Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign announcement on Wednesday got off to a rough start with a glitchy Twitter Space that shut down before he even began speaking [Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign launch melts down in Twitter glitches, by David Ingram and Matt Dixon, NBC, May 24, 2023]. But once he began speaking, he delivered a speech many immigration patriots would like. His first topic was immigration and the invasion at the southwest border. He also attacked Critical Race Theory and the “woke mind virus.” DeSantis looks like a strong America Firster in what he says and in his record. But his personality and some of his actions cast doubt on his being a great nationalist leader. Despite the many good things about him, he might not have what it takes to lead the GOP in the right direction.

Gov. DeSantis signs controversial bill that targets illegal immigration https://t.co/siEhD78J3w

— CBS News Miami (@CBSMiami) May 10, 2023

“American decline is not inevitable—it is a choice. And we should choose a new direction—a path that will lead to American revitalization,” DeSantis said as his opening pitch. “I am running for president of the United States to lead our great American comeback.” He quickly shifted to the southwest border, where drugs and illegal aliens are pouring into the country. He emphasized that crime is hollowing out American cities and that woke indoctrination is ruining our schools. He offered a platform of strong borders and law and order to challenge the chaos that the radical left has inflicted upon Americans with impunity since Biden took office.

He offered further thoughts on immigration

The theme of this conference—the year 2050—is a difficult one for any speaker, but especially for one like myself who rejects all forms of historical determinism. I do not believe anything is foreordained, neither our own triumph nor that of our enemies, and our task as a movement is not to try to see into the future, but to prepare ourselves as best we can for whatever it throws our way. Let me give you an example of the harm that can result from thinking otherwise.

Most of you are probably aware that Americans of European descent are currently expected to make up less than half of the United States population by around the middle of this century, if not a little sooner. Such forecasts are nothing new, however. Only the publicity surrounding them is new. The legal changes that ushered in America’s demographic revolution occurred back in the 1960s. Projections already made clear over a generation ago, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., that whites were destined for minority status by some time in this century. A few far-sighted people attempted to warn of this looming catastrophe, but the response from the Reagan and Bush administrations was that such a thing was simply impossible. Whites would never be reduced to minority status, and it was idle even to talk about it.

In 1993, Bill Clinton was inaugurated President of the United States, and announced to the American public that “in a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States” [Commencement Address at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, June 13, 1998]. His administration explained that this change was inevitable—and, of course, it was going to work out wonderfully for all concerned. So we have here what looks like a total change of attitude: The capture of America by nonwhites is impossible vs. that capture is inevitable. But note that from a practical point of view, these two apparently opposite positions function identically: both amount to an injunction to do nothing. First we were supposed to do nothing because there was no need; then we were to do nothing because nothing could be done.

Shouldn’t there have been at least a brief interval during which whites were indeed headed toward minority status in the United States but might have changed course by taking appropriate action? To hear our government

Subscribe to Ann Coulter’s Substack UNSAFE.

Now that we know Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is running for president (along with several others whose names I can’t remember), I have a helpful primer on what NOT to do as president.

I base this advice on the conduct of the most inconsequential president in

Fairly recently I signed up for the (free) articles emailed from Grey Goose Chronicles, a Substack written by “Stone Age Herbalist” [Follow him on Twitter]. This heroic gentleman, describing himself as “an independent scholar,” is busy becoming unemployable in university faculties by highlighting the destruction inflicted on Politically Correct academic dogma by recent advances in genetic analysis:

The general pattern goes something like “original claim to origins, claim dismissed by 20th century academics, original claim validated by genetics.”

A recent round-up, Bronze Age Drugs, Swahili Genetics, Viking America, Natives Horses, Benin Bronzes & Mongolian Yak Dairy, has a segment discussing Entwined African and Asian genetic roots of medieval peoples of the Swahili coast (by Esther S. Brielle et al., Nature, March 29, 2023).

Swahili is a language widely spoken in East Africa, being something of a lingua franca there. Four countries in the area recognize it as an Official Language.

The ticklish question: Which people originated the language? Equally ticklish: the origin of the Shirazi people, for whom it is their tribal language.

The current Wikipedia article on the Shirazi sneers:

One thesis based on oral tradition states that immigrants from the Shiraz region in southwestern Iran directly settled various mainland ports and islands on the eastern Africa seaboard beginning in the 10^th Century… The vast majority of modern scholars agree that there is little to no evidence of substantive Asian migration to East Africa in the medieval period.

The issue here: Who gets the credit for building what Stone Age Herbalist describes as

…that coastal and maritime set of empires running roughly from Somalia down to Mozambique, linking native African cultures with Islamic, Persian, Austronesian, Portuguese and British influence.

These states, some of which survived into the 19th  entury, developed large scale maritime trading businesses in gold, ivory, spices and, of course, slaves.

Colonial-era historians largely accepted the Shirazi account of themselves, partly because of the cultures they could actually see.

Stone Age Herbalist goes on:

One of the founding ‘myths’ of this civilization-zone is the descent

Earlier: Refugee Resettlement Watch—Remembering A Great Blog.

Here’s a funny thing about current refugee resettlement. With the Biden administration’s open-door policies in effect, you might suppose that the number of refugees admitted for resettlement here has ballooned along with all other immigration categories.

Wrong! So far this fiscal year 2023—remember that fiscal 2023 started last October 1st—just a bit more than 18,000 refugees have been admitted for resettlement, compared with annual numbers in the 50, 60, or 70 thousands for much of this century so far.

All right, but we’re only halfway through the fiscal year. How about the last complete fiscal year: fiscal 2022, from October ’21 to last September? Total admitted: 25½ thousand.

That’s only a tad more than the number for fiscal 2018 when Donald Trump was president the entire fiscal year. It’s actually fewer than in fiscal 2019, another entirely Trump year.

Say what? Biden admitted fewer refugees in Fiscal 2022 than Trump did in fiscal 2019? Incredible, huh?

Here’s something even more incredible: That low number under Biden for 2022 was way, wa-a-a-ay lower than the ceiling. Let me explain about the ceiling.

Under federal law—precisely, the 1980 Refugee Act—the President can set an annual ceiling for refugee resettlement numbers. The Act actually says ”the President, in consultation with Congress,” but the ceiling number is basically in the President’s gift.

Here, expressed in thousands, are the ceiling numbers each year set by President Trump: 50, 45, 30, 18. Here are the ceiling numbers, also in thousands, set so far by Biden: 62½, 125, 125.

You getting this? Biden’s only admitting for resettlement around twenty percent of the number he’s allowed to by the ceiling he set. Trump was never that stingy. At his stingiest, fiscal 2018, Trump admitted half the ceiling number.

So what’s going on here? What’s going on is system overload. Quote from Nayla Rush,  writing at the CIS website last October

The border crisis and its illegal crossings, along with other new entrants in need of processing and assistance, such as Afghan and Ukrainian parolees, are overwhelming the system and diverting federal resources away from refugees in need of resettlement.

[Low Refugee Resettlement Admissions Under Biden: Don’t Point to Trump, October 7, 2022]

That word ”parolees” needs