I am still fuming over one of our state's federal senators talking about illegal aliens in the state as members of the "community," and "Californians". Sen. Harris needs to be brought up short on her position, as in effect aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, as far as I am concerned; and as part of a wholesale cleanup of the state's governance. Hence the following:
from eaglerising.com: ‘Will “New California” Become Our 51st State”’ - Keeiy Sharp - Mach 13
(“In the foreseeable future, we could be looking at adding a new state to the United States, known as ‘New California.’
“Where is this coming from, you may ask? On Monday, the founders of New Cali read their ‘Declaration of Independence’ from the liberal state of California because they see it as ‘ungovernable.’ Can you blame them?
“They want to take most of California where it concerns the more rural counties, and split off from the more coastal, urban cities…”)
..
OliveGlasses (me) - March 13
The fact that (my home state of) CA has allowed the state to become invaded with illegal aliens should not constitute a victory for the PTB behind the whole scam. Better we eliminate the corruption, rather than trying to 'live with it' by ceding part of the state to the corrupt. How? By getting the federal government to come in and a) arrest all those in the government who are responsible for this state 'scoffing the law' in declaring it a sanctuary state (and the specific city govts. likewise declared therein), and b) have CPAs go through all of our county voter reg rolls and cleanse them according to already existent federal law; thus eliminating the plethora of illegal voters in this state, and thereby sending a signal to any illegals who would think to come in from this line drawn in the sand, to think twice about it. Because a federal Marshall has ridden into town, and is carrying a big stick.
And the cleaning out of political corruption in the whole country can proceed from there.
—
As to my comment on my Nextdoor email site on the subject of having illegal aliens be welcomed in my home town here as a Sanctuary City or not, my comment (as reposted here a couple of days ago, now) drew two, shall we say, interesting, responses. (Besides a mixed reaction; one person predictably calling me, among some other classic liberal demonizing words, ‘xenophobic’. Since we are not talking here about immigration per se, his cool put-down term and charge is misplaced. The same, of course, for his other charge, of 'racist'.) One was that I have been blocked from the site. The other was a Thank You for my comment, that I couldn’t post directly to the site, because of said block. But at least I could email her directly. Hence, my response below:
|
|||||||||||||
—
My basic message to these people trying to do this country in:
Stop trying to hijack my country, and there will be peace. Until then, you have created a state of war.
But you knew that would happen, didn’t you. Hence you have been all ready to go with response to the inevitable reaction from us patriots; with your arsenal of attack/smear words, and blocking us 'conservatives' from social media, and such.
I suppose I should back off and accept all this for what it is: the inevitable playing-out of these last stages of The Play, between the Dark and the Light. With the Light winning, of course, in the end; as is its nature. Which is part of the deep anger of the Dark side, I understand. And the latter of which is in part what I am responding to, I realize. But after all, I am human. And until then - the wrap-up - I reserve the right to get damn angry at your cavalier attitude regarding MY country.
Hands. Off.
--
Oh - and I am also hot under the collar about this birthright citizenship/'anchor baby' business. One leading conservative organization has come up with a bit of a weak-tea argument against it, saying that "we are not required by the Constitution to grant birthright citizenship". Hey folks - we are not authorized by the Constitution to grant it. The federal government being a government of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the man who became known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. And later in its history, under the 14th Amendment, all that did was grant citizenship to the former slaves. Quote: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." That qualifying phrase clearly rules out anybody whose parents were not in the country legally. Such babies are still under the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries.
This business of 'anchor babies,' and foreign visitors coming to this country on 'vacations' in order to have their children in this country in order to give their children citizenship and themselves a for in the door for coming into this country permanently, is due to, shall we say, faulty legal determination.
And that's all I think I should say for the quality of 'legal determination' in this country. Else, given a) my attitude towards The Law, and b) my already being hot under the collar over the subject as it is, I may say something that may qualify me for one or other of those favorite demonizing words that the New World Order crowd are using in an attempt to paint their opposition in as morally objectionable a light as possible.
Other than the true Light, that we are about to inherit.
Those who are ready to do so, that is.
The rest?
As the expression has it:
They will get what is coming to them.
And that's all that I will say to the whole subject.
At this time.
Until I calm down.........
P.S. But I guess I shouldn't be too hard on leading conservative organizations of our day. Since they don't even know - seemingly - what the definition of a 'natural born' citizen was at the time that it was codified in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for the offie of the presidency of the United States. And which eligibility requirement STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary...
(Ah. Calming down......
...to the extent possible. Under the extensive circumstances.)
--
Oh - and I am also hot under the collar about this birthright citizenship/'anchor baby' business. One leading conservative organization has come up with a bit of a weak-tea argument against it, saying that "we are not required by the Constitution to grant birthright citizenship". Hey folks - we are not authorized by the Constitution to grant it. The federal government being a government of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the man who became known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. And later in its history, under the 14th Amendment, all that did was grant citizenship to the former slaves. Quote: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." That qualifying phrase clearly rules out anybody whose parents were not in the country legally. Such babies are still under the jurisdiction of their parents' home countries.
This business of 'anchor babies,' and foreign visitors coming to this country on 'vacations' in order to have their children in this country in order to give their children citizenship and themselves a for in the door for coming into this country permanently, is due to, shall we say, faulty legal determination.
And that's all I think I should say for the quality of 'legal determination' in this country. Else, given a) my attitude towards The Law, and b) my already being hot under the collar over the subject as it is, I may say something that may qualify me for one or other of those favorite demonizing words that the New World Order crowd are using in an attempt to paint their opposition in as morally objectionable a light as possible.
Other than the true Light, that we are about to inherit.
Those who are ready to do so, that is.
The rest?
As the expression has it:
They will get what is coming to them.
And that's all that I will say to the whole subject.
At this time.
Until I calm down.........
P.S. But I guess I shouldn't be too hard on leading conservative organizations of our day. Since they don't even know - seemingly - what the definition of a 'natural born' citizen was at the time that it was codified in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for the offie of the presidency of the United States. And which eligibility requirement STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary...
(Ah. Calming down......
...to the extent possible. Under the extensive circumstances.)
No comments:
Post a Comment