCain.

SCHNEIDER: Red Democrats, older, more blue collar, more conservative, are the most likely to vote for a Republican in the fall.

My beloved daughter writes:

“You know, unconditional love is all good, but love isn’t my big thing these days. What nuggets other than unconditional love could another mother proffer? How many nuggets per year? How many are rehashed from previous years? These are the kinds of silly questions that roll through my head when I read yet another one of your articles or emails to me. Pardon the cheese, but you’re a fountain of knowledge that I can always turn to and inexorably get the truth from. As kind, loving, and sweet as you are, this isn’t what separates you from the other mothers and makes you the best one ever. You ARE the best writer on this continent. Not only that but you are one of the most unique gems EVER in that when you speak from the heart it IS truth and that is just about impossible to find, not just in moms, but in humanity at large.

But let’s hail the love a mo’, just because you do it so much gooder than the rest. Why? Because your love isn’t stupid, simple and declarative. You act. That email you sent me the other day, which took you over an hour to write, moved me so because it was the most loving gesture EVER. I have re-read it at least six times now. Sometimes I can’t believe how far we’ve come and how wonderful our relationship is. I know that you’re looking out for me always and it makes me so calm and happy inside. And a little tearful when I think about it.

So mum, I just adore you. Thank you for everything always.”

***

For once, I’m without words.

(I like the way she pokes gentle fun at mom’s grammatical fetishes with “so much ‘gooder.’” She knows me “good.”)

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column. You can read the uncut version of “Bomb Them With Bimbos” on IlanaMercer.com:

“It transpires that Mao Zedong once proposed exporting 10 million Chinese women to the United States. In a long conversation with Henry Kissinger at the Chinese leader’s residence in 1973, Mao moaned about ‘the dismal trade between the two countries,’ saying China was a ‘very poor country’ with an excess of women.

That’s one page America might consider talking out of the Little Red Book.

If we were to export women, politics would begin to move to the right again. Oprah’s empire of imbeciles would shrink. And it would become possible to rehabilitate English as our official language. Distaff America has made a certain style of speech its signature:

“And he was like, ‘Come here’; and I was like, ‘No’; and he was like, ‘You’re amazing’; and I was like, ‘I know.’”

Update (May 11): “SEND MY WIFE.” Stephen G. Smith has entertained us with one of the funniest letters—funny, but a little sad at the same time. I wonder how men of the Right deal with wives who’re left-liberals. (And face it; most women are left-liberals). The garage, the range, this blog. Do share.

Benjamin Shapiro asks a question and answers it (incompletely I think):

“What do you call a candidate who wins 90 percent of the African-American vote, between 30 percent and 50 percent of the Hispanic vote and 40 percent of the white vote in a tight Democratic primary race?

A general election loser. … In a general election, candidates must appeal to the broadest base of support in order to win. Relying on small coteries of like-raced voters simply will not do it.”

This is valid… for now. The “broadest base of support” is indeed Anglo-American, for the near future. But in a few decades, given unchecked immigration, the majority—Anglo-Americans—will be dwarfed demographically by Hispanics. Afro-Americans, who together with Anglo-Americans (and Indians) made up the historical majority, will be usurped too. Birthrates in these populations are similar.

Since voting patterns diverge from one demographic group to the next, it is not unreasonable to deduce that each has different interests and concerns. It is probably fair to say that both Anglo- and Afro-Americans are unhelped by the unchecked influx of Hispanics.

On a related topic: I’ve brought up the flight of the native-born to the heartland before on the blog. Michael Barone has documented this “Realignment of America.”

The motto at Fox News is “my party right or wrong.” Duly, Sean Hannity has been using his considerable clout to convince his viewers that McCain is a changed man on immigration.

Time and time again, Mr. Hannity has chosen not to challenge McCain when the latter kept insisting during interviews that the reason his amnesty betrayal had failed was “because voters didn’t trust the government to handle the security side,” and that the border needed to be secured before perusing “comprehensive immigration reform.”

The Manchurian Candidate has never ceased to use this code for amnesty.

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports on McCain’s latest pandering:

“Using a Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, as a launching point, Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign announced a Spanish-language Web site (www.johnmccain.com/ espanol), and said the senator from Arizona will speak to this year’s National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego in July to try to court Hispanic voters.

‘I believe the majority of the Hispanics share our view that the border must be secured, and the border must be secured first. But they also want us to have an attitude, which I think most Americans do, that these are God’s children, and they must be taken care of, and the issue must be addressed in a humane and compassionate fashion,’ Mr. McCain told reporters at an Arizona news conference yesterday.”

“In Defense Of The Fence” I suggested that:

“McCain … consider modifying his mantra about illegal aliens being God’s children to whom he owes a path to citizenship. This is not about the Arizonan’s relationship with God and His creatures; it’s about McCain’s relationship with the Constitution. The Constitution binds a president to uphold the law; it doesn’t authorize him to legislate compassion.”

A great deal of carping goes on about the crap China exports to us (by popular demand). Very little is said about the sh-t we ship over there. Here Glenn Beck reports on the little American Lolitas, courtesy of Disney, who help sell sexy underwear to China’s children.

Beck describes (and later shows on screen) a

“White girl, 12 years old, reclining in a matching bra and panties set with Disney’s signature mouse ear design in a particular creepy detail, the pigtailed child is playing with a pair of Mickey Mouse hand puppets. In the left-hand corner is the familiar script of a Disney logo.”

The child sports cleavage which might have been enhanced digitally.

The Chinese should give Americans a hard time over this.

American children appear to be party to a very sexual vibe cultivated in sexually inappropriate family interactions and nurtured at schools. Watch any Hollywood film and you see girls being overtly sexual with their dads and vise versa.

(Why do so many American parents kiss their kids on the mouth? Absolutely inappropriate. Why do so many parents let their daughters walk around looking like “pint-sized tarts”?)

As an example, consider the Vanity Fair Miley Cyrus photo, where the girl, in various states of undress, nestles in the arms of father Billy Ray Cyrus, and looks up at him seductively. Major creep-out.

When I was growing up the instinct was to try and stay a little girl a little longer—especially around dads.

To be honest, a country exporting cheap electronics has a leg up on a country that peddles porn, don’t you think?

In case libertarians get confused, as they are wont to do, between cultural commentary and libertarian legal theory—of course peddling porn, soft and hard, ought to remain legal. The law should stay out of all voluntary exchanges between consenting adults.

Update (May 6): I must admit that, although I’ve never watched the program “Hanna Montana,” the girl Miley strikes me as anything but sweet and innocent. Perhaps my idea of nice is different. The Cyrus girl is loud, overbearing and extremely precocious. For such a twit, she’s also full of herself. The little I’ve seen of the “family” doing its wholesome-values shtick, the more they’ve struck me as shallow and showy, not wholesome. Then again, I’ve not had the chance to plumb the depths of “Hanna Montana” and her handlers.

Whenever the Fox-News folks have oozed over the wholesomeness of this girl is and then cut to actual footage of Cyrus carrying forth—my impression has been the opposite. When I think of wholesome (and as pretty as a picture), I think Martina McBride.

As to the whole blame Dad and Disney thing, I’ve expressed my views before: “The paternalistic depiction of women as passive agents, demeaned by male-driven appetites, is a humbug shared by conservatives and liberals alike.”

Cyrus may be 15, but she’s a single-minded exhibitionist, propelled and driven by the fame thing. In all likelihood, she originated the idea of posing for Vanity Fair and would not stop pestering her pappy until he relented. Anyone who has a teenager and handles her as does the typical American parent—like a demigoddess—knows I’m right.

Those who persist in the poor-teen-is-a-victim routine don’t have children. Or are oblivious to the reversal in parent-child roles that has come to typify the dynamics in the American family.

I suspect I’ll be proven correct down the line when it’s discovered that the militant Michelle Obama was a big motivator in her husband’s racial radicalization. As I’ve written, “to me, Obama has always seemed a reluctant recruit to racial politics; driven more by expediency and fear—fear of his overbearing wife and the Reverends Jackson, Sharpton,” and Wright, of course.

The more I hear Michelle, the less I like this rather handsome, Amazon-like, statuesque woman. She’s both belligerent, banal, and not very bright.

And, at every opportunity, Mrs. Obama rabbits about “our under-funded school system.”

Wrong. “The education system is a hog of huge proportions. In 1890, ‘annual current spending per pupil was $275.’ In 1999-2000, it was $7,086. ‘Adjusted for inflation and expressed in year 2000 dollars,’ that’s ‘25-fold.’ If GDP has since increased on average by only 1.9 percent per year, the spending on education has outpaced it, increasing 3 percent per year.”

“Simultaneously, the student-to-teacher ratio has been declining – there are ever more teachers compared to the number of students. One of the union’s goals is to pile on the personnel – this means more members and more union dues. Consequently, the teacher-to-student ratio is now down to an astonishing 1:16.5. (Include non-teaching staff, and there is now one adult for every eight or nine children in government schools.)”

Much to the approval of menstrual media interviewing her, Mrs. Obama recently shared another of her unmoored yearnings. She had been praising her poor little girls. You know, the tiny mites suffering for daddy and mommy’s ambitions. The prolix Mother Obama waxed on expressing the hope that we could all become more like children in their eternal equanimity and wisdom. (Okay, she didn’t put it quite like that; I’ve said she’s not very intelligent.)

Michelle’s “notion of childhood innocence” and wisdom is Rousseauist rubbish—as “fresh” and “new” as the ideas Jean-Jacques Rousseau proclaimed in Emile, according to which
“‘[T]here is no original perversity in the human heart’ and children were naturally good, perverted only by society.”

As I’ve observed, “Government schools [do help] produce misguided, mediocre and frightfully monolithic minds.” Michelle’s is one.

Update (May 7): back in March of 2007 and again early this year, I voiced my sense of Michelle Obama as the woman who steered Obama in the direction of Wright and other crackpots. Christopher Hitchens is coming to the same conclusion: Mrs. Obama is a radical fool, who’ll have considerable sway in the White House:

“I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama’s 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be “read” at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she’s much influenced by the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa’s most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, “You can’t say ‘Never Again’ to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you’re there forever.” I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can’t go on much longer without an answer to the question: “Are we getting two for one?” And don’t be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it’s too late to ask.”

Steve Sailer disagrees.