Arizonans Losers Again

This is a banner week for the U.S. Supreme Court.

First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.

With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.

Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.

Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.

The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.

Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.

And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.

Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.

As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.

I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.

The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.

Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).

It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.

The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.

SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.

Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.

So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?

What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.

And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?

What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.

I mean, people are commerce, are they not?

Foreign or domestic.

And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?

As far as the Constitutional questions...

I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.

So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?

Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?

This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?

Americans...or foreigners?

Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.

Simply a nationality

Mr. Obama's Dream Isn't Dreamy to Mainstream Americans

In the last few days it has been apparent that this is an election year, and the political landscape is getting more and more slippery by the minute.

The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.

The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.

Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.

It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.

The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.

As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.

As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.

I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.

After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.

It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.

When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).

During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.

Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.

I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.

On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.

And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.

I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.

Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.

The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.

I looked it over.

The first page astounded me.

While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.

My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.

All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.

But in the end it really didn't matter.

Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.

I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.

My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.

I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.

I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.

I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.

With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.

At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.

I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.

How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?

Dream on, Mr. Obama.

Senator McCain: Reagan Aside, Libya Is Not America's War

After the presidential address attempting to "sell" the American people on yet another U.S. involvement in a foreign civil war, of course, there were analyses set forth by members of both political parties, the talking heads on the major cable news networks and others.

One from the Senator from Arizona, John McCain, defending again another foreign war sacrificing U.S. troops in the guise of protecting the civilian rebels for the "greater good" in Libya.

Reagan and his Reaganomics aside, which has literally at this point due to decisions made during that administration has cost a great many Arizonans their lives, property and livelihoods due to his first blanket amnesty move, and widening the interstate highways from Nogales to Flagstaff back in the 80's to facilitate the exchange of goods and people while leaving Arizona's open desert and borders for the most part open and unsecured - what has been left out is that the president of this country has no inherent authority whatsoever to engage American troops in any defense or intervention of any other nation other than our own.

Diplomacy and trade sanctions, yes. Direct troop involvement, no. Whether through NATO or presidential fiat.

At least without the consent of America's elected representatives, who also were to be cognizant of the strict provisions for defensive wars under which this country also was founded. Yet our standing army and its ranks continue to expand due to these serial foreign engagements, while our own borders are opened and for the most part unsecured?

Although, of course, there has been no true representatives in this country by legislative district for literally decades due also to the globalist progressives and their agendas low these many years, and some rather questionable Supreme Court rulings affording voice, funding and votes to global and national corporate entities even in local elections, many for the most part based outside the U.S.

Libya is not our war. And putting another British Parliament and puppet government in Libya or Iraq, for that matter, does not serve the interests of this country but is merely sacrificing our blood and treasure on behalf of global socialism, not even "democracy."

Remember, those founders did not believe in democracy - a form of government in their writings they predicted was doomed to fail and was nothing more than "gang rule."

Thus, those first ten amendments were provided in order to protect the citizenry and their lives and wallets.

And interesting that while incarcerated and many times plea bargained civilian prisoners in America's federal prisons have been progressively denied their "voting" rights and freedom in the piling on of charges many times, some even for lower level felony offenses, and the dissenters in the United States who continue to protest this illegal and unconstitutional foreign policy are being arrested on domestic shores, our leadership once again fails to truly see the forest for the trees and what is truly going on in their own backyard.

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.

The Mexican Civil Liberties Union Strikes Again

The MCLU (Mexican Civil Liberties Union) has taken to the newsprint media in order to attempt to blast a small, mostly rural town in Nebraska for having the gaul to attempt to pass city ordinances (similar to those attempted in Pennsylvania) banning both the hiring, and affording housing rentals to illegal immigrants.

It appears, however, the town of Fremont which is involved is getting prepared for the onslaught of "foreigner" rights groups that they foresee will challenge the ordinance if it is passed into "law" after today's voting.

How so?

By advertising that they will institute additional taxes, and cutting city services in order to fund the lawsuit challenges, without of course disclosing that if the municipal governments are like those in Arizona (and county), they have used much of that tax revenue they collect in order to purchase insurance policies indemnifying any and all municipal employees from liability in the event of such lawsuits. Whose, of course, premiums then will go up accordingly and for which the city and state will plead the need for more revenue from the citizens in order to cover their then budget shortfalls.

Which also then provides them with an impetus to continue to pass more and more unconstitutional legislation for individual politicians benefits no matter which side of the aisle they claim to hail from. Both use politics and political maneuvering and backbiting in order to remain in power, while the citizenry then continues to be adversely affected both monetarily, and in quality of life issues - and whose children will also be burdened then with such clear treason in not carrying out their Constitutional, or even charter functions.

The municipal government are in the same positions the state's are, beholding and accountable not to the people but to their "feeder" big brother dictators.

Unbelieveable, actually, and just goes to show what is really going on here - since the municipal governments are, after all, state actors of the state government and it is the state government that continues to increase those requests in most states throughout the country for foreign workers in order to feed their corporate backers and sponsors and for them to save money on those taxes inflicted on Americans so they can continue to contribute to their future campaign coffers - and now potentially in unrestricted sums.

The criminal activity in our political systems seems to be getting worse by the month now.

These proposed ordinances are being compared to the steps Arizona has undertaken, and truthfully most of these measures simply seem to be frivolous and rather transparent actions taken by vulnerable politicians in order to use for future campaign purposes, and to feed those civil rights lawyers, many of whom are writing these laws for their own benefit, it appears and also who are receiving federal and state taxpayer dollars for the defenses or prosecutions of the laws they are writing using their legislative lackeys to actually undermine the Constitution and its provisions also by the month or legislative session.

The ACLU has become one of the biggest drains on the taxpayers ever, and is using a federal statute which was passed years ago which was meant simply to provide for their legal fees for true AMERICAN civil rights actions in order to mask most of these lawsuits they are initiating on behalf of foreigners as somehow within that statute's provisions or its intent.

The ACLU, of course, is promoting this as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which was actually meant in order to protect American citizen's rights in this country, not "corporate" entities in any manner whatsoever.

And since foreigners actually have no inherent civil rights in this country under America's Constitution unless and until they go through the naturalization process (the Preamble does state We The People of the United States....for US and OUR posterity), it can only be the corporate and the ACLU's own self serving interests that is behind all the blustering.

I wonder why the ACLU isn't actually bringing the needed lawsuit on behalf of American civil liberties in this country in upholding the Constitution's provisions in reinstituting the tax on foreign labor, and removing the tax on domestic labor, which just might turn this country's economy around and bring more jobs to Americans in this country than any "jobs bill" of Congress, which will simply provide for more government or taxpayer paid jobs at the American public's expense, and thus create more and more homeless and a widening gap between the poor and the rich and facilitate the agenda here truly of wiping out America's middle class.

So that we can then be more like Great Britain, Mexico, and a host of those other "socialized" countries with "sovereign" governments, instead of as ours is supposed to be - of the people, by the people, for the people - the American PEOPLE, not the corporate special interests such as the ACLU and their corporate backers.

The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania municipal law does not surprise this writer. It has been clear that those justices on the Supreme Court have not been able to read the Constitution for literally decades.

The ACLU also stated that it is "immigration reform" that is needed, not these segregated attempts by the states and their "state actor" municipal corporations to institute such measures. Although since there is already a process for immigration on the books, can't see where the ACLU also is taking such a stance.

But what they truly really want and mean is nothing more than "amnesty" in order to again feed the legal profession who, of course, will be needed and necessary in order for these individuals to eventually gain that coveted prize - citizenship. And in which most of those truly seasonal and migrant workers will not apply for in any such instance anyway as they didn't for the Reagan amnesty.

Since most of them couldn't afford the fees, and the rest were merely here in order to feed their families back home and dollars brought their families remaining in Mexico a higher standard of living than their remaining and working in Mexico would.

If you wish to work here, apply for a green card before entering, and wait your turn.

Temporary work visas are available in abundance, but you do need to leave after that seasonal work is done and if you migrate to another area than for that which the original work visa was granted, you do need to visit INS to get it extended from my understanding.

And it is the large corporate agribusinesses in Nebraska and meatpackers that hire the most of them to cut their labor costs, since the small farmers as in decades past usually shared seasonal workers, and also provided for housing, meals and medical care for those workers for which the small towns and community as a whole shared during planting and harvesting season - as one who knows who due to marriage, had grandparents who owned land and a farm in the Midwest at one time and used migrant or seasonal workers to plant and harvest their crops. And whose grandmother took them out their lunches, or prepared full course breakfasts, suppers and dinner for them during the season and also arranged for housing if necessary in the old "bunk" house.

If you overstay your "visa" longer than the proscribed period, and are not granted an extension by the State Department or by INS (now ICE), then you are suppose to go "home," not be working here illegally, or renting an apartment.

And these laws, I'm sure, are much less stringent than those you will find in Mexico, Canada, India, or any other of the number of countries in which the U.S. has taken in literally thousands upon thousands of those who wished to immigrate legally.

If it is the expense that is the problem, then that is a simple matter of reducing the fees and original costs to that which those in some of the poorer nations can afford, such as in the "olden" day, and the original application process one in which it doesn't take a lawyer charging $300-$400 per hour to complete.

The immigration process was not intended to be one which fed the lawyers in this country, civil rights, immigration, criminal or otherwise. But that is exactly what has occurred due to the illegal extension of civil rights to even these civil rights groups that are not at all representing Americans, but foreigners.

Although with the amount of jobless and homeless in this country during the biggest recession/depression since the Great Depression, this country still in an ongoing war due to an attack on it by foreigners from within, and the shear number of immigrants this country has taken in progressively due to unconstitutional wars of the past, at this point in America's history the federal government is once again negligent in not exercising that other provision in the Constitution and not only restricting immigration, but banning it altogether at this point.

Until this "war" is over, and there are few Americans in this country without gainful employment and these corporate entities start using America's labor pools and fighting for removal of that 16th Amendment also which has circumvented and placed this country's government in a lopsided and unaccountable position across the board with the feds now reining "Supreme" over the citizens, and the states, progressively.

With even now funding this MCLU, MALDEFF and a host of other "educational" for profit non profits headed by mostly "civil rights," immigration, corporate or criminal lawyers with American taxpayer dollars illegally.

And with the Obama Administration threatening Arizona's new law, I simply hope that the Governor of Arizona files a countersuit under the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act in order to get the funding for that fence the feds promised forthwith - instead of once again feeding the industry in which the majority, it appears, now come in all three branches of government illegally representing their own self interests more and more by the decade.

That other offshoot from the Brits, and a country which more and more of these Supreme Court justices are actually educated and hail, the American Barrister's Association which has progressively returned its educational focus, it is quite clear, to not American jurisprudence but foreign jurisprudence - mostly Britain's or the UN's "accords" (created inially by Britain post World War II) and the country we fought that original war over to establish this sovereign nation and to protect its citizens from "foreigners" abuse or influence in our country's government or political matters.

So in essence in all of these ACLU, MALDEF, and other foreigner focused groups, it is the American people actually who are paying for their own abuse in most of these court actions - and in which these groups are contributing to our out of control deficits more and more for their own "welfare."

And the only true Constitutional funds that the federal government has within their powers over foreigners are:

1. To provide a naturalization process (which we have)

2. To provide the federal courts for any prosecutions against foreigners for "crimes committed against the nation" before naturalization;

3. To regulate commerce insofar as the hiring of those foreign workers in monitoring the impact that foreign outsourced labor and products affect domestic labor and production;

4. To tax the states for any and all "foreign" labor which is needed and for which those green cards are issued at their request, since it is the states that request and petition for those "guest worker" visas and work visas annually, and then forward those requests to the federal government. These taxes were meant to both protect domestic labor and commerce from foreign competition detrimental to the U.S. economy and workforce, and also provide for the needed revenue for their needs while working or visiting this country, such as the increases in "use" taxes for roads, state provided benefits for community services, etc.

So other than the costs which are now involved, and re-evaluating the process in order to make it similar to that which was in force and effect at the turn of the century, in which there wasn't this influx of illegal foreigners in any manner whatsoever (since at that time there were even restricted ports of entry for any and all of these permanent or temporary foreigners through Ellis Island primarily), just what type of "reform" is actually needed?

Perhaps enforcing the existing law on the books insofar as letting the punishment fit the crime, and not providing "immigration hearings" for those which have not immigrated legally and returning them forthwith back across those borders when proof of citizenship cannot be provided or legal guest worker status verified such as the laws in Arizona are attempting to do in codifying that federal law at the state level?

Or turning over those that commit felonies while in this country to the U.S. Marshall, and the state attorney generals actually doing their jobs and prosecuting them through the federal courts in order to get the true criminal element off the street which have been progressively victimizing the Arizonans and American people in other states in greater and greater numbers by the decade?

Enforcement and a rewind to the procedures which were instituted while I as growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's is what is needed here, in my educated opinion as both a victim and one who is familiar of the long history of this issue from personal experience, appears is what is needed, not "comprehensive" reform at all.

With the federal government actually doing their primary job - providing for the common defense, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the American people first and foremost.

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

Los Angeles Boycotts Arizona: Hooray!

With much ceremony and political rhetoric, it appears the City of Los Angeles has boycotted doing business with Arizona businesses in response to the "new" illegal immigration measures signed into law by Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer.

As a former 45 year Arizonan and victim of illegal loans sold to thousands of Arizonans through California domiciled banking institutions that were not even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates, all I can say is hooray!

It doesn't appear to me that the City of Los Angeles knows anything at all about how corrupt some of their own politicians and businesses are, so since it is more expensive to bring litigation in the California courts due to all those outrageous hotel and bed taxes levied there, this boycott appears it will work in favor of the Arizona businesses whose contracts will be illegally broken due to the Council's actions.

It seems California's budgetary problems will become even more extreme after this latest scene right out of Hollywood.

Interesting also that during all those illegal immigrant rallies held in Los Angeles in years past, during the one in which the rubber bullets were used, the Mayor of Los Angeles just happened to be out of the country in Mexico at the time.

It would appear that since most of those Arizonan businesses also hire local day laborers in Los Angelese to assist with some of those contracts, the Council has just taken a stand that may cost a few illegal immigrants their jobs.

Way to go, Mayor and Council, you made your constituents proud.

At least those that are waiting in front of the Home Depots now, but you might want to schedule a few more trips out of the country when those jobs dry up.

Just a suggestion from one who has waited a long, long time for California to show their true colors in just how far afield they have gone from even giving the slightest credence to the U.S. Constitutuion.

Or California's.

And I wouldn't be looking for many of those Zonies on the beaches, so the Governor might need to up the budgets on those "See California" ads for the rest of the country, at least in those which have state citizens that can still afford those bed and tourism taxes.

Hey, if Arizona can't get its water back that you've stolen, just give them the cash.

They will need it for all those deportation hearings, including over half California's former residents who fled to Arizona within the last fifteen years due to its "progressively" regressive policies such as these.

Maybe even some of them will too finally leave, since it is a great many of those former Californians who may have left California, but brought their same excesses and expectations with them.

Which has progressively also impacted the long term and native Arizonans along with the illegal immigrant situation, many of whom are now living in those desert washes.

Do you think you can get San Francisco and San Diego, and the rest of the state to join you?

Please?

The first that need to go are all those California New Agers that have taken over Sedona - including those that even recently baked a few women in a plastic tent after charging them over $10,000 each for the privilege.

Obama Misguided: Negligent Politicians Bash Arizona

There was an article widely reported in the mainstream media and web news reports that Barack Obama has determined the supposedly "harsh" new legislation aimed at illegal immigration in the State of Arizona, "misguided."

Of course, Mr. Obama is from one of the states furthest north away from those southern borders, and other than staying in Arizona during one of his many roadtrips at an internationally owned resort hotel there with his entourage, has spent little, if any, time in the Phoenix or Tucson metropolitan areas.

And, of course, has Secret Service agents who monitor and are charged to protect his every move with shoot to kill orders for any whacked out individual, foreign or otherwise, that compromises the security of the Commander-in-Chief.

Not so an Arizona rancher, or the literally thousands of other Arizona citizens whose lives and property have been negligently compromised by such positions as Mr. Obama's with respect to border security for the border state residents, and abiding by his primary duty to provide for the safety and security of United States citizens whose lives and properties may be compromised by foreigners or nonAmericans, whether visiting or on work visas - or those that don't even bother to apply but hop the border instead.

And then hop back again for another drug run, or brand new automobile courtesy of the Arizona citizens.

I'd say that the one that is clearly misguided, and that is simply just too weak an expression with respect to the true federal negligence that has resulted in escalating the outrage of the Arizona citizens, and divisiveness within that state which makes the quality of life living there on par with living in Iraq, is Mr. Obama.

Also reported in this article were those high ranking and state officials OUSIDE ARIZONA who obviously have used this issue also to up their media visibility, at the Arizona citizens expense once again - such as Bill Richardson, MALDEF (a group of lawyers who make their living bringing lawsuits against Americans on behalf of illegal immigrant "rights" and paid by American taxpayer paid grant monies), and the erstwhile Arizona Attorney General, who should obviously know better and just what his duties and functions actually are with respect to the Arizona citizenry, Terry Goddard.

Amazing how many that live outside Arizona, who have never spent any significant time living there, are on the illegal immigrant bandwagon - yet I wouldn't hesitate to guess would not at all like to make about a 10 year commitment living there, outside any gated community, in order to truly research the impact it has had on that state and those state citizens progressively.

Arizona, after all, is in the top ten now in bankruptcies, and one of the leading states in the foreclosure mess due to the fact that many of that state's citizens in Tucson and Phoenix were placed in the position of having to refinance their homes during that short boom cycle due to the escalating costs of ownership, with the open borders situation and those increases in costs a major factor in why so many were so vulnerable to those risky lenders and their fraudulent loans - many of which weren't even based on the U.S. currency, but the British LIBOR rates.

Mr. Obama, I have a suggestion prior to making any outlandish statements such as your recent one while using the open borders instead to push another one of those Global Socialist/Republican/Democratic agendas such as immigration reform then instead.

How about retiring to Arizona after your term of office, or establishing a summer White House in Arizona, without the Secret Service, and see what impact it has on your family, and your quality of life.

And your mental health and well being, personal security, and wallet.

Now, instead of funding more and more government agencies to study problems, or give any more foreign aid to another country who is in much better economic circumstances than this one, such as Israel - or securing Iraq or Afghanistan's borders - how about building that fence and securing our own?

And then maybe speaking about immigration reform in order to make that process much easier, so that these poor Mexicans aren't gouged by those in your profession, or those increasingly for-profit directed fees and costs, in order to eventually immigrate here?

Since it isn't simply lettuce pickers that have migrated here from the south, after all, but those who have replaced Arizonans and Americans in the construction, tourism, and other vital industries, and replaced many of their former countrymen - the legal Mexican-Americans.

Or maybe consulting with the true "stake-holders" this time, the actual long term Arizona residents who have lived there, say, for more than 30 years since Reagan's amnesty?

Try speaking to some of those living in the Cave Creek wash, or some of the other homeless living there, for example.

Or the many who have now lost their homes and jobs to the outsourcing your political party, and that other mainstream party, continue to promote and facilitate by "passive agressive" pure federal negligence.

Southwestern Border Remains Open While Political Games Continue

An article was published in the AP today regarding the Southwestern border situation, and actions being considered by my former home state in order to appear to be doing something, it seems, once again due to the recent death of an Arizona rancher on his own property several weeks ago purported committed by an illegal crosser.

Of course, it is interesting once again to me as one who is more than familiar with all the rhetoric that it is an election year, and several key seats are up for grabs in Arizona, including the Governorship, a viable challenge to the long held seat of John McCain and several others.

Although the body counts in the border states, and homelessness continues to climb, it took this highly publicized recent death of a Douglas rancher to once again bring this issue to the forefront, although appears the same old, same old is being used in order to quiet the masses who have been victimized in that state repeatedly due to those open borders, both personally or one of their family members, in the drug trafficking and property theft rates which have exploded since the 1960's in that state.

Most of all due to federal negligence to actually do their jobs and get those southern borders secured, especially now nine long years since 9/11 and with the "War on Terrorism" continuing under Obama.

The Democrats and Republicans are playing the shell game, and of course the immigrant favoring groups headed mostly by the civil rights lawyers who are cleaning up on lawsuits involving also the state measures which have been thrown out by the liberal 9th Circuit, which progressively has also lead to a great many Arizonans bankruptcies and loss of jobs, which is escalating by the year.

Arizona is one of the highest bankruptcy states in the nation.

The Catholic Church in the Tucson diocese even got into the act, although I guess what is missed by the Church is the fact that the Pope himself has an actual fortress surrounding his country, a country bordered by Italy, which is, after all, primarily populated by his own Church members.

It was mentioned that Janet Brewer, the current governor, is calling out the National Guard as Janet Napolitano did when she was Governor, before of course hiking her pay grade with her federal position, and is one who has halted funded for the proposed border fencing and security now so that a "cost/benefit" ratio and study can be done.

While more and more of her former constituents die, apparently.

These illegals have also continued to be tried in the state and county courts in Arizona, and there have been ongoing also political backbiting and fights due to the fact that the county judges have been releasing a great many of them back into the public, and not enforcing some of the laws which the legislature has passed addressing this situation.

Although it appears the lawyers for those county and state officials must be omitting informing them of the fact that foreigners under the true "law," the U.S. Constitution, should be tried for whatever reason in the federal courts, not state courts, so these judges are simply doing their jobs, although it would appear also not directing upon those arraignments the Sheriff's office forthwith turn them over to the U.S. Marshall's office, the correct procedure and jurisdiction, for trial if such arrests involve felony or criminal actions.

