Friday, November 8, 2019

WHAT WAS ONCE AMERICA - What happens when we lose our core identity? FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE

It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.

What Happens When We Lose Our Core Identity in America

By Frosty Wooldridge


NewsWithViews.com


https://newswithviews.com/what-happens-when-we-lose-our-core-identity-in-america/


Mass Immigration Poses An Existential Crisis For The West

https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/petermorici/2019/04/29/mass-immigration-poses-an-existential-crisis-for-the-west-n2545545


Source: AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza
  
America needs well-enforced borders but President Donald Trump’s national “emergency” is part of a much larger crisis facing Western nations.
State entropy, widespread violence and economic desperation, prevalent in many parts of Central and South America, the Middle East and Africa, are driving millions north—mostly to America and the European Union. The sheer potential numbers could pose overwhelming challenges of assimilation and undermine the cultural underpinnings of our market economies and democratic institutions.
The recent sharp increase in Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal migrants and asylum seekers has exhausted U.S. recourses to detain those awaiting adjudication. Within several weeks of apprehension, they join 11 million immigrantswithout permanent legal status—driving down wages for lower-paid Americans and overwhelming local cultures in some of the nation’s poorest communities.
Sophisticated technologies—cameras, drones and the like—are more cost efficient than a wall, but only a wall could keep migrants from setting foot on American soil and being released into the general population.
Most asylum claims are questionable. Mexico offers migrants humanitarian visas and the opportunity to work, but politically motivated judges have squashed administration attempts to limit asylum claims.
Sadly, federal courts led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts have become quite comfortable arrogating power in response to public sentiment—for example, striking down state statutes prohibiting gay marriage—and acceding to political pressure from Democrats—the peculiar reasoning Roberts applied to declare Affordable Care Act fines are taxes.
Presidential claims about “Obama Judges” and “Trump Judges” have some merit but in any case, Trump’s immigration point man, Stephen Miller, has not done the homework to effectively argue that a national emergency exists.
Trump charges the illegal flood is full of criminals, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, always a comforting presence, counters that Americans commit rape, robbery and homicide too. What matters is whether poor immigrants commit crimes at an alarming higher rate that our indigenous population.
Since 2015, Germany has admitted over 1.4 million asylum seekers—about 2% of its population, and they commit about 14% of the crimes. Surely, the FBI could help Miller to come up with comparable U.S. statistics. Then we could get at the truth—or he has but the administration is not willing to back off on its crime claims.
Polls show most Americans don’t support the wall and believe legal immigration is good for the economy and our culture, and no one has a finger on the pulse of voters like Pelosi, except perhaps Roberts.
The 1976 National Emergency Act empowers a majority in the Congress to nullify presidential declarations. However, with the GOP holding the Senate, lawsuits will decide whether the president can supplement the $1.4 billion authorized by Congress to build 55 miles of border fence by transferring Department of Defense funds to instead build 234 miles of fence.
The NEA does not define a national emergency. Instead that is spread over at least 470 statutory provisions. One states “the Secretary of Defense can ‘undertake military construction projects … necessary to support such use of the armed forces.’”
As Justice Robert Jackson reminded in Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952), which overturned President Harry Truman’s nationalization of the steel industry to support the Korean War effort, presidential discretion is at its peak when it acts with the support of Congress and “at its lowest ebb” when it is “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
When the Republicans controlled Congress, Trump could not get his wall built, and he campaigned on the issue in 2018 and got shellacked. Now congressional House Democrats have decided there is no pressing need for a wall.
The president recognizes he will get pilloried in the lower courts but expects a fair hearing in the Supreme Court. He should ponder Roberts’s ire regarding his charges about the politicization of the courts—sometimes being right is not enough.
For Americans living in large prosperous cities, the influx of well-educated legal immigrants, especially in STEM disciplines, are welcome, but many illegal immigrants become burdens in the labor markets and on public services in Trump country.
If Trump fails to get his wall, the crisis at the border could easily become a mass migration that imposes incalculable burdens on those Americans least able to bear them.

“The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia. His excuse: sex with young girls was common with his people. He said, "I was unaware that it was a crime." FROSTY WOOLDRIGE


