Congressman Andy Biggs Makes the Case Against a new Constitutional Convention

“Some conservatives assume that a constitutional convention would propose only conservative ideas like a balanced budget. It never occurs to them that Bernie Sanders supporters would show up to demand constitutional amendments requiring the taxpayers to pay for free college and other free stuff for everyone.” – Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

“Article V of the Constitution has only 22 words about a convention for proposing amendments, but the most important is the word ‘call.’  Since only Congress can “call” the convention, it means that states have no control over who can be a delegate, who makes the rules, who sets the agenda or who wields the gavel.”  – Phyllis Schlafly

“As early as 1970, Council on Foreign Relations member and outspoken globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the U.S. Constitution should be altered via a constitution convention to bring about globalization, and today CFR members such as former governor and secretary of health and human services Tommy Thompson are still providing the impetus for such a convention.” –  Mitchell Shaw for the John Birch Society


To many conservatives who are tired of seeing the federal government overstep its constitutional boundaries and expand its reach into areas it has no business being in, nothing seems more “grassroots” than the idea of asking Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution and rein in federal government.  The erroneous argument from the self-appointed leaders of a new con-con is that this is the only way to rein in out-of-control government.  However, the devil is in the details and Representative Andy Biggs knows the dangers and a con-con is not the answer.

Congressman Biggs has made a compelling case in his book, The Con of the Con-Con, that the procedure for changing the Constitution is fraught with hazards that will likely leave Americans far worse off than they are now.  When Mr. Biggs was a member of the Arizona Senate, he was castigated every time he tried to stop the legislature from passing an application for a con-con.

Andy Biggs at PS Eagle Council

Congressman Biggs with three of the Schlafly brothers, John, Bruce and Andy.

Andy Biggs was a guest speaker at last year’s Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Council.  Both he and Andy Schlafly spoke against the various applications for a Constitutional Convention (con-con) under the guise of proposing amendments for a Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, etc. via the fraudulent Convention of States Project (COSP).

Rep. Biggs is a distinguished conservative legislator and he and his wife Cindy are such a joy to see every year at the council meetings.  It was my pleasure to chat with the Congressman on the massive push by the many fraudulent organizations for an Article V Convention.

Congressman Biggs and his wife, Cindy

I asked Rep. Biggs how he became aware of the dangers of a constitutional convention (con-con).  He said he started seeing a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution initiating the second part of Article V and petitioning Congress while he was in the Arizona State House, and decided he had to stop it.

“Having served in a legislative body and having understood what a self-governing legislative body can and can’t do, either they didn’t understand it, or they were being disingenuous and would have the doors blown off our Constitution.  There were people coming up with these crazy ideas about what they thought they could do to control a new convention.  So, as a lawyer, I went back and read the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and everything about the founders that I could find and I realized what their intention was.”

The Congressman actually attended the 2012 con-con conference at Harvard with Lawrence Lessig and Mark Meckler, then co-leader of Tea Party Patriots. Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and the John Birch Society were not invited.  At the time, I wrote extensively on what happened with the coordinated effort between Mark Meckler and Harvard’s Professor Lawrence Lessig.  Link and Link

Right and Left Work Together

Rep. Biggs commented that people believe the new push for a con-con is a rightwing promotion.  “It is not just the right; the socialist group Code Pink which has ties to Castro’s Communist regime, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela’s Maduro are behind a new Article V Convention.” They were founding members of the “Move to Amend” coalition which includes Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Sierra Club, Vermont for Single Payer and hundreds more.  They want to put “their man” in as a delegate to urge their amendments and constitutional changes upon the deliberations of the convention.

George Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the US. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. Yes, the financier of global fascism is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V convention campaign that is being promoted by Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Farris, Meckler, Barton, Coburn, Palin and dozens more.

The deceptive Left-Right coalition to rewrite the Constitution by means of an Article V convention threatens our personal rights and freedoms.

Convention of States Project (COSP)

The COSP was co-founded by Mark Meckler, formerly of Tea Party Patriots, and Michael Farris who in 2017 left the leadership to Meckler. The misinformed and manipulative leaders of a COS refuse to call this an Article V convention and they claim the states can control it.

They are misleading the gullible and uneducated public.  State legislatures apply for a convention, but it is Congress who calls, convenes or opens a convention.  In Mitchell Shaw’s New American article, Who’s Behind a Constitutional Convention, he said, “Of course that means that Congress, a branch of the same federal government the advocates of a convention claim the convention would rein in, has the power (according to Article 1, Section 8, last clause) to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ the convention.”

The Money Behind the Con

Too few Americans are even aware that a constitutional convention can be called, let alone that there would be no checks on its scope and further that the process to call one is well underway and being underwritten by some of the nation’s richest individuals.

Applications for a convention are coming from the “right” and the left, but with more money, a stronger campaign structure, and national coordination on the “right.” A number of major so-called “conservative” organizations and donors, including the Mercer family and Koch-funded groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have renewed and intensified efforts to thrust this issue into the spotlight after years of inactivity.  The Koch brothers are funding many organizations as well as politicians who will promote a new con-con.  Socialists and George Soros are fighting for an Article V convention, and Soros heavily funds the “Move to Amend Coalition” mentioned above along with hundreds of others.

Billionaires Charles Koch and George Soros have formed an alliance to advocate for pacifist foreign policy, teaming up to create an anti-war think tank known as The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.  But their big joint issue is a new Constitution Convention.

Nothing Defines the Call

When the Framers got together in 1787, there were only 50 of them at one time in the room and it was closed to the public and media. They believed in and trusted each other not to speak out of turn to anyone as to what was going on inside, (unlike today’s leaks to the media about everything).

Congressman Biggs said, “A new convention is going to be absolutely out of control with the people involved from both sides.  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was held in Las Vegas as they have convention halls that are big enough and it could easily be televised.

This will not be the case in a new convention.  The world will be there…every special interest, every monied interest, every social media…all trying to get some kind of benefit into the constitution.  Virtually, every state constitution is larger than the federal constitution and the reason is that our federal constitution created a federal government to which we delegated only a handful of enumerated powers; whereas the state constitutions create governments of almost unlimited powers, and that’s what will happen at a new convention.”  (Some folks believe a new convention would be closed to the public – for the likely purpose of having the Delegates propose a new constitution which moves the U.S. into the North American Union.)

“The promoters say, ‘Well it will be limited to a Balanced Budget Amendment,’ but it’s not going to be limited.  Let me tell you I can get around every one of them, and second of all there won’t even be a nod to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

The Congressmen said that people have told him that Congress doesn’t have a say in the con-con, but we know they do.

Mark Levin is an aggressive promoter of an Article V convention and actually called Congressman Biggs swear words on the air because as Arizona Senate President, he had held up the vote on an application for an Article V convention in his state.  Many other legislators actually thanked Senator Biggs for holding it up.  They told him they’d have to vote for it if it had come to the floor.  Rep. Biggs told me they had no courage and they were grateful he held it up.

Everyone wants to do something to fix the out of control federal government, but as Rep. Biggs stated, “We must elect people who love our 1787 Constitution.”

A Dangerous Outcome

In light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the constitution written by the founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Cenk Uygur’s Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.

Remember, according to our history of the “amendments” convention of 1787,  regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring Delegates to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter, abolish, or revise their government.  This is exactly what they did in 1787 with the Articles of Confederation.

It boggles the mind to think of the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.  George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren’t known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.

The only prior constitutional convention we have had, in 1787, almost immediately disregarded their instructions to merely propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and scrapped the Articles’ ratification requirement as well. It turned out OK; the Articles were replaced with the vastly superior U.S. Constitution. But here’s the point, no one, not Congress, not the Supreme Court and certainly not the president, has any authority to rein in a runaway constitutional convention. And all the promises made by those promoting this destruction of our Framers’ document cannot guarantee it will be controlled.  Link

Given today’s socialist and yes communist politics, who could be sure that nothing crazy would be successfully proposed, and ratified – since a new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification?

James Madison, Father of our Constitution and fourth President of the United States said, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.”

Conclusion

Andy Biggs was elected as Representative of Arizona’s 5th District and took office in January of 2017.  In March of that same year, Arizona passed an application for a con-con because Andy wasn’t there to stop it.  At PS Eagle Council last year, he spoke for over two hours to a huge room full of people about this threat.

I would urge readers to register for this amazing three-day conference held yearly in St. Louis.  Conservative leaders and speakers are there to educate us, to answer our questions and to help us fight to Make America Great Again.

Did the Founding Father’s write the First Amendment because they understood the mistakes of King Nebuchadnezzar?

United States Constitution, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


President Trump just concluded a summit at the White House on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our Constitutional Republican form of government. To speak freely is tantamount to creating and maintaining a civil society. Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer, Ph.D., executive director emerita of the National Institute for Civil Discourse found:

  • 75% believe America is in a crisis.
  • 83% say incivility leads to intolerance of free speech.
  • 79% say incivility is leading to less political engagement.

I attend a weekly prayer fellowship group. We meet to discuss and learn from the Bible’s lessons. I have always said that there is nothing you will see, read or hear that has not been told or foretold in the Bible. By coincidence, or divine providence, this week’s lesson was from Daniel 3 (NKJV).

As we read Daniel 3 out loud I wondered if our Founding Father’s took the lessons of the Image of Gold from it when they wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ideas contained in the First Amendment are being discussed today in Washington, D.C. just as they were during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon and leader of the Chaldean Dynasty, from 605 BC – c. 562 BC.

Daniel 3 is all about the First Amendment.

There are three lessons from Daniel 3 that are fundamental to understanding why we have a First Amendment.

  1. The idea of The Image of Gold.
  2. The idea of Disobeying the King.
  3. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Let me explain further what I took from reading Daniel 3 with my fellowship.

First: he idea of creating images of gold. Daniel (NKJV):

Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its width six cubits.

We have seen men worship images of gold either by consensus or by force. Nebuchadnezzar used force to have his people worship his image of gold:

“To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up; and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.”

The fiery furnace reminded me of the Holocaust, where Adolf Hitler and the Nazis cast millions into the burning fiery furnaces of Auschwitz, Dachau and Buchenwald.

Second: Disobeying the king.

In every society there are those who stand up and defy a King. So it was for the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence.  The signers of the Declaration of Independence concluded with this, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

So too it happened in ancient Babylon:

12 There are certain Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not paid due regard to you. They do not serve your gods or worship the gold image which you have set up.”

When Nebuchadnezzar heard this he:

[G]ave the command to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. So they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good! But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?”

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.

Third: Two wrongs do not make a right.

King Nebuchadnezzar made two mistakes as outlined in Daniel 3. The first was creating the golden image, making government God. The second mistake was not learning from his first mistake and ordaining one monotheistic religion superior to all other religions.

After Nebuchadnezzar cast Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego into his fiery furnace something amazing happened, the three were not burned. Then Daniel 3 tells us:

29 Therefore I [Nebuchadnezzar] make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this.” 

Nebuchadnezzar created a new “state religion.” The King went from worshiping his golden image to worshiping the God of Abraham. Creating a state religion violates the First Amendment’s Establishment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I believe that our Founding Fathers understood the lessons of Daniel 3. They understood that none of the three branches of the newly created federal government must have the power to create either golden images or a single religion that is superior to all others.

This is why freedom of religion is the foundation from which is built the house that contains freedom of speech, the right to assemble and the right to petition government.

Without freedom of religion nothing else matters.

Please sign the White House petition to Protect Free Speech in the Digital Public Square

Catching Runaway Unborn Babies

David Carlin: The new politics of abortion is a lot like the old politics of slavery, as pro-life sentiment rises, the Left seeks laws to make us all complicit.


One of the important elements of the so-called Compromise of 1850, a late-in-the-day attempt to avoid the pending Civil War, was the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northern states, even the most anti-slavery of Northern states, to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners.

Massachusetts was, of course, one of these states, and when its famous U.S. senator, Daniel Webster, supported the Act in a desperate attempt to save his beloved Union, many of its most distinguished citizens (e.g., Ralph Waldo Emerson: see his lecture on the Fugitive Slave Act) withdrew the tremendous admiration they had hitherto given the great man.

Did the Fugitive Slave Act result in the capture and return of many runaway slaves who would otherwise have found their way to a life of freedom?  Probably not.  For despite the Act, slaves would still run away, the Underground Railroad would still operate, and northerners unsympathetic to slavery would still be reluctant to report runaways to the police.

What, then, was the point of the Fugitive Slave Act?  To rub the noses of anti-slavery people in slavery.  The pro-slavery South was saying to the anti-slavery North: “You don’t like slavery?  You think it is wicked?  You think we are great sinners for maintaining this, our peculiar institution? Well, we’ll show you.  By the Fugitive Slave Act we’ll make you co-operators in our system.  We’ll make you assist us in maintaining slavery.  If we are guilty, we’ll make you share our guilt.”

What does this remind you of?  In any case, what does it remind me of?

It reminds me of the policy position now taken by virtually every Democrat on the national scene – the policy position now taken, for instance, by that famous Catholic politician, Joe Biden.  It reminds me, in other words, of their position that the Hyde Amendment must be done away with and the federal government must pay for abortions.  Which means of course that taxpayers should pay for abortions, even those taxpayers (me, for example) who believe that abortion is an act of unjustifiable homicide.

Will it greatly increase the number of abortions if we make them free of charge for women who wish to kill their unborn babies?  Probably not.  What, then, is the point of getting rid of the Hyde Amendment?  The point is to rub our noses in abortion.  The point is to make all of us, even the most anti-abortion among us, collaborators in the great abortion machine.  “You don’t like abortion?  You think it wicked?  You think we are great sinners for maintaining this our splendid institution? Well, we’ll show you.  By getting rid of the Hyde Amendment we’ll make you co-operators in our system.  We’ll make you assist us in maintaining abortion.  If we are guilty, we’ll make you share our guilt.”

The pro-abortion people profess to be great believers in choice – just as the pro-slavery people professed to be great believers in state rights.  But, in fact, the pro-slavery people were not true believers in state rights.  They believed that their state had the right to choose slavery, but they didn’t believe that Massachusetts (for example) had the right to reject slavery.  They didn’t believe that Massachusetts had the right to decree that a slave who set foot on Massachusetts soil automatically became a free man or woman.

A few years later (1857) the U.S. Supreme Court ratified this view with its Dred Scott ruling, which Abraham Lincoln (along with others who were as clear-minded as he) understood to imply not just that Congress could not ban slavery from the territories but that, sooner or later, state legislatures could not ban slavery from their states.

Just as pro-slavery Southerners did not honestly believe in state rights, so pro-abortion Democrats (and others) do not honestly believe in free choice.  For if they did, they would believe in our choice not to pay for abortions.  They would believe in our choice not to become collaborators in homicide.

Let’s suppose you’re in a situation in which you are doing something that you know, deep down, to be wrong; but you don’t want to admit it to yourself; on the contrary, you want to persuade yourself that your wickedness is virtuous.  In a situation like this, your conscience will be greatly eased if you find that everybody around you believes that the wrong thing is right.

And so it was with Southern slaveholders.  The slaveholders were comforted by the fact that all the “best people” in their society were slaveholders.  But that wasn’t enough.  And so they worked hard to persuade non-slaveholding Southern whites that slavery was a fine institution; and they largely succeeded in this effort of persuasion, as was demonstrated when the Civil War came, and poor and almost-poor whites were willing to fight and die to protect the South’s “peculiar institution.”  This persuasion succeeded even among many slaves.

But in the North there remained millions and millions of Americans who were not persuaded – some of them abolitionists, far more of them anti-slavery in sentiment while not going so far as to be abolitionists.

As long as these people were denouncing slavery as wicked (and their voices of denunciation were getting louder and louder every year), the consciences of slaveholders could not be totally silenced.  What could be done?  Make these anti-slavery people co-operate in catching runaway slaves (the Fugitive Slave Act).  Better still, make them tolerate the presence of slavery in their midst (the Dred Scott ruling).  Make them share our guilt.

So it is with the pro-abortion people. They need to silence us if they are to silence their own consciences.  They can do this by making us share their guilt.  How?  By making us pay for their abortions.  If we quietly pay, if we make little or no fuss about this, we will have become part of the great abortion machine.  The consciences of pro-abortionists will be able to sleep in peace.

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The Trump Stealth Engine Fueling The Economic Boom

Deregulation is about the most wonky, least click-baity topic there is. It also may be the single biggest reason for the ongoing economic successes of the Trump administration — probably even more than the tax reform package, valuable as that was.

But almost nobody knows about this stealth economic engine and only a few of us continually mention it when referring to the economic powerhouse. Everything else, everything else gets coverage in the Trump administration whether it should or not. But not deregulation. It’s both boring and effective — which combine to make it totally un-newsy.

Which is a shame, because this is an area that Trump can take total credit for and is good for virtually every American — from homeowner, to middle class working stiff to small business owner to exporter. Everyone benefits from a lighter boot on the throat.

In the big picture, regulatory costs either force businesses to pass the costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices or, if the business is an exporter, to squeeze down wages to stay competitive. It also sucks money out of innovation possibilities, costing an unknown and unknowable amount in new products and higher qualities of life.

Generally, environmentalists and environmental journalists around the country (who are basically as much activists as the environmental activists they cover) portray every regulatory rollback as destroying the environment, polluting the air and water and causing the extinction of wildlife. And, of course, the great unknown boogeyman, climate change. Further, they also impugn the motive as giving in to lobbyists.

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers recently studied 20 regulations that were either repealed by the administration, or are opposed and may be repealed. These generally dealt with labor rules and internet access and were piled on by the Obama administration.

In a straightforward (sort of) cost-benefit analysis, the study concluded that these 20 regulations came to a net cost to the economy of $235 billion — or just more than 1 percent of the national GDP. When impacts can be seen in the gigantic national GDP number, even in a small way, then we have something meaningful.

The report also found that if all 20 regulations are dumped, the average annual gains per American household five years out would be about $3,100.

Now, a major caveat. Any study like this necessarily needs to make some assumptions, and those assumptions are going to drive the final numbers. When assumptions are made by politically motivated players in Washington, D.C., it is not unreasonable for critics to question them. And they do.

Not much, because of course there has been virtually no coverage of this report.

But probably most telling is that the critics — generally people from the Obama administration — do not deny there are net beneficial numbers for the national economy and for individual wage-earners. They just question these specific numbers.

Fair enough. But let’s recall one point. These are only 20 regulations. Presumably these are impact regulations, but the Trump administration bounced 124 “significant” regulations off the books in its first two years, while adding 17. There were hundreds more that are not considered “significant” but can add up. This report measured just 20.

The impacts on the economy, wages and consumer prices is very difficult to estimate, but they are undoubtedly substantial and playing a huge role in 224,000 new jobs created in June, more than 10 years into a now-record recovery, increasing wages, keeping inflation low and maintaining an absolutely rocking economy.

Just don’t expect to read much about this huge stealth effect in the media.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: 1958 Speech by Robert Welch Predicting How ‘Insiders’ Plan to Destroy America

Robert Henry Winborne Welch Jr. was an American businessman, political activist, and author. He was independently wealthy following his retirement and used that wealth to sponsor anti-Communist causes.

He co-founded the conservative group the John Birch Society in 1958 and tightly controlled it until his death.

John Birch Society Mission

To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence

“These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Declaration of Independence established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies and the United States of America that they together formed a decade later.

The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.

The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national independence.

Restoring the Constitution

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.

The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and works toward educating and activating Americans to abide by the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We seek to awaken a sleeping and apathetic people concerning the designs of those who are working to destroy our constitutional Republic.

The Democrats’ Positions on Immigration Are Starting to Worry a Lot of Democrats

The death of the so-called Gang of Eight bill in the House of Representatives in 2014 marks the point at which the Democratic establishment dropped any pretense of support for immigration enforcement. The last week in June 2019 will almost certainly mark the point at which the party’s leaders declared not only their unconcealed hostility to immigration enforcement, but their rejection of the very notion that the United States should even have immigration laws.

The week began with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the party’s highest ranking elected federal official, declaring “A violation of status is not a reason for deportation. That’s just not so.” 8 U.S. Code Section 1325 says otherwise, but why let a little thing like a federal statute stand in the way of a political agenda? Pelosi went on to tout a House supplemental appropriation to deal with the humanitarian fallout from the border crisis, “We have legislation to go forward to address those needs,” and also stated clearly her view that anyone who makes it into the country, however they got here, should be allowed to remain. “[I]n terms of interior enforcement, what is – what’s the point?”

But Pelosi’s musings were just the Democratic locomotive approaching the sharp curve at high speed. Just a few days later, the two dozen or so presidential contenders who hope to supplant her as the nation’s highest ranking elected Democrat held their first debate over two nights. That’s where their positions on immigration really went off the rails in the opinion of some high profile opinion columnists whose opinions tend to lean toward the Democrats’ world view.

Andrew Sullivan, writing in New York Magazine, and Jeff Greenfield in Politico, were both left wondering whether the Democrats had lost all touch, not just with reality, but with voters outside of the bubble of the party’s increasingly radical base. “I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide,” wrote Sullivan. Similarly, Greenfield noted, “These candidates aren’t explicitly advocating open borders, but taken together, the policies advocated amount to almost the same thing.” And not just advocating for open borders, observed Greenfield, but also all manner of “’free stuff’ to millions of people who broke the law to get here in the first place.”

Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Julian Castro, who apparently is familiar with Section 1325 openly called for its repeal. He also conceded that many of the people who are now violating Section 1325 are really economic migrants. “A lot of folks that are coming are not seeking asylum — a lot of them are undocumented immigrants,” who should be allowed to remain here anyway, Castro said.

While there was some disagreement among the presidential wannabes about whether we should care if people cross our borders without permission, there was none when it came to the question about what expensive benefit programs illegal aliens should be entitled to. All. When the debate moderator asked the candidates on stage if they agreed with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttitieg’s suggestion that illegal aliens be made eligible for federal health insurance benefits, every hand went up. The cost of such a plan? Apparently it would be crass to even calculate the cost of allowing everyone who shows up here to exercise their “right” to health care at the American taxpayer’s expense.

Whether last week’s assertions by the Democratic leadership amount to “political suicide,” as Sullivan suggests, will be determined by the voters in 16 months. What is clear is that the week was a definitive turning point. As Greenfield conclude, “Right now, it seems clear that if either of the past two Democratic presidents had shown up Thursday and advocated their positions from five or 20 years ago—the ones that helped them win a general election—they would have been booed off their own party’s stage.”

 COLUMN BY

IRA MEHLMAN

Ira joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1986 with experience as a journalist, professor of journalism, special assistant to Gov. Richard Lamm (Colorado), and press secretary of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His columns have appeared in National Review, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and more. He is an experienced TV and radio commentator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ken Cuccinelli says 1M illegal immigrants have court orders to leave the US

Criminals Profit When Illegal Aliens Crash the Border

A Fine Strategy? Making Deportable Fugitives Pay

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Guarantee The President’s Re-Election

Things Are Looking Up For Trump, GOP In 2020

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column is republished with permission. All rights reserved

Before the Income Tax, our Nation was Supported by Tariffs

The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence indeed requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves, without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency. Thomas Jefferson, in an 1815 letter to John-Baptiste Say, a French economist

A free people … should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essentials, particularly military supplies.  President George Washington

Under free trade, the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. Free trade destroys the dignity and independence of American labor… It will take away from the people of this country who work for a living— and the majority of them live by the sweat of their faces— it will take from them heart and home and hope. It will be self-destruction. President William McKinley


I wish we still had tariffs on all imports.  Why?  Because tariffs are what kept America’s manufacturing alive, our people with decent jobs, our ability to purchase quality goods produced by American owned companies, and because those tariffs once supported the entire cost of running our country. For 126 years, until 1913, there was no federal income tax and we kept all of the monies we earned.  Today’s communist progressive taxation is a far cry from what our founders envisioned for America’s citizens.

Following World War II, America began switching from a policy of protection, to a policy of “free trade,” which used international trade deals as a means of diplomacy and alliance-building, slowly eroding and ultimately destroying America’s status as the world’s dominant manufacturing power.

