It is high time for the American people to finally wake up and stop spending so much time trying to be politically correct. Politicians must stop obsessing about winning the next election and begin to focus on what’s best for America, especially in light of what happened last week in Chattanooga, TN.
Last week, a naturalized American citizen from Kuwait killed five members of our armed forces. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24 year old Muslim, was brought to the U.S. by his parents when he was six years old. He also retained Jordanian citizenship by his parents being from Jordan.
Within the intelligence community, Abdulazeez is what is called a sleeper. There are not only sleeper individuals in the U.S.; but one of law enforcements greatest fears is the “sleeper cells” in the country. Sleeper cells are terrorists in waiting. They are awaiting instructions to become active; but until such an order is issued, they are to assimilate into American society and stay below the radar of law enforcement (as Abulazeez seemed to have done).
Because it is unknowable how many sleeper cells or individuals are in the U.S., it is now time to shut down the border and to implement a three year moratorium on all immigration; and this includes foreigners wanting to attend university in the U.S.
We can no longer be the dumping ground for everyone seeking political asylum or a better life.
We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants from Muslim countries, period. We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants into the country who have no marketable skills to bring to the U.S. Family reunification should have absolutely no place in our future immigration policy.
Becoming an American citizen is a privilege not a right. America should not have to apologize for putting stringent conditions on who is eligible for citizenship. We can no longer allow foreigners to depress wages for Americans and to continue to allow Fortune 500 companies to import cheap labor at the expense of citizens.
If the shooting in Chattanooga didn’t scare the hell out of Americans, maybe these immigration trends will.
According to the Institute of International Education’s “Fields of Study of Students from Selected Places of origin 2013-14, “127,332 student visas were granted to students from 43 predominantly Muslim countries (14% of all student visas issued).”
The top five countries receiving visas were: Saudi Arabia (53,919), Iran (10,194), Nigeria (7,921), Indonesia (7,920), and Kuwait (7,288). This total of 87,242 represents almost 70% of all student visas issued from Muslim countries. This would explain why Arabic is the fastest growing language on college campuses.
According to the Modern Language Association (MLA), “Enrollment in Arabic classes grew 127% nationally.” The MLA listed Arabic as the 8th most popular language learned in American institutions of higher education in 2013.
What rational person or sane country would allow people from the above countries to enter the U.S.? We know where the hotbeds of radical Islam are and yet we continue to allow people from those countries to come to the U.S. The F.B.I. has already admitted to Congress that terrorists from the Middle East have already come into the U.S. through Mexico and they have no idea where they are.
By most accounts, Muslims are least likely to assimilate than other groups of immigrants. This isolation makes them fertile targets for radicalization. France and Britain are currently experiencing this dilemma. America is on the verge of becoming another France or another Britain.
Yes, I am suggesting profiling those who want to enter into the U.S. To my liberal and politically correct friends, get over it. This is about national security and our safety.
Some will attempt to argue that this is discrimination; and I would agree with that assertion. Those who seek to legally enter into the U.S. have no inherent right to be accepted into our country; therefore America has the absolute right to be discriminating in regards to who enters the country.
We need not provide a reason nor give an explanation for changing our immigration policies. Our national interests and our national security trump all of their aspirations.
We must stop all immigration immediately; clear up the backlog of those in the pipeline, estimated to be just over 4 million people; and remove all those in the country illegally. This will give us a chance to digest and assimilate those who are already in the que for legal entry into the U.S.
How many more Americans must die because too many politicians want to play politics with our national security?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/illegal-immigration-protest1.jpg356640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2015-07-20 14:14:192015-07-20 14:14:19America Must Rethink Its Immigration Policy
Donald Trump’s political ascendancy has less to do with him and more to do with the Republican electorate’s total disillusionment with the lack of leadership coming from our congressional leadership.
All of a sudden, along comes Donald Trump speaking a language the Republican base understands—English!
In my view, Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Chris Christie are the only Republicans that are speaking to the American people in a manner that they can understand. The rest of the field speaks in “politicaleeze.”
The American people want someone like a Christie who will look them straight in the eye and give a direct answer to their question.
Far too many candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, spend too much time poll testing and focus grouping everything and every issue.
This brings me back to Trump. Whatever you think about him, he spoke the truth about the state of illegal immigration; and yes his language was extremely hyperbolic and way over the top. Yes, he could have made the same point without the incendiary language; but nonetheless, he has caused a tectonic shift in the debate over sanctuary cities.
Trump has managed to tap into voter angst and their economic insecurity. So, Republicans should stop fretting so much about how Trump hurt the feelings of Hispanics and deal with the issue he has brought to the forefront of the political landscape.
If our congressional leaders would spend more time promoting the conservative agenda that they ran on last year versus giving Obama victories in trade and amnesty, then a person like Trump would have absolutely no political traction whatsoever.
In many ways, Donald Trump is the Frankenstein that our congressional leadership has created by their lack of any bold legislative action that they promised Republican voters during the 2014 elections.
They told the voters last year that if you give them control of the House and Senate, they would block Obama’s amnesty—they caved; they would reign in federal spending—they caved; they would pass a strong boarder enforcement bill—they got amnesia.
Republican leadership thought these issues would just magically disappear or that the Supreme Court would save them from having to do their jobs; they were very wrong on both counts.
The next U.S. president will be the candidate who can speak directly to the American people in very simplistic language about their vision for the country on issues like immigration, ISIS, the domestic and foreign economy, values, how to manage the growing diversity of our country, etc.
So, as opposed to criticizing Trump, shut him up by addressing the issues he is talking about. Granted, his answers/solutions are extremely sophomoric; but at least he is addressing issues the American people care about in a language they understand.
The same thing can be said about Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders. You write him off at your own peril. He is tapping into the same frustration and disillusionment on the Democratic side that Donald Trump is tapping into on the Republican side.
It was sad watching Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN last week. She is quite good at talking without saying anything.
But I am getting this same eerie feeling that I got in 2007—2008 when Hillary acted as though winning the Democratic primary was a foregone conclusion. The amount of arrogance she and her campaign are showing is astonishing.
Sanders will continue to provide a vigorous challenge to Hillary from the left and then I expect Vice President Joe Biden to enter the race because of the disillusionment from their party’s base.
So the takeaway from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is quite simple. People want to be talked to in a language that they can understand. They want specific answers to the problems facing Americans, no more broad, vague, undecipherable talk.
The American electorate is afraid about their future and needs and wants a presidential candidate who is going to reassure them that their future will be alright under their leadership.
Sometimes candidates need to get rid of their pollsters and just talk to the American people from their hearts about the values and the vision they have for the country.
So, Donald Trump is not the problem with the Republican Party; it is the seeming inability of Republicans to connect with the American people about how they are going to solve the many problems facing America.
RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton: She has a lot to hide
UPDATE: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights & Global Women’s Issues, issued the following statement regarding the conspiracy surrounding Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s recent escape from a Mexican prison:
“Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman’s escape has dealt a serious blow to all those working in good faith within the Mexican government, law enforcement and judiciary to give that nation a better future. That’s a harder future to achieve as long as drug cartels run amok trafficking drugs, terrorizing the public, and poisoning the rule of law and democratic order that many generations of Mexicans have worked to achieve. The U.S. played a key role in assisting our Mexican partners in finding and arresting Guzman, and we should stand ready to help them find him again and bring to justice all those involved in this conspiracy.
“When Guzman is arrested again, the U.S. should pursue his extradition in accordance with our treaty with Mexico governing such cases. It is not clear to me why the Obama Administration did not formally request his extradition after his previous arrest in 2014. This is the second time Guzman has escaped from prison, and not only is he wanted for major crimes in the U.S., but we have the capabilities to bring him to justice.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-president-e1436801407117.jpg427640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2015-07-13 11:31:052015-07-15 08:19:00Republicans Missing the Point Behind Donald Trump’s Ascendancy
An official from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called President Barack Obama an “amateur,” a “Marxist” and “the worst president we’ve ever had,” according to emails released by Judicial Watch.
The emails were written amid the surge of illegal immigrants at America’s southern border last year, and were uncovered amid an investigation into the CDC’s usage of an Emergency Operations Center, something Judicial Watch describes as “a major and costly operation that can stick American taxpayers with a huge tab.”
The emails were written by CDC Logistics Management Specialist George Roark to CDC Public Health Advisor William Adams on June 9, 2014.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Obama-Marxist.jpg334575Allen Westhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAllen West2015-07-07 16:44:262015-07-07 16:45:49OUCH! CDC Official Reportedly Calls Obama a ‘Marxist’ and that’s not all!
Islamic immigration [Hijra] is unlike any other form of immigration. The political doctrine of Islam started with Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. After Mohammed went to Medina his message changed from pure religion to politics and jihad. Only 150 Arabs in Mecca converted, but after 10 years of jihad, every Arab became Muslim.
The migration from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, since it was migration that produced success.
