9-11: A Jimmy Carter Production

9-11: A Jimmy Carter Production

Jimmy Carter Is The Father Of Modern Jihadism

j

From tomorrow’s Jerusalem Post:

We just don’t get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter’s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, “Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?”

Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Read More)

Posted by Pat Dollard 25 Comments

Absolutely Must See Video

Absolutely Must See Video

Marcus Luttrell and his three buddies had to make an impossible decision. Afghani goat herds disrupted their secret mission to track a Taliban leader. Killing them would be a violation of the ROE (Rules of Engagement). Holding them would reveal their position. Letting them go would likely bring the Taliban upon them.

“It was hard for me to understand how someone thousands of miles away, sitting behind a desk, could tell me how to fight a war. Grab a gun. Come over here with me, and I guarantee you, that you’re gonna change your mind in a second.”

To understand the heart, mind, soul, sacrifices and experiences of the frontline American warrior, you are unlikely to find much better video. A prieceless gem from the great new video site, Breitbart.tv. A site I suggest you make one of your daily destinations, just as I suggest you watch this video, and spread the word.

Luttrell, who’s riveting new book ‘Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10’ is fast top seller, talks to Breitbart.tv in front of the U.S. Capitol

Posted by Pat Dollard 0 Comments

Seemingly Demented Carter Defends Hamas

Seemingly Demented Carter Defends Hamas

Sources in Ireland say Jimmy Carter seemed “positively senile” Tuesday during his speech and a press briefing at Ireland’s annual human rights forum.

The 83-year-old former American President–who effectively launched the worldwide Islamist revolution nearly three decades ago by undermining Iran’s modernizing, pro-Western Shah in a cynical, failed attempt to curry favor with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini–shocked many observers by issuing a passionate defense of the Palestinian Islamist terrorist group Hamas.

Carter accused the United States, Israel and the European Union of seeking to divide the Palestinian people by reopening aid to President Mahmoud Abbas’ new government in the West Bank while denying the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Carter also said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept Hamas’ 2006 election victory was “criminal.” He said monitors from his Carter Center observed the 2006 election that Hamas won, adding that he vote was “orderly and fai.”

Hamas triumphed, in part, Carter said, because it was “shrewd in selecting candidates,” whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

“The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,” Carter said.

Carter said the US and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would “conquer Hamas in Gaza” — but Hamas routed Fatah in the fighting last week because of its “superior skills and discipline.”

As is, immigration bill a recipe for failure

As is, immigration bill a recipe for failure

As Congress debates overhauling our broken immigration system, the bottom line should be this: Will the new system be enforceable and restore respect for our laws? Or will it be unenforceable and lead to even more illegality in the future?This is not a minor matter. America is successful because it is a nation of laws. We now have a situation in which some laws are routinely ignored. If we approve yet another law that promises reform yet again fails to deliver on its promises, our precious heritage as a nation of law will be in serious jeopardy.

Our recent experience is not reassuring. In 1986, we approved an amnesty for an estimated 3 million people here illegally but promised that we would enforce the law in the future. That promise was never honored. Unsurprisingly, we now have at least 12 million here illegally, and more watching how we handle this situation.

Even after 9-11, our record of enforcement is sadly lacking. For example, in 2004, demanding better control of our border, Congress approved a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that requires a U.S. passport starting this spring for anyone visiting Canada, the Caribbean, Bermuda, Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

The State and Homeland Security departments had three full years to prepare for an easily foreseeable flood of new passport applications. However, we are seeing the results. Planning and staffing for the new law has been woefully inadequate.

Tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who applied for passports in January and February of this year, anticipating travel this summer, have not yet received their documents. The passport office is in near-chaos. All over the United States, people are turning to congressional offices seeking help.

Some critics are justifiably asking: If the federal government cannot even handle routine passport applications for U.S. citizens, how can it possibly do thorough background checks and issue visas for millions of foreign-born applicants?

An oversight report last year declared that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services already is overworked and stretched to its breaking point. Under the immigration reform bill being debated, that USCIS work-load would be tripled — without any significant increase in resources.

For example, the new bill gives the USCIS all of 24 hours to grant a probationary “Z” visa to any undocumented alien requesting it during the first year that the law is effective. If 12 million apply as expected, that means USCIS would have to process an average of 48,000 applications every day.

But the USCIS has only 3,000 staffers to process and review applications, including background checks. The current legislation would add only 100 new adjudicators each year for five years.

Clearly, the agency is being set up for failure. We are ensuring that the new system will not be workable. Law enforcement personnel assure me that there is no way a reliable background check could be conducted within 24 hours even if sufficient personnel were available.

