Still On The Fence This Election Day?

Keep it simple….
-One candidate believes we should make way for a global governmental system.

-The other believes is the sovereignty of the U.S. and wants to make it stronger.

-One is for greater government control of private businesses.

-The other says that they’ll cut regulations to liberate businesses.

-One said they will raise your taxes.

-The other says they will lower your taxes.

-One scoffs at our military, makes no commitment to them, and treats Secret Service personnel like servants.

-The other praises our military and promises to build them up to meet current day threats.

-One supports Obamacare, which has lessened competition and increased prices, and has a goal of a one payer (government run) system…how’s that working for the VA?

-The other wants to repeal Obamacare and remove barriers to make a more competitive market, just like in business, to help lower costs.

-One says they’ll only nominate judges to further their progressive agenda and makes no mention of the Constitution in their decision.

-The other says they’ll only nominate those dedicated to upholding the Constitution, and provided an admirable list of such people to the public.

-One believes that your right to defend yourself should be limited and falsely represents SCOTUS opinions on the 2nd Amendment.

-The other says they fully support your 2nd Amendment rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

-One believes that partial birth abortion in the third trimester is perfectly acceptable…for any reason.

-The other sees this for what it is: murder of a living being viable of living outside the womb.

-One believes they are above, or may subvert, the law, and actively took steps to ensure no liability or oversight to their employer…the American People.

-The other uses lawful policies to ensure the most profit for their business…which was their job, but they are still demonized for working within the law.

-One fully supports socialist policies.

-The other prefers that of capitalism.

If you haven’t guessed,
-One is Hillary Clinton.

-The other is Donald Trump.

If you believe in the Constitution and liberty, the answer is clear.* Trump may only follow through with half his promises, but that’s 50% better than Hillary’s agenda. Her entire campaign is free abortions, free condoms, and more government as the answer. Bigger government never maintains or increases liberty, it chokes it out. What do you want for you children’s future?

*My apologies to Gary Johnson since I do like some of his policies, but the simple truth is that most people don’t even know who he is and he has no chance of winning. Not allowing greater involvement of third party candidates is one way that our system really is “rigged”, and that is bad for all of us.

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Support Rep. Meadows’ Motion to Remove John Boehner as Speaker of the House!

Feel free to use the below to swamp our Congressional Representatives with emails and phone calls!  U.S. House Switchboard…(202) 225-3121.  You can click here to find and email your representative.

Dear Congressman,

I’m writing to ask that you place your full support behind Representative Meadows’ motion to vacate the chair.

I have sat here in awe these past six months as I have watched the Republican lead congress do nothing, nothing to thwart the unabashed power grabs by the executive and judicial branches, and in fact creating a vacuum those two branches are all too willing to fill. The current congressional leadership talks a superb talk and then continually walks in the complete opposite direction…lockstep with our imperial president. A minority in position of authority, are pulling all the strings antithesis to a republican form of government. I offer the following in support of the above statements:

-The leaders declared their giving up of the power of the purse before the new Republican majority even took their seats.

-Instead of making the tough decisions and standing up to protect our Constitution, they have consistently brushed it off to the judicial branch, and sometimes by their own lawsuits. What if the decision gets pushed to a liberal court that decides against our ideals, as exampled in the most recent SCOTUS decisions? This is not leadership, this is feeling comfortable in a position and not wanting the boat rocked.

-They have abdicated their power to legislate to the executive; whether we are talking about immigration, or one of the many new “regulations” pushed upon us by non-elected, non-representative, personnel in administrative agencies.

-And the obvious cronyism, whether to corporations or the Washington establishment.

This is a time where we need best leaders we can muster. Leaders who have the moral fortitude to take the fight to all who wish to subvert our Constitution and the rule of law. For, if those have no meaning, no backbone, then our oaths to protect it mean nothing. Our promise to the next generation means nothing. Once again, I humbly ask that you support a change in Congress in the protection of what liberties we have left.

Your signature block here

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

It Wasn’t the Declaration of Dependence

Declaration_Pg1of1_AC(1)Are you ready to pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor for something you believe in?  In 1776 there were 56 men who not only took such a pledge, but proclaimed it to the world and stood by it to many of their own loss.  It may sound foreign in a day when children harm their parents, or themselves, because their cell phone is taken away for punishment, but I believe there is a much greater number of Americans still willing to make such a pledge.  Notice how the founders weren’t willing to make such a sacrifice to have greater dependence upon government?

