Blog Intro to ‘Why You Should Be a Nationalist’


Intro by John R. Houk

© December 17, 2018

Has anyone noticed that Trump-inspired concepts of Make America Great Again and America First concepts have been boiled down by political pundits to Nationalism? In my mind the Trumpian concepts are Nationalistic BUT in the sense of Patriotism.

 

I use the word “BUT” because if you listen to today’s Dem or any Leftist ideologue, you would hear that “Nationalism” is akin to Nazism. Indeed, a Leftist worth their salt in ideology will point out the word Nazi (actually more accurately “NAZI”) in anglicized form derives from National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The anglicized initials came down to NSDAP derived from the German “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”. To Americans, Brits and other English-speaking nations (largely descended from Great Britain) the NSDAP simply became the Nazi Party or Nazis.

 

The point being today’s Leftists see the “National” and conveniently forget the “Socialist” portion of Nazi and equate the term with Right-Wing German racist nationalism. More on this modern Leftist propaganda equating national borders as racism and an enemy to the globalist utopia imagined by Leftist ideologues – in a later post.

 

For now, I want to assure you that Trumpian Nationalism is more akin to American Patriotism, American Exceptionalism and love nation and founding heritage.

PragerU has the assurance and proper explanation of Nationalism in a five and one-half video spoken by the author of The Virtue of NationalismYoram Hazony.

 

JRH 12/17/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for a Christmas upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. Still looking to defray the Christmas costs.

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

***************

VIDEO: Why You Should Be a Nationalist

 

Posted by PragerU

Published on Dec 17, 2018

 

It’s undeniable: Around the world, nationalism is on the march, and the media and reigning political elites would have you believe this is a dangerous disaster in the making. So, why is Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism, unafraid? Watch to understand.

 

Donate today to PragerU! https://donate.prageru.com/give/60079/#!/donation/checkout

 

Check out Yoram’s latest book “The Virtue of Nationalism”:

https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Nationalism-Yoram-Hazony/dp/1541645375

 

Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content

 

Download Pragerpedia on yourREAD THE REST

_____________

Blog Intro to ‘Why You Should Be a Nationalist’

Intro by John R. Houk

© December 17, 2018

____________

Why You Should Be a Nationalist

 

PRAGER UNIVERSITY IS NOT AN ACCREDITED ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND DOES NOT OFFER CERTIFICATIONS OR DIPLOMAS. BUT IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE FREE TO LEARN.

 

© 2018 Prager University

 

Our Vision

A more rational America

 

Our Mission

To influence culture through digital content that advances Americanism

 

About Us

We take the best ideas from the best minds and distill them down to five focused minutes. We then add graphics and animation to create the most persuasive, entertaining, and educational case possible for the values that have made America and the West the source of so much liberty and wealth. These values are Judeo-Christian at their core and include the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values. READ ENTIRETY

 

France Reaps Decades of Socialism and Open Borders


Brigitte Gabriel uses France’s current woes of Socialism, Islamic terrorism and Open Borders as an example of a warning to the United States of America.

 

JRH 12/15/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for a Christmas upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. Still looking to defray the Christmas costs.  Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

******************

France Reaps Decades of Socialism and Open Borders

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Posted: Dec 14, 2018 2:28 PM

Townhall.com

 

Emmanuel Macron

 

As world leaders recently gathered in France to celebrate the centurion anniversary of the ending to World War I, French President Emmanuel Macron took it upon himself to attack President Trump, warning about the dangers of so-called “nationalism.”

 

The arrogance of a Western world leader using such a unifying event to attack the elected leader of one of his nation’s closest allies aside, Macron would’ve done well to keep his own house in order before lending advice.

 

Just weeks later, Paris was ablaze with violent mobs attacking police and vandalizing some of France’s most precious historical sites. The world-famous Arc de Triomphe was laced with graffiti by a generation poisoned and brainwashed with socialist ideology, never satisfied with what their government could give them.

 

France spent decades pushing the same anti-nationalist ideology on its citizens, glorifying the European Union and heavily taxing the wealthy to give to the poor. Combine this with France’s decades of open borders, reluctance to celebrate their own rich culture, Western values and contributions to the world, and you get an angry, self-loathing and even violent citizenry. Suddenly there’s no more wealth to tax, no more jobs to hand out and no more national identity.

