Hey Liberal Progressive Elitists - Meet Normal Americans

Reboot America: Step Back From The Brink Before It’s Too Late

7/11/2016 - Kurt Schlichter Townhall.com

Welcome to 1968 2.0, the new and improved chaos, featuring a cutting edge assault on our foundational principles by an idiot elite that thinks it can gut the rule of law without consequence. Time to reboot, to wipe the hard drive and reload the factory software coded two-plus centuries ago by those dead white male geniuses.

Except I don’t think this country’s elite has the character, nor understands our constitutional technology enough, to do it. I think it fails to appreciate what is going on outside its cloisters, among those weird, patriotic, religious, and – significantly – armed people living in uncool places between the coasts. I think it believes this anger is a passing fad, that it can bluff and bully its way through it the way it did to previous challenges to its rule.

Obama and the progressive elite were not satisfied merely with exonerating the clearly guilty Hillary Clinton of charges that would have sent any mere mortal to the slammer. They had to shove it in our faces. The AG met with Bill Clinton. Then the FBI director laid out a devastating case, followed by an “and…nope.” Then President Faily McWorsethancarter swept her away in Air Force One – at our expense – to campaign with her and even placed her at a podium with the presidential seal while the liberal media thrilled and quivered. This is beyond mere corruption. This is them gloating over what they see as their unassailable power. This is them laughing at us.

Then Obama made yet another speech telling us how cops are racist. Understand that his attacks on cops are an attack on all of us normal Americans. Like soldiers, the police come from the ranks of us normal Americans, not the elite. And just as with soldiers, we normals revere cops as symbolic of the best of how we see ourselves – loyal, brave, patriotic protectors of order and decency. Obama – the guy who immediately assumed a Cambridge cop acted “stupidly” – as well as Hillary Clinton and the liberal elite, attacked cops as racist and evil as surrogates for attacking us as racist and evil.

And then yet another racial malcontent went on a shooting spree. The Los Angeles cop killer, the Virginia TV reporter, and now this creep in Dallas, all full of racist hate, and not one damn word about it from the elite. The motive hurt the narrative; they wanted to talk about cops oppressing people, so the elite simply lied by its silence about the Dallas killer’s expressly racist motive. And their media love-slaves obliged; when it became clear that this clown who couldn’t make E4 after six years was essentially just a Black Lives Matter supporter in a hurry, the story faded away.

But the lies did not fade away. Obama came out, feigned ignorance about motive (“We many never know what motivated the guy who expressly said that he was motivated by a desire to murder white cops.”), and blamed us yet again – this time for our stubborn refusal to disarm ourselves to please people who hate us and who refuse to acknowledge what drives those who say outright that they intend to murder us.

Did Obama try unity? Of course not – he divided Americans into the good ones who agree with him and us bad ones who refuse to kneel and bow. Leftists don’t want unity and they don’t want peace. Community organizers succeed when they divide; they need discord and hate to survive. Understand that all this discord and hate is not a bug. To them, it is a feature.

And this strategy is really, really dumb. It’s dumb because this country is not one big Chicago. It’s not one discrete, dysfunctional tumor surrounded by healthy tissue. The progressives can afford to play their games in the Chicagos and Austins and Berkeleys because outside the city limits there are normals of every race, color, and creed whose work feeds and powers and defends the elite’s urban petri dishes of blue model failure. They can live out their lefty fantasies because we normals subsidize them through our normalcy, like parents from Orange County paying tuition at Oberlin so their blonde daughter can learn how there’s no such thing as gender while she majors in Anti-Colonialist Pottery.

But what happens when they try to do that to the whole country? This time, the normals can’t just move away. Instead of driving them out, now the elite has to suppress normal Americans in place. They don’t realize that they are putting our backs against the wall.

And you have to wonder – have the elites considered their endgame? Because they may have learned the wrong lesson when they drove all the normals out of the Chicagos and Austins and Berkeleys. They may actually believe that normal Americans can just be bullied and badgered into submission. This is a very, very, very dangerous notion.

Have you elitists ever met normal Americans? Try this little experiment. Jump in your Prius and drive to, say, Oklahoma. Go ahead, Google it – I’ll wait. Then find a bar and go in after work. Look for a guy at a table in boots and jeans and a work shirt enjoying a Coors or some other non-craft, non-pumpkin-infused beer. Then tell him this:

“Hey stupid, you’re dumb because your parents couldn’t send you to college. You’re also dumb for believing in Jesus. You’re a sucker and a baby killer for joining the Army and fighting in Iraq. Plus, you have privilege because your great-great-great-great grandfather came from Glasgow. So I’m going to tell you what to do from now on. I’m your boss and moral superior. You’re going to let any dude dressed like a woman into the bathroom with your daughter. You’re going to turn in your global warming-causing pick-up truck. You’re going to be out of your job when we finish off the oil industry. You’re going to give up your guns. And I don’t care what you say about any of it. You don’t matter. You don’t get a say. Also, you’re racist.”

See how that works out, but check your dental coverage first. Now, think about how that strategy is going to work out in our country as a whole.

What’s the endgame here, liberals? Do you see over half the country just . . . giving up? Surrendering? Throwing in the towel once you have sufficiently nagged and insulted them? Or do you see them getting mad? Your media lackeys keep attributing phenomena like Trump and even Sanders to “anger.” Well, yeah. Right now, they are expressing that anger through legitimate means, at the ballot box. But what happens when you decide you’re going to step outside the law once again to ensure that their lawful expression of that anger is silenced?

Do you expect that normals will just shrug and submit? What if they don’t? How many of the 60,000-70,000 guns Americans buy every single day do you elites purchase?

What’s the endgame? What happens when – and the day will come – the normals say “No?” Does the elite try force? There’s no doubt it would if it could, but in the end, it needs to ask itself another question: Exactly who is willing to fight and die for their liberal Utopia? The elitists themselves? Their snowflakey kids Kaden and Ashleigh? Do they think they can pay enough people to suit up and go make people conform? How much money will you need to pay somebody to risk his skin to go down to Texas and try to take those Lone Star knuckle-draggers’ guns?

Oh, this is crazy talk! Hey, another right winger threatening rebellion! You know, the elite’s tactics of attacking straw men and deliberately lying about political opponents pioneered by Obama and the Jon Stewart clones makes reasoned discussion almost impossible, and the malicious dishonesty underlying these ploys only ratchets up the anger. Eliminate the legitimate modes of opposition and you’ll leave only illegitimate modes of opposition.

I am not advocating the consequences that I see coming from the elite’s actions; to say so is a lie, though I suspect that will not stop them from lying about this column in the comments and elsewhere. I am only predicting the likely consequences of the elite’s unwise and malicious campaign against those it hates and seeks to rule.

But here is another way. Step back from the brink and reboot. Stop the corruption. Embrace the rule of law. Listen to those you have ignored. Hear what they say. Drop the divisive initiatives designed to humiliate and bring normals to heel – the gun grabs, the bathroom edicts, the Christian cake baker pogroms.

But if you can’t do that, if you can’t give up the money and the power, if the joy of inflicting petty oppressions and humiliations upon the people you look down on is just too satisfying to pass up, then ask yourself: What is your endgame?

Everywhere - Refugee Resettlement is Insanity!

Europe Reaping What it Sowed With Open Borders Policy for Muslim Refugees

12/27/2016 - Rachel Alexander Townhall.com

No one could have predicted that left-leaning German Chancellor Angela Merkel would call for banning hijabs. The open borders policy European countries have taken toward refugees fleeing the Middle East due to ISIS has resulted in violence increasing in those countries, with ISIS infiltrating the refugees. Facing a tough reelection next year as a result of allowing over a million refugees into the country, Merkel finally reversed her position. In November, she called on the EU to start turning back boats full of refugees as they cross the Mediterranean.

The terrorist attacks by refugees are continuing. On December 19, a radical Islamist refugee drove a truck into a market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 48 others. The refugees are raping women and destroying property. In Italy, for example, “for the first time, the crime rate in the north of Italy, which has the highest concentration of immigrants and asylum seekers, is surpassing that of the south,” Breitbart reported. A study in Italy found that where the immigrant population increases by 1 percent, the crime rate goes up 0.4 percent. Italian businesses have lost billions of dollars due to refugee related problems such as counterfeiting, shoplifting and illegal vendors.

Many of the refugees don’t have jobs, putting a strain on government budgets. Only 34,000 of the 1.2 million refugees in Germany have found jobs. Shariah law is gradually being implemented in some of the countries, as officials accommodate their intolerant religious views.

The European Union set up a quota system requiring member countries to accept a certain number of refugees. The refugees mostly arrive by boat in Turkey, Greece or Italy, and then disperse throughout Europe. They are not screened; there is no way to determine their true nationality or names. The number of refugees is likely to increase, as the atrocities in Aleppo, Syria, continue escalating.

News of the free welfare from Europe’s socialist and borderline socialist countries has spread to Africa, and so migrants from that continent – not even refugees fleeing persecution – are now flooding the shores of Italy even more than Greece. The Balkans closed its borders in March, but smugglers are still getting the refugees to western Europe.

Professor Anna Bono of the University of Turin, an expert in African migration, revealed, “In the countries of sub-Saharan Africa there are advertisements inciting people to go to Italy, explaining that everything here is free.” Half of the prostitutes in Italy are Nigerian.

Obama is following suit, allowing thousands of refugees into the U.S. Each one costs taxpayers $64,370 for their first five years here; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Of the total 85,000 refugees admitted into the U.S. last year, a record 38,901 were Muslims, a higher number than Christians admitted. There were 12,587 refugees from Syria alone, 99 percent who were Muslims.

In contrast, a country very similar to us, Australia, announced in October that it would not be accepting any refugees, with few exceptions. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, no conservative, had reportedly been turning away refugee boats that arrived on the country’s shores previous to the announcement. Instead, he has agreed to take refugees from Central America who are not Muslim.

Several central European countries have objected to the resettlements, filing lawsuits against the U.N. The Schengen Agreement abolished border checks between European countries, which some countries are defying by erecting border fences. Opposition to the open borders policy is high, with 94 percent of Greeks disapproving.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said earlier this year that Slovakia would accept a small number of Christian refugees but not Muslims “who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values of the state.” Czech President Miloš Zeman, who is a social democrat (and former communist), no right winger, has been the most scathing leader. He denounced the prime minister’s plan to allow a mere 80 refugees from Syria into the country, saying it would result in “barbaric attacks.” He said even moderate Muslims could be radicalized to commit terrorist acts similar to how regular Germans went along with the Nazi regime. He sweepingly condemned Islam, “The attitude of Islam – I do not speak about jihadists, I speak about Islam – towards women, half of the population. As you know, in the Qur’an, women is something like the inferior part of mankind.” However, Zeman’s position is mostly ceremonial.

The refugee crisis has sparked the rise of populist movements across Europe. Right wing Marine Le Pen has a shot at a presidential bid in France, as does Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. In a moment of irony, the open borders organization Doctors Without Borders announced in March that it would no longer assist refugees at a center on the Greek island of Lesbos, due to the inability of the government to properly accommodate them all.

France 24 reported that at least 3,800 migrants died in the Mediterranean Sea between January and October attempting to reach Europe, making it the deadliest year in the Mediterranean. A realistic solution would have been to create a temporary place for the refugees near their home countries, such as in Jordan. These people love their countries and their culture. Where were leaders with the guts to implement this?

Will this massive migration from poorer countries lead to the destruction of Western civilization as laid out in the 1973 dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints? In the book, all countries are forced to open their borders, resulting in rape and ruin. The title is a reference to Revelation 20:9, “They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” There is no divine intervention in the book. While the allusion to Western civilization as God’s people came under fire as racist, journalist Lionel Shriver admitted the book was “prescient.” Another reviewer wrote that Raspail “was neither a prophet nor a visionary novelist, but simply a relentless historian of our future.”

The left-leaning European leaders who authorized the flood of refugees in the interests of forced “diversity” are now experiencing the consequences. Compelling two cultures to merge, where one’s holy book instructs its believers to destroy nonbelievers, will ultimately destroy Western civilization.

It's Always About The Money!

Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?

12/8/2016 - Judge Andrew Napolitano Townhall.com

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump re-emphasized the approach he will take in enforcing the nation's immigration laws, which is much different from the manner of enforcement utilized by President Barack Obama. The latter pointedly declined to deport the 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are the parents of children born here -- children who, by virtue of birth, are American citizens. Trump has made known his intention to deport all undocumented people, irrespective of family relationships, starting with those who have committed crimes.

In response to Trump's stated intentions, many cities -- including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect's plan. Can they do this?

Here is the back story.

Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president's job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.

Over time -- and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code -- Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn't want. Until now.

Earlier this year, two federal courts enjoined President Obama -- and the Supreme Court, in a tie vote, declined to interfere with those injunctions -- from establishing a formal program whereby undocumented people who are the parents of natural-born citizens may lawfully remain here. It is one thing, the courts ruled, for the president to prioritize federal law enforcement; it is quite another for him to attempt to rewrite the laws and put them at odds with what Congress has written. It is one thing for the president, for humanitarian reasons or because of a lack of resources, to look the other way in the face of unenforced federal law. It is another for him to claim that by doing so, he may constitutionally change federal law.

Trump brilliantly seized upon this -- and the electorate's general below-the-radar-screen disenchantment with it -- during his successful presidential campaign by promising to deport all 13 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, though he later reduced that promise so as to cover only the 2 million among them who have been convicted in the United States of violating state or federal laws.

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds -- or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term "sanctuary cities" is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them -- including the case of Chicago's offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states -- and thus the municipalities in them -- to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from "commandeering" the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.

All of this is part of our constitutional republic. By dividing powers between the feds and the states -- and by separating federal powers among the president, Congress and the courts -- our system intentionally makes the exercise of governmental power cumbersome by diffusing it. And since government is essentially the negation of freedom, the diffusion of governmental powers helps to maximize personal liberty.

Let's HOPE Sanity Rules Next Year

Sure, Let Them All In and Make Them Legal

12/11/2016 - Bruce Bialosky Townhall.com

There are many unhinged things about the reaction of the Democrats after their disastrous presidential candidate lost, but the one that irks me beyond despair is their immediate and fierce defense of people they apparently know who are in our country illegally.

There have been many reasons to dream that federal authorities would arrest these irresponsible elected officials. The worst being the arrogant and incompetent (the same combo Rob Ford displayed) Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. This guy is presiding over a city that is beyond bankrupt and a murder zone like areas of Iraq. Yet he has decided to take a stand on defending illegal aliens living in his city, taking jobs from his legal residents and draining community resources they don’t have. This is despite President-elect Trump stating he wants to throw out the criminal element of these illegal aliens.

Can you imagine what the illegal alien gang members would be thinking when the Chicago cops are defending them against the federal immigration authorities deporting them? The ones from south of our border would say “I told you these gringos are loco.” The Eastern European gang members will talk about how stupid we are in Russian, Ukrainian or Albanian.

But my home area has gone even further than that. Are you shocked the Left Coast would do such a thing? We have plenty of challenges here in Los Angeles as you can imagine about any major city in the U.S. After all, they are almost exclusively run by Democrats and public employee unions. Here is a problem to focus on for our civic leadership – millennials are fleeing Los Angeles at the third highest rate in the country. In fact, 7.4% of millennials have relocated over the last 10 years. The housing costs and lack of jobs have them moving to Austin, Charlotte and elsewhere. The cool, young and hip apparently don’t think L.A. is so cool, young and hip.

