Name of the Game - Lawlessness

Disregard For the Law is America's Greatest Threat

7/9/2015 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Barbarians at the gate usually don't bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture.

Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. All the German euros in the world will not save Greece if Greeks continue to dodge taxes, featherbed government and see corruption as a business model.

Even obeying so-called minor laws counts. It is no coincidence that a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. Everything from littering to speeding seems negotiable in Athens in a way not true of Munich, Zurich or London.

Mexico is a much naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the U.S.

But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power.

In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services.

Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay.

The frightening thing about disgraced IRS bureaucrat Lois Lerner's knowledge of selective audits of groups on the basis of their politics is not just that she seemed to ignore it, but that she seemingly assumed no one would find out, or perhaps even mind. And she may well have been right. So far, no one at the IRS has shown much remorse for corrupting an honor-based system of tax compliance.

Illegal immigration has been a prominent subject in the news lately, between Donald Trump's politically incorrect, imprecise and crass stereotyping of illegal immigrants and the shocking murder of a young San Francisco woman gratuitously gunned down in public by a Mexican citizen who had been convicted of seven felonies in the United States and had been deported five times. But the subject of illegal immigration is, above all, a matter of law enforcement.

Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. Liberal "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco choose to ignore immigration laws. Imagine the outcry if a town in Utah or Montana arbitrarily declared that federal affirmative action or gay marriage laws were null and void within its municipal borders.

Once an immigrant has successfully broken the law by entering and residing in the U.S. illegally, there is little incentive for him to obey other laws. Increasing percentages of unnaturalized immigrants are not showing up for their immigration hearings -- and those percentages are higher still for foreign nationals who have been charged with crimes.

The general public wonders why some are selectively exempt from following the law, but others are not. If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

Consider the immigration activists' argument that immigration authorities should focus only on known felons and not those who only broke immigration law. This is akin to arguing that the IRS shouldn't worry about whether everyday Americans pay their income taxes and should enforce the tax laws only against those with past instances of tax avoidance.

But why single out the poor and foreign-born? Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton once pocketed a $100,000 cattle-futures profit from a $1,000 investment, with help from an insider crony. A group of economists calculated the odds of such an unlikely return at one in 31 trillion. Clinton then trumped that windfall by failing to fully pay taxes on her commodities profits, only addressing that oversight years later.

Why did Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, snub government protocols by using a private email account and a private server, and then permanently deleting any emails she felt were not government-related? Clinton long ago concluded that laws in her case were to be negotiated, not obeyed.

President Obama called for higher taxes on the wealthy. But before doing so, could he at least have asked his frequent advisor on racial matters, Al Sharpton, to pay millions in back taxes and penalties?

Might the government ask that its own employees pay the more than $3 billion in collective federal back taxes that they owe, since they expect other taxpayers to keep paying their salaries?

Civilizations unwind insidiously not with a loud, explosive bang, but with a lawless whimper. 

America's Future Looks Decidedly Orwellian

America's Extreme Makeover Is Socialism In Action

6/27/2015 - Jeff Crouere Townhall.com

The pace of change impacting the United States of America is accelerating at an alarming rate. This week the Supreme Court bolstered Obamacare by rewriting the law and sanctioning the subsidies that are the centerpiece of the program. On Friday, by a 5-4 margin, the justices legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. This sweeping decision rendered meaningless the vote of Americans in states across the nation.

In essence, these Supreme Court justices, a majority appointed by Republicans, have become a leading force in advancing the liberal agenda. According to research from the New York Times, 54% of the rulings in this term have been liberal, making it the most left wing Supreme Court in 46 years.

In Congress, spineless Republicans have refused to withdraw funding from Obamacare or the President's executive order to grant amnesty to five million illegal aliens. With de-facto open borders, illegal immigrants continue to stream into the country. Unlike previous generations, millions of both legal and illegal immigrants are clinging to the customs and culture of their homeland instead of assimilating into the United States of America.

This week, Republicans in the Senate provided the key votes to pass "fast track" authority for the President. This will mean that the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership involving the United States and 11 other nations must be approved without amendment. The President and his crony corporate Republican allies insist the trade deal will be beneficial to our economy. If so, why is Congress rushing to pass legislation to provide assistance to Americans who will lose their jobs as a result of this deal? Obviously, this trade deal benefits big businesses at the expense of small businesses and the results will mirror what happened in the aftermath of other trade deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA, undoubtedly, major job losses.

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, the President immediately started pushing gun control legislation. He placed politics over decency, advocating legislation before the victims were even buried.

Since there was an Internet video of the murderer draped in the Confederate flag, both Republicans and Democrats started calling for it to be removed from statehouses and other public places. However, the attempt to change history did not stop with the flag; it also extended to statues of Confederate generals. Thus, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the statue of General Robert E. Lee to be removed from Lee Circle on St. Charles Avenue.

Landrieu and his fellow politicians did not show any "courage" by targeting Confederate iconography. In contrast, these politicians were only pursuing the politically correct script. It takes no courage to follow the crowd and promote a liberal agenda.

The politicians who truly try to stop the assault of progressivism are rare indeed. Therefore, liberals usually win and advance their schemes while conservatives are continually on the defensive.

As America prepares to celebrate its 239th birthday, it is obvious that the country has changed forever. There is little hope of going back to the traditions that built this nation. The days of prayer in public schools, protecting unborn babies, and upholding traditional marriage are officially over.

The new America is the home to socialized medicine, unbridled government spending and interference, legalized gay marriage, and rampant illegal immigration.

There is no GOP leadership to stop the forward march of socialism, so Americans can expect even more change in the future. It is a "brave new world" for our country as our freedoms will continue to diminish and our federal government will continue to expand. Our future looks decidedly Orwellian, with Big Brother government in charge and the concept of American liberty a quaint notion from yesteryear.

Are We Becoming A Nation Without Borders?

America Has Taken More than Our Share of Refugees

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum September 16, 2015

The United States is the most generous nation in the world, and we have taken many refugees from foreign lands. Europe has not offered to take refugees from Central America, so why are some politicians here insisting that we take many thousands of refugees from the Middle East?

While refugee crises are tragic, crimes committed by transplanted peoples against unwarned, unprotected victims in our own country are even more tragic. Politicians demanding that American neighborhoods accept thousands of refugees, without proper screening or any indication by the migrants that they genuinely want to assimilate into our culture, should be rejected.

Americans are horrified by images of tens of thousands of people, mostly unattached Muslim young men from the Middle East and Africa, crossing unguarded borders into Europe. The news media often describe these people sympathetically as refugees from the civil war in Syria, but many could be migrants seeking a more comfortable life in a rich society with a cradle-to-grave welfare state.

The scene is eerily reminiscent of the tens of thousands of people from Central America who crossed into the United States last summer. Often described sympathetically as unaccompanied minors fleeing gang violence, most of those Central American arrivals were able-bodied, tough young men who left their families in search of better economic opportunities.

Wealthy European nations did not offer to help out by accepting thousands of migrants from Central America. We did not expect that of them, and they should not expect it of us now.

The Muslim migrants follow a route through Turkey, Macedonia, and Serbia into Hungary, the European country closest to the Middle East, and from Hungary they can travel throughout 26 European nations. That route may soon close when Hungary completes the razor-wire fence it is building along its entire 108-mile border with Serbia.

The free movement of people across national boundaries, without passports, is required by the Schengen agreement, one of the central principles of the European Union. It makes those 26 member countries subject to the weakest link, the country with porous borders, in this case Hungary.

The idea of creating nations without borders, allowing the free movement of people inside a common perimeter, was pushed by President George W. Bush when he met with the Mexican president and the Canadian prime minister at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. Soon after that first summit of “the three amigos,” the Council on Foreign Relations published “Toward a North American Community” which called for a “seamless market” with “a more open border for the movement of goods and people.”

Fortunately, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to put some brakes on giving away the security of our neighborhoods to thousands of people having unknown intentions about the United States and our way of life. “Before agreeing to accept tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, the Obama administration must prove to the American people that it will take the necessary precautions to ensure that national security is a top priority, especially at a time when ruthless terrorist groups like ISIS are committed to finding ways to enter the United States and harm Americans.”

Our daily freedoms could be sharply limited if terrorists were to slip into our country along with migrants from areas hostile to the United States. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) warns that “we’re really not able to vet Middle Eastern applicants now, and if we increase that number, we’ll be even less able to do so.”

Stark financial problems also stand against welcoming so many strangers into our country. More than 90% of recent refugees from the Middle East are on welfare, according to official statistics published by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

Our welfare system is already strained by the Central American migrants who entered our country illegally and never went home. There are a potential 6 billion people in the world who would like to partake in the American welfare system if given the opportunity, but we cannot afford to foot the bill for everyone in the world who does not have a job.

We should learn from the experience of accepting about 55,000 Somali refugees between 1983 and 2004, which included the Clinton Administration and three different Republican Administrations, and taking another 27,000 Somalis between 2008 and 2013 under the Obama Administration. Many were settled in Minnesota, where Somali participation in a food assistance program increased to 17,300 adults and children, not even including Somalis subsequently born here.

An open-door policy towards Syrian refugees would be dangerous and costly for American communities. As Senator Sessions says, “Our policy should be to keep the refugees as close to home as possible. For the cost of one in the United States, we could probably provide maintenance to 10, maybe more, in or near their home country.”

Global Lawlessness in Action

Migration Monotony

9/17/2015 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

There is a tragic monotony to the latest massive human migration, this one involving Syrians fleeing their war-torn country.

Whether the migrants are from Mexico, the Islamic world or elsewhere, it is always the same: Migrants flock to the West.

Mexicans who elect to leave their country do not hop trains to Guatemala. Fleeing Libyans do not head for the Congo. And Syrians do not go to Russia or China.

Migrants -- many of them young men -- come in such numbers that Western immigration laws are often rendered null and void. Western nations tend to apply their exacting immigration laws only to the much smaller number of immigrants who obey the law.

Sometimes the exoduses are due to endemic poverty, usually brought on by the utter failure of non-

Western governments to provide jobs, security and basic social services. Sometimes tribal, religious or drug wars cause the exoduses.

Yet neither the Latin American nor the Islamic world analyzes why millions of their own are fleeing to cultures that are usually criticized -- other than an occasional half-hearted whine about the legacy of imperialism, colonialism and a potpourri of other historical grievances.

Nor does the deer-in-the-headlights American or European host dare to remind newcomers that its uniquely Western menu -- free-market capitalism, private property, a free press, meritocracy, consensual government, religious tolerance, equality between the sexes, and individual freedom -- draws in people, while the antitheses repel them.

The mentalities of both the Western hosts and the non-Western migrants have become predictable.

Many ordinary middle-class Westerners oppose massive influxes of immigrants. These citizens do not like seeing laws rendered null and void. They fear that their schools, health facilities, legal systems and social services will be overwhelmed and left unable to effectively serve their own middle classes and poor.

The masses in the West have learned such caution from experience. The sudden appearance of huge numbers of immigrants -- when coupled with poverty, lack of language facility and little education -- for decades afterwards has impeded easy integration, assimilation and intermarriage within Western society.

As a result, a divisive, salad-bowl multicultural separatism often arises.

Given the challenges of facing strange customs, traditions and languages, guests naturally find it difficult to achieve rapid parity with hosts. It is soon forgotten in the first generation that being in the underclass in the West was once thought better than the alternative back home. That paradox is soon forgotten by the often disgruntled -- and less desperate -- children of migrants.

Millions of immigrants to the West soon sense that their own lack of parity and sheer numbers can translate into a powerful political constituency -- all the more so if it stays angry, unassimilated and occasionally replenished by new waves of arrivals.

Western elites in politics, journalism, academia, religion and the arts snipe at their own supposedly illiberal majorities. How dare these cruel hearts question the wisdom of accepting legions of anonymous newcomers!

Yet too many elites unfortunately are poseurs. These privileged Westerners assume that the real consequences of unchecked migration should always fall on others who are less sophisticated and who lack the elites' capital, education and influence to find everyday exemption from the real-life consequences of their own idealism.

