Saturday, December 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton and Her Dangerous Deeds: The Question of Immigration Limits

Illinois Review ^ | December 12, 2015 A.D. | John F. Di Leo 

Hillary Clinton, along with her allies in the mainstream media, have taken great delight in attacking Republicans lately, on the subject of Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s (and others’) calls for restrictions on muslim immigration … especially in light of the Obama Administration’s current efforts to import tens of thousands of un-vettable alleged Syrian “refugees” in the midst of a war.
Never mind that no country EVER allows unchecked immigration from a country with which it is at war. It doesn’t happen, for reasons that are obvious to any conscious individual. The Obama Administration counts on the American people’s willingness to disregard the parade of six thousand years of human civilization, and just accept the parade of “refugees” that could easily include an invasion force and numerous other risks.
A former Secretary of State certainly ought to understand the complexities of identifying multiple alliances in a civil war-torn country as well as anyone, but not her. Mrs. Clinton finds it objectionable that Mr. Trump – and the rest of sane America – opposes unquestioned acceptance of tens of thousands of people from the area of Syria, rather than meekly accepting any massive numbers of unchecked immigration that the Obama Administration wants to welcome in.
Mrs. Clinton fired upon the Republican Party this week for expressing such caution, saying "Now is the time for all of us—especially Republican leaders—to stand up to hateful, dangerous words and deeds."
Her choice of words is fascinating. When Republicans object to such an open borders approach, the Republican concern is in fact rooted in the very “hateful, dangerous words and deeds” of these potential immigrants. Their culture – not necessarily fully accepted by every single individual, of course, but in general – is known worldwide for “hateful, dangerous words and deeds.”
On television news, for decades now, we have watched celebrations in the arab street when American office buildings were bombed; we have watched Islamic terror organizations behead people by the hundreds, toss homosexuals off rooftops, rape women, enslave children, burn captives alive, drown prisoners of war by lowering cages of them into rivers, bomb Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
Our government has an obligation to protect the American people from such risks. That is, in fact, the primary thing that government is for, in the first place. We have enough homegrown risks already, there is certainly no reason to import even more such risks from a distant land.
The islamofascists in question – the jihadists who rule more and more countries in the middle east, at least partially because of the general incompetence and frequently intentionally malevolent efforts of the Obama Administration that she served – pose a massive risk to America, not even for just one reason, though one would be enough, but for many.
Third world immigrants often bring the contamination of distant diseases, long since conquered in the United States through our relative prosperity and vaccination programs. We don’t need to import people with Tuberculosis, Malaria, Typhoid, AIDS, Ebola, or the many other diseases common to much of the world but largely unknown or controlled here.
The known exposure of people in the area of Syria to chemical and biological weapons (which we know that both Assad’s forces and many of his opponents have used) increases the health risks of the particular migrant pool in question. These days, immigrants mingle with the general population immediately, spreading such diseases, increasing both the risk to native Americans’ health and the cost to our strained healthcare system.
Import the people, you import these diseases.
There is always a risk with unchecked immigration, as many countries have a culture of violence or theft that’s imbued in the people from birth… and many countries have criminal organizations that see the United States as a potential market for their drug distribution and their prostitution rings. These are certainly the greatest fears with Latin American immigration today, as they were with Southern Italian and Sicilian immigration a century ago.
Gang recruiters and drug dealers are interspersed amongst the legitimate and honorable immigrants, sometimes at a fearfully high concentration. That’s why immigration is properly controlled at origin, checked at our network of overseas embassies through an immigration visa program.
But we have an especially high risk with islamic countries, because so many of these immigrants were raised in Sharia law, a system in which physical punishment is meted out directly by the imams and mullahs… often the most severe punishment for what we would call the most minor of offenses. Some are indeed be fleeing that system, seeking the human rights we champion here, but too many others want to bring Sharia here, to infect our country with their poisonous legal code.
Do we need people taking it upon themselves, or authorizing their imams, to deal with a gay neighbor by tossing him off a roof, to deal with a daughter who just wanted to date a boy at college by stabbing them both, to deal with a wife who appeared in public without a burqa by beheading her? Make no mistake, that’s what you get with many (not all) from this part of the world.
Import the people, you import these crimes.
Contrary to the creative economic imagination of the Obama Administration, the United States of America are not fifty separate paradises, each with its own Horn of Plenty, able to easily feed, clothe and house an unlimited number of new arrivals.
Our public and private safety nets are both bursting at the seams as they try to support the ninety million outside the work force, the tens of millions of short-and-long-term unemployed and underemployed. We don’t have jobs for a quarter of our own citizens today; we desperately need new jobs, not new workers. As much as we may feel sorry for the world’s poor, the United States cannot be the world’s safety net.
We need to import employers, not employees. Every new arrival either takes a job from someone else or makes it harder for new jobs to be created, by adding to the tax burden of the productive. They may come from a country in poverty, but as long as America is suffering, they bring their home country’s poverty with them. There have been times in our history when we needed more workers, more settlers, but we have never objectively needed more poor people.
Import the people, you import their penury.
The United States of America are already under assault. The George W. Bush Administration was able to successfully prevent further attacks on our soil after the 9-11-2001 attacks, but the Obama Administration has hardly tried – every diligent step the FBI has taken to protect us has been thwarted by others across the Administration.
Since 2009, we have seen more and more terrorist attacks by Islamofascist immigrants and their radicalized homegrown allies… the cabbie at LAX, the highway snipers in Virginia, the army officer in Fort Hood, the television producer in Buffalo, the meat packing employee in Oklahoma, the bombing brothers in Boston, the drive-by at the Chattanooga recruiting office, the San Bernardino newlyweds... how long shall this list be allowed to grow?
We are at war, and rather than fighting on the battlefield, this is how this enemy chooses to fight: by spreading terror in our streets. We have enough risk of this already, we don’t need to increase the risk by intentionally bringing in a population that we know will include a percentage of jihadists.
Import the people, you import the epidemic of terror that has plagued their homelands.
The United States was founded by a certain type of settler… hard working Christian immigrants, seeking new opportunities to break free of the feudal economies, political oppression, and religious persecution of their home countries. Over the centuries, as waves of immigrants have included more and more people lacking that great “Protestant work ethic” and devotion to the libertarian principles of our Founders, the culture of the United States has gradually become diluted. Our culture is too seriously diluted already.
The issue doesn’t have to be racial, ethnic, or religious, as good immigrants can certainly be welcomed from any region of the world… but they must be people who are willing to assimilate into our American culture, not contribute to the nation’s further devolution into the socialist, irreligious morass in which the rest of the world finds itself.
Most countries on earth from which immigrants hail have a culture of crime, dependence, subsistence… a very different view of government and human freedoms than we have, a very different understanding of man’s relationship to his fellow man, and of man’s relationship to the state.
We need more immigrants like our Founders; we don’t need more toxins weakening the greatest national culture in human history. To the extent we need immigrants at all (and with 330 million people already, one could argue that we don’t need more people at all), we need people coming here not for the climate and the cornucopia, but for freedom, mutual respect, and devotion to our American way of life. We don’t need even more people to contribute to our nation’s decline.
Import the people, you import the culture.
Our government, in determining whether or not to consciously open the floodgates to any stream of newcomers, must consider these issues, and they are all arguably most severe in the region under consideration, this war-torn and miserable area of the middle east.
What has created these risks? The Islamofascist philosophy, perhaps not as taught by all, but certainly, as taught by most of its imams and mullahs, is at the heart of the problem. This belief in jihad, in theocracy, is proven by poll after poll to be shockingly widespread across the vast majority of muslims worldwide.
Mrs. Clinton accuses us of “hateful, dangerous words and deeds" for opposing the importation of these risks. On the contrary, we would argue that it’s the “hateful, dangerous words and deeds” of the source pool – the people of the middle east – that create the risks in the first place.
And we maintain that we have an obligation to safeguard American citizens – as well as we can – by controlling the flood of immigrants from that dangerous breeding ground of terror and pain.
We might even argue, in fact, if we read the press releases and speeches of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their allies, that they are the ones guilty of “hateful, dangerous words and deeds" these days, not the rest of us, not by a long shot.
Donald Trump is not alone in calling for restrictions on immigration, and for an absolute ban on immigration from Syria – or even the whole region – until we can get the situation under control. And it’s particularly difficult to get under control, more so than most vetting challenges, because of the muslim requirement for its adherents to practice taquiya.
Almost everyone on the right side of the aisle – and even some courageous ones on the left – is calling for reasonable limits on immigration, in the interest of national security; it’s just that Donald Trump’s speeches are the ones that Ms. Clinton’s allies in the media always choose to cover.
Contrary to the Left’s outrageous claims of bigotry and unconstitutionality, such constraints – by ethnicity, by religion, by geography, by anything – are completely legal and completely consistent with the cause of liberty.
The Left constantly cites the First Amendment’s separation of church and state, but they have never understood it at all. They took a fragment of a sentence in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson, and have built an entire fictional universe of quasi-Constitutional pseudo-law around it.
In fact, the First Amendment is designed to protect the rights of US citizens… from a government that establishes a denomination… that’s all. The text is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Let’s begin by defining “establishment” in the Framers’ context.
"Establishing" means mandating participation in a specific denomination, mandating church attendance, mandating taxpayer funding of that denomination… or mandating its strictly denominational rules by law for everybody, such as, for example, mandating weekly confession to support Catholicism, or mandating peyote-smoking in respect of certain tribal cults, or mandating the complex dietary rules of the Greek Orthodox or the Jewish Hassidim for everyone, or worst of all, instituting the barbaric punishments found in Sharia.
That's "establishing."
So, Congress must not establish a specific religious denomination in the USA. It must not mandate that we be Anglicans or Lutherans or Catholics or Quakers. Our government must not institute the kinds of mandates that drove many of our Founders and their ancestors to these shores in the first place.
That doesn’t mean we don’t respect religion – in fact, we do, and we must, to be American. People can be fine Americans while being Hindu, Mormon, Sikh, Buddhist, or a host of other religions and denominations thereof, or even while being agnostic or atheist, as long as they respect our Founding principles… but the general Judeo-Christian worldview must be acknowledged to be central to our national character.
It’s only the practice of narrowing down that general Judeo-Christian worldview to a single specific denomination that our Founders set out to protect us from, with the First Amendment.
And only now, after absorbing the above, do we move on to the second half of the First Amendment’s proscription: Congress must not outright ban a denomination either, unless it can prove that the denomination is more a political, traitorous, criminal, or enemy organization than a religion meriting protection.
So, just as our government cannot force us to be an Anglican or Lutheran or Catholic or Quaker, our government cannot forbid us from being Anglican or Lutheran or Catholic or Quaker either.
But we have occasionally recognized that a group was more of a criminal organization than a religion, due to Satanic rituals, violent practices, or other institutional criminal activity. Our government can, when it has the courage, focus on the criminal aspects of a cult – its practices of torture, mutilation, enslavement, etc. – and deny it the First Amendment protections that it does not deserve. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Specific to the question at hand – the question of islam, which is, as Dr. Carson has rightly pointed out, to the shock of the media, generally inconsistent with our Constitutional form of governance:
We know that there are muslims who are good citizens and do not support the criminal aspects of islam that are championed by the jihadists. Our government can and should set out to identify which branches are compatible with the American Way and which ones are not, and draw that line in the law. Taquiya makes this particularly difficult, but if we can do it, it is most certainly legal.
But one more key aspect of the Bill of Rights is frequently forgotten: All these First Amendment protections apply only to the government’s actions regarding U.S. citizens. The government is bound by no such rules where foreigners, refugees, and applicants for immigration status are concerned.
We sometimes act as if the Bill of Rights applies to everyone on earth.
It doesn’t!
What is the purpose and function of the Constitution? It was written to organize – and to limit the powers of – the government of the United States, a government which (like any government on earth), only has the ability to govern the people "subject to its jurisdiction." The government of France applies to the French; the government of Canada applies to the Canadians; the government of the USA applies to the people of the USA.
So in the USA, the government has authority over everyone in its geographical bounds, but the Bill of Rights specifically limits the government’s options with U.S. citizens.
The Constitution establishes the form of our federal government, and its Bill of Rights guarantees the protection of American citizens from incursions upon these rights by a hostile Executive, Legislature or Judiciary.
But it cannot protect people outside their jurisdiction, and it cannot be twisted to reduce the rights and security of our citizens, by taking actions in favor of non-citizens.
So, non-citizens – such as illegal aliens, tourists, visitors with visas, applicants for citizenship, refugees, invaders, and frankly, anyone else on earth – do not get the full protection of the Bill of Rights. Not because we're mean, not because we’re unfair, but just because that's not how government works.
Applicants for immigration or refugee status are subject to the jurisdiction of other governments, not ours. They are subjects of the Syrian government, or the Iraqi government, or the Jordanian government, or the Lebanese government, or the Saudi government… unless we welcome them in.
And our government has an obligation – to our Constitution and to our citizenry – to ensure that we unnecessarily open our doors to no additional risks, and to ensure that we think first of our best interests when allowing any immigration to occur.
The federal government of the United States owes nothing to any other person or any other country, outside of what it has agreed to by (legal) treaty.
Contrary to the utopian dreams of the modern American Left, there is no obligation to invite in the world’s poor or the world’s hungry; that ridiculous poem by Emma Lazarus that sits beneath the Statue of Liberty has no legal authority. Our nation, in devising immigration policy, must think first and foremost of what is best for the people of the United States.
Our government may choose to extend some, many, or all of our Constitutional rights to the citizens of friendly countries, and we generally do, in an effort (often by treaty) to receive reciprocal treatment for our own people when traveling abroad. But we don't have to, and the Constitution doesn't protect it.
We want American citizens working in Asia or traveling in Europe to be protected by those governments, so we generally extend our basket of rights – mostly, though not entirely – to their citizens when they work or travel here. Such agreements should be reciprocal.
But such things change in wartime. And our government has always had total latitude in setting any limitation it wants on immigrants and in fact, any other incoming foreigners.
So yes, our President and our Congress can certainly set limits on immigration and on any kind of inbound traffic of non-citizens. They can institute a religious test, an employability test, a health test, a geographic test, or practically any other kind of test desired by the American people. These may sometimes be difficult to administer, but they are only limited by their difficulty, not by their legality.
If the government only wants to allow basketball players of at least 6’6” in height, or bowlers with at least a provable 280 lifetime average, and exclude everyone else – or vice versa – our government can legally do so.
• They can determine that there are already too many immigrants who share a certainly language to assimilate, so we should establish a freeze on that language for a few years.
• Or they can determine that there are certain skills that we desperately need, so we should only accept immigrants with that skill for awhile.
• Or they can determine that a certain “religion” or philosophy is actually a hostile criminal enterprise which would be dangerous or even fatal to American citizens, so its adherents should be banned forever.
Our government can restrict such immigration in any way it thinks right, and it is fully Constitutional to do so.
In short, both Congress and the President, in different ways – and it shouldn’t be too much to ask that they cooperate – certainly do have the power to limit people coming in… if in fact they have the best interests of the American people at heart, as they ought.
The question is not whether they have the authority. The question is whether the necessary majority of them have the courage.
Copyright 2015 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Customs broker and international trade compliance lecturer. A former county chairman of the Milwaukee Republican Party, former president of the Ethnic American Council, and activist movement conservative in the Reagan era, his columns are regularly found in Illinois Review.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included.

Bulletproof: Ted Cruz Rocks Establishment

Conservative Report ^ | December 11, 2015 | Will Stauff 

We are now hearing news of the Empire Striking Back. We are hearing about a brokered convention.
Republican officials and leading figures in the party's establishment are preparing for the possibility of a brokered convention as businessman Donald Trump continues to sit atop the polls in the GOP presidential race.
More than 20 of them convened Monday near the Capitol for a dinner held by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, and the prospect of Trump nearing next year's nominating convention in Cleveland with a significant number of delegates dominated the discussion, according to five people familiar with the meeting.
Weighing in on that scenario as Priebus and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened, several longtime Republican power brokers argued that if the controversial billionaire storms through the primaries, the party's establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight in which the GOP's mainstream wing could coalesce around an alternative, the people said.
This is not about Trump. This is about stopping conservatives from getting the nomination. Trump is just a convenient “boogie man” to scare Republicans into taking the power out of the hands of convention delegates. They will use the same “boogie man” scare tactics that they sold to delegates when they warned people about Ron Paul back in 2012.
The dirty little secret is, If you take a close look at the actual rules for a convention (which are written by the party), you will find out that if the ‘leaders’ of the party decide on a brokered convention, the delegate count doesn’t actually matter. ALL of the delegates could be pledged to ONE candidate, and the ‘leaders’ could at least try to bully them into nominating someone else. The ONLY votes that actually count of those cast by the delegates at the convention, not the votes that choose the delegates.
Ted Cruz and his campaign realized they would be facing this from the Establishment. He did not underestimate them; they have underestimated Ted Cruz’s strength. Here’s what Ted Cruz did to make himself bulletproof from the Establishment’s plan of having a brokered convention.
Ted Cruz started his campaign early and he started with the Evangelical base.
Ted Cruz was the first one to announce his presidency and caught all the other candidates flat footed. Here was Steve Deace’s analysis of Cruz’s launch of his campaign.
For a campaign that wants to make the case it can be the one to build the necessary bridge between disparate factions of the conservative movement, announcing at a school with "liberty" as it namesake, also is a bastion of Christian conservative thought and activism, and is in perhaps the most crucial presidential election swing state - this was messaging jackpot.
The speech itself went over well, but for those that have heard Cruz speak previously it was sort of a compilation of his greatest hits on the stump. It was also a compilation of pretty much everything the average conservative activist thinks and believes to one degree or another. Which shouldn't be a surprise, because unlike other candidates trying to appeal to the conservative base the Cruz phenomenon itself is the conservative base.
When competing in a crowded field of talented alpha-males, it is best to either go right away and make a big first impression, or wait to build anticipation for the last at-bat. There is no doubt other campaigns will be re-assessing their announcement plans after what transpired at Liberty University today. Your standard speech at your local state capitol surrounded by loyalists won't cut it after these theatrics. Team Cruz made themselves "topic A" during a busy Monday news cycle, and instantly showed they're in it to go big or go home.
However, not only are expectations now raised for the candidates that come after Cruz, but for Cruz himself.
Cruz realized that he had to coalesce the fractured evangelical base that was ignored by Mitt Romney in 2012. This was the one group he needed to work on the most and now with the early endorsement of Bob Vanderplatts of The Family Leader, we are finally starting to see the fruits of all that hard work to get this group on board. Cruz has worked very hard on distinguishing himself from the field on issues of abortion and marriage. He has lead the fight on religious liberty. This group has been betrayed long enough. This evangelical army now has a voice. That evangelical voice is angry and is united behind Cruz and Cruz is helping them organize to defeat the Establishment.
Ted Cruz is far ahead of the game in organizing in every state especially the South.
Ted Cruz is the only one organizing in the South like he is. He recognizes this as a huge momentum builder and, it’s going to break the damn and no attempts of a brokered convention are going to be able to stop it. I’m in Georgia and I’m one the 100 county chairs for Ted Cruz’s campaign. I get emails all the time on conference calls and the organization is absolutely breathtaking. It’s like this in every Southern State as well. We are ready for the fight. We are ready to reign down hellfire on the Establishment traitors.
Today, Presidential candidate Ted Cruz announced he now has 100 County Chairs in Georgia, growing his grassroots network all across the state. He has also expanded his Georgia State Leadership Team to include 12 new current and former legislators and four of Georgia's top grassroots leaders who join the campaign as co-chairs. This announcement comes as the Cruz Campaign continues to build a strong grassroots army across the southeast.
"I am encouraged to have the endorsement of so many conservative Georgia leaders," said Cruz. "We are continuing to build the strongest operation in Georgia to get out the message that is resonating with so many Americans. I'm confident that we're building the conservative coalition to compete and win Georgia on Super Tuesday."
"This is an incredibly powerful group of leaders from across Georgia," said State Chair Ralph Hudgens. "It shows that Ted Cruz is the candidate that best reflects our Georgia values in the presidential race and that Georgia is confident a President Cruz will stand up and fight for them."
Many top conservative Reaganite consultants still around to remember, are recognizing that Cruz’s campaign apparatus is stronger than Reagan’s ever was. The Establishment and their whores at the Wall Street Journal do not want conservatives to recognize this. They feel the disturbance in the force.
The March 1 primary has been dubbed the "SEC Primary" after the South's college football conference, and includes Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Mr. Cruz's home state of Texas, along with Oklahoma and Virginia. Texas alone has 155 delegates and all told, 595 delegates will be at stake, the most of any day in the primary season. Most are in deep-red territory that the Cruz campaign sees as friendly terrain.
"It is a perfect map," said Jeff Roe, Mr. Cruz's national campaign manager. "If my daughter was coloring the map for Ted Cruz, she couldn't have done one better."
That worries some Republicans who had hoped the shorter, front-loaded primary calendar would allow Republicans to move quickly to anoint the party's most electable candidate. But now, some party leaders worry it could instead propel candidates who are conservative favorites but ill equipped to beat Hillary Clinton in a general election.
"If we nominate Ted Cruz, we might win just 10 states in a Clinton sweep," said former Rep. Zach Wamp, Tennessee state chairman for Sen. Marco Rubio. "He's one of the least electable of our final four, five candidates. It could be counterproductive."
Ted Cruz is not going after delegates in Guam and The Virgin Islands for his health, he’s preparing for an Establishment threat at the convention if it comes to it.
Ted Cruz has long contended that the GOP nomination fight will be a grueling, drawn-out affair that could stretch all the way to the convention. And he’s taking out an insurance policy just in case.
Cruz is working the most distant corners of the political map, courting Republicans in the farthest-flung U.S. territories in an attempt to meet the requirements of Republican National Committee rule No. 40 (b), an obscure provision that currently stipulates that in order to receive the nomination, a candidate must win majorities of delegates in eight states or territories.

The rule - tweaked in 2012 to thwart potential mischief-making from Ron Paul forces -could be changed again. But for now, since the often overlooked territories count as states for nominating purposes, Cruz is attempting to pick them off to get him closer to the magic number.
“Whether you’re getting Texas, Michigan and Ohio, or the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa, each has an equal voice when it comes to nominating candidates to put them on the ballot at the convention,” said Saul Anuzis, the former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, who is advising the Cruz campaign on territory outreach and delegate counts, and helped orchestrate a recent trip to the Virgin Islands for Cruz’s father, Rafael.
For months, Cruz and his allies have been working the five U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands — through surrogate visits, phone calls and other means. The Texas senator calledthe governor of Guam and dispatched a campaign emissary to American Samoa, located nearly 6,000 miles away from Cruz’s Houston headquarters. Dennis Lennox, a Michigan political operative, spent several weeks in the territories on behalf of the Cruz campaign, holding meet-and-greets, meeting with mayors and party and business leaders and sharing information about Cruz.
The territories offer “a lot of lower-hanging fruit,” explained a GOP strategist supporting Cruz, meaning winning a majority of delegates in those places is a more manageable endeavor than in the mainland states.
The Establishment might try they are not counting on Ted Cruz breaking down the door of the Cleveland Convention, raising the staff of Gandalf The White and Breaking Sarauman’s 30 year Spell that the Establishment has plagued the Republican Party since Reagan left the national stage!
LOTR: The Two Towers - Gandalf breaks Saruman's spell over King Theoden (Video)

Trump's Hysterical Critics Display an Ignorance of Their Own

Real Clear Politics ^ | December 12, 2015 | Rich Lowry 

To believe his critics, Donald Trump has ripped up the U.S. Constitution and sprinkled its shreds on the smoldering embers of what was once the Statue of Liberty.
He did this, of course, by proposing a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States, which might be the most roundly and fiercely denounced idea in America since the British Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts (in 1774).
There is no doubt about it: Donald Trump's proposal is invidious; not all Muslims are a security risk. It is unworkable; among other things, airlines would have to screen travelers from Europe for their religion. It is imprudent; we don't want to send a message of generalized hostility to Muslims.
But it's not unconstitutional. Trump's detractors, and even some of his fellow Republicans, can't help making this charge, even though it betrays a misunderstanding, not just of the Constitution but of the very nature of a sovereign nation.
"We do not discriminate on people based on religion," Ben Carson said in response to Trump's proposal, "that's constitutional, that's in the First Amendment." Of course, he's right. Except the First Amendment isn't a free-floating grant of rights to all of mankind.
We are a sovereign country with the right to exclude whomever we want from coming here. In keeping with this basic attribute of nationhood, a long line of Supreme Court cases have upheld the "plenary power" of the political branches to set immigration policy in any way they please.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Isn't Done Ruining The Country

Patriot News Daily ^ | 12/9/2015 | Staff 

According to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare is set to erase the equivalent of 2 million jobs over the next ten years. At a time when the economy is tottering on the edge of recovery, the report shows that true recovery will not happen as long as this healthcare law is in effect.
The CBO report does not predict that the jobs themselves will be lost. Rather, they said that new expansions and mandates would encourage many employees to drop out of the workforce voluntarily. "Some people would choose to work fewer hours; others would leave the labor force entirely or remain unemployed for longer than they otherwise would," the agency said.
"When the President's health law hurts the labor force at the same time it increases healthcare premiums and taxes, it's clear the law is not working for the American people," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.
The report comes just after the Senate voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That's not possible as long as President Obama remains in office, but it is a sign that Republicans are starting to get serious about moving past this destructive legislation. House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week that he intended to come out with a replacement plan next year.
Of course, we've heard all the big talk before, and there's no reason to believe that anything will change. Until we have a president who makes significant changes, the law will stay in place. A replacement is desperately needed, but it's not as if there aren't any ideas out there. Several conservative think tanks have come out with replacement plans, and Senator Ted Cruz last year came out with a healthcare proposal that would put more choice back into the hands of the customer.
We have been lucky as it pertains to the economy. It may not seem like it, but it's a miracle things aren't worse than they are. To what degree they are better, Democrats cannot take any of the credit. They have done everything in their power to put handcuffs on the free market, and if Hillary Clinton is elected next November, things will only get worse.
We don't have much more time to play around with this. There are bad things coming around the corner. History suggests we could be in for another recession soon, and that would be disastrous at a time when we haven't fully recovered from the last one. Besides that, there is increasing concern that automation will take a big chunk out of low-wage positions, and our government has done very little to prepare for what that might mean to the job market. Meanwhile, Democrats think this is a good time to fight for a national minimum wage of $15 an hour.
The key to putting this economy back on track - as usual - is to take off the government regulations and let the free market do its thing. Until we get leadership serious about turning back the tide of socialism, the future looks grim indeed.

Black Pastors Say Black Lives Matter Is 'Demonic,' 'Shameful' and 'Tragic' ^ | Samuel Smith 

A group of black pastors asserted Wednesday that in order to change the impoverished, crime-stricken cultures in America's inner cities, more emphasis needs to be placed on responsibility, education and entrepreneurship instead of blaming the police for problems facing troubled African-Americans.
Bishop E.W. Jackson from The Called Church in Chesapeake, Virginia, and other black ministers from the organization STAND (Staying True to America's National Destiny) gathered at the National Press Club to announce the launch of Project Awakening, a private-sector, church-centered, comprehensive plan for the recovery of America's inner cities that focuses on teaching children they have options and responsibilities in life.
While the pastors detailed how the project aims to build relationships between churches, police, the black community and businesses to create cultural renewal, entrepreneurial awakening, and technical education for inner city children, the ministers did not refrain from chastising the Black Lives Matter movement for propagating a "demonic" message that does not offer a solution but simply puts police officers in harm's way.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

“You can’t prove that!” or “Vote for seats down!”: Which is the better slogan for Hillary?

Coach is Right ^ | 12/12/15 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Trying to find a single person who can name even one actual achievement Hillary Clinton can lay claim to has become a kind of parlor game among conservatives. The woman is the definition of a parasite whose only real skill is manipulating her way to various benefits she has no right to enjoy.
Hillary made a calculated decision to remain largely AC in her internal AC/AD war over her preferred sexuality and that led her to Bill Clinton. Clearly she saw little future in a MRS and MRS relationship so she agreed to marry an oversexed Bill on the flimsy promise that he would keep some sort of lid on his cavorting. She reasoned that, while lesbians might taste better, none of them could take her where Bill could.
Her main accomplishment has to be a well-deserved “lifetime achievement” award for going the furthest with the “leastest.”
Now Hillary, the devious conniving witch of the Democrat Party, wants to top off her “get more with less” resume with her election as the President of the United States.
She has few options for a campaign slogan so let me help her out.
As the Email and Benghazi investigations heat builds toward boil over, she has no choice but to push forward and ignore both of them. That gives her a perfect slogan to use: “You can’t prove that!” Of course, she would be betting that she could get to the White House and...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

As The Plot Thickens In The San Bernardino FBI Discovers Massive Network Of Terrorists Involved ^ | December 10, 2015 | Walid Shoebat 

As the plot thickens in the San Bernardino massacre, the FBI is trying to decipher several issues from abuse of the marriage and immigration system and whether these terrorists had Jihadi brides.
Also who are these Russian girls involved in the marriage scheme.
Also the FBI believes Farook had ties to a group of jihadists in California who were arrested in 2012 (which caused a previous attack to be thwarted that Farook was planning) for attempted to travel to Afghanistan to join al Qaeda.
Then we have the possible main ringleader, second man, Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan (aka Miski, Malik John, Abdul Malik Jones, Abdimalik Jones), is a Somalian-born permanent resident from Minnesota who was in contact with San Bernardino shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik over social media.
Hassan was indicted by the federal government for attempting to recruit people in Minnesota to join al-Shabaab. If this link is proven, here we have another American Muslim citizen involved in a huge massacre that killed over 143 Christians in Kenya. He has admitted to being involved with the Garissa massacre. The attack on Garissa College is one of the worst in Sub-Saharan Africa in recent memory, with reports that the attackers freed Muslim hostages and executed Christians.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Illegal Aliens Caught in Fake Border Patrol Vehicle! ^ | December 11, 2015 | Leah Barkoukis 

Based on the surprising discovery of one Border Patrol officer, it's safe to say human smugglers are getting more cunning by the day.

Breitbart Texas reports that Agent Hector Garza, president of the National Border Patrol Council, Local 2455, became suspicious of a Chevy Tahoe that was traveling north of Laredo, Texas—roughly 70 miles into the Lone Star State.

 The vehicle was painted to look like a Border Patrol SUV. After pulling the car over, the driver was arrested and the agent discovered 12 illegal aliens in the back.

Garza said the 12 illegal aliens stuffed in a Tahoe shows the total disregard for human life these smugglers show towards the people they haul. "If this vehicle had become involved in a high-speed chase, it could have been catastrophic."
The vehicle was painted to look like a Tahoe regularly used by the U.S. Border Patrol. It did not have any overhead lights normally found on the vehicles. It did; however, have a light bar mounted on the dashboard and the rear view mirror had been removed. It appears the rear seats may have been removed in order to stuff more people into the vehicle.
"This shows the level of deviousness and desperation these smugglers will stoop to in order to deliver their cargo," Garza told Breitbart Texas. "They will not stop. Whether they are smuggling drug, humans or terrorists, to them it is just about the money."

Paris climate talks unveil final solution, hope everyone enjoys living in caves!

Hot ^ | December 12, 2015 | JAZZ SHAW 

The Paris climate talks have mostly wound to an end. There are still a few details to clean up over the weekend, but we’re being told that representatives from hundreds of nations have come together and are prepared to release their final agreement on how to save the world from climate change. Or maybe not: even as of this morning nobody seemed to be able to agree as to whether or not there was an agreement. (CNN)
“Obviously, nobody will get 100% of what they want,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Friday as he discussed the “balanced and as ambitious as possible” working document that will be voted on. “What I hope is that everyone remembers the message of the first day, when 150 heads of state and government came from all around the world to say, ‘The world needs a success.’ ”
Countries must agree by consensus. Organizers hope countries will adopt the proposal but there could be some nations that don’t go along. It will be up to the COP21 president to decide whether there’s an agreement.
After the vote in Paris, the countries that adopt the agreement will later have to ratify it nationally.
Still, there are specific goals coming out. Exactly how they plan on meeting them remains a mystery (at least in the fine details) but they supposedly will be releasing their target goals for all the nations to meet. Chief among these is the plan to hold the global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius over the rest of the century. (The Independent)
Ministers from more than 190 countries are expected to ratify a major new international climate change agreement – the details of which were announced at around 10:30am GMT (11:30am CET).
The final agreement would include a commitment to keeping temperature rises “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels with a target of keeping them at 1.5C. Ministers are meeting on Saturday afternoon to decide whether or not to approve the agreement.
Announcing the deal, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said the potential deal aimed to show: “Our collective efforts are worth more than the sum of our individual efforts.”
The steps required to achieve such a lofty goal do, at least in general, appear to have nearly universal agreement among the people attending and voting. The world, we are told, will have to start seriously weaning itself off of all fossil fuels by 2050 and abandon them entirely by the end of the century. Those who can’t figure out a way to do that will need to engage in ruinously expensive methods of “burying” their carbon output and also filtering it out of the air in mass quantities. (Good luck getting China, Russia or India to actually go along with any of this beyond paying it simple lip service, by the way.)
Despite fears in some quarters that the conference’s final findings will be legally binding around the world, it’s really nothing of the sort. They can make all the “rules” they like, but absent some means of enforcement they really have nothing to say to sovereign nations whose governments don’t independently agree to go along. There’s already historical precedent for that, since Bill Clinton initially signed off on the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 but it was then rejected under G.W. Bush in 2001 and we never became an official signatory. A plan that essentially guts the oil and gas industry with no practical replacement for the energy on the horizon is never going to see the light of day in Congress. (Unless the world is now several orders of magnitude more insane than it even seems to be today.)
We’ll revisit this when the final details get a vote and everyone has a chance to look them over, but I expect this to primarily be a political bone for our presidential candidates to chew over next year. In terms of actual policy, I wouldn’t worry too much at this point.

Conservative backlash grows against brokered convention

The Hill ^ | December 11, 2015 | Jonathan Easley 

Anti-establishment Republicans are up in arms over talk of a brokered Republican Party convention.
Ben Carson warned a brokered convention would "destroy" the GOP, while supporters of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) expressed dismay that party leaders would take part in meetings considering the possibility.
"This is clearly their contingency to stop Trump and Cruz at all costs," Iowa radio host Steve Deace, who is supporting Cruz for president, told The Hill. "These people would rather lose elections than lose control of the party. And they'd rather have Hillary in the White House than someone the GOP base actually wants."
The Washington Post reported Thursday that party leaders -- including supporters of GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio - met privately to discuss the possibility of a brokered convention, ostensibly to derail the hopes of a candidate deemed unelectable by party elites. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus attended the meeting at a Washington restaurant, though they did not speak at it, according to the Post.
The meeting follows months in which Trump has dominated the GOP race. Carson and Cruz, two other candidates that some Republicans believe would be weak in a general election, are also near the top of polls, though Carson has been fading.
Trump's rise in particular has unnerved the GOP establishment, which worries his candidacy could sink Republican hopes of holding the Senate. Trump courted controversy this week by calling for a temporary ban on Muslims traveling to the United States, a position rejected by every other GOP candidate that polls show has support from the Republican electorate.
Supporters for insurgent candidates view the private discussions as desperation from terrified establishment figures, and believe it will only serve to harden their supporters. Carson's campaign was already fundraising off the report by mid-afternoon on Friday.

"Dumb. Big mistake. They just poured gasoline all over the fire," said Jeffrey Lord, a former Ronald Reagan administration official who supports Trump for president.

"I get that you need to have contingency plans in place, but this looks like they're trying to rig the game and it just feeds the narrative that the establishment is completely out of touch with the base."

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski had a short message for the RNC:

"Play the game out in front of us," he told The Hill, adding that he's not worried about a brokered convention because "every piece of data shows that [Donald Trump] is the clear front-runner."

The speculation that party leaders are privately discussing what to do if an outsider is on course to land the nomination provided fresh evidence to some of the disconnect between base conservatives and establishment Republicans.

"The Republican establishment is playing with fire if they take any action that is perceived to harm the winners of caucus and primary states," said Adam Brandon, CEO of the conservative activist group FreedomWorks.

"If that's what they are planning or doing, they may inadvertently set the stage for independent presidential campaigns and further damage an already fractured relationship with many conservatives and Republican voters, which is why insurgent candidates are thriving in the first place."
Supporters for Bush and Rubio attended the meeting, according to the Post, and officials from those campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.
The RNC pushed back strongly Friday against the characterization that some within the party are plotting a takeover at the convention.
RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said the discussion about the potential for a brokered convention was merely "cocktail conversation" over the nuts and bolts of the race.

"There was a dinner where the subject was how the delegate process works," Spicer said Friday on CNN.

"We walked through the delegate selection process, what states were going on what date, how each state handled the delegate process, and at the end we took a series of questions," he said. "It's really nothing more than that."

Spicer argued that it wasn't suspicious that supporters of Bush and Rubio were on hand, noting that Priebus's days are filled by meetings with representatives from all the campaigns, as well as conservative pundits, consultants and advisers from all corners of the party.

Still, some say the optics of the meeting are bad for the national party, which is once again seeking to stamp out a fire that has sprung up over its handling of the primary process.

Fair or not, the alleged discussion about a brokered convention will confirm the suspicions many in the base have harbored for a long time, which have helped to fuel the rise of Trump, Carson and Cruz.
"It's completely counter-productive if it looks like Republican power-brokers are trying to orchestrate this," said former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who is supporting Bush for president.

Gregg said the party may be headed to a contested convention - not to ambush an outsider, but because it will be difficult for one candidate in the huge field of contenders to lock down a majority of delegates ahead of the convention.

The party needs to have the infrastructure and processes in place to handle that scenario, but it's unhelpful to plan for it in a way that could be perceived as putting a thumb on the scale, Gregg argued.

"It's something Priebus has to plan for, but he needs to be careful who he's discussing it with," Gregg said. "The days of party boss politics are over and have been over for a long time. People will have a negative reaction to anything that has a whiff of that kind of backroom dealing."

Supporters for establishment Republicans running for president mostly rolled their eyes at the controversy, saying it was an example of outsider candidates looking to stoke outrage over the byzantine rules governing the GOP nominating process.

"This is getting totally blown out of proportion," said Katie Packer Gage, a veteran of Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign whose consulting firm is assisting Rubio's efforts in Michigan.

"The idea that the Illuminati within the party is coming down from on high to decide who will be the nominee is ludicrous," she continued. "Ben Carson needs to call someone versed in parliamentary procedures to explain to him how this all works."

While some Republicans say the huge field makes it more likely that the party could face its first contested convention since 1976, there is still broad skepticism from many quarters that that's where things are headed. Many believe the eventual nominee will emerge once the primaries turn to winner-take-all contests on March 15.

"This is just a story that turns up at points in the cycle when there's no definition to the race," said former New Hampshire Attorney General Tom Rath, who is supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasich for president. "This idea that there will be a stampede on the floor is very romantic but I don't see it happening."

A spokesperson for Chris Christie's campaign declined to weigh in, other than to say that the New Jersey governor is only focused on winning the nomination outright. That was the general message coming from campaign operatives in private conversations with several other campaigns.

"Here's the bottom line," Spicer said. "Republican voters will choose the delegates that go to the convention in Cleveland next July. Those people will decide the nominee."

[UMD] Public College: Refer To Illegal Immigrants As ‘Undocumented Citizens’!

Daily Caller ^ | 12/11/15 | Blake Neff 

The University of Maryland is sponsoring a poster campaign encouraging students to refer to illegal immigrants as “undocumented citizens.”
The inaccurate term, first noted by Campus Reform, is promoted by the school’s “Inclusive Language Campaign,” which is throwing up posters around campus to encourage the use of friendlier language.
UMD’s Multicultural Involvement and Community Advocacy office, an official organ of the university, is running the campaign. The posters tell students that “words have power” and people should be cautious, lest they offend people with the terms they use.
“Would you say [illegal alien] if you knew I am an undocumented citizen?” the poster asks passersby.
Nicole Mehta, the program director of UMD’s Common Ground Multicultural Dialogue Program, told Campus Reform the term “undocumented citizen” was deliberate, and was chosen based on surveys of students.
“The use of ‘undocumented citizen’ (along with other terms such as undocumented individuals, immigrants, etc.) seeks to avoid dehumanization of an entire group of individuals,” Mehta said.
Of course, “undocumented citizen” makes no sense as a term, since illegal immigrants are not American citizens. The poster campaign discourages a host of other phrases, including “that’s so ghetto,” and “that’s so retarded.”

DHS Official Unable to Give Number of Syrians in U.S. or Number of Expired Visas

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 12/11/15 | Adam Kredo 

A senior Department of Homeland Security official was unable to tell Congress the number of Syrian refugees who have entered the United States in the last year and the number of Americans who have travelled to Syria and returned, in testimony on Capitol Hill that angered many lawmakers.
Kelli Ann Burriesci, a deputy assistant secretary in the department’s office of policy, could not provide statistics about immigration when the House’s national security subcommittee grilled her about potential flaws in the visa waiver program.
While lawmakers had requested that its secretary, Jeh Johnson, testify before the committee, the agency sent Burriesci instead, saying that she is the resident expert on these issues.
However, Burriesci struggled to answer questions, prompting anger from lawmakers and concerns that the department is failing to track potentially dangerous immigrants.
“How many Syrian refugees have entered the U.S. in the last year” Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) asked Burriesci.
“Sorry, I didn’t bring any of the refugee numbers with me,” she responded.
Jordon then asked: “Do you know how many Americans have traveled to Syria in the last year?”
“I don’t have that number on me either,” the official responded.
“So you wouldn’t know how many Americans have traveled there and returned?” Jordan pressed.
“I don’t have that number on me,” Burriesci stated.
When asked by Jordan, “How many visa waiver program overstays are there currently in the U.S.,” Burriesci again responded that she does not “have information” on that subject.
The lack of answers led to frustration.
“We’re talking about the refugee issue and the Visa Waiver Program issue and you can’t give us numbers on either program?” Jordan asked.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) noted that the last time Congress was provided with accurate information about the number of people still living in the United States with expired visas was in 1994.
“If we’re looking at visa overstays, and sitting here debating a visa waiver program, and yet, the very instance of visa overstays and the potential terrorist threat that accompanies that, you’re tracking that, yet the last information Congress got was 1994,” Meadows said. “Do you not see a problem with that?”
“I think you should receive the data as soon as it is available,” Burriesci responded.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), the subcommittee’s chairman, expressed frustration mid-way through the hearing and asked Burriesci if there is someone she can call to get help.
“You can’t give us the number of people on expired visas? You have staff? Can they just call DHS so we get it before the hearing is over?” DeSantis asked. “This should not be that difficult.”
Burriesci did not respond to that question and continued to struggle.
“What percentage of the people leaving the [United States] are you able to capture?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) asked.
“I … I may have that with me but I have to look,” Burriesci said while shuffling through papers. “I’m sorry. I do not have that statistic.”
“You’re supposed to be the expert on this,” Chaffetz responded. “This should be right off the top of your head. You’re coming before Congress. … These are basic questions about the functionality here.”
DeSantis ultimately noted that Burriesci’s testimony was troubling.
“This is not inspiring a lot of confidence and I think a lot of questions have been raised instead of answered,” he said.
In statement released after the hearing ended, DeSantis expressed his frustration at the department’s inability to provide Congress with answers about potential flaws in the visa waiver program.
“Islamic jihadists are on the march and 13 people were massacred in San Bernardino, yet DHS seems clueless about what is going on with potential threats to our security,” the lawmaker said. “Congress needs to plug holes in immigration programs ranging from the visa waiver program to the refugee program. The testimony by DHS today gave Americans serious cause for concern about whether our government has a handle on the threats we face.”

Playing Jihad Roulette: Which Muslims are Dangerous? ^ | December 11, 2015 | Joy Overbeck 

Whether we will see more bloody slaughter in the name of jihad depends on if we can separate the murder-bent America-haters from the innocent Muslim refugees that Obama wants to admit to our nation by the tens of thousands. This could well be -- impossible.
Recent polls show that massive numbers of Muslims worldwide, those who Trump wants to temporarily halt from coming to the US, are ISIS supporters and/or in favor of Islamic terrorism despite Obama's constant assurances that Islam is a "religion of peace."
Following the November Paris terror attacks, one in four young Muslims in Britain said they sympathize with those who have fled the country to fight for ISIS according to The Sun newspaper. Disturbingly, Britain is one of the 38 favored nations whose residents get preferential visa waivers when coming to the U.S.
A recent survey conducted in the Arabic language by, the website of the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, is even more shocking. Over 81% of the more than 38,000 respondents overwhelmingly supported the Islamic State terrorist group, voting "YES" on whether they approved of ISIS's blood-soaked conquests in the region.
Of course approving the ISIS behead-and-conquer agenda doesn't necessarily mean these terrorist sympathizers will assemble a garage-full of AK-47's and pipe bombs. However, cold hard reason would suggest they are far more likely to do so than the 19 percent who don't like ISIS.
Given the stunning failure of our Homeland "Security" officials to catch the female terrorist with their penetrating fiance visa security questions like "are you or a terrorist or do you expect to become one after you enter the U.S?" our national safety is essentially a matter of jihadi roulette. So is Trump's call for a temporary halt to Muslim immigration crazy or racist or simply common sense?
It's a numbers game. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world; if only one in 100 want to come here and murder Americans in the name of Islam, that's 15 million potential jihad fighters that could boldly stroll right through our torn, hole-riddled non-safety net. If you had a weapon with a 100-bullet magazine that has one bullet in the chamber, would you hold that weapon to your head and pull the trigger?
According to a recent National Review piece by David French, extrapolating from the Spring 2015 Survey by Pew Research that polled Muslims of many nations, "roughly 50 million express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn't bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS." Even in Turkey, a Muslim nation that, like Pakistan, is supposedly our "ally" against ISIS, that sobering number is 27 percent.
When our security apparatus is not being outrageously incompetent in vetting terrorist brides, it's overwhelmed: the FBI is reportedly following over 1000 suspicious Muslim individuals in all 50 states. With law enforcement exhausted by this current challenge, I can't think of a single reason why we would invite more potential throat-slitters into the country and further overwhelm our security resources.
Donald Trump's proposal to temporarily halt Muslim immigrants isn't Islamophobic any more than was Jimmy Carter's similar action after Iran's Muslim ayatollah rulers held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days starting in 1979. In the name of national security, President Carter banned Iranians from entering the U.S. and deported thousands of Iranian students already here. In essence, Carter pioneered the roundly-deplored Trump sin of religious profiling since approximately 99.9 percent of Iranians then as now are Muslims.
Carter's actions as well as other governmental exclusions or suspensions of certain immigrants were upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times, including a 1977 case in which the justices noted they "have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government's political departments largely immune from judicial control."
That means the howling media mob as well as the high foreheads from both parties piling on Trump are spectacularly wrong about the unconstitutionality of his suggestion. Too bad, Trump-shamers.
And then there's the insufferable "that's not who we are" catechism incessantly preached at us by the president and recently parroted by Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan no less. So who are we really? The American people are showing who they are by further elevating Trump in the polls, supporting him despite his tar-and-feathering.
The American people are a stubbornly commonsensical bunch. They are a generous, welcoming people but they will always choose the continued existence of their nation and their loved ones over the demi-god of political correctness. And to protect family and country, they will choose whatever is necessary, including a temporary pause in the immigration of those adhering to a tyrannical statist ideology who may pose a real threat.
We are a people who won't be played for fools by a president in the grip of dangerous denial about the identity of the enemy and its dramatic successes. We are a people who remember an important lesson from World War II: believe tyrants who tell us who they are and what they plan to do. Above all, we are a people who refuse to be guilt-tripped into national suicide.

Why do Progressives think Non-Citizen even have American rights?

 The one thing about the hornet's nest in the media that Trump kicked over the other day was the whole idea that it was somehow wrong to ask an incoming immigrant about their religious affiliation.

But I ask you all, why did all the progressives either the republicans or the democrat progressives all whine and moan like stuck little piggies about this issue?

They seem to come from the perspective that the rights protected in Constitution extend to everyone everywhere in the world. This is absurd, plain outright absurd and dangerous. Their interpretation of "Protected American Rights" would then mean that we would have to invade every other country in the world to protect the rights of other country's citizens.
If the bill of right extend to everyone in the world why are we not invading Canada right now for their recent curtailing of Canadian's freedom of speech? Or invade the U.K. in order to enforce the 2nd amendment for their citizens. Or any other country in that regard???
There is no absolute protected freedom of religion for an alien, here legally or not, even within our countries borders. It also applies to freedom of speech and also the second amendment for non-citizens. However once a non-citizen goes through the process of learning about how our government is supposed to work and their rights and THEN gets sworn in as a naturalized citizen ONLY THEN do they gain the rights we citizens enjoy.
We could ban non-citizens (on Visas or in the process of immigrating legally) from owning weapons within our borders. We could even make it a lengthy process for a non-citizen immigrant who is jumping through the hoops to become a citizen to restrict it down to singe shot guns if we wanted. However once sworn in as a citizen they have all the rights as the rest of the actual citizens. Of course the progressives never seem to argue for non-citizens having 2nd amendment rights because they are animals of their agenda.
The progressives want to blur the lines on what rights we have between what rights a non-citizen has. If we reach a point to where non-citizens enjoy a majority of the rights that a citizen does, then what next? What does the the citizen have that a non-citizen have at that point? They only thing "we citizens" have at this point is an "Obligation to the State".
If all we are left in difference is our Obligations? Why remain a citizen within our own borders? What advantage is that? Being a citizen then becomes a liability... When it becomes too much of a liability what next? Civil war? People renouncing their citizenship in favor of a non-resident alien in their own country status?