When our form of government was established at the Constitutional Convention one of the points of contention was the people’s rights. It was agreed that one of the first orders of business for the first Congress would be the passage of a bill identifying the rights of the people regarding their government. This was done with the passage and ratification of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. This block of amendments is known as the Bill of Rights. The Founder’s insisted on a Bill of Rights because they deeply believed that the basic rights of the citizens needed to be written down for all to see. These rights were not to protect the government from the people, but rather the people from the government. The Founders were very much concerned with excesses of government, as we should rightly be today. Thus the Bill of Rights establishes our rights as people and citizens of the United States. These are individual rights, for you and for me. Webster’s Dictionary defines Bill of Rights as “the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” The point to all this is the Bill of Rights is a package of rights that cannot be separated.
Acknowledging then, the Bill of Rights was assembled and passed as a package for you and I as individuals, it follows that all ten amendments apply to us, as individuals. Logic dictates that you cannot have it both ways. If the first ten amendments, labeled the Bill of Rights, were established to identify the individual rights of the people, then you cannot take any one of them and make a case that it doesn’t. The same logic applies to wording. For example, the phrase “the right of the people” appears in three of the amendments and the term “no person” appears in one. Both of these phrases either apply to you and I, as individuals, or they don’t. Again you can’t have it both ways. The right of the people in the 1st amendment, for instance, means you and I. It cannot, therefore, mean something other than that in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, “the right of the people” in the 2nd amendment refers to the very same people it does in the 1st. To attempt to take that right away is to put in jeopardy the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the right of the people in the 2nd amendment means only a government controlled militia, such as the National Guard, then logic follows that the same phrase in the 1st protects only the speech and religion of government officials; freedom of the press is only a government press and the right to peacefully assemble is only for government persons. The 4th amendment protects only government facilities and the 5th only government affiliated people.
By now it should become clear where I am on the issue of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. You may not like that particular amendment, for what ever reasons, and isn’t it wonderful that you have that right. But, you only have that right as long as you can defend it. As soon as you lose the basic right to defend yourself by arms, if necessary, how long will it take for other rights that we all cherish to become null? It has been said the 2nd amendment is the “first freedom”, that without it all the others are just words on a paper to be trifled with by any politician or government. Think about it, seriously, what kind of rights do the people have in Iran, North Korea, China, under the former rule of the Taliban, or the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren?
With freedom comes responsibility and that involves the willingness to defend that freedom. Our young need to be taught that our “rights of the people” have been secured, not without a heavy cost. You may not like the 2nd amendment. But, thanks to many who gave their all, it is still there. Think before you act; the freedoms you save may be ours.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
On Immigration and Closing the Border
Ask yourself this question, Why haven’t either the Clinton Administration or the current Bush administration dealt with illegal immigration by simply closing the border? After all it is just a large construction project. More importantly, it is one of the primary duties of the Federal Government; providing for the domestic tranquility, securing the border and preventing invasion. I don’t believe the last two administrations or the last three, for that matter, would get high scores in these areas. But why? The answer appears to hide under the radar in Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) at the highest levels of the Business/Government relationship. Now wait, before you role your eyes and cast aside this article as just another wild conspiracy from a foaming conservative, read on.
In the early part of the first Clinton Administration the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and signed into law. Its purpose was to reduce tariffs, promote trade and facilitate the movement of goods, services and some people across the borders of the three North American countries; Canada the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA is a very complicated program that, according to some, has not helped the U.S, has generally been positive for Mexico, except for Mexican Agriculture, and positive for Canada. In 2000, then Mexican President Vicente Fox put forth the idea of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico “as a second phase of NAFTA which would be completed in ten years.” This brings us to the more current Securities and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 23, 2005, the SPP contains a Partnership agenda, a Prosperity agenda and a Security agenda. The Security Agenda opens with the following statement. “We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and insure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamline risk-based border processes are achieved in the following areas:” Notice that this statement is about North America and not the United States of America. Further, who defines legitimate cargo and travelers? Dare I say it won’t be an elected official organization but rather a bureaucrat in some NGO.
This brings us to the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) and its extension, the NAFTA Super-highway. The TTC, which is scheduled to start this year and parallel Interstate 35, would bisect Texas from its southern border with Mexico to Oklahoma. It is expected to be ten lanes, five in each direction three for cars and two for trucks. In the center is space for utilities and rail. Required in this plan is the taking of 584,000 acres of privately held land by eminent domain. The southern extension of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway goes from the southern border of Texas to the Mexican Ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas. The northern extension goes through Oklahoma City, Kansas City, splits and continues to Montreal, Winnipeg and on to Vancouver. Kansas City is scheduled to become a port of entry with customs officials from the three nations stationed there. Interesting is the ongoing debate as to whether this customs area will be the sovereign soil of Mexico. Some say yes.
All of the above leads to the establishment of The North American Union. This Union modeled after the European Union is fundamentally designed to erase the borders between the countries, create a “common security perimeter” and harmonize Visa and Asylum regulations. It is hoped that all of this will be up and running by 2010. Refer back to the statement at the beginning of this article with Vicente Fox expressing his wish for open borders within ten years. Under the North American Union we would still have our President as would Mexico and Canada its Prime Minister, however, they would answer to Business elite who will be advisors to each country’s leaders. Behind the scenes are organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations and the U.N. George Bush the current President is not a member of the CFR, but his father, George Bush 41, is.