America Vs Mexico:
Clashing Civilizations

By Frosty Wooldridge
Anyone understand why Mexicans fail miserably at creating a successful civilization? Ever wonder why millions of them invade the United States in search of a better life? Have you noticed that once they arrive, they create the same kind of 'society' in the United States? Unconsciously, they create the same conditions they left behind. You can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy.
For example, in Denver in December, illegal alien Navi dragged his girlfriend to death behind his car. Illegal alien Cruz shot his girlfriend dead in the back because she wouldn't reconcile with him. Illegal alien Ruizz ran over and killed Justin Goodman, but Ruizz drove away from the scene leaving Goodman to die. In Greeley, Colorado they suffered 270 hit and run accidents in one year. Over 80 percent of hit and run wrecks in Denver involve illegal aliens. Denver boasts the drug smuggling capital of the West as well as the people smuggling mecca of the country. Illegals cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it's a normal way of life. For them, it is.
Mexico's civilization stands diametrically opposed to America's culture. Both countries manifest different ways of thinking and operating.
With George Bush's push to create the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" by dissolving our borders with Mexico, he places all Americans at risk.
Would you become friends with neighbors who throw their trash on city streets and parks, create ghettoes wherever they enclave their numbers, promote corruption, deal in violence, encourage drug use, manifest poverty, endorse sexism and downgrade education?
America's culture and Mexico's culture remain diametrically opposed to one another. America's fought Mexico and won. Today, Mexico invades America with sheer numbers of poor.
However, cultures rarely change and neither do their people.
As you can see from the ten points below, everything about Mexico degrades everything about America. For further information, you may visit
www.immigrationshumancost.org  and www.limitstogrowth.org  where you will find a plethora of information by a brilliant journalist Brenda Walker. Her original report may be viewed on www.Vdare.com on January 17, 2007 under the title: "Ten Reasons Why America Should Not Marry Mexico." I suggest you read more of her work.  She exemplifies incisive, sobering and shocking information.
These ten point stem directly from Brenda Walker's work. Let's examine why America must not entangle itself by merging with Mexico.
The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia. His excuse: sex with young girls was common with his people. He said, "I was unaware that it was a crime." 
Mexicans remain the most sexist males next to Islamic men. Both boast the most misogynous cultures in the world. Rape and other violence toward women are not treated as serious crimes. In Mexico, a custom known as "rapto" whereby men kidnap women for sex is regarded as harmless amusement. Mexican society regards women little more than objects.
Crime and violence remain mainstays of Mexican culture. Drug cartels and the Mexican army coordinate their massive efforts to promote drug distribution not only in Mexico but into the USA. Mexico City suffers the second highest crime rate in Latin America. Kidnapping remains second only to Columbia for ransom money. Beheadings, killings and gun fire erupt at drug distribution points on the US/Mexican border.
Spontaneous hanging continues in Mexico. A mob beat up and burned to death two policemen on live television in 2004 in Mexico City. As Brenda Walker wrote, "Mexicans do not have the same belief as Americans that the law is central to the equitable functioning of a complex nation. It's the Third World."
Mexicans abhor education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma. Mexico does not promote educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent.
Drunk driving remains acceptable in Mexico. As it stands, 44,000 Americans die on our nation's highways annually. Half that number stems from drunken drivers. U.S. Congressman Steve King reports that 13 American suffer death from drunken driving Mexicans each day. Alcoholism runs rampant in Mexican culture. They suffer the most DUI arrests.
Mexicans set the benchmark for animal cruelty. Mexicans love dog fighting, bullfighting, cock fighting and horse tripping. Those blood sports play in every arena and backyard in Mexico. They expand into America as more Mexicans arrive. They also engage in "steer-tailing" where the rider yanks the animal's tail in an attempt to flip it to the ground. In horse tripping, they run the animals at full gallop around a ring, then, use ropes to trip them at full speed. It's a death sentence as the horses break their legs, teeth, shoulders and necks-all to the delight of the cheering Mexican fans.
As La Raza confirms, Mexicans maintain the most racist society in North America. "For the Hispanic race, everything; for anyone outside the race, nothing!" Guadalupe Loaeza, a journalist, said, "Mexican society is fundamentally racist and classist. The color of your skin is a key that either opens or shuts doors. The lighter your skin, the more doors open to you."
Corruption becomes a mechanism by which Mexico operates. Corruption remains systemic. The Washington Post wrote, "Mexico is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere." They feature drug cartels, sex slave trade, people smuggling, car theft cartels, real estate scam cartels, murder for money and, you must bribe your mail man to get your mail.
Last, but not least, Mexicans are Marxists. They promote a one-party government. As with any kind of Marxism, brutal totalitarian rule keeps the rich in power and everyone else subservient.
As we allow millions of Mexicans to colonize our country, we can't help but be caught up in these ten deadly cultural traits of Mexicans. With over 12 million Mexicans here today, the predictions grow to as many as 20 even 40 million Mexicans in a few decades as they come here for a better life.
The fact remains, as they come to America for a better life, they make our lives a living hell.
 Illegal immigrants are easily able to migrate into Virginia and other states because Congress does not provide border agencies with the legal authority, funds, and resources to catch, jail, and deter migrants, or to jail the many employers who hire hard-working, compliant, low-wage illegal aliens who live in the United States.

Report: Cops Arrest 80 at Mexican-Run Cockfight in Virginia

Patrick County Sheriff's Office via Martinsville Bulletin
NEIL MUNRO
7 Jun 2019716
3:14

Cops arrested numerous suspected illegal aliens and drug-traffickers at an illegal cockfight in Patrick County, Virginia, according to a report in the Martinsville Bulletin.

Eighty people were arrested at the cockfight, while 40 people allegedly escaped on foot as the officers raided the site, said the Bulletin:
Patrick County Sheriff Dan Smith said in an email Sunday that more than 50 officers from multiple law enforcement agencies executed a search warrant at 435 Long Branch Road at 1245 p.m. on Saturday. Smith said the site was the venue, and had been on multiple past occasions, for illegal cockfighting.
Evidence collected during the investigation shows that the operation is Mexican-based, and participants from as far as Texas and Georgia allegedly traveled to engage in the illegal activity, according to Smith. Cock fighting is classified as a felony under Virginia law.
Cash, methamphetamine, firearms, multiple-edged weapons and assorted property, including vehicles, were seized from the property.
The article provides the name of the 80 arrested people. Nearly all have Hispanic names and live in nearby North Carolina. The cockfight was arranged by a Mexican-run operation, the article says.
Police reports say Mexican drug gangs use low-level couriers to distribute small quantities of drugs to rural customers, like pizza delivery services deliver pizzas.
The couriers are often illegal migrants who minimize their legal risks by transporting small quantities of drugs. If caught, they are usually returned to Mexican by the United States and sometimes get back pay from the drug rings.
The same business model was spotlighted in March when a federal grand jury indicted 12 alleged gang members of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel for distributing and selling drugs.
The Department of Justice press release said:
Harrisonburg, VIRGINIA – A federal grand jury sitting in U.S. District Court in Harrisonburg has indicted 12 members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), a Mexican-based criminal organization considered by the Department of Justice to be one of the five most dangerous transnational organizations in the world, on federal drug conspiracy charges, United States Attorney Thomas T. Cullen announced today.
“CJNG is one of the most dangerous drug cartels in the world, and its members and associates are actively operating in the Shenandoah Valley and Southside Virginia,” United States Attorney Cullen stated today. “Dismantling organized drug activity and staunching the flow of deadly substances like heroin and cocaine into our communities are among my top priorities as U.S. attorney.  I am grateful that our federal, state, and local partners share this goal and for their hard work during the course of this investigation.”
As part of the conspiracy, it is alleged that the defendants maintained a series of residential properties in and around Axton for the purpose of receiving, storing, packaging, and distributing multiple kilograms of cocaine and multiple pounds of marijuana which they had received directly from members of CJNG. These drugs were then allegedly shipped to Winchester, and elsewhere throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, for redistribution.
Illegal immigrants are easily able to migrate into Virginia and other states because Congress does not provide border agencies with the legal authority, funds, and resources to catch, jail, and deter migrants, or to jail the many employers who hire hard-working, compliant, low-wage illegal aliens who live in the United States.

