A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2" thick and contains $10,000. It fits in your pocket easily and is more than enough for week or two of shamefully decadent fun.

This next little pile of money is $1 million dollars (100 packets $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it.

While a measly $1 million looks a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet.

And $1 billion ... now we're really getting somewhere!

The next image is ONE TRILLION dollars. That’s that number we've been hearing so much about. How much is one trillion dollars? Well, it's a million million dollars. Or if you prefer, it’s a thousand billion. A trillion dollars is $1 followed by 12 zeros.

You ready for this? It's pretty surprising. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you $1 trillion dollars. Note all those pallets of $100 bills, as far as the eye can see, each pallet being $100 million. Did you notice that the pallets are double-stacked? Look at the size of the person.

The graphic above provides us a glimpse of YOUR personal debt, in such a way to grasp its enormity. Yes, your government’s debt is your personal debt. And the graphic only depicts $1 trillion! Because it's YOUR debt, I feel the need to tell you again who is going to have to pay it off - you, your family, your children, your grandchildren, for generations and generations to come. Let the realization sink in slowly and savor it.

Oh, did I mention that the national debt is far greater than $1 trillion, closer in truth to 11 trillion dollars today. Keep in mind that we’ve only been talking about one trillion dollars, and the Obama Administration’s projected deficit spending (vastly expanding the pre-existing national debt) is expected to add another $7-9 trillion in national debt. Can you imagine 20 trillion dollars?

So the next time you hear someone (politician or lame-stream media) toss around the phrase "trillion dollars", now you know what that ‘empty hat’ is talking about.

Furthermore, it isn't your money that Congress is spending! It never was. The bailout and stimulus money didn’t come from your taxes. It was Chinese or Saudi Arabian or Japanese money, which Congress borrowed (in your name and on your behalf) and then spent/directed toward corporate, bank or labor union special interests or redistributed to expand the welfare state. Even though you didn’t authorize Congress to borrow and spend this money, or to spend it irresponsibly, it was YOU who voted for these people and it was you who authorized them to act in your behalf (and in hindsight to beat you figuratively with a rubber hose). Now that you’re ‘hosed’ financially, in debt beyond comprehension in perpetuity, you can better appreciate their callously inept, or in many cases, willful and reckless decisions.

Congress’ relationship and fiduciary responsibility to us is what Bernie Madoff’s relationship was with his investors. While Bernie Madoff will NOT repay the money he lost in a Ponzi scheme with bad investment decisions and bad market timing, you WILL be expected to repay every penny Congress has squandered and redistributed around the world for decades. Congratulations. You now owe tens of trillions of dollars. While Congress borrows, and uses the money to bail out not just domestic banks, but foreign banks as well, counterparties of Goldman Sachs, you have the remarkable privilege of bailing out Congress. While Bernie Madoff goes to jail, your congressman goes free. Is this a great country or what!

Maybe you’re thinking, “Who loaned us trillion’s of dollars?” The answer is foreign governments, foreign banks and multi-national corporations, all of whom purchased our Treasury Bills (debt instruments of the U.S. federal government). Now you’re wondering, “How do we ever pay them back? What do we export anymore beside wheat and corn? Can we give whoever loaned us the money a state, let's say Nevada, as payment?”

Unfortunately, as a result of the other flawed decisions by the genius’ in Congress, a large percentage of the corn is going into the production of Ethanol. We don't sell corn that much any more, at least not in the quantities we once did, to other nations. As for wheat, large tracts of land have been converted by farmers to grow corn. So we don't grow and sell as much wheat any more either, at least not to other nations. While the United States was once-upon-a-time the breadbasket of the world, that is not so true anymore. As far as giving them Nevada, many countries (and particularly the Chinese and Saudis) already have a legal financial claim to many infrastructure assets in the United States as collateral for the United States national debt (your debt). Isn’t that a hoot! They also have a legal and ethical right to claim a large portion of your wages, for your lifetime, to repay the debt your government owes them. Think of it this way. Congress is going to garnish your wages in the form of draconian taxes to pay the indebtedness to foreign nations that they created. They party, and live like royalty, and behave like rock stars, while you pick up their tab.

How many people do you think grasp the fact that taxing United States citizens and businesses is the only tool our government has with which to pay off loans to countries such as Saudi Arabia, China and Japan? Put another way, this is the money YOU personally owe because of the votes of people like Democrat Harry Mitchell. The Honorable Harry Mitchell is the District 5 representative in the House of Representatives from Scottsdale, Arizona. You can tell he’s looking out for you.

Ask yourself - how many people in the United States pay taxes? Roughly, there are 138 million individual taxpayers in the United States. In addition to personal income taxes, taxes are also collected from payroll tax (FICA), corporate tax, estate and gift taxes, and excise taxes (gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, etc.), just to name a few of the 30+ other sources of taxes extracted from the economy.

It is important that you realize, to actually comprehend, that it is you who personally pay every dollar of these taxes, every tax whether it is levied by the federal, state, country, or municipal governments, even the corporate taxes which are embedded in the price of everything we purchase.

There is nothing you can do to avoid responsibility for this debt - short of moving overseas and renouncing United States citizenship. And until you realize that the grass is not much greener anywhere else, why not enjoy a humorous moment and calculate the interest payments on the national debt - your debt? Let me do it for you.

So I ask you, where is the $450 billion in annual interest (1.25 billion dollars in interest payments per day) on the $11 trillion of national debt already outstanding (that includes U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds, Savings bonds, Government Account Series (GAS), State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities, going to come from? From you and me of course!

Those numbers are from 2008 and do not include the first dime of spending by the Obama Administration and Congress since the 2008 election; the 11 trillion includes none of the so-called bailout or economic stimulus schemes.

Just today, in a surprise and dramatic move, the Fed increased the amount of money it will create out of thin air, ostensibly to thaw out the still-frozen credit markets (read: we’re not lending any more money to those deadbeats that won’t pay it back) that have cramped lending to consumers and businesses alike.

The Fed went on to say it would purchase (read: you will be purchasing with your taxes) an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, on top of the $500 billion that it is currently in the process of buying. In addition, the Fed said it would buy (read: you will be buying) up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. That would tend to artificially push down longer-term interest rates on loans of all types - at least that’s the thinking. All of the Fed’s measures would come in addition to what has already been an unprecedented expansion of lending by the Fed. Since last September, the central bank has roughly doubled the size of its balance sheet to $2 trillion from $900 billion (buying up marginal or worthless debts in your behalf) — even before today’s action — in what appears to be a concerted effort to create $10 per gallon milk.

When the spending (running up of U.S. debt owed to the rest of the world) reaches its predictable crescendo, the interest payments alone will be tens of billions of dollars per day - per day.

And you want to send your child to what school? You want to buy what house? Don’t make me laugh. Your congressmen and women have seen to it that it will never happen - never.

Ask yourself: On whom has most of this borrowed money been spent, or going to be spent?

Regardless of the answer, whether based on knowledge or bias, understand that you’re going to pay for it (and there are a lot of ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ in your life and your children’s and grandchildren’s lives that all of you are going to have to forego). This is not change you should be proud of.

« Close It

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now. Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action. Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It's untrue. Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have. But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate. As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sounds like McCain was spot on. But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress. To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race. These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans. Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance. Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. It was economic hardball.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993. And they meant it. In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market. That's how the contagion began. With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime. As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel. Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

They got the bonuses. You get the bill.

By Terry Jones
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
September 18, 2008

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

It's a problem driven by domestic supply restrictions imposed by the Democratic Congress in the face of growing worldwide demand. The Democrats preach energy independence while they do everything in their power to prevent it. If the American people truly want change, this would be it.

A Gallup poll released in May showed that 57% of the American people wanted the U.S. to drill in coastal and wilderness areas. The percentage of Americans who bought Pelosi's line about price gouging fell from 34% in May 2007 to 20% in May 2008. It could be a winning issue for the Republicans and John McCain.

More than 15 billion barrels of oil have been sent down the Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, some 60 miles to the west of ANWR, over the past three decades, much more than the six months' supply expected in the beginning by those who predicted a similar environmental disaster there.

The local caribou and other critters have thrived. Yet, Pelosi and the Democrats want to to keep ANWR's estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil off the market and out of our gas tanks.

