Merit Based Immigration - Effective & Productive for America

Immigration Reform: Let's Focus on Merit, Not Family Reunion

7/29/2017 - Helen Raleigh Townhall.com

Close to 70% of our annual immigration visa quota is allocated to family-based immigrants. How did this happen?

The 1952 Immigration Act established a preference system to prioritize immigration applications for the first time in our nation's history. It gave first preference to applicants who had family already residing in the U.S. By the early 1960s, the call for immigration reform had gained wide support from the rebellious social culture as well as the success of the Civil Rights movement. After JFK’s assassination, the U.S. Congress took up the call for immigration reform by passing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is also known as the Hart–Celler Act—named after its two key sponsors, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and Representative Emanuel Celler of New York. Senator Ted Kennedy also played a very important role. Without his support, this bill wouldn’t have passed.

The 1965 Act abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place since 1921, and which had restricted immigration on the basis of proportion to the existing U.S. population. The Act kept the preference system introduced in the Immigration Act of 1952, which gave preference to family-reunion for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents (a.k.a. green card holders), followed by employment-based immigrants, and refugees.

By the late 1960s, the influx of new immigrants from Europe had slowed down due to the post-war economic boom in Europe. Many Americans with European ancestry had already been in the U.S. for several generations by then, so there wasn’t a great need for family-reunion-based immigration. However, that was not the case for many people from Asia and Latin America. Until 1965, immigration from these regions had been restricted for more than a century. By removing the national origin quota system, the new immigration law opened the door for immigrants from these regions for the first time. Many immigrants took advantage of the family-reunion preference and sponsored their families to become legal immigrants in the United States.

Our immigration laws haven't changed much since the Immigration Act of 1965, which has had a profound impact on our nation’s demographics, culture, and politics. We continues to use the preference system set by the 1965 Act today, with family-based immigration utilizing 70% of the annual visa quota and employment-based immigrants using another 20%. In 1965, the U.S. population was 194 million, with 6% of its population, or a little less than 10 million people, as foreign-born immigrants. The Pew Research Center estimates that if we factor in the second- and third-generation offspring of immigrants, the post-1965 immigration wave has added 72 million people to the U.S. population, which is a little more than the population of France (67 million).

The overly emphasis on family reunion based immigration is problematic on three fronts. First, it’s unfair. It gives preference to blood relationships and family connections and discriminates against people who don’t have family connections, but do have knowledge, skills, and experiences and can contribute to our economy and be a productive citizen. The people our immigration system discriminates against today are the kind of people our nation has attracted since its founding. The current system also overlooks the fact that many people waiting in line for family reunion might qualify to migrate to America based on their merit but are instead stuck in the decade-long wait to be admitted on a family basis.

Second, this approach doesn’t serve our nation’s economic needs because (a) the quota for family reunion is not set based on labor-market demand; and (b) the visa preference hierarchy favors the old (parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents) and the young (children younger than 21 years of age) but discriminates against the most likely productive ones (people 21 years old or older, and siblings of U.S. citizens and permanent residents). The current system gives preference to people who are more likely to become financial dependents rather than economic contributors. Empirical evidence shows that after we started admitting immigrants mainly on a family reunification basis in 1965, we opened up the welfare system to immigrants.

Third, the emphasis on family reunion results in chain immigration, which exacerbates the long wait and backlog. Every legal resident or U.S. citizen can not only sponsor his or her nuclear relatives such as spouses and children, but also non-nuclear relatives such as parents, adult children, and siblings. The more family-based visas we hand out, the higher the demand will be, because everyone has some family members he or she wants to bring over, and those family members have their own family members, and so on.

Chain immigration is the main driver behind the immigration population growth since the Immigration Act of 1965. Although it is understandable that immigrants want to reunite with their extended families, they made the choice to leave those families behind when they immigrated to another country. Demanding family reunion from the host country on humanitarian grounds makes the situation worse—and waiting for a decade or more for that reunion is far from being humane.

To address these issues, we should shift our immigration's emphasis from family reunion to merit. I'm not proposing to get rid of family reunion altogether. I believe, however, our immigration should be a merit-based system: an immigration system that gives higher preference to people who have skills and experiences to contribute, and to entrepreneurs who want to invest in America and create job opportunities for Americans—in other words, a much more flexible merit-based immigration program to meet our nation’s economic needs.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Both Canada and Australia have established and successfully operated merit-based immigration systems for years. We can learn from their systems’ strengths and weaknesses. We're in 2017. We shouldn't continue to live with an immigration system established in 1965.