  

Pew Research: Vast Majority of Illegals, 4-in-9 Legal Immigrants, Not English Proficient



Associated Press
JOHN BINDER
 28 May 2019539
2:28

The vast majority of illegal aliens and a sizeable portion of legal immigrants living in the United States are not proficient in the English language, a survey finds.

A Pew Research Center study finds that an overwhelming majority of the 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. do not define themselves as being proficient in English. Despite a slight uptick in the number of illegal aliens who claim they are English proficient, still only about 34 percent said they are proficient in English.
Likewise, only about 57 percent of legal immigrants — that is, legal foreign-born residents whom the federal government has admitted to the country — are proficient in English, according to the Pew Research study.
Illegal aliens arriving to the U.S. from Mexico, Northern Triangle countries, and other parts of Latin America have exceptionally low English proficiency rates. For example, only about 25 percent of illegal aliens from Mexico said they were English proficient.
Similarly, only 22 percent of illegal aliens from the Northern Triangle said they were proficient in English, as well a minority of 43 percent of illegal aliens from other Latin American countries.
Overall, Pew Research estimates that only about 3.4 million illegal aliens of the entire illegal alien population said they were English proficient.
As Breitbart News has chronicled, foreign language-speakers have increasingly made up the U.S. population, forcing Americans to adapt in their day-to-day lives and work environment to non-English atmospheres.
For example, nearly half of all residents in the country’s biggest cities speak a foreign language at home, according to research by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Every year, a new flow of illegal aliens either cross the U.S.-Mexico border or overstay their visas and compete against the majority of working and middle class Americans for oftentimes entry-level and generally lower wage jobs. Americans are not only subjected to this illegal labor market competition but also must compete against an additional 1.2 million legal immigrants who are admitted to the U.S. annually.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

 

Coulter: U.S. Isn’t Becoming Europe. We’re Becoming Rome




ANN COULTER
22 May 20192,196
2:48

Can we have a quick reality check and acknowledge that what is happening to America is a million times worse than what’s happening in Europe and is of much greater consequence?

Conservatives regularly point to the mass migration afflicting Europe as if it’s the Ghost of Christmas Future for America. Since waves of Third World migrants began sweeping into the European Union, we’ve seen terrorism, knifings, rape gangs and riots popping up all over the birthplace of Western civilization. Sweden has gone from a country where rape was essentially nonexistent to the Rape Capital of the World.

It’s sweet of Americans to be so concerned about Europe, but maybe they should look at their own country. On account of a mass immigration policy imposed on us by our government, the United States has undergone a transformation 
unprecedented in all of world history.

From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was 
demographically stable — not to be confused with “a nation of immigrants.” The country was about 85% to 90% white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10% to 15% African American. (The American Indian population, technically in their own nations, steadily plummeted — an example of how vast numbers of new people can displace the old, both accidentally and on purpose.)

In a generation, the white majority has nearly disappeared, while the black percentage has remained about the same, with more than 90% of African Americans still native-born. White Americans are one border surge away from becoming a minority in their own country.
In 2016, non-Hispanic whites were 61.3% of the population and 54% of all births. That was two years ago, before Trump came in and flung open the border to all of Latin America, especially children and pregnant ladies hoping to have an anchor baby.

Back in 1995, the Census Bureau estimated that whites would decline to about 64% of the population by 2020. Today, the Census Bureau projects the nation will be less than 60% white by then. We’re moving faster than even La Raza could have hoped!

This isn’t about race — though it might be of some concern to the rapidly diminishing white population that our cultural overlords are so tormented by “whiteness.”

E.g.:

“The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress” — The Daily Beast

“Whiteness is terrorism” — Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams on Twitter

“The Problem of Whiteness” — course at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abolish the White Race” — Harvard Magazine (“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”)

This stunning demographic replacement matters because American culture is the 
envy of the world. Not only was this wonderful culture created by white Western Europeans, but merely asking immigrants to assimilate to it is generally considered a hate crime.

If everyone assimilated to our culture, who cares what race they are? But given sufficient numbers, they don’t. They don’t need to, and we certainly aren’t asking them to. The reason we successfully assimilated not-so-different European cultures was that we controlled the numbers — essentially stopping immigration for 50 years while we forged an American character.

Let’s compare our demographic situation to the European countries we’re weeping over. France is still about 80% French (85% Western European), and England is about 80% English (85% Western European). Even Holland is still approximately 76% Dutch (80% Western European).

What we’re witnessing in Europe is that continent’s first brush with the joys of diversity.

American conservatives’ obsession with Europe’s snail-like introduction to diversity, while ignoring a demographic tsunami in their own country, is the mirror image of neoconservatives’ fixation on unrest in the Middle East, while ignoring the invasion on our border.

When did it become deplorable, Walmart-y behavior to care about your own country? Not to care more, but merely to care as much as you do about the rest of the world?

It seems as if progress is inevitable, that things always get better and never retrogress. But the Roman Empire had philosophers, literature, science, great buildings, statues and works of art. It had advanced communication, plumbing and transportation systems. It had a universal set of measures, laws and rules.

And then the Dark Ages came. In the blink of an eye, all that was lost. The people no longer had the technological know-how even to repair bridges and aqueducts built by the Romans. They had lost the ability to make cement. They lost many of the works of Aristotle. Roads and plumbing fell into disrepair. Statues crumbled. Nikki Haley would be happy!

Only centuries later did civilization begin to reassert itself, barely climbing back to the accomplishments of several centuries earlier.

Whatever the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, one thing is for damn sure: There were not vast bands of powerful Romans prattling about “Roman privilege,” demanding that the Huns be given preference over Romans and writing articles with titles like “Abolish the Romans!”

