Updated: Israel: Role Model For America

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.

Update (May 17): To the extent the discrimination accusations come from elements on the American Right, we must take it to mean that this faction denies Israel the selective immigration policy it advocates for the U.S.—one that favors the founding people.

American Jewry is another faction that contradicts itself on Israel. Jews, who generally defend Israel, like to insist that it is a pluralistic, multicultural society. They ought to practice some honesty. If Jews are prepared to acknowledge Israel has a right to retain its Jewish character and choose who will be admitted to the polity, they must concede the same right to the Europeans and to the English-speaking peoples.

Israel Rights Its Wayward Leaders

Israel, Justice

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.

Blasting Big Oil

Democrats, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights

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 arctic 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.”

Red/Blue Split In The Democratic Party

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections 2008, Hillary Clinton

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.