Laws Governing Immigration Don’t Work — When They’re Not Enforced
by JBS President John F. McManus
Over recent years, legislation and policy dealing with immigration into the U.S. aren’t doing the job. Many laws are being ignored, others are working in ways contrary to their intent, and some that aren’t even laws (e.g., executive orders) have the effect of increasing the number of border crossers.
The U.S. Constitution mentions the word “invasion” twice. Article IV, Section 4 mandates: “The United States … shall protect each of them [the states] against invasion.” Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15 places on Congress the responsibility to “call forth the militia … repel invasions.” Neither of these portions of the Constitution uses the word “military” as a qualifier for invasion. Neither is being employed to stem what amounts to an invasion.
During recent years, upwards of 20 million persons have crossed our southern border with the intention of staying here. Is that not an “invasion”? Millions of these individuals have been provided housing, welfare, medical care and education. No other nation in history has been so kind to invaders. And, as evidence clearly shows, some of the border crossers are drug traffickers, and others have committed rape, robbery, mayhem and even murder. Jails in the southwest are overflowing with criminals who aren’t even citizens.
Plenty of headlines today point to the current wave of children seeking entry, a new category of invaders. Does anyone even ask how these youngsters, many unaccompanied by any adults, arrived at the border from Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica? They certainly didn’t walk from their homes through hundreds of miles in Mexico before reaching the Rio Grande. It’s obvious that help was provided and the children are being used to further erode our nation’s immigration policy.
On June 15, 2012, President Obama did his bit to weaken immigration restrictions with an executive order now known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” It directed agencies tasked with policing the border to use “prosecutorial discretion” in its enforcement actions. In other words, “Look the other way if you see illegal entrants that are children, or with children.” Critics have labeled DACA “a path to amnesty” which it surely appears to be. The effect of this unconstitutional use of executive power has actually encouraged more to enter our country.
No one can doubt that immigrants overall have contributed significantly to making America productive and strong. Nor can there be assurance that past procedures were problem-free. But the penniless entrants of years gone by came into the U.S. legally. They got in line, secured qualified admittance, and eventually won citizenship. Private agencies, mostly backed by religious groups, took care of many of the new arrivals. Allowing today’s millions of illegal entrants to bypass the previous process for entry into the U.S. denigrates the worth of properly gained citizenship achieved by millions. But that is not the only problem.
Many of today’s illegal immigrants have found jobs, worked hard, obeyed laws, and moved toward assimilation. But, with little or no understanding of America’s foundations, even they threaten to alter the cultural and political basis of our country. Each massive wave of immigration throughout history has led to fundamental change.
Beginning around 370 A.D., for instance, Emperor Valens opened the gates of the Roman Empire and allowed entry to Germanic Goths and Visigoths. He did so to obtain recruits for his army and a source of cheap labor. Only a decade after the gates had come down, those immigrants began a war against the Roman legions in the provinces and it eventually reached Rome itself. In short order, the Roman army was decimated, the Goths sacked Rome, and the Roman Empire collapsed.
Even though there are some militants among the illegals here, there is little likelihood that any military uprising that could duplicate what the Goths did to Rome. But changing the country can be accomplished with leadership supplied by liberals and leftists who can’t be unaware of the dangerous policies and programs they are supporting, including the extremely deficient educational system given to all of America’s youngsters.
There are more than enough laws on the books to put an end to the immigration crisis. What’s needed is a determination to use them, properly and humanely. That’s what swearing an oath to the U.S. Constitution should mean.
Are you ready to help? Visit Choose Freedom — Stop Illegal Immigration.
New Debunking of Global Warming Claims
by JBS President John F. McManus
British journalist Christopher Booker became well known in 2003 when he collaborated with former European Union researcher Richard North to issue “The Great Deception,” a critical history of the enormous amount of deceit leading to the creation of the European Union. He has also written “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” a 2009 expose of unproven claims about global warming that includes a well-researched condemnation of the costly and unnecessary solutions to the warming problem that he insists doesn’t exist.
Support for Booker’s view that global warming isn’t threatening mankind recently appeared in the work of U.S. scientist Steven Goddard. Pointing an accusing finger at the America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Goddard shows that its U.S. Historical Climatology Network has been “adjusting” its conclusions and substituting “fabricated” temperature data produced by computer models in the place of actual temperature readings. According to Booker, Goddard’s research shows that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s,” the hottest decade on record.
On July 28th, a resolution submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sought to place the Senate on record with a claim that global warming was real. She insisted, “We have a problem” that ought to be dealt with. Senator Barbara Boxer (R-Calif.) supported the resolution saying, “All we wanted to say is climate change is happening.”
But Senator James Inhofe disagreed with his colleagues and blocked the measure. Insisting that “we” don’t know that such a problem exists, Inhofe suggested instead that other parts of the international community are turning away from claims regarding warming. He pointed to Australia’s repeal of a carbon tax that had been imposed as a way to reduce the supposed warming of the planet, something now officially questioned in the “land down under.”
