“This report is unbelievable in that we didn’t know about it. I am highly offended. This is why the American people are upset about this. They don’t trust their government. The IRS can’t be trusted, the Homeland Security writes a report and keeps it secret and nobody knows why, because it rebuts what we’ve been told about an entry/exit visa system.”
Category Archives: immigration
Wow! It’s time to stand up and take action. Listen to an outraged Judge Jeanine Pirro respond to the mother of the Boston terrorist family.
Did this family come to the United States for asylum or did they “Come to suck the fat off our land?” as the judge says. Were they true refugees or were they exaggerating their circumstances because they seemed to freely travel back and forth to their homeland? Was their goal to be productive members of this country or to sponge as much as they could from our generous system?
Is the judge outraged? You bet. And you should be too.
As you watch the judge’s entire opening statement know that new evidence is out today that the Saudi government refused entrance to the known terrorist in 2011.
Tolerance is not a wonderful thing; it’s the ultimate “F” bomb forcing Americans to assimilate to multiculturalism (Cultural Marxism), and that ideology is dangerous.
Tolerance toward everyone and every foreign culture within any country’s borders has long gotten people, armies, and countries slaughtered by brutal enemies. But that is the grand scheme behind “tolerance.”
It’s one thing to for foreign cultures to come to America and become American, but it’s a threat when those cultures demand America assimilate to them.
Today tolerance is permitting two threats to takeover America: Islam’s culture and violence and illegal and legal immigration from third world countries demanding America assimilate to those cultures.
First the Ted Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act opened the amnesty floodgates for “an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond our borders,” and America has been losing its culture to many cultures that hate us ever since. Kennedy’s Immigration Act refused the continuing admittance of white Europeans to America. There was no tolerance for Irish, English, Scots, and Germans, and only a small number of Visas were extended to Italians and some Eastern European countries. Why? Progressive leftist intolerance demands Americans accept illegal and legal immigration from non-white third world countries, while apologizing for white America’s prosperity (despite America having prosperity in all races) uneducated and unskilled third world countries are forbidden to experience.
America ought to express regret to those foreigners who hate the United States, but adore our food stamp and welfare programs. After all, Americans are obliged to“tolerate” and assimilate to those taking over with foreign cultures!
Yet the so-called tolerant Left forbids non-white third world countries from rising up and prospering their own lands. The excuse; those people would lose their culture. Never mind the fact those people are starving to death in their natural resources lands they should be allowed to build wealthy from. The Left wants those cultures to come to America and takeover America’s despicable white culture with resentment toward Americans. And Americans better tolerate this conquering with a repentant smile.
And whatever we filthy Americans do, apologize to illegal aliens—a word now banned by the Associated Press, because “illegal” is considered a “negative connotation.” Never mind the negative connotation of foreign cultures demanding America surrender to them.
Next: The “T” word has run further toward America’s ruination since 9/11. Now Americans are expected to apologize to Islam for its violent world-wide mass slaughter. America should apologize to the world for existing while Islamic enemies slaughter Americans.
Who cares that Islam and other foreign cultures are taking over and destroying America, and who cares if they have no tolerance for America and Americans, non-Muslim Americans must request forgiveness from Islamists even as Islamists slaughter us.
By-the-way, it’s not a negative connotation to say you despise Jews—after all, don’t you think “they” own too many banks—, Israel—can’t “they” find another place to settle their 5000 year-old land—, Christians—look how they’ve taken over the world by beheading everyone into submission! And whites; look how they extinguished every, single African and indigenous tribe on earth.
Yes, tolerance! It is of utmost importance when it comes to demeaning and destroying America.
This so-called broad-mindedness, which tells Americans we must be charitable toward all, is a progressive code phrase set up to destroy liberty. Tolerance demands Americans lock-step to, and follow, everything and everyone, while hating white Christian, conservative Americans and America’s imperialistic founding— that intolerable Constitution that upholds Natures Laws, i.e. individual freedom and liberty to all.
What is intolerable is many Americans accept this hatred. Those who detest America will never “tolerate” Americans, so why are we “tolerating” them? Because politically correct government leaders and the anti-American Left demand Americans endure the destruction of our nation, culture, language, and people. It is after all the best way to apologize for America’s existence.
Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.
The Left does not want America to last, that’s why it adores illegal and legal immigration from third world countries and terror states. The Left wants angry unskilled, uneducated people invading America and living off the welfare state.
Leftists want jihadists bombing American cities and Americans submitting to the enemy. That is because the “House of Submission” Bawer refers to lacks tolerance for the 19th and early 20th century immigration: Immigrate to America because it offers opportunity to become wealthy—something Europe forbade unless one belonged to the aristocracy. Wealth opportunity is not tolerated by progressives. Old immigration helped build America; it rejected terrorists and anarchists and promoted prosperity, something “tolerance” is determined to undermine.
Early 20th century immigrants may have been poor and many lived in overcrowded cities, but work opportunity, earning and saving money, meant rising out of poverty. Those immigrants assimilated to America’s culture because they wanted to be American. Tolerance instructs today’s immigrants that America is a nation of racists and Americans should assimilate to foreign cultures living here.
Tolerance says Americans are“totalitarian in nature,” so make all believe we are a “nation of immigrants.”
The “Tolerance” pro-amnesty phrase—“America is a nation of immigrants”—has further brainwashed Americans into believing we are Al Gore’s “out of one, many,” and not “E Pluribus Unum,” “Out of Many, One.”
If America is a nation of immigrants, then there are no American-born or nationalized Americans.
If America’s current population is 307 million people and 50 million are legal and illegal, and of that, 12 million illegal, then only 13% of the U.S. population are naturalized citizens and 16% illegal. That means America is a nation of majority American citizens born or naturalized. Thus we are not a nation of immigrants, but Americans.
Notice it’s perfectly acceptable for illegal immigrants from Mexico, South America, and other third world countries to take “Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion) from American taxpayers, after all, America is too white, too rich, and has no right offering opportunity to anyone who wants to work their way legally and honestly toward their dream!
If most third world immigrants are unskilled, it’s America’s fault. We offer too much work opportunity!
If Islam creates terror, it’s simply lashing out at that fact America offers Islamic terrorists too many prospects for Ivy League educations.
This is the Left: They despise everything America stands for: The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration, law-abiding immigration to become American, freedom, liberty, free speech that says you can’t say “illegal alien” to describe people illegally entering and living inside U.S. borders. And forget religious freedom that allows Christians to say the name Jesus and own Bibles when Korans should be the only holy book allowed in America.
You talk about Intolerable!
The only time the Left tolerates the Bill of Rights and Constitution is for itself—to spread its progressive propaganda created to destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights and America.
“Tolerance” is giving America the finger with a big “F” you. It is getting America attacked and people slaughtered in the name of multiculturalism.
Those who hate America will never tolerate Americans or this nation as it was founded, so why are we tolerating those who hate America and want to destroy her?
Shortly after last year’s presidential defeat and at the beginning of the Great Republican Panic of 2013, I wrote here about what a bad idea morally and legally amnesty for illegal aliens is. Guess what? It still is.
In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.
But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.
Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.
During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.
Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.
In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.
But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!
We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.
Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.
We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.
The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.
You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.
And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”
You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.
Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.
This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.
The bombing on Monday, April 15, 2013, at the finish line of the Boston Marathon and the fact that many innocent
people were either killed or injured was, indeed, a tragedy.
As Jim Yardley said in an e-mail he sent to me that Monday afternoon: “My first reaction … was the similarity to the Reichstag fire in 1933 as a means to exert more government control over just about everything.” Further investigation suggests that Jim does make a compelling point.
On the night of February 27, 1933, Adolf Hitler was having dinner at the home of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, and was told of the Reichstag fire. Hitler and Goebbels went to the Reichstag, and were met there by Hermann Göring. Hitler, Goebbels, and Göring, without waiting for any evidence to be uncovered, declared that the fire was started by the Communists and Socialists, and the Sturmabteilung (SA, or Brown Shirts) was placed on alert to maintain order if and when the communist insurrection started. The SA rounded up as many communists as they could find. (On July 2, 2008, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” That sounds eerily like the SA.)
As with almost all that they did, Hitler and the Nazis tried to “legally gloss over” what they were doing in the name of “for their (the German public) own good.” The German public was told that the communists had burned down the Reichstag, and that the SA was doing all that it could to save the nation from the coming unrest. The Nazis arrested Dutch communist Marius van der Lubbe and four accomplices for arson. van der Lubbe “confessed” to setting the fire, although he insisted that he worked alone.
We all know what Hitler did once Germany was under control. What is presently happening is very similar to what happened in Germany in 1933. Are we going to be subjected to “control?”
Hearing of the Boston Marathon bombings, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said:
“We still do not know who did this or why, and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts, but make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this, and we will find out who did this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.”
We learned that the FBI and Boston police had a “clear picture” of a potential
suspect and were trying to identify the suspect. The picture was taken by a security camera at the Lord & Taylor Department Store, situated along the marathon route. Is this suspect another Marius van der Lubbe?
We are now being told that this situation is the “new normal.” Retired General Michael Hayden, past director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), said that the Boston-style attacks may be ‘The New Normal’ in the USA. Said Hayden: “This regrettably, if it does turn out to be al-Qaida based terrorism, might be the new normal.”
“Speculation” immediately started, even before anything was known and before the FBI released information about “persons of interest.” Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst, twice said that “right-wing extremists” could be behind the bombings. Don’t you love the word “could” that Bergen used. Anyway, although Bergen said that “First reports are often erroneous,” that did not stop him from speculating about who set the bombs. Further, without even a shred of evidence, a government counterterrorist “expert” said: “… that pressure cooker bombs have also been a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States who he said tend to revel in building homemade bombs.” The expert’s statement was completely unsubstantiated. The expert also failed to mention that al-Quadea used pressure cooker bombs.
“Damage control” has also begun. David Weigel, in a slate.com article entitled “Why the Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Tough Time With Boston,” said:
“No politician really stands to gain. This was supposed to be the week of liberal breakthroughs on guns and immigration. Both of those issues, and related bills, fade from the priority list for a few days. If you give the 9/11
conspiracy theorist a ton of credit – and why would you? – he draws a line from the aftermath to the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist points out that we got a debate on gun control. The reaction to a bombing at a marathon will bring … what? Unenforceable security standards on all city streets? Further militarization of police forces, something that was already under way?
May I suggest, David, that Obama, our Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief, read your article, especially the part about “unenforceable security standards,” before he goes off half-cocked and starts ranting that dangers lurk behind every bush, that what is needed are more laws. After all, he has done that before. Witness what he is presently doing with gun control.
Gosh, but all of this sounds familiar. Or am I just being paranoid? Is Obama pulling another “Reichstag fire” caper? Is this the “new normal?” I don’t think (or at least hope) Obama and/or anyone in his administration would stoop so low as to plant bombs that kill and injure people. But similarities are stacking up.
Was the speculation and damage control just “setting the stage” for Obama to call for more laws, to exert more control? With the MSM backing him, heralding what Obama does to curtail our freedoms in the name of “for our own good,” is the Boston Marathon bombing all that is required for Obama to initiate another power grab? Is Obama going to call for more laws and issue more executive orders so that we are more secure? Is history repeating itself? Only time will tell. We do have an historical precedent for power grab actions, and we know the final outcome.
Update: as of April 19, 2013, the FBI has identified two Chechen Muslims, one of whom has subsequently been killed, as primary bombing suspects. Substitute Muslim for communist and you have yet another similarity. One suspect dead, one captured but unable to speak, and speculation about the reason for the bombing is rampant. I’m betting that the other suspect will also die, thus eliminating his offering any reason for the bombings, opening the way for Obama to have a “knee-jerk reaction,” to say that we need more laws. And I’m betting that Obama will call for more laws that will ultimately restrict our freedoms “for our own good.”
The similarities just keep mounting. As Pamela Geller says,
“American homeland security is an abject failure. … We’ve lost so many of our freedoms to be ‘more secure.’ How are we more secure?”
But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!
The more things change the more they stay the same. I am amazed at the scam Marco Rubio is trying to pull on the American people. The “Gang of 8” comes up with this great plan that will “protect We the People” while showing some “compassionate conservativism” towards those who break our immigration laws. Of course, as is the usual case, there are holes in this “plan” big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.
This immigration surrender is something that no other nation in the world would tolerate. Once again we have a very small “gang of…” deciding the future of the nation without the consent of the citizens, you know, We the People. Marco Rubio jumped at the chance to be the front man for this affront to the Constitution and We the People, happily taking on the mantle of being Charles Schumer’s puppet. This isn’t going to help his 2016 presidential aspirations very much.
Why should We the People believe this spin job has any real truth in it? They propose to grant legal status to illegals now and spend ten years closing the border. And if the border isn’t secure in the first five years it will be turned over to a committee made up of the states? You have got to be kidding!!! Naturally, the actual legislation isn’t even written so they want to pass the outline. Give this vague idea a catchy name and vote it into law, QUICKLY!!! They can get around to writing it later. Kind of like “pass it so we can find out what is in it”, isn’t it??
I have seen all this before on the immigration issue. They talk big about how tough they are going to be on those they “pardon” because “there will be rules to abide by, steps to take”. And they expect me to believe this “new” legislation will be enforced? They actually think We the People are going to buy this clap-trap? This is not governing, this is ruling by dictate. They come out and tell us they have decided on this and demand that We the People accept it because it is “fair”. Fair to who??? Just who is this fair to???
Is it fair to the citizens who are truly poor, those who are here legally? They have broken no laws, yet cannot subsist on their own because the opportunities that haven’t been squashed directly by government bureaucratic regulations have been eroded by politicians pandering to those who did break the law to be here. Government works for government. Politicians and bureaucrats work for themselves; their power and authority, their ability to dictate how we will live our lives.
Is it fair to the retiree whose retirement savings have been frittered away by these same politicians and bureaucrats? The senior citizens who worked all their lives see the money they saved, instead of driving new cars and taking expensive vacations, stolen by those they elected to manage the country. They see their money taken by politicians and given to those who thumb their noses at our laws. Politicians in both parties worked with the “too big to fail” banks, the Wall Streeters they “hate”, and the AFL-CIO to rob seniors of their life savings.
Is it fair to the union workers, er former union workers, who have lost their jobs in the last 15 years? Is it fair to the union workers who relied on union leaders to work for the benefit of the workers, and politicians who promised to protect the jobs they eventually lost? Is it fair to the union workers who began a family, bought a new house, went too deep into debt and then had the rug pulled out from under them by union demands and bureaucratic dictates that cost them their job? Richard Trumka and the other union big shots live a lavish lifestyle while millions of former union workers scratch to get by, losing houses and possessions. These politicians and union leaders are more concerned about a bunch of illegal aliens than those they purport to represent. FAIR?? Fair to who???
All this “fairness” isn’t about fairness at all, and it isn’t about Democrat versus Republican. It is about government control of our lives and their authority over everything. Both parties are doing this to us. They both posture and bleat but in the end it is We the People who find our standard of living being reduced. They want more control of our lives and give us less voice in what goes on in our nation. These aren’t the actions of a republican form of government. These are the actions of a dictatorial oligarchy.
They, this Gang of 8, propose that we pass “new” laws and “new” regulations to fix the problems that have been caused by not enforcing the “new” laws and “new” regulations they passed the last time this came up. Both political parties are in this together. All this “bi-partisanship” is steadily eroding our standard of living and our standard of liberty.
Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? There is a problem, any problem; healthcare, immigration, firearms, welfare, etc. The problem has been addressed countless times in the past and “new laws and regulations” have been passed but not enforced each time, because those laws will be “unfair” to those breaking the law. The answer of politicians is always more control over those who actually follow the laws while turning a blind eye to those who ignore the “new” laws. Everyone knows that absolutely nothing in the current crop of new legislation will do anything to solve the problem of the illegal alien invasion.
This is but one example of many. The politicians and the bureaucrats spend all of their time thinking up ways to further restrict the rights of citizens when they should be focusing on enforcing the last set of “new” laws, rules, and regulations they passed. They admit the new laws won’t matter yet demand that those of us who do obey the law must give up our rights anyway. They need to pass this idea for a possible outline quickly, before anyone can look at it. “We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it”, AGAIN!!
The political class is destroying our nation. They never fix anything!!! They continually put restrictions on what legal citizens can do without so much as a thought of what the Constitution provides for. That “old and outdated document” means nothing to either political party, but means everything to liberty and government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People.
There are a few in the Senate and a few in the House who are fighting the establishments of both parties on behalf of We the People. They are being beaten down by those who control both political parties and their minions in the media. Our voices are not welcomed by Republicans or Democrats. THEY know best and THEY will “debate and tell us where THEY stand”. What about where the Constitution stands??? What about where WE THE PEOPLE stand???
They have their dictatorial oligarchy and will not turn loose of it easily. The statists who control both parties are seeing We the People stand up to their treachery and they don’t like it. They want to get things jammed through as quickly as possible, knowing that time is not on their side. We the people are fed up, standing up, and demanding they govern by the Constitution first and the will of the people second. Their creation and intense arming of DHS is the government, BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, saying, ”NO We will NOT honor our oath to the Constitution“!!!!!
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
April 21, 2013
Hey Marco Rubio! After Boston Do You Still Want to Legalize Foreigners With Questionable Backgrounds?
Senator Marco Rubio and his Gang of Eight, which should be renamed “Gangsters of Eight,” wants 12 million illegals granted amnesty, i.e. citizenship, because they’ve lived and worked in America for five years or more. Rubio knows many illegals have turned out to be violent criminals crowding U.S. prisons, but he is ignoring that as well as the fact that over the years many foreigners living in America have bombed America in an act of Islamic jihad like the two Boston bombers, granted citizenship right after 9/11, despite their background.
America welcomes people from across the globe, but leaders like the Gang of Eight seem more interested in grabbing immigrant votes than saying no to uneducated, low-skilled immigrants, as well as people from questionable countries where Islamic terrorism reigns.
First: Many illegals south of the U.S. border are proven to be low-skilled and uneducated, and that downs the American economy.
Second, the problem with legalizing 12 million illegals is many are violent criminals now filling our prison systems.
At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens–Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP–totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004.
The next problem is assimilation.
“[I]n fiscal year (FY) 2010, slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates from treaty nations in federal prison were transferred to their home countries.”
The DOJ says its reason for low transfers back to native countries is many illegal criminals cant speak English, therefore:
insufficient translation services may keep some inmates from fully understanding and participating in the program.” As a result, “Overall, [the Bureau of Prisons] BOP and [International Prisoner Transfer Unit] IPTU, combined, rejected 97 percent of requests from foreign national inmates because they determined the inmates were ineligible or not suitable for transfer. Specifically, from FY 2005 through FY 2010, the BOP rejected 67,455 of 74,733 (90 percent) transfer requests.
In other words, it pays for criminal illegals not to assimilate and speak English, that way they can stay in the U.S, on the taxpayer’s dime where they will be well taken care of, on the taxpayers dime.
The biggest threat is terrorism: We have foreigners, both legal and illegal from Islamic countries with connections to Islamic terror. Despite those threatening connections, the word “racism” has forced the government and Americans to express apologetic tolerance to anyone connected to Islam, even when they have YouTube and Face Book pages demanding jihad against “infidels,” whom they believe must be exterminated.
As a result, we are faced once again with terrorism in our nation committed by two foreign nationals from an Islamic terrorist nation—Chechnya.
The Boston Marathon Bombers were brothers who arrived in America after 9/11. 26 year-old Russian-born Tamerlan Tzarnaev, the suspect police killed, has been a legal permanent U.S. resident since 2007. His younger brother Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old, also reported as living here legally, was born in Kyrgystan or Chechnya. Before coming to the United States, both men attended school in Dagestan, which Russian journalists say contains an Islamism extremist insurgency. It is also reported the two brothers came to the U.S. on grounds of asylum and had difficulty assimilating and making friends.
But was it really difficulty assimilating or refusal to become Western, because their social media pages show growing anti-American Islamic extremism.
Just because some immigrants cannot make friends has nothing to do with Americans not welcoming people. Americans welcome people from all over the world. Those who do not assimilate do not want anything to do with this country’s culture. Those who say they do not have any friends after 10 years do not want friends and that right there is a sign that something terribly wrong with those individuals.
Were the brothers connected to Islamic terror? Yes.
Tamerlan’s Youtube page features Islamist terror videos by Sheikh Feiz Mohammad who “urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.”
In Tamerlan’s YouTube profile he states he is Muslim and doesn’t drink or smoke anymore because “God said no alcohol,” and he believes “There are no values anymore…people can’t control themselves,” and as a Muslim “I’m very religious.”
If this bombers had talked about purchasing AR-15’s and posted Rand Paul videos, they would have been incarcerated long-ago on the grounds of terrorism.
More Islamic terror connections: The Boston bombs are the same as IEDs used by jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Times Square Bomber used a similar pressure cooker bomb; bombs jihadists can learn how to build at home with instructions from the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire. But that doesn’t matter to the left-wing media who are disappointed the bombers were not “far right-wing American militia nuts” with Sarah Palin bumper stickers and reading NRA magazines.
For the left-wing media, it’s a huge disappointment to hear Islam is still terrorizing America when too many white men continue to vote Republican!
Never mind the two Boston bombers are white. The fact they are Islamist terrorists makes them off limits.
Facts are facts: These Islamic connections should have been a heads-up warning with U.S. immigration when the two men arrived after 9/11. The YouTube pages by these men should have been a signal to the government that these men posed a national threat, but the government is more interested in spying on innocent, law-abiding Americans, who, heaven forbid, may legally own firearms for sport, hunting, and protection from violent criminals.
Tolerance must come first above the security of American lives.
And Rubio still wants to legalize 12 million illegals? We must ask important questions to Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight:
1. Should these two Chechens have been granted citizenship? They were from an Islamist terror nation with radical beliefs and became more threatening over the years. They plotted and bombed marathon spectators and then killed a cop in and high speed car chase.
2. Should America legalize illegals demanding citizenship because they live in this country five years or more?
3. Do Americans owe foreigners citizenship just because they demand it and Washington leaders need votes to remain in office until we watch their feet leave office first?
4. How many illegals waiting for amnesty in this country are violent criminals?
5. How many illegals from Islamic countries are living here with dangerous plans for America?
Thanks to vote-grabbing politicians, we don’t know until it’s too late.
In recent weeks, Rand Paul has made a meteoric rise in Republican politics, dramatically raising his name recognition, winning (albeit by a slim margin) a CPAC straw poll, and successfully duping many conservatives (including some of my friends) into believing that he’s more sane and more practical than his nutty father, whom Republican voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012.
Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.
But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.
Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.
But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?
Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?
Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?
As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.
To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.
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.
But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.
This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.
Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.
They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.
As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.
For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.
Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.
Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?
The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.
Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.
Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.
The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.
Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.
Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.
OK, here’s the math:
44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters
56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters
Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.
So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.
Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?
Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:
If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?
The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.
Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.
WASHINGTON, April 16, 2013 — As expected, the Gang of Eight’s long-anticipated immigration plan offers sweeping amnesty for illegal aliens, even greater access to low-wage labor for business interests, and more worthless promises of border security and workplace enforcement, charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Senate leadership is now poised to rush this voluminous piece of legislation to the floor with minimal hearings and little opportunity for members to offer amendments. “Having spent months working on this bill in secret, there is now a clear effort afoot to make sure that the American people do not find out what is in it until after it becomes law,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
What is in the bill:
- Amnesty for virtually all illegal aliens within six months of enactment.
- A directive to the Obama administration to create a five-year plan to secure the border—a core function of the executive branch that Congress should not have to dictate.
- Empty promises of border security based on measures already required by law.
- Hundreds of thousands of new skilled and low-skilled workers each year, despite historically high levels of unemployment and the lowest labor force participation rate in more than three decades.
“Simply put, Congress has no business even introducing amnesty legislation until the Obama administration secures the border, sets forth clear and transparent metrics to measure its success, and demonstrates to the American people it is serious about enforcing our immigration laws across the country. Border security and the rule of law should not be held hostage to amnesty for illegal aliens. The fact that Congress has to legislatively order the Obama administration to develop a plan to secure the border should be an embarrassment for this president, not something to be welcomed with pride,” Stein stated.
“Nevertheless, the Senate Gang of Eight has finally announced a bill, one that will rob American workers and taxpayers—all to please special interests. This legislation is all about satisfying the demands of illegal aliens and their advocates for amnesty and providing business interests access to low-wage foreign labor.
“Through this bill, the Senate Gang of Eight is offering the American people nothing except recycled promises of better enforcement far in the future. And from the details available, we can be certain that these promises will not be kept either. The programs that grant amnesty to illegal aliens and a steady supply of low-wage labor will be implemented, regardless of whether the border is secure,” continued Stein.
“The Washington and Wall Street elite have the bill they want. Now it is time for the American people to have their say,” Stein noted. “Over the coming weeks, FAIR and other groups dedicated to immigration reform that protects the interests of Americans will be mounting a full-scale effort to educate the public about this bill’s blatant attempt to favor special interests at their expense and to mobilize opposition.
“At a time when the American people are deeply concerned about their jobs, the state of our economy, and dangerous government deficits, we are likely to see the public respond negatively to this expensive and unnecessary legislation. Over the coming weeks and months, every member of Congress will have to explain to angry constituents why the interests of illegal aliens and cheap labor employers are being given precedence over the most essential interests of American workers and taxpayers.
“Congress will have a hard time justifying this special interest sell-out to the American people,” Stein predicted.
Did you know that, on August 20, 2011, drunk illegal alien Nicholas Gauman killed Matthew Denice of Milford, MA? Or that Gauman showed absolutely no emotion when police told him Denice was dead? Gauman simply shrugged when informed of that news. Gauman first hit Denice (who was on a motorcycle), then, despite pleas to stop from Denice and on-lookers, drove an additional quarter mile before stopping. Being in this country illegally is bad enough, driving drunk is bad enough, killing a person is bad enough, that his (lead) attorney, Peter Ettenberg, filed a mental incompetency defense is bad enough, but Judge Janet Kinton-Walker now says Guaman’s “unique cultural background” and lack of an Ecuadorian translator have made him incompetent to stand trial.
Ettenberg, in an e-mail, wrote:
“We have met with him a number of times and it has become clear to us that he simply can’t assist us in defending his case. That’s something to which he has a constitutional right to do. As a result, we retained a neuropsychologist to conduct an evaluation to render an opinion whether Mr. Gauman is competent to stand trial. The doctor’s opinion is that Mr. Gauman is not competent and we so advised the judge.”
Kinton-Walker has ordered Guaman’s attorney to find an interpreter and educate him on the court process. She also said that Gauman lacks the ability to consult with his attorney properly.
It’s interesting to note that Gauman was previously convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and on three assault and battery charges, as well as several other charges. Denice’s mother, Maureen Maloney, said:
“In the past, he’s [Gauman] had other run-ins with the law. He’s been in court multiple times on other charges prior to all this in August 2011 and a Spanish interpreter or no interpreter was used for those hearings and he’s always managed just fine.”
Kinton-Walker was appointed in 2009 by MA Governor Deval Patrick (D). Yes, that’s the same Patrick who has prevented local law enforcement from contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and alerting them to criminal immigrants they’ve encountered. And repeatedly, some of those illegal alien criminals have gone on to kill, rape, and harm local citizens. What’s worse is that Patrick STILL opposes enforcing immigration laws.
Gauman was here illegally. The question, then, is: “Why was Gauman allowed to remain in this country so that he could kill Denice?” Gauman’s constitutional rights trump all that he has done. But, Gauman would not have (at taxpayer cost) those constitutional rights if he had been deported in the first place, as current law prescribes. Further, Denice would be alive today.
But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!
As senators work to find an answer to illegal immigration Fox News reports citizens are attempting to show the country how porous our US/Mexico border is. Many say the administration is trying to play down the number of border crossers in an effort to pass some kind of amnesty legislation. The Secure Border Intel is one such group. They have placed hidden cameras along well known border crossing points capturing the steady stream of immigrants coming illegally into the US.
In the report following William La Jeunesse explains how and why this group of volunteers have decided to take action:
Let your senators know that the border needs to be secured before any talk of amnesty can continue. Additional videos, including captured Border Patrol audios, are available at the SBI YouTube site. You can read more at Fox News.
According to an investigative report written for the Arizona Republic in the past five years more than $106 billion have been spent to build fencing along more than 650 miles of the border and and more than doubling the number of Border Patrol agents along it to almost 18,500. They erected surveillance towers and hidden sensors. They added drones, aircraft, canine teams, horse patrols, checkpoints and vehicle patrols that range up to 60 miles from the actual border to arrest migrants and catch drug smugglers.
All of this infrastructure — along with a 58 percent drop in the number of migrants arrested by the Border Patrol compared with five years ago — underpins Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s claim that the border is more secure now than it has ever been. Arizona Central
But is it?
Last week it was reported that a radar equipped drone used by the Customs Department demonstrated less than half of those illegally crossing from Mexico were stopped by border agents. Customs department officials blames the ‘Got Away’ rates on rugged terrain, lack of border agents and inability by the drone to differentiate US citizens from others.
It was further reported that many of those caught by the Border Patrol are no longer hiding from officers but instead are turning themselves over to officials. The word in Mexico is that those who make it into the US are going to be eligible for amnesty. The agency’s official response is that this sudden spike in arrests and the reason for it is anecdotal but one has to wonder what message is being sent by the current administration.
The Border Patrol policy is that they do not try to stop illegal crossings at the border; instead they try to stop illegals before they get too far. This policy means that Arizona and other state residents who may own land adjacent to the Mexico border must deal with a daily influx of border crossers. They must protect themselves and their families in this ‘no man’s land’ and fear the US government if they themselves don’t follow all laws, including holding suspected illegal crossers on their private land.
Contrary to Secretary Napolitano’s confident statements about our Southern border, it still appears that we must secure it before trying to enact an amnesty program.
Following a recent visit to the Arizona border by senators, Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Kerry Bentivolio, (R-MI) toured the Yuma Sector of the Arizona-Mexico border.
The following is from Representative Chaffetz’ public Twitter account. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Most residents of the US have never seen the arid border that is constantly under discussion due to its lack of security. This photo essay helps demonstrate more clearly the situation Border Patrol and Sheriffs in the area have to deal with daily.
Image 1: A visit to the Eloy ICE Detention Center. Of the 1493 inmates over 900 are classified as OTM (Other Than Mexican). Images 2,3,4: Border ‘fences’ near Yuma.
Images 5,6: Agents use ATV’s to patrol the rugged sand dune area. Note the lack of shielding for the agents. During the visit 9 Romanians were caught trying to enter the US illegally.
Images 7,8: At the remote San Luis 1 station 16-20,000 passengers per day cross into the US. Agents use dogs and behavior profiling in their search for illegal contraband.
Image: 9 Why doesn’t the TSA use dogs and behavior profiling as effectively as the Border Patrol? Image 10: Another stretch of border ‘fence’. Images 11,12: A US elementary school just North of the border has 60 minor children who walk across the border each day to and from school. No paperwork. No questions asked.
Images 13,14: Just two of the vehicles stopped during the congressmen’s visit with hidden marijuana and meth.
You can read more about the trip at the SLC Tribune.
It’s remarkable that the political party allegedly joined at the hip with Big Business has such an incredible problem with a basic operational task like marketing. Somehow when it came time to divvy up the commercial sector, the Republicans got all the boring accountants, while the Democrats scooped up all the cool art directors.
Confining Republican outreach efforts to shareholder annual meetings and Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings is obviously not working. We’re going to have to get a “twitter” and compose some “twits” er, “tweets” if the GOP intends to become the happenin’ party.
Fortunately, great minds are at work on this project and they have arrived at a solution. Over the next few years the GOP will be including up a storm. According to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, the party will be establishing “swearing–in citizenship teams” to approach the newly naturalized with the new, improved GOP message.
I have this mental picture of first contact that’s a combination of ‘The Andromeda Strain’ and ‘Alien’ but I’m sure that’s too harsh. No doubt the teams will be so earnest they squeak when they walk and they will have memorized an “elevator speech” for new citizens who get within range. Assuming Organizing for America and the SNAP people have not hogged all the good tables at the accompanying trade show.
But that’s not all, this “not your grumpy old man’s GOP” will also reach out to minorities who didn’t get here by crossing a river. Priebus says, “We will talk regularly and openly with groups with which we’ve had minimal contact in the past: LULAC, the Urban League, the NAACP, NALEO, La Raza. And we will take our message to college campuses, with an especially strong focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” And I suppose if the communists were still around, Republicans would have coffee with the KGB.
What he expects to accomplish by reaching out to the already convinced remains to be seen. I don’t recall being approached by a Honda salesman as I drove off the lot in my new Infiniti. A more useful approach to me would be contacting minority homeowners in suburban neighborhoods that are mixed racially and politically. Your chances of finding an open mind are vastly greater there than at the NAACP or Urban League.
Still, even if you find an open mind, there is the problem of party beliefs that are still a source of embarrassment to many in GOP leadership.
Which is why Priebus’ handpicked committee has come up with a solution. All national Republicans have to do to achieve presidential success is become Democrats, or more specifically Southern Democrats, since we won’t agree to spend as much money as the Yankee Dems.
And current or holdover members of the GOP base will be permitted to retain some conservative social views, but we are urged to avoid discussing our feelings in polite company or any gathering that includes representatives of the news media.
It’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to an entirely different demographic group.
Specifically, the Priebus group claims it is “not a policy committee” and then recommends “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code terminology for amnesty; and a change in “issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays,” which is code for quit criticizing Adam and Steve if they want to get “married.”
This is beyond strange. NRC big thinkers want the party to work hard to accommodate the views of two demographic groups that have no interest in voting for us so we will what? Get kinder treatment on MSNBC? Meanwhile the people composing the base of the party are alienated by their betters.
Undocumented Democrats are not going to vote Republican after receiving amnesty. You can get the details here. And homosexuals are not going to give up the best tables at trendy restaurants so they can break bread with Ralph Reed at CPAC. And speaking of Ralph, who is the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, he takes a dim view of the report, “If the Republican party tries to retreat from being a pro-marriage, pro-family party, the big tent is going to become a pup tent very fast.” And he adds, “I am concerned that some in the party are going wobbly on this issue,” which is putting it mildly.
As for amnesty, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that Republican party members opposed amnesty by a margin of 60 to 35 percent, with 5 percent refusing to answer since the question was not in Spanish.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, proposes to hit the GOP where it hurts when he says, “”I would not give my money to the national party, to the national Republican Party. I would not give it to the RNC, I would not give it to the Republican Senatorial Committee nor to the Republican Congressional Committee,” which pretty much covers all the bases.
Good advice, particularly when you consider the recent lawsuit filed over entertainment problems in connection with last summer’s Republican National Convention.
Now I’m not referring to the run–of–the–mill lawsuit involving some rookie advance man who plays an unauthorized version of In–A–Gadda–Da–Vida at a rally to get the crowd fired up. (Usually the 17–minute album version, since even the most ancient, establishment Republican officeholder can shuffle up to the stage in that length of time.)
When Tom Petty or Heart or John Mellencamp demands a GOP candidate stop using their song, it’s not necessarily due to a disagreement on the issues. (Buying weed has taught them all about the free market and specifically the theory of supply & demand.) It’s because they know if the public starts associating their music with the accountant party, instead of the art directors, any hope of a revival tour will dry up.
No, I’m referring to the lawsuit that reveals the people in charge of entertainment at the convention offered Lady Gaga $1 million to perform.
For those readers who still miss Anita Bryant and may not be up to speed on Gaga, here is a brief rundown of her background. She’s a homosexual activist who supports homosexual marriage, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” enjoys performing in her underwear before large crowds and appears in blasphemous music videos.
And if that wasn’t enough, she thinks the rich don’t pay enough taxes!
There is no tactful way to say this. These people are idiots and have no idea what they are doing. Money given to them is by definition wasted. Even if by some stroke of misfortune Gaga had agreed to appear, there is no telling what she would have done once she was on stage.
That would have been a real two–fer: national laughingstock and object of scorn by the delegates. Besides convention delegates don’t go to hear Lawrence Welk or Wendy O. Williams. They go for the privilege of waiting in security lines, sitting on uncomfortable chairs, wearing silly hats, listening to obscure arguments and being bored by long–winded speakers.
Besides the panic currently being experienced by national GOP leadership is misplaced. As Michael Medved has helpfully pointed out the Republican vote among 18 to 29 year olds increased to 37 percent, a significant boost from 2008’s 32 percent. Voters under 30 of the white persuasion went for Romney over Obama by a strong 7 percentage points. It was minority Obama generating sympathy and solidarity among minority youth that won him that demographic’s vote. A situation unlikely to be repeated when the white brothers: Hillary or Joe, run in 2016.
Finally, if simple outreach and individual contact is the root of the problem, why don’t we try marketing the existing recipe before we start tinkering with the product?
Meanwhile, if Chairman Priebus wants to generate excitement and attract more and trendier youth to GOP conventions, do what they do in Trinidad: Serve rum backed with plenty of drums.
NOTE: Fox News reports that House Republicans have nearly finished working on their version of an amnesty bill. Folks, please call and write your Congressman and your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they sponsor, cosponsor, or vote for amnesty in any form.
It’s clear that, on illegal immigration, Republicans, like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Republicans – including both classic RINOs such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham and supposed “conservatives” like Marco Rubio – are again pushing for amnesty. Things are being made worse by the fact that this time around, libertarians, led by Sen. Rand Paul, support them on amnesty. (Paul supports a “path to citizenship” if the border is secured – as determined by… whom, exactly? We don’t know.)
A few weeks ago, Marco Rubio, flanked by discredited RINOs John McCain and Lindsey Graham and by four Democratic Senators, announced his support for “bipartisan” immigration law reform that would include amnesty for illegal aliens after the border is “secured” (whatever that word means).
The next day, as Pat Buchanan points out, President Obama rejected these RINO’s surrender offer – their offer of conditional amnesty – reminding the pro-amnesty RINOs that those who surrender don’t dictate the terms of surrender.
These RINOs and other people tell us that the GOP must embrace amnesty for illegal aliens in order to win Hispanics’ votes. Embrace amnesty or perish, they tell us.
But they’re dead wrong. The GOP will perish if it adopts their proposals, NOT if it rejects amnesty. That’s because most Hispanics are natural liberals, and giving amnesty (under whatever name) to 12-20 million illegal immigrants from the Third World will create 12-20 million new Democrat voters.
Say there are only 12 mn illegal immigrants in America. Let’s assume they’re legalized and that Republicans achieve George W. Bush levels of the Hispanic vote (44%). That still gives the Democrats a net gain of 1.6 million new voters – 6.72 mn new supporters vs 5.28 mn.
Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a Republican Party that is not suicidally-minded support this?
If amnesty is passed, you can kiss the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and many governorships and state legislatures goodbye, forever. Republicans will never again be able to win any national election again. The Democrats will gain at least 1.6 mn new voters on net and will thus have permanent majorities in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
When Texas goes, America goes.
Consider: while 18 states that have a combined 242 Electoral College votes have voted Democratic in the last consecutive six presidential elections, cobbling together an EC majority has been increasingly difficult for Republicans. Republicans last did it in 2004, and completely failed to do so in 4 of the last 6 elections.
California, overwhelmed by immigrants (legal and illegal), is now stridently liberal. New Mexico is now also out of reach for the GOP. Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Florida are increasingly problematic for Republicans. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.
As Pat Buchanan likes to say: when Texas goes, America goes.
If amnesty becomes law, there goes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia, and Texas, and there goes the presidency, forever.
The “natural conservatives” canard
In response, we always hear “But don’t worry, Hispanics are natural conservatives. They are devout Catholics, devout social conservatives, work hard, and want to achieve the American dream.”
This canard is utterly false. This description is true only of a minority of Hispanics – those whom conservatives usually meet. But the vast majority of Hispanics don’t fit that description at all.
As a demographic group, Hispanics are less likely than any other (other than Jews) to attend church or support conservative policies, more likely to support liberal ones, and more likely than any other group (other than blacks) to vote Democratic, achieve poor school grades, drop out of high school, commit crimes, end up in prison, have children out of wedlock, be pregnant during teenagehood (girls), be raised by single parents, and be dependent on welfare and other government programs.
This is the antithesis of a natural conservative.
The canard about Hispanics being “natural conservatives” is even more idiotic than the one about blacks being “natural conservatives”. At least blacks really are social conservatives – they simply vote Democratic anyway, ignoring the fact that the Democrats support abortion on demand (read: the Holocaust of black children) and gay marriage.
And as Ann Coulter points out, last year, Hispanics were almost alone in increasing the share of their vote going to Obama from 2008 to 2012. Only they and Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers in 2012 than in 2008. (The black vote for Obama remained, alas, unchanged at over 90%.)
Every other demographic group: whites, men, women, youngsters, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews – gave a larger share of their vote to the Republican nominee in 2012 than in 2008. In fact, if the election were to be decided only by whites, or if the electorate had been as white in 2012 as it was in 1980, Romney would’ve trashed Obama by a landslide.
It is ethnic minorities – Hispanics, Asians, and blacks – who reelected Obama.
Profiles in Welfare
And what does a typical Hispanic (or black) voter look like? Pat Buchanan gives us the answer.
He or she is raised by a single mother. He/she, like his single mom, is completely dependent on the federal government and its cornucopia of social programs for survival.
His/her education is paid for, K-12, by the federal and state governments. For college, he can apply for federal student loans and other federal programs. For food, mom has foodstamps, and children get 2-3 federally-subsidized meals at school every day.
If mom works, she has no tax liability thanks to a high no-tax treshold and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If she doesn’t work, she gets welfare benefits, including 99 weeks of unemployment compensation.
For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.
And that’s the majority of Hispanic families. Why would these people vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and promises to cut the government programs they benefit from? Wouldn’t logic dictate voting for a party that promises to let them keep this entire cornucopia of federal benefits and even to expand them?
The problem is all immigration – not just illegal immigration
We’re also being constantly told another cretinous canard: that legal immigration is fine, it’s just illegal immigration that’s problematic.
But this is also utterly false. Legal immigration is also a huge drain on the Treasury and a huge political threat to the GOP. The problem is not just illegal immigration; the problem is immigration, period.
Since 1965, a million newcomers have immigrated to America every year on average, the vast majority of them from dysfunctional, socialist Third World countries like Mexico.
It is thanks to THESE immigrants that California and New Mexico are now out of reach and why CO, NV, FL, and VA are increasingly problematic for the GOP. It is thanks to THESE legal immigrants that Obama was elected and reelected. If they hadn’t been present in the US, Obama would’ve never been elected, let alone reelected after a disastrous first term.
Therefore, not only should Republicans stop amnesty dead in its tracks, they must also severely restrict legal immigration when they retake the White House and the Senate. This must include eliminating chain immigration, a 10-year moratorium on legal immigration, and then, allowing only highly-educated, English-speaking immigrants who will be able to find a job and will not become a drain on taxpayers.
Statistics from the Center for Immigration Studies prove that when legal immigration grows, illegal immigration grows with it; and when the rate of legal immigration is reduced, illegal immigration declines concurrently.
Remember: the problem is not just “illegal immigration”, the problem is immigration, period.
A matter of life and death
As Ann Coulter points out, massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has turned California into such a liberal state that no Republican can win statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America great Republican Senators and Governors such as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.
New Mexico has now gone the same way. The GOP nowadays can’t even win presidential elections in CO, NV, FL, or VA. Only Arizona and Texas remain secure – for now.
And as Pat Buchanan says, when Texas goes, America goes.
We conservatives must not allow that to happen. Amnesty must be stopped dead in its tracks, and legal immigration must be severely restricted.
This is literally a matter of life and death, for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the Country.