That is the driving impulse of one of our two major political parties. The 
other party can’t bestir itself to care about anything other than tax cuts, abortion and moving our embassy to Jerusalem. 


Mass Immigration Poses An Existential Crisis For The West

https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/petermorici/2019/04/29/mass-immigration-poses-an-existential-crisis-for-the-west-n2545545

Source: AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza
America needs well-enforced borders but President Donald Trump’s national “emergency” is part of a much larger crisis facing Western nations.


State entropy, widespread violence and economic desperation, prevalent in many parts of Central and South America, the Middle East and Africa, are driving millions north—mostly to America and the European Union. The sheer potential numbers could pose overwhelming challenges of assimilation and undermine the cultural underpinnings of our market economies and democratic institutions.
The recent sharp increase in Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal migrants and asylum seekers has exhausted U.S. recourses to detain those awaiting adjudication. Within several weeks of apprehension, they join 11 million immigrantswithout permanent legal status—driving down wages for lower-paid Americans and overwhelming local cultures in some of the nation’s poorest communities.
Sophisticated technologies—cameras, drones and the like—are more cost efficient than a wall, but only a wall could keep migrants from setting foot on American soil and being released into the general population.
Most asylum claims are questionable. Mexico offers migrants humanitarian visas and the opportunity to work, but politically motivated judges have squashed administration attempts to limit asylum claims.
Sadly, federal courts led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts have become quite comfortable arrogating power in response to public sentiment—for example, striking down state statutes prohibiting gay marriage—and acceding to political pressure from Democrats—the peculiar reasoning Roberts applied to declare Affordable Care Act fines are taxes.
Presidential claims about “Obama Judges” and “Trump Judges” have some merit but in any case, Trump’s immigration point man, Stephen Miller, has not done the homework to effectively argue that a national emergency exists.
Trump charges the illegal flood is full of criminals, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, always a comforting presence, counters that Americans commit rape, robbery and homicide too. What matters is whether poor immigrants commit crimes at an alarming higher rate that our indigenous population.
Since 2015, Germany has admitted over 1.4 million asylum seekers—about 2% of its population, and they commit about 14% of the crimes. Surely, the FBI could help Miller to come up with comparable U.S. statistics. Then we could get at the truth—or he has but the administration is not willing to back off on its crime claims.
Polls show most Americans don’t support the wall and believe legal immigration is good for the economy and our culture, and no one has a finger on the pulse of voters like Pelosi, except perhaps Roberts.
The 1976 National Emergency Act empowers a majority in the Congress to nullify presidential declarations. However, with the GOP holding the Senate, lawsuits will decide whether the president can supplement the $1.4 billion authorized by Congress to build 55 miles of border fence by transferring Department of Defense funds to instead build 234 miles of fence.
The NEA does not define a national emergency. Instead that is spread over at least 470 statutory provisions. One states “the Secretary of Defense can ‘undertake military construction projects … necessary to support such use of the armed forces.’”
As Justice Robert Jackson reminded in Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952), which overturned President Harry Truman’s nationalization of the steel industry to support the Korean War effort, presidential discretion is at its peak when it acts with the support of Congress and “at its lowest ebb” when it is “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
When the Republicans controlled Congress, Trump could not get his wall built, and he campaigned on the issue in 2018 and got shellacked. Now congressional House Democrats have decided there is no pressing need for a wall.
The president recognizes he will get pilloried in the lower courts but expects a fair hearing in the Supreme Court. He should ponder Roberts’s ire regarding his charges about the politicization of the courts—sometimes being right is not enough.
For Americans living in large prosperous cities, the influx of well-educated legal immigrants, especially in STEM disciplines, are welcome, but many illegal immigrants become burdens in the labor markets and on public services in Trump country.
If Trump fails to get his wall, the crisis at the border could easily become a mass migration that imposes incalculable burdens on those Americans least able to bear them.

 

 

 

Gaffney: 'You Can't Assimilate Vast Numbers of People Who Don’t Want to be Part' of U.S.A.


By Michael W. Chapman | March 22, 2019 | 11:56 AM EDT
Frank Gaffney. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
During a discussion about the need for immigrants to assimilate into American society and the spectre of sharia (Islamic law) in U.S. communities, Center for Security Policy Chairman Frank Gaffney said it is imperative to keep in mind "that you cannot assimilate vast numbers of people who simply don’t want to be part of your society." Gaffney, a former assistant secretary for Defense in the Reagan administration, added that Judge Jeanine Pirro is being suppressed because she dared to ask a question about the origins of the anti-Israel views expressed by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
When asked about assimilation during a March 20 interview on Breitbart News Daily, Gaffney said to host Alex Marlow, This topic "reminds me of the old story that conservatives are liberals who’ve been mugged by reality, and the thing you're describing, Alex, is being mugged by the reality that you cannot assimilate vast numbers of people who simply don’t want to be part of your society."
"They want to transform it into something very different and ultimately, at some point, you either resist or you submit," he said. "Submission is going to be pretty ugly, and it’s happening in parts of Europe already, and there’s more in the offing, I’m afraid. [Garbled] This rising tide of sharia supremacism, it’s chilling.”
He continued, "The trouble is, it’s not simply a problem in its own right, it’s a foretaste of what the Ilhan Omars and the Keith Ellisons and the AndrĂ© Carsons, Rashida Tlaibs, and so on, would have in mind for America, too, if they had their way. This is the really vexing problem of our time.”
“Again, not all Muslims want to live under sharia," said Gaffney.  "They don’t want to impose it on the rest of us. But enough of them do and the authorities of the [Islamic] faith certainly do."
As for Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose program on the Fox News Channel has been suspended for a second week, Gaffney said, "Jeanine Pirro, who is a friend of mine and much-admired former public servant and now, extraordinary resource, on her program, Justice w/Judge Jeanine, was suspended last week and may be again this week, and maybe – who knows – indefinitely."

Jeanine Pirro.  (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)
“The faux-Fox [News Channel] is suppressing Jeanine Pirro explicitly – as you know, Alex – because she dared, even in a question, to connect the dots between what Ilhan Omar is doing with anti-Semitism, on the one hand, and the traditions, teachings, and practices of sharia, as we’ve come to know it," said Gaffney.
On her March 9 program, Jeanine Pirro said, “This is not who your party is" in reference to the Democrat Party. “Your party is not anti-Israel, [Omar] is. Think about this. She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” said Pirro.
Comments and tweets made by Rep. Omar have been condemned by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "anti-Semitic" and "deeply offensive."  


MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?


The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.

By Lawrence Harrison

It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.


MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION

By Tom Barrett 
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States. 

(POPULATION 9-2018)

FINISHING AMERICA OFF: THE FOREIGN INVASION FOR “CHEAP” LABOR

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-fall-of-america-by-invitation-tens.html

Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone. JOHN BINDER

But many less-skilled migrants play their largest role by simply shifting small slices of wealth from person to person, for example, by competing up rents in their neighborhood or by competing down wages in their workplace. The crudest examples can be seen in agriculture.

Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.

"Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER 

The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population. At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration chains.

 

US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico has more

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/us-second-biggest-spanish-speaking-country

 

·         US has 41 million native speakers plus 11 million who are bilingual
·         New Mexico, California, Texas and Arizona have highest concentrations

 

DYING AMERICA: Poverty, Open Borders, Widespread Homelessness, Housing Crisis, Opioids, Corrupt Politicians and Then Suicide!

"In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by perhaps more than 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent." JOHN BINDER
*
*
"In the last decade alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral gain for the Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of congressional districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average."

Atlantic Op-Ed: The Migration Wave Has Barely Begun


File Photo: John Moore/Getty
  11 Mar 201926
3:27

Americans need to reform their immigration laws before hundreds of millions of foreigners decide to take up residence in the United States, says David Frum, an author at the pro-globalist Atlantic magazine.

“If Americans want to shape their own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions to make now,” says Frum, a Canadian-born Never Trump advocate who is also a consistent voice for the immigration reforms which would help young Americans rejuvenate American society.
Frum writes:
With immigration pressures bound to increase, it becomes more imperative than ever to restore the high value of national citizenship, not to denigrate or disparage others but because for many of your fellow citizens—perhaps less affluent, educated, and successful than you—the claim “I am a U.S. citizen” is the only claim they have to any resources or protection. Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders. Without national borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.
Americans are entitled to consider carefully whom they will number among themselves. They would be irresponsible not to consider this carefully—because all of these expensive commitments must be built on a deep agreement that all who live inside the borders of the United States count as “ourselves.” The years of slow immigration, 1915 to 1975, were also years in which the United States became a more cohesive nation: the years of the civil-rights revolution, the building of a mass middle class, the construction of a national social-insurance system, the projection of U.S. power in two world wars. As immigration has accelerated, the country seems to have splintered apart.
Many Americans feel that the country is falling short of its promises of equal opportunity and equal respect. Levels of immigration that are too high only enhance the difficulty of living up to those promises. Reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants more carefully, will enable the country to more quickly and successfully absorb the people who come here, and to ensure equality of opportunity to both the newly arrived and the long-settled—to restore to Americans the feeling of belonging to one united nation, responsible for the care and flourishing of all its people.
Frum’s article was written before homeland security chief Kirstjen Nielsen said March 6 that 900,000 migrants may cross the southern border this year. That is one migrant for every four Americans who will be born in 2019.
However, Frum’s task of persuasion is difficult because there are enormous social and professional pressure on his college-educated readers to go along with the cheap-labor immigration policies which are moving income and wealth from young employees up to older CEOs and investors
In Frum’s urban, college graduate, Internet surveillance environment, young people get exiled from their jobs when they notice that their wages are being shrunk, their rents are being inflated, and their politics are being poisoned by Wall Street’s use of immigration to stimulate corporate and stock growth.
Amid the threat of economic and social ostracism, few young graduates have the nerve and economic security to apply the law of supply and demand to the labor market, or to object as their jobs and hoped-for careers are quietly allocated to people who will rationally work for Spaghetti-Os and citizenship.


