Sunday, January 23, 2011

Effective Use Of Military To Secure USA Borders

I strongly disagree with the statement that we have "tried everything" to secure our Southern border against the flood of drug dealers, terrorists, gang-members and paroled prisoners returning here after prior deportation, carriers of untreatable diseases (eg Drug resistant TB), job and identity thieves and such like unamerican trash.

One and untried method is as offered here:
1. Restrict the Border Patrol to urban areas and a thousand yards on either side of authorized, rural crossing points;
2. Allow anyone to cross into Mexico, without question, at any authorized crossing point or station;
3. Use four rows of razor ribbon coils In addition to the fences yet to be build and those sort-of in place along the entire border except for roads leading to authorized crossing points;
4. Make the balance of our border, for the first 1000-yards into the USA, a military zoneith posted notices in English, Spanish, Parsi, Arabic and local Native American languages that persons entering illegally there will be treated as invaders and will be shot, without warning if they are armed or resist arrest, and otherwise taken into custody for forced deportation or TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION.

The troops could be regulars (Some brought back from Europe whose countries appear unwilling to defend themselves), reservists, National Guard and members of the General Militia (Also ad hoc posses raised by Sheriffs, mayors, JPs and other local government officials)

Friday, January 21, 2011

Attorneys & GNP

It appears that the usually billed "services" of attorneys are included in the USA 's Gross National Product.along with those of dentists, physicians, landscapers and other independent craftsmen, legitimate massage therapists , and other like persons.

But, what do attorneys produce? Oh, there are some who defend the innocent, prosecute the guilty, insure a fair criminal or civil trial, arrange for the proper distribution of the property of those who have died and, sometimes, bring people closer together than otherwise.

But, too many (Most?) of attorneys in the USA feed off the overly complex laws and government regulations inflicted on the People; Laws-and-rules that they, for the most part, created as members of the Congress and other legislative bodies, as well as the administrative agencies that they dominate. Of course, they properly also control the remaining, judicial, branch of government (Although there are other models for oversight of the judicial process.)

We should ask the following questions and reflect on them and the probable answers.
1.. What part of our GNP is "services by attorneys"?
2. How does that compare with today's economic powerhouses of Japan , India and the People's Republic of China ?
3. How many words of laws and regulations are in-effect and put-into-effect in the USA each year VS. those other nations?
4. Would the People of the USA be better off if Attorneys were barred, by Amending our Constitution, from being Members of the Congress? (And allowing the Several States to do the same for their Legislatures?)

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Guns 1000-ft From Congress-Critters: NOT+

With very rare exceptions I have agreed with and supported the positions Congressman Peter King has put forth! The only such exception I can think of is his very recent proposal to forbid the possession of a firearm within 1,000-feet of a Member of the Congress.

That proposal fails tests-of-reason, of which I have provided below a few.
1. Criminals and "crazies" do NOT obey such laws.
2. A thousand-feet is a "close in shot" for many trained riflemen such as the Texas Tower Killer and the left-wing goon who murdered President Kennedy.; Some riflemen can hit targets at over 1,500-yards.
3. "Gun free zones" quickly become "free fire zones" (eg Virginia Tech U., Northern Illinois University and, for that matter, Columbine High School, where the on-site police officer ran away from danger) The presumption of gun-free-status can lean to relaxed security.
4. As a matter of "due process", how could an apolitical hunter know than a Member in within a 1000-feet of where s/he might be?

I am very grateful that the Arizona killer did not use a vest/car/fuel-air bomb

Saturday, January 08, 2011

Constitutionally Protecting The Constitution

The greatest internal danger to the rights, under our Constitution, of US Citizens lies not in revolutionaries, jihadi, dishonest politicians, but in those Federal Courts where the judges worshipTHE LAW and themselves far more than those rights and, most particularly, the intent of the authors of the constitution and of its later amendments.

Those judges have "discovered" rights not in the Constitution and not intended by the above noted authors. Those judges have established "evolving standards..." which are most certainly not in the Constitution. In both cases, the Constitution, itself, provides the means, by amendment, to do such things.

To constitutionally protect the Constitution from such abuses I suggest we look to President Thomas Jefferson for guidance and enact an amendment to our basic law, TO WIT:
" (A) In all decisions of the Courts of the United States judges shall declare those parts of the Constitution, as amended, upon which those decisions are based and consider the words and intent of the authors of the Constitution and its Amendments as the primary base for such judicial actions to the exclusion of all other views.
(B) Those courts shall not rely upon the decisions of courts or other bodies outside the United States as to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Several States.
(C) The Constitution is the sole authority for the adding to or removing of the rights of the People of the United States.
(D) This Amendment shall take effect upon ratification; But it is not retroactive in its force."

I put to you that this will return the authority and power of the Constitution to the People AND bring back into balance the power of the three branches of government.

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Our Real State Religion

Forget that nonsense that there is a wall of separation between church and state in the USA. We have an official, growing and ever more powerful state religion. That religion is the Law---As made by judges, especially those in our Federal Courts. You think not? Please examine the present and probable future state of the law under our judges as if it were a religion. You will see the religion-of-the-law exposed in the facts.

Our law has a “holy book”, called the Constitution. Our judges claim that they cling to the teachings of that document; But, vary from it as much as did the Catholic and Protestant fanatics of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation varied from the teachings of Jesus Christ when they burned and murdered each other. The “priests” or “mullahs” of that religion are, of course, judges. The “High Priests” or “Grand Ayatollahs” are the Supreme Court Justices. Their “dogma” is set in their judgments. Our judges take the clear and simple teachings of the Constitution and subject them to “mystical interpretation” in an effort to make us think that black-is-white, up-is-down and truth-is-lies.

They claim to uphold the Constitution's protection of individuals, but had allowed children, at the point-of-birth, to have their brains sucked out of their little skulls to facilitate abortions (And still allow the dismemberment of such children)---Even when there is no threat to the life of their mothers. Those judges claim to only interpret our American Constitution in light of the democratically passed laws of the People's elected representative, but use the legal decisions of foreign nations in their making of laws. They ignore the provision in our Constitution for its amendment and declare that new “rights” exist without the consent of the People. They repeatedly inflict their own social and political judgments and show great disdain for democratically approved laws. They suppress the joined freedom-of-speech and free expression of religion by denying the People to present their religion by such expressions as posting or exhibiting the Ten Commandments or other like symbols on public land. [This last technique is one common to power hungry priest-hoods, which is to do every thing possible to suppress and destroy other religions.].

When the founders of this nation outlined our government in our Constitution, they set a careful balance between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. That balance has been seriously disturbed and the whole structure of our government now is moving towards collapse and the dictatorship of the judicial elite---Who care little for democracy. That balance must be reset. My suggestion to enact the following Amendment to the Constitution, which would give the Congress the power to correct the errors which have infiltrated our society by judicial usurpations.

The Congress of the United States may reverse or nullify any decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States or of the lesser Courts of Appeal by a two-
thirds vote of the member present and voting in either House OR by a simple
majority of the members present and voting in both the Senate and House of
Representatives. The vote of each member of the Congress in such matters is to
be separately recorded and immediately made public. Such matters are to have
priority over all other business of the Congress.

The recording and immediate release is to prevent the members of the Congress from hiding behind the curtain of voice votes. The granting of such matters absolute priority is to prevent such matters from being “buried in committee”.

Of course, the “bother” of amending the Constitution could be avoided by the confirmation of new Justices on our Supreme Court and judges to other courts as will NOT make laws, but only interpret them according to our State and Federal Constitutions and the intent of the People as expressed by the intent of their representatives who wrote those documents.

I also note that this “worship” of the “Great God Law” is only the face of “Secular Humanism” which, in turn, is the front or false-flag for the “religion” of Atheism. (Every court decision restricting the rights of “free exercise” of other religions is a blow for the USA's state religion of law, secular humanism and atheism.)

At the least, the Federal Courts have declared “Atheism” a religion (James J. Kaufman VS Gary R. McCaughtey; 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals, #04-1914; Decided On
August 19, 2005)