Our Legacy: Law or Lawlessness?

The US Government is mandated to protect the security of citizens. I wonder how secure US citizens can be when they may beImmigrant Drug Cartels robbed, raped, murdered, or infected with some undetected infectious or terminal disease, by ILLEGAL immigrants who would not be here if immigration laws were enforced. I wonder how secure the families of victims of ILLEGAL immigrants can be. I wonder how many of us have even a momentary sense of possible threat each time we see an Hispanic or Muslim in our midst. I wonder if the negligence of the Federal government is what fosters that racial “insecurity” which leads to racial profiling and discrimination.

There are those who say we should “love one another”, that ILLEGAL immigrants are merely “seeking a better life” because of their “love for their families”, or that the United States has “always welcomed immigrants”, and that we are a “nation of immigrants”. NotwithstandingImmigrant On Dock the fact that the traditional immigrants have entered this country LEGALLY and that they wanted to be part OF this “nation of laws” rather than apart FROM a “nation of lawlessness”. I hope that all of these misguided altruistic justifications of lawlessness and idealistic compassion will be the thoughts which go through the minds of the VICTIMS of the corrupt and evil
element of our ILLEGAL immigrant populace as they infiltrate our society at every level!

Then there are those who advocate ILLEGAL immigration and propose granting amnesty for political advantage. The population of ILLEGAL immigrants in this country is presently believed to be between ten and fifteen million. This does not include somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen to twenty million who have already been granted amnesty. These are conservative estimatesImmigration Demonstration of a number which is impossible to determine except through interpolation and statistical methodology. However, even at this conservative figure of approximately thirty million, total, that is a lawless constituency of 7% of the nation’s registered voters – if only one of the major parties could win such a constituency!

A politician who would place re-election, or having the interests of his/her party prevail over the security of 93% of his/her constituents is not only reckless and treasonous, but an exercise in futility. The embrace and endorsement of this hypothetical constituency will never be within reason, as any more than an illegal voting block, for a number of reasons:

  • ILLEGAL immigrants must be citizens to vote, and there is no emerging faction in this group seeking citizenship.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants are largely illiterate and/or do not speak English, which is required in order to complete ballots.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants are not so gullible and ignorant they would vote for anyone willing to sell out a majority for a minority.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants endure exploitation by racist charlatans who consider them an inferior economic class.

As for me; I would rather live in a nation of MEN who will take a stand for our America’s Core Culture, than a nation of women who will SUBMIT to a multitude of injustices and abuses because it is not their nature or their physiologicalImmigration by Decade constitution to be aggressive or assertive. A Core Culture which has “primarily been the culture of the seventeenth and eighteenth-century settlers who founded our nation. The central elements of that culture are the Christian religion; Protestant values, including individualism, the work ethic, and moralism; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy” (Huntington, 2004).

As for me; I would rather defend to the death a legacy of security under Federal government protection rather than Federal government which is paralyzedImmigration Dedication and impotent because of a faction which justifies their cowardice and impotence by false flags of misguided compassion for those without compassion and tolerance for the intolerant. I would rather perish protecting my wife and children for generations to come than passively submit and doom all posterity to bondage and injustice. If God had intended us to have compassion and tolerance for EVIL, He would not have promised to prevail over Satan and his minions.

 

Advertisements

American Exceptionalism

ImagePin Drop     

At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country’s prior actions, here’s a refresher on how some of our past patriots handled negative comments about our country:

JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US Military out of France as soon as possible. 

Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?” 

DeGaulle did not respond. 

You Could have heard a pin drop. 

————————————————— 

When in England , At a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ’empire building’ by George Bush. 

He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of Its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom Beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not Return.” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.

————————————————— 

There was a conference in France Where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, One of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you Heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he Intend to do, bomb them?” 

A Boeing engineer Stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three Hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to Feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a Dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and  from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.

————————————————— 

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French navies At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many Languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?” 

Without hesitating, The American admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t Have to speak German.”

You Could have heard a pin drop. 

—————————————————

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE… 

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport In his carry on. 

“You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically. 

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 

“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.” 

The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.” 

“Impossible.. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!” 

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day, in 1944, to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.” 

You Could have heard a pin drop.

