There was an error in this gadget

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The Real Human Rights Violation

It's not bad enough that Arizona has been sued by the Federal Government and Mexico. It's not enough that they were condemned by China. Now in President Obama's first U.S. Human Rights report to the UN Human Rights Council, he is getting the UN involved in the investigation. Before we get to that, let's examine some of the misleading statements made by the Obama Administration. Firstly the Introduction:

The story of the United States of America is one guided by universal values shared the world over—that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. In the United States, these values have grounded our institutions and motivated the determination of our citizens to come ever closer to realizing these ideals. Our Founders, who proclaimed their ambition “to form a more perfect Union,” bequeathed to us not a static condition but a perpetual aspiration and mission.

As the true Declaration of Independence says, it's unalienable. Unalienable rights are rights given by god to an individual that can't be sold, taken, or in any way given away. Inalienable rights are rights that and individual has that they can sale, give, or can be taken by the government.

In on section, they explain some of the executive orders given. Amazing considering executive orders are unconstitutional. In one section titled "Values and Immigration" they quote Ronald Reagan:

That immigrants have been consistently drawn to our shores throughout our history is both a testament to and a source of the strength and appeal of our vibrant democracy. As he left office, President Reagan remarked that the United States is “still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” Over the last 50 years, the U.S. has accepted several million refugees fleeing persecution from all corners of the globe as well as many millions of immigrants seeking a better life or joining family. Today, the United States and other countries to which a significant number of people seek to emigrate face challenges in developing and enforcing immigration laws and policies that reflect economic, social, and national security realities. In addressing these issues we seek to build a system of immigration enforcement that is both effective and fair.

True the U.S. has accepted many immigrants fleeing their tyrannical lands looking for freedom and a better country. But many of them have done it legally while many more millions are here illegally, which the section fails to note.

In the same section, the following is noted about Arizona's Immigration law:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

What this part means is that the Administration has invited the UN to come and investigate the Arizona law. On November 5, the United States will be examined by UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from non-governmental organizations with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.

Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement. According to the UN Human Rights Council website, nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the World Body."

The immigration issues in America are up to America and America alone. Not Mexico, China, or the UN. If the Federal Government would do their job and protect the border and the states from invasion, there wouldn't an issue in the first place. But since the Federal Government has failed to do its job, the responsibility is left to the states and the people.

Arizona along with many border states have called for help from the Federal Government and the Federal Government turned a blond eye to the country being invaded. The 1,200 National Guard troops that the Federal Government is sending down to the border aren't for border security, a majority of them are for desk jobs.

This is why many citizens have taken the responsibility of sitting on the border with their guns and protecting America and doing the job the Federal Government won't. It is time that we tell the UN that they can not dictate to us our laws. The Constitution trumps them and they have no legal or rightful ground to tell us how to run our states and our country. This is America, and We the People are taking it back.

Friday, August 13, 2010

The Two Man Vote

While the House voted to spend $26.1 billion and the President signed it the same day, Senate had a 30 minute session 2 days later looking at four pieces of legislative business. The catch, there were only two Senators present. Senator Ben Cardin (Maryland-D) in the role of presiding officer and Senator Chuck Schumer(New York-D) were the only 2 Senators at the session.

First they took care of the second reading of 2 bills that will be on the calendar when the Senate comes back in September. The bills were H.R. 5827 – Protecting Gun Own­ers in Bankrupt­cy Act of 2010 and S. 3762 – A bill to reinstate funds to Fed­er­al Land Dis­pos­al Ac­count.

Later in the 30 minute session, Cardin and Schumer passed 2 bills with unanimous con­sent. All with Schumer stating, "I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in this important task," looking around at 99 empty seats. H.R. 6080 – Mak­ing emer­gen­cy sup­ple­men­tal appropriations for bor­der se­cu­ri­ty for the fis­cal year end­ing Septem­ber 30, 2010, and for other pur­pos­es. S. Res. 617 – Rel­a­tive to the death of the Honorable Theodore “Ted” Ful­ton Stevens, for­mer Sen­a­tor for the State of Alaska. H.R. 6080 has provisions in it for $600 Million for fences, bor­der “strike forces,” and do­mes­tic drones. President Obama will being signing it into law on Friday August 13, 2010.

What I find concerning is the fact that 2 men came back from recess to do all this. That 2 mine alone had the power to sign away $600 million without any real debate over the issue. This vote was really a taxation without representation. Where were all the other Senators?

I realize that Congress is in recess but the fact that these 2 Senators did all this brings an odd question as to why. Maybe they didn't want to face the people back home or there's something in these bills they don't want seen. Either way, where were the other Senators? Where was our representation?

I urge you to call your Senators and ask them where they were and why they weren't there representing you even in a 30 minute session. Why they weren't their voting on $600 million bill in a time that we have $13 trillion in debt. Yes the border needs to be secured but why is it that these 2 Senators found it ideal to return to DC during recess and pass this bill under the rug? Where were the other 98 Senators?

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Our Stamp Act

In 1913 the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment. This amendment brought about what we call today, the Income Tax. The income tax taxes people's incomes based on how much they make. In the Presidential election of 1912, the 3 candidates, Woodrow Wilson(D), Theodore Roosevelt(Progressive), and William Howard Taft(R), all supported the income tax. Support for the income tax was strongest in the western states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states.

In 1765, the British Parliament passed an act to impose a tax on all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, almanacs, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the American Colonies to pay for the Seven Years War. This act was known as the Stamp Act. The colonists were against this tax as they had no representation in Parliament to vote on this act and thus the cry "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". It was the first tax imposed on the colonies without their consent and the American Colonies began boycotting English goods that came into the colonies.

During this uproar in the colonies, Benjamin Franklin was in England as the Pennsylvania Assembly's agent to the Crown. He was much opposed to the Stamp Act. Parliament didn't know why the colonies were so angry, they held many sessions questioning experts on American affairs. Finally, they called upon Benjamin Franklin. The following is a few exerts from "The Examination of Doctor Benjamin Franklin to the Repeal of the American Stamp Act".

Q. You say the Colonies have always submitted to external taxes, and object to the right of Parliament only in laying internal taxes; now can you show that there is any kind of difference between the two taxes to the Colony on which they may be laid?

A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the first cost and other charges on the commodity, and, when it is offered for sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it.

Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?

A. Their opinion is that when aids to the Crown are wanted they are to be asked of the several assemblies according to the old-established usage, who will, as they always have done, grant them freely, and that their money ought not to be given away without their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the Crown is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust that a body of men in which they have no representatives should make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own but theirs, and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

Franklin made it quite clear that taxing the people based on what they make or create would destroy them and the economy. The idea was much like Redistribution of Wealth, taking what people have worked and earned and giving it to others. He also made clear that the colonies were a giving people and that if asked, they would gladly give.

The Income Tax and the Stamp Act are much the same in the fact that they both tax the people based on what they make or create. The American Colonies fought against the Stamp Act and it was repealed in 1766. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified and passed by 42 of the 48 states. This was under the beginning of the Progressive movement and their first act against the American people and the history of the founders.

Unlike the Progressives of today, the Progressives of the 1900s actually followed the Amendment process. And thus, the only way for the Sixteenth Amendment to be repealed is by another Amendment to be passed. They have chained us down with this curse and now it is up to us to stop this and many other acts that they have and are committing.