[Got this email with all sorts of statistics regarding illegals in LA County, claiming LA Times as the source. Actually knowing something re this area, and even though I dislike snopes, I checked with their postings, as if nothing else, they would have references. So, here’s the deal regarding those emailed stats.
Now, I don’t really care that the original email is off, what is disgusting is that the below is the truth. Illegals Aliens are a cancer on American Culture. The below stats prove it. Keep in mind, this is just ONE of dozens of counties in CA, NYS, MA, IL, PA, OR, WA, MO, IA, FL, and several other states.
An estimate of the actual cost to the US Taxpayer in dollars/annum, is over 600B. That is $600,000,000.00 or about the current defense department expenditure on Obama. Another way to look at it, is that 600 B would more than cover the cost of the interest on the national debt.
Think about it.]
Where Your Taxes Go
Claim: Listing provides statistics about the number and costs of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County.
MIXTURE
Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]
WHERE YOUR TAXES GO – ILLEGAL ALIENS
Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).
(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. See…
Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
Origins: The various figures quoted above were not taken from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article. They appear to have been gleaned from a variety of sources and vary in accuracy as noted below:
Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as “Hispanic” the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being “illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal.”
The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
In April 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. On the issue of gang membership among illegal immigrants, she said:
No one knows for certain the percentage of illegals in gangs, thanks in large part to sanctuary laws themselves. But various estimates exist:
A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
Note, however, that this statement references a California Department of Justice study (not an FBI report), and that it describes only a single gang in Los Angeles County (the 18th Street Gang), the gang that likely has the highest membership rate of illegal aliens.
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure also appears (unsourced) in Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
Even if the statistic is accurate, however, it is subject to a variety of interpretations. For example, illegal aliens might be disproportionately represented by outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles because they are more likely to flee the jurisdiction before their cases are adjudicated than legal residents are (not necessarily because they commit a far greater share of the homicides in Los Angeles). This interpretation is supported by a University of California Davis summary of immigration issues that notes:
The Los Angeles Police Department has a 12-year old Foreign Prosecution Unit that pursues suspects who fled the US after committing crimes in Los Angeles and gives testimony when they are prosecuted aboard. The United States does not have extradition treaties with most Latin American countries but many countries, for example, Mexico, Nicaragua or El Salvador try suspects for murder and other violent crimes committed in the US.
The Foreign Prosecution Unit was founded in 1985, after a study found that nearly half of the LAPD’s outstanding arrest warrants involved Mexican nationals who were presumed to have fled the country. The FPU works with Interpol to find suspects who flee abroad and then prepares the evidence so that the person can be arrested and prosecuted. The FPU clears about one-third of its cases, compared to two-thirds of all homicide cases in Los Angeles.
The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has a representative of the Mexican attorney general’s office to work with the FPU in prosecuting suspects in Mexico for crimes committed in Los Angeles.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
The Los Angeles Police Department’s “Most Wanted” list is viewable on-line, but since each entry generally includes only the ethnicity of a suspect (not his or her immigration status or nationality), and many of the entries refer to persons of unknown identity, it’s difficult to verify the claim that 75% of the people listed therein are illegal aliens.
Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Again, this figure appears to correspond with Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
Note, however, that the 23% figure cited includes all deportable aliens, not just Mexican nationals.
21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
The number of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles varies a bit from source to source (and according to how one defines “Los Angeles”), but according to Los Angeles Almanac, if both AM and FM stations are counted, and all programming formats (e.g., music, news, talk, religion, sports) are included, then it’s fair to say that there are about 20 “Spanish speaking” radio stations in Los Angeles.
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare
Although illegal aliens are not generally eligible to collect public welfare benefits, an illegal alien may receive benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps programs on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. (Any child born in the United States is considered a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.) A 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps.
Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the “over 90%” figure for population growth in California is essentially accurate if the term “immigration” is defined to encompass both foreign immigrants and births to immigrant mothers:
When Department of Finance numbers are merged with Census Bureau numbers and birth and death data collected by the state Department of Health Services are added to the mix, showing that half of all births are to immigrant mothers, the inescapable conclusion is that foreign immigration and births to immigrant mothers together comprise all of the state’s net population growth. Or, to put it another way, without foreign immigration, California would have virtually zero population growth.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue. It’s also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on “Illegal Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California” notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.
Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today’s debate with a study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970 cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970, and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.
As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid, and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed and revised Huddle’s US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net cost into a $29 billion net benefit.
Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid $70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle did not include the 15 percent of each worker’s earnings that are paid in Social Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the $70 billion difference.
Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. “The Costs of Immigration” (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle’s study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.
Last updated: 19 September 2014
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
From: Ron Martin
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Mitchell Paige – Marine
Thought this needed sharing !
Semper Fi !
GBA,
Ron
In case some have forgotten or never knew the story of Mitchell Paige…
History at Guadalcanal ……and one of our nation’s finest!
DOWN TO ONE MARINE
On November 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, California, southeast of Palm Springs .
He was a combat veteran of World War II. Reason enough to honor him. But this Marine was a little different. This Marine was Mitchell Paige.
It’s hard today to envision — or, for the dwindling few, to remember — what the world looked like on 26 October 1942.
The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal.
As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Browning machine guns, manning their section of the thin khaki line which was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of 25 October 1942, it’s unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 desperate and motivated Japanese attackers?
Nor did the commanders of the Japanese Army, who had swept everything before them for decades, expect their advance to be halted on some jungle ridge manned by one thin line of Marines in October of 1942.
But by the time the night was over, The Japanese 29th Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men, historian David Lippman reports. The Japanese 16th Regiment’s losses are uncounted, but the [US] 164th’s burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. … The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low.
Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige’s platoon; every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.
The citation for Paige’s Medal of Honor Citation defines the event: “When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machinegun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire.”
In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings (the same design which John M. Browning fired for a continuous 25 minutes until it ran out of ammunition, glowing cherry red, at its first U.S. Army demonstration) and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.
The weapon did not fail.
At dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was first to discover the answer to our question: How many able-bodied Marines does it take to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened Japanese infantrymen who have never known defeat?
On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his .30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.
One hill: one Marine.
But “In the early morning light, the enemy could be seen a few yards off, and vapor from the barrels of their machine guns was clearly visible,” reports historian Lippman. “It was decided to try to rush the position.”
For the task, Major Conoley gathered together “three enlisted communication personnel, several riflemen, a few company runners who were at the point, together with a cook and a few messmen who had brought food to the position the evening before.”
Joined by Paige, this ad hoc force of 17 Marines counterattacked at 5:40 a.m., discovering that this extremely short range allowed the optimum use of grenades. They cleared the ridge.
And that’s where the previously unstoppable wave of Japanese conquests finally broke and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one had ever heard of, called Guadalcanal .
But who remembers, today, how close-run a thing it was, the ridge held by a single Marine, in the autumn of 1942?
Some time after, when the Hasbro Toy Company telephoned asking permission to put the retired Colonel’s face on some kid’s doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.
But they weren’t. Today, that’s his face on the little Marine they call “G.I. Joe.”
On 4 November 2014, in Missouri, we had several constitutional amendments to pass or refute. Amendment 3 dealt with a state-wide educational mandate that would allow the state government to apply standards, via standardized testing, across the state in order to provide educational uniformity among students pre-K – 12. It also provided for requiring accountability for learning to the teachers, and restricted tenure as well as requiring uniform standards to teacher accreditation. Further, it allowed for the termination of incompetent teachers.
It failed to pass by close to ~80% against and ~20% for.
You should review two earlier posts at this time. One starts with an article posted by Yahoo News, which demonstrates the low level of journalism as well as how poor and substandard the educational system is, my comments at the end are important to both of these posts, and the other is the earlier posted White Paper to the Missouri Senate on Education and Entrepreneurship.
Standardized testing as toxic to education is one of the greatest politico-union hoaxes ever perpetrated on a long-suffering taxpayer. Pay close attention to the FACTS.
The first thing that y’all need to know is that standardized testing was and is an irrefutable fact of the lecture-response form of teaching. Lecture-response is universal throughout the pre-K – 12 American Educational System. Read the White Paper for more. The second thing that you need to know is that there are two forms of textbooks for pre-K – 12. The next time that you see your child, look closely at her textbook.
Open it, look at the publisher’s page, and it probably has a Chicago publisher listed as the publishing company. That is correct, wherever you are in the U.S.A., the odds are that the publisher of your kids’ textbook is the same as everywhere else in the U.S.A., and the publisher is in Chicago. Yupper, everyone HAS THE SAME TEXT BOOK! Now, look at the content.
The book is broken down into modules, sections, and chapters that coincide with the school year. So much for “lesson plans”, when the textbook is designed with internal lesson plans. Oh? Look carefully at the questions at the end of each piece.
Keep in mind, now, that the entire country uses THE SAME TEXTBOOK.
Now, the next time that you attend a P.T.A. meeting, ask to look at THE TEACHER’S textbook. Same publisher and ALMOST the same contents. Look closely at the parts of the book immediately AFTER the questions in your kids’ book.
Do not be shocked. In the teacher’s copy, not only are all of those questions answered, but there are whole paragraphs with what the teacher should be concentrating on, with what questions to ask to guide the students to the correct answer, AND there are suggested TEST QUESTIONS! Where do you think teachers get their test questions?
Yupper, ALL TEACHERS GET THEIR TESTS FROM THE QUESTIONS IN THE SAME TEACHERS’ EDITION OF THE SAME TEXTBOOK! THERE IS ONLY STANDARDIZED TESTING!
So why the argument against standardized testing when no matter where you are, the teachers MUST “teach to the (same) test”?
The state will only use the same questions to make up the test in the first place; so no matter what, they MUST ‘teach to the test’! Could it be that it takes the granting of the actual grade AWAY from the teacher? Does it mean no more tokens, no more pets, and no more free passes to “minorities”? Does it mean that there will be a true LEVEL playing field, that FAVORITISM will now be ELIMINATED?
AND, does it mean that incompetent teachers will be exposed for what they are and now vulnerable to replacement with competent teachers?
Now, a little history lesson: until The Johnson Administration and its “Great Society”, New York City had one of the best public school systems in the U.S.A. The New York Public School System REQUIRED standardized testing at several grades until it was, magically by judicial decree, made racist, and therefore discriminatory. Until The Johnson Administration, the teachers were NOT unionized, tenure was limited, and a teacher did NOT need a Master’s Degree, to teach or to get tenure. Teachers and students did not fear for their lives in any of the schools in New York City in 1960. Parents were involved, teachers were involved, and except for a very few, students were involved.
During The Clinton Administration, Hilly-Billy wanted Congress to forgive student debt and allow grants for university students taking teaching degrees. What they found out, once the people got involved, was that for every teaching position, there were 2 ½ accredited and licensed teachers!
Why so many people with teaching licenses, compared to so few jobs?
Class size in the 1950’s, when kids learned to read, write, and do arithmetic, was between 25 and 35. Now the teachers complain about a class size of 15 and our dropout rate is higher now than it was in 1960.
Teachers were not required to have an M.Ed. within 10 years of getting their license, or be fired. Why, when if you look at the teachers’ textbook in grades pre-K – 8, is not an Associates’ Degree adequate? Why shouldn’t there be standardized testing and teacher accountability? Keeping in mind, of course, that STANDARDIZED TESTING is already in place and will remain in place for as long as the lecture & response teaching methodology exists.
Who actually benefits from the current situation? Student? Parent? Teacher?
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion
that one useless man is a shame,
two is a law firm,
and three or more is a congress.
— John Adams
2. If you don’t read the newspaper
you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are
misinformed. — Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And
suppose you were a member of
Congress. But then I repeat myself.
— Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle.
–Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can
always depend on the support of Paul.
— George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a
great debt to his fellow man, which debt
he proposes to pay off with your money.
— G. Gordon Liddy
7. Democracy must be something
more than two wolves and a sheep
voting on what to have for dinner.
–James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of
money from poor people in rich countries
to rich people in poor countries.
— Douglas Case,
Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University .
9. Giving money and power to
government is like giving whiskey
and car keys to teenage boys.
— P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian
10. Government is the great fiction,
through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense
of everybody else.
— Frederic Bastiat,
French economist(1801-1850)
11. Government’s view of the
economy could be summed up
in a few short phrases: If it
moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it.
–Ronald Reagan (1986)
12. I don’t make jokes. I just watch
the government and report the facts.
— Will Rogers
13. If you think health care is
expensive now, wait until you
see what it costs when it’s free!
— P. J. O’Rourke
14. In general, the art of government
consists of taking as much
money as possible from one
party of the citizens to give to the other.
–Voltaire (1764)
15. Just because you do not take an
interest in politics doesn’t mean
politics won’t take an interest in you!
— Pericles (430 B.C.)
16. No man’s life, liberty, or
property is safe while the
legislature is in session.
— Mark Twain (1866)
17. Talk is cheap, except when
Congress does it. — Anonymous
18. The government is like a baby’s
alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no
responsibility at the other.
— Ronald Reagan
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is
the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. — Winston Churchill
20. The only difference between a
tax man and a taxidermist is that
the taxidermist leaves the skin.
— Mark Twain
21. The ultimate result of shielding
men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
— Herbert Spencer, English
Philosopher (1820-1903)
22. There is no distinctly Native
American criminal class, save
Congress. — Mark Twain
23. What this country needs are
more unemployed politicians
–Edward Langley,
Artist (1928-1995)
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson
25. We hang the petty thieves and
appoint the great ones to public office.
— Aesop
FIVE BEST SENTENCES
1. You cannot legislate the poor into
prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without
working for, another person must
work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to
anybody anything that the
government does not first take
from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by
dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the
idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!
Burial at Sea
by Lt Col George Goodson, USMC (Ret)
In my 76th year, the events of my life appear to me, from time to time, as a series of vignettes. Some were significant; most were trivial…
War is the seminal event in the life of everyone that has endured it. Though I fought in Korea and the Dominican Republic and was wounded there, Vietnam was my war.
Now 42 years have passed and, thankfully, I rarely think of those days in Cambodia , Laos , and the panhandle of North Vietnam where small teams of Americans and Montangards fought much larger elements of the North Vietnamese Army. Instead I see vignettes: some exotic, some mundane:
*The smell of Nuc Mam.
*The heat, dust, and humidity.
*The blue exhaust of cycles clogging the streets.
*Elephants moving silently through the tall grass.
*Hard eyes behind the servile smiles of the villagers.
*Standing on a mountain in Laos and hearing a tiger roar.
*A young girl squeezing my hand as my medic delivered her baby.
*The flowing Ao Dais of the young women biking down Tran Hung Dao.
*My two years as Casualty Notification Officer in North Carolina , Virginia , and Maryland .
It was late 1967. I had just returned after 18 months in Vietnam . Casualties were increasing. I moved my family from Indianapolis to Norfolk , rented a house, enrolled my children in their fifth or sixth new school, and bought a second car.
A week later, I put on my uniform and drove 10 miles to Little Creek, Virginia. I hesitated before entering my new office. Appearance is important to career Marines. I was no longer, if ever, a poster Marine. I had returned from my third tour in Vietnam only 30 days before. At 5’9″, I now weighed 128 pounds – 37 pounds below my normal weight. My uniforms fit ludicrously, my skin was yellow from malaria medication, and I think I had a twitch or two.
I straightened my shoulders, walked into the office, looked at the nameplate on a Staff Sergeant’s desk and said, “Sergeant Jolly, I’m Lieutenant Colonel Goodson. Here are my orders and my Qualification Jacket.”
Sergeant Jolly stood, looked carefully at me, took my orders, stuck out his hand; we shook and he asked, “How long were you there, Colonel?” I replied “18 months this time.” Jolly breathed, you must be a slow learner Colonel.” I smiled.
Jolly said, “Colonel, I’ll show you to your office and bring in the Sergeant Major.
I said, “No, let’s just go straight to his office.”
Jolly nodded, hesitated, and lowered his voice, “Colonel, the Sergeant Major. He’s been in this job two years. He’s packed pretty tight. I’m worried about him.” I nodded.
Jolly escorted me into the Sergeant Major’s office. “Sergeant Major, this is Colonel Goodson, the new Commanding Office. The Sergeant Major stood, extended his hand and said, “Good to see you again, Colonel.”
I responded, “Hello Walt, how are you?” Jolly looked at me, raised an eyebrow, walked out, and closed the door.
I sat down with the Sergeant Major. We had the obligatory cup of coffee and talked about mutual acquaintances. Walt’s stress was palpable. Finally, I said, “Walt, what’s the h-ll’s wrong?”
He turned his chair, looked out the window and said, “George, you’re going to wish you were back in Nam before you leave here. I’ve been in the Marine Corps since 1939. I was in the Pacific 36 months, Korea for 14 months, and Vietnam for 12 months… Now I come here to bury these kids. I’m putting my letter in. I can’t take it anymore.”
I said, “OK Walt. If that’s what you want, I’ll endorse your request for retirement and do what I can to push it through Headquarters Marine Corps.”
Sergeant Major Walt Xxxxx retired 12 weeks later. He had been a good Marine for 28 years, but he had seen too much death and too much suffering. He was used up.
Over the next 16 months, I made 28 death notifications, conducted 28 military funerals, and made 30 notifications to the families of Marines that were severely wounded or missing in action. Most of the details of those casualty notifications have now, thankfully, faded from memory. Four, however, remain.
MY FIRST NOTIFICATION
My third or fourth day in Norfolk , I was notified of the death of a 19 year old Marine. This notification came by telephone from Headquarters Marine Corps. The information detailed:
*Name, rank, and serial number.
*Name, address, and phone number of next of kin.
*Date of and limited details about the Marine’s death.
*Approximate date the body would arrive at the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
*A strong recommendation on whether the casket should be opened or closed.
The boy’s family lived over the border in North Carolina , about 60 miles away. I drove there in a Marine Corps staff car. Crossing the state line intoNorth Carolina , I stopped at a small country store / service station / Post Office. I went in to ask directions.
Three people were in the store. A man and woman approached the small Post Office window. The man held a package. The Store owner walked up and addressed them by name, “Hello John. Good morning Mrs. Cooper.”
I was stunned. My casualty’s next-of-kin’s name was John Cooper!
I hesitated, then stepped forward and said, “I beg your pardon. Are you Mr. and Mrs. John Cooper of (address.)
The father looked at me – I was in uniform – and then, shaking, bent at the waist, he vomited. His wife looked horrified at him and then at me. Understanding came into her eyes and she collapsed in slow motion. I think I caught her before she hit the floor.
The owner took a bottle of whiskey out of a drawer and handed it to Mr. Cooper who drank. I answered their questions for a few minutes. Then I drove them home in my staff car. The storeowner locked the store and followed in their truck. We stayed an hour or so until the family began arriving.
I returned the storeowner to his business. He thanked me and said, “Mister, I wouldn’t have your job for a million dollars.” I shook his hand and said; “Neither would I.”
I vaguely remember the drive back to Norfolk . Violating about five Marine Corps regulations, I drove the staff car straight to my house. I sat with my family while they ate dinner, went into the den, closed the door, and sat there all night, alone.
My Marines steered clear of me for days. I had made my first death notification.
THE FUNERALS
Weeks passed with more notifications and more funerals. I borrowed Marines from the local Marine Corps Reserve and taught them to conduct a military funeral: how to carry a casket, how to fire the volleys and how to fold the flag.
When I presented the flag to the mother, wife, or father, I always said, “All Marines share in your grief.” I had been instructed to say, “On behalf of a grateful nation….” I didn’t think the nation was grateful, so I didn’t say that.
Sometimes, my emotions got the best of me and I couldn’t speak. When that happened, I just handed them the flag and touched a shoulder. They would look at me and nod. Once a mother said to me, “I’m so sorry you have this terrible job.” My eyes filled with tears and I leaned over and kissed her.
ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
Six weeks after my first notification, I had another. This was a young PFC. I drove to his mother’s house. As always, I was in uniform and driving a Marine Corps staff car. I parked in front of the house, took a deep breath, and walked towards the house. Suddenly the door flew open, a middle-aged woman rushed out. She looked at me and ran across the yard, screaming “NO! NO! NO! NO!”
I hesitated. Neighbors came out. I ran to her, grabbed her, and whispered stupid things to reassure her. She collapsed. I picked her up and carried her into the house. Eight or nine neighbors followed. Ten or fifteen later, the father came in followed by ambulance personnel. I have no recollection of leaving.
The funeral took place about two weeks later. We went through the drill. The mother never looked at me. The father looked at me once and shook his head sadly.
ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
One morning, as I walked in the office, the phone was ringing. Sergeant Jolly held the phone up and said, “You’ve got another one, Colonel.” I nodded, walked into my office, picked up the phone, took notes, thanked the officer making the call, I have no idea why, and hung up. Jolly, who had listened, came in with a special Telephone Directory that translates telephone numbers into the person’s address and place of employment.
The father of this casualty was a Longshoreman. He lived a mile from my office. I called the Longshoreman’s Union Office and asked for the Business Manager. He answered the phone, I told him who I was, and asked for the father’s schedule.
The Business Manager asked, “Is it his son?” I said nothing. After a moment, he said, in a low voice, “Tom is at home today.” I said, “Don’t call him. I’ll take care of that.” The Business Manager said, “Aye, Aye Sir,” and then explained, “Tom and I were Marines in WWII.”
I got in my staff car and drove to the house. I was in uniform. I knocked and a woman in her early forties answered the door. I saw instantly that she was clueless. I asked, “Is Mr. Smith home?” She smiled pleasantly and responded, “Yes, but he’s eating breakfast now. Can you come back later?” I said, “I’m sorry. It’s important. I need to see him now.”
She nodded, stepped back into the beach house and said, “Tom, it’s for you.”
A moment later, a ruddy man in his late forties, appeared at the door. He looked at me, turned absolutely pale, steadied himself, and said, “Jesus Christ man, he’s only been there three weeks!”
Months passed. More notifications and more funerals. Then one day while I was running, Sergeant Jolly stepped outside the building and gave a loud whistle, two fingers in his mouth. I never could do that… and held an imaginary phone to his ear.
Another call from Headquarters Marine Corps. I took notes, said, “Got it.” and hung up. I had stopped saying “Thank You” long ago.
Jolly, “Where?”
Me, “Eastern Shore of Maryland . The father is a retired Chief Petty Officer. His brother will accompany the body back from Vietnam …”
Jolly shook his head slowly, straightened, and then said, “This time of day, it’ll take three hours to get there and back. I’ll call the Naval Air Station and borrow a helicopter. And I’ll have Captain Tolliver get one of his men to meet you and drive you to the Chief’s home.”
He did, and 40 minutes later, I was knocking on the father’s door. He opened the door, looked at me, then looked at the Marine standing at parade rest beside the car, and asked, “Which one of my boys was it, Colonel?”
I stayed a couple of hours, gave him all the information, my office and home phone number and told him to call me, anytime.
He called me that evening about 2300 (11:00 PM). “I’ve gone through my boy’s papers and found his will. He asked to be buried at sea. Can you make that happen?” I said, “Yes I can, Chief. I can and I will.”
My wife who had been listening said, “Can you do that?” I told her, “I have no idea. But I’m going to break my ass trying.”
I called Lieutenant General Alpha Bowser, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, at home about 2330, explained the situation, and asked, “General, can you get me a quick appointment with the Admiral at Atlantic Fleet Headquarters?” General Bowser said,” George, you be there tomorrow at 0900. He will see you.
I was and the Admiral did. He said coldly, “How can the Navy help the Marine Corps, Colonel.” I told him the story. He turned to his Chief of Staff and said, “Which is the sharpest destroyer in port?” The Chief of Staff responded with a name.
The Admiral called the ship, “Captain, you’re going to do a burial at sea. You’ll report to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel Goodson until this mission is completed…”
He hung up, looked at me, and said, “The next time you need a ship, Colonel, call me. You don’t have to sic Al Bowser on my ass.” I responded, “Aye Aye, Sir” and got the h-ll out of his office.
I went to the ship and met with the Captain, Executive Officer, and the Senior Chief. Sergeant Jolly and I trained the ship’s crew for four days. Then Jolly raised a question none of us had thought of. He said, “These government caskets are air tight. How do we keep it from floating?”
All the high priced help including me sat there looking dumb. Then the Senior Chief stood and said, “Come on Jolly. I know a bar where the retired guys from World War II hang out.”
They returned a couple of hours later, slightly the worst for wear, and said, “It’s simple; we cut four 12″ holes in the outer shell of the casket on each side and insert 300 lbs of lead in the foot end of the casket. We can handle that, no sweat.”
The day arrived. The ship and the sailors looked razor sharp. General Bowser, the Admiral, a US Senator, and a Navy Band were on board. The sealed casket was brought aboard and taken below for modification. The ship got underway to the 12-fathom depth.
The sun was hot. The ocean flat. The casket was brought aft and placed on a catafalque. The Chaplin spoke. The volleys were fired. The flag was removed, folded, and I gave it to the father. The band played “Eternal Father Strong to Save.” The casket was raised slightly at the head and it slid into the sea.
The heavy casket plunged straight down about six feet. The incoming water collided with the air pockets in the outer shell. The casket stopped abruptly, rose straight out of the water about three feet, stopped, and slowly slipped back into the sea. The air bubbles rising from the sinking casket sparkled in the in the sunlight as the casket disappeared from sight forever….
The next morning I called a personal friend, Lieutenant General Oscar Peatross, at Headquarters Marine Corps and said, “General, get me out of here. I can’t take this anymore.” I was transferred two weeks later.
I was a good Marine but, after 17 years, I had seen too much death and too much suffering. I was used up.
Vacating the house, my family and I drove to the office in a two-car convoy. I said my goodbyes. Sergeant Jolly walked out with me. He waved at my family, looked at me with tears in his eyes, came to attention, saluted, and said, “Well Done, Colonel. Well Done.”
I felt as if I had received the Medal of Honor!
A veteran is someone who, at one point, wrote a blank
check made payable to ‘The United States of America ‘
for an amount of up to and including their life.
That is Honor and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Here is a little history. Including how the term ‘Leatherneck’ came to be . .
Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago,
the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror
of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. They
attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant
ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment
and wrote heart breaking letters home, begging their government and
family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors
demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis,
Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast –
and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American
Republic.
Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had
been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared
its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States
were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to
protect its own fleets. Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.
Beginning in1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas
Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the
U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in
the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States,
rather than engaging them in war.
In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships,
and the Dey of Algiers demanded an unheard-of
ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion,
and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further
payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a
coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states
into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the
ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain
to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved
American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards
America, a nation with which they had no previous
contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had
answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it
was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have
acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found,
and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every
Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations,
as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including
George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only
further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years, the American
government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to
over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in
1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being
sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha
of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000
plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed
everything.
Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms,
what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting
down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the
United States.
Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.
Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a
naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but having watched his
nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was
finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron
of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the
Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress
authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and
goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of
precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.
When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and
acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will
and the might to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to
Tripoli.
The war with Tripoli lasted for four more
years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine
Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the
Marine Hymn, They would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the
leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from
being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy
ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified
doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson
quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the
fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion
the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose
holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers
was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this
brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the
United States.
This should bother every American. That the Islams
have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at
taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews,
and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim
defendants are being judged, Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers
have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist
sensibilities. Ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger
King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the
Arabic script for Allah, public schools are pulling pork from
their menus, on and on in the news papers….
It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it,
and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across
America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate
what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to
our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a
politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda.
Sadly, it appears that today’s America would rather be politically
correct than victorious.
Any doubts, just Google Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World
Do the states have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage?
Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded homosexual acts as crimes.
Moreover, the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage had all been enacted democratically, by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by Congress or elected state legislatures.
But today rogue judges and justices, appointed for life, answerable to no one, instruct a once-democratic republic on what laws we may and may not enact.
Last week, the Supreme Court refused to stop federal judges from overturning laws banning same-sex marriage. We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of men to marry men and of women to marry women.
How, in little more than half a century, did the American people fall under the rule of a judicial dictatorship where judges and justices twist phrases in the Constitution to impose their alien ideology on this once-free people?
What brings the issue up is both the Court decision on same-sex marriage, and the death of my friend, Professor William J. Quirk, of the South Carolina University School of Law.
In “Judicial Dictatorship” (1995), Bill wrote of the revolution that had been imposed against the will of the majority, and of how Congress and the people might rout that revolution.
The instrument of revolution is judicial review, the doctrine that makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter, the decider, of what the Constitution says, and cedes to the Court limitless power to overturn laws enacted by the elective branches of government.
Jefferson said that to cede such authority to the Supreme Court “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Was he not right?
Consider what has transpired in our lifetime.
The Supreme Court has ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country. Christian holy days, holidays, Bibles, books, prayers and invocations were all declared to be impermissible in public schools and the public square.
Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States.
And the American people took it.
Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation? Why did Congress, which has the power to abolish every federal district and appellate court and to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not act?
Each branch of government, wrote Jefferson, is “independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”
“No branch has the absolute or final power to control the others, especially an unelected judiciary,” added Quirk.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of all public schools. But when the Court began to dictate the racial balance of public schools, and order the forced busing of children based on race across cities and county lines to bring it about, a rebellion arose.
Only when resistance became national and a violent reaction began did our black-robed radicals back down.
Yet the Supreme Court was not deterred in its resolve to remake America. In 1973, the Court discovered the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Then it found, also hidden in the Constitution, the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.
Congress declined, and the Court, predictably, dumped over DOMA.
Republican presidents have also sought to curb the Supreme Court’s aggressions through the appointment process. And largely failed.
Of four justices elevated by Nixon, three voted for Roe. Ford’s nominee John Paul Stevens turned left. Two of Reagan’s, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, went wobbly. Bush I’s David Souter was soon caucusing with the liberals.
Today, there are four constitutionalists on the Court. If the GOP loses the White House in 2016, then the Court is gone, perhaps forever.
Yet, the deeper problem lies in congressional cowardice in refusing to use its constitutional power to rein in the Court.
Ultimately, the failure is one of conservatism itself.
Indeed, with neoconservatives in the van, the GOP hierarchy is today in headlong retreat on same-sex marriage. Its performance calls to mind the insight of that unreconstructed Confederate chaplain to Stonewall Jackson, Robert Lewis Dabney, on the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians:
“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader…. Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.”
Amen.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” Copyright 2014 Creators.com
Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Oct 1 at 5:34 PM
The below listed speech is the most important speech, in support of the Republic, that I have listened to, since I listened to many important speeches by President
Ronald Reagan over a 14 year period. I believe I can speak with a degree of authority and confidence, because of my association with President Ronald Reagan and the Reagan administration over that 14 year period. The below listed keynote speech was given by Dinesh D’Souza, author and producer of the most successful documentary film in history, “America”; the address was given on September 6, 2014 at the Town and Country Hotel in San Diego, California during a Gala Event to introduce the Combat Veterans For Congress to the national press corps.
I was very fortunate to work with and for President Reagan, on and off, for a 14 years period. I began my association with former California Governor Ronald Reagan during his campaign for the Republican nomination for President, when he was running against President Gerald Ford. That campaign took us to the Republican Convention in Kansas City, where Gov Reagan lost what was until then, a very close nomination race, but because of the power of incumbent who was able to offer delegates from key states with certain benefits, Gov Reagan lost. I continued to work with President Reagan during his two terms and for 2 years after he left office; when his staff in Century City would ask me if I would volunteer to do advances for the former President, when he was scheduled to make speeches to various audiences..
DineshSpeechCombatVets.mp4
[if you cannot access the speech here, go to http://www.combatveteransforcongress.org for an active link. Or, Capt Johns sent this correction: http://youtu.be/y0XUBdC89Mk and I’m not sure that the . in tu.be is correct, but it IS on youtube, so readily available for those interested, and y’all should be!]
I encourage you to pass this very important video on to everyone in your address book who cares about the survival of the Republic envisioned and created by our Founding Fathers. That Republic that we knew and raised in our youth is under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office, and is intent on changing it to a Socialist State. The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, listed in the attachment who are running in 2014, will fight to protect our Judeo-Christian Heritage, the “Freedoms” outlined in The Bill of Rights, and will fight to protect and defend the US Constitution——-the US Constitution they raised their right hand and swore to protect and defend, and did so on foreign fields of combat, while repeatedly putting their lives on the line.
It took a while, but the federal government late last week finally signed off on the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ design for driver’s licenses for people in the country illegally.
The inevitable reaction to such accommodations is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. –
The cards, which will be issued beginning Jan. 1, will have the phrase “federal limits apply” on the front. The Department of Homeland Security rejected the initial design, which would have placed a small mark on the front and add to the back the sentence: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes.” So the new version will be less subtle than backers had hoped (Ted Rall explores that here, and in the cartoon above).
It’s a reasonable compromise. The editorial board last year endorsed the state’s move under AB60 to issue licenses to immigrants in the country illegally who learn the rules of the road and pass a driver’s test, among other requirements. The September editorial said:
“That would bring California in line with at least nine other states that have adopted similar measures. Since 1993, most immigrants living here illegally have been barred from obtaining California licenses (except for some young people who qualify for temporary federal work permits).
“Already, critics of AB 60 are arguing that providing driver’s licenses to people who are in the United States illegally rewards them for breaking the law. But that’s putting politics before common sense.
cComments
What “shadows”…?!?! They are getting Drivers Licenses for crying out loud. The only shadows they are hiding in are the ones provided by Lib blowhards!
joesand128
at 2:04 PM September 22, 2014
Add a comment See all comments
5
“AB 60 doesn’t condone illegal immigration. Rather, it recognizes the argument made by some law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, that we are all safer if those immigrants who are currently driving without a license are taught to operate a car safely and are tested to ensure that they meet the same standards as other drivers. Licenses will also deter hit-and-run accidents by taking away one of the chief incentives to flee the scene.”
It’s a smart move for the state, and for the country. Since that editorial, the number of issuing states has increased to 11, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Ensuring that immigrants in the U.S. illegally know how to drive safely does not reward them for violating the immigration laws. Rather, it helps make the roads safer for all of us.
The inevitable reaction to such an accommodation is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. Nor should it. DHS estimates there are at least 11.5 million immigrants in the country illegally – equal to the population of Ohio – which the New Republic estimated earlier this year (based on a Center for American Progress report) would cost $216 billion to deport, compared with DHS’ annual budget of $60 billion.
And if those here illegally were rounded up and sent home, the effect on the economy would be around $260 billion a year, the libertarian Cato Institute estimated based on the assumption of 8.3 million immigrants living here illegally and working in the country.
At some point Congress must find a way to bring these immigrants out of the shadows while creating disincentives for future such immigration. No easy task, I know. But the status quo appeals to no one, and the nation can’t deport them all. We need a common sense approach. While pragmatism is hard to find in Congress these days, we still should demand it.
[Thanks to US Constitution Article IV, the ACLU, La Raza, and other “it discriminates against a minority” diversity proponents, the “undocumented worker” hologram will, after a court challenge to the 9th Circuit, then SCOTUS affirming that it is discriminatory and therefore must be removed, all illegal aliens will automatically become voters and citizens. Establish residency in CA, get a standard driver’s license, move to another state, and use the standard CA DL as proof of citizenship, register to vote, and own the country.
I have written about this for years, just look through the various posts.
BTW, we DO have the resources to kick them all out. Just enforce the laws, especially Mazzoli 1986, and E-Verify!
Secession, before Sylvia Thompson’s prophecy becomes reality.
August 21, 2014
It’s time to wake up, white America
By Sylvia Thompson
Where are the white residents of Ferguson, Missouri – people brandishing signs reading “Justice for Officer Darren Wilson”? There may be a need to bring whites in from other locations, as the blacks have done. Whatever it takes, but white people had better begin to show force and fight back against the ongoing destruction of all that has been achieved in the racial arena in America. Gains made over many decades by many Americans, both black and white. Conservative blacks cannot fight this fight for you. You must fight it.
Yes, I am black, descendant of slaves, reared under Jim Crow segregation, and all that minutiae, but I am also extremely tired of the “somebody else is the cause of my problems” mentality engrossing too many black people. A mentality that elitists Barack Obama and Eric Holder have preyed upon throughout their miserable careers.
Understand this, folks, if you glean nothing else from the madness going on in Missouri. Eric Holder is in Ferguson, at the behest of Obama, for the express purpose of subverting justice. That is what these two despicable men do – subvert justice, so as to perpetuate divisiveness and hatred among blacks and whites. I am not a psychologist, but a good reader of human nature, and I detect that Holder’s twisted ego is stroked mightily by all those non-elite blacks fawning over his presence. The “activist” Attorney General is their savior; he will see that the white man suffers, guilty or not.
I recently caught a glimpse of Holder on TV working a group of blacks as if he were one of them. He is not. He is elite and privileged, and these black masses mean nothing to him (or to Obama), other than in the furtherance of a leftist agenda. If these agitators can be coaxed to the poll booths, they will vote Democrat. Never mind that Obama and the Democrats are the reason for much of their economic and social woes.
I am becoming fed-up with the response (or lack thereof) that so many whites display in face of the criminal behavior of so many blacks. I have had it up to my brow with “political correctness” and “white guilt.” I am even becoming increasingly irritated by conservative spokespeople, such as Rush Limbaugh, who, although in satire, displays a defeatist attitude toward black racism.
Limbaugh will often say “You cannot say that…” or “We will never be absolved of guilt…,” in what he characterizes as satire. I understand what he is doing, but I sense that as a white person, he may use this tactic out of fear. Genuine fear of taking on the racists. Or perhaps fear that without satire he might provoke real action on the part of his millions of listeners, and he does not want that responsibility. I am unclear about his motives, but I do know that it is time for oppositional clarity, no satire.
Circumstances are much more dire since Obama was foolishly placed into the Presidency and Congress foolishly accepted his nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General. These two men are leading the destruction of this nation, and that reality is dead serious. All conservative spokespeople and people in positions of leadership should be rallying Americans to fight these men.
When blacks begin tearing down a city (any city), whites should be supportive of the police (in their full, military hand-me-down gear), encouraging them to overrun, apprehend, and detain everybody on the street. And for those committing crimes, treat them as criminals and stop the crime. If that means killing people, so be it. That is the way the police would treat a mob of marauding whites. Safety of the police force should be paramount.
Ignoring the bad-asses and criminals (because of perceived grievances) has done nothing but terrorize decent citizens of all races in large inner cities. That lunacy must stop.
Policing is a dangerous occupation and given the police officer’s task of confronting crime and protecting the rest of us from criminals, sometimes violence and killing is necessary. I will give any cop the benefit of the doubt over any suspected crook, whatever his color, until I am given evidence to think otherwise.
It behooves the rest of America to do the same. Or, I say police should refuse to work in areas where they are put upon by small-minded politicos, such as the Democrat governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, and race-mongering law officials like Eric Holder. Police officers have unions; they should demand that bosses support the boycotting of hell-holes such as Ferguson, if they are to be demeaned.
One final note, ignore the libertarian scare mongering about “militarized police.” Libertarians tend to be elites who live nowhere near inner-city communities. They are more likely to be in gated facilities or areas so financially set that crime is something they experience only in the news. They have the luxury of whining about how the police are equipped; the rest of us just want them equipped at their best, and armed to the teeth.
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica’s publishing standards.)
Click to enlarge
Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture… (more)
[taken from Cmdr Shipley’s blog: American Founding Principles, found in wordpress.com]
Immigration Reform
Jul16
The youthful tidal wave plunging over America’s southern border has brought the immigration debate to a critical crescendo. While most Americans are struggling with what is the moral and ethical thing to do with the children, the two political parties are struggling with how they are going to out-maneuver the other in a political chess match that has the future control of America at stake. The debate centers on giving citizenship, with full voting privileges, to people who come to America illegally.
Nearly every decision, collectively made by elected officials is done with one of two main goals in mind; either to stay in political power or gain more political power. These two goals are the prime motivator for nearly every decision made, every law passed, and every political speech delivered. In short, human political philosophy holds, if a law is passed that is beneficial for the people, then so much the better, but if it is not and one can politically get away with it, then so be it as long as the law increases their chances for re-election.
For example, the Democratic Party puts millions of taxpayer dollars into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two failed but still government-supported home loan institutions that were at the center of disastrous housing bubble. In return Fannie and Freddie heavily donate to Democratic Party candidates.
Another example is the Republican Party framing national security issues in a way to validate massive defense spending. While national defense is vitally important and government funding of it is certainly constitutional, the amount of spending and the manner in which it is spent exceed the nation’s defense requirements. The military industrial complex that has grown out of this spending supports an interventionist foreign policy[1] vice a defensive foreign policy and the money made by the military industrial complex goes back into supporting Republican candidates all at tax payer expense.
Some may see this as an unwarranted cynical view, but it is a regretful fact of human nature that has become more prevalent as America drifts farther and farther away from its Reformed Christian foundation.[2] Individual politicians may go to Washington for altruistic reasons, but they too are frequently caught up in party politics if they have a desire to be re-elected.
The electorate must take this into consideration when weighing arguments made about questions of national magnitude. Politicians will always frame their arguments in the best light, but in order not to be led astray by political double talk and duplicitous reasoning, citizens must look past the window dressing and see the political motives behind each argument.
Immigration is not about fairness, hospitality, morality, or even the welfare of immigrants, it is about changing the electoral demographics of America. The Democratic Party has championed the illegal immigration cause, and now Hispanics, who according to the US Census Bureau’s 2013 statistics, make up 17.1% of the US population and overwhelmingly support Democratic party candidates. If the Democratic party continues to be successful in expanding privileges for illegal immigrants and in thwarting voter identification laws to make it easier for illegals to vote in elections, then the Democratic party will more easily remain in control.
If this happens, it will leave the Republican party no choice but to pander to the same voting block of illegal immigrants and Hispanics. At that point, we might as well invite the politicians from the countries from where the immigrants came to come run our county as well, because the results will be nearly identical.
If you personally do not like the thought of living under the government in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, or Nicaragua, then you should think twice about supporting any politician pandering to illegal immigrants or the community that supports them. In spite of the narrative advanced by supporters of illegal immigration, the majority of Americans are completely fine with legal immigrants, who entered America in compliance with American immigration law.
Before anyone of us answers what is moral and ethical in the current unfolding humanitarian crisis, we should consider for what purpose “We the people” gave Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”[3] and how that power should be wielded in our present time.
Congress first passed an act dealing with “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” on March 26, 1790, that stipulated an alien must be a “free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years…and making proof … that he is a person of good character.”
From a 21st century perspective, this is sure to seem like a very “racist” statement, yet when put within an 18th century context we should all be able to see it for what it was, a statement of self-preservation.
While people of non-European ethnicity and skin color lived in America as freemen during our struggle for independence and even made significant contributions to that independence, they were the exception not the rule. Their contributions came primarily from an adopted world view that was not common in the countries or continents from where they descended. Whereas, “white” people who came primarily from Europe could easily be assimilated into American culture without too much risk of their overwhelming the culture and changing it irrevocably.
Preservation of American culture was the goal of our earliest immigration laws and it should be the goal of our current immigration laws as well. Much has changed since the 18th century and skin pigmentation is not and rightfully should not be a factor in determining modern day immigration eligibility, but a person’s motives for immigrating and their world view still should be.
On January 29, 1795, Congress passed another naturalization act that extended the length of time of eligible residency to five years and added the stipulation that an applicant must make proof that they are “of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”
If illegal immigrants do not respect our laws in coming to America, what evidence is there to support the claim they will respect our Constitution afterwards? By breaking our immigration laws they have demonstrated a lack of moral character and complete disregard for our laws and our way of life.
In 1795, the term of eligibility was extended to five years to better assimilate 18th century immigrants into American culture. What would it take to assimilate modern immigrants coming across our southern border?
Most all Americans welcome with open arms anyone who wants to come to America for the purpose of upholding the principles that made us free, but if immigrants come or came illegally, they have already demonstrated the lack of character to do this and no amount of time will change this within them.
It is for this reason, citizenship with full voting privileges should never be an option for anyone who has ever come or will come to America illegally. While mass deportation is not a fiscally or functionally viable option, selective deportation should be swift and sure to any legal or illegal immigrant, given amnesty or not, who does not conform to American laws, language, or customs.
On November 6, 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. This act passed Congress as a quid pro quo in which one political party accepted amnesty and full voting privileges for illegal aliens living continuously in the United States since 1982; the other political party accepted increased border security to deter further illegal immigration and avert another immigration crisis.
Since the immigration deterrent portion of this measure has proven completely unsuccessful, the other part of the quid pro quo should be equally null and void by rescinding voting privileges of all illegal immigrants, no matter when they arrived.
Rescinding voting privileges needs to be enacted at the State level, because the Constitution did not originally grant the national government authority over who is authorized to vote. Except for the clause “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislator” [4] no other clause in the Constitution addresses voter qualifications. This means, without a legitimately ratified amendment granting voter qualification authority to the national government, which the Fourteenth Amendment is not,[5] the national government is restricted from making any law concerning voter qualifications.
Another issue the coercively and fraudulently ratified Fourteenth Amendment has caused, is the “anchor baby” issue in which illegal immigrants claim citizenship for their children simply because they are born on American soil. It takes more than being born in America to be an American and it is past time our national government legally recognizes this. Children reared by parents who openly violated US law in coming to America are not the people we want as citizens.
The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was based on the flawed theory that if the US limited job opportunities through employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, mass illegal immigration would stop. This theory may have proved true if our national government had not created a social welfare state in which nearly everything needed in society is provided free of charge. This list includes education at publicly funded schools, health-care at hospital emergency rooms, housing and even spending money directly from the national government. Such handouts make it possible for people coming from third world countries to live better in America than they did from where they previously lived without even getting a job. What reasonable, and most likely desperate, person would pass up such an opportunity?
Nationally imposed minimum wage laws also contribute to continued illegal immigration, because illegals are willing to take sub-minimum wage pay “under the table” and still live better than they did before they came.
Eliminating all social welfare spending at every level of government,[6] de-funding public schools,[7] allowing hospitals to determine to whom they will provide charitable health-care, restricting voter privileges indefinitely for all illegals, and allowing States or even individual counties to set minimum wage standards, if they so choose, within their jurisdiction would go a long way to deterring mass illegal immigration. Even if these measures would not stop mass illegal immigration, they would significantly reduce the tax burden Americans now bear to support others transgressing our laws and it would eliminate a major political motive to encourage and protect illegal immigration.
While the children inundating our southerner border is a heart rendering situation, our national government, which is already deeply in debt, does not have the resources to provide for the volume of children flooding in, much less every child in the world living under similar situations and conditions.
Neither is it the responsibility of the American taxpayer to bear this burden; it is the responsibility of the adults living in the society from where these children have come to change their government in a way that will rectify the wrongs they are living with instead of exporting the ideology that created the corrupt, tyrannical beast under whose authority they now suffer. Americans were and still are willing to fight for their independence, others must be willing to fight for their own as well.
The President, who frequently has claimed he has “a pen and a phone”, should stop pretending to hide behind an obscure law written to prevent human sex trafficking and immediately send the children back to where they came. If for no other reason than to dissuade others from sending more children our way and further overwhelming our ability to provide for them.
To answer the ethical and moral dilemma of the youthful human tidal wave plunging across America’s southern border, we as a nation, should not support their remaining in America funded by our tax dollars and we should minimize expenditures made in handling them, because there is nothing charitable about giving other people’s money away.[8] But, if individuals or groups want to take fiscal responsibility of the children or adopt them outright then our President, Congress and every other citizen should encourage them to do so.
[1] American Founding Principles, Constitutional Foreign Policy, August 28, 2013.
[2] American Founding Principles, Freedom in America: The Unifying Idea, June 17, 2013.
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
[4] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1.
[5] The Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified on July 9, 1868, but the northern controlled House and Senate
had made ratification of the amendment a requirement for “allowing” the individual Confederate States to
“rejoin” the union. Not only did their coercion not work, but several “Union” States: New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky,
California, Delaware and Maryland, also refused to ratify the amendment. Unable to obtain the three fourths
of the States required to ratify it, Congress did the next best thing and announced that it had been ratified
and acted as if it were.
[6] American Founding Principles, Who is General Welfare?, October 15, 2012.
[7] American Founding Principles, Fixing Public Education, September 13, 2012.
[8] American Founding Principles, Who is General Welfare?, October 15, 2012.
Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America
ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) will be holding its annual convention in Detroit this weekend beginning Friday, August 29 and ending September 1. ISNA was designated by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum introduced in that trial identified ISNA as one of its front organizations. The memorandum further stated the Brotherhood’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America
Astonishingly, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties, former President Jimmy Carter will be the convention’s keynote speaker. Carter, also, recently called for the legitimization of Hamas, which is listed by the US government as a terrorist organization. In addition to Carter, several other prominent non-Muslim political leaders will be speaking at the convention.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, about an hour’s drive from Detroit, commented, “The participation of these political leaders is giving the ISNA convention the cover of respectability and as a result is enabling ISNA and other the other Muslim extremists at the convention to achieve their goal of a “Grand Jihad” to subjugate America.”
An integral aspect of ISNA’s plan for the subjugation of America is to portray itself as a peaceful, mainstream charitable institution. It is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of “civilization jihad.” While most Americans are focused on violent jihad, civilization jihad is even more dangerous to American security. According to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, it is “a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating Shariah gradually into Western societies.”
Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism expert and author of the book “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy,” compared the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to that of “termites.” “The Muslim Brotherhood in America and really around the world are like termites. They burrow into a host society. They eat away at it until the day comes where they are ready to make their move.”
Siraj Wahhaj, one of the scheduled speakers at the conference, was the first Muslim cleric to deliver opening prayers to Congress. In his prayer he recited from the Koran and asked God to guide America’s leaders “and grant them righteousness and wisdom.” A year later, he told a Muslim audience in New Jersey that, “If only Muslims were more clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” He was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In one of his sermons, Wahhaj said: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
Abdurahman Alamoudi conducted the Muslim Brotherhood’s most successful infiltration of our political and defense establishments. He advised Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. He penetrated and compromised our military and both the Democrat and Republican national organizations. He established the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Defense Department. He was the certifying authority for Muslim chaplains serving with the U.S. military. He appeared with President Bush at a press conference days after the 9/11 attacks. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly admitted that Alamoudi was the top Al-Qaeda fundraiser in the United States. Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for his terrorist related activities.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood, told a youth conference in Toledo, Ohio in 1998, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America.”
Secession: The Intermediate Argument
Posted: 14 August 2014
Introduction:
Fair Warning, this post is a relatively long post of several pages. It is not that I want to bore you. It is that the subject matter is not amenable to much more shortening.
When someone tells you that solving incredibly complex problems is easy or that there IS a quick solution, or they have the answer to all problems “in a nutshell,” and that person is not Jesus the Christ, then the odds are that they want you to buy something or vote them into office and “just trust them”. Think of “Hope and Change” as the mantra, yet not one reasonable suggestion is offered beyond “just trust me”.
For those uninterested in true argument or debate, there is a short post supporting the position of secession. This new post actually gives reasons, answers and the reasoned benefits of secession!
It may take a while for you to get to the end, but it is worth it if you really do want to preserve American Values. Just as an example, in the 1770’s, the supporting arguments for secession were published in pamphlets of scores of pages. As a standard academic ma-neuver, I am incorporating herein, two of the most important, Common Sense and The Rights of Man, both by Thomas Payne, by reference. Truly, y’all who are interested in free-dom, liberty, equality (ya, equality, not affirmative action or some other pseudonym for discrimination, bigotry and legalized theft – read the five virtues post for more), and pri-vate property & personal wealth, regardless of what you may think of these arguments, you should have and read more than once, both of those pamphlets.
With Dan Greenfield and Fred-on-Everything making the obvious points on Execu-tive Branch Scandals and Illegal Aliens Invading; Mark Levin and Sean Hannity professing Originialist Constitutionalism; Taxihack Depressions (on wordpress.com) reporting active black ops; Michael Savage and Glenn Beck talking Survivalism, John Beck, PhD proving visually the profound uselessness of most federal programs, and with nothing reasonable coming from “the ivy covered halls ofacademia”, except appeasement and the surrender of Western Civilization to Transnational Industrial Feudalism, occasionally called Statism, I have decided to enter as “a voice of reason,” even though this will not read as “reason” on the first or even the third reading.
This is not as emotional as you think, the conclusions are both reasonable and rea-soned.
Posted on this blog (www.justplainbill.wordpress.com) is a book list. There have been several good books, including Gasparino’s The Sellout, Jared Diamond’s Collapse, Brion McClanahan’s The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution, and Pauline Maier’s Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787 – 1788, published since the last update.
Y’all’s reference library should also have Edwin Meese III’s, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, ISBN 978-1-59698-001-3, if for no other reason than to see how the original intent of The Founders has been corrupted by the United States Supreme Court, almost since the beginning. Y’all should have it anyway as it is a comprehensive and understandable, at least to those with a 10th grade education, guide to what is NOW the law of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS, ignominiously ignored by congress, and implemented by the executive branch. As conflicted as SCOTUS has made it, Professor Maier’s work, Ratification – noted above, offsets the chaos, for those interested; otherwise, we are back to, understandably, secession, moreover, the 1776 kind of secession, too!
Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian Wars, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, de Tocqueville’s De-mocracy in America, and Freehling’s two works, Nullification, and Secession, (both having disappeared from book shelves during “The Clinton Years”), with Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: a narrative, are still the most important starting places for understanding the back-ground of why The Red States must secede.
This Secession MUST BE before the funded national debt exceeds twenty trillion U.S. dollars, (20T USD or $20,000,000,000,000.00) and the unfunded debt exceeds ninety trillion U.S. dollars (90T USD or $90,000,000,000,000.00). This debt crisis is on a national economy of less than fourteen trillion U.S dollars (14T USD or $14,000,000,000,000.00). I explain this statement later.
This is a debt to asset ratio of worse than 1:6!!!
Dodd-Franks’ asset tests (reserves) and the Basil III tests, used to determine the solvency of banks, would have declared The United States Bankrupt years ago, like Greece, closed it down, and sold off all of its assets and property, at bargain basement prices, probably less than ten cents on the dollar, to cover those debts; which is an absurdity. None-the-less, the standard that these pissant politicians apply to others, they fail to apply to themselves as they garner billions of dollars from the public treasury for themselves and their associates.
A simple glance at the accumulation of money by Nancy Pelosi, Dodd, Franks, the DNC contributor/ owners of Solyndra, and the Reid Family in Nevada, and the methods used, prove this point.
And, because of these things, we are left with Revolution/ Civil War, a Constitutional Convention, economic collapse and bankruptcy with an unemployment rate approaching 50%, delayed social implosion and its resulting anarchy to tyrannical governments, or Secession, my personal option if done before the debt becomes irre-deemable.
Argument:
I
The Preamble to The Constitution of The United States of America is NOT law. It is a statement of purpose. [We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America]. Notice the words emphasized by capitalization, and the sentence structure, notice that the constitution is FOR the United States. Notice that throughout the constitution, the word ‘state’ is capitalized as ‘State,’ thus proving the independence and sovereignty of each State; proving that they are not a subordinate division devised for the purposes of ease of suppression, oppression, and repression.
This is a statement of intent, not law, and not to be construed as law.
The Preamble is one of two looking glasses, through which we should be scrutinizing every activity of the federal government. If any action of the federal government does not further one of these stated interests, it should fail as violating the IXth and Xth Amendments. If those proposing such illegal actions are in federal government, those people should be deemed untrustworthy and unreliable by every citizen, and treated as such.
The second looking glass is that collection of works known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist Papers were those arguments used against the ratification of the original seven articles. The Federalist Papers, predominantly written by Alexander Hamilton, ESQ., with contributions by James Madison, ESQ., and a handful by John Jay, ESQ., later the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is a set of circular and specious reasoning, often used to justify or explain various clauses of the constitution.
Chronologically, and logically, The Federalist Papers should be ignored as having been displaced by The Bill of Rights. The sequence of events are: failure of The Articles of Confederation, the failed Annapolis Convention, the successful Philadelphia Convention, presentation to the states for ratification, argument where initially the press pushed The Federalist Papers and suppressed The Anti-Federalist Papers, the prospect of ratification failure, and then the acceptance of The Bill of Rights as the cost of ratification. The Federalist Papers are arguments for ratification WITHOUT THE TEN AMENDMENTS of The Bill of Rights. Thus, in order to interpret this constitution, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers which must be first looked to for understanding, and The Federalist Papers to be used ONLY when they are either not in conflict with the Anti-Federalist Papers, or where the AFP’s are silent on the subject.
Thus, more than one-half of all constitutional issues decided by The Supreme Court, by The Congress, and by The Executive, have been founded on the false premises of The Federalist Papers. The methods available to correct this are either that congress review ALL of these decisions and over-rule them by legislation, and thereby face a SCOTUS revolt, this revolt based on decisions such as Holy Trinity Church, (included below), and The Federalist Papers themselves, or SCOTUS, on its own Motion review and over-rule these rulings.
The likelihood of SCOTUS emasculating itself are nil and less than nil, especially giv-en Justice Bader-Ginsburg’s recent sexist ramblings and Justice Kagen’s published igno-rance of American History.
During George Washington’s presidency, The Executive frequently declared legisla-tive bills as unconstitutional. The understanding then was that congress would reconsider what President Washington sent them and either re-write or drop the bill. President Washington frequently took the opportunity to place his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, at odds writing responses to congress, then he would pick the one that suited his point of view, and return the bill to congress with the appropriate response. Hamilton frequently trumped Jefferson, thus, the Jobber High Federalist rutted road was ridden, and not the green pathway of the Yeoman-Farmer.
Congress will do nothing to change this, as members of congress are too intimately involved in accumulating personal wealth and power under this system, I will explain elsewhere how this dysfunction functions. The likes of Jackson, Rangel, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, &c., will do nothing to jeopardize their own personal positions, even unto total de-struction of the society around them. There is a book, Throw them All Out, which details the dirty but legal transactions involved; consider the recent rash of convictions for corruption amongst the political aristocracy and their families.
Arguments made to have another constitutional convention or add 27+ amend-ments, the amending process as defined in Article V of the constitution, fail for several reasons. The first is, as noted elsewhere on this blog, that the electoral process has failed utterly. It has been corrupted to a point beyond cure. The election of Al Franken and the corruption in Noxubee County MS are the standard and not the exceptions such that fair representation, unbiased national interest, and altruism would be non-existent at this convention. The second major defense is the same as that made in 1860: the regional interests will suppress the national ones. The cliché, “All politics are local”, is too true to be ignored.
Only through the Red States seceding are all of those bad SCOTUS decisions removed from law.
A consideration of historical context and technology intrudes at this point. When originally ratified, the congress was designated to sit for only a few months out of the year, and, that it sit several months after the polling occurs because of primitive transportation technology. In 1788, there was no electricity and the steam engine, “Fulton’s Folly”, still years away. Bluntly, there was NO SUCH THING AS A LAME DUCK SESSION as we now know it, as congress had recessed and would not return until the Spring. Recess appointments were few and far between, but understandable when congress could be months away from sitting. Only through secession will Lame Ducks and Recess Appointments be eliminated! They are too ingrained into the political corruption of both major parties to be done away with in any other fashion.
With electricity, electronics, jet transportation, I-Phones, I-Glasses, internet access, &c., the reasons for lame duck and recess appointments completely disappear. With seces-sion and a new constitution, polling can take place on the 3rd Saturday of the 1st month of each quarter; certification of the election can take place within 5 working days; and a re-striction on laws and appointments during those 5 days included in the constitution, thereby completely eliminating the egregious, self-serving, irresponsibility of passing an unwanted law or giving the wrong person an appointment, when the next government would not do those things, especially if the issues surrounding those laws and appointments are what the election was about. Think about it: John Marshall and his entire line of High Federalist SCOTUS rulings would not exist if this had been the law in 1800!
Secession cures this disease.
I-a
There are seven Articles to the 17 September 1787 Constitution of The United States of America. Before 1866, “These United States” were what we were. A Union of In-dependent Nations with each State having its own constitution, not answerable beyond those restrictions explicit in the constitution, to a Federal Government, but to its citizens, and thus free to organize and live free, unoppressed, with the right to self-realization uninhibited by those living thousands of miles away.
The Federal Government, according to the IXth and Xth Amendments,(enacted as ten of twelve proposed Amendments, currently known as The Bill of Rights, on Wednes-day, 4 March 1789), was to be a junior partner in the triumvirate of, the federal govern-ment, We The People, and The States. [Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. *** Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.]
The ten sections of Article I of the 1787 Constitution establish, define, and restrict the Congress of These United States of America. They create the bicarmel legislature with the “lower” house as the’ house of commons,’ or of “We The People”, and the “upper” house that of THE STATES; not that of an electoral majority of we the people on an extended appointment of exalted, and aristocratic, position.
The XVIIth Amendment effectively eviscerates Article I §3 [The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years, and each Senator shall have one Vote. … .] and clearly violates both the IXth and Xth Amendments. It reduces State Sovereignty to nil, with ONLY Nullification +/or Secession, as a response to an overbearing or out of control federal government. [Shelby Foote has a decent discussion of this in The Civil War: a narrative both in the ante-bellum section and in the section discussing the aftermath of Antietam.] One only need look to the effects of “The Dream Act” and its complete abandonment of the Southern Border and the Governor of Texas having to call up his state’s militia to attempt to protect his citizenry, their lives and their society and private property & wealth.
The discussion of the effect of reducing the senate to little more than a House of Lords, was on partisan lines, with the typical political result: In the short term, it helped the majority party, in the long term it has afflicted the taxpayer with trillions of dollars of unnecessary, unwanted, and unconstitutional burdens, both social and economic. The very effect of having this House of Lords has been constant gridlock, with, for all of the yammering on the subject, little, if any, compromise in the legislative process. The purpose of the senate as put forth in McClanahan’s book was to act as a brake on the impetuousness of the House of Representatives, AND to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES!
With the senators elected by the general population instead of by the states’ legislatures, the senate no longer represents the States, but is now irrelevant. It reduces to near zero, the political strength of the citizens of the individual states and clumps them into a rural vs urban sewer of issue conflicts, winnable only by that group procreating the most rapidly, and, history shows us, destroying economic efficiency through socialist “safety net” programs, instead of the necessary self-reliance/ self-responsible of the Judeo-Christian Ethos.
This same purpose, protecting the interests of the States, is better served by the process of Nullification. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison saw, and agreed to this, when they wrote and put forth The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Nullification, (there is a post on this blog discussing Nullification more fully), has been used as recently as 2014 by the various states. Three examples are California nullifying federal immigration law by creating sanctuary cities, Colorado nullifying federal illicit drug laws by legalizing the recreational use of Cannabis and the 2010 rejection of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (aka PPACA or “Obamacare”) by the citizens of Missouri (by a margin of 70% – 30%).
Nullification as currently used, is another argument in favor of secession due to Article IV, [§1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And, the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the effects thereof. … .] Nullification is acceptable in California and Colorado, but not Missouri, ever wonder why?
Please note where and under what circumstances nullification is acceptable and not acceptable. In point of fact, legally and morally, SCOTUS should have taken this into account when ruling on various aspects of PPACA. The failure of SCOTUS to perform within the law, in and of itself, should be reason enough for secession. Due to various XVIIIth Century SCOTUS rulings, not only is tenure for life a facet of being a federal judge, but one may be suffering from dementia or extreme alcoholism, yet remain on the bench, AND THAT JUDGE OR JUSTICE’S RULINGS ARE STILL BINDING!
Thus, by their own actions, both SCOTUS and the entire senate have defeated the purpose of the constitution. Secession is the least objectionable response to such irresponsibility, to this assault on personal Faith, private property and personal wealth.
The need for the upper house to be placed, as originally intended by The Founders, back to the citizen-taxpayers of each, and every individual, INDEPENDENT, State, is shown every time a party official prevents national work from being performed. The current institution is nothing more than a millionaires’ club, with its purpose naught more than self-perpetration, and making their bubba’s rich. The “Black Hole” in Boston is an excellent example of this, as is the constant raiding of the Transportation Fund for projects like “light rail”, instead of roads and bridges, which was what the original enabling was for.
Consider further this little tidbit. The money for the Federal Transportation Fund is from a tax on gasoline. The reasoning was that since cars and trucks would be using the roads and bridges, car and truck owners should pay for the bridges and roads. Now, the gasoline tax must be raised so that members of congress can buy construction workers’ votes by spending the money on less effective projects that are more expensive like “light rail”. Interestingly enough, the 9 Aug 14 issue of The Economist, has an article on this very subject.
As to Secession, the Stanford Convention of 1814, where the New England States voted to remain in the Union, provided that The War of 1812 be ended, is only one of several secession conventions. Dr. Freehling’s work is excellent for those who actually want to research the issue. Suffice it to say that, the next secession was when Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party so controlled the federal government that the South was so heavily taxed for “economic improvement,” (canals & railroads, special loans to industry – think Solyndra), and the benefits of all of these taxes given to the Northern states, that South Carolina did hold a convention and start the secession process. Former president John Q. Adams, then a senator from Massachusetts, intervened, and South Carolina did not secede and Jackson’s Tax Law was repealed! Think Obamacare!
Shortly thereafter, the third party candidate, Abraham Lincoln got elected to the executive, and the seven Deep South states seceded. Lincoln, arguably the worst president this country has ever had, [know anybody else who not only caused a civil war costing as much as The War of 1861 did in both lives and wealth; violate the constitution so many ways through executive decree {instituted an unconstitutional raising of an army, fired on States’ militias, took and hanged innocent hostages as a means of controlling citizens in occupied territories, instituted a draft without an act of congress, created an income tax specifically prohibited by the constitution – not made legal in this country until 3 February 1913 with the questionable ratification of the XVIth Amendment, invaded the Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia, piratically boarded British commercial vessels and kidnapping private citizens under the protection of The Crown, and on and on} – BTW, Lincoln freed NO slaves, the XIIIth Amendment did that, and the discussion by his own cabinet as to the constitutionality of his Emancipation Proclamation shows it to be unconstitutional as it is not allowed even within the executive’s war powers, AS IT DEALS WITH THE CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY W/O DUE PROCESS (!!!), AN ISSUE ALREADY DECIDED BY SCOTUS, Scott vs Sanford, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!], in direct violation to the constitution, congress was NOT in session, started to raise a Standing Army and threatened to “cross” Virginia with it in order to put down the legally seceding states.
Virginia and the three border states, then held secession conventions and decided to secede from the union. For the results of Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, I direct your attention back to Mr. Foote’s excellent work. His discussion of how Missouri did not secede yet Lincoln’s general, Frèmont, invaded anyway, treating Missourians as subjugated serfs, the treatment of occupied territories by such union generals as Butcher Butler in New Orleans and the confiscation of private property sold for personal gain, are enlightening, to say the least.
Point being, secession was and is legal. Further proof, is that in 1854, then Repre-sentative from Illinois, that same A. Lincoln, made a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives declaring so, and that he understood the law to be so. And, consider that although called The American Revolution of 1776, it was, in both fact and law, a secession from the Hanoverian Crown!
A last point on Article I, the “just and proper” enabling clause, is always interpreted through the dark glass of the specious Federalist Papers. Since it has been shown that it should be viewed through both The Preamble and The Anti-Federalist Papers, every case that has supported this clause’s use to over-reach and extend federal authority, should be made null and void. Only through secession can all of those laws and SCOTUS decisions be removed.
I – b
Ok, here’s the simple view and clearly why the federal government must be limited to federal issues ONLY!!
A Congressman from Detroit wants special tax privileges for certain constituents. Lady Speaker wants an extension to an Interstate to go over land to which she and her husband have options to buy. They swap votes, each voting for the other’s special situation. The result:
A special section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), based on the section of the constitution stating that the congress should be doing things to help commerce and science, is amended to include that any money lost from the start-up of a Hip-Hop/ Rap Record Label, shall be written off the investor’s Gross An-nual Income at 50:1. Thus, for every dollar lost on said record label start-up, the investor can take off $50.00 of income. The result is a boom of record labels in Detroit, creating proprie-tary jobs for in-laws, family, and friends, an economically mis-direction of economic resources, and an incredibly favorable tax break for those specific investors.
Balancing this congressional support for advancing commerce and science, Madame Speaker, knowing months in advance of the public exactly where the unnecessary Interstate extension will go, exercises her options to buy hundreds of acres of land at $180/acre, and then sells it to The Department of Transportation for $1,800/acre.
Both the Congressman from Detroit and the Congresswoman from San Francisco, have personally, AND LEGALLY, profited from these acts of congress. We, the taxpayers, have lost. We have lost in the one case by being over-charged for the land, and in the other in that those “losses” have reduced the “investors’” tax payments.
Is this simple enough for you?
II
Article II establishes, defines, authorizes, and restricts, The Executive Branch.
In a full-blown argument including Article II, discussion of presidential over-reach, appointing of bubba’s, failure to enforce the law, &c., would be gone into. However, with all of the public discussion, or lack thereof, regarding The Obama Administration and its scandals, its appointments of racists and bigots such as Perez and Holder; scandals such as NSA spying on US citizens, the IRS, Benghazi, Hillary & Kerry, the dropping of the New Black Panther Voting Violation law suit, its failure to enforce the Mississippi Federal Court Decision regarding the Sheriff of Noxubee County, the as yet unexhausted abuse of the military, the continuing exercise of executive authority to change passed legislation without returning to the legislature for a re-write, the “Dream Act” executive order, the deaths of Federal Agents by foreigners, &c. I see no such need. The only way to re-write The Executive and get rid of all of the entrenched civil servants like Lois Lerner, is through secession.
Let us be more clear: Obama has appointed over three dozen ACLU and La Raza attorneys to the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, how impartial will they be, when J. Christian Adams’ book Injustice: the Obama Justice Department, already shows how bad things are in the DoJ. The evidence mounts.
And, as to the whole civil service, the over One Million of Them, what shall be done now? How many of them are Lois Lerners?
Bluntly, if even one is a Lois Lerner, the integrity of the whole system fails. Only se-cession cures the cancer of the Obamacratic Bureaucracy. Or, do you really think that Lois Lerner was (she got to retire with full pension and benefits) the only rotten apple in the bureaucracy, or that only the IRS, NSA, CIA, SSA, HUD, OPM, NLRB, ACE, Medicare, and the VA, are the only really bad federal agencies? Mmm, wait a minute, doesn’t that leave ONLY the Military as honest? And, hasn’t Obama fired so many generals and admirals that the only people appointed to flag positions are those with good records on gender, race, and affirmative action, pretty much leaving combat skills out of the promotion equation? Or, did I miss something in the recent speech by The Commandant of The Marine Corps (Barry, the P is silent!) condemning current Executive Policies?
III
The failure of The Supreme Court of the United States, created by Article III, to follow even the most basic of The Rules of Contract and Statutory Construction, that every person who has completed their first year of law school, not only understands the rule but the WHY the rule exists reasoning, is, in and of itself, reason to secede. The failure to follow the most simple of the rules of law, proves beyond any doubt that The Federal Judiciary is incapable of being impartial, of rendering a constitutionally grounded ruling, or even of acting on the surface in a non-partisan, reasoned judgmental manner.
When PPACA was ruled constitutional as a tax and CJ Roberts declared that the duty of SCOTUS is not to make law, but to interpret law in accordance with the intent of congress, he was correct. That he completely ignored the affirmed and boldly broadcast intent of congress, was NOT correct. Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had declared openly, and had printed in The Congressional Record, the official source and record of congressional intent, that there was not to be a severability clause in PPACA. She said outright that PPACA was an all or nothing bill, and was to be an all or nothing law. When SCOTUS ruled one iota of the law unconstitutional, the will of congress was that then the entire law was to be unconstitutional!
But there is so much more!
The chain of Marshall Cases beginning with Marbury vs Madison, (~1803) all in vio-lation of a clear reading of the constitution, has as its purpose a re-write of the constitution along High Federalist lines, and gives SCOTUS a higher footing than the other two branches, when the original intent was that it be the least of the three branches. The overt end of that line is the following, and it is still law, Shepardize it if you like. It has been “restricted” and “narrowed” but never the less, it is still good law. The covert end of these rulings has not been reached. The gross failure to follow the simplest of the rules of construction, the severability clause, proves SCOTUS is still seeking absolute dominance over government.
Rector, et al, Holy Trinity Church vs United States
143 US 457 (1892)
“(@ 12 SCT 511) It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of (the law) … (@ 12 SCT 512) It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often as-serted, and the Reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator; for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circum-stances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.”
Emphasis added.
It is important to note the historical context of this decision, especially with the court using the illogical reasoning that it expresses above.
In 1892 there was a Federal Labor law that stated that no enterprise could em-ploy a foreigner for any position whatsoever in these United States if there was an American able and willing to do that job.
Holy Trinity Church is the Episcopal Church located at Wall & Church Streets in New York City. It was originally Anglican a.k.a. Church of England (C of E), but, as did most Anglican Churches in 1776, vote to distance itself from The Crown. Holy Trinity Church is where Alexander Hamilton is buried. It is where the power elite of old families of New York City, and the early Federalists, belonged, worshipped, and congregated. It is where the business people attended. Currently, it owns ALL of the land from Wall Street south and collects all of the rents therefrom. As a church, it pays no taxes but supports various politicians and approved charities.
In 1888, Holy Trinity Church decided to employ a new bell ringer. The Elders de-cided to hire a German to do it. They did in fact know that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of New Yorkers ready, willing and able to do the job. They did not care, and they did in fact know that they were breaking the law, at least according to the syllabus.
And, the Supremes decided to keep John Marshall’s usurpation of power alive and well, the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.
Article IV is one of the most egregiously and violently violated articles of the constitution. [§1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Act, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof. §2 The Citizens of each State be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. … . §3 New States … . §4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them from Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.]
(I must pause and catch my breath every time that I proofread this essay when I get to this point. Ah-ha, not better, should probably go get a scotch & water, no ice.)
Just a little bit here, as once you read the very few points that I make, y’all will be putting forth many more of your own, and realize that secession is the least bloody way of getting rid of this.
For decades, the only two places an American could get a divorce were Mexico and the State of Nevada. For Nevada, you went to Reno, rented a room for six weeks to establish CITIZENSHIP through meeting the residency requirements, then filed for a “no fault” divorce and it was routinely granted. Ta-da! The divorce became good worldwide!!!
First problem, as SSA and Medicaid became rights, the residency requirement limit-ing access to State Aid, was dissolved by SCOTUS, as residency requirements somehow infringed on a magically implied constitutional right to mobility. This issue as a national issue is still unresolved.
Second problem, now that California and New York have decided to grant Illegal Aliens driver’s licenses, these new license holders may now travel legally everywhere within the federal jurisdiction, regardless of the rights and laws of the other 48 states. Note also the invasion all along our Southern border and how the feds are not protecting our citizens.
Third problem, these NY & CA driver’s licenses are Legal Acts within the meaning of Article IV. THEY ARE NOW USABLE AS GOVERNMENT ISSUED LICENSES, WHICH MAY BE USED TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN ALL 50 STATES!!! Think that I’m joking? Look at how the ACLU and La Raza have prevented the use of photo ID’s to register to vote and as proof of citizenship at voting precincts. Magically, to denote citizenship or lack thereof on these licenses will, by federal court ruling, be discrimination, thus, all driver’s licenses MUST be the same, and thus, automatic amnesty and FULL citizenship!
Now, consider this, if any State pass a law that CA or NY licenses are not valid forms of identification, do you really think that the NAACP, La Raza, or the ACLU, will sit idly by? What federal court won’t declare such a law unconstitutional simply on a clear reading of Article IV???
Do I really need to go into the problems with PPACA, abortion laws, right to work laws, DMV laws, tax laws, landlord-tenant laws, &c.? Or do you think that you can pick up your local paper, or listen to your local talk radio, and see the problems with how Article IV has been interpreted and abused? Hasn’t Breitbart reported more than a dozen illegal alien crimes this week alone, including child molestation and vehicular manslaughter?
V
I’m going to pass on the rest of the articles, except to point out that Article V is the amending article, and the post on this blog regarding how The XIVth Amendment has never been ratified pretty much covers all of that, and Article VI §1 is about debts made before the constitution was ratified, but that Article VI §2 is the so often abused and intentionally misinterpreted “supremacy” clause. As pointed out earlier, this clause should be viewed through the two glasses of the preamble and the AFP, and has not been. Article VII is that this constitution shall go into effect as between them when nine of the 13 STATES ratify it.
VI
I should probably go into the amendments, there are 27 of them, but there are only a few of immediate concern. We are constantly talking about The 1st Amendment, which deals with various freedoms including that of religion and assembly. One point, it applies to rules and laws made by The Federal Government and was put in to specifically prevent the feds from doing things like the PPACA forcing people to pay taxes that violate their religious beliefs. Keep in mind that Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had State religions into the 1840’s. Those states collected taxes that paid for the salaries of preachers and their estates, so much for the supremacy clause and freedom of religion.
The 2nd Amendment as intended by The Founders gives non-felons the right to bear arms. A quick look at the time and how The Minute Men were formed, organized, supplied, and supported, proves this without any doubt. However, for those of you who do not believe this, elsewhere is a complete essay on the federal law that defines the militia. Simply put, ALL healthy males, except for a very limited set of exemptions – primarily the “essential” personnel groups of federally elected officials and certain bureaucrats- between the ages of 16 and 48 (the ages may have changed as I haven’t looked since I wrote the original essay), are The Militia. Ya, and some women, too, but you need to read the law to see who. AND, each and every member of this militia is supposed to know basic drill/ The Landing Party Manual, a basic knowledge of infantry tactics, basic marksmanship, and to have and maintain a RIFLE! Yupper, Federal Law states this! Under this federal law, who among you are un-convicted felons?
And, a quick aside as to a peculiar point of history and The 2nd Amendment: After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, the hatred between the races, as pointed out by Shelby Foote’s book, caused by The Emancipation Proclamation, caused the creation of the KKK, which went about keeping the former slaves in check, mostly through violence, particularly murder. The National Rifle Association was created to buy arms, GIVE THEM to former slaves, and train them in their use, so that they may protect themselves from such terrorism.
Last point in here, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are the ‘criminal rights’ amendments. Originally designed to protect ALL citizens from the over-reach of the federal judiciary and congress, they have been misinterpreted to protect only criminals. Think about it, only criminals are granted Due Process. PPACA is a tax that the taxpayer cannot individually challenge. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the IRS takes everything away through a mistake. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the DEA breaks into your home when they meant to break in next door. YOU CANNOT challenge the EPA when they declare that all standing water is protected by The Clean Air Act, thus they have authority on your driveway even though that puddle will evaporate. Under The Patriot Act, you cannot challenge a warrantless search. And, the list goes on and on.
Epilogue and Conclusion
There are other things to consider, but with all of the above, where else can you go? National Bankruptcy, Civil War, a perverted Constitutional Convention, Anarchy to Tyranny, or Secession, which one is actually reasonable and workable?
But what benefits derive from secession?
1
The first and most urgent benefit from a Red State Secession is that of immediate and complete control over the National Debt.
The Red States will take 1/3rd of the debt, or a projected $6T, leaving the industry heavy and, if allowed to be, completely energy independent blue states with $12T. No real change is apparent at this point. OH! COME LOOK AND SEE!!! The $83T of UNFUNDED DEBT immediately disappears through operation of Contract Law through rescission and novation!!! Simply put, because the legal entity known as The United States of America dis-appears, except for the total national debt, all contracts and promises made by it also dis-appear. Magic! Harry Potter couldn’t do it better. Don’t believe me? Consider how when someone dies, his estate pays off what debt it can, but once unprotected assets are used up, the rest of the debt is simply written off. Here, the new entities, blue and red, accept their proportionate share of that debt, but, as in death, all of the deceased’s promises are vacated as un-executable.
Thus, there is NO MORE unfunded debt. Magic!
2
Next, as noted many times above, all of the laws and court decisions of The Union are no longer applicable to The Red States. And, because of the secession, The Blue States MUST review ALL of those laws and decisions for current applicability to them! Gosh and Golly, two win-win situations in a row, I wonder if there are any more to be had.
3
The Red States will write a new constitution. One applicable to the Times! One that will include electricity, electronics, medicine, &c. in it. This convention would have over 238 years of U.S. AND WORLD HISTORY to guide it. It could start with The Albany Plan, The Virginia Plan, The New York Plan, The Heartland Plan, and The Rhode Island Plan as well as Hagehot’s British Constitution as initial proposals, and then put together a truly workable federal government that would leave local issue to the locals, and make certain that the new federal government dealt ONLY WITH FEDERAL ISSUES. Hmm, three good reasons in a row.
4
By secession, the economic circumstances of North America would change almost instantly for the better. Yupper, Canada, The Red States, The Blue States, Mexico, Central America, and The Caribbean would instantly become the most dynamic economic machine through the forced renegotiation of all trade agreements. The XL Pipeline would immedi-ately be started, Pass Christian MS, Pascagoula MS, Tampa FL, Vera Cruz MX, Hispaniola, and Cuba, could start building new, environmentally safe, refineries. NAFTA would be re-done to require uniform enforcement. Unemployment should drop to 3% average throughout the entire region while labor force involvement should jump to 69%. Nuclear Fusion plants would be planned and built. A standardized rail system from Point Barrow to Panama City Panama would be built. Stabilization of currency would be immediate.
5+
How much more do you want? Taxation would be rationalized and evened out. Education throughout would be standardized and equalized. Private property and wealth would be protected, which could be done now if only the various governments would im-plement the laws currently on the books.
6+
Borders would be closed and protected. An intelligent and uniform foreign policy would be emplaced.
7+
More? How about true freedom of religion? How about being protected against terrorist attacks, like the Boston Marathon, by terrorists, instead of useless assaults on our persons by an ineffective TSA?
Secession, secession, secession, and secession BEFORE THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES PAST $18t AND THE UNFUNDED $83T
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Know Your Military Colonists
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 0 Comments
“Military Colonist” is a term that has gone out of fashion in this brave new world of “No Human Being is Illegal” and “Every Refugee Deserves to be Resettled.”
But if you are going to take land or seize power, you will need military colonists to hold it. The military colonist may be an ex-soldier, but he’s more likely to be someone the empire, present or future, doesn’t particularly need or have a use for. The Czars used serfs. The present day military colonist who shows up at JFK or LAX may also be a peasant with even less value to his culture.
Mexico’s military colonists are not military. Often they aren’t even Mexican. But they have managed to take back California without firing a shot. Unless you count the occasional drive by shooting.
While the United States sent tens of thousands of soldiers to try and hold Iraq and Afghanistan only to fail; Mexico took California with a small army of underpaid handymen who claim entire cities and send back some 20 billion dollars a year. As conquests go, it’s not hard to see who did more with less.
In 2009, 417 Mexican migrants died trying to reach America, and 317 American soldiers died in Afghanistan. But Mexico has more to show for it than America does. Every Mexican who settles across the border is a net gain who sends back money and spreads political influence. Meanwhile America is spending trillions on a much smaller army in a country whose land no one actually wants.
In 2009, the year Obama approved a 30,000 man troop surge, 3,195 Afghans received permanent legal status in the United States.
In the decade since the US invaded Afghanistan, 24,710 Afghans successfully invaded the United States and received permanent legal status. That is an occupying force larger than US troop numbers were at any point in time in Afghanistan until the very end of the George W. Bush’s second term.
During this same period there were also 19,000 Afghan non-immigrant admissions. As invasions go, the Afghan invasion of America was far more successful than the American invasion of Afghanistan.
That is even more true when you consider birth rates. Military colonists are not a mere invading army. They are generational footholds.
The American birth rate was at 13.5. The Afghan birth rate was at 37.3 at the time. American soldiers go home when their time is up. Sometimes they come home with a Muslim wife after converting to marry her. Afghan immigrants come with a birth rate that is nearly three times that of the country they are invading.
Across the ocean, the Algerian War is still going strong and France is losing badly. There are fewer bombs and bullets. Only men and women showing up and expecting to be taken care of. An army of millions could not have landed in France and begun pillaging the countryside. Not unless they came as immigrants. If you are going to invade a Socialist country, the best way to do it is as a charity case.
Unfortunately that holds true for us as well.
The military colonists flooding our shores are part of an unacknowledged partnership between their political leaders and ours. Their political leaders are fighting a war to redress the wrongs of centuries or millennia. Our political leaders are looking to shift the voting balances in a ward or a district for the next election. When they resettle the next shipment of Afghans in an otherwise conservative area with a view to tilting the electoral balance, they are using them as military colonists for the short term while their homelands use them as military colonists in the long term.
War is about controlling land, resources and populations. Land just sits there. It’s the populations that cause the trouble. The military colonist makes a more enduring occupation possible by settling the land and giving the conquering power a deeper foothold in the enemy territory.
There was a time when American settlers acted as military colonists holding down lands in Florida and Texas. Today America is being colonized by the settlers of other nations and ideologies. And we will find ourselves in the same position as the Spanish did in Florida and the Mexicans did in Texas.
Mexico invited American settlers to move in to Texas on the understanding that they would learn Spanish and otherwise fit in. Instead language and culture proved to be stronger than land and oaths of citizenship. Many of the Texas settlers might not have had much use for the United States at the time, but creed and culture made them American military colonists whether they knew it or not. The same holds true for the present state of affairs there today.
It’s more than just cultural or ethnic differences that make one a military colonist. It’s a cause. Whether it’s Manifest Destiny or the Reconquista or the Caliphate. Underlying it all is that sense of destiny. The power of an exceptionalism that makes it impossible for the settler to sink in and abandon his roots and beliefs to the tidal pull of a new culture when his grudge against it is more than the mere personal dissatisfaction of the new immigrant or his children caught between two worlds.
Integration is hopeless in the face of that sense of destiny. European nations struggling to defend some notion of secular space misunderstand the problem as one of extremism. Some of the more visible terror attacks may indeed be associated with what can be described as extremism in the sense that its participants are willing to push the envelope harder and further in more violent ways.
But Islamic terrorism is only the foam on the surface. It’s the bubbles at the edge of the pot. A minor symptom of a much bigger problem. Ir’s simply the most violent expression of a widely shared belief that Islamic law is superior to Western law. Most peoples feel that their ways and customs are best. It doesn’t become a problem until they become the majority and won’t take no for an answer.
American liberalism and European republicanism have no answers to Islamic terrorism. Their embrace of the Arab Spring was motivated by the need to believe that the Muslim world was ready to “advance” to the same postmodern level of existence eliminating the need to worry about women in Burkas or Al Qaeda. The same misreading of the power of tribe and religion that led to the foolish belief that Saudi Arabia’s military colonists could safely be turned into Labour voters led to the Arab Spring’s equally misplaced confidence that the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to be just like Europe.
It isn’t only a tiny minority of extremists who believe that Islamic values are superior to Western values and who would like the law to recognize that assumption. It’s a tiny minority of extremists who try to prove their devoutness by jumping the gun and killing people over it before the full demographic impact of the military colonists would make a Burka ban into the next Syrian Civil War.
Think of two armies maneuvering into position. The extremist is the one who fires before the enemy is fully in range ruining the strategic effect of the surprise attack. Trying to understand the extremist not only misses the point, it misses the whole chain of events in motion. The schemes for integrating the disgruntled youth and countering violent extremism is symptom control.
Terrorism is an early warning in the clash of civilizations and all our leaders can think to do is hold a meeting with the heads of the opposing army asking them to get their hotheads to stop shooting at us because it’s bringing our civilizations into conflict. Our civilizations are in conflict and have been as far back as they have both existed. The occasional plane hijacker is the first snowflake of a winter storm. Instead of preparing for a storm, we’re trying to figure out how to stop snowflakes.
The conflict is primal. It isn’t about American foreign policy or War X or Country Y or Cause Z. These are all “arguments” that explain the conflict once it’s already under way. It’s simpler than that. It’s about the incompatibility of cultures, religions, political and economic systems. And it’s about countries with a lot of oil and not much else trying to buy their way to an empire by using their own impoverished brethren as cannon fodder. And finally it’s about what happens when birth rates fall.
This unsuistainability is both economic and demographic as budgets and children are both lacking. Meanwhile the countries and cultures that have failed have achieved a perfectly sustainable state of misery. They may not have much income, but they also don’t have much to eat. They may have high infant mortality rates, but they have even higher childbirth rates.
America of 2013 cannot go on being this way indefinitely. It probably can’t even manage another two decades without major changes of some kind. Afghanistan 2013 however can go on being the way it is indefinitely. And that sustainability is what makes its people effective military colonists. Living the Afghan lifestyle in London or Los Angeles is even sustainable because food and housing are free.
That just leaves large packs of nomadic youths roaming the streets, selling drugs and rioting at the slightest provocation until it’s time for them to get married and make more nomadic youths of their own. It’s not that different from Afghanistan. It’s the tribal life transplanted to the West. It’s a culture with no real purpose except to produce young males eager to fight and expand tribal power and a religion with no real purpose except to affirm that as a religious duty.
Islam embodies expansionism. Its directives of male violence and female subjugation have no other end. They protect the tribal imperatives of endogamy and violence, of inbreeding and the feud. It has no ideas except to get bigger and that makes its followers into ideal military colonists.
[I said all of this back in 2007/8, both in the books and on the podcasts. This only possible solution from all of this, is secession, and soon, before all of King Barry’s Dreamers spread their terrorism, and their diseases, throughout the continent.]
A REMINDER IN HISTORY
General VoNguyen Giap.
General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader
of the North Vietnam military. The following quote
is from his memoirs currently found in the
Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi :
‘What we still don’t understand is why you Americans
stopped the bombing of Hanoi . You had us on the
ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
just for another day or two, we were ready
to surrender! It was the same at the
battle of TET. You defeated us!
We knew it, and we thought
you knew it.
But we were elated to notice your media was
helping us. They were causing more disruption in
America than we could in the battlefields. We
were ready to surrender. You had won!’
General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed
what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not
lost in Vietnam — it was lost at home. The
same slippery slope, sponsored by the U.S. media,
is currently underway. It exposes the
enormous power of a Biased Media to
cut out the heart and will of
the American public.
A truism worthy of note: . . . Do not fear the enemy,
for they can take only your life.
Fear the media,
for they will distort your grasp of reality and destroy your honor.
By Bill Hoffmann
Share:
Get Short Link |
Email Article |
Comment |
Contact Us |
Print
| A A
Copy Shortlink
0
inShare
The mainstream media exhibit a disturbing malice for Jews that smacks of anti-Semitism, actor, economist and commentator Ben Stein tells Newsmax TV.
“There’s just a certain amount of Jew hatred in the media, especially in the elite media, that cannot be overcome or explained away,” Stein said Tuesday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”
Urgent: Do You Approve of Obama’s Handling of Foreign Policy? Vote Here
Story continues below video.
Note: Watch Newsmax TV now on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH Ch. 223
Get Newsmax TV on your cable system – Click Here Now
“The media in this country for a very long time has been contemptuous of Jews and contemptuous of Jewish life,” Stein said.
“This was true during the Holocaust, when the media was largely controlled by old, lying, wealthy, white Protestant males, and it’s true now when it’s controlled by mostly left-wingers.”
Stein, a former speechwriter for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and an actor in such films as “Ghostbusters II,” said media defenders try to “pretend it’s not anti-Semitism, it’s really anti-Israel, but it’s really anti-Semitism.”
Just as upsetting is the fact that Jews themselves have key positions in today’s media, he said.
“The media likes to portray Jews as bullies and murderers and . . . it’s kind of amazing to me, because so much of the media is Jewish,” he said.
“Some of that media is very, very good. I mean, I look at people like [The Weekly Standard founder] Bill Kristol, he’s absolutely fabulous. But there’s a deep-seated self-hatred, especially [among] the New York City elite media.
“They want to show they’re not Jewish by being anti-Israel, and it’s not going to work. We know they’re Jewish and we know that they’re not being fair to their own people, but they’ll keep doing it.”
Stein said the media has unfairly slammed Israel for its military strikes against Hamas, which last week fired rockets at key Israeli cities.
“We’re supposed to think there’s something wrong with them for defending their country,” said Stein, who is also a Newsmax contributor.
“Every story about the war in Gaza should begin with ‘Hamas started it, Hamas endlessly refuses to have a ceasefire.’
“Hamas could have an incredibly prosperous and happy, peaceful partnership with Israel, and they don’t, they prefer to fight, they prefer to kill.”
Stein lashed out at Secretary of State John Kerry for his sarcastic off-camera remark about Israel’s military strike against Hamas in Gaza as “a hell of a pinpoint operation.”
“Terrible, shocking, shocking. Kerry is a perfect example of everything we have talked about, because Kerry is Jewish – ethnically,” Stein said.
“Yet he is so eager to push an image as a WASP gentile and to look down his nose on Israel. He is sort of a perfect specimen of the kind of behavior we’re talking about.”
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
So take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.
It’s time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin and the Fourth of July has much more to it than picnics, baseball games, and fireworks.
Lt. Col. Stephen Labate
Stephen’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Lt. Col. Labate is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Allen Weh
Allen’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Col Weh is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Thomas Cotton
Thomas’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Cotton is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States Senate
Col Gary Lambert
Gary’s Primary: 11 weeks 4 days from now
Col Lambert is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Kerry Bentivolio
Kerry’s Primary: 6 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman Bentivolio is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Ron DeSantis
Ron’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman DeSantis is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Captain Joseph Miller
Joseph’s Primary: 8 weeks 4 days from now
Captain Miller is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Michael Grimm
Michael’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Grimm is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Senator Mark Kirk
Mark’s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Senator Kirk is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Duncan Hunter
Duncan’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Hunter is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Michael Coffman
Michael’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Coffman is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Robert Maness
Robert’s Primary: 19 weeks 4 days from now
Col Maness is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States Senate
SSgt David Vogt, III
David’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
SSgt Vogt, III is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Larry Kaifesh
Larry’s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Col Kaifesh is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Joe Heck
Joe’s Primary: 1 week 2 days ago
Congressman Heck is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Paul Cook
Paul’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Cook is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Lt. Col. Sean Seibert
Sean’s Primary: 15 weeks 2 days ago
Lt. Col. Seibert is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Brad Wenstrup
Brad’s Primary: 6 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Wenstrup is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Jeffrey Denham
Jeffrey’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Denham is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Colonel David Smith
David’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Colonel Smith is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Jim Bridenstine
Jim’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Bridenstine is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman John Kline
Congressman John’s Primary: 7 weeks 4 days from now
Kline is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Paul Broun
Paul’s Primary: 3 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman Broun is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Adam Kinzinger
Adam ‘s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Kinzinger is a combat veteran of the US Air National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Chris Gibson
Chris’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Gibson is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col James Engstrand
James’s Primary: 15 weeks 2 days ago
Col Engstrand is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Steve Pearce
Steve’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Pearce is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Scott Perry
Scott’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Perry is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Cdr Ryan Zinke
Ryan’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Cdr Zinke is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Command Master Chief Larry Wilske
Larry’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Command Master Chief Wilske is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Lt. Col. Steve Russell
Steve’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Lt. Col. Russell is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Steve Stivers
Steve’s Primary: 6 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Stivers is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Tim Griffin
Tim’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Griffin is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Senator John McCain
John’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Senator McCain is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States Senate
“That pause before Combat, similar to General Washington on bended knee at Valley Forge”
MISSION STATEMENT
The Combat Veterans For Congress Political Action Committee is dedicated to supporting the election of fiscally conservative Combat Veterans For Congress. We seek Combat Veterans For Congress who believe in limited government, will rein in the out of control spending of Congress, are committed to preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution, and will support the independence and freedom of the individual as outlined in the Bill of Rights. We support Combat Veterans For Congress who are dedicated to promoting The Free Enterprise System creating the greatest economic engine in the history of mankind, provide for a strong national defense, and will endorse the teaching of U.S. history and the Founding Fathers’ core values in educational institutions.
It lacks credibility to believe the Obama administration did not know that prematurely pulling out all US Military personnel from Iraq, before the US Generals in Iraq, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the US Ambassador in Iraq said it was safe to do so, and before the US military were allowed to structure a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Iraq is the only country in US history where the US military had been engaged in a military campaign, where no Status of Forces Agreement was negotiated before all US Military Forces were pulled out of the country. At that time, Iraq was willing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Obama administration, but it was an intentional decision by Obama to leave Iraq without negotiating such an agreement, that agreement would have allowed for leaving a small residual force of 10,000 military personnel to continue to train the Iraqi Army and to booster the confidence of Nouri Al Moakley’s government of Iraq.
Recent events reveal why Obama failed to provide a small US military residual force on the ground in Iraq that a Status of Forces Agreement would have provided for—the quick exit from Iraq was Obama’s first step in allowing Iran to have develop a stronger influence over the internal affairs of Iraq. In the below listed article, it is explained that Obama has just effectively improved Iran’s strong influence in Iraq by encouraging Iran to move its Republican Guard Quid Force into Iraq, while for the last week Obama has refused to strike Al Q’ieda’s concentration of forces and the long lines of exposed convoys with US airpower.
The United States should not work with Iran’s military to defend Iraq under any circumstances—-it would be like allowing the fox into the chicken coop to protect the chickens. The US should support the Iraqi government with supplies, ground air control personnel to coordinate air strikes against Al Q’ieda’s forces, by providing US air strikes to take out the Al Q’ieda convoys, provide Spec Ops Forces to conduct certain classified missions, and should encourage the Al Moakley Shiite government to work with the Sunnis that they were working with, when the US was in Iraq, the Sunnis have since been alienated by Al Moakley. If Iraq is taken over by Al Q’ieda the country would be used as a safe haven for attacks on the US like Afghanistan was used to launch the 9/11 on the US. The military stability of the entire Middle East, and stabilizing the cost of a barrel of oil, depends upon the occupant of the Oval Office, who should finally take specific action to shore up the government of Iraq.
The Republic and its American citizens deserve better leadership from the current occupant of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, Obama was too busy golfing and going to multiple fund raising events in California this weekend, while the most serious crisis facing the Republic since 9/11, was unfolding over the weekend. There are 20,000 Americans in Iraq that must be protected; if Obama doesn’t take action to protect them and protect the interests of the United States in the Middle East, it would be a repeat of his “Dereliction of Duty” witnessed by the US Armed Forces when Obama refused to give the US military “Cross Border Authority” so they could dispatch a rescue force to save the lives of the Americans who were murdered by 125 -150 Al Q’ieda terrorist during the Battle of Benghazi.
Advance of Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard stirs fears of Mideast proxy war
AARON KLEIN
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on Salem Talk Radio.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
TEL AVIV – The deployment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to Iraq came after the Obama administration quietly gave its approval of the Shiite troop movement, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.
The Obama administration pressed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to allow battalions of the Quds Force to aid the Iraqi military in its fight against the Sunni Muslim Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
The Quds Force is special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for international operations.
According to numerous press reports the Iranian forces were dispatched Thursday to fight in Tikrit, which was initially held by the ISIS but was subsequently liberated by the Iraqi army with help from Iran.
The Wall Street Journal reported two Guards’ units were further tasked with protecting Baghdad and the Shiite holy sites in the cities of Karbala and Najaf.
Obama’s actions give clarity to State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki’s statement on June 12 that Iran could play a “constructive” role in Iraq.
“Clearly, we’ve encouraged them in many cases to play a constructive role,” she said. “But I don’t have any other readouts or views from our end to portray here today.”
“The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn’t fall. We need to coordinate with the Iranians and the Turks need to get in the game and get the Sunni Arabs back into the game, form a new government without [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki,” Graham added on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The direct military involvement of Iran, however, could trigger larger regional Shiite-Sunni clashes and may even represent the start of a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Shiite leadership of Tehran.
WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.
The Jordanian regime sources told WND they fear the sectarian violence will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.
ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.
The Jordanian sources explained Obama’s reported initial reluctance to assist in airstrikes in Iraq. The sources claimed striking along the Iraq-Syria border would cut off the supply line to rebels fighting in Syria.
DOD Outlines Authority For Employing Military Force Against American Citizens
Obama, fresh off his Rose Garden triumph to free 5 of the most dangerous “international terrorists” in captivity, announced an effort to re-establish a law-enforcement group to prevent “homegrown terrorism,” according to a report in World Net Daily. The panel apparently will include representatives from the National Security Division of the Justice Department, the US Attorney General’s office, and the FBI. Reuters News Service and The Washington Times reported that the new panel, to be announced this week, will focus on cases “that involve Americans who may be spurred to violence for political or prejudicial reasons.” The Obama administration will employ the US military, DHS, and Special Weapons Para –military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams that were created in non-security related Federal Agencies against unrest by “domestic groups.”
For 5 years, the Obama administration’s has been taking unusual steps to prepare to employ military force against American Citizens, those plans have been issued in a Pentagon Directive and tested in large scale military urban training exercises (reported over the last few years by alarmed citizens and news media throughout the nation). Pentagon’s Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” has provisions in it to use military force against domestic unrest. The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon Web site at:http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf “This appears to be the latest step in theadministration’s decision to be able to use force within the United States against its citizens on Obama’s orders,” said a defense official opposed to the directive. In a recent New York Times articlehttp://nyti.ms/1ptgjkU it was reported that the Pentagon has developed programs to arm police departments in 38 states with grenade launchers, heavily armored mine resistant vehicles, silencers, flash grenades, 5.56 mm & 7.62 mm machine guns, equipment to detect buried mines, M-16 rifles, night vision goggles, etc.
This latest initiative is designed to prevent “homegrown/domestic terrorism” is continuing the very early efforts by the Obama administration to address their concern about domestic opposition to administration various policies. That very early initiative, began in the first weeks of Obama’s White House tenure, when Obama put conservatives in the bull’s-eye in his campaign speeches to supposedly oppose domestic unrest. At that time a newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warned of the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists,” including opponents of abortion. The DHS report was followed days later by a report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center that warned law enforcement officials to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christianity and warned of the threat posed by returning Combat Veterans who were considered a danger to the Obama administration, and initiatives to prevent returning Combat Veterans being treated for PTSD from ever being able to own a firearm, which would be violation of their Second Amendment rights.
The Department of Homeland Security has been building up its armed Federal Police Force at a steady pace for 5 years. DHS has been purchasing many heavily armored vehicles for crowd control, an excessive amount of hollow tipped rounds of ammunition (many more millions of rounds of ammunition than the US Army and the US Marine Corps combined uses annually for training their personnel’s annually).
In the below listed article, in addition to the authority to employ military force against American citizens, concerned defense analysts say there has been a surprising creation and buildup by the Obama administration, of military units within non-security-related Federal Agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams in non-security-related Federal Agencies that have no need for SWAT Teams. Those Federal agencies include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Education Department.
The US Army, the US Army Reserve, the National Guard, and the FBI are fully equipped and qualified to provide security for all those non-security-related agencies in conjunction with local, county, and state law enforcement agencies, if the need arises. The Republican leadership in Congress has been “asleep at the switch” allowing the Obama Administration to create these private armed Para-military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams to receive salaries, to be funded for their tactical training over the last 5 years, allowing them to buy massive amounts of ammunition, bullet proof vests, helmets, and allowed them to be armed with heavy weapons including machineguns & automatic weapons. Does anyone in Congress really think that the Education Department, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, etc. needs to be armed to the teeth with SWAT Teams?
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, that is in controls of the Federal Agency purse strings, should have put a stop to the development of those heavily armed Para-military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams over the past 5 years; some defense officials in Washington have referred to those heavily armed SWAT Teams as the beginnings of a Private Army. Those SWAT Teams should be eliminated by the Republican Leadership of Congress by eliminating the wasteful funding OF the purchase of millions of rounds of ammunition, the SWAT Teams intensive training programs, their bullet proof vests, their purchase of heavy weapons, helmets, SWAT Team uniforms, armored SWAT Team vehicles, and the salaries being paid to those SWAT Teams. Those SWAT Teams appear to have been developed under the direction of Obama’s appointed Czars, without Congressional authority or approval. The below listed article provides additional details.
DOD Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens
sBy Bill Gertz
The Washington Times
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Pentagon’s directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities”
A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counter narcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputation of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
Three of the 36 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, Capt-USMCR (R-CA-50), Lcdr Kirk W. Jorgensen, USCGR/former Capt-USMC (R-CA-52), and Command Master Chief Larry Wilske, USN (Ret) (SEAL) (R-CA-53) are running for election in 2014 in San Diego County. Two of the above listed Combat Veterans For Congress, Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske are in tough primary contests and we respectfully ask you to cast your vote for them on June 3rd. They will bring to Congress their private sector skills and wisdom to better solve problems in government. They will more effectively represent the people of San Diego County, in order to rein in the out of control spending by irresponsible members of Congress. After they are elected, and go to Washington as freshmen Congressmen, they would benefit greatly from the leadership, experience, and guidance of Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, a dedicated American Patriot who has demonstrated his strong support for The Free Enterprise System.
We encourage you to click on the Leadership page of the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC Web site, so you can view combat photos and bios of Congressman Hunter, Lcdr Jorgensen, and CMDCM Wilske; their positions on issues in support of the Republic agree with the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC Mission Statement. We will continue to support and working with Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske after they are elected to Congress, as we have supported Congressman Hunter. The voters are so very fortunate to have two newly endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress of the caliber of Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske running for Congress in San Diego County.
If you have friends, associates, or relatives who know voters in the 50th, 52nd, and 53rd Congressional Districts in San Diego County, kindly pass this E-mail on to them, and ask them to support Congressman Hunter, Lcdr Jorgensen, and CMDCM Wilske by working in their campaigns, providing financial support in any amount to support their campaigns, and/or by networking with others who would support them in their election campaigns.
The military is one of the few remaining institutions producing the caliber of men and women needed to restore this nation to the greatness our Founding Fathers envisioned. We have endorsed three Combat Veteran For Congress in San Diego County that General George Washington would have approved of. They are courageous Combat Veterans who, at one point in their lives, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including their lives.”
In Memory Of Our Fallen Comrades and Loved Ones
It’s that time of year when we publically honor our fallen comrades, then we go back for another year of quiet reflection on our loyal comrades and family members who are no longer with us. We trust that you will enjoy these two uplifting videos on Memorial Day Weekend; the first video is of the US Marine Corps Band with bagpipes, the second video is a bagpipe rendition of Amazing Grace in memory of our fallen comrades.
My thoughts often go back to my Naval Academy classmates like Col John Ripley, USMC, a true American Patriot, and other shipmates who gave their last full measure of devotion, in far off lands, they did so to defend our liberties and freedoms. We will stay true to their selfless service, and will not allow the domestic enemies of our Judeo-Christian heritage to take precious liberties and freedoms from us, freedoms and liberties that our fellow Americans died to preserve for us.
The US Marine Corps Band marching towards the ALAMEDA COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS in PLEASANTON for the annual CALEDONIAN GAMES BAG PIPE regatta.
The second bagpipe rendition can be watched by clicking on the below listed link.
Cong Tom Cotton, Cpt-USA, Esq. on the House Floor Speaking About The Battle Benghazi Cover Up
By clicking on the below listed link, you can view another endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Thomas B. Cotton, Cpt-USA, Esq. (R-AR-4) speak to his House colleagues from the well of the House floor about The Battle of Benghazi cover up. Congressman Cotton was right on the money; he is running for the US Senate in Arkansas.
You can view Congressman Cotton’s photo in combat gear, and read his bio on the Endorsement page our Web site. We encourage yolu to contact all of your contacts in Arkansas to support Congressman Cotton election to the US Senate. Congressman Cotton repeatedly put his life on the line in Iraq to defend the “Liberties and Freedoms” we all enjoy.
Why Should You Support Conservative Combat Veterans For Congress
“Just 86 of 435 members of the House are Veterans, as are only 17 of 100 senators. This is the lowest percentage of Veterans in Congress since World War II. It’s no coincidence that this same period has seen the gradual collapse of our ability to govern ourselves, a loss of control of the national debt, and a disabling partisanship. Because so few serving in politics have worn their country’s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a “cause greater than self”, and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country. Without a history of sacrifice and service, they’ve turned politics into war.”
Please click on the below listed link to see what Obama has promised in his ”Fundamental Change” for the America you once knew, followed by what President Ronald W. Reagan has to say to you today about a vision of the big government, deficits, and out of control spending.
To preserve the freedoms in the Republic, the American legal residents of this country, need to go to the polls in large numbers to elect more Conservative Combat Veterans For Congress. All American citizens who want to right the Ship of State should support the campaigns of the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress to rein in the out of control spending by the irresponsible members of Congress and they will stay true to their sworn oath as members of the US Armed Forces to protect and defend the US Constitution.
Obama’s foreign-policy ‘flexibility’ seen as weakness
The below listed Op-Ed was written by Admiral James A. Lyons, USN (Ret), the former Commander-In-Chief of the Pacific Fleet; he discussed the unilateral disarmament of the US Armed Forces by the occupant of the Oval Office, while Russia, China, Iran, and Al Q’ieda are building up their military strength.
Admiral Lyons discusses how the Obama administration’s 5 year foreign policy retreat resulted in Russia’s aggression in Crimea and Ukraine, China’s aggression opposing Japan ownership of the Senkaku Islands, Iran’s aggression against Israel & its development of nuclear weapons because Obama unilaterally lifted sanctions, Assad’s aggression against Syrian freedom fighters & his use of chemical agents again this past week against Syrian freedom fighters, and Egypt’s shift from its close relationship with the US to the establishment of a new military alliance with Russia.
Obama halted 30 years of longstanding military aid to Egypt, when the pro US Military Junta ousted Moslem Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi was deposed because his supporters were rioting & killing Christians throughout Egypt, and because Egyptian State Security documented for US Intelligence Agency in 2012 that Mohamed Morsi was a co-conspirator in the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi, that resulted in the death of 4 Americans (the Obama administration has withheld the fact the Morsi was a co-conspirator in the attack on the US Mission from the American people for 20 months).
As soon as Obama halted longstanding military aid to the new pro-US military Junta, Putin executed a long term military alliance with Egypt. Russia is now providing Egypt with $2 billion in military aide consisting of MIG 29M/M2 Fulcrum jet fighters, MI-35 helicopters, air defense missiles, coastal anti-ship defensive complexes, light weapons, and supporting ammunition. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are paying Russia for that on-going military aid to Egypt, displacing America’s strongest Arab military ally in the Middle East.
The Black Flag of Al Q’ieda is now flying over territories it has been acquiring in its massive expansion over the last 5 years in Eastern Libya, in Fallujah in Iraq, in large areas of Yemen, in southern Somalia, in areas of Afghanistan, in the tribal region of Pakistan, and Al Q’ieda has been involved in the cocaine trade with FARC terrorists from Columbia, working in the Tri Border area of Argentine/Brazil/Paraguay based in the city of Ciudad del Este. Obama replaced Spec Ops boots on the ground that used to attack and capture Al Q’ieda terrorists for interrogation, with drone strikes from afar that has done nothing to stem the out of control worldwide expansion of Al Q’ieda over the last 5 years. Whenever an Al Q’ieda leader that is taken out by a drone strike, he is simply replaced by another Al Q’ieda leader.
History has taught mankind over the last 2000 years that, “Weakness Encourages Aggression”; President Ronald Reagan understood that well known fact and followed a different course, “Peace Thru Strength.” The current occupant of the Oval Office still doesn’t understand the “Weakness Encourages Aggression” and for the past 5 years he has been intentionally disarming the US Armed Forces and systematically dismantling many of America’s military alliances.
LYONS: Obama’s foreign-policy ‘flexibility’ seen as weakness
U.S. adversaries are watching the timid response in Ukraine
By James A. Lyons
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The administration Kabuki dance we’re witnessing featuring U.S. refusal to provide nonlethal support equipment for Ukraine is President Obama displaying the new “flexibility” he promised Vladimir Putin he would have after his re-election. In short, it is capitulation.
The administration is trying to make the case that by showing restraint, Mr. Obama will encourage Mr. Putin, the Russian president, to be more willing to negotiate. The mind boggles. What’s taking place in Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies in both Europe and the Far East.
The apparent lack of support from NATO’s political leadershiphttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty is clearly tied to its dependence on Russia for more than 30 percent of their energy requirements. This compromised position was accepted based on the assumption that European security after the Cold War could be guaranteed (with reduced defense budgets) by engaging Russia, not confronting it.
This now appears to be a costly error, since it has been known for some time that NATO’s engagement policies have not required Russia’s reciprocity. However, one positive outcome of the current crisis should be an unmistakable wake-up call for NATO, as its credibility is clearly being challenged.
The administration’s rationale for not providing nonlethal equipment, such as night-vision devices, body armor,medical kits, uniforms, boots and military socks to the “victim” is that it could be perceived by Russia as “destabilizing” and as a “force-multiplier,” and, therefore, too provocative. This is nonsense. Russia has deployed 40,000 fully equipped, modernized troops backed up by tanks, aircraft and helicopters, plus paid KGB goon squads that are creating havoc in Eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Obama responds by debating whether to provide what amounts to humanitarian aid because he doesn’t want to encourage Ukraine’s leadership to take more aggressive action to protect its sovereignty. With this type of convoluted thinking, we’d better hope that this administration and its national security team never gets us into a war that requires real leadership.
What is behind such thinking? Is Mr. Obama concerned that Mr. Putin will somehow scuttle his precious P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Great Britain and France — plus Germany) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program? We can only hope that Mr. Putin would take such an action, as those negotiations are nothing but a sham. According to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in about two weeks, once the order is given.
Symptomatic of the Ukraine crisis, no matter where you look, the United States is seen as being in retreat. The stability that America brought to the global strategic equation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama administration, principally by the unilateral disarmament of our military forces.
The Ukraine situation is far from being resolved. China is flexing its military muscle in the Far East. The Middle East remains in chaos. Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability is almost a certainty. With the unpredictability of North Korea, why would the Obama administration at this time make the shocking announcement of deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of the 2010 New START treaty schedule?
Our most secure deterrent, our strategic ballistic-missile submarines, will be reduced by 28 percent by having the capability of 56 launch strikes disabled. Thirty B-52 strategic bombers will be converted to conventional use, which represents a 38 percent reduction in capability, and 50 missiles will be removed from our underground silos, which is the most vulnerable leg of the triad.
With every nuclear power in the world modernizing its strategic forces, particularly Russia and China, plus the known fact that Russia has been cheating on existing treaties, making such a dramatic force-reduction announcement now is more than troubling.
The Obama administration is taking the United States down a course that will put us in an absolute nuclear inferiority position with regard to Russia and perhaps China. It is jeopardizing our national security.
With the United States’ strategic policy adrift, Mr. Putin is controlling events in the Ukraine. With basically no opposition, he will certainly seek more opportunities. In the Far East, we can anticipate that China, seeing our basic inability to respond to the Ukraine crisis, will seize the opportunity to absorb some low-hanging fruit in the South China Sea, most likely contested Philippine islands.
What will it take to make Congress exercise its constitutional responsibilities and maintain its legitimacy by acting in the best interest of the United States? We are being challenged, and we cannot afford to continue to embrace a fantasy foreign policy.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Kit Daniels: Sen. Harry Reid Was Behind BLM Land Grab of The Bundy Ranch
The below listed article with the links will enlighten you about how a corrupt Senator Reid was behind the land grab of the Bundy Ranch. It turns out that Neil Kornze who was raised in Elko, Nevada, and was a former senior advisor on Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid’s staff, joined the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2011 and had been leading the agency as the Principal Deputy Director; he was subsequently formally appointed Director of the Bureau of Land Management, by a US Senate vote of 71 to 28. The BLM overseas more than 245 million acres of public lands nationwide, including 48 million acres in Nevada. So why did Senator Reid’s aide who owed his appointment to his old boss go after Cliven Bundy’s cattle ranch that had been in the Bundy family since 1870?
It turns out that in 2012, Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid who is lawyer with the prominent Harvey Whittemore law firm in Las Vegas, became the chief representative for a Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group. Journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters reported that Senator Reid was heavily involved in a “DEAL,” as well as his oldest son Rory Reid who works for Harvey Whittemore. Rory and his father were both involved in an effort to get the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion utility scale solar energy facility and panel manufacturing plant in the Nevada desert (instead of helping a US energy company benefit from such a development, Harry Reid imported Communists to do own land in Nevada and develop a utility scale solar energy plant). Marcus Stern wrote that that Senator Reid has been the most prominent advocate of recruiting the Communist Chinese Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group on his trip to Communist China in 2011; it was the same time frame when Senator Reid placed his senior senate advisor, Neil Kornze, in the BLM as the Principal Deputy Director. Marcus Stern reported that Harry Reid applied his political muscle on behalf of developing the Chinese Communist project in Nevada. Then in 2012, Rory Reid facilitated the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group in developing plans to build the $5 billion solar plant on public land in Nevada by helping the ENN Energy Group locate a 9000 acre desert site that it planned to buy well below the going market value of land sold by Clark County; you see Rory Reid was formerly Chairman of the Clark County Commission and facilitated the deal.
Unfortunately the problem with the area was that the 908 head of cattle in the herd on 67 year old Cliven Bundy’s family Bundy Ranch roamed and grazed free as they had been doing since the 1870, their grazing on open range would interfere with the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group’s solar field. So Rory Reid, working with Neil Kornze, trumped up the bogus charge that the grazing cattle were destroying an endangered species, the desert tortoise. The desert tortoise were proliferating (they were not in danger), despite the fact that the cattle from the Bundy Ranch had been grazing in their habitant for over 140 years, in fact the Interior Department had implemented euthanasia of the desert tortoise to keep the population from getting out of control. The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy Ranch and family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise which the Interior Department had been killing in mass for some time. Journalist Dana Loesch wrote “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when US Senator Harry Reid worked with the BLM and his former senior aide, Neil Kornze, who was now in charge of the BLM when they were literally changing the boundaries of the tortoise habitat to accommodate the development plans of the Communist Chinese Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group and the second most powerful man in Nevada, after Senator Reid, Harvey Whittemore,” who just happened to be the employer for Rory Reid’s and Rory’s three brothers (Harry Reid’s four sons).
Unfortunately the left of center liberal media establishment spun the story so Americans would view Cliven Bundy as grossly violating federal regulations and a law breaker, not the true story of how a corrupt Harry Reid was facilitating a Communist Chinese Energy Giant to come into the United States, displacing any possibility of a US Energy Company from getting to develop solar energy in Nevada, and arranged for the Communists to get ownership of US public land in Nevada below the going market price, while using Gestapo-style tactics to illegally remove a Patriotic Cattle Rancher off the land his family owned since the 1870s in violation of the rights accorded him by the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment, and the Bill of Rights. It should have been a story about the overreach by another bloated, corrupt, and out of control bureaucracy that was doing absolutely nothing to manage the overgrowth on public land that they were supposed to be doing, while in fact, the cattle from the Bundy Ranch were feeding on the overgrowth keeping the overgrowth under control. The principle and courageous stand by Cliven Bundy in the face of an oppressive BLM and the prosecution by Holder’s Justice Department, while fining him $1 million, illegally rustling 400 cattle of his herd, surrounding his family with snipers, knocking down his pregnant daughter-in-law, grinding Clive’s head into the dirt with boots on his head, arresting his son for taking photos of the Gestapo-type tactics, and tazing his son three times, etc. Cliven Bundy’s principled stand was a Seminole event, Patriotic Americans from all over the Republic mobilized, rode to the aide of the rancher with American flags flying, and supported the Bundy Ranch against an out of control government bureaucracy. When Neil Kornze realized the magnitude of the opposition he and Reid engendered from throughout the Republic, resulting in over 3000+ armed Americans who had arrived on the Bundy Ranch (with thousands more enroute), in opposition to his 200 federal armed guards, Kornze released the 400 rustled cattle he intended to sell, and pulled his 200 federal armed guards back from the brink of an armed conflict with very angry American citizens from throughout the Republic, who now had their own snipers in place at the ranch aimed at the 200 federal armed guards. This attempt at grand larceny by the BLM, and violation of Cliven Bundy’s freedoms all Americans are accorded by the US Constitution requires a Congressional investigation and actions in the courts to charge the BLM. We wonder if the Republican leadership in Congress will do anything about this attempt by an agency of the US Government to support a group in Nevada commit grand larceny on behalf of the Chinese Communists Energy Giant, or will they just let it ride, and hope it goes away?
We ask you to encourage those in your address book to support our effort to protect and defend the US Constitution, we try to do this by bringing violations of our freedoms by an out of control and corrupt administration to the attention of Patriotic Americans, by campaigning to elect newly endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, and by campaigning to re-elect the endorsed and previously elected Combat Veterans For Congress. We plan to endorse over 50+ Combat Veterans For Congress to run for Congress before the November election. We are currently considering the endorsement of a slate of 28 additional Combat Veterans in 16 states to run for Congress in 2014. This November election will be the most important election in 238 years, and may be the last chance to save the Republic from Obama’s intent to “CHANGE” the Free Enterprise System, that created the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind, into a Socialist state—Socialism has never worked in any country it has ever been tried in over the last 100 years.
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm
Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014
The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese Communist gov’t to take land from hard-working Americans.
Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”
“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.
Obama Administration Released 68,000 Illegal Criminal Immigrants
Obama administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been recruiting and appointing many pro-amnesty lawyers in key management positions throughout DHS. The goal of the Obama administration in placing those pro-amnesty lawyers throughout DHS was to dismantle the deporting infrastructure it took 12 years for the US government to create. Those pro-amnesty lawyers have been preventing ICE Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and CBP Inspectors from enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold. Those pro-amnesty attorneys have instructed ICE Agents to “walk away” from hundreds of thousands of cases that should be prosecuted. They eventually directed ICE Agents to release 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” into the general public, thus completing the corruption of that once proud Federal Law Enforcement Agency. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” were not in jail because of driving infractions—-they were felons who had been tried and convicted in Federal and Superior Courts because of serious criminal infractions, or had been convicted of very serious misdemeanors. Traffic violations like driving under the influence of alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward ICE’s description of “Criminal Illegal Immigrant.”
The 68,000 serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” released by the Obama administration will pick up where they left off, and continue with their very serious crime sprees, committing murders, rapes, burglaries, car theft, drug dealing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robberies, attacking law enforcement officers, and much more that they were previously arrested and convicted for. The pro-amnesty attorneys at DHS could have deported the 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” to Mexico, but opted instead to release those dangerous convicted criminals into the general public. American citizens who are concerned about the safety of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, sisters, wives, mothers, grandparents, small businesses, etc. will have to be on high alert to protect them from this new and very dangerous threat foisted upon them by the Obama administration. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” releases occurred without the required formal notification of local Law Enforcement Agencies (law enforcement has a need to know whenever dangerous felons are released prematurely, so they can alert police officers of the perceived spike in criminal activity in their jurisdictions), and those dangerous felons were released without notifying the victims of those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” who will be in fear of their lives because they testified against those felons in court, in order to get them convicted. The political appointees at DHS simply unlocked the jail house doors and let 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” walk free. Those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” will now prey on American citizens, and will seriously complicate the task of law enforcement officers in their attempt to protect law abiding American citizens.
That unlawful release of those serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and the complete corruption of DHS by Obama’s appointees into key management positions, is further proof that Obama continues to violate the US Constitution with impunity, as well as violate Federal Immigration Laws of the United States. In an interview on WBEZ-FM in Chicago on September 6, 2001, Obama said “The US Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” and said “the US Constitution has deep flaws, and the Founding Fathers had an enormous blind spot when they wrote it.” He also implied in that interview that the US Constitution was outdated, because he said, “it only reflects the time period of the Colonials and our Founding Fathers.” Obama raised his right hand twice sworn on a bible to uphold the US Constitution when he was inaugurated in 2008 and 2012; he swore “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”—–we know by his actions over the past 5 years, that his two sworn pledges were two more lies to add to, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and “If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.” and “Your healthcare premiums will be lowered by $2500.” and “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign it.” and “I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups before the 2012 election.” and “I knew nothing about the “Fast and Furious” gun running operation to Mexican drug cartels.” and “I will have the most transparent administration in history.” and “I will restore trust in government.” and ”In a speech at the UN 2 weeks after he knew 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Al Q’ieda terrorists, Obama told the entire world; “The attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was the outgrowth of a demonstration against a U-Tube video that went bad.” American citizens are now used to witnessing one lie after another by the occupant of the Oval Office, yet the left of center liberal media establishment continues to cover up the lies emanating from the Oval Office.
You will be able to read the details of the illegal release of the “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” in the below listed news article. We have information that although 870,000 Illegal Immigrants have been ordered to be deported from the United States, following their conviction in trials in US Federal Immigration Courts, that the pro-amnesty attorneys in key management positions at DHS have ignored those court orders, and those 870,000 Illegal Immigrants remain in the United States; ICE has been told to leave them alone, to “walk away” and “not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.” Over 40 million unemployed Americans citizens are searching for employment in the 5th year of the worst economic recovery in 70 years, yet their search for employment continues to be undercut by nearly 20 million Illegal Immigrants being paid very low wages under the table with no taxes deducted from their cash payments by US employers. There were over 11 million Illegal Immigrants in the United State when I was recruited as an Armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in the newly established Department of Homeland Security in 2002—DHS knows that over 800,000 Illegal Immigrants continue to enter the United States thru the wide open borders each year, and for the 12 years since 2002 approximately 9.6 million Illegal Immigrants have come across the wide open borders (you might find it interesting to learn that a DHS official testified that US authorities are not “routinely” notified when foreign sex offenders enter the United States.). So the 11 million Illegal Immigrants figure that the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment has kept referring to for 12 years, is more accurately 20 million Illegal Immigrants, not the 11 million figure that were illegally in the US in 2002. It is interesting to note that US military personnel are employed to secure the borders of South Korea, Afghanistan, and the Sinai, and are not employed by the US Congress or the occupant of the Oval Office to secure US borders.
The American people are wondering, whether the Republican leadership of the House and Senate, intends to do anything about the violation of Federal Law by Obama’s civilian appointees at DHS in the unlawful release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” many of whom are violent criminals The Speaker has control of the purse strings and funds DHS; he could have put pressure on DHS’s by threatening to only approve very low salaries for the pro-amnesty lawyers who are aggressively corrupting enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at DHS. The current Republican leadership could have done something to stop the release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and could insist that the DHS deport 870,000 Illegal Immigrants who were ordered deported by US Federal Immigration Courts. It was always the primary responsibility of every one of the previous 43 US Presidents to enforce all Federal Laws passed by Congress, to protect and defend the US Constitution, to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, and to ensure that American citizens were protected from the threats of foreign convicted felons who had been preying on them. The current occupant of the Oval Office, by his actions over the last 5 years, has been intentionally shredding the “Rule of Law” and preventing Federal Law Enforcement Officers from “ enforcing the “Federal Laws” of the Republic that the 43 previous US Presidents upheld in the execution of their office.
SSA Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) provided the below listed information from Senator Jeff Sessions, and highlights how Obama continues to “shreds the Immigration Laws” that he swore to uphold, and cites examples of how Obama “refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a critical alert about the status of immigration enforcement in the United States. In it, he writes, “DHS has blocked the enforcement of Immigration Law for the overwhelming majority of violations – and is planning to widen that amnesty even further.”
Put another way,
“At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”
Senator Sessions’ alert continues:
“Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”
What we have is an Administration that is creating a de facto amnesty and encouraging more Illegal Immigrants to illegally enter the United States, granting employment authorization to “DREAMERS” and other illegal aliens, all the while American workers continue to struggle to find employment.
SSA Michael Cutler’s most recent commentary for California for Population Stabilization (CAPS) addresses the serious damage being done to America, and Americas by the ongoing expansion of the use of what the Obama administration claims is “prosecutorial discretion” but which, in reality amounts to “Gross Dereliction of Duty.”
REPORT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RELEASED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS INTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security caught then released 68,000 illegal aliens who had previously been convicted of a crime, a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows.
The report, provided to Breitbart News ahead of its late Sunday evening release, reviews internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) metrics to conclude that the Obama administration released 35 percent—or 68,000—convicted criminal aliens back into the U.S. general population when they could have been deported. “The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims,” CIS’s Jessica Vaughan, the report’s author, added.
By “criminal,” ICE means people who have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that is not a traffic violation. For instance, traffic violations like Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward this description of “criminal alien.” As for the definition of “alien,” ICE mostly means illegal aliens, though some are legal aliens when they are considered deportable legal aliens—which is possible for legal immigrants who have committed a serious crime, like a felony.
The documents also show ICE only deported a small fraction of the aliens they encountered overall.
“In 2013, ICE targeted only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered,” CIS’s Vaughan wrote. “Most of these aliens came to ICE’s attention after incarceration for a local arrest.”
This report comes out on the heels of a report from the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) last week which found that only .08 percent of the aliens deported in 2013 were not serial immigration law violators or convicted of serious crimes.
In response to these findings from CIS that follow up on his office’s report last week, Sessions said immigration law in America has essentially ceased to exist.
“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed,” Sessions said. “Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis. Secretary [Jeh] Johnson must reject the President’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law – not break it. As Homeland Secretary, Mr. Johnson is tasked with ensuring the public safety and the rule of law. But Secretary Johnson is not meeting these duties.”
The CIS report also contains a breakdown per city of percentages of criminal aliens who were released back into the population. San Antonio’s 79 percent is the highest, where ICE encountered 36,228 criminal aliens and released 28,680 back into the general population in 2013. New York City’s 71 percent is next, where ICE agents encountered 7,571 criminal aliens and released 5,391 of them. Washington, D.C. follows that, with ICE agents encountering 8,688 criminal aliens and releasing 64 percent, or 5,558, of them into the public. Other cities with high percentages include Salt Lake City, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Newark, and Buffalo. Notably, many of these cities are not in border states, which means visa overstays and illegal aliens who crossed the border but migrated further inward are as much a problem as the actual U.S.-Mexico border in terms of stopping the flow and enforcing the law.
“These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration’s pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration’s abuse of ‘prosecutorial discretion,’” CIS’s Vaughan wrote. “Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of “prosecutorial discretion” policies in 2011. Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president’s policies.”
Sessions echoed Vaughan’s concerns, saying the lack of enforcement for immigration laws further hurts the ability of American citizens to obtain employment.
“American citizens have a legal and moral right to the protections our immigration laws afford – at the border, the interior and the workplace,” Sessions said. “The administration has stripped these protections and adopted a government policy that encourages new arrivals to enter illegally or overstay visas by advertising immunity from future enforcement. Comments from top Administration officials, such as Attorney General Holder’s claim that amnesty is a civil right, or Vice President Biden’s claim that those here illegally are all US citizens (apparently including someone whose visa expired yesterday), demonstrate the administration’s increasing belief in an open borders policy the American public has always rejected.”
Obama Caught Secretly Giving “Free” US Army and US Marine Corps Equipment to Putin While He Was Invading Crimea and It Continues Now
Another endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman James Bridenstine, Lcdr-USNAR (R-OK-1) uncovered another Obama secret scandal, the deal that was entered into behind closed doors by Obama with Putin, and was approved by Obama to give Russia “Free of Charge” crucial, mid-grade sensitive US military technology, used by US Special Operations Forces to get ready for combat operations.
The National Nuclear Security Agency has been providing Multiple Intergrade Laser Engagement Systems (MILES) to Russia; the transfer has been facilitated by Obama’s democratic Secretary of Energy Ernest Moritz he is overseeing this treasonous act and illegal transfer of crucial, mid-grad, sensitive US military technology to Putin while he was invading Crimea and poised to invade Ukraine. Moritz is continuing the transfer in the midst of Putin the mobilization of 150,000 Russian troops on the border of Ukraine.
Every American should be informed of this illegal act by the Obama administration, should read the below listed article, and should click on the three links to see how the Democrats in Congress have been betraying the American people. The Democrats in the Senate and House under Reid, Pelosi and the leadership of Obama have by their actions been degrading the “Combat Effectiveness” the US Armed Forces. They have been caught “RED HANDED” secretly giving US Army and US Marine Corps US military sensitive technology to Putin, instead of giving it to the National Guard, the US Marine Corps Reserve, and the US Army Reserve who desperately need that that type of equipment to prepare their personnel for combat operations.
The question every American should be asking is why didn’t Speaker Boehner halt the “illegal” transfer of crucial, mid-grade technology US military sensitive technology, to Russia “Free Of Charge” and allowed it to inserted in the House Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal 2015 budgets. Why did it require the investigation of an endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Bridenstine to discover the traitorous and illegal transfer of US military sensitive technology to Russia “Free of Charge”? Will the Speaker “IMMDIATELY” stop this illegal transfer of US military sensitive technology to Russia, or will he do what he has been doing about the Benghazi investigation for 18 months, nothing, frustrating 186 Congressmen who keep asking Boehner to appoint a Select House Investigative Committee on The Battle of Benghazi, so they can finally have subpoena powers that the 5 House investigations on Benghazi do not have. To cover up what happened in The Battle of Benghazi, the Obama administration has classified information on Benghazi that should never been classified and has prevented 32 US personnel who were on the ground during The Battle of Benghazi from testifying—-the only way to get around that is for the House to have subpoena powers which Boehner has prevented 186 Congressmen from doing for 18 month.
Mr Speaker, 26 million Veterans in the United States, millions of patriotic American citizens, all the members of the US Armed Forces, Republican in the nation, Independent in the nation, Tea Party Patriot in the nation, and many Blue Dog Democrats are waiting for you to “do something”. Please don’t go before the cameras again, and make another indignant speech—we’ve had enough of your indignant speeches for the last 3 years, which are followed by your lack of action. Your lackadaisical attention to your duties allowed US Military’s sensitive crucial mid-grade technology to be transferred “Free of Charge ” to Russia, you also allowed the democrats to cut military benefits to poorly paid enlisted military personnel, to eliminate military commissaries, to reduce the US navy below its strength at the beginning of WWI, reduce the US Army below its strength at the beginning of WWII, eliminate entire categories of US Air Force Combat aircraft, allowed Obama to kill the cornerstone of US Naval Power–The Tomahawk & Hellfire Missile Programs, are in fact allowing the democrats to dismantle the US Armed Forces. Will you ever “do something”——you do control the purse string and have massive powers of control given to you by the framers of the US Constitution?
U.S. GIVES RUSSIA FREE MILITARY EQUIPMENT USED BY ARMY, MARINES
Posted on March 28, 2014 by Patriots Billboard
WHY ISN’T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT THIS? WHY ARE WE HELPING RUSSIA AND SUPPLYING THEM WITH MILITARY TECHNOLOGY THEY DIDN’T HAVE UNTIL WE GAVE IT TO THEM. IT’S NOT JUST SNOWDEN GIVING AWAY OUR MILITARY TECH; OBAMA HAS ALLOWED CHINA AND RUSSIA MORE OF OUR SECRETS THAN ALL OF THEIR SPY’S COULD POSSIBLY STEAL.
3-28-14 Behind closed doors the U.S. government is giving Russia free military equipment—also used to train American troops—even after President Obama announced punitive sanctions against Moscow and, more importantly, a suspension in military engagement over the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.
The secret operation was exposed this week by members of Congress that discovered it in the process of reviewing the Fiscal Year 2014 budget and the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. It turns out that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been providing the Russian Federation with the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), the federal legislators say. The U.S. military uses MILES for tactical force-on-force training because it has a system of lasers and dummy ammunition to simulate ground combat.
It’s a crucial, military-grade technology that’s similar to a “laser tag” available in some commercial markets, according to one of the outraged lawmakers (Oklahoma Republican Jim Bridenstine) that helped uncover the scandal. Bridenstine, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has joined forces with Ohio Republican Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, to demand an end to the program. Along with about a dozen other House colleagues they penned a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who oversees the agency carrying out the “irresponsible military equipment transfers” to Russia.
The Obama administration’s planned supply to the Russian Federation is a grave mistake given the recent invasion of Ukraine launched by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, the legislators point out. “It is difficult to imagine a worse time to provide military-grade technology employed by the U.S. Marine Corps, Army, and Special Operations Forces to Russia than when it has illegally invaded Ukraine and is violating the intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty,” the letter to Moniz says. “To make matters worse, it is our understanding from the budget documents that the Department has been, and continues to propose, providing this technology to Russia free-of-charge.”
This is preposterous and borders on criminal if you really think about it. As if we need reminding, Congressman Turner recants Putin’s “brazen disregard for the sovereignty and stability of Eastern Europe” as well as his disregard for international law. “Despite this overwhelming evidence that Putin is not our ally, it is astonishing that the Obama Administration would still provide superior, U.S. military technology to an aggressive and advancing Russia,” Turner said. “The United States must seriously redirect its approach and immediately terminate all military aid to Russia.”
President Obama has already proven to be an international joke for his response to the worsening crisis in Ukraine. Even the mainstream media in this country has blasted the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy as based on fantasy. One famously liberal magazine published a satirical article saying that the Obama administration froze Putin’s Netflix account as a “major ramping up of sanctions.” In a piecepublished a few days ago, a former veteran congressman wrote this: “The embarrassment of U.S. impotence in dealing with Russian aggression in the Ukraine is only the beginning of what will likely be a series of foreign policy disasters.”
PLEASE SHARE THIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
…
next ›
last »
Neither military information, military branch logos, nor photographs imply endorsement of the Combat Veterans For Congress by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Departments
PAID FOR BY COMBAT VETERANS FOR CONGRESS PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108
Nicole V. Parsons, Treasurer
Justice Stevens & the 2nd Amendment, from the ABA Journal, my notes in []
Posted: 18 April 2014
[Another reason for secession. This article is from this week’s, 18 April 2014, ABA Journal.
Notice Justice Stevens wants the legislature to change the 2nd Amendment. Note how the liberal justices ALWAYS ignore Article V. Article V is the article which explains how amendments are to be made. Stevens, and the others, all want amendments to go through the legislature. A legislature controlled by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Keep in mind that Pelosi’s net worth before she became a “public servant”, was a negative value – she owed more than she was worth. Since becoming a “public servant”, her net worth is over $25,000,000.00. Yupper, that’s 25 million U.S. Dollars. As to Reid, go to the Youtube address posted as the first line after [ ] in the Bundy Farm Fact Check post, posted yesterday.
As noted in “The Albany Plan Re-Visited”, Justice Stevens has not got a clue as to who the militia is. Federal Statute defines the militia of the United States. Last time that I looked, that was every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 54, the only exceptions being first responders and, get this, elected officials. Women were excluded. Now, it has been many years since I looked, but I doubt that the definition has changed extensively, if at all.
Secession, pure and simple, secession.]
•
•
•
•
•
• Home
• News
• Retired Justice Stevens proposes this fix for the Second Amendment
Constitutional Law
Retired Justice Stevens proposes this fix for the Second Amendment
Posted Apr 14, 2014 6:25 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
•
Retired U.S. Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens.
Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com
Legislators rather than federal judges should be allowed to decide what kind of guns can be carried by private citizens, as well as when and how those weapons can be used, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Toward that end, Stevens is proposing a change to the Second Amendment to clarify that it applies only to citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in state militias. He offers his suggestion in a Washington Post essay taken from his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.
Stevens thinks the court misinterpreted the amendment in recent opinions finding a right to own a handgun at home for self-defense. The amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Stevens would add five words to the amendment, so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Justplainbill's Weblog 
Illegals in Los Angeles County CA, from Snopes [c]
[Got this email with all sorts of statistics regarding illegals in LA County, claiming LA Times as the source. Actually knowing something re this area, and even though I dislike snopes, I checked with their postings, as if nothing else, they would have references. So, here’s the deal regarding those emailed stats.
Now, I don’t really care that the original email is off, what is disgusting is that the below is the truth. Illegals Aliens are a cancer on American Culture. The below stats prove it. Keep in mind, this is just ONE of dozens of counties in CA, NYS, MA, IL, PA, OR, WA, MO, IA, FL, and several other states.
An estimate of the actual cost to the US Taxpayer in dollars/annum, is over 600B. That is $600,000,000.00 or about the current defense department expenditure on Obama. Another way to look at it, is that 600 B would more than cover the cost of the interest on the national debt.
Think about it.]
Where Your Taxes Go
Claim: Listing provides statistics about the number and costs of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County.
MIXTURE
Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]
WHERE YOUR TAXES GO – ILLEGAL ALIENS
Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).
(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. See…
http://www.cis.org/
Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
Origins: The various figures quoted above were not taken from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article. They appear to have been gleaned from a variety of sources and vary in accuracy as noted below:
Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as “Hispanic” the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being “illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal.”
The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
In April 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. On the issue of gang membership among illegal immigrants, she said:
No one knows for certain the percentage of illegals in gangs, thanks in large part to sanctuary laws themselves. But various estimates exist:
A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
Note, however, that this statement references a California Department of Justice study (not an FBI report), and that it describes only a single gang in Los Angeles County (the 18th Street Gang), the gang that likely has the highest membership rate of illegal aliens.
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure also appears (unsourced) in Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
Even if the statistic is accurate, however, it is subject to a variety of interpretations. For example, illegal aliens might be disproportionately represented by outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles because they are more likely to flee the jurisdiction before their cases are adjudicated than legal residents are (not necessarily because they commit a far greater share of the homicides in Los Angeles). This interpretation is supported by a University of California Davis summary of immigration issues that notes:
The Los Angeles Police Department has a 12-year old Foreign Prosecution Unit that pursues suspects who fled the US after committing crimes in Los Angeles and gives testimony when they are prosecuted aboard. The United States does not have extradition treaties with most Latin American countries but many countries, for example, Mexico, Nicaragua or El Salvador try suspects for murder and other violent crimes committed in the US.
The Foreign Prosecution Unit was founded in 1985, after a study found that nearly half of the LAPD’s outstanding arrest warrants involved Mexican nationals who were presumed to have fled the country. The FPU works with Interpol to find suspects who flee abroad and then prepares the evidence so that the person can be arrested and prosecuted. The FPU clears about one-third of its cases, compared to two-thirds of all homicide cases in Los Angeles.
The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has a representative of the Mexican attorney general’s office to work with the FPU in prosecuting suspects in Mexico for crimes committed in Los Angeles.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
The Los Angeles Police Department’s “Most Wanted” list is viewable on-line, but since each entry generally includes only the ethnicity of a suspect (not his or her immigration status or nationality), and many of the entries refer to persons of unknown identity, it’s difficult to verify the claim that 75% of the people listed therein are illegal aliens.
Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Again, this figure appears to correspond with Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
Note, however, that the 23% figure cited includes all deportable aliens, not just Mexican nationals.
21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
The number of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles varies a bit from source to source (and according to how one defines “Los Angeles”), but according to Los Angeles Almanac, if both AM and FM stations are counted, and all programming formats (e.g., music, news, talk, religion, sports) are included, then it’s fair to say that there are about 20 “Spanish speaking” radio stations in Los Angeles.
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare
Although illegal aliens are not generally eligible to collect public welfare benefits, an illegal alien may receive benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps programs on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. (Any child born in the United States is considered a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.) A 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps.
Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the “over 90%” figure for population growth in California is essentially accurate if the term “immigration” is defined to encompass both foreign immigrants and births to immigrant mothers:
When Department of Finance numbers are merged with Census Bureau numbers and birth and death data collected by the state Department of Health Services are added to the mix, showing that half of all births are to immigrant mothers, the inescapable conclusion is that foreign immigration and births to immigrant mothers together comprise all of the state’s net population growth. Or, to put it another way, without foreign immigration, California would have virtually zero population growth.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue. It’s also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on “Illegal Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California” notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.
Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today’s debate with a study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970 cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970, and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.
As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid, and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed and revised Huddle’s US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net cost into a $29 billion net benefit.
Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid $70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle did not include the 15 percent of each worker’s earnings that are paid in Social Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the $70 billion difference.
Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. “The Costs of Immigration” (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle’s study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.
Last updated: 19 September 2014
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp#2c13ljx77jEfDAwf.99