The Growth Triangle

by: the Common Constitutionalist

This past election has taught me a couple important lessons. One is that evidently, cheaters do prosper, at least temporarily. That, however, is a discussion for another time. The second is, what is really important to concentrate on going forward.

What I’ve discovered is that relatively minor issues are constantly sidetracking us.

It isn’t that they are not important, they are, but we need a grander vision.

Issues like pro-life versus pro-abortion, homosexual marriage, funding PBS and such. They are all important, but without a viable and vibrant free Republic to decide them, they are all meaningless.

Thus is my grand vision.

Going forward, I have decided to concentrate on three major issues. If I am unable to find candidates that concur on these positions, I cannot and will not vote for them. No more exceptions!

The three issues are the economy, national defense and illegal immigration.

I chose these because I believe them to be the fire triangle of America, as it were.

If you recall, the fire triangle is named for its three essential components; fuel, heat and oxygen (air). A fire must have these three components in order to be maintained.

If you take one of these components away, the fire cannot sustain itself and will extinguish. Likewise, if you are lacking just one of these the fire will not ignite.

Let’s examine the three components of my newly adopted “Growth Triangle”.

The fuel of the “fire triangle” would equate to the American economy. Mitt Romney touched on this during the campaign. Without it, obviously we would cease to exist as a nation.

But there are many types of fuel for fire. If one were to make a fire using only sticks and twigs, it would still be considered a fire, albeit a small one and not much good for warmth, cooking and fending off predators. The small fire could be sustained, however would service but a very few.

If however, you added large logs, thus greatly enhancing the fuel source, quite soon the fire would grow, providing ample warmth, a reliable cooking source and a formidable barrier for predators or enemies.

Merely maintaining a small economy is not good enough either. A weak economy is the twig and stick fire. Yes, it’s a fire, but a pretty sorry one.

The twigs, sticks and logs equate to jobs that fuel economy. Adding little twigs and sticks to your fire will never do. Large logs must be added to keep it stoked properly.

Without these logs, the fire cannot grow and without jobs, lots of jobs, nor can the economy.

The heat of the fire triangle, I liken to our national defense. Without heat the fire cannot be sustained, regardless of the fuel source. You may add all the sticks, twigs, logs or even gasoline you like and without heat they will never ignite.

Thus is the dependency of the economy and a strong national defense. No economy can thrive and grow without protection.

When the heat is drastically reduced, the fire will not extinguish, but will become much more vulnerable to attack by the slightest rain or wind.

Thus it is regarding national defense. By drastically reducing our military, we become more vulnerable to attack and not just by a large force.

Immigration has always been the oxygen of the “Growth Triangle”.

Without a constant stream of fresh air, no amount of fuel and heat will sustain a fire. On the other hand, too much wind and the fire will be blown out. The fires fresh air supply must be controlled. Two little and the fire will choke; too much and it will also succumb.

Such is it with immigration. Too few legal immigrants and our country becomes lazy and stagnant. Too many and the fuel and heat cannot maintain the imbalance.

No fire or economy can sustain the hurricane force winds of illegal immigration.

Looking ahead, I pray I can find at least a few viable candidates that fit into my “Growth Triangle”.

It is sad they all don’t.

Citizenship for All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So have we officially moved into a new American era; the era of gloves off, minority pandering?

According to our Speaker of the House, the Honorable John Boehner, one of the reasons the Republicans lost, Mitt Romney lost, is due to not speaking to all Americans.

Boehner was recently interviewed by the Queen of recycling, Diane Sawyer. In the interview she quoted Al Cárdenas saying the Republican Party has gotten, “two old, too white and to male”.

Boehner’s response was predictably milquetoast. “Well, I think what Republicans need to learn is how do we speak to all Americans. You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans.”

Yep, you read that correctly. Good old John Boehner, acting as the, go along to get along, moderate he is.

I guess that’s us. I’m two out of three anyway; too white and too male. Maybe I just need a tan a sex change.

As I see it, we as conservative outcasts, have two problems. They are illegal immigration and giveaways. (Racism is a given, so I’m not including it).

By now, we who haven’t tuned out yet, have started to hear the growing cacophony of cries from Republican “know-it-alls”, to be more inclusive.

Of course, by more inclusive they mean we must agree to a “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”.

Now, what exactly is “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”? Simply said, it is, let them all in and grant them instant citizenship, which gives them the right to vote (Democrat of course).

That’s fairly comprehensive, I’d say.

You might ask yourself why the Democrats are so hot to legalize all the illegals. Is it as they claim? Are they the true party of inclusion and the big tent? Are they actually just looking out for the poor and disenfranchised illegals?

I say we put it to the test and Rush Limbaugh has devised a perfect one. It’s genius, if I do say.

His idea is to have the Republicans compromise with the dems. This is what the moderates in our party want, is it not? Do they not want us to be Democrat light?

Yes, let us compromise, with one proviso. The Republicans, the party of no, will become the new party of yes.

This is Limbaugh’s proposal. The Republicans will allow all illegal aliens to become citizens of the United States immediately. That’s the yes part of the new Republican.

The proviso is that said “new citizens” will relinquish the right to vote for 25 years.

Why would we conservatives ever agree to such thing? Just think about it for a moment.

Think of why the dishonest, devious Democrats really want to legalize the criminal aliens. Is it their big hearts? Hell no! It’s the vote. That’s all it is and that’s all it’s ever been.

Hispanics increasingly vote Democrat, not for their solidarity regarding immigration, but for the freebies they know the Democrats will provide. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it’s a fact.

Republicans think that Hispanics might come over from the Democrat side because of Latinos purported similarly strong family and religious values. They’d be wrong. It’s the welfare they are after, the free stuff.

For example, in California, US-born Hispanics use welfare programs at twice the rate of non-Hispanics. Nearly 7 out of 10 poor children are Hispanic.

With that statistic, do we really think they care about immigration? Of course not. They’re voting for a continuation an escalation of the welfare state.

And that is the reason why the Democrats provide the giveaways. It’s for votes, that’s it!

I learned a long time ago that when selling a product or an idea, one has to be unique, set yourself apart from the rest. You must also educate your customer, so he fully understands just what he’s buying and why he should jump ship and purchase from you.

None of these “voters” will leave the Democrats for the Republicans just because we go along. We are, in effect, just offering them a “me too” product.

So let’s develop some backbone and call them out for what they really are – vote pimps.

It’s time we went on the attack.

Put the Limbaugh immigration offer on the table and watch the Dems squirm and make any excuse possible not to agree with it. Let them, for once, have to show their hand.

Immigration Transformation

by: the Common Constitutionalist (special thanks to Mark Levin)

We are a nation of Immigrants. Of course, so is almost every other nation. So what?

That is the line and argument for a “Comprehensive Immigration” policy, is it not. This throwaway line comes not only from the left, but the right.

They say that even those who founded are nation were immigrants. Yours and my forefathers were immigrants. True enough. Again, so what?

One has to make a giant leap to arrive at the conclusion that there is therefore a moral equivalent between legal and illegal immigration. But the leap is made nonetheless.

Mark Levin reminds us to always go back and look at our founding documents for guidance. The answer is usually there. And of course it is. The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Can anyone tell me who amongst the legally governed, other than our Dictator in chief, consented to defacto blanket amnesty for 1 million or so illegals by Obama’s decreed “deferred action”?

As an aside, bully for Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for standing up to this tyrant.

The Declaration also gives a handy little solution to this dilemma. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” That’s the crux of this upcoming election. We can take a big step toward the abolition of the current governing body this November.

The progressives, both left and right, tell us that today’s illegal immigrants are the moral equivalent to all other immigrants that came before. As Levin says, the illegal is portrayed as somehow being more virtuous than even American citizens. They are people of faith, hard working and strong in family values. Traits not shared with us citizens, apparently.

So how did we get here? What was the genesis of this upside down thinking?

It was 1965, during the Lyndon Johnson administration. Like his progressive predecessors, Johnson’s “Great Society” would fundamentally transform this nation, forever altering immigration policy in this country.

Johnson signed the Hart-Celler act in 1965. It was to be the beginning of the “new” immigration structure. Johnson claimed in his signing speech that, “When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no one to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong enough to clear the land, were they enduring enough to make a home for freedom, and were they brave enough to die for liberty if it became necessary to do so?” He neglected to add that we were not yet a nation with an elected government charged with protecting and defending our borders. But hey, what do I know.

He added, “This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here.”

Our old buddy the late senator Ted Kennedy added on the floor of the senate, that, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” He added, “The entire mix of this country will not be upset.”

He, of course, was either wrong or intentionally lying. I vote for the latter.

The 1965 act abolished national quotas in favor of what we call chain-migration. This gave preference to relatives of residents (family unification) over applicants with special skills.  Facts are facts and the facts are that since 1965, immigrants to the United States are poorer, less educated & less skilled, and those are the legal immigrants.