With misdemeanors, the former procedure when I was growing up there, before the criminal and immigration lawyers lobbied for trials for nonAmericans prior to deportations, was that if found upon a routine stop to be in the country illegally without a sponsor or family member or U.S. citizen to vouch for them, or overstaying their visas, they were turned over to the Marshall's office, and inexpensively bused back to the border after arranging for their rides upon dropoff, each and every Saturday.

Which cost a whole lot less than affording state and country trials or deportation hearings, and was a punishment that actually fit the crime. Soon those illegal crossers tired of being returned, or embarassed to have to call for their rides the same people repeatedly.

Why San Diego and El Paso were afforded security for their citizens, and Arizonans are not, I will never know.

But the solution is there, although due to the housing boom and also the huge growth Arizona has had in the last three decades, it would seem to me that if it is a "cash strapped" state as presented by the politicians and media, it is only due to the fact that the politicians and the corporate special interests are continuing to indulge in their insatiable needs for revenue for extra-Constitutional functions and the limit to their greed and expenditures for discretionary palm greasing knows no bounds.

Since all the State of Arizona has to do in order to get those National Guard troops, or better still, get that border fencing done under the Secure Fence Act while Congress is appropriating sums in foreign aid to countries in better financial position now than this one is, and securing Iraq's borders while leaving our own unsecured, is to sue the federal government in federal court under the Constitution for breach of contract.

Instead of making it a campaign issue, and continuing the political grandstanding on the part of both of those negligent mainstream political parties and politicians - both past and present.

Americans: Strangers In A Strange Land

Since we are now approaching the end of the first decade in the new millennium, and officially became what is known as a "senior" reaching my 55th year on this planet, I guess old age is finally rearing its ugly head as it tends to do.

Which involves looking back more often, rather than ahead and what's been lost throughout the years. Not just personally. But also this great country and my birthplace.

I grew up in the Beaver Cleever era, but also lived through Viet Nam, the Civil Rights Movement, and Watergate so have seen, as in the old Judy Collins song, "both sides now." And it isn't hard to see that this country has been on a downhill slide since almost the moment of my birth, if not several decades before.

I am beginning to feel more and more like a stranger in a strange land, and never more so than in the last almost nine years since that awful moment now etched in history. September 11, 2001. Less than a year after George W. Bush's contentious election, and after the first Bush and Clinton, two other "globalist" UN focused presidents whose primary agendas were on global economic and political government. Not our Constitution, or a sovereign America.

We are at a critical time in our history, and the time for political correctness actually is long, long past and is being used now more not to ensure "equality" but to facilitate population control on a massive scale.

This is no more evident than what has occurred with respect to our immigration policies, and now the focus is once again being directed at "legalizing" approximately 12 million foreigners in order to give them legal status in this country.

Which is almost laughable at this point, to the point where it hurts.

This will be the second such attempt since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's (which lead to where we are today, without addressing again the border issues, refugee policies, and immigration procedures) since 2006 just prior to our now economic crisis when many natural born Americans for several generations are now jobless and homeless.

Let's look at the pluses and minuses and advantages which would be given to these illegals over those that are now legal Americans.

Right now illegal immigrants in this country have:

1. Paid health care benefits for emergency room visits.

2. Paid legal defense expenses for any court actions through MALDEF, the ACLU and other American(?) civil rights organizations. Not only defensive actions, but recently have even been extended legal fees in bringing actions against U.S. citizens or government officials for so much as defending their own property against trespass or theft as has occurred in the border states. (Think the DOJ prosecuting Ramos and Compean against a known drug trafficker, or a case in Arizona recently against a rancher defending his own land against trespass and sued for "mental anguish" inflicted, although I believe both were political actions to begin with due to the high press exposure simply meant to terrorize or "scare" other Americans, whether brought with or without those involved foreknowledge).

3. Preferential treatment in hiring practices by small and large major corporate businesses affiliated with the state and national Chambers of Commerce.

4. Police protection for their demonstrations and protests in American cities throughout the country.

5. Ease and access to their former home country and extended families for holidays and vacations, with children educated in American schools now encouraging diversity, rather than assimilation into America.

6. Discounted wire transfers for their wages at local retailers for sums sent back to Mexico.

7. Credit cards and loans secured by U.S. banks without having to provide any social security records or proof of identification, with the legal and lawful citizens securing their debts (bank bailouts).

8. Discounted college tuition and free public lower educations for their children if renters.

9. Ballots and signs at retail outlets in order to facilitate use.

10. Federal legislation that protects the rights of foreigners over those of natural born Americans in tax free income and benefits, from whatever source. Crime, after all, is a job and economic stimulus. Even cross borders hard core drug trafficking.

11. Ease of access to state and federal legislators and government officials for complaints and concerns at election time.

The advantages of being an American:

1. Income taxes on wages earned at up to 50% (including Social Security) of gross wages;

2. Joblessness in major industry sectors such as construction, tourism, manufacturing, technology and agriculture that have been given to non-Americans in order to increase corporate profit margins, both insourced and outsourced.

3. Increased home, auto, and professional liability insurance to protect from the drug trade and criminal element, or increased rates based on claims filed, and to protect against all those American citizen funded lawsuits filed by MALDEF, the ACLU and other non-American civil rights organizations for "discriminatory" treatment and violation of foreigners "civil" rights under America's Bill of Rights (We the People.....For Us And Our Posterity" apparently has been judiciary amended in state and federal courts now without the "consent of the governed," with Americans now subsidizing the "legal industy" and courts for those cases, and now backlogs of years in order for a simple civil case to get through the court system as a result).

4. Six hour waits in several states for emergency room treatments if you are American, but there are illegals waiting for treatments for the flu for their federally provided taxpayer paid treatments;

5. Arranging for private transportation for your kids to and from school in order to bypass the drug dealers hanging around the corner from the middle schools and high schools in order to score some of their allowance or part time job monies;

6. Hours assisting your child with his homework and costly school projects in order to help them qualify for higher education scholarships at the state university you have been funding, only to watch those scholarships go to "disadvantaged" non-U.S. citizens children instead;

7. Paying for that college education with either your savings throughout his childhood, mortgage on your home, or supplementing or assisting with obtaining HIS overinflated bank loan for his five digit annual tuition, and then watching him graduate, diploma in hand and then reduced to waiting tables or taking a job that doesn't even pay back half of those loan payments or their interest due within ten months of graduation on a schedule that places him in the poverty level for the first ten years of his post college employment at a entry level position.

8. Waking up at night while helicopter searchlights search the neighborhood washes and desert areas for the drug dealers in most cities and towns within 300 miles of the borders.

9. Sending your beloved child off to war, only to find out that his benefits for his war related injuries are less than those given to illegal immigrants, and the paperwork and waiting at the VA much longer;

10. Sending your child off to war, and then finding out that the refugees from the war torn country have better federally provided benefits and housing accommodations than the average middle class American and diplomatic protection for any crimes they may commit. And duel citizenship.

So when that amnesty bill comes down the pike illegals, take a look around you. It appears from all indications that it is just a matter of time until this Middle Eastern war extends once again, and due to Americans who have now watched this progression and its continuation, fewer new recruits. Part of the amnesty most likely will be directed toward benefits in exchange for military service in the fine print of that next 1,000 page bill for an "economic" war meant to plunge this nation further in debt most of all for economic profit of the moneylenders.

And if it can happen to us many of whom are several generation Americans, it can and will happen to you. Or your near posterity in this global boom and bust manipulated game of human sacrifice for the "global greater good," of the money changers and money lenders.

Remember, a democracy is nothing more than gang rule, rather than our intended Constitutional Republic.

And neither of absolutely any effect whatsoever when the one that prints the money, also prints the ballots.

In at least ten different "global" languages.

P.S. If there appears any immigration related ads on this page along with this article, another backward glance on immigration policies for the U.S. when my immigrant relatives migrated from Great Britain two generations back. They did not need the assistance of a lawyer or immigration attorney, and the fees in order to immigrate were nominal based on security clearances and background checks, sponsorship by a U.S. citizens, and eventual sustainability or political reasons only. Not thousand dollar fees and costs leaving you bankrupt or at the mercy of those that only wish to profit from your circumstances for migration. But politically, due to the ongoing world socialism - you will not find this country in many respects taxation wise any different than the one you are leaving in this global market manipulation game.

And those ads are also meant to gain revenue to entice you for the application fees and costs, only to eventually fleece you if you should be approved. Sort of like your own country, if it is also enmeshed with the global economy at this point.

Because those Immigration Ads that are appearing on this site, are actually taxpayer paid to these corporate welfare recipients running them now in USA, Inc. if they are the from the "official" U.S. Immigration Service, which were the original ads that were appearing on this article as soon as I wrote it for this blog.

Mexico Gets The Gadgets - Border States Get The Shaft

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

It was recently announced in several online media sources that the Mexican government, in their "partnership" with the U.S. in securing the nation's southern border with Mexico, has fired all their existing border agents, and hired new university educated border guards now armed with state of the art technology in order to work in concert with the U.S. on security issues.

I guess this public relations announcement was meant also to engender favorable response in the United States for Mexico's efforts to address the historically porous southern borders, which have progressively become worse each and every decade with respect to the security and crime that has occurred in the American border states.

Interesting, it appears the United States is now using foreign governments now in order to "stimulate" the economies of Silicon Valley. This announcement failed to mention that the American government under [George Bush entered into an initiative of literally billions in "foreign aid" to Mexico in order to address the border situation.

In other words, it was the American people and taxpayers that picked up the tab for Mexico's new agents university training and high tech gadgetry. Globally socializing now border security with other nations for Silicon Valley's corporate welfare and profit. Or using the taxpayers and increasing the inflationary taxes and deficit to feed its now favored industries - the Silicon Valley telecom and security gadget industy. I guess the contracts on the Iraq War aren't paying enough to get those Wall Street numbers where they would like them to be for those private investors though publicly funded for their next campaigns.

The main use of these new agents, since they will be at their posts primarily at the official ports of entry, appears to be in order to collect Mexico's VAT taxes for purchases being brought back from the U.S. across their borders for their citizens purchases at the local Wal-Marts in the border towns, in order to seize more of those U.S. dollars for Mexico's treasury.

And in order to possibly catch the stoned marijuana dealers that are stupid enough to attempt to cross Mexico's borders with the proceeds from their latest run. Trained dog sniffers came along with this gift from the U.S., it appears.

These measures can hardly be meant to address the true security threats and criminal activity that primarily endangers those Americans living in the border states from the drug cartels and criminal auto theft rings that cross those borders literally at will. Since they hardly wait politely in line for the security checks at the official ports of entry - but instead use the over 500 miles of open desert that is totally unsecured.

Which is also the port of entry for most of the illegal immigrants brought in by the human smuggling rings that also operate cross borders. With maps printed by the local Mexican governments in order to so do.

And although mention is made, as per Ms. Clinton's errant assessments and comments, with respect to also these measures intended to stop the smuggling of guns from the U.S. into Mexico - as any who have lived in a border state for any length of time is well aware, the machine guns and heavy artillery that those cartels obtain don't come primarily from the U.S. at all, but through their own southern borders with South America.

So, it appears in this public relations press release an attempt to silence those that have been calling for true border security at our southern borders now, especially eight years after 9/11 and with the increases annually in that amount of both illegal immigrants, and criminal activity that pours over those borders on a daily basis. Which has, of course, now contributed (along with the increased property and auto insurance rates, and predatory loan practices of unregulated California lenders who sold most of those "creative" junk feed escalating loans in the West) to the high rate of jobless and homeless now in the border states in being the states with the highest rates of foreclosure during this housing crisis bar none.

With the border state residents in the inflationary taxes which will result in these foreign aid bills for Mexico actually resulting in paying for their continued victimization and abuse. We are a bankrupted nation for all intents and purposes, but still handing out foreign aid like candy for other countries, while our government officials negligently and beligerantly at this point leave America's own borders vulnerable and unsecured - their primary function and duty.

Mexico got the gadgets while the Americans living in the border states continue to get the shaft.

I wonder how many more will be stripped of their lives and property until Washington finally gets the message. Is this part of the "we all must sacrifice" agenda here. Sacrificing the lives and property of the legal Americans living in the border states for this global socialism agenda and to appease the Mexican government in continuing to provide employment for their citizens at the cost of the livelihoods of Americans? And no less pick up the tab for it, endure the six hour emergency room waits for lawful citizens treatment, and smile or feel that Americans have somehow done their patriotic duty?

It appears Washington does have a problem with the definition of the type of patriotism the founders were also speaking of, in addition to being able to read the provisions of both their jobs, and legal limits with respect to U.S. citizens. And that foreigners were not Americans.

Or is it their intent to cut loose the border states eventually, therefore leaving more discretionary tax revenue for those in the East to distribute to their Wall Street banking benefactors in the process?

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090816/4a879250_3421_1334520090816108637384