Category Archives: immigration

Voter Fraud: What Americans Think



voter fraud
When Democats and/or liberals resist efforts to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, they often say, “What voter fraud?” They continue to resist any efforts (like voter ID) that would help ensure that you are who you say you are when you register and/or vote. They claim that requiring voter ID is akin go voter supression, and that voter fraud is so rare that errors should side with permitting anyone to vote.

Voter fraud DOES exist. For example, in the 2012 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State John Husted announced that he had discovered that 17 non-citizens had illegally cast ballots. Husted also found that 274 non-citizens remain on the voting rolls. And in Florida, “One Naples voter admitted she was an illegal alien – but election records show she voted six times in the past eleven years.”

Well, it seems as if American citizens are fed up with the entire situation. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 78% of “Likely U.S. Voters” believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote, up from 71% a year ago.

And 61% of voters believe laws that require proof of citizenship before allowing voter registration does not discriminate against such voters, while 29% think it does. That 61% is up from 58% in March 2013. Supporters of proof-of-citizenship laws say that they are intended to keep ineligible voters from casting votes, while opponents claim they are intended to keep eligible voters from voting.

Then there is Melowese Richardson, who said on camera that she voted for Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama six times, once for herself and five times for other people. She was recently embraced and congratulated for her efforts by Al Sharpton at a voting rights rally in Cincinnati. A vast majority of Americans are fed up with people like her as well. A Rasmussen survey shows that 70% of “Likely U.S. Voters” believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote, while only 25% oppose such a requirement.

And the legal tide seems to be turning a well. A federal judge ruled on March 19 that Arizona and Kansas may require residents to prove they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote. This is a clear rebuke to the DOJ and Obama Administration: both had strongly fought the move.

How CPAC Stacked the Deck on the Amnesty Panel

illegal-aliens-obamacatchreleasevoteHere’s a handy rule of thumb: If two of the four members of an immigration panel have Hispanic surnames you can bet it’s an amnesty panel in disguise. That was certainly the case at CPAC’s ‘Can There Be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?’

(This phenomenon is evidently peculiar to Hispanics. If two people named Schmidt and Kruger were on a panel it would be unfair to assume they enthusiastically support bomb damage reparations from WWII.)

Alfonso Aguilar and the Rev. Luis Cortes were joined by moderator Mercy Schlapp — a veteran of the Bush White House that was pushing amnesty until 9/11. The anti–amnesty speaker was Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation and the afternoon’s advocate for the feudal system was Helen Krieble.

Schlapp set the tone when she remarked on the favor illegals were doing the economy by being here. Much like burglars boost an area’s GDP when they make the rounds of pawn shops.

Sbe was followed by Kreible, president of the Vernon K. Kreible Foundation, who said the debate should be about American principles: Equal treatment under the law, individual freedom and personal responsibility. So far so good, but then she reduced our choices to a false binary: Grant amnesty or do nothing.

The realistic option is removing the job incentive for illegals. But that is not a choice Kreible will ever entertain, because that would mean business can’t import serfs. She claims it’s wrong to set “artificial” limits on the number of workers you can hire. It’s Kreible’s belief that borders are a government matter, but workers are a business matter. In practice this means the federal government can keep Mohamed Atta out, unless he plans to mow your lawn.

What Kreible objects to is that ‘citizen’ word. She wants to implement a “red card” program that puts citizens in the penalty box. She would import workers without conveying citizenship or the right to remain after the job is over. This is similar to the wildly successful Turkish guest worker program the Germans had. Only problem is the Turks are still in Germany.

And while individuals should be “responsible,” American business is exempt. Right now if a US business thinks US workers want too much money, the business is free to open a subsidiary in Mexico and hire all the Mexicans it wants. But that’s a problem for agribusiness corporations, because shipping Alabama to Chihuahua would be a logistical nightmare. What’s more, sometimes the Mexican government seizes private business, you can’t trust the cops, ‘mordida’ cuts into profit margins and there’s always that decapitation problem.

So for Kreible the business solution is to flood the labor market by bringing Mexico here and let taxpayers deal with social costs.

Unfortunately for her there is no moral, ethical or conservative justification for bringing in foreign labor when unemployment in the US is over 7 percent and labor participation rates are at an all time low.

Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, evidently believes the word ‘conservative’ is a verbal spice you sprinkle on leftist policies to make them more palatable for genuine conservatives. He wants conservatives to “own” the immigration issue by out–pandering the Democrats.

Aguilar contends the entire illegal problem is a result of “big government” setting quotas and holding the quaint notion that US jobs should go to US citizens. He recycles every lame, reverse racist amnesty cliché he could find, beginning with illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.

After that howler he became incoherent. Aguilar says illegals taking jobs here “creates jobs for working class Americans.” He claims that illegals did not disregard the rule of law because they didn’t come here voluntarily. Instead business brought them here. This was genuine news to me. Who would have thought coyotes were members of the Chamber of Commerce?

Aguilar also introduced the concept of “circular immigration.” Letting illegals come here and return to their home country as many times as they and Greyhound wished. Although something tells me the circle would stop abruptly in the US when it came time to collect Social Security.

He was followed by the Rev. Luis Cortes who is the president of Esperanza. The organization’s website motto is: “Strengthening our Hispanic community” meaning it’s La Raza with a Bible. Cortes’ solution is to make citizens of anyone who ranks Cinco de Mayo ahead of the 4th of July. Otherwise, “it gives Democrats an issue.” And afterwards Democrats won’t need an issue because with 9 million or so new voters they’ll never lose another presidential election.

The most insulting aspect of the panel was how the pro–amnesty participants evidently believed using the word ‘conservative’ to describe leftist policies would somehow convince a gullible audience.

A conservative immigration reform would be built on trying something new: Enhancing the law we have now. Make it a felony to hire an employee that failed an E–Verify check or hire an employee without checking E–Verify. And strictly enforce the prohibition against illegals enrolling in any welfare or social programs.

Drying up the job market will accomplish two goals. First many of the illegals will self–deport. Second it will raise wages for US workers and lower the unemployment rate. Right now many jobs go unfilled by citizens because they aren’t willing to accept the prevailing wage scale in Juarez because they don’t live in Juarez. If employers were forced to pay wages high enough to attract US citizens, more citizens would work.

That’s a conservative, free market solution that’s good for the country and preserves the rule of law. Unfortunately the ‘C’ in CPAC now appears to stand for ‘capitulation.’

John Boehner’s Incremental Amnesty Surrender Strategy

130319-three-amigos-boehner-jeb-bush-rove5Mathematicians have long contended that if you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually the simians will produce the King James Bible. Maybe so, but why inflict such a difficult challenge from the get–go? It could severely damage monkey morale.

I suggest assigning monkey scribes the task of producing the House GOP leadership’s “Immigration Reform Principles.” They should be able to knock that out in about a day — even with frequent banana breaks — and if they don’t replicate the document exactly, what the monkeys produce can’t be much more incoherent than the steaming pile the House leadership authored.

The document begins by stating: “Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced.” Naturally, their solution is to jettison the law. I’ve already outlined why amnesty is a bad idea for Republicans in an earlier column located here. So I won’t belabor that point, but what I would like to do is analyze Boehner & Company’s strategy for any evidence that it will accomplish their misguided goals.

Based on statements to the media and the “Principles,” Speaker Boehner’s concerns focus on three main areas:

  1. Negative media coverage of Republican opposition to amnesty
  2. Pressure from farmers and corporate America who want cheap imported labor that considers insultingly low wages a big raise from what they got back home
  3. Overwhelming Hispanic voting support for Democrat politicians

What Boehner does not appear to be worried about is the loss of support from the GOP’s conservative base after amnesty is passed.

So to achieve his goal of improving the Republican image, getting lobbyists off his back and showing Hispanics that he’s a verdadero amigo, Boehner wants a “step–by–step” process that constitutes an incremental surrender to Democrats and other tribal advocates. Boehner’s document begins with a list of bromides the House GOP leadership uses in an attempt to pull the wool over conservative’s eyes: “zero tolerance,” “visa tracking,” “employment verification” and I think an end to chain migration, but the “Principles” are so vague on that point it’s hard to tell.

I guess we will have to await clarification from the monkey’s version of the document.

But the linchpin of the “principles” is the statement: “There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law.”

Instead Boehner unveils a grand public relations coup: Republicans propose to let illegals stay in the U.S. as Untermenschen. Whoops, sorry, I mean as legal residents but not citizens. They must pass background checks, pay “back taxes,” speak English (unless stopped by a policeman), give up any and all “rights” to welfare and be able to read the Constitution in Chinese. (No wait, that’s only if they want to vote in Alabama.)

This is like a land owner telling a trespasser who’s been on squatting in the house for years that he and his family can stay in the house he doesn’t own, but you won’t give him a clear title.