—————————————————

If You are proud to be an American and believe in American Exceptionalism, share this! If not…

The Aristazzi: America’s Obscenely Wealthy

I make no claim that wealth is evil; there have been, and are many people of great wealth who do good. However; the more wealth and power a person has the more capacity and potential for corruption and tyranny. All one need do is conduct a cursory examination of wealth disparities and distribution of wealth, in any time or nation, to determine that wealth dictates access to Liberty and Justice. Wealth also dictates whose values prevail in any and all sociopolitical systems; and the greater the wealth the greater the rights, culminating in rule by ‘divine right’ under the auspices of the Aristazzi. The Aristazzi are the obscenely wealthy elite who employ their wealth, in the United States and elsewhere, to manipulate and control government to their own self-gratification and hedonism. Neither am I the first to recognize this simple fact for Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

By Imposition of Domestic Multiculturalism and global Monoculturalism; the world will not become a paradise, nor will the destruction of America, as the liberal “progressives” would have us believe. Nor will all the nations of the world suddenly adopt “Transnationalism”. It is not one culture the world desires, but “Liberty and Justice for all” which will never be achieved as long as there are those in the Aristazzi who think everyone else is inferior and should be subservient to them.

Occasionally justice may still prevail in this formerly great nation, as Liberty and Justice under God gradually perishes from neglect. This case is an example of the type of Obama/Holder/DNC racism and corruption embodied in quasi-professional Left-Wing “progressive” agents who gather counter-intelligence for political espionage. The simple fact is that the Democratic Party will do ANYTHING to preserve their right to voter fraud and assurance of ignorance in voting which is their major, and perhaps ONLY, means of ensuring electoral success.

I appreciate the idealism of those dedicated to the core principles of the RNC, and Washington’s partisan homogeneity, but the inability of the Republican Party to present alternatives which are anything more substantive than simply contradicting Democrats is simply granting election after election to the Democrats. If the Republican Party supports the Constitution then shouldn’t they take action to prosecute those who violate it rather than going along with the violations ‘in case’ Republicans wish to commit the same violations? If the Republican Party is opposed to growing the government and fiscal irresponsibility, then mightn’t they advocate legislation to balance the budget? If the Republican Party supports “free market” Capitalism, then why would they EVER vote for legislation to allow government intervention in the “free market”? If the Republican Party is opposed to repeal of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments th

Wealth = Plunder

Wealth = Plunder

en perhaps they should stop supporting legislation which abdicates those rights. If the Republican Party supports our immigration laws and the Constitutional requirement that the President and Vice-President be “natural born”, then perhaps they would not support amnesty legislation which disregards our immigration laws and national security. If the Republican Party wishes to reflect the values which were the cornerstone of this Constitutional Republic, then isn’t it time they stopped endorsing the policies and privileges of the “progressive” Aristazzi and restored the sovereignty and supremacy of the People? If the Republican Party does nothing but approve Democrat initiatives and there is no discernible difference between the partisan outcomes, then what difference does it make which party I vote for; it will be the Democrats, anti-capitalists, and anti-constitutionalists who win!

Neither have I ever expressed opposition to government or Capitalism, which were two of the fundamental precepts of Karl Marx. Karl Marx considered government evil and was an advocate of anarchy in which the people shared equally in ownership of all political resources. This would preclude the need for laws and lawmakers to manage and protect the proletariat. He was also firmly opposed to Capitalism as the root of all injustices perpetrated by the ‘privileged’ class who accumulated a disproportionate share of wealth and power to perpetrate abuses upon others. I absolutely advocate Capitalism as the ONLY existing viable means of establishing the incentive and structure necessary to encourage production, research, and the potential for tangible gratification for hard work and creativity.

What I vigorously oppose is the concept of wealth granting all who choose to make the accumulation of wealth their sole purpose in life some ‘divine’ right of ‘supremacy’ and everyone else is inferior. Throughout history, until the United States Constitution granted ‘supremacy’ and sovereignty to The People, all those who chose contentment and purpose in anything other than the accumulation of wealth were suppressed, controlled, and abused by laws which granted the Aristazzi the right to ‘plunder’ whatever and whoever they chose (Bastiat). Any time government laws or policies are allowed to interfere in economics it ceases to be a ‘free market’, and any student of economics knows that a ‘free market’ is absolutely essential to Capitalism.

It serves no practical purpose to be ‘against wealth’, or its acquisition, which is the ‘fuel’ which drives and incentivizes the Capitalistic mechanism. Morality demands opposition to the abuse of wealth and the injustice perpetrated by the mega-wealthy Aristazzi in their gross manipulation of the Federal government. They have used their wealth to grant the Federal government ‘supremacy’ since Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796) when the Supreme Court first relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute; the Civil War when the “Union” denied States the right to secede from the “United” States; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) which gave corporations rights as “natural persons” without the same moral and ethical accountability; the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which abdicated the Federal government’s rights to manage coinage and currency, giving it over to an elite group of presidential appointees; the passage of the 16th amendment (1913) giving the Federal government the power to tax ALL income (albeit congress later passed IRS rules which allowed the Aristazzi to exempt their income with tax shelters and offshore accounts); the 17th amendment (1913) which denied states the right to select Senators; and etc..

