ARIZONANS - Right Wing, Rednecked, Nazi, Racists... according to the Left

Inasmuch as the federal government has chosen to ignore the continual influx of illegal aliens into our country, Governor Jan Brewer has chosen to defend Arizona's border using a moderate approach. Enacting a state law enabling Arizona law enforcement agencies to apprehend those who choose to enter our country without the proper documentation. She has not given them the authority to kick down doors without reasonable cause, or accost law-abiding citizens on the highways and sidewalks for no reason other than "suspicion". She has provided them with the minimum tools law enforcement agencies need to stem the flood of illegal aliens over Arizona's southern border, thereby adding an increased level of security to the residents of her state. If a violation of Arizona law has been observed or reported, the responding law officers may ask for proof of citizenship if there is any doubt as to the offenders status. To my way of thinking - however warped that may be - this is undoubtedly a "states rights" (United States Constitution, 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.") issue. If the feds won't enforce federal law and secure our borders, then the states should, and MUST, do so themselves. Why, when there are dozens of cities that have designated themselves as "sanctuary cities" for illegals - thereby flaunting federal law - should such a fuss be made over a state creating their own law enabling them to enforce the obvious intent of federal law?
It is for just such reasons that there is a Tenth Amendment! The founders of our once-great nation instinctively knew that the federal government could easily become a bloated, tyrannical leviathan, that may attempt to constrain the people and consume the rewards of their labors.
Being in Mexico without the proper documents is equivalent in crime level to a felony in the USA. However, Mexico is not a "catch and release" country. Their penalties are:
First offense - two years imprisonment
Second Offense - ten years imprisonment
If you are a foreigner living in Mexico you are prohibited by law from participating in any activities critical of the Mexican government. Also, you must provide proof that you are capable of providing for your own medical care at your expense, that you have permanent employment, and that you will create no financial burden upon the Mexican government. That being the case... why would any American want to live in Mexico?

I'm beginning to think I should claim Mexican citizenship just so I can get all the freebies from our own government.

What is Obama's plan to end illegal immigration into the United States of America? AMNESTY, coupled with immediate granting of citizenship! I'm certain that in some parallel universe that approach to resolving the problem makes sense... but not in the world in which I live. Using that rationale, if a person were to sneak into a movie theater without paying, they should be able to stay without being arrested for theft of services. Or, better yet, if a person were to sneak into the White House without proper documentation... oh, never mind - bad example... that has already happened!
There is always the outside chance that I could be wrong about this entire issue. I think the odds are right up there with the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE - AGAIN

Well, the lefties are at it again, and given the recent spate of mindless shootings I could have predicted as much. This is the "ammunition" they needed to launch another attack upon our Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". It seems to me that a similar challenge was dismissed by "the Supremes" earlier this year, but... that was a pre- anti-gun Sotomayor challenge. Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, and she is every bit as far to the left as he and the rest of his cadre of liberal loonies. The court is scheduled to hear opening arguments in early March of 2010, but no decision is expected until late June or early July of 2010. EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. The left has been fast-tracking our country's ruination since January 20th.


When will "We the People" tell this corrupt and incompetent administration that we have had enough? Keep in mind that without the 2nd Amendment all our other Constitutional guarantees are in jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment protects not only our right to keep and bear arms, but our entire Constitution!

Almost daily Obama moves us closer to the European model of liberal socialist government dependency that he so loves, and dependency in this case means control. It is so much easier to control an unarmed populus than it is to control those who have the means - and the motivation - to resist that control.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-emphasized their Constitutional sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: "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." (I hope you don't live in one of the other 17 gutless states). Those actions should give Obama a clue that the people are not happy with bigger and more intrusive government.

As for me... I'm doing what I feel is necessary to cope with the potential events of the foreseeable future. Perhaps you should do the same... everybody should have a contingency plan.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?

"States Rights" Is What Keeps America Free... Along with the 2nd Amendment

At last count, 30 states had reminded the Federal Government that the feds could not dictate to them, and that they were sovereign powers within the united structure. The only thing better than that would be if all 50 states perform that same act of sovereignty. Now, don't make the mistake some people have and confuse a declaration of sovereignty with secession. There has been no act of secession by any state .... yet.

What are "States Rights"? The first ten amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as "The Bill of Rights", and the Tenth Amendment proclaims: "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."

As you can see, although it doesn't jump right out at you, that short sentence says that unless it is specified in the constitution as a Federal power, that power, by default, belongs to the States, or the people! Of course, the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written upon if we, the people, don't insist on its application in all government affairs. If we do not "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" we deserve to wear the yoke and chains of socialist enslavement!

We have a definite and obvious threat to all our founding documents in Washington D.C. - a left-wing, socialist administration (which was put there primarily by a complacent "silent majority"), coupled with a left-leaning, socialist-inclined Congress. Disaster is imminent when there are no checks and balances between the legislative and the executive branches of Government.

The President's Cabinet consists primarily of tax dodgers, inexperienced incompetents heading critical Federal functions (CIA, Treasury, Homeland Security, etc.) and those who embrace the "One World" fantasy. As much as you may like to believe in the "One World" concept, it is nothing more than a fantasy. We are not all brothers and sisters riding this big blue marble. There are many millions of people around the world who either envy, resent, or simply hate the United States for reasons frequently beyond our understanding. Reasons - real or imagined - which reinforce their desire to bring about our failure and/or demise as a Democratic Republic. Remember that our individual reality is based on how we personally interpret what we see going on in our world. Reality has nothing to do with what the person on either side of us, or the person standing across the street from us sees - reality and truth are individual concepts!

As a "Conservative-Traditionalist" this is the basis of my reality:

1. The United States has accomplished more in 233 years than any other culture has in 2,000+ years, yet our left-wing Government wants us to emulate the great left-wing socialist countries of Europe. (Yeah... that makes sense, considering how successful they've been! Without our assistance, Europe would have been a territory of Germanys Third Reich for the past 60+ years! And their socialized health care works well too... for those who live long enough to actually get some medical care.)

2. Our foundational documents - the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America - and the ideals and well thought out philosophies contained therein, are responsible for the aforementioned success, and have stood us in good stead since their creation. (I believe in the axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that protecting those ideals and philosophies is a personal responsibility, and one well-worth fulfilling.)

3. I see no need, nor any Constitutional authority for any Government - Federal or State - to create "hate crimes". Relatively few crimes are committed out of a sense of love, or even mild fondness. The crime is in the act, not in the motivation or thought behind it. All true "crimes" are already covered by a myriad of Federal and State laws, and local ordinances. Why would "hate crimes" not fall under the existing category of "crimes of passion":

"Usage: When any feeling or emotion completely masters the mind, we call it a passion; as, a passion for music, dress, etc.; especially is anger (when thus extreme) called passion. The mind, in such cases, is considered as having lost its self-control, and become the passive instrument of the feeling in question." Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Hatred and rage are simply anger in extremis - at the far negative end of the "love-hate continuum".

4. The use of the word "homophobe". Along the same line as "hate crimes" homophobe is a misnomer in most instances. I would suggest that word be replaced by homocontemnor, one who finds homosexual behavior to be contemptible or viewed with great disdain. Although homosexual behavior was once tolerated in some ancient societies, it is generally regarded as sexually deviant behavior in the American culture.

5. Our Government, in its passage of legislation, rarely reflects the expressed will of "we the people", but, rather, the expressed will of corporations and other moneyed interests. Essentially, we have "the best government that money can buy." We need to resurrect our Constitution, and replace our legislators in a manner that best serves the people of our once great nation. This is supposedly taken care of at the voting booth... but that only happens when every eligible voter actually votes! We are at that juncture in history where personal and collective indecisiveness and complacency will destroy us from within our own borders.

6. Tax abuse by our Government is rampant. We can tell there are few Jews in our Government by the proliferation of PORK! "Pork" another euphemism for the euphemistic "earmarks" that Barack Obama pledged to eliminate if he was elected as our President. "Earmarks" are nothing less than uncontrolled Government waste of our tax dollars. Yet one of his first actions was to rubber stamp an Omnibus Spending Bill with around 9,000 various cuts of swine in it! Is it the will of the people that failed banks and corporations be "bailed out" with our tax dollars? No, it's not - 74% of the people are against such actions, but our Government - in its infinite wisdom - has chosen to ignore what we the people want.

7. As for the Second Amendment, it pretty much speaks for itself... and in plain English. An armed people are a free people - citizens - an unarmed people are more properly called "subjects".

I could go on for a very long time about the insufficiencies of our current government, and I may do that in a future posting, but, for now this seems sufficient.

There is a possibility that I could be completely wrong about this... but I'm not an illegal alien who doesn't read and comprehend the English language. I was born and raised in this country, and educated - as opposed to indoctrinated - in that language. I consider myself fortunate to have received my education while the youth of our country were still being taught HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think... as they are today.

States Rights? What A Ridiculous Idea!

The headline at HumanEvents.com reads: "Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Actions" and the following is an excerpt from that site ...

"In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states."

It was unsurprising that our left-wing Socialist Government would move quickly to minimize states rights. Equally unsurprising are the various left-wing efforts around the country to make gun ownership extremely difficult and/or extremely expensive, inasmuch as they understand the immediate citizens response to making ownership of firearms illegal. Labyrinthine laws, Draconian in their intent and confusing by design, have sprung up in many places. One state legislator has proposed a law requiring that all gun owners must provide proof of a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy specifically for their firearms. This is good news for the insurance companies, but not so good for the honest working-class citizen. Illinois Representative Bobby Rush has submitted HR45: Blair Holt's Firearms Licensing and Record of Sales Act of 2009, as a proposed law in an attempt to intimidate gun owners by tracking them like ex-convicts, and burying them in an avalanche of administrative requirements. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE! And apparently, it's one of the many Constitutional protections the left-wing wishes to eliminate. Registration is the first step toward confiscation.

Here's an excerpt from a little known passage in our Declaration of Independence - "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." The reference, of course, is to the tyrannical rule of King George III over the "subjects" of the British Colonies now known as the United States of America.

Given our present course, I see the USA being replaced by the SSA (Socialist States of America), because of our complacency. According to the published election results, a slight majority of our countrymen - both living and dead - chose to elect a known left wing Socialist as our President. Barack Obama is a man, who through deed and word, has demonstrated his disdain for our country, its customs, and our cultural heritage. He failed to show respect to our flag - a flag for which tens of thousands of freedom-loving Americans have sacrificed their lives. And in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" there's this statement:

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

I'm sorry, but how ignorant does one have to be to NOT understand that Obama does not now, nor has he ever, had the best interests of our country at heart? IF he is an American by virtue of his birth to an American mother - and notice that's a big IF - it is the only connection he has to America. Factual proof of his place of birth has not yet been made public. In fact, those records have been sealed. Why? Another unanswered question surrounds the origins of the financial means by which he attended "Ivy League" universities ... but, again, those records have been sealed. Why?

I could be wrong about all this ... but I'm NOT!