Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Do We Want a King or a Constitution?

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” — George Washington (1796)

On last Thursday night President Obama announced his plans for issuing an Executive Order (he called it an Executive Memo) that would halt the deportation of roughly 5 million illegal immigrants and grant them Social Security cards and work permits. In essence this is amnesty.

All but the most dedicated progressive-liberal spinners and so-call Democratic Strategists realize that what Obama is doing is in total violation of the Constitution and is a slap in the face of our Founders’ construction of the balance of powers in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8.4 of the Constitution clearly states: The Congress shall have power to “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

As Constitutional lecturer Obama has to know this. If he does not then his resume is a fraud. If he does he is willfully violating his oath of office when he stated; “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) This could be considered legal grounds for impeachment.

Barack Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” but a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s “über presidency,” his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond “to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration,” Turley responded, “This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers.”

In July, Turley gave congressional testimony concerning Obama’s abuse of executive orders: “When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

He continued:

“Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. The president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. … What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I think the framers would be horrified. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.”

Turley reiterated this week:

“[Obama has] become a government of one. It’s becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election, to defy the will of Congress yet again. What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers to protect Liberty, to keep any branch from assuming so much authority that they become a threat to Liberty. The Democrats are creating something very, very dangerous. They’re creating a president who can go it alone – the very danger that are framers sought to avoid in our Constitution. I hope he does not get away with it.”

On Thursday night Obama said in his address:

“Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

He’s talking about roughly 5 million people not the 186 thousand Reagan gave amnesty to in 1986 with the full support of Congress. All Presidents do not take this unilateral, unconstitutional action.

For six years President Obama has failed to lead on any meaningful9e5d02b8-529d-47e5-91bc-b69433b58a67 immigration reform. Now, following a sweeping Republican victory on Election Day and just over a month before a new Republican Senate majority will take over, President Obama has announced a blatantly unconstitutional move to grant amnesty to at least 5 million illegal immigrants by executive order.

For years, President Obama has chastised Republicans, used immigrants as props for political purposes, and time and again deflected responsibility from his own party’s failure to act on immigration reform. Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama’s presidency, Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House -- yet he failed to pass immigration reform.

So why the rush to grant amnesty now?

President Obama knows that in January the new Republican House and Senate plan to take action on a long term solution to our nation’s immigration problem. The plan would likely include, but not be limited to, immediately securing our southern border, developing an effective legal immigration system that meets the needs of our nation’s employers, and repealing Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which led to the humanitarian crisis at the border earlier this year.

After six years of Democrats’ inaction, President Obama doesn’t want Republicans to get even an ounce of credit for finally addressing our nation’s broken immigration system. But further, by granting mass amnesty during the lame duck right before members go home for Thanksgiving, President Obama is setting a divisive tone for the immigration battle, effectively poisoning the well for Republican-led bipartisan reform next year. This is an effort by the White House to sabotage the best shot at a long-term immigration solution since this president took office -- and all to make sure Republicans don’t receive credit.

Simply put, President Obama’s immigration strategy is all about politics and getting credit rather than about families and people. This is not what the American people deserve.

President Obama’s DACA gave us a glimpse into the problems that will arise from granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. DACA led to a mass influx of illegal immigrant children crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. who came believing they would likely be able to stay.

Between October 2013 and July 2014 more than 63,000 unaccompanied children were caught at the border. Many others tragically never made it. These children risked exploitation, kidnapping, abuse at the hands of coyotes, and even their lives to make the dangerous trek hundreds of miles through the desert terrain.

The president’s latest amnesty move signals to millions in Central and South America that U.S. laws don’t hold any real weight anymore, and if they illegally enter the U.S., they’ll likely be able to stay. This creates a dangerous environment of lawlessness and puts immigrant and American families at great risk.

Notably, the majority of Americans do not support executive action on immigration. Among Americans of Latino descent, only 43 percent supported executive amnesty, according to an NBC/WSJ poll.

Further, President Obama’s executive amnesty is an unprecedented abuse of executive power. I’d invite President Obama to refer to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, (as stated above) which clearly grants the authority to make laws on naturalization to Congress, not the Executive Branch.

In his address Obama also stated:

“Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.”

….

“Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.

I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.”

Addressing the second statement first I have one burning question — how is ICE going to vet 5 million people. They cannot even deal with those illegals who have committed felonies such as murder, rape, and robbery and have been arrested and convicted. There are numerous case across the nation where these illegals are not even deported and languish in our prision system or are released to commit more crimes. Gang members are filled with illegals just ask and police chief in any large city.

The other is issue is jobs. President Barack Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”

”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

Via his executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — black, white, Latino and Asian — who he once said would be harmed by such a move.

The new work permits would be in addition to the 600,000 work permits given to younger illegals under the 2012 “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program.

Roughly 4 million Americans will enter the job market this year.

Careful observers of Obama’s modern-day immigration rhetoric will note that he does not discuss the impact millions of formerly-illegal immigrants would have on the wages of American workers. Rather, Obama has repeatedly declared, “It’s the right thing to do.”

Yesterday I had a conversation with my African-American neighbor who is a contractor. His small business provides sub-contracting services to larger contracts on mainly infrastructure projects. During our conversation he hesitantly asked me if I supported President Obama. I replied that I did not. He said he voted for Obama and that he now thought that was a big mistake and he called himself stupid. He felt it would be good for him and the nation when Obama was gone.

I then asked him how this new Executive Order would affect him and his business. He told me that the influx of these 5 million new “legals” would have a big impact on the construction industry. He said that many small sub-contractors, who were fearful of hiring illegals due to the severe penalties and loss of contracts would now hire the new “legals” and reduce their payroll. Labor amounts to about 50% of the cost for these contractors. They would be replacing a laborer earning $20-$25 per hour (mainly Latinos and Blacks) with persons who would now be paid $15 per hour. This would lower their labor costs by 20 to 25 percent and allow them to put forth lower bids to gain more work. Pity the worker who was earning 25$ per hour. He was now out of work. At $15 per hour a worker would earn $30,000 per year if he or she worked every available day – which is rare in construction. $30, 000 per year puts the worker in the earned income tax bracket and makes them eligible for food stamps and WIC.

All of the small contractors like my neighbor would have to do this in order to compete. Many of those Latinos who marched waving Mexican flags and demanding amnesty would now find themselves out of work and on welfare unless they accept a 20% pay cut. They will now find out that there are always unintended consequences or a Bastiat stated — the seen and the unseen.

I have not even addressed the increased burden this amnesty will place on the states. These illegals now with work permits and social security cards will be eligible, and no doubt apply for, all the benefits that are available. This will include things like food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, aid to dependent children, and the earned income tax credit. This will far outweigh any income derived from taxes these 5 million will pay — if they pay it.

It is estimated that the cost of an illegal immigrant family is $20,000 per year. If you consider a family of five the additional cost in benefits would be $20 billion per year and this does not include the earned income tax credit or the financial burden on the public school system.

Granting amnesty to those who willfully broke the law makes a mockery of our legal system and encourages even more lawlessness — potentially more severe crimes than entering the U.S. illegally. It also does a disservice to those who followed the legal routes to gain entry into the country and sends the message that lawlessness will be tolerated—in fact, it will be rewarded.

The American people spoke on Election Day. The Republican victory wasn’t simply a referendum on failed Democratic policies pushed by the White House and Harry Reid — it was also a referendum on the inability of Congress and the White House to work together to get things done.

President Obama’s decision to bypass Congress and to act unilaterally on amnesty is a slap in the face to American voters, sends the wrong signal to immigrants, and jeopardizes the first real shot at bipartisan, long-term immigration reform.

Once again, it is politics over people for this administration. A classic example of the administrative state and the actions of a king — something we did away with in 1776.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The Tyranny of our Ever Expanding Government

“Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?” — James Madison, Federalist No. 62 — 1788

When writing about the tyranny of a mutable government and the legislature passing long and complicated laws of which no one could comprehend and obey James Madison raises the very forceful point. He stated that citizens will find it very difficult to obey the law if it is constantly changing (“mutable government”), either by growing enormously in size to be beyond the grasp ordinary people, or by being incoherent, or being repealed or revised before they are promulgated.