Buried in a Department of Interior Appropriations bill passed in December 2007 was an amendment proposed by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., passed by a 219-215 vote in June, that prevented the establishment of regulations for leasing lands to drill for oil shale.

The Western U.S. is estimated to have reserves of a trillion barrels (yes, that's the real number) trapped in porous shale rock, an amount three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. On May 15, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee in a 15-14 party line vote rejected an amendment by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., to allow oil shale drilling and overturn the Udall moratorium.

The U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85% of America's offshore oil and gas off-limits, while China and Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that the restricted areas contain 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

There are 3,200 oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana. During Katrina, not a single drop was spilled. More than 7 billion barrels have been pumped from these wells over the past quarter-century, yet only one thousandth of one percent has been spilled.

A study by Louisiana's Sea Grant college shows that there's 50 times more marine life around oil platforms that act as artificial reefs than in the surrounding mud bottoms. Some 85% of Louisiana fishing trips involve fishing around these offshore rigs.

The Flower Garden coral reefs lie off the Louisiana-Texas border. They are surrounded by oil platforms that have been pumping for 50 years.

According to federal biologist G.P. Schmahl, "The Flower Gardens are much healthier, more pristine than anything in the Florida Keys. It was a surprise to me. And I think it's a surprise to most people."

We would suggest that John McCain revisit his reservations about ANWR and run against the drill-nothing Congress. Energy development and the environment are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, we would suggest that the first joint town hall meeting with Barack Obama proposed by McCain be held on one of those offshore Louisiana rigs.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
June 09, 2008 4:20 PM PT

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297904745555169

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority to do anything. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. That politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he and he alone will cast his vote.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault when in reality it is and they know it. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits when in fact its the House under the leadership of that Speaker who originates spending bills.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? In the current case Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million voters cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility to the people of this great country.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in Iraq.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote each one of them out of office if they do not return to a Government of the People and By the People. That will clean up their mess.

Charley Reese

Hat tip: Dick Doubek, Scottsdale

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Washington Politicians Mortgage Our Future for Their Benefit
By Congressman John Shadegg

As they left town for Christmas, Congress passed an unprecedented end-of-the-year appropriations bill with billions in wasteful spending designed principally to benefit incumbent Members of Congress. This bill includes thousands of self-serving Member-directed spending projects and displays total disregard for both legislative process and the Constitution. Though civics teaches that both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before it can be presented to the President for his signature to become law, this did not happen. Instead the House, fearful of political fallout, used trickery so Members could avoid voting on the actual bill as it passed the Senate. A dangerous precedent.

The 3,417 page bill (34 pounds) was dropped barely 20 hours before final consideration by the House. It included 9,170 Member-directed spending projects. Over 300 of these had never been made public, seen by rank-and-file Members, or passed by either House. Combined with the 2,161 passed earlier, Members gave themselves a total of 11,331 self-serving projects, costing Americans over $20 billion this year. During this season of goodwill, this bill, and those who crammed it through Congress, showed none toward American taxpayers, their children, or grandchildren.

This legislation continues an embarrassing trend in government pork-barrel spending, funneling untold billions into pet projects designed to re-elect incumbents. Most such projects are not requested, or even supported, by the Departments obligated to deliver them. Many are outright corrupt - directing funds to Members' contributors, former staffers, and even family members. The Democrat leadership promised to "make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history," yet under their guidance Members of both parties continue brazenly using tax dollars to benefit themselves.

Senator Ted Stevens matched his "Bridge to Nowhere" with $20 million for a "Ferry to Nowhere" that appears to benefit his brother-in-law and former staffers Congressman Jim Clyburn, the Democrat Whip, obtained $229,000 for the Drew Wellness Center, a physical fitness center where his daughter works. In 2003, Clyburn obtained the $900,000 to construct the center. Clyburn also obtained $3 million for a private charity associated with the "James Clyburn Golf Center" he established at taxpayer expense in 2002. Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee obtained $1.95 million for a center bearing his name and bragged on the House Floor that he deserved it. The bill even restored the now infamous Hillary Clinton-Chuck Schumer Woodstock museum.

Members devote huge amounts of time to these projects and openly acknowledge the funds are being used - not for the larger public good - but to ensure incumbents' reelection. In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, the leader of a prominent Congressional Member caucus complained that caucus Members weren't receiving enough projects to ensure the reelection of its incumbents in "highly contested races." At this rate, Members will soon complain they aren't receiving sufficient bribes to maintain their lifestyle.

While the short-term ramifications of Washington's corruption and fiscal promiscuity are disturbing, the long-term consequences for our children and grandchildren should give every American cause for serious concern. Because Congress chooses to spend far more than is collected in current taxes, the government must borrow money to fund our largess.

And borrow we have, to the point where our current national debt is a whopping $9.2 trillion dollars - or more accurately $9,193,315,468, 899.43 as of December 21, 2007. That translates to $30,323.94 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America.

Who, exactly, is lending us all this money? Well, Japan has lent us $586 billion. We owe communist China $400 billion. Our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations have lent us $123 billion. And here is the really bad news: they expect us to pay them back - with interest. In fact, we paid $430 billion in interest on our debt last year alone.

Of course, current taxpayers are not going to pay anywhere close to all of that debt - we can't possibly. So who will be stuck paying for our wasteful and irresponsible spending? Today's wasteful and corrupt spending will be tomorrow's obligation. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to repay today's wasteful spending. Anyone who truly cares about the future of their children and grandchildren must demand that Washington put an end to this corrupt and economically disastrous practice.

One recent survey put Congress's approval rating at eleven percent. Given the self-serving, wasteful conduct Congress continues to engage in, it is shocking the number is not lower.

There will be much celebration and back slapping in Washington this Christmas as Members congratulate themselves for a job well done. But I suspect, as Americans learn once again that Members of Congress devote more energy to looking out for themselves than the nation's and our children's well-being, Congressional approval ratings will sink ever further, and deservedly so.

For more on Member-directed spending projects, see the Congress Daily article at:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002596442

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."

But so totally, totally predictable.

Republican Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.

Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?

Michelle Malkin
December 19, 2007
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1385927

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The reality is that immigration laws are clearly intended to stop undesirable and sometimes malignant foreign cells from entering the national body. Congress is not the immune system, nor are the courts. Americans are not permitted by law to be the immune system. American citizens are not permitted by law to fend off a lethal infection. What then is the national immune system? The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our system of laws is our immune system to the extent that Americans do not permit Congress, the courts and the Administration to circumvent it.

If we have a cancer and fail to take appropriate action in a medical sense, we will die.

Are the millions of illegal aliens a reasonable metaphor for maliginant cells? Clearly they're reproducing rapidly and putting a strain on the nation's immune system. Is the nation's body struggling to defend its internal organs and its citizen’s quality of life? The evidence is irrefutable. Millions of socially-malignant and parasitic cells are reproducing rapidly within America's borders with the assistance of Congress, cells that cannot and refuse to be assimilated. That is a cancer.

Why is Congress seemingly hell-bent on making choices that could become lethal to our nation? Simply stated, there is only one explanation, i.e., idividual congressmen must be personally benefitting from the migration of illegal aliens. As a logical result of campaign contributions, which eventually find their way to become personal wealth, Mexicans and their employers have become their only constituency, the only voice heard by Congress. After all, Americans are not voting in large numbers. The percentages of registered voters going to the polls is low. From a politician's perspective, why not facilitate the voting by illegal aliens (in return for providing them unearned social benefits) to insure continual re-election? Why not facilitate the entry of illegal aliens into the United States in return for corporate campaign contributions? Why refuse to accept huge sums of money from political action committees surreptiously sponsored by foreign governments? The fact that such actions are illegal and unethical is irrelevant. So too is refusing to enforce existing immigration laws. In the words of Nancy Pelosi: I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.

What will happen to Americans if Congress defiantly continues to legislate in their own self-interest? If are Armed Forces are engaged in a "War on Terror," Congress is engaged in a "War of Terror" against American citizens. Like a thief in the night, unless told to stop and held accountable, Congress will steal liberty itself - and we will not get it back.

