America Ignores Pat Buchanan's Warnings at their Peril

(Excerpts from Tom Tancredo's review of Pat Buchanan's new book, Suicide of a Superpower)

. . . Reading this book, I wish more than ever that Pat or someone like him was running for president. His past books have focused on specific areas like foreign policy, immigration, or economics. Suicide of a Superpower synthesizes all these major problems under a general thesis: America is disintegrating.

. . . Pat addresses these issues without flinching from controversy. When it comes to immigration, Pat notes that our current policies will make White Americans a minority by 2042. Buchanan quotes numerous liberals groups and individuals such as Tim Wise, Michael Moore, and the Center for American Progress who yearn for this day because they think this will cause the defeat of the Republican Party.

. . . Suicide of a Superpower is an incredibly insightful, well written and thought provoking book. Buchanan has a masterful command of the English language. Even when I disagree with him, the force of his arguments and prose make me seriously consider the other side.

I strongly recommend that patriots concerned about the future of our great country read this book.

Tom 

Click below to buy Pat Buchanan's new book on Amazon.

Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

 

Team America PAC is endorsing Arizona's Matt Salmon in his bid for U.S. Congress. Team America PAC supports Matt's vision and Conservative credentials in creating a jobs-friendly environment allowing for growth, security and prosperity for Arizona.

Matt Salmon was first elected to the United States Congress in 1994 and served until 2000. A proud fiscal conservative, Salmon was rated in the top five among all 535 members of the House and Senate by Citizens Against Government Waste for all six years he was in office. He is a lifetime member of the NRA with an A+ rating and also earned a 100% rating by the National Right to Life. He was also the proud recipient of the American Cancer Society's "Top National Elected Official" award.  NumbersUSA rates Matt with an A- on immigration issues.

During his time in Congress, Salmon was named a "Watchdog of the Treasury" six consecutive years and earned the "Taxpayer Hero Award" from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Salmon's record of supporting pro-business policies earned him the Spirit of Enterprise Award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for each of the six years he served. Salmon was also honored as a "Friend of Small Business" from the National Federation of Independent Business for six consecutive years.

Matt Salmon will lead the fight in Congress to address and solve the issue of illegal immigration. Salmon believes the federal government is failing to do the job of protecting our national borders and will advocate permitting the use of National Guard troops to secure our borders if necessary. Salmon will also partner with leaders from Arizona and other border states in fighting back against the federal government and their attempts to stop states from taking action to prevent illegal immigration. Salmon recognizes that America is a nation where immigrants want to live, and believes that immigration reform is needed to reward those who comply with our immigration policies and punish those who do not.

Matt Salmon has been married for 32 years to his best friend, Nancy. They are the proud parents of four children and the proud grandparents of four grandchildren.

Matt Salmon has also received endorsements from Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, former Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Commissioner Gary Pierce, former speaker Mark Killian, East Valley mayors Gail Barney (Queen Creek), Hugh Hallman (Tempe) and John Insalaco (Apache Junction), among others.

Join Matt's campaign by accessing his website at http://www.salmonforcongress.com/ and contributing to his campaign. If you prefer, you can also help Matt by donating here on Team America's site and typing "for Matt Salmon" in the Comment section. We'll pass your marked contribution on to Matt.

 

For the last few weeks, President Obama has been meeting behind closed doors ... to push for amnesty. Obama has met with the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and promised to promote amnesty. This comes on the heels of his "stakeholders" meeting to have a "dialogue" on immigration. The problem with this "dialogue" was that every single person he met with supported amnesty! The coalition included a number of sanctuary city mayors and police chiefs, CEOs of businesses convicted of hiring illegal aliens, far left George Soros-funded groups like the Center for American Progress, and race hustlers like Al Sharpton.

Obama celebrated Cinco De Mayo with Hispanic movie stars like Eva Longoria and Rosario Dawson and told them we need to "fix this broken system," which, like "comprehensive immigration reform," is another code word for amnesty. Whitehouse announced that on May 10 the president will make a major immigration speech. According to Obama's press secretary Jay Carney, "What I can say is that the speech will reflect the President's continued commitment to find a bipartisan way to create comprehensive immigration reform."

HELP US FIGHT OBAMA'S AMNESTY

According to USA Today, the timing of the speech makes clear that "he will use his newly earned political capital [from killing Osama] to push his version of immigration reform, including potential citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the United States." This shows exactly where Obama's priorities are. It will be very difficult for any amnesty to pass the Republican controlled House, but we cannot be complacent. The GOP establishment still responds to the cheap labor lobby, and it is up to us--the conservative grassroots of the party--to stand up against the open borders RINOs.

Both Tom and Bay will consult with leaders in Washington and across the country to stop Obama's latest amnesty scheme cold.

 

(originally published at World Net Daily)

In the last few weeks, Congress held two hearings on Islam, and the contrast couldn't be clearer. In the Republican-controlled House, the Homeland Security Committee, under Peter King, held a hearing on the danger posed by "Muslim Radicalization in the United States" on March 6.

 

Last Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, led by Richard Durbin, held a hearing on "Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims."

 

The radical left wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had a lot to say about both hearings. The SPLC called Rep. King's hearings "loathsome," "bigoted" and "his version of the McCarthy hearings," which "leads to violence against the targeted minorities."

 

CNN interviewed SPLC official Mark Potok, whom they called "expert on extremism" from "one of the most highly regarded non-governmental operations that are monitoring hate groups." CNN's Suzanne Malveaux asked him, "From your study of tracking radical groups, potentially hate groups, what do you think of this hearing? Is al-Qaida radicalizing Muslims? Is that our biggest homegrown terrorism threat right now?" Potok responded, "I think it's not our biggest domestic terror threat. I think that pretty clearly comes from the radical right in this country." Potok's gave one sole example of "right-wing terrorism": two tax resisters who killed two police officers last year.

 

This was a heinous crime, and the criminals should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but to say this represents a greater threat than the radical jihadists is laughable.

 

No less an establishment source than the Council of Foreign Relations detailed dozens of homegrown domestic terrorists. While the SPLC imagines a growth in anti-Islamic bigotry, the CFR notes a dramatic increase in terrorist activities from U.S. citizen Muslims, stating, "There had been an average of six cases per year since 2001, but that rose to 13 in 2009."

 

These include:

 

The Beltway snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed 10 people and wounded three others and who the media never mention were Islamic extremists; The Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, who shot 42 people, 13 of whom died; Faisal Shahzad, who tried to blow up Time Square. While the SPLC denounced Rep. King's hearings, their president, Richard Cohen, was invited to speak at Sen. Durbin's hearings. Cohen said, "Anti-Muslim bigotry - and the hate crime it inspires - is a serious problem in our country." Cohen blamed opposition to the 9/11 mosque for a "spike" in hate crimes against Muslims.

 

According to Cohen, there were 156 hate crimes against Muslims in the United States since Sept. 11. Let's look at the SPLC's list of incidents. In the last 10 years, they listed a grand total of two murders. One was the killing of Sikh a few days after 9/11 who was mistaken for an Arab. The other was the murder of an Afghani immigrant, Alia Ansari, by Manuel Urango, a Hispanic gang member with a long felony rap sheet and "No Remorse" tattooed on his face. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "authorities said there was no evidence that Ansari's killing was a hate crime."

 

So in the last 10 years, there has been one anti-Muslim murder (which wasn't even of a Muslim) that occurred just days after 9/11.

 

Besides his non-existent hate crimes, Cohen claimed the "toxic atmosphere has also entered our schools, manifesting itself in the harassment of Muslim students." The most extreme examples he could come up with was students trying to pull of the turbans of Sikh boys and Muslim students being asked if they bombed a store in Minnesota.

 

Suggesting schoolyard name-calling warrants congressional action is ridiculous.

 

While ignoring threat of jihadists and manufacturing the threat of "right-wing extremists" and hate crimes, the SPLC praises left-wing terrorists. Their website Tolerance.org called Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, "a civil rights organizer, radical anti-Vietnam War activist, teacher and author" who "has developed a rich vision of teaching that interweaves passion, responsibility and self-reflection." On Sept. 11, 2001, the New York Times ran an interview with Ayers where he said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

 

Amazingly, the Department of Homeland Security is promoting their disinformation. Richard Cohen served on the Homeland Security Advisory Council for Countering Violent Extremism. Earlier this month, DHS sent an "infogram" to local law enforcement that stated "the radical right in America expanded explosively in 2010." The SPLC, a "professional watchdog of hate groups," suggests that the 7.5 percent increase has been caused by "frustration over the lagging economy, resentment over changing national demographics, immigration fears, and mainstreaming of conspiracy theories."

 

What they don't mention is that these "hate groups" include many mainstream immigration control and socially conservative organizations like VDARE.com, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council.

 

The Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies have no business relying on such a dishonest left-wing outfit for information. Far from being "experts on extremism," the SPLC are extremists themselves.

 

The Arizona Republic published several editorials and news stories attacking Russell Pearce and other patriots who want to end birthright citizenship. One of the most blatantly inaccurate was an op ed by an agriculutral lobbyist Joe Sigg.

 

The Arizona Republic would not publish Sen. Pearce's resposne, so he sent it to us to set the record straight.

 

Joe Sigg's op-ed "Challenge to 14th Amendment will fail" misstates both the meaning of the 14th
Amendment, the history of birthright citizenship, and how my bill SB 1309seeks to remedy current
situation.

The errors begin with the title. Neither SB 1309, the dozens of other state level birthright citizenship
bills, nor Congressman Steve King's(R-IA) national Birthright Citizenship Act seeks to "challenge" the
14th Amendment.

Rather, they aim to restore the original intention of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1, clause 1 of the Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The reason for this wording was specifically to ensure that the children of African American Slaves were given citizenship. The framers of the Amendment made it clear that they did not mean for it to apply to the children of aliens, which is why they included the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Sen. Jacob M. Howard of Michigan who wrote the language of the citizen clause made clear stated that birthright citizenship was not meant to apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Ending birthright citizenship does not undermine the 14th Amendment, but brings it back to its proper context. SB 1309simply properly defines the "subject of the jurisdiction clause" to its original intention.

Rosen writes, "The Supreme Court has ruled several times on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Neither the states nor Congress can pass a law changing the court's interpretation."

Both of these assertions are wrong. While the Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Wong
Kim Ark (1898) that the children of legal immigrants should receive automatic citizenship (something that I do not dispute), it has never ruled on the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants or temporary aliens.

In fact the members of the Supreme Court have gone out of its way not to leave the door open to
a challenge to birthright citizenship. In their opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfield, Supreme Court Justice
Anthony Scalia and the liberal John Paul Stephens referred to Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi-who
was born here while his father was visiting on a temporary visa and then spent the rest of his life in

Saudi Arabia-as a "presumed U.S. citizen," acknowledging that the issue was open to debate.

Neither my bill nor Congressman King's bill is challenging a Supreme Court interpretation on birthright citizenship, because there is no Supreme Court interpretation to challenge. Even if this was the case, the Supreme Court is not omnipotent. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution states "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In other words, Congress may limit the power of the Judiciary to hear a certain issue. In 1869, The
Supreme Court reaffirmed this understanding in ex-parte McArdle, which is used as precedent to this day.

Mr. Siggs finally tries to claim that ending birthright citizenship must be retroactive and therefore would require everyone and thus create a "bureaucratic nightmare." Neither my law nor Rep. King's law would be retroactive, and he gives no reason why a Supreme Court decision against automatic birthright citizenship should be either. In fact my law explicitly states that it will only apply to issuance of new birth certificates.

The policy of giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants is not based on the
US Constitution or judicial precedent. Rather it is an arbitrary executive branch policy that rewards
lawbreakers and cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It is my hope that SB 1309will be the first step in
remedying this problem.