We are an incredible nation, yet where we came from has been broken into soundbites…and those seem to be trending to focusing on the negative alone.  Try this experiment, as I have, and start asking people what they know about the grievances in the Declaration of Independence, and watch the expression on their face.  The majority of the people I ask do not know and a few mention “taxation without representation,” but not one that I’ve asked is aware that there were 27 grievances…not a single person (I’ve been asking strangers and acquaintances alike).  Why does this matter?  Because with just a slight tweak some of these grievances are relevant today.  I know we don’t have a king, but we’ve seen a culmination of over 50 years of action from all three branches of government to an acceptance of what was once intolerable.

Fortunately, peaceful means are still within our grasps to adjust course and I’ll expand on that at the end.  Let us first review the 27 grievances from our Declaration to see if any are applicable today (my comments in red):

  1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.  (Does this bring Arizona to anyone else’s mind?)
  3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. (Relinquishing representation has similarities to the TPP [trade bill])
  4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (Not quite to this extreme, but Congress did this to themselves when forcing a vote on Christmas Eve over the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare])
  5. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.  (Reminds me of the Republican leaders kicking their own members off of committees simply because they vote to protect the Constitution or to the will of their constituents)
  6. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.  (The second half of the sentence once again reminds me of Arizona and other southern states who are prevented from upholding legislation due to lawsuits and interference from the federal government)
  7. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.  (Have you seen any obstruction in the administration of justice in the last few years?  Hint: immigration.  May not deal with establishment of judicial powers, but obstruction nonetheless.)
  9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.  (This was solved by Article III of the Constitution, although it may be time to amend it to give these justices term limits; especially since they’ve expanded their scope to legislating in the past 50 years.)
  10. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.  (Let’s see…EPA, FDA, IRS…)
  11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  12. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  13. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (Think of the small arms treaty accepted by the administration, but not the “Consent of the Senate”…thankfully. What the media is referencing as the new “Obamatrade” fits here too since once again we have to pass it to learn what’s in it.)
  14. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  15. For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:  (Maybe not protecting troops or dealing with murders [well maybe Benghazi], but it sure looks like some people are being protected from the IRS scandal and other events.  One of their names may even rhyme with Sillary)
  16. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  17. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Lets see, how about the taxes implemented through Obamacare for which we did not consent, but was forced down our throats with the help of the Democratic majority of Congress: 156% increase to tobacco excise tax, individual mandate excise tax, employer mandate tax, surtax on investment income, 40% excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans [scheduled for 2018], increase in Medicare payroll tax,  the “medicine cabinet” tax, tanning tax, medical equipment tax, charitable hospital tax, innovator drug company tax, “black liquor” tax hike, …)
  18. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  19. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  20. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: (You can see a similarity here between an Arbitrary government and all the agencies under the executive branch, which many consider our fourth branch of government.  These agencies are producing new law at an astronomical rate even though the Constitution gives all law making authority to Congress alone.  There were over 18,000 pages of new regulations last year alone through the executive branch.)
  21. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Wow, after last week’s Supreme Court cases, do I really have to comment on this one?  The form of government has been in gradual transition of the states losing power to the federal government…where we lose our local influence upon our federal system.  When five of nine people determine a new right or law for the rest of us 320 million, we are no longer participating in a republic or democratic process, we are ruled by an oligarchy.)
  22. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.  (The Supreme Court did this last week and they didn’t even have to suspend the Legislatures!)
  23. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.  (Well, I guess you could make the argument that our states bordering Mexico are “out of…protection” since our laws are not being enforced and those committing crimes, even beyond illegally entering, are being set free.)
  24. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.  (Some people may be able to argue the last point due to poor economic policy, the closing of coal plants, and other policies)
  25. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  26. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  27. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.  (A couple names at the top of our government come to mind for exciting domestic insurrection in the last couple of years after run-ins between people breaking the law and the police [police who were later justifiably cleared of wrongdoing…against the wishes of the aforementioned government officials].)