Yet our civic leaders have a fully-organized plan within a little over a week post-election to protect illegal aliens living in the city from the federal authorities. The Los Angeles Times reported the Los Angeles City Council voted to put this plan together and at the same time request additional funds for transportation and homelessness. You have to admit these city council members have spunk.

They are even going further than that. Council President Herb Wesson said he will move toward hiring an immigrants’ advocate. That would be all well and good if he were referring to helping legal immigrants assimilate into our city and country. Instead, what this “advocate’s” job will be is to obstruct the immigration laws of the United States. What Wesson said was they were going to work on strategies to keep Los Angeles residents from being deported. No one who is here legally need worry. Wesson is defending the ‘rights’ of illegals.

Let us remind you that Trump specifically stated at this time they would be looking to deport illegals who had done illegal acts here. Gang members and drug dealers would be the kinds of people targeted. Maybe Wesson’s plan will protect them.

The Democrats attacked Trump when he recently stated there was extensive illegal voting. By early 2016, 605,000 driver’s licenses had been issued to illegal immigrants in California. That was just in the first year. Figures have not been issued for 2016 yet. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla scorned Trump for his statements, but he knows many of these people voted because there was nothing to stop them once they had a driver’s license. They could easily register to vote, but no one cares to even analyze whether they did, which is Padilla’s job. Just another aspect of making these illegal aliens de facto citizens.

We have fought this fight before with the Democrats. They are the ones across the country arguing to continue Sanctuary City status even after the election of Trump who promised to end the practice.

You may remember that after the Supreme Court ruling in 1954 (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas), a fight broke out across the United States. This culminated in 1957 when Orval Faubus, the Democratic governor of Arkansas, attempted to stop the integration of Little Rock Central High School. The governor sent in the Arkansas National Guard to stop the integration. This caused the now-famous order from President Eisenhower to send in federal troops to escort the black students into the school.

Scenes like this spread throughout the South led by Democrats resisting federal law. Another Democrat, George Wallace, actually personally stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to stop integration of that school.

Fifty years later we have a series of Democrats, principally mayors, making their own national immigration policy. Stopping any enforcement of federal law regarding people admittedly here illegally. They believe in their cause just as righteously as George Wallace standing in that school house door.

The Immigration Act of 1986 legalized a group of people who had entered our country illegally. We were promised that they would enforce the laws thereafter and protect the border. That was either a lie or a complete failure. Now we have lawless Democrats defending illegals again to feather their own voting rolls … while we all pay.

President-elect Trump stated he wants removal of the gang members, drug dealers and criminal element. Yet, Democrats cannot abide that. It is high time we do something to protect our national integrity.

Thank Heaven For 50 Million Deplorables!

All The President’s Migrants

10/24/2016 - Katie Kieffer Townhall.com

Migrants from China (2,130); Russia (1,863) and Armenia (448) were caught at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016—and President Obama is priming them—along with migrants from Syria and South America, to vote for Hillary. 

$10 million in taxpayer dollars were recently repackaged by the Obama administration’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) into “citizenship integration grants.” The funds were distributed to various organizations that help register migrant voters, including in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio, reported Judicial Watch. 

The Obama administration also expanded the unconstitutional Central American Minors (CAM) program to include protection from deportment for individuals who are not children, such as someone who identifies as a child’s “caretaker.” 

CAM offers illegal immigrants “parole,” which is defined as follows by the federal government: “Parole allows individuals who may be otherwise inadmissible to come to the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. …[Parole] allow[s] an individual to be lawfully present in the U.S. temporarily and to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).”

USCIS and CAM programs appear oriented towards the goal of enabling non-U.S. citizens to vote. After all, Democrats know that immigrants tend to vote for the political party they believe helped them enter our country.

Texas, for example, is a hotbed for illegal immigration, since so many migrants enter the U.S. by slipping from Mexico into the Lone Star State. This month, USCIS used taxpayer resources to place a notice in the largest newspaper in San Antonio: 

“Those in need of emergency immigrations services can contact USCIS at 1-800-375-5283.” 

Correction: undocumented immigrants are not in an emergency simply because they chose to break U.S. law. If I enter Mexico without proper papers, I’m not in an emergency. I’m a trespasser.

If anyone is in an emergency, it’s the American citizens being forced to subsidize the housing, career counseling, medical care, English classes, and now even the votes of illegal immigrants. Especially when migrant pools include migrants from terror hotbeds like Syria and criminals like those who killed Millennials Sarah Root and Kate Steinle. 

In August, Obama’s 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that Texas’ voting rules were “discriminatory”—just in time to give Hillary a boost in a state that historically leans Republican. 

It’s now easier for an immigrant to vote in Texas than to get into a bar for a pint of Guinness. All she needs to do is proffer a paycheck or utility bill and sign an oath claiming an “undue burden.” Obviously, utility bills and paychecks can be obtained (or forged) without being a citizen and anyone can claim an undue burden.

It’s (Not) For the Children

“I am not going to slam the door on women and children,” Hillary sniffed during last week’s presidential debate against Donald Trump. 

No, she’s not. Primarily because the average Syrian or Iraqi refugee—according to the United Nations—is male. 

So when Hillary says she plans to exceed Obama’s record of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees by about 550% to 65,000, she’s not speaking as an advocate for homeless mothers and children. She’s speaking as a politician who knows that just one year after the United States grants a refugee “asylum,” they may seek “permanent residency” status and five years after receiving asylum they may apply for U.S. citizenship.

Loose immigration policies enable the trafficking of humans, drugs, weapons, diseases and terror into our country—and show disrespect to immigrants who do abide by our laws. Democrats don’t seem to care. After all, a 2014 study by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed that immigration has reconstructed “the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”

President Sends Sheriff to Prison

Less than one month before the presidential election, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice announced criminal proceedings against Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio without criminal charges. Arpaio is a popular sheriff who has served six terms in Maricopa County. He now faces up to six months in prison for using “immigration patrols” that were supposedly discriminatory.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi at his side for moral support, President Obama held a Rose Garden press conference last week where he laughed off Donald Trump’s allegations of voter fraud and scoffed at the prospect of a “rigged election.” 

“Bridges, not walls!” Renzi chirped in agreement—like a doll programed to blurt Pope Francis’ worst catchphrases. (Vogue recently did a story on Renzi, revealing his obsession with snapping selfies; monitoring his Twitter and Facebook followings; and keeping a stuffed owl in his office to remind him of his enemies. Confidence is not Renzi’s forte, which explains his willingness to be Obama’s yes-man).

When a sitting president threatens a law-abiding sheriff with imprisonment for enforcing our country’s immigration laws without sound evidence—while illegal immigrants are awarded subsidized services enabling them to live and even vote like normal citizens—and—if such behavior escalates on the eve of a presidential election, then… 

Trump is right. Our election is rigged. 

Times Are Changing - Hope For The Best

With Sessions, a Chance to Restore Justice at Justice

11/23/2016 - Bob Barr Townhall.com

President-elect Trump’s decision last week to nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions to serve as America’s 84^thAttorney General signals a return to a Justice Department that reflects a more traditional, real-crimes based approach to federal law enforcement policy, as opposed to the control-oriented, social policy-heavy approach under which that Department has operated for the past eight years.

The fact is, the Department of Justice, when formally established in 1789, was not meant to serve as the heavy-hand of law enforcement; but rather as a relatively small federal agency to focus limited federal resources on the handful of crimes that truly were “federal” in nature – forgery, immigration, interstate fraud, customs matters, robbery of federal facilities, and the like.

Understandably, over the decades as the size and scope of the federal government has grown, so has the Justice Department in size and responsibilities. Unfortunately, during the past four decades or so, one Administration after another, and one Congress following another, have been unable to resist the urge to keep adding to that list of “federal crimes,” so it now numbers in the thousands; over 4,500 according to some estimates. The current Administration has taken that ball and run with it.

While many of the thousands of attorneys working for the Department are top-notch, and continue to investigate and prosecute crimes that the average citizen would understand as constituting crimes that properly should consume the time and resources of Uncle Sam – complex white collar fraud cases, and multi-state and international drug cases, for example – more and more, those attorneys are being directed by the Attorney General to involve themselves in matters of quite a different nature. An increasing number of these cases are regulatory in nature; often of the sort that a civil (that is, non-criminal) approach not only would suffice to rectify the problem, but better serve the ends of justice.

An illustration of the manner in which federal criminal laws can be easily abused to reach conduct not clearly federal in nature, or at best, actions that are not reflective of clear federal priorities, was the “Bridgegate” case involving former associates of New Jersey Gov. Christie. To be sure, Christie’s former associates clearly abused their power as political officials when they caused massive back-ups at a key bridge going into New York City for a couple of days. However, treating the case as a major federal criminal case, including alleging violations of civil-rights era laws with which to punish Christie’s idiotic underlings, represents the type of mis-prioritization of resources that needs to be addressed at the Department.

More broadly, the manner in which the Justice Department for eight years under President Obama has handled civil right cases, illustrates a troubling shift in focus and priority.

Under prior Administrations, going back to the Reagan Administration, federal prosecutors never hesitated to press cases against local, state or federal law enforcement or other officials, who violated individuals’ civil rights. This was an important component of federal law going back decades. If a local police officer employed excessive or deadly force against an individual without justification and, for example, based on racial discrimination, the FBI would be called on to investigate and if the elements of a case were present, the U.S. Attorney would prosecute; occasionally attorneys from the Civil Rights Division at the Department might become involved. But the point to such prosecutions was to protect the victim’s rights and punish the guilty official.

In contrast, as often as not in today’s Obama Justice Department, every such case becomes an opportunity not simply to punish wrongdoing, but to “teach police departments a lesson.” The overriding goal appears to be to place control of those agencies and individual officers under the federal agency.

This trend toward federalizing crime and the administration of criminal justice is troubling and contrary to fundamental standards of our system of federalism in America; and it is demoralizing to local and state police agencies and officers who increasingly are forced to carry out their demanding and dangerous work with Uncle Sam looking over their shoulder ready to yell, “gotcha!”

Speaking of priorities, no less important a person than the current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has been spending her time fretting over whether the Constitution of the United States ought be invoked as a basis to involve the Justice Department in the “transgendered bathroom” debate that began flourishing this year.

I suspect her successor, if confirmed by the Senate, will spend far less time beating up on police departments and worrying about transgendered bathrooms; and far more time focusing on protecting the American people against serious criminal activity.

Nation's Top Law Enforcement Office in Shambles

The Decline and Fall of Federal Law Enforcement

11/9/2016 - Bob Barr Townhall.com

There was a point in time when federal law enforcement was the standard-bearer for policing. Agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the Secret Service were the gold standard for professionalism and integrity that state and local agencies looked up to.  This was the case when I worked closely with federal law enforcement during my tenure as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  But, things have changed.

More often than not, in recent years, federal law enforcement agencies find themselves in the news not for breaking a massive, complex investigation; but defending the misdeeds of its agents or the mistakes of its leaders.  Add to this the massive growth in federal criminal laws, and the inevitable bureaucracies such growth spurs, and you have a recipe for disaster.

This current decline of federal law enforcement can be traced back to at least the Clinton Administration, when the politicization of the Department of Justice reached a level not seen since the Administration of Richard Nixon. 

The 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), but ultimately involving federal agencies from the FBI to the Department of Defense, was a colossal and tragic screw up resulting in the deaths of four agents and more than six dozen civilians (including many children).  Yet, despite the Attorney General nominally taking the “blame” for the mess, not a single federal employee was disciplined in the aftermath.  “Accountability” was just a fig leaf.

The Clinton Justice Department found itself at the center of one political firestorm after another – from the bungled investigation surrounding illegal contributions to the campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore, to the almost-comically mishandled seizure and deportation to Cuba of youngster Elian Gonzalez. 

Unfortunately, things were little improved at the Justice Department during the subsequent Administration of George W. Bush.  The open political pressure brought to bear on a number of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush Administration cast a pall over this group of non-partisan prosecutors.  The perception of the Department as the pinnacle of respect for constitutional rights, was further diminished when Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez testified before Congress that the “great writ of habeas corpus” was not a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

Matters would sink even lower under the Executive leadership of Barack Obama.

Symptomatic of a “Bureaucracy Gone Wild,” one of the first scandals of the Obama Administration was the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” operation, in which Department of Justice officials approved the intentional sale of firearms to known gun traffickers, then lost track of those weapons. Rather than admit its fault and hold those responsible accountable, the Department ducked and dodged all attempts by congressional investigators to find out what went wrong; continuing a tradition begun nearly two decades earlier.

Most recently, we are witnessing the impact of inept leadership at the FBI under Director James Comey. Rather than handling the twin investigations of possible “pay-to-play” allegations between the Clinton Foundation and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the improper use of e-mail accounts, as the Justice Department and the FBI historically conducted themselves – by notcommenting on or allowing themselves to be drawn into divulging details of ongoing investigations – this FBI Director appears to have gone out of his way to comment and characterize ongoinginvestigations.  In so doing, he has undercut the credibility of his agency that had been its stock-in-trade for decades.

Add to Comey’s bungled leadership the highly improper meeting between former President Bill Clinton and current Attorney General Loretta Lynch smack-dab in the middle of the FBI’s investigations, and there is little wonder why citizen respect for the government is at an all-time low.

The moral and professional failures of law enforcement officials have not been limited to the ATF, the FBI and the Office of the Attorney General.  Even the Secret Service, one of the most respected of federal law enforcement agencies, has seen its stock plummet as its ranks fell victim to scandals from hookers in Colombia to drunk driving at home.  Making matters worse for the Secret Service, when a high-ranking member of the House of Representatives – Jason Chaffetz – sought to investigate some of the problems plaguing the Service, it resorted to leaking potentially embarrassing information about the Congressman.

While Hollywood continues to churn out popular law enforcement programs extolling the exploits of the men and women who serve in those agencies, our next real-life president will have a much harder job rebuilding the tarnished reputation and less-than-stellar leadership of our country’s federal law enforcement system.  But it is a task that truly ought to be high on the new President’s To Do List.

Outstanding Advice For President-Elect Trump

Memo to Trump: 'Action This Day!'

11/11/2016 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"In victory, magnanimity!" said Winston Churchill.

Donald Trump should be magnanimous and gracious toward those whom he defeated this week, but his first duty is to keep faith with those who put their faith in him. The protests, riots and violence that have attended his triumph in city after city should only serve to steel his resolve.

As for promptings that he "reach out" and "reassure" those upset by his victory, and trim or temper his agenda to pacify them, Trump should reject the poisoned chalice. This is the same old con. Trump should take as models the Democrats FDR and LBJ.

Franklin Roosevelt, who had savaged Herbert Hoover as a big spender, launched his own New Deal in his first 100 days. History now hails his initiative and resolve.

Lyndon Johnson exploited his landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964 to erect his Great Society in 1965: the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid. He compromised on nothing, and got it all. Even those who turned on him for Vietnam still celebrate his domestic achievements.

President Nixon's great regret was that he did not bomb Hanoi and mine Haiphong in 1969 -- instead of waiting until 1972 -- and bring the Vietnam War to an earlier end and with fewer U.S. casualties. Nixon's decision not to inflame the social and political crisis of the '60s by rolling back the Great Society bought him nothing. He was rewarded with media-backed mass demonstrations in 1969 to break his presidency and bring about an American defeat in Vietnam.

"Action this day!" was the scribbled command of Prime Minister Churchill on his notepads in World War II. This should be the motto of the first months of a Trump presidency.

For the historic opportunity he and the Republican Party have been given by his stunning and unanticipated victory of Nov. 8 will not last long. His adversaries and enemies in politics and press are only temporarily dazed and reeling. This great opening should be exploited now.

Few anticipated Tuesday morning what we would have today: a decapitated Democratic Party, with the Obamas and Clintons gone or going, Joe Biden with them, no national leader rising, and only the power of obstruction, of which the nation has had enough.

The GOP, however, on Jan. 20, will control both Houses of Congress and the White House, with the real possibility of remaking the Supreme Court in the image of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan have indicated they are willing to work with President Trump. There is nothing to prevent the new GOP from writing history.

In his first months, Trump could put a seal on American politics as indelible as that left by Ronald Reagan.

A partial agenda: First, he should ignore any importunings by President Obama to permit passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in a lame-duck session -- and let the trade deal sink by year's end.

On Jan. 20, he should have vetted and ready to nominate to the high court a brilliant constitutionalist and strict constructionist.

He should act to end interference with the Dakota Access pipeline and call on Congress to re-enact legislation, vetoed by Obama, to finish the Keystone XL pipeline. Then he should repeal all Obama regulations that unnecessarily restrict the production of the oil, gas and clean coal necessary to make America energy independent again.

Folks in Pennsylvania, southeast Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia should be shown, by executive action, that Trump is a man of his word. And when the mines open again, he should be there.

He should order new actions to seal the Southern border, start the wall and begin visible deportations of felons who are in the country illegally.

With a new education secretary, he should announce White House intent to work for repeal of Common Core and announce the introduction of legislation to put federal resources behind the charter schools that have proven to be a godsend to inner-city black children.

He should propose an immediate tax cut for U.S. corporations, with $2 to $3 trillion in unrepatriated profits abroad, who will bring the money home and invest it in America, to the benefit of our economy and our Treasury.

He should take the president's phone and pen and begin the rewriting or repeal of every Obama executive order that does not comport with the national interest or political philosophy of the GOP.

Trump should announce a date soon for repeal and replacement of Obamacare and introduction of his new tax-and-trade legislation to bring back manufacturing and create American jobs.

Donald Trump said in his campaign that that this is America's last chance. If we lose this one, he said, we lose the country.

The president-elect should ignore his more cautious counselors, and act with the urgency of his declared beliefs.

Veterans - Protectors of Freedom and Liberty

Thank A Soldier Today

11/11/2016 - Terry Paulson Townhall.com

On this Veteran’s Day, I am reminded of a unique flight from Dallas to Minneapolis. There were over 60 returning soldiers from the Iraq War on their final leg home. Those fortunate enough to sit next to a young soldier had the opportunity to meet our country’s finest up close and personal.

As we landed, the flight attendant said, “These soldiers are home from serving us in Iraq. Let’s let them off first.” Such calls for order and compassion for fellow travelers often fall on deaf ears as soon as the arrival bell sounds, but not on this flight. Citizens stood aside and provided a standing ovation as the soldiers hurried off the plane. There were tears in our eyes; no doubt there were tears in their eyes as well. I was proud of our country that day.

In the 60’s when Lou Fiore, a young marine fresh from 13 months of service in Vietnam, stepped off his plane, no one applauded. No one said thank you. No one even acknowledged his presence.

Within weeks of his arrival in Vietnam, only 2 of the 13 men in his platoon remained alive. By mere attrition, he soon was promoted to platoon leader. The Viet Cong had developed an effective strategy; snipers would target the radio man, the machine gunner and the officer. Lou carried the machine gun, and later became sergeant. He was a marked man.

“I finally coped by accepting that I wasn’t going to make it out of this alive,” said Lou. “I figured that even if I did make it out, I wouldn’t be worth anything to anyone. I was coming back from hell and bringing a little bit of that hell with me. I stopped worrying about me. You didn’t get close to a lot of people because dealing with losing friends was hard. But you did get closer to the men in your platoon. As platoon leader, I found my mission. I focused on getting as many of my men back as possible.”

“I just took it a day at a time,” Lou continued. “My job was to survive today. I didn’t want to plan beyond that. I wanted to stay focused on the day. I didn’t even want to go back to the states or to R&R until my time was up. I had seen people come back from seeing loved ones in Hawaii. They often died because they had lost their edge. War requires focus—no time for recent memories of Hawaii and loved ones you miss”

“We could have won that war, but we lost it at home,” Lou said reflecting on another memory. “It bothered us that we weren’t supported by a lot of Americans. In fact, one time, behind an enemy bunker we found a cache of rice and medical supplies. In one box were Mickey Mouse T-shirts compliments of some peacenik from Stanford. They had sent the T-shirts in support of the enemy! I never forgot that.”

“They say there are no atheists in foxholes,” Lou said. “I’m not sure that is true, but I found my faith there. I didn’t know a lot about it, but I knew how to pray to God. Why? I knew I wasn’t in control. They were selfish prayers for protection for me and my men. I remember asking God, ‘Let me survive. Let me get back, and when I’m back, help me to find my way back into life.’ Each time I survived when I should have died, I came to feel that God had something else for me to do.”

“I haven’t felt fear since those days in Nam,” Lou confessed. “I think it has to do with realizing man doesn’t have much control in life; God does. I figure I’ll live as long as there is something I’m supposed to do. To tell you the truth, I think it’s my kids and grandkids. When I see them, I figure that is why I survived.”

“When I got home, no one applauded or thanked me, but Mary Ann gave me all the love I needed to find my way back. I’ve been growing closer to her and my God ever since. I just hope none of our soldiers coming back from serving our country ever have to experience what we did. They deserve that standing ovation you gave those soldiers on that plane.”

Lou’s story is but one story. Each veteran has their own. On Veterans Day, take time to listen to one soldier’s story and thank them for their service in securing freedom for you and for future generations. In fact, thank them every day you can. 

Whatever Happened to Americans First!

The Future for the Real American Dreamers

Allen West, Townhall.com

(Editors’ note: This column was co-authored by Luke Twombly)

“Tolerance is a tremendous virtue, but the immediate neighbors of tolerance are apathy and weakness” – Sir James Goldsmith

“When tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide” – LTC Allen B. West (USA, Ret)

The song by Neil Diamond, “America” is one that expresses the true essence of the attainment of that which we refer to as the American dream. It is here upon these shores where one is rewarded for an indomitable, individual drive…that singular thing we call work ethic. Those are the ingredients which go into that “melting pot,” producing entrepreneurs and those seeking “the “pursuit of happiness.” They come to America, to experience and achieve the American dream.

However, what happens when a political ideology perverts language and redefines the word “dream” into a policy that is not consistent with our fundamental values and principles? Such has occurred with the term “dreamer,” as if there is only a specific, politically designated group that is searching for a dream.

All of a sudden there has been an almost Orwellian, political redefinition of a “dreamer.” Dreamers are now, as defined by the Obama administration, any illegal immigrant who claims to have come into the country before the age of 16, whom has also been here continuously for five years, and is currently under age 35. The federal government estimates that there are 1.4 million “dreamers” in the United States. Of that number, 68% are from Mexico, 13% are from Latin America or the Caribbean, and 8% are Asian.

When huge political capital is being expended to secure a desired outcome, who suffers the most?

It is our native born American children and grandchildren, and those who have come to our land legally. For some odd reason, they are not defined as “dreamers,” and even legislation signed into law dismisses their aspirations. While on the other hand, there is a group being politically elevated upon their backs -- hence the Dream Act. Fortunately, we have recently witnessed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against President Obama’s executive amnesty and this ideologically imposed agenda.

But, is this contest over? What are the ramifications for the real American dreamers, our own sons and daughters? Half of this rising Millennial generation has adopted the bleak outlook that the American dream is dead. While the other half remains steadfast in a hope for America and its economic future. Perhaps not all is lost.

For today’s American Millennial the economic outlook is bleak. Unemployment for these real American dreamers is almost 13%. Furthermore, to exacerbate the situation, 51% of this generation are underemployed to the point of being Baristas with Bachelor degrees, certainly not the ideal circumstance for the generation taking us into the highly technical 21^st century. Since 2000, 100% of net gain job creation has gone to immigrants, both legal and illegal, while the native born population accounts for 66% of population growth.

In examining the workforce participation rate, we are at a dreadful all-time low of 62.4% which translates to 94.7 million Americans not actively in the workforce. The deceptive tool of declaring the unemployment rate at 4.7% is a reflection of not counting these millions of Americans in the calculation. The denominator changes for political expediency.

For the homegrown, minority American dreamers, the statistics are dire. The millennial Hispanic unemployment rate is 13.9% and for the black community it is at an alarming 15.2%. One must ask, why would anyone place a higher value on illegal, foreign-born millennials than those who are part of the legacy representing the American ideal? It can only be explained by the fact that perhaps there are those who do not believe there is a legacy, a lineage, which has been passed down through generations in America. Or, perhaps there are those who see little value in our national sovereignty and therefore, no value in America’s cultural history and identity?

The best means by which our real American dreamers achieve their hopes is with a quality education. But, it appears the resources needed for them are being allocated elsewhere for the politically defined foreign born dreamers. Case in point: in America, English learner programs are costing between $20-$25K for each Obama administration-defined “dreamer.” Instead of these investments going toward after school education, music, arts, and vocational training programs for our children, our tax revenues are being redistributed from American dreamers to the foreign millennials.

When all is said and done, the total annual education cost for those here illegally is $52 billion. But, this does not take into account the oversized classes, over-extended teachers, and the other adverse effects on our education system.

Some will certainly deem this commentary as lacking compassion. However, what can be more dispassionate than to politically deny the dreams of our own children and grandchildren? We must ask ourselves, for what purpose?

There are those who would actually attack anyone stating these figures as xenophobic and racist. This has become a means to an end preventing anyone from bringing this topic to the discussion table. They would leverage the catch all phrase of “multiculturalism” to promote ideological uniformity -- and silence.

It is time to break the silence of apathy and weakness to secure the future for the real American dreamers.

Allen West is the Executive Director and Vice Chairman of the Board for the National Center for Policy Analysis, where Luke Twombly is a research associate.