Where is The Republican Outrage!

Omnibus Attack on American Jobs

12/29/2015 - Phyllis Schlafly Townhall.com

When I heard that the Omnibus spending bill that President Obama signed a week before Christmas includes a provision allowing more foreign guest workers, my first reaction was disbelief. We were repeatedly told by Republican leaders that the must-pass spending bill contained only what was absolutely necessary to pay our troops, bondholders, and Social Security recipients, and we couldn’t risk shutting down the government with provisions to defund Planned Parenthood or prohibit Obama’s executive actions.

Guest-worker visas became a national scandal this year when the Walt Disney Company and Southern California Edison fired 250 and 400 employees respectively, and both companies required their laid-off workers to train replacements brought in from India to do the same job. The 2016 presidential campaign has been fired up by candidates who promise not only to crack down on illegal immigration, but also to reduce legal immigration which most Americans think is too high.

Speaker Paul Ryan gave written assurances to his conservative colleagues, such as Rep. Steve King and Rep. Mo Brooks, that he would not “bring up any immigration legislation so long as Barack Obama is president.” Yet there it was, on page 701 of the 2,009-page bill that members of Congress had only one full day to read and study before voting:

“Section 214(g)(9)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking ‘2004, 2005, or 2006 shall not again be counted toward such limitation during fiscal year 2007’ and inserting ‘2013, 2014, or 2015 shall not again be counted toward such limitation during fiscal year 2016’.” What that convoluted language means, in other words, is that employers can import up to 264,000 new H-2B workers next year because the 198,000 people allowed to come in the last three years would “not again be counted” toward the annual cap of 66,000.

Like the better-known H-1B visas for college-educated technical workers, H-2B visas for temporary blue-collar jobs are supposed to be issued only if and when “unemployed workers capable of performing the relevant service or labor cannot be found” anywhere in the United States. That limitation is easily circumvented by employers, whose task is made easier by another provision on page 888 of the Omnibus: “In the determination of prevailing wage for the purposes of the H–2B program, the Secretary shall accept private wage surveys” in lieu of official ones.

H-2B visas allow foreign workers to do jobs that are temporary or seasonal but not agricultural – categories that would make a great summer job for any high-school or college student. Prime examples include canning or packing seafood during the surge when the catch comes in, all sorts of jobs at summer resorts and amusement parks, and outdoor jobs in construction, landscaping and grounds keeping in places where that type of work can’t be done all year round.

The H-2B language looks like a special-interest provision that must have been written and inserted by high-priced lobbyists, so you’d think members of Congress would have enough shame to deny knowledge and disclaim responsibility for how it got into the bill. On the contrary, House leaders and their minions have issued statements, written letters and given interviews trying to defend the indefensible.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise claimed “there are not sufficient American workers to fill job vacancies for temporary and seasonal positions.” While the labor participation rate keeps falling to new lows every month, Scalise thinks America has a “worker shortage” forcing “many small and seasonal businesses ... to shut their doors.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan lashed back at critics for “making a mountain out of a molehill” over a provision that he says would bring “only about 8,000 additional workers.” However, a 410-page report issued in April by USCIS, the agency in charge of H-2B visas, predicted that 115,500 additional visas would be issued under the revised language.

Speaking on Bill Bennett’s radio program, Ryan complained that summer resorts in Wisconsin “can’t find local workers” to staff tourist attractions because “kids are already in college.” A letter to his constituents on Ryan’s behalf claimed that “Wisconsin industries such as dairy, nurseries, agriculture and tourism” need more foreign workers to “perform work that employers cannot find American workers to perform,” although dairy and agriculture workers are not eligible for H-2B visas.

Paul Ryan is a true believer in the idea that, as he wrote in 2013, “immigration helps us get the labor force that we need so that we can have the kind of growth we want.” But economists have shown that virtually all of the economic “growth” from immigration is captured by the immigrants themselves, leaving no net benefit to American citizens already here.

Beyond the question of what to do with illegal aliens, it’s important to reduce the flow of replacement workers into the U.S. Guest worker programs have become a racket that should be suspended or terminated.

Revolution Conducted By The Wrong Side

Why are we allowing 'the 1 percent' to erase our borders?