It seems then our President's refusal to close the border has more to do with the North American Union than any other reason. However, I challenge you not to believe me. Go to your own search engine and type in the words North American Union and see for yourself. I would be interested in your comments regarding what I perceive as a threat to our nation.
In the early part of the first Clinton Administration the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and signed into law. Its purpose was to reduce tariffs, promote trade and facilitate the movement of goods, services and some people across the borders of the three North American countries; Canada the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA is a very complicated program that, according to some, has not helped the U.S, has generally been positive for Mexico, except for Mexican Agriculture, and positive for Canada. In 2000, then Mexican President Vicente Fox put forth the idea of an open border between the U.S. and Mexico “as a second phase of NAFTA which would be completed in ten years.” This brings us to the more current Securities and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Published by the White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 23, 2005, the SPP contains a Partnership agenda, a Prosperity agenda and a Security agenda. The Security Agenda opens with the following statement. “We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and insure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamline risk-based border processes are achieved in the following areas:” Notice that this statement is about North America and not the United States of America. Further, who defines legitimate cargo and travelers? Dare I say it won’t be an elected official organization but rather a bureaucrat in some NGO.
This brings us to the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) and its extension, the NAFTA Super-highway. The TTC, which is scheduled to start this year and parallel Interstate 35, would bisect Texas from its southern border with Mexico to Oklahoma. It is expected to be ten lanes, five in each direction three for cars and two for trucks. In the center is space for utilities and rail. Required in this plan is the taking of 584,000 acres of privately held land by eminent domain. The southern extension of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway goes from the southern border of Texas to the Mexican Ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas. The northern extension goes through Oklahoma City, Kansas City, splits and continues to Montreal, Winnipeg and on to Vancouver. Kansas City is scheduled to become a port of entry with customs officials from the three nations stationed there. Interesting is the ongoing debate as to whether this customs area will be the sovereign soil of Mexico. Some say yes.
All of the above leads to the establishment of The North American Union. This Union modeled after the European Union is fundamentally designed to erase the borders between the countries, create a “common security perimeter” and harmonize Visa and Asylum regulations. It is hoped that all of this will be up and running by 2010. Refer back to the statement at the beginning of this article with Vicente Fox expressing his wish for open borders within ten years. Under the North American Union we would still have our President as would Mexico and Canada its Prime Minister, however, they would answer to Business elite who will be advisors to each country’s leaders. Behind the scenes are organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations and the U.N. George Bush the current President is not a member of the CFR, but his father, George Bush 41, is.
It seems then our President's refusal to close the border has more to do with the North American Union than any other reason. However, I challenge you not to believe me. Go to your own search engine and type in the words North American Union and see for yourself. I would be interested in your comments regarding what I perceive as a threat to our nation.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Head in the Sand
I know that I am not the only one out there that sees the handwriting on the wall regarding the future of our country. What I cannot wrap my mind around is why we continue to squabble amongst ourselves over superfluous issues while we are losing the battle over our property rights, as well as other rights, bit by bit. Not only do we squabble incessantly, but, it seems, that is all we do.
I know that no group agrees all the time on all the issues. However, I’ll bet that if we all put our top ten issues on the table, at least seven of them would be the same. Our solutions may be different, but generally we all want the same thing. Why then do we sit idly by while those who would change the entire landscape of this great nation have their way? It’s not like the assault on our rights is clandestine or hidden in back rooms; no, it is right there for all to see. In order not to see it we have to bury our head in the sand and deny what is right in front of us. Maybe that’s the reason we refuse to recognize our peril; the war on terror, the liberal media, recent Supreme Court decisions, the failure to close the border, or locally, the Fire Plan, the BID in Nevada City, etc. If we admit that any of this is real, or a threat to our way of life (and it is, all of it) then we would have to do something about it. That would take commitment on our part and God forbid we would have to take a stand.
There is a saying and I’m not sure I am quoting correctly but you will recognize it. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”(for the sake of those P.C. people out there, the quote says men, but it is an old quote and masculine included feminine. So to update “good men and women to do nothing).
Let me pose some questions: Is the war in Iraq really going as bad as the media would have us believe? Is the media really liberal or just not telling the truth? Do recent decisions by the Supreme Court really affect us? Why haven’t we closed the border, what about the North American Union or The Trans Texas Corridor or the Nafta Super Highway? If your answer to these is “HUH?”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I’m too busy”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I work all day and I’m tired” then you are to whom I’m talking. We are all busy and tired and we would all just like to relax, do our own thing and trust in our government to do right by us. This would be the most dangerous of all actions. NO! Now is the time to get involved, take action and make your opinions known.
Organizations throughout the country need and want your involvement and support. It is probably the only way we can effect change from the local level to the federal level. I don’t always agree with some of the positions of the organizations I support, but most of the time I do and that’s what is important. If I don’t like a particular policy, then I can get more involved and maybe influence some of the policy decisions. Everybody has at least two hours a week they could spend working for the good of their community and country. To those who say otherwise, I say nonsense. You just don’t care. Think of what we could accomplish if we all gave 8-10 hours a month to seeking truth, supporting our country and demanding that our elected officials be responsive to our wishes? Our opponents are doing just that and more and they are unchecked because we squabble amongst ourselves while our fundamental freedoms are being challenged at every level.
There are currently some very dangerous threats to our property rights, our ability to protect ourselves, our personal freedoms and the very sovereignty of this great nation. The time is now for all of us to get active. There are a number of groups that have the best interest of our country and community in mind. If you agree or disagree, let me know what’s on your mind. You can reach me through e-mail at mcw@wildblue.net. I look forward to your views and ideas. Talking, it’s the first step to getting involved.
I know that no group agrees all the time on all the issues. However, I’ll bet that if we all put our top ten issues on the table, at least seven of them would be the same. Our solutions may be different, but generally we all want the same thing. Why then do we sit idly by while those who would change the entire landscape of this great nation have their way? It’s not like the assault on our rights is clandestine or hidden in back rooms; no, it is right there for all to see. In order not to see it we have to bury our head in the sand and deny what is right in front of us. Maybe that’s the reason we refuse to recognize our peril; the war on terror, the liberal media, recent Supreme Court decisions, the failure to close the border, or locally, the Fire Plan, the BID in Nevada City, etc. If we admit that any of this is real, or a threat to our way of life (and it is, all of it) then we would have to do something about it. That would take commitment on our part and God forbid we would have to take a stand.
There is a saying and I’m not sure I am quoting correctly but you will recognize it. “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing”(for the sake of those P.C. people out there, the quote says men, but it is an old quote and masculine included feminine. So to update “good men and women to do nothing).
Let me pose some questions: Is the war in Iraq really going as bad as the media would have us believe? Is the media really liberal or just not telling the truth? Do recent decisions by the Supreme Court really affect us? Why haven’t we closed the border, what about the North American Union or The Trans Texas Corridor or the Nafta Super Highway? If your answer to these is “HUH?”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I’m too busy”, then you are to whom I’m talking. If your answer is “I work all day and I’m tired” then you are to whom I’m talking. We are all busy and tired and we would all just like to relax, do our own thing and trust in our government to do right by us. This would be the most dangerous of all actions. NO! Now is the time to get involved, take action and make your opinions known.
Organizations throughout the country need and want your involvement and support. It is probably the only way we can effect change from the local level to the federal level. I don’t always agree with some of the positions of the organizations I support, but most of the time I do and that’s what is important. If I don’t like a particular policy, then I can get more involved and maybe influence some of the policy decisions. Everybody has at least two hours a week they could spend working for the good of their community and country. To those who say otherwise, I say nonsense. You just don’t care. Think of what we could accomplish if we all gave 8-10 hours a month to seeking truth, supporting our country and demanding that our elected officials be responsive to our wishes? Our opponents are doing just that and more and they are unchecked because we squabble amongst ourselves while our fundamental freedoms are being challenged at every level.
There are currently some very dangerous threats to our property rights, our ability to protect ourselves, our personal freedoms and the very sovereignty of this great nation. The time is now for all of us to get active. There are a number of groups that have the best interest of our country and community in mind. If you agree or disagree, let me know what’s on your mind. You can reach me through e-mail at mcw@wildblue.net. I look forward to your views and ideas. Talking, it’s the first step to getting involved.
Monday, March 5, 2007
It’s Tough To Be A Patriot
It is tough to be a patriot. By definition a patriot is one who loves and loyally defends his country. That definition I believe includes defending our Constitution and National Sovereignty. It also includes defending and protecting our way of life against all enemies and our boarders against invasion. How many people who fit this definition do you know? A patriot is not afraid to put his hand over his heart when the flag passes by, he is not afraid to recite the Pledge of Allegiance loud and proud. He is not afraid to tell a passing soldier, “thank you for your service to our country”, and he is not afraid to support our President in his efforts to protect us from terrorists. Yes, it is tough to be a patriot when all around you to be so is considered out of step, when the Hollywood elite gaze down their supercilious noses, when the Constitution is considered old and outdated and when any expression of Patriotism is considered immature and lacking sophistication.
Well, I am a patriot. Jane Fonda is not, John Murtha is not, John Kerry is not, Ted Kennedy is not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not, the Hollywood elite are not and those who sit idly by while their country is at war are not. A patriot takes time to check facts rather than believe the talking heads on the television or the pre-programmed major media who by the way are owned by the liberal establishment.
My question to you the reader is where are you. Are you a patriot, or are you one of those who believe we are the bad guys and that this country is way passed its best years?
Well, I am a patriot. Jane Fonda is not, John Murtha is not, John Kerry is not, Ted Kennedy is not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not, the Hollywood elite are not and those who sit idly by while their country is at war are not. A patriot takes time to check facts rather than believe the talking heads on the television or the pre-programmed major media who by the way are owned by the liberal establishment.
My question to you the reader is where are you. Are you a patriot, or are you one of those who believe we are the bad guys and that this country is way passed its best years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)