 

Socialism has never worked in any part of the world in the entire history of civilization. Its consistent destruction of wealth, freedom and democracy has proven to be a recipe for national suicide. Combined with the open border policies that France embraced, you won’t just get poverty and civil unrest, but terrorism as well.

 

When I was a little girl, Beirut was dubbed “Paris of the Middle East.” Today, Paris is the Middle East of Europe and the “city of love,” has turned into the “city of chaos.” Decades of un-fettered immigration from the Middle East and North Africa has birthed sharia-ridden “no-go zones” and horrific terrorist attacks from the Charlie Hebdo massacre to the Paris bombings of 2015.

 

This type of radical transformation France has undergone is precisely what President Trump has been so desperately fighting against since his inauguration, with limited to no help from his own party.

 

As we march closer and closer toward a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, time is running out on our nation’s ability to reverse course and protect itself from becoming like France—a nation with no unity, no identity and no safety.

 

We need not look all the way across the Atlantic to see what the future holds for our nation if it refuses to seal its southern border, grants amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and continues to elect anti-American socialists to political positions of power. Just take a look at what unvetted immigration and socialism has done to the liberal haven of California over the past few decades.

 

Sanctuary cities such as San Francisco that provide safe haven for illegals such as Kate Steinle’s killer have become places of squalor, ridden with homelessness and filth. In fact, San Francisco’s streets are so filthy that an infectious disease expert recently placed it amongst some of the dirtiest cities in the entire world!

 

Recently, an investigative unit surveyed 153 blocks of San Francisco, in which it found countless mounds of trash and food lining the streets, at least 100 discarded needles, and wait for it, more than 300 piles of human feces.

 

This is San Francisco we’re talking about, not Mumbai.

 

By the way, it’s worth pointing out that one of San Francisco’s congressional representatives happens to be none other than soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is vehemently opposed to a wall. Good to know Ms. Pelosi has her priorities in order.

 

Taxes are through the roof in the “Golden State,” prompting many businesses to move to more free-market friendly locations such as Texas or Florida. As wealth continues to leave the state, the taxes will inevitably climb even higher, as lawmakers attempt to keep their constituents as well as illegals happy. Sooner or later, there won’t be enough wealth to tax, and the state will be bankrupt. The result of this will likely be violence, vandalism and chaos on a scale even larger than what we’re witnessing in Paris.

 

The solution to all of this? America first.

 

Wait, you mean, “nationalism?”

 

Let the leftist fools like Macron, who currently enjoys an approval rating of less than 20 percent in his own nation, call it whatever they want. It’s time to do what’s best for America and its people.

 

It’s time to build a wall to protect not only our citizens but our identity, and it’s time to call socialism what it is—an evil and destructive, anti-American ideology that has led to nothing but poverty and disaster wherever it raises its poisonous head.

 

America is and should always remain a capitalist nation that defends its borders and celebrates its national identity and Judeo-Christian values. As proven by France’s continued fall from grace, failure to do so will result in cultural, economic and political destruction.

__________________

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you

 

Townhall.com – the Leading Conservative and Political Opinion Website

 

Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

 

Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.

 

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation — and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.

 

As a part of Salem Media, Townhall.com features READ THE REST

 

THE END OF PALESTINE


palestine-flag-1939

Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.

 

JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

*****************

THE END OF PALESTINE

 

By Daniel Greenfield

February 16, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

hamas-terrorists

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

 

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

 

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

 

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

 

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

 

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

 

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

 

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create “Palestine”.

 

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

 

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

 

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

 

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the  best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

 

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

 

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

 

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

 

But they will be less committed to it.

 

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That’s a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

 

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

 

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

 

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

 

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

 

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

 

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

 

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

 

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

 

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

 

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

 

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

 

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

 

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

 

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

 

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

 

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

 

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

 

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

 

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

 

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

 

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

_____________

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

READ MORE

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as READ THE REST

 

Trump the same as a Dem Administration?


Emphatically NO!

donald-trump-america-first 

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2016

 

Sifu is a Google+ comment contributor that usually makes a reasonable stand when he disagrees with me rather than a hysterical ad hominem attack. I appreciated that. Even though I do disagree.

 

These comments are between Sifu and I relating to the post “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. Sifu’s thoughts are in normal text and mine are in bold text as well as being indented.

