Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House – the Sequel (Worse Than the Original)

As Reagan might have said, “There she goes again!”

 

Frontpage mag

Michael Cutler

In the movies sequels are usually worse than the original. Since Washington has often been referred to as “Hollywood for ugly people,” it is perhaps appropriate to consider another sequel in the making, not in film but in politics. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House and soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives, once again was the subject of a video posted on December 7, 2018 by Fox News, in which she rejected the notion of constructing a wall along the highly porous U.S./Mexican border to prevent the entry of illegal aliens, narcotics and other contraband.

Her outrageous statements and positions on immigration law enforcement and border security seemed to strike a new low during her first stint as Speaker. She has yet to resume that position and is already providing a disturbing peek into what America and Americans are in for with her in the position that provides her with a “leadership” role in the Congress and puts her in the chain of succession to the U.S. Presidency.

As my dad used to say, “Nothing is so good it could not be better or be so bad it could not get worse.” As hard as it might be to imagine, bad as Pelosi was the last time she held the position of Speaker, she may actually prove my dad was right.

This is the link to the Fox News video:

Pelosi Takes Hard Line on Trump’s Border Wall: ‘Immoral, Ineffective and Expensive’

It is unfathomable how Pelosi could declare that protecting the United States from threats posed by international terrorists, transnational gangs and the flow of narcotics into the United States is “immoral.”

It is similarly impossible to understand how Pelosi could determine that it is immoral to prevent the illegal entry of foreign workers who all too frequently displace American and lawful immigrant workers and drive down wages and working conditions of American and lawful immigrant workers who are similarly employed.

A wall would not prevent the lawful entry of a single person into the United States. The wall would not block America’s ports of entry but would funnel all traffic destined to the United States through ports of entry where they are subject to inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors and where a record of their entry into the United States is created. These issues have significant national security implications.

This is comparable to the way that guests who visit us are expected to knock on our front doors to ask permission to enter our homes. It would certainly be unacceptable for a stranger to enter our homes by climbing through a back window. Similarly an effective border wall would prevent aliens entering the United States surreptitiously.

In a very real sense, entering without inspection is, at a minimum, comparable to trespassing and, as I noted in my recent article, “Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters,” Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical and contradictory position on trespassing on critical infrastructure and national landmarks versus aliens who trespass on America is astonishing.

Here is the relevant excerpt from my commentary:

Aliens who evade the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States.  This is a violation of law and poses a threat to national security and public safety.

On October 13, 2014 Schumer posted a press release on his official website which announced that because of dangers created by trespassers, particularly in this era of terrorism, that he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.

However, Schumer, who actually cited the antics of a 16-year-old boy in his press release, had declared that anyone who trespasses, including “adrenaline junkies,” should face a five-year prison sentence.

However, when aliens trespass on the United States, even where violence is concerned, Schumer and his Democratic colleagues are determined to provide those illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship!

The open-borders immigration anarchists refer to aliens who run our borders as being “undocumented immigrants.” In point of fact, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of enter the United States without inspection.

Such an entry is in violation of U.S. Code § 1325, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Continue reading

Liberalism Embraces the Soul of the Soviet Union

Family Security Matters

by LAWRENCE  SELLIN, PHD

American liberalism, like all such political philosophies that ultimately rely on coercion for policy implementation, has completed its historical journey from altruism to totalitarianism.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), like the Obama Administration, recommends that the Internal Revenue Service be used to suppress the activities of the Tea Party because its members engage in political speech with which he disagrees.

Schumer proves that it is not unintentional bureaucratic malpractice, but brute governmental force perpetrated by one political party against those holding alternative political beliefs in order to restrict free speech and impose its own ideology on the country.

Liberals, deeming themselves morally superior, have developed the capacity to ignore a record of consistent failure because they mistakenly equate intentions with results. For liberals, public policy becomes an extension of their own self-deception and intellectual dishonesty.

Continue reading

Show me your papers

American Thinker

Lee DeCovnick

All United States citizens may be required to carry a biometric I.D. card!

That’s not Orwell’s Big Brother speaking. Rather Democrat Chuck Schumer (D- New York), and Republican Lindsay Graham (R- South Carolina) have devised new legislation to mandate that every worker carry a government I.D. card to prove his citizenship. The card must be carried every day and may be checked by employers and any governmental authority upon request.
All U.S. citizens would be required to carry an ID cards according to this plan. It’s meant to keep companies from hiring illegal immigrants. No matter where you apply for a job, under the plan, you would have to have a card carrying bio-metric information on a microchip. It’s like your fingerprints, or a scan of the veins in your hands.
Even the ACLU is not backing this transparent attempt to force a mandatory national I.D. onto 300 million Americans.
We’re talking about fingerprinting every single American worker, and that card, in turn, will probably be used not only to work but also to travel, to vote, perhaps even to own a gun.
Senator Graham, in response to these privacy concerns said, “This program would not expand like that.”  I wouldn’t want to call the Senator a liar, but that is a breathtaking level of naivety for a U.S. senator.
National I.D. cards are nothing new, totalitarian regimes revel in the ability to disallow travel, financial transactions, and food distribution for those who don’t have the proper papers. A microchip on the card opens the door for the inclusion of non-medical information such as political or union affiliations, criminal or civil judgments, and with the addition of a GPS chip, all travel activity around town and overseas. The serious misuse of such a powerful database tool by any governmental authority is too chilling to consider. Is there any doubt that once down this country starts down this path, it would be politically impossible to turn back?