Jay Carney offered more excuses on the question of the Benghazi disaster, and this time, he explained it away as having “happened a long time ago.” This corrupt administration continues to stonewall, and after listening to their Secretary of State ask the question “What difference does it make,” we now see the new talking point emerge that Benghazi happened a long time ago. I suppose on that basis, we should simply forget it.
Watch this remarkable example of White House AssClownery:
Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) was elected to office after a difficult primary campaign against Texas Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst. Let us be thankful for that. He was instrumental in helping stop the gun control legislation that was shelved by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) last week. In this video clip, he describes the reaction of the other Republican Senators who were angry with Cruz, as well as Mike Lee and Rand Paul, for daring to stand on principle. Watch this video, from a little talk Senator Cruz had with the FreedomWorks Texas Summit:
Last week, there was the following news from Senator Cruz on another front:
You can see the full statement here.
An Unenforced Law
Speaking of the people who are fiddling while the nation burns, here’s a group happily stoking the fire. While average Americans struggle to keep their heads above water, inside the DC beltway, the same crowd Sarah Palin observed “yukkin’ it up” at the White House Correspondents Dinner are actively plotting the end of the republic. After all, it’s a new week and therefore a new opportunity to shove despicable legislation down throats of the American people to which most of them stand opposed. As Byron York has pointed out in the pages of the Washington Examiner, your criticisms of the bill are being ignored. They know you’re opposed, but they’re pretending not to hear you. As York also reported, despite the fact that the response has been overwhelmingly negative to a page put up by Marco Rubio(R-FL) to take suggestions for improving the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, there has been no indication that Rubio or other members of the “Gang-of-Eight” have any intentions of backing down. Yes, if there is anybody in Washington DC who is completely out of touch with American people, the Amnesty AssClowns are at the head of the class.
One friend today quipped that the reason Barack Obama is pushing so hard for an amnesty bill is that he will avail himself of the law, but one needn’t make jokes about the President’s questionable origins to get the real point across: If an amnesty bill passes the Congress, the Democrat Party will own the keys to the kingdom in perpetuity. Nobody is more conscious of that fact than Barack Hussein Obama. It represents the opportunity to demolish conservatives in the mid-terms next year, in which a large number of fast-tracked illegals would move down the proposed “path to citizenship,” offering Democrats an opportunity to pass any bill they please.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the attendees at the White House Correspondents Dinner are indeed out of touch with the mainstream of America. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings, Americans have been reminded how a lack of enforcement of existing laws has made us more vulnerable at home, so they’re understandably in no mood for loosening immigration policies. Despite the promises of politicians like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio and the other members of the “Gang-of-Eight,” the American people understand that making allegedly tougher laws with hundreds of gaping loopholes will not improve our security, in part because it’s a logical farce, but also because more than three decades of promises on the issue have yet to be delivered. After all, apart from a majority of New Yorkers, who really believes Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) has the best interests of the nation in mind, rather than the furtherance of the aims and agenda of the Democrat Party?
This week, the Senate will try to move this legislation, and they will try to do it without amendments if Harry Reid can find support. This bill is the Holy Grail for Democrats, but as I explained on Saturday, the reasons so many Republicans are going along is because they’ve either been sold a bill of goods by the Beltway political class, or because they’re out to negate the influence of conservatives in the electorate. There really can’t be any other reason apart from ignorance, or perhaps money, and if you don’t understand how Republicans could sign on for the extinction of their own party as an electoral force, you need only consider the party shift of 1995, in which Democrats moved over to the Republican Party for their electoral survival, not because their views had changed so much as because they wanted to remain in power. Many Democrats who had barely survived the surge of 1994 merely changed horses. If this amnesty bill goes through, you can expect the same thing in 2014, only this time, it will be Republicans jumping ship to join the Democrats.
It’s going to be a difficult fight, and conservatives should expect that the permanent political class in Washington DC will do everything it is able to ignore any outcry arising among the American people, but after more than a week for facts about the Boston jihadis and their subsistence on welfare as legal immigrants, this may turn out to have been the worst possible time for the DC “ass-clowns” to move this legislation. If your response is ferocious enough, Harry Reid could be forced to shelve the legislation to await a more opportune moment. Some blue-state conservatives have confided that they don’t bother calling their senators any longer, because staffers are frequently rude and obnoxious, but the truth is that the members need to hear from their constituents particularly if they’ve been inclined to support this bill. Besides, it’s time to make good on the promise to turn Barack Obama into a lame-duck President. We need this win – America needs this win – and we shouldn’t let the Amnesty AssClowns deter us from being heard.
.
Make sure to go by Marco Rubio’s site and politely offer your suggestions. I offered mine, but they’ve yet to be approved.
Irrelevant?
Many of you are Twitter members, but some of you are not, and those who aren’t may not know or even quite realize what all the fuss is about. On Saturday, all the country’s media elites and most-favored-politicians gathered for another iteration of the White House Correspondents Dinner, headlined by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, as is traditional for these events. While the DC elite gathered to laugh and clink glasses, telling bad jokes, the country is burning, and the sad diminution of the nation continues apace, thanks in large measure to the gang of anointed geniuses assembled for the event. Chris Christie was there, and all the fawning celebrities, and it was simply a wondrous display of how in Washington DC, no matter how awful things may be in the rest of the country, and without respect to the endless deprivations outside of their “boomtown,” the show must go on, and in keeping with the tradition of the Obama White House, the party never ends. Then it happened. She happened. Without warning, across the airwaves and through their Twitter feeds, arrived a message that left the tuxedo-clad drooling-class aghast and in shock:
One would have thought that Sarah Palin had thrown a stink-bomb into the room. In a flurry of tweets from the geniuses assembled, and from the throng of leftists on Twitter who saw an opportunity to hurl f-bombs and b-words at Sarah Palin, the shock and awe of the simple statement seemed to leave the whole world atwitter. Yes, in the minutes and hours that followed, the entirety of the Twitter-verse erupted into mass commentary. There were cat-calls of “hypocrisy” from the left, and nasty “Caribou Barbie” and “Trixie Klondike” remarks from the chattering-class, but there was also a fantastic array of Palin-supporters who took delight in the comments, and many an average soul out here in flyover country who remarked that it was nice that somebody, somewhere “got it.” Here’s a favorite:
(For the record, at this hour, the number of re-tweets is over 3000 and growing. Irrelevant???)
Whatever you may think of the tweet’s context, timing, or substance, what must we conclude from its reach and impact? After all, many of the critics of the remark spent most of their one-hundred-forty characters explaining in some form that Sarah Palin is “irrelevant.” If that were so, and she means nothing whatever to the powers that be, or to the zombies of the left, why is it that each and every time she Tweets the first little thing, they descend upon her like the inexorable march of the undead on a feeding frenzy? In point of fact, if she were nearly so “irrelevant” as they seem to contend, she would receive none of these responses, positive or negative. There wouldn’t be tens of thousands of tweets and re-tweets in support of her message, and there surely wouldn’t be the degree or extent of the negative backlash against her. Simply put, however, I think it’s safe to say that some of the negative responses from the chattering class were an expression of envy, constituting a desperate attempt to find relevancy of their own.
For those who wonder about the real power of Sarah Palin, it is evinced by the uproar that invariably follows her remarks on Twitter. For those confused by all of the uproar, having believed the media meme that Sarah Palin is irrelevant, this must come as a complete surprise. How could anybody so “irrelevant” garner this reaction by what is an otherwise pretty standard bit of Twitter commentary? Was it her use of the term “Assclowns?” Seems fitting, given her target. After all, had one of us tweeted this remark, it would likely fall into the vast chasm of Twitter history never to be seen or read again, but it is the fact that she tweeted it, and that she dared comment on the drooling glitterati at the White House Correspondents Dinner that made it into a Twitter event. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but don’t believe the spin: “Irrelevant” is not a word that applies, and the ongoing pursuit by the walking dead on Twitter proves it.
Meanwhile, fans, supporters, and average common-sense Americans are laughing in sheer delight, and at this moment, the re-tweeting of her remark continues unabated.
The Immigration Reform bill pending in the US Senate is monstrous document, and the results of its passage would be catastrophic for our nation. Politically, it’s the death-knell of conservatism, but fiscally, it will accelerate the demise of our economy and usher in a new condition we might call: “Third World America.” You might be skeptical of this claim, and I’d understand if you asked for some kind of evidence. According to the group Numbers USA, this bill enacted would bring at least thirty-three million people to our country over the next ten years, but it may be far worse. At the same time, it has been admitted by the US Department of Agriculture that their foodstamps program does not check the immigration status of applicants, actively advertising in Spanish in borders states and even in Mexico. As if this is not bad enough, the traitorous Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is now professing the view that immigration to the United States is a human and civil right. This legislation comprises an attack on our birthright, our financial health, and our political sovereignty. The costs of this bill are too high to be borne by any people,and we must fight like Hell to defeat it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this really is the moment to draw a line. As many as ninety-five percent of newly minted American citizens vote for one party: The Democrats. I would like for you to understand that if thirty-three million people are added to our voter rolls over the next decade, chances are exceedingly high, a virtual numerical certainty, that they will add thirty-one million new Democrats. What will happen to your “Red States” under this circumstance? The answer is simply: “Think Blue!” Republicans, never mind conservatives, will find themselves unable to be elected in any place at any time. Remember in 1995 when the avalanche of Democrats changed party affiliation to Republican? All of those and more will be going back. With them will go what remains of your principles of limited government, individual liberties, and fiscal responsibility. We will see the nation as a whole become like California, and locales like California will become political analogs to Venezuela.
Your birthright is being stolen by the process of political dilution. You will on some future day awake to find yourself in a foreign nation. These ruthless bastards in Washington DC are intent upon stealing your nation from you. In imagining US citizenship as some sort of human or civil right, what they are really saying is that they are going to throw open the doors to any who will come. How many of the world’s billions of desperately poor will flood to our nation under the rules these people now imagine? How will we feed them? How will we feed ourselves? This immigration bill isn’t a recipe for reformation of a broken system, but instead a recipe for radical transformation of a civilization.
Some will insist that I am too harsh or caustic in my appraisal, but what would they have me say? Shall I pretend that this bill represents only a “speed-bump” in the language of our President? Shall we accept the claims of Senator McCain who tells us these illegal immigrants come only to “pick our lettuce?” Let me explain to you what the sell-out anti-Republicans in favor of this bill are really trying to obtain: You demand they behave and vote as conservatives, but they wish to be freed from those constraints. In their states and districts at present, a Democrat could not win. Therefore, before they can change party and flip the bird at conservatives for good, they must set up a circumstance in which a Democrat could win in their states or congressional districts. It is at this point that you must think very carefully and clearly: The easiest way for them to make conservatives irrelevant is to out-number them. You’ve stirred-up so much trouble for them with your Tea Parties and your conservative activism that the only way to ignore you is to import a political force larger than you. That is the purpose of these millions of immigrants they wish to bring to our country: To replace and supplant you as the dominant political force in the nation.
Who will insist now that I had been too harsh? Could it be that I’m over-stating the political impact of this mass migration bill? According to Byron York, writing in the Washington Examiner, this legislation includes a number of loopholes that will fast-track many illegal aliens to full US citizenship. Writes York:
“A little-noticed exception in the Gang of Eight bill provides a fast track for many — possibly very many — currently illegal immigrants. Under a special provision for immigrants who have labored at least part-time in agriculture, that fast track could mean permanent residency in the U.S., and then citizenship, in half the time Rubio said. And not just for the immigrants themselves — their spouses and children, too.”
“A second provision in the legislation creates another fast track for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16 — the so-called Dreamers. The concept suggests youth, but the bill has no age limit for such immigrants — or their spouses and children — and despite claims that they must go to college or serve in the military to be eligible, there is an exception to that requirement as well.”
Have I been unnecessarily caustic in my appraisal, or does this bill offered by the “Gang-of-Eight” constitute a treason against the people of the United States? Imagine if you will, my own state of Texas, under the constructs of this legislation: Inside five or six years, it will have become impossible for any office-holder at any level of government to maintain his or her position while remaining in the Republican Party. The whole miserable lot will either retire, or merely change parties as happened in 1995. Do you see it now? Do you understand the dire meaning of our current situation? We are headed for one-party rule, and your conservative principles will be swept aside in the building of the new Democrat hegemony. If rank-and-file Democrats had any discernment, they too would be terrified, because they would understand that the only thing that offers any possibility of keeping their politicians honest is the competition of at least two vital parties. For conservatives and Republicans, this immigration bill is a death warrant not only for the sake of politics, but for the sake of the nation. Do you like losing? If this bill passes, you had better become accustomed to the concept. It will become a permanent condition for what will become a rapidly declining number of conservative office-holders, and indeed, for conservatives across the country. What you had known as America will be left in ashes.
This bill represents a threat against the American people far worse than that of al-Qaeda, because it will demolish the United States from the inside. Those who have advanced and advocated this bill knew or ought to have known its implications. It’s intentional, and it is far worse than we had dared to imagine. This one really is for all the marbles: We can be a sovereign nation that stands some chance of remaining a constitutional, representative republic, or we can fall into the abyss of a century of one-party rule and Third-World devolution. The choice is ours, but if we permit them to enact this bill, it may be the last substantial political choice we are ever permitted to make.
.
Call, write, and fax your Senators. Emails are nice, but they go largely ignored. Visit their home-state offices. It’s time for you to show up, again. Call your Congressmen. Tell them that if they pass this bill(or any like it,) they won’t be left in office long enough to switch parties, because in 2014, you will send them home, while you still can. Tell every person you know what the game is, and what is being done. If we are to preserve this nation, this must be stopped.
Drawing the Line
I realize that at this very moment, you are being attacked on all fronts. Our voices have earned us a temporary reprieve on gun control, but they’re trying to tax sales on the Internet again, and they’re pushing a ludicrous, maniacally self-destructive immigration bill. I realize we’re all a bit depressed by the unrelenting onslaught of big government, and I would understand if fatigue had set in for many of my friends and fellow conservatives. Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have time to be depressed. We might survive an Internet sales tax, but conservatism will not survive the immigration reform bill now being pushed by the “Gang of Eight” senators, or probably the version being pushed in the House by none other than Congressman and former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan(R-WI.) The immigration bill must be stopped if conservatives are to retain any political future.
There’s a very good reason the DC establishment has co-opted these “fresh faces:” They know you won’t listen to the likes of John McCain or Lindsey Graham, but you might be convinced to listen to Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. They walk these younger guys off a plank, in part because they’re more effective than the old bulls, but also in part to dominate them and keep them in check. If Rubio and Ryan are ultimately damaged by the immigration debate of 2013, who will benefit? Setting the inside politics aside, however, let’s be blunt about the ramifications of the immigration bill: If it is enacted, it will destroy movement conservatism as an electoral force for a generation or longer. For conservatives, this is a fight for survival and it must be fought with all hands on deck.
Naturally, there are others who see danger in this bill. Among them are African-American groups who see the potential for making themselves less vital and more disposable to the Democrat Party. Wouldn’t it be astonishing to find that in the House, we may see the Congressional Black Caucus moving to oppose any immigration bill because it represents an almost complete displacement of their power base in the Democrat Party? It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but in this case, we may see an alliance of the extremely liberal members of the CBC with House conservatives to put the axe to immigration reform. Honestly, if it weren’t for the mortal damage this bill would do to our nation, I’d almost be inclined to let it go through unchallenged just to make the Congressional Black Caucus moot. Apart from the fact that the CBC would likely be an unreliable ally, the fact is that this bill would do immeasurable damage to the country and leave us wide open to more of the same we’ve faced over the last decade, with the added “bonus” of the “Californication” of the rest of the nation inside a decade. States that are now light red would become deep blue, and states that were solidly red would become purple or even blue, in the case of Texas, and Arizona. You can forget winning the White House. Just forget it.
This bill’s rejection is as important to the survival of conservatism as was the presidency of Ronald Reagan. If we don’t find a way to stop this, it will finish conservatism for the next two decades. More, it will dispirit conservatives and we will lose the House in 2014, resulting in two years of a lame-duck President who will never be held to account and who will then have two years of a majority in both houses of Congress, a condition that we will find impossible to reverse. If you have any doubts about the seriousness of the implications of this issue, I’d commend to you this clip from Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show. In this clip, Dr. Levin sounds many of the same warnings, and for many of the same reasons I have brought to you previously on Tuesday. You can download the entire show from Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind. Here is the relevant clip:
Alternative content
If you understand what Dr. Levin has explained, then you must see the seriousness of the threat posed by this bill. We must begin to attack the provisions of the bill, but also the basic concept that they are trying to shove another de facto amnesty down our throats, once again with promises of improved security for which they have no real intentions to enforce. More, it will weaken our security in the face of continued attacks by radical Islamists, with no end in sight. One of the provisions of the Rubio-Schumer bill actually requires that this amnesty must not be applied to any who arrived in the US illegally after December of 2011. The idea is that this prevents the law from acting like a magnet in the short run to draw more immigrants across the border in a mad rush for amnesty. The problem is that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate when they arrived. That’s right, we’re going to take their word for it, since they are by definition undocumented. How many do you suppose will proclaim that they had arrived after that date? Even if there was the slightest willingness on the part of some to faithfully apply such a provision, what is to prevent Barack Obama from simply waiving it? Nothing. There is nothing to prevent the whole thing from blowing up in our faces.
Paul Ryan discussed with Joel Pollak at Breitbart the questions surrounding the immigration bill, and Ryan claimed dishonestly that this would create new economic growth. As I explained on Tuesday in my rebuttal to Senator Rubio, such an argument is a farce. There is no net economic benefit to the people of the US from immigration, and in fact, a notable economic detriment. As Dr. Levin rightly observed in the clip linked above, if we are looking for unskilled labor on the cheap, we could just as easily begin cutting welfare-state benefits to our own citizens and realize a real economic gain, since we would be removing people from the roles and they would begin to fill all of those jobs “Americans aren’t willing to do.” I imagine that if their option is starvation, booted from clutching bosom of the welfare state, they will damned-well become willing.
This isn’t the time to consider immigration reform that will merely strengthen the Democrats in perpetuity. This isn’t the time to create new and larger holes in our security in exchange for contrived and demonstrably false economic advantage. We are at a point in American history that if we do not rise to fight against this, the loss of our country and all the liberties we have enjoyed is certain. I understand there are those who will see the looming Internet sales tax proposal as the worst threat facing us at present, but I must ask those of that view to reconsider: The Internet Sales Tax can be repealed if it’s enacted, but amnesty is forever, and so is the electoral advantage to be gained by Democrats if it should pass. When even the leftist political site Politico notes the grotesque advantage the immigration bill represents for Democrats, we are right to try to stop this at all costs. The simple fact of the matter is that we can defeat this bill or prepare to yield our shrinking liberties. It’s as simple as that.
The Hard Sell
On Tuesday, FoxNews published an op-ed by Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL) discussing his views on immigration. I have some thoughts on what Senator Rubio has discussed, and I find some of his article misleading and disappointing. Rather than simply summarize his column, I am providing a link to its full text as well as taking it on, point-by-point here. The article is entitled Here’s the Truth About My Plan for Immigration Reform, and I suppose I could start with the title: Senator Rubio’s column does much to characterize his plan in a generous light, but those characterizations do not seem to match the bill’s substance. He opens:
“Americans believe in the value of immigration. We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally. They come here in pursuit of what we recognize as the American dream – the chance to live in freedom and have the opportunity to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families.”
Like Senator Rubio, and most Americans, I too believe in the value of immigration. My own wife is an immigrant, as were my grandparents and great-grandparents. The United States is the most generous nation on Earth toward immigrants, but this may be part of the problem. Sometimes, our naive generosity leads to policies that permit people who have malevolent designs land on our shores. Not all native-born Americans recognize the American dream, much as they might like to, in part because they are forced to carry the burdens of politicians’ generosity with the public treasury. The chance to live in freedom is a glorious thing, but I suspect that if one were to survey immigrants who have come here legally over the last three decades, liberty is in marked decline in part because our immigration policies have and continue to inflict a serious burden on the American people. It is the job of Senator Rubio and his cohorts to explain why Americans ought to bear more burdens on the behalf of immigrants. Such explanations should come in terms of concrete legislative language rather than flowery prose. Senator Rubio continues:
“The problem is that our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It has enabled 11 million people to come here illegally or overstay visas. It is a bureaucratic and inefficient system that does not address the needs of our economy.
All this has further deepened the American people’s mistrust in the ability of their government to perform basic functions.”
Our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It is not, however, the laws that are malfunctioning, but instead the bureaucracy that is entrusted with executing them. There are only 11-20 million illegal immigrants because this government has taken no concrete steps to enforce the laws already on the books. To the contrary, this president and his predecessors have intentionally undermined those laws, or in the case of the current president, actively set out to ignore them by issuing orders preventing their enforcement. The purpose of the immigration system is not to address the needs of the economy. Its purposes are to serve the needs of the nation in all aspects, not merely economic, but also security, cultural, and moral. Senator Rubio seems focused on the economic aspects at the expense of even our national security, much as the recent attacks in Boston demonstrate. That our current system permitted those two to gain entry to the nation and to remain is a damning rebuke of our current system, but unfortunately, because Sen. Rubio’s bill is more focused on economics than on security, this is not likely to be addressed by his bill. Sen. Rubio warns us:
“Leaving in place a broken immigration system -– and the millions of people whose identities are a mystery to us –- is simply not an acceptable option. This must be fixed.”
Our current immigration system is broken, but what is more broken is our immigration enforcement systems. As examples in opposition to Senator Rubio’s claim, the Tsarnaev brothers were legally in the country and we knew who they were. The 9/11 hijackers were legally in this country and we knew who they were. It is not merely the identities of illegal aliens that is a problem, but it is critical to remember it is a separate problem from legal visitors who overstay visas, or legal immigrants who are permitted to stay despite convictions for crimes and applications to welfare systems. The problems born of the bureaucracy are clear, but they are separate and apart from the conscious decisions by those responsible for carrying our laws into execution who for whatever reasons or pretenses simply fail or even refuse to do so. Senator Rubio’s bill does absolutely nothing to address a bureaucracy and an executive branch that refuses to carry out the law.
“That is why I am advocating for securing our borders, improving enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration system and changing it so that it prioritizes welcoming people to the U.S. based on skills, not just on whether they have a family member already living here.”
Senator Rubio says he is for securing our borders and improving enforcement. If I take that on faith, let me suggest that the Senator could do a good deal to remedy the distrust he laments by taking these steps first. As in medicine, when addressing something one claims is an emergency, one must evaluate the problem. We cannot assess the true scope of the problem until there has been a good faith effort on behalf of the United States Federal Government to improve enforcement and to secure our borders. Otherwise, what Senator Rubio herein promises is a preposterous reiteration of existing law that condenses to the sentiment: “We are going to pass a law to tell our government to more forcefully enforce existing law.” This is an absurd proposal, inasmuch as a government that cannot be entrusted to enforce existing law certainly cannot be entrusted to enforce a more stringent one. It’s akin to claiming, “OK, well, we’re really, really serious this time.” As much as anybody, I think immigration ought to include certain tests as to what skills a person brings to the game, but is Senator Rubio seriously suggesting that people from India are less-skilled than those from Central and South America?
Senator Rubio continues, ticking off a laundry list of measures:
“And that is why I support a process to identify and register those who are here illegally. They will have to submit biometric data in order to pass multiple national security and criminal background checks, pay $2,000 in fines, pay taxes, and learn English and American civics. They won’t be able to get any federal benefits like welfare or ObamaCare.
Fines? Most of the people immigrating to this country can’t afford $2.00 in fines, much less $2000.00. Will there be waivers for the fines? Will President Obama simply sign an extra-statutory waiver to fines, like he did with Obama-care?
“Before they can even apply to become permanent residents, they will have to wait at least ten years. They will have to get in line behind those who are trying to come the right way.”
Why should they be permitted into line at all? After violating the laws of the United States, why aren’t they prohibited? More, what is the real chance that somebody who is told they won’t get permanent resident status for at least ten years deciding voluntarily to “step out of the shadows” and be liable for fines and a ten year wait?
“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired.”
What will make them wait? The same farcical enforcement exhibited by the Obama Administration?
“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to track people who overstay their visas.”
People who overstay their visas? Those are people who started out with legal status, having arrived here legally. That’s an entirely different law enforcement problem from the immigrant who had sneaked into the country in disregard of our laws from the outset.
“And they will have to wait until we implement plans to spend at least $5.5 billion dollars to secure the border through more border patrol officers, more technology and more fencing.”
We’ve been promised all of this before. In 1986, and several times since, we’ve been promised all sorts of improvements, and yet despite a mass amnesty in 1986, the Federal Government has managed to let another 11-20 million people come into the country. The truth is that the number may be even higher, but we can’t know, since in 1986, and all the years since, this government has not kept its promises. What Senator Rubio here offers is another promise. I’m afraid that I must insist that government finally fulfill its past promises before we consider any more, in the name of decency, and in the name of holding my government to its word.
“I thought long and hard before taking on this issue. I understand how divisive it can be. I’ve seen how the left has used it to accuse opponents of their version of reform of being bigots and racists. And I would much rather be having a debate on the more fundamental ways we can grow our economy and get our debt and spending under control. But with or without us, the president and the Democrats who control the Senate were going to bring this issue up.”
Sadly, even Senator Rubio’s spokesman uses the language of division. As many noted on Monday, your own spokesman, Mr. Conant, abrasively and dishonestly compared the status of immigrants to that of slaves. Is the Senator seriously suggesting that his spokesman is a leftist, or only that his spokesman has resorted to the dishonest tactics of the left? The President and his friends in the Senate do not control the House, so that any such bill could be stopped there if Republicans weren’t insisting on shoving bad legislation down the throats of an unwilling American people.
“And I believe conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies we believe are critical to fixing our immigration system.”
I agree that conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies that are critical to fixing our immigration system, but they must be the right ideas, and they must conform to conservative principles and the rule of law. Sadly, Senator Rubio’s proposal does no such thing. I am anxious for the day when we can eliminate undue burdens inflicted on lawful immigrants, but I will not flex or move so much as one inch on the legal liabilities of those who have already broken the laws of our country. More, before I will accept any movement on this, there must be a good faith enforcement of the laws of our nation, and a keeping of promises already made.
“The opponents of reform raise important points about not rewarding the violation of the law. I, too, have felt the frustration many feel that our nation’s generosity has been taken advantage of by some.”
Indeed.
“But policy-making is about solving problems. And to pick the right solution, you have to weigh the realistic alternatives. Deporting all illegal immigrants is not a practical solution. But ignoring the fact that they are here is just as bad.”
Are we to take from this that while the Senator finds those points raised by opponents to be important, he’s perfectly willing to dismiss them? One needn’t talk dismissively of the idea of deporting all illegal aliens immediately and at once, but one must explain why a good faith effort isn’t being made to deport as many of them as reasonably possible. I have tired of this dismissive approach to the issue as expressed here by Senator Rubio and some others, who derisively suggest that we cannot deport all of them. The country that launched three men to the moon cannot deport people illegally in the country? Preposterous! The country that invented the Atom-Bomb cannot deport people who have come into the country illegally? Nonsense. Nobody expects the US Government to flip a switch and instantaneously corral 11-20 million people, pushing them out of the country the next day, but if there are 11-20 million of them, it shouldn’t be too hard to find one-tenth of them. This insulting line of dismissal is one of the reasons there is a distrust between the American people and their government on this issue, a distrust Senator Rubio laments, but herein promotes. Who has been ignoring the fact that they are here? The American people are too well aware of the presence of millions of illegals, because while they allegedly hide in the shadows, they seem to fill our emergency rooms and our schools and our courtrooms. Who is ignoring it? The American people, or their government?
“For example, passing a law that only focuses on modernization and enforcement and leaves for another day the issue of those here illegally is not a good idea. Because as the enforcement measures kick in, millions of people living here illegally will be unable to work and provide for themselves and their families. The resulting humanitarian impact will then force us to scramble to address it. It is better to address it now as part of an orderly and measured process.”
Again, this expectation that we will force 11-20 million people to pack their bags in one day is preposterous. Can we not begin with a somewhat less ambitious number and work our way up? No, you see, the Senator is concerned first and foremost with the economic impact on the nation, and businesses that employ illegals may be hampered if they cannot continue. Welfare workers would have less to do, and therefore justification for their jobs. Senator Rubio should not take such liberties in assuming that we are so desperately stupid and childish as to believe enforcement could come at once and immediately in complete perfection.
“The only solution I know that can work is to reform legal immigration in a way that is good for the economy, do everything we can to secure the border, and allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn permanent residency by passing background checks, paying a fine, learning English and waiting at the back of the line for at least 10 years, at the same time that border security and enforcement measures are put in place to prevent this problem from happening again.”
Again with the economy? I have news for Senator Rubio: The economy is doing poorly already. The easiest improvement to the economy by virtue of our immigration policy is to be gained by deporting as many as we can, and preventing those here from making use of our welfare state. That would address many issues, including our deficit and exploding national debt. The benefits to our economy and to our fiscal condition would be immediate.
“The bill I helped write is a good starting point, but it is not a take it or leave it proposition. I am open to any ideas others may have on how to do this, and I’ve been listening to the legitimate concerns people have raised with the expectation that we will be able to improve the bill as this debate continues.”
I am glad that Senator Rubio views this law as a proposal open to amendment and revision. If he’s serious, he could scrap the 800-plus page bill and offer a simpler one, as an act of good faith on the part of the United States Government keeping its past promises to its citizens. He can draft a resolution stating that before any easing of immigration requirements can commence, the current laws of the United States must be in full force for not less than five years, at which time the American people can re-evaluate the government’s efforts to earnestly enforce the law and secure our border. In short, get back to us when you show you can enforce the current law, a law you claim is not even as stringent as your new proposal. If the new law is so much tougher, it should be a simple matter indeed to merely enforce current law.
“We must do something to end today’s de facto amnesty, and conservative Republicans should lead on this issue. Because without conservatives at the table and in the fight, we are ceding this issue to President Obama and his allies in Congress. And as the last four years have proven, that is never a good idea.”
Senator Rubio should grasp that conservatives have no need or reason to come to a table to negotiate in good faith when past promises have been broken and previous laws ignored. If the Senator is serious about his concerns regarding the prospective actions of President Obama, he should surely join in the open opposition to the President and his allies in Congress. Perhaps rather than preach to conservatives as to how they must accept the “inevitable,” Senator Rubio could instead join with other senators in sufficient numbers to prevent its inevitability. I recognize the fact that Senator Rubio has worked hard at pushing this legislation, but given what we’ve learned about the concrete legislative language in this bill, he should perhaps consider spending more time on the bill’s reformulation than on salesmanship. Sufficiently addressing the former would certainly ease the chore that will be the latter. It is on this basis that I oppose this bill, because if a serious proposal were brought forward that would address the concerns of conservatives, complying with their cherished principles without dismissively deriding them as unrealistic, conservatives might well go along. Until then, I must respectfully disagree with the Senator’s bill. Simply put, it’s not good enough.
Water Carrier?
Breitbart is carrying informative stories on the bogus “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill that is being pushed by the “Gang of Eight” senators. I would urge readers to pay close attention to Breitbart.com for more news on the issue. Byron York of the Examiner is also doing fantastic work exposing the gaping holes in this bill. Breitbart’s William Bigelow has revealed another fatal flaw in the supposed reforms offered by the Rubio-Schumer/Gang-of-Eight bill that will leave a giant opening for the administration to do absolutely nothing in enforcing the allegedly strict measures contained in the new law. As reported by the Byron York, via the Examiner.com, the feature of the bill described by Marco Rubio on Mark Levin’s show last week that would create a commission including the four border-state governors is nothing less than a sham. There are no teeth to the provision, and no means by which to guarantee that provided there are recommendations by a commission of four governors, but also six bureaucrats selected by the President, any of these recommendations would see the light of day. York explains:
“It sounded tough, intended to convince skeptical conservatives that reform would be based on stringent border security. But as it turns out, the structure Gang sources described is simply not in the bill.”
York continues:
“In the legislation, the Commission would be formed if the Secretary of Homeland Security “certifies that the Department has not achieved effective control in all high-risk border sectors during any fiscal year beginning from the date that is five years after the enactment of this Act.” The Commission’s “primary responsibility,” according to the bill, “shall be making recommendations to the President, the Secretary, and Congress on policies to achieve and maintain the border security goal” of 100 percent surveillance and 90 percent apprehension. The Commission will have six months to write a report “setting forth specific recommendations for policies for achieving and maintaining the border security goals [specified in the bill].” That report shall contain, according to the bill, “recommendations for the personnel, infrastructure, technology, and other resources required to achieve and maintain [those goals].””
As if this isn’t bad enough, York then delivers what should be the final nail in the coffin of this horrible legislation:
“The bill requires that the head of the Government Accountability Office then review the report to determine whether the Commission’s recommendations are likely to work and what they will cost. And then — the process stops. “The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the report is submitted,” says the bill.
“There is nothing about the Commission going from “being an advisory panel to a policy-making one.” The strict trigger that Gang sources advertised as being in the bill just isn’t there.
“As far as the “money set aside in escrow” for the Commission and its enforcement plan, the bill specifies that $2 billion “shall be made available” to the Secretary of Homeland Security “to carry out programs, projects, and activities recommended by the Commission.” It is not clear whether there is any directive for the Secretary to actually do anything.”(emphasis added)
What this all means is that when Marco Rubio appeared on Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday of last week to explain the bill, he misled the audience and presumably the host. Levin asked tough questions despite being friendly with the Senator, but it seems that Senator Rubio “dissembled” a bit on some of the details. The Daily Caller quotes Rubio from his appearance on Dr. Levin’s show:
“If, in five years, the plan has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension, the Department of Homeland Security … will lose control of the issue and it will be turned over to the border governors to finish the job …. which is not a Washington commission, made up of congressmen or bureaucrats. It’s largely led by the border state governors, who have a vested local interest in ensuring that that border is secure … and there’s money set aside in the bill for them to do it.” [Emphasis added]
You can listen to the audio of the segment here, from Mark Levin’s Audio Rewind:
Alternative content
Unfortunately, as the Daily Caller goes on to detail, this is a bit less than fully honest:
“True, the bill does create a $2B pot of money for the DHS to use to carry out the commission’s recommendations–but there’s nothing that compels the DHS to actually spend it on all of them, or any of them, let alone to actually achieve the “90 percent apprehension” goal.
“Nor, if the goal isn’t reached, does the bill delay the issuance of green cards to the already-legalized former illegals (as Rubio at one point seems to suggest to Levin).
“Oh, and the commission isn’t “made up of the governors” of the border states–they only control four of the 10 commission seats. The other six are “Washington” appointments (see pages 14-15)
“Aside from those things, everything Rubio said about the commission was true.”
Whether the statements of Senator Rubio were intentionally misleading, or whether he is simply being led around by the nose by staff or other senators on the plain language of the bill, what is deeply troubling is that by appearing on the Mark Levin Show, repeating falsehoods(whether or not he knew them to be falsehoods,) Senator Rubio has done much to contribute to the lack of ill will and distrust over this legislation. Whatever other supposed virtues this legislation may have, it’s wrecked by the propaganda being spread in this instance by Senator Rubio.
As this goes on, Rubio’s own spokesman, Alex Conant, is on Twitter comparing immigrants, legal and illegal, to slaves, H/T Twitchy:
@conncarroll We haven’t had a cohort of people living permanently in US without full rights of citizenship since slavery.
If this is the attitude of Rubio’s spokesman, one must wonder about the strategy being employed by Rubio. The claim that immigrant are akin to slaves is a ridiculous notion, and frankly, Rubio should fire Conant. It leaves open the question as to whether Senator Rubio might endorse such notions, and while I doubt that to be the case, it won’t help the Senator’s cause. Likewise, it isn’t helpful when one sees a conservative senator going around arm-in-arm with Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY,) one has every reason to believe that Rubio may have relied on the characterization of the bill provided by the likes of Schumer. I wonder if Rubio isn’t being made a patsy, but then again, I’m not sure it matters because there is something disturbing about a purportedly “conservative” senator relying on the explanations of the legislation of anybody. Why isn’t he reading the language?
Schumer has taken a slightly different approach, going on the offense and claiming that some would use the occasion of the Boston Marathon Bombing to stall or obstruct the Immigration Reform legislation. I must say that given the disclosures about the actual provisions of the bill revealed over the last week, I sincerely hope some conservative senators will do precisely that. It makes no sense to pretend that this ridiculous immigration bill will accomplish anything but to make our nation less secure, and the Boston bombing clearly exposes that for the average citizen. The dishonesty being employed by proponents of this legislation is very much like an Obama campaign, and that’s all the more despicable when you think that a rising star in the Republican party may have diminished himself into nothing more than a flash in the pan. That’s a sad prospect, one that could be headed-off if these politicians would simply read the legislation they’re advocating. Senator Rubio owes us an explanation for the incomprehensibly misleading statements made on Levin’s show, but one probably won’t be forthcoming. Draw your own conclusions as to the reason(s).
Breitbart is reporting that a number of secret emails demonstrate that Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL) is conspiring with Grover Norquist and the libertarian, pro-open-borders CATO Institute on messaging for the upcoming Immigration Reform bill. Incredibly, they actually intend to use the Boston Marathon Bombers as an argument for the legislation, rather than as a condemnation of it. In this article, the talking points of Senator Rubio are outlined. From the article, H/T Breitbart:
The message contained three talking points from Sen. Rubio, the first of which argued that the immigration bill would prevent people like the Boston Marathon terrorists from getting into or staying in the country.
“These terrorists came here under the existing system, the one opponents of reform want to leave in place,” Sen. Rubio wrote in his first talking point.
The second Rubio talking point argued that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border” to get into America.
In his third talking point, Rubio argued that authorities only know who the terrorists are because they came here legally to begin with.
Let’s take these one at a time. These terrorists did indeed come here under the existing system, as the talking point asserts, but what the talking point leaves out is that the last four presidents’ administrations have done nothing but undermine the existing laws in a grotesque dereliction of their duties to uphold the law.
Rubio would argue that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border.” What he’s suggesting here is that they were in the country legally, but as a matter of fact, anybody who enters the US is crossing the border, whether they do it legally or illegally. If our immigration laws had been enforced, they might well still have made legal entry, but after the domestic violence conviction, the elder Tamerlan Tsarnaev would have been deported at the very least. Rubio’s twisted attempt to dismiss these facts by dishonestly characterizing the problem with the bombers actually exposes the fatal flaws in his proposed legislation: One would have to believe that this president (or any other) would actually act in earnest execution of that office to deport criminals. We have more than two decades of evidence that this would not happen.
Rubio’s last argument is the most preposterous of all. He implies that by legalizing various people, we would know “who they are” but the fact is that we knew who the two Boston bombers were and it did nothing to prevent their criminal, terroristic acts. He pretends that “knowing who they are” would have improved things, but the salient truth is that because we were not tracking or monitoring them as immigrants, we didn’t know who they were with respect to these bombings and other crimes until they were identified by virtue of footage at the scene of their crimes. It is an embarrassing attempt to deflect criticism of the immigration bill, in part because all he offers is excuses for how the new proposal would improve security despite all the evidence that makes it plain his proposition is fanciful at best.
It’s not uncommon for Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) to lie to the American people, and to attempt to push bad law on the basis of worse arguments, but to see Senator Rubio joining in this tactic is disappointing to say the least. If Senator Rubio had any sense, he’d flee from this as quick as quick can, but it seems as though he’s been captured rather quickly by the Washington DC establishment that rules against the will of the American people.
The plain fact is that the terrorist bombings in Boston should act as a natural brake on this immigration reform bill, but once again, it’s easier to lie to the American people and push ahead with a law they are bound and determined to shove down our throats. I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the betrayals. I’m sick of finding that alleged “Tea Party Senators” are nothing of the kind when it comes to the issues. Where is Senator Rubio’s jobs bill? Where is his budget-cutting proposal? Did he have secret emails with Norquist and CATO over those issues? Hell no. No, instead, he conspires with the likes of Lindsey Graham(anti-Republican, SC) and Chuck-U Schumer(Communist-NY) to give us a “bipartisan bill” that is really an example of one-party rule. It’s the Party of Washington DC, and they generally win, while the American people lose and get stuck with the bill…and the bombings…and the bodies.
It should be incomprehensible that politicians who have helped to create our immigration woes would seize on the opportunity of the Boston attack to pimp their latest bad idea, but that’s precisely what happened on Friday night. Worried that some Americans might catch on to the fact that the bombers in the Boston Marathon case were immigrants legally in this country, and fearing that these inevitable disclosures would damage their efforts at making immigration even easier, Senators John McCain(anti-Republican, AZ) and Lindsey Graham(anti-Republican, SC) made the case that the case for pending legislation on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” was now more important than ever. Suspect number two wasn’t yet in custody when the RINO twins issued a joint bit of dishonest propaganda:
In the wake of this week’s terrorist attack in Boston, some have already suggested that the circumstances of this terrible tragedy are justification for delaying or stopping entirely the effort for comprehensive immigration reform.
In fact the opposite is true: Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left – a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today. The status quo is unacceptable.
We have 11 million people living in the shadows, which leaves this nation vulnerable to a myriad of threats. That is all the more reason why comprehensive immigration reform is so essential.
By modernizing our system of legal immigration, identifying and conducting background checks on people here illegally, and finally securing our border, we will make America more secure.
Senators McRINO and Grahamnesty should be ashamed, but since they’re opportunists who don’t give a damn about the American people, they’ve instead made what must be regarded as a maniacally pompous statement aimed at pushing their “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” agenda forward despite all the facts that make plain the absurdities of their ideas.
These two bombers weren’t “living in the shadows.” They were right there, in the open, and at least one of them had a previous conviction for domestic violence. Why was he still in the country? Are we to believe the preposterous assertion that the elder Tsarnaev brother would have been deported under CIR? No way. Their mother is a convicted thief, and she still resides in the United States. Why?
The immigration reform legislation being pushed by these two sell-outs won’t do a thing to lessen the problem, but instead threatens to worsen the problem. The two senators allege that we have 11 million people “living in the shadows,” but has either considered that some significant proportion of them would just as soon remain in the murky darkness on the fringes of our society? To pretend that every immigrant is just a hard-working American-in-waiting is a preposterous absurdity. The evidence tells a different story, and the fact is that among the 11-20 million illegal aliens now in the United States, there is a significant number who are evading justice in their home country, or who have already committed serious crimes in this country.
Given his service record, many are willing to give Senator McCain a pass, but I think that service record means he should be more cognizant than his colleagues in the Senate regarding the security interests of the American people. Instead, he and his sidekick from South Carolina are waging an immoral war against the American people, siding with the likes of Barack Obama who will preside over any law these two push through the Senate. Our current president refuses to enforce the immigration laws as exist right now, but we’re to believe that he will magically change his mind should the Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals of these two senators be enacted? It’s preposterous on its face.
I am more than a little fatigued with Washington DC establishment politicians urinating on our heads while telling us it’s merely raining. Senators McCain and Graham should be ashamed of this, but the fact is that they have no discernible shame, otherwise they would retire and make way for candidates who are willing to fight against Obama’s agenda, rather than propping it up and supporting it. The American people express what should be a simple demand: Secure the border first. Deport illegals and resident aliens who commit crimes, even minor ones, because these should serve as warnings about worse things to come. Instead, these two Senators are more concerned with pushing an agenda that is distinctly un-American than with protecting the American people. They don’t deserve the title “Senator.”
In the wake of this bombing, what is clear is that the war against America is being waged by radicals from all over the world, and it goes on apace, while the war against Americans being waged by Washington insiders like McCain and Graham continues despite all evidence against their shoddy proposals. Rather than expressing their concerns for the people whose lives were wrecked or destroyed in Boston this week, these two Senators were more interested in seeing to it that their pet legislation would not be derailed. Senator McCain wants to disarm you, as demonstrated by his vote on the failed gun bill. Now he wants to invite in more people, and legalize some who are already here, some of whom may be out to kill you. Do the math. “Despicable” and “shameful” are the only words that cross my mind when I think of these two senators, and particularly Senator McCain, whose service to the nation ought to have meant that he could be trusted to know better.
Sadly, he doesn’t.
Terror in Boston
In Boston, the bloody attack on the famous marathon has given residents a sample of what it must be to live in Israel on a daily basis. One dead, and one now in custody, what the two twisted, radicalized brothers Tsarnaev ought to have taught a nation is an abject lesson in the complete failure of our immigration policy. Details are still coming to light, but it is now apparent that the nineteen year-old, Dzhokhar, hospitalized in custody, is a perfect example why the entire idea of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” as currently being discussed in Washington is a complete and utter failure. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a citizen of the United States on September 11th, 2012. A mere seven months later, he conspired with his older brother Tamerlan to commit an act of terror against the nation that had adopted him with open arms. The elder bomber shouldn’t have been in this country, but thanks to an immigration system that does nothing to protect the American people from violent offenders, he remained in this country despite a conviction for domestic violence.
His mother spouted conspiracy theories, claiming her sons are innocent, but this comes from a woman who was herself convicted of stealing over $1600.00 worth of merchandise just last year. The two brothers and their sister along with their mother have been on public assistance for much of their time in the US, and this is the thanks the American people have been offered in exchange for a foolish generosity that exceeds all rational boundaries. The now-deceased elder brother, twenty-six year-old Tamerlan, was an engineering student, and with those skills, he apparently learned to build things like pressure-cooker bombs. There is no doubt that these two bear full responsibility for their crimes, but our government and its foolhardy policies are to blame for their entry and residence in the United States, using all they were given by a beneficent nation that too easily took them in.
What is wrong with a country that invites in people and permits them to re-establish their own sectarian cultures in our nation, cultures that are in direct ethical and religious conflict with our own? What is wrong with a nation that invites in people who will become killers, raised, fed, and housed by our welfare state that is so greedy to extend its reach that it will take all comers at the expense of taxpayers, and this time, at the expense of at least four lives of people who would otherwise be with us today had these two villains not been permitted the opportunity to act as predators on the streets of Boston? Schooled by you, fed by you, that vacation you couldn’t take as you were taxed to pay for their food or housing, or enjoying the fruits of scholarships and other financial aid, these two monsters were the product of an immigration system that is broken but will not be repaired by the fraud being discussed by the “gang of eight.” If there is any justice in the world, it will be that the moronic and morally bankrupt notions of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” now under discussion in our Capital will have exploded with those bombs on the street in Boston.
The members of the “Gang-of-Eight” promise there will be no welfare eligibility, but we now know that members of this family of terrorists-in-training subsisted for some time on public assistance, according to an on-air report on Foxnews. Why? The mother was convicted of $1600 theft, and she remains in the US? Why? She should have been deported immediately after conviction. ICE should have been waiting at the back of the courtroom to shove her onto a plane bound for her homeland, but that didn’t happen. Why? In 2009, Tamerlan Tsarnaev could have been deported after an arrest and conviction for domestic violence, but he was permitted to remain, according to JudicialWatch. Why? The immigration system didn’t fail them. It failed us. The welfare system didn’t fail them. It failed us. All of the stooges in Washington DC and around the country who will now assure us that immigration needs to be reformed are correct, but they are lying to the American people when they offer their prescriptions. We need to secure the border, we need to screen would-be immigrants more thoroughly, we need to monitor them at least until they become US citizens, and we must forbid them from subsisting on the benevolence of a willing welfare state for at least that long. Violations of our laws should result in immediate and irrevocable deportation, particularly crimes of violence, fraud and theft. This shouldn’t apply only to those coming from largely Muslim countries or regions, but to immigrants from every country.
We cannot afford moral agnosticism when it comes to the integration of immigrants into our society. The failure of such amoral policies are written forcefully on the pages of our newspapers and websites throughout the tragedies of the last dozen years. We mustn’t tell people that their belief in Islam disqualifies them from immigration, but we must inform them that in the United States, in our civil society, the civil law – not the religious – must dominate the interactions among all people. We have arrived at the sickening point at which we not only import terrorists, but also import people who establish their own enclaves and sub-cultures in which some will be subjected to those seeking to recruit terrorists or radicalize young people. We see this in the open, but we permit them to remain. Do we not have enough evil-doers of our own without inviting in more, funding their existences, and bearing the burdens of their crimes against us?
It is not only Islamists. From Mexico and points South, we import millions who subsist on our welfare, our health-care, and our generosity. Our courts here in Texas are filled with the cases of robbery, thuggery, mayhem, and murder committed by illegal immigrants as well as resident aliens who import with them some of the worst facets of their cultures. In some cases, illegals are turned loose for violations of law for which legal residents would be prosecuted, but that are much harder to contend with when you add in the bureaucracy of the Immigration service. Here in Texas, the number of people killed by drunk drivers who turn out to be in the country illegally is staggering, and all too often, they do not face deportation after their sentences, not because they “slip through the cracks,” but because our government refuses to do so. Let loose as a matter of policy after non-felony offenses, many escalate to more serious crimes.
Is it all Muslims? Not nearly. Is it all Mexicans? Hardly. Is it a troubling proportion? Yes. This is because under the leadership of four consecutive presidents, we have permitted the government to excise most notions of integration or assimilation from the process. Our welfare systems invites the poor but also the malevolent to arrive in huddled masses on our shores. I have listened to the purveyors of “comprehensive immigration reform” peddling their wares to the American people, but there can be no doubt that while behind their marble columns, and oaken desks, they are immune from most of the consequences, we who fund this country are the first victims of their big ideas. We mustn’t have a friendly and generous immigration system at the expense of the lives, liberties, and treasure of the American people.
As the President announced the capture of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, touting the goodness and resolve of the American people, I couldn’t help but wonder if our policies correlate with the Presidents flowery words. It is this president, after all, who refuses to enforce our immigration laws. It is this president who issued executive orders that will be found to have made it easier for the elder Tsarnaev brother to remain in this country despite warnings from a foreign government and a domestic violence conviction in this country. It is this president whose administration now faces a lawsuit from ICE agents for being punished for doing their jobs by enforcing the immigration laws of this nation.
There was a time when the immigration policies of this country were aimed at making the country greater, but now our policy has become one that proclaims “come as you are and live like you wish, even at our expense.” There will be those who will accuse me of being anti-immigrant, but being the grandson of immigrants, and married to an immigrant myself, I dismiss such foolish claims. Instead, I assert that America must remain a nation to which immigrants may come, but we must return to a policy that is a good deal more discerning and demanding when we decide who may come and who may remain. The first evidence of one’s suitability to immigration must be a willingness to wait in line, abiding by the laws of our country, including particularly those regarding who may enter and under which conditions.
This sad incident had begun with the despicable act of terror by two young, radicalized men. These men had been here in the United States by virtue of our pity and our charity, and these among our virtues were turned against us. This is only possible because we have permitted politicians to imagine that their personal feelings of beneficence permit them the discretion to extend it endlessly at our expense, to all comers. It’s not only this incident, but all of the lesser incidents of torment and murder that are enacted by people residing illegally and legally in the United States who ought not be permitted to stay, and who should have been ejected at the first instance of entanglement with our criminal judicial systems. Hundreds of thousands of times each year, people permitted by the policies or intransigence of our government enact crimes at the expense of the American people, and the trail of dead and maimed is much longer than the media or politicians would have you know.
“Losers”
Perhaps we should adopt the standard laid forth by furious but ashamed Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the two men, interviewed in Maryland Friday, where he was asked by reporters what he thought brought about the behavior of his nephews:
“Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves — these are the only reasons I can imagine.”(emphasis added)
Tsarni, paternal uncle to the two bombers, seemed to be saying that these two were unable to settle themselves, a suggestion that they had not fully assimilated into the culture of America. Tsarni professed a love for his country, and explained that he teaches his own children to love the country, in effect, seeking to make of them Americans. He clearly regards those who won’t assimilate as “losers.”
This is ultimately the problem with our immigration system: It no longer screens out the losers, and worse, now promises them unearned rewards if they can get here somehow. More, agencies do nothing whatever to monitor immigrants to see how they are progressing toward assimilation. The “Gang of Eight” Senators is going to have a harder job selling their indecent proposal on immigration, if only because this entire event highlights just how poorly the liberal ideas on immigration policy have worked. It has created a wave of crime, a bloody trail of victims, and an absurd lack of judgment with respect to those who come to or seek to remain in our country. A loose policy is not what America needs, and this incident, combined with more than two decades of tragedies borne by an irresponsible sense of benevolence on the part of politicians has created an environment in which this sort of thing may become the new normal. These villains are responsible for their own acts, but our politicians are responsible for holding the door open to all the world without judgment. They’ve let in far too many “losers,” because just like the 9/11 hijackers, these bombers were here legally. As evidenced by the decline of our civilization, we have plenty enough “losers” of our own. Thanks to the diligence of our law enforcement personnel, these two are off the streets, but sadly, due to an unjustly forgiving immigration policy, there will be more who will likely follow in their footsteps.
The following is a list of United States Senators who today voted for cloture on a bill in the Senate they have not yet seen. The bill purports to impose new background check requirements that will act to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. I consider these people to be traitors to the US Constitution, each and every one of them. These people decided that your rights are open to periodic diminution at their whim, irrespective of the guarantees of the US Constitution. I don’t care what other issues these turncoats are said to be “right on,” or “good on.” From this day forward, this list of tyrannically-minded dim-wits will be known collectively as the “anti-republicans” on this site. These people have lined up with the likes of Charles Schumer(D-NY) even though at least one of them explicitly didn’t want to be seen with the vicious NY schmuck. Why won’t they seek to amend the constitution, the legitimate process? They know you wouldn’t let them. Instead, these snakes are slithering around to attack you from behind:
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.)
Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Dean Heller (Nev.
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
John McCain (Ariz.)
Patrick Toomey (Pa.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
(And Boehner promises to take up the Senate bill.)
The cowards listed above voted to open up Harry Reid’s gun control bill for debate even though most will walk away from the legislation in the end. This is a procedural trick. Understand: Allowing this bill to come up for a vote means it will pass because the Democrats hold a majority. The only way this bill could be stopped is to prevent it from coming to the floor, but these worthless Senators made sure this bill would pass the Senate, but as of this moment, they don’t know what’s in it. There could be ANYTHING in it.
On that future day when your Second Amendment rights are cast aside by a tyrannical Federal government, you can thank the people on this list for screwing you, your children, and all posterity. I don’t want to hear excuses. I don’t want to hear “the NRA rates me 95%” (because the NRA won’t count this cloture vote against them.)
Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be swayed by the apologists: These people hate you. They hold you in contempt. They fear you, so they seek to disarm you as they work together with Democrats to bring about the kind of world in which they would have every reason to fear you if you’re armed. They are collapsing the country together with the Democrats. In 2014, most of these people are not up for re-election, and that should be your key indicator. There are plenty of other cowards who would have joined with them if they weren’t up for re-election in 2014. These people will either retire, or will not come up for re-election again for 3-5 years, meaning they have time for you to forget their betrayals. I’m not forgetting.
Neither should you.
There is still some chance to defeat this bill in the House. That said, Boehner will do as he always does: He will bring it to the floor for a vote, and some weasel anti-Republicans along with the whole body of Democrats will vote for it. You’d better burn up your phone lines as these rotten bastards attempt to burn your constitution.
A new SarahPAC video launched as a call to political action for conservatives and independents. The video includes a number of highlights of her recent CPAC speech, and is another confirmation that despite the wishes of the lamestream media, Governor Palin isn’t going away as she gears-up for the 2014 fight. As the video explains, there are many important elections in 2014, and conservatives cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach. If the Democrats succeed in taking over the House, Obama’s last two years will be a virtual slaughter. More, there is still an opportunity to take the Senate, and to strengthen it with real conservatives, perhaps sending some of the RINO legion home. It’s clear from this video that Governor Palin will remain a force for change in the Republican party, and many grass-roots conservatives hope she will succeed. H/T Tony Lee at Breitbart, citing the video in his article:
Rebuilding a Country
After a string of speakers this week who hope one day to be President of the United States, Sarah Palin spoke to a packed house as she explained her vision of the future, and also what conservatives must do to regain electoral success. She was introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who had been the keynote speaker. Of all the rhetoric to come out of CPAC 2013, it will be this speech that is remembered. Governor Palin reminded conservatives that it is their principles they must abide, and not the political winds of the day, but she also cautioned conservatives to speak to a broader audience, instead of merely preaching to the choir. She also pointed out that rather than abandoning their principles, conservatives should abandon the consultancy that has led the party to so many defeats. As has always been the case, Governor Palin energized the crowd. At a time when conservatives are still reeling from Obama’s re-election, her speech laid out the only rational course conservatives can take in order to rebuild the country. Here’s the video:
Hollow-Points
As a military veteran and firearms owner, I find it unconscionable that the United States Federal Government continues to mislead the American people about its activities and its intentions. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 outlawed hollow point ammunition for use on the battlefield because of the particularly cruel nature of the round. It does not merely incapacitate or kill, but inflicts gruesome injuries, maiming living targets in a manner that can be best described as catastrophic. It’s designed to impact, penetrate, and expand, essentially mushrooming out to deliver tremendous damage. Prohibited in war, our combat troops deploy with standard ball ammo instead, (known as Full Metal Jacket,) that has a clean ballistic profile. While it penetrates and is certainly lethal, it does not do additional damage by virtue of its construction. Claims by government agencies and their lackeys in the media that the 1.6 Billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition is intended for target practice simply isn’t credible. For whom is this ammuntion intended? One needn’t be a rocket scientist to do this math. The government is bound to abide by the Geneva Conventions in wars with foreign enemies, but there is no explicit prohibition against the use of hollow-point ammunition by civilian agencies on a nation’s own citizens.
I go to the range a few times per year, both to keep up my skills and to re-zero the sights on various weapons. This is a common practice, and our combat troops do this routinely in order to keep their weapons combat ready and practice their skills. While durable and resilient, even modern combat arms need to have their sights re-verified periodically because all of the jostling and bumping and dropping means that the sights can be off, meaning the strike of the bullet may not match the point of aim. This is best practice with firearms of any description. When I go to the range, I generally take enough ammunition that I will be able to [re]zero my sights if necessary, and get in a little target practice. Since clean ballistic performance is what you’re seeking for such circumstances, consistency being the basic object and necessity of setting up one’s sights, I use standard full metal jacket rounds at the range. Unless I’m attempting to discover performance differences for a particular ammunition type, that’s ordinarily all I will shoot at the range.
There are some valid reasons to use hollow-point ammunition for some training, but the difference in cost alone would demand that one make sparse use of the more expensive types, opting instead for plain FMJ. A high quality HP round will generally be between 180-300% of the price of a comparable quality FMJ round. Until the recent price spikes, it was not uncommon to buy fifty rounds of .45 ACP in FMJ for $15, but to spend upwards of $35 for comparable HP rounds. The price difference alone dictates that at the range, one shoots primarily FMJ, because it’s foolish to use expensive ammo to shoot at targets. Never mind this reality, the leftwing media lackeys insist that the government is stockpiling billions of rounds to shoot at paper targets. According to one federal agent with whom I spoke, there’s no real reason to use anything but the less expensive Full Metal Jacket ammunition in most training. Frankly, it’s just not believable that all of this high-priced hollow point ammunition is intended for training purposes.
Let us be blunt about the numbers. Let’s consider how many rounds of ammunition the average federal agent needs to shoot annually to maintain his or her proficiency. According to my sources, it’s likely that the average federal agent/officer is expending many fewer than 1,000 rounds per year in training, most less than half that number. It may vary somewhat from agency to agency, but as a general rule, that’s a generous average number. Compare this with our soldiers, for whom Army rifle qualification involves forty shots at forty targets at varying distances, from fifty to three-hundred meters. Once a soldier has been through basic training, apart from a few practice ranges here and there, and the zeroing ranges, a soldier is going to re-qualify twice per year. That’s eighty rounds for record-fire. Even if the soldier uses an equal number in practicing, and another twelve to eighteen in re-zeroing his sights(generally fired in three-round sets,) there will be fewer than two-hundred live rounds fired per year unless the soldier is a special operator, who do many more live-fire training exercises, or is deployed in combat. I am sure a number of federal officers spend a good deal more time at the range. Still, let’s consider the math. 1.6 billion rounds to Homeland Defense is a sizable delivery, even admitting that half these rounds are to be delivered over the next five years. How many federal agents are there anyway?
In order for Federal agents to consume 1.6 billion rounds in five years of training, even at the generous rate of 1,000 rounds per year, the number of officers needed to expend this amount of ammunition would be around 320,000. The most recent figures I can find suggests that as of 2004, there were roughly 105,000 armed federal agents in all civilian agencies. That would mean that the government and its media lackeys expect us to believe the average federal agent is shooting up 3,000 rounds of ammunition per year at the range, but remember that this purchase of 1.6 billion rounds represents only the Department of Homeland Security. It doesn’t include the purchases of other federal agencies, but only the subordinate agencies of DHS, including the US Border Patrol, ICE, Secret Service and the Coast Guard, among smaller agencies.
I find that preposterous on several levels. If it were true, it’s a colossal waste of money and a bunch of trigger-happy baloney at tax-payers’ expense, but I doubt it’s true or even close to that number. If it were true, the government is expending colossal sums on firearms practice that should not be necessary, and is not necessary for our soldiers, generally speaking. If a couple-hundred rounds per year in training is good enough for our soldiers, I cannot fathom how it wouldn’t be enough for federal officers, generally speaking. 1.6 billion rounds is a fantastic number and would represent training ammunition for at least 15 years, if not longer.
Ladies and gentlemen, we’re being fed a colossal lie. There is no rational explanation for this number of rounds in the realm of training. This story has been out for some time, with little comment from the administration, until Sarah Palin mentioned it in a Facebook post last week, covered here by Gary Jackson. Jackson offers another post to debunk the various attempts by the lapdog media to explain away the purchases. The media would have you believe that this is all very harmless, and that there’s nothing sinister in this number of rounds, that while seemingly fantastic, is easily explained away by the government trying to get a good deal on ammunition, acting therefore as budget-minded guardians of the public trust.
No, this is something else, and I have two possible bits of speculation in mind. One is less diabolical, but would make perfect sense with the current administration. As Breitbart suggested, the government may be trying to induce a shortage in the market and drive up prices. We’ve certainly seen rapid price increases for ammo, even before the mad rush that commenced after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Some in this administration may be thinking that if they buy it up in huge contracts, there will be a good deal less out there for the populace to stockpile, and such ammunition that is available will come only at a premium price.
The other explanation is more sinister, and I believe entirely possible, because the condition of the economy is unraveling much faster than expected. There’s no doubt that we are being engineered to economic collapse on the basis of a fundamental monetary breakdown that will result from the endless money-printing habits and debt accrual of this president. It’s the Cloward-Piven strategy, being played out in living color. When this happens, there will be chaos in the streets and in the towns and villages of the country, and there will be a move by government to suppress the violence by any and all means necessary. They won’t discriminate much either, because if you are armed, you will be seen as a threat, even if you’re doing no more than defending yourselves. In that light, it makes a good deal of sense for the government to procure vast stores of ammunition now. It reduces the amount available to the rest of us, and it provides a ready stockpile…”in case of emergencies.” The best part from the point of view of the people in government driving all of this is that the people who they expect to “suppress” are the same people now finding it difficult to find ammunition at any price, but they’re the ones paying for it. It’s win-win-win. You don’t get the ammo, you pay for theirs, and they have a ready stockpile for use against you. If you’re a statist in the Obama administration, what’s not to love?
Besides, remember this guy:
Leader?
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s when the national audience that is conservatism gets distracted by stories that seem outrageous while ignoring stories that need their immediate attention, and a goodly dose of their activism. Yes, if it’s true that some unnamed White House official told Bob Woodward that he would regret telling a truth about Barack Obama’s negotiator as the source of the “sequestration” rather than Congress, it is an awful abuse of power and it bodes ill for the future of the freedom of the press. Horrible! Unbelievable! Now that we have this out of our system, remembering that Woodward is a leftist, which means in the long run, he’s apt to recant or later minimize the impact of the story anyway, let me offer that conservatives are paying attention to the wrong damned threat. Woodward will have no problem finding defenders, but you may, and you’re probably going to need them. Why? Unable to push gun control through directly, the Obama administration and the GOP leadership in the House are setting you up to lose your guns by a much more indirect route. As NRO’s Katrina Trinko reports, Eric Cantor is now threatening conservatives with civil war in the GOP caucus.
As Mark Levin explained, under federal law, those convicted of domestic violence lose their right to keep and bear arms. You may be thinking that this doesn’t apply to you, but I would urge you to reconsider. If the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act(S.47) passes the House, as Eric Cantor is currently twisting Republican arms to do, “unpleasant speech” will be considered a federal crime qualifying as domestic violence. Are you still more concerned about the alleged threat against Bob Woodward? You see, the Senate version of the bill now includes a number of chilling provisions that would turn mundane arguments among couples into the grounds for the loss of one’s second Amendment rights. If you think this is a joke, or that I’m going over-the-top, I would ask you to consider what sort of jurisdiction the Federal government has in domestic violence anyway. Isn’t this an issue for states and local governments? Federalism? Tenth Amendment? Conservatives? Anybody? The only reason to make this sort of law on the federal level is to use it as a vehicle for its legislative side-effects. You are going to be disarmed, and this will be the vehicle.
One might wonder why Republicans like Eric Cantor would go along with such monstrous, probably extra-constitutional legislation, but the answer remains what it has been since Boehner and Cantor took over leadership: They’re not on our side. They would be only too happy to ban weapons, but they know they’ll get clobbered in 2014 if they go that direction, so instead, they’re looking for the back door to registration and eventual confiscation. The Violence Against Women Act is the path to taking everybody’s guns, because it even changes the burden of proof effectively from the accuser to the accused. That’s right, under this act, if you are accused, it will be nearly impossible to avoid being found guilty because almost anything remotely unpleasant can be considered as “abuse” or “violence.” So much for “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Perhaps as insidiously, it adds more classes of people to the legislation, including homosexuals, transgendered, and men too, begging the question as to why it is labeled “Violence Against Women Act.” The answer is clear, however, considering this bill constitutes a continuation of the Obama strategy of denouncing Republicans’ “War Against Women.” As RedState’s Daniel Horowitz observes, it’s impossible to see where this is anything but a social engineering package. With the added implications for gun ownership, it becomes an even darker tool. Again, as Horowitz concludes:
“Yes, they should vote against this ridiculous rule, which is politically motivated. There is no reason they should be considering this bill anyway. Why is a GOP-controlled House taking up leftist legislation instead of bills to block grant Medicaid, repeal ethanol mandates, or reform the Fed? Even if they choose to bring up bad legislation, they should do so under an open amendment process.”
Ladies and gentlemen, such legislation is an abomination to our constitution, and while we may be upset about threats against Bob Woodward emanating from this despicable White House, we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the threat against Woodward is just one more small token of Obama’s lack of esteem. The Violence Against Women Act should be called the Violence Against the Constitution Act, because it offers to set aside the whole notion of “innocent until proven guilty,” as well as expanding the meaning of “violence” to include “unpleasant words.” If you value your liberty, you must act to stop this bill by calling your House members, and calling Eric Cantor’s office, though I’d suggest the former will do more good. Nevertheless, make those calls. It’s such a despicable situation that Mark Levin announced a “Levin Surge,” and to the degree I am able, let me add my outcry to his: We must stop this act, because it will be used to further destroy the constitution while setting you up for easy removal of your Second Amendment rights. The worst threat this day isn’t the one aimed at Bob Woodward, or even by Cantor against conservatives in the House Republican caucus, but instead the one aimed most squarely at you.
Note: Eric Cantor can be contacted here:
Eric Cantor
303 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2815
Fax: (202) 225-0011
In 2003, Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Rifle fame sent a notice to California saying that he would no longer sell guns to government agencies in that state because that state prohibited sales of his company’s rifles to ordinary citizens. Barrett has been an outspoken industry leader in the fight against gun control, and lately, his general tactic has been spreading through the industry, and this past week, he added the State of New York to the list of jurisdictions in which his company will no longer do business. More and more companies are deciding that as a moral concern, they can no longer do business with institutions of government that are attempting to limit the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. This is a hopeful trend, but I’m afraid there’s more to this than a list of smaller companies making such pronouncements. Few of the big players have gotten aboard, and it’s time for you to know about them. Large firearms and ammunition manufacturers continue to rake in government dollars, many of them having large government contracts. It’s time for ordinary citizens who purchase firearms to begin applying pressure by way of their wallets.
One website has actually created a form letter that can be used to send a message to firearms companies. Naturally, the large companies like Winchester, Glock, Smith and Wesson, Glock, Remington, Colt and others comprises a vast majority of firearms sales throughout the country. You can see a more complete list of the big outfits that haven’t joined in the boycott of sales to offending jurisdictions here. It’s time the big manufacturers and sellers began to get the message, and it’s imperative that we begin to deliver it. In the current mad rush among many to acquire more firearms and related items, it’s high time to begin to temper this with some discerning examination of the nature of the companies with which we do business. Large manufacturers are relying upon their name and contracts with government to sustain them against any backlash, and it’s for that reason that I would urge you to do business with companies that are openly adopting a policy to refuse to sell to governments seeking or enforcing encroachments on the Second Amendment. There is a more thorough list of those companies supporting your right to keep and bear arms as a matter of policy located at FreedomOutpost.
It’s high time that the large firearms manufacturers begin to get the message. On that basis, it is my pledge (for what little it may be worth) that I will not do business with any company not appearing on the list of those interested in upholding the rights of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. My next firearm will certainly come from somebody on this list. It’s time we smarten up and realize that by feeding the beast, we’re making it stronger, and if large(r) firearms companies need to learn from whence their bread is buttered, so be it. They need to feel the crush of a people who have realized that to do business with them is to support their own oppressors. We who assert our Second Amendment guarantees of our natural right to keep and bear arms must begin to put our money where our mouths are on this issue, if we haven’t already.
On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA I would not sell it to him. After he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns,” I asked to leave my shop. He stomped out mad.
I have made a decision to not sell to any gun to police department that are not legal for civilians. We build custom AR-15 and have sold more then a few to cops in a few states. I am not sure how this will effect us but as we grow and our name gets out there more we will not change this policy.
You see, it is the small(er) companies that understand that it is the principle of the matter that underlies all of our freedoms. It is one thing to say that one supports the Second Amendment, but it is entirely another to demonstrate the measure of that commitment by virtue of actions. I am gratified to see larger or at least more prolific companies joining the list. LaRue Tactical, from right here in Central Texas, has been among the stalwarts, and I really appreciate their bumper stickers.
We as consumers and advocates of freedom have a choice, and it’s a critical one. We can simply buy from an unlimited list of manufacturers and sellers, or we can restrict our purchase decisions to the smaller list of companies that support our liberties. Placed in this context, it becomes clear that we have only one rational choice, and that we must at long last begin to discern among our options with a sharper focus. It’s also time to bring heat on those companies that are not committed to our liberties. If you’re in the market for a firearm or accessories, it’s high time to begin looking closely at those with whom you will do business. High quality firearms are available that will fulfill your needs while also supporting your moral position. Reward those who understand the Second Amendment and who realize that their future is tied to the liberties we enjoy.
Note: In addition to the form submission available from the Firearms Policy Coalition, there is an editable letter you can customize and send to the large firearms manufacturers here, in Word format.
Helping Veterans?
It was inevitable. When I posted my concerns about how the government could use claims by veterans of PTSD and other combat-related issues, I have long suspected the Obama administration would act to curtail the Second Amendment rights of veterans on the basis of such claims. A story being reported by Jim Hoft via the Gateway Pundit reveals that the VA is already mailing out letters that are threatening some veterans with precisely that sanction. The story originates with Red Flag, in a post written by constitutional attorney Michael Connelly. At present, this seems to be aimed at people who the VA considers incompetent to handle their own affairs, because they’ve asked for help with their benefits. While I’d like to know more about the specifics of these classifications, and how that determination has been made, let it suffice for the moment to consider that the Veterans Administration’s policy in this matter is an extension of an overall move by the Obama administration to strip veterans of the right to keep and bear arms.
I have warned veterans in previous posts about how they would be targeted, and it has been suspected by wary veterans for some time that the VA first approved claims for PTSD as the future means by which to strip rights from veterans, but few took notice. We already know that the Department of Homeland Security headed by Janet Napolitano considers veterans a threat, and viewed through the lens of leftist revolutionaries, it’s perfectly understandable. Veterans are a generally patriotic group who had sworn an oath to the US Constitution, so that their loyalties ought generally to be in favor of our republican form of government. They will be viewed necessarily as potential counter-revolutionaries if the left succeeds in pushing their “fundamental transformation” to its completion. Skilled in arms, and generally understanding at least rudimentary guerrilla tactics, US Military veterans comprise a significant potential danger to leftist designs.
In 2010, the Veterans Administration began approving claims for PTSD more easily than in previous years. This was not accidental. By making claims of PTSD easier, the VA created a new open door for borderline claims that enable more veterans to find an easier path to compensation. That is the enticement, and it worked because more veterans than ever have used the new rules to file such claims and derive compensation. The problem is that the PTSD classification carries with it the immediate potential of such judgments as are being made about veterans’ basic competence. On that basis, to consider a veteran incompetent to handle his or her own affairs, and thus strip them of the right to keep and bear arms is but a short step. As previously stated on this site, I would never discourage any veteran from seeking help actually needed, but I would caution all those who would consider making a claim for PTSD to think long and hard about what they may be giving up.
Consider the ease with which the VA will make this argument: Persons suffering with PTSD can be volatile and sometimes unstable or violent. Sometimes, they are suicidal. In any of these cases, one would not ordinarily entertain the notion of permitting such persons to own firearms, irrespective of their service records. Making the leap to declaring these persons “incompetent” on the basis of their inability to pursue the VA processes (to the extent they ask for help) is an easy method by which to get veterans classified in this way. A determination of incompetence is the death knell of one’s Second Amendment rights. Veterans pursuing claims of PTSD (or anything else) with the VA should think long and hard about the consequences because while we certainly do not want veterans to go without the assistance they need, it would be awful to awake and find that the VA is painting with an overly broad brush and subjecting most veterans to this kind of classification.
Consider the cases involving veterans with the PTSD classification who have committed acts of violence even after returning to civilian life. How difficult will it be to sell to the public that their veterans are dangerous time-bombs waiting to explode? Nobody in the Obama administration will think even twice about characterizing veterans in this way, which is why Napolitano did not issue an apology for classifying veterans as potential terrorists until after extended heavy criticism. Finding a way to control veterans’ right to keep and bear arms has long been an object of the radical left. As evidenced by the sort of letters now being received by numerous veterans, calling into question their competence to lead their own lives, including their right to possess firearms, it must be understood that the left wants to disarm as many veterans as possible.
More, initially, they will use test cases to see how far they can press the matter, and I expect that the first round of recipients of such letters represent the testing of this procedure. They will begin with veterans who have more obvious cases and who may be incompetent in some respect, with a few more questionable cases thrown in to test the limits. They will make the initial cases based on the public danger aspects, and once they succeed in making the procedure appear perfectly rational and sensible, they will begin processing wider and wider groups of veterans in the same manner. The first run through this procedure will be mostly actual cases of concern, because the early object of this will be to legitimize and normalize the process. Once it has become perfectly normal to strip a handful of veterans with real problems of their rights, the process will be widened to include more and more veterans, until a soldier who once stubbed his toe on a parade field will be subject to this classification.
To my brothers and sisters who have served, I urge caution. To those currently serving, I want you to beware of what seem to be easier paths to compensation. If you need help, get it. If you can live without it, avoid it. Know that contrary to what you have been told, the Veterans Administration is not necessarily your friend. As an arm of government, the administration of which is now dominated by leftists, the VA is an adjunct of their policy preferences, and those preferences include particularly the disarming of America, especially its veterans. There is no organization on Earth better positioned to accomplish that goal with less muss and fuss than the VA, and as is evidenced by the case brought before us by Jim Hoft and Michael Connelly, they intend to use it to maximum effect.
Conservatives should not be swayed by theatrics. whether they are born in the bowels of a Rove operation, or inside the Obama administration. Open collusion with Republicans on “comprehensive immigration reform” isn’t necessary, and in fact, it’s not desirable. Obama understands that to get Sen. Marco Rubio’s proposal through the Senate, and also the House, it will be a matter of positioning. It’s not as though the two proposals are substantially different, but that conservatives around the country will be treated to the few ways in which they are dissimilar as the critical differences that have caused Senator Rubio to come out and call the President’s leaked proposal “dead on arrival.” If you ever fall for the belief that there’s no bipartisanship in Washington DC, think again, because the two parties are quite capable of coordinating, not for the good of the American people, but strictly against them.
According to Charles Krauthammer, the only substantive difference between the proposals is when the alleged “enforcement” provisions kick in, but the truth is that enforcement will never arrive if either is enacted. You’re being set up, and that’s all there really is to that. These proposals are simple reiterations of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, when Ronald Reagan was deceived by pro-amnesty sorts in his own party. Just as with that Act, either of these two proposals will provide for a virtual Day One legalization of illegals already in the US. It’s made cosmetically more acceptable by pretending the legalization consists of two steps, but the fact remains that a legal status to remain in the country is conferred on the first day. There will be no enforcement of any law against the scoff-laws already in the country, with only a legislative head-fake in that direction.
If conservatives were fully aware of the details of Senator Rubio’s bill, they would flee from him as though from a leper colony, but the whole point of the Obama administration’s leak of their own plan is to present one against which conservatives can rally, so that Rubio’s will be seen as the more conservative bill. It’s funny to hear news analysts contend that Obama getting into the middle of this is a mistake because he’s such a polarizing figure, and that his involvement will poison the well of “good faith efforts” being made by Rubio and others. That too is a misdirection, and a false narrative you’re supposed to swallow, hook, line and sinker. If either of these plans makes it through, Washington DC and the Democrats win, as well as a handful of GOP establishment types.
You see, the thinking in Washington DC goes that anytime they wish to put something over on us, they must make a big show of the fight between them, so that we’re tricked into believing every one involved made their best efforts, and that whatever the result, somebody was fighting the good fight on our behalf. Nonsense! In fact, in Washington DC, the only thing that happens to the benefit of your best interests is when the Congress goes out on recess, and the President takes off for some foreign destination, because these are the only times they may not be acting from a legal footing to harm you.
Senator Rubio’s proposal is a sham and a lie because of the provisions that create an amnesty, but they intend to give us a good show and stuff it down our throats. If Rubio’s plan passes rhe Senate and the House, going on to be signed into law by the President, you can bet he will happily sign it. Much like the maneuvering over the debt ceiling in 2011, the deal has been done for some time, and all that remains is to put it over on you in such a way as to prevent conservatives from discovering that they have been had. Be prepared for some last-minute wrangling that will lead to the ultimate bait-and-switch in which Obama’s plan winds up being the one to go forward, though in real terms, it makes damnably little difference.
Obama’s slightly more radical plan is intended to make Rubio’s plan more palatable. There will be much apparent gnashing of teeth, as Republicans attack the President’s proposal, but in the end, they will be duped into supporting Rubio’s bill as the lesser among evils. If you think that’s a stretch, ask yourself how many times the opaque Obama administration has ever leaked anything to its actual detriment. How frequently does the media report on leaks detrimental to the Obama administration’s agenda? Isn’t it stunning that the typically flat-footed Republicans had in place a ready response in the person of their State of the Union responder whose big issue is currently “comprehensive immigration reform?”
If we are to believe these are coincidences, and that Marco Rubio wasn’t waiting for the leaked story he knew would come, I think we may have problems with what might be termed “excess gullibility.” In short, we’d need to be suckers. Just as with the debt ceiling, and the deficit, it’s understood in Washington DC that the Republicans alone cannot pass the bill, so that in order to get something in front of the President, a piece of legislation will need bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. Washington DC intends to win this round, and they’ll play upon the partisan reflexes of the grass roots, when the truth of the matter is that both plans are abominable. Conservatives should begin assailing both plans now, focusing their efforts on House members as well as Senators. The real fight will be in the House, if there’s to be a fight at all, and only the House stands even a slim chance of stopping this. They’re doing it to us again, but this time, we have no excuses to pretend we hadn’t seen it coming.
Who?
It’s time for some blunt talk among conservatives. The fact is that we’re losing the country, and in one election after another, we continue to seek out a conservative savior who will put things right. The problems with this approach are extensive, inasmuch as we assume we can find one person who will so perfectly embody conservatism that we can stop worrying about the direction of the country. It may be understandable, given the dire condition of our economy, the wreckage of our culture, and the endless parade of disappointments to which we conservatives have been witness, but I’ve begun to think it’s largely our own fault. We want to go on about our lives and mostly leave the running of the country to some honorable man or woman who will do what is right without further involvement from us, but that’s simply not going to happen. The truth is that we conservatives have become too obsessed with a savior and too impatient to build the kind of movement that would make one possible but ultimately unnecessary. If you think I’m overstating the attachment among conservatives to this notion, I offer into evidence the GOP’s own 2012 savior trap.
Consider Michelle Bachmann’s entry into the 2011 primary scene. Popular with some of the Tea Party wing, for a time, she did well, but then she made a few verbal missteps just as Rick Perry entered the scene. In a matter of days, Bachmann plummeted in the polls, and Perry’s elevator began rising toward the top. While she stuck around quite a long while, she never recovered from that point forward. It didn’t take long, perhaps the span of a month or so, and Perry stumbled badly in a couple of debates, and his numbers tanked badly. Sensing the end, and realizing Perry was not their savior after all, conservatives held a clearance sale and abandoned him, leaving him to spend the next couple of months in a sliding finale ending with his return to Texas and his endorsement of Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry would not be the conservatives’ savior any more than Bachmann had been.
At about this time, both Chris Christie(who broke Ann Coulter’s heart) and Sarah Palin(who broke many more, mine included) announced in rapid succession that they would not join the fray. Two more potential conservative saviors (although calling Christie a “conservative” is admittedly a stretch) went by the wayside as Perry’s meteoric rise was matched only by his apocalyptic fall from polling grace. The Texan didn’t fulfill conservatives’ search for a savior, so the quest moved on to its next failure.
Enter Herman Cain. Remember him and his “9-9-9?” Who could possibly forget? I enjoyed Cain’s plain-spoken rhetoric, and his ability to speak in sensible albeit general terms to a set of issues that were important to conservatives across the board. Then something happened, and some allegations were brought forward by all the usual suspects, and before he could shout “9-9-9″ one more time, Herman Cain was gone, knocked out from a rapidly rising lead by the false hope that he could be the next conservative savior. He was not.
Then came the circumstance of Newt Gingrich’s double rise and double-dip. He came forward and began to create momentum the first time as Herman Cain began to falter. The two shared a stage at the Woodlands near Houston for a one-on-one debate, and the one thing it made plain was that Cain was out of his depth, nice man though he seemed to be. Gingrich owned the stage in terms of thoughtful policy ideas, and his command of the issues outgunned Mr. Cain substantially. Suddenly, conservatives who had dismissed him earlier on in the season began to take note. He was making the case, and he was making it well, and many people dreamed happily of Gingrich facing Obama in debates. Gingrich came under hammering attacks in early December.
Then there was the first brief double love-affair with Rick Santorum, who seemed to attract social conservatives who felt put-off by some things in the former Speaker’s personal history, and the two dueled back and forth, but Gingrich managed to come back on top. By the middle of January of 2012, with the South Carolina primary victory, Gingrich had debate performances that put him clearly atop the heap. Then came the accusations about him, and one flat debate performance, and though he battled back and forth with Mitt Romney, Florida’s primary was won by the former Massachusetts Governor. Santorum also managed to capitalize on Gingrich’s fall, but it was going to be a two-horse race, and neither of them would be Newt Gingrich. Conservatives dismounted and went on to find their next ride.
After Gingrich, Santorum made a valiant effort, trying all he could to upset the Romney apple-cart, but by then, too many conservatives had hopped from one horse to the next, and Santorum just wasn’t going to do. Conservatives were simply too deeply divided, and thus conquered, so that in the end, Santorum too went down when the money wouldn’t come and the Romney machine gathered steam. The last conservative savior then faltered and went by the wayside, or so we thought.
At long last came Mitt Romney, and while some hoped for something dramatic at the convention, most had by now accepted the fate of the GOP: The Republican party would put Mitt Romney forward to face Barack Obama and pretend to themselves that he had been a conservative all along. We all know how that came out, and there’s no point in re-hashing it, save to say that we conservatives permitted ourselves to go off in search of a savior who never arrived. By the morning of November 7th, we all knew the miserable failure, but we weren’t finished quite yet.
Three months later, we have now the spectacle of Sean Hannity posing the question to Dr. Benjamin Carson about the possibility of his presidential ambitions. As ever, and hot on the trail of anybody who might save us, somehow, a number of conservatives departed on the path toward seeking a Carson candidacy. As I detailed earlier, there are any number of reasons to be a bit more cautious about how we will throw our political support around. Dr. Carson may be a skilled physician, and he may run an excellent foundation, but that’s hardly a reason to consider him for the presidency, particularly in lieu of more thorough examination.
So it is that conservatives left 2012 behind, and with it, an understanding of the causes of their recent disappointments. Already, there is a slate of possible or potential candidates for 2016, but while conservatives run headlong into another round of the savior trap, Obama and his cronies are doing real damage to the country. Conservatives seem fixated on the notion that they can somehow elevate one person to the presidency who will undo all of Obama’s damage, but I must insist that this is not the case. Absent a conservative majority in the House and Senate, Obama’s will be done, come Hell or high water. As one examines the array of Republicans already being batted around as potential presidential candidates in 2016, one can see the same scenario arising, and it ought to jog some conservative memories of 2011-12, and with them, some caution.
I’m not suggesting that conservatives should ignore 2016, but the truth is that we have a good deal of work to do before we get on to that campaign. Besides, if conservatives are to find such a leader, it will likely come in the heat of the battle of the next two years, when we will begin to form a sense of who is able and willing to lead a conservative movement. In 2010, one conservative voice lent to the national discourse in a significant way, a voice that had a strong influence over the outcome, helping conservatives send many new members to the House. She stayed out of the nomination fight in 2012, but without her leadership in 2010, making the campaign stops, and pressing the issues with voters, I doubt we would have had the beltway-blasting success of taking back the House.
As conservatives begin again to seek out another savior, I wonder how many of them are paying attention to the lady who had been in front of them all along. Let us be clear about how important Sarah Palin’s influence had been in that election season, particularly before we go off in search of another would-be savior. Whether she will seek the presidency at some point in the future is anybody’s guess, but I would keep an eye on Wasilla, if not for a candidacy, then at least for a bold leader who helped us to retake the House in 2010. In 2012, voters agreed with her endorsements in nearly seventy percent of those races in which she offered one, suggesting that if somebody in the greater universe that is conservatism understands the electorate, it may well be Governor Palin. More importantly, however, she has exhibited the ability to lead on issues and rouse the base while making a strong stand in defense of the republic.
Whomever we may choose to carry our banner in 2016, I hope we are a good deal more persistent than we had been in 2011-2012, a season in which conservatives leaped from one horse to the next with little hesitation. It’s more important than ever to identify a candidate who can lead, but leadership will be about more than great speeches or rousing debate performances. A goodly portion of our attention must be aimed at identifying those who will step up to lead now, as we embark on four more years of the Obama agenda. Who will rise to oppose him? Who will push hard in the midterms of 2014? Who will rally conservatives? Who will be able to put a shattered party together again, if it can be put together again at all? With whom will conservatives stand in unwavering support? These questions may well be answered in the next two or three years if we have the discernment to recognize it.
It is time that conservatives re-think this entire savior mentality. No fruit was borne by that tree in 2012, and I doubt the outcome will be different in 2016 if that is our sole focus. We must build conservatism not by electing a President first, and then hoping wistfully to achieve success, but instead by building a movement that is positioned to elect a President. Short-cutting our way to electoral victory cannot and will not work, as evidenced by the miserable results of 2012. When one places the question in this context, it is true that it exposes the daunting enormity of the task before us, but at least it offers an honest view of the fight we have ahead if we are to salvage the republic. Wild-eyed but temporary enthusiasm for one candidate or another will not rescue the country, but building a movement can. At long last, we must stop seeking the one person who alone can save the country, recognizing instead that an able leader can only arise when by our own tireless efforts, we’ve laid the groundwork and made the country capable of salvation.
Dr. Benjamin Carson
Last week, I brought you a video from the National Prayer Breakfast speech of Dr. Benjamin Carson. His words were heartening in many respects, and many in conservative media leaped at the notion of his political potential as a candidate. I thought at the time that it was a bit of a fad, and I was therefore surprised to see Hannity run a full hour-long show on FoxNews devoted to talking with Dr. Carson. (You can see the full video, here in parts 1 and 2.) I am glad Hannity had him on because my own caution seemed justified by something Dr. Carson said. As I listened to him address the question of health insurance, it struck me as odd that he sees an inherent conflict of interests between an insurance company seeking to make a profit and its customers seeking health coverage. When I hear such things said, I often dismiss them as the vapid utterances of mindless politicians, but since Dr. Carson has been receiving so much press, including on this site, it’s time to address the matter. What Dr. Carson the practitioner of health-care seems to think about insurance is a common misconception, and it offers one more reason why conservatives must be cautious in their choices of leaders.
Dr. Carson said on Hannity’s show that there exists an inherent conflict of interests between health insurance companies and their insured clients. This is not true. The actual conflict begins a good deal sooner in the process, and as I think you will see, exposes a wider misunderstanding of the problem. Ask yourself this: Who are the majority of purchasers of health insurance? If you said “individuals,” you’re wrong by a mile. The truth is that the largest purchasers of health insurance are institutions, including the Federal and states’ governments, and corporations. The problem here is that the people who consume the service are not the people directly paying for it. Any time you break the connection between the end user and the provider of goods and services, you effectively destroy likewise the natural market signaling that provides feedback in both directions.
As an example, imagine you are a smoker looking for health insurance. If you were approaching insurance companies directly, they would undoubtedly quote you a price many times higher than the one they propose to a non-smoker. Obese? Same thing. This would mean that as a matter of natural market forces, you would either amend your behaviors and condition, or you would bear the burden of higher prices. Insurers would naturally consider everything about you in determining what they would charge for a policy, but perhaps more importantly, you would be free to shop for insurance among many providers. This would act as a restraint upon overcharging, and would also cause them to offer special discounts if you lived an exceedingly healthy lifestyle. In short, personal responsibility would have a good deal to do with how much you pay for health insurance, as it should in a free market. At the same time, a particular company’s profitability would hinge on making consumers happy with their coverages.
What many people ignore is that if one had to pay cash for the whole bill each time one became ill, or injured, most of us would go untreated indefinitely, because few of us have the resources to pay cash for extensive or invasive health-care procedures. Dr. Carson talks a good deal about Health Savings Accounts, but such plans are more useful for mundane purposes of a less critical nature than their utility in life-threatening circumstances. While I support Health Savings Accounts, I believe insurance is a necessary hedge against calamities. If we change our focus from health-care insurance for ongoing maintenance, to a paradigm in which what we insure against are catastrophic circumstances, while letting things like HSAs pick up the slack for ordinary health maintenance, in a market environment, one would see the market begin to perform in a natural fashion. Unfortunately, this means that people would need to shop for insurance like they do any other commodity, and seek out the best deals on their ordinary health maintenance and preventative care, and most Americans have become far too complacent about such matters, expecting it all to be automatic.
The truth of the matter is that if Americans want health-care to improve markedly in the United States, while restraining the growth in costs, without resorting to some sort of death-panel or other government-mandated rationing mechanism, there is a mechanism, however imperfect: The free market. Unfortunately, since the advent of Medicaid and Medicare, and even widespread employer-purchased health benefits(prompted by government wage and price controls,) we haven’t had a free market for health-care in the United States, never mind health insurance. The government is now the largest consumer of health-care services in the country as a direct payer, by many times over, and yet there is still an illusion held by many who receive health-care services paid for or otherwise subsidized through government payments that they are in control of their health-care. They’re not.
If Dr. Carson’s criticism of corporate health insurance providers were true, then it must be even more thoroughly the case that no institution more than government would wish to avoid costs by denying care. Do you need evidence? Consider Paul Krugman, longtime leftist economic propagandist and one-note statist, quoted as follows in a piece at Western Journalism:
“We’re going to need more revenue…it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well…And we’re also going to…have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits…death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.” -Paul Krugman
What Krugman is saying is entirely true, but only if government becomes the source and payer for health-care, because otherwise, the free market would regulate prices in the same manner it does for virtually everything else. Some will object, insisting that “health-care is different,” just as they have insisted that every other human need is different, from food to housing to education to Internet service to cellular phones. All of these claims are equally wrong, and equally immoral. These claims all begin by demanding that some basic human needs be met, and all of them end with a gun to tax-payers’ heads. All of them.
I admire a number of positions taken by Dr. Carson, and I have no objections whatever about his participation in the public policy debate, but at some point, if he wishes to keep my attention, he will be required to offer more than platitudes and generalities about Health Savings Accounts. He devoted several lines of rhetoric to the attack of ideologues, but I am always cautious when people attack broad sets of philosophically bound principles in vague terms. I am curious to hear more from Dr. Carson, but I hope there will be a good deal more specificity. Talk of presidential runs and other such notions are fanciful and premature at best, and while I’ve heard a number of truncated statements about various topics from Dr. Carson, what I’ve not heard is a guiding philosophy that informs his opinions. Absent that, I have no grounds upon which to base any opinion of his suitability to any office, much less his qualifications to be President of the United States, and I find it unseemly that Hannity and others would talk of Dr. Carson in presidential terms given that we know so little about his positions. It may turn out that Dr. Carson is wonderful in all respects, but we already have a President who sailed into office through the propagation of vague, nice-sounding generalities, and I do not believe we can afford another.
Enough said about that.
Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick:
I have read the announcement made by Magpul Industries on February 15th via Facebook, and I wish to discuss it with you further. I realize that you do not wish to leave the state of Colorado, and that if the state enacts laws making your products illegal for purchase by customers in your state, as a matter of moral and philosophical consistency, your hand will have been forced, and that you will uproot your company and move it to another state more amenable to your enterprise. This is a commendable stance, and you are to be credited for taking it, as far too many people in business see only dollar signs but not the underlying principles that support their existence. I hope you are not forced to move Magpul, but if you find that you must, I’d like to offer you a new home where your company and its purpose are welcome.
Recently, my Governor went on a tour of California trying to drum up businesses to move to the Lone Star State, and while it seems he failed to find any takers, let me suggest to you that it is because he was looking in the wrong place. The problem with his approach was that he looked in a particular geographic location, but I think if Governor Perry had wanted more success, he would have looked to business owners who had arrived in a philosophical place, much like the one in which it seems you have arrived. Amoral and immoral lawmakers of the sort who would impose such legislation on the people of Colorado(or any state) help to create an environment in which men and women of good will are unable to continue in good conscience in their present circumstance. If such a condition arises anywhere, it constitutes the precise destination to which our Governor(or any Governor) should turn to look for businesses to bring to their states.
On that basis, let me make you an offer your conscience may find difficult to refuse. If the laws of Colorado are changed so as to make it unsuitable for Magpul Industries, I would very much like to see your company relocate to our state. More, I would suggest to you that within the vast expanses of Texas, there are particular places that would suit your company more than others, and that would offer the moral climate in which your operation would likely feel at home. Specifically, I would offer you Central Texas, and most specifically, Bell County. Bell County is home to Fort Hood, the U.S. Army post that is the home of III Corps, and it offers a variety of advantages to your operation should you be compelled to choose out of sad necessity to relocate your company.
Our largest two cities are Killeen and Temple, respectively, and our County seat is Belton. Temple and Belton are located directly on the I-35 corridor, while Killeen and Harker Heights, further west in the county, have access to I-35 via US-190, an improved four-lane, divided highway. Temple is home to a number of companies large and small, and it also feature Scott&White Hospital, as well as a Veterans’ Administration hospital both of which serve this region. Our climate is necessarily warm, but there are few work stoppages due to winter weather, and we are generally far enough inland from the coast that direct impact from hurricanes is minimized.
More importantly to your operation, we have many qualified prospective employees, many of them veterans skilled in the use of products you manufacture. Because we are home to Fort Hood, we have many veterans who decide to settle here(as I did more than two decades ago,) because Texas is a place of liberty and opportunity. More, Central Texas is a place that has a deep and abiding understanding of the moral purpose of self-defense, and its residents are quite aware of all the reasons your products are vitally important to a free people. So many of our residents having served in the Army, or having had loved ones who served, there is a reverence in our community for the Constitution, and for all it implies about limited government.
Taxation is relatively low here, and you would find a locale happy to embrace your business. Texas has fared better than many states under our current economic conditions, but as you are doubtless aware, no place has been entirely immune to the economic predations of big government except perhaps Washington DC. Due to this grim reality, there exists here no small number of potential employees who have skills of the sort for which you would be looking should relocation become necessary. We have shipping facilities and probably the sort of facilities you would need in order to set up operations here, and I offer you also this: Texas must be among the larger of your company’s customer states, so that a large share of the products you manufacture would actually be purchased and used by the people in whose state your company would then reside.
Having now shamelessly offered you my home state, and indeed my adopted home county as a new locale for your operations, let me explain to you that it is precisely because I am proud of our little slice of a big state that makes me certain about its inherent suitability to your enterprise. While you go about the business of giving your customers an “unfair advantage,” I would assert that Central Texas would provide your company a similar competitive advantage in a market segment full of innovators with whom you compete for business. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of location, but it is similarly difficult to overstate the importance of a welcoming community that will embrace a company’s philosophy and purpose. I realize that that such a decision would not be taken lightly, so please permit me also to state for the record that I understand a good deal about the torturous struggle you are enduring that would lead you to consider relocating your company.
I realize that you will have been beset by thousands or millions of such offers in the wake of your company’s announcement. I also realize that relocating is in fact the last thing on Earth you would choose, but for the circumstances that may arise now, well beyond your control. It is easy for those of us who would be the beneficiary of your prospective relocation to offer our respective areas, but I realize that it is much more a matter of heart-rending consideration for you, who must calculate the costs not only of moving a business entity, but of the dislocation and hardship that would attend those who work for you now, who might well not be able to relocate with you. I understand what it is to have one’s company undermined by stupid laws, and to have one’s dreams shattered by bureaucrats. I realize that much more is at stake here than simply picking up and moving a company. You would be moving the site of your great aspirations at the point of lawmakers’ pens.
The truth is that I hope sincerely that your fight in Colorado for rational law is victorious, and that you are able to overwhelm the proponents of bad law so that Colorado can remain the home of Magpul Industries. I also understand why you are making your stand, and why the demands of logical consistency will demand that you leave Colorado, should the legislature and Governor of your state act with such tempestuous reflexes against objects that are no more the source of violence than a pillow used to suffocate a sleeping victim. Objects don’t commit murder. Lawfully manufactured and distributed products do not commit murder. Only people commit crimes. Those politicians who use objects or products as surrogates for their alleged anger against criminals instead create a whole new class of victims, comprised of legally disarmed people who have not the ability to oppose in force the attackers who do not abide by the very laws that restrain their victims. I believe we should consider such politicians criminals by proxy.
I wish you well, both in your business, and in your life’s pursuits, and also to all of your employees who have with you provided so many Americans such excellent products. You should be proud of the company you have built, and all the things you have made that continue to revolutionize your market niche. I know that wherever you and your company land, you will continue to be leaders in innovation and reliability, and I want to thank you in advance for all you will yet do, not only for your customers, but on behalf of a people who understand the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms, and why taking a stand in favor of that right is essential not only to the future of your company, but indeed, the entire country.
Best Wishes,
Mark America
Proud Texan and Owner of several Magpul Products
Will We Take Another Beating?
We ought to become acquainted with how we conservatives must appear to GOP establishment politicians, analysts and strategists. At every instance of their serial abuses of the grass-roots, conservatives “go wobbly” and buckle, ultimately returning to the fold. They know how to pull at our heartstrings and seize on our desperation in order to get us to back down from our outraged, uppity high horses. They play the loyalty card, the race card, the poverty card, and anything else they can contrive in order to convince us to return their waiting arms in order to comply with their wishes, but it’s the whip they hold to which we ought pay more attention. They don’t see us as equals, but as a herd of inferiors to be managed, and in order to do so, sometimes they recognize the need to grovel a little. It should sound familiar to conservatives any time they listen to the latest establishment attempts at re-framing their disgusting behavior into something born of the “best intentions.” Just like serial domestic abusers, the establishment always make a rationalized, dishonest appeal in order to avoid charges of abuse, and just like the real victims of domestic abuse, we conservatives keep going back when they offer their excuses:
“I didn’t mean any offense. I didn’t want to hurt you. It was all just one big confused misunderstanding. I’m sorry you took my actions as a sign that I meant you harm. Nothing could be further from the truth. Can’t we just get along and make it all better? We can seek counseling. I’ll enroll in AA! You know I really love you, and I only do these things because I love and need you so much. I didn’t want you to make the choices you did because I only wanted to protect you[from yourself.] Baby, this will never, ever happen again.”
Of course, that’s what they say, but it’s not what they mean. For example, Karl Rove is trying to undermine Iowa Congressman Steve King in any attempt to run for Senate in the next election cycle, and he’s happy to point to dishonest statistics about King’s re-election campaign in 2012. What Rove won’t tell you is that King’s re-election bid was as narrow as it had been because Democrats made his district a priority, dumping millions of dollars of anti-King advertising into the district. As Mark Levin pointed out during the second hour of his Friday show, Rove wasn’t satisfied with mere distortion when availing himself of the podium of Sean Hannity’s radio show. Instead, he resorted to outright lies. Here’s audio from Dr. Levin’s show:
Alternative content
This process by which the establishment wing of the GOP attacks grass roots targets should seem familiar to readers. It should also sound familiar to anybody who has ever worked in law enforcement, social services, or even listened to a few tapes of 9-1-1 calls. Millions of women and not a few men have lived through the self-imposed nightmare of returning again and again to an abusive spouse(or significant other) in order to retain some semblance of normalcy and predictability in their lives. They just want the beatings to stop. They just want it to end, but so desperate to hold onto some part of their lives, they frequently return for another dose, often ending in tragedy. After all, haven’t we conservatives behaved with freakish precision like sufferers of what had been known formerly as “battered wife syndrome?” Do you doubt me? Imagine Karl Rove in a plain-white sleeveless undershirt. You get the picture.
Many people ask the obvious question about battered spouses: “Why do they keep going back?” If you’re a member of the Republican party, but also a conservative in principle and philosophy who has become annoyed or offended by the direction of the GOP, it’s time for you to ask that same question of yourself. Some will say I have been too crass in posing such an analogy, but I think it’s fitting because it seems to me that when it comes down to the point at which rational people would flee for the sake of self-preservation, too often, we stop and return to the scene of the abuse, knowing what must be coming eventually, despite all the promises of reformation. We’ve heard the rationalizations:
“It’s better now. Fault has been admitted, and we’re seeking counseling, and I’m treated much better now.”
All of these are preludes to the real confession of helplessness that follows:
“Besides, what else was I going to do? Leave? Where would I go? What would I do? Better to stay put.”
With respect to the Republican Party and its miserable, corrupt establishment, who among conservatives hasn’t contemplated some version of these notions in order to trick themselves into holding the nose and walking back in to the booth to pull the lever for the GOP’s preferred candidates? Right. Me. You. Virtually all conservatives have gone through this one or more or even dozens of times, and each time, we knew with virtual certainty what would be coming: Another attack by the establishment on the grass-roots, or another surrender by party leadership to the leftist agenda would soon be in the offing. Once the electoral objectives are met for the cycle, we and our issues are discarded and off we go with the next Republican-led effort at big government statism, and further support of a purely leftist agenda. It happens so often that we cringe now when a Republican hand is raised, expecting it to smash down on us as it has done so many times before.
Many were outraged by the actions of the GOP establishment in 2011-12, but in the end, how many of us did their bidding anyway? We keep coming back. Even a dog learns that if you recall him, only to bash his nose with a rolled-up paper, approaching you is something to be done at his peril. Eventually, the dog won’t come back at all, and no amount of false praise or treats will make him return when called because he has learned recall is the prelude to another beating. Are we conservatives not more able to recognize our antagonists than are dogs? Do we not possess the requisite self-esteem to leave?
What we have done is to reinforce the behavior of our batterers. It’s gotten so bad that fleeing for a night or a week to the political battering victims’ shelter of the blogosphere or talk radio to voice our displeasure will no longer be enough. It’s time finally to press charges and stand up for ourselves and go, never to return. Yes, there will be hard times as a result, but the long-run dangers of staying are worse, and at some point, for people who claim to be concerned with the welfare of their children, shouldn’t we correct the environment in which they will be growing?
I say “we must go.” Otherwise, how many black eyes will we endure? How many betrayals? How much infidelity must we accept? We might claim that we had no choice but to stay, or to return, but after the tenth 9-1-1 call to Rush Limbaugh, our whining begins to lose its impact. Do you think the GOP establishment hasn’t noticed our regular return to the fold, irrespective of what they do to us next? We fall for their sweetened tone because we want to, and because it’s harder to strike out on our own than to come back and live in terror of our next beating at their hands. It’s time to recognize that it is our fear of the uncertainty that fuels our repeated returns, but also that in so doing, what we are guaranteeing instead is a certain result that will only grow worse. We must ask instead how much we value such predictability, if it amounts only to the certainty of our next beating. It’s time for conservatives to reject the continued abuse at the hands of their tormentors in the Republican establishment. It’s time to break the cycle.
Note: It’s not my intention to minimize domestic abuse, but instead to demonstrate how conservatives have responded to their abusers in the same way many victims of real domestic abuse react to their plights. I don’t intend to compare the horrors inflicted on such victims with the political victimization that goes on the Republican party, except as an illustration of how dependent conservatives have become on their abusers. The immediate results of the political context I’m discussing in no way measure up to the terror under which victims of domestic violence live, but I will point out that in terms of the country and its future, the dire consequences of permitting the abuse of the GOP establishment to continue will be no less severe on a national basis.
Dr. Benjamin Carson appeared on Friday night on Sean Hannity’s show to discuss the reaction to his speech. Rather than talk about Hannity’s show, I’d rather you watch his speech so that you might understand why Dr. Carson has gotten such a positive reaction to his speech. You may also quickly realize why at certain points, President Obama seems to have become annoyed and uncomfortable in his seat, particularly once Dr. Carson began to speak about America’s resemblance to Rome. Obama’s reaction to Dr. Carson’s views on taxes and health savings accounts didn’t seem to help the President feel at ease.
