Meet the New Boss, Bad As The Old Boss: All Three Candidates for Speaker Have Supported Amnesty. They Need A Good Scare...

Throwing the rascals out is always nice. But sometimes, new rascals move right back in. Whether it’s Stalin replacing Hitler or President Coin reinstituting the Hunger Games after deposing President Snow, the new boss is often the same as the old boss. Sometimes he’s worse.

Currently there are three announced candidates for Speaker in the election to be held October 8: GOP Establishment favorite Kevin McCarthy, House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, and Tea Party favorite Daniel Webster. Unfortunately, all three are on the record supporting Amnesty.

Kevin McCarthy (CA)

McCarthy’s boneheaded comments about the politics behind the Benghazi Committee have lessened his support [ McCarthy's Benghazi gift to team Hillary, by Rachael Bade, Politico, October 1, 2015. But he is still the overwhelming favorite. McCarthy has a respectable B rating from NumbersUSA—but almost all of these positive votes were from his first term in office. His recent voting record is a “D” and he has a D- for the last Congress.

McCarthy was instrumental in drawing up the House Leadership’s pro-Amnesty “principles” in early 2014, and said that his personal view was that immigration reform will “go with legal status that will allow you to work and pay taxes." [ Third-ranking House Republican backs legal status for immigrants, The Hill, January 22, 2014]

McCarthy represents a 35% Hispanic district, a fact that he frequently brags about. Of course, most of these Hispanics cannot vote. When they become citizens, and if they start voting, his seat will not be safe. Probably more significantly, he represents “one of America's top agricultural districts,” as his Congressional website boasts .

Rachel Maddow actually praised

John Derbyshire: A Dismal Anniversary—50 Years Of The Immigration Act Of 1965

A dismal anniversary: On October 3rd, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration Act.

The 1965 Act did two big things, and a multitude of small ones. ustoadmit

The first big thing it did: abolish the old National-Origins quotas, established in 1921, revised in 1924 and 1929. The idea of the quotas was to maintain demographic stability by limiting settlement from any European country to some fixed percent of that country's representation in a recent census.

The 1921 Act used the 1910 census as its benchmark. The 1924 Act used the 1890 census in order to  reduce the quota numbers on South and East Europeans, who it was thought did not make as good citizens as north and west Europeans. The 1929 revision went to the 1920 census.

To present-day sensibilities it all sounds very horrible: "Whaddya mean, an Italian or a Pole doesn't make as good a citizen as a German or Irishman? Whoa!"

But that was then and this is now. And personally, I decline to join in the screaming and fainting. I take the old-fashioned view that a nation has the right to admit for settlement whomever it pleases, on any grounds at all, rational or otherwise. It's up to the people of that nation and their legislators to say who they want to settle. It's not up to foreigners.

If, when I applied for U.S. citizenship in 2001, the immigration authorities had said: "Sorry, pal, we don't like the look of your teeth, and we have enough Brits anyway," it would not have occurred to me that I had any grounds for complaint. I might have wheedled and pleaded a bit—"Come on, just one more won't hurt, and I'll find an orthodontist, I promise"— but if they'd sent me back to Blighty at last I would have understood. This country belongs to Americans. It's for them and their legislators to say who they want joining them.

Those 1920s quotas applied to Europeans, by the way. Americans at that time didn't want immigrants from Africa or Asia at all. A few hundred Read more >>

Memo From Middle America: Trump Connects With Middle Americans. Southern Baptist “Insider” Russell Moore Connects...

I recently attended the Trump rally in Oklahoma City (my son even got close enough to exchange greetings with him!) and I can testify that The Donald has a remarkable ability to connect to ordinary Middle Americans. Many are evangelical Christians, and Trump has been ahead among them in recent polls [ Donald Trump strikes a chord – with evangelicals , by Matt Viser, Boston Globe, September 15, 2015]. But, in another example of “leaders” turning on those they purport to lead, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission,” tells us that “to back Mr. Trump, these [evangelical] voters must repudiate everything they believe.” [ Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values? New York Times, September 17, 2015]

Is Moore saying that any Christian who supports Donald Trump is betraying his Christian faith? As an evangelical Christian, I say that’s outrageous.

Moore of course is a passionate Amnesty supporter. He’s also part of the Evangelical Immigration Table, a pro-Amnesty “evangelical organization” that receives funding from globalist atheist George Soros. And he chose to bash his fellow Christians not in Christianity Today or some other publication that evangelicals actually read, but in the New York Times. Plainly, he’s just virtue-signaling that he’s not like those retrograde, narrow-minded evangelicals in the pews.

Moore admits there shouldn’t be a “religious test” for office and notes that “my Baptist ancestors were willing to make alliances with the heretical Thomas Jefferson” over religious liberty. But he claims Trump is different because:
We should… ask about his personal character and fitness for office. His personal morality is clear, not because of tabloid exposés but because of his own boasts. His attitude toward women

The Baby Butchers and Their Media Butchers

"I'd say a lot of people want liver."

The propagandists of Planned Parenthood don't want you to remember that earlier this summer the group apologized for the "tone" of one of its top officials, Deborah Nucatola, who casually hawked unborn baby parts to undercover journalists from the Center Read more >>

Putin: American Critics Of Bush Wars Were Right

"Do you realize now what you have done?"

So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.

Fourteen years after we invaded
More Articles...
Your Personal Patriot Pack

Stand up against Cultural Marxism and celebrate America!

Help with your donations today - and get your Personal Patriot Pack
Donate $75
Donate $125