Monday, April 11, 2016

Student Loan Fraudster

Via Michael

"Moron proudly defrauds the U.S. taxpayers to take photos of his girlfriend's butt abroad. Typical 'Taker', of the Entitlement generation admits publicly that he used his federal student loan to buy a vacation for himself and girlfriend to go to Thailand.

You know, the same kind of people who demand Bernie and Obama erase their loans and make the taxpayer cover them."

The Saigon Mission Association: "The Last To Leave" 41st Anniversary Meeting/Reunion

Above courtesy of Capt Anthony A. Wood, USMC (Ret). The Defense Attache Office, Saigon, on 30 April 1975. The Effects of 9th MAB's thermite charges. Thanks to the efforts of Capt McManus and MSgt East, the one-time U.S. headquarters, made of concrete and reinforced steel, has literally melted and shrunk.


Defense Attache Office


More @ SMA


Below is a picture of one of my wife's sisters, Hue, in the C141 crying.


'Bloody Islam' billboard riles Florida town: Petitioners demand removal: 'Freedom of speech has its limitations'

Via cscitzen

A "bloody Islam" billboard has caused controversy.

The truth hurts. Sniveling children.

Hundreds living from the southern United States to Nigeria have signed a petition demanding removal of a billboard in St. Augustine Beach, Florida, that refers to the faith of Muslims as “bloody Islam.”

The full text of the billboard message is “Islam Bloody Islam, Doomed by its Doctrine!”

Becky Williams started the petition to tear down the St. Augustine Beach billboard, and so far, about 1,500 have signed it, Action News Jax reported.

More @ WND

ISIS Camp found just 8 Miles from the US Border

Via Billy

ISIS Mexico

Judicial Watch recently uncovered the reality that ISIS is in Mexico, just eight miles south of El Paso, Texas and Columbus, New Mexico– and they have help from the Mexican drug cartels.

While the exact location is unknown, the area is referred to as “Anapra,” west of Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Anapra is controlled by the drug cartel, Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”) and its “enforcement arm,” La Línea, and the Barrio Azteca gang, which ironically originated from El Paso jails.

And Ciudad Juárez is not the only location. West of it is another ISIS camp located in Puerto Palomas. The first group is training to target El Paso; the second, to target Columbus and Deming, New Mexico. Judicial Watch reports:

More @ Eagle Rising

Cruz Supporters Stage Coup – Try to Dump Phyllis Schlafly After Trump Endorsement

Via Billy

Cruz is scum.

Last week Phyllis Schlafly released several board members for disloyalty to the organization.
The group was planning to hold rogue board meeting to take over the Eagle Forum.

Today the rogue Cruz supporters attempted a coup.

They held a non-sanctioned meeting and blocked Phyllis Schlafly from their conference call.

This email was sent out Monday afternoon.
St. Louis, Missouri:
“At 2pm today, 6 directors of Eagle Forum met in an improper, unprecedented telephone meeting. I objected to the meeting and at 2:11pm, I was muted from the call. The meeting was invalid under the Bylaws but the attendees purported to pass several motions to wrest control of the organization from me. They are attempting to seize access to our bank accounts, to terminate employees, and to install members of their own Gang of 6 to control the bank accounts and all of Eagle Forum.
“The members of their group are: Eunie Smith of Alabama, Anne Cori of Missouri, Cathie Adams of Texas, Rosina Kovar of Colorado, Shirley Curry of Tennessee, and Carolyn McLarty of Oklahoma.
“This kind of conduct will not stand and I will fight for Eagle Forum and I ask all men and women of good will to join me in this fight.”