Today we have the situation where massive and complicated laws, like ObamaCare (over 3,000 pages) are passed without having been read or debated by the legislators themselves, let alone discussed in the press and by the people. When this sad state has been reached, the law itself, as Madison eloquently says, “poisons the blessings of liberty.” James Madison stated in Federalist No. 62:

“To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of otherJames_Madison nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his: and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another, what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage of the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of its wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.”

In Federalist Paper 10, probably the most important of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, writing as Publius, addresses the Tyranny of the Majority trough Factions.

“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.”

As I have stated in previous blogs in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.” In this context, it is irrelevant who resides in the White House or holds the House speaker’s gavel. America is not a nation of laws, but of rules. Only a renewed cultural will to true reform, coupled with political leadership, can correct that.

Today we are experiences the worst of our Founder’s fears. An unfettered executive branch coupled with a legislative branch that is so encumbered with factions that it no longer serves the will of the people. This combination of ills has formed a fourth branch of government — the administrative state.

I have written numerous times about the history and tyrannical effects of the administrative state and how it is slowly destroying the republic our Founders envisioned. The latest egregious example is the Senate passed 1,200 page immigration bill that contains so much pork a pig farmer would have problems weighing it. It contains cars for immigrants to placate Senator Barry Sanders of New Hampshire and subsidies for the Alaskan fishing industry. It states that the counterfeiting of no more than three U.S. passports is not a crime. While allowing for the hiring of 20,000 additional border patrol agents and building a fence along the entire border it gives the Department of Homeland Security the power to cancel the fence construction at any time at their discretion.

Today a landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act has set up a stand-off between Republican-led states and the Obama administration over controversial voting laws that until now had been stalled.

The 5-4 ruling on Tuesday addressed a 1960s-era provision that largely singled out states and districts in the South — those with a history of discrimination — and required them to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

The court ruled that the formula determining which states are affected was unconstitutional.

In doing so, the court potentially opened the door for certain states to proceed with voter ID laws and other efforts that to date had been held up because of the Voting Rights Act. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder has claimed that he does not agree with theWas7541345 ruling and will continue to do all he can to force states to abide by his edicts

Attorney General Eric Holder warned states against going too far. He said the Justice Department would not hesitate to take "swift" action against states looking to "take advantage" of the ruling.

He, like President Obama, said he was "deeply disappointed" in the decision, saying discriminatory practices live on and need to be addressed.

"These problems have not been consigned to history," Holder said.

Holder and Obama urged Congress to create a new formula.

"Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," Obama said.

To read more on this decision click here.

In another example of the power of the administrative state today Obama declared his war on coal even though throughout the 2012 election campaigned he denied such a war on coal or guns.

So much for the denials. An administration that throughout its 2012 election campaign denied it was waging a War on Coal has now come out and publicly declared its intention to shut down coal-fired power plants – putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and sending electricity prices skyrocketing.

This is not what the American people voted for.

Responding to a White House petition to end the War on Coal, the administration said: “The President has made clear that he understands that coal has played a critical role in our country’s energy portfolio for decades and will continue to be an important source of energy in the future.”

Sycophantic liberal media outlets (like The Nation and the Associated Press) went further, repeatedly claiming that the War on Coal was a myth. The Obama campaign even ran a TV ad in Ohio claiming that Mitt Romney would be bad for coal – and trotted out former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland to deny there was a war on coal and echo the attacks on Romney.

Yet today Obama political consultant David Plouffe took to Twitter to bang his chest: “Today's climate announcement underscores that elections matter greatly” – as if Obama had campaigned on shutting down coal plants instead of on denying his intention to do so.

Such denials are no longer necessary. Today a top Obama global warming adviser told The New York Times the denials were just election-year politics. Daniel Schrag said: “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.

And Obama delivered. It’s right there on page 19 of his Climate Action Plan: “Going forward, we will promote fuel-switching from coal to gas for electricity production.”

Indeed, Obama made clear in his speech that he intends to impose regulations on existing coal plants that can only be met through carbon capture and storage (technology that doesn’t exist on a commercial scale), switching to natural gas, or shutting down completely.

Coal still produces 37 percent of U.S. electricity. A Heritage Foundation analysis found that implementing Obama’s proposed regulation on existing coal plants would destroy more than 500,000 jobs, slash the income of a typical family of four more than $1,400 a year, and increase electricity prices at least 20 percent. Price spikes could be much higher in states that depend heavily on coal-fired power plants, especially in the Midwest. President Obama once famously explained that he intended to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

Obama intends to fight his War on Coal by issuing a PresidentialAP401450731793 Memorandum to the EPA to issue regulations under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This is despite the fact that the law’s principal author, Democrat John Dingell of Michigan, famously said: “This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”

And there is zero global warming benefit to go with all the economic costs, because even if all United States greenhouse gas emissions were shut down to zero tomorrow, the rest of the world would keep on puffing. Paul Knappenberger recently calculated, based on standard assumptions, that getting to zero emissions in the U.S. immediately would only reduce global average temperatures an imperceptible 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. Moreover, the rest of the world would replace all U.S. emissions within seven years.

So it’s all pain and no gain — by legally dubious means — to accomplish the opposite of what Obama promised on the campaign trail. Congress should take exception to being circumvented and step in to stop Obama’s (now-declared) War on Coal.

Once again it is plain to see that complex laws passed by a willing legislature leave the door open for the executive branch to do just about anything it wants under the color of law. This is truly a feature of the administrative state where the masterminds call the shots and self-government is a thing of the past. So much for the Republic Mr. Franklin.

On the other hand 62 Tea Party representatives dealt a blow to the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives when they gather enough support to defeat an overblown Farm Bill on June 20th.

The GOP leadership suffered a stunning defeat as 62 Republicans voted against the 5-year farm bill (H.R. 1947), which locks in the record baseline of food stamp spending and creates multiple new agriculture subsidy programs. A handful of them voted against it because it cut too much spending, and others like Bill Shuster voted no because they are facing potential primary challenges (Shuster voted for the 2008 bill). But this is a strong showing, as it is a dynamic none of us would have ever predicted several years ago.

Some Republicans are complaining that because of the conservative revolt we will now continue on the status quo with direct farm subsidies. But they fail to understand that the new price support programs and shallow loss coverage that were created by this bill would have been more expensive and represent worse market distortions than direct subsidies. It’s better to reauthorize the status quo than to pass a long-term bill that creates even more problems and precludes real reforms for another 5 years.

Other Republicans complain that now we will face the so-called milk cliff. Pursuant to a silly 1949 act of Congress, every time we fail to renew expiring farm programs, the government must begin imposing Soviet-style price controls on milk by decreasing supplies through massive purchases of milk, butter, cheese, and other dairy products. Under permanent law, the USDA would begin purchasing dairy products at a rate of $38.54 per hundredweight; more than double the current price ($18 per hundredweight). This market manipulation could double the price of milk, dairy products, and everything else up the food chain.

clip_image001But instead of avoiding the deleterious effects of the Agriculture Act of 1949 by growing government, why don’t we just repeal the damn law?

In a sane world, both houses of Congress would convene and repeal this inane and outdated law within a few minutes by unanimous consent. That way we could debate a long-term farm bill without having the sword of the 1949 law brandished over our necks and forcing Congress to rush through bad legislation.

However, Congress is not sane, and they have no plans to repeal the law. In fact, Paul Broun introduced an amendment to do just that, but all the Democrats and more than half of Republicans voted it down.

The latest ephemeral trend in Washington is to create a contrived crisis for the purpose of growing government, increasing spending, or raising taxes. The new “milk cliff” is just the latest in the bag of tricks held by the permanent statist class.