Other aspects are equally troubling. The 1986 amnesty failed in part because of massive document fraud. The current Senate legislation, rather than learning from the 1986 experience, instead duplicates its errors.

Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security is again prohibited from using all information from Z visa applications to weed out ineligible applicants.

It also forbids crucial information-sharing among law enforcement agencies. For example, if an applicant is denied a Z visa on noncriminal grounds, the bill does not allow DHS to use information supplied — such as a home address — to locate and deport the illegal entrant.

As I traveled throughout our state last week, I found Texans profoundly skeptical about this immigration bill. Their suspicion is justified. The federal government in recent years has proven that it is not serious about securing our borders and enforcing our laws. Passing yet another law that cannot be enforced will merely add to our broad disillusionment.

Last week, President Bush asserted in a speech that those of us who have raised questions about this bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” I respectfully disagree. Working to secure our borders and restoring respect for our laws is exactly what is right for America. Repeating the mistakes of 1986 is not.

TRUE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL INTRODUCED

TRUE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL INTRODUCED

Secure Borders First Act of 2007

June 19, 2007

washington d.c. — Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) joined Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, to unveil two new border security and immigration initiatives—a comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill as well as a resolution calling for full enforcement of all current immigration laws.  The two new measures represent a strong ‘Security First-No Amnesty’ alternative to the Kennedy-Bush Senate Amnesty bill.
“We decided to take action today rather than wait for the Senate to pass an amnesty bill the American people clearly do not want,” Bilbray said.  “There is no reason why Congress shouldn’t take immediate action to secure our borders, strengthen our immigration laws, implement true interior enforcement and establish a working employer verification system.”
The Secure Borders FIRST (For Integrity, Reform, Safety and anti-Terrorism) Act of 2007 will mandate operational control of all our borders and ensure better enforcement of current U.S. immigration laws. 
“First and foremost, we must gain control of our borders, and the Senate bill fails to do this,” King said.  “Furthermore, against the wishes of the American people, the Senate bill would provide almost immediate amnesty for an estimated 12 million illegal aliens here in the United States.  These are serious issues that would only serve to weaken the security of our country.”
“The immigration status quo is intolerable.  Not because our immigration laws are broken, but because they are not vigorously enforced,” Smith said.  “Immigration enforcement has failed primarily because Administrations for 20 years have not enforced sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants.  Our resolution calls on the Administration to enforce employer sanctions systematically, not just sporadically.”
The bill also reforms the H-2A Visa program to allow for a market-based number of temporary agricultural workers each year.  The legislation does not provide amnesty, or the legalization of aliens illegally residing in the United States, and would make English our nation’s official language.
“By reforming the H-2A program we already have in place, we can better enforce our immigration laws while ensuring American farmers have the workforce they need,” King said.
Furthermore, House Republican leaders have introduced a resolution calling for the enforcement of all immigration laws points out a number of current laws that are not fully enforced.  This includes implementing both the entry and exit portions of the U.S. VISIT program, enforcing the employer sanctions that were enacted as part of the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, detention beds, and immigration investigators.
Bilbray added, “The practice of rewarding illegal behavior and ignoring current immigration laws must come to an end.  No one believes that you can grant an amnesty first and enforce the law second.  What part of illegal is hard to understand?”
“The Administration claims we have a de facto amnesty now,” said Smith. “That’s true and it’s the result of the Administration’s own lack of determination to enforce the law.  We don’t need amnesty to enforce current law; we need to enforce the law to eliminate the need for amnesty.”  

“If Congress is serious about border security and immigration control, then this is the solution,” King said.

Carter Hearts Hamas

Carter Hearts Hamas
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 20, 2007

IT’S EITHER AN UNPRECEDENTED LOW IN PARTISAN DISCOURSE OR POLITICAL SURREALISM worthy of André Breton: on Tuesday, former president Jimmy Carter, speaking on foreign soil, denounced the policies of his successor as “criminal” because they fail to subsidize a genocidal Islamic terrorist organization that has killed Americans. Then, he blamed internecine Palestinian warfare on Americans and Israelis. Speaking in Ireland at the eighth annual Forum on Human Rights – without an apparent hint of irony – Carter said the Bush administration had sinned against heaven and earth in its decision to withhold direct aid to Hamas once that group came to power in the Palestinian Authority. “That action was criminal,” he said. The Palestinian people had elected Hamas fair-and-square in elections his Center described as “orderly and fair.” (Carter said the same of Hugo Chavez’s election.) He deemed Hamas “shrewd in selecting candidates.”  

The world’s most famous Sunday School teacher further praised the genocidal terrorist organization, at a human rights conference, by citing its penchant for bloodshed. Hamas, Carter doddered, was more orderly than the rival Fatah organization, which Hamas demonstrated in military clashes that showed its “superior skills and discipline.” (The Jerusalem Post reported his argument thus: Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.) One can only imagine how impressed he would have been by the “efficiency” of the SS.

 Sounding like a junior anchor for al-Jazeera, the Nobel Peace Prize winner incredibly blamed the Palestinian civil war on Crusaders and Zionists. “The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine,” he said, “and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah.” He continued: This effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples now is a step in the wrong direction. All efforts of the international community should be to reconcile the two, but there’s no effort from the outside to bring the two together…I don’t see at this point any possibility that public officials in the United States, or in Israel, or the European Union are going to take action to bring about reconciliation (between Fatah and Hamas). Thus, the Americans and the Jews are to blame for divisions between groups of Palestinians that chuck fellow Palestinians out of windows. Only in the most fevered Islamist media are Muslims so excused from personal responsibility for their brutality toward one another.  

Carter does not persuasively explain why Israel would want to “reconcile” terrorist groups bent on jihad. (Few things reconcile Palestinians more than dangling an unarmed Jew in front of them.) The Hamas Charter instructs, “There is no other solution for the Palestinian problem other than jihad.” Killing infidels is “an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his master’s permission.” This makes jihad nearly the only thing she can do without her husband’s permission. But Carter, who once lectured Pope John Paul II for his “perpetuation of the subservience of women” and blasted “the mandated subservience of women by Christian fundamentalists” wants us to fund this misogynist death cult. You’ve come a long way, Baby….

 Carter skirts the fact that Hamas is not merely a threat to Israelis; the group has claimed the lives of numerous Americans. Its ever-expanding U.S. infrastructure may one day conduct terror strikes on U.S. soil. Authorities nabbed Hamas member Ismail Selim Elbarasse in August 2004 for videotaping Maryland’s Bay Bridge in what authorities worried constituted “a potential link between Hamas and al-Qaeda.” Last October, a Hamas commander ominously told Time magazine, “We shouldn’t stand by idly while the Americans are plotting against us.” But Carter has indicated the Bush administration is criminal for not supporting this stouthearted nationalist. “Criminal” might better describe the workings of any government in the Muslim world, so conspicuously over-represented in the Carter Center’s donations – nations in which, for instance, its elected officials have to consult with and bribe a departed leader’s widow to find out where he hid billions of dollars of their people’s assets. Nonetheless, the U.S. is sending barrels of greenbacks and weapons to the kleptocratic Fatah, whose membership largely overlaps with that of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the group responsible for the Mickey Mouse Murder Hour. Condoleeza Rice has also announced the U.S. is shipping tens of millions of dollars to the UNRWA, where future terrorists are incubated. Yet Carter denounces his own country for failing to establish a Marshall Plan for totalitarian murderers. Thus concludes a rational progression for Jimmy Carter: in the 1970s, he blundered into establishing terrorists as Iran’s all-powerful theocratic rulers. In the 1980s and ‘90s, he wrote speeches for Yasser Arafat and defended extremists around the globe. Now, he calls the U.S. president a pariah for refusing to underwrite unrepentant jihadists dedicated to spilling as much infidel blood as possible.  Thus, Man from Plains confirms what many long suspected: the Worst President of the 20th Century does not want the United States to end the War on Terror. He merely wants us to switch sides.

Giving Welfare to Illegals

Giving Welfare to Illegals
By Robert Rector
Heritage Foundation | June 20, 2007

In criticizing recent Heritage Foundation research on the cost of low-skill immigration and amnesty, proponents of the Senate immigration legislation (S. 1348), including Administration spokesmen, have falsely claimed that the proposal would not give illegal immigrants access to the U.S. welfare system.[1]

While provisions of the Senate bill would delay illegal immigrants’ access to welfare for several years, over time nearly all amnesty recipients would be offered legal permanent residence and access to more than 60 federal means-tested welfare programs.

Specifically, Z visa holders would immediately be given Social Security numbers and would begin earning entitlement to Social Security and Medicare (which are not means-tested welfare programs). Some ten to thirteen years after enactment, amnesty recipients would begin to gain access to a wide variety of means-tested welfare programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, and Food Stamps. The amnesty process under S.1348, and the different stages of the process at which amnesty recipients become eligible for different government benefits, are precisely described in “Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion.”[2]

The fact that amnesty recipients will have limited access to means-tested welfare in the first ten years or so after enactment will have only a marginal impact on overall costs. As the Heritage study states:  

The initial limitation on receipt of means-tested welfare will have only a small effect on governmental costs. Welfare is only part of the benefits received by immigrant families. Moreover, the average adult amnesty recipient can be expected to live more than 50 years after receiving his Z visa. While his eligibility for means-tested welfare will be constrained for the first 10 to 15 years, each amnesty recipient will be fully eligible for welfare during the last 30 to 40 years of his life. Use of welfare during these years is likely to be heavy.[3]

The Heritage analysis of the costs of amnesty was a study of the fiscal costs (benefits received minus taxes paid) of amnesty recipients during their retirement years. It concluded that amnesty recipients would impose a likely net cost of $2.6 trillion dollars on the taxpayers during that period and that these costs would mainly occur in two non-welfare programs (Social Security and Medicare) and in one means-tested program (Medicaid). The study explicitly states that these costs will not commence until 25 to 30 years after the bill is enacted.[4] To claim that amnesty recipients will not have access to the welfare system evidences an unfamiliarity with the provisions of S. 1348 as well as the Heritage analysis.

Defending S.1348 on the grounds that amnesty recipients would not be eligible for welfare also is hypocritical, because the position of the Administration has been to reduce the restrictions in current law on immigrants’ use of welfare. For example, the 1996 welfare reform law prohibited legal permanent residents (green card holders) from receiving welfare for their first ten years in the country. In 2002, the Bush administration successfully promoted a change in the law to allow non-citizen green card holders to receive Food Stamps after five years in the country.[5]

It is also claimed that a second study by The Heritage Foundation, “The Fiscal Cost of Low Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,”is an outlier in the field of research.[6]This study examined the net fiscal cost (total government benefits received minus total taxes paid) of households headed by immigrants without a high school degree. It found that these low-skill immigrant households, on average, receive three dollars in benefits for every one dollar in taxes paid. Low-skill immigrant households (both legal and illegal) now comprise five percent of the U.S. population and impose a net cost of $89 billion per year on the U.S. taxpayer.

There is one previous study of the fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants: the National Academy of Sciences’ 1997 New Americans study.[7] The findings in that study match those of Heritage research: immigrants without a high school degree imposed a substantial net cost on the taxpayer, and the initial fiscal burden was so severe that it was not erased by the earnings and taxes of subsequent generations. Even when the net taxes paid by the immigrants’ descendents over the next 300 years (roughly 10 generations) were estimated, the net present value to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrants remained slightly negative.[8]

The same National Academy of Sciences study also argued that low-skill immigration produced an economic gain, mainly by reducing prices. Most Americans, however, would find the reason for this gain unsettling: “There is a direct correspondence between the fact that some domestic workers suffer wage reductions and the fact that we gain as a nation” from immigration.[9]

Low-skill immigration reduces prices of some consumer goods because it reduces the relative wages of the workers producing those goods, including the wages of millions of low-skill non-immigrants who compete with the low-skill immigrants. As the National Academy of Sciences put it, “Although wage declines are real losses to the affected [non-immigrant] workers, they are also the source of a national ‘gain’ from immigration.”[10] A national policy that reduces consumer prices by reducing the wages of the least skilled American workers is hardly a recipe for long-term social and political stability.

The Heritage studies in question show that while college-educated immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, low-skill immigrants do not. The best public policy would encourage the more high-skill and less low-skill immigration. Unfortunately, S. 1348 moves in the opposite direction.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

ENDNOTES:
[1] Interview with Tony Snow, CNN, American Morning, 7:51 AM, June 12, 2007.  “I understand that it’s important to try to total costs and benefits, but you have to take a look at the actual bill…. this bill does not guarantee; it says the people do not have access to the welfare system.”

[2] Robert Rector, “Amnesty will Cost the U.S. Taxpayers at least $2.6 Trillion,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1490, June 6, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm. Since the publication of this paper, an amendment introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions and passed by the Senate has modified the bill to delay a Z visa holder’s access to the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., p.6.

[5] The White House, Working Toward Independence: The President’s Plan To Strengthen Welfare Reform, February 2002, p.33, at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/
welfare-reform-announcement-book.html
.

[6] Robert Rector and Christine Kim, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.SR-14, May 21, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm.

[7] National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997).

[8] Ibid., pp., 334, 342.

[9] Ibid., p. 140.

[10] Ibid., p.141.