Why the White House Wants Amnesty

According to statistics provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, President Obama has now significantly decreased the number of illegal immigrants aged under 18 deported or turned away at the border. That statistic has decreased some 488% under President Obama, from 8,143 the last year of President Bush’s administration to 1,669 last year. Meanwhile, the Bush administration deported some 600 minors on average each year; Obama deported 95 last year.

Those statistics demonstrate that George W. Bush was dramatically lax on illegal immigration. But they also demonstrate that President Obama is even more lax – and that laxity has resulted in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors pouring across America’s southern border.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to promote higher spending, placing more and more Americans on the public rolls. In 2013, a record one out of five American households used food stamps. A record number of Americans were dependent on the federal government with regard to their higher education debt. Overall, a full 49 percent of Americans receive some form of federal benefits.

Adding millions of illegal immigrants to the public rolls – which will happen in terms of lower education and healthcare by necessity – will skyrocket spending. Which is the plan. Many on the right believe that Democrats are pursuing the so-called Cloward-Piven strategy, in which sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven posited that by overloading welfare rolls, the Democratic Party would be forced to take heavy federal welfare action to save state and local governments.

But this strategy isn’t what Democrats are up to. Cloward-Piven’s goal was to create impetus for government to guarantee a universal living. The modern Democratic Party is significantly less interested in guaranteed benefits than for an economic leveling. The motivating factor of the left is not caring for the poor but tearing down the wealthy. The philosophy of the Democratic Party was embodied by Barack Obama’s response to a moderator question in 2008: “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

Fairness. Not prosperity. Fairness.

And so the Democrats will move to bankrupt the system. No welfare state can survive with open borders. That is a truism. And yet that’s exactly what Democrats are now promoting: open borders with a full welfare state. Why? Not because Democrats believe that the homegrown poor in America will be better off with more people joining them on the dole; they won’t. Rather, Democrats love the size and scope of the state and despise the rival the state faces in individual success. A growing welfare base requires higher taxation, more degradation of individual success. That is the goal.

It is the goal of the left’s hero of the moment, Thomas Piketty, who seeks a global tax on wealth in order to heal “inequality” – not to bring prosperity. It is the goal of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who suggests that all wealth is communal, and none is individual:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. 

Obviously, none of this does anything worthwhile for immigrants who come here to seek prosperity rather than fairness. But the rise in illegal immigration certainly creates impetus for higher taxes, more economic leveling, and a decline in prosperity for purposes of fairness. The Obama administration isn’t merely taking advantage of a good crisis. They’re creating one in order to do so.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgFollow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Terrorists, Not Technocrats

Recently, Hamas affiliated terrorists kidnapped and murdered three teenagers in Judea and Samaria, including a U.S. citizen. The students, identified as Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaer, and Naftali Frankel were abducted and killed as they were on their way home from school in Hebron. 

But, in spite of these recent murders, the Obama administration continues to jump through hoops to legitimize the perpetrators of this crime in order to provide them with financial support.

When asked to comment on the death of these teens and the escalation of violence, State Department official Jen Psaki stated that the administration would continue their support for the Palestinian government, citing that Palestinians “are making every effort” to reject violence and reiterating the line that the new Palestinian government is a “technocratic government that doesn’t involve members of Hamas.”

The term ‘technocrat’ is the latest buzzword for administration officials when describing the new Palestinian unity government. In an attempt to find loopholes in the language of American Law regarding Hamas, the administration has been using the term “technocrat” to describe the members of the new unity government.

Administration officials aren’t the only ones using this terminology.  Recently, in an interview on Canadian television, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon when she told a Toronto audience that she supported the Obama administration’s decision to continued funding of the new Palestinian unity government.  She went on to call the new government officials are “largely technocrats” and cited that they’re “academics” that “don’t represent… hard-core Hamas leadership.”

But what is a Technocrat?

A technocrat is an expert who exercises managerial authority in the fields of their respective ministries. The modern concept of a technocrat grew from works of science fiction first developed in the 1920’s.  The concept grew throughout the 1930’s to becoming a full fledge movement.  The term has recently grown very popular in Europe, specifically in Greece and Italy.

In a technocracy, power is placed in the hands of scientist, engineers and other experts in the field in which the hold power. In essence, it is a highly educated bureaucracy.  The theory is premised on the idea that a Ministry of Health would be run by doctors, teachers would run a Ministry of Education and so forth. 

This idea of a technocrat wrongly dismisses the idea that one can be an expert at a particular discipline and still be a terrorist.  Unfortunately for the Obama administration, they are not mutually exclusive ideas.  Not all terrorists are uneducated simpletons.  For example, Humam al-Balawi, who perpetrated a suicide attack on the Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan in 2009, was a medical doctor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy and al-Qaeda’s chief strategist is a trained surgeon.  In fact, all of Hamas’s leaders are university graduates and several have advanced degrees.