There are 91 verses that command Muslims to imitate Mohammed. Therefore, every Muslim has the duty to bring the Sharia to the host country, in order to Islamicize it.
Have you heard about the millions of Chinese flooding into Tibet? With their displacement of the native peoples and the supplanting of Tibetan with Chinese culture, anthropologists and human rights activists have labeled the colonization “cultural genocide.” (See here, here, here, here, and here, for example.) It is a cause célèbre with its own popular bumper sticker:
Interestingly, this situation corresponds precisely to what’s happening in most Western countries — most notably the United States — except for one minor detail:
No compassionate liberal activists call it cultural and demographic genocide.
They call it “diversity.”
Everything else reflects the West’s immigrationist malaise, which is so severe that treason has become the norm all throughout the West. Just consider, for instance, Swedish multiculturalist and anti-Western social engineer Mona Sahlin, who, commenting on the planned Islamization of her land, actually said in 2001, “[T]he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”
The old Hazleton is likely never coming back, either. There recently was a news story about how the Pennsylvania town has gone from 5 percent to 37 percent Hispanic in just a decade, between 2000 and 2010. Another news piece, one at PennLive.com titled “Not all in Hazleton convinced old town, new immigrants can co-exist happily” (they must be “racists”), points out that “[f]or years, the hospital ran deficits because of the number of people visiting the emergency room who could not pay” and that “[w]hen the Hispanic population started to boom in the early 2000s, Hazleton’s crime rate rose….” Of course, I’m sure this is mere correlation. Because we all know that our strength lies in our displac…er, I mean, diversity.
One thing we can say about Hazelton’s transformation, at least, is that it was driven by economic and lifestyle factors such as jobs and better neighborhoods. Not so with Obama’s amnesty plan to use illegal aliens — or, if that term is offensive, let’s say, undocumented Democrats — as “seedlings” to further effect the “fundamental transformation” of America. Oh, you haven’t heard about this? Well, it’s not the kind of scheme laid out in official policy papers or analyzed in The New York Times. But the gist of it, talk-show host Sue Payne told us while reporting on a conversation she became privy to involving federal officials, is that “new Americans” (read: “foreigners”) would “navigate, not assimilate” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows” (click here for more). The moral of this story? No one is talking about “assimilation” except suckers, who, it seems, are natural-born every minute.
Speaking of which, it’s certainly tempting to blame all this on Barack Obama. But note that the majority of Hazleton’s transformation occurred under George W. Bush’s watch — not that Mr. Mush deserves all the blame, either. Understand that the die for our fundamental transformation was cast long ago, in 1965, with the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act (gracias, Ted Kennedy). It radically changed our immigration model, creating a situation wherein for 50 years 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia. And if demographics are destiny, we should ponder the almost unprecedented demographic shift the act has wrought. In 1965, whites were almost 90 percent of the population.
Now non-Hispanic whites are down to 63 percent.
Oh, did I mention race? So sorry. I guess I should be sent to that corn field populated by the likes of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder and James Watson. Except that to the left, this is all about raceand ethnicity.
Do you think Mexican-born Univision journalist Jorge Ramos — who recently (and poorly) debated Ann Coulter — and his La Raza soulless mates would make amnesty their raison d’ être if most of our illegals were white Scandinavians? Don’t kid yourself — ethnic bias animates them.
Then there was the Huffington Compost’s cutsie piece “So You’re About To Become A Minority…,” which gloatingly mentions demographic projections indicating that whites will be a minority countrywide in 30 years. It sarcastically asks “So what’s a privileged white person to do?” and then, “to ease the white transition into life as a minority,” as the Compost puts it, provides a spoof PSA video that mocks white society. Could you imagine leftists taking this approach with one of the many primitive tribes facing decimation?
Yet the Compost has nothing on our post-racial president. Obama, who perhaps takes no issue with illegal aliens because, as his Dreams book states, he finds whites “alien,” has overseen a Department of Justice that won’t pursue voting-rights cases in which the victims are white. He also has spoken positively of America’s demographic genocide, though he doesn’t put it in quite those terms. Like Britain’s Labour Party — which, admitted a former Tony Blair advisor in 2009, used massive Third World immigration to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date” — he uses code words. Obama says that because our country is becoming a “hodgepodge of different folks,” because of “diversity,” he’s confident conservatism will be drowned out. My, I’ve always dreamt of living in a hodgepodge. Haven’t you?
Note here that “diversity” has become a code word for, as American Thinkerput it, “let’s have fewer white people.” Evidence? While Hazleton’s transformation is portrayed positively as diversity, when the white population of an area increases, it may be called a “bleaching out.” Yeah, The New York Times actually used that term when referring to the white techies moving into San Francisco’s Mission District. I wonder, can we call our wider demographic upheaval “the browning of America”? Or does that make it corn-field time again?
None of this should come as any surprise because leftists are the gurus of group politics, the pashas of polarization. They’ve given us affirmative action, quotas, Ebonics, identity politics, “gender” identity, critical race theory and white-privilege conferences. Then, when someone turns around and sheds light on their race-oriented immigration policy, they try to silence him with screams of “racism!” lest anyone catch on to what they’re really up to.
Race and ethnicity matter because, as Dr. Walter Williams put it, they can serve as a “proxy” for harder-to-observe qualities. A couple of these are ideology and voting tendencies: The groups represented by 85 percent of our new immigrants vote for socialist-oriented Democrats between 70 and 90 percent of the time. Leftist immigrationists are importing their voters — and the destruction of Western civilization.
Of course, demographic and cultural genocide is not only nothing new, but the historical norm. The indigenous Ainus have largely been subsumed by the Japanese; North Africa was once Roman and Catholic, then it was a Germanic Vandal kingdom and later became Arab and Muslim; and we no longer have tribes called the Alans, Langobards, Illyrians, Harii, Thuringii or Sarmatians. Oh, their genes and perhaps even memes are extant in modern populations, but their cultures, per se, are no more.
This may be a bad thing or it may be a good thing — the vanquishing of primitive Aztec culture ended wide-scale human sacrifice — but it is a real thing. When Muammar Gaddafi mentioned in 2006 that “[w]e have 50 million Muslims in Europe,” it wasn’t followed by the lament, “And, man, they’re all gonna’ be assimilated and ‘pop!’ goes the caliphate.” Rather, he astutely noted that “without swords, without guns, without conquest, [they] will turn [Europe] into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
The people make the culture and government, not the other way around. Import enough Mexicans or Muslims into the U.S. and you no longer have Western civilization; you have Mexico Norte or Iran West. Would this be preferable? If you’ve evaluated south-of-the-border cultures or Dar al-Islam and concluded it would be, then you should accept that “Our strength lies in our diversity” really means “Our strength lies in our destruction” — and welcome it.
This certainly is the left’s perspective. Remember the old Stanford University chant, led by Jesse Jackson, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Culture’s got to go!”? Well, it’s going, going…and will be gone unless we make some profoundly radical changes. It’s cultural and demographic genocide, generally lamented except in the one case in which, labeled diversity, it’s trumpeted.
That would be the case of the one civilization leftists hate with every fiber of their being.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Keep-Tibet-in-China.jpg349601Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-06-16 10:32:562015-06-16 10:45:59Colonization and Cultural Genocide — and They Call it “Immigration”
There is no example in the history of the world of a civilization, culture, or country that has survived without an intact family unit.
Historically, this has meant father, mother, sister, brother, grandparents, and sometimes other extended family members. With the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution came what we now know as the nuclear family-father, mother, brother and sister.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants flooded into America in an effort to flee oppressive governments back home or to pursue greener pastures here.
It was implicitly understood that English was the de facto official language, being a good citizen was expected, and contributing to the betterment of America was one’s civic and moral obligation.
Children were taught to go to school, get a job, get married, and to raise a family. These principles served us pretty well as a nation until recently.
Now, I no longer know what it means to be an American.
People come to this country, legally and illegally, and refuse to speak English. Judges and politicians are redefining the family unit; gender is no longer determined at birth; the government is invading every aspect of both our public and private lives.
How is it possible for mankind to be so arrogant as to say their gender is no longer determined at birth, based on the anatomical features present when they are born?
Now that Mother Nature is getting up in age, she is beginning to make all sorts of mistakes. Boys born with penises are claiming to be girls; girls born with vaginas are now claiming to be boys.
Some are even going so far as to say there is no longer a thing called gender; there is no male or female; but rather one can “self-identify” from moment to moment as to what their gender is. Even President Obama has demonstrated his belief in this foolishness. A few months ago, he made bathrooms in the White House “gender neutral.” Bathrooms are no longer labeled as male or female. You can now choose which one to use based on how you “self-identify” at that moment.
I can’t help but be reminded of the Greek philosopher, Protagoras. I studied him while attending Oral Roberts University. He is considered the father of relativism, which basically said there are no absolutes.
Protagoras is best known for his statement, “Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not.” So this insidious notion of “self-identifying,” is an extension of Protagoras’ philosophy.
According to this view, there is no God or any higher power. Each individual is the all and be all of their existence. There is no common moral framework by which man should live by; every man lives by his on individual moral code.
By believing thus, a society loses the very glue that keeps a people united. Typically, language, moral values, and patriotism are some of those common threads that make a society cohesive.
I currently stand at five foot eight inches tall; but I currently self-identify as six foot eight inches tall, therefore, I should legally be recognized by that which I believe, regardless of whether it’s based on facts.
As crazy as the above sounds, is this not what Rachel Dolezal did. She is the White woman who is the head of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP. Last week she admitted that she was born White, but now she self-identifies as Black; thus, making her Black. Even on legal documents she has been listing her race as Black, though her own birth certificate states that she is White.
She should be prosecuted to every extent of the law and the NAACP should have fired her immediately.
But, as usual, the NAACP’s leadership showed why no one takes them seriously as an organization. Here is what their national office had to say about Dolezal, “One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.” So, I guess lying is now a permitted quality for a leadership position with the NAACP.
Since there are no longer any absolutes, we now have a country where sex is no longer determined at birth and race is no longer determined by genetics or ancestry. I can claim to be seven feet tall, though I am only five foot eight; but yet have the legal standing of being a seven footer simply because I say it’s so.
Would you go to a medical professional who only “self-identifies” as a physician; having never attended medical school?
A society without rules is a society in chaos. You have little kids thinking they are homosexual; you have people in the country illegally who think they have a constitutional right to be here; entertainers like Kanye West and Omar Epps think it is OK for them to wear dresses.
Values are the DNA of a society and America has lost its values in the name of individual freedom. Freedom only works within the context of shared rules or beliefs.
The game of basketball is a good example. Everyone that plays the game agrees to a common set of rules by which the game is played. Within these rules are opportunities for individual players to express their uniqueness.
But without a common acceptance of the rules of the game, basketball cannot exist.
So it is with America; without common acceptance of rules dealing with sexuality, morals law & order, we will no longer exist as a society.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sungho-choi-model-for-my-america-1993.jpg338600Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2015-06-15 10:19:572015-06-15 16:56:17America Has Lost Its Identity
I have accurately stated on many pages from The Edwards Notebook Syndicated radio commentary that the federal government has gone rouge and is now an enemy of “We the People.” Unfortunately, not father time, or the government itself has revealed any events or details to prove my theory to be based upon pure folly, by any means. One could readily focus on the governments iron willed focus upon keeping our republic in a constant state of potential mortal danger by refusing to properly seal and protect our borders.
Or how about the government’s unwillingness to adopt proven economic principles that would enable business activity to ramp up create more opportunities? In fact, certain government so-called economic policies including establishing the highest corporate tax rate on earth, along with draconian EPA regulations have convinced the leaders of forty nine corporations to move their headquarters out of the good ole U.S. of A. It has been calculated that American corporations would invest upwards of nineteen trillion dollars into the United States economy, if only the greedy and wasteful government could get out of the way. For example, the removal of the overbearing layers of regulations.
But unfortunately, the goal of the federal government is no longer to govern on behalf of the best interest of the American people. It is mainly geared toward making life as difficult for American born sovereign citizens as possible. While at taxpayer expense is providing everything imaginable for illegal immigrants and American hating so-called Muslim refugees. It has been estimated that there are well over thirty million illegal immigrants living off of tax dollars gleaned from working American tax payers.
Allied nations like New Zealand and Australia have expressed an increasing level of anxiety over the United States suffering under the Obama regime. From day one of his presidency, Mr. Obama has kept America on course for an economic collapse or a possible military defeat at the hands of anyone who wants to take her on in conflict. Both Australia and New Zealand are under increasing pressure from China to ditch the United States as their military ally.
The Obama administration methodically demoralized the United States military through social experimentation. For the most part, it entailed promoting unnatural lifestyle choices and open discrimination against Christians and Christian related activities. Also the Obama presidency has been on a relentless mission to dramatically reduce the size and power of the one time, most powerful military in the world. So now, enemy nations like China, Russia and the legions of Muslim terrorists just waiting to do damage to the United States.
Under Obama’s watch, America has so distanced herself from her founding principles that no concerted effort has been discussed or probably even thought of concerning what can be done to help the abused Christians throughout the Middle East and beyond. Christians have systematically been raped, murdered, beaded, tortured and their churches burned to a crisp by Muslims who hate them for existing as non-Muslims.
But as deviant as those developments are concerning the federal government, the refugee resettlement program ranks near the top, amongst the government’s many acts of disregard for American interest. For years, the federal government at taxpayer expense has been bringing in so-called refugees from Syria and Somalia. But during more recent years, the resettlement program has become an even wider door for policy for terrorist who want to come in to our republic, set up shop and wait for a chosen time to wreak havoc.
It used to be that refuges and legal immigrants were for the most part pro American and simply wanted to assimilate into American society. They also wanted to partake of the great opportunities our onetime mostly free market economy once provided. But in more recent times, things have gone awry. Not only has the federal government gone rouge and turned against our constitutional republic standards, but the feds are now flooding this country with known enemy muslims from Syria who will slit your throat if given the opportunity.
Tens of thousands of Muslims from Somalia have been and continue to be brought into America. At the same time, the real victims of Middle East and African brutality, the Christians have been left to rely completely on God for any relief from the grief of unwarranted brutality. To date, the state of Minnesota alone is plagued with over 100,000 Somalian Muslims who hate American society and are hoping to establish sharia law in our nation. Places like Dearbornistan, MI and near Fort Worth, Texas are teeming with hate filled Muslims, including those from Somalia being flooded into this country by the United Nations and the State Department and heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.
According to reliable sources, 350 subcontractors are paid 850.00 dollars for every settled Somalian Muslim. Even progressive leaning Christian and Catholic organizations are foolishly in support of the government effort to bring in Muslims who would wipe out Christianity and Catholicism in a heartbeat. Such short sighted lack of wisdom sheds a huge light on the state of the organized church today. Despite the dire nature of the invading Muslims into our country, I am optimistic that the small window of opportunity to save and restore this nation will soon be fully utilized.
With God’s grace the tyrannical grip now besetting America will be removed and those who are focused on our destruction shall be defeated. Wake up America.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rogue-federal-government.jpg295560Ron Edwardshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRon Edwards2015-06-12 05:09:382015-06-12 08:12:51The Rouge Federal Government
“All the common areas of Atlantic Station including the streets, sidewalks, parks, and alleys are private property.”
Thus reads one line buried in the Rules of Conduct for Atlantic Station, Atlanta, Georgia: a marvelous city within a city. But it’s this one line that makes the critical difference. It’s why this one-square mile in the heart of this great city has done more to model beauty, prosperity, diversity, and happy living than 50 years of “urban renewal” and other government programs.
The entire community was built on top of the old Atlanta Steel Mill, which opened in 1901 and closed in the 1970s, leaving desolation in its wake. Atlantic Station opened 10 years ago as a visionary entrepreneurial venture — the brainchild of The Jacoby Group, headed by Jim Jacoby — funded mostly with private money (the city helped with tax breaks and some infrastructure funding).
It is not a gated community walled off from the public for only the elite. There is no charge to get in. Everything is public access, and subject to all the laws governing commercial property. The difference between the public and private city, however, is huge.
You can tell when you have entered the space. Whereas many areas of Atlanta struggle, this area in the heart of the city is clean, bright, ebullient, bustling with enterprise and life.
On an evening recently, on the way to the movies in the spectacular theater there, I sat outside on the patio of a Mexican food restaurant and watched adults and children playing games and having fun on the green space that serves as a mini-park in the middle of this urban experiment in capitalism. There were people from all races, classes, and ages. They listened to the live band and sang along.
As I sat there, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the sense of a mini-utopia. It’s like an idealized scene you see in a commercial for soda or some happy vacation getaway. It was one of the most blissful city scenes I’ve ever witnessed.
It was a typical evening, and it was all taking place in a place that was, only twenty years ago, a burned out, low-rent, disaster zone, the kind of place people flee. Now, the migration patterns have changed. Atlantic Station is a place where you want to live and work.
I was walking along and a uniformed police office greeted me good evening. I responded with delight, and we had a nice conversation. She wanted to know if I was enjoying the evening, made a few bar recommendations, we chatted about the weather, and I went on. She was uniformed, yes, and probably armed, but in a non-threatening way. She looked sharp and helpful, as well as official.
Then it struck me: the police in the community are privately employed by main stakeholders in the community, which are the merchants, apartment owners, and other service providers. (The streets are also private but public access.) For this reason, the police themselves have a deep investment in the well-being of the community and the general happiness of the consumers who shop there. They are employees of the free enterprise system. In particular, Atlantic Station owners contract with Chesley Brown for experienced service.
Sometimes in today’s overly-militarized environment, it is easy to forget: policing is a completely legitimate, useful, important profession. They are there to make sure that everyone is keeping the rules and to apprehend the vandals and criminals who break the rules. You might even call them the thin-blue line.
What makes the difference here is the private nature of the contract that employs them. Just as every other employee in this community, they have a direct stake in the value of the space. They are there to serve customers, just as every merchant in this community does.
The more valuable the community, the more valuable their own jobs. They have the incentive to do their job well, which means enhancing the experiences of rule keepers while driving out those who do not keep the rules.
The rules for Atlantic Station are rather strict, more so than I would have thought. There is a curfew for teens. You can’t wear gang-related or obscene clothing. You can’t carry weaponry. You can’t use indecent language. You can’t smoke. You can’t be boisterous. You can’t shout or be vulgar. You can jog, but you can’t just take off running through streets like an animal.
If rules like this were imposed by a city government, people would rightly complain about the violation of rights. So why aren’t these rules violations of rights? Because it is private property and the owners determine them.
More importantly, the point of the rules is not to control people and run their lives; it is to enhance the value of the community for everyone. They can be changed depending on circumstances. They can be imposed strictly or not. It all depends on what’s best for Atlantic Station, and, yes, what’s best for business.
But you know what’s interesting given all the rules? You don’t really feel them. They are not really posted anywhere. You just sense that they exist, and you feel a desire to behave well. The culture of cooperativeness and good behavior is ever present. And the rules have the effect of freeing you from annoying things, not restricting your behavior. It doesn’t feel like an imposition. It feels orderly. The rules are enforced but with gentleness and care.
The first time I entered Atlantic Station was about 18 months ago. I had some sense that something was different about the place, but I hadn’t understood that it was entirely private. I stepped out on the sidewalk and lit up a cigarette. One of these very nice private policeman came up and greeted me and politely asked me to put it out, on grounds that this was against the rules in this private community. I said, you mean by this building? He said, no, for the whole community.
I didn’t resent it. In fact, I was delighted to comply. I even thanked him for being so kind. There were no tickets, no yelling, no moments of intimidation. No one is taking your stuff, threatening to arrest you, or even giving you tickets. You have the right of exit. The rules themselves become part of a larger market for rules.
Another interesting feature is how Atlantic Station has marketed itself. It is not seen as an experiment in capitalist living. All the promotion uses all the usual lefty buzzwords about energy efficiency, sustainability, diversity, renewable this and that, certifications by various green groups, and so on. None of it matters in the slightest. This is about private property. Period. It’s ownership that realizes the ideals, whatever they are.
The lesson I derive from all of this is that institutions matter. You can have the same principles and laws in two places, one enforced publicly and one enforced privately. The code of conduct can be identical, but the results can be completely different.
Where monopolistic, tax-funded enforcement can be cruel, inflexible, and violent, the same enforcement brought about within the matrix of an exchange economy can yield results that are humane, orderly, and beautiful. The right to just walk away makes all the difference.
The implications for policing are perhaps the most interesting, given the current controversy over police abuse. When the police function is part of the market order, the phrase “to serve and protect” takes on substantive meaning. It’s this feature of public vs. private property that is decisive.
There must be many of these communities appearing around the country. Governments at all levels are out of ideas and out of money. When was the last time you heard of some hugely expensive urban renewal program, or massive public housing structure, that was to be built in a major city?
These visions are less and less part of our lives and our future, thankfully. With governments bowing out of the planning business, private enterprise is increasingly moving in with real efforts at restoring community.
Private enterprise is gradually bringing about what governments only promised to do, and it is happening without much fanfare. In fact, I’ve not seen a single headline story about this community, whereas there should be thousands that read something like “Private commerce saves Atlanta!”
Private property and inclusive commerce: it’s the magic sauce that makes life beautiful. Come to Atlantic Station and see for yourself.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/private-city-fee2.jpg357720Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-06-11 06:45:472015-06-13 12:55:41How Policing Works in a Privatized City by Jeffrey A. Tucker
According to the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project (Pew Research) there are an estimated 2.7 million Muslims in America. Pew Research reported in 2013 over I million legal immigrants entered the U.S. of which 100,000 were Muslim. More than 1.3 million Muslims have been brought into the U.S. via the billion dollar U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (U.S. RAP). Annually the U.S. RAP brings in 70,000 refugees allotted by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR). These annual USRAP allotments are virtually controlled by the UNHCR, which designates refugee populations most at risk. The current USRAP allotment exceeds that of all other countries combined. Separate from the U.S. RAP are other legal avenues for Muslim immigration that include the asylum program that converts illegal border crossers into legal immigrants with benefits equivalent to refugees, the Diversity “Green Card” Lottery and the investor EB-5 Visa Program.
According to Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch (RRW) blog, this UN refugee agency “virtually calls the shots” for the U.S. RAP that provides legal refugee immigrants with a veritable smorgasbord of cash welfare, Social Security benefits for elderly refugees, Medicaid, educational assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. Including both federal and state level benefits; some experts estimate that the annual total cost of the U.S. RAP could be upwards of $12 to $20 billion annually.
The tripartite US RAP is administered by: the US Department of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration (BPRM) that admits and contracts with voluntary agencies to process refugees; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allegedly screens refugees abroad; and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the US Department of Health and Human Services that funds grants to program contractors and refugee ethnic groups for community absorption. The President, upon advice from the State Department BPRM, sends Congress an annual directive conveying these UNHCR refugee allotments that are virtually “rubber stamped” by immigration and border security subcommittees of Congress. A network of 9 major religious and secular voluntary agencies (VOLAG), supported by 350 subcontractors places refugees in more than 190 cities, often without any opportunity for review by localities. These contractors include:
Church World Services (CWS)
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)
Episcopal Migration Ministries
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
International Rescue Committee (IRC)
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
World Relief Corporation (WR).
Based on 2012 IRS Form 990 submissions, the top U.S. RAP funded Volag was the IRC that received more than $332 millions in federal grants and contracts accounting for more than 73% of annual revenue. Next in rank was the USCCB that received $71 million in federal grants and contracts accounting for 98% of their annual revenue.
The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions Program through hearings and recommendations. The U.S. RAP has been used punitively against political critics. One example is the assignment of large numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
The U.S. RAP has been fraught with fraud facilitating the entry of Muslim Jihadis from countries that hate us; Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Rampant fraud was detected from DHS DNA samples taken among Somali applicants for screening under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years. 20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued or ejected. Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department refugee program let in to the US hundreds of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
Poised to add to this troubling mix is a stream of 17,000 Syrian refugees, who are predominately Muslim, discriminating against admissions of endangered Middle East Christians. Doubtless they and growing number of Muslim refugees from elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia will be “seeded” in American cities under the Fostering Community Engagement and Welcoming Communities Project of theORR with the Soros-backed NGO, “Welcoming America.“
There are rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that has operated for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Corcoran of RRW believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting hundreds of potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.
Now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security. Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments. Gowdy’s letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina over the establishment of a VOLAG office dedicated to the processing of Syrian refugees. He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies.
The US RAP is a virtual Trojan Horse facilitating immigration under the Islamic doctrine of Dar al Hijra- immigration that constitutes civilizational jihad. This is the subject of a book by former Islamic jurist and convert to Christianity, Sam Solomon, and co-author E Al Maqdisi, Modern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration – accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? The authors drew attention to the Islamic imperative behind migration allegedly attributed to the prophet Mohammed:
Migration cannot be ended as long as there is kufr (unbelief) or as long as there is an enemy that resists (kenz al Umak 4627). In other words, as long as there are communities out there that are non-Muslim, where Islam is not regarded as a supreme system, then jihad must continue.
Hence, Mohammed made it clear that migration is a duty that needs to be upheld forever or until the earth has submitted to the Islamic hegemony.
The authors note that the hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) demand that Muslim migrants not assimilate and remain separate adhering to Sharia “advancing the cause of Islam”:
In other words: “no integration with the host country.” Now if one’s entry visa or livelihood is based on showing some kind of integration … then it must be in appearance only and temporary until the Islamization objective is achieved.
Corcoran is featured in a brief video on the problematic Muslim refugee resettlement in the US produced by the Center for Security Policy. It has gone viral since posted on YouTube April 20, 2015. As of May 29, 2015 the Corcoran video had more than 537,122 hits which continue to climb every day. Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans. Watch it on YouTube:
The CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”
Corcoran and her RRW team of activists chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor, Refugee Resettlement Watch. In our May 2015 NER interview with Erick Stakelbeck ofCBN’s The Watchman program, ISIS Threat to America, he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists to Somalia and Syria. He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now the Islamic State. We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali Refugee Resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years. They have covered severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland in places like Shelbyville, Tennessee, Emporia, Kansas, Greeley , Colorado, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Columbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.
The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Six Bosnian refugees were arrested in January 2015 and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. Think of the brothers Tsarnaev who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.” An ABC investigation reported that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the U.S. RAP.
