| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty July 10, 2014 Glenn Beck's Charity Is the Best of America. It's Also No Substitute for a Coherent National Immigration Policy, Nor for a Secure Border. Glenn Beck is a big-hearted man: Glenn Beck on Tuesday announced that he will be bringing tractor-trailers full of food, water, teddy bears and soccer balls to McAllen, Texas on July 19 as a way to help care for some of the roughly 60,000 underage refugees who have crossed into America illegally in 2014. [Note from Jim: Notice the use of the term 'refugee.' Is that term really accurate for all of these children? Aren't refugees usually fleeing a war, anarchy, or a natural disaster? Do you get refugee status if you're leaving an area with a high crime rate?] Beck said he will be joined by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and a number of pastors and rabbis. "Through no fault of their own, they are caught in political crossfire," Beck said of the children. "And while we continue to put pressure on Washington and change its course of lawlessness, we must also help. It is not either, or. It is both. We have to be active in the political game, and we must open our hearts." "Everybody is telling me I'm seeing subscriptions down; I'm seeing Mercury One donations down," Beck said, growing emotional. "I'm getting violent emails from people who say I've 'betrayed the Republic.' Whatever. I've never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this." "We sure could use your help," Beck continued. "I would like to ask you to donate to MercuryOne.org. If you don't want to be involved in this, you don't have to be. You can donate and earmark your money to be for preserving American history; we have a museum to build. . . . You could do it to help education. . . . We're building hospitals. . . . But all the things that we do, they're not about politics, because politics is turning us ugly. Politics is the vehicle that is driving us to the fundamental transformation of America." We're fools if we criticize Glenn for his massive act of charity . . . but I also think we as Americans need to loudly proclaim that we are not set up to be, nor have we volunteered to be, the orphanage for the rest of the world. We may help out these kids because we're kind-hearted souls; some will say it's the Christian thing to do. But we're not obligated to do this. This isn't our responsibility and this isn't our fault. The parents of those kids are the ones who should be taking care of them — feeding them, clothing them, sheltering them, and educating them. And I don't think it's cold-hearted to ask whether our immediate effort to take care of these kids — because they so desperately need care — is setting us up to be their long-term caretaker. We, the citizenry, did not make the choices that led us to this point. Okay, a few of us did. Businesses, big and small, made the decision to employ illegal immigrants in violation of the law. A generation of Washington politicians made the decision to under-react to a largely open border with Mexico, even after 9/11. That same generation of politicians, running a government infrastructure capable of reading all of our e-mails and vacuuming up the metadata from all of our cellular phones, also shrugged as millions of visitors overstayed their visas and disappeared from the system. Local governments that will nail you for an expired parking meter announced they were "sanctuary cities" that would not cooperate with efforts to deport those here illegally. Most of us had nothing to do with all of that. We lived our lives, periodically expressing the view that our immigration laws ought to be enforced, our borders ought to be secure, and legalizing an illegal immigrant is unfair to those who were willing to go through the (too-long, too-complicated, too-bureaucratic) process of naturalization — the ones who should be welcomed with open arms. For this view, we were called racist, hateful, and xenophobic. And now we're stuck with a humanitarian crisis on our border, one driven in part by the perception in some Central American countries that the United States is offering "permisos" for children who cross the border illegally — a rumor that picked up steam after President Obama announced he would not deport children who had come into the country illegally with their parents. Some of the folks labeled "restrictionists" — I'll let you decide whether that's the fairest or most accurate description of that side of the debate — argued that just publicly discussing an amnesty creates new waves of illegal immigration, as foreign citizens rush to get over here to be in place to enjoy the amnesty. Give them credit for their ability to foresee the consequences of policy options. President Obama could have mitigated, if not resolved this issue early on with a clear statement from the Oval Office declaring, "There are no "permisos." There will not be an amnesty. You have been lied to, or misinformed, by smugglers who want to take advantage of you. U.S. immigration law is still in effect. You will not be allowed to stay. Turn around and return to your homes. If you wish to live in America, begin the process of applying for a green card and be prepared to be patient." President Obama will never say things that simply because he wants to enact an amnesty — or at least a "comprehensive immigration reform" with "a path to citizenship" for those who entered the country illegally. Last night's presidential statement was sort-of, kind-of in the neighborhood when he said that the children were "unlikely" to be allowed to stay. But are poor families in Central America going to hear that? Or do they perceive that as "there's a chance your children will be allowed to stay?" A bit of behind-the-scenes of the punditry world: Last night I was in the green room at Fox News. Senator John McCain enters. (The