So it comes down to intent. What is the intent of the men and women with the knife in their hand (Congress, the President and politically appointed members of his Administration)? Are they trying to kill our nation or to save it? Is it relevant that the daily number of American citizens who become victims of violent and property crimes is huge? How does anyone justify five homicides per day of American citizens at the hands of illegal aliens? Discounting future acts of terrorism and the ongoing devistation to our culture, what about the gutting of our national system of social services and healthcare. The intent of our politicians appears to be both homicidal and serial. Will somebody please call John Walsh?

We citizens signed a “pre-operative consent form” by electing these social surgeons to Congress. We authorized them to be our doctor and attend to the nation’s ills. Now we have clear cause to ask: s it the surgeon’s intent to save our nation’s life, or to perform an unnecessary medical procedure solely for personal gain? The answer is in for most Americans. Can a case can be made that the President is trying to save the United States from oblivion by his documented unwillingness to enforce immigration laws? If a case cannot be made, please explain why any American citizen on the jury should not conclude that the President has a conscious intent to seriously harm this nation? Is there any lingering doubt that his refusal to act in defense of United States sovereignty is both premeditated and in conspiracy with foreign heads of state, many Governors and most members of Congress?

It appears more likely by the day that Congress has every intention to leave the cancer intact and instead make needed adjustments near the heart of our culture to accommodate the growing cancer? Is there any doubt at all that Muslim and Mexican threats will continue to grow if our sovereignty is ignored? What is the predictable outcome if illegal alien migration is facilitated with amnesty and open borders?

The national cancer of illegal alien migrants has already metasticized across 50 states. Americans should be angry that our political surgeons have ignored the cancer's spread, and in many cases facilitated it, and some cases farmed it, for over 30 years! Didn't the last back-alley dark-of-the-night immigration surgery on the nation’s body 20 years ago do enough serious damage? How were these surgeons chosen – from a subway billboard? Or by the lowest common denominator?

Why does the President of the United States refuse to immigration laws? Does President George W. Bush hold the United States in even more disdain than George Soros, Senator John Kerry and actress Jane Fonda? How great must the enticement be to sell out your own country? Why does he want American's to die a slow and painful legal and cultural death? What benefit to all American citizens does the President believe will accrue from 20 million illegal aliens and more on the way? What about Senator John McCain, the man who would become King if given an opportunity? Why is he unrelenting in his efforts to suppress our nation’s immune system by voiding its immigration laws with his proposed legislation?

Who will be the beneficiary of 20-30 or even 60 million new social benefits-oriented voters who pay no taxes, who are not American citizens, who bring no skills or education with them, and who did not enter the country legally – and who jumped to the head of the immigration line? Who in the United States will benefit from our government's making Social Security payments to non-citizens residing in Mexico? Does Congress not realize or remotely care that illegal aliens are employed off the books, contribute nothing themselves, avoid assimilation and receive social services at the expense of the top 50% of American wage earners (the only income taxpayers). Even after several misguided attempts at immigration reform – code words for immigration facilitation - by both Congress and several Administrations, the situation in our communities is worse than ever, and growing worse. A comparison between the United States of America and the Titanic is becoming more apt by the day as Congress keeps busy rearranging the deck chairs and the band plays.

Any rational person would agree that there is no reason to wield a knife so close to the heart, whether a person’s heart or the nation’s heart, other than to save or kill. The heart of our nation is our system of laws and our culture; the heart of our nation is our Constitution; and the heart of our nation is our sovereignty.

Can Congress be trusted anywhere near the heart of America wielding a knife pretending somehow that reform of immigration laws (open borders and amnesty) is critical to America’s survival? If the intent of cutting with the knife by Congress is to benefit one group over all others, one race over all others, non-citizens over citizens, at the expense of the economic lives of taxpaying citizens, outside existing law, against the will of the people, then their intent can only be to do incredibly vicious and irreparable harm to the heart of this nation - and for personal gain.

Why would any conscientious American allow social psychopaths, stalking the corridors of Congress, seeking only self interest, to wield a sharp knife anywhere near America’s heart? Why is this anything less than a national hostage situation with a liberal Congress defiantly holding a knife to America’s throat?

What should be done in this real-life hostage situation to protect innocent American citizens from those who would usurp power (seize or exercise authority not granted to them by the U.S. Constitution)? What would Jack Bauer do?

Red State Patriot

« Close It

A day after the Democrats won both houses of Congress, President Bush accepted the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The nomination for Rumsfeld’s replacement as secretary of Defense was Robert Gates, a cathartic election’s first fruits. Last week, Gates was confirmed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote that saw only two senators vote against him: Senator Bunning and myself.

The many failings of the administration in Iraq are well known. Ignored is the larger failing of our country’s leaders: their unwillingness to define, with clarity, honesty, and consistency, the enemy we face and the complex and enormous threat it poses to the lives and freedoms of all Americans.

If America were not at war, I would have deferred to the president’s judgment in his choice for secretary of Defense. Gates is a competent and experienced nominee. But we are at war, and we need exceptional leadership and insight. Gates unfortunately shares the view of the Iraq Study Group that we cannot win the battle in Iraq; at this point, our best option is to withdraw slowly and to negotiate with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran has been at war with us since 1979, and is today the principle instigator of systematic murder in Iraq; to negotiate a truce with that country at this point would be to negotiate our terms of surrender. This would be seen as an historic defeat for America – most assuredly, and notably, in the eyes of the radical Islamic world..

The Iraq Study Group and Secretary Gates see clearly the problems in Iraq and the contributions Iran makes to these problems. They do not think we can win in Iraq because they do not think that we can win in Iran; or, at least, they do not think that we must win in Iran. We must confront Iran to win in Iraq, and, more than that, we must confront Iran if we are to defeat Islamic fascism all over the world. The president’s nomination of Gates, and the Senate’s passive and overwhelming support of him, shows that our leaders have not understood the peril we are in and are not prepared to win the war that is being waged against us.

How could it be that a bitterly divided Washington has suddenly come to a consensus that will surely lead us on a path to failure in Iraq, and then to even more disastrous consequences? Can our country’s leaders really have concluded that the public’s discontent with the war in Iraq changes even one bit the nature of the threat our enemy poses to us? These are questions well worth asking our politicians, and first of all, our commander-in-chief, lest he contemplate changing his mind about the enemy we face.

The president is not unaware of the situation in Iran, but his view of the country is informed by the advisers who surround him, a collection of people from the various sectors of the foreign-policy establishment. His intelligence team, led by the director of National Intelligence, will advise him that the opposition in Iran is weak and divided and that there is no legitimate exile community; thus we have no real alternative to either bombing the country or establishing by diplomacy a modus vivendi. The Pentagon will advise the president that our already stretched forces are unable to engage in another conflict. The State Department and our new secretary of Defense do not think that there is a casus belli and that our best hope for mitigating the many crises of that region is to negotiate with Iran.

So, if we should not expect the president to explain why we must confront Iran, what of the Congress?

The Democrats of course would never confront Iran because they attribute their wins in November to America’s growing dissatisfaction with Iraq. If continued instability in Iraq works to their political benefit, why would they change the subject to Iran, particularly when they have no solution to propose and have always been skeptical that military force will do anything to stop Islamic terrorism?

Many Republicans understand the problems that Iran is causing in Iraq, but they have no wish to be portrayed as warmongers by the media and the Democratic Party. If Americans have had enough with Iraq, it would be only too easy to characterize any confrontation with Iran as the United States becoming hopelessly and dangerously entangled in a region whose ills defy remedy.

Iraq is only one front in a larger war being waged against the Western world. We are under siege by people with an ideology, a plan, hundreds of millions of dollars, and an ever increasing presence on virtually every continent. Yet none of the decision makers in Washington is willing to confront Iran; the threat that Iran poses, as the standard-bearer of Islamic fascism, goes unacknowledged.

This is undoubtedly an unpopular war. Those who define the enemy as radical Islamic fascism are ridiculed by the media and others; the term is dismissed as inflammatory and inapt. It is not inapt, and thus it is not inflammatory. The term “Islamic fascism” is no harsher than those we used to describe our enemies in the Second World War. And just as we did not call all Italians “fascists” then, so too we do not call all Muslims “fascists” now.

Words define the enemy we confront. They help the American people comprehend what motivates the enemy. Without clear, accurate words, we cannot fight effectively: our own people become confused and divided, and the fascists are encouraged to believe that we fear them. When we fail to recognize the connection between Iraq and Iran, we postpone the day when we define a strategy to win the war, instead of a list of steps to retreat from the Iraqi theater.

