Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan has been one of the Right’s most reliablyxenophobic voices against immigration reform. On Friday’s McLaughlin Group, Buchanan was at it again, claiming that immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would “lead to the erasure of the southern border of the United States” and the creation of an “entirely different U.S.A.” because of increased Latino voting in border states.
“Let me tell you, if you get amnesty and the path to citizenship that the Mexican president wants, that will lead to the erasure of the southern border of the United States, because the Hispanic population in all those border states is going to be decisive in elections and they will begin to demand that to people, shut up about immigration and let it come forward, and when that happens you’re going to have an entirely different U.S.A.,” he said.
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer is convinced that President Obama’s pledge to “keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” a remark he made while speaking in Mexico City, is actually a veiled attempt to lay the groundwork to forcibly “disarm people of the Christian faith.”
Fischer said that Obama is “setting up the stage to take guns away from evangelicals” and classify them as terrorists: “‘You believe in Jesus Christ?’ ‘Yes I certainly do sir.’ ‘Give me your gun, we’re coming into your house and taking your guns, you’re dangerous, you’re a threat you’re an extremist, you’re a terrorist threat, we can’t let you have a gun.’”
In Erik Rush’s latest column, the conservative commentator argues that the Obama administration may be deliberately ignoring potential terrorists targeting the US in order to use their attacks as a “pretext under which martial law might be declared.”
“In order to complete the power transfer to the degree that socialist power players desire, it will become an imperative for Obama to declare martial law at some point,” Rush writes. “This is in part why efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment have been so aggressive since Obama’s re-election.”
Why, so many who have seen these red flags wonder, would the administration, corrupt as it is, precipitate as situation wherein we are at risk for widespread attack by Islamists within our own borders?
I believe the answer is simple, and lies in a design I feared from the day Obama won the 2008 election. Barack Obama was positioned where he is in order to exponentially further the socialist agenda in America. His ability to do this where perhaps another individual might not have been able to has a great deal to do with his ethnicity; Obama’s benefactors and colleagues believed that the race card would be invaluable to them relative to shielding him from both criticism and scrutiny – and they were right. The cult of personality that was crafted around him and timing also played parts in this dynamic.
In order to complete the power transfer to the degree that socialist power players desire, it will become an imperative for Obama to declare martial law at some point. This is in part why efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment have been so aggressive since Obama’s re-election. The disadvantages to a well-armed populace in the event of martial law being declared under questionable or illegal circumstances should be obvious.
In any case, there are a number of contingencies in play that may serve the administration in this regard. A coordinated upswell in jihadi activity within the US – just enough to terrify, but not too much to suppress – would be the perfect pretext under which martial law might be declared. Whether this would coincide with, or might catalyze some other social or economic catastrophe remains to be seen.
Should order break down due to economic considerations or some other circumstance, it is they – not NRA members – who will be looting and prowling the streets looking for those whom they consider blameworthy. While there may be some Muslims among us who do not support jihad, they’ve done nothing to indicate that they won’t look the other way as it occurs. Like the radical Muslims and their liberal dhimmis, we know where they will stand when it hits the fan.
Former congressman and anti-immigrant activist Tom Tancredo took to WorldNetDaily on Friday to warn that Americans are a “vanishing breed” who might “disappear” as a result of multiculturalism in the public school system. He said that progressive are using schools to make Americans “worship at the shrine of multiculturalism” and consequently lose their American identity.
Tancredo backs up his argument with a Benjamin Franklin quote which he says illustrates that Americans have become a “fundamentally different people.”
Unfortunately for Tancredo, the quote actually isn’t from Franklin himself, but the character Benjamin Franklin in the musical “1776.”
America as a continent, a region and as a political entity may well survive for centuries, but the American who has created and populated this nation is a vanishing breed. Is it possible for America to survive while Americans disappear?
Yes, it is possible. As our character and culture change, we become a different nation, like an alien being taking over a human body. It looks the same, but the soul is different. As what it means to be an American changes, we are justified in wondering whether the nation’s Founding Fathers – or Alexis de Tocqueville or Teddy Roosevelt – would recognize the new Americans who celebrate not a special American identity and American destiny but our “common humanity” and “oneness” with the world’s collective misery.
