Hillsdale Imprimis: National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

Hillsdale Imprimis: 

National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)

Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press

Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.

Why Today’s Agencies are Not Trusted

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet.

And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest.

Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

Coats, Pompeo Careers Built on Substance

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

Intelligence Collectors Need Guidance on What to Look For

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Think

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

Reagan’s Intelligence Analysts

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev­eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

 

Read Full Article Here

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-intelligence-works-when-it-does/

Heritage Foundation Report: President Trump and Syria Attack

Heritage Foundation Report:

President Trump and Syria Attack

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

 

Trump’s powerful message to the world.

The focused and punitive strike in Syria last week sent a powerful message to the world that Bashar Assad’s behavior was unacceptable. It’s clear there is now a decisive leader in the White House. But this message alone is not a solution to the Syrian civil war. Russia and Iran must stop enabling Assad’s brutality. The main focus of U.S. operations must remain the defeat of ISIS and helping Iraq stabilize and secure its borders.

James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at Heritage, says the Trump administration “should remain focused on the key problem at hand—Assad’s chemical weapons threat—and not seek to expand the military mission to include regime change. That kind of mission creep would bog down U.S. military forces in Syria for years, fighting not only the Assad regime, but Hezbollah, Iran, and possibly Russia. Regime change is a bridge too far.” Read more from Phillips on the recent strike and his report on how to improve U.S.-Syria policy.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

National Security: Christianity, Church and State Issues

National Security:

Christianity, Church and State Issues

Does Christian compassion conflict with national security?

Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so that the citizens, including Christians, can have freedom of religion to “welcome the strangerwho has been vetted and is truly in need. First Amendment rights apply to citizens only. Acts of murder, theft, and fraud are not protected by freedom of religion, but are subject to civil law. ~C.D.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. ~Doctrine and Covenants 58:21

‘Welcoming the stranger’ in an age of civilizational jihad and terror

Art Moore

Does the biblical mandate to “welcome the stranger” mean that faithful Christians must support immigration policies that arguably could not only harm citizens, but also threaten the nation’s very existence?

When more than half of U.S. governors announced they wouldn’t take in any more Syrian migrants until their security concerns were addressed, President Obama responded with a moral rebuke, declaring, “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values,” and is “not who we are” as Americans. (Obama’s values are not American values. ~C.D.)

Church and State Defined

State Responsibility: VET incoming migrants; then, Christians can welcome those who are truly fleeing oppression

But David French, an evangelical Christian known for his National Review columns and books on Islam and terrorism, argued there is “no contradiction between personally welcoming the ‘strangers’ among us while our leaders endeavor to protect us from a genocidal terrorist force that uses refugee status as a shield and disguise to perpetrate brutal attacks against innocent civilians.”

 

Abandoning Morality

Edward J. Erler, professor emeritus of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, observed a moral trend that has muddled the debate over the Syrian migrants, leading to what he believes are irrational decisions regarding national security.

 

Moral Relativism of Diversity

In a speech at Hillsdale College last fall he said Americans “have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.'”

Erler said progressivism has eroded that foundation, leading to a morality of value-free relativism that insists reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, leaving society only with “idiosyncratic preferences.”

“In this value-free universe, the only value that is ‘objectively’ of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is only ‘reasonable’ position,” he explained.

He noted that the “tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not earn you much credit—it doesn’t require much of a commitment or sacrifice.”

This reality, according to Erler, helps explain why many Westerners, including religious believers, are so eager to take in the Muslim migrants while demonizing those who disagree with them.

“If, however, you are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill you and destroy your way of life, tolerance represents a genuine commitment,” Erler said. “Only such a deadly commitment signals a nation’s single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.”

Concluding his argument, he said the “common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane.”

“But what other explanation could there be for the insistence of so many of our political leaders on risking the nation’s security—in light of what we see in Europe, one might even say their willingness to commit national suicide—by admitting refugees without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation?”

Erler noted that Western leaders have shown no such enthusiasm for rescuing Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence.

“These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world ‘who we are as a people,’ a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.”

Welfare Refugees

Daniel Greenfield, an Israel-born author in New York who focuses on radical Islam, argued the only authentic refugees are Christians and Yazidis who do not have a country to call their own in the region.  Sunnis Muslims can flee to Jordan or Turkey, and Shiite Muslims can take refuge in Lebanon.