Lincoln Launches His War Against the South

North Carolina retained strong Unionist sentiments until Lincoln’s provocations at Fort Sumter resulted in open warfare. Governor John W. Ellis was well aware of Constitutional limitations of presidential authority, and knew a president could not wage war against a State – an act of treason.  Read more about “A State Forced Out of the Union” at the North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial website,  
Bernhard Thuersam,  The Great American Political Divide

Lincoln Launches His War Against the South

“In manipulating the Fort Sumter crisis to produce that “first shot,” Abe Lincoln had followed the advice of his long-time political friend, Orville Browning, of Illinois. Lincoln had first met Browning during brief service in the Illinois Militia, when they were both chasing after Black Hawk’s Native Americans. Well-educated, Browning practiced law in Quincy, Illinois, and was a Whig politician during the years that Lincoln was active in the Whig party. Then, like Lincoln, Browning became a major figure in the founding of the Illinois Republican party in 1856.

But Browning’s instruction about manipulating the Fort Sumter crisis to produce that most valuable “first shot” had been his most fearsome influence on Lincoln. Before the inauguration, Browning had written Lincoln: “In any conflict…between the [Federal] Government and the seceding States, it is very important that the [Secessionists] shall be [perceived] as the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpable [allegedly] in the wrong. The first attempt…to furnish supplies or reinforcements to Sumter will induce [a military response] by South Carolina, and then the [Federal] Government will stand justified, before the entire [Federation], in repelling the aggression, and retaking the forts.”

Later that summer Lincoln would happily tell Browning, “The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.”

Lieutenant [Gustavus] Fox was very discouraged by his failure to resupply Fort Sumter, and would soon write Abe Lincoln a letter of apology. To Fox, Lincoln would reply: “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the [Federation] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.”  Having in his hand his coveted “first shot,” Abe Lincoln lost no time in launching a war against the Confederacy.

On the very next day, April 15, Lincoln issued an Executive Proclamation directing the Army and Navy to invade the Confederacy and force her States to submit to Federal authority. Lincoln cloaked his rhetoric in awkward language that avoided referring to the Confederacy by name, ignored the fact that seven States had seceded prior to his taking office, ignored Fort Sumter, alleged the existence of lawlessness and rebellion on the part of some of the people in seven States, and inferred that the northern States were somehow in harm’s way.

The Proclamation was set in legal language to circumvent the authority vested in the Federal House and Senate to declare war, and to suppress the notion that the Confederacy even existed. Instead of naming the Confederacy, he called his adversary, “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

In his proclamation Abe Lincoln had totally ignored the action of his fleet of warships and the Confederate eviction of the Federal regiment from Fort Sumter. To have done so would have required that he admit that 7 States had seceded and formed a new nation, that the States into which he was dispatching militiamen were actually members of a peaceful foreign nation.

(Abe Lincoln’s First Shot Strategy, excerpted from Bloodstains, an Epic History of the Politics that Produced the American Civil War,” Howard Ray White, 2011, pp. 38-43)

Several Views of the Fort Sumter Affair
 Robert Toombs

On the night of 26/27 December [1860], Major Robert Anderson . . . withdrew his small force from the unfinished Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, the most defensible of the various posts scattered about the harbor, spiking the guns and burning the gun carriages at Moultrie. This surprise move greatly alarmed the public in South Carolina.

It was the first federal act that could be interpreted as overly hostile in intent, and it seemed to South Carolinians an act of bad faith, violating their understanding of a tacit agreement with Washington to maintain a status quo until a political settlement could be worked out by the delegates the State had sent there. Indeed, it was this act and not the firing on Fort Sumter that South Carolinians regarded as the commencement of hostilities.”

(Carolina Cavalier, Clyde N. Wilson, Chronicles Pres, 2002, page 137)

From Mr. Toombs, Secretary of State, CSA, April 24, 1861:

[to Hon. W.L. Yancy, P. Rost, Dudley Mann, Commissioners of the Confederate States]

“When you left this city [Montgomery] you were aware that Commissioners from this government had been sent to Washington with the view to open negotiations with the government of the United States for the peaceful settlement of all matters in controversy, and for the settlement of relations of amity and good will between the two countries.

