Obama and Calderon Plan Meet and Greet While More Americans Die

It was announced by the White House press corps that Barack Obama plans to meet with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon in the near future with respect to the border situation. A meeting announced and purportedly planned prior to the recent events in both Arizona and Mexico which have once again cost several Arizonans and Americans their lives due to the escalating tensions over the border situation, and another recent death of a U.S. border patrol agent in Mexico this past week.

A death that then also was attributed to guns smuggled into Mexico from the U.S., which firearms just so happened to trace back to the State of Texas?

I mean, as a long term Arizona resident it doesn't appear that drug cartel members are "buying" guns from the U.S. but from those smuggled in from South America which are unregistered and thus for the most part untraceable as has been historically the case. Or those they appropriate from the many law enforcement personnel whose lives have also been taken during the escalating violence at the border.

I wonder, at this point in America's history with the decades long and increasing violence, and the number of American lives and property losses which have also increased ten to twenty fold since the mid 1950's in the border area, would the founding fathers still be holding discussions with the government of Mexico over the loss of American lives and property, rather than actually securing our porous southern borders and providing for the common defense of the citizenry as is their primary Constitutional duty and function?

The "discussions" are continuing, and one of the topics is "immigration reform" of those poorer citizens from Mexico who also have had to flee that country due to its poorer economy and also the violence which continues to occur there so that those cartels, and the auto thieves that operate cross borders can continue to market their products on both sides of the border.

A situation which has also fundamentally increased since the Reagan years, when the interstate also from Mexico through the State of Arizona was widened and also the first amnesty was passed thus affording those wealthy profiteers to then apply for American citizenship and thus facilitate also their "commerce" cross borders.

Just what WILL it take for the federal government to actually even begin to do their fundamental job and begin practicing true "human rights" and protecting the lives of the American people, their property, and also the lives of those Mexican nationals who are dying in the desert at the hands of their former countrymen from Mexico who are for the most part those Coyotes charging them thousands of dollars to only leave them in the desert to perish.

Wisconsin Politico Unaware Arizona Borders Mexico?

As an example of the horrendous state of America's educational system, below is a link to a Wisconsin Board of Supervisor's meeting wherein one of the members of the Board (a Democrat) alleges that the Arizona border situation and concerns are unwarranted, given that Arizona is not Texas and a state that is far away from the Mexican border.

Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

This also reminded me of a response I received from a New Mexico legislator (an attorney, at that) who represented in a response to one of my petitions regarding the border situation as one who lived in Arizona for over 45 years that the definition of "America" encompassed all the land and territory extending from the tip of South America to Alaska.

Enjoy.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2010/06/25/wisc-dem-unaware-that-arizona-borders-with-mexico-plus-youtube-pulls-video/

Senate Approves 600 Million For Border: But Where's The Fence?

It was announced with great fanfare by the mainstream media that the Senate has approved on voice vote an additional 600 million dollars in order to reportedly secure the U.S. Mexico border.

Just in time for the upcoming November elections.

The funds provided are to be utilized in the hiring of an additional 1,500 government employees (whose salaries and benefits will escalate over time, and is once again expanding the costs of government rather than reducing it, and who also will be disempowered in effectively doing their jobs through internal regulatory backbiting) and more toys for the monitoring of the border with unmanned aircraft and the like for the defense contractors and Silicon Valley.

But where are the sums for the fence, the true security which is needed at least along the Arizona border which encompasses over 300 miles of open desert?

It would literally take agents arm in arm to secure that desert adequately against those new and improved all terrain vehicles those large scale hard drug dealers and auto theft rings have been able to purchase with their massive profits PROGRESSIVELY.

The pickup trucks crossing with the loads of Mexico Gold are a mere drop in the bucket, and don't have the speed or familiarity with those stretches of desert that those repeat large scale drug operations do, or homie domestic distributors and suppliers they have signed up on the U.S. side of the border after the last amnesty under Reagan who are now plying their wares to middle school students.

I'll bet the cost for four to five foot titanium spikes would be far less than the costs of this newest "solution" to the open border situation will actually be.

And far less likely to potentially add billions more to the bottom line deficit for those fees and costs for that other group of government contractors, the illegal immigrant "civil rights" lawyers and PAC organizations at the U.S. taxpayers expense who are now forced to literally pay for their own abuse in many of these illegal, in more ways than one, civil rights cases with the illegals getting free lawyers gratis the U.S. taxpayers including those U.S. citizens, municipal and state governments who are getting hit in double and triple whammies for those illegal cases since the Mexican government surely isn't providing the legal fees for these migrant workers and drug dealers through the American courts.

Mr. Obama heralded the bill and is expected to sign it on Friday, again using this ineffective and costly "solution," which has been tried numerous times before throughout the decades to push his "comprehensive immigration reform" agenda ala George Bush and that of the globalists serving on the Hill from both the mainstream political parties who dominate our elective and appointed offices across the board both at the federal and state levels.

A "high tech" physical fence is what is needed here, not a virtual fence that can be turned off and on at will at the flip of a few switches and monitored once again by government contractors (in the name of "jobs and the economy" in these ever increasing public/private partnerships for mostly Wall Street's eventual gains) that just might be tempted to look the other way for a cut of this profitable Mexican commerce in this underground trade agreement.

The sums for this Silicon Valley and defense contractor stimulus it was announced is going to be funded by an increase in the taxes levied on personnel agencies that provide foreign labor.

Say, what? The majority of those that legally wish entry into this country to my knowledge do not go through "personnel agencies" at all, but through immigration lawyers who solicit their clients overseas and who arrange for those green cards at huge fees for the average Eastern European or South American.

Which, of course, simply means that the profits for the mostly naturalized Mexican coyotes will increase, since those taxes for those foreign workers will be passed on to them as part of their "application fees", making it more than likely that the U.S. will be seeing an increase in Western European immigrants whose countries have higher currency rates for the legal Visas and green cards, than those from poorer countries who will simply again take their chances on the coyotes leading the across that desert.

Which just goes to show that the Democrats are not the party of the "common" people they claim to be, but also identical to that other branch of the Globalist Party, the NeoCon Republican wing, since this solution is really no solution at all and has been used numerous times in the past - even under Ms. Napolitano when she was Governor of Arizona but did not at all reduce the numbers in any significant manner of "new" crossers.

Or this will simply give some of those new internet "homeland security" graduates those 1,500 jobs along partisan lines according to which party is in power for their party members, the ones most likely that will flip the switches on those virtual fences, and then create eventually another agency or panel to investigate and monitor the monitoring of the virtual fencing after the next high profile rancher's death occurs.

So again I and literally tens of thousands of other present and former border state residents and victims, and others throughout the nation now feeling annually more and more the impact of this PROGRESSIVE negligence, ask this Congress and this Administration - WHERE'S THE FENCE?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/12/pol.senate.border.funding/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics

UPDATE: Obama, as reported, signed the bill with much mainstream media ballyhoo as was expected. Another political move, and not Constitutional one.

In former Goldwater Arizona, I can unequivocally state that given the level of victimization of the American people, and the fact that we are STILL engaged in a foreign war primarily due to an attack that was carried out from within the country by illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas and were not screened adequately prior to allowing entry, and the amount of homeless and jobless in a state which he truly loved as a native, that he would have had the marines, army and coast guard patrolling those borders - and during this war would have had any and all "visitors" expelled before one boot set on Afghan soil....

So, again, WHERE'S THE FENCE?

Obama States Politics Blocking Immigration Deform?

In a recent widely published internet article, Barack Obama stated that it was "politics" which was delaying and derailing his much ballyhooed plan to legitimize and legalize the over 12 million estimated illegal immigrants in this country, a majority of which are Mexican nationals.

Since it was the American people primarily that derailed the 2006 illegal immigrant amnesty, I can only assume that Mr. Obama, as with his meeting with the Hispanic members of Congress, was more a political public relations stunt and another political farce in and of itself.

The American people quite clearly spoke about another Reagan era amnesty under Bush. Just what "reform" is actually needed, since there is an immigration and naturalization process already on the books, but rather it is the costs now that are preventing many of those poorer citizens from other countries from going through the established process. I mean, even the paperwork is now printed in Spanish for this particular segment, as opposed to those from other countries who wish to immigrate.

And since, after all, the U.S. is facing the largest recession since the Great Depression, just why would such an undertaking be again pushed at this time, further outraging those who are now homeless and jobless due to the influx of foreigners that have migrated here, legally or not, in the last two decades due to both wars, and those open borders post 9-11?

And just why are these Congressmen representing "special interests" rather than the voice of their constituency, by and large, I ask. Isn't their oath of office also to the Constitution, and recognizing the fact that there is an established naturalization process, and some of their former countrymen are in violation of it and should be forthwith deported?

"Anchor babies" do not create citizenship, according to the true law of the land. Since the Preamble does state, "We the People of the United States, FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY."

But I guess Mr. Obama, as so many on the Hill, hasn't read it lately.

The "Latino vote" should not be an overriding concern on this issue.

The Constitution should.

And until those borders are truly secured now nine years post 9-11, this political posturing appears to be from both sectors of the "global socialists," both Democrat and Republican.

And those taxpayer paid immigrant rights groups and lawyers that are also making their livelihoods on this issue, at the cost of all Americans, even the victims of the continued federal negligence and quite clearly treason in placing misconstrued "foreigners rights" above those of the naturalized and natural Americans.

PROGRESSIVELY.

It Isn't A Race, It's A Foreign Nationality

With all the continuing propaganda and the liberal population using the "race card" inappropriately, the education in this country at the present time (which is primarily dictated now by the U.S. Department of Education in most local communities due to federal grant monies received by all those school districts) is at an all time low.

And it obviously has nothing to do with the amount of dollars expended, but the curriculum dictated by most the liberal educators within that Department of Education.

It is also a great many of those educators, and lawyers in this country affiliated with those foreigner civil rights groups that continue to use the words "racist" to attempt to marginalize the Americans in this country who are outraged at our porous border situation, and the negative impact it has had on more and more by the year in losses of American lives, property and livelihoods.

When the entire issue is one of national origin, and not race in any manner whatseover.

At least in my better education than what is found today, I was taught that there are really only four "races" in the entire world.

Caucasian (White), Mongoloid (Asian), Negroid (Black) and Indian (Native Americans).

Latino is merely a hybrid broad based term for those from South America whose ancestors were of Indian and European descent. Exploring Spaniards and Indians intermarried.

And basically are Caucasians, and certainly not a minority in this world or due to America's open borders and the migration north of so many of Mexico's poorer citizens (with the Mexican government's blessings, of course) becoming rather a majority minority in this country by the year.

Of course, also due to religious beliefs as primarily Catholics whose Church's teachings on birth control are rather well known and thus tend to have more children than most other segments of at least the U.S. population.

But while all those poor European immigrants migrated to this country at the turn of the century went through the process, a great many of these immigrants did not - even though for the past twenty years even the immigration applications in this country have been printed in Spanish - where those of the European immigrants who did not speak English simply had to muddle through the process with even the language barrier to deal with.

The costs to the American people to now print ballots, social service applications, and even telephone prompts are in the billions, not to mention the costs of now our court system where some states and jurisdictions have gone to providing Spanish speaking judges and segregated courtrooms for these individuals.

The founders would be rolling over, since although the majority of those founders were English speaking Europeans, there were many French and other nationalities present in large numbers when that Constitution was ratified.

And it was written in English.

By that very act, the founders did establish that English was the official language in this country, not French, Celtic, or German.

Some were landholders, some were not.

The Constitution isn't even written in the King's English in many of its provisions, and is the oldest federal charter in existence and predates even Britain's and is quite different from theirs, although they have yet to grasp the difference in the hierachy in this country, as opposed to theirs.

The people are not accountable to the government, nor is our President given much true power in any manner whatsoever except in times of declared war, and a supposed check on the legislative process with the only power in that respect the power of his veto. No power to create "Executive Orders" in any way, shape or form. Or panels. Or tribunals. Or regulatory agencies independent of Congress's oversight since all power was given to the people through their respective district representatives - which were clearly meant to be representative of the people living within their districts.

Not global or national corporate entities, or "special interest" lobbying groups.

I do hope with all the taxpayer paid civil rights organizations that are now challenging the very fabric of the Constitution over this issue, are submitting their bills for their legal fees to their true home countries, Britain and Mexico primarily it appears, for these frivolous challenges to the will of the American people for whom that Constitution was ultimately written in order to protect from just such challenges as are now occuring over our porous and unsecured borders and laisse faire immigration policies that have progressively occurred particularly since the 1980's, which ultimately resulted in an attack on this country unparalleled in the loss of American lives on native shores since World War II.

With now several tens of thousands more adversely impacted in the nine years since.

Anchor Babies: Are They Constitutionally U.S. Citizens?

This week during the continuing debate on the validity of the steps the State of Arizona has undertaken in order to address the illegal immigrant problems in that state by mostly outside agitators from various special interest groups and media types, there was a report that an additional law addressing the "anchor" baby problem also is being formulated to further restrict any and all citizenship rights by extension to the parents of children who are born in the United States of illegals.

Of course, Arizona once again is setting up the civil rights lawyers for a clear challenge to any such law, rather than taking the steps that would be clearly called for here by our Constitution.

And that would be to place this before the citizenry after using the Constitutional solution through the federal courts in order to get our borders truly physically secured, especially those southern borders nine long years after 9-11, so that this problem is not a problem in any manner whatsoever of those that cross the border to give birth to their children.

Due to separate federal legislation providing for emergency medical care for foreigners - many of whom use the border hospitals also for their needs but do return to Mexico, such legislation is sure to spark additional politicizing by the Mexican government also who use the United States and U.S. citizens wallets, whether visiting that country or not, for their economic stimulus and benefit in more ways than one.

These steps fly in the face of existing federal legislation in this respect, and many others, and does seem that most of these measures that are being facilitated by the state "misrepresentatives" in Arizona are being done for political purposes, of course, without taking any legal steps under Constitutional provision whatsoever to get those borders secured under both the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and also the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

That is, after all, why we have a federal government (and is also the primary purpose also of the state government) to begin with - to protect the populace from the adverse impact of foreigners, whether militarily or criminally.

I, of course, have a special interest also in this legislation - as both a former Arizonan and victim of multiple illegal immigrant crimes over the course of 45 years, and also as the granddaughter of immigrants, one of whom never went through the naturalization process and was a "registered resident alien" from Scotland until her death - my grandmother.

My grandfather was a citizen, but although she entered this country legally back in early part of the 20th century, she was busy raising children thereafter, and then feared she did not have the education in order to pass the test at that time, which was fairly stringent, and also had family living in Scotland and was concerned due to wars and such she would be denied the opportunity to visit them, although for financial reasons merely went back three or four times during her lifetime for family visits and celebrations.

The 14th Amendment is being brought to the forefront as the barrier to such legislation at the state level, although I would argue that the legality of all those amendments after the 10th is questionable to begin with, since the 9th Amendment was meant to clarify that any and all future amendments to the Constitution, as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," were to be first put before the people before the states had any authority to ratify any future amendments to it.

This is a fundamental principle of the Constitutional Republican form of government the founders envisioned and created, as below the people and accountable to them.

And it would clearly be different if we had a true representative government on any level at this point - which we have not since that bogus Supreme Court decision granting "corporate personhood" status to property facilitated by the corporate lawyers in this country, and also due to the fact that the Supreme Court has progressively also then given even Bill of Rights protections even to corporate entities. Including affording them just recently unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for federal office - and in which many of these corporations now are not even U.S. home domiciled, or even home domiciled in the states and thus outside district funding and influence negates even the shred of a representative government at state, federal and local levels across the board.

BP is and was a British domiciled oil company that was formerly owned by the British roayl family, it has been reported, but made massive campaign donations to federal and state legislative campaigns, and appears to me quite obviously why this Administration has basically taken a hands off approach other than the public tongue lashings which have gone on now for over a month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster which cost another eleven Americans their lives at the hands of foreigners operating outside even a minimum of federal or state oversight and drilling into America's coastline and given access to American oil reserves.

While we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington is selling off American assets and industries to foreigners right and left.

Patrick Henry fought tooth and nail for those first ten Bill of Rights in order to protect the citizenry from the overstep of this new government as they had experienced in Britain, and his speech during the Virginia ratification process proves what was intended to be secured for the citizenry by those first ten amendments.

It is clear throughout the Constitution that it was also the intent of the founders to write the Constitution addressing this matter clearly through many of its other provisions, such as:

The presidential office holder had to be a certain age, born in this country, and also lived in this country consistently for a proscribed number of years (which coincided with the birth of future Americans through the British custom of making their European tours and schooling after reaching the age of 13, since there were no schools of higher learning in this country at that time and many went abroad for their higher learning).

As are there such age required and residency provisions for all the federal senators and congressmen.

The provisions also addressing the hiring and outsourcing of foreign labor involving placing a tax on such labor after the first generation of "immigrant" Americans died out who were in this country at the signing also shows their intentions in this respect, as does the duty for the new federal government to provide a naturalization process for foreigners (and at the beginning, it took five full years, which was extended to seven at one point, and no inherent "rights" were afforded to foreigners at all prior to formal naturalization and those that entered were documented upon entry and stowaways not included on ship's manifests were criminals and were shipped back to their home countries immediately in chains).

It is clear that the "intent" of those founders after the first generation of Americans died out, that the definition of a "natural born American" was one who was born of at least one either natural born or naturalized parent, and that full citizenship actually is not afforded until that child reached the age of majority.

Children born of generational Americans do not have citizenship rights while minors, and full adulthood in their day was not recognized until the age of 25 through many of the provisions in that Constitution, since at that age most had left home, were either finished their higher educations, or had families or property of their own.

I, as an Arizonan paying taxes for the schools in that state throughout my adulthood there, always wondered how the children of illegals were afforded to attend the public schools as more and more illegals flooded into Arizona after the Reagan amnesty.

It would appear to me that this measure is again treating the symptoms once again and not doing anything fundamentally within the Arizona legislature's power to address the problem at all.

And that is the open borders.

The true legal solution is in passing the required Resolution directing the Governor to file, through the Attorney General's office, the federal lawsuit of "breach of contract" in order to get those borders truly secured from both the criminal element, and the property theft and impact on the legal citizenry this negligence has progressively caused in the homelessness and joblessness especially in that state, and resulting drain on the social service welfare rolls which have placed more and more legal Americans on them progressively in that state.

We have party politicians, and not true statesmen or duly elected representatives at all levels of government - that is abundantly clear.

Or else none of them truly have any understanding of or have read the document upon which they all swear their oath of office.

Rebalancing The Scales: The Constitutional Tax On Foreign Labor

With all the politicking over the immigration and border security issues, and the "rights" of migrant workers whether in this country legally or not (mostly not of those from Mexico progressively), what has been left out of the posturing and politicizing over this issue has been the Constitutional provisions with respect to foreign labor that the founders provided in order to protect American jobs and industry from undue foreign competition.

And that is simply codifying and reinstituting at both the state and federal levels the foreign labor tax that is already provided in that brilliantly crafted document.

Article I, Section 9 states in relevant part:

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 Congress prior 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.

This section, of course, gave Congress the power after the first generation of immigrants were gone, to prohibit and limit immigration and/or regulate it according to its impact on the existing populace, both natural and naturalized Americans, and also "tax" the states for any and all "outsourcing" which was done.

Of course, at that time the fee was simply $10.00 per head for imported labor, before this country's economy was enmeshed with that of the global economy, and before Congress in 1913 created the Federal Reserve without even the minimum of oversight taking the printing and regulation of our currency out from its direct control through the U.S. Treasury to a public/private entity which fundamentally is controlled by the European bankers and which has lead to where we as a nation are today progressively insfar as debt and involved in more and more nondefensive wars, in this writer's opinion.

Since Social Security and other related taxes are levied on American workers in order to provide for social services which may be needed now or in the future, why not reinstitute the tax on foreign labor requiring employer's to contribute, and withhold sums equal to Social Security, workmen's comp and the like for any and all foreign labor they hire in order to provide for their future needs if and when they do eventually naturalize (or if not, to provide for their "emergency" medical or costs to return to their home countries in the event of unemployment or disability during those periods in which they are employed here).

Reinstituting such provisions would also rebalance the scales making the hiring of domestic labor then competitive with those that are simply hiring those contract manual day laborers from Mexico, especially, primarily so that they can then escape paying their share of those costs and fees and who have progressively simply shifted the burden of their operating labor costs to the American people.

And, of course, those employers also in the construction, casino and travel industries primarily using those immigrants from poorer countries that simply want to undercut and depress the wages of those industries and shift those costs then onto the American public in the increases in the amounts that are and have been needed progressively for public welfare costs.

The solutions are there, but it appears the two mainstream political parties are not interested in true solutions, but using this issue for their corporate needs progressively, and in order to secure that cheap labor for the profits of their future campaign chests, or gain the ever growing "Latino" vote due to progressive federal negligence in carrying out their true functions.

Or else haven't a clue nor have read the document upon which they all swear their oath of office.

And then to truly stimulate the economy, remove the tax on domestic labor entirely as outside Constitutional intent and which has lead to the bankruptcies and homelessness that is the end result of taxing the "fruits of American labor" as the direct tax those founders warned against in so many of their writings, and just what that original war in order to break free from "foreign" control and excessive taxation of the British sovereign was all about.

Of course, then re-establishing the "legal" status of corporations as the property that they are, and not people in any manner whatsoever deserving of Bill of Rights protections per that bogus Supreme Court decision which was politically determined and not Constitutionally, and tax any corporate property at 10% or below the worth of their annual fixed assets - the common law provisions for "debt."

And nix the "free trade agreements" which have resulted in continued debt to foreign countries and our huge trade deficit also progressively. Taxes on iimports and exports to foreign countries were what were, after all, supposed to pay for the bulk of the costs of the federal government to begin with.

We are, after all, now worse off than those original founders were so long, long ago for this fundamental reason.

The British Rule of Law through the treason of those in high levels of government in the two party system that also was never intended, has returned PROGRESSIVELY and REGRESSIVELY.

Obama Sends Out The Guard: Far Too Little, Way Too Late

In the wake of the brouhaha over the recent legislation passed by the State of Arizona after the murder of a rancher and decades of increased crime in that state due primarily to the open U.S. southern borders, it was announced by the Obama Administration that an additional 1,200 National Guardsmen will be sent to assist the Border Patrol in securing the U.S. Mexico border.

But is this simply another political ploy in order to quiet the masses and gain some public support from those recent transplants or non-border state residents for another Reagan era amnesty in the interests of commerce rather than national security, or another fine example of the federal government's response of too little, too late after literally thousands upon thousands of border state residents have been adversely impacted by this governmental negligence nine long years post 9-11?

I mean, if those U.S. borders HAD been secured, would an American rancher today still be alive, or those in Arizona particularly losing their homes by the score due to increases in property insurance and added taxation due to this situation, in addition to the federal negligence which resulted in those bogus British LIBOR based loans which were sold by California lenders to so many unsuspecting homeowners during the short housing boom?

Which bears the question: How can banks in this country be loaning out sums based on a foreign currency almost twice that of the U.S., and backed also by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without Congress's knowledge, which negligence also has not been addressed in any meaningful way after that bogus bank "bailout."

The U.S. Mexico border encompasses over 1,900 miles of expanse, a great deal of which is desert terrain and passable only by all terrain vehicles - of which the drug cartel members have in abundance due to their progressive profits at the American public's expense, including our youth. The War on Drugs is as much a commercial venture and falacy, it appears as the War on "Terrorism."

"Terrorism" that never occurred prior to the "Go Globalists" gaining an ever increasing foothold in public offices in this country through the two mainstream political parties, and basically selling off vital U.S. industries and infrastructure to foreigners over the "global" exchange.

The economy they are truly concerned with - global industry and "foreigners" profit once again.

This additional troop surge amounts to a drop in the bucket, from this writer's perspective, since it would literally take agents linked arm in arm to secure those southern borders, and the costs in salaries and benefitis of those additional border agents which this Administration is hiring far exceeds that which would be necessary to construct the border fencing.

I mean esthetically pleasing titanium vehicle spikes about six feet high would definitely preclude those drug cartels from entering in their SUVs, and reduce significantly the hard core drugs and auto theft criminal activity tremendously.

And certainly could be made to look esthetically pleasing for those environmental wackos that believe in protecting nature as a priority, rather than the lives and property of their fellow Americans who have been victimized.

Sending out the Guard, in this writer's opinion, appears again to be another political tool and ploy, since Ms. Napolitano also was sent additional troops during the Bush years and yet the crime continued almost unabated.

I hope this time, at least, they will be able to use their guns - with buckshot if not bullets - to deter the criminal element and secure this nation's borders which should have been done after the Mexican American war, but at the very least immediately after 9-11 while this country remains "at war" due to a foreign massive attack - whether it could be classified at this point military or civilian.

Since those Guard members, due to those U.S. Mexico free trade agreements, were pretty much disempowered from actually securing the border in any meaningful way.

That was also while Ramos and Compean were being prosecuted for shooting a drug peddler in the rear, for which they received jail time while the foreigner got the American lawyers.

The timing of this announcement is suspect, while this Administration and Congress have also delayed funding for that fence under the Secure Fence Act, while providing instead billions to the local and state governments for upgrades for their computers, and spent massive amounts also on extra-Constitutional functions instead.

When providing for the common defense actually is the primary reason that the United States even has a federal government at all. I mean that WAS the reason that the Constitution even came to be, in order to protect and provide for the common defense of the states, and the state citizenry from foreign attack or invasion.

Be it militarily, or through attrition which is actually what is occuring in the lower 48.

Particularly those border states, which are being "assumed" by Mexico progressively in sending their citizens to this country to find work, and hopefully strengthen the Mexican economy at the cost of America's own if not eventually bring it economy down to that of Mexico's in its two class system.

What's to say that as soon as another amnesty style bill passes, as appears is the agenda here, that those troops then are once again removed in the interests of "budgetary reasons," while, again, sums are spent for political reasons most of all rather than Constitutional ones?

This Administration, as the last, has shown its true colors in continuing to play the "race card" on this issue inappropriately by and large.

After the Patriot Act, which is still for the most part on the books and the continued marginalization of the American public who are outraged at this point with their federal and state governments over its progressively unconstitutional focuses, does it not seem hypocritical for the Obama Administration and this Congress to attack Arizona's "new" law "national origin" profiling which also is one of its primary duties and functions, the protection of its lawful and legal citizens from foreign attacks or invasion?

Apparently that connection and out and out hypocricy has been lost by those on the Hill and our mainstream media in the interest of politics and ratings.

I'm sure to most Americans this little ditty will ring true, especially those Americans living in a border state who have lived there since the first Reagan amnesty under "Reaganomics," which primarily created this situation to begin with, along with continued federal and state negligence in carrying out their Constitutional functions regarding this issue:

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Obama Limbo: Or How Low Can You Go?

That globally affiliated news organization, ABC, carried a story this morning that seemed to sink to a level that seems to be becoming the modus operandi with those in Washington over controversial and unpopular (and unconstitutional) legislation.

Use the children.

Yesterday apparently there was an "uncomfortable" moment during a visit by Ms. Obama and the wife of the current president of Mexico, Mr. Calderon.

During this highly publicized visit of the Mexican first family which conveniently co-incided with the passage of the Arizona legislature of a law merely codifying the federal laws with respect to illegal immigration meant to be used during lawful stops by local law enforcement authorities in requiring ID or green cards from immigrants (as U.S. citizens are required to provide driver's licenses) during those stops, there was a question posed by a "shy" second grader to Ms. Obama with respect to this requirement.

The second grader related how "Barack Obama was taking everyone away that didn't have papers" and that her mother "didn't have any."

It seems that this Administration, as with the last, will use any method imaginable to further polarize and politicized this issue, when it has been due to federal negligence and a prior Administration's "amnesty" in the interest of commerce before national security pre-9-11 which has led to the fact that there even are over 12 million reported illegal and undocumented foreigners in this country at all.

Of course, the article went on to publicize how fearful this child's mother was, and would not then give her name for fear apparently of deportation.

Which moment appeared more aimed also at slamming those in Arizona once again who have been victimized repeatedly by this situation, and also the fact that this child was in a public school afforded such an opportunity to get politically used as a tool seems utterly contemptible to this writer.

And just goes to show how low those in Washington that are on the illegal immigrant gravy train from both sides of the political aisle will go, again, at the cost of their fellow natural or naturalized American.

In defending and protecting foreigners and foreign interests, rather than abiding by those lawful and legal duties of their office, offices which they wouldn't even hold if not for that "antiquated" document both parties apparently disdain.

Since, of course, it was meant to limit their powers over the American citizenry and masses, and yet protect them from foreign invasion such as what is occurring in Arizona and elsewhere due to the open border situation that continues now nine years after 9-11.

And prevent such occurrences as happened yesterday, and just wonder where those highly paid state and federal social service workers are in using a child in such a manner for political gain.

Since this little incident was simply too scripted to believe.

First after the 2006 attempt with the Pope getting involved during a visit in 2007 to facilitate this "globalism" agenda of the Global Socialists even though the Pope actually has a fortress surrounding his country from his own church members, and now a child.

Just how much further can those on the Hill, and in the Halls of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and those global mostly European bankers sink for their agendas?

At the ultimate cost in their collusion with those whose lust for power knows no end nor recognition of the fight and sacrifices and personal cost those founders made to establish a free and independent America of their fellow Americans?

Who will also wave the flag also to facilitate their ends, but apparently haven't even a shred of knowledge in just what it truly stands for.

Since Arizona is one of those stars on the stars and stripes, after all.

Or is this something the Global Socialists conveniently forget in order to continue their massive march into world socialism and government?

Or that the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution was the entire reason the states united to begin with, and supercedes any "free trade" agreements with our southern neighbors at the cost of the American people?

I wonder just how many poor South Americans or their criminal element Mexico has taken in in the past ten years?

Wait, maybe America is also getting a great many of those South Americans too through those porous southern borders.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/michelle-obama-caught-immigration-debate/story?id=10694734

Hola! Mexico: Please Keep Your Tomatoes

The backlash apparently is continuing with respect to the bill signed by Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer in a purported attempt to curtail the deaths, property losses and drug trafficking that has been occuring in the State of Arizona for literally decades - and which escalated in leaps and bounds since the Reagan amnesty in the mid 1980's.

What has truly astounded me as a former long term Arizona resident, a victim of illegal immigrant crime, one an identity theft related to a stolen credit card which ocurred at one of a chain of lucrative car washes owned by a well-known and well-heeled Valley businessman who also owns several restaurants from published reports, is the reaction of Mexico.

Although, if past history serves, shouldn't be surprised but due to the amount of illegals that the State of Arizona has that are Mexican Nationals most of which are Mexico's poorer citizens and after 9-11 and with the explosive situation escalating with respect to the drug cartels operating cross borders that Mexico's President(s), past and present, have been unable to eliminate, the audacity simply outrageous.

Ex-Presidente Calderon was quoted as stating that if the local authorities in Arizona actually BEGIN enforcing federal immigration laws and cracking down, it may affect those trade agreements we have with Mexico.

My question: And which country is benefitting from those "free trade" trade agreements more?

Mexico has been the recipient of American taxpayer sums in the form of the Merida Initiative which resulted in the American people paying to provide literally millions of dollars worth of Silicon Valley's gadgets for their border patrol officers, and Hillary Clinton promised them two American made Blackhawk helicopters to boot, from all reports.

No wonder the majority in that left wing State of California want those borders in Arizona to continue to be unsecured, in order to feed their Silicon Valley venture capitalists, while they of course in the 90's got added fencing and security for San Diego when those residents safety was being compromised form the drug runs from Tijuana and has a much narrower border than Arizona with Mexico, or at least those active border towns that can make it through the entire state in one evening stealing cars or distributing their wares to the local high schools and middle schools.

In fact, the largest group of immigrants to Arizona is actually displaced Californians when they all moved to the Arizona desert in droves after ruining their own state with their excesses, which continues to date and are well on their way to ruining Arizona now, or at least the Arizona I knew and loved and grew up in pre-Reagan (another California wacko in some of his economic theories at the cost of the border states, especially Arizona).

GM has a factory there, which is humming right along, although the autoworkers in GM's Detroit plants were given the pink slip.
Americans cross the borders by the droves in order to purchase a great deal of their prescription medications along those border towns, at least before the drug wars broke out, pumping millions more into their economy.

The balance of tourism in the resort industry weighs heavily toward Americans who visit Mexico and spend their dollars on hotels, meals and trinkets, than it does on Mexicans legally traveling to this country for vacations.

Those cruise liners headed for the Mexican Riviera pick up few Mexican citizens for the return trips.

Americans or foreigners are not even allowed to own land in that country, rather may only lease it from a Mexican corporate entity or citizen for 99 year terms, which can be taken from them for any reason, or no reason.

Our universities and schools of higher learning have taken in literally thousands of citizens of Mexico and educated them, even affording them tuition free scholarships as has occurred at Arizona State University with private grants handed out annually in the thousands, which has quite also upset the Arizona resident's whose children now are paying six figures to get their educations, many of whose parents have supported that university with their taxes since their birth.

I, of course, do not agree with the focus of the actions that are being taken to address this issue, and feel that what occurred in Arizona last week is another travesty in the making due to the fact that it has given now these "foreign" individuals a forum once again who are not Arizonans and do not live there nor have even a shred of knowledge on just how much this situation has cost those full time Arizonans, some their homes and jobs - a state which is now consistently in the top five in the foreclosure mess.

Insurance rates in that state have far, far exceeded the cost of living, especially auto and property insurance.

And this bill will bankrupt them even more.

Between the Mexicans and the Canadians, and the transplants, many of whom also do not live in Arizona full time, I just wonder what Mexico's reactions would be if the espadrille was on the other foot?

Please, Mexico, keep your tomatoes.

And your drug dealers, and those poor auto and credit card thieves.

I challenge Seth Meyer and the Saturday Night Live crew to make a ten year commitment to living in metro Phoenix, outside a gated community - and then let's see what new skits they come up with.

A great one would be a parody on the Mexican auto thieves and how they cruise the neighborhoods looking for the small foreign imports in order to make low riders, or half ton pickups in order to be able to haul those drugs around the neighborhoods quicker.

I wonder just how much those two industries also pump into the Mexican economy?

I'm sort of hoping that these boycotts will clear out the state of all those displaced Californians from the 1980's and beyond who ruined their state with their excesses, the Canadians who are the loudest complainers, and those from Chicago and New York who move to Arizona and don't expect to see Mexican-Americans living there, illegal or otherwise, and who move into those gated communities they demanded for their own personal security needs.

Maybe then, as a political refugee from the 2006 attempted amnesty, which would have legalized those drug dealers, the ones able to afford the criminal and immigration lawyers after they beat their raps, I might be able to someday return to Arizona for even a visit without having my sleep interrupted by the searchlights searching the washes which occur every Friday and Saturday night about 2:00 a.m. after a minor bust, since the major dealers have speed dial on their cell phones for their U.S. lawyers.

I think this is one Free Trade Agreement we can live without.

ObamaCare: Leading America Further Into Regressive World Government?

For Any And All Conserve-ative Americans:

As so much has been left out of the mainstream media coverage on this abysmal health care deform concocted in Washington and led at this point by Max Baucus (D-MT), it is evident that the ownership of our news sources in this country have also been "globalized" with the British and world government corporate interests, that much has been clear.

Montana does, after all, border Canada.

And the bulk of the state legislatures that are supporting also this legislation have also selfish concerns in mind. Due, of course, to the unlawful passage of the 16th amendment that was also concocted behind closed doors and, contrary to the 9th Amendment itself, never placed before the people with respect to a tax (whether direct or indirect) on the fruits of the labor.

A type of tax, actually, that the founders had warned would leave their posterity homeless. And such has been the case in many instances since that time (1913) and during the Great Depression (manipulated by the Federal Reserve, which is no more than a European central bank branch out of London) now in possession of our true wealth, the gold, as security for all those debt notes in circulation.

Flooding the market with those notes of course, then depresses our currency which then in turn also makes U.S. corporations and even public utility companies (such as Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona servicing Arizona and parts of California) an attractive investment opportunity. Or a natural disaster and hurricane such as Katrina, or wildfires such as are now suspiciously occurring quite regularly in California more so than at any other time.

Many would say that is due to "global warming."

As one whose father was involved with the home builders and the lumber industry, I would say it is to reduce the amount of available timber in this country for, again, British (Canadian) import and trade agreements since lumber and timber is one of Canada's primary exports to this country.

But also during all of this debate, not a word has been spoken about the fact that absent Medicare and Medicaid benefits, which do cover most citizens at least for catastrophic care in their retirement years, every state in the nation now has such coverage. And it is a major expenditure due to the fact that Washington has also passed legislation affording such coverage for emergency treatments to non-U.S. citizens. And not simply foreign tourists or those working here for on-the-job injuries.

But the deliberate hirers also for the outsourced labor from Mexico, and also those here on work and student visas and other temporary arrangements. In fact, this provision instituted around twenty years ago (another backroom measure) is what has been the draw for so many of the poor Mexican citzens in the border towns, since Mexico also is one of those socialized countries where a great deal of its wealth is concentrated in Mexico City and some of the states there with the greatest populations.

Sort of like how California and parts of Texas received border fencing back in the 90's securing areas around San Diego and El Paso, while Arizona which has the largest open border by far received merely vehicle spikes for those areas which were at that time used by many of the coyotes and big time drug smugglers.

Which, of course, has changed as the terrain has in almost twenty years, since the maps printed in Mexico are revised annually.

The state legislatures which are mostly behind this just so happen to be those New England states, and border states.

The locally passed initiatives denying benefits to illegals such as has occurred in Arizona the past several years due to that state's residents contniued victimization on this issue in countless ways, has also caused those legislators grief from the federally funded illegal immigrant groups which have sprung up headed by lawyers mostly who receive their legal fees also paid by the U.S. taxpayers for any and all "civil rights" violations they bring in the U.S. courts now on behalf of illegals, whether defensive actions or now even afforded access to the courts to prosecute Americans on foreigners behalf for any manner of charges, some legitimate but many which are not. Such as the drug dealer reported suing this country in the Ramos and Compean case for the buckshot actually he received for crossing as a known drug trafficker, from all reports.

So the illegal immigrant gravy train runs wide and deep in this country for a great many in the legal profession especially, as it does for those other corporate interests who profit off those annual work and student visas.

In fact, I visited Mt. Ruthmore a few years ago and was quite surprised at the number of students from the Soviet Union that work in the ice cream store there at the park. I happen to speak with one of them who informed me that they pay immigration attorneys and/or their schools a stipend amounting to about $2,000 U.S. dollars per student per year in order to spend the summer in the U.S. working at some of our national parks and tourist attractions, facilitated through U.S. immigration lawyers.

No U.S. high school or college students were employed in the store during the summer as it was in previous generations, strictly foreigners the day I visited. And lived three and four to a room at a local hotel, which costs were subtracted then from their wages.

On the return trip from a visit to the East Coast for personal reasons also a few years back, I traveled through Williamsburg, Virginia and stayed at an inexpensive hotel there overnight since I had some car trouble on the way. The hotel, as with many of the independently owned hotels in the area, was owned by a U.S. limited liability corporation that employed also Russian students during the peak summer holiday season, and also informed me that there were many lawyers who advertised in their countries for such work visas. She also was living with three others at the hotel, and whose accomodations were also deducted from her pay, but indicated that circumstances right now in Russia are not so good, since all power lies with Moscow under their "democracy."

Although the next day as I resumed my travels I had to laugh when recalling our conversation.

Since I'm sure she knows less than most of those in this country at this point it would appear.

All power does not reside with Moscow (or Washington, for that matter, all appearances now to the contrary in our now out of control Congress and successive Administrations).

All power really lies with the bankers, as with our Federal Reserve. They do, after all, fund the campaigns and the wars for all but a very, very few countries. And both sides, since bankers have really no country loyalty other than as an investment for profit.

And they are, for the most part, British.

New York Times Reports Mexican Migration Plummeting

Recently in an article in the New York Times it was reported that the rate of migration of Mexican citizens has "plummeted" in light of the current U.S. economy according to recent Mexican census figures.

As with polls and other statistical data, this information must be taken with a grain of salt.

The total population in Mexico has actually increased apparently based on the last census figures. But that certainly doesn't in any way point to a reduction of the influx of Mexicans, legal or otherwise, into this country.

As a former 45 year border resident, from what I have heard from many in the border states, you could have fooled them.

In fact, due to the current economy the hiring of illegal immigrants has never been higher. Employers are cutting back on expenditures in favor of amassing as much profit as possible, and hiring cheaper labor is one area that has seen a boom no matter what the U.S. economy brings.

Many of the Iraq war veterans in Arizona have come home to find their jobs have been outsourced to illegal immigrants.

Its the bottom line costs that those Chamber of Commerce members are concerned with, and contract illegal labor is cheaper than U.S. labor due simply to the taxes and other costs involved in "buying American."

In fact, recently the legislators from Sonora visited the Mayor of Tucson due to the shortage of labor for some of their area residents. It has hit the border towns more so than the major metropolitan cities due to the shear fact of the number of Mexican residents that live in the border towns who then seek employment in the U.S.

In fact, the census figures show a boom in growth particularly in the Mexican border towns.

Instead of going to Mexico's government, these legislators chose to present their grievances to the Mayor of Tucson.

And it doesn't appear that the drug cartels business has in any way been affected, in fact it is booming due to all those customers they created selling their wares in front of local high schools and middle schools in the border states during the 80's and 90's.

Their profits are so high that recently it was disclosed in the Mexican newspapers that the chief drug czar for the Mexican government was accused of accepting over $450,000 per month for his assistance in marketing their wares.

It appears the Mexican media must mirror our own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15immig.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

The Pig Industry Revolts: Swine Flu Now Politically Correct H1N1

It appears in our not simply nationally politically correct society but now also "globally" politically correct, spokesmen for the World Health Organization have now temporarily renamed the Swine Flu virus by its clinical name, Influenza A (H1N1). The United States Department of Homeland Security is following now in lock step.

It seems that there were some concerns and proof that the pork industry was having difficulty getting "this little piggy to market," due to now the psychological connections between the virus and the carrier. Except the World Heath Organization has also now qualified its stance on just whether or not pigs ARE the actual carriers.

Or just how it is transmitted between pigs and humans, although as a virus primarily attacking the respiratory system there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to suggest that ingesting or eating pork is connected. Unlike the e coli virus which has been proven can be transmitted by ingestion of both raw infected eggs and poultry.

Here are some other animals and insects who have been connected, fairly or not, to human disease:

dogs, cats, bats, skunks, raccoons - rabies

cows - "hoof and mouth," "Mad Cow" disease

ticks - Lyme disease

mosquitoes - West Nile, yellow fever, malaria

chickens,eggs - ecoli

tuna, shellfish - mercury poisoning

apes, monkeys - HIV

The swine, unfortunately, also has that carryover bad rap in other cultures and some religious connections to overcome as far back as biblical times due to both allegorical connections and dietary prohibitions, and its propensity in times past to be a carrier of disease before the refrigerator and freezer were invented.

It seems the pig family is now suffering from unfair discrimination.

Since 10,000 times the amount of lives have been lost due to the open Southwest borders in Ms. Napolitano's former home state, this former Arizonan wishes she would have been so "Johnny on the spot" protecting Arizonans eight long years ago after 9/11 and prior to the now Mexican drug wars and kidnappings there. They appear to be still conducting business as usual.

A suggestion was made by one of the directors of the WHO that maybe a contest should be run in order to rename the virus to give it a less scientific, and more commercially accepted identifier within the non-Latin speaking, scientifically challenged portion of the population.

I came up with several:

Hog Native
Hemispheric Navigational (globally transferred)
Hispanic Neutral (originating in Mexico, affecting anyone)

or how about:

The HeiNie Virus (you know, as in "backside")

USDA and WHO: Are those politically correct?

Maybe we should just call it "Global Economy Meltdown Sydrome" (GEMS). That surely is a psychological boost for the pigs, supermarket and people.

I think personally I just might fast.

Here is the link on the New York Times "politically correct" article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/health/01name.html