The Gates nomination and confirmation show that our leaders do not understand the true dimensions of the war. So long as they do not understand this, how can we ever expect to win? (Emphasis added)

Rick Santorum is the outgoing junior Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

« Close It

Although the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested in the courts, its provisions have been followed during the Grenada Conflict (Reagan 40), the Panamanian Conflict (Reagan 40), the Somalia Conflict (Clinton 42), the Gulf War (Bush 41), and the Iraq War (Bush 43). In each case, the sitting President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

The "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the AUMF, The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), which was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what soon became known as the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush and introduced by House of Representatives leadership as House Joint Resolution 114. It passed the House of Representatives on October 10 by a vote of 296-133 and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The resolution cited many factors to justify military action:
• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
• Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
• Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

The Resolution required diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President was to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with United Nation’s Security Council resolutions.

Members of the Senate who voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq Resolution of 2002:
• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Robert Byrd (D-WV)
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
• Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Mark Dayton (D-MN)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Bob Graham (D-FL)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
• Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
• Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

DECLARATION OF WAR: A declaration of war is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more other nations.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, neither that passage nor any other passage provides a specific format that legislative text must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War.” Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase, “Declaration of War.” Many have postulated that a "Declaration(s) of War" must at a minimum contain either in the text or in the title the phrase “Declaration of War.” As you would expect, many also oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in the courts. So, for our purposes the term "formal Declaration of War" is any Congressional legislation that specifically uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title or text. That did not occur either in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily chose to limit its own use of the power to declare war by authorizing force in the resolution of conflicts of national interest but intentionally choosing not to formally declare a war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage even a limited war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times, the last in 1942 in conjunction with World War II.

Formal Declarations of War

The list below gives the eleven separate times that the United States has formally declared war against foreign nations. The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany. The United States has declared war against Germany twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary). Each time the declaration of war was requested by the President either in writing or in person appearing before a joint session of Congress.

War of 1812
Opponent - United Kingdom
Declaration date - Jun. 18, 1812
Senate vote - 19 to 13
House vote - 79 to 49
President - Madison
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Ghent (Dec. 24, 1814)

Mexican-American War
Opponent - Mexico
Declaration date - May 11, 1846
Senate vote - 40 to 2
House vote - 174 to14
President - Polk
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848)

Spanish-American War
Opponent - Spain
Declaration date - Apr. 24, 1898
Senate vote - 42 to 35
House vote - 310 to 6
President - McKinley
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Paris (Dec.10, 1898)

World War I
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Apr. 4 and Apr. 6, 1917
Senate vote - 82 to 6
House vote - 373 to 50
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Berlin (Aug. 25, 1921)

World War I
Opponent - Austria-Hungary
Declaration date - Dec. 7, 1917
Senate vote - 74 to 0
House vote - 365 to 1
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Trianon (in part)

World War II
Opponent - Japan
Declaration date - Dec. 8, 1941
Senate vote - 82 to 0
House vote - 388 to 1
Presidents - F. D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - San Francisco Peace Treaty (Sep. 8, 1951)

World War II
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 88 to 0
House vote - 393 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany & Treaty of Vienna with Austria

World War II
Opponent - Italy
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 90 to 0
House vote - 399 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

World War II
Opponent - Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
Declaration date - Jun. 5, 1942
Senate vote - 73 to 0
House vote - 357, 360 and 361 to 0 respectively
Presidents - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

Other Military Engagements Authorized by Congress

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress.

Quasi-War
Opponent(s) - France
Initial authorization - 1798
President - John Adams
Conclusion - Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)

First Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1801
President - Jefferson

Second Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1815
President - Madison

Raid of Slave Traffic
Opponent - Africa
Initial authorization - 1820

Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel
Opponent - Paraguay
Initial authorization - 1859
President - Buchanan

Intervention during the Russian Civil War
Opponent - Bolshevist Russia
Initial authorization - 1918
President - Wilson

Protection of Lebanon
Opponent - Rebels
Initial authorization - 1958
President - Eisenhower

Vietnam War
Opponent - National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Initial authorization - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Aug. 7, 1964
Senate vote - 88 to 2
House vote - 416 to 0
Presidents - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
Peace Treaty - Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon
Opponent - Shia and Druze Islamic militias; Syria
Initial authorization - Sep. 29, 1983
Senate vote - 54 to 46
House vote - 253 to 156
President - Reagan
Peace Treaty - none (Force withdrew in 1984)

Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause
Opponent - Panama Defense Force
Initial authorization - Dec. 20, 1989
President - George H.W. Bush
Peace Treaty - none, Manuel Noriega deposed

Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - Jan. 12, 1991
Senate vote - 52 to 47
House vote - 250 to 183
President - George H.W. Bush (41)
Peace Treaty - The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom
Opponent - Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida
Initial authorization - S.J. Res. 23 on Sep. 18, 2001
Senate vote - 98 to 0
House vote - 420 to 1
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - H.J. Res. 114 on Oct. 16, 2002
Senate vote - 77 to 23
House vote - 296 to 133
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

What about the Korean War? The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions. Major U.S. Military involvement began with Task Force Smith on July 5th, 1950. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 27, 1953; however no formal treaty has been signed to this date. There are many other undeclared "wars" missing from this list. For example, the United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927. If anybody still cares, the United States’ longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war

There are people who philosophically oppose waging any war; and those who oppose a war without a declaration of war in strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution; and there are still others who take the view that a formal declaration of war is not necessary to defend or avenge American lives, property damage or interests. The latter group argues that since the Constitution expressly prohibits individual American states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless they are actually invaded or in imminent danger, which if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to affect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution.

Not only is the term “Declaration of War," not addressed in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution does it define the form that any such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally-passed authorizations to use military force are constructively “Declarations of War.” However, it is possible that had the administration asked Congress for a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq, instead of the AUMF for Iraq’s ongoing refusal to comply with numerous United Nation’s Resolutions, Congress might have said “No” for any number of reasons. Secondly, the use of the AUMF may have been Congress’ solution to finding a way to circumvent a valid constitutional process in which they could not prevail (not enough votes) without some sort of compromise shell game for consumption by the public and the media. How else could the United States find itself in a protracted conflict such as Vietnam? Very likely it would not have been possible to convince the Congress and the nation to formally declare war either on North Korea or on North Vietnam. Can a reasonable person argue that neither war, Korea or Vietnam, would have happened if Congress had strictly construed the requirement for a formal declaration of war in the Constitution rather than finding a way to circumvent it? Regardless of your answer, yes or no, understand who really bears the responsibility for our nation’s protracted military conflicts, whether righteous in cause or ill-advised. Congress is responsible, not the President.

There is also a diplomatic reason for not "declaring war" on a country. Diplomat’s claim that by declaring war, we are holding an entire nation’s populace responsible for the actions of only a few of its leaders, whether elected or not. In the case of recent public opposition to the War on Terror (in Afghanistan and Iraq), those who oppose the conflicts claim there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war except various political groups, religious sects or individuals. Since an invading army does seek to occupy an entire country, such as Iraq, and if victorious actually does occupy Iraq and control an entire population, there could just as easily have been a formal declaration of war against Iraq. If there is a distinction, there isn’t much of a difference.

Many Democratic Party advocates of an omnipotent government (socialists) are ideologically against “formal declarations of war.” They argue that such declarations of war refuse to acknowledge the legitimate sovereignty of another government, and that sovereignty should be more important than any actual or potential human rights abuses by the target government. (If so, consider the scenario of a heavily armed husband beating his wife. Other members of the family are mysteriously missing. Is it your wish that a police officer ignore the brutality in tacit respect for the family’s privacy and sovereignty? Democrats, by their theory of privacy and sovereignty, should argue yes, but have legislated domestic violence law the opposite way in every state. Islamofascists hold the view that the brutality toward a man’s family is the husband’s god-given right. Most Democrats would have the police officer take the husband to jail, but choose instead to leave Saddam Hussein to continue his documented list of human rights abuses, including gassing his own people, brutal torture and imprisonment, killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and disposing of them in mass graves. In 2002, most Republicans and enough Democrats voted to enter the house of Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein, take him to jail and try him in a court of law for his crimes against humanity.

In the case of Iraq, even Iraqis contend that the deposed Hussein government was a regime with a history of incredible human rights abuses. Hence the expression, “regime changes.” Accordingly, the targets of most hostilities are the recognized leaders of the country with which war (or use of force) is declared. Rest assured, there were many other reasons the United States chose to invade Iraq, many of which you already know, but the case for the invasion was made on Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance with numerous United Nation’s resolutions and the threat he posed in the region and to the United States if he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There is still another issue to explore, the liberal ideology of imposing our standards of human rights and nation building. Some people always seem to want to intervene in other people’s business, in this case to liberate people from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime, or a regime of religious oppression and genocide by Muslims on Muslims as in Iraq, and by Muslims on non-Muslims as in Darfur. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Somalia are other recent examples. You can see the mindset in your own community in Arizona where government representatives step in and “save” the children of a particular family from further alleged child abuse or neglect. Save the world, save the children, abort the pregnancy? Ostensibly, we are trying to save the Iraqi citizens from further alleged abuse by a pathological tyrant. Whether we should or should not is an individual’s intellectual, emotional and religious decision. If we don’t agree, in the United States we vote. The anti-war protesters who engage in civil disobedience and crude behavior toward veterans are those who refuse to respect either the democratic process or the outcome of the vote.

Current status of the U.S. debate

Heated debate developed in the United States shortly after September 11, 2001. Opponents of the ‘use of military force’ argued that the Iraq War was patently unconstitutional, because the military action lacked a clear declaration of war. Secondly, opponents claimed the war was being waged over the objection of a significant number of citizens of all demographics in the United States. These same people blindly refuse to acknowledge that it was they who elected their representatives and those representatives chose (voted democratically in Congress) to go to war in Iraq.

Instead of formal war declarations, Congress’ most controversial use of authorizations of force included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that is generally credited with American participation in the Vietnam War, and the resolution that preceded the War in Iraq. Those who question the legality of these authorizations of force say that requiring a precise and formal declaration of war would keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, forcing Congress to honor instead of avoiding its constitutional role.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that an "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" not only satisfies constitutional requirements but has an established historical precedent. Furthermore, the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief does vest in him broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

On February 6, 2006 U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in his testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's surveillance authority:

“There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaeda or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.”

The courts have wisely and consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war. Any disagreements are left to the electorate to resolve in a ballot box.

Bottom line:
1. A formal declaration of war by Congress toward another nation has not occurred.
2. An “Authorization of the Use of Military Force” has been passed by Congress authorizing and funding the current military initiatives by the Administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We all support the Commander-in-Chief. We elected him and the decisions are his. Those who agree with the decision to fight a “war on terror” in Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) should give credit to Congress. Those who consider Operation Enduring Freedom a poor decision should recognize that it is Congress that bears the responsibility. It is Congress, your Senators and Representatives, and only them, who bear the blame or deserve the credit for the decision, regardless of what this or any other president may or may not want to do. Once authorized by Congress, the Administration is primarily responsible for the conduct of the war until it ends, and the subsequent administration of the peace.
4. The President has the sole authority to initiate a limited conflict using U.S. Armed Forces, but does not have the sole authority to sustain it on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq, or for an extended length of time, without both authorization and continued funding from Congress, which he received by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), and numerous subsequent appropriations bills seeking additional funding.

Hope this helps in your discussions ….
Love, Dad (Marty)

P.S. Think about the phrase “War on Terror.” Recognize that ‘terror’ is a tactic within a conflict, not a finite enemy. It is pretty hard for Congress to formally declare war on a tactic. Islamic militants are distributed throughout the world (20% of the world population) and the source of the conflict with Islam comes from many nations, sometimes independent of their governments, but not always. So why didn’t Congress declare war on Islam, the only source of the terrorism worldwide for the last 60 years? It is probably safe to say that there will never be a formal declaration of war against Islam in our politically correct society (which history may look back on as a fatal self-emasculation).

History Test – Multiple Choices
The following events are actual incidents from past history. They actually happened! Try hard to discern the correct answer. If you have to cross out two answers and guess between the other two, maybe that will be of some help.

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American Passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems \
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to insure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly Muslims intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, and Caucasian airline pilots with proper identification, not to mention secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors – but for all that is precious in America, to avoid having to listen to the liberals wail in the night, leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of ‘profiling’ and accusations of racism.

As the writer of the story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

« Close It

The public has finally discovered the ugly truth - Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and his talented marionette Karl Rove have not a clue when it comes to the havoc being wrought on citizens of the United States. Their favored "comprehensive immigration reform" plans should be renamed to reflect reality: “Amnistia Comprensivo, Enorme y Deshonroso” -- Comprehensive Amnesty, Huge and Disgraceful.

Senate Republicans, in concert with Karl Rove and President Bush, have formed a solid alliance with open-borders Democrats and a myriad of Mexican-funded special interest groups. Using a phrase coined by President Bush, it might be fair to suggest their alliance constitutes an “Amnesty Axis of Evil.” Message to Republicans: American citizens won't tolerate it. It is not just one election that is at stake; it is the election of professed Republicans in any election anywhere, anytime. A generation of political careers is at stake, first in 2006 and far into the future.

Where do we stand? We have a self-serving Congress that chooses to do nothing. We also have the unfortunate do-nothing-right president. Both have popularity polls that resemble the trajectory of a gliding anvil. The Congressional Republican leadership vacuum has figured out that any legislation containing more than enforcement of existing immigration laws will amount to wholesale incumbent defeat at the polls on November 7. What Republicans fail to realize is that wholesale defeat is guaranteed to them at the polls just by their inaction on illegal immigration – regardless of what they have or haven’t done addressing other important issues.

Even the open borders lobby has figured out that the American people will not tolerate millions of illegal aliens demanding equal or better rights than American citizens. The daily in-your-face confrontation by illegal aliens, on city streets and loitering on every street corner, Home Depot and convenience store parking lot has aroused the public ire. As the understanding of the facts by the public has risen, so has the risk to all incumbent politicians seeking re-election. In response, Republicans have taken a page out of the Democratic Party playbook. They simply decided to delay any action on amnesty legislation until after the election, thinking it will save them from a predictable voter backlash. Regardless of incumbent protestations to the contrary, all Americans should be warned that amnesty for illegal aliens is coming like a freight train in the night immediately after the mid-term elections.

Even illegal aliens have gotten the picture that eludes people like Senator John McCain. A recent pro-illegal alien rally in Los Angeles drew fewer than 1,000 people, in stark contrast to the several hundred-thousand just four months ago. Similarly in Phoenix, only 5,000 showed up for the recent labor solidarity march, which was down from the previous 100,000 illegal aliens waving Mexican flags, flying the American flag upside down, and proclaiming allegiance to Mexico. Only 3,000 showed up in Chicago and less showed their faces in San Francisco. In Dallas, only 500 people were bold enough to display their defiance of United States immigration laws. Has the problem gone away? No, just crawled under the nearest rock until Congress weathers the storm of their mid-term elections. Then, fortified by the knowledge they are immune from accountability for at least two years, they will resume their quest to deconstruct the United States’ borders in favor of a North American Union.

Fortunately, better public knowledge of the past and future costs of subsidizing illegal immigration, long concealed by the main stream media but revealed by the blogosphere, has temporarily overwhelmed corporate propaganda and Mexican special interest groups. A word of caution - the President and his partners in the U.S. Senate, when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens, simply intend to ignore the U.S. Constitution, impose their will and suppress any citizen civil disobedience or insurrection.

The leaders of labor unions are also trapped in a fraudulent position. They think they can bolster their declining membership rolls (union dues) by backing the Rove-Bush-Reid-McCain-Kennedy amnesty legislation, or if necessary the Cornyn-Kyl amnesty-lite version. In doing so they must try to explain to their existing members why they’re doing nothing to preserve union jobs and the wage levels of American citizens. National labor leaders are not out of touch with the will of the American people any more than Congress. The truth is they don’t care about the rank and file any more than the White House, Congress or the Catholic Church. It’s the money.