As they say in The Game of Thrones: You know nothing John Boehner.

After decades of being media whipping boys, elected Republicans not only don’t know how to advance an argument, they don’t even know how to avoid a public relations disaster.

Boehner — not the monkeys — will have recreated Exodus with Hispanics in the role of the Israelites. And just like the Jews trapped in Egypt, they can work all they want and the generous GOP will even give them straw for the bricks, but they will never have the vote or the dole.

And God help us, Chuck Schumer gets to be Moses.

As soon as the ink is dry on their 2nd class citizen documents, the formerly illegal are going to be demonstrating against Republican Apartheid. It’s going to be the story of the decade for the Mainstream Media and John Boehner gave it to them on a platter.

Every Election Day the 2nd classers will be demonstrating outside Republican polling places, yelling and brandishing signs for concerned network correspondents.

Queremos que el voto y lo queremos ahora! (We want the vote and we want it now!)

Estoy soñando con el voto (I’m dreaming of the vote)

Segunda clase es la ciudadanía apartheid (2nd class citizenship is apartheid)

Dicen a la familia a venir del Norte (Tell the family to come North)

Then there are the human tragedy stories that bring home the cost of Republican heartlessness courtesy of NPR. The grownup anchor babies who have to tell madre y padre they can’t go to the polls today and vote like they did in Venezuela under Chavez, because John Boehner says they’re less than citizens.

And don’t forget the groundskeeper who lost a foot to a runaway weed beater while working on some one percenter’s estate. He and his family are living in a Kelvinator box under a bridge abutment because he can’t work and he can’t collect U.S. disability checks thanks to Ebenezer Boehner. With tears in his eyes, Piers Morgan will tell viewers, “He was good enough to mow the lawn, but he’s not good enough to cash a disability check.”

That’s the kind of publicity that will have younger citizens leaving their Chipotle burritos uneaten as they run to the nearest party headquarters so they can register to vote Republican and grind the brown man down.

My prediction is six months max and Boehner will be throwing himself on Nelson Mandela’s grave and begging Obama to sign his Full Amnesty with Added Reparations bill.

Why endure the agony of an incremental amnesty? You can’t be half pregnant and you can’t pass a half citizenship bill. Boehner needs to either surrender now and line up a nice lobby job or finally start listening to his own disenfranchised conservative base.

Amnesty: The Next GOP Leadership Betrayal

House GOP leadership prepares to negotiate amnesty with Democrats.

House GOP leadership prepares to negotiate amnesty with Democrats.

House Republican leadership is preparing to betray the base. Again. To illustrate the magnitude of the sellout I was going to use a hypothetical analogy with Democrats and their base. Initially I was going to posit that Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Secular) had changed his mind about abortion.

For years Kaine has said that although he’s personally opposed to abortion, he is not willing to impose his beliefs on a ‘woman’s right to choose.’ Essentially confessing that his Catholic faith is not strong enough to get in the way of his political ambitions. (In his last campaign he became even more weaselly, saying he didn’t want to stand in the way of a woman exercising her “constitutional choices,” unless the choice involved a handgun.)

In my hypothetical Kaine would announce he had decided that what the Catholic Church teaches and the Bible says is the truth and he will no longer support any abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother. Kaine would also declare that he will no longer vote for any taxpayer dollars to be given to Planned Parenthood since both his beliefs and opinion polls show Americans don’t think tax money should pay for or help support abortion facilities.

It’s a great analogy but it has one problem: No one would believe it. The analogy is too fantastic for even temporary suspension of disbelief. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, put it nicely this week: “So what’s the difference between Boehner and Pelosi and McConnell and Reid? Answer: The Democratic leadership honors its promises. Republican leaders have abandoned theirs.”

This House GOP leadership betrayal is passage of an amnesty bill, probably before the November election. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–Sellout) says leadership supports an amnesty bill for 12 million illegals that includes tighter border enforcement as a sop to conservatives.

Boehner pays far more attention to agitation from people who shouldn’t be in the country than they do to conservative citizens. And unprincipled businessmen who want a steady supply of imported serfs are far more influential than mere voters.

National Republicans are forever pursuing the ‘independent voter’ at the expense of the base. Democrats on the other hand solidify their base first and then move to the independents. You think that might be why they win elections?

Besides the betrayal of the base, which is bad enough, what political goal do these masterminds in House leadership (to borrow an adjective from Mark Levin) think they are going to accomplish?

Boehner has picked an issue that was a failure the last time Republicans supported it. Ronald Reagan signed a one–time–only–amnesty–that–will­–also–seal–the–border–tighter–than–a–teenage–miniskirt.

The results of that amnesty were fourfold:

  1. Granted citizenship to people who came and stayed illegally
  2. Produced millions of new votes for Democrats
  3. Legalized low–skill labor for employers & reduced wage rates for citizens
  4. Attracted another 12 million illegals who want their amnesty now.

Does Boehner expect amnesty to attract Hispanic voters? California Hispanics now make up the largest ethic group in the state as a result of amnesty and Democrat failure to seal the border. There is not one Republican statewide official. California is a GOP desert as Hispanics proved singularly ungrateful.

Does Boehner think amnesty will improve the party’s image? A Gallup poll lists a total of 3 percent of the populace ranking immigration “reform” as a top priority and I’m guessing all their names began with Jesus.

Does Boehner think amnesty will mean more contributions from big business? Possible and it may last a cycle or two, but once the amnestied voters gravitate to Democrats, Republicans will start losing. And the Business Roundtable doesn’t back or finance losers for long.

Immigration polling, which has evidently frightened the GOP leadership, is dishonest. Respondents are offered unrealistic or nebulous choices. For instance the Public Religion Research Institute proclaims, “Support for a path to citizenship has remained unchanged…an identical number (63%) supported a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the United States illegally.”

Yet their poll offers three choices that are false or too general to be useful: “become citizens provided they meet certain requirements,” “become permanent legal residents but not citizens” or “Identify and deport them.”

“Certain requirements” is not defined and therefore is useless in determining public policy. Poll respondents can interpret “certain requirements” in a number of ways ranging from “learn to speak English like Tom Brokaw” to “stand in a long line for an autographed photo of Obama.”

“Legal residents but not citizens” is an outcome that creates a permanent helot class that won’t survive the first Democrat Congress. And no sane conservative has ever advocated mass deportation. We believe they got here under their own power and they can leave the same way.

I have yet to see a poll that asks a question that offers a conservative choice. For instance: Do you support a step–by–step approach to the immigration problem that begins by removing the economic incentive for illegal immigration thru a law that makes it a criminal offense for employers to hire illegal aliens?

If illegals can’t work and they can’t collect welfare or rebates from the IRS then the invasion will begin to reverse. Presto the “immigration problem” solves itself! Sure the bill won’t pass the current Senate, but so what? It offers a conservative alternative to the amnesty now crowd and it preserves the rule of law, but that pales in comparison to Boehner’s dreams of campaign contributions from the Business Roundtable.

Before elected officials — Republicans again — got cold feet in Prince William County, illegals were fleeing after an anti–illegal enforcement act was passed. The county saved millions as they fled to nearby “sanctuary” cities and states. The same can happen in a nation that takes its own immigration laws seriously.

Unfortunately that is not this nation and it’s not this Republican Party.

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

Illegal Immigrants: The Real Occupy Movement Taking Over America!

Illegals Protest America

Illegals Protest America 

There is an occupy movement bigger than Occupy Wall Street. This movement is  more dangerous to the American culture and society than a bunch of unwashed heathen pot-heads who want everything handed to them on a coke-lined mirror.

These occupiers are occupying American jobs, educations, welfare, healthcare and public housing. These occupiers march in protest against the American people and this country they insist they have the right to conquer. And now, these occupiers want to occupy the American vote without legalization and naturalization. They believe they have the right to amnesty.

united states of mexico

I’m talking about illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens spell disaster for American jobs, education, and culture if their occupation is not stopped, the borders controlled, The DREAM Act crushed, Obamacare repealed, and deportation enforced.

In 1985 America was warned of this dangerous occupation. Americans were told illegal immigration would destroy the United States. The invasion had many legislators worried about America’s future if deportation and border security were not enforced. Republican Colorado Governor Richard Lamm forewarned that unless illegal immigration is halted,

[We] shall leave a legacy of strife, violence, and joblessness for our children. 

Democratic Florida Senator Lawton Chiles said that

[I]f we do not regain control of our borders . . . I think that within ten years, we will not recognize the United States as the United States we see today.

Although legislation was enacted with intentions to halt the influx of illegal immigration—if you can truly call it working to fix the borders—it failed.

Legislation awarded amnesty and enabled foreign occupiers to continue their invasion of America.

illegal-alien-amnesty

Republicans and Democrats prefer securing their lips to the rear ends of illegal aliens in order to occupy the Hispanic vote versus protecting America’s best interests.