The idea that America’s economic tradition has been economic liberty, laissez faire, and wide-open cowboy capitalism, which would naturally include free trade… is simply not real history. The reality is that all four presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. Protectionism was, in fact, the real American way.

Trump’s populist pro-tariff advisors Bannon and Navarro opposed the globalists in Trump’s administration, including economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, then Trump’s national security adviser.

Gary Cohn resigned when the President called for broad import tariffs on steel and aluminum, anathema to establishment free-trade Democrats and Republicans.  McMaster was fired and replaced by former UN Ambassador, John Bolton.

The 1913 Income Tax

This tax dominates the revenue scheme of the federal government today.  It is totally unconstitutional.  Prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment (income tax) in February 1913, the federal government managed its few constitutional responsibilities without an income tax, except during the Civil War period. During peacetime, it did so largely or even entirely on import taxes called “tariffs.”

Congress ran the fed government on tariffs alone because fed responsibilities did not include welfare programs, agricultural subsidies, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.  Before the Northern War of Aggression, the need for tariff revenue to finance the federal government generally kept the tariffs at reasonable levels. During wartime throughout early American history, the Founding Fathers were able to raise additional revenue employing a different method of direct taxation authorized by the U.S. Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment. These alternative taxing methods gave the young American nation embarrassing peacetime budget surpluses that several times came close to paying off the national debt.

President Andrew Jackson boasted in his veto of the Maysville Road Bill in 1830 that God had blessed the nation with no taxes (except tariffs on imports) and no national debt.  “Old Hickory” presided over a nation where Congress had abolished all federal internal taxes, and no citizen saw a tax collector of the United States unless that citizen was in the business of importing foreign goods.  (And now, the $20-dollar bill sporting the visage of Tennessee’s beloved President Andrew Jackson will be replaced with the picture of abolitionist, Harriet Tubman.)

While American consumers were occasionally manipulated by outrageously high protective tariffs, inside the United States a massive free market emerged over which the U.S. government had almost no influence.

By way of contrast, the advent of the income tax prompted some congressmen to note that this tax was designed not principally for revenue, the U.S. government had always had plenty of money from tariffs, but to manipulate the American people and their choices in the market.

This has been the legacy of the income tax. While the income tax has produced the type of revenue that has made a massive transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, the incentives, through thousands of deductions and tax credits have manipulated the American people into choices that they wouldn’t have otherwise made in a free market. These manipulations, whether in favor of “green energy” research, “cash for clunker” automobile purchases, or tobacco crop subsidies, have been chosen according to the prevailing virtue in Washington.

Prior to 1913, Americans were responsible for themselves and independent enough to know that their future depended not on the government, but solely on themselves.

Selling Out American Manufacturing

In 1992, ads in local newspapers encouraged businesses to transfer their manufacturing to Honduras, El Salvador, the Caribbean Basin International Development Zone, of the Dominican Republic and Haiti.  These were International Free Trade Zones and Port Industrial Free Zones. This included Mexico.

Instead of paying living wages in the United States, corporations were urged to move to countries where wages were $.33 to $.56 per hour.  In 1991, a U.S. government agency actually directed apparel firms in the Southeast to be approached and sold on the idea of going offshore where the labor was cheaper.  There is a Puerto Rican and Asian connection as well.  Hundreds of companies moved their plants out of our country, and this was 27 years ago.

I remember a friend of mine who worked for Levi Strauss jeans at a terrific middle-class salary being told to train the Mexican workers how to do their jobs knowing the company was moving manufacturing to Mexico.  The Mexicans were given free living accommodations in our country, they were free from our income taxes, and they took over the jobs our American citizens had for a lot less money and manufacturing was ultimately moved to Mexico.

Check out the 1992 article from the Pennsylvania Crier.  It will shock you.  Then go to the original Pennsylvania Crier home page and click on “Downloads.”  The information in this website documents history with far more than anything you’ll find in today’s school books.  It is invaluable!

Our country’s manufacturing was purposely sold to third world countries to the detriment of our own people.  When NAFTA was first promoted, the calls to our Congressional reps were ten to one against it, but our globalist enemies sold us out and voted for it.

Unfortunately, Trump’s Trade Representative, CFR member Robert Lighthizer has sold us out and fooled our President into thinking the USMCA is a better deal than NAFTA.  It is not! And Trump does not have conservative advisers who will read Lighthizer’s USMCA and tell him the truth.  Numerous articles have been written regarding the contents and the loss of our sovereignty.  Publius Huldah wrote that it not only violates our U.S. Constitution, but it also sets up global government.  And my friend, J.W. Bryan, has written numerous articles exposing the dangers within the USMCA.

Trump’s Tariffs on Chinese Imports

Last September 2018, President Trump announced tariffs on “roughly $200 billion of imports from China.” These tariffs are on top of the ones imposed during the summer on $50 billion of products from that country.

Mr. Trump has consistently believed that Beijing needed America far more than America needed China, largely because China is the country running large trade surpluses. In 2017, China’s merchandise trade surplus against the United States hit a record $375.6 billion. As Trump knows, trade-surplus countries get mauled in “trade wars.” Therefore, Beijing, not Washington, is the party that needs to talk to reduce tension.

After extensive trade talks with China ended without an agreement on May 10, 2019, President Trump raised the tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese imports from 10% to 25%. China retaliated three days later, announcing new tariffs on $60 billion of American exports.

Asia expert, Gordon Chang is urging the president to remain strong on tariffs, telling Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs Opens a New Window. the only way to prevent Chinese theft and trade imbalance is for the U.S. to raise tariffs Opens a New Window. and implement continued pressure on the Chinese.  Chang told Dobbs, “We have seen so many trade negotiations between previous presidents and the Chinese. They have all failed. The Chinese have violated every single agreement. This is really important for us. This is where we either stand or we fail, and the only thing that’s going to get us there is President Trump.”

Of course, there are free-trade Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz who claim these actions will hurt the farmers and people of Texas.  Cruz previously supported giving fast track authority on trade to President Obama.  But our President already said the government would be subsidizing the farmers’ losses during this “fair” trade battle with China.

The Mexican Border and Trade

Personally, I’d like to see the border closed completely.  The trade trucks can stand in line at the border and be thoroughly inspected to allow them into the states.  But the border should be closed.  All border ports of entry should also be closed.  We are being flooded with illegal immigrants pleading asylum, being loosed in America and never showing up for their court appearances.  If anyone believes there are only 12 to 30 million illegals in this country, they are not paying attention.  The count is over 60 million or more and growing daily.

We do not have enough border patrol agents, ICE agents, fences or walls built as high as the Vatican, or congressional laws to protect American citizens from the influx and costs of these lawbreakers.  There are many Islamist terrorists amongst them who daily illegally cross into America.

President Trump threatened tariffs on Mexico being raised every single month until something was done by Mexico to stop them.  According to the State Department, Mexico agreed to dispatch 6,000 national guardsmen at the border with Guatemala to block migrants from reaching the United States and expand a Trump administration program that holds thousands of asylum-seekers in Mexico during U.S. immigration processing.  Over 90 percent of those released into America never appear in court and are free to remain in America.

If Mexico’s actions “do not have the expected results,” additional measures could be taken within 90 days, and the two countries will continue to discuss add-on steps during that period.  This includes tariffs on Mexican goods coming into our country increasing every month until this influx of illegal aliens is quelled.  Link  Without our President and without these tariff threats, there would have been no deal.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson put more than 100,000 National Guard troops on the Mexican border.  The military buildup followed an early-morning raid at the garrison town of Columbus, New Mexico. Ten soldiers and eight civilians were killed when the Mexican revolutionary leader General Francisco “Pancho” Villa attacked with almost 500 men.

It’s time for America to put thousands upon thousands of National Guard troops on our border again, and armed with equipment to prevent the surge of illegals from entering our country.  And yes, there is new military equipment that repels invaders called the Active Denial Systems Non-Lethal Weapon and turns them back without hurting them.  This needs to be manned and used on the entire southern border.

