RUTHFULLY YOURS

One of the most significant critical phenomena occurring within the last five years was the persistent and oftimes viciously personal neoconservative (“neocon”) attack on Diana West’s compelling and thoroughly documented account of how the U.S. lost World War II because of Soviet infiltration and manipulation of the Roosevelt administration. These machinations were fiddled not so much by Josef Stalin, as by his fifth column and domestic politburo of American Stalinists and an obliging U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The book is American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. The U.S. government then was termite-riddled with Soviet agents and sympathizers (“fellow-travelers”), much as our government now is termite-riddled with Muslims.

I reviewed Diana West’s path-breaking book in May 2015 in my Rule of Reason column, “Blaming the Right Culprits.” In it I wrote:

Diana West has performed yeoman’s work in exposing the Soviet-FDR connection in American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. She has aired out America’s dirty laundry and hung it out to dry. Neocons and other strange creatures attacked her for contradicting their over half-century-old meme that FDR was a blameless dupe of Joseph Stalin and that there were no real Soviet agents and fellow travelers in FDR’s administration.

The debt of the federal government has now increased by more than $8,000,000,000,000 during the time President Barack Obama has been in office, according to the official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
The total federal debt, which was $18,722,746,583,118.03 at the close of business on Monday, now equals about $159,007 per household.
It has increased approximately $68,756 per household during Obama’s presidency.
On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.
As of September, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 117,748,000 households in the United States. The $18,722,746,583,118.03 in federal debt equals $159,006.91 for each one of those households.
The $8,095,869,534,204.95 that the debt has increased under Obama equals about 68,755.90 for each one of those households.

As CNSNews.com reported last month, the portion of the federal government’s debt that is held by the public-as opposed to the portion that is borrowed out of government trust funds such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds-has more than doubled during President Barack Obama’s time in office.
When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the $10,626,877,048,913.08 in federal debt consisted of $6,307,310,739,681.66 in debt held by the public and $4,319,566,309,231.42 in intragovernmental debt. The $18,722,746,583,118.03 in total federal debt at the close of business Monday consisted of $13,487,562,419,580.15 in debt held by the public and $5,233,308,167,077.60 in intragovernmental debt.

The obvious short answer to the question that serves as the title for my commentary is, “to carry out an attack.”

However, unlike football players who need to simply carry the ball into the end zone or baseball players who have to cross home plate in order to score, aliens engaged in terrorism must, after entering, find a way to hide in plain sight as they go about their deadly preparations without being identified and without being interfered with by law enforcement authorities. Crossing our borders, one way or another, is just the beginning of their efforts to attack us.

The 9/11 Commission referred to this as the embedding tactics of the terrorists.

Terrorists who keep a low profile until they are called into action are known as “sleepers.” On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article: “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat.”

It is understandable that the recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere have elevated concerns about terror attacks. The ongoing coverage of the manhunt for terrorists around the world has captured public attention. Hunting down suspected terrorists requires a two-pronged approach, determining what country the suspect has entered and then digging him/her out of the “woodwork.” Immigration enforcement can be instrumental in such an effort.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said the Black Lives Matter movement “must understand” the way of peace and nonviolence.

Lewis, one of the “Big Six” civil rights leaders, said many young people are using his series of March books on the Civil Rights Movement as a guide.

“I think many of the young people all over America, high school students, college students and even elementary school students, are reading the book and they are able to associate the story, my story, my involvement in the Civil Rights Movement with what is happening in America today,” Lewis told PJM at the National Press Club Book Fair in Washington. “It is teaching people the way of peace, the way of love, the way of nonviolence and this young man, [co-author] Andrew Aydin, had the idea that we should do this book.”

Lewis provided his assessment of how the Civil Rights Movement compares with the Black Lives Matter movement of today.

“When we first got involved, before we had gone on the sit-in of the freedom ride, before the March on Washington or March from Selma, we studied the way of peace, the way of life, the way of nonviolence and we accepted nonviolence as a way of life, as a way of living. So the young people involved in the Black Lives Matter movement must understand, and many of these people are reading this book and using it as a guide,” Lewis said.

With Congress stuck among the contradictory demands of labor, business and talk-radio restrictionists, neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama has been able to move the needle on immigration reform. Meanwhile, as the economy gathers steam, states face a tight labor market at all skill levels.

There might be a way forward, if Congress enacts legislation to give states standing waivers or permission to craft their own guest-worker programs. It sounds radical, but several states, red and blue, have already been trying to do this.

California, New Mexico and Kansas have passed resolutions or drafted legislation to issue guest-worker visas to undocumented aliens. Three pending bills in Texas would let state employers hire foreign workers from abroad on temporary work visas. Utah’s conservative legislature overwhelmingly approved legislation in 2011 to let undocumented workers obtain a two-year visa. But Utah’s program has been postponed, because immigration is a federal function and states would need federal waivers. President Obama has stonewalled Utah’s waiver request.

One way to release states from the partisan whims of administrations would be for Congress to erect a statutory architecture under which states could implement their own guest-worker programs. Canada has done this through its highly successful Provincial Nominee Program.

Despite losing his battle to officially close the controversial detention center that he promised the leftists would be one of his first acts when he was elected to office in 2008, President Barack Obama stepped back from his threat to veto a bill after seeing it pass in the House of Representatives with some Democrats joining the Republicans. However, the President’s news media friends downplayed the vote and it outcome not for Obama but for their “cause,” according to police officers opposed to the propect of bringing Gitmo detainees to the U.S.

Obama has ended up signing a defense bill into law just before the Thanksgiving holiday with little fanfare and even littler media coverage. The bill appropriates $607 billion in defense spending and includes stipulations that would make very difficult to close the military prison — located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — that houses some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.
Guantanamo is the small piece of Cuba in which U.S. Marines and Naval personnel maintain a military base. With Obama’s recent concessions to communist Cuba’s rulers, Fidel and Raoul Castro, there has been talk that the U.S. may remove its military from that Caribbean island and turn over Guantanamo Bay back the Castro brothers.

How dangerous: Just as the U.S. faces the most diverse threats in its history, the American intelligence community is forced to operate under some of the most restrictive and bureaucratically ambiguous intelligence-gathering policies since its inception more than 60 years ago.

Nothing reflects these self-imposed restrictions better than Presidential Policy Directive 28. President Obama signed PPD-28 nearly two years ago in a knee-jerk reaction to the release of classified intelligence information by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and the data-collection methods revealed by the theft.

Among its many flaws, PPD-28 requires that, when collecting intelligence on foreign threats, U.S. operatives “must take into account (that) all persons should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their nationality or wherever they may reside and that all persons have legitimate privacy interests.” This feel-good provision puts a serious crimp in foreign signals-intelligence collection.

The ambiguous language also naïvely extends to non-Americans unnecessary and undefined “privacy” rights. In what way does this make the U.S. safer?

FOR A GREAT GUIDE TO THE SUPREMES AND THE CONSTITUTION….READ:

The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution:By Gerald Walpin

They’re on a “rampage,” writes Gerald Walpin, one of the country’s top litigators, in his astonishing new book, The Supreme Court Vs. The Constitution.

And it takes just five of them to lay waste to the rights of 300 million Americans.

A mostly bare majority of justices of the United States Supreme Court, the only judicial body enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, have spent recent decades reversing, revoking and rescinding the fundamental guarantees of that sacred document to the people of America.

They’ve freed thousands of murderers, rewritten sound and time-tested laws, crippled religious liberty, enabled the spread of pornography and immorality. They have ignored the letter and spirit of the Constitution and its amendments in grabbing power that rightfully belongs to the Executive and Legislative branches, the states − and, ultimately, the people.

Gerald Walpin, who prosecuted criminals and pursued crooked bureaucrats as a federal Inspector General nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and, many years before, as a top prosecutor for the Department Of Justice in New York, dramatically sets out the deliberate push by a bare majority of Supreme Court justices to usurp the role of our country’s elected lawmakers and executives.

The justices time and again seize the rightful authority of those we elect to represent us, and with unchallengeable arrogance undermine the “inalienable rights” that long have made the United States the world’s brightest beacon of freedom, democracy, and personal security.

A pro-choice voter in New Hampshire had a question for John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, who was making the rounds as a presidential candidate: Would he “respect” Roe v. Wade even though he is a pro-lifer? Kasich answered, “Obviously, it’s the law of the land now, and we live with the law of the land.”

Whether he knew it or not, Kasich had wandered into a debate over the courts, one in which some of the other presidential candidates are also participants. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has denounced “judicial tyranny.” When five justices ruled that the Constitution requires governments to recognize same-sex marriage, he scoffed that the Supreme Court was not “the Supreme Being.”

It’s an often-heated debate. Huckabee’s side says that the courts have established a “judicial supremacy” at odds with the actual constitutional design; the other side says that people like Huckabee are threatening the rule of law. Both sides have some reasonable points, and both could profit from conducting the debate at a lower level of abstraction.