Foreign occupation of this nation is out of control: “One of every 11 Arizona residents is an illegal immigrant; in California it is one of every 15,”  and the numbers rise daily, making Lamm and Chiles’ predictions about an unrecognizable United States true.

Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute notes that “labor-intensive jobs” for South West growers, once performed by Americans at top wages, are now occupied by an abundance of Mexicans under the age of 40 who are willing to work longer hours at lower wages.

Hanson says once the low-wage illegal reaches the age of 40, he or she is no longer in good health “…and older immigrants can become a drain on the economy because of their need for entitlement programs.”

This explains the tens of billions spent annually on welfare to illegal aliens by American taxpayers.

With over 20 million Americans out of work and losing everything, you mean to tell me there aren’t any Americans who would take those jobs to regain their losses and rebuild?

Another problem is illegal women working as housekeepers in affluent neighborhoods at lower wages than American citizens would receive. The employer assumes they are profiting from paying less for services, but in actuality, foreign governments are profiting big time off the United States: Illegal immigrants have families in their home countries that they send their American earnings to.

American women whose families have lost everything should be fighting for these jobs. American women command higher wages for housework than illegals and that work can build into a lucrative business that should not be profiting foreign economies.

Americans who hire illegals are contributing to the loss of American jobs and homes. Foreign governments collect those funds, not the U.S. economy.

It is the Americans who are discriminated against every time illegals occupy American jobs and government programs.

The right thing to do is to discriminate against law-breakers.

Also: Those who hire illegals enable economic down-turns and crime in America, because many illegals have committed violent crimes against Americans.

illegal criminals

 

 

Those entering illegally are not seeking to become Americans or they would take the path of legal immigration and assimilation. By violating U.S. laws, illegals demonstrate they have no desire to work for anything but occupation of this nation. Not only should illegal immigrants be deported, but foreigners who want to enter America’s doors should pay for that right.

As Gary S. Becker of the Hoover Institute notes:

[A]mnesty now would encourage future illegal immigration in the hope of a further amnesty. Amnesty makes a mockery of immigration laws and rewards those who came illegally, even as many potential immigrants wait years for the right to come legally.

 

Becker furthers states that:

[S]elling the right to immigrate would be the best approach to legal immigration. Among other benefits, the revenue from immigrants’ payments could reduce taxes. Paying for the right to immigrate would also negate the argument that immigrants get a free ride when they gain health care and other benefits. Moreover, making immigrants pay would attract the type of immigrants who came much earlier in American history: young men and women who are reasonably skilled and want to make a long-term commitment to the United States. They would be willing to pay a perhaps sizable price because they would stand to benefit significantly from migrating. To prevent the price from excluding young and ambitious men and women who would like to immigrate but cannot afford to come, the U.S. government could encourage a loan program that would be similar to the loans available to college students. The analogy is close because immigration, like college, is an investment in human capital.

 

Coming to America legally paid off in the past, those immigrants contributed to the growth of the American economy versus its destruction. Today we see a destructive occupation of our nation’s values, culture, heritage, language, government, and our very history.

Every leader who allows illegal immigrant occupation and sides with amnesty is enabling the takeover of America by people who do not hold America or the American people in high regards.

This occupation must stop, but it can only happen with the American voter electing right leadership in power; leadership that wants to save this nation, not see it fall into the hands of foreign occupation.

To win, Republicans should focus on economics

fairtax

fairtax

As I have written a number of times here on CDN, the GOP is viewed very negatively by the majority of the American public, especially women, youngsters, and minorities – key demographics that the GOP absolutely must win over to remain a viable party, let alone to win future elections.

What is the key to winning their votes? It’s not accepting amnesty for illegal aliens or abortion on demand. Instead, Republicans should focus like a laser on the issue most important to these groups (and to the American electorate at large): the economy.

According to Gallup polling, economic issues (jobs, economic growth, the federal budget, taxes, fair trade) are by far the most important issues for American voters, far more than education, healthcare, or foreign policy. Yet, these days, we seldom hear Washington and the media talk about anything other than Benghazi, Syria, the Obama admin scandals, immigration, and social issues. While these issues are not irrelevant, they pale in importance compared to the economy. It doesn’t matter if the Benghazi scandal is investigated fully if the economy doesn’t recover and unemployed Americans (including college grads) don’t find jobs.

It’s the economy, stupid!

Republicans need to note that and act accordingly. Luckily, there’s a huge opening for Republicans here, because, as stated above, BOTH major parties and the media seldom talk about the economy, despite its importance to American voters (including the key demographics listed above), so Republicans have a chance to distinguish themselves from the Democrats.

From now on, Republicans should devote only a minimum amount of time and hearings to Benghazi, Syria, Obama admin scandals, and social issues, and devote the vast majority of their time and legislation to the economy, while also conducting town hall meetings, listening tours, and media interviews on that subject – and thus, force the media and the Democrats to shift the subject of the national discourse to the economy.

Thus, Republicans would force Obama and the Democrats to fight on grounds favorable to Republicans – grounds where the Democrats cannot win.

But just talking about the economy won’t be enough; one must also propose, and attempt to implement, effective policies. Specifically, Republicans should pass in the House, and introduce in the Senate, bills that would:

  1. Cut spending seriously along the lines proposed in the Ryan Plan or, even better, the Republican Study Committee’s plan, e.g. the RSC’s Spending Reduction Act.
  2. Privatize government-owned enterprises such as Amtrak, the Postal Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc.
  3. Provide full funding and a permanent authorization for the Export-Import Bank, which supports US industry and exporters without providing any subsidies.
  4. Institute the Export-Import Certificates for foreign countries proposed by Warren Buffett – thus allowing foreign countries to export to the US only as much as they import from the US, and also institute strict product quality standards on foreign (including Chinese) products.
  5. Strengthen Buy American laws.
  6. Utterly reject any form of amnesty for illegal aliens and dramatically cut down the levels of immigration, both legal and illegal, while making it easier for highly-skilled foreign workers and university grads to immigrate to the US and contribute to the US economy.
  7. Block-grand Medicaid to the states and pass Medicare and SS reform.
  8. Pass legislation that would legalize fracking throughout the country, open all shale oil and NG reserves, open the ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, authorize the Keystone Pipeline over Obama’s objections, and authorize offshore oil drilling.
  9. And most importantly, abolish the IRS, the Internal Revenue Code, and the 16th Amendment and replace them with the FairTax (H.R. 25). The IRS is not an agency whose powers have been abused – the IRS and the federal income tax are DESIGNED for abuse. They are DESIGNED to be tools of oppression per se. Making the income tax flat, or eliminating section 501(c)3, or “improving oversight”, or passing a mild reform bill will NOT solve the problem, because it would still leave the IRS (with its awesome audit and status denial powers and its huge bureaucracy) and the income tax (which punishes people for productivity and takes away what they’ve earned) still in place. So a flat income tax would change NOTHING. ONLY the FairTax bill (H.R. 25) would solve the problem by abolishing the IRS and the income tax FOREVER, mandating the destruction of all personal records held by the IRS (except those related to SS, which would be transferred to the SSA), and initating the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
  10. States should also enact significant economic reform by cutting taxes and spending, implementing tort reform (including the Loser Pays rule), and adopting Right-to-Work laws.

Last but not least, Republicans should explain, in detail, to average Americans how exactly these policies would benefit them directly. This is something that Republicans have so far failed to do.

In trying to win future elections, Republicans will be climbing uphill. But the economy is not an issue of just one special interest group or one demographic. It is an issue which all Americans care about, and the vast majority prioritize above all other issues, yet, the media and Washington seldom talk about it. If Republicans start prioritizing the economy instead of Benghazi and Syria, they’ll show the public they are totally different – they’ll offer a totally different, and a much different, product to a public that is eager to buy it.

White House Has ‘Peculiar’ Justification for Illegal Immigration

John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.
John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.

John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.

Someone in the White House is channeling John C. Calhoun.

Stephen Dinan, of the Washington Times, writes the White House has issued a report that claims, “…the strength and continuity of rural America is contingent on common–sense immigration reform.” In other words, the availability of your boutique tomatoes depends on amnesty for illegals.

The Obama Administration believes rural America, much like the antebellum South, has a ‘peculiar institution’ the rest of the nation must respect. In this instance the 50 to 60 percent of the agricultural workforce that’s in the country illegally.

In the 20–page report Calhoun, whoops…the authors, claim farmers are having trouble hiring workers and as a result are cutting back on planting or “are moving operations abroad as a result of the labor shortage.”

That must require some doing. Are they boxing up the plantation and shipping it — dirt and all — to foreign shores? What happens to the hole left behind in Mississippi? Do administration staffers really think produce is grown in the back room of Whole Foods, adjacent to the customer bathroom?

