Monthly Archives: May 2010

It’s Not Just Mexicans Crossing Our Borders

This video documents the fact that many of the illegal immigrants coming into our country across the Southern border are from Middle East countries know to be supporter of international terrorism.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

posted with vodpod

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share


Sestak debacle may be more important than it appears

The Joe Sestak affair offers another opportunity to peek underneath the curtain at the sleazy underbelly of Washington and Chicago politics.  On Friday both the White House and Rep. Joe Sestak released statements to the press, following the political tradition of releasing information concerning any potential political scandals at the start of a holiday weekend in the hopes that no one will be paying attention.

In a February, 2010 interview, Sestak claimed that the White House had offered him a “high-profile” White House job if he would end his plans to challenge party-jumping Arlen Specter for the Pennsylvania Senate Seat in the primary elections.  Interest in the incident has been dormant until this week when it suddenly bubbled to the surface as a national issue.

Early speculation was that the offer was for a job as Secretary of the Navy (Sestak is a retired Admiral). In the Friday statement released by the White House, WH Counsel, Robert Bauer refuted the claim, stating that the offer was only an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board. In return for the unpaid advisory position, Sestak would remain in his position as the Congressman of Pennsylvania’s Seventh Congressional District and not challenge Specter in the Pennsylvania Primary.

The Democratic hope is that by the job being only an unpaid advisory position the American people will consider it as no big deal and the whole affair will be quickly forgotten. In a blog post today, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist, Barb Shelly expressed that hope in a column titled “Sestak job offer scandal deflating rapidly”. In it she says, “I hear the sound of air leaking out of this scandal balloon. Political horse-trading isn’t exactly a novel concept in Washington, and it’s hard to equate an offer for an unpaid position, however prestigious, to bribery”.

Not so fast, Barb. Even if we accept the idea that the White House would consider the offer of a non-paying advisory job as an adequate bribe for a sitting Congressman with his eye on bigger things, there are still some questions that deserve answers. I will leave the political and legal wrangling to the Legal Eagles and Party Hit-men for now. An even more important issue for the American people is the perversion of the Constitution and the contempt for its requirements shown by the White House in making the offer. This aspect seems to be completely overlooked by the media and the political class.

Article I says, “1.6.4 No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; 1.6.5 and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

The purpose of these two clauses is to maintain the separation and independent status between the branches of government. Clause 4 was sidestepped by Obama when he appointed Hillary Clinton to the office of Secretary of State by having her serve as Secretary at the same salary that was in place at the time of her election to the Senate. Only a few people raised the issue at the time and it was soon forgotten. The Sestak offer is a little more difficult to explain away.

If the rumor of  an offer of a job as Secretary of State is true and Sestak had accepted, it would have constituted an outright bribe that could not be defended. In taking the job, it would be necessary for Sestak to resign his house seat and withdraw from the Senate race making it a quid pro quo offer. Bribery is an impeachable offense under the clear language of Article II, Section 4 which states “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Since the offer originated with Obama, he is the one that would be at risk of impeachment.

In denying the Secretary job offer and instead admitting to an offer that would let Sestak serve in the House while also holding an office in the Executive Branch, Obama is admitting to a clear violation of clause 5 above. The fact that the position is unpaid and only an advisory position is immaterial. The purpose of these two clauses is to prevent one branch of government from being in a position to coercively influence decisions made by another branch. Although there may not be a salary involved, serving on a board in the Executive branch would ultimately makes the President Sestak’s “boss” which is a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

While the “Sestak affair” may well be dismissed by the media and the Democrats as insignificant, like the sexually predatory inclinations of Bill Clinton, or the amateurish burglarizing of a political opponent’s office by Richard Nixon’s operatives, it could also be setting up the American people to endure another impeachment spectacle if the Republicans gain control of Congress in the November elections. In this case, it may be worth it because it would, at least temporarily, stop Obama’s headlong push of America into socialism and if successful, remove him from office.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Obama at the Bat

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Obama at the Bat", posted with vodpod

U.S. Cities Continue Conspiracy to Violate Constitution

An increasing number of City Councils, County Boards, fraternal and business groups, and left-wing activists groups are passing resolutions calling for a boycott of Arizona businesses. The left has gone all out to derail Arizona’s effort to assist the Federal Government in its enforcement of immigration law.  All of these groups have two things in common. First, they are all dominated by progressive idiot elitists. Second, they all display a disdain for, or ignorance of our Constitution. It is precisely this type of behavior that the “commerce clause” in the Constitution was intended to prevent.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, gives Congress the power to…“regulate commerce… among the several states.” The key words here are “regulate” and “commerce”. When politicians run across one of these two words, their eyes turn green with a lust for power, their brain cells turn to mush and they conjure up all types of esoteric meanings to apply to them. They become beside themselves in imagining all the possibilities for using these words to abridge our liberties and control our lives.  Their true meaning however, are not all that complicated.

The dictionary defines “regulate” as “control by rule, principle, or system”. There are thousands of regulators in our every day life— beside the bureaucrats from Washington. Traffic signals regulate the flow of traffic. Faucets, meters and valves regulate the flow of water. Regulators of one type or another regulate the flow of electricity to our appliances. To clearly understand the meaning of the word “regulate“ and its limits, imagine the faucet on your bathtub. Its purpose is to regulate the proper flow of hot and cold water into the tub. When you turn the faucet off, it no longer acts as a regulator. Instead, if functions as a blocker preventing the flow.

Commerce also has a simple and easy to understand meaning for everyone except politicians.  It simply means “trade”. When the Constitution was written, the phrase “regulate commerce among the several states” simply meant to “make it regular”. Under the Articles of Confederation, states were free to regulate trade between them as each saw fit. Many states, in order to protect craftsmen and businesses in their own state, prohibited the importation of certain goods from other states or placed tariffs on them that discouraged their purchase. State laws under the Confederation became a hodgepodge of taxes, tariffs, boycotts, restrictions and anti-trade policies that crippled the economies of the various states and hindered the growth of commerce.

The commerce clause was placed in the Constitution to eliminate this problem and establish free trade between the states; no more; no less. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to make uniform rules governing interstate trade to facilitate the free flow of goods and services between them. That is the constitutional limits on the power of Congress to regulate commerce. Instead of criticizing and berating the State of Arizona for illustrating the Federal Government’s failure in its constitutional duty to protect our borders, it should be coming down on the state, city and local governments for conspiring to interfere with the free flow of commerce between the states. It certainly should not be encouraging boycotts.

When the President of the United States gives a foreign Head of State a platform for publicly criticizing one of our sovereign states and encouraging domestic protest, as he did this week, while it may not rise to the Constitution’s definition of treason, it certainly comes close to an impeachable offense for dereliction of duty and malfeasance in office. When Congress invites that same Head of State to speak to a joint session of Congress and then gives him a standing ovation when he repeats the same criticism, as it also did this week, it is a betrayal of the American people and ample reason to remove them from office at the next election.
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Arizona Testing Sanity of the Left

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Arizona is driving the left crazy. What is weird is that almost without exception, opponents to Arizona’s SB1070 show in their proclamations against the bill that Arizona is within its legal rights in what it is doing.

For example, the Chambers of Commerce for a number of Mexican border towns have called for “a day without Mexicans” for May 25.  The idea is for Mexicans to avoid crossing into the U.S. on that day for any reason, including shopping or work. Girón Fernández de Jáuregui, President of the Nuevo Laredo Chamber of Commerce says, “It will be a grand moment of solidarity among border Mexicans”. Nuevo Laredo, of course, is on the border with Texas, not Arizona, and Texas has indicated they do not intend to follow Arizona’s lead.

No matter. According to de Jaueregui, he has already heard that “some legislators are considering carrying a bill that would make criminals out of those without documents.”  Duhh, the Arizona law does not make criminals out of anyone. That is something people do for themselves whenever they choose to break the law. It has been illegal for aliens to be in the U.S. without permission since at least the 1940s. All foreign nationals are required by Federal law to carry proof of their immigration status with them at all times.  That is nothing new.  Failure to carry the proper documentation makes one subject to arrest, and penalties up to and including deportation.

Neither is being stopped and asked for identification, although that is reasonably rare.  I am an average looking Caucasian male, and have been stopped by police on several occasions and asked for identification; once when someone fitting my description had committed a crime and was being sought by the cops. Had I not produced identification I would have gotten a free ride to the closest police station. There is nothing at all unusual about being asked for identification.  It is virtually impossible to carry on any new financial transactions, register for a hotel room, cash a check or any one of a million other actions we engage in every day without producing some type of valid ID.

Another illogical response is by the AFL-CIO. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 organizations, urged the administration to immediately stop cooperating with local law enforcement officials in Arizona. The illogical nature of this protest is included in the letter which says, in part,

“We write to express our deep concern with the Department of Homeland Security’s continued cooperation with state and local law enforcement in Arizona pursuant to Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (”the 287(g) program”) in the aftermath of Arizona’s passage of Senate Bill 1070, and we ask that you immediately rescind all 287(g) program agreements in Arizona.

Section 287(g) is the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing the Immigration Service to train and supervise state law enforcement in enforcing immigration law.  In other words, the AFL-CIO objects to Arizona doing exactly what the decades old immigration law intended for them to do.

And of course, no left wing protest would be complete without pointing out the negative impact on women and children. This one is no exception.  A group called “The Women’s Emergency Human Rights Delegation” released a statement in Phoenix on May 9.

“…We bear witness to the brutal impacts of this legislation on women and children and the threat of similar laws nationally.

The testimony we have heard here makes clear in vivid and haunting detail how SB 1070 constitutes a violation of every principle we hold dear to safeguard women and mothers, workers and leaders.  It has paved the way for assaults on the basic human rights of women who came here simply to support their families, and created an environment in which violence against women and children in every way (physical, spiritual and legal) has been state-sanctioned.

Women and children courageously recalled before us some of the traumatic experiences they have faced. Their testimony reveals the horrific consequences and enduring effects of raids, harassment and detention of family members in migratory communities – as well as their incredible spirit of resistance….”

The same complaint, of course, could be made by the family of any person arrested for the violation of any law. Police and courts routinely separate criminals from their families.  There is no alternative. By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals.  They may not be violent; they may work every day and support their family; they may pay their debts and taxes, but they are nonetheless criminals because they routinely break the law.

America’s immigration laws are designed to allow for an orderly immigration process that facilitates assimilation and the eventual Americanization of those who wish to become a part of the American dream. These and similar laws have allowed America to develop into the “melting pot” that was admired by all the peoples of the world, until the mid-1960s when enforcement of immigration law began to fall apart. The choices we have now is either to once again bring common sense and order to our immigration policies, or turn our backs on all that our forefathers have built and allow our country to be overrun and changed forever by massive, uncontrolled immigration that literally threatens to destroy our way of life forever.

Documents referred to in this post:
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

A Patriot’s View of Immigration

I ran across the following letter on a facebook page “Boycott the Boycotters”. It is a letter to the editor of the Orange County Register, but was never published.  It so eloquently expresses the attitude of the Patriot about immigration I decided to re-publish it here.

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900’s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

Rosemary LaBonte
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Arizona, Immigration and the Constitution

The controversy over Arizona’s new law for assisting the federal government in enforcing immigration law is a gold mine for expanding our understanding of the Constitution.  A common argument by those opposed to the law is that the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.  That is not only illogical but factually incorrect as well.

The Article quoted to support this argument is Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, “[Congress shall have the power] to establish an uniform rule of naturalization”.  Naturalization and immigration are not the same thing.  Naturalization is the process by which a person becomes a citizen.  Immigration is when foreign nationals take up permanent residence in the country. The power of the federal government over immigration would be an implied power, not one of the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Implied powers rely on the interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 19, “[Congress shall have the power] to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…”  The key words here are “necessary” and “proper”. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out in his opposition to the establishment of a national bank, a law is necessary only if the power cannot be carried into execution without it.  Obviously, controlling immigration is not necessary in order to establish uniform rules for becoming a citizen.

Is it “proper” for the federal government to have exclusive authority over immigration?  Definitely not, immigration’s primary impact is on the states and the communities within those states.  The practical affects of immigration at the national level is negligible compared to those at the state level. The Constitution is silent on the subject of immigration because it was not an issue at the time.  The founders believed that the right to migrate was a natural right inherent in “the pursuit of happiness”. The first law that placed restrictions on immigration was the immigration act of 1875 which gave the government the authority to deny entry into the country of convicts and prostitutes.

The History and Technology Museum in Washington, DC displays a chart that outlines the long legislative history of limits placed on the immigration of various groups: convicts and prostitutes (1875); idiots, lunatics, and persons requiring public care (1882); Chinese (1882-1943); gangs of cheap contract laborers (1885); immigrants with dangerous contagious diseases, paupers, and polygamists (1891); epileptics, insane persons, beggars, and anarchists (1903); the feeble-minded, children under 16 unaccompanied by parents, and immigrants unable to support themselves because of physical or mental defects (1907); immigrants from most of Asia, and adults unable to read and write in English (1917). Legislation since that time set quotas for immigrants by nationality, required registration, and established preferences for certain groups of immigrants, such as those with relatives already here, and workers with skills needed in the US.

Since immigration is not one of the enumerated powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, it is a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. As the list above indicates, immigration law has traditionally been based on social and economic considerations and in times of war, national security.  While it makes sense to have uniform immigration laws at the federal level, it does not make sense to give the federal government exclusive authority in enforcing those laws. This is particularly true in today’s climate of international terror, human trafficking and illegal drug cartels.  Immigration law can ONLY be adequately enforced at the state and local level where the illegals actually are.

Constitutional requirements for the federal government concerning immigration is not found in Article I, Section 8, it is found in Article 4, Section 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence”.

The state of Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants living within its borders. By any standard that constitutes an invasion. An invasion does not have to consist of an armed military in order to be a threat to the purpose of the Constitution as given in the Preamble, “[to] insure domestic Tranquility”. Not only does Arizona have the right to enforce immigration law, it has the duty to do so. It also has the authority under the Constitution to call out the National Guard to protect its borders. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, “[Congress shall have the power] to provide for calling forth the Militia to .…repel Invasions“; The word “provide” simply means to make the necessary means available. Article 4 requires the Federal government to acquiesce to the judgment of the state Legislature or Governor in using the National Guard to repel invasion or control domestic violence.
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share