Another example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives, arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 and convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda. They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in 2006 in Iraq. A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator. Watch this 2013 ABC Report. Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life. That episode briefly raised the ire of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
In late May 2015 Democrat Senators Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 12 others have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to admit a flood of 65,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees “suggested” by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration.
On the same day, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the resettlement effort a “serious mistake” because of the security risks it poses.
Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beaconreported May 23, 2015 that the DHS admitted that several hundred terrorist supporters entered the U.S. illegally, and subsequently were admitted as refugees giving rise to Congressional demands for information and a likely hearing:
Congress is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) release documents detailing how many foreigners seeking asylum in the United States have been found to have ties to terror groups, according to a recent letter sent to the agency by leading lawmakers.
The letter comes on the heels of revelations by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that at least 638 aliens seeking asylum in America have been found to have connections to terrorists.
Against this background, we arranged to interview Ann Corcoran of RRW.
Mike Bates
Mike Bates: Good afternoon and welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This half hour is a special conversation about a topic that I think is safe to say almost no one in America is aware of. Certainly the percentage of people who are aware is in single digits. Joining me, Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, The Iconoclast. Welcome, Jerry.
Jerry Gordon
Jerry Gordon: Good to be here, Mike.
Bates: And joining us by telephone is Ann Corcoran. She’s editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, and the author of the book Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America. Ann. Welcome.
Ann Corcoran: Thank you so much for having me.
Bates: Ann, I’d like to build this pyramid from the ground up with a very broad based question. What refugee resettlement are you watching?
Corcoran: I’m watching a very complicated, secretive program, where we bring in approximately 70,000 refugees a year from various countries around the world, and the U.N. is basically calling the shots as to who gets into the country.
Bates: Are you concerned about refugees from the entire planet, or a specific segment that is of greater concern?
Corcoran: I can tell you the truth; it’s quite shocking for most people to realize that we are bringing in tens of thousands of refugees every year from countries where people hate us; Somalia, Iraq and soon Syria will be on the list. It is those refugees that I’m most concerned about.
There are also economic reasons why we should cut the numbers of refugees, generally.
Gordon: Ann, I want to read you a quotation from Mo, our friend, the Prophet Mohammed.
Bates: May peace be upon him.
Gordon: This is courtesy of one of the more reliable commentators, Bukhari. “Accordingly, there can be no Hijra – which means migration – after the conquest, but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle, then spread out.”
How important is this Islamic doctrine behind the mushrooming effect of Muslim immigration to America? There have been roughly 350,000 to 400,000 Muslims who have come to the U.S. as refugees from some of these countries you just enumerated that hate us; 100,000, for example, originally from Somalia; another 100,000 from Iraq, and another 100,000 from Bosnia.
Out of these groups have emerged “known or lone wolves or terrorists against us.” We saw that in the case of the Chechen refugees, the Tsarnaev brothers who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing. Then in Bowling Green, Kentucky, you had not one, but two Iraqis who came in as refugees lying on their admission forms who were actually Al Qaeda operatives. They were trying to ship weapons and money to Al Qaeda.
One of them, amazingly, got fingered, literally, because his prints were on the shards of IED’s that he made in Iraq. Are there hundreds if not thousands of these folks among these “refugees from countries that hate us”?
Corcoran: Well there certainly could be. One of my larger concerns, aside from the terrorists who are getting in here, is we can’t properly screen them. Recently the FBI testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that they can’t screen the Syrians because they are coming from a failed state. Which is only common sense as you wouldn’t be able to screen people from countries that don’t have records of them; particularly countries like Somalia. I’m also concerned about the civilizational Jihad; the pressure that comes on our western societies when Islamic population reaches certain levels. It doesn’t even have to reach high levels for the pressure to be put on for us to accommodate Sharia, Islamic law and the Islamic way of life.
Bates: Jerry cited the instruction from the Prophet Mohammed – may peace be upon him – so I completely understand why the Muslims’ wish to immigrate to the United States. But why are we taking them? Is this something that we’re doing voluntarily? Is this a policy of this administration? Is this a long standing policy of the United States? Why are we allowing so many refugees into the U.S.?
Corcoran: This is a program that has been in place for 35 years; most people are surprised to find that out. The Refugee Act of 1980 was the brain child of -this won’t surprise you – the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former Senator, now Vice President Joe Biden. Jimmy Carter signed it into law.
This has been going on as I said for 35 years, with the United Nations calling the shots more and more. In recent years, we are seeing more refugees being taken from countries in the Middle East – of course, that’s where much of the turmoil is – and from Africa.
We all know there are millions of refugees in the world. We could be taking them from other places if we so chose. However, we are taking a large number now from Iraq, Somalia and soon Syria.
Bates: I know that the Refugee Act of 1980 allows the United Nations to designate the number of refugees to be resettled in certain countries – they get to call the shots. But do we as a sovereign nation have the ability to say no to what the U.N. says we have to do?
Corcoran: We absolutely do. However, I’m afraid to say the United States and the U.S. State Department does whatever the U.N. tells it to do. This is not just something that occurred in the Obama administration. This was going on during the Bush administration as well.
I have only been following the refugee program since 2007. That was triggered when refugees landed in my rural county in Maryland and I wanted to understand how this worked. Each year the President sends a determination letter to Congress and designates how many refugees from each part of the world we are going to receive.
Congress could come back and say, “No we aren’t.” However, they never do. They just rubber stamp it and the President concurs on how many come from which parts of the world based on what the United Nations is pressuring us to do.
Gordon: Recently we had an outburst of concern about the acceptance of Syrian refugees that triggered a series of letters between US Rep. Trey Gowdy to Secretary of State Kerry. We know Gowdy because of his involvement with the Benghazi affair and other matters. What role does he play in the House in terms of reviewing these determinations about how many refugees enter this country, and what was the concern?
Corcoran: Trey Gowdy is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the House Judiciary Committee. His Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Refugee Act of 1980 and how it is administered; and they could be holding oversight hearings.
In my years of following this, I’ve never seen Congress lift a finger to examine this program. Now Gowdy is involved because refugees were – surprise, surprise – being planned to enter his Congressional district.
We saw the U.S. State Department do this in other Congressional Districts; most notably Michele Bachmann’s district in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Now, they are planning to, bring in refugees to Gowdy’s district and so he is now involved, thank goodness.
So, we would love for him to hold hearings. I think that is what needs to be done now for this program.
Bates: Is there a concern in Congress beyond just Trey Gowdy?
Corcoran: Is anybody concerned in Congress? Anyone else besides Trey Gowdy? No.
Bates: We don’t hear much about it. I don’t hear very many people complaining about it. I think most of the country is ignorant about it. Are most Congressmen ignorant about it?
Corcoran: Yes, they are frankly ignorant about it. I had one of my activists, contact Senator Enzi from Wyoming. One of Enzi’s staff wrote back about a completely different immigration program. They didn’t even understand what the refugee program is. I found that to be the case all over the place. There has been a virtual silence out of Congress on this program.
Gordon: Ann, who is placing these refugees that we just talked about in communities like Spartanburg, South Carolina, Shelbyville, Tennessee, Minneapolis, Minnesota or Greeley, Colorado? Which groups are actually involved with setting up offices, screening and processing them and making money out of it?
Corcoran: That is the part that shocks the public the most when they learn this. The U.S. State Department brings in the refugees that the U.N. has largely chosen for us, and Homeland Security are supposed to screen them. I mean, how do you screen somebody from a failed state when you don’t even know who they are? Then, these are divvied up, literally, between nine major contractors that include groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Lutheran Service and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. There are six of them that are supposedly religious charities, exclusively funded by the U.S. taxpayer. They then divide up their allotment of refugees among 350 subcontractors in 190 U.S. cities. They literally compete with each other for these refugees, because money comes along with each refugee.
Gordon: Ann there is a new wrinkle in the seeding of refugees in these communities. It has to do with a group out of Atlanta called “Welcoming America,” which has been, funded in part by none other than George Soros. What is their angle and who are they contracted with?
Corcoran: I first came across “Welcoming America” in 2013 when I went to an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) stakeholder meeting. Now stakeholders are everybody who has a piece of this refugee resettlement program. It doesn’t mean the average citizen can normally go to these events held in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
When I first heard about “Welcoming America” at the ORR stakeholder meeting and I heard the phrase used by the federal program presenter about “pockets of resistance forming in America.” To deal with these “pockets of resistance” the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funded “Welcoming America” with a grant to go around the country and make sure these pockets of resistance were straightened out.
Gordon: Ann, what kind of benefits are these refugees receiving, and are they on some sort of fast track towards citizenship?
Corcoran: Refugees are the only category of legal immigrants that can come right into the country and be signed up for various social service programs. I’m talking about food stamps, subsidized housing, education for the kids, and health insurance right from the start.
Most legal immigrants have to be here for a number of years before they can access those welfare benefits. Even elderly refugees receive Supplementary Security Income (SSI) from Social Security as well. On the matter of fast track for citizenship, within a year following their entry into the US, they are given green card like permanent resident aliens. That allows them to be processed for citizenship. These same contractors that I’m talking about, the nine voluntary agencies and their 350 subcontractors receive grant money from the federal government to help them guide refugee clients through the citizenship process, literally holding their hands.
Gordon: When you and I were first writing about this “secret program,” there was an event that occurred that shut down the Family Reunification Visa Program for nearly three years. It concerned fraud in Somali refugee camps prior to coming here. Can you tell us about that?
Corcoran: In 2008, the U.S. State Department discovered – surprise surprise – that Somalis applying to enter the U.S. to reunite with their families here were not related to the families here in the first place.
The U.S. State Department had to shut down the whole P-3 Visa program for Family Reunification for about three or four years to try to get this straightened out. Teams from the DHS did sample DNA tests and discovered the massive amount of fraud that was going on.
At one point the U.S. State Department was saying 20,000 Somalis got into the United States illegally and nothing was ever done to find them and remove them.
Now, the P-3 Visa program is back up and running and we’re bringing Somalis into the United States at the rate of 700 to 800 a month. I’d like you to consider why we are bringing any Somalis into the United States at all. We are bringing them in at a rate almost on par with the Bush Administration, which saw the highest rates of Somalis entering the US.
Bates: They’re not just coming into the country for temporary refugee status. This is permanent relocation. Given that we do not have any clue where these people are coming from? Are they terrorists? Does this pose a national security problem for the United States?
Corcoran: It absolutely does pose a national security problem. Who are these people that we are bringing in? They say they screen them, but how can they screen them? One of the great shocks that I discovered a few years ago was illegal migrants coming across the Mediterranean that we are now reading about in our news.
Many illegal Somali migrants got to the tiny island nation of Malta in the Mediterranean. Starting in the Bush administration we were bringing in 700 to 1,000 of those illegal Somali migrants who got to Malta to the United States as refugees.
How on earth do we know who these people are who got on boats and came across the Mediterranean and then we brought from Malta to the US? It makes absolutely no sense.
Gordon: Ann, prior to this interview we were speaking about why countries in the Gulf region, the wealthy Emirates, Saudi Arabia, aren’t backing this refugee program setting up camps in their locale. You mentioned what happened to a group of Somalis who made it to Saudi Arabia. What happened in that case?
Corcoran: Actually, there was more than one case. Any Somalis who have entered illegally into Saudi Arabia are immediately put on a plane and sent back to Mogadishu, and the United Nations hasn’t said a word about this.
You can just imagine what ruckus would be made in the media if the United States decided to start rounding up Somalis putting them on a plane and sending them back to the failed state of Somalia. But Saudi Arabia can do it and there’s not a word out of anyone, whether at the UN or here in the US.
Bates: What I find so disconcerting about this is twofold: one, are they terrorists because so many in the Muslim world are, and the other aspect of it is culturally. It used to be that immigrants would come to America and they would assimilate into the culture, but most of these refugees are not assimilating into the culture.
They are just forming their own distinct neighborhoods living very deliberately separate from the American culture. Is that not a problem?
Corcoran: Yes, it’s definitely a problem. By the way, assimilate is a dirty word now. The Obama administration has basically banned the word. It is not allowed. The Obama administration has a taskforce on new Americans where they literally discuss seeding American towns with immigrants, but the word assimilation is verboten.
It is only, the soil or the community that must change to accommodate the seedling. So, the term assimilation is not allowed any longer.
Bates: This is incredibly foolish. It is a Trojan horse of the worst kind, given the problems with mass Muslim immigration and the lack of assimilation of Muslim communities in Europe that are, in many cases, violent.
I don’t just mean Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish bakery in Paris attacks, but even the protests and other kinds of violence that is occurring there. Of course it’s always reported as youth but never Muslim youth.
It’s not like we don’t know where this is going. Europe has done this to its own detriment. Why do we follow in the footsteps of this foolishness?
Corcoran: I wish I had an answer to that question because, it blows my mind. All you have to do is to look to Europe to see what might be our future. Why? Probably, because we have no leadership that is able to stand up to this. They’re all so afraid of being called racist xenophobes or Islamophobes.
To be frank, we have no leadership in Congress. We have no one who is going to stand up to this, speak about what’s happened in Europe and say, “Let’s not have it happen here.” Let me say what one of the other things that I am annoyed about with this program. That is the secrecy behind which communities in America are being slated to receive refugees and yet they are not included in the process at all.
I contend that if this was such a fabulous program, put all the cards on the table in every community the State Department and ORR is targeting for refugees. Explain where they will be living, going to school, working and what impacts and costs are involved. But the federal and voluntary agencies involved with the refugee programs appear not to be able to resolve the problems without being secretive about it.
Gordon: Ann, one of the most disturbing parts of this U.N. controlled program is the patent discrimination against endangered Christian refugees, legitimately, from places like Syria, Iraq and other locations. What is the evidence of that?
Corcoran: Let’s just take the Syrian refugee issue. So far the State Department has brought in a small number of Syrians, relatively speaking, into the country. One would think that we would be choosing first and foremost the Christians who are in real danger. But we are bringing mostly Sunni Muslims. There were about 800 Syrians who have been brought into the country in the last few years. Now the State Department and the U.N. have 11,000 in the pipeline waiting to come into the U.S.
But of the 800 that have come in so far, approximately 700 are Sunni Muslims, there were only 43 Christians among the Syrian refugees that have come in so far. That translates to approximately 92 percent of refugees coming in from Syria are Muslims.
I’m told that that is mostly because we are bringing them in from U.N. camps, where the Muslims are found. Christians do not go to the U.N. camps, but to Turkey if they get out of Syria at all, where they’re taken care of by the Syriac church.
Gordon: You talked about possible options for reform of this secretive program administered by the State Department and Department of Health and Human Services. What are the top of the list alternatives that we could possibly consider to rein in this program?
Corcoran: You mean if I were queen for a day and I could wipe out the whole program? That would be one way to start. Clearly the refugee program has to be completely revamped. This whole system of turning these refugees over to these non-governmental organizations that are calling the shots is just outrageous.
I would go back to a day when we resettled refugees, with the help of individual churches and other civic groups. Where a civic group or a church would have to take a refugee family under its wing for a year or two, get them assimilated and settled, and without tapping into taxpayer funds to accomplish it.
That is what I would like to see if, we were going to continue the refugee program. There are serious questions about whether the numbers of refugees are too high from countries that hate us. Perhaps the first thing one could do is to limit the countries from which refugees could come.
There is a lot that could be done to reform this program if there was leadership brave enough to do it.
Bates: Much more to discuss, Ann, but not much more time. We’ve barely scratched the surface, so I would encourage our listeners to go to your website which is www.refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com. Ann Corcoran. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you Jerry for arranging this important interview.
Listen to the 1330am WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/US-Refugee-Admissions-Program.jpg418640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-05-31 08:59:342015-06-12 08:43:48Federal Refugee Program Brings Jihadi Threat to America
Mike Bates and I interviewed Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog on 1330 AM WEBY’s “Your Turn’ program, Tuesday, May 12, 2015. Corcoran is the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America .“We noted early in the interview the importance of Hijra (immigration in Arabic) as a doctrinal imperative for Muslims in one of the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) according to a reliable commentator, Bukhari:
There can be no Hijra (migration) after the conquest but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle then spread out.
The focus of our discussion was on rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement under the billion dollar secretive US Refugee Admission Program that has operated under the virtual radar screen for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Based on the interview, Corcoran believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting thousands of potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.
Watch Corcoran’s Center for Security Policy You Tube video which has gone viral since its posting on April 20, 2015 with 236,748 hits at last count.
Here are some takeaways from the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Corcoran:
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees “calls the shots” on the annual allotment of 70,000 refugees that the State Department sends a Presidential Directive to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to be ‘rubber stamped’ by Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Border Security.
The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions program through hearings and recommendations leading to changes in countries of origin under UN allotments.
The Refugee Admissions Program has been used punitively against political critics. One example is the assignment of large numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
Nearly 400,000 refugees admitted to the US under this State Department program funded by taxpayers came from “countries that hate us”: Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and soon, Syria;
Hundreds of terrorists have entered the US as refugees, many fraudulently, whose backgrounds are impossible to run background checks as their countries of origin are virtual failed states;
Among examples of refugee Jihads caught are:
Dozens of Somaliémigré youths arrested and charged with material support for terrorism by attempting or leaving to join Al Shabaab in war torn Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria;
Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives admitted because of fraudulent representations who were convicted of trying to attemptingto ship weapons and funds to Al Qaeda and only caught when fingerprints were found on shards of an IED that killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in Iraq;
The Brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three and one MIT police officer, injuring over 263, some maimed for life.
Rampant fraud was detected from DNA samples among Somali applicants under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years. 20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued to eject them.
Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department Refugee program let in to the US thousands of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
Endangered Middle East Christians are effectively discriminated against for refugee status, because they do not reside in UNHCR camps, dominated by Sunni Muslims. Of the initial group of Syrian refugees brought into the US, 92 percent were Muslims, with the balance Christian.
There are upwards of 17,000 Syrians refugees in the UNHCR pipeline awaiting processing for admission to the US.
The State Department contracts with 9 religious and special interest NGOs who place refugees through a network of 350 contractors and compete for significant processing fees and grants for obtaining citizenship.
Refugees are legal immigrants and thus have access to a smorgasbord of cash assistance, Medicaid, educational support that run into billions of costs all funded by US taxpayers.
The Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement has a contract with a Soros-backed immigration advocacy group, “Welcoming America,” to go into ‘pockets of resistance’ in local communities targeted for refugee allotments.
Local communities have virtually no say or review of refugee placements to assess local burden on schools, medical facilities or assisted housing. That has led Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to write Secretary Kerry to put a hold on refugees slated for his district until resettlement questions are answered.
For more, listen to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here. An article based on this interview will appear in the June edition of the NER.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trojan-horse1.jpg346640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-05-13 07:34:502015-05-13 07:36:23Trojan House: U.S. State Dept. Program Brings Refugee Jihadis to America costing Billion $
Last week, the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote the Department of State demanding that it halt the resettlement of refugees in the city of Spartanburg in his district. In his letter dated April 15, 2015, Congressman Gowdy objected to the “lack of notice, information and consultation afforded to me and my constituents” and posed seventeen pointed questions, including (as paraphrased by Politico):
Why and when was his district approved [as a refugee resettlement site]?
What steps were taken to notify local government officials and whether they approved the plan, and where funds for the office and the refugees will come from?
When are the first refugees expected to arrive?
What benefits are they entitled to?
How many will be resettled?
What is their country of origin?
Who is responsible for housing, employment and education services for them?
Rep. Gowdy was particularly concerned about the security implications of this immigrant migration. He asked: “Do any of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area have criminal convictions? If so, for what crimes has each been convicted?” And “Please explain the background-check process performed on refugees scheduled to be resettled in Spartanburg.”
The necessity for such congressional oversight has been underscored by an important new monograph by Ann Corcoran entitled, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America, which was published today as part of the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series.
Ms. Corcoran documents that Muslim immigration as a form of jihad via colonization called hijra dates back to the time of Mohammed. In fact, she quotes hadith sources that assert that migration is a religious obligation for Muslims to spread Islam and build the Islamic state. She also cites longtime Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi, who once said that Europe would be conquered without guns and swords, but with Muslim migrants overrunning the continent. A powerful new documentary by Martin Mawyer called “Europe’s Last Stand; America’s Final Warning” illustrates just how accurate this prediction is proving to be.
As practiced today, the hijra strategy is an important part of a covert, pre-violent “civilization jihad” pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood. The UN High Commission on Refugees – which, like the rest of the United Nations, is dominated by the dictates of the Islamic supremacist organization known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – is complicit in the process of bringing Muslim refugees to America. Interestingly, no Muslim refugees are ever resettled in wealthy, low-population density Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.
Particularly troubling is the evidence that Ms. Corcoran compiles concerning the secrecy surrounding this U.S. refugee resettlement program. She provides estimates of how many Muslim immigrants have been quietly resettled in American communities with no local input. And she discusses the State Department’s primary targets in the United States for Muslim resettlement and showcases models to be found in communities that are resisting this program.
Inher book, Ms. Corcoran recounts her personal trajectory from typical, uniformed citizen to a national authority on refugee resettlement policies and programs, the focus of her highly acclaimed blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch. It began in 2007, when large numbers of Muslim Meskhetian Turks were quietly resettled by the U.S. State Department in her hometown in Western Maryland, prompting her to research intensively what was afoot.
Although the author and other concerned local residents succeeded in that instance in blocking the dumping of immigrants that are, as a practical matter, unlikely ever to assimilate, the episode led Ms. Corcoran to the discovery of a frightening pattern: Across the United States, the federal government is attempting stealthily to relocate Muslim immigrants into unsuspecting and often unsuitable rural communities. She found that the affected locals, and even states, are totally by-passed in a resettlement process effectively driven by the United Nations, with U.S. agencies playing a clearly subordinate and non-sovereign role.
In addition, Ms. Corcoran has documented how U.S. officials stubbornly refuse to answer affected communities’ questions about Muslim resettlement. In fact, the State Department went so far as to stop holding town-halls and meetings in Washington, D.C. to discus after local community representatives began to attend.
Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said of the new Civilization Jihad Reader:
Ann Corcoran’s report is required reading for anyone worried about the threat to America from the global jihad movement. She has provided shocking details of how a stealth effort by jihadists to advance their stated goal of “destroying Western civilization from within” is being abetted by the U.S. government.
It is to be profoundly hoped that Ms. Corcoran’s analysis will raise awareness of this problem and that, especially with the concern being expressed by influential legislators like Congressman Trey Gowdy, it will help force U.S. officials to halt a dangerous refugee resettlement program. Her suggestions about what average citizens can do to catalyze such changes amounts, moreover, to a real public service.
Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America is downloadable for free on the Center for Security Policy website, www.securefreedom.org, and available for purchase via Amazon.com.
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hijra.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-04-21 16:04:142015-04-21 16:35:10Hijra: The Muslim Colonization of America
An elected Combat Veterans For Congress, Congressman James Bridenstine, Lcdr-USNR (R-OK-1), is one of the principled members of Congress who votes his conscious against very bad legislation, in support of the US Constitution, and regardless of the consequence.
Regardless of the possibility of retribution, Congressman Bridenstine voted his conscious against the Omnibus Funding Bill that provided funding for the budget thru September 2015 for the Obama administration illegal Executive Order that will effectively give Work Permits and Social Security Numbers to 5 million Illegal Aliens. Cong Bridenstine also voted against re-electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives because the Speaker sought Pelosi’s help in getting her Democrat members to help the Speaker pass the Omnibus Spending Bill against the votes and will of the majority of Republican Congressmen. Following his votes of conscious, Congressman Bridenstine was removed from the House Rules Committee by the Republican leadership. That action was uncalled for and we oppose that type of vindictive retribution against a Patriotic Congressman who votes to protect and defend the US Constitution..
Please read the below article about Congressman Bridenstine, listen to his interview with Joe Miller on the Joe Miller Show. In the interview, Congressman Bridenstine refuses to back down from his principled stands and his votes to protect and support the US Constitution, regardless of future consequences. We and all Americans are fortunate to have a Representative in the House with integrity like Congressman Bridenstine representing the voters. We wish more Congressmen were as principled as Congressman Bridenstine; we will continue to support him in any way we can, and encourage all American citizens to financially support Cong Bridenstine’s re-election campaign in 2016.
In an exclusive interview with Joe Miller Show, Congressman Bridenstine talked about his stand against the GOP Leadership and the critical need to fight Obama’s unconstitutional power grab. Listen to this patriot discuss his modern day fight against the Tories of our time:
Congressman Jim Bridenstine was endorsed by the Combat Veterans for Congress and was elected in 2012 to represent Oklahoma’s First District, which covers Washington, Tulsa, Wagoner Counties plus portions of Rogers & Creek Counties. Bridenstine serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Science, Space and Technology Committee.
From the start, Cong Bridenstine has been widely recognized in the House for his integrity, commitment to principles, and willingness to uphold the rule of law. He has become an effective member of Congress by focusing on three specific areas: National Security, Economic Freedom, and Constitutional Integrity. Jim supports moving toward a balanced budget through spending control, tax reform, and financial measures and policies promoting free markets.
Bridenstine has focused on the elimination of Obamacare and reform of laws and regulations that present a huge burden on the economy. He has introduced legislation and supported a strong national defense, religious freedom, protection of life, free speech and restoration of the balance of power within the branches of the federal government consistent with the Constitution.
On April 1st, Bridenstine achieved a remarkable accomplishment and became the first freshman on the Science, Space and Technology Committee to author and pass legislation this session. The Weather Forecasting Improvement Act (HR2413) will enable technology development to save lives and protect property from severe weather, including tornadoes, without adding to the budget or debt. The measure received tremendous bipartisan support and passed on a voice vote.
Bridenstine’s background includes a triple major at Rice University, an MBA from Cornell University, 9 years of active duty in the United States Navy, and he is an Eagle Scout. Cong Bridenstine began his Naval aviation career flying the E-2C Hawkeye off the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. It was there that he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and gathered most of his 1,900 flight hours and 333 carrier arrested landings. While on active duty, he transitioned to the F-18 Hornet and flew at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, the parent command to TOPGUN. He is currently a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve where he flew the E-2C Hawkeye in America’s war on drugs before becoming a member of Congress. He and his wife Michelle live in Tulsa with their three children, ages 7, 5, and 2.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_6721.jpg466639Joseph R. Johnhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJoseph R. John2015-04-02 06:40:442015-04-02 06:58:02TEA Party Hero refuses to cave on GOP’s Omnibus Funding Bill [Video]
Here is a proposed to-do-list for members of Congress to deal with legal and illegal immigration:
Pass and enforce E-Verify so all workers are legal. Require all employers to check all existing employees before law went into effect within two years of enactment.
Amend the Immigration & Nationality Act to require one parent to be a citizen for a child born in the U.S. To be a citizen to eliminate Anchor babies at the rate of 40,000 a month.
Require proof of citizenship to receive welfare of any kind.
Make it a felony to enter illegally or overstay a visa.
Automatically eliminate all aid to any country that refuses to take back a citizen of theirs that is being deported.
Reduce refugees allowed in to 10,000 from 80,000 and use the $1.4 Billion saved in location costs to aid many more where they are located.
Eliminate Temporary Protected Status which is not temporary and is simply backdoor amnesty.
Eliminate Diversity Visas. No society is more diverse than ours.
Repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act allowing a Cuban that reaches our shore to stay and put on a path to citizenship.
Reduce the legal immigration limit to 100,000 per year requiring them to be educated, skilled and speak English.
Reduce the work visa program to 25,000 workers a year and eliminate ridiculous classifications such as lawn mower operators and maids.
Any questions?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/to-do.jpg385639George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2015-03-17 15:41:582015-03-17 15:41:58Congressional To-Do-List on Legal and Illegal Immigration
While listening to a local talk-radio show recently, I heard a self-declared liberal caller tell the host, “You guys will go after Obama for anything.” I thought this was an interesting comment considering that devoted liberals will rarely challenge President Obama on anything!
Any reader of this website, or consumer of the variety of conservative and libertarian media outlets, will quickly realize that there are no sacred cows amongst true conservatives and libertarians. Conservative Review® dedicates a significant amount of its limited website space, its contributor’s time, and its financial resources to challenging not only President Obama, but Republicans as well. A simple search through Conservative Review’s archive will provide all of the evidence you need.
When will that “Road to Damascus” moment happen for the media/liberal establishment class? How many times are they going to be misled by President Obama before they mimic the conservative movement and wake up, realizing that they’re being manipulated for the gain of the political class? I recorded a podcast recently, which uses audio from President Obama to drive home this point. I called the episode the “Obama vs. Obama” debates. In it, I ask the question “If you are a supporter of President Obama, then which President Obama do you support?”
It’s stupefying how many times President Obama has publicly taken the exact opposite stance on an issue important to millions of Americans, yet retains unquestioned support on that issue from the same millions.
Although the list is long, here are just a few:
On Marriage
2004 President Obama said, “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
2012 President Obama said, “For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
On Immigration
2013 President Obama said, an Executive Action bypassing the Congress would be “violating our laws” and would be “very difficult to defend legally.”
2014 President Obama said about an Executive Action bypassing the Congress “Today, I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,”
On the Debt Ceiling
2006 Senator Obama said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. … I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
2013 President Obama said, “I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult.”
On Executive Orders
2008 Candidate Obama said, “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”
2013 President Obama said, “America does not stand still, and neither will I,” He continued. “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do,”
And, the coup de grace, on Obamacare
2009 President Obama said, “No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”
2013 President Obama said, “What we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”
Clearly there is a level of serial dishonesty here and the dishonesty is not about largely inconsequential issues. These are significant issues affecting your life such as your healthcare, the breakdown of our Constitutional system of separated powers, who enters the country and how, and the financial health of the country. If you uncritically accept this dishonesty what else are you willing to accept?
Whenever I point out these dramatic inconsistencies to Obama supporters and I ask them which President Obama they support, they typically respond by redirecting the question as they say “Well; all presidents lie.” So, that’s it? Is this where we are as a country? Have we “evolved” to where President Obama has set a new standard of dishonesty to the point where we should no longer pay mind to being consistently lied to by the most powerful man in the world?
Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out in his book, The Black Swan, the risks of contagion in an information-rich society. Bad information spreads quickly in our new information environment but, when we ignore that information, and blindly accept what is told to us by the insider political class purely because of the partisan label they choose, we become what the founding fathers feared most, subjects.
That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se”(suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”
That “opinion” has been accepted. The despotism has befallen us. The oligarchy reigns.
In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:
“No.
No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, insofar as the central government or judiciary violates it, it renders itself illegitimate. As the governor of my state and head of its executive branch, I am charged with the enforcement of its laws. And we will recognize no more unconstitutional juridical or federal dictates.”
(Note: while my main focus here is our much abused judicial review, I’m advocating the same course with respect to all unconstitutional dictates.)
If this seems radical, note that even Abraham Lincoln agreed, saying in his first inaugural address, “[I]f the policy of the government, upon the vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
The process I’m advocating here is known as nullification. And should anyone still think it radical or unprecedented, know that we’d only be taking a leaf out of the Left’s book. Explanation?
What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?
They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.
What do you think is happening when states (e.g., Colorado) and leftist municipalities ignore federal drug laws? Nullification is happening.
Yet no matter how egregious, un-American, unconstitutional and despotic the federal or judicial usurpations, the conservative response is typified by what Utah governor Gary Herbert said — feeling oh-so principled, I’m sure — after the federal faux-marriage ruling: “[U]ltimately we are a nation of laws and we here in Utah will uphold the law.” Yes, we’re supposed to be a nation subject to the rule of law.
Not the rule of lawyers.
And our governors are allowing subjection to the latter, feeling noble playing by rules the Left laughs at.
It’s not surprising that revolutionary spirit has been cornered by liberals. The only consistent definition of “liberal” is “desire to change the status quo” — it is revolutionary by definition. In contrast, the only consistent definition of “conservative” involves something antithetical to revolution: the desire to maintain the status quo. Of course, it completely eludes conservatives that today’s status quo was created by yesterday’s liberals. And one modern status quo is to lose culture-war and political battles to the Left. And, boy, do conservatives ever maintain that one. They’re like a guy who goes into a fight, gets poked in the eyes and kicked in the kneecaps, loses, and then the next time still thinks he’s got to follow Queensbury rules.
We hear a lot of talk about “states’ rights.” Ex-Texas governor Rick Perry was a good example of a big talker. But where’s the beef? Merely flapping lips doesn’t sink big-government ships. There have been nullification efforts by state legislatures, mainly regarding federal gun-control law, and many sheriffs across the country have vowed not to enforce such law. And Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore is currently defying a federal faux-marriage ruling. This is laudable, but why are the chief executives MIA? If only we had a governor with the guts of a good sheriff.
We’re meant to be a nation of states, not a nation state. But rights mean nothing if you’re not eternally vigilant in their defense, if you don’t actively stand against those who would trample them. In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder threatened Kansas with legal action over a new anti-federal-gun-control state law. If the courts ruled against the state, what would Governor Sam Brownback do? Make some “principled” comments about the rule of law (lessness) and then assume the prone position?
This is why I say not one governor is truly qualified to be president: If a chief executive will not oppose federal tyranny while the head of a state government, why should we think he’d oppose federal tyranny once head of the federal government?
History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776 and it won’t happen now. People are generally quite zealous about increasing their power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision — by the Supreme Court.
That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.
Of course, unilateral declarations of power are not at all unusual historically. It’s what happened whenever an agent of tyranny — whether it was a conquering king, communist force or crime syndicate — took over. But these despotisms were enforced, as Mao put it, “through the barrel of a gun.” It wasn’t usually the case that the subjects rolled over like trained dogs lapping up lawyer-craft. Oh, it’s not that I don’t see the crafty lawyers’ position. I might like to crown myself Emperor of America, but, should I insist I possess this unilaterally-declared status with enough conviction, I may get a stay in a mental institution. The courts get to dictate to everyone else and spread insanity all the way around.
Perhaps it needn’t be stated, but the power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution. So is it any wonder that a federal court, concerned about Barack Obama’s comments relating to the judiciary, asked his administration in 2012 to submit a formal letter indicating whether or not it recognized the power? Judicial review, being an invention, is dependent upon the acquiescence of the other two branches of government.
Oh, and what is Obama’s actual position? He believes in the court’s power — when it serves his agenda. Otherwise, he’s willing to ignore court rulings himself, as he did when suing Texas over voter ID in 2013. (In fact, never mind the courts. Obama ignores duly enacted federal law he doesn’t like.)
The lesson?
We can even learn from Obama.
The idea of judicial review is thoroughly un-American. As Jefferson also pointed out, judges are not morally superior to anyone else, having “with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Despite this, he wrote in his letter to Roane, while we’re meant to have “three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another,” judicial review has given “to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others”; moreover, he continued, this power was given to the very branch that “is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Jefferson then warned that this has made the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” And our country is being twisted along with it as patriots twist in the wind.
Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification — when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions.
It’s waiting there for you, governors, glory and God’s work. We just need a leader, someone with greater passions for principle than “for party, for power.” It’s waiting.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Nullififcation.jpg385640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-02-19 07:17:542015-02-19 09:37:59Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President
.jpg)