Should Harvard or Oxford open their ample campuses to migrant tent cities, should the wealthy in Malibu and Monaco allow their beaches to become refugee campgrounds, should the Vatican turn its vast plaza into beds and soup kitchens for thousands, then a member of the elite might not be so jaded about the vast abyss between what is lectured and what is actually done.

Non-Western countries are even more two-faced about immigration. Saudi Arabia, for example, has not used its trillions of petrodollars to take in fellow Muslims from neighboring countries. But it has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany. The Saudis logically assume that unassimilated young male Muslim immigrants in Europe will be ripe for the Saudis' own brand of extremist Islamic chauvinism and resistance to Western modernism.

In the case of Mexico, it expects that the United States would never treat immigrants in the manner that Mexico deals with migrants.

Not long ago, the Mexican government printed comic-book-style manuals on how to enter the U.S. illegally. Apparently, Mexico does not want to retain its own citizens. It assumes that they cannot read and are in need of pictographic instruction. And it advises them to break its neighbor's immigration laws. How else to ensure that an estimated $30 billion in remittances each year are sent home to Mexico from its expatriates?

We all lie to ourselves about immigration. The world over seems to want what often-complacent, affluent Westerners take for granted. But no one dares to say why this is so, or why some are driving out -- and others are drawing in -- millions on the move.

Items of Interest 9-12-15

Greetings CCII Supporters & Friends,

It has been 11 years since CCII began this battle against a national chaotic plunge into a third world house of humanity. A silent invasion of people known as illegal aliens has certainly made its mark on the American landscape. These horrific devastating consequences have transformed our education & medical systems, our economic employment status & our dedicated law enforcement into an unrecognizable mess. The 20^th Century Generations saw it all happen, felt the experience & worked hard to end it. But to no avail; a corrupt bureaucracy has been in total control.

The current political rhetoric spewed by office candidates calls for border security, ending birthright citizenship, mandatory employment verification, reduction in welfare, entitlements & benefits; citizens (94 million) need jobs. That’s all it is – political rhetoric.  

We are not alone; the global society continues careening off into insanity. In the 28-nation EU, some countries have sought to block the unprecedented flow of migrants fleeing war or poverty in the Middle East and Africa, while Germany is bracing to accept 800,000 displaced persons. On Hungary’s border with Serbia, some 300 flag-waving extremists marched to a crossing point and shouted at frightened migrants to go back where they came from. In many EU countries, the debate has grown more negative due to the rise of nationalist and right-wing anti-immigration political movements. Such parties have won support in recent elections in Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Hungary, France, Britain and the Netherlands. Details at this link.

If you have questions about why, how & when this global mass movement of humanity is happening, consider where it is happening. Most but not all occurs because of a 4 letter acronym – ISIS. A promise was made by ISIS over a year ago, they would cause at least a half million people to migrate to Europe. It’s a promise kept. Near 3 of 4 migrants are males, most of them are between 15 & 30 years of age, they are escaping induction into ISIS forces. They are young, they are fit, full of energy & making demands beyond belief.  The Syrian refugee crisis is really not a crisis at all & the refugees are often neither Syrian nor refugee. Fraudulent passports are cheap & in great supply, a little Arabic will pass the scrutiny of an official bureaucrat & put the refugee in pursuit of government entitlements & benefits. Does any of this sound familiar? And Obama is bringing another 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U. S. to complement the 300,000 he has already imported. Is there an end to this insanity? If you say ‘let them all come’, how about providing a life for the 3 billion homeless, what then?

There is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people & politicians disagree more profoundly than immigration. When asked whether legal immigration should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, 55 percent of the public said it should be reduced, and 27 percent said it should remain the same. In contrast, only 18 percent of politicians said it should be reduced and 60 percent said it should remain the same. Additionally, 70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign policy goal of the U. S., compared to only 22 percent of politicians. When asked to rank the biggest foreign policy problems, the public ranked illegal immigration sixth, while politicians ranked it 26th. No wonder we have been at odds with our elected officials for 11 years! Details at this link.

Remember Arizona SB1070? How could we forget the battle between the State and the Obama DOJ.  An Arizona judge upheld the State’s landmark immigration law after challengers failed to show that police would enforce the statute differently for Latinos than it would for people of other ethnicities.The ruling could signal the end of the case and give a victory to backers of the 2010 law.  U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the challenge and upheld provisions previously ruled on by numerous court appeals. Bolton upheld the law’s controversial requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, can question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally. The Supreme Court also upheld the requirement, but the law’s challengers continued to try to get it overturned at a lower-level court.

As a side note, this link will take you to an interesting news article written by Utah Senator Mike Lee on funding for planned parenthood.

Best Regards, Jim Flohr VC CCII http://ccii4america.blogspot.com/

Get Educated, Inspired, Involved, Participate - Save The U. S. A.

America's Descent Into Lawlessness

9/10/2015 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Do you remember Lewis "Scooter" Libby?

In 2003, the Department of Justice appointed a special counsel to investigate allegations that Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, unlawfully disclosed the covert status of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Yet Plame may not have been a covert undercover agent, based on the formal government definition of that role. And even if she were, it was widely known at the time that Secretary of State Colin Powell's subordinate, Richard Armitage, had most likely disclosed her status earlier.

In other words, Libby was in an Orwellian position of being accused of a crime that may not have existed. But if it had, it was more likely committed by someone else.

Publicity-seeking special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald convinced a Washington, D.C., jury to find Libby guilty of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal investigators -- not the supposed crimes for which he was originally targeted by the media.

Apparently, the very suspicion of improper behavior by high public servants once warranted vigorous legal inquiry -- by supposedly independent and autonomous prosecutors. In the eight-plus since the Libby trial, the Obama administration has blown up the law as we have known it for centuries.

Barack Obama once warned Latino activists that he had no legal authority to suspend enforcement of federal immigration law, stop deportations and offer de facto amnesties. But that caution was only a campaigning talking point. After his re-election in 2012 and the midterm elections in 2014, Obama made a mockery of immigration law.

Hundreds of liberal sanctuary cities have announced that federal immigration law does not apply to them. That scary, neo-Confederate idea of legal nullification was sanctioned by the Obama administration -- in a way it never would have been if a city had suspended the Endangered Species Act, emissions standards or gun-control legislation. As a result, once-detained and later-released immigrants with criminal records have murdered innocent American citizens.

Consider the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. By past custom and practice, the nonproliferation agreement would be treated as what it is -- a treaty.

But ratifying treaties constitutionally requires 67 yes votes from the Senate. Obama could never obtain that margin. So he managed to downgrade the treaty into a mere legal agreement. Then he claimed that the Senate required 67 no votes to override his veto.

Obama also was worried about the political impact of his new Obamacare legislation on the 2014 midterm elections. So he simply suspended by executive fiat the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Had another president done that to the laws of Obamacare, the left would have demanded impeachment.

In Ferguson, Missouri, law enforcement eased off and allowed a city to burn. But the cause of the rioting -- the supposed improper police killing of criminal suspect Michael Brown -- was based on the lie that Brown was shot in the back while fleeing. No matter. The ensuing public outrage seemingly exempted arsonists and looters from arrest.

Just as scary is the application of the law on the basis of the perceived politics of a suspect.

IRS bureaucrat Lois Lerner was exposed as a rank partisan whose office gave particular scrutiny to would-be tax-exempt groups deemed opponents of Obama's re-election efforts. She invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify before a congressional committee about her actions at the IRS. Lerner has never been indicted.

Almost everything former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated about her improper use of a private email account and server has been proven false. A State Department staffer who worked on Clinton's private server plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before a congressional committee about his role in privatizing Clinton's email. But like Lerner, Clinton has escaped an indictment or jailing.

Not so Kim Davis. She is a conservative Christian court clerk in Kentucky who apparently thought, given the lawless times, that she could ignore without consequence a Supreme Court decision making gay marriage legal. Davis was jailed for not enforcing the law. That is a justifiable punishment -- if it were applied equally to the progressive mayors of sanctuary cities and all officials who likewise ignore federal law.

In the same manner, rank amateur video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was jailed for violating his probation. Why? Nakoula made a video insensitive to Muslims and thus was falsely blamed for the riotous 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The most likely culprit of the preplanned Benghazi attack was not scapegoat Nakoula, but the inconvenient pre-election truth that al-Qaida was quite alive in Libya and U.S. security quite lax.

