Defending Our Country

Republicans have been a minority party for all but twelve of the years since the Second World War, as voters have preferred Democratic promoters of the welfare state over Republican proponents of fiscal restraint. But the same electorate has reversed itself when it came to protecting the American homeland. They have regularly crossed party lines to support Republicans in every presidential election where national security was an issue.

Thus while voters made Democrats the majority party in the people’s House for 38 of the 42 years of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union, in the majority of those years (28 of 42), they elected a Republican to be their commander-in-chief. Moreover, three of the four Democrats who did make it to the White House – Truman, Kennedy and Johnson – were militant anti-Communists and military hawks, holding views indistinguishable from Republicans on national security. The fourth, Jimmy Carter, was a former naval officer and beneficiary of the Watergate scandal. He was also a foreign policy disaster, who served only one term before being defeated by Ronald Reagan. In the entire post-war period from 1945 to the present, the only Republican presidential victory in which national security was not a major issue was the 2000 election of George W. Bush, and in that election Bush lost the popular vote.

To sum up: When Republicans win national elections, it is because the American people trust them with the nation’s security, and don’t trust their Democratic opponents. Another important aspect to this Republican electoral dominance on national security is that the Republican Party is a diverse coalition and its factions are capable of sitting out elections if the issues that divide them come to the fore. But concern for the nation’s safety has historically proven to be a powerful force pulling together the disparate elements of the Republican coalition and unifying its constituencies. When the security of the country is a major issue in national campaigns, it pushes other divisive issues into the background.

The conventional wisdom holds that “It’s the economy stupid!” (a Democrat is the one who said that). But the lesson of postwar electoral history is clear. Republicans win national elections when they put national security issues at the center of their campaigns.

Accomplishing this should not be difficult in a post 9/11 world in which Americans have been attacked on American soil, in which the number of states openly supporting Islamist terror has steadily grown, and in which the most dangerous Islamist regime – Iran – is about to acquire nuclear weapons. The present global outlook, with governments falling to Islamist parties in the Middle East and violent conflicts proliferating, should make national security a priority issue for both parties. Indeed, today’s world provides eerie parallels to the early Cold War conflicts, and with implications equally dire.

Yet in the 2012 campaign for the White House Republicans failed to make these threats a political issue, while Democrats were only too happy to pretend they were under control.

The Republicans’ “October Surprise”

To fully appreciate the current disorientation of the Republican Party, one need only consider how central these issues could have been in the fall of 2012 as the election approached:

In the four years since Obama’s first inauguration almost three times as many Americans died in Afghanistan as in the eight years that Bush conducted the war, and with still no prospect of victory in sight. Under Obama’s failed leadership, there were more than 8,000 Islamic terrorist attacks on “infidels” across the globe, a twenty-five percent rise over the years in which the fighting in Iraq was at its height. In the face of this bloody Islamist offensive, Obama was claiming that the war against al-Qaeda had been essentially “won” and the terrorist threat was subsiding.[1] The Obama administration had officially dropped the term “Global War On Terror” in favor of an Orwellian euphemism, describing terrorist hostilities as “overseas contingency operations.” This was a practical implementation of its policy of denying the religious nature of the Islamic war against the West, and minimizing the Islamist threat.

Denial was evident in Obama’s foreign policy towards the Middle East’s most dangerous actor, Iran, the chief world sponsor of terror, responsible for supplying jihadists with the IEDs that caused most of the American fatalities in Iraq. Because Obama was eager for rapprochement with Iran’s Islamist regime, his administration dragged its feet on sanctions designed to halt Iran’s nuclear program. And Obama was silent when hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets of the capital to call for an end to the dictatorship, thus passing up a crucial opportunity to end the regime.

An egregious domestic example of administration policy was its response to the massacre of 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood by an Islamic fanatic (who three years later has still not been brought to trial). The Fort Hood terrorist had successfully infiltrated the America military and despite open expressions of hatred against the West had been promoted to U.S. Army Major. Not only was the Obama administration unconcerned with the infiltration of its military by an avowed enemy, it classified the Fort Hood massacre as an incident of “workplace violence,” a Kafkaesque expression of its policy of denial.[2] Neither the troubling signals set off by these official cover-ups nor the facts about the growing Islamist threats were featured in the Republican presidential campaign.

In 2012 Republicans were handed an “October surprise” that provided them with a golden opportunity to address the issue. On the anniversary of 9/11, Islamic jihadists staged demonstrations and launched attacks against the American embassies in Egypt and other countries. In Libya, al-Qaeda terrorists overran an American consular compound and murdered the American ambassador and three brave staffers. The attack took place in a country that had been recently destabilized by administration policies. As a senator, Obama had denounced a military intervention in Iraq authorized by both houses of Congress and a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution. As president, he invoked the principle of non-intervention to justify his passivity in the face of governmental atrocities in Syria and Iran. But in Libya he authorized an invasion in a country that posed no threat to the United States, failing to even notify Congress or the U.N. Obama’s unilateral invasion destabilized the country and led directly to the rise of the local al-Qaeda, which planted its flag atop the same American Embassy it later destroyed.

Before his overthrow, the dictator Moammar Gaddafi warned that his demise would unleash the forces of the Islamic jihad not only in his own country but throughout North Africa – a prophecy quickly realized. In the aftermath of Obama’s aggression, al-Qaeda was able to take control in Mali of an area twice the size of Germany. In Tunisia and Egypt jihadist parties emerged as the ruling parties, doing so with the acquiescence and even assistance of the Obama Administration. In Syria, a savage civil war erupted, killing tens of thousands and pitting a fascist regime allied to Iran against rebel forces aligned with al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As these disasters unfolded, the White House not only did not oppose the Islamists but armed and enabled them – in the case of Egypt with hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and F-16 bomber jets. Obama had intervened in Egypt, the largest and most important country in the Middle East, to force the removal of its pro-American leader. It then promoted the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascension to power by portraying it as a “moderate” actor in the democratic process. Throughout the deteriorating Middle East situation, the chief beneficiary of America’s financial, diplomatic and military support was this same Muslim Brotherhood, the driving force behind the Islamist surge, the creator of Hamas, and the spawner of al-Qaeda.

To allay concerns about the emergence of the Brotherhood, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following justification for its acceptance by the White House: “We believe that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful, and committed to non-violence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency.”[3] In these words, she was referring to an organization whose spiritual leader, Yusef al-Qaradawi, had recently called for a second Holocaust of the Jews, “Allah willing, at the hands of the believers,” and a party that was calling for the establishment of a Muslim caliphate in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish state.[4]

Soon after Clinton’s endorsement, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate, Mohamed Morsi, was elected Egypt’s new leader. Secure in the American administration’s support, he wasted no time in abolishing the constitution and instituting a dictatorship with no serious protest from the United States. Only months before this burial of what was left of Egypt’s democracy, the new dictator had been visited by then Senator John Kerry – now Clinton’s successor. Kerry assured the world that the new Muslim Brotherhood regime was “committed to protecting fundamental freedoms.”[5]

Just as Obama misread Egypt and Libya, so he misread Syria. Both Clinton and Kerry had promoted the ruthless dictator Assad as a political reformer and friend of democracy. They did so just as he was preparing to launch a war against his own people. Meeting with Assad, Kerry called Syria “an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.”[6] Shortly thereafter the dictator began a series of massacres of his own population, which resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities and international calls for a humanitarian intervention – which Obama simply ignored.

In Libya, an American ambassador and three American heroes had been murdered by al-Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11, with no American response. The battle over the embassy had lasted seven hours. President Obama had learned about the attack within an hour. The embattled Americans inside the compound begged for help from U.S. military assets, which were stationed only an hour away. But in one of the most shameful acts in the history of the American presidency, help was denied, and the Administration went into cover-up mode, pretending for weeks afterwards that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Mohammed Internet video, whose director they put in jail.

In the election fall of 2012, Obama’s policies were imploding all over the Middle East; his campaign claim that he had defeated al-Qaeda was brutally exposed as so much window-dressing for his campaign; his administration was supporting a totalitarian force that was the self-declared enemy of America and the West and with his help had taken over the largest nation in the Middle East. Yet the Republican presidential campaign was all but silent in the face of these debacles and their ominous implications for America’s future.

The Problem Is Greater Than Any Individual or Party Faction

Democrats who were apoplectic over Bush’s war in Iraq for its interventionist agendas and alleged unilateral approaches, were silent over Obama’s unauthorized and disastrous interventions in the Middle East. Less explicably, Republicans were silent as well. At the Party’s convention in Tampa, its nominee Mitt Romney failed to mention the Muslim Middle East and devoted only one sentence to the observation that in order to appease America’s enemies, Obama had thrown America’s only real ally in the region, Israel, “under the bus.” Romney did not mention Obama’s role as enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood or the millions of dollars his administration had given to the Palestinian jihadists on the West bank and in Gaza whose official goal was the destruction of the Jewish state. He did not mention the calls by the Islamist leaders of Egypt and Iran for the destruction of the Jewish state and the completion of the job that Hitler started.

Romney addressed exactly two sentences to Obama’s appeasement of the Russians and abandonment of America’s East European allies in reneging on America’s commitments to their missile. The rest of his remarks about national security (approximately 160 words in their entirety) were these:

I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.

Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.[7]

It was the wrong tone, to begin with; it didn’t convey the crisis nature of the international situation, the mounting threats to America, the danger posed by Obama’s ongoing appeasement of America’s jihadist enemies. But the substantive details were even deficient. There was no mention of Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood or the front-page disasters of his policies in Libya and Syria – and this during the last weeks of a campaign to elect the nation’s next commander-in-chief.

It would be a serious mistake to regard this election debacle as exclusively — or even mainly — the fault of the Republican candidate and his campaign, or what their critics have referred to as “the Republican establishment.” The silence over these matters was hardly Romney’s problem alone. It was a problem of the party as a whole.  Super Pacs, forbidden by law to communicate with the campaign, but wielding hundreds of millions of dollars to shape the anti-Obama message also failed to focus on the national threats that Obama’s policies were encouraging.

One of these Super Pacs, Crossroads, was headed by Karl Rove who could fairly be linked to a Republican establishment, but the other, Americans for Prosperity, was outside the party apparatus and culture, and represented an independent conservative viewpoint. Neither of these Super Pacs created the focus on the Obama foreign policy disasters that was necessary for the Republican candidate to win the election. They agreed with the general consensus that the economy would be the decisive issue in the campaign. The conventional wisdom was wrong, as is often the case. One poignant instance with particular resonance was the campaign of 1980.  Jimmy Carter who presided over a basket case economy was leading Ronald Reagan by seven points in the last months of that race until the Iran-hostage crisis blew up in his face.

It is true that Romney made the situation measurably worse by his strategic decision to hug Obama on the issues in their foreign policy debate. But it is far from certain that any of the other potential nominees for president would have conducted their campaigns differently. At one time or another there were a dozen Republican candidates for the nomination that Romney won and they participated in 19 public debates. There were candidates for social conservatism, candidates for fiscal responsibility and job creation, for libertarian principles and moderate values. But there was not one Republican candidate for an aggressive assault on Obama’s disastrous national security decisions.

The failure of Republicans to grasp the one issue – national security – that had won them virtually all their presidential victories since 1952 was a problem that had its origins in the Bush administration’s failure to defend the Iraq War in the face of the Democrats’ attacks (a subject I will return to in a moment). When the Iraq War became a bad war, Republicans lost the national security narrative.

The extent of the Republican problem regarding national security can be seen in an incident that took place four months before the election when Representative Michele Bachmann and four other Republican House members sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Inspector General asking him to look into the possibility of Islamist influence in the Obama Administration. The letter expressed concern about State Department policies that “appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.”[8] The letter then listed five specific ways in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had actively assisted the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power in Egypt, producing a decisive shift in the Middle East towards the jihadist element.

