America Is The Worst Empire In History

The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind. - Pope Pious XII

After the War for Independence, having shown that a few men with the will to "assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them" could stand against the mightiest army in the world, Americans went home.

After the second time England failed to subjugate America under the weight of tyranny, Americans went home.

After coming to the rescue of the free world and utterly destroying the Pasha's ability to wage piracy in the Mediterranean, America went home.

After completing the goal of preserving the Union, the Army of the North went home.

After freeing Cuba and the Philippines from the yoke of oppression, America went home.

After coming to the rescue of the free world again and beating back the tides of fascism, America went home.

At the end of the Second World War, when the only credible military left on the entire planet was America, so powerful indeed that had we wanted to do so, we could have conquered the world, America went home.

After freeing the southern half of the Korean peninsula from the Communist hordes, America went home.

From that home, America cast light on the failures of Communism, and without firing a single shot liberated millions, asking for nothing in return.

We clearly are doing this empire thing wrong.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of non-imperialistic tendencies, the liberal hordes have decried America and her military as violent conquerors, hell-bent on subjugating the world. Despite never once remaining in de facto political control without native consent of any country or territory longer than absolutely necessary to get them back on their feet, the liberal hordes continue to insist that America and her military are the worst tyrants in the world. And despite the fact that both Japan and Germany, after initially calling America's presence an "occupation," came to depend on America to stabilize their war torn countries, the liberal hordes continue to denounce our efforts in Iraq.

When will the Democrats open their eyes to history? When will the moral equivalence arguments cease? What does it take to get the Democratic leadership to acknowledge that the Iraqis are infinitely better off today than they were under Saddam? Since when did the Democrats take up preemptive surrender, formerly the national sport of France alone?

Damascus Nancy and her cohorts need to understand that the Constitution vests sole power for conducting foreign policy in the President. There is no Republican foreign policy and Democrat foreign policy. There is no Bush policy and Pelosi policy. Even under the most generous reading of the Constitution, Congressional authority in the foreign policy arena is strictly limited to the Senate's role in approving treaties. Nowhere in that great document does the Speaker of the House, or any House member for that matter, receive any power to conduct independent foreign policy initiatives.

This is not to suggest that there cannot be debate on what America's policy should be. A free and open society will always be made up of people who disagree. Damascus Nancy is certainly entitled to her opinion, but once the President has decided on a course of action completely within his authorized powers, it is the indisputable duty of all Congressional members to adhere to that policy. The tripartite system of government we enjoy did not create three "co-equal" branches of government. It created three branches that had separate and distinct powers, and granted the other branches checks and balances on those powers.

While we may be fighting a war, we are not "at war." Whether the President has deployed the military in his capacity as Executive in charge of foreign policy (which he has), or in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief (which he can't since Congress never declared war), Congress cannot lay preconditions on the continued use of the military or restrict the President's authorized powers in any way. The situation we are in today is the exact reason why Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act (and most likely the reason Congress over-rode his veto). The Democrats are attempting to absolve themselves of all responsibility while still maintaining their authority. This is nothing short of a Constitutional crisis.

That being said, I am appalled at the number of people calling Pelosi's actions "treason." Her actions may very well be illegal, but they do not rise to the level of treason. Hanoi Jane committed treason when she posed on an anti-aircraft gun in North Viet Nam, not when she marched in an anti-war protest. Code Pink committed treason when they went to Baghdad to serve as human shields, not when they occupied Damascus Nancy's Congressional office. Even if she had diverted foreign aid money to Damascus, although certainly illegal, it is hard to say that would have risen to the level of treason for the simple reason that America is not at war with Syria. Refusing to pass a "clean" funding bill is misguided, not treason.

It is, however, absolutely inexcusable for the Democrats to continue to trade national security for short-term political gain. Every day their enablers in the MSM tally up the number of American deaths without ever once tallying the enemy. Every roadside and homicide bombing is reported, but left unmentioned are the vast swaths of the country that are stable and vibrant. Our soldiers are denigrated as being murderous thugs from poor, uneducated backgrounds while the reality is that the average soldier has higher education and comes from a more affluent background than the average American. Indeed, the only under-represented demographics in the military are the poor and uneducated.

America has a near limitless capacity for being a force of good in the world. A recent analysis of US foreign aid and UN votes showed that the more money a country received from the US, the more likely that country was to vote against the US position in the General Assembly. Yet America turns the other cheek time and time again and continues to give those countries billions of dollars in aid. We do this because we believe in the universal right of all people everywhere to choose their own governments. We do this because we believe that we have an obligation to help shine the beacon of freedom wherever the shadow of tyranny falls. We do this because "[i]nto the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." We do not do this to expand an empire.

It's not rocket science. America has liberated more people than all the armies of all the countries in history. And in the end, we always go home. America always has and always will give its time, talent, and treasure to support oppressed people in all corners of the globe and then leave them alone. Perhaps it is these undeniably Christian actions that have the liberals so worked up, because it sure can't be the "empire."

On The Latest "Non-Amnesty" Amnesty

But the almost unchecked influx of immigrants who are not desirable citizens cannot but harm the country. In these days of international trade it is right that ingress and egress from one country to another should be unhampered, but persons who have committed crimes at home, or who are ignorant and illiterate, cannot become desirable citizens anywhere. - Wu Ting Fang



The White House has recently rolled out its PowerPoint presentation on the latest incarnation of the "non-amnesty" amnesty program ("Penalties are the difference between amnesty and restitution"). It seeks to create new agencies, visa categories, and mechanisms to allow even more illegal aliens into the country, all the while claiming that the lessons of 1986 have been learned. Once again, the plan fails miserably to address the fundamental problem: these people are in this country illegally and there must be consequences.

First things first. I am not opposed to a guest worker program. If someone outside the country identifies a position that a legal resident does not want and follows proper channels to obtain the legal right to come here temporarily to do that job and then go home, I say all the power to him. But when someone is already here illegally, we should not be looking to reward him with a specially created visa and some nominal monetary penalty.

The plan claims as one on its goals the desire to "bring illegal workers out of the shadows." Where are these shadows? On any given day, I can find dozens of illegal aliens benefiting from lax enforcement standing in the Home Depot parking lot. The only "shadows" they are hiding in are the ones under the trees on a sunny day. Illegal alien loving lawyers have no problem finding clients to bring forth lawsuits demanding in-state tuition rates for college. The newspapers are full of stories of families "living in the shadows," complete with pictures, names, and addresses. Illegal aliens wear T-shirts that proudly proclaim their criminal status. They hold parades and rallies that draw thousands into the street. This just may be the smallest shadow ever measured.

The plan seeks to create a probationary card for illegals. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for an illegal to come forward and declare himself during the "non-amnesty" amnesty grace period. First of all, if he does, he has to pay money ($3500 every three years, which is hardly the "substantial" penalty claimed). Secondly, the penalty for non-compliance is pathetically low. If he is caught "crossing the border after a date certain" the illegal will be deported. The simple fact that he is already here shows that there are ways through the porous borders. Many illegals have made multiple crossings without ever being caught. If you deport the illegal, he will just return as long as there is an incentive to do so. Until the government cracks down with meaningful fines and jail terms for both the illegal alien and the illegal alien employer, that incentive will always remain.

The illegals who choose to comply would be issued special "Z-Visas" and are still eligible to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status. They are assessed the paltry sum of $10,000 in recognition of their former illegal status. Only the head of the household need leave the US to adjust status. The rest of the family can remain. Once again, we are rewarding criminal behavior by assuring the illegal that there are no consequences for his past law-breaking. And the longer they have been here breaking the law, the better chance they have to obtain the "merit-based" LPR. So apparently the "merit" contemplated by this provision means whoever is the best scofflaw. In fact, under the proposed laws, an illegal who has been here for decades has a better chance of obtaining LPR status than does a brand-new, never-before-entered-illegally, Y-visa holder. I though one of the lessons learned from the 1986 amnesty was not to reward criminal behavior?

Most egregious in this plan, however, it the provision for "initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment." Although I see nothing wrong with a national ID card, why should Americans and legal citizens be punished for the transgressions of the criminals? Or was this trigger created to ensure that we will never have to implement this "non-amnesty" amnesty plan? After all, it would likely take years for all of the expected legal challenges to a national ID card to be resolved. And what about my passport? Is that no longer a "secure identification tool?"

How does requiring me to obtain such a card prevent racial profiling anyway, the stated reason for its creation? When I get a job today, I am required to submit proof of my lawful employment status (the infamous "1 from column A or 1 from column B and 1 from column C" form). The only people not currently using this form are illegal alien employers and the ones who fraudulently submit documents identified on the form are illegal aliens. That is the legal definition of compliance. We are all subject to the same check currently. By definition, a law that is applied universally certainly cannot be racial profiling. Making the criminals comply with the current law is not racial profiling either, since it applies universally.

My final point of contention is that the "non-amnesty" amnesty includes the provision that "Employer verification becomes mandatory for all new hires." Here's a news flash - it already is, but illegal alien employers don't do it. Forget about voluntary compliance, start conducting audits. Every business should have its records examined at least once a year by ICE agents. As long as the employers get away with minor fines and little or no jail time, the opportunity cost of non-compliance with the law is low. Until business owners face guaranteed exposure and substantial penalties, they will continue to illegally employ those continuing to come here illegally. Wasn't another lesson of the 1986 amnesty that if you didn't focus on the employers, the ranks of illegals would increase?

It's not rocket science. Every single illegal alien currently in America has committed at least 2 crimes: he exited his home country without authorization and then entered the US without authorization. The vast majority are illiterate. Wu Ting Fang rightly concluded that these are not desirable immigrants. The undeniable effect of this latest plan is that potential illegal aliens will see the advantage to enter the US in contravention of immigration law in the hopes that the next "non-amnesty" amnesty will learn the same lessons that this one learned from the 1986 amnesty - namely, we aren't serious about criminal entry to this country as long as you are a member of a properly-hyphenated minority.