America is becoming analogous to the mess in lawless contemporary Venezuela. When the law is suspended or unevenly applied for politically protected individuals and groups, then there is no law.

So we are now seeing the logical descent into the abyss of chaos.

Multiculturalism Leads to Chaos

Islam's Conquest of Europe

9/8/2015 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide," wrote James Burnham in his 1964 "Suicide of the West." Burnham predicted that the mindless magnanimity of liberals, who subordinate the interests of their own people and nations to utopian and altruistic impulses, would bring about an end to Western civilization.

Was he wrong? Consider what is happening in Europe.

Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia, small nations sensing they will be swamped by asylum seekers from the Muslim world, are trying to seal their borders and secure their homelands. Their instinct for survival, their awareness of lifeboat ethics, is acute. Yet they are being condemned for trying to save themselves.

Meanwhile, the pope calls on Catholics everywhere to welcome the asylum seekers and Angela Merkel will be taking in 800,000 this year alone, though the grumbling has begun in Bavaria.

This is but the beginning of what is to come, if Europe does not pull up the drawbridge.

For the scores of thousands of Syrians in the Balkans, Hungary, Austria and Germany are only the first wave. Behind them in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are 4 million refugees from the Syrian civil war. Seeing the success of the first wave, they are now on the move.

Behind them are 2 million Alawites and 2 million Christians who will be fleeing Syria when the Bashar Assad regime falls to ISIS and the al-Qaeda terrorists who already occupy half of that blood-soaked land.

Now the Iraqis, who live in a country the prospects for whose reunification and peace are receding, have begun to move. Also among the thousands pouring into Europe from Turkey are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afghans. When the Americans leave Afghanistan and the Taliban take their revenge, more Afghans will be fleeing west.

Africa has a billion people, a number that will double by 2050, and double again to 4 billion by 2100. Are those billions of Africans going to endure lives of poverty under ruthless, incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical regimes, if Europe's door remains wide open?

What is coming is not difficult to predict.

Europe is going to run out of altruism long before it runs out of refugees. For as The New York Times reported Monday, there is no end in sight to the coming Third World and Islamic migrations to Europe.

Humanitarian groups, said the Times, claim "successive waves of migrants ... are on the way, perhaps for months or even years, until the wars, poverty and other underlying causes of the dislocations have abated." But with terrorism expanding from Nigeria to the Maghreb to the Middle East, wars spreading, and tyranny pandemic in those regions, will not a peaceful, prosperous and free Europe always be a magnet?

If Europe does not seal its borders, what is to stop the Islamic world and Third World from coming and repopulating the continent with their own kind, as the shrinking native populations of Europe die out?

Will Old Europe even be recognizable by midcentury? The inevitable reaction to what is happening has already begun.

European nations will divide with anti-immigrant parties like the National Front in France and UKIP in Britain gaining adherents until the major parties embrace restrictions on immigration or are swept aside.

Already there is a backlash in Germany and Austria to the tens of thousands invited in. Eastern Europe, with shrinking populations of native-born, has shown little interest in admitting migrants.

Though attacked by his opposition, Israel's Bibi Netanyahu will not be admitting Arab and Muslim asylum seekers. Having built a fence from Gaza to Eilat to keep Africans from crossing the Sinai, a wall to separate the West Bank from Israel, Bibi is now building a fence on the Jordanian border.

The Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas says he would welcome Palestinian asylum seekers. Both sides know that, in this struggle, demography may very well be destiny.

The Schengen Agreement that guarantees "open borders" among EU nations is also unlikely to survive this invasion. The old national borders of Europe will be re-established. And as divisions deepen within and between countries over how many to accept, and when to shut the door, the EU may itself crack up over this most momentous and emotional of issues.

The scores of thousands of migrants bursting into Europe and the hundreds of thousands and millions coming after them are going to force Europeans to address an existential question.

Who are we? Are we unique and separate peoples of a particular race and tribe, history and faith, language and culture, identifiable to all the world and worth preserving at the price of our lives?

Are we Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Spanish and French first?

Or are we simply Europeans, people who live on the world's smallest continent and share a belief in the equality of all peoples and cultures, and in secularism and social democracy?

Liberal Man almost alone excepted, every species of animal life reacts or recoils when another species intrudes upon its turf.

Thus, in the end, Burnham was probably right. Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

Read 14th Amendment Section 5

Anchor Babies on Trial in Texas

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum September 2, 2015

A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”

The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to “birth tourists,” primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called “anchor babies” because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens, and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.

The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there last week by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.

The brief begins by declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,” and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent.” In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.

Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States.” But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t). By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico.

The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says that “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals” and “The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad.” Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.

The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.

Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.

In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents which it has no way to verify.

The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.

The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year.

Wlise Words Indeed!

The Bible and Immigration

9/1/2015  - Susan Stamper Brown Townhall.com

People are tempted to blur moral lines when it comes to feel-good things like immigration. Last year, President Obama wanted us to support his views so desperately he pulled the Christianity card out of his back pocket, attempting to tie a moral equivalent to his immigration policies and the Mary and Joseph story. Obama's version included a made-up scripture: "The good book says don't throw stones in glass houses" and a couple other choice misquotes.

It would be swell to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry into the U.S., or any Mohamud, Osman, and Abil -- in the case of the recent brutal murder of a Portland, Maine man named Freddy Akoa, who was allegedly beaten to death by three Muslim immigrants. While the Portland police did not divulge a motive, as of this writing, the Portland Press Herald reports a bloodstained Bible was found next to the victims' head.

Meanwhile in other news, in mid-August an Uzbek refugee was convicted of three terrorism-related charges in Idaho for supporting a terrorist organization and gathering explosives to carry out an attack in the U.S. from his Boise apartment. In May, television station WUSA-9 reported a West African refugee was sentenced to ten years in prison for attempted rape of a woman -- just nine days after his feet touched American soil.

Currently, President Obama's nonsensical United Nations Refugee Resettlement Program grants permanent legal residency to almost 70,000 immigrants each year. You'd think after injecting Christianity into the immigration issue Obama's program would grant refuge to persecuted minorities running for their lives, like the 27 Chaldean Christians who've been locked up in an ICE detention center in California for six months now. But, oh no.

The administration seems a wee bit biased these days. WND.com reports at least 90 percent of immigrant refuges thus far are Muslim. Muslims from jihad nations. With no vetting. Expecting a positive outcome from dropping massive amounts of mostly Muslim, non-English speaking, non-vetted refugees into any town the administration pleases is a fool's errand at best and a national security threat of epic proportion.

President Obama's ignoring his biggest priority - protecting us. Before you go all "Jesus-y" on me to shame me for my views, I wonder how many of you lock your doors at night to protect your family from intruders and look through the peephole before you open the door. It's no different. The Bible says the "strangers and aliens" we are to care for should be legal, obeying the laws of the land. And they should graciously assimilate into the communities which welcome them.

We've had almost 50 cases where Muslim immigrants exited the U.S. to join terrorist groups like ISIS in Syria and al-Shabab in Somalia. Back in February, an FBI counter-terrorism top official, Michael Steinback, testified before a House Homeland Security committee admitting the U.S. is unable to vet Syrian refugees for terrorism connections.

The Obama administration approved 5,000 to 8,000 more Syrian refugees to immigrate here in 2016 despite the fact that back in June, Norwegian officials discovered several of the refugees seeking asylum in Norway under the same UN program were linked to terrorist groups. Fact is, ISIS promised to smuggle fighters into Europe and elsewhere disguised as refugees. During that Homeland Security hearing, Steinback said he's "concerned" that bringing Syrian refugees poses a clear and present danger to Americans admitting, "We don't have it under control."

So what might Jesus do, you ask? I don't know. I can tell you what I'd do. I'd probably kick around a few tables for twisting scriptures out of context and maybe call a few government officials "vipers" for betraying their oath to protect Americans. Or maybe I'd offer a trade like President Obama did for Bowe Bergdahl. Five anti-American progressives for one vetted immigrant.

Or, maybe I'd vote for Donald Trump... if he'd prove he's a conservative. But that might be a stretch.