True Words Spoken With Purity!

How Liberal Short-Term Thinking Is Destroying America

5/27/2017 - John Hawkins Townhall.com

"We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking." -- Jacques Cousteau

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” – Ben Shapiro

Like a crack addict who can’t seem to think about anything other than his next fix, liberals can’t seem to think about anything but spewing their emotions at the world. They may be reflexively saying something that makes them feel compassionate, outraged, sensitive or angry, but liberals usually seem to be caught in the grip of some strong emotion.

Of course, it goes without saying that emotion unmoored from logic produces a lot of warped views, but it also mires a person in short term thinking….if you could even call it that. Because when you’re emotional, most of the time you’re not thinking; you’re reacting based on your “feels.” This is where a lot of liberals live 24 x 7 and so, it’s not shocking that their behavior is so thoughtless.

Take rock star Katy Perry’s reaction to the Manchester bombing, "No barriers, no borders, we all just need to coexist.” So, what does co-existing with radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill you mean? Is Katy Perry going to invite ISIS terrorists from Syria to bomb her next concert?

Can you imagine how bizarre the typical liberal reaction to terrorism must seem to the terrorists?

Terrorist: We want to kill you in the name of Allah because we’re good Muslims!

Liberal: No, you’re not. That’s not what you believe.

Terrorist: Yes, it is.

Liberal: No, no…you’re oppressed and probably upset about global warming.

Terrorist: Wait, what?

Liberal: Let’s all co-exist!

Terrorist: How did you miss the entire, “We want to kill you in the name of Allah” thing? What is wrong with you?

Then there are the Trump Administration leaks. Undoubtedly, some of the leaks inside the Trump Administration are coming from his staff, but others appear to be coming from the “deep state.” In other words, Democratic holdovers in the government bureaucracy are leaking information to the press in order to attempt to sabotage a rival political party. Obviously, these leakers are so consumed with their hatred for Trump that they feel politically motivated leaks are justifiable. Except what’s going to almost inevitably happen once a Democrat gets back into office? Republicans in the deep state are now going to leak things in an attempt to embarrass him.

Liberals are so overwrought with emotion that they don’t get the idea that they’re setting precedents when they do these sort of things. It’s like the shock and surprise they experienced when they used the nuclear option to keep Republicans from blocking Barack Obama’s cabinet appointments, only to find that it also meant they couldn’t stop Trump’s cabinet appointments. Wait, you mean that applies to liberals, too? Yes, and those leaks? The next Democrat President is likely to be undermined in exactly the same way.

Look at the liberal threats and violence at universities that have become a regular occurrence. At worst, liberals riot when people they disagree with speak on college campuses and at best, they make threats and do everything they can to rob conservative speakers of their First Amendment rights. Liberals are so supportive of this kind of thing that the police in liberal cities or on liberal campuses refuse to stop the rioting or disruptions.

In other words, conservatives no longer get the same protection from the police. Even illegal aliens are treated better by the police on campuses controlled by liberals. So, when that’s the case, is anyone surprised to see that someone like Based Stick Man was warmly received by conservatives for breaking a stick over a violent ANTIFA protestor’s head? It wouldn’t surprise me if we start seeing armed gangs of conservatives policing marches to protect other people on the Right from armed gangs of liberals since the Left has convinced the police not to do it. This is the world liberals are creating with their short term thinking: one where both sides of the political argument will have armed factions at political rallies. How healthy does that sound for the country?

Liberals do the same thing on the deficit. “Supporting that program makes me feel good! Spend somebody else’s money on it and I don’t like thinking about the debt; so just ignore that.”

They did it with Obamacare. They lied about the bill, assumed no one would recognize they were misled to when the bill became law and cared nothing about creating an expensive new entitlement program when the country is drowning in debt.

They get upset that Trump actually told NATO that if we’re going to be in a military alliance, then the nations involved will have to spend enough on their militaries so that they field an effective military force. How dare Trump try to make NATO useful again!