Around & Around We Go! Taxpayers Suffer Consequences

Trump's Circular Firing Squad

7/27/2017 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

The American political system has never quite seen anything like the current opposition to President Trump and his unusual reaction to it.

We are no longer in the customary political landscapes. Usually, the out-of-power opposition -- in this case, the Democratic Party -- offers most of the criticism and all of the alternative policies in order to win in the next election. Instead, Trump has an entire circle of diverse critics shooting at him. But they just as often end up hitting each other -- and themselves.

So far, Trump's most furious Democratic opponents have not been able to offer alternative visions to Trump's agenda that might help them win back Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. Higher taxes, more government regulations, less gas and oil production, loose immigration policies and the promotion of identity politics are not really winning issues.

Instead, the aim is either to remove Trump before his first term is up or to so delegitimize him that he is rendered powerless.

Yet obsessions with Trump often lead to boomerang excesses -- mad talk and visuals, from obscene rants to decapitation art -- that hurt the attackers more than Trump.

Republicans should have been delighted with control of both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, state governorships and the legislatures, and the White House. In principle, they laud Trump's efforts to appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts, to increase oil and gas production, to reform Obamacare and the tax code, and to restore deterrence abroad.

Yet the Republican-controlled Congress is nearly paralyzed. It simply cannot unite to deliver on promised major legislation.

Some senators and representatives find Trump too uncouth to support his otherwise agreeable proposals, and they fear (or hope) that he may not finish out his term. Some worry that Trump's low approval rating might hurt their own re-elections. Some are careerists who value getting along more than fighting for the White House agenda.

The result is that when factions of the Republican Congress are not battling each other, they are feuding with Democrats and often with the Trump White House.

One reason Trump has been slow to make major appointments is that he cannot trust the establishment of his own party, many of whom in 2016 signed petitions declaring Trump unfit for office.

At best, some anti-Trump intellectuals and pundits still cannot separate Trump's conservative agenda (which they privately support) from Trump's reality television persona (which they find boorish and beneath the dignity of the presidency). At worst, some are so invested in the idea that Trump would or should fail that their opposition threatens to become an obsessive self-fulfilling prophecy.

The anti-Trump conservative intellectual establishment also does not quite know where to aim its fire. At Democrats whose agendas they used to oppose? At Congress for supporting or not supporting Trump? At the liberal media that courts anti-Trumpers because it finds their Trump hatred useful for the time being?

The media have given up on impartial news coverage. Some journalists have announced that Trump is so beyond the pale that he deserves only unapologetic critical treatment. Research has shown that network coverage has been overwhelmingly anti-Trump.

At the center of this directed fire is the flamboyant, sometimes polarizing but usually cunning Trump. He is not a stationary target, but instead constantly ducking and weaving with a flurry of executive orders, major White House shakeups and trips throughout Europe and the Middle East, where he often gives good speeches and sometimes is warmly greeted.

The result of the circular firing squad is a crazed shootout where everyone gets hit.

Democrats as of yet have no obvious presidential candidates or even credible spokespeople to make the case against Trump. It is one thing to boast about the supposed buffoonery of Trump but quite another to offer a candidate and an agenda that would rebuild the so-called blue wall of swing states and reverse the results of 2016.

The media is increasingly discredited and polls more poorly than Trump.

The Republican-majority Congress is likewise even less popular than an unpopular Trump. Conservative voters may remember that Trump beat the unfavorable odds to deliver the White House to Republicans, while those in Congress blew favorable odds by not passing legislation when they enjoyed clear majorities in the House and Senate.

So the circular shooting goes on until someone is left standing -- or all are too wounded to continue.

Forgotten in the hail of 360-degree suicide gunfire is the only story that counts: the welfare of the United States.

If Trump grows the economy, creates more jobs and national wealth, achieves energy independence and restores deterrence abroad, all the wild firing will cease. If not, he and his attackers will finish each other off.

Voter Fraud - Another Devastating Consequence of Illegal Immigration

If You’re Illegal and You Vote, It’s Adios Amigo!

7/22/2017 - Wayne Allyn Root Townhall.com

Thirty-four hundred Colorado citizens just quickly and quietly dropped off the voting rolls. I know the reason why. Because President Trump is investigating voter fraud in Colorado (and every other state too).

Those 3,400 ex-voters are illegal aliens. Until now they got away with voter fraud. But now we have a new sheriff in town. And they're starting to get the message: If you’re illegal and you’re voting...

 IT’S ADIOS AMIGO!

Democrats want free and fair elections, without any chance of interference by Russians. Okay, I'll bite. Let's take concrete steps to assure our elections are free of fraud, corruption and manipulation.

Democrats also claim there are no illegal aliens voting in our elections. Let’s call that bluff.

The solution is a simple three-step process.

Step One. INSTANT DEPORTATION for any non-citizen who is proven to have voted in an election.

Right now, what’s stopping illegal aliens from voting in our elections? The answer is nothing. Drivers licenses are issued to anyone- legal or illegal. And Secretaries of State across this country agree they cannot tell the difference. When illegal aliens go to the DMV for a driver's license, they are automatically offered voter registration- with no questions asked. From that point on, they can legally vote.

Democrats practice sleight of hand- like Bill Clinton asking what “is” really means. Democrats claim there is no voter fraud. Sure. That’s because there is massive VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD. Millions of illegals are registering at DMV and the welfare/food stamp office. From that point on, they can legally vote. They are legally on the registration list. There’s your massive election fraud. It starts with the registration process. That's why they can claim they are "legally voting." Because they illegally registered, in plain view.

It’s time to assure millions of illegals aren’t corrupting our elections.

Will any Republican Congressman vote against this bill? I don't want to deport every illegal alien. Just the ones who commit fraud. Who can argue with that? If you vote illegally, you get deported. You've lost your right to stay in America.

Does any elected Republican believe it's okay for non-citizens to vote in our elections? Doesn't everyone (even Democrats) agree it's a crime to commit voter fraud? So, will any Republican go on record to vote against deportation for illegal aliens committing voter fraud?

Democrats claim no illegal aliens are voting. Republicans like President Trump and myself believe millions are voting illegally. If Democrats are right, then why should they oppose this legislation? If no illegal aliens are voting, then why would anyone worry about the possible consequences of the crime?

This penalty would deter non-citizens from trying to influence our elections. This would end the debate once and for all about illegals voting in elections. If it isn't happening (as Democrats claim) then no one has anything to worry about.

Republicans control the White House and both Houses of Congress. Why couldn't this legislation be passed tomorrow? What Republican Congressman or Senator would publicly oppose strict penalties for non-citizens illegally voting in our elections? Does any elected Republican want to go on record as being FOR illegal aliens voting?

Step Two. Create a national hack-proof voting "credit card."

No one can hack it. No one can fake it. No one can reproduce it. It's foolproof. I've argued before that this card should include federal government issued photo, plus biometric fingerprint. Mexico already does this. If it's good enough for Mexico, it should be good enough for America. And if it isn't "racist" in Mexico, it can't be "racist" in America.

But in honor of our Democrat Party friends, let’s call it “The Russian Hacking Prevention Card.” Democrats claim Russians are influencing our elections. They claim Russia wants Republicans to win. So, let’s call your bluff. Could Democrats oppose this?

Step Three. Match voter rolls with legal citizens.

Any name that doesn’t match gets thrown out. Simple. As a bonus, throw out duplicate voters, dead voters and voters who no longer live at that address. This is 2017. The NSA can listen in to every conversation, text and email in America, but Democrats claim we can’t clean voter rolls. Really? Put Amazon or Apple in charge. They’ll get it done in a week.

Let's get both Republican and Democrat members of Congress on record. We need FEDERAL laws to prevent the massive voter fraud going on in America. Let's see who really wants to stop voter fraud.

And then, if you’re illegal and you vote, IT’S ADIOS, AMIGO.

P.S. If this legislation was in place at the federal level in 2016, I’m betting Donald Trump would have won both California and the national popular vote (not to mention an historic electoral landslide).

Entitlements Lead to National Destruction - Eventually

The Most Dangerous Addiction of Them All: Entitlements

3/21/2017 - Dennis Prager Townhall.com

All addictions -- whether to drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex or cigarettes -- are very hard to escape.

There is one addiction, however, that may be more difficult than any other to escape, in part because it is not even regarded as an addiction. It is entitlements addiction, the addiction to getting something for nothing.

One indication as to the power of entitlements addiction is the fact that while great numbers of people have voluntarily given up drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. -- almost always at great pain -- few give up an addiction to entitlements. For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is for an alcoholic.

Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. And, of course, the left knows this, which is why the left almost always wins a debate over entitlements. Every American who is the beneficiary of an entitlement backs them, and many who are not beneficiaries of entitlements would like to be.

Aside from ideology, this is why the left constantly seeks to increase entitlements. The more people receiving government benefits, the more people vote left.

In this sense, the left in every country -- in America, the Democratic Party -- should literally be regarded as a drug dealer. Virtually every American given a free benefit becomes an addict who relies more and more on his dealer, which is exactly what the left seeks.

As noted at the outset, one reason entitlements addiction is so powerful is unlike other addictions, it is not regarded as an addiction. As a result, few entitlement addicts see themselves as addicted. Why, then, would any of them seek treatment? To the entitlement addict, receiving entitlements is as natural and uncontroversial as breathing air. Air is free, and so are entitlements.

Another reason entitlements addiction is unique among addictions is that very few drug, alcohol or gambling addicts believe that they are owed drugs, alcohol or their gambling debts. Entitlement addicts, on the other hand, believe that society owes them every entitlement they receive -- and often more. The very word "entitlement" conveys the message that the recipient has a right to the benefits. So there is a moral component for entitlement addicts that does not exist among other addicts (except for opioid dependents, who are in pain; these patients really are owed painkillers, and society is immoral for not allowing them to receive them).

Not only do entitlement addicts believe there is moral virtue to their addiction but so do a vast number of non-addicts known as progressives. They believe that there is a moral imperative to give people more and more entitlements. This, in turn, feeds the moral self-image of those dependent on entitlements.

Yet another reason for the uniqueness of entitlements addiction is it ultimately does more damage to society than any other addiction. Other addicts can ruin their own lives and those of loved ones, and drunk drivers kill and maim people. But society as a whole can survive their addictions. That is not the case with entitlement addicts. The more people who receive and come to depend on entitlements, the sooner society will collapse economically. Society does not directly pay for drug addicts' drugs, alcoholics' alcohol or gamblers' gambling debts, but it pays every penny for entitlement addicts' addiction. In fact, the current U.S. national debt is about equal to the reported $22 trillion this country has spent on entitlement programs in the last 50 years.

When you combine the addiction and selfishness of many (certainly not all) of those who are dependent on entitlements (including middle- and upper-class Americans who receive a home mortgage deduction); the tendency for the addiction to grow from one generation to the next; the dependence of one of the two major political parties on the votes of those who receive entitlements for the party's very existence; and the belief of tens of millions of non-addicted progressives that society is morally obligated to give more and more people more and more entitlements, it becomes very difficult to see a solution.

In the meantime, the entitlement state in every country is failing, forcing them to bring in tens of millions of migrants -- many of whom share none of the countries' values -- to keep the entitlement state alive.

This addiction ultimately ruins the character of many of its recipients, the economy of all the countries in which it exists in large numbers and the value system that created the prosperity that made so many entitlements possible in the first place.

But other than American conservatives, almost no one even recognizes it as a major problem, let alone an addiction.

Representative King - Always Firm, Articulate and Right

Rep. Steve King Wants to Take Money for Border Wall 'Out of Planned Parenthood's Budget'

7/12/2017 - Lauretta Brown Townhall.com

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) proposed a source of funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall on CNN’s New Day Wednesday, the over half a billion in federal funding that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, receives annually.

“It’s 1.6 billion dollars,” CNN’s Alisyn Camerota told King, asking, “are you comfortable, congressman, with providing $1.6 billion of taxpayer money — not from Mexico — to build that wall?”

“Absolutely yes, and more,” King replied, "And I would find half of a billion dollars of that right out of Planned Parenthood's budget."

Planned Parenthood received $554.6 million in taxpayer dollars last year, had a slight decrease in the amount of contraceptive services provided and stopped the beating hearts of 328,348 unborn babies, according to their latest annual report.

King had another area of funding he thought would come in handy for the border wall.

"The rest of it could come out of food stamps and the entitlements that are being spread out for people that haven't worked in three generations," he suggested, "we've got to put America back to work, this administration will do it."

“You want to take food from people who are the people who are on the lowest rung of the nation’s safety net and their children in terms of food stamps,” Camerota asked, “you’re happy to take, willing to take money from them to build or to give the 1.6 billion for the border wall?”

“For a couple of reasons,” King explained, “and one of them would be that, you know, we will create the kind of security that would bring about 10 million new jobs in America by enforcing immigration law.”

“Second thing is I wouldn’t impose anything any more strict on anybody in America than what Michelle Obama did with her school lunch program and so I would just say let’s limit to that anybody that wants to have food stamps up to the school lunch program,” King suggested, “but we have seen this go from 19 million people on now SNAP program up to 47 million people on the SNAP program.”

“And you don’t think all of them need it?” Camerota asked.

“Oh I’m sure all of them didn’t need it,” King replied, “We built a program to solve the problem of malnutrition in America and now we have a problem of obesity and when you match up the EBT card with what the scales say on some of the folks I think it’s worth looking at, Michelle Obama looked at it Republicans should be able to look at it too.”

A 2015 USDA study supports a link between the food stamp program and obesity. The study found that 40 percent of food stamp recipients are obese, compared with just over 30 percent of those who don't participate in the program.

Another Example of Corrupt Politicians

Exposing the Bums and Frauds of the GOP

7-10-17 Wayne Allyn Root Townhall.com 

"What's in it for them?"

Start thinking of the answer to this important question as you read this column.

Remember the famous Las Vegas advertising slogan, "What happens here, stays here." Well it doesn't.

Las Vegas is the crossroads of America. The tourist capital of America. The convention capital of America. The fastest growing big city in America. The retirement capital of America. The melting pot of America. What happens here is symbolic of the corruption, fraud and "rot" happening in the GOP across America.

Our own Nevada GOP U.S. Senator Dean Heller wants to fight to keep Obamacare.

And our own Nevada GOP Governor Brian Sandoval (who was the first GOP Governor to embrace the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare) now says repealing and replacing Obamacare would harm the Nevada economy.

Really?

Can you imagine GOP politicians defending a world class Bernie Madoff-like fraud that fleeces their own loyal base of middle class voters and small business? Amazing. Even more remarkable- these are Republican leaders fighting desperately to keep the fraud in place.

Why? What's in it for them?

If this is proven as fraud- perhaps the most expensive fraud and scam ever perpetrated in world history- doesn’t that make them co-conspirators in the fraud?

So, let’s compare the crimes committed by Obama and the architects of Obamacare to the scam pulled off by convicted private sector conman Kevin Trudeau. This comparison is a real eye-opener!

Remember TV infomercial pitchman Kevin Trudeau? Anyone who watched late night TV knows him. His 30-minute infomercials ran day and night on cable TV channels for the past decade. The government claimed that his product (a book about losing weight) was a fraud. The result? Kevin Trudeau was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in February 2014.

Now Trudeau is no saint. According to the government, he scammed about a million people out of $30 each. But did losing $30 effect anyone’s life? No. Were they forced to buy at government gunpoint, or IRS penalty? No. Yet Trudeau got 10 years in prison. For a book.

But Obama used Obamacare to scam every middle class American out of thousands of dollars. In my case, my health insurance went from $500 per month to $2000 per month. And because the deductible and co-pays rose so dramatically, it now covers nothing. So my bill actually went up about $2000 per month.

That means Obama's lies scammed me out of $25,000 per year. That's $250,000 per decade. That's about $1 million over my lifetime. With increases and interest, maybe $2 million. All sold with lies and misrepresentation.

Think about it. Obama promised rates would go down. Instead average healthcare premiums for Americans skyrocketed. Isn't that consumer fraud?

And premiums are currently soaring for 2018. Many states are seeing increases of 20%, 30% and 40% year to year. Again.

Obama's lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court that Obamacare wasn't a tax. Yet the entire Obamacare is based on billions of dollars of taxes. Obamacare is nothing but taxes. The biggest tax increase in U.S. history. And the most taxes in one bill in history. Isn't that consumer fraud?

The government accused Trudeau of lying and exaggerating to sell his weight loss book. Their argument is that he called weight loss “easy” on TV. The government argued without the lies he couldn’t have sold the book. But isn’t that exactly how Obama sold his massive Obamacare fraud? Obama promoted how easy and simple and inexpensive Obamacare would be. Isn't that consumer fraud?

Here’s the biggest whopper of all: “If you like your insurance you can keep it.” Obama told this liewhile his own internal White House reports showed that up to 93 million Americans would lose their insurance because of Obamacare.

Obama told the middle class a massive lie to sell his product, because he knew if he told the truth, no one would buy. The result? Millions of middle class Americans lost their health insurance.

How does that differ from Kevin Trudeau?

But it gets worse! Trudeau’s misrepresentations didn’t cost a single person their health, or their life. There are thousands of stories of cancer patients losing their insurance coverage, or doctors, or hospitals, or the lifesaving medicine they need because of Obamacare.

How about Linda Rolain, a Las Vegas woman, who lost her battle to brain cancer in 2014 after a 3-month delay due to the faulty design of the Nevada Obamacare exchange.

Obama said “Don’t worry.” Tell that to Linda Rolain’s family. Obama’s lies and fraud led directly to a patient’s death.

There will be many more deaths from Obamacare. Don’t believe me? Ask the veterans who died in the VA scandal. Isn’t that government-run healthcare? Weren’t those “Death Panels?”

Every day Nevadans call my radio and TV shows to report they lost their insurance because of the high cost of Obamacare. If they die, or go bankrupt, aren't Obama's lies and misrepresentations to blame?

Don’t forget the millions of middle class jobs lost. Obamacare created a nation of crappy, low-wage, part-time jobs.

Or the $5 billion of taxpayer money wasted to build defective web sites. 

And never forget Linda Rolain’s life.

This fraud makes Bernie Madoff look like small potatoes. Obamacare is the centerpiece of a purposeful plan to bankrupt the middle class. To fleece us. To redistribute our income. To make us all wards of the state and welfare queens.

If Kevin Trudeau deserves ten years in prison (and I don’t doubt he does), shouldn’t Obama receive a life sentence for the fraud he’s committed?

But what’s even more remarkable (and painful) is the realization that the two highest elected Republicans in the state of Nevada want to defend this world class Bernie Madoff-like fraud. They are fighting desperately to keep the fraud in place. And so are many other Republican politicians across this country. Why would Republicans be willing to defend this massive fraud? Why would they be willing co-conspirators?

The real question is "What’s in it for them?”

Wake Up America! Divisiveness IS Destructive

The Ongoing Frustration of Trump's Conservative Critics

7/7/2017 - David Limbaugh Townhall.com

The frustration of many Trump critics on the right, or MTCRs, is palpable and growing. Some are becoming more elitist by the day and utterly out of touch with rank-and-file conservatives, which is a particularly bitter pill to swallow because they believe they are the main arbiters of what conservatism means.

Some are obviously disgusted with everything about Trump -- his demeanor, his tweets, his combativeness, his bigger-than-life personality, his egotism and tons more. Their revulsion blinds them to anything positive. They are so invested in Trump's failure that they can't stomach rooting for him even when he's advancing conservative policies or fighting those dedicated to obstructing them. Their unhealthy Trump obsession compels them to present evidence every passing hour to justify their opposition.

I've seen their ire and experienced their snobbish condemnation on social media. It has become personal for many because they apparently view conservative Trump supporters as frauds and sellouts. They attack our character instead of considering that our calculus is that Trump may advance a conservative agenda more successfully than presidents ostensibly more conservative than he.

What MTCRs don't seem to grasp is that rank-and-file conservatives largely support Trump. They aren't mortified by his every tweet. They refuse to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Most Trump supporters are not cultists who are blind and indifferent to his faults and indelicacies, but nor are they soiling themselves in agony over them. They have not betrayed their principles in supporting and defending Trump. They are not hypocrites for cheering him on against the plethora of leftist assaults. They don't root for Trump because they seek revenge against the left, as some have wrongly supposed. The left's war on America, as founded, is ongoing, not some one-off offense for which we seek redress.

Trump supporters see a bigger picture here -- greater stakes, bigger hills to die on. They support him as the last best hope to save America -- or at least to return it to the right path. They're behind him because they believe he is attempting to turn the country around and, in many cases, succeeding. They are ecstatic that he is standing up to the political left and firing back -- so they aren't going to be overly exercised over his every fault. He is filling the enormous void in Washington created by feckless politicians and commentators on the right who have refused to show the will to strike back against the left.

Rank-and-file conservatives are convinced that America and Western civilization are imperiled. They understand the damage done to our founding principles, values, traditions and mores and the harm inflicted on the Constitution and rule of law by generations of leftist assaults.

For them, politics is not a Beltway parlor game or a matter of petty partisanship. It's about saving the nation for themselves and their children. They see the urgency, and no amount of highhanded judgmentalism from smug conservative elites about their alleged hyperbole and hysteria is going to shame them into denial.

When parents in this country refuse to specify their newborn babies' gender on their birth certificates, we know that postmodernism and moral relativism have made their marks. We recognize intellectual and moral anarchy. Dismiss this as anecdotal irrelevancy if you will, but honest observers of the American scene witness such absurdity every day. Our culture is rife with it -- from our universities to Hollywood to the media.

Some of the most indignant MTCRs cautioned restraint in criticizing President Obama, telling us either that we were exaggerating the horrors of his crusade to radically transform America as founded or that our opposition would backfire. They were pragmatic, and we were dogmatic and reactionary.

Ironically, their pragmatism contributed to the frustration that culminated in the Trump movement. Yet now these self-appointed arbiters of genuine conservatism are accusing conservative Trump supporters, whom they formerly criticized for being conservative extremists, of abandoning conservatism. It seems that MTCRs are dwindling in numbers, but the most ardent ones are still oblivious to the Trump phenomenon and why it originated.

But what about Trump's tweets? Well, most conservatives aren't bothered by most of Trump's tweets, because they are just a continuation of what Trump was doing in plain sight during the primaries. Not every supporter approves of every tweet, but I dare say they love that Trump is finally taking the fight to the leftist media and putting them back on their heels for the first time in our adult lifetimes -- again, not for revenge but because the leftist media are enemies of truth and must be confronted.

Besides, why should we become humorless boors like some of our brethren on the left? Let's not take ourselves so seriously that we feign outrage over tweets that not only don't foster violence as alleged but parody it. We've been waiting for someone to feed the left some of its own medicine. That moment has arrived. Enjoy it.

MTCRs are indignant that Trump supporters point to leftist hypocrisy and malfeasance when debating the propriety of Trump's media-lampooning tweets. But conservatives have always criticized the left. Would they have us declare a moratorium on opposition to liberalism to avoid any appearance of condoning Trump? Sorry, but we will not unilaterally disarm for fear of being accused of hypocrisy.

Moreover, it is ludicrous to suggest that Trump threatens the free press merely because he is fighting back. These are powerful entities dedicated not to the reporting of news but to hiding behind the First Amendment to destroy him personally and to delegitimize his presidency and thwart his agenda, at the expense of doing their job of reporting the news.

Another irony is that if MTCRs would quit obsessing over Trump instead of his policy agenda, they might have a better chance of influencing him in a conservative direction on issues where it could make a difference, such as in health care and tax reform. But for now, their knee-jerk aversion to Trump has rendered them impotent.

Of course, Trump doesn't deserve a pass from conservative criticism when it's warranted. But let's not lose our heads and criticize him out of pride or bitterness -- and let's try to stay focused on issues that truly matter.

When All Else Fails - Return to Your Roots

Is America Still a Nation?

7/4/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of "one people." The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, "We the people..."

And who were these "people"?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as "one united people ... descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today's elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

After the attempted massacre of Republican Congressmen at that ball field in Alexandria, Fareed Zakaria wrote: "The political polarization that is ripping this country apart" is about "identity ... gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (and) social class." He might have added -- religion, morality, culture and history.

Zakaria seems to be tracing the disintegration of our society to that very diversity that its elites proclaim to be its greatest attribute: "If the core issues are about identity, culture and religion ... then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite."

Among the issues on which we Americans are at war with one another -- abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, white cops, black crime, Confederate monuments, LGBT rights, affirmative action.

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind's most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Is America really "God's Country"? Or was Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, justified when, after 9/11, he denounced calls of "God Bless America!" with the curse "God Damn America!"?

With its silence, the congregation seemed to assent.

In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance many of us recited daily at the end of noon recess in the schoolyard was amended to read, "one nation, under God, indivisible."

Are we still one nation under God? At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama, a motion to put "God" back into the platform was hooted and booed by half the assembly.

With this July 4 long weekend, many writers have bewailed the animus Americans exhibit toward one another and urged new efforts to reunite us. Yet, recall again those first words of Jefferson in 1776:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them..."

Are we approaching such a point? Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans are already seeking a new constitutional convention?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things ... constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

"Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory ... is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again." Does this sound at all like us today?

Watching our Lilliputians tearing down statues and monuments, renaming buildings and streets, rewriting history books to replace heroes and historical truths with the doings of ciphers, are we disassembling the nation we once were?

"One loves in proportion to the sacrifices that one has committed and the troubles that one has suffered," writes Renan, "One loves the house that one has built and that one passes on."

Are we passing on the house we inherited -- or observing its demolition?

Happy Fourth. And God bless the USA.