On Super Tuesday, March 1, Ted Cruz won the GOP primary in my home state of Oklahoma with 34.4%. Donald Trump was a close second with 28.3%. Disturbingly, the appalling Marco Rubio was only two points behind Trump with 26%. [ OK Primary Results—NYT] All three had visited Oklahoma shortly before. Both Cruz and Trump campaigned as immigration patriots, and I’d venture to say that Rubio has bamboozled some patriots, so it was a blowout. My question: why is Oklahoma’s congressional delegation so bad on immigration?

Oklahoma is a “red state”—perhaps the reddest state of all. In both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, the GOP won every single one of its 77 counties and its congressional delegation is 100% Republican. The congressional delegation have safe seats. Nevertheless, they are useless.

I pointed this out in September 2014. But the situation seems even worse now.

Numbers USA rates all members of Congress on their immigration records. (Check out your own senators and representatives—click here).

Here’s how the Oklahoma congressional delegation is doing:

• Senator James Inhofe has been in Congress since 1987, since 1994 as a senator. In 2014 Inhofe had a grade of B+ but it later fell to a C and has recently risen to a B. Inhofe won’t even consider a reduction in legal immigration. In writing to a constituent, he goes off on the time-honored “nation of immigrants” spiel and talks about his own German immigrant grandparents, none of which is relevant today.


• Senator James Lankford had a grade of B in 2014, when he was still in the House. He’s now a senator, but his grade has fallen to a C-.


• Representative Frank Lucas (District 3)

Read more >>

Donald Trump "appeals to racism."

"[F]rom the beginning ... his campaign has profited from voter prejudice and hatred" and represents an "authoritarian assault upon democracy."

If Speaker Paul Ryan wishes to be "on the right side of history ... he must condemn Mr. Trump clearly and comprehensively. The same goes for every other Republican leader."

"Maybe that would split the (Republican) party," but, "No job is worth the moral stain that would come from embracing (Trump). No party is worth saving at the expense of the country."

If Republican leaders wish to be regarded as moral, every one of them must renounce Trump, even if it means destroying their party.

Who has laid down this moral mandate? The Holy Father in Rome?

No. The voice posturing as the conscience of America is The Washington Post, which champions Read more >>

Do they have TV sets at CNN? An Internet connection? I don't work at a television network, but I saw Trump "disavow" David Duke a half-dozen times before Jake Tapper asked him to disavow Duke again last Sunday.

The question served absolutely no journalistic purpose. No new information was sought. It was just a smear, for the sole purpose of getting the words "KKK" into the same sentence as "Donald Trump."

Unsuspecting viewers who missed Trump's earlier disavowals are supposed to think, Is Trump connected with the Klan? Why else would they be asking him about David Duke?

Given that Trump did disavow Duke the day before the Tapper interview, the only explanation for his refusal to do it again is that he was ticked off by the question and decided not to play ball. (Tip for journalists: When WASPs don't want to answer impertinent questions from reporters, they often say, "I don't know," rather than the more urban "go f—-yourself.")

How many times must Trump waste precious airtime "disavowing" some random person he doesn't know, has never met and never mentioned?

David Duke IS a random person: The KKK has not been an organization of any significance since the mid-'60s (outside of Southern Poverty Law Center fundraisers), and David Duke hasn't been a member of this meaningless group since 1980.

Also, David Duke has never been accused of rape. Hillary's most prominent supporter has. Will she be asked to disavow Bill Clinton?

If she doesn't think her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick, how about the sexual assaults claimed by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Christy Zercher, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sandra Allen James, as well as a half-dozen other women?

Does Hillary believe any of her husband's accusers? How many sexual assault accusations must there be before she disavows him?

As far as I know, David Duke has also never supported cop-killing. Boatloads of Hillary's supporters do—and she plays footsie with them by endorsing #BlackLivesMatter.

I will give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, and say I do not believe that she personally supports cop-killing. But why is she seeking the votes of murderous thugs? What kind of campaign is she running that attracts such people? Will she disavow them? Is she willing to state forthrightly that cops' lives matter?

I am not aware of David Duke ever inciting a mob Read more >>

When the dust settles on this wild and wacky GOP primary season, there will be at least one clear Biggest Loser: the Republican National Committee.

After 2012, when liberal journalists routinely hijacked the party's 20 televised debates while cashing in on ratings and advertising revenue, the RNC resolved to change narrative-surrendering Read more >>

Quote of the Month.     "The faintest of all human passions is the love of truth." — A.E. Housman.

Yellow journalism.     In the February 19th podcast of Radio Derb, in reference to the Superbowl halftime show, I quoted a correspondent as telling me: "From the still pics, all of the dancers were 'high yella,' as is Beyoncé …" For my signout music that week I played a clip of Leadbelly singing Yellow Gal."

I told my correspondent I thought "high yaller" was the more correct form for persons of this tint; and I pronounced it that way in the podcast.

That got me into conversation with several listeners. Which is more correct, "high yella" or "high yaller"? I was sure I'd heard it as "high yaller." Read more >>

[Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively on VDARE.com.]
One of the great weasel words of our time is the word "troubling." When a Social Justice Warrior tells you that such-and-such a thing is "troubling," you're meant to imagine him sitting there with furrowed brow, agonizing over the possibility that whatever it is might hurt the feelings of someone, somewhere. Given that hurt feelings now blanket the land, and most particularly our college campuses, like edelweiss in an alpine meadow, there is a lot for our moral guardians to find "troubling."

Recently, the President of Williams College, a chap named Adam Falk [Email him] got to hear of a speaking invitation extended to me by the (black) leader of a student group, looked me up, and took to the fainting couch. When he had recovered sufficiently, President Falk disinvited me, proclaiming of me:

Many of his expressions clearly constitute hate speech.

And I really should have known better. In the context of higher education in a society under strong ideological control, I got all the necessary insights thirty-four years ago, teaching college in communist China. But these petty events have got me looking at U.S. websites like FIRE, campusreform.org, and heterodoxacademy.org. Here is a titbit on the campus scene at large, from the Campus Reform website. Read more >>

The first four Republican contests—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada—produced record turnouts.

While the prospect of routing Hillary Clinton and recapturing the White House brought out the true believers, it was Donald Trump's name on the ballot and his calls for economic patriotism, border security, and an end to imperial wars that brought out the throngs.

The crowds that continue to come out for his appearances and the vast audiences he has attracted to GOP debates testify to his drawing power.

Moreover, Trump has now been endorsed by Gov. Chris Christie, ex-chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the most respected conservatives on Capitol Hill.

Yet, with polls pointing to a possible Trump s Read more >>