They’re so blinded by their emotions that they’ll even rank Hillary Clinton as the 6^th most beautiful woman on the planet. Seriously.

It is impossible to competently govern a nation based on pure emotion and short term thinking. Additionally as a practical matter, it’s impossible to cut a deal with people whose entire rationale for doing things is, “A celebrity told me what I should believe and now I have to do it” or “I heard a sad story yesterday; so everything has changed.” At some point, liberals have to engage in some long term thinking that goes beyond, “As long as we’re in charge, everything we do is okay,” or our country is going to get dragged down the tubes along with them.

A Divided Nation Cannot Survive - Wake Up America!

America's Second Civil War

1/24/2017 - Dennis Prager Townhall.com

It is time for our society to acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its second Civil War.

In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as World War I once there was World War II, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War.

This Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in another critically important way: It has thus far been largely nonviolent. But given increasing left-wing violence, such as riots, the taking over of college presidents' offices and the illegal occupation of state capitols, nonviolence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War.

There are those on both the left and right who call for American unity. But these calls are either naive or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the right and liberals, but not between the right and the left.

Liberalism -- which was anti-left, pro-American and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of America; and which regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism -- is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don't call themselves conservative.

The left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism.

Like the left in every other country, the left in America essentially sees America as a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, warmongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation.

Just as in Western Europe, the left in America seeks to erase America's Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The left suppresses free speech wherever possible for those who oppose it, labeling all non-left speech "hate speech." To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare is the greatest playwright or Bach is the greatest composer, you are a proponent of dead white European males and therefore racist.

Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between left and non-left? Obviously, there cannot.

There will be unity only when the left vanquishes the right or the right vanquishes the left. Using the First Civil War analogy, American unity was achieved only after the South was vanquished and slavery was abolished.

How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism -- there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America's core values in contempt -- supposed to unite with "educators" who instruct elementary school teachers to cease calling their students "boys" and "girls" because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don't require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America has fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its black minority that the greatest problems afflicting black Americans are caused by white racism, "white privilege" and "systemic racism"? With those who think that the nuclear family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term "Islamic terrorist" is an expression of religious bigotry?

The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that in the Second Civil war, one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools -- from elementary schools, to high schools, to universities -- and indoctrinate America's young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news media; and how it has taken over entertainment media.

The conservative side has lost on every one of these fronts because it has rarely fought back with anything near the ferocity with which the left fights. Name a Republican politician who has run against the left as opposed to running solely against his or her Democratic opponent. And nearly all American conservatives, people who are proud of America and affirm its basic tenets, readily send their children to schools that indoctrinate their children against everything the parents hold precious. A mere handful protest when their child's teacher ceases calling their son a boy or their daughter a girl, or makes "slave owner" the defining characteristic of the Founding Fathers.

With the defeat of the left in the last presidential election, the defeat of the left in two-thirds of the gubernatorial elections and the defeat of the left in a majority of House and Senate elections, this is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives and the right have to defeat the American left. But it will not happen until these groups understand that we are fighting for the survival of America no less than the Union troops were in the First Civil War.

Please Mr. President - Drain the Swamp!

Rosenstein Joins the Posse

5/19/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take.

Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him?

Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.

Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done.

As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

All that time, there will be a cloud over Trump's presidency that will drain his political authority. Trump's enemies will become less fearful and more vocal. Republican Congressmen and Senators in swing states and marginal districts, looking to 2018, will have less incentive to follow Trump's lead, rather than their own instincts and interests. Party unity will fade away.

And without a united and energized Republican Party on the Hill, how do you get repeal and replacement of Obamacare, tax reform or a border wall? Trump's agenda suddenly seems comatose. And was it a coincidence that the day Mueller was appointed, the markets tanked, with the Dow falling 372 points?

Markets had soared with Trump's election on the expectation that his pro-business agenda would be enacted. If those expectations suddenly seem illusory, will the boom born of hope become a bust?

A White House staff, said to be in disarray, and a president reportedly enraged over endless press reports of his problems and falling polls, are not going to become one big happy family again with a growing office of prosecutors and FBI agents poking into issues in which they were involved.

Nor is the jurisdiction of the special counsel restricted to alleged Russia interference in the campaign. Allegations about Trump's taxes, investments, and associates, and those of his family, could be drawn into the maw of the special counsel's office by political and business enemies enthusiastic about seeing him brought down.

More folks in Trump's entourage will soon be lawyering up.

While it's absurd today to talk of impeachment, that will not deter Democrats and the media from speculating, given what happened to Nixon and Clinton when special prosecutors were put on their trail.

Another consequence of the naming of a special counsel, given what such investigations have produced, will be that Vice President Pence will soon find himself with new friends and admirers, and will begin to attract more press as the man of the future in the GOP.

A rising profile for Pence is unlikely to strengthen his relationship with a besieged president.

In the United Kingdom, the odds are growing that Trump may not finish his term.

So how does he regain the enthusiasm and energy he exhibited in previous crises, with such talk in the air? A debilitating and potentially dangerous time for President Trump has now begun, courtesy of his deputy attorney general.

Those Who Don't Study History Are Doomed To Repeat It

How Berkeley Birthed the Right

5/5/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

In December 1964, a Silver Age of American liberalism, to rival the Golden Age of FDR and the New Deal, seemed to be upon us.

Barry Goldwater had been crushed in a 44-state landslide and the GOP reduced to half the size of the Democratic Party, with but 140 seats in the House and 32 in the Senate.

The Supreme Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the most liberal in history, was on a roll, and LBJ was virtually unopposed as he went about ramming his Great Society through Congress.

The left had it all. But then they blew it, beginning at Berkeley.

Protests, sit-ins, the holding of cops hostage in patrol cars -- went on for weeks to force the University of California, Berkeley, to grant "free speech," and then "filthy speech" rights everywhere on campus.

Students postured as revolutionaries at the barricades, and the Academic Senate, consisting of all tenured faculty, voted 824-115 to support all Free Speech Movement demands, while cravenly declining to vote to condemn the tactics used.

Middle America saw the students differently -- as overprivileged children engaged in a tantrum at the most prestigious school in the finest university system in the freest nation on earth.

Here is how their leader Mario Savio described the prison-like conditions his fellow students had to endure on the Berkeley campus in 1964:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, it takes a heart of stone to read Mario's wailing -- without laughing.

As I wondered in an editorial in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat that week, "If there is so much restriction of speech on the campus, how it is that a few yards from Sproul Hall there is a Young Socialist League poster complaining of 'American Aggression in the Congo' and calling on students to support 'the Congolese rebels.'"

Yet Berkeley proved a godsend to a dispirited right.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan would beat Berkeley like a drum in his run for governor, calling the campus, "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."

Reagan relished entertaining his populist following by mocking San Francisco Democrats. "A hippie," said the Gipper, "looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane and smells like Cheetah."

More seriously, the radicalism, intolerance, arrogance and fanaticism of the far left in the '60s and '70s helped to revive the Republican Party and bring it victories in five of the next six presidential elections.

In 1964, neither Nixon nor Reagan appeared to have a bright future. But after Berkeley, both captured the presidency twice. And both benefited mightily from denouncing rioting students, even as liberalism suffered from its perceived association with them.

Which brings us to Berkeley today.

Last week, columnist and best-selling author Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at Berkeley. Her security could not be guaranteed by the university.

In February, a speech of Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos also was canceled out of safety concerns after campus protesters hurled smoke bombs, broke windows and started a bonfire. The decision was made two hours before the event, as a crowd of 1,500 had gathered outside the venue.

The recent attacks on Charles Murray at Middlebury College and Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna call to mind an event from three decades before Berkeley '64.