The justification for tolerating widespread illegality among sodbusters goes like this, “Under the current system, rural America is losing opportunity and harvests due to lack of a stable workforce. Coupled with a decline in native-born rural populations, the strength and continuity of rural America is contingent on common-sense immigration reform that improves job opportunity, provides local governments with the tools they need to succeed, and increases economic growth.”

The entire argument sounds suspiciously like Calhoun’s justification for slavery. He contended, according to Wikipedia, “Southern whites, outnumbered in the United States by voters of the more densely-populated Northern states, were one such minority deserving special protection in the legislature.”

The only real difference is how the workforce arrived to participate in the vital rural economy. In Calhoun’s day slaves arrived under duress, in Obama’s day the helots volunteer. Either way the rest of the country is supposed to tolerate and approve of what Democrats desire.

Both systems undermine our domestic labor market, penalize low–income Americans and reward those with no respect for the rule of law, which in this instance includes both employers and employees.

A simple application of market forces would solve the farmer’s labor problem. Right now there’s little demand among U.S. citizens for agriculture jobs at wages that are depressed by illegal immigration. Close the border while raising wages and watch the wonder of the marketplace at work.

Or invest in mechanization and replace the human factor with machines. Farmers made the switch from horses to tractors. Does the administration think automobile manufacturers would have invested in robotics if they had access to illiterate high school dropouts willing to work for minimum wage and no benefits?

The question answers itself. America would have been entertained by footage of workers fleeing Chipotle and General Motors when INS vans pulled into the parking lot. At least until the Obama re–election campaign began.

Agriculture lobbyists, dripping with concern for harried shoppers, contend that raising wages will mean produce prices go up. That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Besides, if gutless Republican Congressmen would force the federal government cut back on the double subsidy agriculture policy currently in place — farmers are guaranteed a minimum price and get paid by Uncle Sam, while consumers are stuck with higher prices at the grocery store — the reduction in prices caused by letting the market work without government interference, could well balance the increase in costs due to paying a market wage.

Strangely, the White House report issues a vague threat to begin “immigration enforcement actions that could tighten the supply of farm labor.” That appears to be a reference to deportation; something the Obama Administration essentially ended last summer. Threatening to do something Republicans have been demanding for months is hardly a credible threat and will do nothing to put pressure on the House to pass an amnesty bill.

Unfortunately for the administration, this warning is old, discredited news. Alabama passed a bill cracking down on illegal “rural” workers in 2011 and Democrats used many of the same scare stories. Yet Alabama produce did not vanish from the shelves. In fact, Gina Loudon reported, “Immediately after the bill (HB 56) was passed, the unemployment rate began to drop. Since the bill passed last legislative session, in some counties, unemployment has dropped dramatically. For example, unemployment has gone from 10 percent to 6.9 percent in the former illegal immigrant hotbed of Marshall County, Alabama.”

But it was so hard on farmers. According to a Reuter’s story, Jerry Spencer estimates 90 percent of the illegals left the county (note to Members of Congress) and he started recruiting the unemployed to replace the vanished amigos. “There’s a fair amount of reticence on the part of farmers to take the city folk and unemployed workers,” Spencer said. “They really hate letting go of their amigos because they’re so problem-free. They don’t squabble.”

Yeah, there’s nothing like a field full of docile illegals to make one feel like a real patron.

Before the Civil War Democrats and their politicians exploited slaves so they could live in the manner to which they had grown accustomed. Modern Democrat politicians, and the businesses they enable, are willing to exploit illegal immigrants for the same reason. Both sets of Democrats are more than happy to dump the resulting social costs on the rest of the country.

The question is how much longer are we going to put up with it?

Michelle Fields is completely wrong on amnesty and Latinos

Michelle Fields

Michelle Fields

Libertarian Fox News contributor Michelle Fields. Photo author unknown.

Fox News’ Latino website has recently published an opinion piece by libertarian FNC contributor Michelle Fields, who therein attacks conservative columnist Ann Coulter for pointing out the inconvenient truth about amnesty’s consequences and the majority of Latino immigrants. Fields believes Ann Coulter’s written remarks are xenophobic and based only on stereotypes.

Essentially, Fields’ claims, and her attacks on Coulter, can be summed up as follows:

Claim #1: Latinos are not a bunch of government dependents, but mostly a community of hardworking taxpayers, and they do not support Big Government or liberal/socialist ideologies. They share many beliefs with Republicans, such as faith and belief in hard work, and could very well vote GOP. Thus, the GOP is to blame for its failure to win over Latinos.

Claim #2: Amnesty will not kill the GOP.

Claim #3: Rejecting “immigration reform” because it could harm the GOP is unpatriotic and unjust.

All of her claims, without exception, are dead wrong. I’ll show you why.

Firstly, while I don’t want to generalize, and while not all Latinos are government dependents, the vast majority of them are. The typical Latino family in the US is led by a single mother. If she works, her income is so low she doesn’t pay any income taxes and receives the Earned Income Tax Credit – effectively a subsidy from US taxpayers. If she doesn’t work, she receives various forms of welfare, including 99 weeks of free unemployment compensation.

For food, mom gets food stamps and other aid, while her kids get 2-3 free meals at school every day.

Her kids are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and can receive student loans, college aid, and in-state tuition rates.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare. (Latinos have the lowest insurance rate of any demographic group in the country.)

Why would those people vote for a party (the GOP) that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and reduce the government programs they do live off?

Wouldn’t self-interest dictate voting for a party that will let them continue receiving all the current giveaways from Uncle Sam, and perhaps give them even more?

Most Hispanics in America today are born out of wedlock to teen mothers. Hispanics are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock to a teen mother, to do poorly in school, to drop out of high school, to be unemployed and on welfare, to commit crime, and to go to prison. (Of course, the former social ills lead to the latter – children born out of wedlock, especially to teen mothers, have their lives screwed up at the start, if you pardon my language.)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Hispanics overwhelmingly supports Big Government. According to very recent polling by Pew Hispanic Polling, the Kaiser Foundation, and others:

While this is the first time I agree with Rachel Maddow on anything, Maddow was nonetheless absolutely right to note that:

“There’s no great mystery here. Latino have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, and strongly believe public access to affordable care should be a basic societal guarantee.

In other words, most Latinos believe the exact opposite of most Republicans. The GOP wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety; Latino voters want it protected. Republicans want to gut Medicare and Medicaid; Latinos see both programs as critical.

“This is going to hurt Republicans,” Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm, told Levey. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”

Since the 2012 election, we’ve heard repeatedly from Republicans that Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP and, if the party could only use more effective language, Latino voters would gravitate to the conservative party. And yet, the evidence to the contrary is increasingly overwhelming.”

Or, as the LA Times has noted:

“As Republican leaders try to woo Latino voters with a new openness to legal status for the nation’s illegal immigrants, the party remains at odds with America’s fastest-growing ethnic community on another key issue: healthcare.”

According to other polling by Pew Hispanic Research and others, Latinos aren’t any more conservative on social issues, either. In fact, they support gay marriage and abortion by wider margins than anyone else except Jewish Americans, women, and youngsters (themselves also traditional Democratic electorates).

For example, a June 19th, 2013 poll by Pew found that 52% of all Hispanics, including 54% of Catholic Hispanics, 57% of “native-born” Hispanics, and 59% of those Hispanics for whom English is their first language, support gay marriage legalization. Among ethnic groups, only Jewish Americans support the legality of gay marriage and abortion by wider margins.

So Ann Coulter was absolutely right, and Michelle Fields was dead wrong, about Hispanics’ political views: the vast majority of them ARE strident liberals, ARE dependent on the federal government from cradle to grave, and DO support Big Government. Those are not stereotypes. Those are facts.

And Republicans can’t woo these people. You can’t convert a Big Government liberal to free-market conservatism anymore than you can convince an Islamist to forego jihad.

The GOP cannot win the Hispanic vote unless it becomes the second party of Big Government and social liberalism. But that would defeat the party’s purpose, and the Dems will always outdo Republicans in the “handing out taxpayers’ dollars” game.

But remaining (or making the GOP again) the party of limited constitutional government means foregoing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. That is a fact. Latinos love Big Government.

Miss Fields claims that the Latino vote is winnable for the GOP. But that is impossible for the above reasons. And all election results show that.

In fact, in 1984, while the general American populace voted for Ronald Reagan in even greater numbers than in 1980, Hispanics voted for Walter Mondale in even greater numbers than they had for Jimmy Carter: 61% for Mondale versus “only” 56% for Carter.

In other words, Latinos missed the Carter Administration so badly that they voted for Walter Mondale, an advocate of the “nuclear freeze” and tax hikes, in even greater numbers than they had for Carter!

Ronald Reagan won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and only 37% in 1984.

But Republicans passed, and he signed, amnesty in 1986. Didn’t Latinos reward Republicans for amnesty thereafter?

Actually, no, they didn’t. Just two years later, they voted for Dukakis in even greater numbers (69%) than for Mondale (61%) and Carter (56%)! George H. W. Bush won only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.

