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.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
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.
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.
"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.
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.”
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."
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.
http://www.constitutionforum.net/forum.html
http://www.constitutionforum.net/forum.html
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"!
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.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory
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.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory
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.
"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...
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 http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
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.
Neal
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 http://agentramos.blogspot.com/
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.
Neal
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Can you believe this?
HR 1999 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1999
To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 23, 2007
Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
A BILL
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,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hope Fund Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA AND RAZA DEVELOPMENT FUND.
(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!
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1999
To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 23, 2007
Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
A BILL
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,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Hope Fund Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA AND RAZA DEVELOPMENT FUND.
(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, ( http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.5/pub_detail.asp)
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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
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, ( http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.5/pub_detail.asp)
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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
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).]" -- Answers.com
"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 RedState.com had done us the favor of linking the latest White House drivel on the Amnesty Bill. You will find it at:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/white_house_confirms_big_business_is_behind_amnesty_bill
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 WhiteHouse.gov) 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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
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).]" -- Answers.com
"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 RedState.com had done us the favor of linking the latest White House drivel on the Amnesty Bill. You will find it at:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/white_house_confirms_big_business_is_behind_amnesty_bill
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 WhiteHouse.gov) 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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
“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
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Rock 'Em Part 4
Rock 'Em IV: The "Turning Point" or Just the Flushing of a Single Turd?
"Few things stand out less clearly at the time than a turning point in history, at any rate when one is living through it. As a rule it is only in retrospect that an event can be seen clearly as a turning point. Historians write as if they were looking at the past in the rearview mirror of a moving car and, of course, picking the turning points' of history is something of a specialty for many historians -- in some cases the more obscure, the better. Turning points, however, are much harder to recognize as they occur, when one is looking through the windshield." -- Michael Korda, Journey Into a Revolution: A Personal Memoir and History of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 1.
"I promised the President today that I wouldn't say anything bad about ... this piece of sh-t bill." -- House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of the Republican Rapid Responders, 22 May 2007.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -- Toshiro Mifune, as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in Tora! Tora! Tora!, 1970.
SLEEPING GIANTS
"Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed" -- New York Times headline, 10 June 2007
You know, that quote above from the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" about the consequences of the Pearl Harbor attack is the most famous line Admiral Yamamoto never uttered. Scholars have been unable to document that Yamamoto used those exact words, although he said something similar that the screenwriter likely "interpreted" into the famous line.
Somewhat more reliably than the screenplay version, Yamamoto was also reputed to have said: "Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog." Well, I guess George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Trent Lott and the rest of the Amnesty Conspiracy know how Yamamoto felt now. They kicked the dog and the dog ripped their trousers off, exposing their naked backsides for all to see (a not uncommon occurrence for Kennedy) . They can each consider themselves lucky not to have lost a leg.
"(T)he legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless. In a crucial vote Thursday night, the bill’s supporters, including President Bush, fell short by 15 votes. While there is a possibility the legislation could be revived later this year, there was a glow of victory among opponents on Friday." -- Julia Preston, "Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed," New York Times, 10 June 2007
Glow? The talk radio circuit and the blogosphere just about broke their arms patting themselves on the back by the end of this week, congratulating themselves on have forced the withdrawal of the immigration bill in the Senate, that "grand bargain" of the Amnesty Conspiracy. I heard on one of the talk shows that we had reached "a turning point." The feeling seemed to be that "they won't try THAT again." Geraldo Rivera whined, "I really do fault extremist radio. I think a lot of it was scaring people. This talk of amnesty..." Yep. Watch for renewed Democrat interest in "The Fairness Doctrine" after this. No good deed goes unpunished.
"We Are A Bunch of Rodents."
"There are rats in the corn!" -- Ruby Dee as Mother Abigail Freemantle in "The Stand," 1984
Certainly something extraordinary happened on the way to the forum. I've been trying to get folks to throw bricks through the politicians' windows for the past few weeks, but just when it looked like the old-fashioned, traditional ways of getting our "rulers'" attention were not going work (and therefore bricks would be required), they apparently did. The phones melted down, Senators' local offices were besieged. Diane Feinstein was shocked by the vociferous criticism, calling it "racist." Trent Lott moaned in the Senate that his constituents apparently no longer trusted him. Yet still he challenged his colleagues to show some backbone and vote for the bill:
“'Are we men and women or mice?' Mr. Lott asked. 'Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let’s legislate. Let’s vote.'” -- New York Times, 8 June 2007
Perhaps Lott confused his colleagues with that mixed metaphor about mice slithering but they voted, and Lott and his Amnesty Conspiracy buddies came up short. The Washington Times reported:
"Throughout the day, (Lott) had challenged senators to answer whether they were 'mice or men.' As he left he called out to reporters: 'We are a bunch of rodents.'" -- Stephen Dinan, "Filibuster spoils 'bargain'" The Washington Times, 8 June 2007
"We are a bunch of rodents." On that, I think we can all agree, Senator Lott. But you and your fellow Amnesty Conspiracists are rats, Senator Lott-- big ugly, hairy, bloated, power-hungry rats of the kind that will swarm and devour a sleeping child and certainly not inoffensive little field mice.
"It's ALIVE!"
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while congress is in session." -- Mark Twain
But, to paraphrase the English town criers, "The bill is dead, long live the bill!"
"The White House insisted Sunday that radical plans to overhaul the US immigration system were not dead, amid calls for Republicans and Democrats to work hard to save a controversial bill." -- "US immigration bill alive and well, White House insists," Associated Press 10 June 2007
Remember the bill has been withdrawn, not killed. The "leadership" of the Amnesty Conspiracy says it can be reintroduced in July. I have visions of Dubya, dressed in a white lab coat, shrieking like Dr. Frankenstein: "Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!" while Trent Lott, John Kyl and Teddy Kennedy jump and cavort in celebration like triplet Egors.
"Turning Point" or the Flushing of a Single Turd?
So, in John Boehner's famous characterization, this "piece of (excrement)" may or may not have been reliably flushed. It may indeed float back to the surface for a reconsideration. Whether we have indeed reached a "turning point" remains to be seen. I have my doubts. Even if we kill the bill for the next ten years what does that leave us with? The status quo, only growing every year. Have we then won anything thereby? Before we start patting ourselves on the back, consider that. As for me, I'm still yearning for the sound of tinkling glass. It's the Son of Liberty in me. And THAT would be a turning point.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
"Few things stand out less clearly at the time than a turning point in history, at any rate when one is living through it. As a rule it is only in retrospect that an event can be seen clearly as a turning point. Historians write as if they were looking at the past in the rearview mirror of a moving car and, of course, picking the turning points' of history is something of a specialty for many historians -- in some cases the more obscure, the better. Turning points, however, are much harder to recognize as they occur, when one is looking through the windshield." -- Michael Korda, Journey Into a Revolution: A Personal Memoir and History of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, HarperCollins, 2006, p. 1.
"I promised the President today that I wouldn't say anything bad about ... this piece of sh-t bill." -- House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of the Republican Rapid Responders, 22 May 2007.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -- Toshiro Mifune, as Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in Tora! Tora! Tora!, 1970.
SLEEPING GIANTS
"Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed" -- New York Times headline, 10 June 2007
You know, that quote above from the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" about the consequences of the Pearl Harbor attack is the most famous line Admiral Yamamoto never uttered. Scholars have been unable to document that Yamamoto used those exact words, although he said something similar that the screenwriter likely "interpreted" into the famous line.
Somewhat more reliably than the screenplay version, Yamamoto was also reputed to have said: "Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog." Well, I guess George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Trent Lott and the rest of the Amnesty Conspiracy know how Yamamoto felt now. They kicked the dog and the dog ripped their trousers off, exposing their naked backsides for all to see (a not uncommon occurrence for Kennedy) . They can each consider themselves lucky not to have lost a leg.
"(T)he legislation sparked a furious rebellion among many Republican and even some Democratic voters, who were linked by the Internet and encouraged by radio talk show hosts. Their outrage and activism surged to full force after Senator Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who was an author of the bill, suggested early this week that support for the measure seemed to be growing. The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless. In a crucial vote Thursday night, the bill’s supporters, including President Bush, fell short by 15 votes. While there is a possibility the legislation could be revived later this year, there was a glow of victory among opponents on Friday." -- Julia Preston, "Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed," New York Times, 10 June 2007
Glow? The talk radio circuit and the blogosphere just about broke their arms patting themselves on the back by the end of this week, congratulating themselves on have forced the withdrawal of the immigration bill in the Senate, that "grand bargain" of the Amnesty Conspiracy. I heard on one of the talk shows that we had reached "a turning point." The feeling seemed to be that "they won't try THAT again." Geraldo Rivera whined, "I really do fault extremist radio. I think a lot of it was scaring people. This talk of amnesty..." Yep. Watch for renewed Democrat interest in "The Fairness Doctrine" after this. No good deed goes unpunished.
"We Are A Bunch of Rodents."
"There are rats in the corn!" -- Ruby Dee as Mother Abigail Freemantle in "The Stand," 1984
Certainly something extraordinary happened on the way to the forum. I've been trying to get folks to throw bricks through the politicians' windows for the past few weeks, but just when it looked like the old-fashioned, traditional ways of getting our "rulers'" attention were not going work (and therefore bricks would be required), they apparently did. The phones melted down, Senators' local offices were besieged. Diane Feinstein was shocked by the vociferous criticism, calling it "racist." Trent Lott moaned in the Senate that his constituents apparently no longer trusted him. Yet still he challenged his colleagues to show some backbone and vote for the bill:
“'Are we men and women or mice?' Mr. Lott asked. 'Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let’s legislate. Let’s vote.'” -- New York Times, 8 June 2007
Perhaps Lott confused his colleagues with that mixed metaphor about mice slithering but they voted, and Lott and his Amnesty Conspiracy buddies came up short. The Washington Times reported:
"Throughout the day, (Lott) had challenged senators to answer whether they were 'mice or men.' As he left he called out to reporters: 'We are a bunch of rodents.'" -- Stephen Dinan, "Filibuster spoils 'bargain'" The Washington Times, 8 June 2007
"We are a bunch of rodents." On that, I think we can all agree, Senator Lott. But you and your fellow Amnesty Conspiracists are rats, Senator Lott-- big ugly, hairy, bloated, power-hungry rats of the kind that will swarm and devour a sleeping child and certainly not inoffensive little field mice.
"It's ALIVE!"
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while congress is in session." -- Mark Twain
But, to paraphrase the English town criers, "The bill is dead, long live the bill!"
"The White House insisted Sunday that radical plans to overhaul the US immigration system were not dead, amid calls for Republicans and Democrats to work hard to save a controversial bill." -- "US immigration bill alive and well, White House insists," Associated Press 10 June 2007
Remember the bill has been withdrawn, not killed. The "leadership" of the Amnesty Conspiracy says it can be reintroduced in July. I have visions of Dubya, dressed in a white lab coat, shrieking like Dr. Frankenstein: "Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!" while Trent Lott, John Kyl and Teddy Kennedy jump and cavort in celebration like triplet Egors.
"Turning Point" or the Flushing of a Single Turd?
So, in John Boehner's famous characterization, this "piece of (excrement)" may or may not have been reliably flushed. It may indeed float back to the surface for a reconsideration. Whether we have indeed reached a "turning point" remains to be seen. I have my doubts. Even if we kill the bill for the next ten years what does that leave us with? The status quo, only growing every year. Have we then won anything thereby? Before we start patting ourselves on the back, consider that. As for me, I'm still yearning for the sound of tinkling glass. It's the Son of Liberty in me. And THAT would be a turning point.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Rock 'Em Part 3
Let's "Talk a Little Treason"
"Well, it's a nice soft night so I think I'll go and join me comrades and talk a little treason."
-- Barry Fitzgerald as Michaleen Flynn, in The Quiet Man, 1952.
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
-- Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
"The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries. The question seemed to pique McCain. 'In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,' McCain said. 'They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.'
-- "Immigration debate follows McCain to campaign stop in Iowa", Associated Press, 2 June 2007
"Seditionist? What's a seditionist? Is it catching?"
Well, the Amnesty Conspirators have called us stupid nativists, xenophobic racists, and implied that we are disloyal to the country for opposing them. Now they threaten us, as John McCain does above, with violence in our own neighborhoods unless we acquiesce in their demands. It was only a matter of time, of course. There is no lie, stratagem or dirty dealing they will not stoop to in order to enforce their "enlightened" opinion upon the rest of us. This Amnesty Conspiracy is about power, folks -- money and power. The elitist RINOs sniff the money and the socialist Democrats smell the power and both are intoxicated thereby.
This artificial implantation of a foreign helot class upon our country by the likes of Teddy Kennedy & Co. is designed to negate the Constitution and overwhelm the voting power of their opponents in a master stroke. The RINOs, some of them, believe that they can persuade the illegals that they are their real friends. This is just so much moonshine self-deception. The rest of them -- slaves to their big business campaign contributors -- know where this is headed, but are satisfied that THEIR seats are safe until they retire. They are happy to sell out the country in the mean time.
"As we consider the coming of an elite, an authoritarian state, to fill the vacuum left by the loss of Christian principles, we must not think naively of the models of Stalin and Hitler. We must think rather of a manipulative authoritarian government. Modern governments have forms of manipulation at their disposal which the world has never known before." -- Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? -- The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, 1976, p. 228
Schaeffer wrote this THIRTY years ago and yet who can doubt that our government is becoming more maniuplative and more authoriatarian? We are certainly being manipulated by the Amnesty Conspiracy. And remember this: NOTHING will ever be the same if this monstrous attack upon our sovereignty and the rule of law succeeds and THEY KNOW IT. Why is it that the rest of us have such trouble seeing the danger? I exclude myself, of course, since I am a seditionist. I know I am a seditionist because somebody (actually, several somebodies) called me that after the circulation of my first essay on this subject ("Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy). Apparently my urging of petty vandalism in the cause of liberty and the preservation of the greater rule of law was offensive to some. Now I was a little hazy on the meaning of "sedition", and while I understood that a "seditionist" was obviously a practitioner of that ill-appreciated art, I looked it up in an on-line dictionary:
"Sedition: The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority."
Hmmm. "The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection" and "conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act" -- I guess that means a seditionist is a traitor-in-waiting and an insurrectionist-in-training without the immediate guts to do the job. Indeed, I was accused of that very thing on one of the web blogs by a poster who said that if I had the courage of my convictions, I would be breaking windows and not just talking about it. Of course, this was coming from someone who refused to consider that I might have a point about the danger that the Amnesty Conspiracy poses to what's left of the tottering old Republic. What he really wanted us all to do is sit down and shut up. Like George Bush, John McCain and Monty Python's King Arthur, he wants to order us to "Be quiet!"
In the present state of affairs, I'm actually kind of proud to be called a seditionist. I suppose, as things decline, I will one day be labeled a "traitor" and, since I am a "traitor" with firearms, I will then be an "insurrectionist." And my old man told me I'd never amount to anything! Shows you how much he knows. I called up a buddy of mine and told him that I was being called a "seditionist" on-line and he said, "Seditionist? What's a seditionist? Is it catching?" I guess sedition is a lost art in America, the last successful practitioners being the Founding Fathers.
When I explained to my friend what a seditionist was, he immediately made a connection I had not. "Hey," he observed happily, "you could just disappear!" What he meant was that the miserably misnamed PATRIOT Act could be used to arrest me without explanation or trial and whisk me away into the land of the "disappeared" -- a term made familiar by South American dictatorships but heretofore unknown in this country. One more thing to thank George Bush for, I guess. In any case, I'd like to state publicly right here and now that if I "disappear" I didn't run away from home of my own volition. If I disappear, I did not willingly hop on the Greyhound bus to Guantanamo.
(NOTE: I do not have a problem with filling up Guantanamo with foreign "combatants" who have committed acts of war against the United States of America. But as Justice Learned Hand once observed: "What seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition." And if you think that the PATRIOT Act is only about Jihad terrorists you haven't read it. Of course, if things get so bad in this country, as they well may in the future, that I perforce become an "insurrectionist," well, then, I'll just have to take my chances, won't I? As Super Chicken said to his sidekick: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.")
The Founders' Sedition
Of course the PATRIOT Act is not the first American law to deal with "sedition." Sedition runs like background music through our history, and its practitioners and opponents often changed sides with political fortunes.. Sam Adams, "The Grand Incendiary" without whose multiple seditions an independent United States would not have been possible, opposed Daniel Shays' rebellion even though he sympathized with it. John Adams, an accomplished seditionist himself under King George III, decided once he was President that he didn't like people saying nasty things about him so he contrived to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. This attempt to quash opposition merely inflamed it and guaranteed that Thomas Jefferson and not Mr. Adams would be the next President of the United States. Jefferson, of course, never lost his taste for sedition, counting "a little rebellion" every now and then to be a positive social good.
Still, I guess it's always been dangerous to be "seditious". As journalist Frank I. Cobb wrote of the 1919 Palmer Raids in the New York World:
"If the author of the Declaration of Independence were to utter such a sentiment today, the Post Office Department could exclude him from the mail, grand juries could indict him for sedition and criminal syndicalism, legislative committees could seize his private papers ... and United States Senators would be clamoring for his deportation that he ... should be sent back to live with the rest of the terrorists."
In the January, 1920 issue of LaFollette's Magazine, Cobb also wrote:
"The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority... It is the one guarantee of human freedom to the American people."
It is a guarantee, yes, but only if it's upheld by the actions of the people, for authority does not like to have anything in its face, let alone a clenched fist. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton's Imperial Presidency made its own unique contribution to the anti-sedition legal mix with the Counter-Terrorism Act in the mid-90s. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Clintonista's turn at national power comes round again and they begin enforcing the PATRIOT Act on the very people who wrote it.
The Founders were first "seditionists", then "traitors" and finally "insurrectionists" against the King -- until they won. Then they became patriots and Founders. If Sam Adams was a seditionist in a good cause (and he was) then why not me? Or, a more dangerous question: Why not you?
Thinking and Acting Before Feeling
“What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks. One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. …"
-- Peggy Noonan, "Too Bad: President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder", Wall Street Journal, 1 June 2007 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I would like to thank such an experienced political commentator as Peggy Noonan for reinforcing my point about elitists laid out in my last piece, Rock 'Em II: "The Masters of the Universe." She calls them "hacks," the Founders called them "courtiers" and I call them "Mandarins." It's six of one, and a half dozen of the other. But the key thing is this: having recognized the problem, what shall we do about it and, perhaps more importantly, when?
Some folks have chided me for being too "paranoid" or "conspiratorial" in suggesting it is time to break windows. They say it is too soon, that we are not yet oppressed enough to consider even petty vandalism to make a point. They would have us wait for true tyranny before acting. This is not the way of the Founders. I present in proof of this statement, the following excerpt from historian Gordon S. Wood:
In the American Revolution, Wood wrote, "there was none of the legendary tyranny of history that had so often driven desperate people into rebellion. The Americans were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial shackles to throw off. In fact, the Americans knew they were probably freer and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and hierarchical restraints than any part of mankind in the eighteenth century. To its victims, the Tories, the Revolution was truly incomprehensible. Never in history, said Daniel Leonard, had there been so much rebellion with so 'little real cause.' . . . The objective social reality scarcely seemed capable of explaining a revolution . . .
As early as 1775 Edmund Burke had noted in the House of Commons that the colonists' intensive study of law and politics had made them acutely inquisitive and sensitive about their liberties. Where the people of other countries had invoked principles only after they had endured 'an actual grievance,' the Americans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances and resorting to principles even before they actually suffered. 'They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.' The crucial question in the colonists' minds, wrote John Dickerson in 1768, was 'not, what evil HAS ACTUALLY ATTENDED particular measures-- but what evil, in the nature of things, IS LIKELY TO ATTEND them.' Because 'nations, in general, are not apt to THINK until they FEEL, . . .therefore nations in general have lost their liberty.' But not the Americans, as the Abbe Raynal observed. They were an 'enlightened people' who knew their rights and the limits of power and who, unlike any people before them, aimed to think before they felt."
(Source: Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, UNC Press, 1969, pp. 3-5)
I say we would do well to emulate the Founders, to think and ACT before we feel, when it will be too late. We must act, as in break some windows, just to see if our putative representatives are paying attention. The Founders would. They wouldn't have waited this long.
So, like Micheleen Flynn, I call you all to gather together in your homes, your businesses and in the places where you sit quietly and share a cup of coffee with friends. It is time to "talk a little a treason." It is time to be "seditious." It is time to do these things because our would-be rulers have decided it is time.
Frustrating the Tyrant's Appetite
Tyranny is a wolfish appetite. All it requires is willing silverware and a complacent main course of mutton. The problem for any wishful American tyrant is that they do not have a monopoly on cutlery, making the eating a dicey proposition. But there is an easier way for Americans to stay off the tyrant's table. Instead of acting like tasty sheep we can act like watchful sheepdogs. It is time for those of us who consider ourselves sheepdogs to growl a bit, lest the wolves mistake their chances. This is in the wolves' interest as well as the sheep: a heeded warning growl is better than a ripped throat if the confrontation goes too far. So for everyone concerned, it is time for sedition. It is time to "talk a little treason." It is time to break some windows, before something far greater and far more precious is irretrievably broken instead. And if we lack the courage to act now, in this small crisis which portends future catastrophe, our children will surely be food for the tyrant's table in that dark and bloody future. We must think and act before THEY feel. Is there any greater cause than that?
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
"Well, it's a nice soft night so I think I'll go and join me comrades and talk a little treason."
-- Barry Fitzgerald as Michaleen Flynn, in The Quiet Man, 1952.
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
-- Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
"The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries. The question seemed to pique McCain. 'In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,' McCain said. 'They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.'
-- "Immigration debate follows McCain to campaign stop in Iowa", Associated Press, 2 June 2007
"Seditionist? What's a seditionist? Is it catching?"
Well, the Amnesty Conspirators have called us stupid nativists, xenophobic racists, and implied that we are disloyal to the country for opposing them. Now they threaten us, as John McCain does above, with violence in our own neighborhoods unless we acquiesce in their demands. It was only a matter of time, of course. There is no lie, stratagem or dirty dealing they will not stoop to in order to enforce their "enlightened" opinion upon the rest of us. This Amnesty Conspiracy is about power, folks -- money and power. The elitist RINOs sniff the money and the socialist Democrats smell the power and both are intoxicated thereby.
This artificial implantation of a foreign helot class upon our country by the likes of Teddy Kennedy & Co. is designed to negate the Constitution and overwhelm the voting power of their opponents in a master stroke. The RINOs, some of them, believe that they can persuade the illegals that they are their real friends. This is just so much moonshine self-deception. The rest of them -- slaves to their big business campaign contributors -- know where this is headed, but are satisfied that THEIR seats are safe until they retire. They are happy to sell out the country in the mean time.
"As we consider the coming of an elite, an authoritarian state, to fill the vacuum left by the loss of Christian principles, we must not think naively of the models of Stalin and Hitler. We must think rather of a manipulative authoritarian government. Modern governments have forms of manipulation at their disposal which the world has never known before." -- Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? -- The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, 1976, p. 228
Schaeffer wrote this THIRTY years ago and yet who can doubt that our government is becoming more maniuplative and more authoriatarian? We are certainly being manipulated by the Amnesty Conspiracy. And remember this: NOTHING will ever be the same if this monstrous attack upon our sovereignty and the rule of law succeeds and THEY KNOW IT. Why is it that the rest of us have such trouble seeing the danger? I exclude myself, of course, since I am a seditionist. I know I am a seditionist because somebody (actually, several somebodies) called me that after the circulation of my first essay on this subject ("Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy). Apparently my urging of petty vandalism in the cause of liberty and the preservation of the greater rule of law was offensive to some. Now I was a little hazy on the meaning of "sedition", and while I understood that a "seditionist" was obviously a practitioner of that ill-appreciated art, I looked it up in an on-line dictionary:
"Sedition: The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority."
Hmmm. "The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection" and "conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act" -- I guess that means a seditionist is a traitor-in-waiting and an insurrectionist-in-training without the immediate guts to do the job. Indeed, I was accused of that very thing on one of the web blogs by a poster who said that if I had the courage of my convictions, I would be breaking windows and not just talking about it. Of course, this was coming from someone who refused to consider that I might have a point about the danger that the Amnesty Conspiracy poses to what's left of the tottering old Republic. What he really wanted us all to do is sit down and shut up. Like George Bush, John McCain and Monty Python's King Arthur, he wants to order us to "Be quiet!"
In the present state of affairs, I'm actually kind of proud to be called a seditionist. I suppose, as things decline, I will one day be labeled a "traitor" and, since I am a "traitor" with firearms, I will then be an "insurrectionist." And my old man told me I'd never amount to anything! Shows you how much he knows. I called up a buddy of mine and told him that I was being called a "seditionist" on-line and he said, "Seditionist? What's a seditionist? Is it catching?" I guess sedition is a lost art in America, the last successful practitioners being the Founding Fathers.
When I explained to my friend what a seditionist was, he immediately made a connection I had not. "Hey," he observed happily, "you could just disappear!" What he meant was that the miserably misnamed PATRIOT Act could be used to arrest me without explanation or trial and whisk me away into the land of the "disappeared" -- a term made familiar by South American dictatorships but heretofore unknown in this country. One more thing to thank George Bush for, I guess. In any case, I'd like to state publicly right here and now that if I "disappear" I didn't run away from home of my own volition. If I disappear, I did not willingly hop on the Greyhound bus to Guantanamo.
(NOTE: I do not have a problem with filling up Guantanamo with foreign "combatants" who have committed acts of war against the United States of America. But as Justice Learned Hand once observed: "What seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition." And if you think that the PATRIOT Act is only about Jihad terrorists you haven't read it. Of course, if things get so bad in this country, as they well may in the future, that I perforce become an "insurrectionist," well, then, I'll just have to take my chances, won't I? As Super Chicken said to his sidekick: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.")
The Founders' Sedition
Of course the PATRIOT Act is not the first American law to deal with "sedition." Sedition runs like background music through our history, and its practitioners and opponents often changed sides with political fortunes.. Sam Adams, "The Grand Incendiary" without whose multiple seditions an independent United States would not have been possible, opposed Daniel Shays' rebellion even though he sympathized with it. John Adams, an accomplished seditionist himself under King George III, decided once he was President that he didn't like people saying nasty things about him so he contrived to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. This attempt to quash opposition merely inflamed it and guaranteed that Thomas Jefferson and not Mr. Adams would be the next President of the United States. Jefferson, of course, never lost his taste for sedition, counting "a little rebellion" every now and then to be a positive social good.
Still, I guess it's always been dangerous to be "seditious". As journalist Frank I. Cobb wrote of the 1919 Palmer Raids in the New York World:
"If the author of the Declaration of Independence were to utter such a sentiment today, the Post Office Department could exclude him from the mail, grand juries could indict him for sedition and criminal syndicalism, legislative committees could seize his private papers ... and United States Senators would be clamoring for his deportation that he ... should be sent back to live with the rest of the terrorists."
In the January, 1920 issue of LaFollette's Magazine, Cobb also wrote:
"The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority... It is the one guarantee of human freedom to the American people."
It is a guarantee, yes, but only if it's upheld by the actions of the people, for authority does not like to have anything in its face, let alone a clenched fist. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton's Imperial Presidency made its own unique contribution to the anti-sedition legal mix with the Counter-Terrorism Act in the mid-90s. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Clintonista's turn at national power comes round again and they begin enforcing the PATRIOT Act on the very people who wrote it.
The Founders were first "seditionists", then "traitors" and finally "insurrectionists" against the King -- until they won. Then they became patriots and Founders. If Sam Adams was a seditionist in a good cause (and he was) then why not me? Or, a more dangerous question: Why not you?
Thinking and Acting Before Feeling
“What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks. One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. …"
-- Peggy Noonan, "Too Bad: President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder", Wall Street Journal, 1 June 2007 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I would like to thank such an experienced political commentator as Peggy Noonan for reinforcing my point about elitists laid out in my last piece, Rock 'Em II: "The Masters of the Universe." She calls them "hacks," the Founders called them "courtiers" and I call them "Mandarins." It's six of one, and a half dozen of the other. But the key thing is this: having recognized the problem, what shall we do about it and, perhaps more importantly, when?
Some folks have chided me for being too "paranoid" or "conspiratorial" in suggesting it is time to break windows. They say it is too soon, that we are not yet oppressed enough to consider even petty vandalism to make a point. They would have us wait for true tyranny before acting. This is not the way of the Founders. I present in proof of this statement, the following excerpt from historian Gordon S. Wood:
In the American Revolution, Wood wrote, "there was none of the legendary tyranny of history that had so often driven desperate people into rebellion. The Americans were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial shackles to throw off. In fact, the Americans knew they were probably freer and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and hierarchical restraints than any part of mankind in the eighteenth century. To its victims, the Tories, the Revolution was truly incomprehensible. Never in history, said Daniel Leonard, had there been so much rebellion with so 'little real cause.' . . . The objective social reality scarcely seemed capable of explaining a revolution . . .
As early as 1775 Edmund Burke had noted in the House of Commons that the colonists' intensive study of law and politics had made them acutely inquisitive and sensitive about their liberties. Where the people of other countries had invoked principles only after they had endured 'an actual grievance,' the Americans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances and resorting to principles even before they actually suffered. 'They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.' The crucial question in the colonists' minds, wrote John Dickerson in 1768, was 'not, what evil HAS ACTUALLY ATTENDED particular measures-- but what evil, in the nature of things, IS LIKELY TO ATTEND them.' Because 'nations, in general, are not apt to THINK until they FEEL, . . .therefore nations in general have lost their liberty.' But not the Americans, as the Abbe Raynal observed. They were an 'enlightened people' who knew their rights and the limits of power and who, unlike any people before them, aimed to think before they felt."
(Source: Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, UNC Press, 1969, pp. 3-5)
I say we would do well to emulate the Founders, to think and ACT before we feel, when it will be too late. We must act, as in break some windows, just to see if our putative representatives are paying attention. The Founders would. They wouldn't have waited this long.
So, like Micheleen Flynn, I call you all to gather together in your homes, your businesses and in the places where you sit quietly and share a cup of coffee with friends. It is time to "talk a little a treason." It is time to be "seditious." It is time to do these things because our would-be rulers have decided it is time.
Frustrating the Tyrant's Appetite
Tyranny is a wolfish appetite. All it requires is willing silverware and a complacent main course of mutton. The problem for any wishful American tyrant is that they do not have a monopoly on cutlery, making the eating a dicey proposition. But there is an easier way for Americans to stay off the tyrant's table. Instead of acting like tasty sheep we can act like watchful sheepdogs. It is time for those of us who consider ourselves sheepdogs to growl a bit, lest the wolves mistake their chances. This is in the wolves' interest as well as the sheep: a heeded warning growl is better than a ripped throat if the confrontation goes too far. So for everyone concerned, it is time for sedition. It is time to "talk a little treason." It is time to break some windows, before something far greater and far more precious is irretrievably broken instead. And if we lack the courage to act now, in this small crisis which portends future catastrophe, our children will surely be food for the tyrant's table in that dark and bloody future. We must think and act before THEY feel. Is there any greater cause than that?
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Rock 'Em Part 2
Rock 'Em II: "The Masters of the Universe"
by Mike Vanderboegh
"We're going to get comprehensive reform and we're not going let the bigots stop us ." -- Senator Lindsey Graham to the Reconquista group "La Raza" (The Race) quoted in the Evans-Novak Political Report, 23 March 2007.
"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people, or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all." -- George Bush, speech at Glynco, Georgia, 29 May 2007.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution
"What's right for America. . ."
John Fund is the Wall Street Journal's paragon of right-thinking when it comes to the joys and benefits of importing a third-world servant class. He observed recently of the "Gang of Twelve's" bipartisan blitzkrieg in the Senate in favor of the Amnesty Bill:
"Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as family reunification and national sovereignty. . . There's an old rule in Washington that in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it, while the other half fear that people actually do." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010103)
And now the President, bless his "compassionate conservative" heart, declares that those of us who understand the true nature of this bill and where it will take us don't want to do "what's right for America." The arrogance of this conceit is breathtaking, infuriating and typical of elitist rulers throughout history. According to Bush, et al, our "betters" understand what's good for the country and the rest of us peons had better shut up about it. The Amnesty Conspirators claim that any opposition we have to their machinations is founded upon our own ignorance -- or bigotry. Hence Saxby Chambliss, the supposedly "conservative" Republican Senator from Georgia, reacted to being vigorously booed at his state party meeting by saying that "he took the crowd’s reaction as a lack of popular understanding of the shape of the current immigration system." My web friend David Codrea rightly sniffed: "Like we're too bloody ignorant to know when we're being conned."
Worse, we're called "bigots" and "nativists" by the likes of John McCain's attack poodle Lindsey Graham. Uh, Senator Graham, the paragons of racism in this argument are the people you were talking to. You know, the ones who call themselves "The Race." The race referred to here is the "Bronze Race," first enunciated by the Sixties Chicano leftists who still form the leadership core and philosophy of La Raza, a racial identity organization.
"Brotherhood unites us and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggle against the foreigner 'gabacho' who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our Mestizo Nation. 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." -- Plan Espiritual De Aztlan, March 1969, adopted at the Chicano Youth Conference, Denver, CO
For the uninitiated, Aztlan means "the lands to the North" in the Nahuatl language of ancient Mexico and "gabacho" is a racial slur meaning roughly: "dirty Yankee white boy." When called a "gabacho" in an Irondale, AL gas station recently, I pleasantly agreed: "Si, mi gabacho." Then I raised my clenched fist, a la Huey Newton and proclaimed, "Viva Los gabachos con armas!" Or, "Long live dirty Yankee white boys with guns!" The insult-thrower and his friends left in a hurry. Strangely, I have heard African Americans similarly insulted as a "gabacho" and occasionally as "gabacho negro". Thus do the La Raza racists make a contribution to our own native-born racial harmony. Every cloud has a silver lining. (-- insert smiley face here-- )
So, when Lindsey Graham insults us as "bigots" while speaking to the largest Hispanic racist organization in the country, what are we to conclude (besides hypocrisy)? My Michigan farmer grandpa used to say that "when they're calling you names, boy, you're either doing something really bad or something really good." In Graham's mind what we are doing "bad" is disrespecting our "betters'" plans for us. For his part, George Bush avoids calling us bigots, but merely insults our patriotism with claims that we do not want what's "right" for the country.
"Masters of the Universe"
“I am Skeletor, Spawn of the Hellbeast! Hang up the phone and pay homage to my awful power!” -- Will Ferrell to his "wife" in a skit on Saturday Night Live.
Now I've had more than few disagreements with Alabama's own senator Jeff Sessions over the years. Heck, I backed his opponent in almost every primary he was ever in. But ol' Jeff has it right about the likes of Bush and Graham and their new found playmate Teddy Kennedy:
"The bill unites conservatives and liberals who regard enactment of an immigration measure this year as an imperative that can deliver political benefits and long-standing policy objectives to their respective parties. Many lawmakers are suspicious of the group Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., derisively refers to them as 'the masters of the universe.'" -- "‘Gang of 12' Steers Immigration Bill", Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press, Washington, May 24
Masters of the Universe indeed. I think what Jeff has in mind is The Bonfire of the Vanities, the 1987 Tom Wolfe novel. The protagonist Sherman McCoy, played by Tom Hanks in the movie version, identifies himself (a highly paid bond trader) as a Master of the Universe after seeing a child playing with a Masters of the Universe toy. As a result, the term "Master of the Universe" was briefly popular as a pejorative name for any young, wealthy and conceited financier. Will Ferrell's send-up of the Master of the Universe as silly megalomania was funny because of its kernel of truth. These elitist politicos are, in a reflection of their inner child, acting out Skeletor by demanding of us that we 'pay homage to their awful power!'
Mandarins and Courtiers
"The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians." -- 1984, George Orwell
In my first essay on this subject I described these arrogant anal sphincters as the "mandarin class".
("Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy" which you can find at The Lookout Post, http://lookoutpost.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid= or at David Codrea's War on Guns blog, http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/05/guest-editorial-rock-em.html )
Mandarin is a language, also, an orange. Both terms draw their names from the original Mandarins, who were members of any of nine ranks of high public officials in the Chinese Empire. The Mandarins were answerable only to the Emperor. In recent history the term has come to describe a high government official, bureaucrat or a member of an elite group, especially a person having influence or high status in intellectual or cultural circles -- but one that is not directly accountable to the people.
This is not the first time this species of tone-deaf tyrannical elitists has reared its ugly head on this continent. In their first incarnation, they were called "courtiers." Originally describing an attendant at a sovereign's court, courtier has, like Mandarin, come to adopt a wider meaning Wikipedia says,
"A courtier is a person who attends upon, and thus receives a privileged position from, a powerful person, usually a head of state. In the United States, the term has taken on negative connotations as a synonym for favorite or hanger-on. It is usually also used in a historical context, especially to describe the attendants of a luxurious autocrat such as Louis XIV of France. This context is used by many to make the word quaintly old-fashioned and irrelevant in contemporary circumstances, although 'placemen' and rewarded campaign-donors in the American political system are contemporary examples of de facto courtiers."
Gordon S. Wood, one of the most respected historians of our Revolutionary period describes the place that "courtiers" had in the machinations of the Crown government in the American colonies and the importance they assumed in the minds of the American republic's Founders.
"Most royal officials relied on whatever traditional monarchical instruments of political patronage and influence they had available to them to curb popular disorder and popular pressure -- using intricate maneuvering and personal manipulation of important men in place of Whig and republican appeals to the people." -- Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York, 1992, p. 174.
The new American King George the Fourth, picking up in this 21st century where the last king to rule this land left off in the 18th, would certainly recognize the tactics above. For example, Jon Kyl is reputed to be in line for a federal judgeship, regardless of what comes of his kamikaze advocacy of amnesty. Wood continues:
"Americans steeped in the radical whig and republican ideology of opposition to the court regarded these monarchical techniques of personal influence and patronage as 'corruption,' as attempts by great men and their power-hungry minions to promote their private interests at the expense of the public good and to destroy the colonist' balanced constitutions and their private liberty. This corruption had created pockets of royal influence throughout America and had made the crown itself, said John Adams, nothing but a 'private interest.' . . . Americans were warned that they could no longer trust those 'who either hold or expect to hold certain advantages by setting examples of servility to their countrymen.'" Ibid., pp. 174-175
Corruption. Influence. Servility. Yes, indeed. These words leap across the centuries full of warning to those of us today who wish to preserve what is left of the Founders' Republic against the Amnesty Conspiracy of these modern mandarins, these contemporary courtiers. How much was then like now?:
"The great social antagonists of the American Revolution were not poor vs. rich, workers vs. employers, or even democrats vs. aristocrats. They were patriots vs. courtiers -- categories appropriate to the monarchical world in which the colonists had been reared Courtiers were persons whose positions or rank came artificially from above -- from hereditary or personal connections that ultimately flowed from the crown or court. Courtiers, said John Adams, were those who applied themselves 'to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of Great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, Esteem, and Patronage and consequently their favors and Preferments.' Patriots, on the other hand, were those who not only loved their country but were free of dependent connections and influence; their position or rank came naturally from their talent and from below, from recognition by the people. 'A real patriot,' declared one American in 1776, was 'the most illustrious character in human life. Is not the interest and happiness of his fellow creatures his care?'" -- Ibid., pp. 175-176.
Since George Bush has been President and leader of his sadly misnamed "Republican" party, how many times have we seen the "king" intervene in the primaries of that party to thwart a conservative challenger in favor of the lickspittle RINO incumbent? Can anyone say "Arlen Spector?" How many times have we seen appointments go to his inner circle, to his "court?" Can anyone say "Harriet Myers" or "Alberto Gonzales?" If he acts like a king and talks like king, is he not a king? In this specific case of the Amnesty Bill, if his allies (even those who nominally count on reelection by the people) ignore the clearly expressed will of the People, who wish to enforce existing laws before passing new ones, are they not courtiers rather than elected servants of the People? And why do they feel comfortable enough to sell out their own constituencies? Do they know something we don't? Or is it because we have failed to remind them forcefully who they really work for?
The Death of the Republic: Are you going to quit or are you going to fight?
"Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said that 'there are legitimate reasons to oppose this legislation, and I don't think that it behooves the president to call people names or make accusations against them if they disagree with him. He is angering people beyond belief to the point that the Republican Party is going to split in two, thanks to him. If this bill passes, the Republicans will not recover from it,' Mr. Weyrich said." -- Jon Ward, "Bush hits foes of alien bill," The Washington Times, 30 May 2007.
So, I say to those of you who call yourselves Republicans (or even Libertarians): Is this the future you wish? With an atomized Republican party and a permanent flood of natural constituents of the Democrat party ensuring that any small/efficient/constitutional government candidate of any party will NEVER again win on a national level, what then will stop the Masters of the Universe? In that dark future such a term will be no joke.
If we cannot stop this bill now, with the overwhelming and intense anger of the majority of the American people against it, we will never stop another. We may as well hang up any pretensions to future liberty, walk out the door of national politics and go hide in the mountains, leaving the future to these modern royalist courtiers, these "Masters of the Universe." If we cannot stop this, if we cannot summon the will that our Founders had, we are dead as a free society and we might as well admit it.
So you can quit, or you can fight. As Claire Wolfe says, "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." But there is another way. You can do what the Sons of Liberty did to the Tories of old. Deliver bricks and stones to them. Through their windows or through their doors by hand or by mail, it's immaterial to me. Let these modern courtiers know that the polls are right and we mean business. Rock 'em, I say. Target the minds of the county bosses who sit on their broad butts in the local headquarters of both political parties. Remind these new royalists who's really still the boss around here Rock 'em, or be prepared to give up any hope of your kids and grandkids growing up in the same country, or a better country, than you did. Resist this Amnesty Conspiracy as free people who intend to remain free or be prepared to teach your kids how best to kiss the rings of their new masters, the Masters of the Universe.
It's now or never. Fight or quit. Your choice. But you had best believe the Founders are watching.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
NOTE: Like the first essay, Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy, this one will not get circulated unless those who agree with it see to its distribution via private email lists and blogs. And if you hear of any breaking windows, kindly let me know. ;-) MBV
by Mike Vanderboegh
"We're going to get comprehensive reform and we're not going let the bigots stop us ." -- Senator Lindsey Graham to the Reconquista group "La Raza" (The Race) quoted in the Evans-Novak Political Report, 23 March 2007.
"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people, or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all." -- George Bush, speech at Glynco, Georgia, 29 May 2007.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution
"What's right for America. . ."
John Fund is the Wall Street Journal's paragon of right-thinking when it comes to the joys and benefits of importing a third-world servant class. He observed recently of the "Gang of Twelve's" bipartisan blitzkrieg in the Senate in favor of the Amnesty Bill:
"Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as family reunification and national sovereignty. . . There's an old rule in Washington that in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don't understand it, while the other half fear that people actually do." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010103)
And now the President, bless his "compassionate conservative" heart, declares that those of us who understand the true nature of this bill and where it will take us don't want to do "what's right for America." The arrogance of this conceit is breathtaking, infuriating and typical of elitist rulers throughout history. According to Bush, et al, our "betters" understand what's good for the country and the rest of us peons had better shut up about it. The Amnesty Conspirators claim that any opposition we have to their machinations is founded upon our own ignorance -- or bigotry. Hence Saxby Chambliss, the supposedly "conservative" Republican Senator from Georgia, reacted to being vigorously booed at his state party meeting by saying that "he took the crowd’s reaction as a lack of popular understanding of the shape of the current immigration system." My web friend David Codrea rightly sniffed: "Like we're too bloody ignorant to know when we're being conned."
Worse, we're called "bigots" and "nativists" by the likes of John McCain's attack poodle Lindsey Graham. Uh, Senator Graham, the paragons of racism in this argument are the people you were talking to. You know, the ones who call themselves "The Race." The race referred to here is the "Bronze Race," first enunciated by the Sixties Chicano leftists who still form the leadership core and philosophy of La Raza, a racial identity organization.
"Brotherhood unites us and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggle against the foreigner 'gabacho' who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our Mestizo Nation. 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." -- Plan Espiritual De Aztlan, March 1969, adopted at the Chicano Youth Conference, Denver, CO
For the uninitiated, Aztlan means "the lands to the North" in the Nahuatl language of ancient Mexico and "gabacho" is a racial slur meaning roughly: "dirty Yankee white boy." When called a "gabacho" in an Irondale, AL gas station recently, I pleasantly agreed: "Si, mi gabacho." Then I raised my clenched fist, a la Huey Newton and proclaimed, "Viva Los gabachos con armas!" Or, "Long live dirty Yankee white boys with guns!" The insult-thrower and his friends left in a hurry. Strangely, I have heard African Americans similarly insulted as a "gabacho" and occasionally as "gabacho negro". Thus do the La Raza racists make a contribution to our own native-born racial harmony. Every cloud has a silver lining. (-- insert smiley face here-- )
So, when Lindsey Graham insults us as "bigots" while speaking to the largest Hispanic racist organization in the country, what are we to conclude (besides hypocrisy)? My Michigan farmer grandpa used to say that "when they're calling you names, boy, you're either doing something really bad or something really good." In Graham's mind what we are doing "bad" is disrespecting our "betters'" plans for us. For his part, George Bush avoids calling us bigots, but merely insults our patriotism with claims that we do not want what's "right" for the country.
"Masters of the Universe"
“I am Skeletor, Spawn of the Hellbeast! Hang up the phone and pay homage to my awful power!” -- Will Ferrell to his "wife" in a skit on Saturday Night Live.
Now I've had more than few disagreements with Alabama's own senator Jeff Sessions over the years. Heck, I backed his opponent in almost every primary he was ever in. But ol' Jeff has it right about the likes of Bush and Graham and their new found playmate Teddy Kennedy:
"The bill unites conservatives and liberals who regard enactment of an immigration measure this year as an imperative that can deliver political benefits and long-standing policy objectives to their respective parties. Many lawmakers are suspicious of the group Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., derisively refers to them as 'the masters of the universe.'" -- "‘Gang of 12' Steers Immigration Bill", Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press, Washington, May 24
Masters of the Universe indeed. I think what Jeff has in mind is The Bonfire of the Vanities, the 1987 Tom Wolfe novel. The protagonist Sherman McCoy, played by Tom Hanks in the movie version, identifies himself (a highly paid bond trader) as a Master of the Universe after seeing a child playing with a Masters of the Universe toy. As a result, the term "Master of the Universe" was briefly popular as a pejorative name for any young, wealthy and conceited financier. Will Ferrell's send-up of the Master of the Universe as silly megalomania was funny because of its kernel of truth. These elitist politicos are, in a reflection of their inner child, acting out Skeletor by demanding of us that we 'pay homage to their awful power!'
Mandarins and Courtiers
"The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians." -- 1984, George Orwell
In my first essay on this subject I described these arrogant anal sphincters as the "mandarin class".
("Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy" which you can find at The Lookout Post, http://lookoutpost.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid= or at David Codrea's War on Guns blog, http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/05/guest-editorial-rock-em.html )
Mandarin is a language, also, an orange. Both terms draw their names from the original Mandarins, who were members of any of nine ranks of high public officials in the Chinese Empire. The Mandarins were answerable only to the Emperor. In recent history the term has come to describe a high government official, bureaucrat or a member of an elite group, especially a person having influence or high status in intellectual or cultural circles -- but one that is not directly accountable to the people.
This is not the first time this species of tone-deaf tyrannical elitists has reared its ugly head on this continent. In their first incarnation, they were called "courtiers." Originally describing an attendant at a sovereign's court, courtier has, like Mandarin, come to adopt a wider meaning Wikipedia says,
"A courtier is a person who attends upon, and thus receives a privileged position from, a powerful person, usually a head of state. In the United States, the term has taken on negative connotations as a synonym for favorite or hanger-on. It is usually also used in a historical context, especially to describe the attendants of a luxurious autocrat such as Louis XIV of France. This context is used by many to make the word quaintly old-fashioned and irrelevant in contemporary circumstances, although 'placemen' and rewarded campaign-donors in the American political system are contemporary examples of de facto courtiers."
Gordon S. Wood, one of the most respected historians of our Revolutionary period describes the place that "courtiers" had in the machinations of the Crown government in the American colonies and the importance they assumed in the minds of the American republic's Founders.
"Most royal officials relied on whatever traditional monarchical instruments of political patronage and influence they had available to them to curb popular disorder and popular pressure -- using intricate maneuvering and personal manipulation of important men in place of Whig and republican appeals to the people." -- Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, New York, 1992, p. 174.
The new American King George the Fourth, picking up in this 21st century where the last king to rule this land left off in the 18th, would certainly recognize the tactics above. For example, Jon Kyl is reputed to be in line for a federal judgeship, regardless of what comes of his kamikaze advocacy of amnesty. Wood continues:
"Americans steeped in the radical whig and republican ideology of opposition to the court regarded these monarchical techniques of personal influence and patronage as 'corruption,' as attempts by great men and their power-hungry minions to promote their private interests at the expense of the public good and to destroy the colonist' balanced constitutions and their private liberty. This corruption had created pockets of royal influence throughout America and had made the crown itself, said John Adams, nothing but a 'private interest.' . . . Americans were warned that they could no longer trust those 'who either hold or expect to hold certain advantages by setting examples of servility to their countrymen.'" Ibid., pp. 174-175
Corruption. Influence. Servility. Yes, indeed. These words leap across the centuries full of warning to those of us today who wish to preserve what is left of the Founders' Republic against the Amnesty Conspiracy of these modern mandarins, these contemporary courtiers. How much was then like now?:
"The great social antagonists of the American Revolution were not poor vs. rich, workers vs. employers, or even democrats vs. aristocrats. They were patriots vs. courtiers -- categories appropriate to the monarchical world in which the colonists had been reared Courtiers were persons whose positions or rank came artificially from above -- from hereditary or personal connections that ultimately flowed from the crown or court. Courtiers, said John Adams, were those who applied themselves 'to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of Great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, Esteem, and Patronage and consequently their favors and Preferments.' Patriots, on the other hand, were those who not only loved their country but were free of dependent connections and influence; their position or rank came naturally from their talent and from below, from recognition by the people. 'A real patriot,' declared one American in 1776, was 'the most illustrious character in human life. Is not the interest and happiness of his fellow creatures his care?'" -- Ibid., pp. 175-176.
Since George Bush has been President and leader of his sadly misnamed "Republican" party, how many times have we seen the "king" intervene in the primaries of that party to thwart a conservative challenger in favor of the lickspittle RINO incumbent? Can anyone say "Arlen Spector?" How many times have we seen appointments go to his inner circle, to his "court?" Can anyone say "Harriet Myers" or "Alberto Gonzales?" If he acts like a king and talks like king, is he not a king? In this specific case of the Amnesty Bill, if his allies (even those who nominally count on reelection by the people) ignore the clearly expressed will of the People, who wish to enforce existing laws before passing new ones, are they not courtiers rather than elected servants of the People? And why do they feel comfortable enough to sell out their own constituencies? Do they know something we don't? Or is it because we have failed to remind them forcefully who they really work for?
The Death of the Republic: Are you going to quit or are you going to fight?
"Paul Weyrich, founder of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said that 'there are legitimate reasons to oppose this legislation, and I don't think that it behooves the president to call people names or make accusations against them if they disagree with him. He is angering people beyond belief to the point that the Republican Party is going to split in two, thanks to him. If this bill passes, the Republicans will not recover from it,' Mr. Weyrich said." -- Jon Ward, "Bush hits foes of alien bill," The Washington Times, 30 May 2007.
So, I say to those of you who call yourselves Republicans (or even Libertarians): Is this the future you wish? With an atomized Republican party and a permanent flood of natural constituents of the Democrat party ensuring that any small/efficient/constitutional government candidate of any party will NEVER again win on a national level, what then will stop the Masters of the Universe? In that dark future such a term will be no joke.
If we cannot stop this bill now, with the overwhelming and intense anger of the majority of the American people against it, we will never stop another. We may as well hang up any pretensions to future liberty, walk out the door of national politics and go hide in the mountains, leaving the future to these modern royalist courtiers, these "Masters of the Universe." If we cannot stop this, if we cannot summon the will that our Founders had, we are dead as a free society and we might as well admit it.
So you can quit, or you can fight. As Claire Wolfe says, "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." But there is another way. You can do what the Sons of Liberty did to the Tories of old. Deliver bricks and stones to them. Through their windows or through their doors by hand or by mail, it's immaterial to me. Let these modern courtiers know that the polls are right and we mean business. Rock 'em, I say. Target the minds of the county bosses who sit on their broad butts in the local headquarters of both political parties. Remind these new royalists who's really still the boss around here Rock 'em, or be prepared to give up any hope of your kids and grandkids growing up in the same country, or a better country, than you did. Resist this Amnesty Conspiracy as free people who intend to remain free or be prepared to teach your kids how best to kiss the rings of their new masters, the Masters of the Universe.
It's now or never. Fight or quit. Your choice. But you had best believe the Founders are watching.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
NOTE: Like the first essay, Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy, this one will not get circulated unless those who agree with it see to its distribution via private email lists and blogs. And if you hear of any breaking windows, kindly let me know. ;-) MBV
Rock 'Em Part 1
The following is part 1 of a seven part series written by Mike Vanderboegh. It is a very thoughtful series of articles on the issue of immigration. I would hope that you take the time to read, and ponder, them.
Neal
.....................................................................................
Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy
By Mike Vanderboegh
Rebellion is my theme all day;
I only wish ‘twould come
(As who knows but perhaps it may?)
A little nearer home.
Yon roaring boys, who rave and fight
On t’other side the Atlantic,
I always held them in the right,
But most so when most frantic.
When lawless mobs insult the court,
That man shall be my toast,
If breaking windows be the sport,
Who bravely breaks the most.
-- The Modern Patriot, William Cowper, 1779.
"And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had...and his sling was in his hand; and he drew near to the Philistines."-- 1 Samuel 17:40.
"Hey, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to kiss my butt?"
The Amnesty Conspiracy's bipartisan toadies in the United States Senate wish to ring the death knell for the Founder's Republic. As soon as the 20 million illegals who are now here are, presto, change-o, dubbed "American citizens" and their relatives in the millions upon millions are brought north in "compassionate" reuniting grace, you can hang up any thought of a return to the limited government and constitutional rule of law of the Founders.
Are you concerned about gun confiscation? Its a fact of life in Mexico. Big government intrusion on private free enterprise? Can you say PEMEX? Worried about campaign finance and political corruption? The Mexicans have a word for the endemic bribery that characterizes their government: "mordida"-- the bite, and they expect to be bitten by every official at every level. No matter what issue concerns you, the undeniable tidal wave of a deliberately imported third world culture is about to swamp it.
Let's face it, the only reason we've been electorally competitive this long is that the liberals have been murdering the children within their wombs for the past 35 years. Well, they're going to be importing those wombs now to finish the job.
These folks, God bless 'em, are used to nationalized industries, gun control, soldiers walking the streets dispensing their own rough "justice" with machineguns, identity-grievance politics and, above all, the undefeatable evil synergy of crooked politicians and drug lords controlling events. They are used to being ruled by a godless oligarchy of the privileged rich who know what's "best" for them. You know, they're Democrats.
You may ask anyone familiar with Mexican history since 1912 what the rule of law means south of the border. Or, for a modern example closer to home, take a look at some of the seamier La Raza-dominated suburbs of LA. These millions of newly minted citizens will toil upon the Democrat latifundistas' political plantations as indentured servants for the next fifty years and gradually, in the end, the American Republic will be as dead as its Greek and Roman predecessors. If, that is, it doesn't catastrophically collapse in the next decade or so in a welter of racial warfare and Balkan "ethnic cleansing" that will make the former Yugoslavia look like a kindergarten at play. The devil will walk abroad in the land and our children's children's children will curse our folly.
What then shall we do? Both political parties are equally complicit, ignoring the law and their own sworn oaths to the Constitution, not to mention the polls and the plain will of the majority of the American people who wish them to secure the border, enforce immigration laws and jail the employers of illegals. Like Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, we can only plaintively wonder: "Hey, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to kiss my butt?"
You can laugh, but make it a bitter laughter. The Amnesty Conspirators are willing to flout the received political wisdom of the way things are supposed to work because they believe they can change the entire equation of political power in this country without consequence to themselves. They believe that we, the voters, will get mad but that we won't get even. They believe that by the time we figure out what happened, it will be too late.
The last whispered hope of the anti-amnesty politicos is that the House will stop the Senate bill. Now, given all that's happened in the past fifteen years, that is a slender reed indeed to pin your children's future on. I have a better idea. It's an old idea, but I believe that its time has come round again.
"If breaking windows be the sport..."
The breaking windows that the English poet Cowper was celebrating were the windows of American Tories, broken by the Sons of Liberty in the run-up to the American Revolution. In Eighteenth Century America, windows were expensive and difficult to replace. It was said you could tell an American colonist's wealth by the size and number of the windows in his house. As most of the high-ranking Tories loyal to the King were rich, their windows became natural targets when the Sons of Liberty wanted to send a message. If the head of the local militia was a Tory, he would be persuaded to resign his commission by breaking his windows. If a Boston merchant refused to join the boycott of British goods, he would have to hire a glazier in the morning. Tax collectors and other crown functionaries shuttered their houses, only have the shutters torn from their hinges by a mob and then have their windows broken. Sounds harsh? The rise of American independence was accompanied by the tune of breaking glass, and we wouldn't be free today without it.
Of course how free we are, and are going to be, is the question, isn't it? Eight years ago I wrote a speculative piece of fiction called "The Window War" about what might happen if gunowners, outraged by one too many laws restricting their natural, God-given and traditional rights, took the Sons of Liberty's methods to heart and hand.
(You can find it at: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItemasp?ID=1604)
The story circulated to modest approval in the email circles of my fellow gunnies and then dropped into the electronic wastebasket of history. Dropped, that is, until the election crisis of 2000. On the 11th of November of that disputatious year, a fellow named Jeff Head reposted The Window War on the Free Republic website with the notation: "Not advocating anything here. . .just wondering if Mike had thought about a work of fiction called "'Window War II' as it applies to fraudulent elections?" Free Republic was at that time (before its editorial sanitizing in later years by the myrmidons of the Republican National Committee) the premier forum by which conservative activists communicated. Other "Freeper" posters agreed, saying things like "have rocks will travel". The discussion percolated for a few days and then died, until....
"We would not tolerate an illegal government."
Friday November 24 3:11 PM ET
Amid protest, Fla. Counties Plow on With Recount
By Marianne Armshaw and Michael Conner
West Palm Beach, Fla. (Reuters)
Dozens of supporters of Republican George W. Bush protested on Friday against what they called Democrat efforts to "steal" the U.S. Presidential election for Al Gore as Friday's Palm Beach and Broward counties plowed on with reviewing disputed ballots. . .
Unknown persons threw a brick through a window at the Democratic Party's Broward County headquarters late on Thursday or early on Friday when the office was closed, police said. Scrawled on the brick was the message: : "We would not tolerate an illegal government." Plantation, Florida, police were investigating the incident, in which no one was injured.
Within 34 minutes this story was posted on Free Republic with the screaming banner: "The Window War has Begun!" Whether because of the intimidation of the brick or not, the Broward County Dems folded their recount efforts shortly thereafter, and one by one, the rest of the Florida Democratic Party county election officials involved in recounts followed suit over the next several days. Eventually, the Supreme Court settled the issue.
"We have been too law-abiding."
You know, I'd like to think that the fellow who threw that brick had read my piece, but I have no idea. Even if he did, did the brick intimidate the Broward County Dems? Who knows? But I do know this: liberals as a class are cowards. The political/business/racial-identity cabal that makes up the Amnesty Conspiracy are cowards as well. Heck, I know of no American liberals who have been willing to personally suffer, let alone die, for any of their misbegotten beliefs since the early 1960s. They get government to do the heavy lifting for them. They genuflect at its altar and cannot comprehend anyone else who doesn't. And one other thing: they never, ever think that their public actions and pronouncements will have private consequences. And why should they? As I observed in the afterward to The Window War:
"For sixty years, the liberals have used our respect for the law against us. Each time they moved the line of law to further their agenda, breaking off a bit of the Constitution, we, as law-abiding citizens have backed up grumbling but complying. And why should they stop pushing us back from our God-given liberties? We've never pushed back to stop them. We have been too law-abiding."
"I aim to misbehave."
We are at a crossroads in our history. No one can deny it. If this amnesty passes into law, everything after it will be changed in ways that are surely as preventable as they are foreseeable. The Mandarin class of our "betters" has decided they no longer need to listen to us. How then shall we get their attention? What will it take to change the disastrous future they seek to write for us?
Maybe a Sons of Liberty brick through the window of every Democrat and Republican county headquarters with "Jail illegal employers!" written on one side and "No amnesty!" on the other will work. As a tactic, it does have the advantage of having been successfully employed in the past. Just ask Sam Adams. It is past time to demonstrate to the arrogant political class who believe themselves to be our rulers and not our servants that the Sons of Liberty still live. It is time to get their attention. It is time, in the words the fictional Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly class space freighter Serenity, to "misbehave." Remember, "behaving" has gotten us to this point. What have we got to lose? More importantly, what will we lose if we don't?
For those of you who would hesitate at vandalism in liberty's cause, perhaps you could deliver the brick to your particular politician's office with the message and the implication. They listened last year when thousands shipped bricks to them to build the wall. Maybe they'll listen if you tell them that this time it's through the door by mail, next time it's through the window by hand. Heck, just print out this essay and wrap the brick in it. They'll get the message.
There are those who say that I should be arrested for simply making the suggestion that deliberate political vandalism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I quote to them, "If this be treason, then make the most of it!" To my American brothers and sisters of all races, religions and creeds, who believe as I do -- to those who believe not in the false collectivist promises of those who would rule us, but in the individual liberty and prosperity of the shining city on a hill that was and is the promise of the Founder's Republic -- I say to you: "ROCK 'EM." Let the Window War begin. It won't take long to get the attention of the cowardly and treasonable Amnesty Conspirators. And when we do, somewhere Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty of old will be smiling.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Neal
.....................................................................................
Rock 'Em: The Last Chance to Stop the Amnesty Conspiracy
By Mike Vanderboegh
Rebellion is my theme all day;
I only wish ‘twould come
(As who knows but perhaps it may?)
A little nearer home.
Yon roaring boys, who rave and fight
On t’other side the Atlantic,
I always held them in the right,
But most so when most frantic.
When lawless mobs insult the court,
That man shall be my toast,
If breaking windows be the sport,
Who bravely breaks the most.
-- The Modern Patriot, William Cowper, 1779.
"And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had...and his sling was in his hand; and he drew near to the Philistines."-- 1 Samuel 17:40.
"Hey, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to kiss my butt?"
The Amnesty Conspiracy's bipartisan toadies in the United States Senate wish to ring the death knell for the Founder's Republic. As soon as the 20 million illegals who are now here are, presto, change-o, dubbed "American citizens" and their relatives in the millions upon millions are brought north in "compassionate" reuniting grace, you can hang up any thought of a return to the limited government and constitutional rule of law of the Founders.
Are you concerned about gun confiscation? Its a fact of life in Mexico. Big government intrusion on private free enterprise? Can you say PEMEX? Worried about campaign finance and political corruption? The Mexicans have a word for the endemic bribery that characterizes their government: "mordida"-- the bite, and they expect to be bitten by every official at every level. No matter what issue concerns you, the undeniable tidal wave of a deliberately imported third world culture is about to swamp it.
Let's face it, the only reason we've been electorally competitive this long is that the liberals have been murdering the children within their wombs for the past 35 years. Well, they're going to be importing those wombs now to finish the job.
These folks, God bless 'em, are used to nationalized industries, gun control, soldiers walking the streets dispensing their own rough "justice" with machineguns, identity-grievance politics and, above all, the undefeatable evil synergy of crooked politicians and drug lords controlling events. They are used to being ruled by a godless oligarchy of the privileged rich who know what's "best" for them. You know, they're Democrats.
You may ask anyone familiar with Mexican history since 1912 what the rule of law means south of the border. Or, for a modern example closer to home, take a look at some of the seamier La Raza-dominated suburbs of LA. These millions of newly minted citizens will toil upon the Democrat latifundistas' political plantations as indentured servants for the next fifty years and gradually, in the end, the American Republic will be as dead as its Greek and Roman predecessors. If, that is, it doesn't catastrophically collapse in the next decade or so in a welter of racial warfare and Balkan "ethnic cleansing" that will make the former Yugoslavia look like a kindergarten at play. The devil will walk abroad in the land and our children's children's children will curse our folly.
What then shall we do? Both political parties are equally complicit, ignoring the law and their own sworn oaths to the Constitution, not to mention the polls and the plain will of the majority of the American people who wish them to secure the border, enforce immigration laws and jail the employers of illegals. Like Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, we can only plaintively wonder: "Hey, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to kiss my butt?"
You can laugh, but make it a bitter laughter. The Amnesty Conspirators are willing to flout the received political wisdom of the way things are supposed to work because they believe they can change the entire equation of political power in this country without consequence to themselves. They believe that we, the voters, will get mad but that we won't get even. They believe that by the time we figure out what happened, it will be too late.
The last whispered hope of the anti-amnesty politicos is that the House will stop the Senate bill. Now, given all that's happened in the past fifteen years, that is a slender reed indeed to pin your children's future on. I have a better idea. It's an old idea, but I believe that its time has come round again.
"If breaking windows be the sport..."
The breaking windows that the English poet Cowper was celebrating were the windows of American Tories, broken by the Sons of Liberty in the run-up to the American Revolution. In Eighteenth Century America, windows were expensive and difficult to replace. It was said you could tell an American colonist's wealth by the size and number of the windows in his house. As most of the high-ranking Tories loyal to the King were rich, their windows became natural targets when the Sons of Liberty wanted to send a message. If the head of the local militia was a Tory, he would be persuaded to resign his commission by breaking his windows. If a Boston merchant refused to join the boycott of British goods, he would have to hire a glazier in the morning. Tax collectors and other crown functionaries shuttered their houses, only have the shutters torn from their hinges by a mob and then have their windows broken. Sounds harsh? The rise of American independence was accompanied by the tune of breaking glass, and we wouldn't be free today without it.
Of course how free we are, and are going to be, is the question, isn't it? Eight years ago I wrote a speculative piece of fiction called "The Window War" about what might happen if gunowners, outraged by one too many laws restricting their natural, God-given and traditional rights, took the Sons of Liberty's methods to heart and hand.
(You can find it at: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItemasp?ID=1604)
The story circulated to modest approval in the email circles of my fellow gunnies and then dropped into the electronic wastebasket of history. Dropped, that is, until the election crisis of 2000. On the 11th of November of that disputatious year, a fellow named Jeff Head reposted The Window War on the Free Republic website with the notation: "Not advocating anything here. . .just wondering if Mike had thought about a work of fiction called "'Window War II' as it applies to fraudulent elections?" Free Republic was at that time (before its editorial sanitizing in later years by the myrmidons of the Republican National Committee) the premier forum by which conservative activists communicated. Other "Freeper" posters agreed, saying things like "have rocks will travel". The discussion percolated for a few days and then died, until....
"We would not tolerate an illegal government."
Friday November 24 3:11 PM ET
Amid protest, Fla. Counties Plow on With Recount
By Marianne Armshaw and Michael Conner
West Palm Beach, Fla. (Reuters)
Dozens of supporters of Republican George W. Bush protested on Friday against what they called Democrat efforts to "steal" the U.S. Presidential election for Al Gore as Friday's Palm Beach and Broward counties plowed on with reviewing disputed ballots. . .
Unknown persons threw a brick through a window at the Democratic Party's Broward County headquarters late on Thursday or early on Friday when the office was closed, police said. Scrawled on the brick was the message: : "We would not tolerate an illegal government." Plantation, Florida, police were investigating the incident, in which no one was injured.
Within 34 minutes this story was posted on Free Republic with the screaming banner: "The Window War has Begun!" Whether because of the intimidation of the brick or not, the Broward County Dems folded their recount efforts shortly thereafter, and one by one, the rest of the Florida Democratic Party county election officials involved in recounts followed suit over the next several days. Eventually, the Supreme Court settled the issue.
"We have been too law-abiding."
You know, I'd like to think that the fellow who threw that brick had read my piece, but I have no idea. Even if he did, did the brick intimidate the Broward County Dems? Who knows? But I do know this: liberals as a class are cowards. The political/business/racial-identity cabal that makes up the Amnesty Conspiracy are cowards as well. Heck, I know of no American liberals who have been willing to personally suffer, let alone die, for any of their misbegotten beliefs since the early 1960s. They get government to do the heavy lifting for them. They genuflect at its altar and cannot comprehend anyone else who doesn't. And one other thing: they never, ever think that their public actions and pronouncements will have private consequences. And why should they? As I observed in the afterward to The Window War:
"For sixty years, the liberals have used our respect for the law against us. Each time they moved the line of law to further their agenda, breaking off a bit of the Constitution, we, as law-abiding citizens have backed up grumbling but complying. And why should they stop pushing us back from our God-given liberties? We've never pushed back to stop them. We have been too law-abiding."
"I aim to misbehave."
We are at a crossroads in our history. No one can deny it. If this amnesty passes into law, everything after it will be changed in ways that are surely as preventable as they are foreseeable. The Mandarin class of our "betters" has decided they no longer need to listen to us. How then shall we get their attention? What will it take to change the disastrous future they seek to write for us?
Maybe a Sons of Liberty brick through the window of every Democrat and Republican county headquarters with "Jail illegal employers!" written on one side and "No amnesty!" on the other will work. As a tactic, it does have the advantage of having been successfully employed in the past. Just ask Sam Adams. It is past time to demonstrate to the arrogant political class who believe themselves to be our rulers and not our servants that the Sons of Liberty still live. It is time to get their attention. It is time, in the words the fictional Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly class space freighter Serenity, to "misbehave." Remember, "behaving" has gotten us to this point. What have we got to lose? More importantly, what will we lose if we don't?
For those of you who would hesitate at vandalism in liberty's cause, perhaps you could deliver the brick to your particular politician's office with the message and the implication. They listened last year when thousands shipped bricks to them to build the wall. Maybe they'll listen if you tell them that this time it's through the door by mail, next time it's through the window by hand. Heck, just print out this essay and wrap the brick in it. They'll get the message.
There are those who say that I should be arrested for simply making the suggestion that deliberate political vandalism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I quote to them, "If this be treason, then make the most of it!" To my American brothers and sisters of all races, religions and creeds, who believe as I do -- to those who believe not in the false collectivist promises of those who would rule us, but in the individual liberty and prosperity of the shining city on a hill that was and is the promise of the Founder's Republic -- I say to you: "ROCK 'EM." Let the Window War begin. It won't take long to get the attention of the cowardly and treasonable Amnesty Conspirators. And when we do, somewhere Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty of old will be smiling.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Who Are We Really Fighting?
You hear about it on the news, the radio talk shows, and among friends at work. There have been books written on it, both for and against it. At some time or another the war on terror has been on everyone's mind. Each of us have our own opinion on how we should fight it. We all have an opinion about the war in Iraq. It is good that we are thinking about it, but how many of us truly understand what this war is all about? Think about it for a moment. Are we at war with the country of Iraq? Iraq never provoked us, other than their violations of the no fly zone. The President calls it the war on terror. So what exactly is terror?
Terror is defined as: 1) Intense, overpowering fear 2) One that instills intense fear 3) The ability to instill intense fear 4) Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
So if we look at our war against terror, using the abovementioned definitions, we will find that we are at war against fear, someone who makes us afraid, or a group that is trying to intimidate us.
We cannot be at war with a word. Terror, itself, is something that we cannot combat on a national level and win. It is an internal reaction to a stimulus and therefore the only way to defeat terror is to become brave. So if we are truly at war, we must be at war with the cause of terror; someone who instills fear or a group trying to intimidate us. When applied to our war on terror, both of those definitions have humans, or groups of humans, as the root cause of terror.
So who are we at war with? Is it Osama Bin Laden? If we were to capture or kill him, would the war against terror be over? I don’t think so. Do you? If not, than the war against terror is not against one individual. The war is against a concept, or a belief system that causes these terrorists to hate us so.
I know it is not politically correct to say this, but this war on terror is against a politically motivated form of radical Islam, it is a religious war that pits their beliefs against ours. Their religious beliefs and those of the western world do not agree. Their belief is that we must be totally annihilated or converted. There is no middle ground. The sooner Americans accept this fact, the better off we will be. Until that happens we will never know who and what we are fighting.
The war in Iraq is a prime example of the misguided way in which we are fighting this war. If this war is truly part of the war on terror, will establishing a democracy in Iraq do away with radical Islam? No, the radicals will still be there, and they will still hate us.
When President Reagan was in office he sent bombers to Libya to bomb Tripoli after finding out they were responsible for bombing a nightclub in a terrorist attack. He did not invade Libya and try to install a democratic form of government. Yet Libya got the message and behaved themselves afterwards. We should be doing the same now, let them know we mean business when we say don't mess with the U.S. To invade a country in the name of a war on terror, to try and force political change and instill western views in their society will only bread new terrorists and the war will go on forever.
If you think we can win this war by defeating individuals and installing a democracy you need to read these quotes.
Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, said,
“The most noble civilization ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilization. Today, Western civilization is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilization in Andalusia [medieval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilizations] bankruptcy is the reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilization, and that is the nation [of Islam]”
That quote alone is arrogant in itself in that it basically says we are nothing, they are everything, our ways are morally corrupt and bankrupt while they are righteous and rich in values. They feel morally and culturally superior to us. That does not show much tolerance from a religion that claims to be peaceful.
Another quote, taken from the diary of a suicide bomber states the extent to which they disagree with western values.
“We cannot live in the same world with the West. Western democracies have created a world in which we cannot exist, because in our world, the only thing to which we look forward to is the afterlife. This is just a temporary status, and we are moving on to something greater, and if we allow democracies, Western civilization, to survive, it will essentially turn the heads of all our people and turn their heads away from the joys of the afterlife and the joys of this life. Therefore, we have to set ourselves on a path of destroying Western civilization”.
That is their viewpoint, that we must be destroyed down to the last man, woman and child. Again, not very tolerant, are they? Yet we, in the west, are much more tolerant of others religious views. We have ‘freedom of religion’, inasmuch as the ACLU and the courts will allow it. So to look at things, we are much more vulnerable and weaker on this front than they are. We allow freedom to worship as you please, and by that fact alone we allow members of their faith to practice their beliefs within our borders. But if their belief claims that they must destroy all others, how can we allow this to go on while saying we are at war with terror?
All faiths believe that they are correct in their path to salvation. However, most proselyte peacefully through fellowship or missionary efforts. The followers of radical Islam believe in the concept of convert or be killed. They will not accept any other condition.
Many of you have heard the term jihad before. I am not sure that you realize that it also means struggle, whether it be spiritual or other. It does not always apply to a religious war, although that is often the way it is understood in the west.
However, when a jihad, or holy war is declared, the followers of Islam dedicate themselves to the cause. So, if they declare a jihad against the west, all of the faithful who are Muslim are then dedicated to carrying out their goal of eliminating everyone from the west, even though we have never met or done anything to them to make them hate us. It is because we are westerners and their faith has declared war on us that they strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up in the midst of their 'declared' enemies.
So, if we are fighting a war on terror, again I ask, who are we fighting? Are we fighting the Iraqi citizens who strap on suicide bombs? That is like playing chess and thinking you can win by capturing all the pawns. Helping instill democracy won't help, but that appears to be the goal of our current administration. So we are left now with a civil war within Iraq, as well as insurgents who wish to see Americans killed as well. Quite a mess.
Islam is rapidly spreading throughout the world, and along with it the cancer of hatred for all things western. How are we to know who it is that lives amongst us with such hatred in their hearts that they are plotting to carry out terrorist attacks? Who is to say that one day they will live among us in such numbers that we will live in constant fear of terrorist attack?
It is politically incorrect to stereotype all Muslims, but that fact of the matter is that it is Muslims who have committed most of the terrorist attacks against us? It wasn’t Catholics, Protestants, or Baptists. It wasn't Chinese, Russians, or Germans. It was Muslims. Before we can win this war we need to put aside politically correct thinking, the misguided concept of multiculturalism, and we need to focus on who our enemy is and how we are going to deal with them.
I leave you now with a quote from Sun Tzu from his book "The Art of War".
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will succumb in every
Terror is defined as: 1) Intense, overpowering fear 2) One that instills intense fear 3) The ability to instill intense fear 4) Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
So if we look at our war against terror, using the abovementioned definitions, we will find that we are at war against fear, someone who makes us afraid, or a group that is trying to intimidate us.
We cannot be at war with a word. Terror, itself, is something that we cannot combat on a national level and win. It is an internal reaction to a stimulus and therefore the only way to defeat terror is to become brave. So if we are truly at war, we must be at war with the cause of terror; someone who instills fear or a group trying to intimidate us. When applied to our war on terror, both of those definitions have humans, or groups of humans, as the root cause of terror.
So who are we at war with? Is it Osama Bin Laden? If we were to capture or kill him, would the war against terror be over? I don’t think so. Do you? If not, than the war against terror is not against one individual. The war is against a concept, or a belief system that causes these terrorists to hate us so.
I know it is not politically correct to say this, but this war on terror is against a politically motivated form of radical Islam, it is a religious war that pits their beliefs against ours. Their religious beliefs and those of the western world do not agree. Their belief is that we must be totally annihilated or converted. There is no middle ground. The sooner Americans accept this fact, the better off we will be. Until that happens we will never know who and what we are fighting.
The war in Iraq is a prime example of the misguided way in which we are fighting this war. If this war is truly part of the war on terror, will establishing a democracy in Iraq do away with radical Islam? No, the radicals will still be there, and they will still hate us.
When President Reagan was in office he sent bombers to Libya to bomb Tripoli after finding out they were responsible for bombing a nightclub in a terrorist attack. He did not invade Libya and try to install a democratic form of government. Yet Libya got the message and behaved themselves afterwards. We should be doing the same now, let them know we mean business when we say don't mess with the U.S. To invade a country in the name of a war on terror, to try and force political change and instill western views in their society will only bread new terrorists and the war will go on forever.
If you think we can win this war by defeating individuals and installing a democracy you need to read these quotes.
Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, said,
“The most noble civilization ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilization. Today, Western civilization is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilization in Andalusia [medieval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilizations] bankruptcy is the reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilization, and that is the nation [of Islam]”
That quote alone is arrogant in itself in that it basically says we are nothing, they are everything, our ways are morally corrupt and bankrupt while they are righteous and rich in values. They feel morally and culturally superior to us. That does not show much tolerance from a religion that claims to be peaceful.
Another quote, taken from the diary of a suicide bomber states the extent to which they disagree with western values.
“We cannot live in the same world with the West. Western democracies have created a world in which we cannot exist, because in our world, the only thing to which we look forward to is the afterlife. This is just a temporary status, and we are moving on to something greater, and if we allow democracies, Western civilization, to survive, it will essentially turn the heads of all our people and turn their heads away from the joys of the afterlife and the joys of this life. Therefore, we have to set ourselves on a path of destroying Western civilization”.
That is their viewpoint, that we must be destroyed down to the last man, woman and child. Again, not very tolerant, are they? Yet we, in the west, are much more tolerant of others religious views. We have ‘freedom of religion’, inasmuch as the ACLU and the courts will allow it. So to look at things, we are much more vulnerable and weaker on this front than they are. We allow freedom to worship as you please, and by that fact alone we allow members of their faith to practice their beliefs within our borders. But if their belief claims that they must destroy all others, how can we allow this to go on while saying we are at war with terror?
All faiths believe that they are correct in their path to salvation. However, most proselyte peacefully through fellowship or missionary efforts. The followers of radical Islam believe in the concept of convert or be killed. They will not accept any other condition.
Many of you have heard the term jihad before. I am not sure that you realize that it also means struggle, whether it be spiritual or other. It does not always apply to a religious war, although that is often the way it is understood in the west.
However, when a jihad, or holy war is declared, the followers of Islam dedicate themselves to the cause. So, if they declare a jihad against the west, all of the faithful who are Muslim are then dedicated to carrying out their goal of eliminating everyone from the west, even though we have never met or done anything to them to make them hate us. It is because we are westerners and their faith has declared war on us that they strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up in the midst of their 'declared' enemies.
So, if we are fighting a war on terror, again I ask, who are we fighting? Are we fighting the Iraqi citizens who strap on suicide bombs? That is like playing chess and thinking you can win by capturing all the pawns. Helping instill democracy won't help, but that appears to be the goal of our current administration. So we are left now with a civil war within Iraq, as well as insurgents who wish to see Americans killed as well. Quite a mess.
Islam is rapidly spreading throughout the world, and along with it the cancer of hatred for all things western. How are we to know who it is that lives amongst us with such hatred in their hearts that they are plotting to carry out terrorist attacks? Who is to say that one day they will live among us in such numbers that we will live in constant fear of terrorist attack?
It is politically incorrect to stereotype all Muslims, but that fact of the matter is that it is Muslims who have committed most of the terrorist attacks against us? It wasn’t Catholics, Protestants, or Baptists. It wasn't Chinese, Russians, or Germans. It was Muslims. Before we can win this war we need to put aside politically correct thinking, the misguided concept of multiculturalism, and we need to focus on who our enemy is and how we are going to deal with them.
I leave you now with a quote from Sun Tzu from his book "The Art of War".
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will succumb in every
Who Is Our Enemy
On September 11, 2001 our nation was attacked. Because of that attack we now find ourselves inv a 'War On Terror'. The object of this paper is not to discuss who attacked us or why we were attacked. Nor is it to discuss whether or not the war in Iraq was justified or not.
The object of this paper is to discuss the repercussions of legislation that has passed to protect us from future terrorist attacks I also want to speculate about what really may be the reasons for this War On Terror.
As you read this I want you to think about whether or not you feel any safer since 9/11. After reading this paper you might question the governments assertion that the terrorists are our enemies, and you might begin to wonder who our enemies really are.
Before I get into current events I want to give you some background information. In 2001, before the terrorists attacked us the Hart-Rudman Commission proposed a cabinet level anti-terrorism Department. So the concern for terrorist attacks was already present before 9/11.
Now lets talk about the present. First off let me ask you if you have ever heard of any piece of legislation that wasn't read by any member of either Congress or the Senate before being voted upon? No, you say? I guess you haven't heard about H.R. 3162, otherwise known as the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was voted upon and passed before any member of Congress ever saw a printed copy of it. The Bush Administration played to our fears and our patriotic pride to get this legislation passed through Congress and on October 26, 2001 President Bush signed into law a bill that shreds the Bill of Rights to pieces. You want some examples?
Section 213 of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as the Sneak and Peek Provision allows any federal law enforcement agency to enter your home or business without you being present to collect evidence and they do not ever have to tell you they have been there. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Sections 202 & 216 allows any federal law enforcement agency to monitor your internet traffic, read your e mails and intercept all your cell phone calls, if they suspect that you are committing a crime. No warrant is required. This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency can come to your business and seize your records if they claim it is part of a terrorist investigation. They can also arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. This violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
The CIA can now operate within the confines of the United States as directed by Attorney General Ashcroft. Previously this was not permitted, and now the evidence they gather can be used in court.
So you think you are safe, you are not a terrorist. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as, "activities that--involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States...and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..." So do you still think anything you do might not classify you as a domestic terrorist?
After reviewing the Patriot Act, Congressman Ron Paul said that our forefathers would think it is time for a revolution.
On November 9, 2001 Attorney General Ashcroft announced he was ordering the Justice Dept. to wiretap attorney client conversations of terrorist suspects who were incarcerated, thereby tossing out the window the idea of attorney client privilege.
The Supreme Court even ruled in U.S.v Robel:
"[T]his concept of 'national defense' cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of...power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which se this Nation apart...It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
After the civil war, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to arrest protesters and rioters. The Supreme Court once again made a significant ruling regarding the suspension of liberties as defined in the Constitution,
"The Constitution of the Untied States is a laws for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of mean, at all times, and under all circumstance. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
With those two rulings we see it stated that it would be ironic if we gave up a liberty in the name of national defense, and that no doctrine can suspend any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yet we have seen the Patriot Act does both, it violates our liberties in the name of national defense and suspends or abolishes the provisions of the Constitution which grant us those liberties.
I have used this quote many times before but I feel it is so very important that the significance of it sinks in. James Madison said that, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "
You think that the Patriot Act was bad? What about Patriot Act II? Its provisions allow for secret arrests of persons with no bail until an indictment is handed down. Any federal employee who releases the name of someone held under these circumstances can be jailed for up to five years. Patriot II also entitles government authorities to have one on one meetings with suspected terrorists without legal counsel for the defendant. Section 126 allows the government to obtain credit reports and impose criminal penalties on credit agencies for disclosing that the government has been looking at your credit reports.
All that is a document nicknamed the Patriot Act. How ironic that any true Patriot would be out in the streets protesting this invasion of our civil liberties! What else has been done since 9/11?
On September 17, 2001 President Bush released the National Security Strategy of the United States. Parts of that can be traced back to a Harvard University Study entitled, Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy. According to that the U.S. can launch preemptive strikes against any nation without provocation if we suspect they might become a terrorist threat. So now we can declare war with anyone who we might have reason to fear that in the future they may attack us. Look out Iran, China, Syria, and North Korea!
What is interesting is that many of the key players in these policies, upwards of 80%, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberger Group. All these groups have a tendency to lean towards fascist rule. So does that give you any clue as to the direction this country is going?
You think that is bad? How about the Proactive Preemptive Operation Group, or PGO2? According to Wikipedia:
“In 2002, it was estimated that PGO2 would require a team of hundred people with experience in covert activities, intelligence gathering, computer network attacks and other highly specialized skills, and at least $100 million annually to sustain operations. The covert counter-intelligence agents would be responsible for secret missions targeting terrorist leaders in order to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, thereby provoking violent acts, which would in turn make them susceptible to counterattack by US forces”
All through this war on terror we have heard the possibility of biological attacks against us here in the United States, particularly smallpox. There has been talk of mass vaccinations of the public to prevent outbreaks if the threat of a biological attack were to be imminent.
World Health records show that any time mass vaccinations took place, devastating epidemics followed. England, Germany, Italy, the Philippines and India all suffered epidemics following mass vaccinations.
With that in mind, Title 3 of the act that created the Dept. of Homeland Security mentions smallpox and other diseases. That act makes it law that if people die due to receiving an untested vaccine during a state of emergency, those who administer the vaccines will be immune from being sued.
You should be safe shouldn’t you? After all these vaccines are tested by the FDA. Think again. According to an article in the New York Times on May 31, the FDA said that eliminating the need for human testing could spur the development of anti-terrorism drugs by eliminating the stumbling block of ethical concern of exposing people to things like smallpox or nerve gas.
So, you won’t take the vaccine? Read on. In March the Federal Appeals Court for the Eight Circuit ruled that a defendant can be forcibly drugged even though he has not been convicted of a crime. The Court found that there are no limits on the quantities or types of drugs the government can administer.
So now we have the possibility that there will be mandatory vaccines for supposed emergencies like Avian Flu, Smallpox or maybe Anthrax. These vaccines have not been tested and could prove fatal. If you refuse to take them you could be arrested and then the government, according to the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court, can give you the vaccine anyway.
So now we have a government that;
1) Says it needs no provocation to attack anyone if it suspects they may be a future threat to our national security
2) has supposedly created a military group who is going out and stimulating terrorist activities which will give us more reasons to attack them. (I wonder if the reason for the War in Iraq is to further enrage Muslim nations against the U.S. which would give us more reasons to attack them?)
3) has decimated your civil rights through the provisions of the Patriot Act and the guise of Homeland Security.
4) is willing to administer untested vaccines in the case of a national emergency
5) can jail you for refusing to accept that vaccine
6) administer the vaccine while you are incarcerated against your wishes
So after reading a few of the items that are being done for you benefit under the guise of homeland security, do you still feel safe? Who do you think your real enemy is, Osama Bin Laden, or the U.S. government?
The object of this paper is to discuss the repercussions of legislation that has passed to protect us from future terrorist attacks I also want to speculate about what really may be the reasons for this War On Terror.
As you read this I want you to think about whether or not you feel any safer since 9/11. After reading this paper you might question the governments assertion that the terrorists are our enemies, and you might begin to wonder who our enemies really are.
Before I get into current events I want to give you some background information. In 2001, before the terrorists attacked us the Hart-Rudman Commission proposed a cabinet level anti-terrorism Department. So the concern for terrorist attacks was already present before 9/11.
Now lets talk about the present. First off let me ask you if you have ever heard of any piece of legislation that wasn't read by any member of either Congress or the Senate before being voted upon? No, you say? I guess you haven't heard about H.R. 3162, otherwise known as the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was voted upon and passed before any member of Congress ever saw a printed copy of it. The Bush Administration played to our fears and our patriotic pride to get this legislation passed through Congress and on October 26, 2001 President Bush signed into law a bill that shreds the Bill of Rights to pieces. You want some examples?
Section 213 of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as the Sneak and Peek Provision allows any federal law enforcement agency to enter your home or business without you being present to collect evidence and they do not ever have to tell you they have been there. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Sections 202 & 216 allows any federal law enforcement agency to monitor your internet traffic, read your e mails and intercept all your cell phone calls, if they suspect that you are committing a crime. No warrant is required. This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency can come to your business and seize your records if they claim it is part of a terrorist investigation. They can also arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. This violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
The CIA can now operate within the confines of the United States as directed by Attorney General Ashcroft. Previously this was not permitted, and now the evidence they gather can be used in court.
So you think you are safe, you are not a terrorist. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as, "activities that--involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States...and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion..." So do you still think anything you do might not classify you as a domestic terrorist?
After reviewing the Patriot Act, Congressman Ron Paul said that our forefathers would think it is time for a revolution.
On November 9, 2001 Attorney General Ashcroft announced he was ordering the Justice Dept. to wiretap attorney client conversations of terrorist suspects who were incarcerated, thereby tossing out the window the idea of attorney client privilege.
The Supreme Court even ruled in U.S.v Robel:
"[T]his concept of 'national defense' cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of...power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which se this Nation apart...It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
After the civil war, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to arrest protesters and rioters. The Supreme Court once again made a significant ruling regarding the suspension of liberties as defined in the Constitution,
"The Constitution of the Untied States is a laws for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of mean, at all times, and under all circumstance. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
With those two rulings we see it stated that it would be ironic if we gave up a liberty in the name of national defense, and that no doctrine can suspend any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yet we have seen the Patriot Act does both, it violates our liberties in the name of national defense and suspends or abolishes the provisions of the Constitution which grant us those liberties.
I have used this quote many times before but I feel it is so very important that the significance of it sinks in. James Madison said that, "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "
You think that the Patriot Act was bad? What about Patriot Act II? Its provisions allow for secret arrests of persons with no bail until an indictment is handed down. Any federal employee who releases the name of someone held under these circumstances can be jailed for up to five years. Patriot II also entitles government authorities to have one on one meetings with suspected terrorists without legal counsel for the defendant. Section 126 allows the government to obtain credit reports and impose criminal penalties on credit agencies for disclosing that the government has been looking at your credit reports.
All that is a document nicknamed the Patriot Act. How ironic that any true Patriot would be out in the streets protesting this invasion of our civil liberties! What else has been done since 9/11?
On September 17, 2001 President Bush released the National Security Strategy of the United States. Parts of that can be traced back to a Harvard University Study entitled, Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy. According to that the U.S. can launch preemptive strikes against any nation without provocation if we suspect they might become a terrorist threat. So now we can declare war with anyone who we might have reason to fear that in the future they may attack us. Look out Iran, China, Syria, and North Korea!
What is interesting is that many of the key players in these policies, upwards of 80%, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberger Group. All these groups have a tendency to lean towards fascist rule. So does that give you any clue as to the direction this country is going?
You think that is bad? How about the Proactive Preemptive Operation Group, or PGO2? According to Wikipedia:
“In 2002, it was estimated that PGO2 would require a team of hundred people with experience in covert activities, intelligence gathering, computer network attacks and other highly specialized skills, and at least $100 million annually to sustain operations. The covert counter-intelligence agents would be responsible for secret missions targeting terrorist leaders in order to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, thereby provoking violent acts, which would in turn make them susceptible to counterattack by US forces”
All through this war on terror we have heard the possibility of biological attacks against us here in the United States, particularly smallpox. There has been talk of mass vaccinations of the public to prevent outbreaks if the threat of a biological attack were to be imminent.
World Health records show that any time mass vaccinations took place, devastating epidemics followed. England, Germany, Italy, the Philippines and India all suffered epidemics following mass vaccinations.
With that in mind, Title 3 of the act that created the Dept. of Homeland Security mentions smallpox and other diseases. That act makes it law that if people die due to receiving an untested vaccine during a state of emergency, those who administer the vaccines will be immune from being sued.
You should be safe shouldn’t you? After all these vaccines are tested by the FDA. Think again. According to an article in the New York Times on May 31, the FDA said that eliminating the need for human testing could spur the development of anti-terrorism drugs by eliminating the stumbling block of ethical concern of exposing people to things like smallpox or nerve gas.
So, you won’t take the vaccine? Read on. In March the Federal Appeals Court for the Eight Circuit ruled that a defendant can be forcibly drugged even though he has not been convicted of a crime. The Court found that there are no limits on the quantities or types of drugs the government can administer.
So now we have the possibility that there will be mandatory vaccines for supposed emergencies like Avian Flu, Smallpox or maybe Anthrax. These vaccines have not been tested and could prove fatal. If you refuse to take them you could be arrested and then the government, according to the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court, can give you the vaccine anyway.
So now we have a government that;
1) Says it needs no provocation to attack anyone if it suspects they may be a future threat to our national security
2) has supposedly created a military group who is going out and stimulating terrorist activities which will give us more reasons to attack them. (I wonder if the reason for the War in Iraq is to further enrage Muslim nations against the U.S. which would give us more reasons to attack them?)
3) has decimated your civil rights through the provisions of the Patriot Act and the guise of Homeland Security.
4) is willing to administer untested vaccines in the case of a national emergency
5) can jail you for refusing to accept that vaccine
6) administer the vaccine while you are incarcerated against your wishes
So after reading a few of the items that are being done for you benefit under the guise of homeland security, do you still feel safe? Who do you think your real enemy is, Osama Bin Laden, or the U.S. government?
War On Terror 1
I have mainly been writing about illegal immigration, but that is not the only subject that concerns me. Therefore I am posting a few articles I had written previously on other subjects. These first three concern our War on Terror.
Recently President Bush made his annual State of the Union Address. In it he asked for an additional 20,000 troops to deploy to Iraq so he can secure Baghdad. I am sorry Mr. Bush, but I would have to say no to your request. I am against your war in Iraq, and your War on Terror. I do support the men and women whom you are sending overseas to fight in your war though. I myself am a veteran of 13 yrs in the United States Air Force. I know what kind of sacrifices these brave men and women are making for their country. That still does not mean I agree with your war.
Many people have been called me unpatriotic, soft on terror, and a few other unmentionable names because of my feelings on this subject. The fact of the matter is that I have put aside emotions, examined the facts, and I have decided that things just don’t add up.
The question begs to be asked, why now Mr. Bush, why Iraq? In 1983 terrorists drove a truck full of explosives into the Marine compound in Beirut Lebanon killing 241 U.S. servicemen. On Feb. 26, 1993 The World Trade Center was attacked for the first time. In June of 1996 a terrorist bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans. In 2000 suicide bombers approached the U.S.S. Cole in a small craft detonating a bomb which disabled the ship, killing 17 sailors. All these events were aimed at terrorizing America. So again I ask the question, why now Mr. Bush, and why Iraq?
Mr. Bush, you claim we are in the middle of a War on Terror that began the day of September 11, 2001 when terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After all the previous attacks by terrorists, why wait until now to declare war? They have been at war with us for many years. Why are we suddenly fighting back?
There is something else that I find most peculiar. According to the FBI's list of the hijackers of the flights on Sept. 11, the terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian. There was not one Iraqi. Why did you choose to attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Mr. Bush, you claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found. You also stated Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. That was never proven to be true. Both these claims turned out to be false, so you changed your story again. Now you claim we need to install a democracy in Iraq. Since when is it the job of the United States to invade a sovereign country, overthrow their government, and install a democracy? I find that clause nowhere in the U.S. Constitution under the powers granted the President or the Congress.
Mr. Bush, it is time we left Iraq. In 2002 the Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). This resolution granted you the authority to use military force against Iraq under certain conditions. Two of those conditions were to defend the security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Iraq no longer poses a threat to us militarily. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein is gone. The threat from his regime is over. The conditions granting you the powers to use military force have been removed. Therefore our troops should be removed and brought home as well before another U.S. serviceman loses his life.
The only threat remaining is Iraq is of our own creating. The longer our military forces occupy Iraq, the more the animosity towards the U.S. in the region will grow. Time to bring our men and women home Mr. Bush, playtime is over.
When you first spoke to the American people about the War on Terror, you mentioned the Axis of Evil. Iran and North Korea were the other two countries, along with Iraq that constituted your Axis of Evil.
At the time we invaded Iraq Iran and North Korea were much further along in their nuclear weapons programs, yet we did not attack them, we attacked Iraq. Again, I ask why Iraq Mr. Bush?
Putting aside the fact that we invaded Iraq and we removed Saddam Hussein from power. What else has our War on Terror accomplished? Let’s look first at the situation in Iraq. We now have Sunni and Shia Muslims waging a civil war. The animosity between the Islamic factions in the middle east goes back further than the history of the United States. Do you honestly believe a democratic government in Iraq is going to cause people to forget that and live together in peace? If so you are far too naive to be President of the United States. At least with Saddam Hussein in power he kept the uprisings under control with his brutal Republican Guard. Now, we have opened Pandora’s Box and no democratic government is going to be able to close it.
Another thing, many countries in the region do not like us because of our support for Israel. Now we have invaded Iraq and are trying to install a democracy. The fanatical Muslims do not want democracy, they want to control the thoughts and actions of their people through religious propaganda. So instead of reducing the number of terrorists, we have increased their numbers by fueling the fire of hatred against America. You have basically poured gasoline onto the fire. Way to go Mr. President!
What else has the War on Terror accomplished? Well, we have a whole new government agency devoted to keeping us safe from future terrorist attacks. How well are they doing? On the surface it would appear they are doing just fine, we haven’t had any attacks on American soil since 9/11.
Are we actually safer though? Our country, even though we have entry/exit points on both borders, basically has an open border. Anyone who wishes to sneak in can do so. That is a proven fact! When we have thousands of illegal immigrants entering our country each day how hard would it be for a determined terrorist to sneak in if they wanted to?
On December 14, 1999, U.S. Port Angeles Agents assisted U.S. Customs Agents in the apprehension of an Algerian traveling from Victoria, British Columbia on a ferry to the United States. The man had two Quebec driver’s licenses under different names and was driving a rental vehicle. In the vehicle, Agents found 200 pounds of urea, 46 ounces of liquid nitroglycerin and four very sophisticated electronic timing devices to detonate explosives.
On December 22, 1998, U.S. Border Patrol Agents arrested two Afghanistan nationals who entered the country at Douglas, Arizona. Both subjects entered without inspection and claimed to be citizens from the Netherlands. Both subjects were listed on Interpol Red lists of Terrorists.
Who knows how many more suspected terrorists made it through and are now living among us, plotting their next attack? It is rumored that members of Hezbollah are already living in the United States. Do you still feel we are any safer? Mr. President, if you wanted to make us safer you would secure our borders. Instead, you leave them open and you imprison two Border Patrol agents who shot an illegal alien drug smuggler in the ass. This man was attempting to bring 750 lbs. of marijuana into the U.S. He was caught a second time with 1300 lbs of marijuana. He was granted immunity for his crimes to testify against the Border Patrol agents who were just doing their job. Why did you allow this Mr. President? You have left our borders open for drug dealers and terrorists, and you imprison those who are there to defend those same borders. Where is our security Mr. President?
Still Mr. President you are trying to make us safer. Let’s look at what else you have done. Our government, under pressure from you passed the Patriot Act. Now there is a bit of irony. The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic! For one thing, if you were a Congressman how could you justify voting in favor of a bill that you had never read? That is exactly what happened. The bill had not even made it out of the government printing office before it was voted on and approved.
So, what does this bill do? Let’s take a look at some of the powers it gives our government in their ‘War on Terror’. Did you know that I could be considered a domestic terrorist just for writing this article and expressing my views? Section 802 of the Patriot Act created a new crime category entitled ‘domestic terrorism’. Domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
According to definition B you or I could be considered a domestic terrorist if we attempt to coerce people into believing the war in Iraq, and all that goes along with it, is wrong.
Under the second revision of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as Patriot Act 2, the government would not be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation until criminal charges are filed. In other words you would just disappear until the government filed charges. (sec 201)
The government can obtain credit and library records without a search warrant. (sections 126,128, 129) and their organization could be wiretapped (sec120. 121) and their assets seized, (sec 428).
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the request of foreign governments. (sections 321, 322).
Those are just a few of the liberties you have lost due to this wide ranging legislation which was passed. Under the guise of fighting terror the President has stepped all over the bill of rights and your personal freedoms. In fact the Patriot Act is in violation of the 1rst, 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly the 8th and 11th Amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Constitution the Patriot Act is illegal.
So, now you know why I do not agree with the Presidents, so called, war on terror or the war in Iraq. Hopefully I have raised some questions that you might want to seek the answers to. Just speak softly, they might be listening to you.
Recently President Bush made his annual State of the Union Address. In it he asked for an additional 20,000 troops to deploy to Iraq so he can secure Baghdad. I am sorry Mr. Bush, but I would have to say no to your request. I am against your war in Iraq, and your War on Terror. I do support the men and women whom you are sending overseas to fight in your war though. I myself am a veteran of 13 yrs in the United States Air Force. I know what kind of sacrifices these brave men and women are making for their country. That still does not mean I agree with your war.
Many people have been called me unpatriotic, soft on terror, and a few other unmentionable names because of my feelings on this subject. The fact of the matter is that I have put aside emotions, examined the facts, and I have decided that things just don’t add up.
The question begs to be asked, why now Mr. Bush, why Iraq? In 1983 terrorists drove a truck full of explosives into the Marine compound in Beirut Lebanon killing 241 U.S. servicemen. On Feb. 26, 1993 The World Trade Center was attacked for the first time. In June of 1996 a terrorist bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans. In 2000 suicide bombers approached the U.S.S. Cole in a small craft detonating a bomb which disabled the ship, killing 17 sailors. All these events were aimed at terrorizing America. So again I ask the question, why now Mr. Bush, and why Iraq?
Mr. Bush, you claim we are in the middle of a War on Terror that began the day of September 11, 2001 when terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After all the previous attacks by terrorists, why wait until now to declare war? They have been at war with us for many years. Why are we suddenly fighting back?
There is something else that I find most peculiar. According to the FBI's list of the hijackers of the flights on Sept. 11, the terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian. There was not one Iraqi. Why did you choose to attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Mr. Bush, you claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found. You also stated Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. That was never proven to be true. Both these claims turned out to be false, so you changed your story again. Now you claim we need to install a democracy in Iraq. Since when is it the job of the United States to invade a sovereign country, overthrow their government, and install a democracy? I find that clause nowhere in the U.S. Constitution under the powers granted the President or the Congress.
Mr. Bush, it is time we left Iraq. In 2002 the Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). This resolution granted you the authority to use military force against Iraq under certain conditions. Two of those conditions were to defend the security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Iraq no longer poses a threat to us militarily. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein is gone. The threat from his regime is over. The conditions granting you the powers to use military force have been removed. Therefore our troops should be removed and brought home as well before another U.S. serviceman loses his life.
The only threat remaining is Iraq is of our own creating. The longer our military forces occupy Iraq, the more the animosity towards the U.S. in the region will grow. Time to bring our men and women home Mr. Bush, playtime is over.
When you first spoke to the American people about the War on Terror, you mentioned the Axis of Evil. Iran and North Korea were the other two countries, along with Iraq that constituted your Axis of Evil.
At the time we invaded Iraq Iran and North Korea were much further along in their nuclear weapons programs, yet we did not attack them, we attacked Iraq. Again, I ask why Iraq Mr. Bush?
Putting aside the fact that we invaded Iraq and we removed Saddam Hussein from power. What else has our War on Terror accomplished? Let’s look first at the situation in Iraq. We now have Sunni and Shia Muslims waging a civil war. The animosity between the Islamic factions in the middle east goes back further than the history of the United States. Do you honestly believe a democratic government in Iraq is going to cause people to forget that and live together in peace? If so you are far too naive to be President of the United States. At least with Saddam Hussein in power he kept the uprisings under control with his brutal Republican Guard. Now, we have opened Pandora’s Box and no democratic government is going to be able to close it.
Another thing, many countries in the region do not like us because of our support for Israel. Now we have invaded Iraq and are trying to install a democracy. The fanatical Muslims do not want democracy, they want to control the thoughts and actions of their people through religious propaganda. So instead of reducing the number of terrorists, we have increased their numbers by fueling the fire of hatred against America. You have basically poured gasoline onto the fire. Way to go Mr. President!
What else has the War on Terror accomplished? Well, we have a whole new government agency devoted to keeping us safe from future terrorist attacks. How well are they doing? On the surface it would appear they are doing just fine, we haven’t had any attacks on American soil since 9/11.
Are we actually safer though? Our country, even though we have entry/exit points on both borders, basically has an open border. Anyone who wishes to sneak in can do so. That is a proven fact! When we have thousands of illegal immigrants entering our country each day how hard would it be for a determined terrorist to sneak in if they wanted to?
On December 14, 1999, U.S. Port Angeles Agents assisted U.S. Customs Agents in the apprehension of an Algerian traveling from Victoria, British Columbia on a ferry to the United States. The man had two Quebec driver’s licenses under different names and was driving a rental vehicle. In the vehicle, Agents found 200 pounds of urea, 46 ounces of liquid nitroglycerin and four very sophisticated electronic timing devices to detonate explosives.
On December 22, 1998, U.S. Border Patrol Agents arrested two Afghanistan nationals who entered the country at Douglas, Arizona. Both subjects entered without inspection and claimed to be citizens from the Netherlands. Both subjects were listed on Interpol Red lists of Terrorists.
Who knows how many more suspected terrorists made it through and are now living among us, plotting their next attack? It is rumored that members of Hezbollah are already living in the United States. Do you still feel we are any safer? Mr. President, if you wanted to make us safer you would secure our borders. Instead, you leave them open and you imprison two Border Patrol agents who shot an illegal alien drug smuggler in the ass. This man was attempting to bring 750 lbs. of marijuana into the U.S. He was caught a second time with 1300 lbs of marijuana. He was granted immunity for his crimes to testify against the Border Patrol agents who were just doing their job. Why did you allow this Mr. President? You have left our borders open for drug dealers and terrorists, and you imprison those who are there to defend those same borders. Where is our security Mr. President?
Still Mr. President you are trying to make us safer. Let’s look at what else you have done. Our government, under pressure from you passed the Patriot Act. Now there is a bit of irony. The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic! For one thing, if you were a Congressman how could you justify voting in favor of a bill that you had never read? That is exactly what happened. The bill had not even made it out of the government printing office before it was voted on and approved.
So, what does this bill do? Let’s take a look at some of the powers it gives our government in their ‘War on Terror’. Did you know that I could be considered a domestic terrorist just for writing this article and expressing my views? Section 802 of the Patriot Act created a new crime category entitled ‘domestic terrorism’. Domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
According to definition B you or I could be considered a domestic terrorist if we attempt to coerce people into believing the war in Iraq, and all that goes along with it, is wrong.
Under the second revision of the Patriot Act, otherwise known as Patriot Act 2, the government would not be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation until criminal charges are filed. In other words you would just disappear until the government filed charges. (sec 201)
The government can obtain credit and library records without a search warrant. (sections 126,128, 129) and their organization could be wiretapped (sec120. 121) and their assets seized, (sec 428).
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the request of foreign governments. (sections 321, 322).
Those are just a few of the liberties you have lost due to this wide ranging legislation which was passed. Under the guise of fighting terror the President has stepped all over the bill of rights and your personal freedoms. In fact the Patriot Act is in violation of the 1rst, 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly the 8th and 11th Amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Constitution the Patriot Act is illegal.
So, now you know why I do not agree with the Presidents, so called, war on terror or the war in Iraq. Hopefully I have raised some questions that you might want to seek the answers to. Just speak softly, they might be listening to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)