On Dec. 5, 1930, German moviegoers flocked to Berlin's Mozart Hall to see the Hollywood film, "All Quiet on the Western Front." Some 150 Brownshirts, led by Joseph Goebbels, entered the theater, tossed stink bombs from the balcony, threw sneezing powder in the air and released mice. Theaters pulled that classic anti-war movie.

That same sense of moral certitude that cannot abide dissent to its dogmatic truths is on display in America today, as it was in Germany in the early 1930s. We are on a familiar slippery slope.

First come the marches and demonstrations. Then the assertion of the right to civil disobedience, to break the law for a higher cause by blocking streets and highways. Then comes the confronting of cops, the smashing of windows, the fistfights, the throwing of stones - as in Portland on May Day.

And, now, the shouting down of campus speakers.

The rage and resentment of the left at its rejection in 2016 are palpable. Sometimes this fever passes peacefully, as in the "Cooling of America" in the 1970s. And sometimes it doesn't.

But to have crowds of left and right coming out to confront one another violently, in a country whose citizens possess 300 million guns, is probably not a good idea.

Amnesty - Rewarding Illegal Aliens With the Objective of Their Crime

Immigration Is About Us - Not Them

2/10/2017 - Joel Goodman Townhall.com

Let's get the discussion on the table.

When it comes to immigration, so far we've only been talking about stopping some few of the 100,000 plus yearly asylum seeking refugee immigrants, and only if we feel they present a national security threat to do harm to American citizens. Physical harm is one type of harm. The other harm is harm to our American culture - our Judeo-Christian Western republican political culture. This is the original harm addressed in the debates over the 1795 naturalization law, wherein people antithetical to American republicanism were deemed unfit to be given citizenship.

One must ask why there is a mania to bring immigrants into this country at this time. We have enough trouble as it is. We don't need the 1,000,000 new immigrants and the nearly 100,000 asylum seekers that come in each year. Those numbers are aside from foreign students and foreign guest workers. Almost half of all illegals already here are those who have come here legally and overstayed their visas.

There are three distinct immigration issues, all dumped into one basket. There is general immigration - legal immigration pursuant to allotments allowed by legislation. There is illegal immigration - both long term and short term, with its associated "legal" immigrant babies born as US citizens to illegals in the U.S.. And, the special case of Muslim immigration from terrorist areas.

The immigration discussion has been so skewed by the Leftist, Communist leaning elements in our country, that the starting point of the discussion accepts the fact that we currently need immigration. Not only is a cessation of immigration not on the table - but, on the table is a discussion of allowing some illegal immigrants to remain here - creating any justification that can be thought of by those favoring open borders. Our criminal justice system and our system of laws both stop when it comes to people here illegally. There is even a specially chosen emotionally evocative name given to some illegals - 'dreamers.'

The dreamers are people here illegally that should be sent back to their country of origin after years of "free" education and social services. Getting away with a crime for a long period of time or just being an accessory to a crime does not absolve you of the crime. The situation of these illegals is not a Dred Scott tragedy where a slave was returned to involuntary servitude. There are millions of people here illegally from many different places where they were free - just not as happy as they are by being in the U.S.. Life is better in America, in spite of the bad rap it gets from Democrats. There is no one jumping into a rubber dingy to get to Cuba or Somalia, India, China or even Mexico, where Illegals are considered felons, and face two years in prison. Actually, if they landed in Mexico, they would be kicked out, just as they would if they landed in Saudi Arabia or most oil rich Arab states.

If the criteria used for immigration were "Because I want to be here" - we could surely find hundreds of millions of people who'd rather be here than where they are. If those, unhappy where they are, would all come here, we - "we" meaning the average White or Black or Brown or Red or Yellow American citizen - might choose to move out. Because, if we were to take in as many people as want to be in America, America would no longer be the place it is.

Taking in a small percentage of those in unhappy places is an ineffective gesture; yet, it is a step in the furtherance of destroying the fabric of America.

For some, the destruction of America as we know it would be considered a good outcome. For many, probably most, that would suck - big time. Most Americans like their country more or less the way it is. They don't want a fundamental change. They want a strong America, able to fight the war being waged by dangerous ideologies that are an existential threat to Western Civilization. The worldwide anti-Western, anti-White, anti-Christian fight is as real as the fight that was fought against International Communism, which was foolishly halted.

There is also another aspect of our illegal immigration problem. Because we are focusing so intently on the Dreamers, and the millions of other illegals, and immigration from Muslim terrorist countries, there is no discussion of re-establishing the intent of the 14th Amendment. All a pregnant illegal has to do is give birth here, and, voilà, she has created a United States citizen, and quite probably an 'anchor baby.' The 14th Amendment was not intended to bestow automatic U.S. citizenship upon babies birthed here by Chinese tourists, or by illegals who've crossed our borders, or overstayed their visas.

The generational effect of 14th Amendment baby citizens totals in the millions, and is not even counted among the illegal immigrants in America. There is also a generational effect because of chain immigration as allowed under U.S. Immigration policy.

If you want to get down to the dirty and nasty, let's admit that immigration had always been about benefiting those already here. It was about bringing in highly educated specialists, even bringing in NAZIs who were brought over to help build rockets; but mostly it was about getting newcomers to do hard and dirty work. Mostly, it was farmers or factory workers or rail layers or house maids or coal miners. Even the most despicable type of immigration, the forced immigration of slaves, was not about saving Blacks from tribal warfare in Africa, it was about people brought in to work in cotton fields.

Putting aside Europe, which is nuts and has had a death wish since before World War Two, when they made nice with NAZI Germany, and then nearly got blitzkrieged into extinction, there is no place else inviting immigrants into their country to dilute their culture.

There is a deceptive paradigm at work here.

If it is okay for China to be Chinese, and for Black African Countries to be Black, and for so many Muslim countries to be Muslim - why is it so terrible for America to be Western cultured and predominantly Christian White? The United States already have large Black, Brown, Semitic and Oriental minorities, practicing varied religions - most who support the American republican culture.

There is no rule that says that America has to lose its cultural identity by helping foreigners. In fact the demographic change that occurred after the passage of the 1965 Immigration Law - Americans were told would not occur.

President Obama, on the other hand, intentionally did everything in his power to make the United States more "diverse," such as attempting to destroy White upper-class neighborhoods through government sponsored internal re-location of Blacks. While doing that to U.S. suburbs, he specifically brought in 1,000,000 immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. They came from countries like Kosovo, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and more. Many of the countries with severe terrorism problems, and the origin of terrorists that have already struck in the United States.

People like the former President and his fellow travelers are intent about ending Western White Christian culture in America, because they are Radical Leftist- Socialists - more correctly Internationalist Communists. Their goal is to see Communism spread throughout the world, to end capitalism, ostensibly, as the diatribe goes, so that the masses will finally rid themselves of their chains and live in a Utopian world.

Stopping them, is the same thing that has been stopping them since the 1920's - the United States.

American Leftists, consisting of mis-guided youths, an amalgam of social justice freaks, hardcore Commies and anti-White Black-Power groups, will do anything to destroy the Judeo-Christian foundations of our democratic federal republic. While they protest in support of Palestinians and unabated Muslim immigration into the U.S., their goal is not salvation for the 'victimized' or for helpless refugees. Their goal is collapsing America's borders and weakening America's Western Culture and republican political fabric.

When Barack Obama told a group of Christian religious leaders at a prayer breakfast that they needed to get off of their high horse - he meant it literally. He was talking about submission.

Ignore Lawlessness - Expect More of the Same

The Labyrinth of Illegal Immigration

2/23/2017 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Activists portray illegal immigration solely as a human story of the desperately poor from south of the border fleeing misery to start new, productive lives in the U.S. -- despite exploitation and America's nativist immigration laws.

But the truth is always more complex -- and can reveal self-interested as well as idealistic parties.

Employers have long sought to undercut the wages of the American underclass by preference for cheaper imported labor. The upper-middle classes have developed aristocratic ideas of hiring inexpensive "help" to relieve them of domestic chores.

The Mexican government keeps taxes low on its elite in part by exporting, rather than helping, its own poor. It causes little worry that some $25 billion in remittances sent from Mexican citizens working in America puts hardship on those expatriates, who are often subsidized by generous U.S. social services.

Mexico City rarely welcomes a heartfelt discussion about why its citizens flee Mexican exploitation and apparently have no wish to return home. Nor does Mexico City publicize its own stern approaches to immigration enforcement along its southern border -- or its ethnocentric approach to all immigration (not wanting to impair "the equilibrium of national demographics") that is institutionalized in Mexico's constitution.

The Democratic Party is also invested in illegal immigration, worried that its current agendas cannot win in the Electoral College without new constituents who appreciate liberal support for open borders and generous social services.

In contrast, classically liberal, meritocratic and ethnically diverse immigration might result in a disparate, politically unpredictable set of immigrants.

La Raza groups take it for granted that influxes of undocumented immigrants fuel the numbers of unassimilated supporters. Measured and lawful immigration, along with rapid assimilation, melt away ethnic-based constituencies.

Immigration activists often fault the U.S. as historically racist and colonialist while insisting that millions of foreigners have an innate right to enter illegally and reside in such a supposedly dreadful place.

Undocumented immigrants themselves are not unaware that their own illegal entry, in self-interested fashion, crowds out legal immigrants who often wait years to enter the U.S.

Increased demands on social services often affect Mexican-American communities the most grievously -- a fact that explains why sizable numbers of Latinos support border enforcement.

What does all this complexity mean for the Trump administration's plans to return to the enforcement of existing immigration statutes?

There is one red line to Trump immigration policies that otherwise are widely supported.

Most Americans want the border enforced. And, depending on how the question is worded, most voters likewise favor the completion of a wall on the southern border and an end to all illegal immigration.

There is little public support for sanctuary cities. They are seen as a form of neo-Confederate nullification -- insurrectionary and unsustainable in a republic of laws.

Where controversy arises is over the more difficult question of the fate of at least 11 million foreign nationals currently residing illegally in the U.S.

Most Americans agree that if such immigrants are able-bodied but have no work history and are on public support, have just arrived hoping for amnesty, or have committed crimes in the U.S., they should be deported to their countries of origin. Nearly 1 million such people were already facing pre-Trump government removal orders.

Yet for those undocumented immigrants who are working, crime-free and have established residence, the Trump administration will learn that the public supports some sort of accommodation that might lead to a fine, followed by the opportunity to apply for a green card.

Given those realities, the next immigration fault line will hinge on the definition of a "crime."

For most Americans, identity theft, falsification of government affidavits or trafficking in fraudulent Social Security numbers are the sort of violations that would end their own careers and unwind the very cohesiveness of government.

Rural or inner-city poor American citizens would go to jail for identity theft or lying on state and federal documents. Yet immigration activists sometimes seek to downplay these sorts of crimes as simply inherent in the desperate plight of the immigrant.

In sum, after the border is closed, and as long as the Trump administration does not summarily deport employed, crime-free, undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years, its reform agenda will quickly win the debate and at last return immigration to a legal enterprise.

In turn, Trump opponents will discover that while a small percentage of the undocumented have committed violent crimes, a far larger percentage than is commonly reported may have committed identity theft or falsified government documents.

Arguing to Americans that these are neither real crimes nor deportable offenses will prove no more a winning message for Trump's critics than would deporting productive and law-abiding residents who entered the U.S. illegally win support for Trump himself.