Immigration to America Is Not What It Used to Be




Speaking at a naturalization ceremony in Texas on March 18, former President George W. Bush said immigration to America “is a blessing and a strength.” He also said that “borders need to be respected,” and praised the work of border patrol agents, but that’s not what the media seized upon.
The Washington Post inserted “blessing and strength” into the lead of its story, headlined “George W. Bush: ‘May we never forget that immigration is a blessing and a strength’,” also working into the first sentence the following dig at Donald Trump: “a message that sharply contrasts with President Trump’s rhetoric on the issue.”
CNN Politics covered the speech, making sure to note “the rhetoric and policy positions from Bush came in contrast to much of the modern Republican Party and President Donald Trump.” The BBC said, “Mr Bush’s comments were seen as an implicit rebuke to President Donald Trump’s administration.”
And on and on. CBS News: “Bush urges politicians to ‘dial down rhetoric’ on immigration.” The Boston Globe: “described immigration as ‘a blessing and a strength,’ a message that sharply contrasts with President Trump’s rhetoric on the issue.” People: “it was a soft rebuke of the prevailing anti-immigrant position of some members of the Republican Party, including President Donald Trump.”
Get it? George W. Bush has won his grim battle with history. Various photos showed him inviting dozens of new citizens up to the podium, including Muslims in headscarves, Hispanics, and Africans. Apparently including anyone of European descent would have been bad optics.
And never mind that if Bush II hadn’t bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq, the Middle East might be relatively stable today. Iraq, for all its problems, would nonetheless provide a strategic counterweight to Iran. We would have saved trillions of dollars and spared millions of lives, and additional millions of refugees would have stayed home.
What’s Really Happening
The problem with all this media-spun anti-Trump “wisdom” from Bush is simple: President Trump is right, and the spin is wrong.
It is true that America was enriched in the past by waves of new immigrants. It is true that in the past, these waves of new immigrants benefited the economy. And it is true that even now, if immigration were brought under control, reduced somewhat, and reformed so that only highly skilled immigrants with a commitment to learning English were vetted and admitted, it would again be beneficial to our economy and enrich our culture. But that’s not what’s happening.
According to CarryingCapacity.org, the United States “now accepts over one million legal immigrants each year, which is more than all of the other industrialized nations in the world, combined.” Additionally, according to ImmigrationCounters.com, nearly 28 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States.
Attempting to quantify the costs and benefits of immigration into the United States is not easy. According to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the cost to America taxpayers to provide illegal immigrants government funded education, health care, justice and law enforcement, public assistance, and general government services is estimated at $135 billion per year. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of native households.”
Statistics abound—and for every study suggesting that America’s immigration is creating a burden on the economy, there is another that concludes the opposite, that immigrants continue to provide a net economic benefit to the economy. So rather than provide yet another regurgitation of battling statistics, it is important to note some crucial qualitative differences between immigration trends in America today, compared with past centuries in America.
Why Immigration to America Today Is Different
  1. Immigrants today are not coming from nations of equal or greater economic achievement. In the past, immigrants from Europe, for the most part, were emigrating from nations that were as advanced as the United States was, if not more so. Today the overwhelming majority of immigrants are coming from developing nations.
  2. Immigrants in the past came primarily from European nations which had cultural values—educational, religious, and political—that were, if not nearly identical to American cultural values, at shared a similar trajectory towards achieving those values. Immigrants today come from nations that, relatively speaking, have far fewer cultural similarities to America than past waves of immigrants.
  3. Immigrants today, for the most part, are coming from nations that are rapidly increasing in population and, in aggregate, dwarf the United States in population. Related to this is the fact that in the past, the people already in America were themselves rapidly increasing in population, but this is no longer the case, except among populations of recently arrived immigrants.
  4. Immigrants today arrive via 10-hour hops on an airliner. In the past, waves of immigrants spent 10 months traversing land and sea in a journey of staggering expense and significant dangers. While this isn’t universally true, particularly for the overland migrants that cross America’s southern border, the general point stands: coming to America today does not require the commitment it required in the past.
  5. Similarly, in the past, immigrants pretty much renounced their countries of origin. They made a one-way trip and they adopted the language and values of America. Today, retaining cultural unity with one’s country of origin is a few clicks on the internet, a cheap telephone call, an affordable airfare. Technology has greatly eroded the forces that used to impel immigrants to become Americans.
  6. Immigrants in the past arrived in an America that had a voracious need for unskilled workers. Today the American economy is relentlessly automating jobs that used to require unskilled labor, and the American population already has a surplus of unskilled workers.
  7. Immigrants today are arriving in a welfare state, where they are assured of food, shelter, and medical care that are, in general, orders of magnitude better than anything available to them in their native countries. This creates a completely different incentive to today’s immigrants. In past centuries, immigrants came to America to find freedom and to work. Today they are offered a smorgasbord of taxpayer-funded social services.
  8. Immigrant students today—especially in the coastal urban centers where most of them settle—enter a public education system that teaches them with a reverse-racist, anti-capitalist bias. They are taught in our public schools not to assimilate, but to “celebrate diversity”; not to earn opportunities through hard work, but through fighting discrimination. They are taught, often in their native language, that they have arrived in a nation dominated by racist and sexist white males, who exploit the world to amass evil profits.
Recipes for Disaster
These final three points are the most troublesome. If immigration reform advocates made those a priority and addressed them decisively with new policies, the other concerns might be manageable. But we must address the problems caused by immigrants with low job-skills, who encounter the welfare state, and are subjected to anti-Western cultural messaging.
To suggest Americans should resist competing with highly skilled immigrants, for example, is not only xenophobic, but it smacks of an entitlement mentality. Allowing immigrants into the United States who are qualified to join our ranks of scientists, engineers, researchers and doctors will only help our economy and overall standard of living. Allowing unskilled immigrants into this country, however, when we already have tens of millions of unskilled workers who are either in our prisons or unemployed and collecting welfare—who themselves could perform this work—is much more likely to constitute a drain on our economy.
Similarly, it is a recipe for disaster to allow immigrants into an America where the curricula in K-12 schools and universities—beholden to powerful left-wing teachers and faculty unions—indoctrinates immigrants to resent the alleged evils of capitalism and the incorrigible racist, sexist core of our American culture. This is particularly true when accompanying this siren song of corruption is easy access to social services of all kinds, including welfare. If new immigrants are taught the cards are stacked against them, and at the same time they are offered a free ride that provides a standard of living many times greater than what they knew in the countries they came from, why work?
Clearly an increasing population, all else held equal, does cause overall economic expansion. It isn’t clear at all, however, that this is the optimal way to create economic expansion. First of all, global human population is destined to level off by 2050 anyway, so rather than expanding the population through immigration, economic policy needs to search for the answer as to how to continue to experience economic growth despite a stable, aging population. In Japan, they have already made this policy decision—with zero net immigration and the oldest population on earth, Japan leads the world in the development of androids that will, presumably, become caregivers to the elderly. Economic growth oriented towards improving the quality of life for the elderly is one example of a sustainable growth sector—economic growth dependent on an immigrant-fueled population expansion is not sustainable.
There is another factor, of course, that makes immigration today far more problematic than it was in previous generations. Now more than ever, mass immigration of unskilled economic migrants and political refugees has become a strategy to move America sharply to the Left by dramatically transforming the electorate.
What the establishment uniparty is doing in America today is a deliberate devaluation of American votes, and a deliberate thwarting of the political rule of  Americans who have lived and worked in America for generations. Trump’s bellicosity may scare the soccer moms, but they along with everyone else who loves America ought to reflect on his actions instead of his tone. He is the only major politician in modern times who has tried to do anything to stop this. George W. Bush, God bless him, should stop letting the media use his words as weapons in their war against Trump.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.
Photo Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
About the Author: Edward Ring
Edward Ring is a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a co-founder of the California Policy Center, a free-market think tank based in Southern California, where he served as their first president. He is a prolific writer on the topics of political reform and sustainable economic development. Ring, a fifth-generation Californian, has an undergraduate degree in political science from UC Davis, and an MBA in finance from the University of Southern California.