Moving forward, we must split up the farm bill into two components; food stamps and agriculture programs. Food stamps must be devolved to the states and most agricultural subsidies need to be means-tested and charted on a gradual course towards elimination. And most of all, the dairy supply control system must be repealed once and for all in a standalone piece of legislation.

That would represent responsible conservative reform that is becoming of a GOP-controlled House. Working harder to buy off Democrats with more spending increases is not the way forward. If Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor desire to grow government with Democrat support, maybe they should run for the Pelosi whip team.

The American people elected a Republican House to provide a bold contrast to the Obama-Pelosi agenda, not to work behind the scenes to help grow government with their support.

You can read more about the defeat of the trillion dollar food stamp and farm bill by clicking here.

One of the things all tyrannical regimes such as the administrative state does is to compile a list of enemies. These enemies are defined as those who do not agree with their policies and could pose a threat to their agenda.

The vast majority of the annual shooting homicides are committed by inner-city and minority youths below the age of 30. Handguns are involved in 80% of all murders. Rifles and shotguns account for less than 10% of homicides.

No matter; the National Rifle Association is now blamed for generic gun violence, especially the mass shootings at schools, even though usually no one knows of any proposed gun law — barring outright confiscation of previously purchased firearms, bullets, and clips — that would have prevented the shooters at Sandy Hook and Columbine. Gun merchants are blamed by the president while in Mexico for selling lethal semi-automatic weapons to drug cartels. But so far, the only identifiable purveyor of illegal weaponry is the president’s own attorney general, whose subordinates in the Fast and Furious operation sold hundreds of guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.

Suggestions to encourage greater incarceration of the mentally unstable, to jawbone Hollywood about its profitable (and gratuitous) gun violence, to regulate extremely violent — and extremely well-selling — video games usually fall on deaf liberal ears. In short, the stereotyped camouflaged, weekend gun enthusiast is not the problem that leads to Columbine, or the nearly 532 murders last year in Chicago. But because we can’t or won’t address the causes of the latter, we go after the former. He is not the unhinged sort that shoots a Gabby Giffords or innocents in an Aurora, Colorado, theater; but somehow is the supposed red-neck yokel that a journalist like ABC’s Brian Ross assumes does.

If the Department of Homeland Security, as is rumored, really did wish to stockpile hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, then why did it begin such repository buying right in the middle of a hysterical national debate about limiting access to various rifles and semi-automatic weapons? Was it not to create a climate of fear and panic buying that has emptied America’s shelves of the most popular types of ammunition? If the homicide rate in Philadelphia and Chicago is any indication, murderers still have plenty of access to bullets. Those who want to target practice or shoot a varmint on their property do not.

The CIA and FBI knew of the suspicious activity of the Boston bombers, of Major Hasan, and of Anwar al-Awlaki. And they did nothing to preempt their violence. The FBI is said to be carefully avoiding monitoring mosques, although all of the above terrorists were known by many fellow Muslim worshipers to be either disturbed or extremist or both. In contrast, the NSA monitors, we are told, nearly everyone’s communications rather than focusing on Middle Eastern male Muslims, even though Middle Eastern male Muslims have been involved in the vast majority of post-9/11 terrorist plots. The NSA is the electronic version of the TSA, which feels it is noble and liberal to stop an octogenarian in a wheel chair for special frisking as proper compensation for every focused look at a West Bank resident or Pakistani visitor on his way into the United States.

The words “Tea Party” and “patriot” in a non-profit’s name would more likely earn a negative appraisal from the IRS than would “Islam” or “Muslim.” One wonders how Lois Lerner’s IRS division would treat a hypothetical “Sarah Palin Foundation” versus “The Dr. Zawahiri Charity.”

The IRS is not worried at all about 47% of the nation who pay no federal income taxes. The vast majority of those whom it focuses on are instead the 10% who pay over 70% of all taxes. These are the would-be proverbial “fat cats” who did not build their own businesses. They are reluctant to spread their wealth. They certainly did not know either when to stop making money or when the age of profit altogether had passed. Sometime around 2009 success was deemed failure, and failure success — at least if we collate the president fat-cat rhetoric with the vast expansion in the disability, food-stamp, and unemployment-insurance rolls.

Note that the IRS is not interested in leaking to Democrat senators or former administration official rumors about George Soros’s income or the details of the tax returns of Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, or Bill Gates. Instead, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate bragged that he knew (falsely as it turned out) that Mitt Romney paid no income taxes. And former high administration official Austan Goolsbee claimed (also falsely as it turned out) that he too knew that the Koch brothers were shorting the IRS.

Note that only liberal groups like ProPublica leak information about the confidential donor lists of conservative activists, apparently given their familiar arrangement with the IRS. So far IRS chiefs are not looking at prominent Democrat politicians for tax violations, although for a time — cf. Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis — that might have been a fruitful profile for inquiry. (One encouraging side note: if you are a suspect white, mature, well-off, conservative, heterosexual, Christian male, you can still obtain exemption from federal suspicion by loudly announcing that you also are enthralled by Barack Obama.)

We know who was not an administration suspect in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi — hard-core, al Qaeda-related Islamic terrorists. Instead a supposedly right-wing unhinged video-maker was the object of vitriol from the secretary of state, the UN ambassador, and the president of the United States. He currently sits in jail. The known perpetrators of the murders walk free. In contrast, Lisa Jackson, the former EPA director, just got a fat inside job from Apple, despite creating not just a fictitious name (e.g., “Richard Windsor”) to avoid scrutiny when she communicated official business, but also an entirely made-up alter ego: “Richard Windsor” became an ideal employee lauded by the unethical EPA for his supposedly “ethical behavior.”

We also know who in the media is not a target. Not the CBS or ABC News presidents who have siblings working in the White House. Not ABC’s Good Morning America, given that one of its stalwarts is married to Press Secretary Jay Carney. Instead, there are two sorts of suspicious reporters that are considered hostile to the administration and worthy of having their communications monitored. One group are those journalists who leak information that the administration wished to preempt and leak first or who refuse to only leak favorable classified information — the bin Laden trove, the cyber war against Iran, the drone targeting protocol — that makes the president look as if he were a competent commander in chief.

The other target, of course, is Fox News, whose staff, in a variety of ways and on a number of occasions, the Obama administration has previously attacked as in some way illegitimate.

Again, who fits these profiles that our current, vastly expanding big government does not like? If you are an operator of a coal plant that creates needed energy at a profit, then beware that the EPA is after you. If you are a shady insider who wants tens of millions of government dollars to subsidize a money-losing wind and solar plant, you hit the jackpot. Ditto the suspect people who build guitars, loan money to Chrysler, or wish to locate a jet airliner plant in South Carolina. Profits create suspicion; failures earn subsidies.

Then there are the clingers, whom the president long ago blasted as religious zealots and gun-toting xenophobes. These are the sorts whom the attorney general calls “cowards” (not “my people”) — the “enemies” whom the president advises Latino activists to “punish” at the polls, the sorts that the president apologizes for abroad as guilty of sundry sorts of past class, race, and gender oppression.

In contrast, who is not so worried about government surveillance or audit? The New Black Panthers who turned up at a polling station in Philadelphia to intimidate voters; the “farmers” who, according to the New York Times, filed bogus claims to cash in on the government’s ill-advised and poorly administered Pigford settlement; the Secret Service agents who routinely visited prostitutes while on duty protecting high government officials abroad; and the assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who used her office to enhance her private consulting business.

Americans wonder whom would the immigration services more likely wish to deport: the German Romeike family that was “guilty” of homeschooling their children; Obama’s aunt Zeituni, who lied about her immigration status to illegally obtain state and federal subsidies; or Onyango Obama, who likewise is here illegally (for 21 years) and was recently charged with ramming a police car while driving intoxicated? Is the U.S. so short of DUI offenders and frauds that we must deport homeschoolers to make room for them?