Wise Advice on Values For Young Citizens

How Liberals Are Poisoning The Minds Of Young Americans

4/23/2017 - John Hawkins Townhall.com

“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”—C.S. Lewis

“An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.” — Eric Hoffer

Our kids are no longer taught about patriotism, morality, honor or self-reliance. They’re not taught economics. They’re not taught about the Constitution. The boys aren’t taught to be men and the girls aren’t taught to be women. In fact, if you find kids who know anything about these subjects, it is almost certainly because their parents bent over backwards to jam that knowledge into their heads.

Our society used to inculcate these values in schools, church and via our entertainment. It was a different and, in many ways, better world. Liberals try to portray everything that happened in America’s past as evil and backward, but when you look at statistics like these from Charles Murray’s outstanding book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, try and tell me that this country hasn’t gone downhill in the values we’re teaching our kids.

“To get a sense of how different attitudes were in the 1960s, perhaps this will do it. These ever-married women were asked, ‘In your opinion, do you think it is all right for a woman to have sexual relations before marriage with a man she knows she is going to marry?’ …Eighty-six percent said no.”

“Starting in 1970, marriage took a nosedive that lasted for nearly twenty years. Among all whites, ages 30-49, only 13 percent were not living with spouses as of 1970, Twenty years later, that proportion had more than doubled, to 27 percent — a change in a core social institution that has few precedents for magnitude and speed.”

As the late, great Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture.” Is it a shocker that millennials lean to the Left when they constantly have liberalism shoved down their throats by their schools, their favorite musicians, and Hollywood? Is it a big surprise that 51% of millennials do not support capitalism when we allow honest-to-goodness communists to teach them in college and liberals are publicly extolling the virtues of socialist hellholes like Cuba and Venezuela?

The Greatest Generation grew up storming Normandy and fighting the Japanese across the Pacific. Meanwhile, many millennials of the same age feel “unsafe” if someone they disagree with speaks at an event they don’t have to attend on their campus.

Oh, and morality? Kids today grow up being told that morality is wrong because morality demands judgment. As Hugh Hewitt said, “My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it’s founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous.”

Additionally, as my friend Evan Sayet noted, everything liberals teach to kids is backward.

“Justice demands that the good and hard-working be rewarded and the evil and the lazy be punished (if only by the withholding of the rewards of doing the right things). Modern Liberalism demands that the good and hardworking be punished as the recipients of an unfair advantage and the evil and the lazy be rewarded, their acts of evil and their failure all the proof the Modern Liberal needs that somehow they have been victimized by forces out of their control.”

In the sixties, American kids were dreaming of building rocket ships and going to the moon. Today, they’re trying to figure out what gender they are and which bathroom they should be using. It’s not an improvement.

This is where snowflakes come from. It’s where the victimhood mentality comes from. It’s why so many kids think they’re entitled to have whatever they want based on what we can only assume is the sheer gratitude the rest of us should have for their very existence.

As someone who has millennials working for him, I can tell you that they’re not a doomed generation. They’re not all snowflakes. They can be just as successful as past generations of Americans.

However, to make that happen, we conservatives can’t just keep going with the flow because it’s easier. We have to teach young Americans about the values that have made this the most successful, prosperous nation on earth.

To start with, we need to begin challenging the victim mentality liberals push on millennials. As I write in my brand new book, “101 things All Young Adults Should Know, “Don’t ever feel sorry for yourself. Don’t ever seek pity from other people. Don’t ever play the victim, even if you are one. Why? It’s a mentality. If you wait for someone else to solve your problems, you’re usually in for a long wait. Even if you do get help, you probably won’t like the help you get.” Hammer that message home to your kids. Also, buy a copy of my book. In fact, buy 30 and give them to all your kids’ friends.

Let’s cut off the funding of state run colleges which discriminate against conservatives. Furthermore, if liberal kids keep tearing up Berkeley every time conservatives want to speak, then maybe Trump should send in the National Guard to keep order and protect their First Amendment rights.

We’ve also got to teach our kids about capitalism, Christianity, and love of country, because that is what this nation was built on. Snowflakes may melt when the going gets tough, but kids who are taught good, conservative values will stand tall even when it’s not easy.