Krauthammer: Tea Party Wins on Debt Deal

Charles Krauthammer gives his analysis of the debt deal - winners and losers.

Video.



Transcript

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Our constitutional system is designed so that you can't govern controlling half a branch of the government. It's simply not done. I think the president, if this is avoided, he doesn't gain, he doesn't lose. He didn't show any leadership here. It'll be neutral.

Boehner - I think if he gets 60 percent of his caucus, he'll be OK.

The winner is the Tea Party. They have changed the debate in the country. I think they ought to do what George Aiken advocated in the worst of days of the Vietnam war - declare victory and go home.

There'll be another fight a year from now. Obama is losing it. And I think that's where the big payoff will be. And that's when the country will decide what it wants to do about debt and also about the size of government.

Krauthammer: Obama's Speech

Here's video of Charles Krauthammer's reaction to Obama's speech last night:



Transcript

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I thought I was cynical until I heard that speech. It was purely partisan. It was meant as a campaign speech, and I think it was a speech from yesterday. It has nothing to do with the current negotiations.

He's pushing the 'balanced approach,' a word which he knows is tested by his pollsters as appealing to independents. That's all that this is about. He used all the cliches that would help him with that constituency.

As Steve [Hayes] indicated, the Democrats in the Congress have already accepted it's only going to be about cuts. He's talking about the corporate jets again and again. He started his speech by blaming it all on Bush. This is now three and a half years in.

And what was so interesting is that he thought... he's talked about himself as being a new Reagan. That's how he sees himself, the liberal Reagan. Reagan could do one thing that almost no modern president could do: He could go to the nation and sway an issue. This is Obama thinking he's going to achieve that. I don't know if he's going to succeed or not, but he spoke to the American people.

Remember what he told Eric Cantor? 'You call my bluff, I'll go to the people'? That's his attempt. Let's see if it works.

Krauthammer: Obama's Speech

Charles Krauthammer slams Obama's budget speech, calling it a "disgrace."

Video and Transcript, from NewsBusters:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I thought it was a disgrace. I thought I’ve rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan, and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But we're a year-and-a-half away from Election Day, and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn't even get to his own alternative until more than half-way through the speech, and when he did, he threw out these numbers suspended in midair with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers which mean absolutely nothing. The speech was really and was almost entirely an attack on the Ryan plan. And it was deeply dishonest.

BRET BAIER, HOST: Paul Ryan’s plan. The budget.

KRAUTHAMMER: Let me give you one example how dishonest it was. He went on and on about how the Republicans want to steal from your grandma to lower taxes on the rich. And he talked about the Bush tax cuts and how much he’s going to stand on the bridge and oppose any extension which is what he knows how to do. He has done it over and over for the last six years. The Ryan plan is not about the Bush tax cuts. It transcends them. It's about what the deficit, what Obama’s own commission had recommended: that you strip out loopholes and you lower the rates for everyone. It’s not about whether it should be the Bush rates or the Clinton rates. The whole new approach which the Simpson-Bowles commission had recommended itself. In fact, Bowles had recommended in one of its scenarios a high rate of 23 percent. Ryan’s is at 25 percent. Obama did this knowing that this is a way to play to his base. It was a speech that was quite remarkable in how demagogic it was, and I say that with all due respect.

Yes, Obama's speech was a complete disaster, with all due respect.

Krauthammer Predicts a Rude Awakening

Charles Krauthammer succinctly explains what many have been saying recently about Barack Obama and his campaign: It's a national swoon.

As Obama seems poised to score yet another primary victory, this one in Wisconsin on February 19, the C-word continues to rear its head in connection with the Obama phenomenon -- CULT.

He writes:

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity.

...[A] silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

...ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

...Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

I agree with Joe Klein when he says Obama's "message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

Unlike Krauthammer, I have the audacity to hope that the Obama spell will break before Election Day rather than just after January 20, 2009.

For the sake of the country, I hope the awakening comes in time.

It will be quite a test for John McCain to convince the voters to buy truth when the hope that Obama is selling is so much more appealing.

Romney's Speech an Embarrassment

The fact that Mitt Romney delivered "the religion speech" is an embarrassment.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- His campaign at a crossroads, Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday his Mormon faith should neither help nor hinder his quest for the White House and vowed to serve the interests of the nation, not the church, if elected president.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God," Romney said in a speech that explicitly recalled remarks John F. Kennedy made in 1960 in an effort to quell anti-Catholic bias.

After declining for months to address the issue of his Mormonism directly, Romney switched course as polls showed widespread unease about his religion — and showed him losing his once-sizable lead in the opening Iowa caucuses to Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas.

Romney said some believe that a forthright embrace of his religion will "sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people."

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world," he said.

..."Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions," he pledged. "Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

He added: "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

This is shameful.

Poll after poll finds a sizable number of Americans wouldn't vote for Romney solely because he is a Mormon. That's shocking to me.

It reflects so poorly on the level of religious tolerance in America. Are people really so ready to cast aside Romney's character and experience, his respect for the law, for the Constitution of the United States, and just focus on his religious affiliation?

There are plenty of reasons one can legitimately have to not vote for Romney; but the fact that Mormonism is being smeared by so many in such a matter-of-fact fashion is truly disturbing.

IT'S A CULT. IT'S A CULT. IT'S A CULT.

I don't want to hear it anymore.

Believe what you want to believe. If you have a problem with Mormons, then you do. If you think that being a Mormon is a disqualifying factor to become president, then you do.

Voters have the right to cast one ballot for president. They can vote for whomever they please and for whatever reasons.

But the fact that in 2007, at this point in our history, Mitt Romney was compelled to make this speech today is nauseating.

What about Mormonism as practiced in 2007 is a threat to the country?


I would like to hear every candidate for president, Republican and Democrat, loudly and clearly speak out against the disgraceful display of intolerance being directed at Romney and all Mormons.
________________

Read Charles Krauthammer's take on "Making an Issue Out of a Religion."

The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving Day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual.

Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way. (The one exception: William Henry Harrison. He caught cold delivering that inaugural address. Thirty-one days later, he was dead. Draw your own conclusion.) I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.

Reagan and the '08 Republicans: Point/Counterpoint

In his analysis of the Republican presidential candidates, Charles Krauthammer takes some shots at Ronald Reagan.

Major grumbling among conservatives about the Republican field. So many candidates, so many flaws. Rudy Giuliani, abortion apostate. Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. John McCain, Mr. Amnesty. Fred Thompson, lazy boy. Where is the paragon? Where is Ronald Reagan?

Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent.

What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century.

The point is not to denigrate Reagan but to bring a little realism to the gauzy idol worship that fuels today's discontent.

Krauthammer goes on to say that the current field of candidates is adequate.

He concludes:

So no more gnashing of teeth. Republicans have 4 1/2 good presidential candidates. All five would make fine Cabinet members: Romney at Treasury, Thompson at Justice, McCain at Defense, Giuliani at Homeland Security, Huckabee at Interior. All the team needs now is to pick a captain who can beat Hillary.

Mark Levin disagrees with Krauthammer's assessment of Reagan. He counters Krauthammer's shots, point by point.

He also suggests that now is the time to carefully examine the '08 candidates. That's what the primary process is about.

Levin's column is worth reading.

He concludes:

Krauthammer never worked for Reagan; I did. That's not a prerequisite for understanding Reagan, but when an opinion-maker is wrong about him, my personal experience of Reagan obliges me to defend him. Krauthammer suggests to me that he still doesn't understand why Reagan was a great leader or the public's love for him. The public had confidence that when Reagan spoke, he meant what he said; He left no room for question about what he believed in, and that he would try to implement policies consistent with his long-held positions.

It's not so much that we long for Reagan, as some dismissively contend (although I note that the candidates themselves invoke his name endlessly as a substitute for their own conservative shortcomings, perceived or otherwise). It is rather that we long for someone who can lead as he did. We don't seek perfection (even if we could define it), and we don't claim Reagan was perfect.

Krauthammer says he's not putting Reagan down. If that is the case, then he nonetheless has a funny way of describing him. But even if Reagan never existed, surely there is some standard by which we judge the candidates. For some of us, that standard is the same standard we used to judge prior candidates, including Reagan. To say all the candidates are fine is to say nothing. To say that major aspects of their records don't square with recent campaign statements is more than nitpicking. Now is the time to be inquisitive, engaged, and discerning. That's what primaries are all about. That's not to say that there aren't worthy candidates in the field. But simply saying they’re worthy is unpersuasive.

This isn't the first election in which a war hero is running for president. We've had war heroes who have made lousy presidents. This isn't the first election involving a successful governor. But they, too, have had mixed presidential records. I would encourage more scrutiny, not less.

Sen. Larry Craig and Double Standards

Idaho's Sen. Larry Craig is a Republican. That's the problem.

He pleaded guilty on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a men's restroom at the airport in Minneapolis.

Read more.

Whenever a Republican is involved in something like this, the Left gets giddy.

It's as if ALL Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are expected to be saints. If a Republican official falls short, Leftists are the first to cast stones.

I'm in no way condoning Craig's behavior.

But let's be fair.

There are perverts to the Left and perverts to the Right.

Rather than condemning Craig, shouldn't the Left invite Craig to join its ranks, ask him to get under its Big Tent where such indiscretions are celebrated or at least readily forgiven?

Complicating matters in Craig's case was his association with Mitt Romney's campaign.

Already Craig has stepped down from a prominent role with Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He had been one of Romney's top Senate supporters, serving as a Senate liaison for the campaign since February.

"He did not want to be a distraction and we accept his decision," said Matt Rhoades, a Romney campaign spokesman.

This bugs me:

A political science professor in Idaho said Craig's political future was in jeopardy. And a spokesman for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, Hannah August, said Craig's guilty plea "has given Americans another reason not to vote Republican" next year.

The married Craig, 62, has faced rumors about his sexuality since the 1980s, but allegations that he has engaged in gay sex have never been substantiated. Craig has denied the assertions, which he calls ridiculous.

The arrest changes that dynamic, said Jasper LiCalzi, a political science professor at Albertson College of Idaho in Caldwell, Idaho. He cited the House page scandal that drove Florida Rep. Mark Foley from office.

"There's a chance that he'll resign over this," LiCalzi said. "With the pressure on the Republican Party, he could be pressured to resign. If they think this is going to be something that's the same as Mark Foley — the sort of 'drip, drip, drip, there's more information that's going to come out' — they may try to push him out."

A scandal that involves a Republican is framed as a career breaker.

When Democrats behave in a lewd and lascivious manner, the libs circle the wagons and cite their rights to privacy.

Case in point: Former President Bill Clinton.

He finally admits to "being serviced" by Monica Lewinsky, after months of denials. Without the DNA evidence, Clinton would have continued to lie. Maybe the brilliant Hillary would still be claiming to be in the dark on that one.

Does the name Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?

There have been so many other Dems embroiled in scandal. So many are met with endless excuses and abundant compassion.

Barney Frank's romp with male hooker Steve Gobie and the prostitution ring that he ran out of Frank's apartment was forgiven.

Speaking of prostitution, I'd still like to know more about Bill Broydrick and his D.C. Madame connection. More info please.

Then there's Gerry Studds. He was hailed as courageous for having a homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old page! He became a role model!

The double standard is frustrating.

It's also disturbing that elected officials behave so recklessly.

Craig seems to be driven to serve himself rather than his constituents.

____________________________

Read Charles Krauthammer's "Sex Scandals and Double Standards."

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez

American radical Lefties and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adore Hugo Chavez. They're drawn to him like a magnet or like a moth to a flame.

They absolutely love the guy. I think they love him because they love socialism. They're kindred spirits.

Also, they love the way Chavez rips Bush. Ahmadinejad pals around with Chavez because he relates to his hatred for the American president. I think he follows that Arabian proverb -- The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Here's Hugo with some of his buddies:


Danny Glover and Hugo are joined at the hip. (Where might their other hands be?)


Hugo considers Jesse Jackson to be a representative of the American government. Jesse thinks he is.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo feel the love.


Cindy Sheehan and Hugo get cozy.


Hugo and Harry Belafonte sing "The Banana Boat Song."

Chavez can add a new friend to his list of rich and famous (or washed up and irrelevant) allies -- diplomat/ journalist/ activist Sean Penn.

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Sean Penn for his critical stance against the war in Iraq, saying the two chatted by phone and soon plan to meet in person.

(Note: They met at Miraflores Palace in Caracas on Thursday, August 2.)

Chavez said Penn traveled to Venezuela this week wanting to learn more about the situation in the country and walked around some of Caracas' poor barrios on his own.

"Welcome to Venezuela, Mr. Penn. What drives him is consciousness, the search for new paths," Chavez said Wednesday in a televised speech. "He's one of the greatest opponents of the Iraq invasion."

Chavez read aloud from a recent open letter by Penn to President Bush in which the actor condemned the Iraq war and called for Bush to be impeached, saying the president along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are "villainously and criminally obscene people."

The socialist president, who shares those views, said he and Penn talked by phone — "with my bad English but we understood each other more or less."

Isn't that sweet?

There are no language barriers when it comes to speaking the language of hate for Bush, Cheney, and Rice.

Look at the pictures above. I think Chavez needs to work with a stylist. All those red shirts are so boring. I'm sure he wears red for the symbolic reason but he really should try something more flattering. Perhaps some earth tones, or at least a softer shade of red.

I wouldn't say that Penn is doing an impression of Hanoi Jane cavorting with the enemy, but it's not good to hang out with Chavez.

Chavez is an idiot. He acts like a child. He's like a schoolyard bully, with his name-calling and taunts.

Some examples:

"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush. You're an alcoholic Mr. Danger, or rather, you're a drunkard."

"The U.S. empire is defeated in Iraq, they just don't want to admit it. Mr. Donkey thought they were going to be received as heroes."

"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush."

Very nice.

Like it or not, Bush was elected President of the United States. He is the duly elected leader of the country.

As an American, (and as far as I know Penn still is an American), it's a mistake for him to legitimize someone like Chavez.

Going to Venezuela to denounce his own government in such a public fashion and with such fanfare is disgraceful.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Hollywood star Sean Penn applauded President Hugo Chavez as the Venezuelan leader lambasted the Bush administration and demanded an end to war in Iraq.


Hugo gives Sean Penn some pointers.

Chavez met privately with Penn for two hours Thursday, praising the actor as "brave" for urging Americans to impeach President Bush.

"In the name of the peoples of the world, President Bush, withdraw the troops from Iraq. Enough already with so much genocide," Chavez said before an auditorium packed with his red-clad supporters.

Penn sat near the front, at times applauding and nodding in agreement. He is the latest in a series of celebrities who have visited Caracas, including actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte.

Chavez said he and Penn discussed the question of "why the (U.S.) empire attacks Chavez so much," saying Venezuela's oil wealth is a key reason.

He also said Washington is "afraid that the people of the United States will learn the real truth" about the situation in Venezuela, citing his social programs for the poor.

"If the people of the United States, those millions and millions of poor people ... if that nation realizes what is truly happening here, there would be a revolution in the United States," Chavez said, eliciting applause from Penn.

Some possible explanations for Penn's behavior:

1. Penn is too stupid to realize that he's being exploited by Chavez.

2. Penn is stupid enough to allow himself to be used by Chavez, earning himself the nickname "Caracas Sean."

3. Penn is suffering from full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome.

(As defined by Charles Krauthammer -- Bush Derangement Syndrome is the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

4. Penn is simply a media whore, like so many of Hugo's other buddies and Hugo himself.

Alone, Penn is nothing more than an irrelevant nut.

The thing is he's not alone. He is representative of many like-minded nuts out there working to weaken the country.

Penn is serving his ego, but he's doing a disservice to the United States.



Hugo flips the bird.

Immigration Bill: Too Close to Call

Sen. Mitch McConnell was on Face "Is that still on?" the Nation yesterday. He addressed the immigration bill.

(CBS/AP) -- The Senate's top Republican said Sunday he could not predict whether the stalled immigration reform bill will pass, citing questions among conservatives as to whether it guarantees amnesty to illegal immigrants.

"It's a mixed picture," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appearing on CBS' Face the Nation. "There are good things in the bill, and not-so-good things in the bill."

What McConnell refers to as the "not-so-good things" are actually HORRENDOUS things.

Read the some of the bill's loopholes.

This is a bad bill. It's not a solution to the ILLEGAL immigration problem. It's just the opposite. It invites the problems that already exist to grow.

Give me your criminals, your sex offenders,

Your huddled masses yearning to get U.S. taxpayers to support them.

McConnell and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada last week said they planned to revive the legislation after critics of the measure initially succeeded in sidetracking it. The decision came after President Bush made a rare visit to the Capitol for a meeting with Republican senators, where he urged them to give the bill a second chance.

The legislation has generated intense controversy, particularly for provisions that could lead to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully.

On Sunday, McConnell said several Republicans (including himself) were disappointed with provisions involving the so-called Z-visa, which provides a means for illegal immigrants to gain interim legal status.

On the other hand, support for bill provisions that would boost money for border security is strong, he said.

Sorry. The so-called good provisions do not out weigh the bad.

The bill is not a solution to ILLEGAL immigration.

Libs and the Leftist media and the WHITE HOUSE are having a field day calling opponents of the bill racist and compassionless.

That's unfair.

We need a REAL solution to deal with the people entering the country ILLEGALLY.

Charles Krauthammer argues for a good first step.

BUILD THE FENCE.

Why not start by passing what everyone says they want? After all, proponents of this comprehensive reform insist that the current situation is intolerable and must be resolved. It follows, therefore, that however much they differ in the details of how the current mess should be resolved, they are united in the belief that such a mess should not be allowed to happen again. And the only way to make sure of that is border control.

So why not pass it, with the understanding that the other contentious provisions would be taken up subsequently? Because for all the protestations, many of those who say they are deeply devoted to enforcement are being deeply disingenuous. They profess to care about immigration control because they have to. But they care so little about the issue that they are willing to make it hostage to the other controversial provisions, most notably legalization.

Why am I so suspicious about the fealty of the reformers to real border control? In part because of the ridiculous debate over the building of a fence. Despite the success of the border barrier in the San Diego area, it appears to be very important that this success not be repeated. The current Senate bill provides for the fencing of no more than one-fifth of the border and the placing of vehicle barriers in no more than one-ninth.

...A fence announces to the world that America is closed to ... illegal immigrants. What’s wrong with that? Is not every country in the world the same? The only reason others don’t need such a barrier is because they are not half as attractive as America, not because we are more oppressive or less welcoming.

Fences are ugly, I grant you that. But not as ugly as 12 million people living in the shadows in a country that has forfeited control of its borders.

...We all agree on enforcement, don’t we? So let’s do it. Make it simple. And do it now.

I've said this over and over again.

The U.S. should have started construction on a fence on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

Yes, I know that the 9/11 hijackers originally came into the country legally, blah, blah, blah.

That's a lame excuse for not plugging our porous borders.

There's a gaping hole in Bush's plan to solidify his legacy as the president that dealt with the terrorist threat.

WE NEED A FENCE.

I propose that the White House and the pro-amnesty Republicans quit playing games, quit pretending they're tough on terror.

Why not just remove all immigration laws from the books?

Let everybody and anybody in the country.

What could show more compassion than that?

What could be less racist?

No restrictions. Everyone's welcome. Let them all in.

Why not?

They've had over five years after the 9/11 attacks to take concrete action to secure our borders.

How many ILLEGALS have slipped into the country during that time?

How many terrorists?

Who knows?

NO ONE DOES.

The passage of this particular immigration bill may be too close to call.

What's not too close to call is the fact that our government has failed us by failing to secure the borders.

That mistake may prove to be fatal for thousands of Americans.

That's not fear-mongering. That's not racist.

That's certain.