Republicans Should Stand for Principles

REACH OUT TO LEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Chris Herrod      http://www.unconcon.com/?p=85

Washington, DC and the Republican Establishment seem to get it wrong on just about everything – immigration is no different.   They push “demographics” and predict doom if Republicans don’t reach out and support amnesty. The underlying assumption is that by supporting amnesty more people will like Republicans. They think it’s the only way to expand the tent.   How little they understand America.   Instead, Republicans should reach out to the tens of millions of legal immigrants opposed to illegal immigration.

As I have fought against illegal immigration over the years, hundreds of legal immigrants from dozens of countries have encouraged me to keep up the fight. They’re grateful that someone sees the damage to legal immigrants and is willing to speak up. Unfortunately, the beltway folks and the media don’t seem to even know this group exists.

Besides, Democrat and Republican establishments’ view of immigrants is based on a form of racism – that immigrants can’t compete and need or want a nanny state to succeed. Most immigrants don’t want pandering. They simply want the rule-of-law and the government to leave them alone.

Two of my friends were in line before the 1986 Amnesty – one from Canada the other from Mexico. What should have taken a year took five as others were processed in front of them. Just imagine the wait as 6 times more than 1986 Amnesty are processed.

Illegal aliens should be a finite group: legal immigrants are an infinite group. Democrats get this and goad Republicans into adopting policies that extend illegal immigration perpetually. Democrats need Republicans to support amnesty because when legal immigrants and those in line find out how difficult amnesty will make their lives they can say that Republicans voted for it as well but Democrats still care more about you.

The current tragedy at the border as well as the rape trees are enough to show which policy is the most compassionate. Accusations of racism can be countered by the facts. Sixty-two percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico, another 20% come from Latin American. One country which makes up 1.7% of the world’s population gets 62% of the benefit. One ethnic group which makes up 7% of the world’s population gets 82% of the benefit of illegal immigration. That’s the very definition of institutional racism.

As the failed policies of Obama’s liberalism become increasingly apparent, the tent can be expanded to other non-traditional Republican groups as well. The working and middle classes know firsthand the damage caused by illegal immigration. A Cornel University Study states that no issue has affected the economic well-being of African Americans more than immigration.

Republicans should put forth a set of principles on immigration. No economic group should have to bear the brunt of immigration. CE0’s, professors, and the media should feel the same downward wage pressure as the working class. Everyone will complain when immigration becomes too great. No ethnic group or economic class should receive preference over another. Middle-class immigrants deserve the chance at the American Dream as well.

Unfortunately, no one in the Republican Party seems willing to speak up form legal immigrants. Instead, we have Paul Ryan challenging anyone to debate him on whether amnesty really is amnesty. Republicans have a great opportunity to expand the tent with legal immigrants and the working class by explaining that we believe in blind justice, don’t favor those breaking the law, and care greater about fundamental principles rather than simply profit. Republicans should stand for principles rather than just pandering for votes and political expediency. This might just sure-up the Republican base as well.

Chris Herrod’s wife is from Ukraine, his sister-in-law from South Korea, two adopted nieces from China, and a business partner from Ethiopia.

Obama's Audacious Grab For Power

Obama's Immigration Policy: How About Putting Americans First

11/25/2014 - Cal Thomas Townhall.com

Addressing the nation last Thursday, President Obama sought to justify his misreading of the Constitution by unilaterally granting legal protection to 5 million illegal immigrants. In this, he reminded me of what Richard Nixon told David Frost in a 1977 interview. The exchange is worth recalling:

"FROST: So what in a sense you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly."

The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to limit the power of government and expand individual liberty. President Obama sees it the other way. Whether he violated the constitutional limits of his power will be debated and possibly decided in the courts and by the new Republican majority in Congress, but there is another issue surrounding the president's amnesty order that needs addressing.

The unemployment rate among African-Americans is twice that of whites, which is why they should be outraged by the president's action. Don't African-Americans "dream" of a better life? Of course they do. Then why hasn't the president focused on repairing their families, reducing crime in cities like Chicago where he launched his political career and allowing members of his race to escape from failed public schools that are robbing them of a future?

The conservative African-American organization (yes, one exists) called "Project 21" has compiled some comments from conservative black leadership.

Joe R. Hicks is the former executive director for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference chapter in Los Angeles. In response to the president's address, Hicks said: "President Obama strode into the White House promising to give the American people the audacity of hope. What we are witnessing instead, with his immigration agenda, is an audacious grab for power and an evisceration of the Constitution."

Talk radio host Stacy Washington: "Every time this country has pardoned illegal immigrants, crime and black unemployment have gone through the roof. Don't believe me? Check the statistics from Reagan's congressionally approved amnesty package. Not only did three times as many illegal immigrants as were promised become legal through the undiscovered intricacies of chain immigration, but the crime soared and black unemployment went through the roof."

To Washington's point, black unemployment, which declined during the years of George W. Bush's presidency, has increased during six years of the Obama administration, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve. One might reasonably expect that America's first African-American president would be more attuned to the problems of actual citizens than to noncitizens.

Charles Butler, another black conservative talk radio host, was even blunter: "President Obama will do with the stroke of a pen what 300 years of slavery, Jim Crow and legal segregation could not: destroy the hopes and dreams of millions of black Americans."

Apparently the president thinks that since he won more than 90 percent of the black vote in his two elections and the Democratic Party can count on their loyalty for the foreseeable future, he can begin "importing" new voters, who will surely be granted that right when Democrats bring up "fairness." As Rush Limbaugh noted on his show last week, if attracting new Democratic voters is not the primary motivation for amnesty, let Congress draft a bill that won't allow them to vote for 20 years and see how Democrats react.

This president has done little to improve the conditions of African-Americans, and yet they do not hold him accountable. The reason why is a mystery. Instead of planning demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, African-Americans should protest outside the White House. The president likes to call the illegals "dreamers." For millions of unemployed, underemployed and otherwise working African-Americans who have children trapped in failing schools because Democratic politicians won't let them escape, their dreams have become a nightmare.

Rogue - Sounds About Right!

Rogue President

11/21/2014 - Pat Buchanan - Townhall.com

Asserting a legal and constitutional authority he himself said he did not have, President Obama is going rogue, issuing an executive amnesty to 4 to 5 million illegal aliens.

He will order the U.S. government not to enforce the law against these 5 million, and declare that they are to be exempt from deportation and granted green cards.

Where did Obama get his 4-5 million figure, not 2-4 million, or 5-7 million? Nowhere in law, but plucked out of his own mind, as to what he can get away with. Barack Obama just felt it was about right.

Thus does our constitutional law professor-president "faithfully execute" the laws of the United States he has twice swore to uphold?

Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic. Future presidents will cite the "Obama precedent" when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency.

We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution.

The political, psychological and moral effects of Obama's action will be dramatic. Sheriffs, border patrol, and immigration authorities, who have put their lives on the line to secure our broken borders, have been made to look like fools. Resentment and cynicism over Obama's action will be deeply corrosive to all law enforcement.

Businessmen who obeyed the law and refused to hire illegals, hiring Americans and legal immigrants instead, and following U.S. and state law on taxes, wages and withholding, also look like fools today.

Obama's action makes winners of the scofflaws and hustlers.

Bosses who hired illegals off the books will also receive de facto amnesty. La Raza is celebrating. But, make no mistake, a corrupt corporate crowd is also publicly relieved and privately elated.

Immigrants who waited in line for years to come to America, and those waiting still, have egg on their faces. Why, they are saying to themselves, were we so stupid as to obey U.S. laws, when it is the border-jumpers who are now on the way to residency and citizenship?

When the world hears of the Obama amnesty, millions more from Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East will be coming. And if they cannot get in legally, they will walk in, or fly in, and overstay their visas. Why not? It works.

That this action will be as much a part of Obama's legacy as Obamacare is certain. The unanswered question is how the Obama amnesty will be remembered by history. His aides think that it will be seen as a second Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps.

But with this amnesty Obama takes custody of and responsibility for the entire illegal population. He is the patron saint of illegal aliens. And for what they do, he will be held accountable, as was Jimmy Carter for the Marielitos Castro sent and Carter welcomed.

If the amnestied illegals contribute to the drug trade and violent crime, that will be Obama's legacy to his country. If they turn up disproportionately on the welfare rolls, exploding state and federal deficits, that will be Obama's legacy.

If this amnesty is followed by a new invasion across the border America cannot control, that, too, will be Obama's gift to his countrymen.

One wonders. Will poor and working class blacks and whites, Hispanics and Asians, welcome this unleashed competition from the amnestied illegals, for jobs where the wages never seem to rise?

In the four decades before JFK, the nation had a pause in legal immigration. During that pause, the Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks and Slav immigrants who had come in from 1890-1920, and their children and grandchildren, were fully assimilated. They had become not only U.S. citizens, but also identifiably American.

The Melting Pot had worked. We had become one nation and one people, almost all speaking the same language, and steeped in the same history, heroes, culture, literature and faiths.

Today, in 2014, after an influx of perhaps 50 million in 50 years, legal and illegal, no longer from Northwest Europe, or Europe at all, but Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, of every race, color, creed, culture and language we seem less a nation than some mammoth Mall of America. An economy, but not a country.

Running in 2008, Obama said he intended to become a "transformational president." With this decision, he succeeds.

He has accelerated and ensured the remaking of America. Now when the wives and children of the illegals arrive, and their extended families apply for and receive visas, and bring their wives and children, we will become the Third World country of Obama's dream, no more a Western nation.

But then the community organizer did not much like that old America.

74 % Of Americans Oppose Amnesty

Voting 'No' on Obama's Immigration Policies

11/13/2014 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

Everyone finds a lesson in the Republican midterm tsunami.

One message was that so-called comprehensive immigration reform and broad amnesty have little national public support. Polls have long shown that, but so do last week's election results.

Candidates in swing states who promised amnesties got no edge from such opportunistic posturing.

Candidates who pandered to identity groups and played the ethnic card lost in most cases.

Voters in liberal Oregon overwhelmingly rejected driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants.

In reaction, President Obama sulked, threatening to quickly push through an unpopular amnesty by executive order. Obama apparently knows that he enjoys neither public nor congressional support for his planned executive fiat.

In an increasingly multiracial society, voters -- including many Mexican Americans -- see mostly illogic, hypocrisy and chaos in the present relaxed immigration policy of the partisan-minded Obama administration. They grow weary of identity politics that privilege some immigrant groups over others based on no definable, much less consistent, logic.

Voters assume that liberal-elite advocates of open borders who mock finishing the border fence count on the fences around their own estates -- whether Hollywood grandees, the former mayor of Los Angeles or the president of the United States.

They understand that quick assimilation and melting-pot integration -- made possible only by measured, diverse and legal immigration -- are not the goals of either ethnic lobbyists or Democratic Party activists.

Were immigrants from Mexico or Central America soon to vote in unpredictable patterns, the political effort to wink at illegal immigration across the southern border would abruptly stop.

Midterm voters apparently understood that "comprehensive immigration reform" has devolved into something like comprehensive health care reform -- a euphemism for Obama's larger efforts at fundamentally transforming America.

For all the reformist rhetoric about merit-based and ethnically blind legal immigration, there is no evidence yet that the La Raza elite or the Democratic Party prefer race and ethnicity to be irrelevant in adjudicating immigration procedures.

It's hard to find supporters of immigration reform who argue that the Kenyan, South Korean, Czech or Jamaican applicant for entry into the U.S. should be treated equally on the basis of skill sets, education or prior background -- rather than as a future identity-politics voter.

Most Americans are in favor of granting green cards to foreign nationals who have been here for years as long as they pay a fine, are not on public assistance and have no record of criminal activity, and as long as the border remains closed. The majority of the millions residing here illegally might well qualify for eventual legal residence, and would appreciate recognition that they are working, not on state assistance, and have abided by the laws during their long stay in the U.S.