Benjamin Franklin was one of the first to speak of Americans as a new people who required a new nation. For Franklin, what propelled Americans toward independence was not the Stamp Act or the Tea Tax or the quartering of British troops in the homes of colonists. America was destined to be a separate nation because we were a new people on the face of the earth.
In 1776, a fellow Pennsylvanian, John Dickinson, asked Franklin, who had been an early advocate for independence, exactly why the colonies should separate from the mother country. Franklin replied:
“We have spawned a new race here in America. It’s rougher, simpler, more violent, more entrepreneurial, and less refined. … We require a new nation.”
Benjamin Franklin understood that Americans were a fundamentally different people, a new people in the history of the world. Thus, to Franklin, independence from England was both natural and inevitable.
Can a nation remain exceptional if it evolves into a mirror image of the old world, the corrupt and tyrannical world from which its early immigrants sought refuge? How much accommodation and compromise can a nation endure without losing its special character and becoming, in modern jargon, “part of the problem, not part of the solution”?
This is a new question Americans never before had to ask. For 200 years, Americans took our special mission for granted, and fortunately, so did the rest of the world. We were Ronald Reagan’s “City on a hill,” and we were proud of it.
The new question for Americans in the 21st century is whether we even want to be a distinct race and a distinct nation, a beacon of light in the darkness. The question has become, not whether we have lost that quality that made us different but whether we should care one way or the other.
This doubt and this questioning of our place in the world is the cumulative product of three generations of progressive education of our elites. Beginning in the mid-20th century, our schools began teaching the devaluation of our history and doubt about our character as a different kind of nation.
Our new progressive culture asks us to worship at the shrine of multiculturalism, where “American Exceptionalism” is cast into what Marx called the “dustbin of history.”
America maintained its exceptionalism for 200 years because it attracted a special kind of immigrant as well, people similar in spirit to the first colonists – individuals drawn to the promise of Franklin’s entrepreneurial individualism. They didn’t come just for employment and with the intention of sending a third of their earnings back home and then returning there some day. They came wanting to be not laborers, but Americans.
Ronald Reagan was an optimist on the question of America’s destiny, and many conservatives still echo that optimism. Yet, the case for a weary pessimism grows stronger each day.
Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson insisted that gays and lesbians can “change their sexual preference” just like murders, rapists and thieves can change themselves. He later warned that the U.S. is on the verge of adopting hate speech laws.
Robertson, who has repeatedlypromoted ex-gay therapy, said that just as gay people can change their orientation, “a murderer can change, a rapist can change, a thief can change.” Robertson was reacting to a case in Ecuador, where a politician was found to have violated his country’s electoral code’s prohibition on discrimination by making anti-gay remarks.
Last night, the Family Research Council held a “Stand with Scouts Sunday” event, featuring politicians such as Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Steve Palazzo, to oppose a proposed resolution that would end the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay members who are under the age of eighteen.
The event included an address by pastor Robert Hall of Calvary Chapel Rio Rancho, who warned that the push to end the ban on gays is a sign of the End Times and will ultimately make America “self-destruct.” FRC president Tony Perkins argued that the BSA should fear what happened to the military after it repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, even though all reports so far have found no problems as a result.
Boy Scouts who participated in the webcast described homosexuality as unclean and expressed fears that he might “have my buddy come on to me.”
Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-MS) has been working with the Family Research Council to defeat efforts to allow gays under the age of 18 into the Boy Scouts and appeared yesterday on FRC’s “Stand With Scouts Sunday” webcast. The congressman said he would do anything he could “to protect the Boy Scouts from this popular culture, this liberal agenda that is being crammed down their throat,” arguing that “the Boy Scouts are actually being bullied worse than any group or organization that has ever been bullied before.”
“They are being harassed and at the end of the day they are also being ridiculed by some in the liberal media,” he added. Palazzo asked if America cannot tell the Boy Scouts to “stand strong” and preserve its ban on gay members, “then what do we stand for as a country?”
Later, Palazzo said that the organization must “remove the agitators who are trying to corrupt the Boy Scouts of America and bend to popular culture.”
NEW HOPE, Pa. – At a town hall meeting here Wednesday, Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, a Republican member of Pennsylvania’s Senate State Government Committee, spoke out against fellow Republican Sen. Dominic Pileggi’s scheme to change the way Pennsylvania apportions its electoral votes. McIlhinney said Pileggi’s bill was “poorly thought out” and “makes no sense to me whatsoever.” He added, “I won’t support it.”