 

JRH 10/12/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

Sifu Mode

22 hours ago

 

+John Houk He supports massive growth of government. That is his vision of “great”. How is that so different than Obama? Maybe he won’t be as weak. Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good. His goals are still very much in alignment with the liberals. Look at his recent history of support publicly and financially for Hillary and others on the left.

 

Hmm… I don’t see any massive growth of government EXCEPT in terms of an efficient military and National Security. In terms of National Debt and Gross Domestic Production I see government decrease. Obama is a globalist tending toward ending National Sovereignty – Crooked Hillary too. Is Trump a rabid Nationalist? NO, he is an America First Nationalist. Trump admires Putin’s leadership skills NOT his Russian imperialistic agenda. Trump is not Hitler! Hitler wanted a Socialist Despotic Aryan German Empire where nations were subservient and Jews dead. Trump wants to keep America good without Multiculturalist globalism destroying American exceptionalism. Trump’s goals are VERY MUCH unaligned with the American Left that supports the globalism of NAFTA and TPP! Trump supported the Clintons when it would benefit his business. He paid to get Clintons to play. The play benefited Clintons financially while charging for government favors. It is legal to donate. It is illegal to play for pay in government. It’s called corruption.

Those qualities can be good or bad. It depends on the underlying principles they are used to accomplish. Trump’s only consistent principle is to HIS PERSONAL DESIRES; see his history of the use of eminent domain. His ego and selfishness do nothing to inspire hope that those qualities would be used for good.

 

Trump worked within the law. Bill and Hillary worked outside the law and used power to become Teflon so no charges were filed. By the way Trump lost his imminent domain case and complied. Bill and Hillary LIED and people have died and American foreign policy has is in full disarray. Trump’s business is just fine.



Trump apolitical? That’s laughable. He is not PC, but that does NOT mean apolitical. He is VERY well versed in navigating politics and manipulating people to get what he wants. He is a very political personality; he simply hasn’t held office before.

 

Hmm … I believe history proves that wrong Sifu. You yourself mentioned how he has donating money to Dems. He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics, that’s solid business in the realm of profit and loss. In America we call that Capitalism. Capitalism has made America wealthy enough that foreigners who hate us want to dip into that wealth by hook or by crook (mostly crook). Donald Trump at worst is a business personality and not a power-grabbing-monger like the Clinton clan.

 

Hail Britannia: VOTE LEAVE


Vote Brexit 6-23-16

What kind of word math do you get when you add Britain and exit the EU? You get Brexit. Apparently most of the United Kingdom’s ruling elites do not desire to leave the European Union. Those British ruling elites are placing a large amount of gloom and doom on British voters if they decide to leave the EU in a June 23, 2016 referendum. Justin Smith in good American style of mistrusting big government favors the Brexit crowd of the UK.

 

(Of interest is the Breitbart tag Brexit)

 

JRH 5/15/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Hail Britannia: VOTE LEAVE

Break the EU’s Chains

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 5/14/2016 1:39 PM

 

The British people seem ready to leave the European Union through an historic June 23rd referendum, because they are tired of the high-handed tyrannical regulations, clauses and counter clauses, emanating from the EU Council on even the simplest aspects of their everyday lives. They have determined that leaving the EU will be the best step towards reclaiming their nation’s sovereignty and democratic rule in all matters of immigration and border control, their economy, free trade and national security, and they are proudly waving the Union Jack, as they tell their would be masters in Brussels to “go to hell”, declaring their independence.

 

In November 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to renegotiate a treaty change with European Union Council President Donald Tusk concerning U.K. sovereignty, trade, immigration and economic governance, but Tusk rejected it all, with the minor exception regarding the handling of a few million pounds for children’s benefits. This dismal failure of PM Cameron only offered proof that the EU was closed to any substantial moves towards reform [The Telegraph & Financial Times], which created a renewed and angry momentum for the Out of Europe, Vote Leave and Brexit” movements.

 

Corporatists, transnationalists, advocates of the UN 2030 Agenda [Blog Editor: I’m a bit of anti-UN/anti-globalist kind-of-guy so here’s an anti-UN 2030 Agenda article. I’m not sure if Justin is on board with my concerns], the BBC and the Guardinista establishment [The Guardian’s pro-UN 2030 Agenda] are presenting dishonest and fear-based monologues, regarding the uncertainty a U.K. exit from the EU might bring. They enjoy being able to circumvent individual nation’s policies by going through Brussels, and most of them have been made rich through their deals with the tyrannical, unelected and entrenched bosses of the European Union.

 

Despite disingenuous conclusions from the transnationalist President Obama, does anyone really believe that a hundred years of shared security concerns and initiatives and trade agreements between the U.S. and the U.K. will be detrimentally affected by a “Yes” vote to leave the EU?

 

What cogent thought process could people, like Lena Komileva (London economist), possibly be using when they ascribe the term “illiberal” to the British people’s desire for nationalist policies [last paragraph Bloomberg] and reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty?

 

It will not take years for the U.K. to renegotiate trade deals with the U.S., as Obama suggests, but rather only months. And, if small nations like South Korea and Chile can succeed in global markets, certainly Britain also will continue to succeed, especially since the EU already imports 45% of British exports.

 

Membership in the EU currently costs Britain approximately $30 billion annually. Although $55 billion in austerity cuts were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last Parliament, Britain’s contribution to the EU was roughly $132 billion. Every cut in public spending could be reversed, and Britain could still pay down its deficit faster if Britain were to leave the European Union. [VoteLeaveTakeControl.org data in British Pounds between UK and EU]

 

In February, Gerald Mason, senior vice-president of Britain’s high profile Tate and Lyle Sugars, made a mockery of claims by Britain Strong in Europe that Brexit would spell economic disaster for the U.K., when he stated, “we are absolutely certain that our business and people who work in it would have a more secure future outside the EU” [Evening Standard 4th paragraph].

 

Priti Patel, U.K.’s employment minister, told the Daily Telegraph in March [Same quote Daily Mail 2/22/16]:

 

“The Prime Minister has tried hard but the EU refused to give the British people what they want … The only way to take back control over our economy … to create more jobs and growth is to Vote Leave.”

 

However, national security is the issue currently foremost in most Britons minds, but Eurocentrics, who believe the U.K. will be safer in the EU through cooperation on crime and terrorism, have failed to see that the EU has never been capable of agreeing on effective foreign policy. Also not taken into account, the EU recently embraced the expanded definition of “refugee” put forth by the United Nations in its 2030 Agenda. [See also point #2 of UN adopting Sustainable Development Goals] Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, warns that the U.K. will not be able to handle the upcoming surge of migrants, if it stays in the EU. He observed during the April 1st Munk Debate that “Jeane-Claude Juncker, the unelected president of the European Commission, has changed the definition of what a refugee is, to include people … from war torn areas … (and) from extreme poverty … (and) perhaps 3 billion people could possibly come to Europe (as a result). [I found this quote at WND]

 

There are also reports of Bosnia, with a population of 3.8 million, being infiltrated by Islamic State terrorists. They are buying property there, and they would be free to travel to the U.K., if Bosnia is granted EU membership.

 

Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative member of Parliament, stated in March [Bloomberg]: “Being in the EU means we don’t have control of our own systems, we don’t have control of our own borders. We are effectively tied to countries which I think are not as good at protecting their people as we have been.”

 

One can only imagine the palpable red-hot anger of the British people, upon hearing Martin Shulz, European Parliament president, say that he was [The Telegraph] “sad and angry (over) the undertone of national resentment” and it was “not possible” to make the changes PM Cameron wanted. Shulz added that Britain “belongs” to the EU — really? — just watch, wait and see.

 

Downing Street has declared that “a vote to leave is a vote to leave” [Near exact wording in Cameron photo caption in Herald Scotland]. A Leave vote will facilitate the U.K.’s departure through Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty [Britain & Europe discussion on Article 50], and terms for Britain’s withdrawal will then be negotiated over the next two years.

 

Over forty years ago, Britain last debated her relationship with Europe, and even then, elected officials on both the right and left, such as two of the most iconic political figures of that era — Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, campaigned against the U.K.’s membership in what was then the European Economic Community. They objected to Britain’s elected government meekly surrendering Britain’s national sovereignty to unelected foreign entities and the fundamental lack of democracy in the EU.

 

Lady Margaret Thatcher knew that it would be near impossible to effectively and efficiently impose one currency, one economy and one national identity on many different countries (now 28) with such different languages, histories, customs and cultures in general. Early on, the Iron Lady called the attempt to create a European super-state “the greatest folly of the modern era.” [Townhall]

 

Britons, excited and optimistic, are moving forward to reclaim a more-free, prosperous, ally connected and nationally secure Britain, through their own elected officials and their own choices and wisdom, breaking free of the heavy, bureaucratic chains of the European Union. They will vote for an independent future in the world, benefiting all, and, as they shout “Hail Britannia”, they will vote to leave in June.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text embraced by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© John R. Houk

A Ticket to Mexico


S. 744 - Scamnesty sign

Intro: A Ticket to Mexico
John R. Houk
© July 16, 2013
 
 
Justin Smith writes about the negative effects the Senate Immigration Reform Bill will have on America.
 
Here are some subjects within the article that I was not clear on thus I am going to assume many readers may have a lack of clarity as well. I add them for the reader’s benefit; however if you are confident about the terminology simply skip right to Justin’s article below this intro.
 
 
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said in a statement about the CIS analysis that this is yet another sign the Schumer-Rubio amnesty legislation is not good policy. “This report from CIS is a bombshell,” Sessions said.
 
To my surprise, and no doubt the surprise of many, the Gang of Eight Immigration doubles the annual number of guest workers from today’s levels – a much larger increase than any of us had imagined. It adds four times more guest workers than the rejected proposal from 2007. Yet today’s employment situation is far worse than when Congress considered the 2007 proposal.
 
This large increase in guest workers guarantees that Americans’ wages will remain stagnant and that the unemployed will remain unemployed. This legislation surges the number of low-wage workers at the expense of the poor and middle class.
 
Sessions’ Senate colleague, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), expressed concerns with the guest worker program during a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. He argued that the bill’s visa programs for foreign workers are a ploy by big corporations to depress wages of American workers. Sanders particular attention to h-1b visas, and how middle-class Americans cannot find white collar jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. (ANALYSIS: IMMIGRATION BILL WILL BRING 600K MORE GUEST WORKERS PER YEAR; By MATTHEW BOYLE; Breitbart; 6/5/13)
 
Corker-Hoeven Amendment
 
A new 1,000-plus-page bill has just been filed incorporating the changes from the Corker–Hoeven amendment. Initial reports indicate that the amendment calls for:
 
·         A Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy to be deployed and operational, including the minimum technology and equipment listed in S. 744;
 
·         An additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents to be deployed, maintained, and stationed along the southern border;
 
·         The Southern Border Fencing Strategy to be implemented and at least 700 miles of fencing to be completed;
 
·         An entry/exit system to track visa overstays to be fully implemented at all airports and seaports; and
 
·         E-Verify to be fully implemented by all employers.
 
This may all sound great on paper, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see that, just like in the language of the bill, none of the border security measures in the Corker–Hoeven amendment have to be in place until illegal immigrants with registered provisional immigrant status are to receive green cards 10 years down the road. (Corker–Hoeven Immigration Amendment: Far from a Game Changer; By Jessica Zuckerman and David Inserra; The Foundry [a Heritage.org blog]; 6/21/13 4:14 pm)
 
Reconquista (Movement)
 
… We noted the rise of radical Latino identity groups composed of both naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens. These groups are being organized by World Communist Party apparatchiks, who are providing the ethnic incitement behind protests in Los Angeles and other cities from coast to coast.
 
What are illegal alliens (sic) demanding in protests on U.S. soil?
 
These were protests not just on behalf of “amnistia” — demanding amnesty and all rights shared by U.S. citizens; for many, they were a means of promoting the reunification of the southwestern United States with Mexico.
 
The “reconquista” movement is marked by the flying of the Mexican flag over the American flag and has all the elements of a violent nationalist movement with the terrorist implications. … (Reconquista: The Movement; The Patriot Post)
 
 
There is a plan, called The Plan Of Aztlan, that’s been in effect for about four decades. The goal, being pursued vigorously by radical, racist Chicano (Mexican-American) groups and the Mexican government, is to reconquer (Reconquista) land lost to America in the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
 
Mexicans and many Mexican-Americans have never accepted the loss of their land, inhabited long before the gringos (white Europeans) arrived. Chicano groups like MEchA (Chicano Student Movement Of Aztlan) want to reconquer seven states in the Southwestern United States called Aztlan, the mythical home of the Aztecs. They include: California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, plus parts of Colorado, Nevada and Utah.
 
The road to success is based on infiltration (illegal aliens from Mexico) and demographic dominance (like-minded Chicanos being elected to political office by a region overwhelmingly of Mexican origin). What would exist is a de facto alien nation, with loyalty to their Mexican homeland. Efforts would be made to establish a separate government or to rejoin Mexico. Note that Mexico has granted dual citizenship to Mexican immigrants with U.S. citizenship as well as to their children. Kind of speeds the process along. No repatriation needed. (Reconquista: the Invasion of America; TheLastGringo.com; 4/20/06)
 
La Raza
 
 
It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of “La Raza” — The Race.
 
There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall “La Raza” movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza — the Council of “The Race”.
 
To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.
 
 
Radical ‘Reconquista’ Agenda
 
Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.
 
Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
 
One of America’s greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
 
This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
 
“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
 
MEChA isn’t at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):
 
“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo [all or everything]. Fuera [Against or Out of] de La Raza nada [nothing].”
 
… (Bold Emphasis Mine – EXCLUSIVE: THE TRUTH ABOUT ‘LA RAZA’; By cnorwood; Human Events; 4/7/06 09:03 AM)
 

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 3 – The Senate

 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

 

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointmentsuntil the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

 

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and … (U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 3; U.S. Constitution Online)

 

17th Amendment

 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

 

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

 

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. (17TH AMENDMENT; Legal Information Institute [LII], Cornell University Law School)

 
 
JRH 7/16/13

Please Support NCCR

*********************************
A Ticket to Mexico
 
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 7/15/2013 12:01 AM
 
Much of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act was designed in the 11th hour and presented America with a wasteful and poorly reasoned policy, of which any U.S. Senator should be ashamed to be known as one of the “yes” votes. This recent action in conjunction with the Corker-Hoeven Amendment perfectly illustrates the need to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the Founder’s Original Intent under Article I: Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as the majority of Americans in opposition to giving provisional legal status to 30 million plus illegal aliens saw their Senators side with leftist academics, the likes of Reconquista and LARAZA advocates, uneducated do-gooders who have thrown common sense out the window and antinational organizations.

Today in America, some would have us believe that “nationalism”, love of one’s nation and a desire to protect one’s American heritage and a belief in our nation’s right to sovereignty, is somehow comparable to a vulgar swear word. Immigration can be beneficial to the immigrant and the nation, under the right circumstances; however, the U.S. must act through its right and responsibility to ensure only responsible levels of immigration that promote assimilation, self-sufficiency and rising wages. And to date, Congress and the Executive have not remotely accomplished this.

I never thought I would offer the European Union as an example of anything that the U.S. should follow, but even in Europe, the EU nations such as Switzerland [*SlantRight Editor: Switzerland is not an EU member but has set up economic treaties that allows an EU-Swiss interface across borders], Britain and Spain are now realizing the folly of unrestricted movement across borders, as they now fight the guidelines of the Schengen Agreement, which eliminated internal boundaries in 1995. The poorest of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania have tested the boundaries of most EU nations’ economies in the midst of exploding unemployment, and now many are re-imposing border controls and making it easier to deport foreigners.

Some have suggested that a shortfall for H1B visas for workers exists in many professional fields. If this is indeed the case, it can be addressed independently in the House through a series of smaller bills that focus on the various components of our immigration system, much as suggested by Speaker John Boehner on July 11, 2013. And, as they attempt to play on America’s emotions, the liberals dredge up images of desperate immigrant families who want nothing more than a chance to work and feed themselves without fear of deportation; the H2B visa currently allows temporary workers to stay virtually uninterrupted for three consecutive years, and the Diversity Visa Lottery gives green cards to thousands of foreign nationals annually.

Ex-President George W. Bush has entered the debate again, as he recently called for Americans to “keep a benevolent spirit in mind and…understand the contributions that immigrants make to our country.” This seems to align with David Brooks’ (NY Times) agreement with the American Action Forum’s finding that the Senate bill will increase per capita income by $1700 after ten years.

If these illegal aliens are such entrepreneurs and such a potential economic boon to our economy, why doesn’t that show in the economies of the nations of their origin? Why haven’t they stayed and fought to improve conditions in their native land? Why hasn’t America already experienced great economic improvements, since millions of illegal aliens have been here for decades? Does anyone really believe that the majority of this current massive group of illegals will fight any harder for the salvation of America, politically and economically or otherwise, than they did for their own country?

While I generally believe all people are assets with something to offer any workforce, I must agree with Ms Ann Coulter’s assessment in April 2013, when she stated that legalizing the current illegal alien population would only be an economic boon to people who “benefit from slave labor.” In 2010, Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda at the Center for American Progress released an analysis concluding that unskilled workers in the U.S. would make $400 more annually, if the illegal immigration population were reduced by one-third; another analysis by the Federal Reserve revealed that as illegal immigrant labor increased from 4% to 7% in Georgia, between 2000 and 2007, wages dropped 2.5% overall and 11% in construction jobs during this period.

Typically, low-skilled immigrants do entry-level work, and they do not directly compete with the native born U.S. citizen. But, the current economic recession has changed the jobs market, as 100 million Americans now receive food subsidies and close to 20 million are unemployed, with millions more under-employed. The labor participation rate has dropped from 63% in 2007 to 54% currently, and competition for jobs has increased from 1.5 job seeker per job to 5.0, without accounting for under-employed or discouraged workers. Under these conditions, it is unethical for any Congressman or Senator to grant full job market access and permanent legal status to 30 million largely unskilled illegal aliens at the expense of the American taxpayer and the American worker!

Times have changed, and yet, in many respects, they have stayed the same, as seen in this 1995 quote from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, still applicable today: “It is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers, because the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged workers.” And, eighteen years later, U.S. politicians continue to ignore this warning, as they bow to every corporation and special interest rather than listen to their constituents and taking a realistic look at the illegal alien effect on poverty and the American worker.

Even should I or millions of Americans be compassionate or stupid enough to accept the dire economic consequences for decades that will follow any legitimacy or amnesty granted these illegal aliens, we should not accept Chuck Schumer’s and Harry Reid’s massive pork-spending measures that they placed in the Senate bill, and we should not cower in the face of blackmail and threats, such as the civil unrest and violence Senator Robert Menendez promised would be delivered, if the bill was not passed; many Americans would be more inclined to respond to a request for immigration reform based on humanitarian reasoning, than demands from foreigners holding signs that read in Spanish, “Cuidadania para los 11 millones” and United We Dream activist Lorella Praeli’s statement, “We have come today to claim our citizenship”: As far as I’m concerned, they can claim their damn ticket home to Mexico, Guatemala or wherever!

George W recently echoed the thoughts of Amnesty/Reward proponents, when he stated on July 10, 2013, “The laws governing the immigration system aren’t working. The system is broken.” In 1986 Congress, for the first time, enacted legislation that made it illegal for businesses to hire illegal aliens, and they combined it with border control and de facto amnesty for the illegal alien population, that had been in the U.S. for five years, as Congress hoped to initiate effective immigration control. The system is not “broken”. Congress and the Executive have simply refused to enforce the law, and they have failed the nation and the American people. We have been here before; we are here once again.

Obama does not represent the American people or the Office of the President, as he refuses to uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution and to enforce any law he does not like. In a July 2011 speech to LARAZA, Obama stated that he would like to “bypass Congress and change the (immigration) laws. So, the House Republican leaders have good reason not to trust any promises emanating from this administration.

As White House directed pressure mounts in the House, the next few months will prove critical in whether or not Amnesty/Reward is stopped. Speaker Boehner has already said that the Republican majority did not intend to even consider the Senate bill. The “comprehensive immigration” issue should eventually die from a lack of new momentum, as long as Republicans approach any immigration legislation in segments and facets of the issue. And actually, doing nothing is better than completely changing immigration law and policy by ingraining “amnesty” into our legal foundation and rewarding thirty (11?) million illegal aliens, who broke U.S. law; allowing any House bill to go to conference with the Senate bill will only result in amnesty, and it will send the message, “If you can get here and stay here, the U.S. will eventually give you provisional legal status.”  Not one single American should be able to acquiesce to the legalization of illegal aliens and placing the illegals’ interests ahead of all legal applicants and the best interest of these United States, in good conscience: Christian compassion should not aid the Leftist “open borders” agenda, and it should not dictate that we all commit national economic suicide!

Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.” – ‘America the Beautiful’

 
By Justin O. Smith
_________________________
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
Explanatory links added by Editor