Labor union leaders fail to recognize that once the current crop of illegal aliens becomes legal and entitled to union scale wages, businesses will quickly revert to hiring newly arrived illegal aliens for less labor cost. Those newly minted legal aliens will quickly become unemployed and qualify for social benefits. Labor unions will be worse off than they are now. In addition, any company currently willing to hire illegal aliens has already demonstrated they are unafraid of the law. It would be hard to imagine they would be afraid of hiring non-union workers. Labor unions are betting on the wrong horse. Enforcing, not subverting, the rule of law is the labor union’s only chance of survival.

Until wiser heads prevail, labor leaders have made the choice to abandon their current membership and join with President Bush and Karl Rove. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the head of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has also joined the Amnesty Axis. Together, they somehow believe that their political interests are best served by subsidizing the illegal alien population at the expense of American taxpayers – as if protecting pedophile priests weren’t enough of an outrage. They also seem to think the “rights” of the illegal alien population transcend the law of the land and the interests of the American people. One would think the contrary would be obvious, i.e., the best interests of each and every individual American citizen is by definition in the best interests of the United States. The best interests of the United States are not achieved by serving the best interests of illegal aliens and subordinating the interests of Americans. As an aside, we’re not talking about 12-20 million illegal aliens any more; we’re now talking about 60 million in the next decade and more to follow – and at whose expense.

Why are Cardinal Mahoney and his fellow elitists fostering illegal alien migration into the United States? The answer would be simple if it were not so disturbing. Again, the answer is money. Every advocate of illegal alien amnesty is financially benefiting from the presence of illegal aliens in the United States – churches and politicians both benefit by receiving large sums of money. The advocacy of illegal aliens by Senator John McCain likely stems directly from campaign contributions from industry advocacy groups such as the restaurant and hotel/motel lobby and Mexican special interest groups (some funded by the Mexican government). Senator John McCain is not afflicted with altruism.

The open-borders lobby had hoped to create a new voter bloc to permanently sway the elections, but citizens fought tooth and nail to insure honest elections, often over numerous setbacks from activist judges and Governors. Arizona now requires identification at the polls. Hopefully, John McCain and Governor Janet Napolitano are failing in their advocacy of illegal aliens because there appears to be no tangible increase in new voter registration anywhere in the country.

Others argue that jobs are but a small piece of the puzzle. Voting in United States elections is not high on the list of most illegal aliens. The real prize are social benefits (education, housing, transportation, food stamps, welfare, and medical care) foolishly conferred by Congress and State governments for votes that will never materialize. Social benefits and to a lesser extent jobs, but not voting or citizenship, are the principal source of milk and honey to illegal aliens.

The leadership of this do-nothing Congress, rather than act to protect American citizens and improve national security in this era of Islamic terrorism, has chosen instead to blend cowardly into the crowd gathered at a crime scene to avoid notice or detection. Notable in his efforts was Senator Jon Kyl who voted to construct the southern border fence before voting not to fund it.

There is a line worth remembering near the end of the movie, Independence Day – “Remember me, I’mmmm back.” When elections are safely in the past, both Congress and the President will once again pursue amnesty for illegal aliens with a single-minded vengeance.

I hope you’re ready. You’ve been forewarned. It’s time to wake everyone up. You don’t want anyone to miss the political confrontation that is about to happen in which our government is going to find itself at war with its own citizens. An exaggeration? Let’s wait and see. It has the potential to become the stuff of history textbooks and legends.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..." Unfortunately, President Bush appears to have betrayed his conservative fiscal and social base and joined with Congress in mindlessly expanding socialism and abandoning any pretense of national sovereignty.

Alexander Tyler warned us of the predictable cycle of never-ending greed and re-election self-interests of individual U.S. Congressmen. Today we watch in prophetic amazement as Congress votes to enshrine themselves, loot the U.S. Treasury in self-interest spending, and defraud fellow Americans of their earnings. Arguably, there is no spending by Congress – none - that is not now motivated by self-interest instead of national interest.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase – no doubt a conservative estimate.

Some have argued that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. In a contrary viewpoint, have we not passed the point of apathy? Freedoms are becoming, if not scarce, at least less abundant. Our primary concern should be one of liberty.

Today’s governmental dependence is more likely a reliable indicator of the beginning of this nation’s “end times.”

Red State Patriot

« Close It

We worry about how terrorists are treated, these defective human beings who kill innocent people, but do we care about crime victims in America? It would not appear that we give a hoot. We worry about every minority and their imaginary rights, but not the inalienable rights of the people who built this country without demanding special privileges. We worry about homosexuals who have contributed to killing 40 million people worldwide by voluntarily spreading disease, but not the Alzheimer’s patients who outnumber HIV patients 10-1. We worry about serving a search warrant on a crooked politician as if Congress is a ruling class, above the law, while the media, setting aside this special time to humiliate themselves in public, knowingly and recklessly reveals classified information that will cause the deaths of American servicemen and intelligence agents.

Congress doesn’t worry about “saving” Social Security because everybody in Congress has already gotten theirs (voted themselves a “peach” of a system). They don’t give a damn about the rest of America. Congress and the media are consumed by which telephone calls the government is listening to, but do little (or nothing) to defend our nation from another Muslim attack or a foreign invasion of illegal aliens. While we mourn the brutal death of 3,000 Americans, the media ridicules as racist and shames ordinary citizens for reporting unusual behavior or joining the Minutemen. The media conceals the predictably Muslim affiliation of those in the United States and Canada who are committing violent acts or planning acts of terrorism, but they quickly reveal the identity of rape victims. We complain about the frequency of child abuse, but give a free pass to the largely homosexual clergy and Congressmen who have violated thousands of American youth. Most recently, we have begun to celebrate female teachers who rape their male students. It should be obvious by now, to almost everyone, that most liberals are dangerously under-medicated.

We Americans worry that we have no voice in the education of our children in the government-controlled schools, but too many of us mightily and foolishly try to control the freedom of speech of others. We convict and sentence to death those who brutally slay other human beings, but passively watch as the legal profession takes 15-20 years to appeal the death sentence at taxpayer expense, as if that's acceptable as part of the “Privileged Attorney’s Full Employment Act.” We celebrate violence in the movies, and obfuscate reality by calling Islam the “Religion of Peace,” but deny that it influences the decision making of children. Police departments no longer protect citizens from property or violent crimes to avoid law suits for pursuits, but government wants to deny you the right to bear arms in your own self defense. Too many politicians and judges run roughshod over citizens acting as revenue collection agents for their local city council while themselves refusing to enforce the laws and render justice.

All those in the power-oriented food chain want to nullify the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves. Have you noticed that politicians are incrementally excluding the legal right to bear arms in specific locations, which will eventually become anywhere? If you can't take a gun somewhere, or anywhere, or even use them in the self defense of yourself, your family and others who may be threatened, it's as good as denying you the right to own them. It is a wonder that Americans in general and the Supreme Court in particular fails to realize (or care) that any “restriction” what-so-ever on 2nd Amendment rights is an abrogation of the 2nd Amendment?

We Americans worry about a pervasive absence of morals and ethics in society, but federal judges take the Bibles out of schools and the word of God off documents and buildings. We worry about kids getting fat from fast food, but we won't close our borders and stop the drugs that are destroying the lives of tens of thousands of American youth. We haven't got enough of a birth rate to replace ourselves having sacrificed the lives of 40 million children since Roe v. Wade, but we continue to condone more divorce, plus more abortion as a form of birth control, and now euthanasia. The last 50 years illustrates a stark reality: conservatism is the belief in a transcendent moral order; and liberalism is the belief that there should be no moral order. You would think the choice at a ballot box would be clearer.

We worry about our civil rights and personal freedoms, but ill-informed liberals beg for more government regulation. We complain about the tax rate, but minorities scream to reduce the number of people who must pay taxes, and then legislatures create innovative new ways to redistribute the confiscated money of other people. We worry about poor education of our youth, but do absolutely nothing to encourage the gifted students or promote the educational process. The only pretense toward education we make today is to foolishly throw more money at it, most often because courts have ruled we parents no longer have any say in our children's education. In fact, no one fails a class in public schools anymore. They have simply become “passing impaired.”

We worry about oil shortages, but refuse to develop any form of energy (nuclear, refineries, natural gas, wind, oil exploration). We worry that jobs are going overseas, but add 1000 new regulations and increase taxes on small businesses each and every day. Incredibly, Congress transfers American sovereignty to world courts with NAFTA and CAFTA legislation, gifting foreign governments the right to sue Americans. Liberals somehow believe heavier taxation will create more American jobs. The next several years will illustrate the folly of that premise, as the federal tax rate reductions that were more than offset by state tax increases in every imaginable category, come home to roost. The phrase "working American" should be redundant, but it will probably become an oxymoron without conservative intervention to restore individual liberty.

We worry that foreign countries are stealing our technology, but we won't let the brightest and most gifted foreign students remain in America after we educate them. Instead, our immigration brain trust forces them to take the technology we taught them back to India and start their own wildly successful businesses. Then we welcome 20-100 million of the worlds least educated, least qualified, illiterate and least socially disciplined across the border contravening immigration law. How can it be unfair to say that every proposed piece of immigration reform legislation under consideration in the U.S. Senate, regardless of who claims congressional sponsorship, reduces the U.S. Constitution to a simple piece of bathroom tissue? Is there any U.S. Senator not currently a paid agent of Mexico?

We have asked all Americans to subsidize (first voluntarily and then by confiscation) rebuilding coastal communities damaged by nature, which will surely be destroyed again and again (100 billion dollars wasted each time). In the same breath, we think NASA, the never-ending source of incredible technology, is a waste of money and scrapping it is about time. We complain about the behavior of politicians, but hold none of them accountable for any number of high crimes and misdemeanors. We used to turn to God for answers to our prayers and problems, but we have proudly made government our "god," looking instead to government for solutions, and denounced the Christian faith. All other faiths (without value systems which liberals abhor) are of course welcome and proffered in public schools. And now Congress, working hard to ration consciousness, wrangles over making Hawaii a race-oriented state government that has as a stated intent to secede from the Union. More importantly, Congress will soon vote to have Americans pay taxes to the United Nations. Economically, fascism is evident everywhere in the United States, at every level of government, and Americans don't even know what that is. We complain about eminent domain, but state legislatures do nothing, failing to realize that without private property, there will be no liberty for anyone in America. In the meantime, state legislatures have made significant strides to regulate the public’s use of seat belts believing that wearing seat belts makes it harder for the aliens to snatch you from your car.

Congress has already achieved the distinction of becoming the bottom 6-inches in a cesspool of ethics and professionalism, just below the main stream media who are aptly and affectionately called the "maggots of society."

What has gone wrong with this country? Unfortunately, my Senator has been in Congress since 1987. If only we had elected an American! I suspect John McCain will seek political asylum in another state after leaving the U.S. Senate, but he will not be the first to leave Arizona. Governor Janet Napolitano, whose sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others, will hopefully leave before John McCain. Something has got to give real soon as the fabric of this magnificent nation appears to be fraying badly at the edges.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Take, for example, a migrant family with a husband, a wife and five children. Nobody in this extended family has an education beyond 8th grade. Only his young children speak English which they learned in American public schools, and three of his five children will drop out of high school. The two who do graduate will possess little that resembles an education. He takes a job for $5.00 or $6.00 an hour if he is “on-the-books” or $8 to $10 an hour if he is “off-the-books.” If our hypothetical migrant husband has any skills, such as electrical, construction, plumbing, or landscape irrigation systems, he typically works for $12-15 per hour on- or off-the-books.

In any event, assume he is a legal alien. He claims six dependents and reports only his “on-books income.” Since only the top 50% of all wage earners in the United States pay income taxes, he pays none. In fact, because he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an “earned income tax credit” cash rebate from the government up to $3200.00 – free. He qualifies for Section 8 (low income) housing and subsidized rent. He qualifies for food stamps, in-state tuition, free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care and medication, and his children get free breakfasts and lunches at school. He is entitled to bilingual teachers and books; he qualifies for relief from high energy bills, and if old, blind or disabled he qualifies for SSI and Medicare, otherwise Medicaid - all this at the expense of Americans who do pay taxes. If you report more than $30,000 a year of joint income to the IRS, that includes you. He doesn’t worry about car insurance, life insurance or homeowner’s insurance. American taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material, plus interpreters for any court appearance. Some states even have established dedicated courts for illegal aliens that have been documented to meat out less punishment to an illegal alien than an American citizen for violation of the same laws. Even though citizenship requires a proficiency in English, voting documents are printed in Spanish for someone, for some reason. Certainly, Hispanic non-citizens aren’t voting in American elections. How could that be?

When his benefits are added together, he and his family receive the equivalent of (drum roll please) $30 per hour just in benefits. Working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6 per hour left after paying both their own bills and his. Working Americans also pay for schools, roads, sewage, electricity, garbage pickup, water and gas, plus taxes to cover the expenses of increased crime, courts, incarceration, bureaucratic manpower and graffiti. This migrant family has probably been here for 5+ years and has no intention of earning citizenship. In fact, much of their income is sent or carried back across the border to support extended families in Mexico or other parts of Central America. When opportunity permits they vote in Mexico. By refusing to enforce immigration laws, Congress and the Bush Administration sanction this sad state of affairs. Congress is not just subsidizing legal or illegal aliens; they are proudly subsidizing the entire country and government of Mexico. Speaking of amnesty, many who were granted the ill-conceived amnesty 20 years ago during the Reagan Administration still haven’t earned United States citizenship.

And then there is the illegal alien, complete with fraudulent documents, having committed a mind-numbing string of misdemeanor and felony crimes in just a few short years. Federal and state legislation, and judicial activism, requires that he and his extended family also receive most of the social benefits described above. He reports no income to the IRS. After all, not much of his income stays in the United States. He pays no taxes. In fact, two federal agencies, the IRS and the Social Security Administration, are sitting on millions of names and addresses of people using bogus Social Security numbers, but they’re protecting Americans by keeping that information secret from law enforcement. Ask your congressman why, don’t ask me.

So what is it that qualifies illegal aliens, who represent only 5% of the labor force, as “cheap labor?” First of all, contrary to popular belief, until recently and only a very few states, there is no penalty on employers who replace Americans with illegal aliens at lower pay.

In addition, state legislatures and Congress have spent decades legislating 100 reasons why no business enterprise would want to stay in America, let alone hire any full-time employees. It is Congress and state legislatures that defiantly refuse to reduce or eliminate regulatory and tax burdens on businesses. So business’ flee to India and elsewhere, and if that is not possible, businesses hire as few employees as possible – just enough to stay in business and no more. Employees have become incredibly expensive. The onerous business costs include Social Security, FICA, Worker’s Compensation, Medical Care, retirement plans, product liability, child care, pre-natal care, equal opportunity, disability legislation, affirmative action, gender orientation issues, sexual harassment, garnishment of employee wages for child support or unpaid taxes, OSHA requirements, EPA requirements, and on and on. You can name many more.

The point is that while illegal aliens earn less than the employees they have displaced, it is not a lot less. However, let’s be quick to add, if you’re an American trying to support a family, 10-20% is a lot less at the lower income levels. In fact, there has been so much immigration that the supply of illegal alien workers has become huge. Even the wages of illegal aliens has begun to decrease. It’s elementary supply and demand. Ask yourself this: If the price of anything should go up, not down, when demand is high and supply is limited, why have real wages of Americans been going down for decades? Answer: there are more workers than what are needed for the available supply of jobs. The excess supply is exacerbated by illegal aliens.

If we had a shortage of labor “to do jobs American’s don’t want to do,” like pick lettuce, the price of labor would be going up, not down. The truth is that there is no shortage of Americans willing to do any job, and a huge - no make that gigantic oversupply of illegal aliens looking for a job. Once again, don’t believe everything you think. In fact, the larger issue is that there are not enough jobs to support the combination of American citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens. Ask your congressman and state legislator why there are so many impediments to business formation and success. Don't ask me, because this article wouldn't end until next week.

Still, there is another issue that is being overlooked. Democrats have traditionally been supported by organized labor, for generations. Why is it that unions are not agitated by the magnitude of illegal immigration? One simple reason is that they have opened their membership to non-citizens. Unions are still getting their millions of dollars in union dues, a growing percentage of which comes from both legal and illegal aliens. So while one would logically think unions would support American workers, once again don’t believe everything you think.

So where is the problem? What is the REAL issue? As you would expect, it is money.

