Important Questions Asked in This Post

The Progressive War Against the Dead

8/24/2017 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Much of the country has demanded the elimination of references to, and images of, people of the past -- from Christopher Columbus to Robert E. Lee -- who do not meet our evolving standards of probity.

In some cases, such damnation may be understandable if done calmly and peacefully -- and democratically, by a majority vote of elected representatives.

Few probably wish to see a statue in a public park honoring Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founding members of the Ku Klux Klan, or Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion in the racist Dred Scott decision that set the stage for the Civil War four years later.

But cleansing the past is a dangerous business. The wide liberal search for more enemies of the past may soon take progressives down hypocritical pathways they would prefer not to walk.

In the present climate of auditing the past, it is inevitable that Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood will have to be disassociated from its founder. Sanger was an unapologetic racist and eugenicist who pushed abortion to reduce the non-white population.

Should we ask that Ruth Bader Ginsburg resign from the Supreme Court? Even with the benefit of 21st-century moral sensitivity, Ginsburg still managed to echo Sanger in a racist reference to abortion ("growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of").

Why did we ever mint a Susan B. Anthony dollar? The progressive suffragist once said, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman."

Liberal icon and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren pushed for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II while he was California's attorney general.

President Woodrow Wilson ensured that the Armed Forces were not integrated. He also segregated civil service agencies. Why, then, does Princeton University still cling to its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs? To honor a progressive who did a great deal of harm to African-American causes?

Wilson's progressive racism, dressed up in pseudo-scientific theories, was perhaps more pernicious than that of the old tribal racists of the South, given that it was not regionally centered and was professed to be fact-based and ecumenical, with the power of the presidency behind it.

In the current logic, Klan membership certainly should be a disqualifier of public commemoration. Why are there public buildings and roads still dedicated to the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, former "exalted cyclops" of his local Klan affiliate, who reportedly never shook his disgusting lifelong habit of using the N-word?

Why is 20th century Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, once a Klansman, still honored as a progressive hero?

So, what are the proper rules of exemption for progressives when waging war against the dead?

Do they tally up the dead's good and bad behaviors to see if someone makes the 51 percent "good progressive" cutoff that exempts him? Or do some reactionary sins cancel out all the progressive good -- at least in the eyes of self-styled moral superiors to those hapless Neanderthals who came before us?

Are the supposedly oppressed exempt from charges of oppression?

Farm-labor icon Cesar Chavez once sent union thugs to the border to physically bar U.S. entry to undocumented Mexican immigrants, whom he derided as "wetbacks" in a fashion that would today surely earn Chavez progressive ostracism as a xenophobe.

Kendrick Lamar, one of the favorite rappers of former President Barack Obama, had an album cover featuring a presumably dead white judge with both of his eyes X'd out, surrounded by black men celebrating on the White House lawn. Should such a divisive racialist have been honored with a White House invitation?

What is the ultimate purpose of progressives condemning the past?

Does toppling the statue of a Confederate general -- without a referendum or a majority vote of an elected council -- improve racial relations? Does renaming a bridge or building reduce unemployment in the inner city?

Do progressives have their own logical set of selective rules and extenuating circumstances that damn or exempt particular historical figures? If so, what are they?

Does selectively warring against the illiberal past make us feel better about doing something symbolic when we cannot do something substantive? Or is it a sign of raw power and ego when activists force authorities to cave to their threats and remove images and names in the dead of night?

Does damning the dead send a flashy signal of our superior virtue?

And will toppling statues and erasing names only cease when modern progressives are forced to blot out the memories of racist progressive heroes?

Language is the Most Important Aspect of a National Culture

MSNBC Host Seems Surprised the Majority of Americans Want Immigrants to Learn English

8/3/2017 - Leah Barkoukis Townhall.com

Americans on the left and right overwhelmingly want immigrants to learn how to speak English—a fact that seems to have come as a surprise to MSNBC's Chris Hayes. 

The host of “All In” retweeted a message with a link to a New York Times article that discussed a survey about American identity, which included questions specifically relating to the importance of speaking the English language.

“Very interesting data in here,” Hayes tweeted. “Among them: "learn English!" is an overwhelmingly popular position across both parties.”

From The New York Times:

The Democracy Fund, a bipartisan foundation that funds political research, recently put a series of questions about this topic to 8,000 people who voted in the 2012 presidential election as part of its Voter Study Group collaboration. The survey was fielded in November 2016, but it included re-interviews of people who were originally surveyed in 2011, 2012 and the summer of 2016.

As John Sides, a member of the consortium reported, the results reveal more consensus than you might expect about American identity, but also some stark differences across parties and even within them.

Among the questions: How important are things like speaking English or being born in the United States? […]

There was less consensus, but still strong support, for the importance of speaking English (75 percent of Democrats and 95 percent of Republicans thought this was important). (NYT)

The discussion comes after a fiery exchange between CNN’s Jim Acosta and White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller over President Trump’s new immigration policy, the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act.

Acosta took particular issue with the policy’s emphasis on the English language and skills.

A Common Sense Approach to Immigration

Changing Our Open Door Immigration Policy

8/13/2017 - Bruce Bialosky Townhall.com

Who needs Games of Thrones when all one needs to do is watch a White House press conference? President Trump endorses the RAISE Act put forth by two U.S. Senators (Cotton and Perdue), that is meant to create legislation regarding just one facet of our immigration policy, and the world goes off its axis. What would happen if we confronted our national challenges regarding this issue?

Mr. Trump campaigned on shutting down the inflow of illegal people principally from our Southern border, but has met resistance on measures proposed for accomplishing his goal. Forget his silly campaign pledge of having Mexico pay for the wall. There are three ways to cut the flow of illegals into this country:

1. Scare the dickens out of them and they will not come. That appears to be working to some extent since Mr. Trump ended the cavalier attitude of his predecessor toward enforcing our border laws.
2. Construct a barrier (wall, fence - whatever you want to call it) that deters people from coming in.
3. Hire more patrol guards to catch those who are coming illegally from doing so.

Even if you are an open borders person, you should endorse steps 2 and 3 as we have serious problems with criminals (MS-13, for instance) and drugs (heroin, cocaine and fentanyl) flowing in and harming our citizens. Yet Mr. Trump has met heavy resistance to doing both 2 and 3, largely from people saying neither is necessary. I would love to hear their solutions, as there never seems to be any except charges of racism.

Then comes a real proposal by two U.S. Senators which is endorsed by the administration. It is a starting point for discussion on one of the central aspects of how many people should be allowed to become members of our community – the United States of America.  

The rules really go back to the mid-1960s. First, President Johnson killed the Bracero program in 1964. It was originally initiated in 1942 and then expanded and successfully operated, allowing temporary workers to fill needs in certain seasonal industries. Johnson killed it to win the backing of unions in his upcoming election. Though the numbers had slimmed down, the numbers of participants reached over 400,000 in some years. If businesses have temporary employment needs, why did we never reestablish this program? It is because of continuing union resistance.

The Immigration Act of 1965 changed the flow of immigrants from being based on country of origin to focused on skills and immigrants’ family relationships. That may have worked in 1965, but the world has changed a tad since then.  

Not only did we have 194 million people in 1965 versus 325 million now, but also our needs have changed. Our economy is largely skills based and our under-skilled people are already losing their jobs to machines, giving them fewer options just to find a job. No amount of training programs will solve all of that. It has not yet; why would it in the future?

Stephen Miller shows up to answer questions on this preliminary proposal that needs to work its way through committees in both the House and Senate, to the respective bodies, to a conference committee, back to the House and Senate and then the President’s desk. Miller answers questions for 28 minutes. They were mostly just tough questions from the White House Press Corp. They did skip essential and basic questions. For example, why was the level of 500,000 legal immigrants chosen?  Why did they choose to emphasize knowledge of the English language as a key skill?  

Miller starts the press conference for five minutes explaining calmly, plainly and coherently the proposal which alters the existing program by establishing a points-based system including skills, will they be paid a high wage, can they speak English and will they be immediately employable. The point system mirrors one established in Canada and Australia.

Let’s first address the English speaking rule (which is not all determining). This is not the 1880s. English is the language of the world. My wife and I are near traveling to 70 countries.  We have only once have had a problem – in Japan – which is fascinating because every one of the Japanese studies English in school.  We were told it is a cultural thing; they do operate a fairly closed society.  At least they speak the world’s other most important language – baseball.

Our favorite story comes when I surprised my wife and took her to Cabo San Lucas for a big birthday. On her actual birthday we did something very unBialoskyish. We went to a straight- out-Mexican restaurant and did shooters. But through the haze of the tequila I noticed that even the busboys spoke very clear English. The next night we went on a sunset cruise which was run by an American expat. I inquired why that was. He said, “because if you do not speak English in Cabo you don’t get a job.” I observed that I wished that were so at most restaurants in Los Angeles, where you better know the Spanish word for water or you may go thirsty.  

As for how many people around the world speak English: we just visited a country (India) that probably has more English speakers than we have in our entire population.

Yet, a reporter went after Miller because of this and his perception of why the French built and gifted to us the Statue of Liberty. What was skipped over in this highly-unprofessional encounter with Miller was the reporter’s biggest act of unworthiness; He told the story of his father arriving in the U.S. in 1962 as a refugee from Cuba. Thus, we should base our public policy 55 years later on his family’s experience at that time. Maybe we have become unhinged. At least a new term entered our lexicon from this encounter – cosmopolitan bias. 

It is clear that there is a certain element of our society that has obliterated the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. Their use of terminology such as “undocumented workers”, and their reflexive hysteria upon use of the legal term, “illegal aliens”, accentuates that desire. Most frequently, they just use the term immigration with zero differential between the two facets, acting as if there exists a universal right to take up residence in our country.  

Addressing the issue of how many new immigrants we should have each year, could someone explain to me why in the state of California such a high number of people who work for our tax agencies not only are foreign born, but speak less than comprehensible English? Is it because these are jobs no Americans will take? Maybe as part of this discussion we can do a study of what jobs these immigrants are taking to provide background as to how many we should bring into the country and with what skills. Wouldn’t that be rationale policy?  

We are at historic highs in the history of our country for legal immigration. This has been going on for 25 years. We might consider higher levels of legal immigrants, if we did not have so many illegal immigrants. That needs to be discussed. For 50 years the means by which we have prioritized our immigrants has been one way. Does that way still make sense? These are vital questions for all of us to review and answer. This has nothing to do with race, gender or religion, the fallback position of the weak.

Our Congress needs to commence a responsible, grown-up discussion. The future of our nation depends on it.  

Sanctuary Cities - Selective Law Enforcement - Lawlessness!

Sanctuary for Whom?

8/14/2017 - Ken Blackwell Townhall.com

President Donald Trump issued an executive order to stop subsidizing cities which obstruct immigration law. Chicago filed suit in response. Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to continue collecting federal dollars while ignoring federal policy.

Chicago is a “sanctuary city.” That sounds nice, kind of like Oskar Schindler protecting Jews from the Nazis. It actually means protecting illegal aliens who commit crimes from being punished and deported. When President Donald Trump took office, some 300 jurisdictions, including 106 cities, actively interfered with federal law enforcement.

The Chicago case arose from a drunk driver and illegal alien. Shortly after completing probation for a DUI offense, Saul Chavez ran over and killed Dennis McCann, a pedestrian headed to dinner with a friend. Surely Chavez deserved to pay for his crime.

Yet Cook County refused to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when Chavez was released on bond. Naturally, he fled.

Noted Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement—Federal, state, and local—and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents.”

Responded the mayor: “Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city.” However, the president didn’t say that Chicago couldn’t continue to protect criminals. Only that it had to do so on its own dime. If the city wants federal dollars, it should comply with federal law.

Obviously, many Americans disagree passionately over the issue of immigration. But not in question is the fact that immigration law is made by Congress and enforced by the president.

Many other issues, such as welfare, are best left to states to decide and manage. But not immigration. Ultimately the federal government must decide who is allowed to enter America and under what conditions.

What the Constitution does not do, however, is allow the federal government to force states to enforce national law. It is federalism 101. The Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment prevents Uncle Sam from “commandeering” the states for its own purposes.

The result is a good balance. States (which include cities and other localities) cannot override federal policy. They cannot enact statutes inconsistent with national law. That includes who enters America.

However, states retain sufficient sovereignty to refuse to cooperate if they so choose. In this case, some local governments contend that cooperating with ICE discourages those here illegally from cooperating with law enforcement.

At the same time, however, as the president recognizes, the Constitution does not require Washington to hand out money to states. Indeed, such transfers can be bad policy, since local politicians have less incentive to be careful with “free money” from Congress. And it is especially bad policy for the national government to underwrite states which seek to thwart national policy.

Hence the Trump administration’s proposal to withhold money from so-called “sanctuary cities.” They still can act as they wish. But they will lose federal funds.

There’s some $27 billion at stake for the 106 self-declared municipal sanctuaries for law-breaking. Actually, the administration’s announcement alone was sufficient to scare Miami straight. Florida’s largest city agreed to stop obstructing immigration law enforcement.

The more general reaction, however, was for recipients to run to court, tying up the administration’s proposal. New York and San Francisco are but two which say they are going to follow Chicago to the courthouse.

Of course, filing lawsuits now seems to be the “American way.” However, the Founders never intended for judges to rule the U.S. The people voted for political leaders who promised to clamp down on illegal immigration. As in the travel ban case, which is headed to the Supreme Court, where the president likely will be vindicated.

In the meantime, some states are acting to back federal law. In May Texas began implementing legislation which bars local officials from withholding immigration information from federal agencies. Bills have been introduced in at least 31 other states to bar cities and counties from becoming sanctuaries to illegal aliens and criminals.

For too long local officials have obstructed federal immigration law with impunity. The Constitution protects the right of states to say no. But the Constitution does not require national taxpayers to subsidize lawbreakers. The president’s message is simple: play ball or pay the price.

What To Do - What NOT to Do - That Is The Question

Is the American Empire Worth the Price?

8/11/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight," Samuel Johnson observed, "it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

And the prospect of a future where Kim Jong Un can put a nuclear weapon on a U.S. city is going to cause this nation to reassess the risks and rewards of the American Imperium.

First, some history.

"Why should Americans be first to die in any second Korean war?" this writer asked in 1999 in "A Republic, Not an Empire."

"With twice the population of the North and twenty times its economic power, South Korea ... is capable of manning its own defense. American troops on the DMZ should be replaced by South Koreans."

This was denounced as neo-isolationism. And, in 2002, George W. Bush declared the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Bluster and bluff. In 2006, Pyongyang called and raised and tested an atom bomb. Now Kim Jong Un is close to an ICBM.

Our options?

As Kim believes the ability to hit America with a nuclear weapon is the only certain way he has of deterring us from killing his regime and him, he will not be talked out of his ICBM. Nor, short of an embargo-blockade by China, will sanctions keep him from his goal, to which he inches closer with each missile test.

As for the "military option," U.S. strikes on Kim's missile sites could cause him to unleash his artillery on Seoul, 35 miles south. In the first week of a second Korean war, scores of thousands could be dead.

If North Korea's artillery opened up, says Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the U.S. would be forced to use tactical atomic weapons to stop the carnage. Kim could then give the suicidal order to launch his nukes.

A third option is to accept and live with a North Korean ICBM, as we have lived for decades with the vast nuclear arsenals of Russia and China.

Now, assume the best: We get through this crisis without a war, and Kim agrees to stop testing ICBMs and nuclear warheads.

Does anyone believe that, given his youth, his determination to drive us off the peninsula, and his belief that only an ICBM can deter us, this deal will last and he will abandon his nuclear program?

Given concessions, Kim might suspend missile and nuclear tests. But again, we deceive ourselves if we believe he will give up the idea of acquiring the one weapon that might ensure regime survival.

Hence, assuming this crisis is resolved, what does the future of U.S.-North Korean relations look like?

To answer that question, consider the past.

In 1968, North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo on the high seas and interned its crew. LBJ did nothing. In April 1969, North Korea shot down an EC-121, 100 miles of its coast, killing the crew. Nixon did nothing.

Under Jimmy Carter, North Koreans axe-murdered U.S. soldiers at Panmunjom. We defiantly cut down a nearby tree.

Among the atrocities the North has perpetrated are plots to assassinate President Park Chung-hee in the 1960s and '70s, the Rangoon bombing that wiped out much of the cabinet of Chun Doo-hwan in 1983, and the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858, killing all on board in 1987. And Kim Jong Un has murdered his uncle and brother.

If the past is prologue, and it has proven to be, the future holds this. A renewal of ICBM tests until a missile is perfected. Occasional atrocities creating crises between the U.S. and North Korea. America being repeatedly dragged to the brink of a war we do not want to fight.

As Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Sunday, such a war would be "catastrophic. ... A conflict in North Korea ... would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes."

When the lesson sinks in that a war on the peninsula would be a catastrophe, and a growing arsenal of North Korean ICBMs targeted on America is intolerable, the question must arise:

Why not move U.S. forces off the peninsula, let South Korean troops replace them, sell Seoul all the modern weapons it needs, and let Seoul build its own nuclear arsenal to deter the North?

Remove any incentive for Kim to attack us, except to invite his own suicide. And tell China: Halt Kim's ICBM program, or we will help South Korea and Japan become nuclear powers like Britain and France.

Given the rising risk of our war guarantees, from the eastern Baltic to the Korean DMZ -- and the paltry rewards of the American Imperium -- we are being bled from Libya to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen -- a true America First foreign policy is going to become increasingly attractive.

Kim's credible threat to one day be able to nuke a U.S. city is going to concentrate American minds wonderfully.

RAISE Act Merit Based Immigration

Common Sense Uncommon in Washington

8/8/2017 - Cal Thomas Townhall.com

"Sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." -- Dictionary.com's definition of common sense.

Sometimes what used to be called "common sense" can seem radical in Washington, which is used to practicing senseless policies and funding programs that don't work.

Immigration is a perfect example. Everyone says the system is broken. There have been no substantive policy changes since the '60s, but until last week few had put forth a sensible and credible plan for fixing what ails it.

Thanks to Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA), we now have a plan worthy of serious consideration, even implementation. Last week, they introduced legislation that, according to USA Today, would "overturn the rules for becoming an American citizen and cut in half the number allowed in."

There are three keys to their proposal. The first is that people seeking to immigrate to America must possess skills qualifying them for a job, or have a job waiting so they would not become part of our bloated welfare and dependency culture.

The second key concerns numbers and the goal of eliminating chain migration. Despite counter arguments based on the Emma Lazarus poem about the world sending America its "tired and poor," poems are not the Constitution, or the law, otherwise Emily Dickinson might have become president. Poems are about sentiment. The right immigration policy is about survival.

No nation can maintain its character without controlling its borders. Think of a simple analogy. If I fill a glass with water and then pour milk into the glass, the more milk I pour, the more water is displaced. That's the United States, absent a sound and sane immigration policy.

Key number three is language. It isn't difficult for immigrants to learn enough English to function in America. I meet them in Washington and everywhere I travel. Here's the official government position for becoming a citizen: "To become a naturalized U.S. citizen, you must pass the naturalization test. At your naturalization interview, you will be required to answer questions about your application and background. You will also take an English and civics test unless you qualify for an exemption or waiver."

Under current policy, non-citizens don't have to take an English test if they are 50 years old, or older, and have lived in the U.S. as permanent residents for at least 20 years. If someone has lived in America for 20 years and still can't speak English, doesn't that suggest a problem?

The Cotton-Perdue measure would also eliminate the Green Card Lottery, which, in an effort to add diversity to the country, grants 50,000 green cards each year to countries that don't normally send many immigrants to the U.S.

Anyone who thinks immigration is a partisan issue should take note, as the Center for Immigration Studies has done, of a similar plan proposed in the mid-'90s by Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas), who as chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, advocated for increased restrictions on immigration. Her effort was squashed by a combination of the corporate right (which wants cheap labor) and the cultural left (which wants more votes for Democrats). The common sense of these reforms remains.

President Trump says he will sign a bill containing the Cotton-Perdue language, but as with so much else in dysfunctional Washington, its success will depend on whether Congress has any common sense left to do something that is transparently necessary and will benefit the country. After the debacle over health insurance, raising the debt ceiling (more debt), suggestions that tax reform may have to wait until after a budget is passed (more spending) and a new poll showing public approval of Congress at just 10 percent, no one should be optimistic.

A Touch of Arrogance But Ann is Correct

All We Need Is Love ... and Deportations

6/8/2017 - Ann Coulter Townhall.com

In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be "known to law enforcement," the translation is: "He is being actively ignored by law enforcement."

After the latest terrorist attack in Britain -- at least as of this writing -- Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, "Enough is enough!"

What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.

Poland doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year's Puerto Rican parade in New York!)

Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn't hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we're also getting some number of stone-cold killers.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force "multiculturalism" on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.

Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn't expect that.

Now we can't get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.

In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, they have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.

Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country -- except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment -- it's against the law to deny the Holocaust.

Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn't Islamic terrorism a little higher on our "immediate problems" list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?

The country with a First Amendment can't do that -- the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.

But if our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely "watching" those on the "watch" list, they'd deport them.

To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can't manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.

If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son, Omar, wouldn't have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.

If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik's social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.

We're already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as "jihad," we need them to stop watching and start deporting.

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP -- and obviously every Democrat -- have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don't make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.

But they won't do it. That's "not who we are," as Ryan famously said. True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn't knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.

Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn't start bombing things and shooting people.)

But today, our official position is: Let's choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn't that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men -- by which I mean British men -- were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.

If we can't look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can't we at least stop admitting ever more "refugees," some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?

No, that's "not who we are." Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? "We surrender" would at least have the virtue of honesty.