The bottom line is that sovereignty and supremacy has been steadily undermined and usurped from the People and the States in which they reside, in violation of the 10th amendment. At the same time sovereignty and supremacy has been concentrated in the hands of an elite oligarchy in Washington, D.C.. As if that isn’t enough degradation of our Constitutional Republic, the president has concentrated more and more power through Executive Orders and little or no accountability to Congress or the People. And Congress has abdicated more and more power to agencies and bureaucracies with the ability to execute Administrative Rules carrying the weight of law with virtually NO accountability to Congress or the People. The result is that the United States is now little more than an elite oligarchy deriving its power from Aristazzi dispensation and without even a shred of courage to admit they make the rules but are neither elected nor entitled to rule by ‘divine right’ or ‘providential sanction’!

I firmly believe in the plausibility of life with values which grant ALL men and women the supreme right and sovereignty to govern themselves and rise to whatever level of wealth their individual efforts allow; like the water in a well rises to its appropriate level. All we need from the Aristazzi to get out of the way so mankind may be permitted the freedom to think, act, and create freely while engaging in whatever political, ideological, or moral beliefs they may embrace!

Public Policy Polarization

Development of Public Policy, according to Charles E. Lindblom in his article The Science of “Muddling Through” [1], requires a rational process which is either optimal or not. He makes a distinction between the two processes and alleges that the optimal approach may work well for less complex issue resolution but, for major policies of a more complex nature, the time and difficulty required for the preferred methodology must be waived in favor of “muddling through” with the alternative approach. On the other hand, Anthony Downs in his article Up and down with ecology – the ”issue-attention cycle” (Locker, lecture) describes a five-step process for developing public policy he calls the “issue-attention cycle”. It appears there is a common denominator which prevails in both approaches to analysis of policy development, and that is the indispensable analysis of public ‘values’. Although one could never overlook other crucial elements of public policy making, it seems rational to delegate a primary degree of importance to at least some element of consensus in public ‘values’. This would beg the question, how can a consensus be established regarding public ‘values’ if multiculturalism is skewing the consensus with reluctance to assimilate or compromise ethnic and/or secular values? It would seem that the more unassimilated cultural diversity, as described by Samuel Huntington in “One Nation Out of Many: Why ‘Americanization’ of Newcomers Is Still Important” (Magazine article from The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, No. 6), the less ‘value’ consensus.

Lindblom suggests the best method of developing public policy involves an administrator listing all related values in order of importance, then all possible policy outcomes could be rated as more or less efficient in maximizing these values. This would of course require a prodigious inquiry into values held by members of society and an equally prodigious set of calculations on how much of each value is equal to how much of each other value. He could then proceed to outline all possible policy alternatives. In a third step, he would undertake systematic comparison of his multitude of alternatives to determine which attains the greatest amount of values. The preceding steps are admittedly costly, complex, and time-consuming. Therefore, Lindblom suggests simpler alternative options which he identifies as Rational-Comprehensive (Root) or Successive Limited Comparisons (Branch). Each of these methods involves a five-step process beginning with the identification, clarification, and selection of ‘values’; policy-formulation; means-end analysis; testing of “good” and appropriate policy; comprehensive analysis; and determination of reliance upon theory.

A topic presented during in-class lecture was the five-step ”issue-attention cycle” described by Anthony Downs. This process of addressing public policy-making outlined the circumstances which must exist in addressing public issues. According to Downs, not all major social problems go through this “issue-attention cycle.” The first component of the “issue-attention cycle” is the “Pre-problem stage” before the public becomes aware of the issue. The second is the “Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm” stage when the public becomes both aware of the issue and alarmed. The third stage is “Realizing the cost of significant progress” which will be required to solve the problem, and invariably involves some sacrifice by all interests. The fourth stage is the “Gradual decline of intense public interest” which occurs as affected interests become aware of the personal costs involved in the ‘solution’. The last stage is the “Post-problem stage” when the problem focus moves into a prolonged period of suspended or diminished activity due to decreased public attention during the first two stages (Locker, lecture).

Development of public policy must conform to political principles which govern all decision-making; who’s values prevail, who gets what, where, when, and how. There are tools available to decision-makers which have been formulated in development of empiric methodology, by Political Scientists. The tools and methodology proposed by Lindblom and Anthony Downs were developed under the presupposition of cultural homogeneity in the United States. The ‘deconstruction’ and polarization produced by “establishment institutions” which control political resources but do not reflect the consensus of the constituency are destructive of the “core culture” and/or the American creed when they seek to impose unnatural cultural changes without assimilation of cultures. The “indigestibility” of cultures which refuse assimilation, under the false flag of “diversity”, facilitates foreign and/or domestic enemies to implement their agendas of subterfuge while divisiveness and inability to foster consensus paralyzes the political machinery of our Constitutional Republic. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” What he failed to consider was the cultural imperative: There can be no unity where cultures are antithetical.


[1] The Science of “Muddling Through”, Charles E. Lindblom, Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1959), pp. 79-88, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration

Multiculturalism: Undermining American Solidarity

Samuel Huntington authored a comprehensive evaluation of immigration and cultural trends in the United States, “One Nation Out of Many: Why ‘Americanization’ of Newcomers Is Still Important” (Magazine article from The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, No. 6). The article dealt with immigration assimilation trends in the United States, and pointed out some rather alarming facts. One of the foremost trends was Huntington’s provision of undeniable statistical evidence of a clear disconnect with the general populace by political elites such as establishment institutions composed of local newspapers and TV stations, local politicians, universities, labor unions, business federations, and minority pressure groups. Almost as if to reinforce Huntington’s point regarding this disconnect, Lois Menand published an article in the New Yorker, entitled “Patriot Games: The New Nativism of Samuel P. Huntington”. Lois Menand is a professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. He has also taught at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Princeton, Columbia, and the University Of Virginia School Of Law. It seems evident from Professor Menand’s credentials, he is amply qualified to represent the “establishment institutions” Huntington referred to, and dutifully proceeds to express his opposition to the most, if not all, the principles Huntington establishes.

Huntington carefully analyzes and discloses the results of his research which substantiate his claims and conclusions. He describes a “core culture” in the United States which he describes as being composed of the Christian religion; Protestant values; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy. Out of these traditional values, derived from fundamental principles established by the Protestant roots of our nation, he describes how the American Creed is formulated, with its principles of liberty, equality, human rights, representative government, and private property. Huntington expresses his concern that the assimilation of immigrants, which was established by the Constitutional architects as a means of assuring loyalty and national homogeneity, is no longer possible when “establishment institutions” are creating an environment which precludes assimilation under the pretext of ‘cultural diversity’ or “multiculturalism”. This, he claims and provides evidence to support, is because the “establishment institutions” have adopted policies of “deconstruction” which are harmful to the best interests and solidarity of our nation and contrary to the will of the constituency.

Menand submitted his article as little more than an unsubstantiated denial of all the concerns and evidence Huntington had so eloquently expressed. Without ever really making any counterpoints or rebuttals, Menand proceeds to regurgitate his mocking degradation of the fundamental concerns Huntington expressed. He alleges that culture, “ultimately, is everything that is not nature. American culture includes American appetites and American dress, American work etiquette and American entertainment, American piety and American promiscuity all the things that Americans recognize, by their absence, as American when they visit other countries”, as if to say that all that is necessary to adopt the American “creed” is to look like an American. It is difficult therefore, to say the least, to discern whether Menand is making a statement or simply repeating something Huntington has stated in a derogatory and demeaning fashion. Due to this fundamental vagueness, it is a major challenge to extract any message from Menand’s article other than his objection to Huntington’s article and his profound contempt for anything contrary to the “establishment institutions”; “Huntington is a domestic monoculturalist and a global multiculturalist (and an enemy of domestic multiculturalism and global monoculturalism).” Other than being a profound statement of the obvious, so what?

In summary, Huntington made his case with sufficient evidence to demonstrate the danger which is inherent in unassimilated multiculturalism and the divisions it produces in the body politic. Immigrants have traditionally been assimilated into the American culture as the American culture adopted the values and culture of its immigrants, producing the unique ‘hybrid’ culture of the United States. Past generations of Americans have been proud of the unique qualities of our ‘hybrid’ culture. Now we have people who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Americans and encourage immigrants like Hispanics and Muslims to refuse assimilation. The outcome cannot be anything but grave, for the cognitive dissonance produced by competing cultures can never produce anything but prejudice and an ‘us against them’ predisposition. The contemporary irrational violence and terrorism which prevails in the USA is the manifestation of mental illness and aversive behavior produced by a dysfunctional society – the consequences are not unintended, but a component of a destructive agenda which will get worse before it gets better, if left to continue as it has been!