The letter specifically asked for an inquiry into the activities of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and principal adviser on Muslim affairs. Abedin’s family – her mother, late father, and brother were all identifiable leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. For twelve years prior to being hired by the State Department, Abedin herself had worked for an organization founded by a major Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abdullah Omar Naseef, one of the three principal financiers of Osama bin Laden. The organization, run by her mother, was dedicated to promoting Islamic supremacist doctrines and Muslim majorities in non-Muslim countries. Another Muslim Brotherhood figure occupying a high place in the Obama Administration was Rashad Hussain, Deputy Associate White Counsel with responsibilities in the areas of national security and Muslim affairs, and there were others.

The fact that the Obama Administration had entered a tacit alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, furthering its agendas in Egypt and the Middle East was concern enough; that there were identifiable Islamists such as Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain occupying high level positions of influence on matters regarding national security and Muslim affairs provided reasonable grounds for an inquiry.[9]

The reaction to the Bachmann letter was quite different, however. When the letter surfaced, she and her colleagues were raked over the coals and savagely attacked as McCarthyites and “Islamophobes,” generally beneath contempt. These attacks came not only from The Washington Post, leading Democrats, and such well-known apologists for Islamists as Georgetown’s John Esposito, but also from Republicans John McCain and John Boehner. Without bothering to address the facts the Bachmann letter presented, McCain said: “When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches vicious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are, in ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poor because of it.” Said Boehner, “I don’t know Huma, but from everything that I do know of her she has a sterling character. Accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”

The terms “McCarthyite,” “Islamophobe” and their equivalents are bludgeons wielded to shut down inquiry into subversive behaviors that overstep the bounds of legitimate criticism and dissent. The same concern about reckless accusations doesn’t seem to apply, on the other hand, to leftists themselves. They can get away with baseless claims, for example, that a Republican president “betrayed us” in Iraq (Al Gore), conducted a war that was “a fraud” (Ted Kennedy) or “lied while people died” (Democrats generally).[10]

The success of Democratic attacks on that war have created a situation in which Republicans find themselves at a loss for words when it comes to holding Democrats to account over a wide range of national security issues. Consider how Romney was unable to confront Obama over his surrender of Iraq during the presidential debate. The issue was Obama’s failure to negotiate an American military presence following the enormous sacrifices that had been made – 35,000 casualties and 3 trillion U.S. dollars — to keep Iraq free of terrorists and independent of Iran. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had requested an American military base with 20,000 troops to prevent this from happening. Here is how Romney attempted to raise the issue and was backed down by Obama:

Romney: …Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

Obama: That’s not true.

Romney: Oh, you didn’t — you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?

Obama: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East….

Romney:  That was your posture. That was my posture as well. I thought it should have been 5,000 troops…. The answer was, we got no troops  whatsoever.

Obama: This is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq.

Romney: No, I didn’t. I’m sorry, that’s —[11]

In other words Romney backed down from even his minimalist suggestion of 5,000 troops, and failed to confront Obama on his betrayal of all the Americans who had given their lives to keep Iraq independent and free. He did so, because he did not want to be seen as a “war monger” for insisting that America should have a military presence in a country strategically situated between Iran and the Arabian peninsula, which thousands of Americans had died to keep free. But Romney was not alone in this failure to hold Obama to account. When the betrayal took place earlier in the election year, not a single Republican said that it had.

Recapturing the National Security Narrative

It is possible to pinpoint the moment when Republicans lost the national security narrative – and specifically their role as defenders of the homeland. The Democrats, once the party of “cold war liberalism” lost this narrative long ago with the McGovern campaign and its self-flagellating theme, “America Come Home.” Obama has attempted to recapture it with drone attacks on suspected terrorists, a half-hearted commitment to the war in Afghanistan, and a counter-productive intervention in Libya. But these gestures pale by comparison to the support he has given to the Muslim Brotherhood, along with his failures to back the democratic movements in Egypt and Iran.

The moment when Republicans lost their hold on the national security issue was June 2003, just three months into the Iraq War and six weeks after the regime had fallen. In that month, the Democratic Party launched a national campaign against the White House, claiming that Bush had lied to the American people to lure them into a war that was “unnecessary,” “immoral” and “illegal.”

Until that moment, the conflict had been supported by both parties and was regarded by both as a strategic necessity in a larger war that Islamic terrorists operating from safe harbors in a rogue state had launched. Following the attacks of 9/11, President Bush declared that America would regard as enemies, any regimes providing support for terrorists. Even before that, removing the Saddam regime had become a specific U.S. policy in October 1998 when a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, signed the Iraq Liberation Act.

Saddam had launched two aggressive wars, had murdered 300,000 Iraqis, had used chemical weapons on his own citizens and had put in place an active nuclear weapons program, thwarted only by his defeat in the first Gulf War. As of 2002, his regime had defied 16 UN Security Council resolutions designed to enforce the Gulf War truce and stop Iraq from pursuing its ambition to possess weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002, the UN Security Council added a 17th resolution, which gave the regime until December 17 to comply with its terms or face consequences. When Iraq failed to comply, Bush made the only decision compatible with the preservation of international law and the security of the United States by launching a pre-emptive invasion to remove the regime. The Iraqi dictator was provided the option of leaving the country and averting war. He rejected the offer and the United States-led coalition entered the country on March 19, 2003.[12]

The use of force in Iraq had been authorized by both houses of Congress, including a majority of Democrats in the Senate. It was supported with eloquent speeches by John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore and other Democratic leaders. But in June 2003, just three months into the war, they turned against an action that they had authorized, and began a five-year campaign to delegitimize the war, casting America as its villain. This was an unprecedented betrayal of their country’s national interest, and its troops on the battlefield.

With the support and protection of Democratic legislators, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major TV networks, conducted a relentless five-year propaganda campaign against the war, taking minor incidents like the misbehaviors of guards at the Abu Ghraib prison and blowing them out of proportion so that they became international scandals damaging their country’s prestige and weakening its morale. Left-leaning news media leaked classified national security secrets, destroying three major national security programs designed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.[13] Every day of the war without exception, media provided front-page coverage of America’s body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan fueling a massive “anti-war” movement, which attacked America’s fundamental purposes along with its conduct of the war. The goal of these campaigns was to indict America and its leaders as war criminals who posed a threat to the international community. It was a fundamental break with the post-war bi-partisan foreign policy, made even more unpalatable by the fact that the war was one they had authorized and supported.

An equally important fact about this development was that the Democrats’ decision to oppose the war had nothing to do with the conflict itself. No change on the battlefield had taken place to precipitate the 180-degree turns of John Kerry and John Edwards, who eventually became the Democratic Party’s standard bearers in the 2004 presidential election. The reason Kerry and Edwards abandoned America’s troops in the field was to win a Democratic primary campaign in which an anti-war candidate, Howard Dean, was leaving them far behind. Dean’s campaign was propelled by the anti-American, “anti-war” left that had also opposed America’s war in Vietnam, and every American military action since then. A poll taken in the pivotal month of June 2003 showed Dean with 44% of the primary poll, anti-war leftist Dennis Kucinich with 24%, and Kerry trailing with 6%.  By reversing his stand on the war, and attacking his own country as an immoral aggressor, Kerry was able to overtake Dean and eventually to win the Iowa primary and the Democratic nomination.[14]

The principal theme of the Democrats’ campaign against the Iraq War was that “Bush lied” in order to persuade them to support an invasion that was unnecessary, illegal and immoral. The claim had nothing to do with the war or the truth. It was the only way Democrats could explain the otherwise inexplicable (and unconscionable) fact that they had turned against a war they had supported in order to further their partisan ambitions – first to gain the support of their leftwing primary base, and then to gain a political edge over a sitting president who also happened to be the commander-in-chief in a frustrating conflict.

The truth was that Bush could not have lied to John Kerry or the congressional Democrats about the cause of the war – specifically about Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons — because Kerry and other Democrats sat on the Senate and House Intelligence committees and had access to the same intelligence data that Bush relied on to make his case for the war. When the Democrats authorized and supported the war, they knew everything that Bush knew. The claim that he lied to get their support was in fact the biggest lie of the war. Its only purpose was to discredit the President and turn the country against him.

Still, Republicans didn’t lose control of the national security narrative because Democrats betrayed a war they had authorized. They lost it because they never held the Democrats to account for their betrayal. They never suggested that the Democrats’ attacks on the war were deceitful and unpatriotic. They failed to answer the Democrat attacks by exposing the lie, or by describing their reckless accusations about the immoral and unnecessary nature of the war as the disloyal propaganda it was. The Bush Justice Department failed to indict those who leaked the classified information that destroyed three national security programs, though they were clearly violating the Espionage Act. It was considered too politically risky to do so. The words “betrayal” and “sabotage” – the appropriate terms for Democrat attacks on the motives of the war were never used. No one accused Democrats of conducting a campaign to demoralize America’s troops in the field, even when Kerry during a presidential debate called it “the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.” (How would that sound to a 19-year-old Marine facing down Islamic terrorists in Fallujah?)

The result of this failure of Republicans to defend the war and more particularly to put Democrats on the defensive turned a good war into a bad war. It turned a disloyal opposition into a patriotic movement. If the war against a dictator who had launched two wars, defied 17 UN Security Council resolutions, and murdered 300,000 of his own people was an illegitimate war, then American resistance to any rogue state could be portrayed as a reckless and unjustifiable aggression. In losing the political war over Iraq, Republicans also lost the national security narrative. And that is why they are tongue tied today when it comes to issues of war and peace. Call it “the Iraq War Syndrome.”

Although the Joint Chiefs had suggested that a military presence in Iraq was necessary to keep it free of Iran’s control, the demand for such a presence was now problematic. When 2008 presidential candidate John McCain suggested that maintaining troops in a postwar Iraq was a prudent measure, candidate Obama attacked him as a warmonger. “You know,” Obama said, “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.”[15] This refrain became a constant theme of the winning Obama campaign – Republicans are warmongers.

That is why three years later, when Obama surrendered Iraq to Iran no Republican accused him of betraying the Americans who gave their lives to make Iraq independent and free, although he had. That is why Romney was unable to make that case in the presidential debate, even though Iraq had by then fallen under the sway of Iran and was providing a land conduit for Iranian weapons headed for Syria.

In his first speech after 9/11, President Bush had said America would regard as enemies any states that provided safe harbors for terrorists. There are now nearly a dozen such harbors including Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iran, Egypt and Palestine. Far from considering them hostile, the White House is currently providing several with economic and even military aid. We are not only losing the war with enemies whose stated goal is our destruction, but we are led by an appeasement party that is making our situation worse by the day. The only way to reverse this trend is to mount a campaign to educate the electorate about the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, and about the Obama administration’s perilous role in furthering their evil ambitions.










[9] “Conspiracy of Brothers”, Frank Gaffney, January 7, 2013,
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, Frank Gaffney, 2012,



[12] This history is recounted in David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance, 1994

[13] See David Horowitz & Ben Johnson, Party of Defeat, 2008; Dougals Feith, War and Decision, 2009



Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • AnOrdinaryMan

    "The only way to reverse this trend is to mount a campaign to educate the electorate about the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, and the Obama administrations perilous role in furthering their evil ambitions." ….and to DEMAND from your Senators and Representatives a committee to fully investigate the Benghazi debacle; so those responsible can be prosecuted and sentenced.

    • Drakken

      You can't educate a populace that refuses to listen, when the muslims hit us again and make no mistake they will, the libs/progressives will take the blame entirely and hopefully that will be the time to destroy those traitors once and for all time.

    • AdinaK

      Ordinary man, so true. Yes, by stating the truth, the Republicans would set America free, free from the grip of radical leftists and their Islamic helpmates. However, this is not going to happen, any time soon.

      To be sure, if a foretaste is required, nothing else proves how inept the RINOS's are to lead the Repub charge –

      It takes much more than a differing view on fiscal matters to set the People's House straight. Time will tell if they are up to the task, but I wouldn't bet the Republic on it.

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel –

  • cathy

    John Brennan – Islamic Appeaser?

