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.

It's Decision Time - Check Wisely!

A Final Plea to Never-Trumpers

11/8/2016 - Dennis Prager Townhall.com

It is very hard to publicly affirm a position for nearly a year and to then, at the last minute, change one's mind.

Nevertheless, even as late as Election Day itself, I wish to address those conservatives and Republicans who have declared themselves Never-Trumpers.

I was one of you in vigorously opposing Trump's nomination -- on my national radio show and in my syndicated column. And I paid a price, as you have, in losing longtime supporters -- in my case any number of listeners who supported Trump from the outset and found my strong opposition to him disappointing and worse.

Unlike you, however, I did say from the beginning that if he were to be the nominee, I would vote for him.

On this Election Day, I am more convinced than ever that this was the right position. I even have to believe that in the wee hours of the night -- when worrying about the current and future state of our beloved country keeps you awake -- many of you have at least wondered whether you have taken the right position.

Most of you are simply too intelligent, too idealistic and too self-questioning not to have at least on occasion had second thoughts. If you understand -- and I cannot believe that most of you don't -- how destructive another four years of any Democrat in the White House, let alone the truly corrupt Hillary Clinton, would be, it is inconceivable that you have never questioned your Never-Trump position. Never-Trump, after all, is not the same as Never-Question.

To prove my point, one of my favorite Never-Trumpers, Jonah Goldberg, wrote in May: "If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I'd probably vote for none other than Donald Trump."

In that moment of exquisite honesty, Jonah acknowledged one of the most important moral arguments to be made for voting for Trump -- the Lesser of Two Evils argument.

To which conservatives who won't vote for Trump often respond: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Now, forgive me, but that it is a complete non sequitur, morally and intellectually unworthy of any conservative, religious or secular, who makes it. The only relevant moral lesson here is not that the lesser of two evil is still evil; it is that choosing the lesser of two evils, by definition, increases good. Would you amputate your leg if it might save your life? Or would you say that because losing your life and losing your leg are both evils, you won't amputate your leg because the lesser of two evils is still evil?

Then there is the Never-Trump argument that Donald Trump isn't a conservative. I agree that he hasn't been his whole life, because he probably never gave the subject of the differences between left and right five of minutes of serious thought (nor, if we are to be honest, did Republican presidential nominee John McCain, whom I also worked hard to elect). But Trump and Mike Pence and his top political advisors are well to the right of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As Victor Davis Hanson wrote last week, in his plea to Never-Trumpers:

"On the Supreme Court, Obamacare, the debt, rebuilding the military, the Second Amendment, school choice, abortion, reforming the tax code, re-examining regulation, energy exploration and production, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and a host of other issues, the Republican ticket is the antithesis of Clinton/Kaine -- and is recognized as such by nearly all progressives."

Why isn't all that enough to vote for Trump?

Then there is the argument that electing Trump means that in the eyes of many Americans, especially young Americans, Trump will embody conservatism and Republicanism, and that would be a calamity.

On that noble concern, I am not willing to turn America over to four more years of leftism. First of all, the damage the left will do, if not permanent, will almost certainly last a generation. And I happen to think it could very well be permanent. Can you name a country outside of some formerly Communist countries (which had Communism forced on them), that chose to go left and has fully recovered from a generation of leftism?

Given the arguments in favor of voting for Trump, I see only three possible explanations for conservatives helping to elect Hillary Clinton.

One is that they are certain Donald Trump is so psychologically imbalanced that he will jeopardize America and the world. But they have to be certain of this. If they have any doubts, they have to vote for him -- because they are certain about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And between certitude and incertitude, one must always act on what is certain.

The second is their self-image: How can they, truly decent people, vote for someone who has exhibited the uncouth speech and behavior that Trump has? Or, as some have expressed it, "How can I explain to my daughter that I supported Donald Trump?"

As someone who also thinks of himself as decent, I think that saving America from Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the left is the most decent thing I can do. And as for your daughter, just have her speak to any of the millions of wonderful women who are voting for Donald Trump. They will provide your daughter with perfectly satisfying moral and woman-centered answers.

And the third explanation for the Never-Trump conservatives is they that they believe we will survive four more years of left-wing rule, and that America is really not in such bad shape anyway. That argument was made this weekend by a writer for National Review. "The United States of America is not a wreck," he reassures us. "The people who are telling you that it is -- on both sides -- are trying to sell you something. Don't buy it."