“Talk of resettling them in the United States or Europe has nothing to do with ‘persecution,'” he wrote in a column for FrontPage Magazine.

“It’s economic migration. And economic migration in this case is a euphemism for welfare migration,” noting the refugees specifically seek out countries such as Germany and Sweden with generous welfare states.

Resisting Assimilation

But the national-security threat is not limited to keeping out Islamic terrorists.

Counter-terrorism expert Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted the “blind sheik” terror case, points out the threat posed by populations that develop, encourage, aid, abet and materially support terrorism.

Shariah conflicts with the Constitution

But even more significant for the long term well-being of the United States, is the civilizational threat posed by the resistance to assimilation and the promotion of a system of governance—Islamic law, or shariah—that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

McCarthy warned in a National Review column that highly influential Islamic leaders have embarked on a conquest strategy known as “voluntary apartheid,” meaning the establishment of shariah enclaves that would eventually merge into an Islamic state that dominates Europe and the United States.

No-Go Zones

McCarthy noted France’s problem with its unassimilated Muslim community, asking, “Why should we voluntarily replicate it here?”

He quoted the highly respected political scientist Giles Kepel, who found dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

These “no-go zones” include the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, which harbored the terrorist cell that carried out the multi-pronged November 2015 attack in the French capital that killed 129 people. Of the 1.4 million who live there, 600,000 are Muslims.

Dr. Ben Carson believes creating safe zones in Syria is a better way to deal with Syrian refugees than resettling them in the United States.

Christians Ignored

While 10 percent of the Syrian population is Christian, only 56 of the 10,801 Syrians accpet to the U.S. as of last September were Christians—about one-half of 1 percent.

A Christian leader who has been kidnapped by jihadists, and who has an ISIS bounty on his head, spoke with Whistleblower about the challenge of answering the seemingly conflicting calls of welcoming the stranger and also caring for love ones and neighbors.

The England-born vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, who now is in exile from his Baghdad congregation, has been caring for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have fled ISIS.

More than 1,200 people who once worshipped with him have been killed in recent years, including four boys who were beheaded because they refused to convert to Islam.

“I think our first priority as Christians is to care for our family: We have to care for the Christians,” he said. “and what America is very bad at doing is understanding the needs of persecuted Christians.”

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 2

National Security:

Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts

Islamic Refugees, Rigorous Vetting and the Facts: Part 2

Mark Landsbaum

 

Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so that the citizens, including Christians, can have freedom of religion to “welcome the strangerwho has been vetted and is truly in need. First Amendment rights apply to citizens only. Acts of murder, theft, and fraud are not protected by freedom of religion, but are subject to civil law. ~C.D.

 

Many of our Christian brethren demand more refugees be brought to the U.S., citing as justification the Good Samaritan parable and commandments to love our neighbor and to share the Gospel.

For starters, the Good Samaritan didn’t bring home the victim he found along the roadside. Ever wonder why? He took him someplace where he could be properly cared for.

For the billions of dollars in expenses and welfare benefits refugees cost American taxpayers, refugees could be treated more humanely, yes, even more lovingly, by persuading our Middle East friends to put them up there, where they will be among people who speak the same language, worship the same religion and consequently have more of a chance to obtain gainful employment and return to the lives they once lived.

For every dollar it costs to bring one refugee to America, 12 refugees can be cared for in the Middle East.

Rather than forcibly transplanting these people to America, a land completely foreign in customs, language and faith, wouldn’t it be more kind, let alone more cost-effective, to use diplomatic pressure to persuade or even coerce Middle East nations to shoulder the burden of caring for their own?

As far as loving our neighbors, do our actual neighbors count?

How loving is it to dump tens of thousands of non-English-speaking, almost exclusively Muslim, unemployable people into U.S. neighborhoods where they constitute an immediate underclass, subsisting on welfare and food stamps, resented and viewed suspiciously by the people who already live there, who purposely were never asked if they wanted them living next door?

Ever wonder why communities aren’t asked whether they want large groups of Somalis or Syrians moved in to their neighborhoods? Two guesses.

An obvious concern is whether the refugees are dangerous. Both the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have admitted in recent months that refugees from the Middle East are impossible to vet. We have no idea how risky they may be because there is no reliable way to identify them, let alone to run background checks in a region where governments are reduced to chaos and corruption.

That’s our government admitting these people can’t be vetted.

The over-used cliché of one poison M&M in a bowl of M&Ms has been over-used and become a cliché for good reason. It’s true.

If you were handed a bowl of M&Ms and told that only one of them contained poison, how many M&Ms would you gulp down? Yeah. Me either.

Notice that the people lobbying to bring refugees to America aren’t lobbying to bring them to their houses.

The 9 “volunteer” agencies that accept these refugees then relocate them in U.S. neighborhoods (without consulting existing neighbors) are paid $2,000-plus for each one they process.

And process is all they are permitted to do because even though several of these agencies are connected to religious groups, they are prohibited by law from sharing the Gospel with the refugees because it’s a government program.

Nevertheless, the more refugees they process, the more money the non-profit volunteer agencies make in this billion-dollar refugee placement industry financed, not by private donations, but by tax dollars.

Here’s a quaint reason we must be absolutely certain people we permit to enter our country are eager to assimilate and willing to abandon philosophies and ways of life incompatible with the American constitutional system: If we don’t, we sow the seeds of societal and cultural destruction.

Islam is a political system with a religion attached. Its goal specified in its holy book is to bring the entire world under Sharia law, by persuasion or by force. Don’t take my word for it.

A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo explains Muslims are engaged in a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” It states: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Those are their words, not mine.

How reasonable is it to expect people with that worldview to assimilate and become loyal to an American way of life they reject as an offense to Allah? Rather than assimilate, Muslims holding to this view demand their religious views be honored by the wider culture. The first step is to extend to Muslims what Bernard Lewis calls a “privileged immunity.” Lewis, author of “The Crisis of Islam,” is an internationally recognized historian on the Middle East.

This “privileged immunity” is manifest in things like blocking traffic with mass prayer, local Sharia courts and no-go zones, where civil law enforcement backs off and concentrated populations of Muslims enjoy “a level of immunity from criticism that Christian majorities have lost and the Jewish minorities never had,” in Lewis’ words.

You might say, “Surely not all Muslims are like that.” If you can figure out how to determine which Muslim refugees do and don’t subscribe to that philosophy among the thousands of un-vettable immigrants brought here, please tell the FBI and DHS. As we saw in Part 1 yesterday, they obviously haven’t been good at detecting the threats from the non-threats before they get here.

While you’re at it, factor in the Muslim deception called “taqiya,” which permits Muslims to lie to advance their faith.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

What could go wrong with a religion advanced by a false prophet demanding obedience to a false god when death “in the way of Allah” is the highest hope?

In the United States, members of the Muslim Brotherhood rose to places of authority in the Obama Administration. The U.S.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing the Hamas terrorist group, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and prominent in public relations efforts to shape Americans’ views of all things Islamic.

As for our commandment to share the Gospel, whatever happened to taking it to the whole world? I don’t recall Peter or Paul bringing caravans of foreigners to Jerusalem to hear God’s message. They went to where the unbelievers were.

The church has gotten a bit slothful reaching out to the lost. Worse, even when unbelievers are brought to us, we plop them down in instant ghettos where they are least likely to assimilate, let alone to hear the Gospel.

Here’s advice for those with a burning passion to bring refugees to Christ: Go to where they are. Take the Gospel to them. Don’t rely on the government to round them up and pay opportunists $2,000 a pop in tax money to bring them here where they instantly huddle in insulated ghettos, go on welfare and food stamps.

There’s another thing to be aware of in sharing your faith with a Muslim. Ever since their prophet, Muhammad, laid down the law 1,400 years ago, when a male Muslim converts to another faith, “he must be put to death,” historian Lewis points out. For women, “flogging and imprisonment may suffice,” he explains. “For this offense, there is no human forgiveness.”

That brings us back to loving our neighbor. American taxpayers, not all of them Christians by a long shot, are not asked whether they want to finance these festering, impoverished slums like Little Mogadishu in Minnesota.

There was a day in this country when Christians took the Gospel to foreign lands, and if they brought refugees here, they personally sponsored them, helped house them and find them jobs, and took some degree of personal responsibility in their lives – all loving, personal acts.

Today, Christians seem content to hand off that charity work to the government, which spends tax money few taxpayers intended to be spent that way, to achieve outcomes that strain credulity to imagine anyone would have paid for it up front, if they knew that’s what they were going to get.

Finally, safety first. All the debate about costs and assimilation and being good Christians can’t be honestly addressed if we create dangerous cesspools of budding or secretive jihadists, biding their time until they are ready to slit throats or blow up buildings.

The 2015 San Bernardino Muslim terrorists, one born here to an immigrant Pakistani family, the other a Pakistani immigrant on a visa, seemed outwardly to be acclimating to America. Their co-workers threw them a baby shower. But not long after, the duo walked into a Christmas party for co-workers, fired 150 rounds, murdering 14 and wounding 22 others. Neither was on Terrorist Screening Database lists.

President Donald Trump has suggested we should back off importing refugees and other immigrants until we at least know who they are and what their intentions are. That sounds like a pretty basic starting point. How many would you invite into your home based on the existing “rigorous” vetting of your government?

How many jihadist murders in your neighborhood are you willing to accept before you acknowledge this is a dangerous problem? Got a number in mind?  Mine is zero.

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 1

 

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 1

National Security:

Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts

BREAKING NEWS:

Hawaii: Muslim Brotherhood-backed imam dictating US refugee policy

 

Part 1

Mark Landsbaum

Syrian refugees entering Europe

One argument for bringing thousands of Middle East refugees to the U.S. is that these allegedly vetted immigrants are supposedly the safest kind of visitors.

Is that true?

The FBI announced this week it has 300 refugees already in the U.S. under investigation for suspected terror activities. That’s 300 refugees who we were assured were “rigorously” vetted by the United Nations and the U.S. government. Yet, it turns out they are deadly threats.

The 300 constitute 30% of the 1,000 open terror cases being investigated by the FBI. By the way, do you think the FBI has identified all the threats among the refugees? How’s that “rigorous” vetting working for you?

We’re not just talking about people who may commit robberies or muggings or rapes. But terror activities. It’s anyone’s guess how many robberies, muggings and rapes they commit.

Difference between historical refugees and Islamic Refugees since 9-11

It’s also anybody’s guess whether Islamic refugees commit more or fewer routine crimes than any other group. Academic studies usually lump together decades of refugee data, including Cubans from the 1960s, Vietnamese from the 1970s and sometimes even pre-World War II refugees fleeing Europe. How about crimes committed strictly by Islamic refugees since 9-11?

“There is no data that I know of,” Ann Corcoran told me. Ms. Cocoran operates RefugeeResettlementWatch.wordpress.com, where for eight years she has monitored refugees imported to U.S. cities.

“…[T]he authorities don’t usually tell the public through which immigration pathway an alien gets in here,” she said by email. “There are many legal programs and only in recent years does a news account call someone who commits a crime a refugee.”

The next time someone tells you that this latest surge of refugees is safe, let alone “the safest” of all immigrants, ask them how they know. Odds are, they are parroting talking points, not reciting documented facts.

Meanwhile, consider some examples of Islamic refugees caught planning or having committed acts of violence that Ms. Corcoran has documented on her website: A Somali arrested as he planned to detonate a bomb in 2010 to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.

There was the Kentucky refugee terrorist now serving a life sentence after lying on U.S. immigration paperwork about his involvement in Iraqi insurgent operations against American troops; two Iraqi refugees were convicted for helping Al Qaeda in Iraq and maybe killing American servicemen there. They also lied on their refugee applications.

(Again, how’s that vetting working out?)

But those are terrorists. Aren’t regular refugees law-abiding?

To get a general idea, we might check out Europe, where there is a direct correlation between high concentrations of refugees and high crime rates. You know, robberies, muggings, rapes, etc.

Apparently unlike the U.S., some European countries specifically track refugee crimes. “Refugees committed more than 200,000 crimes [in 2015] in Germany,” reported the U.K.’s Daily Express.

Refugees in Germany committed 92,000 more offences in 2015 than in 2014, according to official figures. That’s 200,000 crimes that would not have occurred without refugees.

If we ignore all those warning signs, how about this one?

Stealth Jihad Islamic Invasion

“Just wait,” an ISIS Smuggler told BuzzFeed. “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world and we will have it soon, God willing. They are going like refugees.”

Last year, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. Ted Cruz said the problems go beyond the refugee program, and called for closer scrutiny of the pace of immigration from Muslim countries.

“The resources spent every year investigating the countless number of immigrant terrorist suspects in the United States are astronomical,” they said. “And yet, as this costly and dangerous status quo continues, the U.S. continues to admit approximately 680,000 migrants from Muslim countries every five years.”

If the FBI has discovered 300 refugees that slipped through “rigorous” vetting, how many more will be among the next 680,000?