There is currently a climate of fear growing throughout the United States. Millions of Americans are terrified of the IRS, the Department of Justice, the EPA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and even perhaps the FBI, CIA, and State Department.

Why?

These government agencies have never been bigger, more powerful, and more ideologically driven. Citizens fear them for understandable reasons: those who do nothing wrong, whether in filing tax forms or trying to buy a rifle, are considered suspect and deserving to be the target of either federal scrutiny or presidential slurs. But those who do a great deal of wrong, either by illegally entering the country, disrupting polling, trafficking in weapons in Mexico, eavesdropping on American citizens, pulling tax information for partisan purposes, subverting a government agency, or lying to the public about government activity, seem exempt from punishment — and, more chillingly, sense that they are so exempt.

Ask who now is sitting in prison — a shyster video-maker who had nothing to do with the deaths of four Americans, or their five known terrorist killers lounging about in North Africa? Apparently, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, like EPA director Lisa Jackson, was guilty of creating a fake persona. Like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, he had a lien on her business. Like former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he had some unpaid taxes. Like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, he had been visited by government investigators. Like Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, he lied to federal authorities — although they were not quite as high as those in the U.S. Congress. And unlike all of the above, he was therefore jailed.

Of all the legacies of Barack Obama, the most pernicious will be the creation of a rogue government that has cut off and terrified half the population — and for no other reason than that they seem to represent things that Mr. Obama simply does not seem to understand.

The truth is that governments are always like pitchers trying to pitch out of a jam with all the bases loaded. We the people want a little free stuff. The ruling class wants to seize and hold political power. Promising free stuff is how you get elected. This what James Madison knew when he authored Federalist No. 10.

Usually, those vote-buying promises result in policies that damage the economy. President Obama has been worse than most. The result is that politicians and their officials are always involved in trying to Band-Aid over the distortions and the wounds they have inflicted on the economy and our freedoms in their crude bid for power.

Monday, June 17, 2013

This Day In History

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" — Inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

On my iPad I have several applets that each day shows me what happened on this day in history. It displays events and the birth or death of famous people. I find it quite interesting and sometimes it gives me ideas for this blog.

I have always found history to be a fascinating subject as it gives some context to current events. I refer to William Shakespeare’s Sonnet No. 59 where the bard said:

“If there be nothing new, but that which is

Hath been before, how are our brains beguiled,

Which, labouring for invention, bear amiss

The second burden of a former child.

O, that record could with a backward look,

Even of five hundred courses of the sun,

Show me your image in some antique book,

Since mind at first in character was done!

That I might see what the old world could say

To this composed wonder of your frame;

Whether we are mended, or whe'er better they,

Or whether revolution be the same.

O, sure I am, the wits of former days

To subjects worse have given admiring praise.”

Another and more familiar quote from Edmund Burke states:

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

Burke’s statement on the value of history was slightly modified by the Spanish poet and novelist George Santayana and has become the axiom for the value of history:

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

There are many people in this nation that have no knowledge or connection to History. This malady usually affects liberals and progressives. This has been proven many times through tests given college and university students as they enter and exit their college studies. They begin their higher education with a woeful lack of knowledge of history and geography and graduate with little more. It appears as though Shakespeare, Burke and Santayana saw the same condition.

With this preface I will now get on to what happened on this day in history 128 years ago.

On this day in 1885, the dismantled State of Liberty, a gift of friendship from the people of France to the people of America, arrived in New York Harbor after being shipped across the Atlantic Ocean in 350 individual pieces packed in more than 200 cases. The copper and iron statue, which was reassembled and dedicated the following year in a ceremony presided over by U.S. President Grover Cleveland, became known around the world as an enduring symbol of freedom and democracy.

Intended to commemorate the American Revolution and a century of friendship between the U.S. and France, the statue was designed by French sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi (who modeled it after his own mother), with assistance from engineer Gustave Eiffel, who later developed the iconic tower in Paris bearing his name.

Bartholdi was inspired by French law professor and politician Édouard René de Laboulaye, who commented in 1865 that any monument raised to American independence would properly be a joint project of the French and American peoples. Due to the troubled political situation in France, work on the statue did not commence until the early 1870s. In 1875, Laboulaye proposed that the French finance the statue and the Americans provide the site and build the pedestal. Bartholdi completed the head and the torch-bearing arm before the statue was fully designed, and these pieces were exhibited for publicity at international expositions.

The statue was initially scheduled to be finished by 1876, the 100th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence; however, fundraising efforts, which included auctions, a lottery and boxing matches, took U.S._Patent_D11023longer than anticipated, both in Europe and the U.S., where the statue’s pedestal was to be financed and constructed. The statue alone cost the French an estimated $250,000 (more than $5.5 million in today’s money).

Finally completed in Paris in the summer of 1884, the statue, a robed female figure with an uplifted arm holding a torch, reached its new home on Bedloe’s Island in New York Harbor (between New York City and Hudson County, New Jersey) on June 17, 1885. After being reassembled, the 450,000-pound statue was officially dedicated on October 28, 1886, by President Cleveland, who said, “We will not forget that Liberty has here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected.” Standing more than 305 feet from the foundation of its pedestal to the top of its torch, the statue, dubbed “Liberty Enlightening the World” by Bartholdi, was taller than any structure in New York City at the time. The statue was originally copper-colored, but over the years it underwent a natural color-change process called patination that produced its current greenish-blue hue.

In 1892, Ellis Island, located near Bedloe's Island (which in 1956 was renamed Liberty Island), opened as America’s chief immigration station, and for the next 62 years Lady Liberty, as the statue is nicknamed, stood watch over the more than 12 million immigrants who sailed into New York Harbor. In 1903, a plaque inscribed with a sonnet titled “The New Colossus” by American poet Emma Lazarus, written 20 years earlier for a pedestal fundraiser, was placed on an interior wall of the pedestal. Lazarus’ now-famous words, which include “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” became symbolic of America’s vision of itself as a land of opportunity for immigrants.

Some 60 years after President Calvin Coolidge designated the statue a national monument in 1924, it underwent a multi-million-dollar restoration (which included a new torch and gold leaf-covered flame) and was rededicated by President Ronald Reagan on July 4, 1986, in a lavish celebration. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the statue was closed; its base, pedestal and observation deck re-opened in 2004, while its crown re-opened to the public on July 4, 2009. (For safety reasons, the torch has been closed to visitors since 1916, after an incident called the Black Tom explosions in which munitions-laden barges and railroad cars on the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront were blown up by German agents, causing damage to the nearby statue.)

The statue was administered by the United States Lighthouse Board until 1901 and then by the Department of War; since 1933 it has been maintained by the National Park Service. The statue was closed for renovation for much of 1938. In the early 1980s, it was found to have deteriorated to such an extent that a major restoration was required. While the statue was closed from 1984 to 1986, the torch and a large part of the internal structure were replaced.

There are several plaques and dedicatory tablets on or near the Statue of Liberty. A plaque on the copper just under the figure in front declares that it is a colossal statue representing Liberty, designed by Bartholdi and built by the Paris firm of Gaget, Gauthier et Cie (Cie is the French abbreviation analogous to Co.). A presentation tablet, also bearing Bartholdi's name, declares the statue to be a gift from the people of the Republic of France that honors "the Alliance of the two Nations in achieving the Independence of the United States of America and attests their abiding friendship There is a tablet placed by the New York committee that commemorates the fundraising done to build the pedestal. The cornerstone also bears a plaque placed by the Freemasons

In 1903, a bronze tablet that bears the text of "The New Colossus" and commemoratesEmma_Lazarus_plaque (1) Emma Lazarus was presented by friends of the poet. Until the 1986 renovation, it was mounted inside the pedestal; today it resides in the Statue of Liberty Museum in the base. It is accompanied by a tablet given by the Emma Lazarus Commemorative Committee in 1977, celebrating the poet's life. The plaque reads:

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

(The giant of Greek fame refers to the Colossus of Rhodes)

A group of statues stands at the western end of the island, honoring those closely associated with the Statue of Liberty. Two Americans—Pulitzer and Lazarus—and three Frenchmen—Bartholdi, Laboulaye, and Eiffel—are depicted. They are the work of Maryland sculptor Phillip Ratner

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, it was closed for reasons of safety and security; the pedestal reopened in 2004 and the statue in 2009, with limits on the number of visitors allowed to ascend to the crown. The statue, including the pedestal and base, was closed for a year until October 28, 2012, so that a secondary staircase and other safety features could be installed; Liberty Island remained open. However, one day after the reopening, Liberty Island closed due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy, and the island remains off limits to the public. Public access to the balcony surrounding the torch has been barred for safety reasons since 1916. The statue will reopen to the public by July 4, 2013.

From the 1890s until the beginning of World War One millions of immigrants passed beneath Lady Liberty as they made their way to our immigration facilities at Ellis Island. They mostly came from Western, Eastern, and Southern Europe. They were Poles, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, Romanians, and Irish. They came as individuals and as families and needed sponsors in the United States.

Beginning in 1892, immigrants to the United States were subject to a medical inspection,Ellis_Island_arrivals created to restrict the entry of persons with a "loathsome or dangerous contagious" disease, like tuberculosis or mental deficiency.

Ellis Island, which received over 10 million newcomers between 1900 and 1914, served as the largest ever medical screening facility. Far from reflecting a unified policy, the medical inspection offered a complicated compromise amidst a swirl of competing interests. Many industrialists blamed the waves of Southern and Eastern European immigrants for urban joblessness, filth, unrest, overcrowding, and disease. In an era of depression, labor groups opposed immigrant competitors for scarce jobs. Nativists believed immigrants could not overcome their defects because these were genetically transmitted. Germ theory proponents recognized communication of microorganisms as the problem, with controlling the spread of infections as the solution. Many Progressive reformers held that the scientific screening of immigrants offered a systematic solution for the disorder.

Dozens of immigrant aid societies struggled to attenuate the effects of the inspection, and as depression subsided after 1900, employers, too, favored the influx of immigrants.

At the examination the immigrants are asked to show their money. Some craftily failed to show it all; others willingly displayed their whole petty hoardings. The money was carefully counted, and, after a record had been taken, restored to them. Later, they are asked if they wish any money changed. Many refuse for fear of being cheated; others stop before the busy money-changers' booth at the end of the long examination room.

In 1901 388,931 immigrants showed $5,490,080, an average of $14.12 The French led all the others with an average of $39.37. The Hebrews stood at the foot of the list bringing on an average $8.58. The Germans followed the French with an average of $31.14. The other nationalities stood in the list as follows:

Race Average per Capita

  • Italians (Northern) $23.53
  • Bohemian and Moravian $22.78
  • Scandinavian $18.16
  • Irish $17.10
  • Armenian $15.75
  • Croatian and Dalmatians $15.54
  • Greek $15.10
  • Slovak $12.31 Magyar $10.96
  • Italian (Southern) $8.67

Roughly speaking, the North-of-Europe people were considered to make better citizens than those from the South of Europe. The better class would go to the country and the worst to the cities unless they had a sponsor waiting for them. Greeks were considered about the least desirable of all; the Italians from the southern portion of the peninsula also were considered to make poor citizens; but those from the northern part of Italy ranked with the Swiss and other desirable nationalities.

A few of the notable immigrants passing through Ellis Island were:

Annie Moore

1892

First arrival through Ellis Island

Antonius Dvorak

1892

Composer

Fritz Austerlitz

1892

Father of dancer Fred Astaire

Rudyard Kipling

1892

Writer, Poet

Israel Beilin

1893

Composer/Musician Irving Berlin

Moses Teichman

1897

Dancer Arthur Murray

Angelo Siciliano

1903

Bodybuilder Charles Atlas

William Claude Fields

1903

Comedian W.C. Fields

Enrico Caruso

1904

Musician, Opera singer

Johann Weissmuller

1905

Actor and Olympian Johnny Weissmuller

Henry Youngman

1906

Comedian Henny Youngman

John & Mable Ringling

1906

Circus Owner

Giacomo Puccini

1907

Opera composer

Gustav Mahler

1908

Composer, musician

Leslie Hape

1908

Actor/Comedian Bob Hope

Arturo Toscanini

1909

Musical Conductor (1 of 5 arrivals)

Carl Jung

1909

Physician

Sigmund Freud

1909

Physician

Lily Chauchoin

1911

Actress Claudette Colbert

Arthur Stanley Jefferson

1912

Stan Laurel of Laurel and Hardy

Barbara West

1912

Titanic Survivor

Charles Chaplin

1912

Actor/Director Charlie Chaplin

Leopold Stokowski

1912

Musical Conductor

Madeline Astor

1912

Titanic Survivor

Woodrow Wilson

1912

U.S. President

Rodolfo Guglielmi

1913

Silent actor Rudolph Valentino

Harry Houdini

1914

Magician

Javier Cugat

1915

Violinist, Bandleader

Pablo Casals

1916

Master cellist, musician

Sergei Rachmaninoff

1918

Composer, conductor, pianist

Walter Elias Disney

1919

Pioneering entertainer

William Tyson

1919

Father of actress Cicely Tyson

Archibald Alec Leach

1920

Film star Cary Grant

Bela Lugosi

1920

Actor, Count Dracula

Albert Einstein

1921

Professor, Nobel Prize in Physics

Cole Porter

1921

Composer, songs and musicals

Ernst Lubitsch

1921

Film Director

F. Scott Fitzgerald

1921

American novelist

George M. Cohan

1921

Songwriter / Composer

Leslie Howard

1921

Actor, Gone with the Wind

Maurice Chevalier

1922

Comedian, Actor

Joseph Conrad

1923

Author

Pietro Berra

1923

Father of Yogi Berra

George Gershwin

1924

Composer, songs and musicals

Jascha Heifetz

1924

Master Violinist

For a more comprehensive list of famous immigrants please click here

In 1911 three not so famous immigrants passed through Ellis Island on the way to meet their sponsor in Cleveland, Ohio. They were my maternal grandparents and their 2-year old son Joseph. As they came from Hungary they were tagged with their nationality “Magyar” — the Hungarian name for Hungary. When they immigration official saw the tag he entered “Major” in as the last name for Joseph, Rose, and their little boy Joseph.

The Majors arrived in Cleveland and settled in the Hungarian community on Cleveland’s east side. Joe Sr. soon found work and a year later my mother was born and four years after that my aunt Elizabeth.

Joe Sr. and Rose never became citizens and had to register as an alien each year at a post office. Joe Jr. received his citizenship while serving in the U.S. Army during WWII where he was attached to a tank destroyer unit in Patton’s Third Army in FranceStatue_of_Liberty_frontal_2. Joe Jr. received several medals including a Purple Heart for his actions during the Battle of the Bulge.

The Major family like so many other immigrant families during the period from 1890 to 1914 brought no real skills except their willingness to work and raise children that would go on to help build this nation. They worked in the mills, factories, and on the farms. They did not take government assistance and paid their taxes. They came here legally under a quota system and abided by the rules. Their children went on to become part of the “greatest generation” and their children’s children became the “baby boomers.”

Today, the Statue of Liberty is one of America’s most famous landmarks. Over the years, it has been the site of political rallies and protests (from suffragettes to anti-war activists), has been featured in numerous movies and countless photographs, and has received millions of visitors from around the globe.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Are the Europeans Finally Getting the Message?

“This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.” — Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, 2010

Two things happened last week. One made the news big-time on the mainstream media, the other bore scarcely a mention. Both incidents are indicative of the laissez-faire policy that West European nations have had towards immigration for the past 30 years. With the exception of Germany these nations have accepted immigrants from the Muslim world on almost an unrestricted basis in the name of human rights. Most of these immigrants come from third-world Muslim countries such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, and the Sudan. Most claim refugee status to obtain entrée to these European countries and are usually granted it.

