National Culture = Secure Border + Unique Language

The Best Way Celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month: Build the Wall!

10/8/2017 - Arthur Schaper Townhall.com

Honestly, I have no problem with our President and government recognizing different cultures, as long as they have contributed to the American mosaic. Remember the sage words of Hector Saint John de Crevecoeur, the French-born American farmer who outlined the new American nationality to the world: “What is this American? This new man? He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. Americans are the western pilgrims.”

There is the beauty of this wonderful country. Our backgrounds do not predetermine our future, nor undermine our potential. We can celebrate our ethnic heritage while rejoicing in our shared, new identity as Americans. Among those “western pilgrims” include men and women of Hispanic descent. Admiral David Farragut commanded the Union Navy during the Civil War, helped implement the Anaconda Plan to squeeze Southern ports and commerce into submission: “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”

Some of the most ardent Hispanic-American patriots have lived in the United States for generations, if not centuries. They include Governor Susana Martinez, who can trace her heritage back to the early 1800s, before the New Mexican territory joined the United States. Today, Latinos for Trump have shaped the political and cultural discussion in my home state of California, as well as other border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida. Here in Los Angeles, Latinos for Trump, starting with Marco Gutierrez from Discovery Bay, and also including Harim Uzziel (Sephardic Jew as well as Hispanic), Elsa Aldeguer, and many others throughout the Los Angeles region are outspoken in their support for the president. Political correctness did not slow them down or silence their enthusiasm for the President.

Trump’s demand for a wall actually bolstered voters’ respect for him. Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal and former speech writer for Ronald Reagan, marveled at the staggering number of Latinos who had pledged their support for Trump. No doubt, President Trump reached out very capably to Hispanic communities throughout his campaign. Who can forget Myriam Witcher at the Las Vegas, Nevada event? “I’m Hispanic, and I vote for Donald Trump!”

So, Trump celebrated his first annual Hispanic Heritage Month, and the media gave it scant attention. Wayne Dupree went off on them for their cursory glance at the event, especially following his incredible, industrious efforts in Puerto Rico along with the teams of first responders in the region. (How about the fact that 30% + voted for Trump in 2016).

Instead of reporting on the whole event at the White House, AOL and the Business Insider fixated on someone else: Fredy Burgos, a conservative Republican and active member of the Virginia Republican Party Central Committee, showed up to the White House Hispanic Heritage Month event sporting the trade red baseball cap. The mainstream media went crazy, not just because of the cap, but for what it read: “Build the Wall!”

I could not agree more. This hat was a brilliant trope, a perfect signal for the event, and a ground-breaking moment to advance Trump cause. Since when did the construction of a wall amount to racism? The most contentious moment of the Trump campaign followed from his Phoenix, Arizona speech. “When Mexico sends her people, they’re not sending their best ...” And the rest is political history, and astounding history because in spite of the sage wisdom of consultants, Beltway bureaucrats, and K Street lobbyists, Trump’s stark, critical remarks about illegal immigration and its damaging impact on Americans resonated with voters. He won the election, after all, and many Hispanics for Trump told me that he was spot-on with his remarks.

Like Fredy Burgos, they want the wall! In city council meeting after city council meeting, Latinos for Trump have been outspoken in their demands for border security. One organizer in our movement, Faris Ibrik of Texas, now living in West Hollywood, told me about his life in Mexico. Not only did he not receive fair special treatment while going to school, he faced discrimination of his own, since he was born in the United States, and also of Middle Eastern background.

When Trump sounded the alarm about immigration from Mexico, not only was he not offended, but he decided right then “I’m voting for Trump!” That brings us back to Fredy Burgos. “Build the Wall” his hat declared to the audience and to the world. Defend one’s country is not racist, but an expression of sovereignty

For Burgos, the wall is more than a concrete barrier for public safety. Cultural Marxism, the disdain for America’s egalitarian Judeo-Christian republic, is undermining us, and Virginia’s polititcal Establishment wants Burgos removed from the Central Committee. But Latino for Trump Burgos won’t be stopped. He wants that wall. A secure border means a secure American identity committed to the E Pluribus Unum vision outlined by Crevecoeur in one of his letters.