Conclusion

Pat Buchanan was absolutely on target when he stated, “Once a nation has put its foot onto the slippery slope of global free trade, the process is inexorable, the end inevitable: death of the nation-state.”

Tariffs are the answer.  The only way our nation can regain control of trade that benefits American citizens is through tariffs.  Neither China nor Mexico will cave to our demands unless they suffer the consequences of American tariffs.

If we subsidize our farmers and those who lose during this battle, a battle that we continue to fight over a period of five years or more, manufacturing would again start up in America, first with small businesses, and then it would spread.  Our nation would again be one of productivity, surplus, and financial growth for her citizens.

To right the wrongs can be painful for a short time, but in the long run will revive and restore our country.

PODCAST: Carbon Tax Scam, Politics of Virginia Beach Shooting and Benghazi Stand Down Exposed!

GUESTS

Jordan McGillis is a Policy Analyst at the Institute for Energy Research. In his role, McGillis writes on energy policy and contributes to IER’s communications initiatives.
McGillis graduated with a B.A. from the University of South Florida and an M.A. from Seton Hall University, both in International Affairs. Areas of focus: Federal Lands (permitting, drilling rights,ect.), Carbon Tax & Climate Change, Free Market Theory.

TOPIC..Carbon Tax Scam!

Alan Gottlieb is a strong advocate of defense. A nuclear engineering graduate of the University of Tennessee, publisher of Gun Week, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, and serves on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union.

TOPIC…Virginia Governor Pushes Gun Control After Virginia Beach Shooting!

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, West Point Graduate, Founder of “Stand up America” and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan and retired as Deputy Commanding General for the US Army Pacific. Now a guest military analyst for TV and radio and co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”.

TOPIC…Exposed!! Benghazi Stand Down!

100 Reasons to Homeschool Your Kids

This is my 100th article at FEE.org, so here are 100 reasons to homeschool your kids!

  1. Homeschoolers perform well academically.
  2. Your kids may be happier.
  3. Issues like ADHD might disappear or become less problematic.
  4. It doesn’t matter if they fidget.
  5. YOU may be happier! All that time spent on your kids’ homework can now be used more productively for family learning and living.
  6. You can still work and homeschool.
  7. And even grow a successful business while homeschooling your kids.
  8. Your kids can also build successful businesses, as many grown unschoolers become entrepreneurs.
  9. You can be a single parent and homeschool your kids.
  10. Your kids can be little for longer. Early school enrollment has been linked by Harvard researchers with troubling rates of ADHD diagnosis. A year can make a big difference in early childhood development.
  11. Some of us are just late bloomers. We don’t all need to be on “America’s early-blooming conveyor belt.”
  12. Then again, homeschooling can help those kids who might be early bloomers and graduate from college at 16.
  13. Whether early, late, or somewhere in the middle, homeschooling allows all children to move at their own pace.
  14. You can choose from a panoply of curriculum options based on your children’s needs and your family’s educational philosophy.
  15. Or you can focus on unschooling, a self-directed education approach tied to a child’s interests.
  16. Homeschooling gives your kids plenty of time to play! In a culture where childhood free play is disappearing, preserving play is crucial to a child’s health and well-being.
  17. They can have more recess and less homework.
  18. You can take advantage of weekly homeschool park days, field trips, classes, and other gatherings offered through a homeschooling group near you.
  19. Homeschooling co-ops are growing, so you can find support and resources.
  20. Homeschooling learning centers are sprouting worldwide, prioritizing self-directed education and allowing more flexibility to more families who want to homeschool.
  21. Parks, beaches, libraries, and museums are often less crowded during school hours, and many offer programming specifically for homeschoolers.
  22. You’re not alone. Nearly two million US children are homeschooled, and the homeschooling population is increasingly reflective of America’s diversity. In fact, the number of black homeschoolers doubled between 2007 and 2011.
  23. One-quarter of today’s homeschoolers are Hispanic-Americans who want to preserve bilingualism and family culture.
  24. Some families of color are choosing homeschooling to escape what they see as poor academic outcomes in schools, a curriculum that ignores their cultural heritage, institutional racism, and disciplinary approaches that disproportionately target children of color.
  25. More military families are choosing homeschooling to provide stability and consistency through frequent relocations and deployments.
  26. While the majority of homeschoolers are Christians, many Muslim families are choosing to homeschool, as are atheists.
  27. Homeschooling has wide bipartisan appeal.
  28. More urban parents are choosing to homeschool, prioritizing family and individualized learning.
  29. Religious freedom may be important to many homeschooling families, but it is not the primary reason they choose to homeschool. “Concern about the school environment, such as safety, drugs, or negative peer pressure” is the top motivator according to federal data.
  30. Fear of school shootings and widespread bullying are other concerns that are prompting more families to consider the homeschooling option.
  31. Some parents choose homeschooling because they are frustrated by Common Core curriculum frameworks and frequent testing in public schools.
  32. Adolescent anxiety, depression, and suicide decline during the summer, but Vanderbilt University researchers found that suicidal tendencies spike at back-to-school time. (This is a pattern opposite to that of adults, who experience more suicidal thoughts and acts in the summertime.) Homeschooling your kids may reduce these school-induced mental health issues.
  33. It will also prevent schools from surreptitiously collecting and tracking data on your child’s mental health.
  34. Your kids’ summertime can be fully self-directed, as can the rest of their year.
  35. That’s because kids thrive under self-directed education.
  36. Some kids are asking to be homeschooled.
  37. And they may even thank you for it.
  38. Today’s teens aren’t working in part-time or summer jobs like they used to. Homeschooling can offer time for valuable teen work experience.
  39. It can also provide the opportunity to cultivate teen entrepreneurial skills.
  40. Your kids don’t have to wait for adulthood to pursue their passions.
  41. By forming authentic connections with community members, homeschoolers can take advantage of teen apprenticeship programs.
  42. Some apprenticeship programs have a great track record on helping homeschoolers build important career skills and get great jobs.
  43. Self-directed learning centers for teen homeschoolers can provide a launchpad for community college classes and jobs while offering peer connection and adult mentoring.
  44. With homeschooling, you can inspire your kids to love reading.
  45. Maybe that’s because they will actually read books, something one-quarter of Americans reported not doing in 2014.
  46. Your kids might even choose to voluntarily read financial statements or do worksheets.
  47. You can preserve their natural childhood creativity.
  48. Schools kill creativity, as Sir Ken Robinson proclaims in his TED Talk, the most-watched one ever.
  49. Homeschooling might even help your kids use their creativity in remarkable ways, as other well-known homeschoolers have done.
  50. With homeschooling, learning happens all the time, all year round. There are no arbitrary starts and stops.
  51. You can take vacations at any time of the year without needing permission from the principal.
  52. Or you can go world-schooling, spending extended periods of time traveling the world together as a family or letting your teens travel the world without you.
  53. Your kids can have healthier lunches than they would at school.
  54. And you can actually enjoy lunch with them rather than being banned from the school cafeteria.
  55. Your kids don’t have to walk through metal detectors, past armed police officers, and into locked classrooms in order to learn.
  56. You can avoid bathroom wars and let your kids go to the bathroom wherever and whenever they want—without raising their hand to ask for permission.
  57. Research shows that teen homeschoolers get more sleep than their schooled peers.
  58. Technological innovations make self-education through homeschooling not only possible but also preferable.
  59. Free, online learning programs like Khan AcademyDuolingoScratchProdigy Math, and MIT OpenCourseWare complement learning in an array of topics, while others, like Lynda.com and Mango, may be available for free through your local public library.
  60. Schooling was for the Industrial Age, but unschooling is for the future.
  61. With robots doing more of our work, we need to rely more on our distinctly human qualities, like curiosity and ingenuity, to thrive in the Innovation Era.
  62. Homeschooling could be the “smartest way to teach kids in the 21st century,” according to Business Insider.
  63. Teen homeschoolers can enroll in an online high school program to earn a high school diploma if they choose.
  64. But young people don’t need a high school diploma in order to go to college.
  65. Many teen homeschoolers take community college classes and transfer into four-year universities with significant credits and cost-savings. Research suggests that community college transfers also do better than their non-transfer peers.
  66. Homeschooling may be the new path to Harvard.
  67. Many colleges openly recruit and welcome homeschoolers because they tend to be “innovative thinkers.”
  68. But college doesn’t need to be the only pathway to a meaningful adult life and livelihood. Many lucrative jobs don’t require a college degree, and companies like Google and Apple have dropped their degree requirements.
  69. In fact, more homeschooling families from the tech community in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are choosing to homeschool their kids.
  70. Hybrid homeschooling models are popping up everywhere, allowing more families access to this educational option.
  71. Some of these hybrid homeschool programs are public charter schools that are free to attend and actually give families access to funds for homeschooling.
  72. Other education choice mechanisms, like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and tax-credit scholarship programs, are expanding to include homeschoolers, offering financial assistance to those families who need and want it.
  73. Some states allow homeschoolers to fully participate in their local school sports teams and extracurricular activities.
  74. Homeschooling may be particularly helpful for children with disabilities,like dyslexia, as the personalized learning model allows for more flexibility and customization.
  75. Homeschooling is growing in popularity worldwide, especially in IndiaAustralia, the United KingdomIsrael, and even in China, where it’s illegal.
  76. Homeschooling grants children remarkable freedom and autonomy, particularly self-directed approaches like unschooling, but it’s definitely not the Lord of the Flies.
  77. Homeschooling allows for much more authentic, purposeful learning tied to interests and everyday interactions in the community rather than contrived assignments at school.
  78. Throughout the American colonial and revolutionary eras, homeschooling was the norm, educating leaders like George Washington and Abigail Adams.
  79. In fact, many famous people were homeschooled.
  80. And many famous people homeschool their own kids.
  81. Your homeschooled kids will probably be able to name at least one right protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, something 37 percent of adults who participated in a recent University of Pennsylvania survey couldn’t do.
  82. Homeschooling can be preferable to school because it’s a totally different learning environment. As homeschooling pioneer John Holt wrote in Teach Your Own: “What is most important and valuable about the home as a base for children’s growth in the world is not that it is a better school than the schools but that it isn’t a school at all.”
  83. Immersed in their larger community and engaged in genuine, multi-generational activities, homeschoolers tend to be better socialized than their schooled peers. Newer studies suggest the same.
  84. Homeschoolers interact daily with an assortment of people in their community in pursuit of common interests, not in an age-segregated classroom with a handful of teachers.
  85. Research suggests that homeschoolers are more politically tolerant than others.
  86. They can dig deeper into emerging passions, becoming highly proficient.
  87. They also have the freedom to quit.
  88. They can spend abundant time outside and in nature.
  89. Homeschooling can create strong sibling relationships and tight family bonds.
  90. Homeschooling is legal in all 50 US states and has been since 1993, but regulations vary widely by state.
  91. In spite of ongoing efforts to regulate homeschoolers, US homeschooling is becoming less regulated.
  92. That’s because homeschooling parents are powerful defenders of education freedom.
  93. Parents can focus family learning around their own values, not someone else’s.
  94. Homeschooling is one way to get around regressive compulsory schooling laws and put parents back in charge of their child’s education.
  95. It can free children from coercive, test-driven schooling.
  96. It is one education option among many to consider as more parents opt-out of mass schooling.
  97. Homeschooling is the ultimate school choice.
  98. It is inspiring education entrepreneurship to disrupt the schooling status quo.
  99. And it’s encouraging frustrated educators to leave the classroom and launch their own alternatives to school.
  100. Homeschooling is all about having the liberty to learn.

Click here to sign-up for my weekly education and parenting email newsletter!

COLUMN BY

New Rules to Help Stop Fraud in Diversity Visa Program

Did you know that when over a million people a year apply for the Diversity Visa Lottery in hopes of getting one of 50,000 tickets to your American town, that, in the past, applicants were not even required to show proof (a passport) that they live in the country from which they are applying.

That matters especially because some countries are barred from participation due to the large number of successful migrants to America in the previous five years.***

Readers! Our whole immigration system is one big fraud opportunity. 

For over 10 years I followed the US Refugee Admissions Program and saw the fraud on our country in that legal program and everywhere you turn it seems that someone is scheming, finding some way, to milk our system and it’s not just happening at the southern border.

This story about new requirements in the diversity lottery (we don’t have enough diversity!) is being reported in the Kenyan press!

From Mwakilishi.com,

US State Department to Require Passports to Enter the Green Card Lottery (Diversity Visa Program)

The US Department of State will now require foreign nationals who enter the Diversity Visa program, also known as the Green Card Lottery, to have valid unexpired passports.

In a document published on the Federal Register on Wednesday June 5th, the State Department says the principal petitioner will need to provide his/her passport information of the country he/she is a citizen of. Such information will include the passport number, issuing country, and passport expiration date. Derivatives listed on the entry form will not need to have passport at the time of the entry submission [but like before, will need passports at the time of the interview].

The State Department says the new requirement was necessitated by the significant number of fraudulent entries for the Diversity Visa program each year, noting that sometimes criminal enterprises submit entries for individuals without their knowledge. “Individuals or entities that submit unauthorized entries will often contact unwitting individuals whose identities were used on selected DV Program entries, inform them of the opportunity to apply for a diversity visa, and hold the entry information from the named petitioner in exchange for payment,” says the State Department.

The Department says requiring passport information will lead to less fraudulent entries submitted by third parties.

More here. 

Astounding that this was not a requirement all along as the program is approaching its 20th anniversary!

Learn more about this insane LEGAL method of entry to the US.

***The 2020 “winners” have been selectedNote Bangladesh is one of them. (See my post about Bangladeshis breaking into America by crossing the US Mexican border).

For DV-2020, nationals of the following countries were ineligible to participate in the program because they have had more than 50,000 natives immigrate to the United States over the last five years: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

By the way, I think the DR Congo should be excluded next time because we have brought 50,000 to the US in the last five years as ‘refugees.’

Go here to see the shocking list of countries whose nationals did “win” the recent lottery.

See my post last month about the lottery, here.

Good – Short Video on Red Flag Laws

Watch and listen to this short Gun Owners of America video on Red Flag Laws which we now have in Florida codified in the Marjory Stoneman HS Protection Act (SB 7026) as “Risk Protection Orders”.

These laws ignore our 5th and 14th Amendment rights of Due Process and I predict will result in consequences for legal, law abiding gun owners over time. I’m personally not convinced that these are “unintended” consequences either but rather another intentional chipping away of our 2nd Amendment and Due Process Rights.

Gun Owners of America have been outspoken on this subject and I recommend you consider joining GOA as I did several years ago.

I am hopeful an iron-clad lawsuit will be filed before much longer to challenge FL’s Risk Protection Order and; if not eliminating it, as a minimum require holding a hearing before seizure and not exparte except in exceptional cases where there is overwhelming evidence/probable cause of potential harm by the gun owner. As the language is currently written, it is too open to interpretation resulting in differing procedures by different court jurisdictions and potential to be used as a political weapon by liberal gun control enthusiasts.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and want to know where is the NRA-ILA on this issue? So far – Crickets – chirp – chirp.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Gun Control Is Wrong Response to Tragic Virginia Shooting

Florida’s “Red-flag” Law Has Red Flags Of Its Own

Red Flag Gun Laws Turn Due Process on Its Head

Response from Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) on Gun Control/Red Flag Laws

VIDEO: Leading the Battle Against Illegal Immigration

In this edition of “Judicial Watch On Issue,” Senior Attorney James Peterson explains the issue of illegal immigration & its impact on the United States.

Former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson charged with child neglect, culpable negligence & perjury in connection with Parkland school mass shooting

Fort Lauderdale – Former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson is facing 11 criminal charges – including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury – in connection with his lack of response to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Broward State Attorney Mike Satz announced Tuesday.

Following a 14-month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, 56, was arrested Tuesday on seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The investigation examined the actions of law enforcement during and following the Parkland school mass shooting.

Peterson will be booked into the Broward County Jail. His bond is set at $102,000. Under the terms of his bond, Peterson would be required to wear a GPS monitor, must surrender his passport and is banned from possessing any firearms while the case is pending.

If convicted, the 11 charges technically carry a maximum potential punishment of 96 ½ years in state prison.

Six of the seven child neglect charges are second-degree felonies and carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in state prison. The seventh child neglect charge is a third-degree felony (because the child was not severely injured) with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The perjury charge is a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail. The three charges of culpable negligence are second-degree misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail.

During the investigation, FDLE agents interviewed 184 witnesses, reviewed countless hours of video surveillance, and wrote 212 investigative reports, totaling more than 800 hours of investigation on the case to determine the actions of law enforcement as they responded to the February 14, 2018 school shooting. The investigation received the full cooperation and assistance from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, Coral Springs Police Department and all other agencies that responded to the school shooting.

Assistant State Attorney Tim Donnelly is handling the case for the Broward State Attorney’s Office (17th Judicial Circuit).

Click here for Scot Peterson arrest warrant.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sheriff’s Deputy Who Fled Parkland Shooting Charged With Neglecting Children

VIDEO: Ocasio-Cortez’s Gardening Advice Echoes the Hubris of Mao’s Great Leap Forward

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to extend identity politics to vegetables.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wants to extend identity politics to vegetables. For Ocasio-Cortez, some vegetables are too “colonial” to grow.

Community gardens are a component of the Green New Deal, and having projects “make sense in a cultural context” is important, says Ocasio-Cortez.

If “communities of color” are “resistant to certain environmentalist movements,” perhaps it’s because they are concerned about taxes and jobs? The reason Ocasio-Cortez gives is far different:

When someone says that it’s too hard to do a green space that grows yuca instead of…cauliflower or something, what you’re doing is that you’re taking a colonial approach to environmentalism.

Yuca grows best in hot, dry regions. In many areas of the United States, including her home district of New York City, it would be an enormous challenge to grow yuca. I may like grapefruits, but I wouldn’t plant a grapefruit tree in the cold climate where I live.

Cauliflower is used in many Caribbean cuisines. Only Ocasio-Cortez knows why some vegetables are “colonial.”

Yuca is a starchy root vegetable with over double the amount of carbohydrates in a potato. If Ocasio-Cortez cares about the obesity and diabetes problems in her district, she may want to think again about her gardening advice.

Ocasio-Cortez is not the first member of Congress to offer inane advice. Yet she is fair game because she wants to use coercive force of government to remake the country in the image of her Democratic Socialist and Green New Deal programs.

We may laugh at Ocasio-Cortez’s boundless hubris, but let’s learn from history. Mao is perhaps history’s most famous despot who was eager to dispense agricultural (along with much other) advice. The result? During his Great Leap Forward (1958-1962), at least 45 million lost their lives through starvation, neglect, and violence.

Mao was a despot who had the power of the Chinese military power behind him to enforce his edicts; Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t.

Today, some see Ocasio-Cortez as a brilliant new voice in politics. With enough support, she and her fellow Democratic Socialists might have the power they crave to command people’s individual decisions. Ocasio-Cortez will never have absolute power, but she may gain enough power to do real harm.

In his book The Fatal Conceit, F.A. Hayek warned of the “naïve mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement.” To such a mind, Hayek wrote,

it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions.

We are all naïve about many things; a dose of humility and respect for the rights of others keeps us out of trouble.

In his book, Mao’s Great Famine, historian Frank Dikötter explains the horrors of the Great Leap Forward. Mao was intent on dramatically increasing both industrial and agricultural production, and the Great Helmsman was sure he knew the way forward. Here are some of the agriculture “reforms” commanded by Mao.

Mao commanded the planting of more than one rice crop a year even though the weather didn’t support it:

Mao asked, on a visit to the provincial capital Changsha. “Why do the Hunan peasants still plant only one crop of rice a year?” After Zhou explained that the weather permitted only a single crop a year, Mao pointed out that Zhejiang was on the same latitude as Hunan and planted two crops of rice. “You are not even studying other experiences. That’s the trouble,” Mao continued.

Mao ordered deeper plowing of the soil and destroyed the topsoil in the process:

Deep ploughing was another revolutionary recipe meant to free the farmers from the capricious soil. The deeper the planting, the stronger the roots and the taller the stalk, or so ran the logic behind this experiment. “Use human waves, and turn every field over,” commanded Mao.

Goaded by cadres… villagers now and then burrowed through the earth to bedrock, destroying the topsoil.

Then Mao ordered a heavier concentration of seeds:

Explained Chairman Mao: “With company they grow easily, when they grow together they will be more comfortable”… Villagers, of course, knew better: they had tilled the land for generations, and knew how to care for a precious resource on which their livelihoods depended. Many were incredulous, some trying to reason with the cadres: “You plant the seedlings too closely, there is not enough breathing space between them, and then you add ten tonnes of fertiliser per field. It will suffocate them to death.” But advice was ignored: “It’s a new technique, you don’t understand!”

Mao believed he could conquer nature, but nature had the last word. The killing of sparrows led to insect infestations, worsening the famine:

Sparrows were targeted because they ate grain seeds, depriving the people of the fruits of their labour. In what is one of the most bizarre and ecologically damaging episodes of the Great Leap Forward, the country was mobilised in an all-out war against the birds. Banging on drums, clashing pots or beating gongs, a giant din was raised to keep the sparrows flying till they were so exhausted that they simply dropped from the sky. Eggs were broken and nestlings destroyed; the birds were also shot out of the air. Timing was of the essence, as the entire country was made to march in lockstep in the battle against the enemy, making sure that the sparrows had nowhere to escape.

Farmers were organized into large communes with ignorant political cadres issuing capricious orders based on “little knowledge of agriculture.”

In 1959 in Luokang commune a local leader decided to replace the existing crop with sweet potatoes on half of the available acreage, only to change his mind later and substitute the potatoes with peanuts. These were then torn out to make room for rice instead. The previous year the commune had tried deep ploughing, using vast concentrations of manpower on small strips of land to dig deep furrows, much of it by hand. Huge amounts of fertiliser were applied, in some cases up to 30 tonnes a hectare. It all came to nothing. In Kaiping county, Guangdong, thousands of villagers were repeatedly forced to plant a crop in the early spring of 1959 despite bitterly cold weather: the seeds froze on three occasions.

Agriculture was militarized:

The militia movement and a small corps of trained fighters brought military organisation to every commune. All over China farmers were roused from sleep at dawn at the sound of the bugle and filed into the canteen for a quick bowl of watery rice gruel. Whistles were blown to gather the workforce, which moved in military step to the fields, carrying banners and flags to the sound of marching songs. Loudspeakers sometimes blasted exhortations to work harder, or occasionally played revolutionary music. Party activists, local cadres and the militia enforced discipline, sometimes punishing underachievers with beatings.

“Every conceivable kind of nutrient” was used as fertilizer:

Animal and human waste was carried to the fields by endless rows of people, sometimes until deep into the night…. Human waste extended to hair, and in some Guangdong villages women were forced to shave their heads to contribute fertiliser or face a ban from the canteen.

The demand for higher yields meant houses were razed for their value as fertilizer:

But most of the time buildings made of mud and straw were torn down to provide nutrients for the soil. Walls of buildings where animals had lived and especially where they had urinated, such as stables, could provide useful fertiliser. At first old walls and abandoned huts were destroyed, but as the campaign gained momentum entire rows of houses were systematically razed to the ground, the mud bricks shattered and strewn across the fields.

Later, houses were wantonly destroyed to make room for new buildings that were never built:

Most quietly stood by, sometimes in tears, as the local leader walked past without uttering a word, simply lifting his finger to mark out a house for destruction. In Dianjiang county, Sichuan, a team of eleven people went around torching hundreds of straw huts. “Destroy Straw Huts in an Evening, Erect Residential Areas in Three Days, Build Communism in a Hundred Days” was the leading slogan. Some villages were emptied altogether, although somehow nobody quite managed to get beyond the destruction phase of the plan.

Pots and pans and farm implements were confiscated and melted down to be used in industrial production:

Many of the farming tools had been destroyed in the iron and steel campaign, labour was still diverted to building dams, and communal granaries in the people’s communes were poorly managed. In Liantan, the model commune where a slogan praising the Great Leap Forward had been chiselled in the mountains to welcome an inspection team, several thousand farmers were conscripted to deep-plough seven hectares during the autumn harvest; as nobody was available to collect the crop, some 500 tonnes of grain were abandoned in the fields.

As starvation spread, ersatz foods such as chlorella and wood pulp were promoted:

In China [chlorella, a form of algae] the watery slime was elevated to the status of miracle food during the famine. It could be cultivated and skimmed from swampy ponds, but more often than not it was grown in vats of human urine, the green stuff being scooped out, washed and cooked with rice.

Prisoners were used as guinea pigs. Besides the green plankton, which sickened the inmates, they were also fed sawdust and wood pulp. Bao Ruowang – also known as Jean Pasqualini, the author of a memoir about life in a Chinese labour camp – remembered how brown sheets of the stuff were ground into paper pulp and mixed with flour. Mass constipation followed, killing the weaker prisoners. But even in the cities the spread of substitute foods caused obstruction of the bowels or rupture of the sphincter.

Villagers “scavenged for carrion, rummaged through rubbish, scraped the bark off trees and in the end turned to mud to fill their stomachs”:

It was a vision of hell, as serried ranks of ghostly villagers queued up in front of deep pits, their shrivelled bodies pouring with sweat under the glare of the sun, waiting for their turn to scramble down the hole and carve out a few handfuls of the porcelain-white mud… Once eaten the soil acted like cement, drying out the stomach and absorbing all the moisture inside the intestinal tract.

As the country starved, Mao opened a party meeting in the summer of 1959. The party leaders were not hungry. They “referred to the gathering as a ‘meeting of immortals’. Immortals lived far above mere humans, seated on the clouds of heaven, playfully gliding through the mist, unencumbered by earthly restraints.”

Propaganda insisted

the country had witnessed an unprecedentedly rich harvest in 1960, there was absolutely no famine and rumours to the contrary were slanderous.

Humanitarian offers of food aid were rebuffed. The contempt the leaders had for their own countrymen was as boundless as their hubris.

COLUMN BY

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.

Cooperation Between ICE and Police Essential to Combat MS-13

Immigration law enforcement provides heavy artillery to fight transnational crime.

On May 26, 2019 the local radio station in New York, 1010 WINS reported, Nassau police union: Dozens more detectives needed to combat MS-13.

That report began with this excerpt:

NEW YORK (1010 WINS) – Two days after the body of a suspected MS-13 victim was discovered at Massapequa Preserve, Nassau PBA president James McDermott says gang units in the county are understaffed and ill-equipped to deal with the violent gang.

“Our gang unit is undermanned and not provided with the necessary resources to deal with this threat,” he said Sunday, speaking near the location where the body was discovered Friday.

The remains are believed to be from one of a number of people murdered by MS-13 several years ago.

In any battle, more “boots on the ground” can help to insure victory.  Where the battle is against transnational criminals, it would be most helpful if those “boots” were worn by ICE agents.

What was not discussed in this article is how ICE agents can be of a huge assistance in effectively combatting MS-13 and other transnational gangs and how sanctuary policies have the exact opposite impact.

Indeed, effective immigration law enforcement can support law and assist enforcement efforts to combat gangs, human trafficking, prostitution drug trafficking and other serious crimes.

Years ago INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) agents worked in close cooperation with the NYPD.  Back then I frequently participated in joint operations with the NYPD to shut down houses of prostitution.  Many of the clients and prostitutes of these brothels were illegal aliens.

The police would arrest the prostitutes and their clients and we would lodge detainers or simply take them into custody.  The word on the street was that illegal aliens might find themselves being deported by the INS agents.  Business dropped and many of these locations were permanently shuttered.

Additionally, many times the prostitutes would cooperate with our efforts to identify human traffickers so that we could target the pernicious traffickers and ultimately dismantle their operations and bring them to justice.

It is obvious that ICE agents are empowered to arrest illegal aliens on administrative charges that result in the deportation of illegal aliens from the United States.

To this point, immigration anarchists frequently refer to immigration laws as “civil laws” minimizing the true importance of our nation’s immigration laws and the actual authority that ICE agents have.

What is seldom, if ever discussed, is that there are also criminal laws that are a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and violations of these laws carry serious prison sentences.

In fact, on May 13, 2019 The Washington Examiner published an opinion piece, Feds: Immigration top US crime, one-third of all sentencings that was based on the official report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics that reported that immigration law violations accounted for 34.4% of all federal prosecutions and that 94.7% of immigration prosecutions resulted in prison sentences.

The 9/11 Commission determined that visa fraud and immigration fraud figured prominently in the ability of international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparation, and not only with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were concerned.

Visa fraud 18 U.S. Code § 1546 is an extremely serious crime and when it is committed in conjunction with terrorism exposes the alien who perpetrates that crime to a prison sentence of up to 25 years.

Visa fraud committed in conjunction with drug trafficking carries a maximum of 20 years in  prison.

Human Trafficking/Alien Smuggling 8 U.S. Code § 1324 addresses crimes that relate to illegally bringing aliens into the and/or harboring, concealing, aiding, abetting, inducing and encouraging aliens to enter the United States illegally or to remain in the United States illegally and these crimes carry hefty jail sentences.  In fact, if such activities lead to the death of any individual, the punishment, upon conviction, can be life in prison.

Re-entry After Deportation, 8 U.S. Code § 1326 carries a maximum of 20 years in prison if the alien in question meets the definition of an “aggravated felon.”  (On a personal note, I worked with then-New York Senator Al D’Amato to first convince him of the need to change the law that had previously made no distinction about the criminal history of deported aliens who reentered the United States after being deported.  Previously the maximum penalty was two years in prison.  The twenty year maximum is intended to deter aliens from returning illegally to the United States.)  Given the nature of this particular crime, it is all but impossible for an alien who has been deported and subsequently reentered illegally to deny that the charges are true.

While it may take years to put many criminal cases together and involve many agents and resources, the crime of unlawful reentry can be investigated and completed in just a few days.  It is cost-effective and provides a huge hammer to combat criminal aliens who make a mockery of our borders and immigration laws.

Illegal aliens who are found in possession of ammunition or a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) face up to ten years in prison.  Again, this is a simple case to investigate and the jail sentence is significant.

Where all of these federal criminal charges are concerned, they will all ultimately also result in the deportation of the criminal aliens after they complete their prisons sentences.

The goal of law enforcement is to protect the property and lives of those who would fall prey to criminals.  Prison sentences are established to accomplish a few commonsense objectives.  First, to punish those who violate our laws, second to deter those who might contemplate violating our laws and finally to get dangerous criminals off of the streets of our towns and cities to separate them from those who would otherwise fall victim to their criminal behavior.

One of the challenges for law enforcement is the challenge presented by recidivists, that is, criminals who repeatedly commit crimes, get arrested and convicted, serve prison sentences only to return to the street to commit more crimes and hurt/kill more victims.

Prisons are often optimistically referred to as “Correctional Institutions” where the inmates are hopefully rehabilitated by addressing their sociopathic conduct through training, counseling and other such measures.  Unfortunately, all too frequently these efforts fail.

Where criminal aliens are concerned, deporting such criminals provides a means of removing them permanently from the streets of American towns and cities.  The severe penalty for unlawful reentry of such criminal aliens was intended to deter such aliens from returning to the United States.  This deterrent factor would be far more effective if there were more ICE agents who could arrest such aliens so that more would be prosecuted.

Sanctuary cities have the precise opposite affect, encouraging aliens to run our borders and thus endanger the lives of innocent victims.  It most be noted the most frequently those at greatest risk are the members of the immigrant communities where these criminal aliens live and ply their sociopathic “trades.”

Sanctuary policies shield and embolden the gangs and imperil innocent victims, often teenage immigrant children.

With “friends” like the politicians who create “Sanctuary” policies, or want to end ICE altogether, immigrants don’t need enemies!

RELATED ARTICLES:

FLASHBACK: Pew Research Confirms 6 In 10 Illegal Aliens Live In These Areas

Top 10 Reasons MS-13 Should Terrify You

Report: DHS Agents Are Being Sent To The Guatemela-Mexico Border 

It’s All About the Open Borders, Stupid

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.