They promptly made known to the Administration at Washington the object of their mission; gave the most explicit assurance that it was the earnest desire of the President, Congress, and the people of the Confederate States to preserve peace; that they had no demand to make which was not founded on the strictest justice, and that they had no wish to do any act to injure their late confederates, [and] they did not press their demand for a formal reception or a recognition of the independence of the Confederate States.

So long as moderation and forbearance were consistent with the honor and dignity of their government, they forebore from taking any steps which could possibly add to the difficulties by which the Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln was beset.

[They] received the most positive assurances from Mr. Seward that the policy of his government was peace; that Fort Sumter would be evacuated immediately; that Fort Pickens would soon be abandoned; that no measure was contemplated “to change the existing status of things prejudicially to the Confederate States;” and that, if any change were resolved upon, due notice would be given to the Commissioners.

Incredible as it may seem, it is nevertheless perfectly true that while the Government of the United States was thus addressing the Confederate States with words of conciliation and promises of peace, a large naval and military expedition was being fitted out by its order for the purpose of invading our soil and imposing on us an authority which we have forever repudiated, and which it was well known we would resist to the last extremity.

Having knowledge that a large fleet was expected hourly to arrive at Charleston harbor with orders to force and entrance and attempt to victual and reinforce the fortress, and that the troops of the Confederate States would be thus exposed to a double attack, General Beauregard had no alternative left but to dislodge the enemy and take possession of the fort, and thus command absolutely all the approaches to the port of Charleston, so that the entrance of a hostile fleet would be almost impossible.”

(Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1861-1865, J. D. Richardson, Editor, US Publishing Company, pp. 13-16)

Who Bears the Guilt?

“Perhaps a word should be inserted here as to which side was the aggressor in this historic conflict. Who bears the guilt of starting the war? The North has sought to lay this stigma upon the South since we fired the first shot.

But the courts (and common sense as well) have decreed that the aggressor is not the one who strikes the first blow, but the one who makes that blow necessary. The ground on which Fort Sumter stood had been lent to the Federal Government by the State of South Carolina for the erection of a fort to guard its chief harbor, but when South Carolina withdrew from the Union, the property automatically reverted to the State.

Morally and legally, the first blow was not struck at Charleston, but when this fleet with hostile intent weighed anchor in the harbor of New York. Hence the guilt of aggression lies at the door of the Federal government at Washington. (See Stephens History of the US, pp. 421-429)

(Some Things For Which the South Did Not Fight, Henry Tucker Graham, 1946)

Lincoln’s Duplicity at Fort Sumter

   Lincoln Inaugurates War Against South Carolina++  

The land ceded to the federal agent at Washington for forts, arsenals and yards by individual States were intended for the protection, not destruction, of the States they were located in. If a fort was to be used by that agent for a warlike purpose against a State, it is obvious that State would immediately eject the federal employees. Lincoln in early 1861 sent spies to Charleston to gather intelligence before he commenced war.
Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

Lincoln’s Duplicity at Fort Sumter

“There are many matters of interest and importance connected with the firing upon Fort Sumter which are not generally mentioned in our American histories. These are given in some detail in Dr. H.A. White’s “Life of Robert E. Lee.” Such information is essential to an understanding of the whole subject of the beginnings of the sectional conflict.

“. . . It will be an advantage for the South to go off,” said H.W. Beecher. After the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln there was a strong current opinion in the North that the Federal troops should be withdrawn from the Southern forts. President Lincoln’s “organ,” the National Republican, announced that the Cabinet meeting of March 9 had determined to surrender both Sumter and Pickens.

That [Major Robert] Anderson would be withdrawn from Sumter “was the universal opinion in Washington (Rhodes, U.S., vol. iii, p. 332). Welling, of the National Intelligencer, was requested by [William] Seward to communicate the Cabinet’s purpose to George W. Summers, member of the Virginia Convention (The Nation, Dec. 4, 1879). March 15 Secretary Seward unofficially notified the Confederate Commissioners, through Justice Campbell of the Supreme Court, that Sumter would be yielded at once to the Southern Confederacy.”

“. . . March 24 brought Colonel Ward H. Lamon of Washington to Fort Sumter. He obtained permission from Governor Pickens to visit Major Anderson upon the representation that he had come as “confidential agent of the President,” to make arrangements for the removal of the garrison. The impression produced upon Major Anderson by Lamon, as well as upon the officers and men of the garrison, was that the command was to be withdrawn.” Lamon informed Governor Pickens “that the President professed a desire to evacuate the work.” After Lamon’s return to Washington he sent a written message to Pickens, that he “hoped to return in a very few days to withdraw the command.”

(The Women of the South in War Times, Matthew Page Andrews, editor, Norman, Remington Company, 1920, pp. 59-60)

Abe Lincoln’s First Shot Strategy

  Ft. Sumter: No Federal Right To Occupy  

April 11, 1861:

[Biographer Hudson Strode would continue]:  “The next morning supported by the majority of his Cabinet, but with [Robert] Toombs not voting, the President asked [General] Beauregard to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter, and if the ultimatum should be refused, to reduce it.”

On the afternoon of April 11, under a flag of truce, Beauregard’s aides, former Senator James Chesnut, of South Carolina, and Captain Stephen Lee, set out in a small boat and conveyed the ultimatum. Deeply perturbed, [Fort Sumter commander] Major [Robert] Anderson debated with himself. Because of the recent letter from his government, he decided that he could not in honor comply. As he handed his formal reply to Chesnut, he remarked sadly, with a resigned smile, “I will await the first shot.” Then he added, as if casually, “If you do not batter us to pieces we will be starved out in a few days.” Along with the result of the visit, Beauregard communicated to Montgomery Anderson’s significant remark.

When President Davis received the report, he understood the miserable quandary of his old friend Bob Anderson, as clearly as he saw through Lincoln’s maneuver to make the [Confederacy] shoot. Knowing that the fort must not be reinforced and that time was running out, he yet made one last effort to avoid [armed engagement]. He had Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Walker telegraph Beauregard:

“We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time . . . at which he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, we will abstain from opening fire. You are thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be the most practicable.”

Far to the north in Hartford, Connecticut, the editor of the Hartford Daily Courant wrote in his editorial for the following day’s edition, “Public opinion in the [northern States] seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the new Confederacy by the Federal Government.” But the Lincoln Administration was well along in executing plans to remake that “opinion.”

Hudson Strode would continue the story:

The missive was presented, Anderson held a midnight conference with his top officers. A dutiful soldier and a loyal [Federalist], Anderson was also a Kentuckian, and married to a Georgian; he loved the Southern . . . people. If he had not misguidedly moved from [Fort] Moultrie to Sumter on that fateful Christmas night, “to prevent an effusion of blood,” he would not be in his present miserable dilemma! If to avoid a war between the States he now agreed to evacuation before the garrison’s last slab of salt pork was gone, Anderson knew he would be branded as a traitor. After painful, almost unbearable, deliberation, at half-past two in the morning of April 12, Robert Anderson took up his pen to compose a formal reply:

“I will, if provided with the proper and necessary means of transportation, evacuate Fort Sumter by noon [April 15], and I will not in the meantime open my fire upon your forces unless compelled to do so by some hostile act against this fort or the flag of my Government by the forces under your command should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government or additional supplies.”

Time had run out, for the Federal fleet was already overdue. Records show that the Harriet Lane had already arrived at the designated rendezvous point off Charleston Harbor, and within minutes her commander would communicate with [US Navy official] Gustavus Fox who was on the Baltic. The warships were gathering.”

(Abe Lincoln’s First Shot Strategy, excerpted from Bloodstains, an Epic History of the Politics that Produced the American Civil War,” Howard Ray White, 2011, pp. 31-33)

A Fort on South Carolina’s Sovereign Soil


When foreign troops occupy your land and sufficient warning is given, a sovereign State will expel them. “The ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remains with the people of the State in which it lies, by virtue of their sovereignty.”
Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

A Fort on South Carolina’s Sovereign Soil

“For well over one hundred years, uninformed and liberal historians and others have charged South Carolina with starting the Civil War when the shore batteries at Charleston fired on the Federally-held Fort Sumter in the bay. These writers have stated that this fort was the property of the federal government. This statement is false.

On March 24, 1794, the US Congress passed an act to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors of the United States. The sites of forts, arsenals, navy yards and other public property of the federal government were ceded or assigned by the States within whose limits they were, and subject to the condition, either expressed or implied, that they should be used solely and exclusively for the purpose for which they were granted. The ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remains with the people of the State in which it lies, by virtue of their sovereignty.

South Carolina, in 1805 by legislative enactment, ceded to the United States in Charleston Harbor and on the Beaufort River, various forts and fortifications and sites for the erection of forts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted the same in its legislature in 1836. New York State, in granting the use of the site for the Brooklyn Navy Yard says: “The United States are to retain such use and jurisdiction so long as said tract shall be applied to the defense and safety of the city and port of New York and no longer . . .” The cession of the site of Watervliet Arsenal was made on the same terms.

It has been said by many historians that these sites were purchased outright by the federal government. This is also false. The Act of 1794 clearly states, “that no purchase shall be made where such lands are the property of the State.”

When General George B. McClellan and his federal army of 112,000 men landed on the tip of the Virginia peninsula April12, 1862 and occupied Fortress Monroe, this action verified the Southern charge of Northern aggression.

A State withdrawing from the union would necessarily assume the control theretofore exercised by the general government over all public defenses and other public property within her limits. The South, on the verge of withdrawal (from the union) had prepared to give adequate compensation to an agent of the Northern government for the forts and other public works erected on the land. Therefore, three commissioners from South Carolina, one from Georgia, and one from Alabama were sent to Washington to negotiate for the removal of federal garrisons from Southern forts.

The commissioners, all prominent men, were Messrs. Robert W. Barnwell, James H. Adams, and James L. Orr of South Carolina; Martin Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsythe of Alabama, and arrived in Washington on the 5th of March.

On March 12th they addressed an official communication to Mr. [William] Seward, Secretary of State, explaining their functions and their purpose. Mr. Seward declined to make any formal recognition of the commissioners, but assured them in verbal conferences of the determination of the government at Washington to evacuate Fort Sumter; of the peaceful intentions of the government, and that no changes in the status prejudicially to the Confederate States were in contemplation; but in the event of any change, notice would be given to the commissioners.

The commissioners waited for a reply to their official communication until April 8th, at which time they received a reply dated March 15th by which they were advised that the president had decided not to receive them, nor was he interested in any proposals they had to offer. During this time the cabinet of the Northern government had been working in secrecy in New York preparing an extensive military and naval expedition to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

As they had tried to deceive the people of the North and South in January 1861 with the Star of the West (expedition to Sumter), loaded with troops and ammunition, the radical Republicans again advised the press that this mission was also a mission of mercy for the garrison of Fort Sumter, and on April 7th the expedition set sail southward bound loaded with troops and arms.

At 2PM, April 11, 1861, General Beauregard demanded that Major Anderson of Fort Sumter evacuate the works, which Anderson refused to do. At a little after 3AM, General Beauregard advised Major Anderson that “in one hour’s time I will open fire.”  At 4:40AM, from Fort Johnson the battery opened on Fort Sumter, which fire was followed by the batteries of Moultrie, Cummings Point and the floating battery.

At this time a part of the federal naval force had arrived at the Charleston bar, but strange to say, Captain Fox, after hearing the heavy guns of the bombardment decided that his government did not expect any gallant sacrifices on his part, and took no part in the battle. On April 13 after the Confederate guns had reduced Sumter to a smoking heap of ruin, Major Anderson surrendered, with no loss of life on either side.

“On one side of the conflict was the South led by the descendants of the Cavaliers, who with all their faults had inherited from a long line of ancestors a manly contempt for moral littleness, a high sense of honor, a lofty regard for plighted faith, a strong tendency for conservatism, a profound respect for law and order, and an unfaltering loyalty to constitutional government.”

Against the South was arrayed the power of the North, dominated by the spirit of Puritanism which, with all its virtues, has ever been characterized by the pharisaism which worships itself, and is unable to perceive any goodness apart from itself, which has ever arrogantly held its ideas, its interests, and its will, higher than fundamental law and covenanted obligations; which has always “lived and moved and had its being, in rebellion against constituted authority.

The Reverend R.C. Cave, 1894″

(Not Civil War But Northern Aggression, Land of the Golden River, Vol. II, Lewis P. Hall, Hall’s Enterprises, 1980, pp. 77-78)

Virginia High School’s Confederate Flag Ban Sparks Flag Rally in Protest

Virginia High School’s Confederate Flag Ban Sparks Flag Rally in Protest

A Bedford County, Virginia, high school sparked a student rally in support of the Confederate flag after administrators enforced a ban of the historic banner.

After school administrators at Staunton River High School in Montea, Virginia, enforced its policy, telling students that the Confederate flag was banned from vehicles in the school’s parking lot, a group of students said they organized to sponsor a parade of cars festooned with the rebel flag to express their First Amendment rights.

According to WDBJ, CBS Channel 7, students Chas Goodson and Zachary Barton were told to leave their flags at home but felt the school was attempting to shut down their Constitutional right to free expression.

“We’re doing all of this to stand up for our First Amendment rights,” Goodson told the media.

More @ Breitbart

Iran says Russia delivers first part of S-300 defense system

Russia has delivered the first part of an advanced missile defense system to Iran, Iranian media reported on Monday, starting to equip Tehran with technology that was blocked before it signed a deal with world powers on its nuclear program.

The S-300 surface-to-air system was first deployed at the height of the Cold War in 1979.

More @ Yahoo

Trump: Could You Imagine ISIS Listening to US Talk About Waterboarding After They Just Chopped Off 50 Heads?

Via Billy


Donald Trump went on FOX and Friends this morning to discuss the Colorado election delegate dispersal to Ted Cruz, ISIS and the upcoming New York election.

On Sunday CIA director John Brennan said the agency would not waterboard again, even if ordered to do so by a future President.

More with video@ The Gateway Pundit

No Trump, No Show for 33% of GOP Voters

Members of the establishment in both major political parties worry that supporters of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders will not align with the party’s eventual nominee if their guy isn't chosen, but that appears to be a much more serious problem for Republicans than for Democrats.

One-in-four Likely Republican Voters (25%) say they are more likely to vote for someone else or not vote at all if Trump does not win the Republican nomination and chooses not to run as an independent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 12% who are more likely to opt for another candidate and 13% who are inclined to stay at home. Another eight percent (8%) say they will more likely vote for the Democratic nominee instead.

More @ Rasmussen

Powerful: Protect Virginia's War Memorials

Via Billy

How Deep The Desperation. Chapter 2

Via comment by JWMJR on Tracing The Origin of The Modern Republican Party

Yesterday we looked at the venality, desperation and corruption displayed by the Boston Globe in their deliberately phony Anti-Trump propaganda edition. Today we got both news of further desperation and corruption in the Republican party along with some highly probable speculation of deeply troubling and pernicious corruption within the Obama administration and the DNC.

The revelation that the Colorado Republican party has decided that enraging the registered voters of the state and revealing their shamelessness, by depriving them of their opportunity to voice their preferences in this year's primary process, was worth the opportunity to prevent Donald Trump from accumulating any pledged delegates from the state.

Apparently there is no sewer to deep which these vermin of  will not crawl into. You can rest assured that this display of depravity by the Colorado State Republican Committee came at the behest of the Republican National Committee. The registered voters of Colorado be damned.

Meanwhile on the Democrat side of the political sewer of dirty tricks.................

Vietnam’s Bikini Airline Proves Unsurprisingly Profitable

Via David


VietJet Air, Vietnam’s only privately-owned airlines, has worked up quite a stir in the aviation industry with its young, attractive, bikini-clad flight attendants. Female VietJet employees don colorful bikinis and even put up an inflight performance for their customers, mostly during inaugural flights to beach locations. The marketing gimmick has earned the company huge profits, and plenty of criticism to boot. 

These ‘bikini performances’ are not a standard practice on all flights – they’re more like a featured bonus on certain routes. One of the earliest shows was staged on a 2012 flight from Ho Chi Minh City Saigon to the coastal city of Nha Trang. As reported by ABC News, “Clad in vaporous string bikini tops and sarongs that flaunted the company colors of red and yellow, young, beautiful women filed down the plane’s aisles for a bikini show.”

Last Chance for GOP and America: Fifteen Painful Years on the Wrong Course
Mike Scruggs

In August 2001, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) published a report by Karen Kaufmann and James G. Gimpel, entitled Republican Efforts to Attract Latino Voters: Impossible Dream or Distant Reality? This study found that Hispanic voters in U.S. elections favored the Democrat Party by more than two-to-one because of long-standing traditional loyalties and strong Hispanic preferences for generous big government welfare and healthcare policies. Moreover, it showed little change in this Democrat Party preference with time in the U.S. or over generations. Nor did economic success substantially change the preference of higher income Hispanic households for the Democrat Party.
This should have been sobering news for the G.W. Bush Administration, which continued to formulate its immigration policies based on anecdotal myths rather than statistical reality. The Bush policy of expanded legal immigration and negligible internal and workplace enforcement against illegal immigrants earned no Hispanic respect, resulted in a doubling of illegal immigration, hurt American workers and taxpayers, and accelerated the growth of a strong Democrat voting bloc that threatens eventual Democrat dominance in national elections. Pew Research found in 2013 that 69 percent of Hispanics favored Obamacare, and 71 percent voted for Obama.

The CIS report repeated the assertion of previous studies: U.S. Immigration Policy is steadily increasing the power and influence of the Democrat Party and undermining the electoral future of the Republican Party.

A 2013 CIS research paper, Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters, by Dr. George Hawley of the University of Houston, was also published in the academic journal, Social Science Quarterly. Hawley used the 2006 Congressional elections to study the relationship of voting records, based on NumbersUSA grading of incumbent House Republicans with the percent of the Latino vote they received in the 2006 General Election.

Contrary to expectations, this study found that a conservative immigration voting record did not hurt Republican incumbents with Hispanics. More importantly, those with liberal immigration voting records were not helped one whit. Although many Hispanics describe themselves as independents, overwhelming loyalty to the Democrat Party is an enduring cultural fact.

On the other hand, the study indicated that Republican support for amnesty and other liberal immigration policies hurt them with non-Hispanic whites at a level that is not only statistically significant but potentially disastrous. Institutional Republican leadership support for amnesty and other liberal immigration policies risks massive Republican defections and long-term alienation of the Party’s conservative base. We began to see this Republican revolt with the Tea Party movement in 2006, and now we are seeing massive grassroots Republican revolt beginning with Donald Trump’s smashing the political correctness barriers erected by both the Republican and Democrat establishments. But while this massive challenge to the establishment is dominated by Trump supporters, it is shared by Ted Cruz supporters. Thus this enormous tidal wave of justly outraged voters is vulnerable to dissipation by establishment orchestrated division or bribery.

The Hawley study invites some easy conclusions. Amnesty and other liberal immigration policies would flood the U.S. with millions of predominantly Democrat voters. Republicans would gain no benefit or respect for this. The Republicans would, however, suffer substantial abandonment by conservatives. The combined result would probably destroy any future potential for GOP Congressional majorities, a conservative Supreme Court majority, or electing a President.

The immigration issue is not just about illegal immigration and amnesty. It is also about excessive legal immigration, which at 1.0 million permanent (green card) residents  per year, is nearly four times the 285,000 annual average during the economic boom years of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Our current legal immigration level is dramatically inconsistent with the reality of 18.0 million Americans who want a full time job and cannot find one.

Both illegal immigration and legal immigration are totally out of control. In 1970, the foreign born population of the United States was 9.6 million. That has increased more than four-fold to 42.1 million today. In the last decade, immigration to the U.S. has been shifting from Latin America to Asia and the Middle East. Muslim immigrants now number over 100,000 per year.  In both 2008 and 2012, Obama won 80 percent of all minority group voters, which included most recent immigrants. None of this bodes well for retaining our cultural traditions, Constitutional government, or the survival of any conservative issues, social or economic.

The demographic changes due to our foolish immigration policies have now accumulated to the point that electing a Center-Right Republican President and Congressional majority will soon become impossible unless immigration can be controlled and significantly reduced in the near future. We have little time left before we are over the demographic cliff with no hope of reversal. Another amnesty or legal or illegal immigration surge will destroy the American Republic and bury the conservative values that made it great. We are in a crisis with only one election left to save our country.

Following Obama’s defeat of Romney in November 2012, the Republican National Committee (RNC) commissioned a committee report (or autopsy) on Romney’s 2012 election defeat. It was headed by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and written by pro-amnesty campaign consultant Henry Barbour, famous now for his 2014 dirty trick campaign defending GOP establishment Senator Thad Cochran in Mississippi. Henry Barbour is the nephew of pro-amnesty former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour.

The committee of course, recommended immediate passage of “comprehensive immigration reform,” including amnesty and more legal immigration, all of which strongly contradicted the 2012 Republican Platform. They recommended a strong minority outreach and spent $10 million on it. Like the usual RINO approach to minority outreach, it was a vigorous accommodation to liberal ideology rather than selling the benefits of economic freedom and genuine opportunity. They opened a dialog with La Raza and the NAACP that betrayed sensible conservatism. They warned that the GOP needed to move to the left on LGBT issues, although they did not specifically endorse same-sex marriage. 
In some double talk they labeled “Epistemic Closure,” they pitched the idea of cultural accommodation and abandoning traditional Constitutional and social conservatism. They praised Republican governors like John Kasich for moving to the left, just as Kasich has been doing in the 2016 Presidential Primaries. Finally, they bemoaned the Republican Party’s identification with the rich. But their recommendation to expand big donor PAC opportunities and influence belied any sympathy for most Americans. They mentioned nothing of the near half trillion dollars per year that cheap foreign labor shifts from American workers to cheap-labor users supported by special interest donors. The typical RINO thread that social issues ought to be abandoned by the GOP was there. The 2013 RNC “autopsy” report, the GOP establishment agenda, and the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are essentially one.  The U.S. Chamber is the largest contributor to political campaigns and PACs.

Here is the road to Republican and national survival: Implementing restrictionist immigration policies that favor ordinary American wage-earners and taxpayers rather than special interest donors is urgent.
 Trade agreements and Trade policies must meet the same “good for all Americans” test. The GOP must open its eyes to the colossal dangers to national security and public safety posed by the Islamic doctrine of Migration Jihad.  It must cast aside its own foolish kow-towing to political correctness and multiculturalism. It must vigorously defend our Constitutional rights and our traditional social, cultural, and spiritual values against external enemies and internal corruption and radicalism. The Republican Party is going to be road-kill unless it starts listening to its grassroots base.