The Enemy Within

Since Pete Wilson and California Proposition 187, the California Democratic Party has been aggressively organizing illegal immigrants into a voting block. The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits. It was passed but never enforced. Instead, something was born of fury of fear and of desperation… something ugly, an enemy within.

There are now so many illegal immigrant voters in California that the left sought to legalize jury duty for non-citizens. This was for a very practical reason. There were so many non-citizens on the voting rolls that parts of California could not find sufficient jurists by the traditional method of calling on those registered to vote. An estimated 10 million Californians were summoned for jury duty in 2012 and only 4 million were eligible and available to serve.

Here’s a hint: Check your state’s jury roles for non-citizens who’ve already committed voter fraud.

Gov. Moonbeam signs California’s new Motor Voter Act (A.B.1461)

So powerful is this illegal voting block, that, for the last eight years the executive branch has been its ally, offering five MILLION illegal immigrants amnesty as “Dreamers.”

So influential is this voting block that California was the first and only state to request Obamacare for illegal immigrants.

So dominant is this La Raza funded, Democrat mob vote that illegal immigrants now hold legal drivers’ licenses in the state of California. Eight hundred thousand illegals are now licensed to drive in the State of California, but there is no voter fraud in California. Remember that.

In fact, so privileged has this entitled group of federal felons become that California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon loudly proclaimed that half his family are illegal immigrants. He boasted that they have committed document fraud on both the federal and state level. So ran Senator De Léon’s rant:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

But there’s no voter fraud. Remember that. We know there is no voter fraud worth investigating in California because the California Democrats now have super majorities in both houses. The enemy is within. A lawless conspiracy of treasonous citizens and non-citizens are committed to defrauding law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights, the fruits of their labor, and their liberties.

Most of all we can be certain that there is no voter fraud because the leader of the United States Senate. Mitch McConnell has told us so. He swears:

There’s no evidence that it (voter fraud) occurred in such a significant number that would have changed the presidential election, and I don’t think we ought to spend any federal money investigating that…

Yes America, the enemy is within.


The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

Texas National Guard Border Surge Undermined by Federal Air Lift Program

We are in a constitutional crisis.

Even as the Texas legislature counts the costs of border control efforts forced on it by the White House’s flagrant violation of current
BN-HS634_txbord_M_20150403134152immigration laws, the White House has engineered a cynical countermeasure. A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program employs federal taxpayer dollars to fly the children of parents immunized from deportation, directly into the United States. This is, essentially, undermining the free people of a sovereign state. That is a constitutional crisis. One that can be resolved if the Senate will end the filibuster.

Costs for the Texas National Guard’s counter surge at the border have been escalating, becoming as much 400 million dollars per year. Even so, Governor Perry’s bold moves in guarding Texas taxpayers remain popular because the shock of last summer’s border kid fiasco is still a bitter memory.

Governor Perry and other Texas officials credit the National Guard deployment for a significant drop off in illegal immigrant apprehensions, but the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson credits the continued work of his federal authorities.

However, during the peak of the unaccompanied children crisis most of the federal agents were busy “processing” the illegal border kids who willingly turned themselves over to “authorities.” Texas Representative
kids Louie Gohmert told Fox News that he had never seen his district border area so understaffed and overwhelmed.

Recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said that the effort by Texas to secure the border has slowed the surge of immigrants from 1,000 crossings per day to 10,000 per month. Perhaps the appearance of the Texas National Guard only intimidated the “coyotes” who trafficked in unaccompanied minors throughout the surge. Despite Governor Abbot’s disappointment at these results, the plainly illegal executive actions of the Obama administration in pursuit of a Texas-proof way to get illegal immigrants into the country, are proof positive that Jeh Johnson’s assessment of the Texas National Guard’s failure is simply failed propaganda. Apparently, a surge of 10,000 per month is not large enough to suit the current administration.

Just as the once great state of California is simmering in an understated drought teetering on the edge of a full-blown disaster, so our entire nation is in an understated constitutional crisis. The crisis at the border is only one sign of an executive branch that has sided with America’s enemies. Yes, enemies. Any nation that would support wave after wave of illegal incursions into the United States is an enemy. Sadly, other examples abound in every arena of American life from environmental protection to foreign policy and educational overreach.

The United States voter has unhesitatingly risen to the occasion and given Congress a chance to bring the branches of government back into constitutional harmony, but Congress will not. Specifically, the Senate will not. The Senate must stand up for the Constitution by sacrificing its extra-constitutional tradition of the filibuster. If the people’s House and the Congress make a law curtailing an illegal executive action, the President’s veto will not stand up in obamacourt.

The Senate could still keep a wide range of filibuster traditions alive if it only ended the filibuster with regards to laws designed to reign in illegal executive actions by the executive branch. Either way the Senate must act or it is as complicit in our current constitutional crisis as is the President of the United States an his henchmen.

Kill the Filibuster or Congress is a Dead Letter Institution

The potential for a filibuster springs from the notion that any senator should be able speak as long as he wants on any issue. When a senator decides to abuse this liberty to block the people’s constitutional operations, his right to speak becomes a filibuster, an act of piracy from the Spanish filibustero.pirate

And piracy it is. This skull and crossbones have hung over our republic long enough. They weaken Congress so that the branch of our government with the power of the purse cannot control the nation’s debt.

The wanton pirating of open debate has become so bizarre that, recently, the surviving minority of Democratic senators used the filibuster to undermine congressional authority itself. By using the filibuster to thwart the Senate’s vote on legislation to override President Obama’s illegal use of Executive actions, Congress’s authority was utterly undermined. The people’s representatives in both houses of Congress have been completely silenced! Even if the House defunds the Department of Homeland Security, Obama’s executive actions remain in place. The only way for Congress to retake its authority is to end the push-button filibuster and put a bill on Obama’s desk.

There is nothing honorable about the filibuster. Emerging in the Old South as a bludgeon to slow racial equality, the “noble” history of the filibuster includes its metastasis into the current “push-button” filibuster. The “push-button” filibuster or “gentleman’s filibuster” can, in turn, be directly connected to the increase in the public debt. Beyond the legislative culture of selfish irresponsibility and arrogance common to both the deficit and the increased domination of the filibuster, the filibuster ties congress’ hands. Because of the Senate filibuster, congress can’t properly cut departments that the people know are failing. Even worse new legislation costs the taxpayers extra money in private, minority, pet projects that must be included in any bill passing through the Senate’s filibuster gauntlet. All of this increases the cost of getting anything done in congress at all.

Obama’s use of illegal executive orders, contrary to the will of the people, has completely ripped asunder the cloak of congressional authority and has demonstrated for the world to see that  the organ of the people’s voice, it’s elected representatives, has become, feeble, hollow, and docile.
rise-of-filibusterThe gentleman’s filibuster has been around since the U.S. Senate revised Rule 22 in 1975. From that time forward, no senator needed to speak for a filibuster to be in force. Today, one simply files a motion. Since 1975, then, a filibuster has no longer been a filibuster, an abuse of the constitutional liberty of free speech; instead, it has become simply an abuse of the constitution. Rule 22’s revision made it slightly easier to attain cloture and move legislation, but Rule 22 made it much, much easier to enact a filibuster. It is not surprising, then, that since the enactment of Rule 22, the number of filibusters has sky-rocketed.

The senate should be returned to the rules of filibuster made popular in the old black and white movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Because the push-button filibuster focuses final legislative authority in the hands of a small group of minority legislators, a larger number of votes must be “purchased” by the majority. These minority votes must vote against the will of their own constituents for the bill to pass. As a result they need bigger gifts to give their home states. Hence legislation is more expensive than it would be in a simple majority setting. Additionally, the last votes to break a filibuster are infamously expensive.otd-october-17-mr-smith-goes-to-washington-jpg

Consider the Obamacare debacle as an example of this rampant irresponsible lack of conscience. Liberal senators cashed in on their fellow liberal members. For instance, Senator Patrick Leahy’s vote took 250 million in legislative concessions; and Louisiana’s traded her Senate Seat for 100 million in concessions (some say 300 million); or Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, — 100 million; or Senator Ben Nelson (Mr. “to infinity and beyond” himself), –45 million; or the very independent Senator Sanders, (advancing communism in health care is not enough) — 10 billion in heath care centers. Nor does time allow us to speak of ex-Senators now lobbyists, of defense contracts and air bus bids, of nepotism and Caribbean resorts, of bankers, loans and bailouts. Even worse these are CBO numbers. Nelson’s deal sounds like it is worth far more than 45 million. The public option in the senate bill expands  Medicaid through Medicare’s destruction.

But consider this price tag! Some may call these bribes, others may call these deals the guts of the legislative “sausage,” others may say all of this is only wily negotiators seeking the best interest of their states, but, no matter what we call it, in one week of Obamacare legislation, the gentleman’s filibuster cost us, the tax payer over eleven billion dollars. It is not surprising then to note that the modern peace time rise in the ratio of the national debt to GDP directly parallels the increasing use of the push-button, gentleman’s filibuster.

The traditional filibuster rule, while also concentrating power with a small group of legislators, had the redeeming US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_Senate_Majority_Party_(1940_to_2009)quality of requiring one to put one’s character and constitution behind one’s belief. A weak and venal person cannot long harangue an assembly of his peers. Besides, the drama of such a filibuster today would draw the press and make a spectacle of our public policies. This makes for a far more entertaining newscast and for a sword of daylight that cuts (or at least used to cut) against corruption.

Today, the push-button filibuster is rendering congress useless. The huge majority surge that swept the congress from the Democrats has been completely halted in the senate by the push-button filibuster. The House can refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but that will not neutralize President Obama’s illegal executive actions. Perhaps it’s possible to save general legislative filibuster’s by the majority ruling that only filibuster’s of executive actions under judicial review are unconstitutional, but the truth is–who cares. End the monstrosity now. End it forever.

Harry Reid, in ending the push-button filibuster on judicial nominees has set the precedent. The vote on the filibuster rules, according to the courts, is itself filibuster proof — probably

If history has taught us that absolute power in the hands of single monarchs is a wretched evil, it now seems she is
obama_43liberally instructing her students that matters are even worse when such centralized authority falls on small numbers of men scrabbling for crumbs at the trough of the taxpayer. There seems to be a mathematical certainty that, in small packs, many will be weak, others spineless, and still others corrupt; that while virtue is the aspiration of man it is not his nature. Hence, the surest way to move the pack is to appeal to its vilest instincts. Even in better days it was the exception, not the rule, that an appeal to reason, virtue and the public good might win a legislative victory. Let the simple majority stand before the people with their drab excuses for their lack of performance. Let them no longer have the vail of the filibuster to hide their personal failures.