Bordering on Madness
The real issue when it comes to immigration is not simply what particular immigration policy America should have, but whether America can have any immigration policy at all. A country that does not control its own borders does not have any immigration policy. There may be laws on the books, but such laws are just meaningless words if people from other countries can cross the borders whenever they choose. One of the reasons why many Americans are reluctant to keep out illegal immigrants -- or even to call them "illegal immigrants," instead of using the mealy-mouthed word "undocumented" -- is that most Hispanics they encounter seem to be decent, hard-working people. This column has pointed out, more than once, that I have never seen Mexicans standing on a street corner begging, though I have seen both whites and blacks doing so. But such impressions are no basis for deciding serious issues about immigration and citizenship. When we do not control our own borders, we have no way of knowing how many of those coming across those borders are criminals or even terrorists.
The Left’s Dark Money Managers
Philip Gara LaMarche is a secretive political operative who funnels billions of dollars from undisclosed donors to nonprofits and astroturf groups. But you won't hear unhinged Harry Reid railing Queegishly about him on the Senate floor. Why? Here's why: LaMarche is a militant leftist philanthropist. He's a protected elite -- Columbia University grad, former ACLU leader and Human Rights Watch official -- with ready access to the White House. He and the left's other dark money managers preach transparency and openness, while plotting behind closed doors to secure power at every level of government. LaMarche currently heads the shadowy Democracy Alliance (DA). In internal documents obtained and published this month by John Hinderaker of the Power Line blog, the group currently describes itself as the "center of gravity" for the progressive funding world.
Why Does Anyone Defend Hamas & Their Culture Of Death?
David M. Huntwork
It boggles the mind and offends the senses that there is even one member of Western civilization who is upset that Israel is pummeling the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Under Ariel Sharon, Israel forcibly removed its citizens from Gaza and turned the land over to the Arabs. Israel has been rewarded for that gesture of conciliation with the abduction and killing of its citizens and the launching of hundreds of rockets into its territory. Such provocations have finally goaded the state of Israel into launching a ground invasion of Gaza to take on the infamous Hamas, a terrorist group famous for hiding behind women and children even as they target the same. Death and destruction is a deserving end to all those who purposefully target, kidnap, and murder young, innocent civilians. That's the tragic event that triggered this latest round of the current conflict. May all those in Gaza who support such practices pay a very severe price for doing so.
Has the Right Lost Its Will to Fight?
I don't think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama right now, but I also don't think that considering the idea is "crazy talk." The man has, in my view and that of many others, committed multitudinous impeachable offenses, and we need to strenuously object and bring it to the public's attention every chance we get. The idea of turning our heads and looking the other way is repugnant. Yes, the elections are too close for Republicans to risk impeachment proceedings at this point, unless it became clear that the majority of Americans have the political will for that action -- as Andy McCarthy eloquently explains in his book Faithless Execution. But my concern is that many of those who are so dismissive of impeachment are the same ones who always argue caution in opposing Obama. They tend to throw in the towel before the fights even begin, scared of their shadow and forever banking on that next election.
Jack Lew’s Flee America Plan
Editors, The Wall Street Journal
So the same Administration that refuses to work seriously on tax reform has decided that its top economic priority is providing even more incentives to drive American companies overseas. And then accusing anyone who disagrees of having a lack of "economic patriotism." Yes, that can only be Jack Lew in action, the Treasury Secretary who must make the statue of Alexander Hamilton want to put on a blindfold. On Tuesday he sent a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp urging the Michigan Republican to punish American companies that decide to opt out of the developed world's highest corporate tax rate. "What we need as a nation is a new sense of economic patriotism," lectured Mr. Lew. The letter called for Congress to urgently enact new penalties and restrictions on businesses that relocate outside the US. Mr. Lew is responding to a recent flurry by US-based companies to merge with or acquire foreign companies so they can relocate their headquarters overseas.
Why Liberals Should Stop Trying to ‘Help’ Black Americans
Jason L. Riley
The civil-rights struggles of the mid-20th century were liberalism at its best. The efforts culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote. But what about the social policy and thinking that arose from the ruins of Jim Crow? Good intentions aside, which efforts have facilitated black advancement, and which efforts have impeded it? Many liberals today don't seem particularly interested in asking this question, even though 50 years into the war on poverty the picture isn't pretty. While gains have been made, significant racial disparities persist in some areas and black retrogression has occurred in others. The black-white poverty gap has widened over the last decade and the poverty rate among blacks is no longer declining. The black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960.
When Friedrich Hayek Met Bruno Leoni
I want to take as my text today a provocative statement that Bruno Leoni, not only a pioneer of law and economics thinking but also an early adopter of public choice theory, says in his introduction to Freedom and the Law: "My earnest suggestion is that those who value individual freedom should reassess the place of the individual within the legal system as a whole. It is no longer a question of defending this or that particular freedom--to trade, to speak, to associate with other people, etc.; nor is it a question of deciding what special 'good' kind of legislation we should adopt instead of a 'bad' one." Instead, he continues, "It is a question of deciding whether individual freedom is compatible in principle with the present system centered on and almost completely identified with legislation. This may seem like a radical view; I do not deny that it is. But radical views are sometimes more fruitful than syncretistic theories that serve to conceal the problems more than to solve them."
What Should a ‘Do Something’ Congress Do?
David Corbin & Matthew Parks
President Barack Obama announced last week that his "big motto" for the United States Congress is "do something." After winning the presidency with some other "big" slogans, all the president is asking the Congress to do six years later is to "hope" again. Not just in his ability to bring about real "change" in Washington, but for Congress to believe in its. Congress too can be the one we've been waiting for. It can give us "change we can believe in" and take us "forward"–and it can show the folks in America that change doesn't happen here from the top down, but from the bottom up–like all good things, except the ones that happen from the middle out. House Democrats also love their slogans and responded in lock step a day later, with an "action plan" meant to counter Republican inaction, gridlock, and petty constitutional lawsuits against the executive branch. The Democrat House leadership promised that if they become the majority party after the 2014 midterm elections, they would spend the first 100 days of the 114th Congress working to: (a) increase the minimum wage; (b) "jumpstart" the middle class, and (c) help women.
French Jewry’s Moment of Truth
On July 13, Bernard Abouaf, a French Jewish journalist, posted on his Facebook wall: "I just passed through one of the truest moments in my life." A bit earlier, he had been an eyewitness to a pogrom attempt. About one hundred Muslim thugs had gathered in front of the Don Isaac Abravanel synagogue in Central Paris, a few blocks away from Place de la Bastille (Bastille Circle), and threatened to storm it. Two to three hundred worshipers, who had gathered for a pro-Israel religious service, were locked inside. There were five police officers to protect them–and two dozen Jewish youths trained in martial arts who were members of the Jewish community sponsored Security Organization or of the more militant Jewish Defense League. For Abouaf, whose family is of Tunisian Jewish descent, the whole scene looked like a reenactment of the storming and torching of the Great Synagogue in Tunis during the Six-Day War in 1967: a traumatic event that accelerated the flight of Tunisian Jews to France or to Israel.
Cracks in the Democrats’ Foundation
Paul R. Hollrah
In a column, titled, "Why they won't let us talk to the illegal kids," talk radio pioneer Barry Farber suggested that, "the reason we in media are not allowed to talk to the children is that the conversation in every honest interview will get around to, 'What made you all risk so much to get here?' The answer will be, 'Oh! Mama and Papa heard it many times. Your President Obama has found many little ways to say, 'Come on up! We won't send you back!' " Barry's very ominous prediction was that, "The minute that awareness reaches critical mass, Obama, his works, his team, and the Democrat Party will suffer a rejection that will make the Republican years in political purgatory seem like a quick tour-bus jaunt through hell." One of my major regrets is that, barring divine intervention, I will not be around to see how historians will chronicle America's post-constitutional period: the last half of the 20th century and the first 16 years of the 21st century. These are the years during which one of our major political parties, the Democrat Party, created an ideological plantation on which they cynically attempted to imprison an entire ethnic minority.