This liberalization of our immigration policy gave rise to an increase of illegal immigration.

Cesar Estrada Chavez was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Believe me, he was no conservative.

In the sixties Chavez strongly opposed illegal immigration saying that it undermined his ability to unionize farm workers, improve conditions and wages for the American worker. The union would even report illegals to the feds. How far we’ve come in a short 47 years, eh?

In 1969, Chavez along with Walter Mondale (yes, that Walter Mondale) organized a march on the southern border protesting farmers’ use of illegals. Imagine that happening today. That’s progress, I guess.

Then there is the misuse of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they always cite. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…” The Statists (as Levin calls them) always neglect the, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the amendment. The amendments purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born here and owed sole allegiance to this country. The American Indians did not have the same right, due to their allegiance to tribal jurisdiction. They were excluded by the 14th amendment.

One cannot be conferred citizenship by their mere presence. Diplomats and other foreign visitors to this country who happen to give birth here are not granted automatic citizenship. Why? Because the parents aren’t subject to this country’s jurisdiction and owe no allegiance to the U.S. They, of course, are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country.

The illegal or even the legal immigration problem we have today can be summed up this way. Statists in the sixties are really no different than the ones that rule us today. Whether it is through healthcare or as this article documents, immigration, it’s always the same, the unending want to fundamental transform America.  They will bend and pervert the Constitution and rule of law however they need to, to accomplish it.

Attribution: Mark Levin

Illegal is the New Legal

by:

Barack Obama has already said he is not going to enforce the law of the land concerning illegal immigrants, which should make him eligible for impeachment, among other charges. But even as I write this article the Obama administration is preparing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by the end of the month. It will just cost them $465.

ABC News reports, using the term “undocumented worker” to refer to illegal immigrants to be politically correct,

The Department of Homeland Security today announced details of the application and approval process for the DREAM Act-like program, outlining specific eligibility requirements and a $465 fee. It will begin Aug. 15.

Illegal immigrants younger than 30 who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years continuously, attend or have graduated from high school or college, and have no criminal convictions are eligible to submit requests for so-called deferred action (legalese for an official exemption from deportation).

The administration said documentation provided by each applicant will be reviewed individually on a case-by-case basis at one of four service centers run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It’s unclear how long each review will take, but some immigrants are expected to receive temporary legal status before Election Day.

While the “dreamers” will not obtain a path to citizenship or the right to vote, Obama’s policy shift – circumventing Congress with executive action – has been widely seen as a politically motivated nod to Hispanics who have long sought the change.

No! Really? a polically motivated nod by this adminstration? I”m shocked! Of course it’s politically motivated.

Janet Napolitano claimed this was a process of compassion and common sense. In a statement, Napolitano said,

“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner. But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.

Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”

The problem is that they are not enforcing immigration laws and Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and declared that he wasn’t. Now we find the administration is going to punish one of their own for doing just what she is talking about: enforcing immigration laws.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith put his finger on what the real issue is when he said,

“Today’s deferred action guidance is another example of how the president’s policies put the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.”

“On the same day the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent, the Obama administration announced a requirement for illegal immigrants to apply to be able to work in the U.S. The administration’s guidelines don’t just encourage illegal immigrants to work in the U.S., they actually require them to apply to do so.”

Exactly right Mr. Chairman. Talk is cheap. Now stop him. You guys are Congress after all and you are the ones that make law, not the President.

Not only is Obama looking to stack the deck with illegals, but he’s also making a quick buck at it. I’m wondering just where that $465 per illegal is going to end up. Isn’t anyone else curious?

Morphing Reid

Harry Reid on Illegal Immigration in 1993:

And now Harry in 2011 after spending far too much time in Washington DC, insulated from the real world:

Harry on, “Audit the Fed”, 1995

Here’s Harry just a few years ago as he’s up for relection:

Now Harry has a chance to realize his decades old dream to audit the fed and:

Standing “O” for the Chief Justice

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So the Supreme Court, or should I say 5 of them, in conjunction with King Barack, Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and Eric “The Red” Holder, have granted defacto amnesty to those who invade the state of Arizona and most likely, the rest of the country. What’s to stop them now? Like a Christmas sale at Walmart, they will rush the gate. Once they are here, as long as they don’t commit a felony, they’re home free.

Which way to the voting booth?

The wizards of smart who criticize state and local government action on immigration fail to keep in mind one simple but critical point: The states have these rights.

It is preposterous to take the position that, short of federal action or the commission of a crime, governors and mayors are constitutionally powerless to deal with illegal immigrants within their states and cities. The argument that state and local governments must incur enormous fiscal and societal costs, asserting that all aspects of immigration (legal or illegal) are entirely the purview of the federal government, is constitutionally suspect, if not absurd.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should “not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and adding the corollary limiting provision that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power delegated to Congress, in this matter, seems to me, quite clear. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4 states, “Congress shall have the power… to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Plain English; no more, no less.  Naturalization and Immigration are not synonymous and must not be construed as such.

The legal definition of Naturalization: “The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.”

The legal definition of Immigration: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.

You know James Madison, the father of our Constitution. If he wanted immigration to be the sole purview of the federal government, he would have put it in there.

He did, however state the following in Federalist 45:  “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all (emphasis added) the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.”

I’d say immigration is encompassed in Madison’s statement and I’m not a Supreme Court Justice.

As the U.S. Supreme Court found more than 100 years ago in Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905), state and local police power is “an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people.” This decision followed Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122, 193 (1819), in which the Supreme Court found that those sovereign powers “proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before.”

In my opinion, the Constitution, which was ratified by a razor thin margin in the first place, would have never been, if the states knew they would had to surrender their sovereignty on this issue.

If immigration is indeed the sole responsibility of the feds, are not sanctuary cities then illegal? After all, these cities took it upon themselves to grant favorable immigration status to some, outside federal jurisdiction.

Arizona was simply trying to affirm already existing federal law.

What about other things, like the fact that some states have emission standards that are higher than the federal. Is that not illegal? How about local or state minimum wage laws that exceed the federal. Why is that legal?

I could continue to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd but I think I’ve made my point.

My frustration stems from incredulity. How is it that a clear majority of Americans agree with Arizona, yet congress does nothing? A nation of well over 300 million people could be ruled by so few. 5 in this case.

Buckle up. It may get worse come Thursday! Our lives literally hang in the balance.

Attribution: Matt Mayer at Heritage

Deja Vu, All Over Again

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

Attribution: Weekly Standard

Just Say NO, to Ron Paul

Federal Reserve:

I absolutely agree with Ron Paul. Shut down the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson created it. I need to consider nothing more. Anything enacted by the Wilson administration is de facto, bad for the country.

Abortion:

Mr. Paul has stated he is firmly pro-life. I believe him. He also says it is not the purview of the Federal Government. The congressman believes life begins at conception but reluctantly says it is a States Rights issue, citing the Tenth Amendment.

I wasn’t aware that the murder of innocents was an issue at all. Who but a psycho would be in favor of murdering innocent people? If you believe life begins at conception, and when else would it begin, you can’t also believe that a State has the right to pass it’s own law condoning murder. It’s kind of a Ten Commandment issue, which trumps even our Constitution.

Death Penalty:

Ron Paul admits he was pro-death penalty & is now opposed to the death penalty, chiefly out of fear than an innocent person may be sentenced to death.

Michael Moore, He's right on every Issue!

I am pro-death penalty personally. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Could a mistake be made? Absolutely! Humans are not perfect. Overwhelmingly the evidence against a death row inmate is so compelling as to prevent the mistake. Many have said my position is inconsistent. How could anyone be pro-life & pro-death penalty? What about the whole, “Thou shall not murder [kill]”? Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The death penalty is not.

Illegal Immigration:

I agree with Paul, that illegal immigration should be attacked economically first. Stop all federal funding for illegals. No welfare, food stamps, free hospital care, etc. If you give things away, you’ll have more people lining up for the giveaways. Take away the incentive to stay here & they’ll leave.

He is against amnesty. I agree with that.

He does not support deportation. I support deportation. The Congressmen stated, “Sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home–isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen”. I disagree. By taking away the financial incentives, that number would be reduced greatly.

Foreign Policy:

This is the biggie. I am not at all a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s not only flawed, but also dangerous. I concur that troops should come home, but not for the same reasons. I also think our troops should leave Afghanistan immediately.

He states, “There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”

I agree with him that most of the conflicts we’ve become entangled in are useless and unconstitutional. If however, the cause is Constitutionally justified, the cost should be immaterial. I hope he would agree.

Regardless of my agreement with him on a lot of domestic spending issues, his isolationism and stance on Iran and Israel absolutely disqualifies him for any consideration as the nominee.

While the President and Congress, together, control domestic issues, foreign policy is much more the authority of the Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief.

I could agree with Ron Paul’s stance on every domestic issue, but when I cannot trust the judgment of our Commander in Chief, he is eliminated from consideration, period.