‘Assimilate or Leave’ has Always Been U.S. Immigration Policy

The Democratic Left or DemLeft has denounced as racist Trump's recommendation that "the Squad" of four left-wing Members of Congress go back to where they (or their ancestors) came from if they do not like the United States. The DemLeft has doubled down on this accusation by defining the Squad as "women of color" even though Rashida Tlaib is no more a person of color than Donald Trump.
The truth is instead that the Democratic Left has put into practice advice misattributed to Joseph Goebbels: "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." The DemLeft is itself the real purveyor of divisive racial identity politics that undermine American Nationalism; the force that has held our country together for more than 240 years and has made the United States the greatest nation on earth.
American Nationalism is Inclusive of All Who Share Our Values
It is very easy to be an American Nationalist. We come in all colors so there is no "us" to look like, and we have freedom of religion so there is no "us" to pray like. You must however share our collective national values to be one of us.  This is far from a new concept as shown by the Prussian reformer Johann Fichte's (1808)Addresses to the German Nation. Fichte "…did not divide man-kind into Germans and non-Germans, but rather into those who believed in the spontaneous originality and liberty of man and those who did not. The former, Fichte held, were Germans, no matter what their racial or political affiliation; the latter were not" (Koppel S. Pinson, Modern Germany; its History and Civilization).
American Nationalism is similarly inclusive of all who share our values, and it has zero tolerance for discrimination against any American's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Theodore Roosevelt's 1894 essay on “True Americanism” elaborated of recent immigrants, "An immense number of them have become completely Americanized, and these stand on exactly the same plane as the descendants of any Puritan, Cavalier, or Knickerbocker among us, and do their full and honorable share of the nation’s work."
The proposition that people who do not like the United States should go back where they or their ancestors came from predates Donald Trump by almost 200 years. The “Annual Register” of 1820 said of Caucasian immigrants from German-speaking countries, "…if they cannot accommodate themselves to the moral, political, and physical state of this country, the Atlantic Ocean will always be open to them to return to their native countries." Theodore Roosevelt added of predominantly Caucasian immigrants, "It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from Europe, the sooner he goes back there the better." Donald Trump has therefore said nothing that has not been said many times before, and by some of our nation's most respected leaders.
Fichte's and Roosevelt's premise was therefore quite simple: anybody who shares our values is one of us, and those who do not share our values do not belong among us, except perhaps as temporary visitors. There are serious questions as to whether "the Squad" and other members of the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party share American values.
"The Squad" is Racially Divisive, Balkanizing, and Un-American
Let's start with Squad member Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) who said, "We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.” If a white member of Congress said, "We don't need any more white faces that don't want to be a white voice," we would wonder where he kept his sheet and hood, and we would probably find them. Squad member Ilhan Omar added, "This is not going to be the country of white people." If a Caucasian member of Congress said, "This is not going to be the country of black people," we would expect and probably find a sheet and hood.
Theodore Roosevelt would have almost certainly opined that we don't need any faces of any color that don't want to be American voices. Those that want to be white, black, or brown voices should go back where they (or their ancestors) came from, and the white voices can take their sheets and hoods with them. A story by Robert A. Heinlein meanwhile features an African-American President of the United States who says, "A group calling itself La Raza had better mean the human race -- the whole human race -- or they'll get the same treatment from me as the Ku Klux Klan." This is exactly the treatment that any form of divisiveracial identity politics -- Black nationalism, White nationalism, Nation of Islam, or La Raza -- deserves.
Squad member Rashida Tlaib tweeted: "When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free?" Tlaib's Palestinian people just to want to be free to abuse and terrorize Jews, Christians, Muslims who do not share Hamas' depraved ideology, women and LGBT people, but the bottom line is that if Tlaib considers herself a Palestinian, she should follow Theodore Roosevelt's advice, renounce her American citizenship, and move to "Palestine."Tlaib also argued "…that Palestinians are not responsible for terrorism or vitriol, even as she has lambasted the president’s use of words and called Israel a white-supremacist nation." If Tlaib's Palestinian people are not responsible, then who launched all those rockets and arson balloons at Israel -- the bogeyman?
Ilhan Omar tweeted, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel" while adding, "It's all about the Benjamins ($100 bills), baby" -- an obvious reference to Jews and money. Omar apologized for this remark but is apparently sorry only that she got caught because she later joined fellow Squad members Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez to support boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. BDS is nothing more than a way to support Hamas without violating laws against providing direct material support to a terrorist organization. Israel, and not Tlaib's Palestinian people, shares American values on the rights and dignity of women, LGBT people, and people of other religions. Omar also equated the Somali deaths during the battle of Mogadishu to those of American soldiers.
These issues have nothing to do with the color of "the Squad's" skins (at least one of which is Caucasian) and everything to do with the content of its character. Theodore Roosevelt and the author of the material in the Annual Register of 1820 would have probably reached the same conclusion as President Trump.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of an American Thinker contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.

Can Democracy Survive without Nationalism?

In modern English, nationalism has become a dirty word.  It is lumped together with racismxenophobiachauvinism, and intolerance.  To accuse someone of harboring nationalistic views is a formula for exclusion.  Few scholars can survive carrying such charges in their professional luggage.  Accusations of nationalism are directed at politicians as well, with predictable results.  In academia and the press, attempts to discredit and condemn nationalism are numerous.  A recent example is "An Open Letter Against the New Nationalism" published August 19, 2019 in the Commonweal magazine.
It has to be emphasized that aggressiveness toward neighbors and attempts to destroy them for the sake of one's own Lebensraum are not nationalism.  They are a pathology prompted by greed and arrogance.  One of the shortcomings of the aforementioned Letter is unjustified attribution of aggressiveness to what I call defensive nationalism, bent on preservation of identity and history.
Nationalism was not created by the French Revolution, as some scholars maintain, nor was it a product of literacy, as Marxist scholar Benedict Anderson wanted.  It has many parents.  It involves defense and protection of group identity that took generations to develop.  It contributes to the individual's personhood.
Liberal democracy was supposed to dissolve nationalism and bring an end to history, but even within Professor Fukuyama's lifetime, it has failed to do so.  History rushed past his predictions and doled out to humanity new wars and new ways of fighting wars.  It is true that Western democracies have avoided war on their territory, but they have participated in numerous proxy wars.  In 2019, the world is as unlikely to erupt into eternal peace as ever.  Wars are being fought, and nothing indicates that they won't be fought in the future, even though liberal democracy seems strongly embedded in first-world countries.
Nor has the territory of Western democracies become immune to challenges from abroad.  This is why big money is spent on the military (and not just because of greed of the military-industrial complex).  Enemies of Western democracies are powerful and real.  Recent events in Hong Kong add to the large body of proof that some world powers, as well as many smaller countries, reject the democratic system and abhor liberalism.  The Hong Kong example has filled the front pages of newspapers in summer 2019, but there are numerous other cases of lesser visibility and greater long-term danger to democracies.  In the same year, two Russian deep-cover agents, Elena Vavilova and Andrei Bezrukov, were unmasked in Canada; they lived there for decades under the stolen names of Tracy Foley and Donald Heathfield.  It remains unclear whether their Canadian-born children were groomed for Russian espionage.  How hostile to Canada and, more broadly, to Western democracies does one have to be to institute this kind of spy network?  For it goes without saying that Vavilova and Bezrukov were not the only such spies discovered on the American continent in recent years, and their task was not to ferret out recipes for the best ice cream.  A bunch of similarnelegaly (as they are called in Russian) were discovered in the United States a few years ago.  Like the seizures of cocaine, it did not eliminate the traffic.
What is the foundation of our defense against such hostile plans?  I contend that it is the sense of nationhood, otherwise called nationalism.  American soldiers in Afghanistan fight not to preserve liberal democracy.  They fight out of loyalty to their nation and their military unit.  When it comes to collective survival, it is patriotism and not the right to vote that is being appealed to.  As an anonymous tweeter recently stated, "loving America is what holds us together and what many have fought and died for."  Yes, America gives us freedom of speech and the right to vote, but so do many other countries.  It is American nationhood, its long story in history, and its innumerable unique characteristics that are the object of love, not its liberal democratic format.
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.  We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."  Who are the "we" Churchill speaks about?  Are they democracy's soldiers?  No, they are Englishmen, and Churchill is appealing to their nationalism and not to their preferences concerning political systems.  The British Army and the Royal Air Force swear an oath promising that  "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors."  Here the Crown represents the Nation; again, the pledge is made not to a political system, but to a person and, through her, to the nation.  Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of all democratic countries.
When democracies were in direct danger in WW2, no appeal was made to their political systems.  Rather, the concept of nationhood was invoked.
What if nationhood disappeared, as so many utopian scholars seem to desire?  What would the leaders appeal to if their territory were under attack?  If nations disappear, we are back to the jungle.  We might defend our immediate family, but this would not count for much in case of foreign aggression.  To abandon our nationalism while our enemies give way to their greed and hatred would be foolhardy.
Margaret Canovan has observed that "modern liberal democratic ideals depend for their plausibility on the collective power generated by national loyalties that are inconsistent with the ideals themselves (p. 137)."  In other words, liberal democracies play down nationhood or become outright hostile to it, yet it is nationhood that stands between them and their potential adversaries.  In case of external danger, countries are mobilized by loyalty to the nation, yet nationhood plays no significant role in theorizing liberal democracies.  Fukuyama's theory was an extreme case of such blissful insensibility to what seems to be a crucial yet invisible element of a modern democratic state.
As Yoran Hazony has recently argued in The Virtue of Nationalism (2018), we weaken a key element of our security by continuing to relegate nationalism to negative characteristics of human communities.  The optimism that permeates self-definitions of the so-called developed countries does not take into account the fact that many in the world wish America ill and that the sense of national identity may be the key to self-defense.  Nationalism should not be relegated to the "dirty words" basket, for it may be the ultimate guardian of democracy.

Elizabeth Warren: Black Trans, Nonbinary People Are ‘Backbone of Our Democracy’

DES MOINES, IOWA - NOVEMBER 01: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks at the Liberty and Justice Celebration at the Wells Fargo Arena on November 01, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. Fourteen of the candidates hoping to win the Democratic nomination for president are expected to speak at …
Scott Olson/Getty Images
2:18

“Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy,” said a Thursday statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

Warren issued the remark after sealing the endorsement of the radical activist group dubbed “Black Womxn For.”
Warren has “a deep understanding of how racism and gender discrimination don’t just compound income inequality but are actually central to maintaining the status quo,” the group declared.
The activist group prefaced its endorsement with a frightening picture of the 2016 presidential election, proclaiming that it “laid bare what many Black women, gender non-conforming, and non-binary, and queer folk know deeply; that this nation embraces white supremacy and its evils, even at the expense of itself.”
While the activists acknowledge that a single candidate cannot solve all of their grievances, they endorse Warren “with the full weight of accountability.”
“Our endorsement is not a blanket approval of all of her acts, both past, present, and future but rather a firm and calculated understanding that should she fall short of her commitments to us and our communities she will be held to account,” the group stated, listing off the promises Warren made to the Black Womxn For community.
Those commitments include holding a “People’s Policy-Making Summit” that “puts Black women, working people of color, disabled people, Indigenous people, and diverse community leaders and experts in the driver’s seat of structural reforms in her administration.”
The activist group also expects Warren to take action by “rooting out the culture of white supremacy” and  “appointing more Black women, especially trans and immigrant women, Black men, Indigenous people, people of color and disabled people.”
Warren emphatically accepted the terms and their endorsement.
“Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly,” she wrote. 
“I’m committed to fighting alongside you for the big, structural change our country needs,” she added: