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

Nine Years Later: Whitewashing 9-11

This past week our mainstream print and television media dedicated much of their programming once again to 9-11 and its aftermath, and using it in order to garner ratings and place their subjective spins on this black mark in American history.

One major news magazine has an article devoted to how America "over-reacted" to 9-11, and the threat of al-Qaeda (although originally it was the Taliban and Osama bin Laden which was the focus of those first weeks and months post 9-11, not al Qaeda at all). Another article in the same magazine written by a former President's daughter lambasts how the liberals are disappointed with the reaction of Mr. Obama to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the weeks and months this Administration stood by while tens of thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf, without a mention of the continuing war also whose candidate had pledged to end the war, one of their major concerns at election time.

To this American, it has been nine long years of betrayal and using 9-11 also for their agendas by both political parties which has resulted in the increased discontent of the American people with their leadership.

I would not state that the reactions of the general citizenry were "over-reactions," but that the actions of the Bush/Obama Administration have been "under-reactions."

Our borders, for the most part, and ports of entry are even less secure than they were pre-9-11. Our infrastructure and many of our vital industries and public utility companies are traded on the global exchange, and for all intents and purposes even our nuclear reactors could be "owned" through stock purchases, by foreigners.

There has also been two other attempts under even stranger circumstances, originating from Great Britain since that time used to justify then increasing security measures domestically, although the Bush Administration during his last 90 days in office expanded the Visa waiver program for foreign citizens wishing entry, requiring simply 48 hour security checks, to citizens from over 45 nations.

Our southern and northern borders still remain relatively unsecured, and there are once again even since 2006 attempts being made to "legalize" individuals who are in this country who had absolutely no security checks at all as having entered illegally, and also who have overstayed their work, student or visitor visas.

While instead, Americans are being asked to submit themselves to full body scanners, and other invasive security measures at domestic airports.

In this same magazine, an article also appeared that harkened back to how "united" the American people were post 9-11, pulling together for a "common good," due to all the donations and volunteers that did what they could in the aftermath of the tragedy. As a nation, however, I would not say that this country was "united" except for the fact that it was united in its outrage that such an event, in this modern day and era and with all the monies spent for national defense in technology during the Reagan era, especially, could occur.

We were united in our wish to have the perpetrators of this heinous act brought to justice, which has alluded this nation still even nine long years later.

We wanted our leaders to abide by our Constitution, and close our borders and our country to "foreigners" until those individuals responsible for the act were brought to justice, and order any and all here illegally out until such time.

We wanted our president not to direct us to "go shop," or this president to expand the war without having any real hard intelligence indicating that the perpetrators were within our grasp, and not send any more of our young men and women to die on foreign sand to add to the losses.

We simply wanted our leadership to abide by their oaths of office, and their duties to Americans and protect this nation and its borders and legal and lawful citizenry, rather than their commercial interests and those domestic and foreign privateers.

Attempts are now also being made in order to "whitewash" 9-11 and its impact in declaring this day a "National Day of Service," rather than a memorial day as with Pearl Harbor. And the profiteers who wish to now see a Muslim mosque built in close proximity over the objections of most of the American people, promoting such an act as a demonstration of "tolerance," rather than the real agenda - a multi-million dollar redevelopment project for the city and state coffers of New York.

There is much in this puzzle still missing as those that viewed that attack for over seven full days replayed and replayed can attest.

And attempts to marginalize the Americans who still are not satisfied with the official explanations will not change that, nor cloaking 9-11 in patriotism and the flag, or minimizing the impact this massive attack and its scars have left on this nation and a new generation of Americans who didn't live through Pearl Harbor.

Interesting this mosque and its ramifications has reared its head just a short year before the 10th anniversary, and push toward this "National Day of Service" spin focusing on those that responded (although their acts of bravery are not to be discounted by any means), rather than the victims and tragedy itself? I wonder what incentives the City of New York, since it has the support of its Mayor, is extending for this massive, expansive project in order to feed the "jobs and the economy" on the memories of that day, and of the 9-11 victims?

I'm no "conspiracy" nut or theorist, but I still wonder how the mainstream media was able to get full camera crews to the site of the Trade Center within 20 minutes of the first crash since the financial district of New York is quite a distance away from where most of those media centers are located, and this was rush hour at that....even the date selected, an emergency code used throughout the U.S. and not the Middle East, bears scrutiny. If this was a religious attack as has been claimed of jihadists, just why wasn't a Muslim holy day selected, which would certainly make more sense if extremism within the Muslim faith was the origins of this heinous attack on our civilian population primarily and nation's economy and military headquarters.

