 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject: Re:Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
[For convenience, I copied and pasted
what you had said and put it up here on the top.]
Angel: "While he is trying to over
throw the Columbian by diminishing the FARK. Who is the real terrorist in this
country. Certainly not immigrant folks that are fleeing there country because of
the destruction the US Government puts on them. How many people in this country
go and Kill tens and thousands of people innocent people and get by with it. Do
you call that Justice? I think not. I know for a fact that if you are not
someone like Donald Trump or Bill Gates you are feeling the raft of this war,
this illegal war. The cost of living hascertainly skyrocketed for poor and
working folks and we are feeling the brunt of it everyday because people like
the Republicans and Democrats alike are not caring about the people who are
working class citizens in this country. They need to stop the War and bring the
troops home now. Money for human needs not for war! Stop pushing horrible crimes
on immigrant people."
First, let's not forget that this email string got started (see bottom article by Michael Reagan) by
comments regarding multiple murders committed allegedly by a 2-time convicted
felon who is in this country illegally (an illegal alien) and has a history of
being protected by a sanctuary city receiving federal funding of USA taxpayer
dollars.
Forever Victims Dependent Upon Others?
Initially, I wasn't going to respond to your commentary. However, as
you will see below, I've changed my mind. Basically, I responded to
each sentence or phrase of your paragraph.
In that you are raising 4 boys (it's 4, isn't it?), it's probably best that
your thinking isn't too askew. Joann and I were both very impressed with your
boys last Thanksgiving when we met them at Jim and Nancy's. They seem quite
intelligent and quick to grasp new ideas. We had a lot of fun playing that new
game with them before dinner. I would not, and hopefully, nor would you, want
them to be unknowingly led down a path where they'd always perceive themselves
as some form of "victims" always dependent on others and incapable of being
anything but poor - whether they work or not.
The reason I say this is that I hope what you say as a mother with your
sons is very different from what you say publicly. I read some of what you've
been quoted as saying and also heard a recording
on the Internet of your speech (source) when
you were, in the name of Minnesota
Welfare Rights Coalition (WRC), representing:
a.. some of those who decided to take
and stayed with low-paying jobs;
b.. some of those who want to be on the
government dole, that is to say, "welfare," long-term;
c.. some of those
who do not want to pay for their own transportation, housing, health care,
child care and food;
d.. some of those who entered and/or are staying in
the USA illegally who nonetheless want the American people, through their
government, to provide them "for free" what most legitimate American citizens
must pay from the money they, and myself included, make from efforts of
our respective work (source);
e.. some of those who want the American people, through their government, to
essentially pay them for nothing more than making as many babies as they can and
then raising them (WRC: ";
and of course,
f.. some of those who couldn't care less about:
1.. national security,
2..
survivability of the USA,
3.. the safety of the American populous,
and
4.. the desire of most American taxpayers in this constitutional
representative republic to see their hard-earned dollars spent keeping
themselves, their families, and their property safe from external threat now and
for the next generations. Quite unlike these taxpaying Americans, some of the
ones here in the USA that you represent (and perhaps including yourself based on
the speeches that you give) want essentially these taxpayers' moneys stopped
from going to fund respective constitutional duties of our state and federal
government and instead be unconstitutionally rerouted so to be distributed to
them directly or at least be distributed in the direction of funding particular
social programs from which they'd be most likely the sole receivers of benefit.
It's apparent that they want this so that it wouldn't be so burdensome for them
in providing the necessities of life for themselves and those who they bring
into this world as is otherwise the case for the rest of society here in the
USA.
Government Not
Constitutionally Vested With Power
To
Be Federal "Clearing House" For Charities
It is not an enumerated power in the US
Constitution for our federal government to selectively dole out moneys to
various charities - much less certain ones that "squeak the loudest." What I am
saying is that there is no Constitutional authority by which Congress can
grant taxpayer dollars to one group or person at the exclusion of others.
Despite this, our pandering politicians go about enacting laws that are
clearly void of constitutional authority* and seemingly for no
other purpose than to garner future votes and campaign moneys from special
interest groups.
[* Among other reasons, one reason this keeps happening,
although it's really no excuse, is that there is no union of conservative
lawyers that consistently challenge the constitutionality of the forementioned
acts of Congress that erode more and more of our freedom (not to mention moral
values) and personal liberties as were originally intended to be protected by
the framers of our Constitution. (Click here to read the Preamble of the
Constitution and click here to read an explanation.) To the
contrary, there is a union of anti-Christian, subversive and seditious
communist-minded lawyers known as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who
claim spuriously to be safeguarding rights when in reality they are promoting a
socialist/communist agenda.
"Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the
ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist
of causes. Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society.
Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:
'I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of
the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of
the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is
the goal.' (source: The ACLU's
shocking legacy)"
By 1940, Baldwin had come to realize that all the
countries around the world that were known to be communist were also known to be
totalitarian governments ("totalitarian":
imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises
absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is
subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is
suppressed). So to throw people off as to his original intentions, he wrote a
resolution that resulted in the removal of communists from leadership and staff
positions of the ACLU.]
"general Welfare"
The Congress shall have Power To lay
and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States; [Emphasis
added.]
Where "Clause 1" states "general Welfare," the term
"general" is all inclusive of a class or group (source,
source), that is to say,
welfare of all those States "of the United States." In strict contextual
sense, the class or group to which "Clause 1" refers is collectively each and
every individual State that is united together with others under our
Constitution.
For the purpose of keeping things in their proper perspective, bear in mind
that whether speaking of an individual State or the United States of America,
such is a manmade (artificial) creation that should not to be confused as being
a living creature. In other words, these artificial autonomous creations
of prescribed (written) structure within accepted geographical territories are
not bodies of real people; rather, they are simply things that bodies of real
people have made. The people who respectively occupy each of these various
territorial units are considered to be body politics.
The "Welfare" that Congress is vested by "Clause 1" to
provide is only for these artificial creations, namely, all of the
united States. Obviously, the people or body politics of these artificial
creations would probably be the first ones to sense the benefit of what Congress
would provide their respective State when providing something to all the united
States; but technically, it would be the State itself, along with all the
others, not the people (much less any individual person or smaller group
thereof) of each respective State for whom Congress could provide
this "general Welfare."
Foreign Nationals Not Eligible
For the sake of argument, let's suppose for a moment there are some of the
opinion that it is legally impossible to separate the people of a State from the
State itself with respect to whom or what is eligible to be provided
"general Welfare" with respect to "Clause 1" phrase,
"general Welfare of the United States." Hypothetically, if this
were true, whether speaking of all the several states or those persons who are
citizens of a given State in all the several States, in either case it would
still hold true that not only must the "Welfare" be generally
for the benefit of all the people in each and all of the United States
(which is to say that it can't be for the benefit of "just some" of the people
of the United States), but that it also must be nonetheless for only
those "of" the United States. And, of course, it goes
without saying that if persons are not "of" the United
States that they are not "of" one of the several
states that comprise these United States. Foreign nationals, are obviously not
people "of" the United States. Here they are aliens;
hence, whether speaking of alien people or of the alien states from which they
came, in neither such case are they privileged Constitutionally to benefit from
"general Welfare" pursuant to the aforecited US Const. Article.
I. Section. 8. Clause 1.
Among an infinite amount of other things and absent Constitutional Amendments
to the contrary, Congress is not empowered by the Constitution, this is to say
nowhere is it written in the Constitution that created it (Congress), from
"Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" it collected,
to provide "general Welfare" for foreign nationals not citizens
of the United States. This is true whether they are here legally or illegally,
or for that matter, are not even here at all but rather in their respective
countries of origin; such as, for example, would be the case if the
unconstitutional "Global
Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator
Barack Obama were enacted and an approximate $845 billion of US taxpayer dollars
were sent overseas. Unless and until they become citizens "of the United
States," they are neither entitled directly nor as some part of a greater total
of all the combined body politics of the several States, to receive any form of
"Welfare," whatsoever, from "Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises" collected by Congress pursuant to the
aforecited "Clause 1." However, just to be clear, even aside from ineligibility
of the foreign nationals, subsets of the American population as a whole are also
ineligible to receive welfare provided by Congress. The only general welfare
Congress is empowered Constitutionally to provide is that which affects the
entirety, or majority, of those involved, namely those "of" the
United States.
Speaking of "Welfare"
Meanings of words change over time. The word
"welfare" is no exception to that. The way the term is frequently used now has
little semblance to its definition 200 years ago. The words and phrases of the
Constitution mean today what they meant when it was written. Otherwise, for
example, if we don't hold to this, when we might be reading something that was
written maybe only 25 years ago let alone 200 years ago where in either case it
said something about a group of old people having a "gay old time" we might
start mistakenly envisioning a homosexual geriatric orgy.
Current definition
in TheFreeDictionary: "welfare" [Wellfare]:
noun 1. wellbeing, good, interest, health, security, benefit, success, profit, safety, protection, fortune, comfort, happiness, prosperity, prosperousness
Appearing below is a copy of the definition of "welfare" from a dictionary
printed about 40 years after the Constitution went into effect back in 1789
(1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language).
Note definition "2." where it defines "WEL'FARE" [well and fare, a good
going]: "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity ; the
enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and
civil government ; applied to
states." [Emphasis added.]
 
Quite unlike our country's history in its first 150 years, the more recently
elected officials in our federal government have getting into selectively
picking "winners" and "losers" in our country's business community when they
pretend that our federal government has Constitutional interstate and intrastate
authority to pay given businesses, subsidize them, in their production of
certain produce, products or services; pay others to sit idle and not be in
production of certain produce, products or services; or tax or fine just
particular businesses for their production of certain produce, products or
services. It's apparent that many of these new officials think diametrically
differently than the founders of our country. It is has been clearly the intent
of these new officials to have as much a hand in controlling and limiting our
freedom and liberty as they can. In other words, they want to control every
facet of our daily lives whether in business or personal level, from cradle to
grave. They want as many Americans as possible to become reliant upon government
involvement in as many aspects of their lives as humanly imaginable. A "nanny
state."
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts
absolutely." - Lord Acton. When this new breed of liberal
politicians (many of those in the Democrat and Republican parties can be
classified as liberals however liberals [progressives] are predominantly
Democrats) came to realize that they could appeal to a darker larcenist nature
of some people by having them become substantially reliant upon government for
money (government dole) they receive (regardless of the fact that the money is
taken from fellow Americans and is simply redistributed to them), these same
people would normally want to vote for, or keep in office, those officials who
would at least maintain if not increase the amount of money they received and
upon which they became dependent.
There are probably no better examples of this push by modern-day liberals
towards a "nanny state" than our country's newest welfare programs. It should
be very obvious that all the various social welfare programs our federal
government has unconstitutionally instituted beginning in the 20th Century
whereby, among others, small groups of people can get subsidized or free
(taxpayer paid) housing, subsidized or free (taxpayer paid) food, subsidized or
free (taxpayer paid) non-emergency medical and dental care, subsidized or free
(taxpayer paid) transportation, subsidized or free (taxpayer paid) child care,
and subsidized or free (taxpayer paid) education, have nothing in common with
the definition of Noah Webster's 1828 definition of the term
"welfare" as it applied to states: [well
and fare, a good going] Exemption from any unusual evil or
calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of
society and civil government.
Democrat President
Franklin D. Roosevelt
March 4, 1933 –
April 12, 1945
Our constitutional republic underwent a major (and hopefully temporary)
shift from being a nation governed by law enacted under the precepts of our
Constitution towards that of being a socialist society* ruled
by people. After our country was about 150 years old, back in the 1930s during
the "Great Depression," Democrat President Franklin D.
Roosevelt (FDR) wanted, under what he termed the "New Deal," to not only expand
the existing powers of the federal government but also increase their limited
number without amending the Constitution. He was somewhat successful at
accomplishing this. (Essentially, doing some of the things that FDR wanted to
accomplish under
color of authority and without Constitutional Amendment would be much like a
referee during a football game acting speciously as though he could change the
rules in the middle of the game, such as shortening the length between the goal
lines on the field by 20 yards when his favorite team had possession of the
football).
[* The "Great Society"
was a socialistic set of domestic programs proposed or enacted on the
1964 initiative of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). LBJ's mentor was Franklin D. Roosevelt (source,
source).]
The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly
praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of
thought in his economic and social policies” and “the
development toward an authoritarian state” based on the
“demand that collective good be put before individual
self-interest” (source).
"Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt [FDR's wife] who
lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who
had said, 'If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we
might get somewhere.' She added that if she were younger, she’d
like to lead 'the Fascist Movement in the United
States.' At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the
cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared
forthrightly, 'The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we
have been evolving here in America' (source)."
Despite 7 years of so-called "economic salvation" at the hands of the
Roosevelt administration, the U.S. Census Bureau of statistics shows that the
official unemployment rate was still 17.2 % in 1939 (the normal, pre-Depression
unemployment rate was about 3 percent) (source).
Between the creation of the Supreme Court in 1789 and the Civil War, the
court found only 2 acts of Congress to be unconstitutional. During the next 50
years, the court challenged laws passed by Congress only 6 more times (source). This sporadic
pattern came to an abrupt change when FDR's New Deal programs began being
enacted.
In the year 1935 alone, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled against
various programs of FDR's "New Deal" 3 different times. The
following year, the court held that several more of FDR's economic recovery laws
violated the Constitution (source). One of the
justices on the Supreme Court at the time, namely Justice Sutherland, commented
that "the meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb
and flow of economic events" (source). In response, FDR
threatened essentially to "pack" the Supreme Court by having
Congress empower him to nominate 6 additional justices who he thought to be
liberal that would create a majority of biased justices that would favor his New
Deal socialism.
FDR's unprecedented expansion of government and giant leap to socialism,
manifested in his tripling of taxes, his regulation of business, and his
relentless anti-business propaganda also contributed to a worsening of the Great
Depression (source).
Many historians and experts now believe that FDR's New Deal made the Great
Depression last longer and deeper (source, source). The then newly
enacted minimum wage regulations made it illegal for employers to hire people
who weren't worth the minimum because they lacked skills. As a result, some
500,000 blacks, particularly in the South, were estimated to
have lost their jobs (source). Marginal
workers, like unskilled blacks, desperately needed an expanding economy to
create more jobs. Yet New Deal policies made it harder for employers to hire
people. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls discouraged employers from
hiring (source).
The Wagner Act (1935) harmed blacks by making labor union monopolies
legal. Labor unions were given the monopoly power to
exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the
effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated
against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision
prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of
Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL
unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to
exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois,
and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.
The Tennessee Valley Authority -- FDR's government-power-generating
monopoly funded by the 98 percent of American taxpayers who didn't live in the
Tennessee Valley -- forced 15,654 people were out of their homes. Farm owners
received cash settlements for their condemned property; but tenant farmers, a
substantial number of whom were black, got nothing (source).
If Democrat President Roosevelt's New Deal policies weren't conceived with
racist intent, they certainly had racist consequences.
Hopefully in the future, more people [such as yourself] will try to better
understand the often startling, unexpected consequences of government
interference with the economy (source). Evidence
makes it clear that poor people were principal victims of the
New Deal. Although few people died from starvation, many did not have enough to
eat. Some people searched garbage dumps for food or ate weeds. Malnutrition took
a toll (source).
Luckily, FDR's plan to "pack the Supreme Court" did not come to fruition;
not all of his unconstitutional socialistic programs were able to continue.
However, his initial push of our country into socialism is still with us. Even
long after his death, the redistribution (taking from one person to give to
another) of wealth is ongoing. Aside from direct payments by the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) into, among other things, socialistic entitlement
programs, which you know are promoted by today's liberals and so-called
"progressives," continue to encourage unemployment, discourage work and
achievement, and prevent growth.
A "Novel" Idea
Angel, here's a novel idea for your Welfare Rights Coalition. Instead of
begging, oops, I mean soliciting for more free hand-outs that could ultimately
be forcibly taken unconstitutionally from many of those whose unalienable rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be infringed by federal tax
collectors empowered to threaten at gunpoint all those who were unwilling to
pay, how about you rather focussing your Coalition's efforts on soliciting
various charities and including various churches, synagogues, temples and
mosques where those who would contribute would do so voluntarily and not under
the force of law? Moreover, if the taxpayers of our nation were not so
overtaxed and were allowed to keep much more of the moneys that they earned,
fear not, many American are very generous. Compared to now, various charities
and including various churches, synagogues, temples and mosques would then, no
doubt, have enormous amounts of money to utilize or legally dispense as they saw
fit.
Welfare "Rights" Coalition
Angel, come on now. You must know, at least "deep down," that neither you nor
those in your organization have any more of a "right" to expect
me or anyone else to pay for your and their food, clothing, housing, travel,
medical expense, and child care than do I or anyone else have a
"right" to expect such from you or anyone in your organization,
don't you? However, if you do think that not only all of us together in the USA
should not be segregated into different groups with some having less rights than
others but we all nonetheless have an equal "right" to have
someone else pay for these things, who would they be? Are you thinking of
Canadians, Russians, or perhaps the Chinese? Moreover, if you do think we all
here in the USA have the same right to have someone else pay our way, then
Canadians, Russians, Chinese, or whomever you think should be the ones doing the
paying will be forced to work on all of our behalves and thus be subjects
of involuntary servitude (fancy terminology for "slavery"). Wow, now that's
"progressive!"
Unalienable Right or Legal Right? A BIG
Difference!
Federal entitlement programs are acts of Congress signed into law
by the President. Unless and until these programs are repealed by Congress for
whatever reason, which might include being recognized as being unconstitutional
by Congress itself, by the President, or found unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court, they remain in effect, assuming of course that the USA remains a
sovereign nation.
They (entitlement programs) are the kind of government programs
that provide individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special
government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually
rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a "legal
right" (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet
eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that
authorizes the given program. All forms of federal welfare and including
those of which you, Angel, are an advocate fall in this category; no exception.
(source)
A "legal right" or "entitlement"
to benefit from such a program should not be confused with any of our
"unalienable Rights" as they are recognized in our Declaration
of Independence (source). Unlike
our unalienable rights endowed upon us by our "Creator," among
other things means that they are not granted by, nor conditional upon,
government, legal rights are very different. A "legal
right" is granted by, and conditional upon, the government that created
it. It wouldn't exist if it were not for government creating it. And just as
government can create it through enactment of law, government can remove it by
repealing such enactment. (source) Upon repeal,
any legal right that had entitled someone to
benefit from the former program vanishes.
WRC Under The Name of "Poor People's Contingent" To Stage
Protests
At Republican National Convention
Because $10 Trillion Still Not Enough For "The Poor" To "Make Ends
Meet"
Poor? Don't you really mean "formerly
poor" and just accidentally left out word:
formerly? Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC), a federal
program where income is taken from higher wage earners and
redistributed to lower wage earners is not counted as "income"
for that lower wage earner (which liberals wish not be considered as "welfare")
in either determining if the lower wage earner goes above the poverty line where
he/she could not be counted as one of America's "poor" (living in poverty) or
determining eligibility for receiving (other) welfare benefits such as food
stamps, housing, medical, etc (source, source).
Already in 1996, the value of the full package of welfare
benefits for a typical recipient in each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia exceeds the poverty
level. Because welfare benefits are tax-free, their
dollar value is often greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would
have left after paying taxes on an equivalent pretax income. In nine states
welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting
salary for a secretary. And in the six most generous states it
pays more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer
(source).
Since 1964 we, the American taxpayers, have spent $8–10 trillion on
antipoverty programs in prosecuting this so-called "War On
Poverty" that was declared by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and
endorsed by Congress back in 1964. It was twenty-four (24) years later
that Republican President Ronald Reagan delivered a State of the Union address
in which he declared that the War on Poverty had failed. President Reagan went
on to say that without strong families, the poor would never emerge from
poverty. Even more damaging, Reagan directly stated that federal antipoverty
programs actually functioned to destroy poor families, thereby perpetuating the
culture of poverty they were trying to eliminate. Federal antipoverty programs,
in Reagan’s analysis, "had become part of the problem, not the
solution" (source).
Aside from discussing any "legal rights" with respect to
entitlement programs enacted by the Minnesota Legislature, the Minnesota Welfare Rights
Coalition representing themselves or under the name of "Poor People’s
Contingent" (source) has the intent
of staging protests at the upcoming Republican
National Convention (NRC) in St. Paul this
September. Angel, your group(s) will be protesting what legal
rights or advocating what legal rights,
exactly? The Republican Party does not conduct court. It doesn't have the
power to decide legal rights of those who claim to be a beneficiary. (source) So it's my
guess that your "Poor People's Contingent" doesn't feel that ten
trillion dollars of American taxpayer dollars to pay your way just
isn't quite enough to make your "ends meet," right? And because of this, you and
your group want the Republicans in office to become more Marxist in the
legislation they attempt to enact in Congress, correct? Marxism, among other
things, would be where workers are "exploited" by the
government to pay the way for those who don't work (source).
I am curious, bearing in mind that I am not talking about the production of
babies and more mouths to feed, you must realize that when more and more is
taken away from what workers produce so that it can be given to those who don't
work and produce nothing that, at some point, the workers will lose their
incentive to produce resulting in less or no production at all, correct? (A word
to the wise: when protesting at the RNC, don't forget Aesop's story of The
Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs. - Moral of the story: Those who want
too much lose everything.)
You may be unaware of this but it was this lack of incentive that resulted
in about half of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock starving to death. In other
words, communism was tried in 1620 in America - it failed. (Those who don't
learn from history are doomed to repeat it.) I should add to this that Plymouth
Rock is the birthplace of capitalism in America - property ownership by
private individuals. People enjoying the fruits of their own labor on their own
private property was the necessary incentive that resulted in abundance back in
1621 as it still does today. I have a hunch that neither you nor your boys knew
that the day we met, our national holiday we call Thanksgiving,
is a celebration of capitalism in the New World and its incentive that leads to
abundance (source).
Freedom To Choose To Remain Ignorant
I realize, of course, that a lot of people in this country don't
know this about our country and moreover have willfully chosen all too
frequently to remain ignorant about its founding, its Constitution, and its
history in general. Whether or not the forementioned was taught in particular
schools is actually not much of an excuse, though. The information is easily
obtainable; and now, certainly easier than ever before. Unlike when we were kids
and having to learn the Dewey decimal system for the use of card catalogues at
the library, wait our turn to get a particular volume of an encyclopedia (if our
parents didn't buy us a set for at home), or wait our turn to check out a book
from the library, all we need now is to have a little bit of hand/finger/eye
coordination and know how to come "ball park" close to spelling a given
word (spell check will figure it out for us) and "Walla!: Google will find a
million pages on the subject for us, not to mention pictures and narrated
movies. With you being a public speaker and activist, I would doubt seriously
if you were one of the ones who chose to be ignorant.
I am sure you would agree that a necessary
component in learning is desire. Without it, indeed, very little can be learned
or retained. Knowledge is something that we must gain on our own effort. It is
not something that can be instilled or implanted. "You can lead a horse to water
but you can't make it drink," as they say.
We Become What We Think About
Mark 9-23:
"Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are
possible to him that believeth."
From Jesus' sermon on the mount:
"Ask, And It Shall Be Given You"
"Seek, And Ye Shall
Find"
"Knock, And It Shall Be Opened Unto You"
"For Every One That Asketh
Receiveth"
Buddha:
"All that we are is the result of what
we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we
become."
Earl Nightingale:
"You Become What You Think
About"
Earl Nightingale's "The Strangest Secret" has sold over a
million copies and is the only gold record ever achieved for the spoken word.
Its message is simple, yet powerful. "You become what you think
about." It became the basis for the Nightingale-Conant
Corporation. Many thousands of people have attributed this recording with
turning their lives around and helping them make their fortunes in the world. -
Mark Victor Hansen
"The basic message that 'you become what you think about' was first
promulgated by some of the earliest wise men, and it appears again and again
throughout the Bible; however, very few people have learned it or understand it.
That's why it's strange, and why for some equally strange reason it virtually
remains a 'secret.'" (source:
The Strangest
Secret originally recorded in 1957 by Earl
Nightingale [text version])
Maxwell Maltz, MD, also addressed this "secret" in his best-selling
book, Psycho-Cybernetics. The basic concept is that we're built
for success. Just like an animal, which has instincts for success, we too have
success 'instincts.' However, ours are in the form of the goal-seeking
mechanisms in our brains, which Dr. Maltz refers to as "servo-mechanisms." It is
a mechanism of our subconscious mind. It relies on the conscious mind to tell it
what to do then it goes tirelessly about trying to accomplish the task until it
would receive a new "order" that would alter the given endeavor. It will deliver
anything for which we ask that is consistent with our self image. It sets no
goals on its own. Whether positive or negative - the servo-mechanism doesn't
care one little bit. Our task is to consciously "think about" building a strong,
successful, happy, wealthy self-image (even if it predates reality). Once we
begin doing that, we have an incredibly powerful mechanism to use to make what
we envisioned, reality. Simply put, if we accurately create a strong goal in our
brains, we can't help but accomplish it. Unfortunately, many people either don't
simply focus on goals they want to achieve or fall back into an old habit of
focusing way too often on negative thoughts (source).
Like Attracts Like
The Secret Law of
Attraction
"Some proponents of a more modern version of the Law of Attraction
claim that it has roots in Quantum
Physics. According to them, thoughts have an energy that attracts like
energy. In order to control this energy, proponents state that people must
practice four things:
- Know what one desires and ask the universe for it. (The "universe" is
mentioned broadly, stating that it can be anything the individual envisions it
to be, from God to an unknown source of energy.)
- Focus one's thought upon the thing desired with great feeling such as
enthusiasm or gratitude.
- Feel and behave as if the object of one's desire is already acquired.
- Be open to receiving it.
Thinking of what one does not have, they say, manifests itself in the
perpetuation of not having, while if one abides by these principles, and avoids
"negative" thoughts, the Universe will manifest a person's desires." (source)
"What you focus on expands. Your thoughts, feelings, and actions
will expand and return to you. Every thought you have, is like placing an order
out into the universe and it will return to you. If you truly want to change
your life for the better then change your thoughts and your words. Like
attracts like. Whatever you focus on will return to you.
This secret law of
attraction when not understood can cause your path in life to be
much bumpier than necessary. The more you understand that every thought, word
and deed will create your reality then you will understand you are in control of
changing your life for the better by changing your thoughts, words, and
actions." - The
Secret by Rhonda Byrne
Angel, now like many others you, too, have been given the
"secret." How you use it personally for yourself from this
point forward is, as you're well aware, totally up to you. Whether in your role
as a leader in the WRC and activist in a so-called "progressive movement" that
was organized for the purpose of convincing people, whether citizens or illegal
aliens, that they have some magical, unwritten "right" to be
on a city, county, state and/or federal government dole whereby they can then
have others with more ambition and self-reliance pay their way for them for the
rest of their lives as well as their offspring's, or in your personal life, you
may share it with everyone or share it with no one. However, in your role as a
mother, you should not keep it a secret from your boys, unless of course
you want them to follow in your footsteps and try to forever keep success out of
their grasps. ("Success is the progressive realization of a worthy
ideal.")
It just might be that in your circles, you don't hear opposing viewpoints
or see or hear any presentation of facts that would logically lead you to
opinions or conclusions opposite of those you've respectively held or arrived at
previously. I know that you have leanings towards Marxism, socialism, fascism
and communism. Whether speaking of one of them or all four, each and every one
of them all have in common the suppression of free speech, which among other
things is the free exchange of ideas. Clever propaganda that repackages old
ideas that historically have a track record of 100% failure rate is disgustingly
successful at continually bringing in new believers and supporters, that is to
say, "useful idiots" (a term coined supposedly by Vladimir Lenin).
"An outstanding salesman is one who can
tell another to go to hell and make him feel very happy that he is on his way.
Such a feat requires intense creativity, deceptive semantics, and the ability to
lie creatively and utter warm, loving words to the victim while concealing the
intense hatred the perpetrator feels for him. The victim must be convinced he's
going to a warm, wonderful place and not understand until too late what
is really happening to him." - John
Loeffler
A free state is where the laws protect the people
from government. A socialist or fascist state is diametrically different. Such
is where the laws protect government from the people.
And now finally, here are my comments specific to each of the sentences in your latest email to me:
Angel: "If the man did the crime yes be punished, but do
not just punish someone because they are an immigrant."
[Even though I had stated this at the onset of this email, I think
it's worth repeating here. Let's not forget that this email string all began by
the sharing of comments regarding multiple murders committed allegedly by a
2-time convicted felon who is in this country illegally (an illegal alien) and
has a history of being protected by a sanctuary city receiving federal funding
of USA taxpayer dollars.
Are you, Angel, personally able to distinguish any appreciable
difference between someone who immigrates or travels into a country to which
they are not native so to settle or visit and who is respectful of the
people's laws and rights in that new country, and someone who travels into such
new country with possible intention of settling in it who is generally not
respectful of the people's laws and rights in that new country? Or, to you
would it be essentially a distinction without a difference?
If your answer is essentially that there is no appreciable
difference, then it would seem to me that you, at least subconsciously, favor:
1) behavior akin to "antisocial personality disorder" (a personality
disorder characterized by chronic antisocial behavior and violation of the law
and the rights of others); or worse,
2) behavior associated with that of a "sociopath" (someone whose
social behavior is extremely abnormal - sociopaths are interested only in their
personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on
others).
It seems highly doubtful that anyone could successfully argue that a
person with a felonious record who subsequently murders 3 innocent strangers in
a vehicle that had briefly blocked a left turn being attempted by that person in
his vehicle, is not someone with sociopathic tendencies. Of course it's true
that most illegal aliens who have demonstrated by their own actions that they
are not respectful of the people's laws and rights here in the USA by the
very fact that they chose to be here illegally, based on that alone can all be
nevertheless considered as either having "antisocial personality disorder" or
are "sociopathic." However, such is a symptom nonetheless. It would be a safe
estimate that tens of thousands or perhaps millions of people do not enter or
stay in the USA illegally simply because its against the law and they probably
respect the people of this country.
Obviously, the much smaller percentage of those who chose
willfully to enter or stay in the USA illegally manifest antisocial, and much more often than not,
criminal behavior such as identity theft, fraudulent use of social security
numbers, document fraud, mail fraud, etc., not to mention those that are more
horrific such as murder. Civilized society over many
centuries and long before the creation of the United States of America has
treated those who violate their laws differently from those who obey them. Over
the ages, a consequence to violation of law has been punishment.
It is obvious by what you've written thus far that you make no
distinction between someone who immigrates legally and one who immigrates
illegally. For that matter, it seems intentional that you omitted the terms
"illegal" or "illegally" when referring to immigrants. Such omissions tell me
that violation of laws, or at least those with which you personally don't agree,
should be overlooked. Bearing in mind that you are the primary teacher of your
children, this might be very confusing for young boys growing up, that is to
say, not only very hard for them to learn to distinguish the difference between
right and wrong and how to stay out of 'trouble," but to make successes of their
lives.
Now unless you can only see immigration from a skewed
perspective of an illegal alien who would be focussed solely on fulfilling his
or her personal needs and desires oblivious to violation of law and the rights
of others who would be affected by that selfish focus (which in essence would be
strikingly similar to seeing illegal immigration through the eyes of a
sociopath), I think you could see how this could lead one to conclude that you
have little or no empathy or respect whatsoever for all those who obey laws and
have immigrated here legally, not to mention your other fellow countrymen and
women who do respect the laws and the rights of others. It is from the hard work
of these men and women that income taxes are assessed that when collected, pay
for, among other things, hospitals, schools, roads,
and our national defense. Ah yes, we can't forget that these hard-working
taxpayers also fund through their tax dollars welfare
for housing and food to support those who do nothing or who, in some cases, are
too busy lobbying for even more free (for them) taxpayer hand-outs to find
enough time in the day to earn enough to support themselves and their families.
For clarification purposes, entering the USA border without "checking
in" with border security and attempting to avoid that security is a violation of
the criminal division of the "Immigration and Nationality Act" and is a federal
crime for which a violator may be punished. Overstaying a visa in itself is not
a federal crime - such would be a civil violation [visa: an endorsement made in
a passport that allows the bearer to enter the country issuing it]. Civil
violations are unlawful but not instantly criminal whereby punishment could
result. Civil violations are subject to remedy; which, in the case of being in
this country illegally, are remedied by deportation [removal proceedings].
Deportation itself is not considered to be punishment. To reiterate, deportation
is simply a remedy for a civil violation.
Lawful, law-abiding immigrants are not punished for acting lawfully.
Apparently, what you really meant was that you didn't feel that immigrants who
acted unlawfully should be punished nor should be held accountable for their
lawlessness with respect to our nation's immigration laws. In other words,
unlike the immigrants of the past, you feel that they are a new special class of
people who should have special privilege and be "above the
law."
At the time of this writing I am personally unaware of
whether or not you and/or your family receive any form of assistance whatsoever
from any agency of government. It is my hunch that your household does, but it's
only that, a hunch. That being said, hypothetically, I could appreciate that if
the county, state and/or federal government were to cut off part or all of the
funding you might be receiving from your fellow citizens through their tax
dollars supporting you and your family's existence, you might personally feel as
though you were being "punished"; but, in a legal sense, the simple loss of
continued funding is technically not punishment. Aside from this legal sense,
one could argue that the real punishment which is felt is by many hard working
taxpayers who use government very little yet are burdened with high taxes that
are used to pay the way for those who, despite having potential, contribute
little or nothing at all and nonetheless rely on government to provide for them
in almost every imaginable way.
Despite popular notions to the contrary, nowhere in the US
Constitution can it be found where something could be construed to make our
federal government some form of charity collection agency authorizing it to give
tax dollars to whomever it selectively deems worthy. For that matter, the
notion conveyed by many Democrats and Republicans alike that our federal
government can be "compassionate" is also a fallacy. Artficial things, that is
to say, manmade things such as our government, do not and cannot have compassion
prescribed into official duties; doing such is impossible. Contingent upon a
given governmental post, there is some room for discression; but generally
speaking, such discretion is very limited. On the other hand, non-governmental
entities such as many different charitable organizations can grant a great
amount of discression in persons holding various offices and staff positions. It
would be in this discretion where one could perceive "compassion." However, to
be clear, "compassion" is something that is only felt by the living and there is
nothing in the Constitution which attempts artificially to infuse it into any of
its artificial creations.
Now back to the forementioned hypothetical so to clear any
blurring between punishment and consequence. Punishment is always a consequence;
however, consequence isn't always punishment. For example, if the hypothetical
funding mentioned previously were cut off because of fraud on your part, again,
it wouldn't be punishment but rather simply a consequence to whatever fraud you
had committed. Basically, there are rules in place where a conviction of fraud
may disqualify a previous recipient from receiving various forms of
taxpayer-funded welfare for some given period of time. The "punishment" if any,
that you could receive in such scenario would be sentenced by a court subsequent
criminal prosecution.
A key word to remember in keeping this all straight is "qualify." There
are nearly countless things in government and private sector where one must
first "qualify" in one fashion or another in order to pursue a given endeavor or
receive some special privilege. It is this qualification that sets a person
apart from others. In other words, our mere existence alone does not authorize,
enable, empower, accredit, or entitle us to do or have anything or everything.
Granted, we all were endowed by our "Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," quoting, in
part, the Declaration of Independence; but, it's important to note that our
founders did not recognize that any one person's life, liberty and such pursuit
took priority over, was at the expense of, or could infringe upon another
person's life, liberty and pursuit of their happiness. Moreover, it's also
important to remember particularly that "the pursuit of Happiness" does not mean
the "achievement" of happiness. One can pursue happiness all life long but never
achieve it.
Our founding fathers recognized that our Creator and not any form of
government endowed us with these unalienable Rights. Moreover, this all occurred
prior to the formation of any government much less any of those in the United
States and their Constitution.
With many things, conditions must first be met before proceeding. As this
holds true for citizens of the United States, so does it for those who are not
US citizens when they come here. For the government to selectively remove
necessity of qualifications for, or not require laws to be enforced with respect
to, just certain classes of people of whom would include "illegal aliens," while
leaving them intact or enforceable with respect to other people outside the
given class, erodes the framework upon which this country was built. Such
prejudicial treatment ignores the Declaration of Independence where in part, it
states: "all men are created equal," and the 14th Amendment that grants equal
protection under the law. It is this freedom and our government's unprecedented recognition of our unalienable rights and that we all were created
equal that has acted like a magnet drawing more people from all over the world
wanting to migrate here to this country than any other country in all of
recorded history on this planet. It seems that you want to destroy the very
things that have made this country exceptional and the greatest county on God's
green Earth.]
Angel: "As far as Bush taxing the rich not even he has done
nothing of the sort but bring terror to this
country."
[Technically, it's Congress not the President who sets income tax
rates. However, the President does sign acts of Congress into law, which among
other thing would include laws regarding income tax. We can see by the chart
appearing below that in the year 2006, the top 5% income earners paid over 60%
of all income tax paid to the federal government! During this same time period
the bottom 50% of income earners paid less than 3% of all income tax paid the
government.
Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays
What
For Tax Year 2006
|
Percentiles Ranked by
AGI
|
AGI Threshold on
Percentiles
|
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax
Paid
|
|
Top 1%
|
$388,806
|
39.89
|
|
Top 5%
|
$153,542
|
60.14
|
|
Top 10%
|
$108,904
|
70.79
|
|
Top 25%
|
$64,702
|
86.27
|
|
Top 50%
|
$31,987
|
97.01
|
|
Bottom 50%
|
<$31,987
|
2.99
|
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross
Income
Source: Internal Revenue
Service
|
Angel, for you to think that the so-called "rich" are not being taxed
is nothing short of ridiculous. As you can see, the top 1% pays about ten times
more tax than the entire bottom 50% of American income taxpayers! The
so-called "rich" are about the only ones who are really paying income tax
anymore.
In the same breath you claimed that President Bush brings
"terror to this country." You may have a terrific memory but it sure seems awful short. It was neither
President Bush nor, for that matter, President Clinton who brought terror to
this country. To refresh your memory it rather was Islamofascists who brought
terror here. Not included in the list appearing below are hundreds of
Islamofascist terrorist attacks that murdered thousands of people committed on
foreign soil against people of other countries.
- Airliner highjackings, World Trade Center and Pentagon
attack (2001)
- USS Cole attacked by two Islamofascists in a boat filled
with explosives (2000)
- First World Trade Center Attack (1993)
- Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (1998)
- The attack at CIA HQ by Mir Aimal Kansi (1993)
- The failed NYC Landmark Bomb Plot (1993)
- Brooklyn Bridge Shooting of Hasidic Seminary student by
Rashid Baz (1994)
- 2 American Consulate workers killed and another wounded in
Karachi (1995)
- Khobar Towers Bombing with 19 dead and many more wounded
(1996)
Since the Islamofascist terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has
not been another such attack on USA soil since - which now has been nearly 7
years. In the days, months and then years that followed that day in September,
2001, no expert thought that this much time would elapse without another such
attack on US soil. If anything, President Bush has considerably relieved fears
from the threat of terrorism here in the USA, not increased
them!]
Angel: "While he is trying to over throw
the Columbian by diminishing the FARK." [I think what you meant to
say is: "... Bush is bringing terror to this country (USA) at the same time he
trying to stop the terror of the Colombian terrorist organization FARC from
overthrowing the government of Colombia."]
[Other than most of the illegal aliens in this country being Latino,
"out of the clear blue" you bring the Marxist terrorist organization FARC into
the picture. Do you have sympathies for FARC? Do you wish perhaps that something
similar was here in the USA?
FARC was established in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian
Communist Party, the FARC is Colombia’s oldest, largest, most capable,
and best-equipped Marxist insurgency. Strength:
Approximately 9,000 to 12,000 armed combatants and several thousand more
supporters, mostly in rural areas. Activities: Bombings, murder, mortar
attacks, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional
military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets. In
March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan
territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. Foreign citizens often are
targets of FARC kidnapping for ransom (source).]
Angel: "Who is the real terrorist in this country[?] Certainly
not immigrant folks that are fleeing there country because of the destruction
the US Government puts on them."
[It seems that you're suggesting that President Bush is terrorizing
Mexicans and other Latinos South of our border with acts of destruction in turn
causing them to illegally enter the USA. Too bad you didn't elaborate. I listen
frequently to Err America on the radio and haven't yet heard any such report. I
would think that with all the irrational Bush hate that I've heard on its
programming over the years I would have certainly heard about
that!]
Angel: "How many people in this country
go and Kill tens and thousands of people innocent people and get by with
it[?]"
[None.]
Angel: "Do you call that Justice? I
think not."
[Yes.]
Angel: "I know for a fact that if you are not someone
like Donald Trump or Bill Gates you are feeling the raft [wrath] of this war
..."
["wrath n. Forceful, often vindictive anger. Punishment or
vengeance as a manifestation of anger" (source). Angel,
whose wrath is it to which you are referring? If it is the wrath of our
enemies, namely, Islamofascists, except for our troops who have been in harm's
way, neither Trump, Gates, nor the rest of the American people have suffered any
causalities on USA soil since September 11, 2001. So this "fact"
to which you refer has escaped me. Please share this
"fact" with me and probably the rest of us.]
Angel: "... this illegal
war."
[In order for something to be illegal, it must fall under the
territorial jurisdiction of where the given law is recognized as having
authority and can be enforced. For example, Wisconsin laws cannot be enforced in
Minnesota by various police departments of cities located in Wisconsin. Those
police have no jurisdiction in Minnesota; nor, for example, can Iranian police
or other authorities from Iran enforce Iranian laws here in the USA. Again, they
have no jurisdiction. The USA is a sovereign state. Likewise, laws made by the
US Congress or any of those adopted by any of the various legislatures of the 50
states have no authority in Iran and no legal basis from which they could be
enforced. In the United States, our Commander in Chief is vested by our US
Constitution to be the supreme commander of our military and can deploy it as
he/she sees fit. Congress has no Constitutional authority to prevent such
deployment. Its power in that regard is that of funding, it controls the "purse
strings." Yes, it can "declare war" but it has no authority whatsoever in terms
of commanding the military to do anything because that power rest solely with
the President as Commander in Chief.]
Angel: "The cost of living hascertainly skyrocketed for
poor and working folks and we are feeling the brunt of it everyday because
people like the Republicans and Democrats alike are not caring about the people
who are working class citizens in this country."
[Lots of things can contribute the rising costs of living with some
having more direct influence on it than others. The cost of energy is probably
the single largest contributing factor. The oil shortage created by our
government has caused prices to soar across the board for the poor, middle
class, and wealthy all alike. Our government's prevention of allowing its people
to benefit from their own oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy resources
over the past decades is now causing this artificially created energy crisis.]
Angel: They need to stop the War and bring
the troops home now.
[It might have been interesting for you to have explained why you
think that snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq would be a good
thing. Moreover, it may have been equally interesting had you gone to also explain why you think that leaving Iraq
abruptly so that Al Qaida could claim victory over the USA would benefit anyone
in the USA other than Islamofascists or their sympathizers.]
Angel: Money for human needs not for
war!
[Again, It would have been nice had you elaborated. I would like to
think you'd agree that a "human need" is life itself for the human being. Or,
do you say this because even though Islamofascists in an act of war on September
11th, murdered thousands of innocent American people who all had seemingly, for
the most part, well-paying jobs on September 11th and were probably not on some
form of pubic assistance, these jihad murderers did not directly take or
threaten to take welfare funds from those on public assistance, and for these
reasons, at this point anyway, you're not too concerned with what lays in store
from these extremists who want to either convert or kill all those who
don't share their faith of subjugation and worship of death?]
Angel: Stop pushing horrible crimes on
immigrant people.
[Again, of course, it would have been nice had you elaborated with
more specificity. This is a tough one for me to understand what you're trying to
say. Bearing in mind that this email thread began from comments about giving
sanctuary to an illegal alien who committed "horrible
crimes" on several people, 3 of whom he murdered, are you
inferring that American people or, perhaps and/or through, their government were
or was "pushing" him into committing these horrible crimes? In other words you
consider it more appropriate to view this murderous illegal alien as more of a
victim who must have basically "lashed out" (several times may I add) because of
the difficulty he felt "pushed" upon him by our people and our government while
he was violating immigration laws of the USA?
Or perhaps I am way off on this. I might be mistaken and it may have
been that you were not referring at all to the illegal alien murderer. Instead,
maybe your focus was on "immigrant people" with
respect to your previous sentence reference to the "war" in
which we are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these "immigrant
people" to whom you refer the members of Al Qaida and terrorist
wannabes that are crossing the Iraqi border from Iran and elsewhere so to
terrorize the Iraqi people and overthrow their government in hopes of preventing
them from enjoying freedom, liberty and self-governance? Is it these "immigrant
(terrorist) people" who you think we are "pushing horrible crimes
on"?]
Angel, hopefully you found the time to read this latest comment of
mine in its entirety. I welcome you to share it the other spokespeople in the
WRC. Then just perhaps the next time that any of you are on stage a little wind
might be out of your sails in that you will be feeling a bit too
disingenuous when you're trying to lead a chant about some fictitious
"rights" that you hold whereby taxpayers must pay your way. -
michael
----- Original Message -----
To: [removed]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Strip Sanctuary Cities Of
Federal Funds
If
the man did the crime yes be punished, but do not just punish someone because
they are an immigrant. As far as Bush taxing the rich not even he has done
nothing of the sort but bring terror to this country. While he is trying to over
throw the Columbian by diminishing the FARK. Who is the real terrorist in this
country. Certainly not immigrant folks that are fleeing there country because of
the destruction the US Government puts on them. How many people in this country
go and Kill tens and thousands of people innocent people and get by with it. Do
you call that Justice? I think not. I know for a fact that if you are not
someone like Donald Trump or Bill Gates you are feeling the raft of this war,
this illegal war. The cost of living hascertainly skyrocketed for poor and
working folks and we are feeling the brunt of it everyday because people like
the Republicans and Democrats alike are not caring about the people who are
working class citizens in this country. They need to stop the War and bring the
troops home now. Money for human needs not for war! Stop pushing horrible crimes
on immigrant people.
-----
Original Message ----
From: [removed]
To: [removed]
Cc: [removed]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:12:34 PM
Subject: Fw:
Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
Angel - Oh I see, so you're saying that hypothetically, whether the illegal
alien in a sanctuary city who had previously been found guilty of committing
multiple felonies, who was allowed by supposedly "progressively" minded people
to remain illegally to go on to commit even more crimes against the people of
the country he snuck in, who then allegedly cold-bloodedly murders a father and
his two sons [as described below] in their car in an intersection on their way
back from a party or if instead he had allegedly murdered, cold-bloodedly, an
innocent mother such as yourself and two of her innocent sons who were
passengers in the car, in either case the murderer, whether before or after the
alleged murders, should not in any case ever be "terrorized" with the thought
that he may be held accountable for illegally entering a country different than
his own and sent back to his country of origin; because, regardless of willfully
choosing to enter this country illegally and despite also knowing full-well of
the likelihood of legal ramifications for violating this country's law, either
he or other illegal aliens like himself who typically hide from authorities
after violating law or committing crime and try to keep a "low profile" and in
so doing, intentionally place themselves in situations subject to probable
exploitation, because of this higher degree of exploitation, should not
therefore be punished for their willful actions.
Yeah, Bush as president and commander in chief would be nuts to think he
should take any steps pursuant to his constitutional duty with respect
to protecting innocent mothers [or fathers] such as yourself and their innocent
children or other citizens of the USA from illegal invaders - murderous or
otherwise! A real wacko, eh?
Don't tell me, but you can if you want. Did you just maybe adopt the
position that those who enter or stay in this country illegally should not be
held accountable for such violation of law and should also be more privileged
than common citizens such as yourself and your sons, who either were born here
or are here legally, back when Barack Obama was a community organizer for ACORN
and perhaps gave a speech to your chapter here in town?
Maybe Bush should try to get Congress to actually start taxing common
citizens such as ourselves instead of only the rich. That way, we can get even
more money and feel as though we are collectively sacrificing even more so to
help those in sanctuary cities who are from foreign lands that either snuck or
stay in this country illegally and of those, many of whom that have no respect
whatsover for human life or much less the laws of the land. Now that's some
real "CHANGE!" - mike P.S. Kinda makes you feel "faint," doesn't it?
-----
Original Message -----
To: [removed]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:54 PM
Subject: Fw: Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
-----
Original Message -----
To: [removed]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: Fw: Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
I personal think the ICE program is a bad program, it does not give the
people the right to terorize inocent immgrant people, I personaly believe that
bush should not even get involved in this program and leave immgrants folks
alone, after they exploite them for there labor then they try to punish them
with this bull crap ICE program.
Angel
-----
Forwarded Message ----
From: [removed]
To: [removed]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:10:20
AM
Subject: Fw: Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
-----
Original Message -----
To: [removed]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:29 AM
Subject: Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds
 Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities Of
Federal Funds
By Michael Reagan
July 25, 2008
Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco's outrageous
sanctuary-city policy [essentially the same sanctuary policy
instituted by Democrats/liberals who run cities of St Paul & Minneapolis and
endorsed by all our local TV stations and both major newspapers], which
forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when
they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it's time for President
Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this
absurd policy.
[Joann and I heard the surviving mother/wife, Mrs.
Bologna, telling the story through her tears on the radio and Joann saw her on
morning TV. Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom, despite attempts to reach him,
refused to even offer the grieving mother/wife any condolences
whatsover.]
On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to
death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna
allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the
San Francisco Chronicle.
Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as
MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn't have
been -- were not for the city's sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal
immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 --
involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the
attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city's
juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as
required by federal law.
Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a
street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter.
Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for
dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not
discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status."
On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite
the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal
immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation.
Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and
Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger.
He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with
an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations.
There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever
notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years
the city's juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning
over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on
San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from
surrendering them for deportation.
After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men,
San Francisco's ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy
earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a
number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal
law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly
escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men.
Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects
this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of
innocent Americans.
Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report,
which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down
on illegal immigration. "There is a growing role for state and local law
enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]," the report
stated. "They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can
cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying
terrorist suspects."
Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as
havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in
creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential
terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent
local police from reporting them to ICE.
President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to
those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries
enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to
learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal
activities by aliens here illegally.
---
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on
more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America
Network. Look for Mike's newest book, "Twice Adopted" and other info at www.Reagan.com.
E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.
--------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version:
7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1562 - Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01
PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version:
7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1562 - Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01
PM
|
ShoppingSolution.com LLC
~ American owned and operated in USA since 1997 ~
|
Why should you pay for costly TV advertising? Until now these products could only be purchased by way of TV infomercial promotions. By taking advantage of the Deep Discount ePrices offered on this "no frills" webstore, you'll ELIMINATE the high cost TV advertising that's otherwise built in the so-called "deals" offered on TV!
For the
DEEPEST DISCOUNTS available, order now using Secure PayPal and enjoy
extra savings and greater security than using your credit cards!
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT: Nothing stated in this website
is intended to be understood as any type of medical advice or promotion of such
whatsoever. Moreover, nothing herein is meant to be used
to diagnose or self-diagnose any physical, mental,
medical condition or psychological disorder; nor, should any information herein
be understood to mean that any Q-Ray® jewelry or any other product or self-help
program offered for sale, or any stated opinions about the forementioned either
in this website or over the phone on our toll-free 24/7 order hotline is
intended to be any form of promotion of an accepted medical alternative
by the professional medical community for the purpose of treating, relieving or
curing pain or preventing any disease or relieving discomfort from such or any
malady.
Before trying anything new, ShoppingSolution.com
LLC and those who represent it are of the opinion that it is always advisable
for you to get "expert" professional opinion first whenever possible. That being
said, whether you choose to first get that opinion or not, you may nonetheless
feel comfortable in at least knowing that 10s of thousands of apparently
satisfied customers re-order new bracelets, as well as many of the other
products offered on our website, for themselves and as gifts to friends and
loved ones every year! By phone on our toll-free order line, we hear frequently
from happy customers who tell us the products they ordered had met or exceeded
their expectations. However, the positive things that they relate to us about
their Q-Ray bracelets and our other products and self-help programs cannot be
considered scientific and relied upon in any way as some form of controlled
clinical trial. Instead, they are simply nothing more than anecdotal reports
from happy customers. We mean to neither imply nor offer you any conclusion to
be drawn from the reordering of satisfied customers and positive feedback we
receive; it would be up to you to take personal responsibility in drawing your
own. – ShoppingSolution.com LLC
|
|
OUR PERSONAL GUARANTEE TO YOU:
"If you are not absolutely thrilled with any purchase from this "TV Infomercial Deep Discount Store" for any reason, simply return it within 30 days of delivery for full product purchase price refund; however, for any magnetic mattress pad we extend this to 100 days, and for RootBlast purchases, one full year!" Michael Holmes, Chief Operating Manager, and Joann Jungmann, Chief Executive of ShoppingSolution.com LLC.
ShoppingSolution@Q.com
|
|
|