But he made it easier to immigrate to the US, created the Diversity Visa Lottery, and eliminated the English language test on the naturalization exam. Didn’t that earn him the Hispanic vote?

No, it didn’t. He won only 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 – even less than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 and 71% in 1996.

But didn’t George W. Bush show Republicans can win the Hispanic vote?

No, he didn’t. He won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and only 40% (not the 44% Miss Fields claims) in 2004. Even then, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore (62%) and John Kerry (58%).

Even America’s loudest advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, John McCain, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008; Latinos backed Obama then by 67%.

But most outrageously, four years later, Latinos thought Obama deserved a second term, and they voted for him in 2012 in numbers even greater than in 2008 (71% vs 67%). This is consistent with their entire history of overwhelmingly backing stridently liberal presidential candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. They’ve never met a strident liberal they didn’t love.

(Source: Pew Hispanic polling.)

And now, very recent polling shows that if Joe Biden was the Democratic and Marco Rubio the Republican nominee, Biden would handily beat Rubio – a leading advocate of amnesty and a Hispanic himself – 60% to 26%, i.e. Rubio would receive even less of the Hispanic vote than the strongly anti-amnesty Mitt Romney, despite being a Hispanic himself!

The Latino vote is utterly unwinnable for the GOP. Therefore, it is in the Party’s and the Country’s interest to halt further immigration (from all countries of the world, not just Latin American ones) and to ensure that the illegals already in America are deported.

Ann Coulter is also absolutely right to point out, and Michelle Fields dead wrong to deny, that amnesty will kill the GOP.

Just look at Miss Fields’ home state of California to see what would happen to the GOP.

Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – from Latin American countries (mostly Mexico) has turned California into such a liberal state that NO Republican can be elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long, it gave America such great Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S.I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is such a liberal state that the Dems have the governorship and supermajorities in both houses of the state legislatures, allowing them to raise taxes anytime without limits. In 2010, Californians chose Babsy Boxer and Governor Moonbeam over two bright conservative women – Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman – one of them pro-life, the other pro-choice, and rejected a proposal to suspend California’s cap-and-tax scheme until the state unemployment rate shrinks.

Last year, Californians gave the Dems a supermajority in the State Senate.

Similar stories are repeated throughout the country. New Mexico, like California, is lost forever. Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.

When Texas goes, America goes.

As Ann Coulter rightly points out, if amnesty is passed, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no going back. Look again at the Hispanic voting patterns of the last 33 years to see what electorate America would have. An electorate 71% of which thought Barack Obama had done a good job and deserved a second term. An electorate 61% of which missed the Carter Administration so badly that it voted for its vice president. An electorate 69% of which voted for Michael Dukakis.

But it would actually be much worse than that: as Sarah Palin points out, amnesty would be a heinous betrayal of working-class Americans, who would see their jobs stolen by illegal immigrants.

Thus we come to Miss Fields’ last claim: that rejecting “immigration reform” is unpatriotic and unjust. A patriot is one who does what is good for his country.

Amnesty – as Miss Fields herself has noted – would be very bad for the country. It would reward lawbreaking and put a huge new strain on American taxpayers. It would also turn the entire country into California. That would be disastrous for America.

Thus, by blocking amnesty, House Republicans are doing the PATRIOTIC thing. They’re doing the right thing for the Country and the Party.

To conclude, Miss Fields is dead wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Latinos ARE government dependents and DO support Big Government. Amnesty would kill the GOP, and conservatism in general, forever. And stopping it is the patriotic thing to do.

If Miss Fields is the classy young woman I believe she is, she should and will apologize to Ann Coulter. She’s certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent person and has been right on many issues. But on these, she’s flat wrong.

Norquist and Kudlow have finally proven they are strident liberals

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

While Washington has in recent weeks been pondering what to do about illegal aliens, a number of pseudoconservatives have recently(and finally) outed themselves as strident liberals after decades of pretending to be conservatives.

They are: ATR President Grover Norquist, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, and NH Senator Kelly Ayotte.

There was plenty of evidence even before their jump on the amnesty bandwagon that they are not conservatives. This was especially true of Norquist, who has advocated (and continues to advocate) appeasing Islamists, implementing Sharia in the US, deep defense cuts, isolationism, and protecting tax loopholes for Washington lobbyists that contribute significantly to the deficit problem and allow rich liberals like Warren Buffett to pay little to nothing in taxes.

Ayotte, for her part, has advocated killing the crucial MEADS missile defense system and succeeded in cutting the Air Force’s airlifter fleet.

And now, we have both of them advocate for amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants.

They falsely claim that immigration, per se, is good for America, and that illegal aliens should be legalized because, well, everyone in America except the Indians is an immigration or descendant of immigrants. In other words, Republicans should reward lawlessness.

Not only will this reward lawbreaking and make legal immigrants – and those currently waiting for an immigration visa to the US – look like fools, it will also alienate the vast majority of Republican voters, sending the GOP to the dustbin of history.

And worst of all, amnesty will create 12-20 mn new Democratic voters, by putting illegal aliens on a pathway to citizenship within no less than 5 years. If that happens, there will never again be a Republican President or Congressional majority. And you can take that to the bank and cash a check on it.

Don’t believe me? Let’s do simple math.

Let’s assume, conservatively, that there are 12 mn illegal aliens in the US, and that if legalized, they’ll be voting Republican in George W. Bush numbers (44%).

OK, now the math:

44% * 12 mn = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56% *  12 mn =  6.72 mn new Dem voters:

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So even under the most optimistic assumptions, if amnesty is passed, the Democrats will gain, on net, 1.44 mn more voters than Republicans – strengthening the Dem majority even further and forever making the GOP a minority party. The two major parties will be the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party and the Ed Markey Democratic Party.

Rand Paul – another pseudoconservative who has jumped on the amnesty bandwagon – falsely claims that Republicans must win California back and that supporting amnesty will help the GOP do so. He falsely claims California is winnable and its citizens want the same thing as other Americans – lower taxes, lower government spending, balanced budgets, etc.

Actually, California is permanently, irrevocably lost to the GOP, and it’s precisely because of uncontrolled immigration – legal and illegal. California is actually a textbook reason why amnesty MUST be defeated at all costs.

Massive immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly legal, has transformed California from a Republican bastion into such a liberal state that no Republican, moderate or conservative, can get elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

Between 1952 and 1988, California voted Republican in every presidential election except in 1964.

But since 1988, it has become a stridently liberal state where fewer than 30% of voters are Republicans.

What’s worse, the vast majority of Californians WANT Big Government, high taxes, and high government spending. They’ve passed  an anti-business cap-and-tax system and stringest “fuel efficiency” standards. Their state is highly unionized. In 2010, they rejected proposals to suspend cap-and-tax until the unemployment rate drops, and last year, they elected a State Senate Democratic SUPERMAJORITY, allowing the Democrats – who already control the State Assembly and the Governorship – to raise taxes without limits.

As a result, productive citizens and businesses are fleeing the state en masse. The few who remain yet are being taxed to death. Those who remain in California are predominantly welfare moochers, government employees, union thugs, gangsters, and members of extremely leftist organizations.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty becomes law. If it does, the entire country will have the electorate of California. AND THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

It will actually be worse, because millions of voters will desert the GOP for supporting amnesty and thus rewarding lawbreaking.

The GOP will then be unable to even maintain 41 seats in the US Senate.

Thanks to Republicans’ repeated betrayals of American workers and selling out to K-Street bundlers, the GOP already has enough problems cobbling together an electoral majority.

California and New Mexico are lost forever to the GOP. Colorado, Virginia, and Florida haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Republicans can barely defend Arizona these days. Only Texas remains secure – for now.

If Texas goes, America goes.

Capitulate on illegal immigration, and there goes Texas, the entire Southwest, Florida, Virginia, and there goes the presidency, forever.

And what policies will these illegal aliens – whom the Rubio-McCain-Rand amnesty will turn into 12 mn new Democrat voters – support?

A Big Government and an even bigger welfare state with higher taxes and higher government spending.

Successive polling by the Pew Research Center and other polling organizations shows that Hispanics, by overwhelimng majorities, suport such policies, including a “bigger government with more” over a “smaller government with fewer services”; and that the vast majority of Hispanics trusts the federal gov to “do the right thing” “always” or “almost always”.

No amount of “voter education” will conver these voters to conservatism, because people are unwilling to give up their political beliefs. You can’t convert a Latino-American socialist from Mexico or Argentina to conservatism any more than you can convince an Islamist to give up on jihad or North Korea to give up on Kimilsungism (juche).

Have you ever wondered why most Latin American countries have socialist governments? Because the vast majority of their citizens are socialists. And by importing them to the US, you’re only going to make the US another socialist country. People’s political beliefs don’t change simply because they step onto American soil.