So, isn’t that a coincidence, the most oft cited grievance is number 17 and we just happen to have 17 of the 27 grievances that could be argued as applicable today.  While this may bring upon frustration for those of us who love Liberty and wish to pass it on to our progeny, there is hope.  It is contained within the Constitution itself (those old dead white guys were pretty ingenious!) under Article V, but we’ll get into that next week.  For now we will take time with our families to celebrate, and hopefully reflect upon, our Declaration of Independence.  I recommend that you read it as a family tomorrow and every fourth of July, as now that my children are older they thank me for this practice.

So are you willing to pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor for a Declaration of Dependence?  Can you imagine any rational person doing so?  Of course not, but that is the direction we are heading.  If I am to make such a pledge it will be to the liberty of future generations and the ideals that continue to this day in reshaping  civilization in a positive way…the ideals of the Declaration of Independence!  God bless.


Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Justice Scalia’s Dissent Excerpt

Scalia dissent1

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Last Week’s Supreme Court Decision Isn’t Just About Same-Sex Marriage

Last week’s Supreme Court decision is not surprising and it being only over same-sex marriage is for the shortsighted. What we just witnessed was a law that couldn’t pass most of the state legislatures, couldn’t get passed in Congress, and was not supported by most Americans (going by votes in most states, not targeted polls)…yet, it was passed by five lawyers of the Supreme Court. Five people just effectively made law. Five people changed a definition held for millennia. Five people just changed state laws with no basis in the Constitution, which says “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.”  Thomas Jefferson warned in 1820, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one that will place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Some consider this an attack upon conservative values, which has legitimacy, but this was an attack on our Constitution…and therefore We the People’s form of government. We are marching toward a tyrannical oligarchy, enjoying our bread and games as did Rome.  As Justice Scalia quipped in his dissent, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

I encourage everyone to take the time to read through this pivotal decision, and I will provide some choice quotes in the near future for those not willing to read all 103 pages.  In it you will find the majority’s verbose twist of case law to make the point of their desired outcome and then their eloquent distortions are eviscerated in the dissents.  As Justice Alito stated:

“Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and im­pose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic sup­porters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”

There is hope though…but it requires dedication and effort from all of us. I will be sharing more information on Article V of the Constitution in the coming days and weeks (the only peaceful means left to stop this train wreck). But it won’t work if you don’t share the information or contact your state legislatures. More to come…..

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Practical Thoughts on Immigration

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

From a speech delivered by Heather Mac Donald on February 28, 2015

The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy. Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., he will do so himself. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is.

Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the “problem” that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up—arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.

On February 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.

Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on
the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional
question. He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just
as scathing.

The administration will likely fight the ruling through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. Democrats should hope that the administration loses. They are assiduously pretending that Obama’s executive amnesty is merely an innocuous exercise of prosecutorial discretion. But if Obama’s power grab is upheld, they will rue the day that they acceded to this travesty when a Republican president decides, say, to privatize Social Security because Congress has failed to do so.

Obama’s executive amnesty is the most public and egregious example of immigration lawlessness to date. But beneath the radar screen has been an equally telling saga of cascading lawlessness that is arguably as consequential: an ongoing attack on the Secure Communities program and on deportation more generally. Because of this attack, the rallying cry of so many conservatives that we must “secure the borders” is a naïve and meaningless delusion.


The Secure Communities program is a commonsensical response to illegal alien criminality. Whenever an illegal alien is booked into a local jail on suspicion of a crime, an alert is automatically sent to federal authorities in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. ICE agents can then ask that the jail or prison briefly hold the illegal alien after he has served his time rather than releasing him, so that ICE can pick him up and start deportation proceedings. This is known as a detainer.

You would think that such a program would be wholly uncontroversial. An alien who crosses into our country illegally already has no claim to undisturbed presence here. He has voluntarily assumed the risk of deportation. But an illegal alien who goes on to break other laws has even less claim to protection from deportation. Yet Secure Communities has been the target of incessant protest from illegal alien advocates since its inception. Those advocates make the astonishing claim that it is unfair to remove an illegal alien who commits other crimes.

Even more astonishing, nearly 300 jurisdictions agree, including New York State, California, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They have openly refused to honor ICE’s requests for detainers, but instead have released tens of thousands of criminals back on to the streets where they easily evade detection. Not that ICE would be likely to try to pick them up! Indeed, the irony regarding the agitation against Secure Communities is that ICE rarely uses its power under the program. In 2012—the last year for which we have complete figures—the agency was notified of over 400,000 illegal jail detainees, but removed only 19 percent of them. And about 50 percent of the criminal illegal aliens whom ICE chooses not to deport reoffend upon release.


There are two aspects of the campaign against Secure Communities that bear particular notice: the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the campaign’s advocates, and the hypocrisy of big city police chiefs.

In 2012, Arizona became the target of universal contempt among the country’s elites for passing a law that encouraged local law enforcement officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement. According to illegal alien advocates and the Obama administration, this law, known as SB 1070, was an unconstitutional state usurpation of the federal government’s plenary power over immigration matters. The Obama administration sued Arizona for allegedly interfering with federal authority over immigration and won an injunction against SB 1070. Yet now these same advocates are urging states and localities to defy the federal government’s requests for immigration assistance, resulting in the creation of local sanctuary zones where federal immigration authority cannot reach.

If ever there were a lawless usurpation of the federal government’s power over immigration, the open revolt against Secure Communities is it. Yet the Obama administration, rather than hauling these recalcitrant jurisdictions to court, has lain supine and chastely looked the other way. And late last year, it threw in the towel completely. It dismantled the Secure Communities program except in a few narrow instances, agreeing with the activists that it was unfair to worry illegal alien criminals about deportation.

There is another aspect of the campaign against Secure Communities that shows the corrosiveness of our tolerance of lawlessness. Major police chiefs in high immigration jurisdictions are under enormous political pressure to protect illegal aliens. And that has meant tossing aside everything that they know about public safety and policing. One of the great insights of policing in the last two decades was the realization that low level misdemeanor offenses like graffiti, turnstile jumping, drunk driving, and drug sales have an outsized impact on a community’s perceptions of public safety and on the actual reality of crime. Enforcing misdemeanor offenses is an effective way of incapacitating more serious criminals. And even when an offender does not go on to commit more violent felonies, such allegedly minor offenses as shoplifting and illegal street vending create a sense of lawlessness and disorder that breaks down the fabric of a community. Police chiefs like New York’s William Bratton and Los Angeles’s Charlie Beck know this. Yet they have fiercely opposed cooperating with the federal government on Secure Communities, on the ground that misdemeanor offenses are too trivial to worry about and should not subject illegal aliens to deportation. This is pure hypocrisy—the result of the enormous pressure of demographic change on our principles.

The ultimate goal of the campaign against Secure Communities is to delegitimate deportation entirely as a response to illegal immigration. If it is morally unacceptable to repatriate even a convicted illegal alien criminal, then it is all the more unacceptable to repatriate someone who has “merely” crossed the border illegally. This undermining of alien-removals is behind the constant protests demanding to “stop deportations now.” It is behind the claim that it is Americans who are to blame for separating families, rather than the alien who knowingly came into the country in violation of our laws and assumed the risk of being sent home.

The campaign against deportation does not name itself as such, but it has been highly successful. Despite the false rhetoric of the Obama administration, deportation has basically disappeared from the interior of the country. The removal rate in 2014 for illegal aliens who were not explicit ICE priorities was one-half of one percent. If aliens cannot be removed for illegal entry, then there is no more immigration law. Deportation is the only remedy for illegal entry that corrects and deters the original lawbreaking. That is why Mexico, along with virtually every other country, practices it unapologetically. Lose deportation, as we are doing, and the U.S. will have formally ceded control of its immigration policy to people living outside its borders. National sovereignty will have become meaningless.

The delegitimizing of deportation makes the conservative rallying cry to secure the borders sadly naïve. An utterly secure border is impossible; people will always find a way to cross. But if, once they cross, nothing can be done to them, then we may as well not have borders. That’s why the advocates have spent all their energy fighting deportation rather than fighting increased border security—because they know that eradicating the former is far more important.


The erosion of the rule of law is bad enough. But the social consequences of mass illegal immigration are equally troubling. We are importing poverty and educational failure. If you want to see America’s future, look no further than my home state of California, which is a generation ahead of the rest of the country in experiencing the effects of unchecked low-skilled immigration.

Nearly 50 percent of all California births are now Hispanic, and the state’s Hispanic population is now almost equal to the white population. The consequences of this demographic shift have been profound. In the 1950s and ’60s, California led in educational achievement. Today, with a majority Hispanic K-12 population and the largest concentration of English language learners in the country, California is at the bottom of the educational heap. Over a third of California eighth graders lack even the most rudimentary math skills; 28 percent are equally deficient in reading. The mathematics performance gap between Hispanic and white eighth-graders has not budged since 1990; the reading gap has narrowed only slightly since 1998.

California is at the epicenter of the disturbing phenomenon of “long-term English learners.” You would think that an English learner would be someone who grew up in a foreign country speaking a foreign language, and who came to the U.S. only later in life. In fact, the vast majority of English learners are born here, but their cognitive and language skills are so low that they are deemed non-native English speakers. Nationally, 30 percent of all English learner students are third-generation Americans.

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown pushed through a controversial law to try to close the achievement gap between California’s growing Hispanic population and its Anglo and Asian populations. That law redistributes tax dollars from successful schools to those with high proportions of English learners and low-income students. It remains to be seen whether this latest effort to raise the education outcomes of the children of low-skilled immigrants will prove more effective than its predecessors. Working against that possibility is Hispanics’ high dropout rate—the highest in the state and the nation—and their equally unmatched teen pregnancy rate.

To be sure, many illegal Hispanic aliens possess an admirable work ethic and have stabilized some moribund inner-city areas like South Central Los Angeles. But thanks to their lack of social capital, many of their children and grandchildren are getting sucked into underclass culture. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in California and the U.S. is 53 percent—twice what it was in the black population in 1965 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his prescient warning about the catastrophe of black family breakdown. The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans in California shoots up eight-fold between the first and second generations, to equal the black incarceration rate. Gang involvement is endemic in barrio schools, giving rise to a vast taxpayer-supported army of anti-gang counselors serving the children of single mothers.

This social service bureaucracy in barrio schools is just the tip of the iceberg. Welfare use among immigrants and their progeny is stubbornly high, because their poverty rates are stubbornly high. Hispanics are the biggest users of government health care and the biggest supporters of Obamacare. They favor big government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it. The claim that low-skilled immigration is an economic boon to the country as a whole is false. It fails to take into account the government services consumed by low-skilled immigrants and their children, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons.


So what should be done? First of all, we must reassert the primacy of the rule of law. At the very least, that means rehabilitating deportation and ceasing to normalize illegal immigration with our huge array of sanctuary policies. Liberals appear indifferent to the erosion of law, and even too many conservatives are willing to excuse immigration law-breaking in order to placate what they imagine to be a conservative voting bloc in waiting. But let us hope the rule of law is not lost.

I would not at present offer an amnesty to those who have voluntarily chosen to violate the law, since every amnesty, both in the U.S. and Europe, has had one effect and one effect only: more illegal immigration. People who come into the country illegally or overstay their visas do so knowingly. They assume the risk of illegal status; it is not our moral responsibility to wipe it away. Their children, if they are born here, are already American citizens, thanks to the misguided policy of birthright citizenship. The illegal status of their parents is a problem that will eventually fade away as that first generation dies out. The Obama amnesty, however, actually incentivizes the use of birthright citizenship, since it rewards with legal status illegal aliens who have American citizen children.

I would also radically reorient our legal immigration system towards high skilled immigrants like the parents of Google’s founder, Sergey Brin. Canada, Australia, and other countries are already benefiting from placing a priority on skilled immigrants.

Immigration policy should be forged with one consideration in mind: America’s economic self-interest. Immigration is not a service we provide to the rest of the world. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be one. No other country welcomes as many newcomers. But rewarding illegal immigration does an injustice to the many legal immigrants who played by the rules to get here. We owe it to them and to ourselves to adhere to the law.


Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She received her B.A. from Yale University, and earned an M.A. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street JournalThe New York TimesThe New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including—with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga—The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s.

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Battle For School Choice

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Look Up

Some inspiration to get the most of the new year…nothing is worse than regret…

Posted in Health and wellness, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sabbath Insight 11-23-2014

SI a RepublicAnd the warning from the past as more people today appear to desire an executive branch and overall government with ever growing powers:

1 Samuel 8 (NIV)

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”


Posted in Government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment