I have respect for Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. When he was in Congress before, he was not afraid to speak Truth
to Power, and call the Wall Street fat cats on their odorous activities. But he has now gone too far for me to accompany him. On a TV show in Florida just recently, when asked by the host about the immigration issue, he said, in defense of illegal aliens - excuse me; the "undocumented":
to Power, and call the Wall Street fat cats on their odorous activities. But he has now gone too far for me to accompany him. On a TV show in Florida just recently, when asked by the host about the immigration issue, he said, in defense of illegal aliens - excuse me; the "undocumented":
"[The fact that illegals have been driving without insurance has been] a danger to you, to me, to everybody else. So as we make progress in normalizing the lives of these people [under Obama's imperial decrees] - whose only real crime is that they love America so much they want to live here…"
have been driving without insurance has been] a danger to you, to me, to everybody else. So as we make progress in normalizing the lives of these people [under Obama's imperial decrees] - whose only real crime is that they love America so much they want to live here…"
It doesn't really matter what all he said after that. He left me.
And just so, of course, has the whole Left. To whom I would say, or rather, ask, regarding that attitude:
Excuse me. First of all: Do you really believe what you are saying? And secondly; if so: When was the last time that you had a mental-health checkup??
Illegals are here because they want the standard of living that they can enjoy here, even in an illegal status, compared to that in their home countries. They wouldn't be here if it weren't for the honey pot that has attracted them here - or they would wait their turn, like all good prospective immigrants. They are here because the gringos are so stupid as to give them free ('emergency-room') hospital care - including having babies here; and including American citizenship for those so-called 'anchor baby' kids on top of the deal, in adding insult to injury! - and free education, and subsidized housing, and food stamps, and jobs that pay more than they could get in their home countries; even if it depresses the local wages market, and deprives unemployed American citizens of jobs.2 We're not talking about their love for this country. We are talking about their disrespect for it.
citizenship for those so-called 'anchor baby' kids on top of the deal, in adding insult to injury! - and free education, and subsidized housing, and food stamps, and jobs that pay more than they could get in their home countries; even if it depresses the local wages market, and deprives unemployed American citizens of jobs.2 We're not talking about their love for this country. We are talking about their disrespect for it.
And their desire to take it over, and return the Southwest to their so-called ancient homeland of Aztlan. Those who aren't of Spanish stock, that is…
But not to get into the subject of 'origins'. I want to stay, in this particular blog, with the issue of 'the law'. And that has been occasioned, before this matter of Rep. Grayson's unfortunate cherry-on-top comment came up, by a report that has been eating away at me for some days now; ever since I read, in one of the many newsletters that I get (both on the Internet and through the snail mail), where a U.S. District Court judge turned down a suit against Obama and his unilateral, high-handed Amnesty executive order - brought before her court by a sheriff in a border state whose budget would be severely impacted by the order, thus, a logical person would logically understand, giving him legitimate 'standing' in court - not only because, in her opinion, the plaintiff didn't have standing (the go-to excuse judges throughout the nation have used to block suits against Obama's eligibility for the office in the first place), but because the point was a simple "political" one.
that has been eating away at me for some days now; ever since I read, in one of the many newsletters that I get (both on the Internet and through the snail mail), where a U.S. District Court judge turned down a suit against Obama and his unilateral, high-handed Amnesty executive order - brought before her court by a sheriff in a border state whose budget would be severely impacted by the order, thus, a logical person would logically understand, giving him legitimate 'standing' in court - not only because, in her opinion, the plaintiff didn't have standing (the go-to excuse judges throughout the nation have used to block suits against Obama's eligibility for the office in the first place), but because the point was a simple "political" one.
Excuse me?? Now, I understand that she was appointed by Obama; and so, she would have some degree of leftward inclination. But for a judge - and on the level of a District Court - to baldly state that a major constitutional issue was simply a "political" issue - ?????????
" issue - ?????????
And I also understand that she did, at least, allow for expedited 'injunction proceedings' on the matter.3 So, presumably she understood that it was, indeed, a major constitutional issue, and she just didn't want to have to deal with the matter in her court. But in her just 'kicking the matter upstairs,' and saying that it was simply a "political" matter - what do we have here?
, a major constitutional issue, and she just didn't want to have to deal with the matter in her court. But in her just 'kicking the matter upstairs,' and saying that it was simply a "political" matter - what do we have here?
We have another sign of the times:
that the U.S. is being subjected to a hostile takeover.
that the U.S. is being subjected to a hostile takeover.
It has all been set up for some time. Part of the setup has been the 'relativizing' of the Constitution - to say, the rule of law in the country. I'll be as brief as I can in this description of this matter. Which was also brought to my attention recently when I read that, in another courtroom in the country, on another subject, the judge was taking the oral arguments into consideration, with one basis of his decision resting on 'precedent'. Which means, essentially, that even if some court erred on some constitutional principle, if the U.S. Supreme Court left the decision standing, it gained substantial, even definitive, clout, on the basis of the 'precedent' it set. Which makes of the law an ass.
This is all the work of what I call shyster-lawyer types, who scheme to defeat laws that they don't like by making all of us country bumpkins think that 'all is relative' - that the law is simply whatever the lawyers and judges say it is.4 Just so, black can become white. And the 'original intent' of wording in the Constitutional contract can be subjected to the attitude of the contract being, to quote some of these shyster-lawyer types, 'a iiving document'.
.
Which makes it a lying document.
.
And which makes them liars.
A "natural born citizen" is what the constitutional Framers intended it to mean.5 If subsequent generations want to change the terms of the constitutional contract, they can do so - by the amending process built in for just such a purpose. Not that it's easy. But that was the point: that the 'document' - and the American federal constitutional Republic that it created - was designed to be for the long haul. Not to be changed 'for light or transient reasons'.
" is what the constitutional Framers intended it to mean.5 If subsequent generations want to change the terms of the constitutional contract, they can do so - by the amending process built in for just such a purpose. Not that it's easy. But that was the point: that the 'document' - and the American federal constitutional Republic that it created - was designed to be for the long haul. Not to be changed 'for light or transient reasons'.
The far Left is trying to take over said American Republic, for their reasons. Which happen to coincide fundamentally with the reasons of the far Right.6 Collectivists, all. In order to break the Republic free from the "chains'" of the Constitution, and make of this country a wet noodle; to be manipulated and molded to their hearts' desires. Which is the same from either side of the political aisle: to make of us sovereigns mere subjects; with no rights but those which they our erstwhile Masters dole out to us, and to whom we are to grovel for the crumbs that they dole out magnanimously from their table.
Republic, for their reasons. Which happen to coincide fundamentally with the reasons of the far Right.6 Collectivists, all. In order to break the Republic free from the "chains'" of the Constitution, and make of this country a wet noodle; to be manipulated and molded to their hearts' desires. Which is the same from either side of the political aisle: to make of us sovereigns mere subjects; with no rights but those which they our erstwhile Masters dole out to us, and to whom we are to grovel for the crumbs that they dole out magnanimously from their table.
And to whom I say:
Bah.
And further:
Your days are numbered.
Start counting.
---
footnotes:
1 illegally. By a shyster-lawyer interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Quote from the law/that amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…" my emphasis. To point out that the law is not referring to people who are illegally in the U.S., and are therefore still subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.
This is not rocket science. It has become 'rocket science' in the hands of the aforementioned types of persons, i.e., shyster lawyers, up to their shyster-lawyerly tricks.
The biggest of them all being the notion that the Constitution is 'a living document'. More on which, coming up, in the main body of this rant.
Grrrrr……….
2 A subject in itself. 'But Americans won't do those kinds of jobs.' As Nancy Pelosi would say: 'Are you serious? Are you serious?' They will do them when we straighten out the unemployment system in this country at the same time as this illegal-alien business, and citizens are given, say, two turn-downs of available jobs before they are taken off unemployment rolls; so that if you don't work, you don't eat. (Federal funds denied those states that don't go along with the New Era.)
It's all really very simple. Once you return to common sense. As we will.
As - we - will.
Because it's that time.
3 Meaning that she accepted that it needed an expedited hearing and ruling because elements of Obama's imperial edict (my description, of course) are scheduled to go into effect in February - and the Obama administration is already hiring new employees for the IRS to deal with certain issues involved.
The scoundrel.
He is doing this on purpose, I hope people understand. He wants Congress to put up or shut up: Either allow him to become the imperial executive that he wishes to become (and that his handlers want him to become; the NWO boyos lurking in the background of American politics, as we speak); or risk the wrath of his (violence-prone) lackeys in America.
I dearly hope that Congress calls him on his bluff. For, the longer we wait - for him to play his 'Martial Law' card - the more time that he has to get all his ducks in a row. So -
it's that time.
Ready. Or not.
Both sides, of The Great Divide.
Between the High Road - in the Light - to America's, and the world's, future. Or the Low Road; in the Dark of a dystopian future.
A dreary timeline that I, for one, refuse to take, be a part of.
4 "It's all simply a matter of 'interpretation'." Right. As Clinton said: '"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
5 Which I have gone into in so many notes and emails to so many people that I'm not going to repeat the argument here. Suffice it to say, here: Read the letter that John Jay sent to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, on this subject. Note that Alexander Hamilton even proposed at the Convention that the person in that office need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically rejected by the Convention, in favor of the stricter category of citizen (i.e., one with NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES) suggested by J. Jay. And if any of the Convention delegates had any queries as to what the term actually meant, they had two sources of information to go by: their respected elder and learned mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was a) present at the proceedings and b) fully conversant with E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations;' and a copy of that book as well, in the very building that they were meeting in. The case is closed.
6 =, in my 'take' on this politically descriptive spectrum matter, fascists - i.e., a corporate-government nexus, wherein there is private property, but it is severely subjected to the control of the government. And thus, a sham and a delusion regarding the essential idea of private property - i.e., that you not only own it, but you have control over it. The furthest Left - into outright communism - takes away even the semblance of private property.
Everything along these traditional political lines is about to change, for a higher degree of consciousness to be reflected into human affairs. But let's be clear about where we are at. And who is trying to do what, with what, and to whom.
5 Which I have gone into in so many notes and emails to so many people that I'm not going to repeat the argument here. Suffice it to say, here: Read the letter that John Jay sent to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, on this subject. Note that Alexander Hamilton even proposed at the Convention that the person in that office need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically rejected by the Convention, in favor of the stricter category of citizen (i.e., one with NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES) suggested by J. Jay. And if any of the Convention delegates had any queries as to what the term actually meant, they had two sources of information to go by: their respected elder and learned mentor, Benjamin Franklin, who was a) present at the proceedings and b) fully conversant with E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations;' and a copy of that book as well, in the very building that they were meeting in. The case is closed.
6 =, in my 'take' on this politically descriptive spectrum matter, fascists - i.e., a corporate-government nexus, wherein there is private property, but it is severely subjected to the control of the government. And thus, a sham and a delusion regarding the essential idea of private property - i.e., that you not only own it, but you have control over it. The furthest Left - into outright communism - takes away even the semblance of private property.
Everything along these traditional political lines is about to change, for a higher degree of consciousness to be reflected into human affairs. But let's be clear about where we are at. And who is trying to do what, with what, and to whom.
No comments:
Post a Comment