(Similarly, French socialists have, for decades, been importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled, socialist-minded Arab immigrants into France, knowing full well that this will eventually create an unbeatable socialist majority in France. But unlike the US, French rightwingers actually fight fiercely against this scheme; rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy was particularly tough on immigration, deporting illegals and cutting even legal immigration levels by half.

Who are the real surrender monkeys here: the French or the citizens and politicians of this country?)

For those who still believe socialist Hispanic voters are winnable, I say: Look at the majoritzy of Hispanic families.

They’re headed by single mothers, without a father in the home. Their children are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and receive Pell Grants and student aid.

For food, there are foodstamps.

If mom works, she gets the Earned Income Tax Credit which keeps her below the income tax treshold. If she doesn’t work, she receives 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and other welfare checks.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

In other words, the majority of Hispanic (and black) families are totally dependent on the federal government – from birth to adult life to the grave.

Yes, we all know a few Hispanic families who aren’t dependent on the federal government and who are hard-working, productive, God-fearing, and perhaps even conservative. But they are very few in number. The vast majority of Hispanic families fit the description above.

A typical Hispanic woman far more likely than white women to become pregnant out of wedlock and be a single mother. Her children are far more likely than white children to be fatherless, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, be unemployed, commit crime, and end up in prison.

Why should these people – who depend on the federal government for their livelihoods – vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and to reduce the government programs they depend on and live off, instead of the party that pledges to let them keep what they already get and to give them more?

Especially in today’s world, where the vast majority of voters in all countries are interested only in getting more from others – preferrably for “free” – and forcing others to pay the bill?

“But we must pass amnesty to appeal to Hispanics, or we will never win another election!”, you will say.

That’s nonsense. Republicans don’t need to. Republicans instead need to appeal better to white voters – especially women and Hispanics. And passing amnesty will only infuriate these voters. Especially traditional Republican voters.

As Byron York has shown, using Nate Silver’s highly accurate election result forecasting model, even if Romney were to win 70% of the Hispanic vote last year, he would STILL have lost the presidential election. Even with 70% of the Hispanic vote.

Romney lost because too few white voters supported him – and because blacks, eager to defend Obama turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008, and in even greater numbers than whites did.

Obama’s incumbency and Hurricane Sandy also certainly played a role. Before Sandy, Gallup had Romney ahead of Obama by 5 points; after Sandy hit the East Coast, Romney’s margin dwindled to just 1 point, and eventually, Romney lost the popular vote in addition to the EC vote.

Nate Silver’s model shows that Romney would’ve needed to win 73% of the Hispanic vote – a share that NO ONE in US history has won, not even Barack Obama – to win the 2012 election.

Even Barack Obama has never won 73% of the Hispanic vote: in 2008, he won 67%, and last year, he won 71%. But never 73%. And the notion that any Republican, even an amnesty supporter or a Hispanic like Rubio, can ever win 73% of the Hispanic vote, is ridiculous. Nobody in US history, not even Barack Obama, has achieved this.

But, as Nate Silver’s model shows, had only 4% more of white voters backed Romney, he would’ve won the election.

Last but not least, as one Latina has recently pointed out in the Mediaite, amnesty will utterly fail to win Republicans new Hispanic votes, because Hispanics don’t care about immigration. Their top issues are jobs, the economy, education, and the budget deficit – NOT immigration. And many of them probably don’t want a new influx of cheap illegal alien workers competing with legal Hispanic immigrants for jobs.

A legal Hispanic kitchen maid earning 10 dollars/hour will probably not appreciate new illegal alien workers competing with her for a 5 dollar/hour salary.

Because that is why Republicans are really pushing for amnesty: their K-Street bundlers want to bring in even more, even cheaper, foreign workers to displace American and legal immigrant workers.

Employers love to hire illegal immigrants, as they can pay these people less and also evade all federal and state employment laws.

It’s the business lobby and the two major parties against the American people. Like Timothy Carney points out, it’s K Street against Main Street.

To sum up, Republicans lost last year due to a number of factors, but Hispanic voters were not one of them. They were still only 8% of the electorate. Trying to please Hispanic voters with amnesty will utterly fail; on the contrary, it will create, on net, millions of new Democratic voters who will send the GOP to the graveyard.

If amnesty becomes law, these illegal immigrants will become US citizens and will give the Dems a permanent, unbeatable majority. The entire country will have the electorate of California – and there will be no turning back. And to see how well that works out, just look at California.

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

Obama Show Papers

Obama Show PapersA significant proportion of the US population feels marginalized and suffers from perceived widespread disrespect. Their desires are discounted and in some instances actively discouraged by state, federal and local government. Families are either split or prevented from coming together, which results in children who are denied the benefits of a two–parent family. Circumstances beyond the control of these individuals have put them in the shadows, outside the mainstream of American society and at the mercy of an often cruel and heartless public.

And that’s why Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Public Policy Center have both come out in support of homosexual marriage. As Daly said in an interview with Christianity Today, “What are the solutions to help get these families together, get them in a lawful state, one that can be recognized, and then move forward? I think that is a healthy situation for the country. Let’s get behind this, not play politics with it left or right and not fearmonger with it. These are people that need dignity. Even though in some cases they’ve broken the law, there’s always that heartfelt story out there where you just tear up looking at what they’re facing now. We need to do what’s humane.”

No wait. That’s the quote Daly used in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. As of the time this post was written Focus and the Southern Baptists still oppose homosexual marriage. But can someone point out to me why their reasoning on illegal aliens doesn’t apply to homosexuals, too? Both groups have been in an unlawful relationship for a number of years and they want to either escape worldly consequences in one case and Biblical responsibility in the other.

I know the Bible says welcome the stranger and not welcome the sodomite, but when you base your theology on feelings instead of Truth, there is no difference in the two situations. A plain reading of the Bible shows marriage is one man to one woman and homosexuality is prohibited — occasionally by fire and brimstone. And strangers are to be welcomed as individuals by individuals, but nowhere does it say stealth invasions in violation of the law are to be encouraged. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible a law breaker or sinner is rewarded for his or her transgression?

Or for that matter, where people are encouraged to emulate a class of law breakers in the future?

The situation is simply not there. Illegals aren’t mentioned by name in either testament, but if we can’t apply observations or analogous situations from the Bible to modern life, then the book is dead and useless.

Look at how similar both situations are. Both population groups feel put upon. Homosexuals and illegals want to come out of the shadows and gain the stamp of approval from government and society at large: A marriage license in one case and documentos de ciudadanía in the other.

If Daly and my own Southern Baptist governing body are to be consistent, then they have to either support both or oppose both.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision that branded people like me who oppose the perversion of God’s institution of marriage as hate–filled bigots, Daly and Focus helped to produce an e–book that contained five questions and answers about same sex marriage that outlined their opposition. The irony is the same questions and answers apply to illegal aliens, but they support legalizing them.

Here are the questions and answers with the marriage–related in regular text and the illegal–related in boldface.

1. Why does marriage matter to the government? Why do borders matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage ensures the well-being of children…Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Borders protect citizens from the incursions of lawbreakers great and small and it makes sure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship go to people who have earned it. Defending the borders is one of the principle responsibilities of government.

2. What are the consequences of redefining marriage? What are the consequences of redefining citizenship?

Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science-including very recent and robust studies-show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Redefining marriage would further separate marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining citizenship would hurt the rule of law. Separating citizenship from the responsibility to obey the law only encourages future disrespect for the law and future illegal immigration. Ideally law–abiding individuals make better citizens.

3. Why do you want to interfere with love? Why can’t we just live and let live? Why do you want to interfere with ambition?

Marriage laws don’t ban anything; they define marriage. Immigration law doesn’t ban ambition, it only defines where one is allowed to be ambitious.

4. Isn’t denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage? Aren’t immigration law supporters just using the law as an excuse for bigotry?

No. Racism kept the races apart, and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two sexes, and that is a good thing. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. No. Immigration law is color–blind, but it cannot be geography–blind. The fact that most illegal border crossers come from countries adjacent to the US does not make the enforcement of the law biased, no more than spraying for mosquitoes means you oppose flying.

5. Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether? Why doesn’t government get out of the employment verification business altogether?

Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life…A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that, between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage. A good job is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Illegal immigrants are exploited by employers and compete unfairly with low–income workers. Americans would be happy to do the work now taken by illegals if the pay rates were not distorted and artificially depressed by law–breakers. Employers who circumvent the market and rig the system against the people who need the jobs the most, create unemployment which increases stress on families and marriages.

There is no intellectual consistency in Daly’s or the SBC’s position on illegal immigration and homosexual marriage. Daly contends, “When you look at it, the immigration issue is not just a legal issue. We respect what needs to be done there and hopefully we can strengthen laws, enforce laws and do all the things that we need to do in that way, because it’s important for a country to establish its borders and maintain its borders. But when you look at the family impact now and the stories we’ve received over the past year or two, it’s pretty tragic what’s occurring.”

Illegal immigration breaks at least three of the Ten Commandments. Illegals often steal the identity of citizens to get papers. They lie about their status in the country. And the motivation that brought them here in the first place was coveting a lifestyle they didn’t have.

And what’s occurring is all self–induced. Would Daly advocate keeping a drug addict supplied with heroin so he won’t feel compelled to steal and possibly break up his family if he’s sent to jail? How about telling a wife to put up with infidelity if it keeps the family together and the children aren’t upset?

Daly and the SBC are busy undermining their credibility and authority. It’s a shame. I expected better.

The REAL reason our Southern Border will never be secure

nicholasstixuncensored

The Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 54-39 rejected an amendment to the latest version of the Senate’s new immigration bill. The amendment offered by Senator John Thune of South Dakota should have been a no brainer to pass. The Thune Amendment simply called for the completion and funding of a 700 mile stretch of double tiered fencing along our Southern Border.

What was so surprising about the failure of this amendment was some of the reasoning for its failure. Most of the Senators that voted against it were Democrats; but there were also five Republicans, including all four members of the so called “Gang of Eight” that voted against the measure too. The so called Republicans were: Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Jeff Flake, and surprisingly even Senator Marco Rubio. The only Senator not part of the Gang of Eight that also voted against the measure was Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski.

Senator John McCain said he voted against the measure stating, “We should leave that issue (the border fence) to the best judgment of the Border Patrol.” This is the same John McCain who in a tough primary challenge in 2010 actually ran a campaign ad in which he says, “let’s build the dang fence!”

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also voted against the measure which is not surprising because pretty much anything John McCain does Lindsey follows suit.

Senator Jeff Flake, who replaced a solid conservative in Jon Kyl, also voted against the measure. Unfortunately as of late Mr. Flake has been living up to his name when it comes to the immigration issue.

Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, who routinely sides with the Democrats also voted against the bill. She was appointed in 2002 by her father, another Rino Republican Frank Murkowski who at the time was Governor of Alaska.

However the most surprising vote came from Senator Marco Rubio. As one of the leaders of the Gang of Eight he was supposed to be the Conservative voice of reason when it came to crafting the immigration bill. Mr. Rubio has been talked about as a possible contender for the Presidency in 2016. By voting against this measure he may have severely diminished any hopes he had at seeking the Republican Nomination for President in 2016.

So why did five Republicans vote against a measure that would have helped eliminate more illegal immigration? Don’t they realize that if they pass Amnesty they will be committing political suicide? Don’t they even question the motives of the Democratic Party who are so focused on passing Amnesty they are trying to rush it through as quickly as possible? Why are they afraid to make border enforcement an integral part of the process?

The short answer is they have bought into the Democratic Party’s scare tactics, and have misinterpreted the election results of 2012. They think that passing Amnesty is somehow going to ingratiate themselves into the majority of Hispanic voter’s minds and allow them to capture more of the vote share. This is a grave miscalculation. If we grant Amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants the majority, over 60% of these new voters will be votes for the Democratic Party. Typically you dance with the person who brought you to the party and these new voters will be doing the twist front and center for the Democrats.

Republicans can win these voters with the right message and the right messenger. Granting Amnesty is not the solution unless they are interested in a government that will become a dictatorship under a one party rule.

So why is the Republican Party willingly putting themselves in a position that will lead to permanent minority status?

The long answer is the Republican Party of 2013 is no longer about limited government and individual freedom. The Republican Party of 2013 is about Globalism and the embracing of a New World Order.

For those of you who have never heard of the website SPP.GOV I implore you to Google it as soon as possible. SPP.GOV stands for the Shared Prosperity Partnership of North America. This is the real reason why you will never see a fence built on the Southern Border. The idea behind the Shared Prosperity Partnership is to create a North American Union similar to the European Union in Europe.

The North American Union, if it were ever to be implemented would combine Canada, the United States, and Mexico into one large Global Governance. In addition it would also change our currency from the almighty dollar bill into something called the Amero. Finally it would create a super highway that would start in Southern Mexico, run straight across the United States, and end somewhere in Northern Canada.

This is the true reason both parties are not serious about protecting our borders. This is why both parties want to pass Amnesty. This is why it is so vitally important that we fight this bill or any Amnesty bill now and in the future. If we somehow allow Amnesty to pass there is a real good possibility that a North American Union could be in our future.

Think about what a North American Union could do to our sovereignty rights? Think about what it could do to our Constitutional rights, especially our Second Amendment? Think about what it could do to our currency and our economy? Worst of all, think about what it will do to our deep rooted American pride? As Americans we are a very prideful people. We have always separated ourselves from the rest of the world based on our unique history and coveted status as the world’s most powerful superpower. Why would we ever knowingly want to give up that status or relinquish our standing in the world?

For America to remain a free country we must protect our borders. A country that does not protect its own borders will cease to be a country at some point. Any thought of legalizing illegal immigrants without first securing our borders could be a means to an end for America.

Solving the illegal immigration issue could be simple if we use some common sense.

First thing we should do is modify the birthright citizenship rule to only grant citizenship to the child being born on American soil. By eliminating citizenship to the parents of the child born here you send a clear message that just because your child was born here doesn’t give you the right to claim citizenship. If illegal immigrants knew that only their children who were born here could have automatic citizenship you would see a lot less illegal immigrants crossing the border to have children and abusing this law.

The second thing we could do is finally complete the fence across the entire border. Once the border is secure, we could build 2 or 3 maximum security correctional facilities in each one of the Border States right along side of it. We could even save the taxpayer’s in each respective Border State the cost of building these complexes by having the illegal aliens we capture help build them.

Finally, after we deport all the folks who have criminal records we give the remaining aliens a choice.

The first choice is immediate deportation or they would run the risk of being incarcerated in one of the maximum security correctional facilities they helped build.

The second choice would be to have them serve in our military. If they want to be Americans and truly love our country, than they should be willing to fight and die for it. After they have served in the military for a few years they should be granted full citizenship on the day they have been honorably discharged. At that point they should be entitled to every single benefit that natural born Americans have. That is how you fix the illegal immigration issue.

As a writer, commentator, and radio talk show host my job is talk about the important issues and offer common sense solutions. With all the dysfunction that permeates through Washington, D.C. it would be a miracle if any sound legislation ever was to pass. In the meantime it is imperative that we call our Senators and Congress members and let them know that we strongly oppose this bill. A majority in America and a minority in Congress can create a majority in Congress.

The Capitol switchboard number is (202)224-3121
John McCain: (202)224-2235
Lindsey Graham: (202)224-5972
Jeff Flake: (202)224-4521
Lisa Murkowski: (202)224-6665
Marco Rubio: (202)224-3041

Suggested by the author:

Dismantling Washington
Let’s all sue the Internal Revenue Service!
Why Attorney General Eric Holder is the worst in U.S. History
How the left uses identity politics and fear tactics to influence voters
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com

S. 744: Here Comes Trouble



immigration
The immigration “Gang of Eight” has been instrumental in bringing Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) to Congress in 2013.

Congress asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to examine S. 744. The CBO did, looking only at the effects of the first ten years of the bill. Knowing that, the “Gang of Eight” wrote the bill so that long-term effects don’t kick in until after the tenth year. What does all of this mean? TROUBLE!

One of the major provisions of S. 744 is the “path to citizenship.” A new “registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status for eligible undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) would be created. Those in RPI status also qualify for a Social Security number and state driver’s license. All registered immigrants (and spouses and children) could, after 10 years, seek to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs). Three years later, they would be eligible to apply to become US citizens. The only requirement is that aliens be in the US as of December 31, 2011.

The Heritage Foundation also examined S. 744, and their conclusions are, at best, disturbing. They examined the bill from three perspectives: reducing flow, effects on workers, and cost.

  • Reducing flow (of illegal aliens): S. 744 would, according to the CBO, reduce the future inflow of illegal immigrants into the US over the next two decades by only 25 percent, despite promises of a secure border. CBO estimates that by 2033, 7.5 million new illegal immigrants will have entered the US and taken up residence. Gosh, I may be naïve, but I’ll bet that they ALL will say they were here before December 31, 2011.
  • Effects on Workers: The CBO estimates that per capita Gross National Product (GNP) would lower by .7 percent by 2023, and per capita GNP will be lower until 2031. Further, the CBO estimates the bill would drive down their average wages for legal American workers. Wages will be depressed until 2024. It is important to measure post-tax wages as well as per capita GNP.
  • Cost: Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation estimates that the new 7.5 million illegal immigrants could cost the taxpayers (federal, state, and local) an additional $400 billion over 20 years. Rector comments:

    “S.744 provides only a temporary delay in eligibility to welfare and entitlements. Over time, S.744 makes all 18.5 million [11 million here now plus 7.5 million new ones] eligible for nearly every government program, including: Obamacare, 80 different welfare programs, Social Security and Medicare. When this occurs, spending will explode, but nearly all the real costs do not appear in the CBO score.”

    “… the most significant costs during the lifetime of would-be legalized immigrants are during their retirement years after they qualify for Medicare and Social Security. For the vast majority of unlawful immigrants, that is well past the 10-year budget window.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said:

“The bill’s drafters relied on the same scoring gimmicks used by the Obamacare drafters to conceal its true cost from taxpayers and to manipulate the CBO score. There is a reason why eligibility for the most expensive federal benefits was largely delayed outside the 10-year scoring window: to mislead the public.”  [emphasis mine]

And, the “11 million” illegal aliens already here have established a track record. For example:

  • Fifty percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for non-immigrants.
  • Fifty seven percent of households headed by an immigrant with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for non-immigrant households with children.
  • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than non-immigrants for food assistance programs and Medicaid. A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their US-born children.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both new and established immigrants. Sixty percent of immigrant headed households with children who arrived since 200 used at least one welfare program.

Does anyone believe that the new illegal immigrants will be any different? If so, I own a bridge in which you may be interested.

BTW, the term “Gang of Eight” is applied to any bi-partisan group of eight Senators. There is presently a “Gang of Eight” for intelligence. Don’t be confused by that term.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

What Difference Does it Make, As Long As We Don’t Insult Islam!

Behead Those who Insult Islam

Behead Those who Insult Islam 

 

 

Does it matter that four American men were brutally murdered by Islamists in Libya? Does it matter that two Islamists blew up a Boston street during April’s Boston Marathon? Does it matter Fort Hood, Texas was shot up by a Muslim screaming Allah Akbar as he murdered and maimed U.S. soldiers? How about those Islamic honor slaughters (Honor Killings) taking place around the United States? Should you take note or ignore them? After all, its Islamic custom to execute Muslims who reject Islam, date outside Islam, or become American and Western in thought and dress. Why should that make any difference in the way people view Islam? It’s a peaceful religion right?

I suppose Islam could be defined as peaceful since one is at peace after the knife-wielding lunatic takes one’s head.

If we want to get technical, we might even define the hacking and beheading of a British soldier by two Islamists in London this past week, as putting that innocent infidel at peace, right? 

We could even claim the Islamic Tsarneav brothers gave Boston Marathon runners and spectators a “peaceful” tribute.

Boston  Boxton bombing

To the utterly offended, I’m not joking. Islam massacres non-Muslims—as well as forced marriages of girl children, torturing and murdering adult Muslim women and gay Muslims all over the Middle East and Europe—on a daily basis. But biased, pro-Islam left-wing progressives in D.C. and the media defend these brutal actions by demanding tolerance to Islam.

Never offend Islam’s civil liberties and its human rights.

IRAN HANGING

Islamic Hanging of Gay Muslim Men in Middle East

Maimed Muslim Woman

Tortured Muslim Woman Who tried to Leave Islam

Texas Honor Murder Victims

Texas Teen Sisters Honor Murdered by Father and Brother for Dating Outside Islamic Religion

What human rights!

Islam violates the civil and human rights of all who refuse to convert to Islam. Islam commands the execution of Muslims who flee Islam’s violent, political movement of rape, terror, torture–and if one is lucky enough after one has been brutally tortured in the most heinous fashion– death.

Non-Muslims are brainwashed by “Group Think” media progressives and elitists demanding all ignore historical facts and pull a Hillary Clinton by asking “what difference does it make,” as long as we don’t insult Islam?

Here’s an example: The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has a training manual for the Department of Homeland Security and National Counter terrorism Center (as well as other government agencies and workplaces the Obama Administration and Janet Napolitano demand be followed) used to monitor outspoken conservatives and government employees.

Countering Violent Extremism Training (CVET) states:  

Don’t use programs that venture to deep into the weeds of religious doctrine and history…Don’t use training with political agenda. This is not the time to persuade audiences …on the views about Israel/Palestinian conflict, reformation within Islam, or the proper role of Islam in majority Muslim nations…Don’t use trainers who answer primarily interest groups. For example, trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’ may further an interest group instead of delivering generally accepted unbiased information.

 

In other words, don’t inform DHS employees of Islam’s violent history. Ignore Mohammad’s bloodthirsty, forced conversion by-way-of-the sword. Don’t expose his slaughtering, raping, pillaging and plundering of European churches. And certainly don’t uncover how Mohammad conquered the Middle East and Holy Land: By massacring Christians and Jews. It’s best we ignore truths and turn historical facts against Christian Crusaders, and Christians and Jews in general. Make Christians and Jews the bad guys and Islam the victim.

The progressive “Group Think”  handbook further demands DHS never discuss “war stories” or the “psychological indicators of terrorism.”

I would think “psychological indicators” would be of utmost importance, considering the “Allah Akbar” screaming Islamic Major Nidal Hasan, also a psychologist, taught Islamic soldiers at Fort Hood how to think and act against non-Muslims—wage war, jihad. Hasan’s Islamic conditioning prior to massacring 13 soldiers and wounding 26 at Fort Hood were deep “indicators” he was going to attack Fort Hood…with “workplace violence.”

But hey, what difference does it make?

Apparently none to DHS:

Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent…

 

This is how the U.S. government proceeds to counter terrorism:  Ignore Koran demands for violence, avoid Sharia Law, because “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

Heaven forbid we correlate Islam’s desire to exterminate the non-Muslim portion of the human race with Islam’s Koranic demands to exterminate the non-Muslim segment of the human race.

Whatever you do, don’t expose  what author Daniel Greenfield has the courage to warn:

Every believer in Islam is potentially a sleeper, ready to undergo what the experts call “radicalization”. But radicalization is largely a misnomer. The proper term is religiosity… Every believer in Islam is a potential terrorist. Islam is the ultimate sleeper cell. Terrorism is coded into the ideological DNA of a religion built on war.

Instead, CVET handbook insists the U.S. government forbid counter terrorism agents inside knowledge of Islam’s thinking and plans.

That should keep the homeland safe from another Islamic attack.

Look how safe denying Islam entrance into the UK and tolerating Islam kept Great Britain and a slaughtered soldier.

UK Islam Violence     UK Soldier

A 20 minute hacking and beheading of a British soldier by Islamic immigrants to Great Britain and their repugnant reasons to the press informs us of the difference Islam is making in the West:

We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day. We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.

 

That horror, as well as the never-look-at-Islam reaction via media “Group Think,” and Obama’s refusal to call the barbaric slaughter Islam, is theoretically nothing more than “Hey, it’s vindication-by-justification of Islam.” This is the difference being made: Brainwashing non-Muslims into compliance.

Here’s some subtle, well-mannered toleration in the face of jihad: The Conservative MP Col. Patrick Mercer told Great Britain “All the signs indicated this is a terrorist attack. If that is the case it’s a very carefully thought-through thing. It’s obviously carefully planned.”

“If that is the case!” What kind of “carefully thought-through” sign does the MP need to declare Islam’s violence butchery?

The terrorist admitted the attack is Islamic!

Prime Minister Cameron delicately stated: “Of course we need to be careful about similar attacks happening in the future…Police are urgently seeking the full facts about this case but there are strong indications it is a terrorist incident.”

Good grief! Can we possibly find another way to apologize without giving the UK the full Neville Chamberlain!

No doubt Obama will discover a way to deem this Islamic carnage as a multicultural street altercation.

The only way to be “careful” is deny immigration status to Islam !

The UK slaughter is terrorism, Boston was an act of Islamic jihad, let’s identify this brutality as Islam and stop it with the “Downton Abbey” tea-time manners!

How about admitting Islam demands submission and war. The beheading and Boston Bombings were done by Islam, Muslims, not the Vienna Choir Boys.

Islam is terror, not peace…unless one is dead.

If leaders and the media admitted the truth, Islam would no longer be welcomed into the West. But then what would we all do without a good conquering invasion by everything that stands against liberty, freedom, and life?

Thank heavens we have civil liberties handbooks to steer us away from wisdom and sense.

But who needs common sense when you don’t have a head?

After all, what difference does it make as long as infidels cater to violence, bow down to extremism that is Islam and allow Islam to invade and conquer our culture, Constitution, and violate our Bill of Rights?

Islam Takes America's Bill of Rights

Never mind Islam uses the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and First Amendment against America as a weapon to incur violence against humanity, Americans are to shut up and take the jihad against us with an apology before we get the peace job to the neck.

It’s getting to the point where the difference will be made on the homeland: We won’t have to go overseas to fight Islam if we don’t reject and deny it further entrance into America. Americans will simply go to battle against Islam on American shores…But arent we already doing that while progressives demand: “What difference does it make, as long as we don’t insult Islam!”

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »