Tag: Border Security

CPAC, Laura Loomer & Michelle Malkin: Sobering Conservatism


John R. Houk

© March 4, 2019

CPAC is supposed to be the paragon annual meeting of Conservative voices. Perhaps no longer a paragon and now merely a voice of approved-only Conservative voices. Laura Loomer experienced CPAC censorship and Michelle Malkin calls wishy-washy (perhaps RINO or Establishment – you decide) Conservatives that meet CPAC approval.

 

Laura Loomer confronted CNN’s Oliver Darcy at CPAC over his part in getting Alex Jones banned from Twitter and Facebook. The CPAC gods decided confronting Fake News CNN was heckling rather than a holding account for censorship. (Face it – agree, disagree, love or mock Alex Jones for his tactics and conspiracy theories is no reason for censorship in America. Facebook is currently censoring my SlantRight 2.0 blog so I feel that pain.) Thus CPAC, pulled Laura Loomer press credentials. Here is Loomer confronting Darcy:

 

VIDEO: Laura Loomer BANNED From CPAC For Confronting CNN Reporter

 

Posted by Laura Loomer

Published on Mar 3, 2019

 

On Friday March 1, 2019, Laura Loomer confronted CNN reporter Oliver Darcy about why he abused his position at CNN to lobby Facebook and Twitter to ban Alex Jones.

 

Darcy and CNN have been celebrating the de-platforming of Conservatives and have been advocating for Conservatives to be banned on social media for their political speech.

 

It is an abuse of power and violation of journalistic values as a journalist to lobby big tech companies to censor and silence conservatives.

 

After Loomer confronted CNN, Soros funded Right Wing Watch, which is a branch of the SPLC pressured CPAC to revoke her credentials. SPLC is a radical left- wing organization that works to defame and sabotage Conservatives.

 

Why did CPAC ban a conservative journalist from watching President Trump speak while allowing “Fake News CNN” and radical Left wing SPLC & Soros tied “Right Wing Watch” to keep their press credentials? I thought CNN was Fake News?

 

At least that’s what Donald Trump said…

 

Matt Schlapp needs to provide an answer ASAP.

 

… READ MORE

 

Laura Loomer talks about CPAC weenies pulling credentials in a VDARE interview (H/T Linda Rasmussen (MeWe) on MeWe Group Official Tea Party 3/3/19 10:51 AM):

 

VIDEO: Laura Loomer Breaks Down CPAC Censorship | CPAC 2019

 

Posted by VDARE TV

Published on Mar 3, 2019

 

And Loomer in an INFOWARS interview on Darcy confrontation:

 

VIDEO: INFOWARS EXCLUSIVE: Laura Loomer Banned From CPAC After Confronting CNN Oliver Darcy

 

Posted by Jake Lloyd

Published on Mar 2, 2019

 

And then there is Michelle Malkin having the cajones to call out Never-Trumper Conservatives on the CPAC podium. I wonder if she gets an invite in 2020?

 

VIDEO: CPAC 2019 – Michelle Malkin

 

Posted by American Conservative Union

Published on Mar 2, 2019

 

The Hill has a good summary of Malkin calling out Never Trumpers (minus videos since already posted above):

 

Michelle Malkin goes after ‘the ghost of John McCain’ at CPAC

 

BY RACHEL FRAZIN – 03/01/19 02:20 PM EST

 

Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin attacked the “ghost of John McCain” during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.

 

“Sanctuary cities have metastasized and both parties are to blame,” Malkin said. “And yes, I’m looking at you, retired [Speaker] Paul Ryan; and yes, I’m looking at you, [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell; and yes, I’m looking at you, Bush family; and yes, I’m looking at you, the ghost of John McCain.”

 

She pointed upward while directing her fury at McCain’s ghost, at which point several people in the crowd gave Malkin a standing ovation.

 

McCain, a longtime senator from Arizona and the Republican Party’s 2008 nominee for president, died last year from brain cancer. He was a frequent critic of the Trump administration.

 

Below is The Conservative Tree House/The Last Refuge post that has the entire transcript of Michelle Malkin’s speech.

 

JRH 3/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Michelle Malkin CPAC Speech: “CPAC at the Bridge”…

 

Posted by sundance

March 2, 2019

The Last Refuge

 

Mrs. Michelle Malkin delivered a strong call-to-arms at CPAC surrounding the insufferable Big Club’s republican corporate agenda toward immigration.

 

Wolverine Speech and Transcript Below:

 

[Video of speech deleted – watch above]

 

[Transcript] Good afternoon. Thank you to CPAC for the invitation. My name is Michelle Malkin. I identify as an American. A proud, unhyphenated, unapologetic, fully assimilated American. My pronouns are U.S.A.

 

America is good and America is great. Of these basic truths, there is or should be little dispute among us here. But two questions loom large: 1) For how long will the America we grew up in remain good and great? And 2) To whom shall we entrust the existential responsibility of securing the goodness and greatness passed down peacefully for generations?

 

I wish I could stand here and chirp happily to you about positive news. Yes, unemployment rates are at historic lows, regulations and taxes are being cut, some stellar judges have been confirmed, and the reckless, feckless liberal media has finally, finally self-immolated like a slow-motion downing of the Hindenburg.

 

Yes, we have much to thank President Trump for as he battles the Beltway swamp, the deep state, the administrative state, and the fake news fourth estate. But there is no sugarcoating America’s long-term forecast. We face fearful odds. The game is rigged. The playing field is manifestly unlevel.

 

My first book Invasion in 2002, exposed how border failures and systemic non-enforcement of our visa program rules created a national security crisis that led to 9/11. My last book, Sold Out, which I co-authored in 2015 with former American computer programmer-turned-labor lawyer John Miano, documented how Big Business and Big Government created an economic crisis by exploiting the H-1B tech worker visa program and other foreign employment visas for cheap labor.

 

I’ve been accused of being a grifter for wanting to inform and educate citizens about these destructive rackets. But it’s the GOP sellouts in bed with open borders – like the ones who hijacked the tea party movement to shill for amnesty – who are the real grifters cashing in and practicing deceit at the expense of their base.

 

Our shining city on a hill has become a much-abused doormat to the world. Building the border wall is just half the battle. The numbers tell all. Our future is dimmed. The odds are fearful.

 

We currently grant one million legal permanent residencies to people from around the world every year. The number of green card holders is expected to increase by 10 million by 2025. That’s more than the current combined population of Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. Now multiply that number by at least three and a half.

 

Thanks to our chain migration system, created in 1952 and expanded exponentially by Congress in 1965 and 1990, these new immigrants can sponsor their entire extended families: parents, spouses, adult children and their children, and siblings and their children. Princeton University researchers found that recently admitted immigrants sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives each.

 

An estimated 85,000 refugees and 20,000-plus asylees enter the country annually through an overwhelmed system so rife with fraud and abuse that the process is jokingly dubbed “refugee roulette” by immigration lawyers. In total, from fiscal year 2008 to 2017, the U.S. gave green cards to more than 2 million migrants for various humanitarian claims – a population larger than the city of Philadelphia.

 

Nearly half a million more immigrants in that time frame got in through the diversity visa lottery. Illegal aliens are eligible if a legal family member wins the jackpot. Tens of thousands are pouring in from terrorism breeding grounds through the lottery unvetted, unmonitored and unassimilated. Thanks again to chain migration, immigration lotto winners’ spouses and unmarried children under 21 all get passes into the country, too.

 

Nearly half of all illegal aliens in the country have violated the terms of their short-term visitor or work visas. More than 10.8 million people received such visas alone in fiscal year 2015, including 500,000 foreign university and graduate students on academic visas and nearly 700,000 total foreign guest workers (both skilled and unskilled, not to mention their spouses, many of whom are allowed to work here as well).

 

Congress has repeatedly mandated a nationwide visa entry-exit system to track legal short-term visa holders. But one has yet to be built—even in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which were perpetrated in part by several illegal alien visa overstayers. E-verify has been stalled. Sanctuary cities metastasized. And BOTH parties are to blame – yeah I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the Bush family, Mitt Romney and the ghost of John McCain.

 

This unrelenting inflow of new green card holders, short-term foreign visa holders, legal temporary workers, refugees and asylees is supplemented by 13 to 30 million illegal aliens who expect amnesty and chain migration privileges from Washington despite breaking immigration laws governing everything from border jumping to ID fraud, benefits fraud, tax fraud, and marriage fraud, to human and drug trafficking, to employment rules, deportation orders, and visa overstays.

 

The feds have proved themselves serially unwilling and incapable of handling the lapses, backlogs, overload, and yes, invasion. The numbers tell all. Open borders anarchy, multiplied by endless chain migration, amnesty, and cheap labor pipelines, endangers our general welfare and the blessings of liberty. By every clear measure, the war is not on immigrants but on American sovereignty.

 

I’ve been called white for stating the facts. I’m not white. I’m just right. Both native-born and immigrant families like mine, which revere the rule of law, common traditions, constitutional principles, one identity and one tongue, have been replaced by militantly unassimilable and hostile generations…of future Democrat voters whose tribal allegiance to the Left has only hardened over time.

 

It’s insane that we have elected Republicans on Capitol Hill doing the bidding of the illegal alien DREAMer racket. Until and unless we reclaim the right of self-determination over the numbers, we are doomed.

 

My fellow Americans, we stand at the bridge as Horatius stood at the narrow bridge over the Tiber River alone facing fearful odds as hordes of Etruscans marched towards him and cowards cut and run behind him. Like his enemies, our enemies are both foreign AND domestic.

 

Inside are flimsily defended borders, we are not at peace, or rather, the radical Left is not at peace with us. From the comfort of TV green rooms, Beltway backrooms, corporate boardrooms, and conference ballrooms, it may not look like civil war is imminent. But threats and outright violence against ordinary, law-abiding people are now regularized features, not random bugs, of political life in these dis-United States.

 

College students are being punched, elderly citizens are being harassed, MAGA hat wearers are being kicked off planes and assaulted in school hallways and restaurants, conservative speakers are being mobbed and Molotov cocktailed, ICE agents and their families are being targeted, pro-lifers are being kicked and menaced, pro-Trump, anti-jihad moms on social media are being monitored and doxxed.

 

The madness is beyond parody.

 

Last week, social justice media warriors whipped up hysteria over a Mar a Lago pastry chef’s Instagram posts. Where are the sanctuary spaces for law-abiding conservatives who simply want to exercise their rights to free speech and peaceable assembly?

 

The divide in this country is between decent people who stand up for America and dastardly people who want to bring America to its knees.

 

We certainly should make common cause with others across the aisle who shares our values, but we should not rush to embrace those whose fundamental aim is to smear and destroy us all. That’s suicidal. Which is why I cannot stand here and stay silent about the role Van Jones has played in attempting to silence the Right.

 

My objection is not to his support for criminal justice reform. I have dedicated much of my own time, energy, and money to fighting wrongful convictions, false allegations, and prosecutorial and forensic misconduct. Next time you need a conservative to talk about criminal justice reform, call me. You don’t need someone who’s going to spew fake news pro illegal alien propaganda to talk CJR to conservatives.

 

Fact check: The most recent research by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that illegal aliens are up to 5.5 times more likely than Americans to be incarcerated in state prisons compared to Americans and legal residents.

 

But my most vehement objection is to this stage being used to lend legitimacy to the George Soros-funded organization Color of Change, which dedicated to censoring and sabotaging right-leaning groups for championing the free market, opposing radical Islam, and exposing open borders.

 

Seven years ago, Van Jones’ group pressured Pepsi, McDonald’s, Intuit and other companies to cut ties to the mainstream American Legislative Exchange Council(ALEC), a half-century-old association of state legislators who believe in “the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty.” What was ALEC’s crime? Crafting model legislation on voter ID to protect election integrity, immigration enforcement measures and self-defense legislation to strengthen Second Amendment rights.

 

Color of Change and the smear machine racket known as the Southern Poverty Law Center use the same playbook to marginalize and criminalize mainstream conservatives, anti-jihad groups, and immigration hawks as “hate groups” and push us out of the public square.

 

They conspire with payment processors and Silicon Valley to deprive the Right of our voices and our ability to make a living. So many speaking up and fighting on the front lines for liberty and security are being detwittered depaypaled defacebooked deplatformed – people like Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes and the Center for Immigration Studies and Robert Spencer and so many others.

 

Many are in this room. Stand up if you are one of them. Many have been forced to beg for money to help them fight in court to restore their reputations. Many have been barred from this room.

 

Nice is not enough. Logic and facts and appeals to decency and fairness are not enough. Bemoaning double standards is not enough. Ultimately our future will not be secured in a Fox News anchor chair or a think tank office or on a cruise ship or at a cushy GOP retreat. The future is on the frontlines. At the edge of the bridge.

 

Then out spake brave Horatius, the captain of the Gate. To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods.

 

Instead of throwing allies under that bridge, movement conservatives who have preached so comfortably here in the Beltway about defending America while preserving the status quo need to help provide financial and moral support to the disrupters willing to fight fire with fire.

 

Maybe it’s providence that I am privileged to speak here on the 7th anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death. He was a disrupter. We need more disrupters. We need legislative action at the local and state level.

 

We need politicians who will DO SOMETHING to stop the sowers of hate and their handmaidens. Use the tools at your disposal. Don’t just stand there. DO SOMETHING.

 

Diversity is NOT our strength. Unity is. Our common purpose is the common defense of our nation. Good people make America great.

 

Good people: Stand and fight.

 

[Transcript Link]

 

Conservatives Advocate Border Security & Protest Illegal Aliens

_____________________

CPAC, Laura Loomer & Michel Malkin: Sobering Conservatism

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2019

_______________________

Michelle Malkin CPAC Speech: “CPAC at the Bridge”…

 

About The Conservative Tree House/The Last Refuge 

 

The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community.

 

Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.

 

Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.

 

Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of … READ THE REST

 

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!


While I was sharing the blog post “National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond,” Kelly Guthridge shared some thoughts along the same lines. It’s worthy of a share.

 

JRH 1/4/19

Please Support NCCR

*******************

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!

 

Photo via Blog Editor found on Facebook

 

By Kelly Guthridge

January 3, 2019

Via Facebook Messenger

 

Let’s examine some basic information and ideas.

 

1) Democrats years ago supported and demanded Border SECURITY!

2) Democrats all have Walls, Fences, Gates, Heavily ARMED Guards surrounding and protecting them!

3) Donald J. Trump is Elected President of the United States of America and NOW Democrats OPPOSE a Border WALL… Only because it would occur during President Trump’s time in office!

4) Democrats and their Propaganda Machine, the MSM Fake News Media keep insisting that all of the INVADERS attacking our Republic and attempting to enter illegally are simple poor migrants that we must embrace… which is all a lie!

 

I could keep going on and on but what would be the reason after all we all know the FACTS and REALITY of this ongoing situation!

 

NOW, here’s my idea… if Democrats truly don’t believe in WALLS then let them remove all of those that surround their own personal properties… Also, perhaps there needs to be a MASSIVE MIGRATION OF HOMELESS AMERICANS that all converge upon and surround these Obstructionists Democrats Homes… and start DEMANDING immediate entry for a better future and life!

 

What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander… time to bring the REALITY OF THEIR HYPOCRISY HOME TO THE STEPS OF THEIR OWN HOMES!!!

 

 

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond


Mark Alexander

 

Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall, Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.

 

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Two national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.

 

By Mark Alexander

January 2, 2019

The Patriot Post

 

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —George Washington

 

Ronil Singh, wife & baby

 

Sometimes, the first column of the year is an easy one — just a few reflections about the year past and the year to come.

 

Unfortunately, the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues are two significant national security issues.

 

The first of these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President Donald Trump implemented after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border with Mexico.

 

The second is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy change as a game of checkers.

 

Regarding the border security/shutdown showdown

 

I have covered in detail how all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have repeatedly advocated for border security and strong immigration laws — until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two reasons: first, because Trump supports it, and second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.

 

Demos, therefore, don’t want “immigration solutions.” They want to appease their Hispanic constituents with smoke-and-mirror political rhetoric. In addition, they are using immigration as diversionary fodder to undermine the Trump administration’s considerable economic policy success.

 

Thus, by advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a socialist-voter pipeline by flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.

 

However, an unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America. Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never break free of the minimum wage.

 

The Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “sanctuary city” agenda, has, over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant threat to our citizens.

 

Three recent and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending border-security debate.

 

In late December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody. The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according to press reports, that the boy’s father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.

 

President Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”

 

But there was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.

 

The day after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, himself a legal immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that should have resulted in his deportation.

 

Tragically, California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week earlier, another illegal immigrant in California murdered two people in a crime spree.)

 

Singh’s brother Reggie expressed his family’s grief and his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”

 

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into Officer Singh’s murder, issued this condemnation of the California laws that allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the [murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”

 

This murder by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come — demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”

 

On these senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their policies and their laws are killing people.”

 

Officer Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee, an illegal immigrant was arrested for the criminally negligent homicide of a 22-year-old local resident.)

 

We extend our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.

 

Responding to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in shutting it down entirely: “We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with.”

 

Trump quote on Illegal Immigration Embarrassment

 

Regarding the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.

 

The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is conservatively estimated at $155 billion per year — versus a one-time expense of $7-$9 billion for Trump’s border barrier.

 

For the record, Congress has already authorized redistributing $10.6 billion in taxpayer funds to Mexico for its own southern border security.

 

But on own southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

 

Regarding the so-called “shutdown showdown”

 

President Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.

 

The interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000 government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already bearing the shutdown burden. The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government contractors will not see their back pay restored.

 

How did we get here?

 

In short, President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico. Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7 billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a border barrier.

 

When Senate Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”

 

Trump drew attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular: “President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The US needs slightly larger version!”

 

Dem Homes Walled Hypocrisy

 

The consummate dealmaker, Trump is looking for some concession from Democrats by using Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deceit as a bargaining chip, but he may not get one. Notably, he has also issued an executive order putting a hold on pay increases for all non-military government employees — another bargaining chip.

 

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Democrats are weighing their options for a rebuttal when they return this week. They intend to pass a package of Senate spending bills to reopen the government — in an attempt to shift blame for the shutdown to Republicans.

 

Of course Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime.”

 

The president has called key members of Congress to the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”

 

Regarding our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy

 

Whether in domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for strategic unpredictability that inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he happens to thrive on.

 

In 2016, Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent Islamic State, along with his policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”

 

A week before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”

 

Trump elaborated, “American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory … and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control … I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families. Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS. Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.”

 

He concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.”

 

Notably, he reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”

 

Clearly, containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.

 

Predictably, criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,” leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.

 

 

Orderly Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

 

Supporting the departure:

 

  1. Troops in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts Andrew McCarthy and David French, who otherwise have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their representatives in Congress.”

 

  1. We’ll continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet, but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

 

  1. To Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open — there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while the media sees only checkers.

 

Against the departure:

 

  1. The U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome — Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin Dueck notes: “A sudden and unexpected drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.

 

  1. Our allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops (assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified), our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick writes: “Despite their relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

 

  1. There was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s resignation before the Syrian shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As David French wrote, “Our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy. Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command of Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 Islamist attack.

 

The departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high regard.

 

It should be noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service; and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.

 

In summary, our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.

 

According to Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to accomplish its desired ends.

 

“In 1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.

 

“President Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”

 

The criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq.

 

To the resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”

 

On that, we can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our nation’s leaders.

 

Note: Thank you to all who supported The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign — we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to April.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

__________________

Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post.

 

The Patriot Post Mission

 

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

 

About The Patriot Post

 

Smith on Trump Rally, Caravan Invasion & Immigration Thoughts


Illegal Alien Caravan Invasion

Justin Smith posted the below commentary on my Facebook Group (with the horrendously long name) yesterday. There, Justin didn’t suggest a title so I arbitrarily made one. There is a good chance you will find a similar Justin post elsewhere on the Web with a better title.

 

As an American I feel Justin’s frustration with the idiotic Dem-agenda of Open Borders that in my opinion would contribute to the destruction of the U.S. republic our Founding Fathers intended and the Dems seem so intent to transform into a Marxist/Socialist cesspool.

 

JRH 11/3/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Smith on Trump Rally, Caravan Invasion & Immigration Thoughts

 

By Justin O. Smith

November 2, 2018

Found at Facebook Group:

Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

 

President Trump has done a few things that I didn’t like, but the more I listen to him and watch him, regarding the caravan and the border, the more I really am glad Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States.

 

I just heard him speaking just before he headed off to a rally in Missouri. He said that the awful wounds suffered by the Mexican and Guatemala police at the hands of violent caravan members, many of whom are convicted criminals, are not going to be inflicted upon our soldiers. [Blog Editor: Trump updated thoughts at 11/2/18 at 3:20pm on ActionNewsJax]

 

He was responding to a question about his statement that U.S. soldiers would fire on Illegal Aliens throwing rocks or using other arms. I had suggested this very thing in my piece ‘Tell Me This Isn’t An Invasion’ [Blog Editor: Similar J.O.S. titles on blog: HERE & HERE].

 

It’s time to close the Flood Gates on Immigration and these anti-American communists who care nothing about Our Beloved America and Her freedoms other than the wealth that can be acquired through them.

 

As I wrote: When the first Illegal Aliens top the border fence, give them two warning shots and then place the third shot right between the eyes.

 

It may sound harsh and hard, but this is an invasion of some 14,000 to 17,000 mostly male Illegal Aliens of military age, during the most troubling and dangerous times in recent history. And such times require hard men to take the hard actions that will defend and protect our national borders, Sovereignty and Our Republic.

 

Why is it just fine for America to protect the borders of foreign nations and not our own? Somehow the Communist Democrats have reached the conclusion that our borders must be open to anyone and all, regardless of who they are and what their intentions might be, whether evil or benevolent.

 

President Trump is 100% correct on this border issue. Stop catch and release. Pass E-Verify. Eradicate the birthright citizenship as it now stands, and seal and secure Our Borders. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

God Bless President Donald J. Trump and His Family and God Bless Our Beloved America. May He Keep Her Safe For All Eternity And May He Damn Her Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic to the Hell They have Earned and So Richly Deserve.

 

On My Honor and On My Life ___ In Liberty ~ Justin O Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets as well as source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Immigration Reform Thoughts


Looking at a Senator James Lankford Email


John R. Houk

© March 15, 2018

 

I live in Oklahoma. One of my Senators is Republican James Lankford. Yesterday I received what is probably a form email from Senator Lankford addressing Immigration reform and Border Security.

 

Since my name is used in the salutation, the Senator’s email is in response to a petitioned I signed or an immigration reform organization’s form email that I electronically signed. Either way, my signature was sent so long ago I don’t recall who I partnered with to share my feelings as an Oklahoman voter to Senator Lankford.

 

I vaguely remember that the issue was the Senator was supportive of a Border Wall for National Security against illegal border crossings. I do not recall the specifics of my displeasure with the Senator I did vote for in the past. The Senator Lankford email is what jogged my sketchy memory.

 

I did respond to Senator Lankford’s explanation of his Senate voting options. You should read the email I am cross posting, but since my response is shorter, I am posting that first. Some will agree with my thoughts. Some will partially agree. I have a suspicion some will strongly disagree with my favorability of inclusion of current benefactors of the so-called DACA dudes Obama unconstitutionally allowed to remain in the USA. The irony is I am with President Trump on giving immigration status to 1.8 million illegals as opposed to the fake Dem-proposal of (I think) 600,000 illegals.

 

Here was my email response to Senator Lankford:

 

Senator Lankford,

 

I’d rather jump at 1.8 million employed illegal immigrants to have a Green Card to become legal. I do not consider drug trafficking, human trafficking or gang membership to be gainful employment contributing to the benefit of the communities they live in. Those illegals need to be arrested then deported or imprisoned depending on the laws broken other than being just illegal.

 

BUT, before any move to legally absorbing gainfully employed illegals, border security needs to be enhanced. I appreciate your suggestion of expanding technology for a less expensive securing of the border, but I gotta tell ya; I don’t care how many billions taxpayers pay for a wall built even in difficult terrain. I’ve listened to various proposals by the private contractors and I am aware it is a physical possibility to accomplish a border wall. Combining tech with a wall provides at the very least that the government is serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA.

 

I am confidant many of my fellow Oklahoman voters feel the same way. So, by all means. Work on reforming the status of gainfully employed illegals, throw the book at the horrid criminal illegals and dear god, please end chain immigration in favor of merit immigration. That would make this voter happy.

 

And below is Senator James Lankford’s email sent to me and probably his Oklahoma constituents.

 

JRH 3/15/18

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Response from Senator James Lankford

 

By Senator James Lankford

Sent 3/14/18 9:18 PM

Sent from Lankford.Senate.gov

 

Dear Mr. John Houk,

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on the congressional plan to fix our nation’s broken immigration system.  I have heard from other Oklahomans like you who also sent emails and letters or made phone calls to share their thoughts and ideas on proposals to repair our nation’s immigration policies.

 

As a member of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I remain actively involved in conversations and negotiations surrounding proposals to repair the faulty immigration policies in our country.  My staff and I have had daily conversations and meetings for the past several months with Members of all political parties, in both Chambers of Congress, and with the Administration to develop policies that focus on the economic and security needs of our nation and can receive enough votes to become law.

 

Though immigration has been a contentious issue for some time, its resolution did not have a deadline.  However, on September 5, 2017, President Trump rescinded the 2012 Obama Administration initiative Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) because while he agreed that DACA recipients should receive protection, it is inappropriate for any president to create the program through executive action.  DACA provided temporary relief from removal for individuals who entered the United States as minors, most often with their parents, but it did not provide legal certainty for the DACA recipients or provide additional security for our nation.

 

When President Trump rescinded the program, he set the effective end date to be March 5, 2018, which gave Congress six months to provide legislative permanency for these individuals and time to include provisions to prevent a similar situation from happening in the future  It is worth noting that DACA-eligible individuals were at no time given the opportunity to go through the naturalization process unless they returned to their home countries for at least 10 years and then began the application process.

 

As you may know, the White House released its framework for immigration reform and border security on January 25, 2018.  I share the opinions of the President and other Administration officials who believe a permanent solution for individuals who qualify for DACA should be paired with border and entry security, reasonable limitations on family unification visas, and the elimination of the convoluted visa lottery.  The framework of this agreement was based on four pillars that Democrats and Republicans agreed to with President Trump during a White House meeting earlier in January.

 

As part of the negotiations to fund the government after a shutdown in January, during the week of February 12, the Senate opened the floor for proposals and debate to solve our nation’s immigration issues.  Throughout the week several groups of Senators proposed a variety of plans and ideas to create a solution for DACA-eligible individuals, but only one of the proposals, the SECURE and SUCCEED Act, included the necessary reforms in the White House framework and could have received enough votes to also pass the House.  I joined Senators Grassley (IA), Cornyn (TX), Tillis (NC), Perdue (GA), Cotton (AR), Ernst (IA), Corker (TN), Isakson (GA) and Alexander (TN) to introduce the Act.

 

Each of the four bills debated in the Senate received bipartisan support, but every bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final vote.

 

I have heard from some Oklahomans who have asked why I did not support alternate proposals that contained aspects of the four pillars.  For example, one proposal included funding for border security, but not until 2020.  Even then, the bill restricted how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could use those fund, and it included no enforcement provisions.  The bill created a convoluted process that could lead to a rapid pathway to citizenship for a large group of undocumented individuals.

 

For all other undocumented individuals in the country, it provided deferred action and a guarantee they could remain in the country illegally unless they committed a felony or three misdemeanors.  Regarding family unification, the bill’s proposal did nothing to help clear the visa backlog of family members who have already been sponsored by American citizens.  Another proposal provided a pathway to citizenship for many individuals with a variety of immigration statuses but authorized no funds for border security.  These provisions made the proposals impossible to support.

 

I believe strong border and entry security is an important step to necessary step to reform our immigration system.  Every nation, including ours, has the right to secure its borders and control its entry process for safety and economic development.  It is important to remember that the southern border is full of diverse terrain including mountains, desert, and the Rio Grande River.  I do not believe a 2,000-mile fence alone is the best and most cost-effective solution.  Technology like tethered drones, seismic sensors, and vehicle barriers are very effective in many areas of the desert Southwest.

 

The SECURE and SUCCEED Act appropriates $25 billion for a variety of border and entry security.  DHS has developed a ten-year plan for increased personnel and for a variety of infrastructure such as a wall system, fencing, levees, technology, and other physical barriers.  It also included necessary methods of enforcement, such as the permanent authorization of the voluntary electronic employment verification system (E-Verify) and the enactment of Kate’s law.

 

In addition to border and entry security, Oklahomans on both sides of the immigration debate are rightly concerned about permanency for DACA recipients.  The SECURE and SUCCEED Act provides an opportunity for 1.8 million DACA-eligible immigrants to earn naturalization in 10 to 12 years.  Much of this proposal mimics my original proposal from September 25, 2017, called the SUCCEED Act.  You can read more about the SUCCEED Act on my website. 

 

It is important to note that under DACA, recipients were not granted legal immigrant status, were not put on a pathway to citizenship, and did not have the right to vote in our elections.  Additionally, they are barred from receiving any federal public benefits, which would continue while the individual has conditional permanent residency.

 

Regarding family unification, our current system allows individuals who have earned a naturalization to petition for numerous extended family members, who in some instances may not otherwise qualify for a visa.  The SECURE and SUCCEED act would place reasonable limitations on family-based immigration to allow spouses and minor children visas to immigrate with their parent or spouse.  Other family members could still come to the U.S. for extended visits, but they would not get automatic citizenship eligibility.  This proposal is similar to the proposal made by the Clinton Administration in the 90s and the “Gang of Eight” bill in 2018.  It is important to note that this change would not affect individuals who have already petitioned for extended family members to enter the United States.

 

Currently, the Diversity Visa program provides green cards for up to 50,000 immigrants each year from countries with low rates of emigration to the United States.  Prospective immigrants register with the Department of State, which then selects applicants at random.  Both Republicans and Democrats have supported legislation to get rid of the diversity visa program in the past.  Similar to the Senate’s proposal in 2013, the SECURE and SUCCEED Act would end the lottery program and reallocate the visas to eliminate the existing family-based and employment-based immigration backlogs.

 

As I have said before, our nation was built on the strength and diversity of legal immigrants.  However, unchecked illegal immigration can create a serious threat to our nation’s security and a financial strain on our economy.  While I believe that all people are made in God’s image and deserve dignity and respect, it is reasonable to expect those entering and living within our borders to obey the laws of our nation.  Although the debate can get heated, we must remember that immigration is about real, live human beings, not just numbers on a page.

 

Although the SECURE and SUCCEED Act was limited to the four pillars I mentioned above, there are many other areas of our nation’s immigration system that need to be repaired by Congress, such as visa and Temporary Protected Status reform.

 

Congress needs to create clear and consistent immigration laws that establishes a better legal immigration system to disincentivize illegal immigration. As you may know, the March 5th deadline for DACA recipients became somewhat obsolete due to temporary federal court orders, but I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, and in the Administration to come up with long-term solutions to fit the needs to the American people.

 

I hope this information is helpful to you.  Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.

 

In God We Trust,

 

 

 

James Lankford
United States Senator

_____________________

Immigration Reform Thoughts

Looking at a Senator James Lankford Email 

 

John R. Houk

© March 15, 2018

___________________

Response from Senator James Lankford

 

Senator Lankford About Page

 

Senator James Lankford is committed to the protection of the future for our families, the transparency and efficiency of the federal government, and the ability of our nation to remain the world leader. He believes that empowering families, individuals, communities, and private enterprise will grow our economy and protect our values.

 

After serving four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, James was elected to the U.S. Senate to complete an unexpired term on November 4, 2014 and re-elected to a full six-year senate term on November 8, 2016.

 

As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Lankford fights unnecessary and burdensome regulation and advocates for a more restrained federal government.

 

Personal faith, local decision-making, and opportunity for every person, regardless of their background, are core values for Senator Lankford. Before his time in Congress, from 1995 to 2009, James served as Director of Student Ministry at the Baptist Convention of Oklahoma and Director of the Falls Creek Youth Camp, the largest youth camp in the United States, with more than 51,000 individuals attending each summer.

 

James lives in Edmond with his wife Cindy. They have been married for 25 years and have two daughters: Hannah and Jordan. He enjoys spending time with his family, sport shooting, and reading.

 

… READ THE REST

A Ticket to Mexico


S. 744 - Scamnesty sign

Intro: A Ticket to Mexico
John R. Houk
© July 16, 2013
 
 
Justin Smith writes about the negative effects the Senate Immigration Reform Bill will have on America.
 
Here are some subjects within the article that I was not clear on thus I am going to assume many readers may have a lack of clarity as well. I add them for the reader’s benefit; however if you are confident about the terminology simply skip right to Justin’s article below this intro.
 
Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744)
 
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said in a statement about the CIS analysis that this is yet another sign the Schumer-Rubio amnesty legislation is not good policy. “This report from CIS is a bombshell,” Sessions said.
 
To my surprise, and no doubt the surprise of many, the Gang of Eight Immigration doubles the annual number of guest workers from today’s levels – a much larger increase than any of us had imagined. It adds four times more guest workers than the rejected proposal from 2007. Yet today’s employment situation is far worse than when Congress considered the 2007 proposal.
 
This large increase in guest workers guarantees that Americans’ wages will remain stagnant and that the unemployed will remain unemployed. This legislation surges the number of low-wage workers at the expense of the poor and middle class.
 
Sessions’ Senate colleague, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), expressed concerns with the guest worker program during a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. He argued that the bill’s visa programs for foreign workers are a ploy by big corporations to depress wages of American workers. Sanders particular attention to h-1b visas, and how middle-class Americans cannot find white collar jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. (ANALYSIS: IMMIGRATION BILL WILL BRING 600K MORE GUEST WORKERS PER YEAR; By MATTHEW BOYLE; Breitbart; 6/5/13)
 
Corker-Hoeven Amendment
 
A new 1,000-plus-page bill has just been filed incorporating the changes from the Corker–Hoeven amendment. Initial reports indicate that the amendment calls for:
 
·         A Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to be deployed and operational, including the minimum technology and equipment listed in S. 744;
 
·         An additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents to be deployed, maintained, and stationed along the southern border;
 
·         The Southern Border Fencing Strategy to be implemented and at least 700 miles of fencing to be completed;
 
·         An entry/exit system to track visa overstays to be fully implemented at all airports and seaports; and
 
·         E-Verify to be fully implemented by all employers.
 
This may all sound great on paper, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see that, just like in the language of the bill, none of the border security measures in the Corker–Hoeven amendment have to be in place until illegal immigrants with registered provisional immigrant status are to receive green cards 10 years down the road. (Corker–Hoeven Immigration Amendment: Far from a Game Changer; By Jessica Zuckerman and David Inserra; The Foundry [a Heritage.org blog]; 6/21/13 4:14 pm)
 
Reconquista (Movement)
 
… We noted the rise of radical Latino identity groups composed of both naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens. These groups are being organized by World Communist Party apparatchiks, who are providing the ethnic incitement behind protests in Los Angeles and other cities from coast to coast.
 
What are illegal alliens (sic) demanding in protests on U.S. soil?
 
These were protests not just on behalf of “amnistia” — demanding amnesty and all rights shared by U.S. citizens; for many, they were a means of promoting the reunification of the southwestern United States with Mexico.
 
The “reconquista” movement is marked by the flying of the Mexican flag over the American flag and has all the elements of a violent nationalist movement with the terrorist implications. … (Reconquista: The Movement; The Patriot Post)
 
…
 
There is a plan, called The Plan Of Aztlan, that’s been in effect for about four decades. The goal, being pursued vigorously by radical, racist Chicano (Mexican-American) groups and the Mexican government, is to reconquer (Reconquista) land lost to America in the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
 
Mexicans and many Mexican-Americans have never accepted the loss of their land, inhabited long before the gringos (white Europeans) arrived. Chicano groups like MEchA (Chicano Student Movement Of Aztlan) want to reconquer seven states in the Southwestern United States called Aztlan, the mythical home of the Aztecs. They include: California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, plus parts of Colorado, Nevada and Utah.
 
The road to success is based on infiltration (illegal aliens from Mexico) and demographic dominance (like-minded Chicanos being elected to political office by a region overwhelmingly of Mexican origin). What would exist is a de facto alien nation, with loyalty to their Mexican homeland. Efforts would be made to establish a separate government or to rejoin Mexico. Note that Mexico has granted dual citizenship to Mexican immigrants with U.S. citizenship as well as to their children. Kind of speeds the process along. No repatriation needed. (Reconquista: the Invasion of America; TheLastGringo.com; 4/20/06)
 
La Raza
 
…
 
It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of “La Raza” — The Race.
 
There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall “La Raza” movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza — the Council of “The Race”.
 
To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.
 
…
 
Radical ‘Reconquista’ Agenda
 
Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.
 
Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
 
One of America’s greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
 
This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
 
“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
 
MEChA isn’t at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):
 
“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo [all or everything]. Fuera [Against or Out of] de La Raza nada [nothing].”
 
… (Bold Emphasis Mine – EXCLUSIVE: THE TRUTH ABOUT ‘LA RAZA’; By cnorwood; Human Events; 4/7/06 09:03 AM)
 

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 3 – The Senate

 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

 

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointmentsuntil the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

 

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and … (U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 3; U.S. Constitution Online)

 

17th Amendment

 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

 

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

 

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. (17TH AMENDMENT; Legal Information Institute [LII], Cornell University Law School)

 
 
JRH 7/16/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************
A Ticket to Mexico
 
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 7/15/2013 12:01 AM
 
Much of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act was designed in the 11th hour and presented America with a wasteful and poorly reasoned policy, of which any U.S. Senator should be ashamed to be known as one of the “yes” votes. This recent action in conjunction with the Corker-Hoeven Amendment perfectly illustrates the need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the Founder’s Original Intent under Article I: Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as the majority of Americans in opposition to giving provisional legal status to 30 million plus illegal aliens saw their Senators side with leftist academics, the likes of Reconquista and LARAZA advocates, uneducated do-gooders who have thrown common sense out the window and antinational organizations.

Today in America, some would have us believe that “nationalism”, love of one’s nation and a desire to protect one’s American heritage and a belief in our nation’s right to sovereignty, is somehow comparable to a vulgar swear word. Immigration can be beneficial to the immigrant and the nation, under the right circumstances; however, the U.S. must act through its right and responsibility to ensure only responsible levels of immigration that promote assimilation, self-sufficiency and rising wages. And to date, Congress and the Executive have not remotely accomplished this.

I never thought I would offer the European Union as an example of anything that the U.S. should follow, but even in Europe, the EU nations such as Switzerland [*SlantRight Editor: Switzerland is not an EU member but has set up economic treaties that allows an EU-Swiss interface across borders], Britain and Spain are now realizing the folly of unrestricted movement across borders, as they now fight the guidelines of the Schengen Agreement, which eliminated internal boundaries in 1995. The poorest of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania have tested the boundaries of most EU nations’ economies in the midst of exploding unemployment, and now many are re-imposing border controls and making it easier to deport foreigners.

Some have suggested that a shortfall for H1B visas for workers exists in many professional fields. If this is indeed the case, it can be addressed independently in the House through a series of smaller bills that focus on the various components of our immigration system, much as suggested by Speaker John Boehner on July 11, 2013. And, as they attempt to play on America’s emotions, the liberals dredge up images of desperate immigrant families who want nothing more than a chance to work and feed themselves without fear of deportation; the H2B visa currently allows temporary workers to stay virtually uninterrupted for three consecutive years, and the Diversity Visa Lottery gives green cards to thousands of foreign nationals annually.

Ex-President George W. Bush has entered the debate again, as he recently called for Americans to “keep a benevolent spirit in mind and…understand the contributions that immigrants make to our country.” This seems to align with David Brooks’ (NY Times) agreement with the American Action Forum’s finding that the Senate bill will increase per capita income by $1700 after ten years.

If these illegal aliens are such entrepreneurs and such a potential economic boon to our economy, why doesn’t that show in the economies of the nations of their origin? Why haven’t they stayed and fought to improve conditions in their native land? Why hasn’t America already experienced great economic improvements, since millions of illegal aliens have been here for decades? Does anyone really believe that the majority of this current massive group of illegals will fight any harder for the salvation of America, politically and economically or otherwise, than they did for their own country?

While I generally believe all people are assets with something to offer any workforce, I must agree with Ms Ann Coulter’s assessment in April 2013, when she stated that legalizing the current illegal alien population would only be an economic boon to people who “benefit from slave labor.” In 2010, Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda at the Center for American Progress released an analysis concluding that unskilled workers in the U.S. would make $400 more annually, if the illegal immigration population were reduced by one-third; another analysis by the Federal Reserve revealed that as illegal immigrant labor increased from 4% to 7% in Georgia, between 2000 and 2007, wages dropped 2.5% overall and 11% in construction jobs during this period.

Typically, low-skilled immigrants do entry-level work, and they do not directly compete with the native born U.S. citizen. But, the current economic recession has changed the jobs market, as 100 million Americans now receive food subsidies and close to 20 million are unemployed, with millions more under-employed. The labor participation rate has dropped from 63% in 2007 to 54% currently, and competition for jobs has increased from 1.5 job seeker per job to 5.0, without accounting for under-employed or discouraged workers. Under these conditions, it is unethical for any Congressman or Senator to grant full job market access and permanent legal status to 30 million largely unskilled illegal aliens at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American worker!

Times have changed, and yet, in many respects, they have stayed the same, as seen in this 1995 quote from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, still applicable today: “It is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers, because the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged workers.” And, eighteen years later, U.S. politicians continue to ignore this warning, as they bow to every corporation and special interest rather than listen to their constituents and taking a realistic look at the illegal alien effect on poverty and the American worker.

Even should I or millions of Americans be compassionate or stupid enough to accept the dire economic consequences for decades that will follow any legitimacy or amnesty granted these illegal aliens, we should not accept Chuck Schumer’s and Harry Reid’s massive pork-spending measures that they placed in the Senate bill, and we should not cower in the face of blackmail and threats, such as the civil unrest and violence Senator Robert Menendez promised would be delivered, if the bill was not passed; many Americans would be more inclined to respond to a request for immigration reform based on humanitarian reasoning, than demands from foreigners holding signs that read in Spanish, “Cuidadania para los 11 millones” and United We Dream activist Lorella Praeli’s statement, “We have come today to claim our citizenship”: As far as I’m concerned, they can claim their damn ticket home to Mexico, Guatemala or wherever!

George W recently echoed the thoughts of Amnesty/Reward proponents, when he stated on July 10, 2013, “The laws governing the immigration system aren’t working. The system is broken.” In 1986 Congress, for the first time, enacted legislation that made it illegal for businesses to hire illegal aliens, and they combined it with border control and de facto amnesty for the illegal alien population, that had been in the U.S. for five years, as Congress hoped to initiate effective immigration control. The system is not “broken”. Congress and the Executive have simply refused to enforce the law, and they have failed the nation and the American people. We have been here before; we are here once again.

Obama does not represent the American people or the Office of the President, as he refuses to uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution and to enforce any law he does not like. In a July 2011 speech to LARAZA, Obama stated that he would like to “bypass Congress and change the (immigration) laws. So, the House Republican leaders have good reason not to trust any promises emanating from this administration.

As White House directed pressure mounts in the House, the next few months will prove critical in whether or not Amnesty/Reward is stopped. Speaker Boehner has already said that the Republican majority did not intend to even consider the Senate bill. The “comprehensive immigration” issue should eventually die from a lack of new momentum, as long as Republicans approach any immigration legislation in segments and facets of the issue. And actually, doing nothing is better than completely changing immigration law and policy by ingraining “amnesty” into our legal foundation and rewarding thirty (11?) million illegal aliens, who broke U.S. law; allowing any House bill to go to conference with the Senate bill will only result in amnesty, and it will send the message, “If you can get here and stay here, the U.S. will eventually give you provisional legal status.”  Not one single American should be able to acquiesce to the legalization of illegal aliens and placing the illegals’ interests ahead of all legal applicants and the best interest of these United States, in good conscience: Christian compassion should not aid the Leftist “open borders” agenda, and it should not dictate that we all commit national economic suicide!

“Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.” – ‘America the Beautiful’

 
By Justin O. Smith
_________________________
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Explanatory links added by Editor

Race Based Politics


Gang of 8 Press Conference 6-27-13

Justin Smith writes about illegal aliens flowing into the USA and the Obama Administration lack of enforcement to stop Mexican aliens from entering America. Also Justin writes of GOP betrayal in joining Dems in writing horrible legislation that is akin to blanket amnesty and still a relaxed enforcement of guarding our border from illegal aliens and Mexican drug cartels taking advantage of lax border enforcement.

 

JRH 7/3/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************************

Race Based Politics

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/30/2013 8:43 PM

 

In appalling, ignominious fashion, the U.S. Congress passed both the Corker-Hoeven Amendment (June 24, 2013) and the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act [SlantRight Editor – Full Text from Politico 6/21/13 3:36 PM EDT] (June 27, 2013), as they proved once again, with the help of fifteen Republican Senators, that they are more eager to be seen as “citizens of the world” than they are with actually fixing the illegal immigration problem. Much of what occurred during this past week was simply a ploy designed to make the American public think that a tough new immigration bill was passed, when in reality, amnesty was given to upwards of thirty million illegal aliens, rule of law and enforcement was circumvented and our Republic was degraded and endangered!

The U.S. currently deals with an inflow of one million legal immigrants per year; even if one accepts the questionable “11 million” figure for the number of illegal aliens in the U.S., these recent pieces of legislation are illogically conceived, too expansive and unsustainable, especially in light of the fact that between 1953 and 2000, the U.S. allowed only 26.3 million legal immigrants into the nation. It is quite like taking the federal responsibility for the addition of two new states, when one considers the numbers.

Border security weighs equally with the economic ramifications of these bills. Sixty-percent of all illegal immigrants are Hispanic, and they account for 30% of the U.S. prison population. But, the U.S. government really has not any idea how large a segment of the illegal alien population is comprised of criminals and terrorists. In 2010, Jamal Yousef, a Hezbollah agent, was arrested in New York City with a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 2500 grenades, 100 Ar-15s, C-4 explosives and anti-tank munitions; and, last February, three Mexican nationals were sentenced to ten years in prison for running a marijuana operation out of Wisconsin’s Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

On June 24th, (FoxNews Sunday) Senator Lindsey Graham stated, “We’ve practically militarized the border”, however, this is far from the reality under an Obama administration that will not even allow Border Agents to question criminal suspects about their immigration status and maintains a “catch and release” policy, which basically nullifies any attempts to enforce border controls…No one is “in the shadows”… illegal aliens are now proudly proclaiming their illegal status. And currently, a 70 mile deep swathe into the U.S. interior along hundreds of miles of the U.S.-Mexico border are posted as outside of effective U.S. government control; much of this corridor is now controlled to varying degrees by transnational criminals and the Mexican drug cartels, who are the only ones “militarizing the border.”

Corker-Hoeven, drafted behind closed doors and given no time for constituent review, will cost U.S. taxpayers significantly more than its initial $40 billion price-tag, for nothing in return. It adds 20,000 new border agents; it would not make any difference if it added two million new agents…30 million illegals will be “legalized” and the damage will be done. One should also recall the 1986 amnesty and the broken promise of immigration law enforcement and the Border Security Fence Act of 2006 that was never fully implemented; in 2011, Janet Napolitano cut border security spending from $1.3 billion to $573 million, and she ended the Security Border Initiative Network, because she did not view it as “cost effective” or “viable”: Page 35-line 24 of Corker-Hoeven places the completion of 700 miles of border fence at Napolitano’s discretion, and page 30-line 4 does the same regarding the use of technology.

Under Article 32 of the Mexican Constitution, a person cannot immigrate to Mexico without first demonstrating a particular skill or potential usefulness; Article 34 requires immigrants to have the means to support themselves; applicants for legal immigrant status are screened for mental illness and prior criminal acts as outlined by Article 37. And, entering Mexico illegally is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and a 5,000 peso fine; more importantly, only citizens of their republic can take part in the politics of the country, according to Article 133.

After Monday’s vote on the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, Mexico’s Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade stated, “Fences do not unite us. They are not the solution to the migratory phenomenon and are not consistent with a secure and modern border.” What hypocrisy…what a double-standard!

With unbelievable hubris, the illegal aliens exacerbated the problem by demanding a path to citizenship immediately… no humble request here. Much of this emanates from LARAZA, Presente.org and the Dream Act Coalition. Reyna Mntoya of United We Dream in Arizona recently stated, “We’re not willing to compromise on citizenship.” Wait a minute…whose country is this any way!?

Claims of deficit reduction from the bills’ supporters are full of manipulations and accounting tricks using Social Security contributions by newly created “registered provisional immigrants” to fund associated increases in spending. But, all this and more will necessarily be paid out almost immediately (food stamps/unemployment) to native Americans removed from the workforce, because these newly legalized immigrants are suggested to be ineligible, by the Democrats, for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens, which is certain to be challenged under the 14th Amendment; this allows employers to escape the $3,000 fine attached to failure to insure American workers and makes the immigrants the more cost effective route for businesses. On top of this, add the billions of dollars paid out for the benefits of these RPIs during their retirement.

America witnessed Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander and ten other Republican Senators (Wicker changed his vote) shamelessly align themselves against their constituency and join a coalition of business groups, unions, gay rights, Latino and immigration advocates, and poltroons, quislings and Democrats, such as Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez. McConnell could have at least attempted to stop this bill through the Senate procedural process; and, while Rubio has stressed “border security” to Americans for months, he recently appeared on Univision’s Spanish speaking talk show, ‘Al Punto’, and said, that if the bill passed, “First comes legalization…”.

What “modernization” can be found in a bill stuck in circa 1986 with rewards for illegal aliens, a blanket amnesty and an immediate path to citizenship?… Where is there any real “border security” or “economic opportunity” in this bill for U.S. citizens… naturalized immigrants and native born alike… who pay their taxes, fight our wars and obey our laws?

Many of our Senators, such as Marco Rubio, Chuck Schumer and Bob Corker, are duplicitous masters of political theater, as they ignore the fact of high unemployment, a $5000 drop in median income for families since 2007 and a .1% economic growth, and they divide and conquer us by engaging in identity politics. They have pushed ahead with this big government piece of legislation that they call “comprehensive immigration” over the objections of the majority of Americans, in just the same manner they used with Obamacare; the nation will not get the quality high-skilled, high-tech workers Congress suggests it needs through this Reward/Amnesty bill for thirty million of the most poorly skilled imaginable. And, for those concerned about children who grew up here as illegal aliens, their cases can be adjudicated case by case through a special court. But our U.S. government should not assume a responsibility or a constitutional writ that does not exist and spend the treasure of Americans to satisfy foreigners: Doing the right thing and following the rule of law is not always easy, and sometimes it includes seemingly harsh action. We are either a nation of laws… a Republic… or we are not; identify the illegal aliens and deport them!

Now, unfortunately, too much going forward rests in the hands of a weak, timid and untrustworthy Speaker John Boehner. It will be the responsibility of House Republicans to force Boehner to reject the Senate bill and the race based politics of Senator McCain, Senator Menendez and many others…race pandering… the sort of thing that conservatives have always rejected historically; the House must reject those who have described opponents to this bill as “nativists, racists, misogynists and elitists”, as they illustrate their willingness to embrace the millions of young and old of all races and nationalities, who seek to enter the U.S. legally in their search for the right to Live Free! : America cannot build an integrated, cohesive nation of assimilated immigrants, maintain Her Heritage of Exceptionalism or guarantee everyone equal opportunity at success through race pandering in the U.S. Senate. Start the calls and letters to Congress now, if you hope to save America from this terrible monstrosity called “comprehensive immigration” legislation!

 

By Justin O. Smith
___________________________

© Justin O. Smith

Edited by John R. Houk

%d bloggers like this: