American Citizen or "Nativist?"

Last night on Glenn Beck's show I was astounded to hear that the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders crowd has pinned a new label on the opposition, those of us post 9/11 who are calling for much needed border security and fencing, and enforcement through attrition of our immigration laws as both Constitutional duties of our federal government, and national security issues. After all, "common defense" purposes were the actual reason that the federal government was created, and the states "united" to begin with. Having lived and experienced the negative consequences of the last amnesty passed by the Reagan administration, with the costs in both lives and property the border states residents have experienced since then, which is now spreading throughout the nation, this new turn of events speaks volumes on the true Americans vs. globalists who have infiltrated all levels of our government, and the mentality and mindset of those supporting no holds barred immigration and border hopping at will. This term was used during the evaluation of Senator John McCain speech yesterday to LaRaza ("the Race") again paying lip service to border security and enforcement, but seeking apparently this liberal and left wing activists groups support and trust. Arizona's borders still remain open seven years post 9/11, while Senator McCain supports securing Iraq and Israel's borders and was a sponsor for the McCain/Kennedy amnesty two years ago, so it would appear LaRaza has nothing to fear from either candidate that Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas soon will revert essentially back to the Mexican terroritory it once was. Guess the bureaucracy after the Mexican American war was not much different in their failure to fence and secure those borders back then.

Below is a quote from our Constitution, at Article I, Section 9:

Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congressprior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It seems to me in a quick analysis, our framers and founding fathers were also nativists. The Constitution was ratified in 1790, and this provision would mean that those founders "posterity" born after it's ratification would then be natural born U.S. citizens and 18 years old, old enough to begin setting up their own households and businesses. It is clear that the founders never intended to tax the wages of natural born or naturalized citizens, but did intend to discourage hiring foreign workers instead and tax THEIR labors (although I'm sure by leaving the door open in Congress being then allowed to prohibit such importations after 1808 or set higher costs or restrictions, knew that there at times would be a need for "seasonal" workers).

Does appear that our two presumptive candidates could make a home run in taking on this issue, in this uncertain economy where Americans are truly hurting due to both the out-sourcing and in-sourcing of the large corporate global concerns doing business in this country. Maybe since both are pro-amnesty backers, they would be open then to repealing the 16th Amendment on the American people, and instead tax those foreign workers as the founders intended.

The way it is now, amnesty or no, with the privileges and immunities they now have over and above even first, second or third generation Americans (no income taxes, ACLU and taxpayer paid defense costs, rights in many states to even initiate and bring civil actions in U.S. courts, U.S. taxpayer paid medical and health care benefits), why would any of these "guest workers" or illegals actually want to become Americans. There is really no incentive for them, especially in the sanctuary cities and states who are globally controlled. Nor is it advantageous to the corporations in this country also, since they are by and large day labors and contract labor and as salaried or hourly workers and U.S. citizens, would then be subject to paying at the least their share of the health benefits in the form of at least Workmen's Comp insurance,their share of social security withholding, etc.). It appears it is the government itself behind the amnesty hiding behind the public position that it is the "wish" of the corporations and militant illegal immigrant groups - whose main interests are not the amnesty at all, but in making sure those borders remain unsecured so they continue to have a pool of workers at minimal cost, and as LaRaza, increase and promote their Mexico/U.S. global and racial agenda.

Interesting in how even being proud to be an American, and believer in our intended form of government, can turn into a "spin" in now being labeled as "nativists."

If Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were nativists, guess that's good enough for me.

Freedom of Religion - In Franklin's Words

As a point of reference in interpreting what the founding fathers wished to avoid with respect to the language in the Constitution on religion contained within First Amendment, it might be informative to read the text of Ben Franklin's speech on the day it was ratified. The failure to provide a 'Bill of Rights' for the people of this nation against any abuse of the new government was actually the "sticking point," hence, Mr. Franklin's speech and the promise that the first work of this new government would be those first ten amendments. And while freedom of religion was the intent in order to prevent what had occurred in England between the Catholics and the Protestants for centuries, it is clear from the text of Mr. Franklin's speech that the provision was intended to protect the freedom of the states on this issue, and also so that no "sect" of the Christian faith was declared the "official" U.S. religion nationwide. "Freedom of religion" is quite different than the ACLU definition which clearly is their militant stance is that in all public matters our government offices and schools are to be not just denomination free, but God free.

"Mr. President,

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one and other's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."

(Actual speech of Benjamin Franklin given prior to the ratification of our Constitution - Source U.S. Constitution Online)And while the "separation of church and state" will continue to be debated and errantly promoted, mostly by the ACLU and the atheists, what is lost is that the 'separation' of church and state was actually given for the church's protection and to protect the freedom of Americans to worship at the church of their choosing, not to protect the government from the 'interference' of the Christian faith at all. The entire concept of providing for freedom of religion as an individual right in and of itself is a Christian doctrine, after all. Not Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim, who have all practiced and taught beliefs in 'state' religions and intolerance of other faiths, which actually is why most of the wars historically have been fought, including the Crusades of the Catholic Church and history of England and it's religious wars due to sectarian differences. "Tolerance" of other religions beliefs is uniquely Christian, as Christ himself taught in the Golden Rule and parables.

And "of" is not "from" except, perhaps, in another language other than English.

Republican? Democrat? How About Global Corporate Communist?

Now that we are almost two years into this travesty of a selection of the next President or Commander in Chief of our nation, with the degree of dissatisfaction now running rampant amongst the American people with the Bush Administration and our current Congress, please indulge me for a few moments in highlighting what I feel has happened to our government and state and national offices..............In a few simple words, a "corporate takeover."

It seems the two mainstream political parties have emerged as one.....the Global Corporate Communist Party of America, or the GCPA. The GCPA are, first and foremost, globalists in their mindset and also no more than corporate lackeys for their true constituents, the corporate "person hoods" of their beneficiaries. The GCPA party does not read, nor acknowledge, their enumerated powers, under both the U.S. or their own state constitutions, rather their private and public benefactors and interests and political careers. They use the public purse as an open wallet to distribute nobilities and honors (and cash) on their favored subjects. They collect the tax revenue, and then ignore their enumerated powers and limits in favor of power and prestige. They hire chefs for the House Dining Room at the taxpayers expense (Ms. Pelosi), or wage wars on foreign soil for their own personal oil interests (Bush). They institute "sobriety checkpoints" or "insurance checkpoints" (unlawful searches and seizures) in the name of public safety. They authorize strip searching at airports (another unlawful search and seizure) rather than securing the U.S. borders from unlawful invasion after the travesty and civilian loss of life of 9/11 (a clear, retaliatory action for the Globalist agenda in our errant foreign policies in the Middle East these many years, as verified by the 9/11 report, and carried out against innocent civilians while our government and leadership stripped Americans further of their Constitutional rights after their own ineptitude and negligence purportedly in the interests of national security.

While our leadership sells out both American jobs and industry to foreign interests, a private wedding is held at the ranch in Crawford, Texas where, in order to maintain 'privacy' airspace is restricted for 30 miles over the ranch. Meanwhile, everyday Americans are wiretapped and stripped searched, with no privacy rights to speak of - who are paying the salaries for most of the 'guests' of the Crawford gala.While political correctness in the media, another beneficiary of the CPA and their own conglomerate governmental contracts is deluding the public as to the extent of the true crime and corruption within a system that has become corrupted from within, and not in any way, shape or form the intended 'government' the founder's fought and died for.

If the US does not lose the West and Southwest to the Mexicans eventually due to our failure to secure that border after the Mexican American war, we will lose it and the rest of the nation to the GCPA the Global Corporate Communist Party of America, and their "one world governance " communistic agenda.

Constitutional Rewind (Part One)

In all the rhetoric and political posturing which has now gone on for almost two years, with the exception of one candidate who was stifled by the media for some true 'straight talk,' and the reasons for why our country is now in an endless war, economically crippled, with citizens losing their homes, without some now even able to afford the gas to get to some of their places of employment, it has amazed me that none of the main stream media in their questioning have asked the most important question. Do you plan to lead this country abiding by the oath upon which you swear your allegiance, and which grants you your powers - the U.S. Constitution?As far as issues go, after this abysmal excuse of a president and Congress, I think that is the number one question that should be asked, as it really would answer all others. The war, economy, immigration situation, campaign reform, literally everything....What would our country look like if we returned to it's roots, and did a Constitutional rewind?

1. The War in Iraq would be over, and would have never begun. The 'Act of Piracy' committed by these extremist Muslims who admitted responsibility would have been limited to just those who were directly responsible, and any and all giving them aid and comfort until the perpetrators could be captured. The focus would have remained on Osama bin Laden as the admitted 'mastermind' to the tragedy of 9/11. Our borders would have been immediately secured prior to any of our forces setting foot in Afghanistan, as an internal attack, and any and all individuals now in this country under visa status, who had not attained lawful citizenship, or without American sponsors, would have been ordered out of the country until stricter immigration policies could be enacted, and our borders adequately secured (as they should have been years and years ago, as the federal government's PRIMARY duty under the Constitution, after all). A country without borders nor border protection, is really no country at all.

2. There would be no federal income tax. Monies to operate the federal government would be gained by trade agreements, and taxation on outsourced labor or materials. American jobs and the economy would be protected, and Americans would have more to spend to stimulate that economy. The 'tax on labor' would be a 'tax' on foreign labor, or foreign products to protect 'domestic' products, and the citizens 'right to life, liberty and happiness.' The President, Congress and Supreme Court would be paid 'a compensation' in line with their 'civil servant' status, and not private jets, federal pension plans, fine dining, travel expenses, health and dental insurance, etc., etc. Due to the being forced to abide by the constraints in the Constitution, Congressional sessions would not be full year sessions, and the Senators and Representatives would actually spend the majority of their time in their home state among the citizens in order to truly be representatives of them, and not their 'corporate' political parties.

3. The fantasy of 'corporate person-hood' would be removed, as there really is only three 'legal' entities in the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, the state government, and the citizens. Corporations have no rights, and especially have no Bill of Rights protections, as was illegally extended to them by the U.S. Supreme Court way back when (when the Supreme Court has no legal authority to rewrite or amend the Constitution at all, merely interpret it AS WRITTEN, not creating another 'party' to it, nor inserting words or redefining meanings according to their whims, but according to the common useage language, and also the 'intent' of the founders when writing it). Once corporate person-hood is removed, then the tainting of our government with corporate political donations and 'commercial' corporate lobbyists becomes benign, as they do not exist with respect to having any impact on legislation whatsoever.

Just these three simple 'rewinds' would put the country back into the hands of the people, to whom it belongs.