Many of our Christian brethren demand more Middle East refugees be brought to our country, citing as justification the Good Samaritan parable and commandments to love our neighbor and share the Gospel.

In Part 2, we examine Christians’ responsibility and look at the effects on our society and culture from importing refugees who can’t be vetted.

National Security: Border Wall works against Illegal Immigrants; Saves Money

National Security:

Border Wall works against Illegal Immigrants; Saves Money

STUDY: Trump’s Border Wall Could Save $64 Billion Over 10 Years

Bob Price

 

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reveals savings created by reducing illegal immigration through an effective border wall could save taxpayers $64 billion over the next ten years.

border-wall-immigrationEven a small reduction in the numbers of illegal border crossings could save enough money to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of building the wall promised by President Donald Trump during his presidential campaign. The conclusions of the analysis by CIS’ Director of Research Dr. Steven Camarota are based on fiscal estimated developed by the Naional Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). The NAS calculated the fiscal impact of impacts – taxes paid minus costs, Camarota wrote.

Camarota offers the following conclusions from his study:

  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.

The report of fiscal costs of immigrant border crossers is based on “net present value” (NPV). This process has a net effect of reducing the size of the net drain on economic resources based on their education level. “Rhe actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used,” Camarota stated.

Center for Immigration Studies — Camarota Wall Costs

 

Walls Work: Illegal Migration Collapses in EU Nations with Tough Borders

 

National Security: Travel Ban popular; Ceiling on Refugees in America

National Security:

Travel Ban popular; Ceiling on Refugees in America

Waiting! Will Trump lower refugee ceiling further?

by Ann Corcoran

trump-immigration-order-popularIf President Donald Trump wants to curtail migration into the U.S. from some of the world’s most dangerous hotspots of jihadism, he has options that would effectively navigate an end-run around the courts.

“We will keep our country safe. That’s what I’m here for… I will give it the best security, so it will happen very rapidly,” Trump said Friday.

His top policy aide, Stephen Miller, said essentially the same thing in appearing on all the major Sunday morning news shows.

One of the options is to simply lower the ceiling on refugee resettlement for fiscal 2017, which began four months ago on Oct. 1.

Trump has already partially exercised this option in his first executive order when he lowered the annual ceiling from 110,000 refugees set by Obama to 50,000. Interestingly, this was the one part of his executive order that was not struck down by the lawsuits filed in Washington state and Minnesota.

[….]

By cutting the ceiling to 35,000, Trump would effectively end refugee resettlement for the rest of the fiscal year extending over the next seven and a half months. That would allow his administration to decide on a better vetting system and determine how high to set the ceiling for fiscal 2018. [And, I would argue that such a moratorium would give Congress the impetus to begin to reform the program! First step would be to remove “church” contractors from federal payroll—ed]

Continue reading here.

National Security: US Marine Steven Gern Video tells Truth about Trump Travel Ban, goes Viral

National Security:

US Marine Steven Gern Video tells Truth about Trump Travel Ban, goes Viral

keyPatriot Steven Gern gives true first hand account of what the Trump travel ban means for our national security. Don’t believe the hypocritical protestors and fake news outlets. This man knows the truth.

Just here to tell the truth. Thank you all for your support.

 

History Facts: Critical Thinking for Millennials—Defining Federalism, how the Electoral College Makes Your Vote Count!

History Facts:

Critical Thinking for Millennials—Defining Federalism, how the Electoral College Makes Your Vote Count!

Why We Need the Electoral College

Rush Limbaugh

keyClass is in session, PAY ATTENTION! Here is a conversation between Rush Limbaugh and a caller, in which Rush teaches us all about the brilliance of the Electoral College. Bottom line—without the Electoral College, if you live in any of the 45 + less populated states, your vote, your voice, would never count! Once again, we can thank the Founding Fathers because they cared so much about little people like us, and because they had the brilliance to make freedom available to all of us! ~C.D.

millenial-explainer-electoral-college-cHelping Millennials understand the Electoral College

RUSH: Here’s Lynn in Noblesville, Indiana.  Great to have you.  Glad you waited.  What’s up?

CALLER:  Thank you so much.  I’m glad to finally get through to you.  I have a question on behalf of a house full of Millennials, I should say.  I have four children 18 to 24 and a plethora of their friends.  The majority of them are Bernie Sanders fans, and they’re having a hard time understanding this whole Electoral College thing, no matter how much we try to explain it.  My question is this.  What is the negative side to what looks like the positive side of distributing the Electoral College votes the same way we do in some states during the primary?

In other words, if you have 40% of the vote, then you receive 40% of the electoral votes.  Because it seems to me the pro side of that would be you would have the candidates campaigning in what are traditionally… Let’s say Trump would campaign in California, which is traditionally Democratic, because he now can get a percentage of votes I would think that you would have a greater voter turnout because now people who live in states that tend to go one way or another would have more of an impact because their votes could be contributed by percentage instead of all going one way.  And it would also seem like it would help to deter the possibility of voter fraud if they don’t know where to target like they do currently.

millennialsRUSH:  Okay.  Let me recast this, and you correct me if I get anything wrong.  She has four kids, among them some Millennials — old enough to be Millennials — and they have been questioning the value of Electoral College. Why doesn’t the popular vote matter? It seems like that ought to be the way we elect the president, not state by state.  They came up with an idea that we would apportion states like we do in primaries. In the Republican primary, if Trump wins a state, he gets whatever percentage of the delegates in that state according to the vote he got and so forth and so on. Because that would make every state count, you say. 

CALLER: Right.

CALLER:  Well, I think it’s got more to do with the fact that they’re bombarded with a lot of their friends in an education system and a media system that doesn’t give them the actual historical facts.  What I have been telling them is the purpose of the Electoral College as the Founding Fathers had put it together, was designed to make sure that heavily populated areas did not overwhelm the more rural areas or the needs of people who didn’t live in densely populated portions of the country.

And that in doing so, it ensured that everyone had a say regardless of your demographic and that the possibility of voter fraud or rigging the elections… Because they would never know where to target because they didn’t have to… You know, they had to worry about everybody, was the main concept that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they made the Electoral College a part of our election process.

RUSH:  All right, and your kids rejected that because they…?

CALLER:  Well, they don’t understand why the popular vote doesn’t matter. Especially, as I said, I think it’s more the bombardment of the media and how they’re making it sound.

RUSH:  Well, there’s no question.  But the reason the media and the bombardment of their friends is able to work is that when they were in middle school, they weren’t taught about the founding of America.

revere_book_5They Weren’t Taught about the Founding Fathers

RUSH:  They weren’t taught about the Founding Fathers. They weren’t taught about the concept of federalism.  You can’t understand the Electoral College unless you know what federalism is, and federalism is one of these terms that, in many cases, means the exact opposite of the word as it’s currently applied.

The Meaning of Federalism

The word “federalism” you might think that means federalism trumps everything; federalism means federal domination.  It does not mean that.  It means the exact opposite, in fact. 

It means the states are sovereign and the federal government cannot tell ’em what to do in so many different ways.

cartoon-electoral-collegeTwo States—California and New York—would Dictate the Rest of the Country

But I think you are very close with your assessment of population centers.  The founders did not want population centers to dictate to the rest of the country.  They had already seen that happen in Europe in their day, and they had seen the kind of people that gravitate toward various areas.  I mean, even in the early days of the country when it was largely an agrarian or agricultural, farmer-type of economy.  There were still cities; there were still elites. 

There were widely different ways of thinking, and there were various different power locations and power points, and the popular vote was considered a way of relegating a lot of people to irrelevance based on population center and the fact that the country is always changing and always shifting.  The primary purpose of the Electoral College is to maintain the power of the states and to support the idea that the election is decided by the states.  It’s not decided by the general population, and it never was.

The Electoral College has been with us since the first days of the country.  The reason for its founding… I mean, some people would even tell you that the Electoral College was established to protect the country from the votes of a bunch of ignoramuses and people uninformed out in the sticks who didn’t know what they were doing.  I mean, there were people even tell you that that was one of the original thought processes involved in establishing the Electoral College.

RUSH: But it is a way of having a flat-out popular election without calling it that.  If you didn’t do this if you didn’t have the Electoral College — we would be at the mercy of how state legislatures draw their electoral districts, and we would have electoral districts drawn strictly for the purposes of winning presidential elections and not for the purposes of state and local representation.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  But the short answer to this is almost identical to why every state has two senators but a different number of members of the House based on population, and it is to make sure that there is equal representation across the board.  There are some states based on population that would not even have a senator, if the Senate were not established the way that it is.  Some practical examples.  If the popular vote elected the president today, two states —

CALLER: California and New York. Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: — California and New York — would be all you would need.  And that means campaigns would occur only there and campaigns would focus only on issues relevant to those people in those states.

RUSH:  And there wouldn’t be anything national about it.  There wouldn’t be anything that would lend anybody any evidence or enlightenment as to what candidates were gonna do as president because they’d all run in these various states — and there might be three, might be more than California and New York.  You might put Texas in there.  But the point is it’s always changing.  The population’s always changing.  Look at… North Carolina was never a battleground state until recently. Now it is, and it’s because of migration from the Northeast.

People that live in the Northeast are leaving the Northeast for a whole host of reasons.  They’re relocating in Southern states and Midwestern states — no-income-tax states, milder climate states — and it’s affecting the balance of power in those states.  North Carolina used to be reliably red.  Now it’s a battleground state.  The Electoral College guards against all of this.  The Electoral College protects state sovereignty.  It actually is one of the most brilliantly conceived electoral mechanisms ever.  Let me ask you a question here, Lynn.

CALLER:  Yes?

What is a Democracy?

quote-democracy3RUSH:  We are not a democracy.  I think if your kids understood that — and most people don’t. We are a representative republic.  We’re not a direct democracy.

CALLER: Right. Correct.

RUSH:  And most people don’t know that, particularly young people.  They think we’re democracy.  Tell your kids this.  “If we lived in a democracy, if this house were a democracy and…?” How many are in your house?

CALLER:  Well, currently three, but I have one in the Navy.

RUSH:  Let’s pretend six people live in your house.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  And you propose that only four people get to eat every day, and you put it to a vote.  If four people vote that only four people get to eat, two people don’t, that prevails.  That’s what a democracy is.  It’s strictly majority-minority rule.  We do not have that.  We have what’s called a representative republic.

CALLER:  Correct. Well, so what would be…? For the people that are, you know, petitioning and complaining that we need to go to popular vote — and I understand the Electoral College — what would be the benefit or the possibility of, as I said, doing the Electoral College based on the number of votes, the percentage of votes an individual candidate received? For example, Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes.

RUSH:  Because it would dilute the power of the states.  The state sovereignty is key here in the Electoral College —

CALLER: Okay.

quote-democracy1Don’t Destroy State Sovereignty

RUSH: — and if you’re going to start divvying up the power of each state’s elections, you are destroying state sovereignty.  You cannot —

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  You cannot, in a national election… It’s not a primary.

RUSH:  Now, I mentioned earlier in the program that I found something yet again that is bubbling up, it’s effervescing out there, and it’s not yet broken the surface in a national way.  It’s about, the story, this Harvard lecturer who wrote in October out of fear that Trump would be elected, that our democracy is unstable and rife for being eroded and torn apart, and his theory is because Trump is going to just rip everything up and do it his own way.

Democracy is Fragile

obama-rejected-aHe’s an autocrat and so forth. It’s deeper than that, but this would be an ideal time to get into this, although I don’t have the time to do it right now.  But before the end of this week I’m gonna delve into this stuff.  The story is basically how stable are democracies, and this guy is a Harvard lecturer, and it’s in the New York Times They’re convinced that (sobbing), “Our democracy is so fragile! It — it — it’s only one election from being torn apart, and Trump’s gonna do it. Oh, my God!” And this article even misses the point.  Why is it the United States is the longest-lasting government of its kind in human history? 

quote-democracy2Our Representative Republic is the Most Stable Free Government in All of History

I mean, why haven’t we crumbled already?  Why haven’t we been felled by internal corruption already?  Not only longest-lasting. It’s one of the most stable governments where the population is free.  You can find eons of dictatorship and tyranny, but I’m talking about our way of life. It’s precisely because we’re not a democracy that we have survived! It’s precisely because majority rule does have checks and balances on it It’s precisely because this is a representative republic that we have survived. 

So this guy’s article is all about how stable are democracies?

Democracies are not very stable, but we don’t have one when you get right down to it.  A lot of people think that this is a conspiratorial point of order.  But it isn’t.  It’s genuine.  There’s a big difference in a representative republic and a democracy.  We do not have a democracy.  There are elements of democracy in votes here and there.

But in the actual structure of the government, we’re a representative republic.  The primary reason we’ve survived is that we have had leaders who’ve respected the Constitution, feared it and the rule of law, and we’ve been very lucky there.