green room is traditionally off the record, but I'm not telling you anything he didn't say on O'Reilly a few minutes later.) He's pretty irked about what he's just heard and seen from the president. He noted that a few years ago, the U.S. deported about one out of every ten children who entered illegally; this year that number is down to about one in fifty. "If you're a parent in one of these Central American countries, don't you like your odds? The only thing that is going to get these parents to stop sending their children here is seeing planeloads of them coming back to their own country!" McCain said. Yeah, that John McCain. John McCain, advocate of a comprehensive immigration-reform plan that included a path to citizenship, is furious about the president's mild-mannered response to this latest development. He's got good reason to be, because his preferred policies from a few years ago — crafted with the best of intentions — now look like they exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration rather than solving it. So give those kids soccer balls and teddy bears, hot meals and fresh water, real cots, real blankets, and real clothes. And then give them a plane ticket back to their own country. Are Young Voters Growing Cynical About Obama and the Democrats? S.M., writing over at the Wilderness, with some perspective that fits in light of yesterday's apolitical folks with conservative instincts: The Democrats are going to be stuck trying to energize a disengaged youth culture that is watching Ashton Kutchner talk about hard work and Carrie Underwood making fun of Obamacare to thunderous applause while pushing the hip credentials of a senior citizen. Good luck. These are all examples of themes quietly bubbling up and into the mainstream culture not necessarily because of anything Conservatives or Libertarians are saying, but simply because Barack Obama's message is becoming tiresome, like a losing sports team tuning out a coach because they know next season they will get to have a say in his replacement. Millennials coming to terms with the broken promises of Obama aren't necessarily looking to the GOP for an alternative answer the way they turned to Ronald Reagan, but they might be looking to a new generation of speakers and leaders who can articulate that conservatism is simply the natural alternative to the false promises and hope of big government liberalism. If those leaders tend to be more socially libertarian then we should accept them and the talents they can bring with them with no reservations. Yes, all of them. Older conservatives will argue that counter cultural libertarianism isn't conservatism at at all. Libertarians will argue against anyone trying to coopt their beliefs. They both are aligned on the same horizon, running parallel to each other. But no truce offering of mine or anyone else is going to bring them together. It's going to take the collective disgust with what the Democrat party and progressive media has wrought on all of us and the realization that these changes are happening around us regardless of what either of their demands are. The larger point to be made is that progressives don't want anything to do with either of us. I'd love to see a broader libertarian-conservative alliance, and you might even say the future depends upon it. But recent history suggests that some voices in each camp relish fighting with potential allies. | Crazy new federal law just went into effect July 1st
Now, for the first time ever, one of America's top financial analysts says we can accurately predict the exact day of the U.S. dollar's official collapse.
It coincides with a shocking new Federal law that just went into effect on July 1st, 2014.
What does this law mean and why has even the liberal media called it a "nightmare and disaster"?
Get the facts here for yourself. You can be among the first to understand the details. | | | Remember When an Israeli–Palestinian War Was Big News? Is it just me, or is this latest Israeli–Palestinian shooting war strikingly under-covered? Has the press tuned out Middle East news after Iraq and ISIS, or is the border crisis consuming our attention? I get the "eh, they're always fighting" cynicism, but this is on a pretty big scale, and again, it was all triggered by the execution of an Israeli who also had American citizenship. Or are we following our president into an era of "eh, whatever"? Israel dramatically escalated its aerial assault in Gaza Thursday hitting hundreds of Hamas targets, as Palestinians reported 16 people killed in strikes that hit a home and a beachside cafe and Israel's missile defense system once again intercepted rockets fired by militants at the country's heartland. Military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said Israel struck more than 320 Hamas targets overnight, focusing on underground tunnel networks and rocket launching sites. That brought the total number of targets hit to 750 in three days of the massive offensive that has killed at least 80 Palestinians. Neither side is showing any sign of halting their heaviest fighting since an eight-day battle in late 2012. Israel says that Hamas must cease rocket fire from Gaza for Israel to consider a truce. Militants have fired hundreds of rockets, striking across the length of Israel and disrupting life across the country. No one has been seriously harmed as the "Iron Dome" defense system has intercepted at least 70 of the projectiles destined for major population centers. "No one's been seriously harmed" . . . other than those three Israeli teenagers murdered at the start of this mess. Oh, and a huge chunk of Israel is spending its days in shelters as rockets fly across the border. ADDENDA: Here's last night's appearance on Greta . . . Great, the prequel craze continues: 
From Our Sponsor:
Get the latest news at www.nationalreview.com | 
Comments
Post a Comment