But will reform advocates say whether they would favor deporting those who just arrived in the cynical expectation of amnesty? Will they deport to their countries of origin those who sought public assistance instead of work in the U.S., or those who abused their guest status by committing crimes in their host country? So far, advocates of reform stay mostly mum on those topics. The result is that "comprehensive immigration reform" remains a mushy catchphrase that can mean anything and therefore means nothing.

At a time when ethnic, religious and tribal groups are killing each other across the globe, why are concepts of hyphenation, identity politics or mandatory bilingualism in official documents preferable to the exceptional American idea of a melting pot, a common culture and a shared national language?

Voters last week seemed to be saying that the entire immigration debate is morally upside down.

The true unethical position is that of the immigration hijacker who decides -- without the force of law, public opinion or court sanction -- to enhance his narrow political, cultural or economic interests. He cares little about the ensuing effects of his self-interest on collective infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, criminal justice or state budgets.

So what, exactly, do Americans want out of immigration?

It would seem that Americans appreciate the vibrancy, energy and new ideas that immigrants bring. But a great many Americans also insist that immigrants come legally, in manageable numbers, in ethnically diverse fashion, eager to learn English and assimilate quickly.

If advocates of comprehensive immigration reform are going to win Americans over to their side, they are going to have to find a new approach to the debate that they have now lost.

For now, the position remains the current one of ethnic-privileging one group over another.

The selfish position is the current one of burdening the host society by accommodating the language of the guest.

The surreal position is that of ingratitude of guests toward generous host country by demanding that its laws either be ignored or changed to fit their own particular agendas and preferences.

On matters of immigration, open-borders advocates have become reactionaries.

Last week's midterm results proved it.

Lawless Amnesty Creates More Lawlessness

 

Obama Drafting Amnesty Executive Order!

Conservative Daily June 27,2014 Dear Conservative,

What is going on along the U.S.-Mexico border is absolutely heinous. Tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have illegally came to the United States seeking “asylum” this year. By the end of the year, it is estimated that over 150,000 illegal alien teenagers will have snuck into the country.

But these illegal aliens aren’t really seeking asylum.  They aren’t fleeing violence or persecution. They come here pre-rehearsed, knowing just the answers they need to give border patrol agents in order to be allowed to stay in the country.

And the Obama administration is okay with this. Everyone knows that these children aren’t fleeing cartel violence… they have come to take advantage of a loophole in our immigration law.

Currently, if a Mexican citizen tries to sneak into the country and gets caught by border patrol, they get turned around and sent back home.

But when an illegal alien comes from Central or South America, the deportation process isn’t nearly as simple. Unless they are Mexicans, we aren’t allowed to just ship these illegals to Mexico. These people know this, so they are trying to take advantage of the system. And that is just how the Obama administration wants it!

When you look at the hordes of illegal aliens breaking into this country, you see theft happening right before your eyes. When Obama and the Democrats look at this wave of illegal aliens and they see generations and generations of new liberal voters!

The Democrats gave the GOP until the beginning of July to draft an illegal alien amnesty bill. Otherwise, they promised that Obama would act alone and hand out amnesty by executive order! The administration is already providing these illegal aliens with lawyers so that they can fight their deportations, but that is just the beginning…

Let that sink in… the administration is trying to deport these illegals while simultaneously helping them fight their deportation orders in court! And with a backlog of over 360,000 cases, these invaders won’t get in front of a judge for at least a year (if they even show up to their court date).

Obama’s amnesty executive order could be just days away! The window on the Democrats’ ultimatum is closing shortly and when it does, you can expect to see Barack Obama to illegally sign amnesty into law himself. We cannot afford to let Barack Obama and the Democrats just hand over the future of this country to a bunch of illegal aliens!

90% of all the illegals that came in this recent wave have skipped their immigration hearing. They have disappeared into society and the Obama administration is doing absolutely nothing to round them up!

Why should the White House care? In a matter of days, Barack Obama will make these illegals permanent residents, anyway!

Just this week, Democratic Senators held a press conference warning their Republican counterparts that Obama is “not bluffing” when it comes to amnesty.

If John Boehner doesn’t cave and put an amnesty bill up for a vote, the Democrats have promised that Obama will act alone using an executive order.

“I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today," Sen. Dick Durbin (R-Ill) told reporters, "and if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration."

“Borrow the power?” Obama is going to BORROW authority from Congress to write law? Pardon my French, but who the hell do these people think they are? This is the logic that they are using? Are they really serious!?

Obama is drafting an illegal and unconstitutional amnesty executive order, but it’s all apparently okay because he is just borrowing this power for little bit.  You see, it’s only tyranny when a President claims a permanent power. In this case, Barack Obama is just borrowing the authority to make law… 

The Democrats are giving YOU an ultimatum… Either you and your representatives support the idea of surrendering this country or Barack Obama will give amnesty to illegals on his own!  As horrible as it is to see tens of thousands of illegal aliens trying to enter the United States, it still is not our problem.

The Democrats are trying to portray this as a humanitarian situation, suggesting that we have a moral responsibility to take care of these illegals. The truth is that we have the moral responsibility to do exactly the opposite!

It isn’t our job to make sure that these people have what they need. It is our job to make sure that the hordes of illegals trying to cross into America aren’t harming hard-working American families!

Now, we have a majority political party threatening that if we do not abandon our principles, they will violate the Constitution and illegally implement their own destructive immigration policies. They are daring you to stop them… They are praying that you won’t notice when they push amnesty through…

Mark my words: Barack Obama will tell Homeland Security to suspend all deportations, essentially giving illegal aliens complete amnesty by eliminating the possibility of them being sent home.

According to the Democrats’ own promise, this will happen in the next week!   

We must put a stop to this before it is too late! Under NO circumstance can Congress allow this President to give amnesty to illegal aliens!

Remember - Silence is Consent - VOTE November 4th!

Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum October 29, 2014

Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on November 4, and illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in many tight Senate races.

Democrats typically win more than 80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats. Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.

New non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting voting in federal elections to only American citizens.

This study concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.

Several states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter integrity in this year’s election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least the Lone Star State will be able to limit mischief at their polls in this election.

Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect this November.

In July, three non-citizens were indicted for illegal voting in Ohio in the 2012 presidential election. But most illegal voting cases end in a plea bargain that results in erasure of the convictions after a year if the defendant stays out of additional trouble for that long.

In Colorado, which could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate, votes are now cast entirely by mail with little protection against voter fraud. A total of 3.6 million ballots were sent to Coloradans based on addresses as old as 2008, which is six years ago.

One Colorado state senator said he has been to households that have received as many as seven separate ballots, and the person now living there could vote all seven ballots without anyone noticing. Paid political activists, known as “harvesters,” can gather up to ten ballots of others and then dump them all in an unguarded drop box, and there is nothing that stops harvesters from gathering and voting even more.

What happens to unused ballots that people throw out after receiving them in the mail? Most people do not shred their trash, so many unused ballots inevitably end up in apartment complex garbage bins where they are available to be filled in and sent in by unscrupulous party workers.

The lack of voting integrity makes it far from clear whether the election outcome will reflect the will of the voters. The essential role played by poll watchers is impossible in Colorado’s system of mail-only balloting.

The corrupt practice of counting votes that were cast in the names of dead people reemerged in North Carolina in 2012. The executive director of that state’s election board reported that the votes of 81 dead people were counted, most of whom had died before it was possible for them to cast absentee ballots.

A shocking total of 35,570 voters in North Carolina had the same last and first names and birth dates of voters who also cast ballots in other states. Many hundreds of those voters even had the same last four digits of their Social Security numbers as people having identical names and birthdays who also voted in other states.

Reforms passed in North Carolina are not effective in time to ensure voter integrity in this election, where there is a close race for the U.S. Senate seat. No voter ID is yet in effect there.

The top priority of Obama’s Department of Justice has been to oppose voter ID laws passed by various states. But Attorney General Eric Holder has announced his resignation, and the Senate should not confirm any successor who opposes state efforts to improve voter integrity.

 

Values & Principles, Provide Strong & Brave Leadership!

America at the tipping point, Part 2

Posted By Chuck Norris On 09/07/2014
We said on Sept. 11 that we’d “never forget.” But when our president has a no-strategy strategy for stopping Islamic extremists, isn’t Washington sidestepping our commitment of remembrance in addition to their duty to protect our land and liberties?

Indeed, they mock those who gave their lives on that day that changed America by the fact that, 13 years after Sept. 11, we still don’t have an out-of-the box strategy for outwitting radical Islam.

Christine O’Donnell at the Washington Times was right on when she wrote last week, “With just a week’s notice, Mr. Obama had an immediate strategy for dealing with the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., yet even with a year’s notice, he didn’t have a strategy for the violence and unrest in Syria. Isn’t it a priority of the federal government to present a ready defense against foreign enemies?”

As Hot Air also reported, “America has no strategy, but ISIS does: Biological terrorism.” When a Dell laptop allegedly linked to ISIS was intercepted in route to Turkey from Syria, its contents revealed “a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic from infected animals,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

It’s been said that one of the reasons the world – indeed, the U.S. – repeatedly finds itself in these perilous pickles with its adversaries is that we keep cycling from valuing liberty over safety to valuing safety more than liberty.

Chris Stewart, who, together with Ted Stewart authored “7 Tipping Points that Saved the World,” which describes how radical Islam came within a hair’s breath of taking over the world in 720 A.D., was interviewed by the Blaze and asked this very point about the relation and reversal of valuing safety over liberty.

The Blaze asked Stewart, “What if we don’t really appreciate freedom as much as we think we do? Even today, average people are more concerned with safety and stability than they are with liberty.”

Stewart answered, “It’s a good point. I believe it is human nature to look around at the world today – or the world our parents lived in yesterday, or the world we assume our children will live in tomorrow – and say: well, this is the normal state of the world. Things don’t change. One of the main points of [our] book is to point out how extraordinarily unique self-governance, liberty – whatever definition you want to give modern freedom – is in this world. You can talk to historians who specialize in this area. They believe that maybe 4 or 4 ½ percent of us have been able to control our own destinies and lives.”

He added, “So it is easy to just assume that this is the normal state of the world. But we have example after example of nations that have enjoyed freedom and then saw it recede, or, for reasons you mention, collapse. There are the former Soviet bloc nations: once the Berlin Wall fell most of them marched quickly towards freedom. But since then, many of them fallen back and are increasingly turning away. It’s been documented that there are only 22 nations in existence right now that have been democracies for over 50 years. I think that fact should shock people. For more than two generations there have been only 22 nations that consistently embraced freedom. I think it illustrates pretty clearly that what we have is fragile and that it isn’t necessarily going to last.”

Our founders – like those who have fought our wars – valued liberty more than safety. And so should we. They risked everything for freedom and their republic, trusting in God as they did. Our founders wrote, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Sept. 11 can still serve as America’s pivotal and big wake-up call – one that even preserves our liberty and republic – as long as our leadership doesn’t slumber in safety while remembering it. But on the eve of another Sept. 11, it’s paramount for all of us to recall (indeed, remember) the costs of indecision and forgetfulness in critical times like these as well as the power of courageous leadership to deliver us.

As I pointed out last week in Part 1, history repeatedly shows us that the only way to divert America’s imminent threats and political stalemates is by strong and brave leadership – the type shown by courageous souls in critical moments of war or crises like Sept. 11. Rather than a president who values safety over liberty, we need a president who values liberty over safety. We need men and women of valor once again to rise up and fight for the mantle of freedom.

President Ronald Reagan spoke of that type of fearlessness on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, when he asked: “What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love. The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next.”

May God grant us the same type of mercy as we bravely face foes like ISIS who will do anything and everything to harm our people and bring down our Republic.