Tag Archives: illegal aliens

Left Topsy-Turvy on American Revolution and Brexit

As America celebrates another birthday and the British people celebrated their Brexit vote for freedom from tyranny to a supranational bureaucracy, the heart and soul of the American Left again exposed itself as statist and globalist.

American Revolution & Brexit

Exhibit A: Steve Pincus. His recent Washington Post article attempts to paint Brexit supporters and the Republican Party as racist, anti-American xenophobes. In his introductory and subsequent paragraphs, Pincus inextricably links pro-Brexit forces with the agenda and sentiments of American conservatives and Pincus finds them wanting.

His headline asserts, “No, Brexit was not Britain’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It was the exact opposite.” Pincus couldn’t be more wrong.

His subheading: “The American founders would revile the pro-‘leave’ camp.” Again, his conclusion is contrary to everything we know about the Founding Fathers.

Nevertheless, Pincus contends, “But they’ve got America’s founding document exactly backward. The original American patriots would be horrified to hear their opus invoked in the service of Brexit.”

Pincus makes two striking, and strikingly wrong, claims.

Open vs. Controlled Borders

Pincus’ first strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, favored open borders. Pincus claims, “The founders called for a government that would allow for free movement of goods and peoples.”

Actually, American colonists sought control over their own borders. They vehemently opposed a power across the Atlantic Ocean determining their fate and enacting laws without their consent and contrary to their wishes.

Pincus cites the Declaration: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

No “open borders” here. What did the Founders actually seek? How do we interpret that portion of the Declaration? By what the Founders did. As noted by Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

“Congress passed the first ‘uniform Rule of Naturalization’ under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed ‘any alien, being a free white person’ and ‘of good character’ who had resided in the United States for two years to become a ‘citizen of the United States’ by taking an oath in court ‘to support the constitution of the United States.’”

The very first Congress actually limited and circumscribed immigration by a clear set of criteria, looking for emigres from the Northwestern European nations which had settled America.

Heritage continues (emphasis added): “Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a ‘good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States’; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.”

In contrast to the Founders’ wishes and the law of the land, today illegal aliens celebrate their Mexican holidays while burning the American flag and promoting the overthrow of the American government. Our Founders would have put a stop to this.

Activist vs. Limited Government

Pincus’ second strikingly wrong claim is that our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution favored an activist government. (Hence the subtitle of his new book.[1])

According to Pincus, “America’s founders celebrated the creative potential of the state to promote the general welfare and happiness of the people; they wanted an activist government – one that would intervene in the economy to promote growth.”

To buttress his claim, Pincus cites the Second Continental Congress: “Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”

But what did the crafters of our Republic actually mean by “welfare?” The Founders sought to promote the “general welfare and happiness of the people” by securing liberty! They understood that a free people – being secured in their liberty and able to use their God-given gifts as they deemed best – could, in today’s parlance, “maximize their potential,” strengthen their local communities, and improve the general welfare of the nation.

Our Founding Fathers fought for freedom and limited government to preserve that freedom.

Pincus clearly regards FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” as superior to, and countermanding, our Founders’ original Bill of Rights. FDR’s progressive economic bill of rights seeks equality of outcome through government force while the Framers of our Constitution, with their political bill of rights, sought to maximize freedom and, thus, equality of opportunity.

Progressives like Pincus agree with President Obama’s assessment that America is fundamentally flawed[2] and, therefore, needs to be fundamentally transformed.[3] The Founders, Framers, and generations of Americans heartily disagree.[4] Middle America seeks to reclaim its heritage,[5] one built upon a Judeo-Christian ethos[6] which cherished liberty.

Similarly, progressives like Pincus, the Obamas, and the Clintons seek to eviscerate nationalism and elevate supranational and global institutions. In doing so, they willfully dismiss, like willing dupes,[7] the nexus between the immigration and terrorism crises.[8]

Progressives follow Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village (i.e., big government) when our great nation was founded on the premise that the primary duty of government is the protection of the People at home (law enforcement) and abroad (national defense) – and from government itself (Constitution).

Nationalism vs. Supra-nationalism

At heart, America as a Nation and a People matters little to these progressives who prefer to use American power and ideals against her in pursuit of their own globalist utopian goals.

Pincus equates “English First” pro-Brexit voters with the resurgence of contemporary America Firsters inspired by Donald Trump. To some degree he is correct, yet he regards that as a bad thing.

The heart and core of the Brexit Vote was to liberate the British people from the bureaucratic behemoth of the European Union’s usurpation of national sovereignty[9] and abrogation of the will of the People. Similarly, Middle America seeks its own independence from a draconian federal government[10] which serves its own needs and purposes while thwarting those whom they purportedly serve.

But Pincus again twists the historical record, asserting that late 18th-century Britons wanted the American colonists (legal settlers all) to pay their “fair share,” likening them to illegal aliens in America, today.

In reality, the American colonists – who were all self-supporting and obviously did not rely on a non-existent welfare state for survival – disagreed with the Mother Country and insisted upon, “No taxation without representation.” Our forefathers, like us, preferred a free market system without undue taxation and regulation, the very things Pincus and his lot pursue.

In his tract (and presumably in his forthcoming book as well), Pincus skirts this crucial reality: the majority of the colonists came from Britain and shared legal, linguistic, political, social, cultural, and spiritual similarities with the British realm.

Those brave men and women who gave birth to this great nation were brothers and sisters by blood who forged a new nation by creed. That creed – “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – is central to our identity as Americans.

Individual rights, not collective rights; equality of opportunity, not of outcome; reverence for God, not for the State.

As Americans, we should celebrate the greatness of America as achieved by the Providence of God through the wisdom of the Founders and we should strive to return to our roots, to restore that vision of “government of the People, by the People, and for the People,” eschewing the liberty-denying statism of the Progressive vision.

Let us reinvigorate the American experiment that it may not perish from the earth.

God bless America!


[1]              Pincus’ historical revisionism is apparent in the title to his forthcoming book, Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government.

[2]              See “Obama’s America – Fundamentally Flawed” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1h.

[3]              See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[4]              See “American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder” at http://t.co/UDFIbFm5hr.

[5]              See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[7]              See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[8]              See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[9]              See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[10]            See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.


Coulter Bass Ackwards on Elections

Ann Coulter has uttered absurdities which would make even Homer Simpson blush.

Coulter = Homer Simpson

Coulter’s lies about caucuses and opened and closed primaries are easy to refute with a little logic and a few facts. Same with her lies about “voter-less” and “stolen” elections.

Erstwhile law-and-order zealot and federalism advocate suddenly hates both the rule of law and federalism. Why? Because they are thwarting Trump’s efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Suddenly, Coulter sees nonexistent “voter-less elections” and “stolen elections” where none exist. Moreover, she regards primaries as infinitely superior to caucuses and conventions, which she claims are somehow illegitimate. Coulter disparages the freedom that each state has under the Constitution to hold elections and select its delegates.

Coulter is more of a fraud[1] than Donald Trump.[2] To salvage Trump’s quest for the GOP nomination, Coulter engages in full-blown Orwellian propaganda.[3] Her column last week blasted Ted Cruz for following the rules and winning delegates[4]legally and ethically!

In that column[5] (and subsequent Facebook postings), makes Homer Simpson-blushing assertions which are utterly absurd and eminently disprovable.

“Voter-less elections” are not voter-less. Coulter claims that “state Republican parties disregard the voters and give all their delegates to Cruz,” except, the voters in those states elected the delegates. She alleges “procedural loopholes” and charges “corrupt backroom maneuvering” by “tiny groups of insiders.”

The facts are otherwise. Election laws in many of these states are similar to when the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was founded. Each state determines how it will hold elections: (open or closed) primary, caucus, convention. All eligible voters can be part of the process to support or become delegates.

Coulter defends Trump’s ineptitude by claiming, “Trump keeps winning elections, and Cruz keeps winning sneaky procedural victories.” Except, Trump also keeps losing elections and Cruz’s “procedural victories” are neither sneaky nor illegal.

Coulter claims that only primaries are “elections,” and that caucuses are somehow fraudulent.

A caucus is an election. People vote. Everyone who is an eligible voter is able to vote. Not without irony, Coulter favors poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, so, Coulter should prefer caucus voters, who tend to be more informed and more engaged voters.

Nevertheless, Coulter claims: “General election is winner take all; General election is NOT a little meeting of party insiders.”

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Caucuses and conventions are not little meetings of party insiders.

Coulter also asserts, “Caucuses & conventions are not ELECTIONS.”

Except, caucuses and conventions are elections! People vote. People vote.

According to Coulter, “GOP has to beat Hillary in an ELECTION, not a little meeting. Trump keeps winning all the ELECTIONS; Cruz wins little meetings. Who cares if those were the rules??? That’s not how to pick a winner!”

Each state, in its own way, selects its preferred candidate. That’s the way it has always been. The nomination is not being stolen from Trump. Rather, Trump is failing to win it.

Confronted with the reality that over 1.3 million people voted in UT, ND, WI, CO & WY and Trump lost all five, Coulter posted: “Only one of those, WI, was what we call an ‘election.’ Does Cruz think he beats Hillary by winning over GOP insiders?”

All were elections. “GOP insiders” did not steal those elections. Cruz won because more people voted for him.

Coulter hates the results so she fudges the facts.

Let’s remember: More Republicans have voted against Trump than for him.[6]

Remember, Trump did better in open primaries (where Democrats – who will vote Democrat in November – voted for Trump) and worse in closed primaries (where liberal spoilers were foiled).

Remember, a larger percentage of early-voters, than late-voters, voted for Trump. The more the electorate learns about Trump the less it likes him.

Donald Trump, Coulter’s current Savior,[7] is a Clintonesque RINO posing as a conservative populist. A Trump nomination would ensure a Democrat victory in this election.[8]

Update: In her April 20th column, Coulter reprised her absurd election-stealing charges, distinguishing between “elections, not party-rigged conferences or caucuses.” The truth evades those who dwell in lies.


[1]               See “No Better Than Trump!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dW.

[2]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[3]               See “Coulter’s Orwellian Opus” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e0.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates ‘THE RULES’ That Thwart Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-e6.

[5]               Ann Coulter, “Ted Cruz: Tracy Flick With a D*CK,” 4/13/16.

[6]               See “Only Trump Can Lose!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-dA.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

Trump’s Phony Wall

Donald Trump’s signature issue is immigration and border security. On that issue (as on most issues), he is a fraud!

Trump promises to build a yuuge wall – with a big door!

Trump promises to deport all illegal aliens – and bring them back!

Phony wall

Yuuge Wall with an Open Door

The centerpiece of Trump’s immigration policy (and the major plank of his platform) is building a wall. In his words, “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

An exuberant Ann Coulter, Trump’s greatest supporter, has introduced him at several rallies. Coulter gushed, “I love the idea of the Great Wall of Trump. I want to have a two drink minimum. Make it a big worldwide tourist attraction and everyday live drone shows whenever anyone tries to cross the border.”[1]

But will the Great Wall of Trump ever come to pass?

But let’s not forget the fine print. Trump added, “I don’t mind having a big, fat beautiful door right in that wall so that people can come into this country legally.”

That’s right, a great, great wall with a big, fat door. Border security with a sieve.

The Donald’s son, Eric Trump, explained the purpose of that door: “ The point isn’t just deporting them, it’s deporting them and letting them back in legally. He’s been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it, but it’s deporting them and letting them back legally.

Ironically, as reported by Ed Straker, “ it was Cruz, not Trump, who first pushed a border fence not just with rhetoric, but with legislation, and it was Trump who started talking about the need for a border fence after Cruz started pushing for it. Because up to then, Trump was a pro-amnesty liberal democrat.”

Touchback Deportation & Amnesty

Inextricably intertwined with Trump’s monumental, Eighth Wonder of the World, wall is his policy on immigration – what the wall will secure Americans against. Having a “great, great wall” with a “big, fat beautiful door” kind of defeats the purpose of the wall in the first place.

Trump repeatedly promises to deport massive numbers of illegal immigrants – and to let the good ones return. Amnesty has been his position since at least August 2013, when he tweeted: “Congress must protect our borders first. Amnesty should be done only if the border is secure and illegal immigration has stopped.”

Yes, Trump actually used the verboten word “amnesty.” (Don’t tell Ann Coulter. She just might get upset. Why? She loves Trump,[2] asserting that he is the only candidate opposed to amnesty.[3])

But Trump endorses amnesty. He said, “I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal…. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.”

 That’s right. Trump wants to expedite the process for illegal aliens to become legal in America. He reiterated his views, saying, “I would expedite [the process], because some of these people (illegal aliens) are fantastic people. … So what I’d do is that I would expedite it. … I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.”

Cruz, on the other hand, fully opposes amnesty: “My position is very simple. I oppose amnesty. I oppose citizenship. I oppose legalization … Today, tomorrow, forever. I believe in the rule of law.”

Trump, and his shill Coulter, continually castigate Marco Rubio for his participation in the Gang of Eight bill, neglecting to mention Trump’s own support of that very same bill by financing its sponsors! As reported by Red State, Trump “proposes roughly the same wall that was already put forth in the Gang of 8 bill (roughly 1,000 miles).”

Moreover, Trump is not the restrictionist Coulter imagines. Though he has spoken out against H-1B visas, Trump has “sought to import at least 1,100 foreign workers on temporary visas since 2000.”

It is not surprising that a large percentage of Nevadan Hispanics voted for Trump, given his pro-amnesty views and his history of hiring illegal aliens to cater to his personal and professional needs. Trump admits, “You know, the truth is I have a lot of illegals working for me in Miami.”

Trump employs illegal aliens at the expense of American workers. If Trump will not build a figurative wall around his business enterprises to protect American workers, why should we believe he will build an actual wall along our southern border to defend American sovereignty?

Red State also reported that, “in 1991, a judge found that Trump has conspired with business associates to hire illegal workers and cheat them of their pay.”

Trump also favors accepting Syrian refugees, insisting, “I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, you have to [because] it’s living in hell in Syria. There’s no question about it. They’re living in hell, and something has to be done.”

Yes, the Great Wall of Trump is a mirage, one worthy of a Las Vegas casino.

Update: See Ian Tuttle’s excellent analysis of Trump’s “flexible” immigration and H-1B visa policies. David French explores the lunacy of believing anything Trump promises about anything – particularly immigration.

Update: Andrew McCarthy delved deeply into Trump’s “plan” to build a wall, demonstrating how nonsensical, anti-Constitutional, and authoritarian it really is.


[1]               Ann Coulter, speech introducing Donald Trump, Dubuque, IA, 8/25/15.

[2]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[3]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

Commonsense Guns Laws

President Obama and the Left have recently called for “commonsense gun control laws.” They are right about the need for “commonsense” but wrong about the laws to be enacted.

The operative words in their mantra – “gun control” – reveal their intent and the heart of the problem: they reject “criminal control” laws (which would curb most gun violence) and they refuse to address the mental illness (which animates mass shootings).


What would Commonsense Gun Laws (not “gun control”) look like? Well, the exact opposite of what Barack Obama wants.

Here are a few areas where legislation and implementation of policies would immediately make America safer:

Eliminate gun-free zones. Virtually every mass shooting has taken place in a gun-free zone precisely because the killers knew they could maximize damage while minimizing risk. Federal buildings, banks, convention centers, and other venues have armed security forces which deter crime and prevent mass shootings. Why are politicians and the wealthy protected by armed security forces, but most Americans (even our children) unprotected and told to run for their lives if a madman targets them?

Expand private ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. Make it easier for citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to thereby protect themselves, their families, and their local communities. Expanding the pool of law-abiding citizens who own guns makes it harder for criminals to do their own thing. As noted by National Review, “The number of guns in the United States has increased by 62% since 1994 but gun violence has decreased by 49% since 1993.”

Increase concealed-carry permits for law-abiding citizens. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. When criminals don’t know who might be armed, they exercise far greater restraint in their criminal activities.

Stop coddling criminals. Giving criminals and rioters “space” to commit violence is lunacy. Providing politically correct rationalizations for criminal behavior encourages more criminal behavior. Releasing violent criminals in the interests of “fairness” endangers the American people. Get back to basics: If you do the crime, then you do the time.

Robustly address mental illness in America. Mental illness (not guns) is the root cause of most mass shootings.

Deport violent immigrants and illegal aliens. Violent crime by immigrants and illegal aliens is escalating. If they are unwilling to abide by our laws, then they should not enjoy the benefits of living in America. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.

Reclaim the culture. This will be the hardest task of all. It requires restoring God and America to their proper places in the public school system and higher education, returning to traditional values and respect for our Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization heritage, and championing adherence to the Constitution. (Much of this is cultural, not legislative.)

The Great Society, victim culture (grievance culture), and growing sense of entitlement in primarily urban communities has engendered a culture of violence. Moreover, a culture which reveres cop-killers and promotes killing cops is dysfunctional to its core.

A culture which claims only black lives (and only those killed by white cops) matter, while all others do not, is a thoroughly bankrupt culture.

A culture which defends Planned Parenthood’s grotesque butchery while equating Southerners with Nazis – and gun owners as evil incarnate – needs rescuing.

A culture which tramples on the American flag and finds fault with everything American is suicidal.

The Left would have us do more of the same – extend the ever-expanding welfare state, subordinate local and state control to an all-powerful federal government, and escalate the demise of our American culture begun by the Countercultural Revolution of the Sixties.

Commonsense Gun Laws are indeed commonsense, but they are in opposition to the Left’s agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Most Americans want to restore American greatness and preserve (and expand) liberty, including adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Will the Constitution survive? Not if the Left succeeds in stripping it of its power.

Update: Like Socialism, gun control never works (unless, by “works,” one means limiting liberty and growing government). The following four charts demonstrate the fallacy of gun control logic.





HOPE in Dark Times

As we remember the shock and terror of 9/11 – and consider the state of the world and of America today – let us not lose hope.


As we look upon the world scene, chaos reigns in much of the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Central and South America. Tyrannical regimes and terrorist states around the world are expanding their spheres of influence and employing their power for evil purposes.

In America, we are experiencing perils considered unthinkable just a decade ago, from unbridled immigration and race riots to Islamic jihad and domestic terrorism. The White House has become tyrannical and the judiciary is making laws. People who regard America as fundamentally flawed are in power and those who deny American exceptionalism have the loudest (and most heard) voices. The Church writ large is yielding to the world, endorsing homosexuality and promoting narcissism. Identity politics and political correctness have seized our political and cultural institutions.

Nevertheless, God is still on His throne. The supreme ruler of the universe – by whose providence America was founded and to whom America owes credit for her greatness – remains sovereign in the affairs of men. Our Father is faithful to His people and He hears their cries. His promises are sure.

Scripture is replete with assurances from our Creator and Redeemer. Psalm 147:11 declares, “the Lord delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.”

In Romans 15:13, the apostle Paul offers a succinct prayer for God’s people: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”

Let us abound in hope.

You Were There

Let me share two songs with you (YouTube videos hyperlinked).

Avalon’s You Were There reminds us of God’s omnipresence. God is everywhere and has always been there in key moments in history. He was there, giving David the courage to slay Goliath “when the hardest fight seemed so out of reach.” He was there, showing Abraham that He “had bigger plans” and provided a sacrifice to substitute for Abraham’s son, Isaac.

And God was there, “during history’s darkest hour,” when He gave His only begotten Son, that we might have eternal life with Him (John 3:16).

God “alone [can] keep the universe from crumbling into dust.” And He can keep our lives from falling apart.

You Raise Me Up

Selah’s You Raise Me Up points to the One who lifts us up when we are weary and overwhelmed. God lifts us up to the mountaintops and empowers us to “walk on stormy seas.” Indeed, our strength derives from the One who rules in majesty: “I am strong, when I am on your shoulders. You raise me up to more than I can be.”

Perhaps not so surprisingly, it is in those moments that our hearts are “filled with wonder” and we get glimpses of eternity.

We now face challenges which can appear insurmountable. We know our own frailty and our own powerlessness in certain circumstances. It is in times like these that despair can fall upon us. But it is at those very times when we must most remember to whom we should turn.

We live in dark times, times where it seems that evil has been unleashed from hell, yet our hope resides in one person – Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Light of the World, entered our world to pierce the darkness, to conquer death, and to redeem humanity. Jesus conquered Satan and death. Nothing is impossible for Him.

Let us keep our eyes on Him as we struggle for what is right and true in this life.

Orwell: Ebola, ISIS, and Immigration

The Obama administration inhabits an Orwellian world in which the concepts of the dystopian novel 1984 thrive.

Words, under Obama, take on a reversal of meaning. Often to deadly effect.

The most transparent administration in American history cannot even admit to a smidgeon of corruption.

Remember “War is Peace?” Obama claimed to have ushered in a new era of global tranquility.[1] Now we have “Weakness is Strength[2] and “Poverty is Prosperity.”[3]

Truth itself has become malleable, like a ball of wax, in the hands of this administration. They cater to a generation raised on moral relativism, subjective truth, and historical revisionism.

But this Orwellian Newspeak is lethal!


Ebola, ISIS, and unfettered immigration are literally on our doorstep – and Newspeak prevents us from defending ourselves.


The President, his administration, and leading Democrats have repeatedly lied, claiming, “The border is secure.” The crisis of unaccompanied minors and adults from Mexico this summer belies those claims. But using their false claims for justification, the Left refuses to build a fence – the most obvious solution to the unbridled influx of illegal aliens.


According to Obama, “We’re leaving behind a stable and self-reliant Iraq.”[4] But Obama withdrew all of our troops, creating a vacuum into which ISIS plunged. By not preserving the integrity of the Iraqi border with the presence of American troops, the ISIS crisis was created. Thanks in large measure to Obama, the world is in flames (even as his people proclaim global peace).


America was Ebola-free, and, just weeks ago, Obama promised that it would remain so. But Ebola is invading America with the vengeance of Montezuma.

Obama refuses to defend America from illegal aliens by building a fence. He refused to preserve the hard-fought peace we achieved in Iraq by keeping an American presence in Iraq to keep that nation secure. Now Obama refuses to build a figurative fence of quarantine around America by issuing a travel ban from countries devastated by Ebola.

CDC’s Tom Frieden said, “A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city or country.” But, of course, it is. Quarantines have been used for centuries to stop the spread of deadly contagions.


In all three crises, the same mindset pervades. In each instance, Obama and the Left denied there was a problem: the border is secure, ISIS poses no threat, Ebola can never invade America.

In each instance, Obama and the Left refused to contain the situation: no fence to stop illegal aliens from entering the United States, no troops in Iraq to preserve the victory we won, no travel ban to prevent the spread of a deadly plague-like virus.

In each instance, Obama and the Left were wrong and their current strategies to fix the problems are wrong-headed.


In addition to Newspeak – a redefinition or falsification of language – the Left also engages in doublethink – believing two contradictory things at the same time.

Even as thousands of people were crossing our southern border with impunity, the Left was claiming the borders were secure. Even as ISIS was invading Iraq and capturing whole cities and territories, Obama was calling it a JV team. Even as Ebola was ravaging much of western Africa – with many neighboring nations imposing stringent travel bans – Obama said that Americans don’t have to worry.

And still, Obama won’t build a fence – the most secure way to keep invaders out (it works for Israel).

And still, Obama won’t protect Americans from ISIS, in this case by stripping militants of their passports.

And still, Obama won’t issue a travel ban on Ebola-stricken nations – the most basic and effective way to contain this scourge.

If we continue to allow our leaders to employ these Orwellian techniques of Newspeak and doublethink to achieve their goals, then we are likely to see Orwell’s dystopia come to life before our eyes.


[1]               See “Obama Channels Orwell” at http://t.co/m6A636uORL.

[2]               See “Obama: America is Stronger Than Ever” at http://t.co/3dxkSeF8fj.

[3]               See “Obama’s Economic Colossus!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-4H.

[4]               See “’Hope & Change,’ and Other Orwellian Clichés” at http://t.co/v6fgItffhm.