Thursday, July 26, 2007

My comments to a pinhead, biased journalist

Reuben Navarrette, a syndicated columnist, wrote an article the other day concerning the recent Senate Judiciary hearing on the case of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The article by Mr. Navarrette can be found HERE.

I don't want to post it myself because I am not sure about copyright violations. But if you know anything at all about the case regarding these two former Border Patrol Agents, you will be just as mad as I was.

I sent Mr. Navarrette a little piece of my mind after reading his column. I thought I would share it with you now.

>>>>>>>>>>>My letter to this pinhead<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mr. Navarrette,

I read your columns every Wednesday in my local paper. I have noticed that you have a decidedly biased slant to your articles that heavily favor the illegal alien population in this country. That was tolerable for me, as everyone is entitled to his or her opinions. However, in today's article, No get-out-of-jail card for ex-Border Patrol Agents, you, sir crossed the line.

As I stated, you are completely entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to mislead the people by your careful omission of facts.

Sir, you stated in your article, "The facts of the case haven't changed. On Feb. 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean were on patrol on the U.S.-Mexico border near Fabens, Texas, when they spotted a suspicious van. When they approached, they discovered Aldrete-Davila, who began running toward the Mexican side of the border. The agents opened fire."

You then went on to say, "Nor has there been any change in the law under which Ramos and Compean were tried, convicted and sentenced. It's still a crime for officers to shoot an unarmed suspect and then lie about it."
Your article makes it sound like Agents Ramos and Compean just began shooting at Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila without provocation. That sir is either an outright lie on your part, or a misrepresentation of the truth.

First of all, Agents Ramos and Compean were not together initially. Agent Compean had anticipated that Davila would attempt to flea back to Mexico and tried to head him off. Davila and Compean got into a scuffle and Davila managed to continue fleeing towards Mexico. The fact that Davila assaulted Agent Compean is a crime.

Agent Ramos fired upon Davila only after he reported seeing something that appeared to be a weapon in Davila’s hand. Since Davila was not apprehended and searched, we will never know the truth as to whether he did in fact have a gun or not. However, to take the word of a drug smuggler over two law enforcement officers is ludicrous. For these Agents to be convicted for shooting an unarmed man is a heinous miscarriage of justice, since we cannot prove without reasonable doubt that he did not in fact have a weapon.

In your article you did mention that Davila was caught a second time smuggling drugs into the United States. However, the jury did not have the chance to hear that evidence, evidence that may have changed the outcome of the trial.

Defense lawyers may also have been prevented from learning that a half dozen other agents and supervisors of Customs & Border Protection and the Homeland Security Department were at the scene or nearby when the incident took place. This evidence would disprove the fact that Agents Ramos and Compean tried to cover up the evidence. If that were so, all the agents at the scene would have to have been involved in the cover up as well.

Your article sir is a disgrace to the profession of journalism. Does it sound like I am mad? Your darn tooting I am mad!

I am mad that you would try to say that anyone who wants justice done is attempting an ‘old West style jailbreak’. I am mad that for 21 years our federal government has ignored the problem of illegal immigration and now we are stuck with anywhere from 10-30 million illegal aliens that nobody knows what to do with. I am mad that the governments of Mexico, and all the other countries that these illegal aliens come from have not done all that they could to provide an economic climate that would provide decent jobs for their own citizens. I am mad that the United States is expected to take in all the poor from all over the world, like some sort of a global welfare state. I am mad that illegal aliens like Julio Villasana, who was deported three times and left of his own volition eleven others, still re-entered this country illegally and killed a guitar maker in a drunk driving accident in Nashville Tennessee. I am mad that the President of the United States openly promises to the people of Mexico that he will do all he can to pass immigration reform legislation, yet he will not promise the American people that he will enforce our current immigration laws to the fullest extent. I am mad that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens can take to our streets demanding rights that they are not entitled to, yet if half that number of Americans took to the streets of Mexico City and demanded that we receive benefits, free medical service, free education for our children, we would most certainly be carted off to jail. I am mad that our government is trying to pass legislation that would give millions of dollars in grant money to the National Council of La Raza, which supports groups that believe in La Reconquista.

Finally, I am mad that a known drug smuggler walks free while two fine Border Patrol Agents are spending a decade each in prison for shooting said drug smuggler in the buttocks. Am I sad that Mr. Davila was shot in the buttocks? Yes I am. I am sad that one of those bullets had not found its way to Mr. Davila’s head. He is scum and the world would be a better place without him.

The next time you wish to state your opinions on an issue such as this, please be sure to include all the facts. Agent Ramos and Compean may have been guilty of not following procedures, but whatever their crime, it certainly does not justify ruining their lives and putting them in jail. As I stated before, you are entitled to your opinions, but I would hope that you would have enough personal integrity to give your readers all the facts, not just your lopsided view of the truth.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

My Thoughts on the CNN/You Tube Democratic Debate

With all the hype and buildup preceeding the revolutionary CNN /You Tube debate, I was guardedly hoping that we would finally get a serious debate, with serious questions from a concerned citizenry regarding the issues that confront this nation.

Upon the conclusion of the debate I was sorely disappointed. Instead of serious questions, we had people wanting to know if the candidate's feelings would be hurt if Al Gore chose to run. We had animated snowmen asking about global warming, a serious question to which we were not given a serious answer. We even had a second grade feel good exercise in which the candidates were asked to say one thing they like and one thing they disliked about the candidate to their left.

Some debate! What is worse is that CNN would waste our time with those silly entries instead of focusing on issues that are more serious. For example, not one question was asked of the candidates why they refuse to impeach George Bush for any number of his abuses of presidential power or lies about the War in Iraq. Not one question was asked as to why we are not enforcing existing immigration law. No one asked about the loss of personal liberties due to legislation such as the Patriot Act. Either CNN wanted to turn this debate into a circus, which they did a very good job of, or the people submitting the questions are absolute morons. I think the truth might be a little bit of both.

I am holding out on giving my final verdict on the debates until after I see the Republican debate on September 17. I uploaded my own question to You Tube for the Republicans. I want to see if CNN has the courage to select it. It is simple and to the point, and I am hoping they give it to someone other than Ron Paul. I asked 'If elected president would the candidates promise to uphold our nations laws, such as complete enforcement of all existing immigration laws, also would the candidates swear to govern according to the Constitutional guidelines laid out for the office of President?'

I am not holding my breath that CNN will select my question. It is too pointed and too serious a question, but I can always keep my fingers crossed. I have pretty much concluded that the process of choosing our elected officials no longer has anything to do with picking the one who will uphold the Constitution and do what is best for our country. It has become more about who can raise the most money while obfuscating or avoiding the issues.

There is a growing number of Americans who feel that, no matter who gets elected, our government no longer represents the people. That explains the huge grassroots support for Ron Paul, even though the mainstream media and the Republican Party has treated him as some side show abnormality. The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party who has a proven track record of following the Constitution.

Ron Paul could be the last true hope this country has of turning the tide on continued government encroachments upon our rights and liberties. If this continue cycle of abuses and usurpations continue I am of the feeling that we will eventually revert to a society ruled by a tyrannical government, or that we will come to a tipping point in which Americans will not stand for any more violations of their liberties, and we will suffer another revolution. I am fearful that it will be the former.

When you look at the percentage of eligible voters who don’t register, or just are too complacent to go vote you get the feeling that nobody cares anymore. When you look at the idiotic questions submitted for the democratic candidates you get the feeling that nobody is intelligent enough to make an informed opinion about what is best for our country. Finally, the American public have become too accustomed to a form of government that takes care of their every need and desire.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” This upcoming election just may well be the last chance we have to preserve our Constitutional Republic before our government succeeds in taking everything from us, including our personal freedoms and liberty.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Bush; No Promise of Pardon For Ramos and Compean

President Bush made the following comments after being asked if he would consider a pardon for imprisoned Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean,

"Obviously I'm interested in facts, I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton, he's a dear friend of mine from Texas. Now he's a fair guy, he's a evenhanded guy"

"I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts, these men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend Johnny Sutton presented them. But anyway, no I won't make you that promise."

After reading those comments, I don't know how anyone in their right mind could continue to support George W. Bush as President of these United States.

President Bush twice referred to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton as his friend. While it may be a fact that these two have a longtime friendship, it is not relevant to the question as to whether the President would consider a pardon for Agents Ramos and Compean.

Secondly, President Bush stated that people need to look at the facts. That Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts that Attorney Sutton presented them.

The jury was not aware of the fact that Osbaldo Aldrete Davila was caught a second time smuggling marijuana into the United States, and that he was granted immunity for that offense to testify against Ramos and Compean. The Presidents friend Johnny Sutton made sure of that.

Since that evidence was not made available to the jury, it is entirely possible that it could have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been made available. Several jurors had stated that they would not have found the agents guilty had they known that information.

Nevertheless, the jury found the agents guilty, and the court sentenced them to eleven and twelve years in prison while a know drug smuggler walks free. Rather harsh sentences for shooting a guy in the buttocks.

Yet President Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby before his appeals process was complete, before he spent one day in prison out of a 30 month sentence.

Scooter Libby, a man who held a position which should have predicated that he be a person of honesty and integrity, obstructed justice, committed perjury, and lied to federal investigators. Yet he never spent a day in jail. On the other hand Agents Ramos and Compean sit in federal prison. President Bush thinks 30 months for Scooter Libby was a harsh sentence, yet he seems unaffected by the fact that two Border Patrol Agents are spending over a decade each in prison.

It is painfully aware who President Bush sides with in regards to his perverted sense of justice. Scooter Libby was an assistant to former President Bush, and a insider in the circles of the D.C. power elite. Johnny Sutton is a longtime friend of President Bush who willfully misled the jury in the prosecution of two Border Patrol Agents who were just doing their jobs.

The Presidents preferential treatment of close friends and allies is enough to cause any person with the smallest amount of decency to scream in outrage. Two fine Border Patrol Agents rot in jail, while our President thumbs his nose at the legal system and the American public in their demand for the release of Agents Ramos and Compean. The presidents failed policies through his two terms in office pale in comparison to the legacy of his disregard for decency and justice are concerned. I would hope that as time passes George W. Bush will be remembered, first and foremost, as to how he took the side of his friends over the side of truth and justice.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Election 2008 vs. U.S. Constitution

Although the next presidential election is still over a year away, we find the campaigning well under way for both republican and democratic candidates. I find the entire election process a fascinating event to watch unfold. It is not so much the candidates that I find fascinating, it is the response of the public in general to these candidates that intrigues me.

The candidates, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, all pretty much spew out the same party line garbage that I have come to expect from members of either party. Other than the breath of fresh air and truthfulness that Ron Paul brings to the process, I actually find it rather boring to listen to the other candidates repeat the same tired old party based themes over and over again.

What I find interesting is how the public falls for what these candidates have to say. It shows how ignorant the American public truly is in regards to the way our system of government is supposed to operate.

The word ignorant is often misused to imply that a person is stupid. Stupidity is defined as being dull of mind. Ignorant, however, is defined as lacking knowledge: uneducated. There is a huge difference between being dull and being uneducated.

It is painfully obvious to me that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant in regards to how their government is supposed to function. The framework for our system of government is the Constitution of the United States. It outlines the duties of each branch and the limitations placed upon them as well. It details the powers granted to the federal government and those allotted to the states. It also clearly defines certain rights, we as citizens have, that are not to be infringed upon.

Anyone who has taken the time to read the Constitution can clearly see that our government no longer operates within the guidelines that document describes. In arguing this point with people I am constantly told that the Constitution is a living document, designed to change with the times. They are only partially right. The framers of the Constitution clearly laid out the procedures for altering or modifying the Constitution.

Article 5 of the Constitution states,

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The Constitution clearly states that to be altered or modified it must be amended, that amendment being ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures. This is important, because there have been numerous laws and executive orders passed which violate various sections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without going through this amendment process. Therefore, all these laws are literally against the law by virtue of their not being made constitutional amendments.

Article 6 of the Constitution states that,

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

If you follow the logic, the Constitution is, first and foremost, the supreme law of the land. Secondly, all laws passed shall be in pursuance of the Constitution. Finally, the only legal way to alter or modify the Constitution is to amend it as described in Article 5. Therefore any law passed by local, state, or the federal government that either infringes upon the rights of the citizenry as described in the Bill of Rights, or grants powers or authority to a governmental agency not specifically described in the Constitution, is plain and simple illegal.

To cite a few examples, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states,

"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. "

The 2nd Amendment deals with the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, and the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Neither of these rights are to be infringed. Yet how many gun control laws have been passed, all of which violate are illegal because they were not made law via the amendment process? I am not saying everyone should be entitled to own a bazooka or rocket launchers, but until the Constitution is amended to specify clearly what type arms the people are able to keep and bear, any law prohibiting them is unconstitutional.

Also, how many of you can say that you know of anyone who is in the militia? We have an armed forces, of which the National Guard is a part. Yet the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, clearly distinguishes between armed forces and the militia.

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

"To provide and maintain a navy;"

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

It is plainly stated that the militia should be called into action to repel invasions. Having a well armed militia on our border would be a mighty deterrent to the illegal aliens who might choose to cross our borders, wouldn't you think? Yet the concept of an militia consisting of armed citizens is something that people today are unwilling to accept.

Yet George Washington once said,

"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it. "

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson stated,

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

It is quite apparent that the spirit and the letter of the 2nd amendment have been violated by numerous gun control laws and our governments unwillingness to maintain an armed and trained militia for our nations defense.

Next, Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to "coin money, regulate the value thereof..." It is within the power of Congress to coin our currency and regulate its value. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that our Congress can grant that power to a group of privately owned banking establishments, as per the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Constitution was not amended giving that authority to these privately owned banks, therefore the FED and their stranglehold on our currency is unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson warned us about what would occur if we ever allowed that to happen,

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Finally I would like to speak for a moment about states rights. Article 1, Section 10 defines the limits the Constitution places upon the individual states.

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "

Those are the only clearly stated limits upon the individual states as found in the Constitution. However, the 10th amendment to the Constitution is wide ranging in its scope when it says,

"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."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate education, agriculture, communications, and a host of other powers. Yet the Constitution clearly states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively..."

If taken literally, there are untold federal agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution. The powers granted them go beyond the scope of power authorized the federal government and were designed to be left up to the states to handle at the local level.

I could go on and on, citing individual laws and executive orders that have been passed that violate the Constitution. That, however, is not my point. My intent was to show that the people of this country are woefully ignorant in regards to what powers the Constitution grants the various branches of our federal government and what powers it prohibits them from wielding.

That is why the campaigns leading up to a major election fascinate me. I cannot understand how and why the people of this country can fall for candidates who so blatantly promise things that are not authorized them by the very document they swear to uphold upon entering office.

It is an interesting time to be sure, but it is also very sad in that if things don't change our government will continue to usurp powers the Constitution does not authorize it. We will eventually come to a point, if we aren't there already, where the Constitution is meaningless, as President Bush is rumored to have said, "...just a Goddamned piece of paper...". When that happens, all the rights and liberties our founding fathers fought and died for will have vanished.

I think it is way past time for the American people to turn off their televisions and get out a copy of the Constitution and see what it actually says, before it is just some historical relic that has no meaning or value anymore.

Friday, July 13, 2007

EEVS and Your Security

The U.S. Senate recently attempted to pass comprehensive immigration reform. In two bills, S. 1348 and S.1369 they tried to pass legislation that would, as they state, fix our broken immigration system. The attempt failed, but it is not my intent to write about immigration itself now. I am more concerned about a particular aspect of both those failed immigration bills. The Electronic Employee Verification System, or EEVS.

The goal of EEVS was to help employers verify that they are only hiring eligible workers. Up until this time it was difficult, not impossible, just difficult. With all the fraudulent ID's, it is hard for employers to verify that they are in fact hiring workers eligible to seek employment in the United States. Employment eligibility is an admirable goal, but there are certain aspects of this proposal that I oppose quite fervently.

The first of which is any proposal the government is going to make regarding eligibility will have ties to the REAL I.D. The REAL I.D. is supposed to be a tamper proof identification card that contains your name, birthdate, sex, I.D. number, (probably your social security number), a digital photograph, and address. It may also have such other identifying information as a fingerprint or retinal scan. Radio Frequency Identification may possibly be the means for storing this information, as it is already going to be the means of storing information on passports in the near future.

I have two problems with the use of RFID technology. First is that there is a huge potential for identity theft. It would not be too difficult for someone to acquire the required devices for reading RFID chips. They could quite conceivably sit in a busy location such as a mall or airport and scan hundreds of RFID chips, stealing untold amounts of personal information.

Secondly, with the government involved, I don’t like the idea of not knowing exactly what information is stored on that chip. With the vast amounts of information that is being gathered on our lives it is possible that everything from political affiliation to your medical records could be stored on that chip. Call me paranoid, but I don’t like the idea of just anyone having access to all that personal information concerning my life.

You would be required to show your new REAL I.D. before boarding a federally regulated aircraft, (that means any commercial flight), access any federal building, and it has also been suggested, maintain a bank account. Without this card you would basically be a non-person. You could not function in many ways that you do now.

Before anyone can receive their REAL I.D. they would have to provide a photo ID, documentation of birth, documentation of legal status, social security number, and documentation showing name and residence address.

Can you imagine the mess when 300 million people apply for their REAL I.D. at the same time? Also, what about people who have lost copies of their birth certificates, or who have never had a U.S. passport. How are they going to prove they are legal residents?

Yet this card is also going to be used as your state drivers license. So you will need to apply for one if you wish to drive.

The idea that all this is to prove that we are who we say we are is commendable, but a RFID implanted card is not needed to achieve that. When you go into your DMV and get your drives license you have a photo taken and that information is stored on a computer system, how else would you be able to renew your license by mail without having a new photo taken each year. How hard would it be to set up a system in which you could access the DMV computer system and check to make sure the photos on your drivers license match what is actually on file?

Now the EEVS proposal states that employers would be required to verify potential new hires eligibility to work via the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security. Supposedly they would scan your REAL I.D. and it would either come up showing you are entitled to work, or you are not.

At first this legislation would apply only to people applying for new jobs. Eventually, however, it would apply to every single person working in the United States. So that means that even if you had been at your job for, say 20 years, you would have to present your REAL I.D. and have it checked through Social Security and Homeland Security. You would have to have government permission to work!

Guess what else, this bill would close all judicial review of governmental mistakes. So if the government somehow screws up and causes you to become ‘ineligible’ to work, tough cookies. You would have no legal recourse! You know how efficient our government is, can you imaging how many people would become ineligible to work due to government incompetence?

People need to awaken to the actions of their government. They tell us that legislation they pass is for our benefits. The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act were passed under the guise of fighting global terrorism when in actuality they have seriously eroded our inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The EEVS act, as part of the failed immigration reform bill, is the same. We are told we need it to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but it is another means of control and monitoring that the government wishes to impose upon us.

If people would stop watching their endless stream of mind numbing television shows they just might realize that, as Lynyrd Skynryd once sang, “there’s things going on that you should know.”

Thursday, July 12, 2007

I am tired of being called a racist!

I have had about as much name calling as I can tolerate. Because of my views on illegal immigration, numerous times I have been called a racist, and it is starting to make me mad.

This country is called the United States of America for a reason. We are supposed to be a nation of united states, held together by the common bond of our laws, our heritage and, most importantly, our language. Is it too much to ask that we expect those who wish to immigrate to this country learn our language, respect our heritage, and obey our laws?

Yet whenever we have people who violate our immigration laws by entering this country illegally, we are expected to open our arms and just welcome them, give them benefits, and forgive their crimes against this country. When we, as citizens, speak out against this and demand that our laws be upheld and these illegal aliens deported and denied benefits, we are called racists, most of the time by Hispanic rights advocacy groups.

It has nothing at all to do with race. If every single illegal alien in this country, all 10-20 million of them, were of English, Italian, Dutch, Swiss, or German descent, I would still want them gone. I would want them gone because they chose to enter our country through other than legal means and therefore have absolutely no right to ask, let alone, demand any rights or privileges.

However, the fact of the matter is that a good percentage of these illegal aliens are from Hispanic countries south of the border, not all of them, but a good percentage. It is only logical that a good percentage of our focus on illegal aliens will be on our southern border and the Hispanics that chose to cross it illegally. It does not mean we are racist, especially when we give out more immigrant visas every year than any other country in the world. If we were racist and xenophobic, why would we be so willing to accept so many legal immigrants?

The same can not be said about a good percentage of those who chose to enter this country illegally, or those who support open borders and uninhibited immigration. So I would like to share some quotes by those who support the concept of open borders.

I would like to start with Jose Angel Gutierrez. He is a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. Mr. Gutierrez stated,

"We have an aging white America...They are dying...They are shitting in their pants with fear! I love it!", "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

MECha, is the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán which promotes Chicano unity and political activism. The Spiritual Plan of Aztlan outlines their goals. It states,

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." (For the race everything. For those outside the race nothing.)

MECha goes on to proclaim,

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny."

Miguel Perez, of Cal State-Northridge's MECha chapter is quoted as saying,

"The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

Then there is also the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF. Mario Obledo, the co-founder of MALDEF once stated,

“California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.”

Those are some of the organizations who support immigration reform and open borders. There are also some members of local and state governments here in California that are blatantly pro-Hispanic, anti-white.

Art Torres is a former state senator and the current chairman of the California Democratic Party. When California attempted to pass Proposition 187, Mr. Torres stated,

“Remember: 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. And people say to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them.'"

Richard Alotorre is a former Los Angeles City councilman and he once said,

"Because our numbers are growing ... [some are] afraid that we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They are right, we will take them over, and we are not going to go away – we are here to stay, and we are saying 'ya basta' (enough!)."

Antonio Villagarosa is the current mayor of Los Angeles, and he is quoted as saying,

“It's not enough to elect Latino leadership if they're supporting legislation that denies the undocumented they don't belong in office friends.“

Fabian Nunez is the current speaker of the California State Assembly. He said,

“And those rednecks that are out there making decisions for the betterment of their communities will think twice before they push forward against our community...”

Lastly there are two final quotes, the first of which is by Armando Navarro a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California at Riverside. He stated,

"Ladies and gentlemen, what [the displacement of whites, blacks, and Asians by Hispanics in California] means is a transfer of power, it means control, it means whose going to influence. And it is the young people, the people who are now moving to develop an agenda for the twenty first century. They are really going to be in a position to really make the promise of what the Chicano movement was all about in terms of self-determination, in terms of empowerment, and even in the terms of the idea of an Aztlan!"

The last is by Augustin Cebeda of the Brown Berets of Aztlan, a Chicano activist group. Mr. Cebada left little to the imagination when it comes to what the goals are of many of the illegal immigrants to this country,

"Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die ... Through love of having children, we are going to take over."

After reading the quotes of these individuals, some of whom hold positions of authority, positions where they are teaching their ideals to our children, do you still feel that I am a racist when all I want is the enforcement of our laws? Am I asking too much when I want the immigrants to this country to assimilate and learn our language and respect our culture and history.

I am not asking that these people forget their own heritage, but as a courtesy of being allowed to live in these United States of America they should at least be expected to respect and honor the laws, the culture, and the history of ours as well. If that is too much to ask, then I have but one thing to say, and I quote Theodore Roosevelt,

"From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it."

Monday, July 09, 2007

Webpage well worth your time to vist

This webpage is very well put together and has an abundance of good articles about how our government is not operating as per it's constitutional mandate.

Conspiracy Theories and me...

I was searching for an article on the internet today and came across a link with the authors name in it. So I went to the website to take a look and it was a vicious verbal assault upon the author I was searching for. It reminded me of a similar verbal attack I had gotten at work one day when I was talking about the collapse of the twin towers on 911.

I was called all kinds of names to include, gullible, naive, conspiracy nut, lunatic, unpatriotic, and a few others that are unfit to print. All because I was offering an opinion that differed from a person who happened to be listening.

Whenever I am presented with evidence to something I try, to the best of my ability, to research it and find both sides of the argument. I then weigh the evidence and make my own decision. I may be wrong sometimes, but at least I have taken the time to examine both sides of a story with an open mind.

I do believe that there is much going on in this country that is cause for great concern. Our republic is in dire peril and the American people are oblivious to most of what is going on. They prefer to trust the media, particularly the Un-fair and Un-balanced Fox News. It is my sincere opinion that our news agencies are all bought and paid for and present us with only the news that those in control allow them to. One exception is Lou Dobbs, and even he does not cover all the areas in which I have concerns. Still, I find it hard to believe that he has not been censored in one way or another.

I truly believe that our government no longer runs things in this country, at least they don’t make the big decisions any more. There are two quotes by Woodrow Wilson to which I fervently believe in.

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

“[A]nd we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

There are many theories and ideas about who is controlling things in this country. The gamut ranges from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bildebergers, the Tri Lateral Commission, the Global Bankers, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the Jesuits, the Skull and Bones, and the Masons. Who knows, other than those in positions of authority? It is painfully obvious that our elected officials no longer represent the common working family. Their votes are bought and paid for buy interests that have no concern for our well being, whether they be financial organizations or groups with plans for overall world dominion.

Our government no longer follows it’s constitutional mandate, and for that we can only blame ourselves for not understanding what constitutional authority our government has, and for voting for candidates who continue to govern outside their authority.

Finally, as I stated earlier I have been the subject of verbal attacks for my belief in quote, unquote, conspiracies. Yet I would like to leave you with two quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all”

I feel it is our sacred duty to keep a keen eye on our government and ensure that they are keeping within the limits placed upon them by our Constitution. We may be wrong, as Jefferson said, some of the time, but the consequences of not challenging them at all is far worse. As Patrick Henry said, “GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"!

Save your freedom of speech on the internet!!!!

Last year, more than 1.5 million Americans contacted Congress and stopped phone and cable company efforts to kill Net Neutrality. Now industry lobbyists are pressuring the Federal Communications Commission to abandon this fundamental Internet freedom.

It's time the FCC heard from you. The agency has launched a public inquiry into whether it should protect Net Neutrality or let companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast dictate which Web sites you can use. Take action now and help stop the big phone and cable companies again.

In your own words, tell the FCC why you need a free and open Internet. Your story will be sent to the FCC in Washington.

Why we will never see cheap gas again

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Those two quotes by Thomas Jefferson go against the political, financial and economical policies of the United States government, and they have since at least as far back as 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment were passed.

I have written before on the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank, and if you go back through my previous posts you will find what I had to say. This post, however, concerns something more current and more frightening. It is about the control of the worlds oil supplies.

I just watched an interesting 8 part video series entitled The Energy Non-Crisis. It should be required viewing for all, for it raises some serious questions and frightening possibilities about the future of this country.

Basically it tells of how the global power brokers control the price of oil and how the oil producing countries are buying up the United States debt. It explains why we went to war with Iraq and why war with Iran is inevitable. It also tells that we have enough oil located under U.S. soil to last us 200 years, even at today's consumption rates. It tells why our government will never allow that oil to be pumped from the ground, even though it would bring gas down to as low as $1.50 per gallon.

You can find the videos at two locations. The first of which is on my friends webpage at, Sheriff Jim Online, or you can go to Google and type in The Energy Non-Crisis and find it on the video results. As I stated, it is a must view as it will explain many things.

If you are interested as well, the text from his book is located on Lindsey Williams' webpage. It can be found here.

I would suggest that anyone who wonders why gas continues to go up, or who is making all the money off these high gas prices, watch this video series. It may open up your eyes to the fact that your government cares not for your welfare, only for profits and that they have sold our nation down the drain.

I would appreciate hearing from folks on this one. I am curious as to your thoughts.

Wimbledon Mens Final 2007

I don't normally comment on anything other than politics, but I would like to make one exception. I have been called all types of names because I don't watch sports. I could care less about the NFL, the NBA and major league baseball. I do however have a weakness for Grand Slam Tennis. I cannot resist watching the best tennis players in the world compete for the French, Australian, U.S. and Wimbledon titles.

I would like to take a moment to comment on last Sunday's men's final at Wimbledon. It pitted Roger Federer against Rafael Nadal. Federer is ranked number one in the world and Nadal is number 2. It was a rematch of last years Wimbledon final and was expected to be a good match, as Nadal had improved immensely over the course of the past year.

The match turned out to be all that it was expected to be, going to five sets with Federer winning the first, third and the fifth. At one point in the match Federer looked absolutely flabbergasted. His focus was gone and he couldn't believe that Nadal was making some of the shots that he was. He appeared to be on the edge of losing his first Wimbledon final in 5 years.

However a knee problem with Nadal gave Federer a time out to sit back and regroup. Whatever mental problems he had were gone and he showed himself to be a true champion. Although losing the fourth set, he readily won the fifth, breaking Nadal's serve twice.

I have no favorites in tennis, I watch it because I admire the skill and dedication it takes to reach that level of play. I play tennis and was never that good, but I know how much work it must take to reach the level these players do. This match will go down into the history books and one of the best, along with the Laver/Smith, Borg/McEnroe, and Sampras/Agasi rivalries. If you missed it, oh well, there is always next year...

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos

As some of you may be aware, Agent Ignacio Ramos is serving a 12 year sentence for shooting a drug smuggling illegal alien in the ass. His victim was granted immunity of two separate incidents of drug smuggling so that he could testify in the trial of Agents Ramos and Compean.

I have been writing Ignacio Ramos regularly. I have been honored to receive a reply from him. If you wish to write him you can do so at:

Ignacio Ramos #58079-180 FCI
Yazoo City Medium Federal Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 5888
Yazoo City, MS 39194

Also, the Ramos family has spent their entire savings on court costs and now are in danger of losing their home. Agent Ramos' father in law, Joe Loya, has set up a blog asking for help to keep up the mortgage payment for the Ramos home.

The blog is located at

Anyone who wishes to help can go there. They ask for a monthly contribution, but I have e mailed Joe Loya and asked if it is possible for those of us who live on tight budgets to send contributions as our situation permits. I am awaiting his response.

I would urge you to send a letter of support to Agent Ramos. He surely could use the support seeing as how his government has forsaken him.


Thursday, July 05, 2007

Can you believe this?

HR 1999 IH

1st Session

H. R. 1999
To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.


April 23, 2007
Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Hope Fund Act of 2007'.


(a) Use- The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent amounts are made available pursuant to subsection (b), make a grant to the National Council of La Raza for the purpose of providing technical and financial assistance to local non-profit organizations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low- and moderate-income households, particularly through organizations located in neighborhoods with substantial populations of income-disadvantaged households of Hispanic origin. Assistance provided by the Secretary under this section may be used by the National Council of La Raza or the Raza Development Fund to--

(1) provide technical and financial assistance for site acquisition and development, construction financing, and short- and long-term financing for housing, community facilities, and economic development;

(2) leverage capital from private entities, including private financial institutions, insurance companies, and private philanthropic organizations;

(3) provide technical assistance, training, support, and advice to develop the management, financial, and administrative capabilities of housing development organizations serving low-income households, including Hispanic households; and

(4) conduct such other activities as may be determined by the Secretary and the National Council of La Raza.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section--

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and

(2) $10,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.


Shit, we might as well pass a bill funding the KKK and Al Qaeda! La Raza is a racist organization who believes that the U.S. stole California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas from them, and they are working to reconquer them through legal and illegal immigration.

Thomas Jefferson once said, To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. This tops the list of things I abhor and I don't want one dime of my tax dollars going to this organization!

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Rock 'Em Part 7

Rock 'Em VII: "E Plebmnista"

by Mike Vanderboegh

(The seventh and last of a series on why we should emulate the Sons of Liberty in responding to the Amnesty Conspiracy. It is fitting that I am writing this last essay with the Fourth of July upon us.)

"The fight is done when one is dead." -- Chief Cloud William, Guardian of the Holies, Speaker of the Holy Words, Leader of Warriors, in "Star Trek: The Omega Glory," first aired 1 March 1968.

"Some do not know the basic principles of this country..."

Well, against all my expectations and despite my worst fears, the Senate Amnesty Bill appears truly dead now. With no more "Night of the Living Dead" tricks up their sleeves, the Amnesty Conspiracists are finally leaving the inanimate corpse of their legislative zombie like fleas off a dead dog, muttering threats and insults at us as they depart. My previous "Rock 'Em" essays skirting the ragged edge of sedition (which advanced the theory that modern Sons and Daughters of Liberty should be chucking bricks through the windows of both political parties to get the attention of our would-be rulers) were not necessary. All it took to split enough boneless political chickens from the Coalition of the Greedy was Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Institute, NumbersUSA and a melted down Senate phone system. Who knew it would be so easy?

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. They'll be back on amnesty, rest assured. Too much is at stake for them not to try again. But next time they will first attack the means of our resistance, especially the talk radio switch board of our righteous rage. The New Mandarins will certainly try to cram the Fairness Doctrine down our throats, to choke our ability to talk back to our "betters." Heck, even Trent Lott will vote for that now. And if Hillary is elected, as seems likely, look for PATRIOT Act attacks on Internet freedom of expression. Also, never forget that, as I wrote in my last essay, the war goes on and the invasion proceeds apace. More and more grievanced Reconquistas will be recruited to vote, legally and illegally, slowly paring down the legislative numbers until their new masters decide to strike again, decisively this time.

"The fight is done when one is dead." This is how it has always been, with each succeeding generation of Americans called to fight, and defeat, the tyrants of their day. If you're looking for a victory party to celebrate the end of the war, it ain't happening. If you're even just looking for R&R from the great struggle for liberty in this country, there's no one to give you a pass. Just hunker down in your foxhole with your buddy on watch, and catch a few zees before the next assault. It is coming, you may depend upon it.

The only question is: Will there be enough liberty-loving Americans left to meet, and defeat, the next assault?

"In recent weeks, there has been much talk about immigration, but very little informed discussion about what it means to be an American--about what is necessary to make Americans. Yes, there needs to be a sensible policy for accepting new citizens, and for ensuring that those who come here do so legally. But what happens once they are here? I hear frequent conversations about failures in integration and assimilation, even among recent legal immigrants. This is not new. What is new is that America's own natural citizens increasingly have forgotten what it means to be American. Some do not know the basic principles of this country, and still others have embraced the ideology of multiculturalism and self-loathing to such a degree that they can no longer recognize, let alone proclaim, that ours is a great nation built on lasting principles. If we no longer understand or believe in that which makes us Americans, then there is nothing substantive to assimilate into. We become many and diverse people who share a common place, rather than E Pluribus Unum." -- Peter W. Schramm. "American by Choice: We must all learn what it means to be an American," The Weekly Standard, 28 June 2007.

"If we could prove that we shared in the idea."

If tyranny is an appetite, and it is, liberty is a way of thinking, believing, living and, most importantly, acting. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the phrase "preserving the spirit of resistance in the people." If you wish to remain free you must be prepared to suffer the burdens necessary to maintain that freedom. But first you must understand the principles of American liberty and freedom and internalize them so that they become as natural as breathing. We should be ashamed that Peter Schramm, a naturalized American citizen from Hungary, should have to remind us of this. In an earlier essay, Schramm explained how he came to this country, already an American:

"When the Communists took control of the country in 1949, they 'expropriated' my parents' little textile shop (about half the size of my current living room) and everything in it. Under this new tyranny, my parents were considered part of the dangerous 'bourgeoisie.' In that same year, the Communists sentenced my father's father to ten years hard labor for having a small American flag in his possession (by that time he had been a leader of the social democrats for some years). At his 'trial' he was asked why he had the flag. Was he a spy? He replied that it represented freedom better than any other symbol he knew, and that he had a right to have it." -- Peter W. Schramm, "Born American, But in the Wrong Place," Claremont Institute, (

Schramm's grandfather was packed off to the Hungarian version of the Gulag, returning a few years later, Scramm recalled, "looking like a victim of the Holocaust."

"Still, the first thing he wanted to know was whether we still had the flag. Of course, we did not. It had long ago been confiscated. But my father didn't want to break his father's heart and had somehow managed to secure another one. We took it out of its hiding place and, at that tender age, I learned the very adult lesson of the complexity of telling the truth. Seeing that flag somehow erased much of the pain and torment of my grandfather's years of imprisonment; it seemed to give him hope."

Shortly thereafter, when Peter was not quite ten years old, the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 flared briefly with freedom's promise before being brutally suppressed by Soviet tanks:

"Now, with the revolution failing, everyone expected that the Communist boot was going to come down harder than ever. But before we had more opportunities to experience it . . . (my father) came home and announced to my mother that he was going to leave the country whether she would come or not. Mom said, 'O.K., William. We will come if Peter agrees. Ask Peter.' 'But where are we going?' I asked. 'We are going to America,' he said. 'Why America?' I prodded. 'Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place.' He said that as naturally as if I had asked him what was the color of the sky. It was so obvious to him why we should head for America that he never entertained any other option. Of course, he hadn't studied American history or politics, but he had come to know deep in his heart the meaning of tyranny. He hungered for its opposite and knew where to find it. America represented to my father, as Lincoln put it, 'the last, best hope of earth.' I would like to be able to say that this made my father a remarkable man for his time and his circumstances. For, in many ways, he truly was a wonder. But this is not one of those ways. Among the Hungarians I knew­aside from those who were true believers in the Communnists­this was the common sense of the subject. It was self-evident tto them."

Yet as Schramm recently reflected:

"Born Americans, but in the wrong place? I've spent the better part of the last fifty years working to more fully understand these words. Mind you, everyone understood America to be a free and good place where one might prosper unmolested. But in saying that we were 'born Americans, but in the wrong place,' Dad, in his way, was saying that he understood America to be both a place and an idea at the same time. Fundamentally, it is a place that would embrace us if we could prove that we shared in the idea. We meant to prove it." -- Peter W. Schramm, "American by Choice: We must all learn what it means to be an American," Ibid.

This is the quintessential American immigrant experience. This is where WE came from. My Dutch and German ancestors came to this country WANTING to be Americans, believing already before they set foot on this soil in the IDEA of America. They learned English in record time, discarding often even the European pronunciations of their own names in order to be understood by others as AMERICANS as soon as possible. No one would have thought of the 18th or 19th Century equivalents of "Press One for English, Press Two for Spanish." And the seductions of the modern welfare state did not exist. Despite the charges of racism and nativism that our critics impute to us, this is what motivates most of us who oppose illegal immigration on cultural as well as legal grounds. It's not that the overwhelming majority of illegals are various shades of brown, it's that the majority of them (as demonstrated by opinion polls) DO NOT WISH TO LEARN ENGLISH OR TO BECOME AMERICAN CITIZENS, except as that qualifies them for participation in the benefits of the modern welfare state.

As we see in Europe, the first generation of immigrants are hard-working (even if resistant to cultural assimilation) whereas the second and third generations assimilate the worst aspects of the modern multicultural welfare state, adopting identity politics and a sense of grievance, forging their own Muslim version of Reconquista with demands for sharia law, first for themselves and then for everybody. And Europe, with universal abortion on demand and a birthrate at half that required for cultural sustainment of the native born, will within a generation leave "America Alone," as Mark Steyn has brilliantly observed in his recent book of that title. Yet what kind of America will that be if we do not ourselves preserve what it is that makes us quintessentially "American"?

"Liberty and freedom have to be more than just words."

You know, I grew up loving the Star Trek television series for, as corny a space western as it was, it more than occasionally hit on some eternal truths. Certainly I remember well the episode entitled "The Omega Glory" that first aired on 1 March 1968. I was not yet 16, but although I did not yet fully understand Kirk's admonition that liberty and freedom have to be more than just words, I remember them today quite clearly. This is a testament, if one were required, to the power of that medium. When I think that today's youngsters will be vividly recalling "American Idol" 40 years from now, I shudder from the horror.

For those of you who don't have cable, the episode revolves around a struggle on the planet Omega IV between two peoples, the Yangs and the Kohms. The Kohms are literate, iron-age village folk; a seemingly peaceable civilized people who are now on the losing end of an ancient war with the Yangs, a far more numerous, primitive, savage and free tribal culture. Another star ship captain, Tracey of the Exeter (whose crew has been wiped out by one of the more silly Star Trek plot devices) has intervened on behalf of the Kohms, thus violating the Federation's oft quoted (but most often honored in the breach) "Prime Directive" of non-intervention. (Personally I think that Star Trek was infected with more than a little "globalism" nonsense and that any future space "federation" will look more like the oppressive Mandarin bureaucracy of "Firefly" than that of the eternally optimistic Star Trek.)

Tracey has the Kohms imprison the Enterprise crew and he confiscates their weapons to use on the Kohm's enemies. Yet the Yangs have the advantage of fanaticism and numbers. They BELIEVE in the "Holy Words" and are willing to die for them. The Kohms, even with Tracey's help, are wiped out as an organized force, with Tracey and the few Kohm survivors falling back on the last village. Incredulous, Tracey tells Kirk, "They sacrificed HUNDREDS just to get us out into the open. And then they came -- and they CAME! We drained four phasers and they STILL came. . . we killed THOUSANDS and they STILL CAME!"

Kirk realizes that the Yangs worship freedom and that the name must be a corruption of "Yankees". Thus, as Spock finishes his thought, "Kohms. . .Communists. The parallel is almost too close, Captain. It would mean that these people fought the war that your Earth avoided, and in this case, the asiatics won and took over this planet."

The victorious Yangs flood into the village and their chief, Cloud William, proclaims "that which is ours is ours again; it will never be taken from us again." Into the scene steps the bearer of one of the Yang's "holies", their battle flag, a tattered, ancient Stars and Stripes. When Decker improbably convinces Cloud William that Kirk was "cast out of heaven" and represents "the evil one", the chief tests Kirk by demanding that he translate the Hoy Words that only a chief may speak, "E Plebmnista; norcom, forcom, perfectumum." Kirk, being a well rehearsed Canadian actor playing a corn-fed Midwestern boy turned spaceship captain, replies: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . "

Kirk reaches for the holy document and a Yang scholar objects, "Only the eyes of a chief may see the E Plebmnista!" Kirk replies, "This was not written for chiefs. . .These words, and the words that follow, were not just written for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well." Cloud William resists, "But the Kohms . . " "They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!" Kirk insists.

Cornball? You bet. But why do I tear up even now, forty years later, at the scene? Because it strikes at those "mystic chords of memory" that Lincoln spoke of. It enunciates the eternal American IDEA.

"Because America is more than just a place, being an American citizen is different than being the citizen of any other country on earth. We Americans do not look to the ties of common blood and history for connection as people the way the citizens of other countries do. Rather, our common bond is a shared principle. This is what Lincoln meant when he referred to the 'electric cord' in the Declaration of Independence that links all of us together, as though we were 'blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration.' Because ours is a bond of principle and not of blood, true American citizens are made and not born. This is why, odd as it may seem, we must all learn--those who are born here, and those who come here by choice--what it means to be an American. Regrettably, we are doing a poor job of passing this knowledge on to future generations. . . . the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that 73 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the proficient level in civics, as did 78 percent of eighth-graders, and 76 percent of fourth-graders. To put this into perspective, 72 percent of eighth graders could not explain the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence. This ignorance is tragic not merely because it indicates a deficiency in our educational system, but because with it comes a loss of our national identity. And so, I find it somewhat ironic and yet very fitting that fifty years after coming to this great country, I spend my days at an institution where my job is to teach college students and high school teachers what it means to be an American." -- Peter W. Schramm, "American by Choice: We must all learn what it means to be an American," Ibid.

We are in danger of becoming a society of Cloud Williams, genuflecting to the "holies" yet not comprehending what it is to be American, what it is to live free and most importantly how to remain free. Will our children's children then recite "E Plebmnista; norcom, forcom, perfectumum," with no comprehension of the real words, the real MEANING of our God-given American liberty. Will they forget the constitutional republic which is meant to secure that liberty with the blood and sweat and sacrifice of its citizens? Will they forget HOW to be free?

"We are Americans."

"We cannot forget who we are. We are Americans. This is a great nation. We Americans insist on holding to the connection between freedom and justice, courage and moderation. We think that equality and liberty have ethical and political implications, and, as we have shown time-and-again throughout our history, we are willing to fight and to die to make men free. We need to impart these principles to succeeding generations. We Americans correctly demand respect for our rights but, in getting that respect, we must continue to demonstrate that we continue to deserve it. We have to exercise our intelligence and develop our civic understanding so that we may preserve our liberty and pass it on, undiminished to the next generation. If government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' is to endure, its endurance can only come from the devotion of Americans--born here and away--who have been so made." -- Peter W. Schramm, "American by Choice: We must all learn what it means to be an American," Ibid.

So, here we are, given a momentary respite in the fight to remain free Americans. The fight is not over. It is never over. We did not need Sons of Liberty bricks to turn back the enemies of the Founders' Republic this time. Next time, maybe we will. Next time, or the next after that, we may need bullets. But if we are not to go gently into the bloody collectivist good night that the Amnesty Conspiracy presages, we must remember what is is to be free. We must remember what it is to be American. We must remember once more what it is that makes us Sons and Daughters of Liberty. And we must ACT.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

Rock 'Em Part 6

(Sixth of a series on why we should emulate the Sons of Liberty in responding to the Amnesty Conspiracy.)

Jed Eckert: So this is the battlefield?
Col. Andy Tanner: It's a real war, kid. It's here every day.
-- "Red Dawn," 1984

"Invasion: The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass; A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder; The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease." -- Webster's Dictionary

"Quis·ling, n. A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country. [After Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945), head of Norway's government during the Nazi occupation (1940–1945).]" --

"There are Quislings in every country . . ." -- The Times of London, "Quislings Everywhere, " 15 April 1940

Headlines from a War . . .

The Mexican Invasion continues. You know, I used to resist using military terms to describe the influx of illegal aliens into our country. I changed my mind after I worked the New Mexico border with the Minutemen. It's a war zone all right, no doubt about it. When you've seen the fear that folks on the border live with every single day, it makes your blood boil. Many of them go about their lives looking at the ground, never glancing side to side, lest they see something on their own property that might lead to their fences being cut, their irrigation pipes broken, their stock killed, their barns burned, and their families threatened. And you're struck with the fact: this is America, and these are Americans living in fear. And they can't trust anybody. Not their neighbors, not the local mailman, not the police, sheriff or Border Patrolman. The drug and human smuggling cartels have ears bigger than the East German Stazi in its prime. And, it would now appear, our border citizens can't trust the National Guard either.

"AUSTIN -- The Texas National Guard says three Guardsmen have been arrested on suspicion of illegal immigrant smuggling. A National Guard statement released Monday says the arrests happened Friday in the U.S. Border Patrol's Laredo sector after a Border Patrol investigation. No identities were released. According to the statement, the soldiers were participating in Operation Jump Start. That's a joint effort by federal and local law enforcement and National Guard elements to discourage illegal immigration." -- "3 Guardsmen arrested on suspicion of immigrant smuggling," Associated Press, Monday, 11 June 2007

The corruption attendant to open borders pollutes everything, and not just on the border, as we see in the Amnesty Conspiracy's bill in the Senate. So the war goes on, the invasion continues apace. Here are some headlines brought to you by the Amnesty Conspiracy and the open borders crowd:

** "Illegals light border fires to sidetrack U.S. agents, " -- Jerry Seper, Washington Times, 19 June 2007

** "Authorities: Milwaukee Police Officer Admits Being Illegal Immigrant, " -- Fox News, 18 June 2007

** "What does a health crisis look like? See Houston," -- Richard Wolf, USA TODAY, 18 June 2007

** "Over 100 Poultry Workers in South Carolina Test Positive for TB," Associated Press, 21 June 2007

** "Hispanic Brothels move in on Nashville," Sheila Burke, Nashville Tennessean, 16 June 2007

** "Top LA businessman nabbed for murder, corruption, harboring illegal aliens," Jim Kouri, Renew America, 16 June 2007

** "New fear in Mexico: Army soldiers fleeing for cartels. Failure to track the thousands of deserters may lead to a pool of hit men, critics say," -- Marion Lloyd, Houston Chronicle, 18 June 2007

** "Marijuana seized after agents catch smugglers using ramps to drive over border fence," Debbi Farr Baker, San Diego Union Tribune, 21 June 2007

And then there's the New Illegal Alien Poster Boy of the Month, Eligio Chia-Duran. He deserves more than a mere headline:

"This is a Violation of the Geneva, er, I mean, the Vienna Convention!"

Illegal immigrant fails to sway judge in sex case
Child molestation suspect says diplomatic law violated during arrest

By Kathy Jefcoats
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 06/14/07

A judge refused Wednesday to drop child molestation charges against an illegal Mexican immigrant who argued that Clayton County police violated diplomatic law during the arrest. Eligio Chia-Duran, 30, alleged a violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, an international treaty adopted by the United States, because arresting officers failed to tell Chia-Duran he had the right to contact the Mexican embassy in Atlanta.

Chia-Duran is charged with aggravated battery and aggravated child molestation involving the then-8-month-old daughter of his girlfriend. The mother, Fabiola Delgado Mata, 20, also is charged. The baby, who is paralyzed from the waist down because of injuries allegedly inflicted by Chia-Duran, is in state custody. Defense lawyer Stephen Mackie said after the hearing, "A diplomat from his own country could have explained his rights to him in Spanish, emphasizing his right to remain silent and not make a statement, which is a right not all countries have."

I could go on and on. In the past week, I'm certain there were hundreds of such stories in newspapers all over the country: illegals in drug gangs killing Americans, freelance illegal criminals killing Americans, illegals in drunk driving incidents killing Americans. Illegals, illegals, illegals. Down in Hoover, Alabama, I have a buddy who refers to the day laborers who hang out around his favorite gas station as "the Mexican Army." He's not far wrong. Unlike MS-13, they may not carry guns, but they are advance scouts of an invasion nonetheless -- an invasion that is remorseless, continuing and never-ending. With or without the Amnesty Bill, the invasion will continue until the borders and our employment laws are enforced.

Lower than Quisling

And we have Quislings to thank for that -- good old American traitors in the mold of Vidkun Quisling or Benedict Arnold, who sell out their principles and their constitutional oaths for thirty pieces of Chamber of Commerce silver. Actually, most of these modern-day traitors rank BELOW Quisling. To call them "quislings" is actually an insult to old Vidkun himself and honest quislings everywhere. Quisling, you see, had principles. They were sick, twisted, fascist principles to be sure, but they were principles. But Trent Lott and the rest of the Republican Amnesty Conspirators? They're in it for the money. And the White House even tells us so.

"Bluey" the blogger at had done us the favor of linking the latest White House drivel on the Amnesty Bill. You will find it at:

Here's Bluey's comment:

"White House Confirms Big Business Is Behind Amnesty Bill (And the National Council Of La Raza, Too)

The Bush administration's latest piece of immigration propaganda (not even posted on highlights the efforts of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Restaurant Association, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation Of Independent Business, National Restaurant Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, Associated Builders and Contractors, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, American Subcontractors Association, American Health Care Association, Poultry Federation, Georgia Farm Bureau, Tyson Foods, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and many others.

But perhaps what's most shocking is the White House's inclusion of a quote from National Council Of La Raza chief executive Janet Murguía. This is a group with a radical agenda that has ties to the "Reconquista" movement to reclaim the Western portion of the United States. This article by the late Rep. Charlie Norwood blew the lid off many of La Raza's activities. Why is the White House legitimizing this organization?"

Why indeed. The reason, of course, is all those cheap-labor addicted employers listed in the first paragraph. Like heroin addicts, they can never get enough, and they make campaign contributions to make sure their supply is uninterrupted. And like heroin addicts, all the letters, email, talk radio and rational argument means spit in the wind to them.

So what shall we do with all these American Quislings, in and out of government? Hey, I've got an old idea -- a Sons of Liberty idea. For just one example, the US Chamber of Commerce is affiliated with local chambers all over the United States. And I'll bet that, like the local offices of the Republican and Democrat parties, they've got windows. So do the local members, county and state councils of all those other business organizations listed by the White House. They've all got windows. Some of 'em are nice big expensive windows. Want to send a message? Got a brick?

And the war goes on . . .

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

Rock 'Em Part 5

Rock ‘Em V: Night of the Living Dead
“I don’t know whether this sham of an immigration bill is dead or just resting ‘in the shadows’ like a fine upstanding member of the Vampiric-American community.” — Mark Steyn

“The top Democrat and top Republican in the Senate last night said the immigration bill, which stalled last week, will be revived and back on the Senate’s agenda next week.” — “Immigration bill gets 2nd chance”, Stephen Dinan and Jon Ward, Washington Times, 15 June 2007

“It has been established that persons who have recently died have been returning to life and committing acts of murder. A widespread investigation of funeral homes, morgues, and hospitals has concluded that the unburied dead have been returning to life and seeking human victims. It’s hard for us here to be reporting this to you, but it does seem to be a fact.” — Newscaster in “Night of the Living Dead”, 1968

“I’ll see you at the bill signing.” — George W. Bush, 15 June 2007
Truth and Lies: “Follow the Money”

“Some truths are so obvious that to mention them in polite company seems either pointless or rude. What is left unstated, however, can with time be forgotten.” — Robert D. Kaplan, “On Forgetting the Obvious.”

Well, they’re baaack. You know, THEM: The Grand Bargainers, the rapacious Amnesty Conspiracists, the Senators with their thirty pieces of silver, newly minted by the Chamber of Commerce. They’re back, led by the Hacendado-in-Chief, Jorge Boosh and they ain’t taking “no” for an answer. Like the folks in Night of the Living Dead, we can only wonder, “How many times have we got to kill this thing?”

Self-described Republican “rodent” Trent Lott is angry they’re having to do mouth-to-mouth on this corpse of a bill. Complained Lott, “Senators on both sides are being pounded by talk radio,” and Lott seems to know just what to do about that:
“Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: ‘Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.’ At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in ‘younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.’ “Senate Leaders Agree to Revive Immigration Bill.” New York Times, 15 Jun 2007

So now we have Republicans signing on to The “Fairness” Doctrine? My, the Imperial Senate must really be irritated at us disrespectful types who don’t know when to sit down, shut up, take our medicine and love them for it. I talked with one hapless Republican Kool-Aid drinker from Mississippi the other day who was mystified at his Senator’s behavior. “How can he do this?” he wailed. “Doesn’t he get that it’s (illegal immigration) tearing our party and this country apart? Why is he siding with Teddy Kennedy on something that is so WRONG for this country?” To which I replied, “Matthew 26, verses 14 to 16.”

“Then one of the Twelve–the one called Judas Iscariot–went to the chief priests and asked, ‘What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?’ So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over. “

I’m sorry folks. Nothing else explains this kind of Republican behavior. “Follow the money,” goes the investigatorial truism. The Democrats don’t want money, of course, they want power. Let’s be specific, they want the votes which translate into power. The money can come later for them. Like Lenin, they are content to let the “useful idiots” like Lott, the Rodent Republicans and the National Chamber of Commerce sell the rope by which they — and us — will be hung.

“What the powerful want: A consensus exists among the powerful and politically connected of both parties that the 12-20 million illegals currently in residence must be given some sort of papers, if only to protect the businesses, large and small, which depend on their low cost labor. Democrats see a future voting constituency, charities and government agencies see more clients and more funding for their services, and some unions see more members. Republicans fear harming the economy with labor shortages and futilely hope to avoid being branded racists.” — Thomas Lifson, “No Grand Schemes,” The American Thinker, 12 June 2007

Howard Fineman thinks he knows where Bush’s motivation comes from:
“Though I’ve never heard him use the term, my guess is that George W. Bush sees himself as a Hacendado, an estate owner in Old Mexico. That would give him a sense of Southwestern noblesse, duty-bound not just to work ‘his’ people, but to protect them as well. His advisor, Carlo Rove, has explained that a system called “democracy” now gives peasants something called “the vote.” It would be shrewd, Rove said, for Hacendado to grant their workers citizenship. That’s the best explanation I have for why Bush is in the midst of what may be a suicide mission on immigration policy “embarrassing for him and ruinous for his party. Long ago, when he was running for governor, Bush told me that he was a ’southwestern’ Republican, not a ’southern’ one. As a son of the Southwest, he wants employers to have access to all of that cheap labor, but wants to make the system more orderly, at least not cruel. He hopes (as he did as governor) to get credit for wisdom. It infuriates Bush when people “ in his own party, no less “ are not grateful for what he sees as an act of heartfelt, enlightened generosity and foresighted management. So he sounded like the Texas gunslinger he pretended to be as a kid when he squared off against GOP foes of his sweeping immigration proposal. His timing was perfect, as in wrong, just as he was preparing to attend the Senate Republicans’ weekly luncheon on the Hill. ‘I’ll see you at the bill signing,’ he said, chestier than usual. He might live to regret such playground bravado.” — Howard Fineman, “Bush calling for GOP showdown”, MSNBC, 12 June 2007

Trust and Treachery: “The Business End of a Popular Revolt.”
But if the Amnesty Conspiracy is measuring us for our hangman’s noose, “Nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as the prospect of being hung in the morning,” as Ben Franklin said. And, as the Amnesty Conspiracy has now discovered, there are many, many of us who refuse to place the noose around our own necks.

“The White House is exploiting American alarm at uncontrolled borders to get its way. This of course has added to the sense of national alarm. They believe the alarm works for them: If you don’t pass our bill we’ll never control your borders–yes, ‘your’–and you’ll suffer! In the general air of agitation, anger festers. People feel powerless. Rage follows, and in this case I believe deep fissures will follow that.” — Peggy Noonan, “The Old Affection,” Opinion Journal, 15 June 2007

“Should President Bush and Congress continue to breathe life into the dead issue of comprehensive immigration legislation, they will find themselves at the business end of a popular revolt.” – Thomas Lifson, Ibid.

I wish that Lifson had been a bit more specific about what form that popular revolt might take. Rocks through the windows of county political party offices, perhaps? Nevertheless, it is apparent that, as Noonan observes, rage is building and will, in time, express itself with consequences, intended and unintended.

You know this is nothing new in American politics. In 1787 we Americans had another little argument about the future of our country. It was called the Constitutional Convention. Then the lines were drawn between the Federalists, including big-state elitists like Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti-Federalists. Among the prominent Anti-Federalists were Virginians Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and Patrick Henry (the latter was so opposed to the designs of the Hamiltonians that although he was elected as a Virginia delegate to the convention, he refused to go because as he said, “I smelt a rat”). Among small state Anti-Federalists were men such as Delaware’s Gunning Bedford, Jr. In the event, the refusal of the Anti-Federalists to go along with several of the Federalists’ proposals led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights as a counterbalancing of power in favor of the individual rights of the people and of the sovereign states.

At the convention, the small states themselves “smelt a rat” in one of the Federalist proposals for proportional representation that would benefit the big states. Delaware’s delegates were under instructions from their legislature not to compromise on the requirement of one vote per State in the Congress. The debate became acrimonious and even threatening. The emphases below were delivered in the original by Bedford with great vehemence.

“The larger states proceed as if our eyes were already blinded. Impartiality, with them, is already out of the question. . . notwithstanding they endeavor to amuse us with the purity of their principles and the purity of their intentions . . . Pretenses to support ambition are never wanting. . . I do not, gentlemen, trust you. If you possess the power, the abuse could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction? . . .Is it come to this, then, that the sword must decide the controversy, and that the horrors of war must be added to the rest of our misfortunes?” — Gunning Bedford, Jr., Delegate from Delaware to the Constitutional Convention, 30 June 1787. Bicentennial Edition of Robert Yate’s “Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention, etc. . .” Originally printed in 1821, Albany NY, reprinted Birmingham AL, 1987, p 11.

“I do not, gentlemen, trust you.” Is this not the basis of our own objections to this odious bill today? We do not, we cannot, trust Bush and the Amnesty Conspiracy to defend the borders and enforce this country’s laws, including the Constitution they all swore an oath to uphold. We know this from past experiences over the decades. They have not done so and will NEVER do so, despite all their promises, threats, blandishments and insults. And if that is the case, we must ask the Amnesty Conspiracists again, “If you possess the power, the abuse could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction?”
Principle and Power: “Against others’ malign impulses”

“We’re gonna give you forty acres and a mule. . . Because we’re your friends. And you’re gonna be voters. And you’re gonna vote like your friends do.” Carpetbagger in “Gone With the Wind,” 1939.

What is this rabid thirst for amnesty about anyway? It is first and foremost about power. It is about the power of money to influence the Republicans and about the thirst for unassailable political power on the part of Teddy Kennedy’s Democrats. Having been frustrated on the national political stage for the most part since Ronald Reagan, losing tight elections they feel they should have won, the Democrats are now poised to change, in the blink of an eye, the old rules of the game. Tired of losing the last several homecoming games, Team Democrat is about to open the back service entrance to the stadium to pack the playing field and the RINOs are willing to unlock the gate for them.

Ever hear of “Ya Es Hora”? It means roughly “It’s about time.” This is the name of the campaign to enlist legal Hispanic immigrants to apply for citizenship and, especially, vote.

“Backed by the largest Spanish-language broadcast network in the U.S., a massive campaign by Latino media and grass-roots groups to spur millions of eligible Hispanic residents to become U.S. citizens is showing results that could influence the agenda and outcome of the 2008 election. More than eight million green-card holders” that is, legal permanent residents” are eligible to become U.S. citizens, and the majority are immigrants of Latin American origin, according to U.S. government data. Now, Univision Communications Inc. is using its considerable clout with the Spanish-speaking community in the U.S. to turn this latent voting bloc into an active and potentially potent force. The citizenship drive, which is about to go national, could help turn Latinos into a key electoral constituency in several states. A larger bloc of new Latino voters would likely influence the immigration debate that has been dividing the country. In part because of this, Hispanic voters in recent elections have tended to cast ballots mostly for Democrats.” — “Univision Gives Citizenship Drive Unusual Lift,” Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2007

And then there’s this:

“Thirty years ago Andrea Sbardellati left Argentina for a 15-day US visit and never returned home. Now the head of her own Los Angeles-based company, she has three children and wants to become more politically active in her adopted country. ‘The same kind of political abuse that used to go on in Argentina I am now seeing in the US,’ says Ms. Sbardellati, sitting in an office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, where she is filling out an application to become a US citizen. ‘I’m applying to become a citizen because I want to vote, to make a difference, to have a voice in democracy.’ Just down the hall from where Sbardellati is filling out the requisite paperwork, a room of telephone operators logs inquiries from thousands like her. More than anytime in 10 years, say NALEO officials, the calls and applications are flooding in.” — “Legal immigrants seek American citizenships in surging numbers,” Christian Science Monitor, 26 March 2007
Now if you missed seeing the “same kind of political abuse that used to go on in Argentina” you’re not the only one. Somehow I missed the censorship of the press, the “disappearances,” the death squads and the military dictatorship that Ms. Sbardellati somehow sees in the present-day United States, for that is what Argentina used to be. Even today, it and other South American nations are but a military coup away from the same horrors. But it is the United States that is “abusive?”

Of course, for all this activity to enroll legal immigrant voters, it is currently not necessary to be a legal citizen to vote in our elections:

“U.S. citizens who go to the polls Nov. 2 to decide local, state and national elections are likely to get more help from noncitizens this year than ever before. Beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on voter-registration forms affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there is no way to prevent the nation’s estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens from casting ballots in November, area elections officials said. Locally, only Virginia requires voters to provide their Social Security numbers, but the state does not require voters to show their Social Security cards. ‘There is no way of checking,’ said Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone. ‘We have no way of doing that. We have no access to any information about who is in the United States legally or otherwise.’ Nationally, immigration experts said it is likely that illegal immigrants vote, but that only a small percentage does so. ‘Evidence suggests very few illegal aliens vote, but it’s certainly not zero,’ said Steven Camarota, director of research at the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies. ‘Illegal aliens don’t come to America to vote, and would generally try to avoid doing so.’ Today, there are roughly 8 million illegal aliens in the United States who are of voting age, he said.” — “Little to stop illegals from voting,” Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times, 24 September 2004.
Mr. Camarota would likely revise his statement somewhat given the stories since 2004 of illegal voters influencing elections in California and New Mexico. But of course, given the great “Amnesty Bargain” that won’t matter any more will it? EVERYBODY will be legal. And everybody will vote. And voting, in a democracy shorn of republican constitutional restraints, is pure, unadulterated power. It is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner.

“The most important feature of the Jim Crow system, though not the most obvious, was Negro disenfranchisement. In a democracy, people who vote can get themselves treated decently; people who can’t are powerless against others’ malign impulses. Once the federal government had made it plain, most dramatically in Mississippi in 1875, that it would not enforce black people’s constitutional right to vote, it left the way clear for the Southern states, after a time, to take that right away explicitly.” — Redemption, The Last Battle of the Civil War by Nicholas Lemann, New York, 2006, page 184.

Let me rephrase that for today, as if written by a future historian:
“The most important feature of the Amnesty Conspiracy, though not the most obvious, was the functional disenfranchisement of the conservative and libertarian native-born of all races. In a democracy, people whose votes are in the majority can get themselves decently treated, they can even vote themselves money and benefits from the government purse. People whose votes are always and forever in the minority are powerless against others’ malign impulses. They are as powerless as if they lacked the vote at all. Once the federal government made it plain that it did not care what the minority thought (for it could never influence the power equation), it no longer mattered that they had not taken away that right explicitly. They didn’t have to.”
What you must understand is that if this bill passes, within a short span of history, perhaps less than a decade, you and anyone who agrees with you about the primacy of the Constitution and the rule of law will be of no more political consequence to our rulers than a black Mississippi sharecropper was to the Democrat hegemony in the South in 1895. Your opinion will be worth spit in the wind, your life and your property will exist on the razor’s edge of a political boss’s whim and decisions will be made about your children’s education and future without any input from you. The best your children may hope for then is to become Janissaries in the new social order, executing the orders of their “betters” in return for a place to sleep and food to eat.

Rocks or Bullets: “You’re telling us we gotta risk our lives?”

“We may not enjoy living together, but dying together isn’t going to solve anything.” — Helen Cooper, “Night of the Living Dead,” 1968.

What would the Founders like Patrick Henry, George Mason and Gunning Bedford Jr., do if they were faced with that eventuality? For his part, Gunning Bedford already said it: “Is it come to this, then, that the sword must decide the controversy, and that the horrors of war must be added to the rest of our misfortunes?”
One of my many critics in the blogosphere has derisively labeled my desire to see the Sons of Liberty’s rock throwing tactics resurrected in present day as the “Ernest T. Bass theory.” Ernest T., you may remember was the ignorant and obstreperous hillbilly who used to go around getting attention in Mayberry by putting rocks through folks’ windows. When Andy and Deputy Barney Fife intervened, Ernest T. would run off yelling, “You ain’t seen the last…of Ernest T. Bass!” To which Barney Fife observed: “He’s a nut!”

Well, Ernest T. certainly was, and maybe I am too. Maybe it is nutty to think that the American people can influence the Mandarin class on this. Maybe it is nutty to risk jail on a sedition charge just to see if change can be effected short of real violence. Maybe it is nutty to think that at least some of the American people still retain the love of liberty and the fighting spirit of the Founders. Maybe.
But I do know this. Rocks now are preferable to bullets later. And that’s where this going, folks, if it is not stopped. Not now, not tomorrow, but five years, ten years down the road? Certainly.

You know, one of my favorite scenes in Night of the Living Dead, is when Ben, who has been fighting the undead all alone upstairs for what seems to him like ages, discovers that there are others in the house:

Ben: How long have guys you been down there? I could have used some help up here!
Harry Cooper: That’s the cellar. It’s the safest place.
Ben: You mean you didn’t hear the racket I was making up here?
Harry Cooper: How were we supposed to know what was going on? Could have been those things for all we knew!
Ben: That girl was screaming. Surely you know what a girl screaming sounds like. Those things don’t make any noise. Anybody would know somebody needed help!
Tom: Look, it’s kind of hard to know what’s going on from down there.
Harry Cooper: We thought we could hear screams, but for all we knew, that has meant those things were in the house after her.
Ben: And you wouldn’t come up here and help?
Tom: Well, if there were more of us…
Harry Cooper: That racket sounded like the place was being ripped apart. How were we supposed to know what was going on?
Ben: Now wait a minute. You just got finished saying you couldn’t hear anything down there. Now you say it sounded like the place was being ripped apart. It would be nice if you get your story straight, man.
Harry Cooper: All right, now you tell me! I’m not gonna take that kind of a chance when we’ve got a safe place! We lock into a safe place, and you’re telling us we gotta risk our lives just because somebody might need help, huh?
Ben: Yeah, something like that.
“Well, if there were more of us…” Folks, if you’re waiting for reinforcements before acting, they ain’t coming. We’re all that stands between what was and what will be, no matter how dark and bloody a future that is. The Amnesty Conspiracy has made a cold political calculation that you will let them get away with the biggest power grab in American history. A power grab so complete that it will end the Founders’ government of checks and balances and the rule of law. A power grab that will finish the Old Republic for good. It’s time, my fellow Americans, if you wish to remain Americans, to come out of the cellar and grab some rocks. It is time to be Sons and Daughters of Liberty once more.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126