The reality is as oppressive as it is instructive: If you want to know what life will be like when the left controls ALL of American society, simply look at how the left uses its power to suppress dissident thought on university campuses.
At California’s San Jose State University recently, a book critical of the global warming hoax was burned in public to show that no dissent is allowed from the global-warming- is-destroying-the-planet mantra – and the burning was done not by students but by two professors from the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science.
No one should be surprised that the two professors have not been disciplined for their action. In fact, they probably got high-fives from their colleagues in the faculty lounge.
Higher education in America is in crisis, but the crisis goes largely unreported – and it has nothing to do with escalating tuition costs. The crisis in higher education is the abandonment of standards resulting from the tyranny of political correctness.
Book burning is one manifestation of this tyranny, but other incidents of violence and intimidation area regular occurrence if you are paying attention.
The contemporary university claims the right to police itself in the name of academic freedom. The problem is that the people responsible for maintaining standards and overall governance, the trustees and regents, have largely abandoned traditional roles and standards in deference to the new orthodoxies that are defined by and enforced by political correctness.
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo explains motivation behind plan to bring millions to U.S.
Many political commentators are feigning surprise at the large number of waivers, exemptions and “unreviewable discretion” written into the Senate’s 844-page amnesty bill. No one should be surprised: No amnesty bill in history has ever had its enforcement provisions implemented after the amnesty was granted.
The debate over the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, S.744, has centered on the weak border security provisions, but in truth, that is almost a distraction. Enforcement problems permeate every aspect of the amnesty bill.
The first Senate committee hearing on the amnesty bill should serve as a wake-up call for Sen. Rubio. All amendments aimed at setting honest enforcement “triggers” were voted down. Rubio has been promising the conservative critics of the bill that “its weaknesses will be fixed.” Well, evidently not.
It turns out that the other members of his “gang” have no interest in fixing the bill. Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham voted with Sen. Schumer and other Democrats to scuttle any strengthening of the bill’s border security features. So much for the Gang of Eight’s willingness to help Rubio keep his promises for genuine, enforceable border security guarantees.
But why is any of this a surprise to anyone? The reality is that no amnesty bill acceptable to Democrats and President Obama will have meaningful enforcement provisions – not on border security, not on employer sanctions, not on our five million visa overstays, not on any significant problem the bill is supposed to “fix” in our “broken immigration system.”
Considering the shockingly low priority attached to border security in the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill, it ought to be titled the “Jihadists Empowerment Act of 2013.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Surprise! Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and other guardians of political correctness have declared a taboo against linking the two jihadist Muslim terrorists in Boston to our failed immigration policies.
Two young Muslim immigrants have been identified as the culprits behind the Boston Marathon slaughter. Using homemade “backpack” bombs constructed on the models in al-Qaida training manuals, they killed three people, maimed a dozen others and injured over 170. Yet, our nation’s lawmakers are not supposed to worry about how the immigration system allows legal entry to thousands of individuals from territories infested with jihadist training camps?
Sen. Schumer has reasons to be worried. His 844-page amnesty bill is in enough trouble already without these uninvited guests crashing the Schumer-Rubio Happy Hour.
Americans not infected by the common disease Potomac Myopia can connect the dots. Ordinary folk assume that a successful immigration system should afford protection against jihadists, not a welcome mat. When citizens say they want our broken immigration system fixed, they think that means securing our borders, real enforcement of immigration laws and better screening against jihadists gaining legal status by way of a green card.
The political reaction to the horrific news out of Boston should serve to alert Americans to this unpleasant fact: Sens. Schumer, Rubio and other members of the “Gang of Eight” have different priorities. Most citizens will be shocked to find out that the bill this “Gang” introduced this past week, S.744, actually makes it easier, not more difficult, to enter the United States illegally and then obtain legal status and citizenship.
The cornerstone of the Republican appeal to former immigrants who are now voters should be this challenge: Join us in preserving America as the land of personal freedom and economic opportunity, not a place that more and more resembles the socialist and communist failures from which you fled.
In the next few days you will have to make one of the most important decisions of your political career. You will have to decide whether or not to endorse the amnesty bill produced by the Senate “Gang of Eight,” or walk away from it as a bad bargain and a betrayal of your principles.
I can offer you three good reasons for walking away from the deal, and then I want to make you an offer of a better deal – a deal that is good for the Republican Party, good for the country and, therefore, good for Marco Rubio.
The Schumer-Menendez “Gang of Eight” amnesty plan is none of those things. It is bad public policy, a bad bargain for the Republican Party and a very bad gamble for Marco Rubio.
The Schumer-Menendez plan is bad for the country because it is a foolish repeat of the mistakes of the dishonest 1986 amnesty deal. Its most glaring weakness is the one a certain senator from Florida warned against repeatedly over the past year: It does not require genuine border security as a precondition for the legalization of 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants.
Make no mistake: It is legalization that is the main prize, not a green card. Everyone knows that after legal status is granted it will never be revoked – so the only political incentive for achieving true border security has been removed.
“When I endorsed Rand Paul, I did not expect to agree with him on every issue. I respect people with strongly held beliefs regardless of what they are. Most importantly, I felt that I could trust him to maintain his campaign promises. I was wrong.” Tom Tancredo
In 2010, I endorsed Rand Paul for US Senate, and my Political Action Committee that supports anti-amnesty candidates contributed to and raised money for his campaign. Rand Paul’s platform stated that “I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws.” He supported Arizona’s SB 1070, opposed birthright citizenship, an “electronic fence” and stated that “our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border.”
Now, I am regretting my endorsement and contribution to his campaign. Since Obama’s reelection, Rand Paul has repeatedly waffled on immigration. In a speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, he completely flip-flopped.
Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there. His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine. He said our conversation on immigration must begin “by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.” He said he opposed amnesty, but then went on to promote just that arguing “The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.”
The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants. Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegals to, in Mitt Romney’s words, “self-deport.”
So, how well is this new emphasis on “social integration” working out? In a recent survey by the Pew Research Hispanic Center, over half of young Hispanics (under age 40) declined to identify themselves as Americans, not even hyphenated Americans. This included not only recent immigrants but second and third generation native-born Hispanics as well.
We haven’t heard much about assimilation of immigrants lately. If that seems odd, there is a reason for the silence.
There is no “assimilation debate” because assimilation as a policy goal of our civic culture has already been abandoned.
The new watchword is “integration.” The integration of immigrants has replaced assimilation in the lexicon of not only the United States government but the private-sector institutions dealing with immigration.
Of course, this multiculturalist subversion of our civic vocabulary can be seen in other areas of public life as well. For example, the left has been advancing a new, much narrower meaning for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Under the imperatives of Obamacare, freedom of religion now means only freedom of worship, and many religious leaders have accepted this constriction. They may wake up when their churches begin receiving their first property tax bills.
Yet, this makeover is not something that was started by the Obama administration. It has been under way for more than a decade, promoted by first multiculturalists in the universities, followed by foundations and immigration attorneys. The process went unnoticed because good citizens and patriots were asleep at the wheel.
Tom Tancredo and Dennis Michael Lynch talk with Andrew about violence on the border. “While you’re interviewing us, hundreds of people are coming across the border. This is not something that I made up, this is something that I saw and filmed. And yet, I can’t get my film out, because nobody wants you to see it.” Dennis Michael Lynch
Maybe we ought not to put too much energy into the “immigration debate.” Obama will enforce the parts of the law he likes and disregard the rest. So, why get too excited over the details of any new immigration plan? It’s so yesterday, dude.
We won’t see it in any headline, but immigration is dead.
You can’t have immigration without immigrants, and we no longer have immigrants, we have only migrants. Everyone is a migrant. We all migrate at some time, from town to town, state to state, region to region and country to country. It’s all the same. Really, when you think about it, we’re all just citizens of the world, and borders are artificial and illusory.
Thus, since immigration is dead, it may be a waste of time to have another national debate over “immigration reform.” Congress has killed immigration through indifference, and Obama has done a victory dance on its grave.
If you think immigration is not yet dead, consider the total insignificance of immigration law. Under Obama, who rules by executive fiat, immigration law is now without meaning. And borders? They are irrelevant. Every international airport is legally and functionally part of our border, and more people arrive from foreign countries at airports than at ports of entry on our land borders. Any foreign national who can get a tourist visa, student visa, business travel visa or refugee visa can cross our border legally and take up residence – and never be asked to leave.
Former five-term congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo declared, “Sadly, when the dust settles and all the arguments are considered, there is only one conclusion to be reached: Roberts surrendered constitutional standards in favor of the cultural standards of the nation’s power elite.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
He single-handedly delivered the swing vote to approve Obamacare and perhaps even crushed the American health system that has been the envy of the world.
WND has selected U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. for its first-ever Benedict Arnold Award.
“There are lots of bad guys out there who would qualify as ‘Villain of the Year,’ but precious few candidates for the ‘Benedict Arnold Award,’” explained WND Vice President and Managing Editor David Kupelian. “Benedict Arnold, after all, was a good guy; he was an American general in the Revolutionary War who fought valiantly on behalf of the Continental Army – that is, until, for reasons yet unknown, he defected to the British side and betrayed the cause he had formerly served.”
Kupelian added, “That pretty much describes Justice Roberts, who gained the enthusiastic support of conservatives and other Constitution-lovers by virtue of his earlier rulings and judicial temperament, and yet betrayed that trust in a devastating way. And we still don’t know why he did it.”
On June 28, 2012, Roberts joined the left of the Court in a dramatic 5-4 decision to uphold President Obama’s signature legislation. The Court ruled that Obamacare’s individual mandate is not constitutional under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, but is reasonably considered a tax valid under Congress’ authority to “lay and collect taxes.”
Exclusive: Tom Tancredo calls on patriots to better battle ‘systemic media bias’. Dropping out is not an alternative: first because it is cowardly, and second because the new totalitarianism will not leave you alone. You can run, but you can’t hide.
The cynicism promoted by our arrogant and shameless media establishment is creating an atmosphere of desperation among a growing number of citizens. When people feel totally disenfranchised, they may not stop at letter writing. Some will resort to violence. If there is blood in the streets as a result of the accelerating assault on our Constitution, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of our media establishment.
The Romney defeat was not caused by some defect in “messaging.” Folks, it’s not the message, it’s the messenger – and the messenger is the mainstream media, not talk radio. Like it or not, the average American and the average voter – by which I mean the 90 percent who do not follow politics or issues closely –still follows politics and elections through the mass media.
We saw something new in the 2012 presidential campaign. Yes, media bias has been a problem for decades, but it has crossed a threshold. The mainstream media are not only increasingly partisan and increasingly shameless in their partisanship. They have consciously taken on the mission of blocking and distorting the conservative message to marginalize, obstruct and defeat any dissent from the leftist agenda.
The really bad news is that there is no easy solution.
Glenn continued, “listen to me. It is worse than universal health care. And in the coming days as we get closer, we will explain why it’s worse than universal health care. It is the death nail of the country. There’s no recovery from this one. None. No recovery."
Adam Carolla knows liberal media bias exists because he’s seen it up close and personal. So when he watches the mainstream press ignore President Barack Obama’s hypocrisy he simply chalks it up to more of the same.
Find out how the negativity and self-loathing of modern Hollywood is just a small gear in the machine that brings down entire nations. What can we do about it? Well, we can walk right into the heart of Mordor and destroy the Ring of Power.