Leaders in different Hispanic communities have declared their support for border security and deportation of illegal aliens. It’s time for the political class in Washington, Republican as well as Democrat, to listen and follow through. If Trump wants to put a perfect finish on Hispanic Heritage Month, then he needs to build that wall! Mexico has a wall. Colombia has secure borders, too. Border walls are not only acceptable, but they are as Hispanic as anything else. The United States needs the wall. Prototypes are lining up in San Diego. The House of Representatives has appropriated $1.6 billion, with another $10 billion to follow. There’s no stopping us now.

President Trump’s outstanding defense of the United States, our flag, and our culture is precisely what we need, American values which President Trump vowed to uphold, defend, and promote. There is no better way for him to do so than to “Build the Wall!”

Successful Recipe: Remain Conservative, Dynamic & Determined

There Is No GOP Civil War

10/27/2017 - David Limbaugh Townhall.com

Despite the unrequited longings of the left and certain vocal Republicans, there is no civil war in the Republican Party, and there is not even widespread disaffection with President Donald Trump among rank-and-file GOP voters.

But this is not what you would assume listening to Democrats and the mainstream media or frequenting the Twitter accounts of a number of high-profile Trump-disdaining conservatives.

Sen. John McCain has been in a public feud with President Trump, as have Sens. Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, who both have announced that they will retire, lamenting the decline in dignity and manners that Trump has allegedly ushered in. And no less a Republican well-wisher than Hillary Clinton has declared that the GOP is imploding.

President Trump, for his part, obviously perceives matters differently, tweeting, "The meeting with Republican Senators yesterday, outside of Flake and Corker, was a love fest." Even sometime Trump critic Lindsey Graham praised the luncheon, saying that Trump was "upbeat," "lighthearted" and "funny as hell."

With the liberal media gleefully showcasing these intramural squabbles and obsessing over Trump's every tweet and phone call, it's no wonder some might infer that Republicans are in hopeless disarray and headed for extinction. But outside their echo chamber and that of the denizens of NeverTrumpistan, I think we'll be fine.

Victor Davis Hanson, in a piece for National Review Online, cited data showing that despite perceptions to the contrary, Trump received roughly the same percentage of Republican votes as other previous GOP presidential candidates. Additionally, my own experience tells me that the overwhelming majority of fellow Republicans and conservatives are supportive of Trump, even if they don't wholeheartedly embrace everything he may tweet or say.

Indeed, very few conservatives I've run into are that concerned about Trump's tweets -- even those who would prefer he dial them down a notch -- because they appreciate that he is speaking their language instead of the guarded language of the typical politician. Columnist Salena Zito offered a fascinating insight on this, saying, "The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." Though certain conservative Trump critics cringe at this, I dare say the rank-and-file Republican voter understands the difference and isn't sweating the small stuff -- provided we can move forward on policy and dismantle the Obama agenda.

Trump supporters don't dispute that Trump's bombastic style provides fodder for his critics, but they also understand that the political left has mercilessly savaged every other Republican president for decades. They believe that Trump is the first one, at least since Ronald Reagan, who gives the left a taste of its own medicine. This may be cringe-worthy to the Emily Posts of the conservative chattering class, but many of the rest of us are willing to overlook some of the distasteful in exchange for someone in our corner fighting back.

This is not to say that the Republican Party enjoys the greatest reputation these days, but that's more the fault of the recalcitrant moderates and the establishment wing than it is of Trump. Trump's most ardent conservative critics are the very ones who contributed to his rise in the first place -- partly because they didn't perceive Obama's agenda as urgently destructive or they weren't willing to oppose him vigorously enough. And let's never underestimate the level of angst generated by the open-border advocates on the right who besmirched good-faith immigration hawks as nativists and racists. It's also hard to take seriously some (and I truly mean some, not all) never-Trumpers' insistence that they are the true conservatives when you often see them obsessing over Trump, and you rarely see them criticizing the left; in fact, they frequently retweet liberals with approval.

What these critics don't grasp is that the Trump movement transcends Trump. It preceded him and will survive him. This does not necessarily mean in my view that populism will replace constitutional conservatism. But it does mean that rank-and-file conservatives are tired of their politicians talking a good game during their campaigns and losing their nerve in office and will now hold their candidates accountable.

As most recognize, Trump is not primarily ideological, though he does have a set of strong ideas on certain policies. I disagree with his protectionist bent, and I don't believe he should cater to the class warriors in promoting his otherwise attractive tax proposal. I also believe he could have been much more successful on Obamacare reform if he'd have tried to placate the bleeding hearts less via pre-existing conditions and mandated coverage and implement truly constructive market solutions.

But I am not fretting those differences. I am trying to speak up about them and hoping in my small way to influence the movement in a conservative direction.

Precisely because Trump is not a rigid ideologue, the policies of the so-called Trump movement -- with certain exceptions, such as immigration -- are not set in stone. Even on foreign policy, Trump has not shown himself to be a pure isolationist as some feared. He's a strong nationalist and patriot, but so are most constitutional conservatives. In many areas, Trump is governing as a mainstream conservative.

So no, the GOP is not imploding; it is experiencing a realignment whose parameters have yet to be fully drawn, so let's quit panicking and be constructive forces to shape this movement into one that's conservative, dynamic and determined to fight the left with the same amount of energy it uses to fight us. If we do that, we have every reason to expect to hold on to our governing majority.

New Barbarianism Has Come to America

America's Second Civil War

8/18/2017 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee -- and what a leader! ... No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller."

So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial "The Oxford History of the American People" in 1965.

First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.

This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, "appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, 'The rest of us may have ... descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.'"

Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.

Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of "racist and traitor." A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.

What has changed since 1965?

It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.

What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.

And the politicians are in panic.

Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson on Richmond's Monument Avenue "parts of our heritage." After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as "flashpoints for hatred, division, and violence."

Who hates the statues, Terry? Who's going to cause the violence? Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

McAuliffe is echoed by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in November to succeed McAuliffe. GOP nominee Ed Gillespie wants Monument Avenue left alone.

The election is the place to decide this, but the left will not wait.

In Durham, North Carolina, our Taliban smashed the statue of a Confederate soldier. Near the entrance of Duke University Chapel, a statue of Lee has been defaced, the nose broken off.

Wednesday at dawn, Baltimore carried out a cultural cleansing by taking down statues of Lee and Maryland Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the Dred Scott decision and opposed Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

Like ISIS, which smashed the storied ruins of Palmyra, and the al-Qaida rebels who ravaged the fabled Saharan city of Timbuktu, the new barbarism has come to America. This is going to become a blazing issue, not only between but within the parties.

There are 10 Confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol, among them Lee, Georgia's Alexander Stephens, vice president to Jefferson Davis, and Davis himself. The Black Caucus wants them gone.

Mount Rushmore-sized carvings of Lee, Jackson and Davis are on Stone Mountain, Georgia. Are they to be blasted off?

There are countless universities, colleges and high schools like Washington & Lee named for Confederate statesmen and soldiers. Across the Potomac from D.C. are Jefferson Davis Highway and Leesburg Pike to Leesburg itself, 25 miles north. Are all highways, streets, towns and counties named for Confederates to be renamed? What about Fort Bragg?

On every Civil War battlefield, there are monuments to the Southern fallen. Gettysburg has hundreds of memorials, statues and markers. But if, as the left insists we accept, the Confederates were traitors trying to tear America apart to preserve an evil system, upon what ground do Democrats stand to resist the radical left's demands?

What do we do with those battlefields where Confederates were victorious: Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville?

"Where does this all end?" President Trump asked.

It doesn't. Not until America's histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, Davis and all the rest, will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished.

And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.

Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun must swiftly follow.

Then there are all those segregationists. From 1865 to 1965, virtually all of the great Southern senators were white supremacists.

In the first half of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of a rigidly segregationist South all six times they ran, and FDR rewarded Dixie by putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?

In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?

Liberal La - La Land - How Disgusting!

The Left Just Isn't Right

10/13/2017 - David Limbaugh Townhall.com

Please join me on a whirlwind superficial but revealing tour of liberal la-la land as we peek at recent headlines. Meanwhile, liberals call conservatives wingnuts.

Singer Nancy Sinatra tweeted, "The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad." One wonders whether in her rendering, "murderous" is redundant. One might also wonder whether she thinks other murderous people should be exempt from or perhaps face a less humiliating form of execution.

Responding to Michelle Obama's claim that people are distrustful of politics because the GOP is "all men, all white," Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said, "I don't know if she noticed, but I am not white and I am not a male." To clarify, in case you are wondering, in this example, Michelle Obama is the inhabitant of la-la land.

Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who is running for the Senate seat currently held by Bob Corker, encountered Twitter's speech police when trying to place an ad saying, "I fought Planned Parenthood, and we stopped the sale of baby body parts." Twitter's thought cops said the claim was "deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction." They magnanimously assured her that they'd run the ad if she removed the offending statement. If Twitter brass were truly concerned about tweets evoking "a strong negative reaction," the executives would save themselves time and just shut the whole operation down. If you use Twitter much, you know that evoking such reactions is virtually guaranteed in cultural and political tweets, which populate Twitter by the millions every day. It would be much easier to interact with leftists if they could at least be honest with themselves and others about what they are doing in these situations. They have no problem with tweets evoking strong negative reactions from conservatives. But you knew that.

ESPN anchor Jemele Hill last month faced no consequences for calling President Trump a white supremacist but was suspended for two weeks when she urged fans to boycott NFL advertisers because Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones had threatened to bench players who refuse to stand during the national anthem. "Change happens when advertisers are impacted," she tweeted. "If you strongly reject what Jerry Jones said, the key is his advertisers. Don't place the burden squarely on the players." Twitter moguls apparently didn't deem Hill's tweets as likely to evoke a strong negative reaction. I wonder whether Hill would agree that her employer's reaction was neither strong nor negative. One person who doubtlessly wouldn't regard Hill's tweet as negative is ESPN's Michael Wilbon, who compared Jones to a slave owner because of his action.

The Daily Wire reported that activists of Abolish Human Abortion were booted from Bedlam Coffee in Seattle because the gay owner couldn't tolerate their presence. After asking members of the group whether they would tolerate his bringing his boyfriend in the shop and performing sex acts with him in front of them, he told them, "Well, then I don't have to f---ing tolerate this! Then leave -- all of you! Tell all your f---ing friends, 'Don't f---ing come here'!" I have no real problem with owners serving whom they choose in a free market, but I'll note that it's unlikely that we'll hear outcries from the left complaining about this discriminatory treatment because here those being denied service were not asking for a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In case you haven't heard of the concept of "cultural appropriation," it is the use of certain aspects of a certain culture by another culture, which, to those who use the term, is a bad thing. Who thinks this way? But I digress. University of Texas cultural studies professor Luis Urrieta has taken the concept to a new level. Urrieta noted that these appropriations have "many economic, social and symbolic repercussions. The first is obviously the theft of intellectual property, the theft of communal knowledge. ... Socially, it reduces native and indigenous peoples to 'artifacts' that can be worn, used, consumed and displayed." A few examples of what they mean by "appropriation" will suffice to illustrate. The University of California, Merced told fraternities and sororities they should avoid using the terms "Greek," "rush" and "pledge" because they are appropriations of Greek culture. And at San Francisco State University, an African-American student reportedly attacked a white student because his hair was in dreadlocks. No, you really can't make this stuff up. "Appropriation is a form of theft," said Urrieta. "It is a nice way of saying that someone is taking someone else's (idea) and making it their own." In my humble view, the burden of defending such Twilight Zonery is on any who would defend it, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned. In case you think Urrieta is merely an outlier, another professor, Rachel V. Gonzalez-Martin, described cultural appropriation as "cultural poaching." If you're still thinking "outliers," the University of Michigan advertised to recruit a person -- at an annual salary of $50,000 -- to handle "cultural appropriation prevention activities." Don't laugh; this isn't satire.

Finally, California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed legislation lowering from a felony to a misdemeanor the act of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection to the person. Also protected by this outrageously reckless nod to political correctness are those who give blood without revealing their infection. Here I can't say "there are no words," because there are plenty, but I've run out of space.

For the same reason, I must omit tons of other examples, but in mitigation for this inadequacy, I think it is only fair that I get props for not opining on the Harvey Weinstein scandal, trusting that the news saturation on this story has reached your homes.

Serious Food For Thought

It's 1968 All Over Again

10/12/2017 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Almost a half-century ago, in 1968, the United States seemed to be falling apart.

The Vietnam War, a bitter and close presidential election, antiwar protests, racial riots, political assassinations, terrorism and a recession looming on the horizon left the country divided between a loud radical minority and a silent conservative majority.

The United States avoided a civil war. But America suffered a collective psychological depression, civil unrest, defeat in Vietnam and assorted disasters for the next decade -- until the election of a once-polarizing Ronald Reagan ushered in five consecutive presidential terms of relative bipartisan calm and prosperity from 1981 to 2001.

It appears as if 2017 might be another 1968. Recent traumatic hurricanes seem to reflect the country's human turmoil.

After the polarizing Obama presidency and the contested election of Donald Trump, the country is once again split in two.

But this time the divide is far deeper, both ideologically and geographically -- and more 50/50, with the two liberal coasts pitted against red-state America in between.

Century-old mute stone statues are torn down in the dead of night, apparently on the theory that by attacking the Confederate dead, the lives of the living might improve.

All the old standbys of American life seem to be eroding. The National Football League is imploding as it devolves into a political circus. Multimillionaire players refuse to stand for the national anthem, turning off millions of fans whose former loyalties paid their salaries.

Politics -- or rather a progressive hatred of the provocative Donald Trump -- permeates almost every nook and cranny of popular culture.

The new allegiance of the media, late-night television, stand-up comedy, Hollywood, professional sports, and universities is committed to liberal sermonizing. Politically correct obscenity and vulgarity among celebrities and entertainers is a substitute for talent, even as Hollywood is wracked by sexual harassment scandals and other perversities.

The smears "racist," "fascist," "white privilege" and "Nazi" -- like "commie" of the 1950s -- are so overused as to become meaningless. There is now less free speech on campus than during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s.

As was the case in 1968, the world abroad is also falling apart.

The European Union, model of the future, is unraveling. The EU has been paralyzed by the exit of Great Britain, the divide between Spain and Catalonia, the bankruptcy of Mediterranean nation members, insidious terrorist attacks in major European cities and the onslaught of millions of immigrants -- mostly young, male and Muslim -- from the war-torn Middle East. Germany is once again becoming imperious, but this time insidiously by means other than arms.

The failed state of North Korea claims that it has nuclear-tipped missiles capable of reaching America's West Coast -- and apparently wants some sort of bribe not to launch them.

Iran is likely to follow the North Korea nuclear trajectory. In the meantime, its new Shiite hegemony in the Middle East is feeding on the carcasses of Syria and Iraq.

Is the chaos of 2017 a catharsis -- a necessary and long overdue purge of dangerous and neglected pathologies? Will the bedlam within the United States descend into more nihilism, or offer a remedy to the status quo that had divided and nearly bankrupted the country?

Is the problem too much democracy, as the volatile and fickle mob runs roughshod over establishment experts and experienced bureaucrats? Or is the crisis too little democracy, as populists strive to dethrone a scandal-plagued, anti-democratic, incompetent and overrated entrenched elite?

Neither traditional political party has any answers.

Democrats are being overwhelmed by the identity politics and socialism of progressives. Republicans are torn asunder between upstart populist nationalists and the calcified establishment status quo.

Yet for all the social instability and media hysteria, life in the United States quietly seems to be getting better.

The economy is growing. Unemployment and inflation remain low. The stock market and middle-class incomes are up.

Business and consumer confidence are high. Corporate profits are up. Energy production has expanded. The border with Mexico is being enforced.

Is the instability less a symptom that America is falling apart and more a sign that the loud conventional wisdom of the past -- about the benefits of a globalized economy, the insignificance of national borders and the importance of identity politics -- is drawing to a close, along with the careers of those who profited from it?

In the past, any crisis that did not destroy the United States ended up making it stronger. But for now, the fight grows over which is more toxic -- the chronic statist malady that was eating away the country, or the new populist medicine deemed necessary to cure it.

The SUCCEED Act--Amnesty for DACA

The SUCCEED Act: Another Immigration Reform Failure

10/6/2017 - Arthur Schaper Townhall.com

Congress has not repealed Obamacare. Can they succeed on tax reform? How about on immigration? The House of Representatives passed meaningful immigration-based legislation. From the U.S. Senate, David Perdue and Tom Cotton introduced the RAISE Act to put American workers first and limit immigration. Then there’s the SUCCEED Act from Sens. Thom Tillis, James Lankford, and Orrin Hatch. They are pitching this “conservative” plan to help illegal youth previously sheltered by DACA.

Tillis’s bill stresses a much longer pathway to citizenship for the illegals. The DACA recipients have to pay taxes, go to school or serve in the military. After ten years they receive permanent legal status. After 15 years, they become citizens.

Tillis and Company have announced that the SUCCEED Act has bipartisan support. Really?

Let’s look at some of these interested parties:

1. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: These guys are bipartisan in every way, since they have purchased lawmakers on both sides of the aisle--at the cost of American taxpayers. They want amnesty, open borders, and cheap labor, all of which hurt  American sovereignty and workers.
2. IBM: Another major corporation look for hi-tech skills at a low cost, again at the expense of Americans. IBM has more employees in India than in the United States. H-1B Abuse! Is it any surprise that many American youth are rejecting STEM career paths?
3. Former Democratic Governor, presidential candidate, and DNC Chair Howard Dean. What a ringing endorsement. Yeeargh!
4. Hispanic Leadership Fund President Mario H. Lopez. The Fund touts “Free trade,” which amounts to open borders, and they push the canard that our immigration system is broken.
5. National Immigration Forum  Executive Director Ali Noorani. His biggest interest? Helping “New Americans.” Check his website. (“New Americans” is another PC phrase for illegal aliens.)
6. The LIBRE Initiative: The Koch Brothers are the main backers of this libertarian, Hispanic outreach program. They are part of the “right-wing open border conspiracy,” sharply criticized by Bernie Sanders of all people.

Just because something is touted as “bipartisan” doesn’t mean that We the People want it. In California, Cap and Trade, gas tax hikes, and forced vaccination bills have passed with one or two votes from Republicans. Take your “bipartisan support” and shove it. Notice also that the SUCCEED Act sponsors left out immigration enforcement think-tanks. Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies has criticized the SUCCEED Act: “It is agreeing to an amnesty, without the U.S. gaining anything. It’s not moderating immigration in any way.”

Vaughn’s concern ties into the second problem with the SUCCEED Act: border security and deterrence. Will this legislation prevent another wave of illegal alien youths swarming our borders? Tillis tries to undercut this criticism: “The SUCCEED Act includes proactive measures that will help deter illegal immigration, including curtailing visa overstays, a major source of illegal immigration.” They want to tackle VISA overstays, but the most lethal illegal immigration issues take place at the border. We need the wall, tripled the border control and E-Verify! There is nothing in this legislation to assure that those measures come first.

What about chain migration? This bill targets the kids who are now all grown up. What about the parents, cousins, aunts, and all the other family members twice removed or related to the in-laws? The legislation will prevent chain migration, sponsorship for the illegal kids waiting for legal status following the conditional program. BUT … once the DACA kids go from conditional to legal status to fully naturalized citizenship, they can sponsor families, loved ones. Not good. After breaking the law as unauthorized migrants, they get away with the crime, and then they can bring in the family. Any discussions about having SUCCEED and RAISE together cannot work. Tillis’s bill naively ignores rampant DACA fraud, too. One estimate suggests that 40 percent of the DACA recipients shouldn’t have enrolled for the status to begin with. What about the children of these DACA kids, who are legal residents? We have another generation of “anchor babies,” and no action will be taken to remedy the abuses of the 14^th Amendment.

But the SUCCEED Act proposal will create jobs, right? Tillis cites the Niskanen Center analysis of the SUCCEED Act: 117,000 new jobs, increased GDP by $81 billion, with a total federal revenue income of $22 billion over ten years. Of course, Amnesty Tom doesn’t mention the costs—and they will be considerable. By the way, the Niskansen center invests its resources in promoting environmentalism, immigration reform, and civil rights through libertarian principles. Huh?

And what about opinions from other immigration enforcement activists and groups?

Agnes Gibboney, the head of Parents of Murdered Children (her son Ronald de Silva was murdered by an illegal alien), seemed receptive to the legislation, until she learned that the DACA kids can sponsor their parents once they achieve citizenship: “I don't like that. In that case say NO to SUCCEED ACT and DACA.”

Robin Hvidston, Executive Director for We the People Rising slammed the senators’ attention to foreign nationals instead of American citizens: “Where is the US Foster Care SUCCEED Act? There are more than 600,000 veterans at this moment in need of medical care.  Where is their SUCCEED Act?”

Finally, Tim Lyng of The Remembrance Project shared: “Americans must be placed first.  Congress has not made an effort to assist American families who have been injured or whose loved ones were killed.”

By the way, the SUCCEED Act is not a conservative solution, since conservatism advocates for the rule of law, legal equity, national sovereignty, and protection of individual liberty and prosperity of citizens, free from the intervention of special interests from the state. I had an open mind, but not for an open borders proposal. The SUCCEED Act is another immigration “reform” failure. The U.S. senators would be better off doing nothing on immigration, and just allow the Executive Branch continue to enforce our immigration laws.

Lawlessness Leads to More Lawlessness

DACA: Eight Amnesties for Illegal Aliens, Nothing for Their American Victims

CIS.org By Ronald W. Mortensen October 4, 2017

Amnesty is defined as an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole. DACA provides forgiveness to an entire class of individuals who were between 15 and 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; consequently, it is an amnesty program, as is also true for an even more expansive Dream Act.

But DACA actually encompasses at least eight separate amnesties.

First, there is amnesty from Social Security fraud since many illegal aliens eligible for DACA illegally obtained and used Social Security numbers for employment purposes. According to a survey conducted by pro-illegal alien organizations, 43.9 percent of all surveyed DACA recipients worked illegally prior to gaining DACA status; that percentage increases to 60.7 percent for DACA recipients over 25 years of age.

Second, there is amnesty from forgery since many DACA recipients used forged green cards, driver's licenses, and other government documents prior to receiving DACA status.

Third, DACA recipients are granted amnesty from perjury committed when they completed I-9 forms prior to receiving DACA status and swore, under penalty of perjury, that they were authorized to work in the United States.

A fourth amnesty is forgiveness from identity theft. Many individuals eligible for DACA committed identity theft when they used illegally obtained Social Security numbers belonging to American citizens, including the numbers of thousands of American children.

Fifth, DACA recipients who committed identity theft are granted amnesty from making restitution to their victims. Their identity theft victims are saddled with devastating financial, emotional, psychological, and criminal problems and are forced to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of their own time and money to undo the damage done by DACA beneficiaries.

It is important to note that the use of illegally obtained Social Security numbers by DACA applicants is so pervasive that the United States government actually instructs DACA candidates not to disclose those numbers. This ensures that their American identity theft victims are left holding the bag while the DACA recipients walk away scot-free from crimes that American citizens would be prosecuted for.

Sixth, there is amnesty from unpaid taxes. DACA candidates who worked previously are not required to provide proof of income and payroll tax payments.

Seventh, there is amnesty for the violation of immigration laws. The median age of DACA recipients is 25 years old. Once individuals illegally in the United States turn 18, they are unlawfully in the United States by their own volition. Thus, DACA provides amnesty from violations of immigration law committed by an entire class of people from 18 to 31 years old.

Eighth, employers who provide employment documents in support of DACA applications are promised amnesty from illegally employing illegal aliens.

In short, DACA exempts illegal aliens from crimes that American citizens would be jailed for. Even worse, it leaves Americans holding the bag for the harm inflicted on them by DACA recipients.

As currently structured, DACA definitely does not put Americans first.