    Video: Former FBI Agent Confirms CIA Nominee John Brennan a Convert to Islam
    Posted on February 9, 2013

    Revisiting ‘Jihad’ John Brennan
    January 7, 2013

    John Brennan is wrong man for CIA
    By Steven Emerson
    Published February 07, 2013

    Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam
    May 10, 2010

    • truebearing

      Thanks for the links. This information can't get far enough fast enough.

      Everything I am learning about Brennan, combined with my gut intuition about him (from the first time I laid eyes on his ugly mug), confirms that he is yet another enemy of America and everything it stands for. Yet more evil in positions of power.

    • Asher

      Gee no wonder John Brennan doesn't think Islam is a threat…hes one of them!

    • Spider

      I first got wise to Brennan during an on camera press conference when he referred to Jerusalem as "Al Kuds"

  • cathy

    Chuck Hagel – Islamic Appeaser?

    Senate panel postpones vote on Hagel nomination amid Republican calls for more information
    Published February 06, 2013

    In a letter to Hagel, Republicans complained that he failed to answer several questions, including details on all compensation of more than $5,000 that he had received over the past five years. They also had pressed him on his recent speeches, the groups he has addressed and their donors.

    “The committee, and the American people, have a right to know if a nominee for secretary of defense has received compensation, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources,” Senate Republicans wrote. “Until the committee receives full and complete answers, it cannot in good faith determine whether you should be confirmed as secretary of defense.”

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Chuck Hagel – Islamic Appeaser?"

      Chuck Hagel – Islamic Jihadi, stealth division. Perfect for 0'Bama's CIA director. Purge all pejorative references to Islam from the lips of every citizen. Good thing they stocked up on ammunition for "homeland security" and now we know why Christians and Jews are seen as the major threat from "extremism." They know any non-Muslim will scream when they roll out their plans, and that can be characterized as extremism by any believing Muslim.

      It's another way to out jihadis. When they talk about "Christian extremism" they're telling you explicitly that they follow allah and resent your lack of sharia compliance. It's what classifies you as extremists. There are only Muslims, dhimmis and extremists.

      Which are you?

    • Asher

      Hussein is stocking his cabnet full of Islamists and Islamic appeasers!

    • patriothere

      He will be nominated and he is a real American.

      • Roger

        He was born here, but that's not enough for leadership positions.

  • cathy

    Chuck Hagel – Islamic Appeaser?

    Levin Defends Hagel, Calls GOP Disclosure Request ‘Unprecedented’
    February 8, 2013

    Rumors abound on Capitol Hill that a full disclosure of Hagel’s professional ties would reveal financial relationships with a number of “unsavory” groups, including one purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.” The GOP aide said it was “noteworthy” that the White House has yet to deny the association. “Maybe it’s not true, but why not provide a list of groups he spoke to and remove all doubt?” the aide said.

  • cathy


    Mr. Horowitz


    Would David Finch on Front Page Magazine with The Glazov Gang be advocating for a pathway to citizenship for eleven million Muslims who chose to bypass established legal procedures for entering the United States? In other words … a pathway to eleven million Democratic votes in 2016 … a pathway to further the Islamic worldwide agenda … a pathway to destroy the American Way from within

    A Pandora's box is being opened in regards to amnesty for illegals from Mexico. A precedence is being established. All nationalities are going to be demanding equal treatment.

    Also . think about it. Those worldwide waiting in line attempting to enter the country through the legal process are now placed behind eleven million illegals. What an ultimate betrayal for doing right.

    What part of "illegal" does Mr. Finch not understand when he advocates amnesty for lawbreakers? Is he speaking on behalf of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. I feel like I have entered the Twilight Zone.

    • WildJew

      Everyone should go through the same process to become a legal citizen. It is my contention that the means in which someone entered this country (by legal or illegal means) should be considered. Some would argue, illegal immigrants should not be afforded citizenship. Also the region and the culture from which the immigrant originated should be a consideration. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., should be considered. As important as Hispanic / Mexican immigration is, I agree with Horowitz, Republicans lost this elections largely on national security.

  • cathy


    Marco Rubio, March 2009

    “I am strongly against amnesty. The most important thing we need to do is enforce our existing laws. We have existing immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced. Nothing will make it harder to enforce the existing laws, if you reward people who broke them.

    It demoralizes people who are going through the legal process, its a very clear signal of why go through the legal process, if you can accomplish the same thing if you go through the illegal process. And number two, if demoralizes the people enforcing the laws. I am not, and I will never support any effort to grant blanket legalization/amnesty to folks who have entered, stayed in this country illegally.”

  • cathy


    The Miami Herald, January 16, 2013

    Sen. Marco Rubio's immigration plan earned a measure of praise from the White House. And why not? It looks a lot like a White House plan from 2011.

  • cathy


    The Right Scoop – January 28, 2013

    Mark Levin: If you think amnesty helps the GOP win elections, you’re dead wrong. And here’s why…


    Illegals Not Deserving

    LTC Allen West on Illegal Immigration

  • Anamah

    David I am asking myself why did you ignored Bill Clinton, which would be the fifth Democratic President … Moreover, three of the four Democrats who did make it to the White House – Truman, Kennedy and Johnson – were militant anti-Communists and military hawks, holding views indistinguishable from Republicans on national security. The fourth, Jimmy Carter, was a former naval officer and beneficiary of the Watergate scandal. He was also a foreign policy disaster, who served only one term before being defeated by Ronald Reagan. In the entire post-war period from 1945 to the present,… but what I do know is that we are in the hands of traitors and miserable individuals who share totalitarian and brutal ideology totally opposed to the American spirit.

    • Omar

      Bill Clinton was not president during the Cold War. He was president from 1993 to 2001. The Cold War ended in 1989 with the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Mr. Horowitz is referring to the four Democrats who were presidents during the Cold War period (1945-1989).

    • David Horowitz

      Clinton was elected after the Cold War was over.

  • patron

    This plays right into the left's propaganda machine of the Evil Empire propping up boogeymen for conquest. Any competent politician would instead use the Democratic Party's recent evil acts against them.

    We have fraud and corruption, like Chris Dodd pimping out his special Countrwide loan rates and Barney Frank sleeping with Fannie Mae board members he should be regulating. Barack Obama traded his graft and fraud history with subprime loan involvement and stimulus graft for an image of incompetence and impotence, forcing the loss of 1 million defense jobs due to his own childishness and taxing the middle class.

    Worst of all there, Bob Menendez. Very few events could turn America against their first black president. The White Housing covering for a Senator flying to the third world to rape child prostitutes so they can win election will destroy the public image of Barack and Michelle, Axelrod, and Stephanie Cutter. I'm betting David Plouffe.

    To strengthen conservatism, I suggest Republicans remind America strong people do not need strong leaders and actually produce for America through the private sector, like in the energy sector or private schooling or ending narcotic addiction, something in which Obama and his minions have repeatedly failed.

  • truebearing

    Not only did Obama attack Republicans as "warmongers," so did Ron Paul and many libertarians. Many on the fractured right found Paul's simplistic, economic utopianism very appealing. Given our serious economic woes, they uncritically accepted his reasoning thatwe simply can't afford to defend ourselves. Coming from the far Right and far Left, the warmonger label stuck, though it could have been rejected had the leadership shown some courage and intelligence.

    I heartily agree that educating the electorate on the Islamist threat is essential, but we had better educate them well enough so they understand that Islam's evil agenda is being facilitated by the evil agenda of Obama. Enabling evil is evil.

    • WildJew

      One might have thought the September 11, 2001 atrocities would be ample education.

      • truebearing

        You would think. I guess the deaths of 3000 innocent people and the loss of billions, combined with the resulting wars, wasn't enough to penetrate the deeply ingrained narcissism and stupidity of the average American.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "But there was not one Republican candidate for an aggressive assault on Obama’s disastrous national security decisions."

    That is what pissed me off. By the time Romney won, I was just praying for anyone to get rid of the Jihad infiltration factor from the Whitehouse and state department.

  • Asher

    Whatever happens, most Americans are going to defend themselves from Tyranny, no matter where it comes from!

  • WildJew

    Gen 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

    Gen 13:14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

    At the risk of appearing preachy, the Republican party has abandoned God; the Holy One of Israel.

    David Horowitz wrote: The moment when Republicans lost their hold on the national security issue was June 2003, just three months into the Iraq War and six weeks after the regime had fallen….
    "Until that moment, the conflict had been supported by both parties and was regarded by both as a strategic necessity in a larger war that Islamic terrorists operating from safe harbors in a rogue state had launched. Following the attacks of 9/11,**** President Bush declared that America would regard as enemies, any regimes providing support for terrorists.****

    Hamas / PLO are not regimes that support terrorists?

    The moment Republicans lost their hold on the national security issue was in early October 2001, only days after a Saudi proxy murdered approximately three thousand Americans in New York and Washington. October 2001, President Bush unveiled his vision for yet another Muslim-terror state in the Middle East; this one in the Holy Land; land that the Almighty swore He would give to the sons of Jacob, not to the sons of Ishmael. President Bush did it in keeping with a written pledge he gave to Saudi Wahhabi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, late August 2001; only days before a Saudi proxy attacked the United States. Bush then covered Saudi complicity (financing, ideology, etc.) which was instrumental the the September attacks as best.

    Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went public, pleading with / imploring President Bush: "I turn to the western democracies, first and foremost the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of a temporary, convenient solution. Don't try to appease the Arabs at our expense. We will not accept this. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror. There's no difference between 'good terror' and 'bad terror' just as there is no difference between 'good murder' and 'bad murder.' "

    Israel is our ONLY reliable friend in the region. Bush SOLD-out (betrayed) Israel (and the God of Israel) to his and his father's Saudi Wahabbi friends and benefactors. While I supported Bush's wars, I will be honest, I could not be an enthusiastic supporter of Bush's wars like David and the others were. Not after Bush sold-out Israel. No. I don't like men who sell-out friends and allies.

    One conservative delegate to the platform writing committee in Tampa last August put it this way: "The overwhelming majority of Republicans don't support the creation of another terror state like the ones that have since been created in southern Lebanon and Gaza," declared South Carolina delegate Randy Page.

    "At the platform committee deliberations, Jim Talent, a Mitt Romney surrogate and former Missouri senator, ultimately fended off the flurry of amendments…."

    David: "In his first speech after 9/11, President Bush had said America would regard as enemies any states that provided safe harbors for terrorists. There are now nearly a dozen such harbors including Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iran, Egypt and PALESTINE."

    Joe 3:1"For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.

    • truebearing

      It appears we may well live to see the prophesies fulfilled…..while the asses bray on.

      Israel will eventually be forced to use its nuclear weapons. Of that I am sure. They will have no choice. So be it. Humanity has progressively lost all semblance of wisdom and compassion. We have abandoned morality as a species. Morality is the human survival code. The outcome is woefully predictable.

  • John C. Davidson

    The complaint rules now, not common sense.

  • Rifleman

    Even though we are running $1.2 trillion deficits, obama won't even spend the money needed to refuel the Lincoln. Apparently, not only will we have fewer CVNs, the ones we have will become dock queens.

  • Western Spirit

    I don't know what to think of the Republicans. There is no guts or glory in their pathetic attempts to win elections especially at the national level. They couldn't even win against an incompetent like Obama because they were afraid to come on strong about anything.

    Or explain away misconceptions such as Romney being like the CEO's who sends peoples jobs overseas.

    Then they blame Conservative values for their plight instead of their own tenitive selves. In sports when a team becomes tenitive to protect a lead it usually loses. The reality is in life the aggressor usually wins the day.

    Now Conservative values have lost their appeal because the Republican establishment, for whatever reason, has allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point the government is the only place people can look to for relief. If the Democrats want to Nazify America its through economics not guns that will get the job done. If you don't believe me look at the record of Nazi Germany and weep as history repeats itself.

    • WildJew

      I agree with Horowitz's thesis, we lost this election largely on national security.

  • Joe Rizzo

    Dear Mr Horowitz: A brilliant and honest analysis based on the record of deceit and corruption rooted in the Elitists in our pathetic sycophantic and parasitic Ruling Class.

    A sickening and ignorant betrayal of our God given rights in this…God's Country.

    Thak you for the waken call. Hopefully the people will wake up and realize THE TRUTH before our untimely demise!

    Joe Rizzo

  • crackerjack

    The greatest threat to US citizens are fellow US citizens and their gun fetish. Every month, there's a 9:11 on the streets and in the homes of America. Well over 20 000 yearly murderd with firearms. and you're worried about terrorism? Get a life.

    • LibertarianToo

      Want to see what America will look like if Obama has his way on gun control? It's called Chicago- 41 gun murders in the first month of the year, ALL Democraps in control, NO gun rights for the law-abiding.
      Add a few thousand minarets it's Obamamerica.

    • WildJew

      Did the 9/11 attacks stimulate any intellectual curiosity about Islam (in your mind) in the weeks and months after the attacks? Who and what did you read in the months and the years since then?

    • reader

      Exactly – most of the m in the urban Democrat areas with strict gun control – like Chicago and DC. The murder rate in Kennesaw, GA, where every residence is mandated to have a gun, is next to zero.

  • barry Spinello

    To turn a socialist country into a totalitarian country a charismatic leader needs the military on his side.

    The Muslim Jihadists can never defeat the US in an all out fight. They are encouraged by Obama as DUPES. Thinking they are strong – they will overplay their hand (nuke a US city, or?) This will rally the country behind Obama and the military – who will use all its might to defeat the Jihadists. Opposition to this will be marginalized and scapegoated – based on the Jihadist atrocity that had just occurred.. There will then be one party – one leader – one media, with most of the the US population and military united behind that.

    There was and is an ever present within Mohamidism that veers toward Jihadism when supported and encouraged. They are at present DUPES of the American Alinsky left. Held there as a tool to be used as needed.

  • clarespark

    There is a strong current of isolationism in the Republican Party. Guest blogger Phillip Smyth wrote this excellent article on Ron Paul's politics:…. "Ron Paul: Anarchist in Chief." Also see his earlier essay…. "Responding to Neo-isolationists."

    • WildJew

      I think Ron Paul is looking toward Rand Paul to take up the mantle. Where does his son stand?

    • Atlas_Collins

      I think Clare is chumming the waters for me.

      We Paul supporters are not "anarchists," Clare, we just think the best interests of America and the American people do not coincide with the long-standing policy of global economic and military interventionism.


      • WildJew

        What would Rand Paul do about Iran?

        • Atlas_Collins

          I don't know.

          Personally, I don't give the smallest speck of fly scat about Iran. It's not like the Persians present a credible threat to Iowa. When they do, get back to me.

          • WildJew

            I suspect yours is a popular view of the world in parts of Iowa and other parts of the country. No matter how many nuclear weapons Islam multiplies even as Obama weakens this nation from within, nonetheless because of the remoteness of Iowa and other American cities from the epi-center of Islam, you "dwell securely…"

          • Atlas_Collins

            Exactly so. I do not fail to note the denigration you backhandedly heap upon the heartland of America. Are you one of those "flyover" people who like to spit on hicks from middle America? Sounds like it.

            Tell me, WildJew, this hick's son has been stationed in Kuwait for the last year … what is he "defending?" It's certainly not Iowa or the best interests of Iowans, is it?

      • clarespark

        I would suggest that you engage Phillip Smyth’s two articles and then show that he was mistaken. You seem to be reacting to the title.

        • Atlas_Collins

          I skimmed both articles, Clare. Each contained all the appropriate buzz-words and the routine smears that were heaped upon Dr. Paul throughout this last election cycle AND the one before that. It's called "smear by association," a very effective Alinskyite tactic.

          And it's quite clear that Mr. Smyth is speaking for interests that do not coincide with the best interests of America and the American people, in my anything but humble opinion.

  • mekus milkdud

    it has got to the point in this country where the most important thing is not national security our budget or any important its all about race issues and what will they do for the blacks and mexicans no one cares about the states the national anthem or the flag in fact most blacks and black leaders hate the anthem and the flag and america

  • mekus milkdud

    this is all by design obummer wants to destroy the United states and make it out the way he wants it and the rest of the black leaders, he supports Islam at every turn and pushes their agenda obummer wants this to be a war zone taken over by his Muslim cronnies and if you dont see that your stupid and blind

    In the four years since Obama’s first inauguration almost three times as many Americans died in Afghanistan as in the eight years that Bush conducted the war, and with still no prospect of victory in sight. Under Obama’s failed leadership, there were more than 8,000 Islamic terrorist attacks on “infidels” across the globe, a twenty-five percent rise over the years in which the fighting in Iraq was at its height. In the face of this bloody Islamist offensive, Obama was claiming that the war against al-Qaeda had been essentially “won” and the terrorist threat was subsiding.[1] The Obama administration had officially dropped the term “Global War On Terror” in favor of an Orwellian euphemism, describing terrorist hostilities as “overseas contingency operations.” This was a practical implementation of its policy of denying the religious nature of the Islamic war against the West, and minimizing the Islamist threat.

  • mekus milkdud

    it is real sad how the United States spends trillions to protect other nations and it does little good, all the while our tax payers are suffering and paying for it, and gas is still one of our biggest cost

  • Jim_C

    Republicans lost national security after the actions of the Bush administration regarding Iraq.

    The vast majority of us supported some form of military retaliation. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld cynically exploited this sentiment, abetted by the political cowardice of most democrats and the fecklessness of our media, to go forward with a plan to invade Iraq that they had cooking before the 9/11 attacks.

    Mr. Bush, himself, acknowledged his own folly by marginalizing Cheney and replacing Rumsfeld in his second term and allowing Gen. Petraeus to execute a "realist" strategy, which was much more effective than Bush's first term. Naturally, this upsets David and the majority of the posters here, who put all their eggs into the "neoconservative" basket.

    This idea that the United States is obligated to be the world's omnipotent emergency responder to every region of instability is absolutely ludicrous, and every time FPM or some other silly outlet feigns outrage and tries to blame President Obama for "causing" instability somewhere, that credibility strains to all but the indoctrinated and unprincipled.

    Really, all Americans have to do is to look at the price we paid in blood and treasure in Iraq and ask "Did that make us ANY safer?" It's THAT simple.

    • SuicidePrevention

      I agree with you, Jim_C. Horowitz says the 2003 iraq invasion was inevitable. It wasn't.
      Saddam was bottled up with no-fly zones in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. The intelligence
      from "curveball" and other Iraqis was nonsense. These sources were clearly hoping to personally profit from a US invasion. Bush used them as useful liars. And Bush was also a proponent of democracy in Iraq, hoping it would spread to other Middle East countries. The whole enterprise was tragic hubris on a
      monumental scale. By contrast, Obama's reluctant support of France's Libya operation with cruise missiles may have helped proliferate some rocket-propelled grenades to Islamists, but on the whole its repercussions are small compared to Bush's war. Also, Libya didn't cost us an arm, a leg, and thousands of US soldiers' shredded frontal cerebral cortexes.

    • cathy

      U.S. General Fired for Verbal Attack on Afghan Leader
      Published November 05, 2011

      (Maj. Gen. Peter)Fuller reacted angrily to claims from Karzai that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States.

      Fuller called Karzai’s statements “erratic,” adding, “Why don’t you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You’ve got to be kidding me … I’m sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you’re telling me, ‘I don’t really care’?”

  • Loyal Achates

    I see a lot of armchair generals here. How do you expect to constantly fight a never-ending series of wars around the world and not pay for them? Do you expect every generation of Americans to sacrifice themselves for no reward and no clear purpose?

    • Drakken

      How do you win? Too easy, go back to the total war concept and quit this humanitarian stupidity on steroids.

      • Roger

        Diplomats never win wars, and they don't have a good track record at imposing a peace.

  • Raymond

    USA voters made Democrats the majority party and allowed their commander-in-chief to murder 2514 British soldiers, by funding and arming the Irish Roman Catholics; doing the same for the despot generals who tried to take the Falklands from GB; The murdering Hillary Clinton has gain funded and armed the Irish Nationals in Ulster, and started the pre war in the Falklands over oil that she wants for the USA. God help the world should she ever be commander in chief of the USA; because Great Britain will not back off for her and your government, we did not for the Germans and will not for the USA.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    One thing about Benghazi must be understood, Obama did not just not do his job,
    what he did was to mislead America with the BS film no one saw and that somehow
    all of a sudden there are demonstrations in multiple Islamist States over the same
    film. I believe Obama and Co. alerted Muslim Brotherhood groups in various Cities
    to stage demonstrations so his story could have traction but it was obviously false.
    Members of the Obama advisory teams from the Muslim Brotherhood were glad
    to oblige. It has been said he was AWOL during this event, other poor judgement
    appelations also were floated by half hearted critics but the truth is it was and is
    the worst case of criminal malfeasance in Office ever. Republicans should demand
    a Criminal investigation by unaligned parties and then impeach all in Office and
    charge those out of Office as soon as is humanely possible…….Ultimately the
    Democraps and Republicans will make the big show but do not hold your breath
    as they will do all they can to protect government, thier golden goose………..William

  • Ben Cohen

    Republicans need to eat their humble pie with regards Iraq, the war was a mistake….just admit it and move on.

  • Maxie

    "But the lesson of postwar electoral history is clear. Republicans win national elections when they put national security issues at the center of their campaigns."

    Postwar electoral history is, for the mos part, ancient history. It does not account for decades of Gramscian cultural subversion, Critical Theory and Postmodernism that have infected at least the two most recent generations. The Democrats are now the MarxiCrats and, meanwhile, the schizoid GOP continues to look at their fog-shrouded political sundial to find out what time it is.

    • Drakken

      Well put ! And acurate.

  • @Rebeledward1

    Aaron. if you, thought Clarence`s comment is flabbergasting… last saturday I bought Mazda MX-5 after bringing in 5948 this past 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past month. it's actualy the coolest job I've ever done. I started this eight months/ago and straight away started to bring home minimum 71, per-hour. I went to this site, fb26.ℂOM

  • Ben Cohen

    When I say the Iraq war was a mistake, I mean it cost the US a lot and gained it very little. Politically it was suicide for the republicans.

  • tcurry

    This is an incredible article and points out so many failings with the Republican party that I hope they realize and begin to improve. A very important aspect what the Us needs in our Commander in Chief, should over all else, hold the United States safe.
    Obama by not following our constitution and laws has allowed thousands of illegal aliens to enter the US since October 2013 and has done nothing in these 9 months to rectify it. He in fact has taken the stand in 2012 to not deport illegal alien children which has sparked the invasion of our Texas Border at the Rio Grand River.
    From the Democratic politicians and Obama we hear that these illegals are refuges and they want to treat them as such giving them free (well not to the US taxpayers) legal representation and periods of up to two years prior to coming before a judge to decide if they can be deported or not.
    Democrats complain that the reason these illegal alien children are coming is because of 2008 bill or law that Bush passed giving the unaccompanied children of non-contiguous countries legal representation and a delayed deportation period.

    Now Obama presents Congress with legislation requesting 4.1 billion dollars to pay for the crisis caused by his open border policy. So the Republican side of the Congress want to correct the Bush law to not give special action to the illegal unaccompanied children and put them in the same position as children coming from Mexico and Canada so that we will have a easier time to administer deportation of all illegal aliens. But, Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not want that law to change, meaning they want to postpone deportations of all illegals coming into this country.

    I understand that 80 illegal aliens from South America have been deported, women and their children. I think if we actually had all the information that we would find that these people requested to be returned to their country of origin. Especially, since not one other illegal alien has been deported, including known gang members.
    The Republicans and Democrats will never agree on the illegal alien immigration crisis because Republicans want to secure and protect our borders and have lawfully, constitutionally applied procedures to immigrating to the US. Democrats want to let everyone in, mostly needy, unemployed illegals so that they will have a huge base of people on social services to back their agenda.
    I can only hope that we will vote in a Republican Senate, keep the Republican led Congress and in two years get a Republican President who cares about the security of the US and loves this country.