And I have seen enough controlled demolitions during my years in Phoenix, Arizona when tearing down old buildings in order to redevelop and put in new was an ongoing annual process, since Phoenix and its metro area has exploded in the last two decades, to its detriment also, as a former longer term "almost native" Arizonan. I've been to New York, and it's population and traffic are well-known. Although after the events which occurred, such a decision could be understandable given the extent of the damage and "collateral" damage which also was an eminent threat, but this entire scenario cannot be dismissed by the mere "scientific" theories and explanations which were then subsequently published in an auto mechanics magazine.

To even use such a source by many in our leadershp and print and television media goes to show the utter contempt it does appear that some of those that survived have for their fellow countrymen and victims, in one manner or another all Americans have been progressively impacted, since that horrendous day.

And the ramifications and impact on the American people post 9-11 has been far greater in having their continued rights violated and victimized nine years later, while instead our leadership in the name of "commerce" above true national security, continues to open our doors and shores to all comers.

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?

BP Smoke and Mirrors Continues

It was announced by the MSM that the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, has been relieved of his position in light of the mishandling of the public relations aspect of the BP disaster in the U.S.

It does appear the smoke and mirrors games continue with respect to this disaster, and the loss of 11 American lives which have been, for all intents and purposes, swept under the carpet while Britain continues to assure the "little people" in the United States that they will be taken care of.

That is, those that the Brits claim are worthy of recompensation since Obama has unlawfully removed the Constitutional rights of those affected to sue for their losses and put the matter before their fellow countrymen, and also whose claims that those BP rapists feel are not "excessive" in their estimation.

Unbelieveable, the "foreign" rights once again are being placed as superior to those of the people by this Administration as the last who have no inherent "rights" under our Constitution to begin with. In fact, the protection of American's rights over foreigners was the entire foundation of our Constitution to begin with!

What's missing?

The reporting and investigation by the U.S. media in just how British Petroleum was afforded the almost monopoly on the U.S. oil reserves in the Gulf off Louisiana's coast, while we are fighting a war in the Middle East which is clear has absolutely nothing to do with redressing the attack on this country almost nine years ago, but more in securing a presence in the Middle East for Great Britain after losing those mineral rights when the Shah of Iran was overthrown back in the 1970's.

How our Congress could give mineral rights to America's offshore reserves to a foreign entity in the first place, and one in which their negligence several years ago also resulted in the loss of American lives in Texas, is beyond this writer.

This "free trade" agreement when our dependence on foreign oil has been the banner of both political parties as to why this country continues to be involved in the Middle East just goes to show that both political parties are more aligned with facilitating a "global" dominance in this region at the continued cost of American lives on behalf fundamentally of two foreign governments. Britain's and Israel's.

While our borders remain unsecured, and there are now more foreigners in this country than even pre-9-11, and not for tourism but training at our military installations, and as refugees of this British and Israeli war that has resulted in two subsequent attempts both originating in Great Britain and those British banks that also are the major shareholders behind our Federal Reserve.

War means debt, and also profits for the bankers. And by and large, the London bankers and shareholders are also zionists, since Israel is, after all, the tourist attraction and most visited country by far for religious pilgrammages, although in the true Christian faith Israel has "historical" significance, but since Christ did teach that God was spirit and was everywhere, and not solely in Israel as demonstrated with his Sermon on the Mount, the positions of the Christian fundamentalist community and some others claiming to be Christian is truly perplexing, again, to this writer.

The British actually are the petrol gluttons of the world, as this global corporation which was formerly a holding of the British royal family clearly demonostrates, and with all the focus on "science and technology," it is truly astounding that this oil spill now could be continuing for over three months without a clear resolution in sight.

And also this Administration's again skirting around the Constitution in bypassing its provisions in affording BP and this global corporation the "sovereign rights" to both contain the spill, and settle the damage claims and awards that are due all those in this country which are now and will be in the future fundamentally affected.

Which is actually every single American, in one way or another.

Maybe Mr. Obama needs to pass on the next G-20 global summit, and he and this Congress need to focus on this country's domestic economy, which is now being sacrificed once again for the British in this allied partnership post World War II that has progressively compromised this country and its national security, and economy far worse than the Blitz on London those many years ago.

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.

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.

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.

O'Reilly & Company Continue The Spins On Arizona's "New" Illegal Immigrant Laws

Bill O'Reilly really, really needs a reality check regarding he and his "political commentators" remarks regarding Arizona's "new" illegal immigrant laws.

Tonight I briefly watched a segment where O'Reilly, the "no spin, spinner" again was addressing Arizona's "new" illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona's interim governor, Jan Brewer, this last legislative session.

On the program he had, of course, two different "political commentators" supposedly taking both sides of this issue, of course neither one of which was taking the Constitutional positions, nor Bill O'Reilly for that matter.

One of which pointed out that he had lived in Arizona "from 1997 to 1999" or thereabouts, so felt he was qualified to comment on the history of just what has occurred in that state to bring this matter to national attention.

The other, of course, was an illegal immigrant sympathizer again pushing for amnesty "since we have over 12 million illegals in this country," without, of course, pointing out that this would not be the case at all if the Reagan amnesty way back when had not created this situation to begin with, nor that the federal government through the U.S. Marshall's office has abdicated its responsibilities progressively in their duties in busing the illegals back which were picked up by the local Arizona law enforcement on stops as was done for decades, which kept those numbers down and those border hoppers at bay who are victimizing the Arizonans.

Nor was there then federal funding given to most of these lawyer led "immigrant rights" groups that have progressively also defended the rights of illegals, over those of the natural or naturalized citizenry due to an unconstitutional statute which was passed that granted these lawyer led groups their legal fees for civil rights matters, whether they were in defense or prosecution of American civil rights, or those of foreigners.

Bill, of course, reiterated that in the event this law is used by local law enforcement in any manner "racially profiling" those individuals picked up under this law, then they always have the recourse of suing.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually had to do with American Civil Rights, not foreigners, although this has been left out of the liberals posturing - whether O'Reilly's, or CNN's.

Since, of course, the Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the American citizenry from both the government, corporate entities such as these groups, and foreigners.

Oh, the spins continue on both sides of the poltiical spectrum.

By both the American liberals, and those British Conservatives that are posturing ad nauseum on Fox.

I mean, as a 45 year former Arizona resident, I can tell you that there was always "national origin" profiling in Arizona pre-Reagan since Arizona does, after all, border a foreign country.

But political correctness and lawyer profit is the aim here, not the Constitution.

Since this segment appeared clearly aimed at a spin for the legal community that would make a jester proud.

I mean, just who does Bill think will pay for all those bogus lawsuits for the civil rights special interest "non-American" groups if not the Arizona citizenry, and really the American public since those sums for that "civil rights" statutes comes out of the federal coffers?

And if Bill is an example of our educators, America and Americans should be very, very worried since apparently he has no concept of just truly what has occurred, and just whose economy this "new" law was meant to insure.

This is a public/public partnership between the feds and the state at the cost of the Arizona citizenry, bottom line, since the solution is clear.

Fund the fence, and if the feds won't cough up the dough, they are in "breach of contract" and should be held accountable under both the Constitution, and the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

And then simplify the paperwork so that it isn't necessary to hire an immigration lawyer in this country to complete, and make the application fees not for profit so that those Mexicans that wish to immigrate can do so for less than it costs for those Coyotes to bring them across the border, and then abandon them to the desert.

And that's no spin from this former long term resident and victim.

Although what CAN you expect from a mainstream media organization that hires non-practicing lawyer/political commentators that haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about?

Other than continue the spins for their Bar affiliated brothers and sisters.

Or their American taxpayer funded special interest group - which in actuality means that the Arizona and American taxpayers are actually paying for their own abuse in a great many of these foreigner "civil rights" actions under an unlawful and illegal U.S. statute to begin with meant purely for lawyer, politician and special interest profit at the American public's ultimate expense.

Hola! Mexico: Please Keep Your Tomatoes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this bill will bankrupt them even more.

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

Please, Mexico, keep your tomatoes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illegal Groups Line Up To Challenge Arizona's New Law

An activist group of Latino "Christian" clergy members has vowed to fight the illegal immigrant law which was signed by Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer yesterday, the mainstream media has reported.

To this writer and former 40+ year Arizona resident, it comes as no surprise.

This has been the status quo for many, many years insofar as state and local laws which the Arizona legislature has passed in order to attempt to fill in the gap where the federal government has failed with respect to illegal immigration, and also, of course, continue to use this explosive situation in order to manipulate for political advantage by both mainstream political parties at election time.

And this new law appears to be just another attempt in order to both quiet the outraged citizenry in this border state, and also for both political parties to use in order to gain some advantage in the upcoming 2010 elections.

An illegal immigrant favoring group which claims to represent over 2,000 Latino clergy by the name of the National Coalition of Latino Christian Clergy (primarily a Catholic organization, from all appearances - couldn't be there is some financial benefit in those increased tithes to the Catholic Church at work here also, could it?) has announced it will be the first special interest group to challenge the new Arizona immigration enforcement law, one which even Barack Obama has criticized and also used for political purposes in order to facilitate his party's ideas of immigration reform - which is no more than another Reagan era amnesty of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States due to progressive federal negligence in securing America's southern borders.

An ideology by both political parties due to this progressive negligence especially post 9-11 which boils down to "as long as we now have these 12 million foreigners in this country, why not reinstitute Reaganomics and "capitalize" on this situation for both political parties benefit, and that of the federal coffer, for all those fees, costs and this new taxation we can institute."

In other words, another global corporate socialism move for U.S.A., Inc, the DNC and RNC agendas masked as immigration reform.

I mean, this country is bulging at the seams with foreigners, both visitors and new immigrants, due to also all these progressively agressive foreign wars to boot and refugees then offered assylum, and with all the Canadians who are buying up America's real estate like it was junk jewelry due to the plunging dollar as opposed to their currency.

Just check out New Orleans Garden District and the new purchasers of all those million dollar homes in the French Quarter for a clue, since the rates of insurance now on those properties and new building standards are preventing so many of those original title holders to hold on to those properties, as with those homes which have been foreclosured upon in Arizona with the escalating costs of ownership which have occurred since Reaganomics.

Nowhere does the Constitution come into play in any manner whatsoever, or those founders intent with respect to immigration and naturalization - especially now that the U.S. is, for all intents and purposes, pretty well populated and in the worst recession this country has faced since the Great Depression insofar as the jobs and economies of the true legal Americans.

The claims of fears of "racial profiling" are being used ad nauseum by most of these special interest groups, although when I was growing up in Arizona in the 1960's and 1970's, such profiling was routinely done since it is illegal Mexican nationals who are living in that state who are the targets, many of whose family members living in the U.S. are some of those hiring their relatives to work in some of their small businesses too, or using their kids in order to sell some of those drugs in front of the middle schools.

This is all just so much rhetoric since also during the 1970's, people crossing from California to Arizona were stopped upon entry and questioned by state officials insofar as their travel plans, and whose cars were searched due to the blight which occurred in the citrus industry at that time, and in which these stops were also used in order to question citizens on their legal status in the country upon request for provision of driver's licenses, or green cards.

This group apparently also was behind a claimed boycott which it attempted to organize of the illegal immigrant population with respect to the 2010 U.S. census calling for illegal immigrants to boycott the census until they were recognized as legal Americans.

The fact that illegal immigrants are afforded to participate in the census at all in order to gain a voice in our government contrary to the entire fabric of a representative government as contained within the U.S. Constitution, and intent of those founders, is quite incredible.

A group of U.S. Congressmen, the State of Pennsylvania and another special interest group who attempted to redress this also negligence of the federal government to codify that the U.S. census provisions with respect to representation in the electoral college under our Constitution was clearly meant for "We The Legal Citizens" of the United States in a legal petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was dismissed by the Court apparently for "lack of standing."

According to the mainstream media, apparently the provisions by the U.S. Census Bureau, an agency that has no law making ability under our Constitution whatsoever, provides that anyone in the country regardless of immigration status is to be included in the census.

So the games and hypocricy at the federal and state levels continue, while the actual legal citizens of the border states, and all others indirectly, continue to suffer this massive breach of Constitutional provision which was clearly meant to protect the American people, not foreigners, until naturalization.

What is even more outrageous is that the Mexican government, in a unamious act of their Senate, passed a resolution prior to the signing of the Arizona bill condemning it, when under Mexico's Constitution, foreigners are forbidden from involving themselves in their government in any manner whatsoever, which is a felony under Mexico's Constitution and laws.

And the Mexican style of enforcement and justice with respect to foreigners crossing their borders unlawfully from South America is blatant racial profiling with respect to Americans visiting their country, and South Americans.

Ask any American who has been stopped for a traffic violation in Mexico, where the method of enforcement against Americans is "pay up, or into the hoosegow you go."

And the fine is set by the arresting officer according to what is perceived as an Americans ability to pay. as opposed to fines for their legal citizenry.

So once again, it wil be the legal Americans in Arizona that will suffer the consequences of this bureaucratic mess and continued political gamesplaying by both the mainstream political parties, and "illegal" special interest groups - illegal in more ways than one.

I have a suggestion for the local law enforcement officials who will be charged with enforcing this new law.

In addition to the illegal Mexicans now living in the border states who are crying foul where their former government would never put up with such nonsense from foreigners in their country, start also requesting documentation from also those unincluded illegal immigrants to Arizona from Canada who overstay their visas, yet also continue to attempt to influence legislation in that state and are some of the most vocal on the illegal immigrant situation in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas.

And get rid of both the illegal Mexicans and Canadians so that the rule of law in Arizona returns to those of protecting the rights of the legal AMERICAN citizens living in the border states.

Wouldn't it just be simpler, and more cost effective and Constitutional, to simply get the U.S. borders secured to keep the auto thieves, and drug runners at bay which are, after all, the primary problem to begin with in compromising those living in the border states progressively so that now this situation has become unbearable and cost the lives and property of so many, many Americans that the washes in Arizona are becoming full of Americans while these nonAmericans claim their rights without any legal status in any manner whatsoever under the true American law to so do to begin with?

Boycotting Discretionary Air Travel: Are Random Strip Searches Next?

Recently an article was published in CNN Money quoting the Air Transport Association, an association of executives from the airline industry, predicting there would be approximately 7% fewer airline passengers this summer due to the economic conditions now in the United States.

I would state as a former primarily vacation airline passenger that the reduction in Americans traveling during the summer months has declined for discretionary travel steadily since 9/11.

Not out of fear, but due to the fact now that traveling to vacation destinations for many Americans is more hassle free driving than flying anymore. Driving to California from Arizona takes six hours by car, but now can take just as long or longer by air.

It isn't simply the expense involved, it is the invasive security procedures now conducted for domestic travel in the United States that is primarily to blame, in this writer's view.

It has gotten to the point where the surveillance industry in this country is one of the fastest growing industries, and largest stakeholders in government contracts.

So lucrative has this industry become and vital to the U.S. government domestic surveillance program that the Department of Homeland Security is now purchasing, with stimulus monies, full body scanners for major domestic airports, to be used primarily against its own citizens due to the free entry and exit passes awarded international travelers during and prior to the Bush Administration.

Since most of the incidents which have compromised American citizen's security have been from foreigners as demonstrated by 9/11 and the shoe bomber incident, the focus on domestic travel rather than international security does seem backward, since "foreigners" actually travel from outside the U.S. in order to get here in the first place, or breach the U.S. borders and enter illegally through our borders with Canada and Mexico.

At the present time it take no less than two full hours prior to flight time in order to undergo the security checks for both passengers and baggage. And though it was a British citizen responsible for the shoe bombing incident, all domestic travelers in the U.S. are now required to remove even their shoes before boarding.

That doesn't take into consideration the amount of time that is also lost waiting on the tarmacks for flights to depart or arrive due to the amount of both domestic and international flights, many of which are less than half full.

Deregulation of our national airports has actually resulted in more pollution, and higher costs in the long run. And crowded airports that have made most vacations anything but relaxing.

In fact, since my last experience flying to a funeral for a relative on the East Coast from my home in the West that took more than twelve hours to complete with the new "shoe removal" requirements, I haven't flown in four years.

The American people were not the cause of 9/11, yet it is the American people who are now being strip searched and monitored in ever increasing degrees domestically, while the international airport procedures are becoming less and less secure with each passing year.

I guess so that at least the next potential international terrorist is not denied the opportunity to visit Disneyland, or attend the next global corporate board meeting.

Expect to now be charged more and more fees in order to take your baggage with you. It appears banking practices have now infiltrated the airline industry.

Soon, I'm sure, there will be additional fees instituted for those bag lunches, and the privilege of those xrays prior to boarding at the security checks. Also charges for the upgrades for the shoe removal procedures in order to now track your carbon footprints.

We wouldn't want to interfere with our "free trade," agreements, or the "free market" competitive airline industry and their profit margins in order to effectively reduce that non-existent excess carbon instead in perhaps restricting U.S. international ports of entry and flights, now would we?

Apparently not if it affects the lucrative gadget industry stakeholders and their economic growth at the cost of the American taxpayers obviously.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/summer_air_travel/index.htm