On October 1, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said President Barack Obama told Congressional leaders at a White House meeting that “he will not negotiate.”
Boehner accused Democrats of being unwilling to negotiate key elements of the Affordable Care Act–in return for Republican agreement on a spending bill.
The Republicans were seeking–for now–a one-year delay in the rolling out of “Obamacare.”
Obama, in turn, said that he would not submit to Republican “extortion” and “blackmail.”
He said that the House should pass a “clean” spending bill–one without conditions–that met America’s obligations to its citizens and creditors. Only then would be be willing to discuss possible changes in “Obamacare.”
Republicans countered with slogans such as: “If Obama will negotiate with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, why won’t he negotiate with Congress?”
Seventy-three years ago, another democratic leader found himself accused of being unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate.
That leader was British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. And those accusing him were among the most powerful men in the Third Reich.
Winston Churchill
This was not a favorable time for Britain.
On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler had ordered his Whermacht (army) to invade Poland. In six weeks, Polish resistance vanished and Poland became the first of a series of Nazi vassal-states.
Then, on May 10, 1940, after waiting out the winter, Hitler’s army quickly overran Norway and Denmark.
And then it was the turn of France.
In six weeks, the German army accomplished what it couldn’t during the four years of World War 1. It bypassed the heavily defended Maginot Line and destroyed one French army after another.
The defeated French were forced to sign the armistice in the same railway car they had used in 1918 when they forced Germany to surrender after World War 1.
Although the British had committed their air force and army to defending France, both had been easily swept aside by the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe (air force).
Driven almost literally into the sea, the British evacuated about 338,226 men from the port of Dunkirk. It was a miracle made possible by Hitler’s unexplained halt of the German advance and the arrival of a fleet of civilian and naval vessels from England.
“The battle of France is over,” Churchill warned his countrymen. “The battle of Britain is about to begin.”
But not before Hitler offered his own version of “peace with honor.”
On July 19, the Fuehrer addressed the Reichstag, Germany’s rubber-stamp parliament:
“From Britain I now hear only a single cry–not of the people but of the politicians–that the war must go on….
Hitler addressing the Reichstag
“Mr. Churchill ought, for once, to believe me when I prophesy that a great Empire will be destroyed–an Empire which it was never my intention to destroy or even to harm.
“In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as well as elsewhere.
“I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favors but the victor speaking in the name of reason.
“I see no reason why this war must go on.”
The assembled parliamentary deputies and bemedaled generals were convinced the British would accept Hitler’s “generous” offer of peace.
They took it for granted that the British would be grateful for the opportunity Hitler was giving them to get out of the war.
The Fuehrer, they believed, had been truly magnanimous. How could the British be insane enough to turn him down?
Soon enough, they–and the Fuehrer–got their answer.
Correspondent William L. Shirer, waiting to make a broadcast at the CBS studio in Berlin, listened as the BBC introduced one of its own correspondents.
Sefton Delmner, fluent in German, had covered Nazi Germany for years. Although not authorized to speak for the British Government, his response could have come directly from Churchill himself.
Sefton Delmer
“Herr Hitler,” said Delmer in his most deferential German, “you have on occasion in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public.
“So permit me to render Your Excellency this little service once again tonight.
“Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Fuehrer and Reichskanzler [Reich Chancellor] we hurl it right back to you, right in your evil-smelling teeth.”
German officials listening to the broadcast in Shirer’s office were stunned.
“Can you make it out?” one demanded of Shirer. “Can you understand those British fools? To turn down peace now? They’re crazy!”
Although devastated by the forthcoming bombing raids of Hitler’s Luftwaffe, England held out.
Months later, it gained two powerful allies: The Soviet Union (invaded by Hitler on June 22, 1941) and the United States (attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941).
In the end, by standing up to Fascist aggression, England and its democracy were saved.
Americans can only hope the same proves true for their country.

ABC NEWS, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, FRANCISCO MADERO, illegal immigration, Kamala Harris, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PANCHO VILLA, RACIAL PROFILING, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM
In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on September 26, 2013 at 12:02 amIf Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way President Andrew Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify” any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this: