Trump had 59 Tomahawk missile fired into Syria at an airfield because Syria used chemical weapons on it's own people. The damage was reported as heavy. But videos showed little damage; runway was in use the next day; aircraft revetments appeared untouched; no damaged/destroyed aircraft seen--only one aircraft seen and it was in an undamaged revetment; no bomb craters were seen. So just what was the damage? Understandably only the one aircraft was seen because Trump had alerted Russia to the attack and they (most likely) alerted Syria so Syria's aircraft could be relocated away from the intended airfield. Remember when Trump said he'd never disclosed any military action he might take?
4-09-2017
Electoral College
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68
laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral
College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for
that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run
legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign
interests before each election.[23]
Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states,
so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the
people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of
the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of
republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state
capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general
public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be
an elector none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential
candidate.[23]
Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[24] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.[23]
Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[24] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.[23]
Abortions
I need to say upfront that I think all abortions at any stage of pregnancy are grievous and that Late-term Abortions are horrendous. However, I also believe that I have no right whatsoever to intrude, in any way, into a woman's decision to have an abortion; neither does the government, federal or state; the ultimate decision is hers--it is her body. The main reason for my believing this way can be found in our Constitution where the right to privacy is paramount and inarguable. How anyone can argue that they or our government can dictate how a woman, or any individual for that matter, must care for/take care of her body is beyond me. Of course, that doesn't keep the multitudes from caterwauling pro and con the issue of abortions. What gives me the right to be judgemental? Being pro-choice carries no mandate, pro-choice just accords to the pregnant woman what is rightfully hers---the right to privacy.
Obama's Fault?
In response to a post by an acquaintance blaming President Obama for the state of our economy plus other aspects of his administration that has not been superlative, I responded as follows:
What an amazing litany of empty-headed inglorious BS! So it's Obama's fault now? Now that we're better off than when the "stuff" ended its slide downhill into a quasi-depression in mid-2009?
Do you really believe it was Obama's Recovery Act that caused those eight million-odd job losses and drove up the unemployment figures to 10%? Get over it. The Recovery Act slowed then stopped the bleeding. To believe otherwise is just plain ignorant.
My mind just cannot fathom the depths of despair this country would be in now if McCain had won in 2008. Think about it, how would he have stopped the 600,000 job losses per month, repaired the bursting housing bubble, and contained the financial markets and banks so our country wouldn't become a piddling worthless entity? Sure, blame Obama for getting our troops out of Iraq, blame him for doing what Bush reneged on--killing OBL, blame him for the stock market doubling in three years. And, for good measure, blame him for not getting a budget out of Congress for three years(?) when the 'Publicans (better "Publi-cannots") filibustered and would not permit cloture on every part and parcel of the budget. I say blame the 'Publi-cannots for not allowing final votes on a budget.
Just say'n......
What an amazing litany of empty-headed inglorious BS! So it's Obama's fault now? Now that we're better off than when the "stuff" ended its slide downhill into a quasi-depression in mid-2009?
Do you really believe it was Obama's Recovery Act that caused those eight million-odd job losses and drove up the unemployment figures to 10%? Get over it. The Recovery Act slowed then stopped the bleeding. To believe otherwise is just plain ignorant.
My mind just cannot fathom the depths of despair this country would be in now if McCain had won in 2008. Think about it, how would he have stopped the 600,000 job losses per month, repaired the bursting housing bubble, and contained the financial markets and banks so our country wouldn't become a piddling worthless entity? Sure, blame Obama for getting our troops out of Iraq, blame him for doing what Bush reneged on--killing OBL, blame him for the stock market doubling in three years. And, for good measure, blame him for not getting a budget out of Congress for three years(?) when the 'Publicans (better "Publi-cannots") filibustered and would not permit cloture on every part and parcel of the budget. I say blame the 'Publi-cannots for not allowing final votes on a budget.
Just say'n......
Constitutional-Religious Issues
 |
There
is an agenda to redefine marriage, an institution of at least 4,000
years that has always been a husband and a wife ( or wives in some
societies). There is clearly an agenda by some in the left to change the
definition, although the recent vote by the citizens of NC show that
Democrats are as supportive of this measure as ate Republicans. Clearly
Prop 8 would have passed except for the historic amount of black church
going voters that voted for Obama and against gay marriage. That being
said I could care less if gays marry, legalize marijuana, or any other
intrusive laws the government passed are overturned. Give me $2.50
gallon has and a 4% unemployment rate and you can make Elton John
Secretary of State.
|
Constitutional-Religious Issues
 |
Tom: Let me give you a few examples.
1. In 31 states, people without a belief in a monotheism are disqualified from holding public office. 2. The Ten Commandments are posted in courtrooms 3. The State provides a religious book for people to swear on before giving testimony 4. We have monotheistic messages engraved on our money, in our national pledge, and in our national anthem 5. There continue to be "blue laws" (sabbath laws) prohibiting specific activities on Sunday in most states 6. Blasphemy is still a crime punishable by fines and incarceration in a handful of states 7. Prayers are given in the chambers of our congress 8. The bible is cited as justification for opposition against everything from gay marriage to wars against Muslim countries Note that the above examples are codified by law. When you say that other philosophies like those advocated by "militant gays, Muslims and feminists" are "forced" on people, what you really mean is that popular culture today is starting to tolerate them in the national dialogue, and people like you can no longer shut out all such messages from your lives. That's very different than disqualifying straights from public office, or posting passages from Queen songs on our public buildings, or prohibiting the sale of food in daylight hours during Ramadan. You have the freedom to reject all of these people's messages without the threat of interference. You can also speak out against them from a moral standpoint. As you said, you find these ideals to be important building blocks for society, and you're free to encourage anyone and anyone to agree with you - but not everyone will, and they have the freedom to build their lives with their own blocks, just like you do. In North Carolina or Minnesota (or most other states), though, a non-believer can't simply "ignore" the issues. They can be recalled from office simply for not professing belief in God. They still have to use money that promotes monotheistic ideals. Gays still can't share power of attorney, hospital visitation, inheritance, or benefits rights like straight couples can. These are truly, genuinely "forced" on them by laws voted on by people who justify those votes with a holy book, despite the VERY clear specification of the freedom of religion, and the establishment clause prohibiting laws respecting establishments of religion. You've had a 236-year monopoly in having your own religious symbols prominently displayed and advocated by our government in courts, money, mottos, schools, and pledges. Why is it such a problem to get the government OUT of religion, and let it operate as a free market like other services and non-profits? Layne: Nobody is forcing you to believe in same-sex marriage. It may very well be a sin. But in America, we're supposed to be free to sin. Allowing gays to marry doesn't "force" their definition on you any more than the legalization of alcohol "forces" you to condone drinking. You can choose your own definition of marriage, just like you can choose your own beverage. Anyone who follows this board knows that on MOST issues, I align to the right. I want small government. I don't want government regulating our healthcare, our housing, our food, our transportation, our financial institutions, our employment, or our carbon. In a stunning display of consistency, I ALSO resist government regulating marriages, substances, airports, air travel, free speech, religious belief, and media. I want small government in ALL areas of my life. And if we can't even keep government out of our bedrooms and our personal relationships, how can we expect to keep it out of our healthcare, our vehicles, or our banks? I adhere STRONGLY to the "Don't Tread On Me" doctrine - let all be free, just don't hurt me. I don't smoke, I don't hire prostitutes, I don't do drugs, I don't commit adultery, and I don't hunt for sport. I find all of these activities to be extremely immoral, in fact. But if someone else wants to do them, go right ahead. I don't own you. But you don't own me, either, and I'd like to know that I can disbelieve in God AND run for office. Right now I can't, not because of a 2000-year-old book, but because hordes of people take that book with them into the voting booths to make laws for people who don't believe the same way as they do. Sorry for the long rant. |
National Debit and Social Security
Many citizens, including me, seem to be joining an ever increasing crowd of very disgruntled citizens. This soliloquy is in two parts.
PART I.
I do understand that the POTUS is the "leader" of the Democratic Party, but I firmly believe the compromise regarding spending (budget) and raising the national debt limit should be going on solely between congressional members. Of course, democratic congressional members can, and should, consult with the POTUS but the onus is upon Congress (House and Senate) to pass the bills, then send them to the POTUS. It galls me, in a sense, that the POTUS is blamed for not compromising on these bills; the POTUS does not compromise. he either signs or vetoes bills. The POTUS proposes an annual budget, but the Congress then does what it will with the proposal.
I firmly believe 545 congressmen and women should be able to develop spending plans (of whatever description) that work best for the country and is fair for all (It is their responsibility!), more so than one person, even if he is the POTUS. If the POTUS vetoes, the Congress gets to override the veto, or not. If not, Congress goes back to the drawing board and gets a bill back to the POTUS that he either signs or vetoes (and a circle-a-rama ensues). In the end a bill will be "approved;" the POTUS will sign or Congress will override a veto.
PART II
Social Security. The first thing to know about Social Security is that at no time in its history, up to and including today (and for the even the near future), has Social Security contributed to the national debt! Social Security is solvent through 2036 (that's when the trust fund of currently $2.4 trillion is depleted). So, of course some reform needs to take place between now and 2036. Some would argue, like me, that reform should start now; the sooner, the better, and the easier it is ($$$$) on all of us (sic). Here's the thing, with Social Security income decreasing (poor economy/high unemployment) relative to increasing payout (retirement of baby-boomers increasing the number of recipients), the differential between income to payout speeds along from plus to minus in a few short years, therewith beginning to siphon off the trust fund.
This is mathematically a fact. Facts: In 2010 Social Security income was $791 billion; payout was $715 billion--differential was +$76 billion. What will be the differential for 2011?
How do we extend the life of Social Security without impoverishing its recipient? We probably all have suggestions. Here's mine, for what it's worth:
1. Increase the cap on the amount at which Social Security deductions stops--$175,000. I have no idea how much this will positively affect the income-payout differential, but annual reviews will be telling as to when to activate step 2.
2. Reduce annual COLA, if any, by 30% of its amount, e.g., COLA is 3%, reduce to 2.1%. Adjust at five-year reviews.
3. When, and if, steps 1. and 2. "play out," determine mathematically (or however they determine these things) when to either revise the cap upwards as in Step 1, further reduce the COLA as in Step 2, or use a combination of both Steps 1 and 2.
4. Finally (way down the road[?]), as necessary, reduce Social Security payments by a percentage, across the board, that will keep Social Security solvent and where an acceptable payment to recipients can be made for the number of years before reform is again necessary.
All of this IMHO.
The Recession: Getting up and Out--2.11.2011
Here is what I think, we (the USA) should start a downward spiral in spending, finish the job in the Middle East (soon!) and remove our troop presence there; increase the FITW by 0.5% for those making less than $150K and 1.5% for those making over $150K; invest (Right Now!) in rebuilding our infrastructure, building a national grid, greatly increase extraction of oil from the Bakken Basin; develop green energy (solar, wind, thermal, etc) on a grand scale; STOP illegal alien migration into our country, and initiate a long-term program of deportment of illegals; and pass a constitutional amendment that redefines how one becomes an American citizen by requiring that at the time of birth a child must be born with at least one parent who is an American citizen. All of these initiatives would most surely create tens of thousands of jobs for Americans.
Our country needs the help of all of us to get the hell out of this recession, but we must hold our representatives' feet to the fire; anyone who impedes this progress should either be impeached or not reelected. In my humble opinion.
Our country needs the help of all of us to get the hell out of this recession, but we must hold our representatives' feet to the fire; anyone who impedes this progress should either be impeached or not reelected. In my humble opinion.
Immigration Reform-A Response--12-03-2010
My thoughts on the DREAM Act.
So, the way I read the DREAM Act (Well, I actually haven't read it) is that children under some specified age (16, 12, 6, 1) brought to the USA illegally (presumably by parents or some other relative) would be able to acquire citizenship. Does that mean the illegals who brought the children here are themselves allowed to stay here indefinitely without fear of prosecution or deportation? Forever!?
Why don't we just throw our borders wide open?!?
In my humble opinion we should initiate a broad-scale roundup of all illegals and deport them to their country of origin. Parents of minor American children (those born in the USA of illegals) have the option of taking those children back with them or leave them here to be cared for by Catholic Charities (aren't most illegals Catholic?) (the USA would reimburse Catholic Charities for the living and educational expenses of the children until they reached maturity); non-Catholics would go into a National foster care program. American children taken by deported parents back to their country of origin will be allowed to return to the USA on their own upon reaching maturity (they will have to show their passport, however).
This program of deportation of illegals would of course be highly publicized so as to encourage illegals to voluntarily return to their home country on their own. The program would, of course, be a long term endeavor and annual results of the program's efforts and statistics would be publicized.
Each fourth of July, at the ranch of G.W. Bush, the residences of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and the White House, there would be a mass swearing-in of new American citizens carried live on the Fox channels (not the Fox sports channels) and C-SPAN.
The program benefits, other than reducing and eventually eliminating illegals, would dramatically reduce the number of attempts to gain illegal entry into the USA, would be to create perhaps thousands of new long-term, welling paying jobs for real American citizens.
Or, we could just do what the Nazi's did........ (I didn't really say that, did I?)
Harvey
So, the way I read the DREAM Act (Well, I actually haven't read it) is that children under some specified age (16, 12, 6, 1) brought to the USA illegally (presumably by parents or some other relative) would be able to acquire citizenship. Does that mean the illegals who brought the children here are themselves allowed to stay here indefinitely without fear of prosecution or deportation? Forever!?
Why don't we just throw our borders wide open?!?
In my humble opinion we should initiate a broad-scale roundup of all illegals and deport them to their country of origin. Parents of minor American children (those born in the USA of illegals) have the option of taking those children back with them or leave them here to be cared for by Catholic Charities (aren't most illegals Catholic?) (the USA would reimburse Catholic Charities for the living and educational expenses of the children until they reached maturity); non-Catholics would go into a National foster care program. American children taken by deported parents back to their country of origin will be allowed to return to the USA on their own upon reaching maturity (they will have to show their passport, however).
This program of deportation of illegals would of course be highly publicized so as to encourage illegals to voluntarily return to their home country on their own. The program would, of course, be a long term endeavor and annual results of the program's efforts and statistics would be publicized.
Each fourth of July, at the ranch of G.W. Bush, the residences of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and the White House, there would be a mass swearing-in of new American citizens carried live on the Fox channels (not the Fox sports channels) and C-SPAN.
The program benefits, other than reducing and eventually eliminating illegals, would dramatically reduce the number of attempts to gain illegal entry into the USA, would be to create perhaps thousands of new long-term, welling paying jobs for real American citizens.
Or, we could just do what the Nazi's did........ (I didn't really say that, did I?)
Harvey
Immigration Reform
[The following is a post of an email sent to me by a friend. I have comments to it posted here.]
DREAM ACT ------DREAM ON!
(By — Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies)
(By — Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies)
DREAM On
The amnesty-for-illegals crowd has found some sympathetic poster children.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have pledged a vote as early as this week on the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), a bill that would legalize illegal aliens who arrived here before the age of 16 and who comply with certain educational or military-service requirements.
The core principle behind this amnesty proposal is that it is aimed at those who have grown up here and are, psychologically and emotionally, Americans. In the words of America’s Voice, a hard-left open-borders group, the beneficiaries of the measure are “patriotic young Americans in all but paperwork.”
There’s no doubt that this is the most sympathetic group of illegal immigrants. That is precisely why DREAM has been dangled as bait for the more general amnesty proposals described as “comprehensive immigration reform,” with amnesty advocates brandishing the situation of these young people as justification for a broader amnesty. (Though no one seems to have stopped to ask: If such a comprehensive bill would provide amnesty for all illegals, then why would we need DREAM?)
Nonetheless, now that the amnesty crowd has belatedly decided to move ahead on DREAM as a standalone measure, many in the public and Congress are open to the idea of addressing the situation of such young people. But the DREAM Act, in every one of its iterations over the years, has four fatal flaws.
1. The act is billed as legalizing those brought as infants or toddlers, and yet it covers people brought here up to age 16. The examples used by advocates are nearly always people who were brought here very young. The student-body president at Fresno State University, Pedro Ramirez — who was “coincidentally” revealed to be an illegal alien just as the DREAM Act lame-duck effort got under way — came here at age three. Harvard student Eric Balderas was brought here at age four. Yves Gomes was brought here at 14 months, Juan Gomez at two years, Marie Gonzalez at five, Dan-el Padilla at four, and so on.
So why set the age cutoff at 16? If the point is to provide amnesty to those whose identity was formed here, then you’d need a much lower age cutoff. I have a 15-year-old, and if I took him to live illegally in Mexico (and living illegally is a lot harder to do there than here), he would always remain, psychologically, an American, because his identity is already formed. The Roman Catholic Church and English common law set the age of reason at seven. That, combined with a requirement of at least ten years’ continuous residence here, seems like a much more defensible place to draw the line. Unless, of course, you’re just using those who came as young children to bootstrap a larger amnesty.
2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.
And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out in “Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act,” the measure “prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process.” This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.
3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration.
There’s really no way to prevent this, but to minimize it, you need stringent enforcement measures. This was the logic of the 1986 law and the recent “comprehensive immigration reform” proposals. The critique of such “grand bargains” has been that the illegals get their amnesty but the promised enforcement never materializes — and that critique remains valid. But if the sponsors of DREAM were serious about addressing the plight of people brought here as infants and toddlers, they would include muscular enforcement measures as proof of their bona fides. These would include mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, explicit authorization of state and local governments to enforce civil immigration law, and full implementation of an exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors, for starters. And the legal status of all the amnesty beneficiaries would remain provisional until the enforcement measures were up and running and passed judicial muster. Even these might not be sufficient to turn back a new wave of illegal immigration sparked by the amnesty, but the lack of such measures speaks volumes about the real intentions of the DREAM Act’s sponsors.
4. Finally, all amnesties reward illegal immigrants — in this case, both those brought here as children and the adults who subjected them to this limbo. Any serious proposal to legalize young people brought here as infants or toddlers would need to prevent the possibility that their parents and other adults responsible for bringing them here illegally would ever receive any benefit from the amnesty, namely, future sponsorship as legal immigrants. This could be done in two ways: Either the amnesty recipients would not be put on a “path to citizenship” at all, but instead be given a time-limited work visa, indefinitely renewable so long as they stay out of trouble. This would mean they could not petition for any relatives to immigrate in the future. Alternatively, the amnesty beneficiaries could receive green cards and eventual citizenship, but we would abolish all the legal-immigration categories for family members other than spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. Either way, the adults who knew what they were doing would never be rewarded.
A DREAM Act 2.0 that addressed these problems — that prosecuted fraud, implemented enforcement, prevented downstream legal immigration, and focused much more narrowly on those who came very young — would possibly be something that even I, were I a congressman, might be able to vote for. But the lack of these elements is clear proof that the amnesty crowd isn’t interested in fixing the specific problem of a sympathetic but small group of people; rather, these young people are simply poster children who have been used for years to try to justify a general amnesty for all illegal aliens. And when the DREAM Act fails, as it will, Pedro Ramirez and his fellows will need to ask the pro-amnesty politicians and lobbying groups why they were sacrificed on the altar of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Veteran's Day Thought and Comments
My comment was:
Robin, that is very nice. I am sure that most Vets who are still with
It has been my honor to have visited the WWII, Korean war, Vietnam war, and FDR Memorials in our Nation's Capitol. Those visits always imbued within me a deep pride in my country and seriously placed honor for those who gave the ultimate gift for Freedom.
Thanks again for the beautiful comment.
Supply-Side Economics
Supply-Side Economics 101 (SSE) says, basically, lower taxes stimulates economic growth. This may be all well and good, philosphically, but it is a folly practicality. Here's why: Less taxes means reduced government income; it has been shown that whatever growth is attained doesn't make up for the loss in revenue until perhaps in the long term--20 years or longer. This deficit certainly wouldn't allow for balancing a budget which would require a "doubling down" of deficit spending. What would happen--what has happned EVERY time SSE has been employed--is payroll taxes would shoot up to ameliorate the deficit in government income, AND the reduction in spending (if any) never balances out the budget deficit. So, historically, implemeting SSE ends up as a depreciatory fiscal functionalty.
As can be seen from Reagan's SSE, Reaganonmics, and GWB's gigantic tax reduction acts, the national debt increased more than two-fold. My take: America will never get back on top unless we start to pay our debts "Pay-as-you-go," incrementally reduce spending, pay down the national debt, and completely overhaul our infrastructure. Doing this will require raising taxes. We have got to "suck it up" and live, as a country, more frugally.
As can be seen from Reagan's SSE, Reaganonmics, and GWB's gigantic tax reduction acts, the national debt increased more than two-fold. My take: America will never get back on top unless we start to pay our debts "Pay-as-you-go," incrementally reduce spending, pay down the national debt, and completely overhaul our infrastructure. Doing this will require raising taxes. We have got to "suck it up" and live, as a country, more frugally.
Balancing the Budget
Balancing the budget (within next 10 years) is, I believe, a pipe dream--promulgated by Rs with their heads in the clouds. GWB didn't do it during his regime and it's completely unreasonable to think ANYONE could do it considering the state of our economy, tremendous deficit in import-export balance of payments, and the continued movement of manufacturers extra-CONUS. Balancing the budget is certainly a desired goal, be you an R or a D.
Let's get America back on top first.
Let's get America back on top first.
Reality in Phoenix, Arizona
The following is an email I sent out today, 22 Sep 10. [The photo referenced herein will not open in this blog. Sorry. It was a photo of people desecrating our national emblem by painting on the flag and dumping all sort of vile trash and garbage on it.]
"I really did have to send this on. Yeah, I know burning our Flag is protected by the Constitution (yeah, free speech--go figure!). But then, to publicly lay out the Flag and trash it, spitting on it, throwing garbage on it, goes a little too far--just too, too, desecrating.
I didn't serve our country for 30 years in the Air Force--honoring our national symbol--standing at attention and holding a salute as the Flag passed by--feeling that tingle up my spine while standing with my hand over my heart while listening to or participating in the singing The Star-Spangled Banner--being so proud to be an American, always, after having been in and experienced living in other countries--to not be incensed when anyone, particularly illegals, desecrate our Flag. I suppose it was good this happened in Phoenix instead of St. Peters. I hope you get mad as hell when you review the forwarded email!
I wonder when our police are going to start protecting, defending, our National Emblems? Hey, just turn away--close your eyes--when some patriotic American or a veteran puts down those trying to desecrate Our Flag. ("Gee, I didn't see noth'n")
I have one suggestion for anyone considering defacing or burning Our Flag.....wrap yourself in it before striking the match.
"I really did have to send this on. Yeah, I know burning our Flag is protected by the Constitution (yeah, free speech--go figure!). But then, to publicly lay out the Flag and trash it, spitting on it, throwing garbage on it, goes a little too far--just too, too, desecrating.
I didn't serve our country for 30 years in the Air Force--honoring our national symbol--standing at attention and holding a salute as the Flag passed by--feeling that tingle up my spine while standing with my hand over my heart while listening to or participating in the singing The Star-Spangled Banner--being so proud to be an American, always, after having been in and experienced living in other countries--to not be incensed when anyone, particularly illegals, desecrate our Flag. I suppose it was good this happened in Phoenix instead of St. Peters. I hope you get mad as hell when you review the forwarded email!
I wonder when our police are going to start protecting, defending, our National Emblems? Hey, just turn away--close your eyes--when some patriotic American or a veteran puts down those trying to desecrate Our Flag. ("Gee, I didn't see noth'n")
I have one suggestion for anyone considering defacing or burning Our Flag.....wrap yourself in it before striking the match.
Driving the Economy
In President Obama's speech last Friday (9-17-2010) to the black caucus, concerning the state of our economy and how to recover and move it forward, he gave the analogy of us having our car stuck in the mud deep in a ditch. With us pushing and struggling to drive our car from the ditch, the Republicans are standing on the side yelling at us to push harder, "Push harder, push harder." Finally, after getting our car out of the mud, out of the ditch, the Republicans now want our car keys back! We tell them, "NO, you can't have the keys back...NO!"
So, as President Obama says, inferring on how to move the economy, "If you want to move your car forward you put it in 'D' and if you want it to go backward you put it in 'R' ...and those letters are not a coincidence!"
So, as President Obama says, inferring on how to move the economy, "If you want to move your car forward you put it in 'D' and if you want it to go backward you put it in 'R' ...and those letters are not a coincidence!"
Amend the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment (14A) was one of three Reconstruction Amendments to our Constitution (amendments immediately post civil war to 1870); the 13A, 14A, and 15A.
These three amendments were adopted in order to correct many social injustices, some of which led to the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln said, "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." (My italicizes)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
These three amendments were adopted in order to correct many social injustices, some of which led to the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln said, "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." (My italicizes)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
----The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. This group of Amendments is sometimes referred to as the "Civil War Amendments" or the "Three Reconstruction Era Amendments".
The Amendments were intended to restructure the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire male populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.
The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included a redefinition of citizenship, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Ulysses S. Grant was president at the time
Good clear thinking and reasoning upon study of the amendments and the context of the times when they were made should easily lead one to the realization that there was a mandate for social equality and the assurance that all African-Americans in this country were without a doubt American citizens. During these post-civil war times (the "context") there was no thought (apparently) given to think that one day hordes of Latinos and Caribbeanites would manage to invade this county illegally and, by the Constitution, have their children that were born here be declared US citizens. As it were, there WAS no Great Southwest during that time--at least no Arizona or New Mexico--for illegals to invade. What foresight I latter-day forefathers did not have!
The 14th Amendment should be amended to read, "Section 1. All persons born in the United States of at least one parent who is an American citizen or naturalized...."
Comments
Thanks to all those making comments. However, for me to read them, which I really would like to do, they must be in English (as that is the only language I read).
Arizona Law Regarding Illegal Immigration
To Whom It May Concern: I am disavowing any agreement with and support of the group calling itself Save Arizona... and hereby remove myself from its list of supporters. Why, after initially signing on with the group? I almost hesitate to say it's really simple, but it really is. After careful consideration and a bit of research I believe this is a racist, bigoted, right-wing group. And being that, their modus operandi is radical activism; it works to create havoc, disharmony, and even hate and fear within a community and the general society as well. I do not believe in any of that. So, there it is, pretty simple. This group IS what I'm NOT.
Now, having set forth my disclaimer of support for the Save Arizona... group, I believe, as most citizens do, I'm sure, that Arizona has the sovereign right, and duty, to enact laws to protect its citizens and all other legal residents of the state. Arizona also has the duty to enforce the laws, state and federal, that manage or control immigration. If these laws are written in a manner that permits, even unwittingly or though misperception or malice, the denigration, harsh or brutal treatment, or wrongful processing as an alien of anyone who is or is suspected to be a person who is in the state illegally (an illegal alien), the law must be changed.
Now, having set forth my disclaimer of support for the Save Arizona... group, I believe, as most citizens do, I'm sure, that Arizona has the sovereign right, and duty, to enact laws to protect its citizens and all other legal residents of the state. Arizona also has the duty to enforce the laws, state and federal, that manage or control immigration. If these laws are written in a manner that permits, even unwittingly or though misperception or malice, the denigration, harsh or brutal treatment, or wrongful processing as an alien of anyone who is or is suspected to be a person who is in the state illegally (an illegal alien), the law must be changed.
Illegal Alien Support--Truth or Fiction
Here is an email I received which, if true, is really galling. I've tried to research the truth of the "facts" contained in the email but have found no evidence to either affirm or dispute the claims. I have taken the liberty of editorship in inserting this message.
My name is d'Lynn. I'm a disabled Vietnam vet....which means I receive a veterans administration disability pension, which also means "I'm broke!" Just one step ahead of being homeless every month, an d that's not an idle statement or an "Oh, whoa is me" dire complaint. There’s a point to this, so hang in there a minute or two and read on.
There's a 25-year-old illegal immigrant woman living in Florida , with eight kids. Yes, eight "anchor babies" and she receives just shy of $1,500 per month per kid, plus medical [and] food stamps....You do the math on that yourself. I'd say that she was schooled early in how to make it in the system. Twenty-five years old, eight kids... yep, she started early.
You can whip out the calculator if you want, but this women who never has paid a dime in taxes of any kind here in this country illegally. She hasn’t paid one one cent in medical for all the “anchor babies,” makes more in one month, legally, than I receive in over a year and a half in disability payments and I can't even get food stamps!...Technically I am eligible for “Social Assistance.” I was told it would be a walk through – a gimme – being disabled. No problem, and in the very next breath I was also informed that under the law the amount I received in “Social Assistance” would be deducted from my disability pension....
She's here illegally and with just one kid would make over twice what I receive per month. She has eight and she’s not a stand-out case. She’s not alone. That's the way the system works. Millions of illegal immigrants know this, [they] know how the system works and know how to use it. (Haven't you seen the pamphlet? It's handed out all along our borders, "The Illegal Immigrants' Guide to Keeping America Just The Way It Is.") and that's just the way it works.
Did you know that the federal government provides a “refugee” in this country with a monthly “stipend” of $1,890, plus $580 a month in “Social Assistance?” That’s $2,470 a month, tax-free. That's two and a half times what I’m allowed to receive as a disabled vet. And just what did they do to earn this? All you have to do is show up on our collective doorstep, raise your right hand and swear that you're a refugee and, bingo, receive $30,000 a year, tax-free. That's more than someone making $15 an hour, and they have to pay taxes to boot!...
The point to this “story?” Just why are you paying such high taxes to support this incredibly screwed-up government? Why? And I’m not proposing you stop paying your taxes. That's wrong. There are good programs and reasons to pay your taxes and support our government.
What am I proposing? It's quite simple. Vote.
The government, our government, is broken and we as the voters serve as the maintenance crew. We fix it . . . . . by voting.
If your state Senator has been in office more then two terms, vote 'em out at the next election. If your state representative has been in office more then two terms, vote 'em out of office. We put term limits on just about every publicly-elected official in the country except the House and Senate. Why?...
I don't care how much you believe your Senator or Representative is doing a good job. They're not! Look at the government you have, that we have. How can you state they are doing what you want as the voter that put them there? How?
Vote them out of office. Do it.
Change the course of this country's history by what you are granted and guaranteed under the law. Vote! And if you have the guts, the anger, the outrage, start a petition in your state for a state-wide initiative to be placed on your next state ballot. Limiting the terms of office for your state senators and state representatives to your federal government to two terms.
The federal government will never pass such a law, but you can. You can get it done. You can force it. You can make it a law.
This is the first step in “getting it right.” Just vote. It's simple. It's easy, dammit!
This first step will send a very clear message. It’ll work. It’ill put “us” back in control of “them.” As it should be. As it was intended in the first place.
Are you an American? Born and raised? Then vote!
Side note: I sent this e-mail to a little over one hundred on my e-mail list. If you believe I’m wrong or misguided or you simply don't agree, that's fine. Go right ahead a delete this e-mail. No problem. Sorry to have bothered you. But if you think I just might have a worthwhile idea, something we can easily accomplish, something that could be a small part at getting this country back under “our” control, then please pass this along.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER !!
Illegal Alien Financial Support
Here is a letter (via the web) that I sent to my senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill:
I am hearing many stories these days about illegals getting money from our government and also getting free health care and subsistence. Examples:
(1) If an immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.
(2) Florida ER doctor: "I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids -- that’s right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math."
So, the question is, "Do illegal aliens receive government subsidies, taxpayer money and other free assistance?" If so, why?
I am hearing many stories these days about illegals getting money from our government and also getting free health care and subsistence. Examples:
(1) If an immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.
(2) Florida ER doctor: "I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids -- that’s right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math."
So, the question is, "Do illegal aliens receive government subsidies, taxpayer money and other free assistance?" If so, why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)