Several years ago, more than 1,000 scientists worldwide signed a document criticizing the global warming claims of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Charges of fudging data and making unprovable claims resounded as the scientists, many of whom called for the IPCC leaders to be fired, added their names to a growing list of “climate change skeptics.”
Of the insistence of global warming or climate change advocates, Christopher Booker concludes: “Any theory needing to rely so consistently of fudging the evidence must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply an alarming study in the aberrations of group psychology.” Debunking unproven claims about the earth heating up is indeed welcome news.
Impeachment Helps the Democrat Cause
by JBS President John F. McManus
Hardly a day goes by without someone or some group insisting that President Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Reasons for such a step include the President’s use of executive orders to make law, his refusal to enforce existing law, spying on citizens by the National Security Agency, the debacle in Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservative groups, and more. These and other Obama deficiencies are real.
But impeachment by the House isn’t likely to be followed by conviction in the Senate. The Republicans in the House can approve impeachment with a simple majority vote. But getting two-thirds of the Senate (67 in number) to convict their president isn’t realistic. The Senate is currently top-heavy with Democrats and expecting them to oust their party leader is expecting something that isn’t realistically possible. And practically everyone who clamors for impeachment knows this.
So why is there so much discussion about impeachment? Two answers follow. The first is that some Republicans feel that calling for such a process impresses voters in their districts. Incumbents seeking reelection or ambitious outsiders hoping to win nomination and election for a House or Senate seat believe that the public is disgusted with Obama to the point where they want him removed. If pressed about the possibility of success, even these impeachment pleaders would have to admit that the goal they seek is unlikely to be achieved. In almost all cases, these GOPers are playacting while getting some media attention which is their real goal.
The second reason why impeachment is being discussed is that Democrats themselves are raising the issue. They want to paint Republicans as deeply partisan ogres who are ganging up on a wounded president. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out that some Republicans (John Boehner for one) are even planning to sue the president “on a path to impeach” while she and fellow Democrats are busily working to “create jobs.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claims that some Republicans are “hoping to get into office to impeach the president” soon after they win election. But even MSNBC’s Chris Hayes suggested that impeachment talk might “be a masterful stroke of Democrats running a false flag operation.”
Occasionally, realism surfaces. Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has labeled calls for impeachment “foolish.” He believes that Mr. Obama and his advisors want the impeachment process to move forward because it will fail while it generates sympathy for the president. He believes that this “is the only chance the Democrat Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat” in November.
Congressman Steve Scalise (R-La.), the newly named House Majority Whip who recently replaced primary loser Eric Cantor, notes that Democrats are capitalizing on talk of impeachment with fund-raising appeals. He adds that Democrats “will do anything they can to change the topic away from the president’s failed policies.”
Summing up: Impeachment by the House will not lead to conviction and removal of the President by the Senate. And Democrats dearly want calls for impeachment to continue because they help the Democrat cause.
Another Way To Police the World
by JBS President John F. McManus
On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement.
After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.”
Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders.
In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations – with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body.
The on-going conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders.
Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the U.S. is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want U.S. committed to being their defender.
What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO.
The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense.
A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP). Just as NAFTA unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the U.S. with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it.
“How Are Those Who Represent You Actually Voting?”
by JBS President John F. McManus
How many Americans have no idea about the votes their congressman and two senators register? If you answered “few,” you’d be correct. If you answered “very few,” you’d be even more correct.
Even good citizens who watch what a candidate for office says, especially when he or she is up for reelection, don’t have much of a clue about how that person has performed in office. They all talk a good game but few back up the rhetoric. Something is needed to show what the record is.
Twice a year The New American magazine, an affiliate of The John Birch Society, publishes the “Freedom Index.“ All members of the House and Senate are rated according to their votes on ten key issues. The ratings are awarded based on how well the office holder adheres to the U.S. Constitution. Those who stand by their oath get 100 percent ratings. Those who don’t honor their oath get less with quite a few scoring a complete zero.
If a measure calling for some form of foreign aid comes up, and a congressman or senator votes “Nay,” that earns a plus ten. There is simply no authorization for foreign aid anywhere in the Constitution. A vote for foreign aid earns nothing. And so it goes for all 435 House members and all 100 senators although the measures in question will not always be the same for each house of Congress.
The “Freedom Index” frequently demonstrates that there’s very little difference between liberal Democrats and “progressive” or neo conservative Republicans. A congressman or senator showing up at a town hall meeting back in the district is frequently bombarded with questions from constituents about why he or she voted for more restrictions on gun ownership, raising the national debt ceiling, additional EPA regulations, more funding for food stamps, and more.
In the latest “Freedom Index,” appearing in the July 28, 2014 issue of The New American, the average score for members of the House is 39 percent and the average in the Senate is a paltry 28 percent. This means that most members of Congress are voting constitutionally only a fraction of the time. Some members in each House actually scored zero, meaning that they ignored the Constitutional limits on their powers 100 percent of the time.
High scorers in the House with 100 percent included Stockman (Tex.), Duncan, (Tenn.), Sanford (S.C.), Jones (N.C.), Amash (Mich.), Huelskamp (Kan.), and Broun (Ga.). No senator scored 100 percent but the high scorers included Lee (Utah) and Paul (Ky.).
An online version of the “Freedom Index” is housed at TheNewAmerican. com. Take a look and then bring it to the next meeting of your congressman or senators. The people we elect to serve us in high office must be made to stand by their oath to support the Constitution.
Iraq’s Christians Attacked by Militant Islamists
by JBS President John F. McManus
Early in July 2014, for the first time in 1600 years, there was no Catholic Mass celebrated in the city of Mosul in northern Iraq. Islamic militants calling themselves the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) had taken control of the region. They immediately targeted the minority Christians, many of whom fled north into territory controlled by Kurds.
On June 29th, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, told his followers from the pulpit in Mosul’s Great Mosque how to proceed with establishing a caliphate (an Islamic state) with him as its religious leader. “Do jihad in the cause of God,” he urged. “If you knew about the reward and dignity in this world and the hereafter through jihad, then none of you would delay in doing it.” Al-Baghdadi’s followers performed as directed.
When 45-year-old retired army officer Maan Abou, a Christian, asked the newly established ISIS court in Mosul if the threats against him and his family were accurate, he learned that “the man there told me that I should leave my house, car, money and properties behind.” Christians were told they had three choices: convert to Islam, pay a huge fine and live as slaves, or be executed. A few have converted, most have fled.
Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, approximately 1.5 million Christians, mostly Catholics, called Iraq their home. They could trace their ancestry back almost two millennia, well before Mohammed was born. Though he was surely not a paragon of freedom, Saddam Hussein’s leadership of the nation saw Christians living side-by-side with Muslims and others in relative peace. All that changed during the past decade that saw Hussein’s regime toppled and him executed. Fewer than 500,000 Christians remain in their homeland — even they are fleeing.
Iraq’s Shiites now fear the rising power of ISIS which is led by the Sunni faction. When there are no Christians left in the country, the Sunni-Shiite rivalry will surely escalate. If ISIS becomes dominant, neighboring nations, even those Muslim-controlled, would have much to fear.
The United States, still dependent on imports of oil from the Middle East, would be wise to develop its own oil and gas findings with great haste. Dependence on the Middle East cannot be counted on.
Australia Leads the Way; America Should Follow
By JBS President John F. McManus
Three years ago, the Australian government led by Prime Minster Julia Gillard bowed to the questionable claims of environmentalists and imposed a carbon tax on large companies. Any company releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was required to fork over a hefty penalty per ton of emissions. However, on July 17, 2014, the Australian Senate followed the lead already taken by the nation’s House and approved a measure repealing this onerous tax.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who succeeded Gillard in 2014, saluted the legislature’s wisdom. He had campaigned for the office on a pledge to do away with the assault on carbon dioxide emissions. Repeating what he stated in his campaign, he called the now-cancelled measure a “useless destructive tax, which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living, and which didn’t actually help the environment.” As expected, opponents of the repeal insisted that doing away with the carbon tax would adversely impede efforts to address climate change, the new label for what was formerly known as global warming.
Only a few weeks earlier here in the United States, President Obama endorsed a plan created by the Environmental Protection Agency to have states devise plans to reduce the amount of carbon emissions produced by coal-fired power plants. Approximately 40 percent of the electric power generated in the U.S. comes from burning coal. If the EPA’s regulations are imposed, the effect on energy production nationwide will be enormous, and the loss of jobs by coal miners and others in coal-producing areas will be catastrophic. So, too, will jobs be lost when the cost of energy formerly generated by coal skyrockets.
Addressing the EPA plan, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) stated, “The Obama administration must think our country … can operate on windmills.” Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said of the EPA’s targeting of carbon dioxide emissions stated: “Never before has the federal government forced an industry to do something that is technologically impossible.” He added: “If these regulations go into effect, American jobs will be lost, electricity prices will soar, and economic uncertainty will grow.”
The great bugaboo targeted by environmentalists and the EPA, of course, is carbon dioxide. No one doubts that burning coal to produce energy puts the substance into the atmosphere. But when pressed to address the scientific fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for plant growth and therefore a definite good, the fright peddlers seek to change the subject into claims about rising sea levels, droughts, and severe weather outbreaks – all supposedly resulting from human activity and carbon dioxide.
Australia has shown the way. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is correct about the effects of the carbon tax in his country. The same effects would be seen here. But proponents of a similarly destructive measure would have the U. S. impose its own counterproductive tax on carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. leaders don’t like to admit that anything can be learned from some other country. But if enough Americans merely inform our officials what Australian officials have just done, the damage a carbon tax and the related war on coal can be avoided.