By Michael Savage - WND.com

Welcome to “The Michael Savage Newsletter,” your daily report on all things “Savage.”

In today’s issue: Dr. Savage replayed portions of a radio interview he did on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated show in which he pointed out the stark differences in worldview between the tiny, elite class that runs the country and the average American.

No amount of money will satisfy the elite, he told Ingraham, noting how billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates devote their intellectual energy to promoting socialism.

I’m not poor. I’ve worked from being an immigrant’s son who sold comic books at age 5 in the streets of the Bronx to being fairly well off. But I am in a bubble. You know what kind of bubble? It’s me and my dog.

And so I see the world as it is. I talk to the mechanic. I talk to the housekeeper. I talk to the grocery clerk. I talk to the construction worker.

I actually see things as they are. I’m not invited to any social gatherings. I’ve been ostracized because of my strong nationalist beliefs in this country. Nationalism is what frightens them.

Here’s the problem. Laura, I explained it to a German waitress yesterday who loves America.

I said, “How could Merkel do this to you?” And she was a nice, liberal woman. She said, “I don’t really know what she’s doing.”

And I said to her, “You have to understand that this desire to erase borders, language and culture is being done by a group of the most evil psychotics the world had ever seen.”

What is it, zero, zero 1 percent dictating to people they should have no nation and no national identity?

It’s astonishing that “we the people” have permitted it to get this far.

And in “Government Zero” I have a chapter called “Zero Immigration,” because that’s what’s required to save the nation.

I don’t believe for one minute that there aren’t sufficient IT workers in this country to satisfy the needs of green psychotics in Silicon Valley.

You mean there’s not enough money for Mark Zuckerberg? He needs more? He has to pay wages that are half of an American worker?

Zero immigration for seven years. Let the Americans do the job. Train the poor kids who don’t do anything how to do jobs. They can work if they are taught. Send them to trade school.

We have a revolution in this country that is being conducted by the most brilliant left-wing strategist the world has ever seen named Barack Hussein Obama.

Paul Ryan? John Boehner? Mitch “the Gobbler” O’Connell? They’re the opposition party?

HOPE Is Eternal!

America at Christmas

12/24/2015 - Judge Andrew Napolitano

As if to promise a Christmas present, Congress has just finished approving the finances of the federal government for the next few months. Santa Claus would have done a better job. During early 2016, Congress will pay the government's bills by borrowing money from individual and institutional lenders. Those folks will lend the feds all the money the feds need because the law requires the feds to pay them back.

The "pay them back" ideology is a very curious one. It is true that the full faith and credit of the federal government guarantees the payment of the government's debts. Without that lawfully binding guarantee, who would lend money to an institution that carries a debt of $18.8 trillion? So the investors who have lent money to the feds know that their debts will be repaid in a timely manner.

Because the federal government spends $1.5 trillion more annually than it collects in taxes and other revenue and because its payments of interest alone on the money it has borrowed will soon be about $1 trillion a year, it can only repay its debts by borrowing more money.

Since 1911, the federal government has not repaid a debt from tax revenue. It has always borrowed more money to pay its lenders. This is known to economists as rolling over the debt.

President Woodrow Wilson -- who gave us a racially segregated military and federal civilian workforce, brought us into the horrific and useless World War I, arrested Americans for singing German beer hall songs in public, campaigned for the federal income tax by promising it would never exceed 3 percent of income, helped to create the cash-printing Federal Reserve, laid the groundwork for Prohibition, and kept Jim Crow going -- borrowed $30 billion to pay for World War I. That money was borrowed from investors and from the Federal Reserve, which in those days literally printed the cash that it lent.

The $30 billion that Wilson borrowed was repaid by the feds with borrowed dollars. And the folks who lent the feds those dollars were in turn repaid with borrowed dollars. That inflationary cycle has been repeated countless times since all this borrowing from Peter to pay Paul became the financing method of choice for the feds.

As a result of this, the federal government still owes the $30 billion that Wilson borrowed, but it owes it -- obviously -- to different lenders from those who originally financed the Great War. It has paid more than $15 billion in interest payments on that $30 billion.

Who could run a household or a business the way the feds have run the government in the past 100 years?

As we approach a presidential election year, the federal financing-by-borrowing scheme is seen as a standard operating procedure by all the Democratic candidates and by all the Republicans, as well, except for Sen. Rand Paul. He and he alone among the major candidates would have the feds live within their means and stop the vicious circle that Wilson began.

He understands that government has limits. Those limits are written down in the Constitution. He recognizes, as his competitors do not, that the government simply cannot morally or constitutionally right any wrong, regulate any behavior, borrow any amount, or tax any event as long as it can politically get away with it. When it does, we end up with war and debt.

Whenever you hear a presidential candidate proclaiming that the first job of the president is to keep America safe, challenge that absurdity. Invite that candidate to read the Constitution, which lays out the jobs of the president -- the principal of which is to keep us free and safe. If a president keeps us safe but unfree, he is simply not doing his job. Only Sen. Paul has made that argument.

The world today is a sad place, and those who love freedom sometimes feel we are shoveling against the tide. But for just a moment, at this time of year, we should pause and remember an event that occurred about 2,000 years ago in the Middle East.

The world then was a far worse place, yet a light seared through the darkness. A baby was born in a cave. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. The baby came into the world so that we might have life and live it abundantly. The baby came into the world so that we would be set free from our own sins, free from the temptations of the world and free from the governments that seek to control us.

The baby was the Son of God and the Prince of Peace and the savior of the world. This week we celebrate His birthday.

Merry Christmas.

Islam & Christianity = Oil & Water

Islam and the West: An Irreconcilable Conflict?

12/22/2015 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here ... and ... around the world, that there is a 'clash of civilizations.'"

So said Hillary Clinton in Saturday night's New Hampshire debate.

Yet, that phrase was not popularized by Donald Trump, but by Harvard's famed Samuel Huntington. His "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" has been described by Zbigniew Brzezinski as providing "quintessential insights necessary for a broad understanding of world affairs in our time."

That Clinton is unaware of the thesis, or dismisses it, does not speak well of the depth of her understanding of our world.

Another attack on Trump, more veiled, came Monday in an "open letter" in The Washington Post where four dozen religious leaders, led by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, charge "some politicians, candidates and commentators" with failing to follow Thomas Jefferson's dictum:

"I never will, by any word or act ... admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."

Intending no disrespect to Jefferson, if you do not inquire "into the religious opinions of others" in this world, it can get you killed.

"We love our Muslim siblings in humanity," said the signers of Cardinal McCarrick's letter, "they serve our communities as doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, journalists, first responders, and as members of the U.S. Armed forces and Congress."

Undeniably true. But, unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter.

Did the worst attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, 9/11, have nothing to do with the Islamic faith?

Did Fort Hood and the San Bernardino massacres, the London subway bombings and the killings at Charlie Hebdo, as well as the slaughter at the Bataclan in Paris, have nothing to do with Islam?

Does the lengthening list of atrocities by terrorist cells of ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaida, al-Shabaab and the Nusra Front have nothing to do with Islam? Is it really illiberal to inquire "into the religious opinions" of those who perpetrate these atrocities? Or is it suicidal not to?

There has arisen a legitimate question as to whether Islamism can coexist peacefully with, or within, a post-Christian secular West.

For, as the Poet of the Empire, Rudyard Kipling, wrote: "Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat."

As of 1960, the Great Wave of immigration into the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe had been halted for 35 years. And the children of these millions had been largely assimilated and Americanized.

Yet, 50 years after the Turkish gastarbeiters were brought in the millions into Germany, and Algerians and other North Africans were brought into France, no such wholesale assimilation had taken place. Why not? Why are there still large, indigestible communities in France where French citizens do not venture and French police are ever on alert?

What inhibits the assimilation that swiftly followed the entry of millions of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews into the United States from 1890 to 1920? Might it have something to do with Islam and its inherent resistance to a diversity of faiths?

Set aside faith-based terrorism and Islamist terrorism, and consider the nations and regimes of the Middle and Near East. Iran holds presidential elections every four years, but is a Shiite theocracy where the Ayatollah is a virtual dictator. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni kingdom and home to Wahhabism, a Sunni form of puritanism.

Those ruling regimes are rooted in Islam. And while secular America embraces expressions of religious pluralism and sexual freedom, homosexuality and apostasy are often viewed as capital crimes in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Where Islam is the ruling faith, the Quran is secular law.

Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc saw our future on its way, even before World War II: "[I]n the contrast between our religious chaos and the religious certitude still strong throughout the Mohammedan world ... lies our peril."

Historically, Christianity came to dominate the Roman Empire through preaching, teaching, example and martyrdom. Islam used the sword to conquer the Middle and Near East, North Africa and Spain in a single century, until stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel.

And this is today's crucial distinction: Islam is not simply a religion of 1.6 billion people, it is also a political ideology for ruling nations and, one day, the world.

To the True Believer, Islam is ultimately to be imposed on all of mankind, which is to be ruled by the prescriptions of the Quran. And where Muslims achieve a majority, Christianity is, at best, tolerated.

Nor is this position illogical. For, if there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet, all other religions are false and none can lead to salvation. Why should false, heretical and ruinous faiths not be suppressed?

Behind the reluctance of Trump and other Americans to send another U.S. army into a region that has seen wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan leave us with ashes in our mouths, lies a wisdom born of painful experience.

This Insanity Must Stop - Or We Are Doomed!

An Establishment Unhinged

12/11/2015 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration "until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on," Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.

As all the old hate words -- xenophobe, racist, bigot -- have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini. The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.

Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump's call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over "American values" and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.

But is this really true? The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.

In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.

Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia. Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration? Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers.

And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us. Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.

Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue. Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.

Third, according to Harvard's late Samuel Huntington, a "clash of civilizations" is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?

Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.

In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?

With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?

Many European nations -- Germans, French, Swedes, Brits -- appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries. Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?

In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace "Hollywood values" regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.

In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren's interpretation of the First Amendment -- about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally -- apply? When is the next "Crusade for Christ" coming to Saudi Arabia?

Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?

President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.

Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?

Trump's surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment -- that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.

Trump's success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate "globalization." They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.

They don't want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.

As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell's speech to the Rump Parliament:

You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!

Clinton Corruption Continues

The Mistress of Deception

11/5/2015 - Judge Andrew Napolitano Townhall.com

The self-inflicted wounds of Hillary Rodham Clinton just keep manifesting themselves. She has two serious issues that have arisen in the past week; one is political and the other is legal. Both have deception at their root.

Her political problem is one of credibility. We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida. We know from the public record that the Obama administration's narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd's spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.

Over this past weekend we learned that her own embassy staff in Tripoli told her senior staff in Washington the day after the killings that the video was not an issue, and very few Libyans had seen it. We also know from her emails that the CIA informed her within 24 hours of the ambassador's murder that it had been planned by al-Qaida 12 days before the actual killings.

Nevertheless, she persisted in blaming the video. When she received the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards at Andrews Air Force base three days after their murders, she told the media and the families of the deceased assembled there that the four Americans had been killed by a spontaneous mob reacting to a cheap 15-minute anti-Muhammad video.

Clinton's sordid behavior throughout this unhappy affair reveals a cavalier attitude about the truth and a ready willingness to deceive the public for short-term political gain. This might not harm her political aspirations with her base in the Democratic Party; but it will be a serious political problem for her with independent voters, without whose support she simply cannot be elected.

Yet, her name might not appear on any ballot in 2016.

That's because, each time she addresses these issues -- her involvement in Benghazi and her emails -- her legal problems get worse. We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government), and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).

Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee. In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put "boots" on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.

So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they'd be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.

After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Kaddafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya. When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the "off with his head" hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn't care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.

My Fox News colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne have scrutinized Clinton's testimony with respect to her friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Recall that President Obama vetoed Clinton's wish to hire him as her State Department senior adviser. So she had the Clinton Foundation pay him a greater salary than the State Department would have, and he became her silent de facto advisor.

They emailed each other hundreds of times during her tenure. He provided intelligence to her, which he obtained from a security company on the ground in Libya in which he had a financial interest. He advised her on how to present herself to the media. He even advocated the parameters of the Libyan no-fly zone and she acted upon his recommendations. Yet she told the committee he was "just a friend." She was highly deceptive and criminally misleading about this under oath.

It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.

When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.

The Right Stuff! Study Carefully

 

Immigration and Our Founding Fathers' Values

12/11/2015 - Michelle Malkin

President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is "offensive and contrary to American values." No-limits liberals have attacked common-sense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling or immigration slowdowns as "un-American."

America's Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

Our founders, as I've reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: "It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?"

No, not because "diversity" is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, "Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of."

Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."

Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."

Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another."

He predicted, correctly, that "The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." He asserted, "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions "as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded."

This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders' intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: "It is well settled that applicants don't have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. ... As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the Public Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest."

Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn't value its own citizens and sovereignty first won't endure as a country for long.

 

We Are Our Own Worse Enemy!

The CAIR Effect: See Something, Do Nothing

12/4/2015 - Michelle Malkin Townhall.com

As news of the San Bernardino jihadist shootings blared on airport TVs, I spotted a TSA monitor flashing the now ubiquitous message:

"If you SEE something, SAY something."

The warning should be followed with a big "LOL" and a winky-blinky, just-kidding emoji. It's one of the emptiest slogans in modern American life.

While the White House pays lip service to homeland security vigilance, it consorts with Islamic terror sympathizers who attack vigilant citizens and law enforcement officers at every turn.

Yes, I'm looking at you, Council on American-Islamic Relations.

After seeing CAIR's bizarre press conference with the San Bernardino jihadists' family members, here's what I'd like to say to them:

You are not to be trusted. You put damage control above border control and jihad control. You are enemies of our national security and sovereignty.

Reminder: The feds designated CAIR an unindicted terror co-conspirator in 2007 in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation and others for providing support to Hamas jihadists. Over the alleged objections of Dallas-area federal prosecutors, the Obama Justice Department's senior political appointees declined to press terror-financing charges against CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad.

Instead, the administration has rolled out the red carpet for CAIR officials "hundreds" of times since 2009 on a "range of issues."

This is the same group of "Islamophobia!"-shrieking grievance grifters that cooked up the Ahmed "Clock Boy" Mohamed brouhaha in Texas, where the city of Irving and Irving Independent School District are now being sued for $15 million after raising alarms over the teen's low-tech media stunt. Obama hailed Mohamed before the boy jetted off to Qatar to cash in on a Muslim Brotherhood-linked educational scholarship.

This is the same group of litigious radicals who unsuccessfully sued a Florida gun shop owner this summer for declaring that he would refuse to sell weapons to "[a]nyone who is either directly or indirectly associated with terrorism in any way." A judge ruled this week that "[t]here are simply no facts grounding the assertion that Plaintiff (CAIR) and/or one of its constituents will be harmed." CAIR is appealing, of course.

This is the same group of treacherous thugs that squelched critics of Somalia-based jihad group al-Shabab in Minnesota. CAIR smeared whistleblowing Muslims who participated in an educational Minneapolis forum on al-Shabab terrorism and youth gangs as "anti-Muslim." In 2013, the uncle of a missing young Muslim radical testified before Congress about CAIR's efforts to pressure families to impede FBI investigations.

"CAIR held meetings for some members of the community and told them not to talk to the FBI," Abdirizak Bihi told lawmakers, "which was a slap in the face for the Somali American Muslim mothers who were knocking on doors day and night with pictures of their missing children and asking for the community to talk to law enforcement about what they know of the missing kids."

This is the same group of free speech-trampling zealots that bombarded private citizen, Zaba Davis, with harassing subpoenas over her opposition to a planned construction project by the Muslim Community Association and Michigan Islamic Academy. A federal judge called CAIR's anti-free speech witch hunt "chilling" and ordered the outfit to pay $9,000 in legal fees.

This is the same manipulative group of controversy-manufacturing instigators who tried to sue "John Does" -- innocent American citizens who alerted the authorities about their security concerns -- in 2007 after a group of imams falsely claimed they were discriminated against on a Minneapolis flight.

And this is the same dangerous group of jihad enablers that filed an obstructionist lawsuit to block vigilant Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from quizzing Muslim border-crossers about their ties to jihadist martyrs and radical mosques. The anti-"racial profiling" lawsuit has dragged on for three years.

Little wonder, then, that in this politically correct climate of intimidation, a neighbor of the San Bernardino jihadists told local media this week that he had "noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people."

That's the CAIR effect: See something, do nothing. Silence is complicity.