Question: What exactly am I, or Victor Davis Hanson, or Thomas Sowell, or at least half of The Wall Street Journal columnists, or millions of religious Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Mormons trying to "sell you"?

And second, that writer and others who think like him seem to be living in a different country than I am. Because compared to America at any time in its history except for the Civil War years, the country I am living in is indeed a wreck -- and getting worse each day, and in every way. After another four years of a Democrat in the White House the country called the United States will still be here, but America as envisioned since its founding -- as the world's beacon of individual liberty, Lincoln's "Last Best Hope of Earth" -- won't.

To think otherwise is willful self-delusion.

Trump Phoenix Speech on Immigration

Trump Calls for More High-Skill Immigration

9/7/2016 - Michael Barone Townhall.com

Would he go hard or go soft? That was the mainstream media template for judging Donald Trump's speech on immigration in Phoenix last Wednesday. The verdict: hard. "How Trump got from Point A to Point A on immigration," was the headline in the Washington Post's recap.

Similarly, the often-insightful Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall characterized Trump's discourse as "hate speech." "Precisely what solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point."

That's precisely wrong. Marshall found the Phoenix crowd's raucous shouts distasteful, and so did I. But a search through Trump's prepared text and his occasional digressions fails to disclose anything that can be fairly characterized as "hate speech."

Instead it discloses some serious critiques and proposals for recasting our immigration laws, which almost everyone agrees need changing.

Start near the end, with the 10th of Trump's 10 points. He notes that we've admitted 59 million immigrants since the last major revision of immigration law in 1965, and that "many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country." No asides about criminals or rapists.

Then he proposes a major policy change: "to select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient ... to choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency."

That's not racism or hate speech, and it's not out of line with American tradition.

Emma Lazarus' oft-quoted poem commends America for welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" and "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." But during the great wave of immigration from eastern and southern Europe from 1892 to 1914, the Ellis Island inspectors, in line with national policy, excluded those deemed incapable of supporting themselves as well as those with communicable diseases.

And the United States deported immigrants judged to be terrorists. American immigration policy even then wasn't completely open door.

Trump seems to be calling, in non-provocative language, for changing immigration law to give priority to high-skill immigrants, as do the immigration laws of Canada and Australia. That's not racist: Those countries admit plenty of non-whites. But they do required proficiency in English (or French in Canada).

Both have higher foreign-born percentages of population than the United States, and both have students who score higher on PISA international achievement tests than U.S. students do. No wonder a diplomat from one of those countries told me, half in jest, "Please do not adopt our immigration system."

Every serious expert concedes that the 1965 immigration act resulted in an unexpected huge flow of low-skill immigrants, especially but not only from Mexico. Most serious scholars agree that has tended to reduce, at least a little, wages for low-skill Americans. Do we really need another inrush of unskilled workers in the next few decades?

Near the beginning of his speech, Trump said, "The media and my opponent discuss one thing, and only this one thing: the needs of people living here illegally." That's an exaggeration, but not by much: mainstream media judges Trump hard or soft depending on what he says about illegals. "The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants -- or however many there may be," he went on. "The only one core issue" is "the well-being of the American people."

To some, this sounds like bigotry, prejudice against foreigners, a preference for a mostly (but far from totally) white populace over a vastly larger (and mostly non-white) humanity. They instinctively prefer Hillary Clinton's version of open borders, allowing anyone who gets here and isn't criminally convicted to stay.

Trump's answer came earlier in the day, in Mexico City, as he shook hands and spoke cordially with President Enrique Pena Nieto. I like and admire him, Trump said; he loves his country and I love mine. Nieto's invitation, much criticized in Mexico, was prompted by his need to get along with whoever is elected U.S. president. That need likewise prompted his cautious remarks about Trump in a joint news conference with Barack Obama earlier this summer.

Trump's threats of trade retaliation and suggestion he might not honor NATO obligations provide rationales for voting against him as irresponsibly reckless. His immigration proposals don't.

His proposals for visa tracking and E-Verify validation of job applicants -- similar to Marco Rubio's -- would marginally reduce the illegal population, as would his deportation of some illegals.

More important, though ignored by mainstream media, is that his policies would produce more high-skill immigrants and Hillary Clinton's plan would produce more low-skill immigrants. Which is better for America?