I will say this several different ways to make the point. Illegal aliens don’t create the same high employees costs that legal aliens or American citizens do. When hiring illegal aliens, the employee costs, those costs traditionally paid by the employer, have been shifted from the business to the taxpayers. Business used to provide benefits to Americans and legal aliens, but businesses don’t have to pay benefits to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are none-the-less getting those benefits, but from government. It is the taxpayers who have picked up the benefit costs of these employees, the cost of which has been assessed to you. As a result, when a business hires illegal aliens, the federal, state, county and city governments are picking up the tab for what was once called "labor" expense, the largest price of doing business, and shifted those labor costs (plus benefit costs) to the American taxpayer. In fact, an illegal alien doesn’t even have to work to be entitled to all the benefits. Think of that.

Many people think Congressmen are outright stupid. I’m sure there are a few genuinely ignorant louts in Congress. However, their staffs are typically “crackerjack” – “top drawer” if you prefer. Even Ted Kennedy’s staff is exceptional, regardless of the fact that the Senator himself is seldom both awake and conscious.

It is reasonable to speculate that, with few exceptions, Congressmen and women know exactly what they are voting for or against, and they know (via their staff) the implications of each and every vote. While you and I see each legislative issue in a framework of short- and long-term benefits or impacts to the country and our citizens, Congress uses an entirely different framework. When considering each and every piece of potential legislation – Congressmen see it through the framework of one single talk-radio station that they all listen to, WIFM (What’s In It For Me?). You and I would call it unmitigated self-interest. We citizens do not look at any issue through the same pair of glasses as a Congressman, nor do we have the opportunity to sell our vote for future income and job security, which guides a congressman’s every waking conscious thought. Make no mistake; except for a handful of principled congressmen, every vote by every U.S. Congressman is auctioned off to the highest bidder. The merit of the legislation has become irrelevant. Congress has become a meat-market of self-interest.

In the arena of ideas, Congress has absolutely no intention of enforcing immigration laws, now or in the future. If you think otherwise, you are the victim of a cruel hoax. Illegal aliens are (1), a source of coveted votes and (2), pro-Hispanic groups are funneling millions and millions of dollars into the campaign bank accounts of open-borders Congressmen. It is only reasonable to suspect some of the money is actually coming from the government of Mexico by a circuitous route, just as history has shown the Chinese government heavily funded the Clinton Administration. There is no other explanation for a Senator, like John “Lettuce” McCain, defiantly acting as if he was a paid agent of the Mexican government. It certainly isn’t patriotism.

Try to forget that the votes of illegal aliens are illegal. Governor Janet Napolitano wants to change all that. After all, she will tell you it is racist to expect personal identification at the voting booth or proof of citizenship. Try to imagine millions of illegal aliens who are dependent on all forms of taxpayer income redistribution, beholding to pro-Hispanic politicians such as Arizona’s Governor, and then picture 20 million new voters.

There are dozens of politicians across the country holding public office today that would not have been elected were it not for illegal votes, i.e., multiple votes, votes by dead people, votes by non-existent people (like Bugs Bunny), votes of convicted felons, votes in more than one state, and votes of illegal aliens. Congress knows, right down to the last man and woman, that they are selling citizenship for votes. And they know there is nothing you can do about it. They are confident you can’t stop them. Both John McCain and President Bush have as much as said so.

Once amnesty has been conferred on these millions of “the least qualified labor in the world,” business will then be expected to pay them a minimum wage (which may be two-tier if they are to be indentured servants, i.e., slaves). Any differential between the lower wages of immigrants and those of Americans will be made up by a truckload of social benefits intended solely for the illegal aliens.

Congress will be quick to tell you that in nirvana everybody will pay taxes. The fact is that few of these migrants (soon to become immigrants) will ever pay a dime in taxes.

President Bush, when with the stroke of his pen he grants amnesty, regardless of the criteria Congress imposes, the legislation will instantly create the intergalactic vacuum necessary to suction the next 20 million of most uneducated and unskilled out of Mexico, Central America and South America. This will happen because those illegal aliens that have been here some time and now have amnesty and immigrant status, are suddenly going to become very expensive to businesses for a number of reasons called benefits. When these newly minted immigrants begin to cost businesses more, because they are now legal, you can be sure that businesses will not be so quick to hire them because they will have to pay government-mandated benefits and conform to government regulations. Instead, businesses will once again turn to newly arriving illegal aliens and the party will continue.

Those who were just consecrated "legal immigrants" will quickly become even more of a taxpayer burden because they too, along with many Americans, will not have any jobs.

Where this all gets interesting is when those Illegal aliens who are eligible to become immigrants have to make a choice between American citizenship and paying taxes, or keep their jobs. Recent history demonstrates that most of the current crop if illegal aliens and their miscreant children have no intention of becoming American citizens, so what do you think their choice will be?

As for President Bush, were you aware that during the 2004 campaign, President Bush secretly mailed a campaign video to Latino voters? The video shows President Bush waving a Mexican flag and saying in his own voice: “About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico. The people who lived there weren’t called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States. After that, may of them were treated as foreigners in their own land.” The Los Angeles Times pointed out on 4/2/06 that the President Bush “essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else’s native land.”

If you think illegal migration is bad now, you haven’t seen anything yet. We complain about 12-20 million illegal migrants today. Can you imagine 100 million more in the next twenty years, maybe double that. Well, you had better start thinking about it. Any form of amnesty will be the biggest magnet ever, a dinner bell – come one, come all. To those Republican ideologues who argue that President Bush is not offering amnesty, your quarrel is with the dictionary, not me. Congressmen fail to recognize how close they are to being treated with the same contempt and disdain that they once disgracefully displayed toward American Armed Forces returning from Vietnam.

As for national security and terrorism, five illegal’s who received amnesty in 1986 subsequently participated in the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The question is only when, not if.

Economically, it’s not the end of the real estate bubble that should concern you, its property values across most communities. You can’t displace (force out) blue collar Americans from their jobs and businesses, and ultimately their homes, and replace them with millions and millions of illegal aliens and expect property to hold its value – anywhere in America.

It is a fact that neither the typical legal or illegal alien, regardless of origin, contributes anything positive to the American culture for two generations except cheap labor (very few exceptions). More prevalent is social unrest, drugs, gangs and crime, often exacerbated by a reluctance or refusal to assimilate, which in turn was caused by too much immigration in the first place. That many immigrants cannot be assimilated all at one time. You simply cannot absorb a bucket of water into a single sponge all at once. Absorption can only happen incrementally, the same with assimilation. When you let the bucket of water become too full, it will become stagnant and dangerous to consume before you can absorb all the water one sponge at a time.

What is needed most is not more, but less immigration of unskilled labor from Mexico and points south, for at least the next twenty years. If no immigration reductions in unskilled and uneducated labor are going to become a reality, as Congress marches on selling citizenship for votes, the price we will have to pay (the price our children will have to pay) will be daunting, enough to crush the economy. But politicians, with the certainty of a rising sun, will solidify their hold on power as members of this nation’s elite ruling class, eventually sequestering themselves in Washington, D.C. and returning less and less often to their home states. Many may even have to seek political sanctuary in other states after completing their term in office.

We are at a pivotal point in American history. We can only go one of two ways. There don’t seem to be any other forks in the road. Either Americans will take back their country and their government, and return to a government of the people and by the people, or we will literally serve a Congressional and Judicial self-anointed ruling class as a member of a borderless North America, eventually governed by the one-world advocates, and the United Nations. Either Americans will angrily restructure Congress to become one of service without expectation of reward, or Congress will continue to restructure us having voted to themselves unlimited power and a place above the law.

We are on the edge. With this societal decision, so goes the economy and possibly our nation.

Until the date that such a choice is made and the decision becomes law, it is important that all Americans recognize that the singular reason immigration legislation is so hotly contested is because what is transpiring before your eyes is literally a contest for power between Congress and the rest of us Americans – from their point of view, them versus us, and they have no intention of losing. Even if no legislation is passed in this session of Congress, Congress and the Administration will steadfastly refuse to enforce existing immigration laws.

Yes, Dorothy, Congress has declared war on Americans. Instead of their serving us, it is their big-picture, long-term intention that we serve them.

By Red State Patriot
June 8, 2006

« Close It