Once in the country of their choice or a country that will take them they gravitate to ghettos of their peers and settle in. they rarely learn the language of their new host country and bring all of their cultural baggage with them. This includes food, dress, treatment of women, honor killings, Islamic (Sharia) law, and disrespect for the host nations laws, police, and courts.

They suck off the teat of the host nation taking advantage of the nation’s generous welfare and healthcare systems. They pay little or no taxes and mostly live in public housing. The ghettos they live are run by some group of strong men and the Imams and clerics. The youth are unemployed and radicalized by the Imams

In July of 2001 the city of Bradford in West Yorkshire, England suffered 2 nights of rioting. It occurred as a result of heightened tension between the large and growing ethnic minority communities and the city's white majority, stoked by confrontation between the Anti-Nazi League and far right groups such as the British National Party and the National Front. According to a report in the Guardian:

“Racial violence erupted on the streets of Bradford yesterday as hundreds of Asian youths fought white extremists and police in some of the worst rioting yet seen in a summer of disturbances in northern towns and cities.

Two people were stabbed and three seriously injured after a protest march against the National Front turned violent. At the height of the trouble, police in Bradford were pelted with petrol bombs, bricks, bottles and road signs and two city centre pubs had their windows smashed. At least 17 people were arrested.

Last night, the trouble spread to the mainly Asian suburb of Manningham, an area of sprawling and deprived terraced housing estates.

A group of about 1,000 Asian youths set fire to barricades on the area's White Abbey Road and tore up bricks and concrete paving stones to hurl at the police.

Thick smoke and fumes drifted down a half-mile length of the road as police tried to beat the rioters back. Youths set fire to several cars and through petrol bombs at buildings, briefly setting the roof of one alight, as mounted police and officers in full riot gear charged the groups of rioters gathered behind a burning wreck.

Fire engines advanced to tackle the blazes behind a tight cordon of riot police. However, under a hail of stones and bricks they were several times forced to retreat. Shortly after 9pm a delegation of community leaders, including local Tory councillor Mohammed Riaz, went through police lines to talk to rioters and calm tensions, but their efforts had little effect.

'What is happening here is terrible. Businesses are being attacked, cars set on fire and I cannot believe these scenes are taking place in a city in England,' said Riaz. 'There's no logic to this. Where is the protest, where are the National Front? There is no justification for this - they are setting back Bradford 10 years.”

Note the use of the politically correct euphemism “Asian” for Muslims.

Two years ago the Guardian reported “A decade after the riots, Bradford is still uneasy about race relations:”

“Ten years ago today Bradford witnessed race riots that lasted three days and brought the issue of race relations in the city to the country's attention. Bradford became known as a "racial tinderbox" where the city's large Asian community was estranged and at odds with the white working class.

You could see the troubles coming as rioting spread across theriots-Bradford-007 north from towns on the other side of the Pennines such as Burnley and Oldham. There were the largely forgotten riots of 1995, which should have acted as a warning signal. After those disturbances, Asian residents complained about a lack of opportunities and growing unease about relationships with the police and the white working class. Those calls were mostly ignored, the National Front took advantage and six years later tensions boiled over again.

I was a 17-year-old student at the time, and like many people in the city was shocked to see Manningham turned into a battleground. I remember picking up the Telegraph and Argus and seeing the faces of young men I'd played against in a football semi-final a few months earlier on the front page as wanted troublemakers. Harsh sentences followed for the Asian offenders and the city woke up to the fact that it had been sleepwalking into segregation for more than 30 years.

There was a definite change in the city as the initial shock of the riots turned to disgust and even hatred as people surveyed what "they" had done to "our" city. The fallout continued with the BNP gaining council seats in predominantly white areas like Queensbury and Keighley as far-right groups took advantage of the troubles to reinforce the "them and us" attitude. Lord Ouseley's report and the Cantle report followed and laid out the drastic action that needed to be taken to counteract the effects of segregation in the city and others like it.”

The British have been the most lenient with the immigration policies and until this past week they have been turning a blind eye to the changes in culture this policy is inflecting on the natural British citizens. They believe they are doing God’s work in allowing these “Asians” to dominate their politics and through political correctness have been reluctant to change the policies and take measures, as France and the Netherlands did, to restrict the immigration and begin deporting the radical Muslims.

Islam is London's largest and most significant minority religion. There were 607,083 Muslims reported in the 2001 census in the Greater London area. 40% of England's Muslims live in London, where they make up 8.5% of the population. According to the 2011 census 2.8 million Muslims live in the U.K. (4.8% of the populations of England and Wales).

article-1218934-06C170F6000005DC-242_634x540

(Click on the above chart to view a larger image)

According to 2011 report in the Mail Online the Muslim population in the UK will almost double to 5.5million within 20 years:

“Immigration and high birth rates will mean nearly one in ten Britons will be Muslim by 2030, according to a worldwide study about the spread of Islam.

And the forecasts mean Britain will have more Muslims than Kuwait.

From 1990 to 2010 the number of followers of the Islamic faith around the world increased at an average rate of 2.2 per cent annually. Last year there were 1.57billion around the world.

The British increase in the Muslim population from the current 2.8 million will be mainly driven by immigration, according to figures prepared by a Washington think tank.

Projections by the respected Pew Research Centre said the 40 years between 1990 and 2030 will see a fivefold rise in Britain.

In 1990 there were 1.1million Muslims in Britain, representing two per cent of the population.

By last year that figure had risen to 2.8million, or four per cent. By 2030 the number will hit 5.5 million - eight per cent of an estimated 68 million population, Pew researchers said.”

Britain is paying a high price for this nonsensical, liberal progressive social immigration policy.

Last Wednesday, Drummer Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, a man who had served Queen and country honorably in the hell of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, emerged from his barracks on Wellington Street, named after the Duke thereof, in southeast London. Minutes later, he was hacked to death in broad daylight and in full view of onlookers by two men with machetes who crowed “Allahu Akbar!” as they dumped his carcass in the middle of the street like so much road kill.

As grotesque as this act of savagery was, the aftermath was even morepic_giant_052413_London-Attack unsettling. The perpetrators did not, as the Tsarnaev brothers did in Boston, attempt to escape. Instead, they held court in the street gloating over their trophy, and flagged down a London bus to demand the passengers record their triumph on film. As the crowd of bystanders swelled, the remarkably urbane savages posed for photographs with the remains of their victim while discoursing on the iniquities of Britain toward the Muslim world. Having killed Drummer Rigby, they were killing time: It took 20 minutes for the lethargic British constabulary to show up. And so television viewers were treated to the spectacle of a young man, speaking in the vowels of south London, chatting calmly with his “fellow Britons” about his geopolitical grievances and apologizing to the ladies present for any discomfort his beheading of Drummer Rigby might have caused them, all while drenched in blood and still wielding his cleaver.

If you’re thinking of getting steamed over all that, don’t. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Times of London, cautioned against “mass hysteria” over “mundane acts of violence.”

That’s easy for him to say. Woolwich is an unfashionable part of town, and Sir Simon is unlikely to find himself there of an afternoon stroll. Drummer Rigby had less choice in the matter. Being jumped by barbarians with machetes is certainly “mundane” in Somalia and Sudan, but it’s the sort of thing that would once have been considered somewhat unusual on a sunny afternoon in south London — at least as unusual as, say, blowing up eight-year-old boys at the Boston Marathon. It was “mundane” only in the sense that, as at weddings and kindergarten concerts, the reflexive reaction of everybody present was to get out their cell phones and start filming.

there is a disturbing passivity to this scene: a street full of able-bodied citizens being lectured to by blood-soaked murderers who have no fear that anyone will be minded to interrupt their diatribes. In fairness to the people of Boston, they were ordered to “shelter in place” by the governor of Massachusetts. In Woolwich, a large crowd of Londoners apparently volunteered to “shelter in place,” instinctively. Consider how that will play when these guys’ jihadist snuff video is being hawked around the bazaars of the Muslim world. Behold the infidels, content to be bystanders in their own fate.

This passivity set the tone for what followed. In London as in Boston, the politico-media class immediately lapsed into their political correct multi-culture blabber that seems to be a chronic side effect of excess diversity-celebrating: No Islam to see here, nothing to do with Islam, all these body parts in the street are a deplorable misinterpretation of Islam. The BBC’s Nick Robinson accidentally described the men as being “of Muslim appearance,” but quickly walked it back lest impressionable types get the idea that there’s anything “of Muslim appearance” about a guy waving a machete and saying “Allahu Akbar.” A man is on TV dripping blood in front of a dead British soldier and swearing “by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” yet it’s the BBC reporter who’s apologizing for “causing offence.” To David Cameron, Drummer Rigby’s horrific end was “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam. Perhaps it will eventually be labeled as “workplace violence.”

In the above video clip note the woman casually pulling her shopping cart as she approaches terrorist and the crowd of sheeple standing by and casually watching. I can guarantee this would not have been the case in Oklahoma or Texas. Also note how the ITV commentator refers to another act of violence when describing that the armed police shot the SOB machete-wielding killer.

The suburbs of the Swedish capital were engulfed in a fourth night of rioting early last Thursday in the country's worst civil unrest in years, leaving locals shaking their heads and wondering when calm would return to their usually tranquil city. A report in USA Today states:

“Since Sunday, hundreds of young residents of the suburbs of Husby, Jakobsberg, Hagsatra, Skarholmenset and others set dozens of cars on fire, damaged buildings — including schools and a police station — and battled with police. There were about 10 arrests, and one police officer was reported injured.

Police spokesman Kjell Lindgren says at least 30 cars were set ablaze across western and southern Stockholm early Thursday. Firefighters said they have "never before seen so many fires raging at the same time."

Fire also destroyed a restaurant in Skogas, south of Stockholm.

stockholm-riotGovernment officials have called for calm while the rioters say they won't stop until there is a full investigation into the shooting death of a 69-year-old mentally ill Husby man last week who, police say, was swinging a machete as police attempted a house search.

"Everyone must work to restore calm," said Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

On Wednesday night and into Thursday, hundreds of residents walked the streets to answer the appeal for calm.

The unrest in poor, immigrant suburbs is only the latest to break out in Europe over the past decade following riots in Paris in 2005 and in London in 2011. But it has shocked both locals and those outside the rich northern country famous for its tolerance and generous welfare system known as the 'Swedish model,' a country also synonymous for its commitment to societal equality and justice.

Now, locals are wondering if Sweden has done any better than its European neighbors in assimilating its immigrant population, especially as administrations in the past two decades have been slowly dismantling the cradle-to-grave welfare benefits. That has led to rising income inequality that has hit the young and immigrants the hardest with unemployment running at 7% for the general population, and 16% among residents of foreign origin.”

In a related report from The Guardian:

“What began in Husby last Sunday has spread to more than a dozen of the city's other suburbs. And on Friday night, while police reported a quieter night in the capital, fires and stone-throwing were also reported in Uppsala, Södertälje, and even further afield in Linköping and Örebro, in central Sweden.

The morning after the truck-burning, however, Husby seems idyllic.images (2) There's a busy vegetable stall in the main square and a group of elderly men sipping beer in the sun. The rows of seven-storey blocks, built in the 1960s and 1970s as part of Sweden's "million homes" project, are all freshly painted, the gardens and playgrounds well-tended. At the local school, the windows broken the previous night are already being fixed.

"If you have broken windows and they see it, they will crack other windows, so we must fix it immediately," says Christer Svensson, who has come in to do the work. "I don't care, I make money out of this."

Outside the new library, which opened last month, another white, ethnically Swedish handyman is busy painting. "This place behind me, they've just spent 40m kronor [£4m] on it," he grumbles. "They don't talk about that when they talk to the TV, do they? They talk about the problems, they don't talk about everything people are doing for them.

"These people, they should integrate in this society and just try a little bit more to be like Swedish citizens."

Scratch beneath the surface and this is a sentiment shared by many in a country that arguably has the world's most generous asylum policies. Sweden has taken in more than 11,000 refugees from Syria since 2012, more per head than any other European country, and it has absorbed more than 100,000 Iraqis and 40,000 Somalis over the past two decades. About 1.8 million of its 9.5 million people are first- or second-generation immigrants.

"This is one of the countries that treats immigrants the best," says Mohammed Hassan, a Bangladeshi studying in Husby's new library, who previously lived in Brick Lane in east London. "It's much, much better than any other European country in which I've travelled."

The nightly rioting in Stockholm that establishment media ascribes merely to “youths,” is being carried out by Muslim immigrants.

A report from the Russia-based RT.com is one of the few which dared to print the M-word -- "Muslim" -- and even its author waited until the 21st of 25 paragraphs to mention it. But the report's headline and content deserve credit for properly framing the "segregation" problem:

‘They don’t want to integrate’: Fifth night of youth rioting rocks Stockholm

Youth gang riots in the Swedish capital Stockholm have entered fifth straight night. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years.

The night before, the fire brigades were called to some 90 different blazes. On the fourth night of violence, youths torched over 30 cars in 15 neighborhoods along with a restaurant in Skogas, south of Stockholm. Three law enforcement officers were injured, police spokesperson Kjell Lindgren reported.

Stockholm firefighters were busy throughout the night, saying they had “never before seen so many fires raging at the same time.” Some 90 blazes were reported in total, most of them reportedly caused by the rioters. Still, the fourth night of violence was relatively quiet compared to the previous three, RT's Peter Oliver reported from Stockholm.

Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence, Peter Oliver reported.

“In Sweden you’ve got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It’s ridiculous and a bad excuse,” Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth told RT.

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

Young Muslims who enjoy tolerance, social institutions and welfare while living in Sweden nevertheless refuse to integrate into the West, Gerolf Annemans told RT. Annemans is the parliamentary leader of Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish Interest’), a Belgian far-right nationalist political party.

“It’s always the same problem. There is a massive refusal by Muslim youngsters of the basics of Western society... and they take any excuse whatsoever to show that with violence – that is where the problem is,” he said.

Muslim immigrants in Sweden now total slightly more than 6 percent of thearticle-1351251-053BF13A0000044D-321_634x558 population, providing additional support for the maxim that a Muslim population of 5 percent is a tipping point for political turmoil. In other countries, Muslim immigrants at that point have begun to seek concessions, including, typically, the right to govern themselves by Sharia, or Islamic law.

In Sweden, the Muslim population has doubled in the last 14 years, with Muslims now accounting for over 41 percent of Sweden’s total population growth. The growth reflects not only increasing Islamic immigration but also a disproportionately high birth rate in a nation in which the native birth rate is trending toward zero-growth.

According to European Union statistics, an estimated 574,000 Muslims lived in Sweden in 2012, making up 6.05 percent of the population, compared to 1998, when there were 284,000 Muslims, or 3.21 percent of the total population.

The EU currently estimates that at current rates of growth, the Muslim population will reach 40 percent of the total population in Sweden by 2030.

While Sweden does not keep welfare statistics specifically for Muslims, experts estimate from available government welfare statistics on the foreign-born that somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of Sweden’s welfare payments go to Muslims, with the percentage on the rise.

In Stockholm, the rioting in recent days has centered on Husby, a low-income suburb of Stockholm with some 12,000 residents. Approximately 80 percent are first- or second-generation Muslim immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Somalia.

Swedish police estimated that about 200 Muslim youths were responsible for the violence last week that set hundreds of cars and several buildings on fire with Molotov cocktails, including a parking garage fire that forced the evacuation of residents of an adjacent apartment block.

After setting cars on fire, masked Muslim youths waited to pelt with rocks any police responding to calls.

Reports indicate Megafonen, a “youth activist group” funded by the city, planned the Husby riots. Police in riot gear scuffled with Muslim gangs roaming freely in Husby. Some 200 organized Muslim youth rioters armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails stood near the burning cars awaiting to pelt with rocks and Molotov cocktails police and fire departments responding.

The Muslim riots in the suburbs outside Stockholm bear a strong resemblance to the Muslim riots that began Oct. 27, 2005, in suburbs outside Paris.

Several common elements between the rioting in France in 2005, and again in 2012, with the rioting currently occurring in Stockholm:

Unemployed Muslim youth immigrants from welfare families relocated from Africa to Europe begin the riot in early evening by tossing Molotov cocktails to set parked cars on fire;

The violence is intensified and spread by mobs of Muslim gangs running wild through the suburb streets, spreading to the area in which cars and buildings are torched;

When police and fire department units respond, the Muslim rioters lie in wait to pelt them with rocks, sticks and Molotov cocktails.

In February, the Economist reported that in Sweden, only 51 percent of non-Europeans have a job, compared with over 84 percent of native Swedes.

“The Nordic countries need to persuade their citizens that they are getting a good return on their taxes,” the Economist noted, “but mass immigration is creating a class of people who are permanently dependent upon the state.”

In Sweden, 26 percent of all prisoners and 50 percent of prisoners serving more than five years are foreigners, the Economist detailed.

Nor is the conflict limited to social-demographic characteristics and economics; it also extends to cultural differences.

“Nordics fervently believe in liberal values, especially sexual equality and freedom of speech, but many of the immigrants come from countries where men and women are segregated and criticizing the prophet Muhammad is a serious offense.”

The Economist report concluded:

“The biggest battle is within the Nordic mind. Is it more progressive to open the door to refugees and risk overextending the welfare state, or to close the door and leave them to languish in danger zones? Is it more enlightened to impose secular values on devout Muslims or to dilute liberal values in the name of multiculturalism? Trying to reconcile these contradictions can lead to strange results. Alarmed by reports of female genital mutilation, Nyamko Sabuni, a Swedish cabinet minister, suggested compulsory gynaecological examinations for all young girls in Sweden.

Liberals are increasingly on the defensive. The number of immigration-related attacks is rising. In 2010 Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly blew himself up in the middle of a crowd of Christmas shoppers in central Stockholm; remarkably, he managed to injure only a couple of people. In Sweden median household incomes of non-European immigrants are now 36% lower than for native-born Swedes, whereas in 1991 they were only 21% lower. But Denmark’s much-vilified immigration reforms may be paying off: the employment gap between native Danes and non-Western immigrants has declined to 24 percentage points, compared with 42 in the mid-1990s.

Sweden is now allowing in more skilled workers, having previously combined highly restrictive policies for this group with the world’s most generous policies for refugees. Trade unions used to have a veto over who was admitted and repeatedly used it. This may calm the immigration debate, but it may equally well increase the pressure to open the doors even wider for skilled immigrants while closing them for refugees.

A 20-minute drive from Rosengard to the western harbour takes the visitor to the Turning Torso, a high-rise, high-spec block that twists like a lithe athlete and commands spectacular views over the Oresund bridge linking Malmö to Copenhagen. Directly opposite its entrance is an establishment calling itself a “facelift centre”. Designer houses cluster around its base. Green’s supermarket sells local organic food and advertises yoga classes and tango lessons on the beach.

Thirty years ago Malmö was the capital of working-class Sweden, a no-nonsense city dominated by solid citizens who worked in the Kockums shipyard and voted for the Social Democratic Party. Then the global economy turned against it. The shipyards contracted and the local factories and textile mills closed. The once-dominant working class shrank to near-invisibility and the population split between professionals living in designer lofts and refugees living in Rosengard’s high-rises. The giant Kockums crane that had become the city’s symbol in 1974 was dismantled and sent to South Korea in 2002. In 2005 the Turning Torso became the city’s new landmark.

The decline of the working class and the increasing polarisation of professionals and immigrants is being repeated across the region. The Nordic countries are still among the world’s most equal, and in one important respect they are becoming more so. In 2010-11 around 60% of university graduates in Finland and Sweden were women. Sweden has almost as many female as male MPs. In Denmark the prime minister and a raft of other ministers are women.

But in other respects money is making the Nordics less equal. As a proportion of the economy, Sweden’s private-equity industry is second only to Britain’s in Europe, and Norway is awash with oil money. Some of the new rich are splashing out on Porsches and big houses, but most prefer to spend their money in subtler and less conspicuous ways. Even so, they live in a different world from the immigrants stuck in Rosengard.”

In a May 26th report from The Independent:

“So is there something rotten in the state of Sweden? The scale of the riots cannot be compared to Paris in 2005 or to London two years ago, which eventually took hold far outside the capital. No one has been killed, and almost no one injured. The little suburb of Husby is a pretty place, built for rich white Swedes who have almost all left. It is incomparable to Tottenham’s Broadwater Farm estate, the ground zero of the London riots.

But even so, 80 per cent of the population are immigrants, who have for the most part fled from the troubled corners of the world - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Kurdistan and more recently Syria - lured by Sweden’s traditionally welcoming attitude towards asylum seekers. But youth unemployment is high, at least by Swedish standards - 6 per cent.”

In February of 1993 I spent three days in Stockholm on a business trip. The first thing I noticed was the cab ride from the airport to my hotel. I had a Pakistani driver with a new Volvo. Next at the hotel I noticed many “Asian” staff working the restaurant and room cleaning service. When I asked my Swedish hosts about this they looked distressed as the politely attempted to excuse the increase in immigration of Muslims into “their” country. They were concerned about the increasing strain these poor and uneducated immigrants were putting on their social welfare system — a system these businessmen were not very happy about paying high taxes for. They were also concerned that these immigrants were not learning Swedish and assimilating into their culture. Sound familiar?

After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.

Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message:

“There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe.”

According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.

Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.

“We have institutional racism,” says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for “social change.”

Sweden, racist?

Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population.

Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?

The same day these stories ran, The Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.

Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan’s role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.

Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the U.S.A., Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security’s radar.

His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.

One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.

The “national origins” feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.

But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.

They wanted to end America’s history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth. This is called multiculturalism.

Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idée fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand, and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.

But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.

What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?

Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind.

Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.

And if we bring into America — afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars — peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?

The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.

When a people abandon their language, culture, and borders it is no longer a sovereign nation. It becomes a polyglot assembly of peoples adhering to their native language and culture in the manner of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire — it was neither Austrian, Hungarian nor an Empire. It was a multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural assemblage with vague borders that ended with a gunshot by in Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

Our Founders’ vision of the republic they had created was a nation open to immigrants willing to come to this new land and live under our organic laws.

It was James Madison who stated in a speech at Federal Convention, August 13, 1787: ”America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.” Their intent was not for immigrants to come to America and bring their old world baggage with them and see how much they could take from their fellow taxpayers.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty, standing above New York Harbor, by Emma Lazarus reads”

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

It does not say:

Give me your tired, your poor, your disenchanted, and those wishing a better life,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free and realize the benefits of plunder,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, those who see the streets paved with gold,

Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me to enjoy the bounty of our social welfare system, and wish for a land of multiculturalism,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door, be you legal or illegal, so you may enjoy your happiness in the generosity of the American taxpayer while retaining your language, culture, and customs.

With the exploding population in the Muslim world and the increasing poverty and civil unrest more and more poor and uneducated Muslims will be looking for refugee status in Europe, Canada, and the United States. The same holds true with our own southern neighbors with the exception of the civil unrest. The twenty years will see a dramatic change in the European welfare states as more and more of these immigrants tax their social welfare systems and there will be more takers than makers. Their liberal progressive social policies will become increasingly unpopular with the native born as the influence of these Muslim immigrants not only drain their government’s coffers, but also change their culture. As Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany stated in October 2010: “This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.”