McIlhinney is a member of the Senate State Government Committee, which would be the first to review Pileggi’s bill.
Rep. Allyson Schwartz and former congressman Joe Sestak have both denounced the plan. Gov. Tom Corbett has yet to state a position on the bill and whether he would veto it if it passed the legislature.
“Governor Corbett has not been forthright with the public on whether he favors legislation rigging future presidential elections in favor of one party over another and costing the state millions in economic activity. Despite his reluctance to clearly articulate a position on disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvanians, it is clear that his tacit approval will not stand well with voters or even with some members of his own party,” said Randy Borntrager, Political Director of People For the American Way.
“It’s time for the governor to step up and tell Pennsylvanians whether he sides with the best interests of the voters or with the interests of the Republican Party leadership.”
A transcript and video of McIlhinney’s remarks are below.
Question: I just had a question about a bill that Senator Pileggi had, that we have been hearing a lot in the press about, that changes the electoral college votes. What is your stance on that? What is your position on that and why?
Senator McIlhinney: The electoral college….What they are trying to say is that you have a proportionate amount of votes you need…or we have 20 electoral college votes and they should be based upon a proportionate of the number of people who voted in Pennsylvania.
Now, under that system, I could never see a Presidential candidate ever getting more than 11 to 9, no matter who it is. Because I am never going to see a candidate win 75% of the vote in Pennsylvania. So you could never even get more than 11 let alone 20. Which makes no sense to me whatsoever.
What you’re saying is you’ll have two….It will force us into a state that will only have two electoral college votes depending on which way you go with it. So, I won’t support it. I don’t think it’s gonna come up.
But that’s the logic is to say that every vote should count. So, even if your candidate lost, you’re still gaining him some electoral college votes in that electoral college….but it really was poorly thought out, if I can say that.
I respect Senator Pileggi a lot but I wouldn’t support it. And it really would set Pennsylvania back to a state like a small state like Vermont or Ohio…well not Ohio.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) appeared in the Family Research Council’s “Stand With Scouts Sunday” webcast last night where he told FRC president Tony Perkins that the Boy Scouts of America must resist those trying to “tear apart” the organization’s values and replace them with the “flavor of the month”—homosexuality.
He warned the BSA against becoming “more like pop culture” and urged scout leaders to channel the spirit of Sam Houston, whom Perry said lost his governorship because he was “against slavery” and opposed secession.
Among the many publications distributed at Liberty Counsel’s Awakening conference in April were two booklets examining Democratic and Republican party platforms. They were produced by Justice at the Gate, a group that describes its vision as “Building strategic partnerships to mobilize Christians to pray effectively and to vote righteously.”
The two publications are both titled “Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words.” One of them is subtitled, “National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues.” I’m not sure where in the Bible they find school prayer and “school choice and faith-based education,” but those are listed as biblical issues, along with abortion and homosexuality. This booklet includes side-by-side excerpts from party platforms between 1976 and 2000. Other notable issues covered in the Bible, such as poverty, are nowhere to be found.
The other “In Their Own Words” booklet features an African American couple with a young child on the front cover. It is subtitled, “A 124-Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison of the Early Platforms of the Two Major Political Parties.” Apparently, racial justice and civil rights do not count as “biblical issues,” since they aren’t mentioned in the other publication. The side-by-side comparison in this booklet goes back to old anti-abolitionist planks in Democratic platforms from the 1840s, before the Republican Party was even formed. The booklet takes 13 pages before it even gets to the 20th Century -- and that part of the booklet, which focuses on Southern Democrats’ support for segregation, stops in 1964.
In other words, this supposed history of racial justice and the political parties finds no room for a discussion of the Republican Party’s post-civil-rights-era southern strategy, which built power by fomenting racial resentment among southern whites, or for any of the political parties’ positions on racial justice and civil rights over the past 50 years.
Why does that sound so familiar? The answer lies inside the front cover: “Historical footnotes and annotations by David Barton, President of WallBuilders.” Barton has been peddling the notion that Republicans are civil rights heroes for more than a decade. He made the same kind of distorted and truncated history the centerpiece of his 2006 DVD, “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,” and in the outreach he has done to African Americans on behalf of the GOP. (For those just joining us, Barton is a right-wing “historian” whose book on Jefferson was disavowed by its publisher last year after complaints about its inaccuracies.)
Who or what is Justice at the Gate? It’s a vehicle for Alice Patterson, who is among the Religious Right leaders hoping that the right kind of outreach will get African American Christians to start voting more conservatively. Patterson is an “apostle” affiliated with the dominionist New Apostolic Reformation who believes the Democratic Party is controlled by demons. Her mission has been described as bringing NAR’s views into government, which is why she organized The Response, the dominionist-heavy prayer rally that was supposed to launch Rick Perry into the White House.
President Obama is traveling to Mexico this week to advocate for increased trade ties and cooperation on border enforcement with Mexico in advance of his push for comprehensive immigration reform. But in an interview with Steve Malzberg yesterday, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said that Obama is actually in Mexico to “undermine national sovereignty and rule of law” by delivering a “greeting card” to Mexican nationals previously deported from the United States and telling them to “come back and try again.”
King was referring to a provision of the Senate bipartisan immigration reform proposal that would allow some people previously deported for non-criminal reasons to reapply for U.S. residency. Going further, he called the president’s trip “completely outrageous” and accused Republican immigration reform supporters of being “complicit” in the president’s scheme.
King also falsely claimed the bill would provide “instantaneous amnesty” to undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.
Malzberg: Let me ask you, since there’s nobody more active on the immigration than you, and the president of course is in Mexico, and he’s going to give his, you know, his immigration presidential stump speech down in Mexico. To me, that is so inappropriate, it just reeks of inappropriateness. What can we anticipate in his campaign to, again, push for comprehensive immigration reform down in Mexico?
King: Oh my, you know, if you read the bill, the 834-page bill, I think what the president will be doing is already written into the bill. We know that it grants instantaneous amnesty to everybody that’s in the United States illegally, with some exceptions that perhaps will materialize due to law enforcement over time. But it also, in the bill, it invites everybody who has been deported in the past to reapply to come back into the United States, it says, ‘We didn’t mean it.’
So here’s the president down in Mexico, he’s the one that’s essentially carrying the greeting card. Presumably there are people in Mexico who have been deported, he’s down there as president saying, ‘We’re going to legalize everyone that’s in America and if you’ve been deported, come back and try again, we may be able to let you back into the United States.’ I think you’ll hear that from him. This is just, it’s completely outrageous to think that a president would undermine national sovereignty and rule of law that way, and not have the utter outrage of all of Congress lined up against him. And he doesn’t even have the utter outrage of all Republicans lined up against him, because some of them are complicit.
Glenn Beck kicked off his radio program this morning by reiterating his theory that the shooting that occurred at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, TX yesterday was some sort of Reichstag-like false flag operation orchestrated by the "uber-left" to undermine the NRA convention taking place in the same city.
"As a journalist and somebody that runs a journalistic organization," Beck explained, "I want to find out if this guy has been unemployed, if he was a union worker, if he's ever attend any Occupy Wall Street stuff."
Beck then tied this theory to his other theory involving the Boston Marathon bombing, saying that just as the Tsarnaev brothers were supposedly guided into carrying out the bombing by their Saudi national/al Qaeda "control agent," this shooter may likewise have been guided into this act by some "uber-left" revolutionary he met at an Occupy Wall Street rally.
"I only jumped to that conclusion that it needs to be looked into," Beck said, "because I've studied revolutions and this happens all the time in the beginning of revolutions. In Germany, it was the Reichstag fire and something happens, everybody goes into a panic and then laws are passed and all of a sudden, it's lights out":
Truth In Action Ministries, which last year produced a film warning that the “radical homosexual agenda” will destroy America like an iceberg hitting the Titanic, is out with a new short film opposing gay members in the Boy Scouts. Featuring Religious Right leaders like Bob Knight of the American Civil Rights Union, Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay activists warn that gays pose a physical and spiritual danger to children and do away with morality.
Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse is very concerned about a new Census Bureau report finding a spike in births to unmarried mothers. In an American Thinkercolumn today, Crouse accuses “liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates” of responding to “problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty” by promoting “abortion and increased welfare dependency.” The failure of these policies, she claims, “is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”
The founding fathers, she continues, “would roll over in their graves” to see that the country has become “mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being.”
For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to get to the bottom of the problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty. Heretofore, the solutions have been abortion and increased welfare dependency. I don't need to ask, "How is that working for us?" The answer is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities or choose the safer route of reading about the dramatic increases in non-marital births documented in the SECCUM report.
The nation's founding fathers first instituted a national census so that the nation could "mark the progress of society." They would roll over in their graves to see that the nation they founded with great hope and based on principles of personal and civic responsibility, instead of progressing, has instead become mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four decades trying to alleviate the consequences of poor and irresponsible choices only to reap a harvest of greater dependency than ever before and several generations of children at risk for all the negative outcomes that parents hope to avoid (truancy, delinquency, substance abuse, etc). It is not merely the demographics of non-marital child bearing that need to be publicized but an honest, extensive reporting of the damages as well.
When the sum total of our morality, both personal and public, consists of not being judgmental, we should not be surprised to find that there is little will to be concerned with more than the pursuit of whatever brings a moment of pleasure today with no regard for the effects this will have for anyone's well-being tomorrow.
Glenn Beck broadcast his television broadcast last from Houston, TX where is he in town to speak at the annual NRA convention. Prior to telling his audience that the shooting that occurred earlier that today at the Houston airport was a false flag "set-up" tied to the "uber left," Beck was extolling the virtues of the NRA and the organization's dedication to gun safety.
In making the point, Beck pointed to a table full of historical weapons he had gotten from the NRA museum that he is going to be using in his speech tomorrow and recounted how, all day long, NRA staff had been reminding him how to safely pick up and hold a firearm, all of which Beck said he already knows because he took a NRA safety course.
In fact, the NRA is so concerned about safety that staffers even taped a large "T" on the wall of the auditorium to mark the spot at which all of the guns lying on the table were pointed, signaling that nobody should ever be standing in that area.
But when Beck went to point it out, he first had to ask one of his staff members to move ... because she was standing right in front of it:
Alan Keyes is out with a new column opposing efforts to end the ban on openly gay members of the Boy Scouts and it is about as dumb as you’d expect.
He argues that if the Boy Scouts change the policy, then straight Boy Scouts will be forced to acquiesce to the “sexual advances” of their gay peers in order to avoid being “viciously accused of unrighteous bigotry.” Once they deny their faith and turn gay, Keyes warns, they will “slip into a whirlpool of compulsive sensual indulgence, moral guilt and spiritual confusion.”
“What is most disturbing is that it uses the young participants in the Scouting movement as cannon fodder in the battle against the natural family,” Keyes writes. “In the realm of moral contention, this deployment of, and against, children reminds me of the way the strategists of terror exploit kids in their perpetration of deadly acts of physical violence.”
We are in the midst of an historically unprecedented campaign to deny and disparage the rights of the God-endowed natural family. Do the top leaders of the BSA naïvely believe that the emotionally charged, personally confrontational situations their proposal will inevitably foment will not be exploited as part of this campaign? Obviously, the policy being proposed will produce situations the powerful elitist forces pushing for the normalization of homosexuality will portray in the worst possible light.
Ignoring the logic of God-acknowledging moral conscience, they will portray these situations as proof of willfully hurtful personal prejudice and unfair discrimination by the BSA. They will seek to prejudice public opinion in a way that lends credence to civil lawsuits and even criminal prosecution (on civil-rights grounds) against individual BSA leaders and the BSA itself. In addition to the erosion of trust and support from people who have relied on the BSA’s respect for the moral tenets of their faith, the BSA will have to devote financial and personnel resources to defending against these charges. Wrenched between these whirlpools of public reaction, the organization could easily go under.
The residual moral appeal of that façade will be used to attract and indoctrinate youngsters in an essentially self-serving, hedonistic and unmanly understanding of human family life, one that destroys the independent moral basis of the family as the primordial, God-ordained institution of human self-government. This will effectively deny the family’s institutional claim to possess God-endowed authority and rights which all other institutions of human government are obliged, by the Creator, to respect.
Thus understood in terms of its likely consequences, the latest proposal for ending the BSA’s ban on homosexual participation in Scouting is a strategic ploy. What is most disturbing is that it uses the young participants in the Scouting movement as cannon fodder in the battle against the natural family. Some youngsters will be positioned to draw other youngsters into situations where, because they react against sexual advances according to the moral precepts of the faith of their fathers, they will be viciously accused of unrighteous bigotry. Or else their vulnerable adolescent emotions will impel them to betray the tenets of conscience derived from their faith, and slip into a whirlpool of compulsive sensual indulgence, moral guilt and spiritual confusion.
In the realm of moral contention, this deployment of, and against, children reminds me of the way the strategists of terror exploit kids in their perpetration of deadly acts of physical violence. I earnestly pray to God to open the eyes of the BSA’s grass-roots leaders and participants. I pray that He will grant them the wisdom to see past false pretenses of compassion and tolerance, in order to recognize a strategy that intentionally and recklessly endangers the moral lives of the youngsters God has entrusted to their care. These young souls deserve better than to be casualties in the battle to force the American people to surrender the unalienable natural rights endowed by their Creator’s provision for the wholesome life of the human family.
But Beck wasn't buying that storyline because "that doesn't make sense to me." What does make sense to Beck is that this man was probably some unemployed and depressed individual who had been wound-up by some shadowy figure on the "uber left" to go out and "make a statement."
Despite the fact that he literally had no evidence whatsoever, Beck was pretty certain that this was some sort of false flag operation because "the idea that this is a coincidence ... is too much to believe."
"If I were an honest journalist," Beck said, "I would find out where these guns came from; were they purchased or were they illegal. Oh, if they're illegal, I could guarantee you this is a set-up. Someone knows history. I do. At least I know enough history to know about the burning of the Reichstag":
The Center for Immigration Studies, a leading anti-immigrant group that was invited to testify at last month’s Senate immigration reform hearings, has been making it very clear why it opposes comprehensive reform. In an interview last week, CIS director Mark Krikorian said that Republicans shouldn’t bother courting Latino voters or “importing more of them” through immigration reform because “generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats.”
In an interview yesterday with VCY America’s Jim Schneider, the group’s research director Steven Camarota, piled on, calling GOP supporters of immigration reform “useful idiots” who “have no idea of the political preferences of the people who they’re trying to turn into voters.”
Schneider: I think it’s Politico, this week Monday, talked about this mega GOP donor, Paul Singer, making a six-figure donation to a group that’s involved with marshaling conservatives to support an overhaul of our federal laws on this issue. I mean, is there, it sounds like there’s tons of pressure that’s going on legislators at this time.
Camarota: Yeah, well, you know, what did Lenin, the leader of the Soviet revolution say, ‘There’s a lot of…the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him.’ Well, you know, there’s just a…and he also talked about the concept of ‘useful idiots.’ These are people who help you inadvertently with your revolution. Well, that’s kind of a harsh statement but the reality is there are lots of conservatives who never actually looked at the voting data, who have no idea of the political preferences of the people who they’re trying to turn into voters.
And so, when you press them on this, a lot of times they’ll say, well, ‘I didn’t know,’ or, ‘We’ll fix that, somehow we’ll change their minds,’ as if they were malleable piece of clay and not human beings entitled to their own opinions. The fact is that if immigration continues, the United States will continue to move in a more left or progressive direction. That’s not necessarily bad or good, but it is a fact, because the new immigrants and their children, based on all the polling that we have, tend to favor expansive government. Again, in a democracy, you change the voters, the political system has to respond. That’s just the reality of the situation.
Elsewhere in the interview, Camarota went all out on the racial dog whistles, taking on Attorney General Eric Holder’s defense of the civil rights of immigrants and non-English speakers. “Unfortunately, there’s a whole industry designed to balkanize the country and remind people of their backgrounds and ethnicity and their race,” Camarota said. “And there’s a lot of what you might call ‘professional ethnics’ out there whose job it is to keep the country divided.” This "identity and grievance politics," he adds, is “one of the downsides of immigration in modern America.”
Schneider: He also used this term, ‘language minorities,’ and that sounded rather peculiar to me. Can you define, what is he meaning by ‘language minorities?’
Camarota: Well, this is something that’s evolved since the 1960s, not surprisingly, that if you don’t speak English you’re entitled to certain protections, including things like have voting ballots printed up in your language. Now, of course, a moment’s reflection reveals that basically that makes no sense. Because when you naturalize, when a legal immigrant becomes a full citizen of the United States, they have to display a knowledge of English, so they should be able to read English. And people born in the United States should also be able to have learned English. They lived here, they grew up here.
So who exactly are these foreign language battles for? Well, what it’s for is to preserve ethnic identity. And unfortunately, there’s a whole industry designed to balkanize the country and remind people of their backgrounds and ethnicity and their race. And there’s a lot of what you might call ‘professional ethnics’ out there whose job it is to keep the country divided, because if people assimilate, well, they have no one they can claim to represent. And that’s one of the downsides of immigration in modern America, identity and grievance politics.
The ever-articulate Ted Nugent writes at WorldNetDaily today that liberals and their allies in government, teachers’ unions and the media are carrying out a “brainwashing jihad.” He says they are using schools to “vilify guns,” which will help them achieve their “ultimate goal of disarming America.” Just as Saul Alinsky wanted…
Like the brainwashing jihad running amok among government goons and most of America’s media, our social engineering indoctrination camps (formerly known as the public school system) clearly have it in for guns.
This is not surprising since these camps are controlled by the National Education Association, which is the largest contributor to the bigger/more-control government-approved party (formerly known as the Democratic Party).
While liberals proclaim they are the vanguards of free speech and tolerance, that protection only applies to their leftist, dope-inspired agenda that destroys everything it touches. The purpose of kicking little Billy out of school for drawing a picture of a gun or wearing a pro-gun T-shirt or eating a locked and loaded pop-tart is to simply vilify guns, or in the words of Eric “Fast & Furious” Holder, to “brainwash” Americans against the Second Amendment. Achtung, baby!
However, like every other brain-dead liberal idea that backfires, kicking little Billy out of school provides him even more time to play video games, many of which are violent. You don’t need to be a school psychologist to know that little Billy plays computer and video games much more often than he cracks open a leftist, historical revisionist school book.
Our social engineering indoctrination camps are intentionally sending the message to kids and parents alike that guns are evil. Commie community organizer Saul Alinsky would be proud. It takes a very special person to dedicate his book to the devil, which must be why Hillary “No security for you” Clinton was so enamored with old Saul.
Alinksy-inspired radicals are not interested in facts, only to advance their anti-freedom, anti-American agenda of destroying the Second Amendment.
They once again re-kick-started their agenda by championing the banning of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
They did this because they believe these weapons and magazines could be easily demonized in the wake of numerous gun free zone slaughters. This tactic meets Commie Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals No. 12: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Part of achieving the ultimate goal of disarming America is to vilify guns at every opportunity. Constantly drumming the message home that guns are evil to little Billy and Susie who attend social engineering indoctrination camps is part of the plan.
After watching the Republican presidential candidates lose the last two elections, right-wing activist Ken Blackwell cooked up a scheme whereby states would move away from winner-take-all allocations of electors to a system in which Electoral College votes would be assigned according to congressional districts.
The result would be that a Republican presidential candidate who does not win the overall popular vote in the state could still end up receiving a majority of that state's electoral votes simply by virtue of winning the popular vote in more individual districts.
Today, Blackwell appeared on "WallBuilders Live" to promote this scheme, where it was met with enthusiastic support from Rick Green and David Barton. As Blackwell explained, if every state had implemented this plan for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have won despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote by nearly 5 million votes.
That, of course, is ridiculous ... and the fact that people think it is outrageous is, according to Blackwell, a sign that it is a good idea:
Blackwell: There's an old farmer's tale that if you throw a brick at a pack of pigs, the one that squeals is the one you hit. Well, when we put this out there, the Left started squealing, the New York Times started squealing, so we must be on to something.
Green: You must be on to something. No doubt about that. I haven't had a chance to look, I don't if anyone has done a map, I'd be real curious to know if every state did this, how would the last few elections [have gone]? Have you had a chance to look?
Blackwell: I already know. If every state did it, Romney would have won the election. And so that's another reason that the Left just instinctively dislikes it.
Barton: This actually is a way to give the people a greater voice rather than just having the majority slap it to the minority every time you turn around. And I really like what he's proposed here with reverting back out of the winner-take-all philosophy of the states, going back to congressional district take all, which is a good way to do it.
Only to David Barton could a scheme designed to ensure that a Republican candidate who loses the national popular vote would still win the election be a good idea because it supposedly give "the people a greater voice."