The White House has decided not only to discount the death of these three young boys, they have also decided to skirt U.S. law and provide financial support to a terrorist entity by describing them as experts via science-fiction terminology. 

According to U.S. law, aid must be cut from any Palestinian government where Hamas holds “undue influence” unless Hamas complies with a set of strict criteria.  Hamas has played a central role in new unity government.  They have exercised their influence by identifying, appointing, and even calling for the resignation of these ministers. Yet, they have yet to meet the criteria U.S. law requires for legitimization – including the recognition of Israel right to exist.

Hamas is an openly anti-Semitic terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for countless vicious terrorist acts against innocent Israeli civilians.  They were founded under a platform, which calls for the death of Jews and the complete destruction of Israel.

It is important that the administration change course and classify the newly formed unity government as a terrorist organization, until the Palestinians stop associating with terrorist, violence, and can show their willingness to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. 

Additionally, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a presidential run, it would behoove her to recognize the failings of this administrations foreign policy – which she helped direct for four years – and change course with her rhetoric. Mrs. Clinton should realize that calling Hamas terrorists by another name does not make them any less dangerous. 

Alex VanNess is the Manager of Public Information for the Center for Security Policy.  



Source: Breitbart Feed

How the Fourteenth Amendment Empowers Congress to End Birthright Citizenship

If an illegal alien has a child on American soil, the Constitution does not require the child be granted American citizenship. Congress can give citizenship to anyone it wants, but the Fourteenth Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country.

Part of the chaos on America’s southern border is driven by illegal aliens seeking to have “anchor babies.” Under the current Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), if an illegal alien has a baby on U.S. soil, that baby is an American citizen.

Since all citizens have a right to be here, the illegal adult then cites the need to keep families together as justifying the parents’ staying in the U.S. for the rest of their lives, and “family reunification” is cited as grounds for bringing the rest of the family to the United States.

However, Congress could change that law any time, because it goes far beyond what the Constitution commands. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law. Current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

But if the view promoted by the Left that citizenship is automatic (and parroted by many in the middle and even on the Right who have not seriously studied the issue) is correct, then those three exceptions would be unconstitutional. The debate over birthright citizenship turns on what the Citizenship Clause means by the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Every provision of the Constitution has a fixed meaning. Because only “We the People” can adopt a constitutional provision—all 27 amendments in the Constitution were proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, then ratified by three-fourths of the states—the only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution is in accordance with the original meaning of those terms.

So the question becomes: What was the meaning of the Jurisdiction Clause in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified? One of the best tools for determining that is looking at the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted the same year that the Fourteenth Amendment was written by Congress.

As anyone who has seen the award-winning (and historically accurate) movie Lincoln understands, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and unwavering resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the Great Emancipator succeeded in getting the proposed amendment through Congress and to the states for ratification.

As my coauthor Ken Blackwell and I explain in more detail in our 2011 book Resurgent, the Civil Rights Act was first enacted by citing Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment, which authorized Congress to implement the amendment through appropriate legislation.

The Civil Rights Act included a provision to define American citizenship to secure it for former slaves. It read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

But some supporters of racial equality were concerned that the Thirteenth Amendment didn’t authorize legislation that went beyond eliminating various aspects of slavery and even voted against the bill because they regarded it as unconstitutional. Led by one of the best constitutional lawyers in Congress, Rep. John Bingham (R-OH), they wrote what would be ratified in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, including the Citizenship Clause and its Jurisdiction Clause.

The movie Lincoln vividly portrays the political environment in 1865, illustrating why more expansive language—such as for citizenship, due process, equal protection, or voting rights—would have doomed the Thirteenth Amendment. All those had to wait for the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Conventional wisdom says that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes from citizenship those who have diplomatic immunity or who are agents of a foreign country, explaining the three exemptions in federal law (ambassadors, heads of state, and foreign soldiers).

But the Civil Rights Act’s parallel language, “and not subject to any foreign power,” instead shows the Jurisdiction Clause excludes all citizens of any foreign country. The Citizenship Clause was intended to overrule the most infamous Supreme Court case in American history—the 1857 Dred Scott case—and ensure the free blacks born in America could not be denied citizenship. It was never designed to make a citizen of every child born to a foreigner.

The Supreme Court expressly took note of this originating language of the Civil Rights Act in the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins. The Court acknowledged that Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was condensed and rephrased from the Civil Rights Act and therefore that courts can look to that federal statute to resolve ambiguities in the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This came up again in the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, when the federal government attempted to deny permanent residence to an American citizen born to two Chinese noncitizens. The Supreme Court held that the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship for “all children here born of resident aliens.”

