Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
Ann Coulter’s ¡Adios America! is a four-alarm siren aimed at alerting some still-drowsy conservatives that the Democrats’ hot pursuit of “immigration reform” is designed to blow up the Republican party and conservatism in general. It is an open conspiracy by the Left, but too many in the GOP appear indifferent or, worse yet, are suffering from Stockholm syndrome and are cooperating with those who seek the party’s demise.
Coulter lays all this out in specific, gruesome and verifiable detail in her customary lively and provocative style. It’s a tutorial on the immigration debate, which conservatives ignore at their peril. Here is the real clear politics of what’s happening. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s pummeling of Barry Goldwater in 1964, she writes, “Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in a presidential election since 1948.” Their response was to “overwhelm” Americans with “new voters from the Third World.” And this they did by passing the historic 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which, in essence, allowed enormous numbers of Hispanics to legally pour across America’s borders, whetting the appetite for a massive invasion of illegal immigrants as well.
Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy let the donkey out of the bag in his piece for the Roper Center in 1998:
The reform act, he allowed, “promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy, has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” (My emphasis) And so it has.
The Democratic effort to jam pro-Democrat immigrants into voting booths is both cynical and notorious. Before the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration undertook a major initiative to give citizenship to one million people so they could vote by Election Day.
The White House, Coulter reminds us, “demanded that applications be processed twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Criminal background checks were jettisoned for hundreds of thousands of applicants, resulting in citizenship being granted to at least seventy thousand immigrants with FBI criminal records and ten thousand with felony records. Murderers, robbers, and rapists were all made citizens so that the Democrats would have a million foreign voters on the rolls by Election Day.” Even the Washington Post realized this was intended to create a “potent new block of Democratic voters.”
Now that millions of illegal aliens have flooded America and are siding overwhelmingly with Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats—with help from too many obtuse Republicans—keep pressing for amnesties which will entice even more illegals to cross the border and allow even more millions of Hispanics to cast their votes for the Clinton-Obama party.
The 1976 Simpson-Mazzoli Act was a disaster. The amnesty came, Coulter notes, but “the border security never did.” She documents the results: Illegal immigration quickly sextupled. And there have been at least “a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more . . .who broke our laws.” The browning of America is working out just swell for the Left, especially in important electoral states, but why do Republicans, Coulter wonders, keep acting like Charlie Brown and embracing these suicidal policies?
Amnesty and voting rights for illegals aren’t even high on the Hispanic wish list. Rep. Steve Pearce, a rock-ribbed New Mexico Republican, for instance, keeps winning a substantial number of Hispanics, despite telling them there is only one path to citizenship as far as he’s concerned: Illegals will just have to return to Mexico and get in the back of the line.
In 2011, 73 percent of California Hispanics said they’d support a candidate who wanted to “secure the border first, stop illegal immigration, and then find a way to address the status of people already here illegally.” And these are California Hispanics. In a 2014 Univision poll, 58 percent chose “require border security first” over “pass immigration reform.” Even Republican Whit Ayres, a too eager pro-Latino pollster, acknowledges that among Hispanics “jobs and the economy lead by a mile” over amnesty.
In virtually every presidential election the Democrats scoop up at least 60 percent of the Hispanic vote—a whopping 71% in 2012. Why? Because Hispanics, as well as other groups in the lower economic brackets, are far more interested in government handouts. “That’s why,” Coulter writes, “Obama’s Spanish-language ads during the 2012 campaign didn’t say one word about amnesty. Instead, he promised Hispanics free healthcare under Obamacare.”
Coulter exposes dozens of deceptions surrounding this issue, which explains her firm rejection of “comprehensive immigration reform” solutions and supposed “fixes” coming from Republicans and Democrats alike. Like Lenin’s supposed observation that promises, like piecrusts, are made to be broken, solemn, bipartisan pledges to ensure border security never materialize. Under Simpson-Mazzoli, border security provisions in the law were ignored. Teddy Kennedy swore that his 1965 bill would never “inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area,” but more than half of all immigrants to the United States since 1970 are native Spanish speakers.
Is Obama really the Deporter in Chief, as some of his supporters claim, in order to lure Republicans into backing immigration “reform”? Not so, says Coulter, pointing out that he’s deported “far fewer” than Bush, but has just changed the definition to include illegals turned away at the border. Her evisceration of Marco Rubio’s 2013 “reform” proposal is done in devastating detail, as she also caustically describes how Rubio quickly abandoned his pledge on border security first.
New amnesties proposed by both Democrats and Republicans will, if approved by Congress and if history is a guide, almost certainly help swamp our welfare and prison rolls and lower the wages of our existing work force. And don’t believe there are only 12 million “illegals,” she says, since there are excellent studies—a very convincing one by Bear Stearns—which point to as many as 30 million.
Does Coulter have a solution? The only plan the Congress should push, she argues, is one that conservatives have been pushing for over a decade: Secure the border first. Once it is really accomplished, she remarks, we can then debate what to do with those “in the shadows.” Still seems a reasonable plan for many of us on the right.
Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.
But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.
The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.
That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year’s Obamacare decision and last year’s ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.
Last year’s Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.
The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.
This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges up by the federal government itself.
When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.
This decision makes next year’s choice of the next President of the United States more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.
Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.
Chief Justices appointed by Republican presidents have made landmark decisions for which there was neither Constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.
When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.
Nevertheless, Chief Justice Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.
And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance they want us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?
Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?
About 1,400 Chicago public school teachers and staff are expected to lose their jobs in order to finance a pension debt of $634 million, the city announced Wednesday.
The layoffs are part of an aggressive $200 million budget cut to help finance the pension payment, which is required of Chicago Public Schools by Illinois law. The rest of the pension payment is coming from heavy borrowing, as the district already has a massive $1.1 billion budget deficit.
In announcing the layoffs, Mayor Rahm Emanuel blamed the rest of the state for not picking up the slack, saying the rest of Illinois doesn’t pay its fair share for pensions.
“You negotiate with your teachers in Aurora… Then we get to pay for it,” Emanuel said at a press conference. He said the state should change its funding formula so “You… come to the table and start paying your share for what you negotiated.”
But lawmakers in Springfield failed to act, leaving “unconscionable” cuts as the only option, he said.
Chicago’s public schools have seen repeated mass layoffs in recent years thanks to a budget situation that is in perpetual crisis. In 2014, about 1,100 employees were laid off, and over 3,000 lost their jobs in 2013.
Still, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) released a statement saying it was totally “blindsided” by the mass firing, and accusing city officials of trying to “retaliate” against them for a recent breakdown in contract negotiations.
“These layoffs prove that the Board never intended to make the pension payment in good faith and that they are using this to justify more attacks on our classrooms,” said CTU president Karen Lewis. “Putting 1,400 people out of work is no way to balance a budget and resource our schools. This is going to hurt our students and the most vulnerable children in
Angry educators, though, might consider pointing a finger at the pension benefits received by their retired colleagues. Thousands of retired Illinois teachers receive a six-figure pension, and the typical teacher received more in pension payments than they personally paid in within 20 months of retirement. Most teachers retire at age 59 or younger, and the lifetime pension cost per teacher in the state is estimated to exceed $2 million. Not helping things for the state is an annual 3 percent cost of living adjustment that is fully guaranteed and totally untethered from actual inflation rates.
Chicago teachers have defended their high pensions by pointing out that by virtue of their participation they are ineligible for Social Security, though this non-participation means they also pay no payroll taxes.
In 2013, Illinois lawmakers passed a pension reform bill that tried to scale back benefits to contain costs, but CTU and other labor groups sued. In May, a state judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for Illinois to make any cuts whatsoever to negotiated pension payments.
Following President Obama’s decision to reopen the United States embassy in Cuba, GOP presidential candidates Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)47%
and Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) – expected to announce later this month – both said they disapprove of the president’s move.
“As president, I would not honor this decision with Cuba and I would close the embassy until the Castro brothers actually change their behavior,” Graham said. “By suggesting the dictatorship in Cuba is an acceptable or normal government, we are sending the worst possible message at the most critical time.”
Walker agrees with Graham;
“President Obama’s decision to establish full diplomatic relations with Cuba and open an embassy there is yet another example of his appeasement of dictators. He is foolishly rewarding the brutal Castro dictatorship and selling out the Cuban people,” stated Walker.
Walker mocked that an embassy in Iran may be next on Obama’s radar.
“Given his track record of retreat, should we expect an embassy in Iran next? Instead of supporting our close ally Israel with an embassy in Jerusalem, President Obama is accommodating an enemy, the Castro regime, without forcing it to turn over its terrorist and criminal fugitives,” Walker said.
Graham agrees that Obama’s foreign policy move with Cuba could impact the deal with Iran.
“Today’s announcement makes it harder for us to get a good deal with the Iranians and harder for the next president to reset world order. I fear Assad, Putin, the Chinese, and terrorists who wish to do us harm take this as yet another sign of continued American weakness,” Graham said. “President Obama is truly writing new chapters in American foreign policy. Unfortunately, these latest chapters are ones of America and the values we stand for — human rights, freedom, and democracy — in retreat and decline.”
When Donald Trump said something not exuberantly enthusiastic about Mexican immigrants, the media’s response was to boycott him. One thing they didn’t do was produce any facts showing he was wrong.
Trump said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The first thing a news fact-checker would have noticed is: THE GOVERNMENT WON’T TELL US HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS ARE COMMITTING CRIMES IN AMERICA.
Wouldn’t that make any person of average intelligence suspicious? Not our media. They’re in on the cover-up.
A curious media might also wonder why any immigrants are committing crimes in America. A nation’s immigration policy, like any other government policy, ought to be used to help the people already here — including the immigrants, incidentally.
It’s bad enough that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are accessing government benefits at far above the native rate, but why would any country be taking another country’s criminals? We have our own criminals! No one asked for more.
Instead of counting the immigrant stock filling up our prisons, the government issues a series of comical reports claiming to tally immigrant crime. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants’ self-reports of their citizenship. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates. The Government Accounting Office conducts its own analysis of Bureau of Prisons data.
In other words, the government hasn’t the first idea how many prisoners are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or anchor babies.
But there are clues! Only about a quarter of California inmates are white, according to a major investigative piece in The Atlantic last year — and that includes criminals convicted in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the vast majority of California’s population was either black or white.
Do immigration enthusiasts imagine that more than 75 percent of the recent convicts are African-American? Blacks have high crime rates, but they make up only about 6 percent of California’s entire population.
A casual perusal of the “Most Wanted” lists also suggests that the government may not have our best interests in mind when deciding who gets to live in America.
Here is the Los Angeles Police Department’s list of “Most Wanted” criminal suspects:
– Jesse Enrique Monarrez (murder),
– Cesar Augusto Nistal (child molestation),
– Jose A. Padilla (murder),
– Demecio Carlos Perez (murder),
– Ramon Reyes (robbery and murder),
– Victor Vargas (murder),
– Ruben Villa (murder)
The full “Most Wanted” list doesn’t get any better.
There aren’t a lot of Mexicans in New York state — half of all Mexican immigrants in the U.S. live in either Texas or California — and yet there are more Mexican prisoners in New York than there are inmates from all of Western Europe.
As for the crime of rape specifically, different groups have different criminal proclivities, and no one takes a backseat to Hispanics in terms of sex crimes.
The rate of rape in Mexico is even higher than in India, according to Professor Carlos Javier Echarri Canovas of El Colegio de Mexico. A report from the Inter-American Children’s Institute explains that in Latin America, women and children are “seen as objects instead of human beings with rights and freedoms.”
All peasant cultures have non-progressive views on women, but Latin America happens to have the peasant culture that’s closest to the United States.
The only reason our newspapers aren’t chockablock with reports of Latino sexual predators is that they are too busy broadcasting hoax news stories about non-existent gang-rapes by white men: the Duke lacrosse team (Crystal Gail Mangum), University of Virginia fraternity members (Jackie Coakley) and military contractors in Iraq (Jamie Leigh Jones).
In fact, the main way we find out about Hispanic rapists is when the media report on dead or missing girls — hoping against hope that the case will never be solved or the perp will turn out to look like the rapists on “Law and Order.” When it turns out to be another Latino rapist, that fact is aggressively suppressed by the media.
New Yorkers were horrified by the case of “Baby Hope,” a 4-year-old girl whose raped and murdered body turned up in an Igloo cooler off of the Henry Hudson Parkway in 1991. After a 20-year investigation, the police finally captured her rapist/murderer in 2003. It was Conrado Juarez, an illegal alien from Mexico, who disposed of the girl’s body with the help of his illegal alien sister.
New York City is the nation’s media capital. But only The New York Post reported that the child rapist was a Mexican.
In 2001, the media were fixated on the case of Chandra Levy, a congressional intern who had gone missing. All eyes were on her boss and romantic partner, Democratic congressman Gary Condit. Then it turned out she was assaulted and murdered while jogging in Rock Creek Park by Ingmar Guandique — an illegal alien from El Salvador.
There was a lot of press when three Cleveland women went missing a decade ago. By the time they escaped in 2013 from the sick sexual pervert who’d been holding them captive, it was too late for the media to ignore the story. The girls hadn’t been kidnapped by the Duke lacrosse team, but by Ariel Castro.
Now, get this: While investigating Castro, the police discovered that he wasn’t the only Hispanic raping young girls on his block. (All in all, it wasn’t a great street for trick-or-treating.)
Castro’s erstwhile neighbor, Elias Acevedo, had spent years raping, among many others, his own daughters when they were little girls. The New York Times’ entire coverage of that case consisted of a tiny item on page A-18: “Ohio: Life Sentence in Murders and Rapes.”
The media knew from the beginning that the monstrous gang-rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993 was instigated by Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. But over the next decade, with more than a thousand news stories on that case, the fact that the lead rapist was a Mexican was not mentioned once, according to the Nexis archives.
Only when Medellin’s Mexicanness was used to try to overturn his death sentence did American news consumers finally find out he was an illegal alien from Mexico. (After years of wasted judicial resources and taxpayer money being spent on Medellin’s appeals, he will now be spending eternity way, way south of the border.)
Who is this media cover-up helping? Not the American girls getting raped. But also not the Latina immigrants who came to the U.S., thinking they were escaping the Latin American rape culture. So as not to hurt the feelings of immigrant rapists, the media are willing to put all girls living here at risk.
No wonder the media is sputtering at Trump. He broke the embargo on unpleasant facts about what our brilliant immigration policies are doing to the country.
Your support keeps freedom alive!