While that decision is incorrect in light of the Civil Rights Act, even Wong Kim Ark nonetheless would not secure citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. The only Supreme Court support for birthright citizenship is Plyler v. Doe, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision written by ultra-liberal Justice William Brennan, which claimed that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

In that case, the Supreme Court held that states were required to pay for the public school education of children of illegal aliens. Conservative and moderate justices dissented from Plyler. It was wrongly decided and poorly reasoned and should be overruled.  

While some conservative lawyers believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires birthright citizenship, many conservative giants like Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese support the originalist interpretation of the Jurisdiction Clause part of the Citizenship Clause. Leading conservative scholars like Professor John Eastman—a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas—agree.

Even some who flatly reject conservatism agree. One example is Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Although a Reagan appointee, Posner’s hallmark is making decisions in accordance with what he regards as producing good public policy outcomes, rather than strictly following the clear meaning of the words in the law.

On this topic, Posner wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:

We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship…

A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it…

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.

If a constitutional conservative Republican wins the White House, and Republicans control both the House and Senate, then as part of finally dealing with immigration Congress could enact this change.

First must be a statute that effectively secures the border. A second statute should address citizenship. Then a third could be a statute creating a broad and generous guest-worker program.

Each bill would save the United States billions of dollars per year. Consequently, each could be passed in the Senate through what is called “reconciliation,” and therefore could not be filibustered and instead passed with 51 votes. With 218 House members, 50 senators (plus the vice president), and a willing president, all this could become law in 2017.

Congress could specify that children of illegal aliens are not citizens or could go more broadly to include some or all legal temporary residents. It would certainly help garner conservative votes for follow-up legislation for a broad guest worker program if federal law specified that any children born to those guest workers would not be citizens and thus not anchor babies.

Such a law would provoke a lawsuit from parents of the child who does not receive citizenship due to the new law. It is not certain how the Supreme Court would rule on this question today, especially since it may require overruling Plyler. But there is a good chance it would succeed, and given how far out of control the border is, many would argue we must try everything possible.  

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News and coauthor of Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America (Simon & Schuster 2011). Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.




Source: Breitbart Feed

VA staffers ignored veterans’ needs so they could work on ObamaCare

The two biggest, most corrupt disasters in the history of Big Government collide, as whistleblower Scott Davis from the Atlanta branch of the VA tells the same story we’ve heard many times before, from around the country – 17,000 veterans’ applications for health care were hidden or destroyed, to cook the books and make top officials look good – and then drops this bombshell in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News:

Cavuto: When you say to hit goals, is the goal a dollar goal or is it get the applications complete? Sometimes keep on top of this so there are no delays, or is it keep on top of it and get rid of something that could hurt our numbers?

Davis: Well, for what I’ve witnessed, it’s based on a performance goal.

Cavuto: How is that performance measured?

Davis: That performance is measured based on our ability to turn around an application from beginning to end within a five-day turn around. There’s an acceptable percentage that we have to have, which is in excess of 80% for all applications that comes into that office. What you find is that there’s extensive pressure on the staff to process applications, to focus our attention to applications based on specific campaigns. For example, I shared with your producer that we actually put incoming applications aside so we could focus on the ACA related applications that came in over last summer. That’s wrong. We should treat each veteran equally and focus on applications, as they come in, not because of special campaigns coming out of D.C.

Wonderful!  The VA system was already stuffing vets into closets to goose their performance stats, while hundreds of thousands of them awaited treatment… and now it turns out manpower from that decrepit system was looted to keep the equally decrepit ObamaCare boondoggle running.  

That Cavuto transcript is from Truth Revolt, which also quotes from an Atlanta Journal-Constitution interview with Davis (original here, but behind a paywall) in which he describes the dismal attitude prevalent across the VA network: “We don’t discuss veterans. We do not work for veterans. That is something that I learned after working there. Our customer is the VA central office, the White House and the Congress. The veterans are not our priority. So whatever the initiatives are or the big ticket items, that is what we focus on.”

Well, in that case, personnel from the VA should fit neatly into the ObamaCare hierarchy, because that’s all about central power in Washington, too.  We’ve already been treated to the spectacle of Democrats telling sick people to quit complaining about their shabby treatment by the ObamaCare bureaucracy, declaring that as a matter of soulless Democrat ideology, those people don’t exist at all.  If you should happen to die while waiting for your lawsuit against ObamaCare to crawl through the system, please do it without making any more political problems for the President and his Party – they’re looking at a tough enough November as it is.  Tell me you can’t see that attitude leading to secret death lists kept by bureaucrats who collect fat bonuses for their outstanding performance, just like at the Department of Veterans Affairs… not just in one facility, but from coast to coast.

Government of, by, and for the government, with the people an afterthought: coming soon to an ObamaCare-ravaged medical facility near you.




Source: Breitbart Feed

D’Souza, Dyson Debate the Merits of Progressive Critiques of America

To promote the recent launch of his movie “America,” filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza appeared in a debate with liberal Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson on Sunday’s “This Week” on ABC to discuss the criticisms aimed at “America” and whether or not they were with merit or just an attack on the nation itself.

Transcript as follows:

RADDATZ: And Dinesh D’Souza joins us live, as well as Georgetown University professor, Michael Eric Dyson, who’s interviewed in the film. Welcome to both of you. Mr. D’Souza, let me start with you. The majority of this film seems to be a defense against those who question anything about this country’s history. Don’t you have to look back, especially at something like slavery, acknowledge what happened, before you can move forward?

D’SOUZA: Oh, absolutely. And, actually, in the beginning of the film, we have numerous critics of America, you included, Noam Chomsky, a Native American activist. And we lay out the case against America very passionately and without me making any defense. But I think that the film then turns around and address the critics and makes points that get neglected. So, for example…

RADDATZ: Pretty quickly, it moves on. I’ve watched it, as I told you…

D’SOUZA: Yes, it does.

RADDATZ: — I watched the entire film.

D’SOUZA: Well, it does…

RADDATZ: It moves on very quickly.

D’SOUZA: The reason is that the critique is so well known. In fact, it’s drummed into young people endlessly in schools and in colleges. What’s missing is the answer to it. So, for example, when Martin Luther King said I’m submitting a promissory note and I demand it be cashed, what was he talking about?

Actually, he was talking about “The Declaration of Independence.” So the reform movements in America to change things have not been breaks with the American founding, they have been returns to the American founding. So that’s what the film is. It’s a defense of the spirit of 1776, the same spirit that brought me to America as an immigration to live a kind of life unavailable elsewhere in the world.

DYSON: Well, look, to say that there’s not a discontinuity between Martin Luther King, Jr. and the larger American compact and — and project is absolutely right. The problem is, it’s not the left that said that. It’s not progressives that’s — that have made that claim, it’s people on the right. Now, they will make an exception for Martin Luther King, Jr., but those of us who are critics of the American state don’t believe that America is a nation doomed to its own — hoisting its on its own petard.

We’re saying that, look, if you love America, as James Baldwin said — he said I love America more than any other nation in this world, therefore, I reserve the right to criticize her relentlessly. And I think the point you began with is something that we should remember, that those who are critics of America don’t hate the nation, they love the nation. They want to love it into a better future.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, the night before he was murdered, America, be true to what you said on paper. If the litmus test of authentic patriotism is the commitment to an ideal and a goal that furthers the conversation about all people participating equally, then that’s the kind of conversation that we have. He shouldn’t be demonized and others who succeed in his, you know, who are successors to him, should not be demonized for their questioning.

RADDATZ: — I — I want to move on, quickly, because we don’t have too much time on this. At the end of your film, you make a turn to politics more directly. And — and you essentially have a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama turning this nation into a socialistic nation, something you said started when Hillary Clinton was in college.

D’SOUZA: Yes. It’s not a conspiracy theory, right here, a lot of people think that Hillary is like Bill. They go, well, we kind of want Billary back in the White House because — and the point we make in the film is, no, there’s actually a bridge connecting Hillary to Barack. And that bridge is Saul Alinsky.

Now, many of us develop our political ideas in our formative years. I was a young Reaganite in the early ’80s. Obama talks about standing at his father’s grave and having a sort of moment of revelation. Hillary met Saul Alinsky in high school. She brought him to Wellesley College. She wrote her thesis on him. So we’re not inventing a connection between Alinsky and Hillary, they’re — the connection is well-documented.

What we show in the film is rare footage of Alinsky…

RADDATZ: Professor — just quickly, we have about 30 more seconds.

DYSON: Well, here’s the reality. Yes, she has interpreted and interpolated Alinsky but she’s not given the suspicions of Mr. D’Souza, somebody who’s trying to bring down the American government. She’s trying to make that rare act of a politician in public, to bring ideas to bear upon the forces that prevailed that helped the nation become its best self and to work against the — the demons that are of the speaking, if you will, a negative impact on America.

So Alinsky, in terms of his impact on Obama and Hillary Clinton, I’m sure the Alinskyites would say it’s barely discernible now in their political lives.

RADDATZ: Thank you both.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor




Source: Breitbart Feed