Icelandic Racism Sweeps New England

Dateline June 7, 2010 – UPI (Unbiased Press Inc)

Commentators and news outlets across the western and southern United States are reporting a huge upswing in racist bigotry by New Englanders towards people of Icelandic heritage. Polls in New England seem to indicate something else is going on, but the evidence mounts that the people of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and other states as far south as Pennsylvania are seriously opposed to immigration from Iceland.

For the past few years, and increasingly in the past 18 months, increasing numbers of undocumented workers have been coming ashore in the sparsely populated regions of the Nova Scotia coast, making their way into New Brunswick, and slipping across the border into Maine and states further south with automatic weapons and large quantities of marijuana and cocaine. They appear to be coming across the border simply to mow lawns, roof homes, and build a better life for themselves than is possible in Iceland.

This is perfectly acceptable under current federal guidelines, of course, as the administration hopes to convert many of the arriving undocumented workers into Democratic voters by means of an amnesty plan being considered in Congress.

In the meantime, reports are increasing of land owners along the upper eastern Maine border being murdered by these immigrants, and the number of state and municipal police across New England being shot by undocumented workers has risen sharply. A troubling wave of car-jackings in the area seems to be unstoppable, and Boston has suddenly become the kidnapping capital of the world, with ransom demands being paid almost daily as citizens try to rescue their family members. Officials are at a loss to explain these phenomena.

Jackets and blankets have been found along the frequently-used paths across the Maine border with emblems depicting airplanes flying into twin towers, and with Arabic slogans commonly associated with Jihadists. A significant number of the immigrants from Iceland appear to actually be from other points of origin, including several nations supportive of Jihad against the United States, according to the data on those few transients captured by local authorities. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicates the administration has no such information.

The Governor of Maine has just proposed a law that would require Maine officials to enforce federal immigration regulations, but he has been heavily criticized by the President, the Attorney General, and others around the country, for his obviously racist motives.

Iceland’s government has sharply criticized those who are speaking out against this flow of future citizens into New England. From a quick review of their statutes, however, it appears that similar immigration into Iceland would not be tolerated.

In related news, the complaints about Arizona’s new law being driven by racism have suddenly disappeared from the New York Times and the major networks.

An Open Letter To Governor Rick Perry of Texas

April 22, 2010

Governor Perry
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Governor Perry,

Thank you for your office’s response on April 22 to my letter about Texas’ interposition against the federal encroachments. Your answer was essentially that you will take no action to convene the legislature to deal with these issues, because the legislators are not clamoring for you to do so, and the next session will be here soon.

But you have said repeatedly that you will do “everything in our power” to protect us from the constitutional violations going on in Washington. In what I’ve seen and heard, you did NOT say you would do “everything in my power that the legislature asks me to do, and I’m going to wait until next year to do it”. That is a far weaker and more passive position than what you have articulated!

Look at what can happen between now and November, never mind when the Texas legislature reconvenes in January. They’ve already seized the automotive and healthcare industries, they are currently engaging in a hostile takeover of the financial industry, and by November they will also ram through immigration and “cap and trade”.

How much damage will we sustain, before you’re willing to walk the talk?

And there is enormous opportunity for Texas here. Corporations will run to the state that preserves their freedom. Why should that not be Texas?

Please reconsider your decision to simply watch the clock, while our liberty and Constitutional rights take one assault after another. The states are our last defense against this socialist tide, and time’s a-wasting!

But what about “general welfare”?

If you think the “general welfare” clause in the Constitution gives the Congress the right to be involved in healthcare, you have lots of company.

Unfortunately, they have no such right.

I refer you to an excellent review of this point in “The American Thinker”.

Everything Washington is currently doing in regards to healthcare, health insurance, and the medical industry is in clear and continuing violation of their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. They are casting aside our most fundamental laws in order to drag us further into socialism and government control of yet another major industry (medicine), and in my opinion should be impeached for it. (Impeachment is the remedy provided in the Constitution for removing misbehaving public officials from office, whether or not they have broken laws.)

What do you think?

This Law is a Crime

Barack Obama today signed a law that is an atrocity in so many ways. It represents yet another payback to another special interest group whose goals are far outside the mainstream of American values.

1. Avoiding Real Debate

By attaching the a federal “hate crimes” amendment to the military funding that is urgently needed, the Democrats kept it from being considered and debated on its own merits. This is sleazy politics, and that has become the trademark of how this administration does business.

2. Criminalizing thought

“Hate crimes” legislation makes thought into a criminal act. The mark of a free society is that thought and speech are protected, and we only punish criminal actions. But “hate crimes” are actions that are motivated by beliefs or prejudices that are politically incorrect, and are therefore punished more than the same action would have been if motivated by a politically correct motive (like needing money for a drug addiction, or because someone just wants “his slice of the pie”, or because they were bored…).

In particular, “hate crime” legislation is aimed at punishing mainstream America for daring to disagree with the radical agendas of liberal groups.

Make sense to you? I hope not.

The history of the world offers many examples of despots and oppressive regimes that stigmatized, punished, and even killed their people for disagreeing with them. We are on that road, when beliefs and opinions become crimes. Is this the America you want? A nation with “thought police”?

3. Special Classes of Victims

Equal protection under the law, one of the bedrock foundations of our free society, suggests that a crime against any person will be treated just as it would be on behalf of any other person, and that all persons are treated equally in matters of law and justice. The law should not “play favorites”.

“Hate crime” legislation says that because you are green and I am blue, a crime against you is worse, and should be punished more, than the same crime against me… if the attacker apparently doesn’t like green people. And it doesn’t matter how justified his attitude might be, based on all the reasons each of us prefer some things and not others. And … since we cannot know someone’s thoughts … we are convicting based upon assumptions, interpretations, guesses… not fact.

I have just lost equal protection… and so has the attacker. He should be treated the same as any other person committing the same crime, regardless of his beliefs or who was attacked. And I should have the same benefit under the law, whether he attacked me because I am blue or because what he had for dinner gave him a belly ache. The impact is the same, the loss is the same … the crime is the same.

So some victims are more special … some deserve more “justice” than others who suffered the same crime.

4. Bias Against Mainstream Values

It appears to me that the “hate crime” laws create a legal bias against those who have mainstream, traditional values and beliefs, setting them up for attack and a presumption of unacceptable bias if they act on those beliefs. There is no such presumption of bias when the other side acts on their beliefs, even when those beliefs are radical and destructive.

The evidence for this bias is clear, in a simple review of the list of groups supporting such laws. If it were even-handed, all groups would have an equal interest in seeing such law enacted. That is clearly not the case; this law is being forged as a weapon for one side of the argument.

Should the law be taking sides like that? Is that what you want?

5. Lack of Jurisdiction

But all of the above does not matter, really. Because the federal government has no jurisdiction to write this sort of law, except possibly for the District of Columbia. Look at what they are authorized to do. (Hint: it’s called the Constitution, and it is the agreement between the states, the people, and the federal entity that sets forth what they can, and cannot, do. Browse Article I, Section 8; it won’t take you long.) It appears that this legislation is flatly illegal, and represents yet another violation of their oaths by a crowd of rampant oathbreakers.

So, an illegal act, passed by attaching it to a completely different bill and bypassing all legitimate debate, and providing political payback to favored supporters at the expense of equal justice for all.

Other than that … I guess it’s fine.

Feral Government

“Feral” – when an animal becomes wild, escaping captivity or domestication. Typically the result is destruction, danger, and a need for action.

The US federal government has gone feral.

But what do we do when a government entity has escaped domestication, ie, gone wild? What do we do when the tiger is out of the cage? What are the options? How do we rein in a “partner” to a national agreement that has become arrogant and powerful, trampling on the other parties to the mutual agreement? To quote Walter Williams, “More than two-thirds of the federal budget amounts to legalized theft with no moral justification or constitutional authority.” (A comment made long before the multi-trillion dollar give-aways of 2009.)

Thanks to Michael Connelly, attorney and Constitutional law instructor, for a review of the ways in which the healthcare “reform” bills violate the Constitution, and thanks to the Parker County blog for reposting it, or I would have missed it.

So we are beyond asking “does this initiative fit within their Constitutional authority,” to “let’s list the ways in which a vote for this particular bill will be a violation of their oath of office.”

Before listing the various stipulations of the Constitution that the current bill (The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009) violates, Mr. Connelly says, “The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas …. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.”

The recent seizures of power over financial and manufacturing organizations, and the massive commitments of public money to so-called “stimulus” purposes, represent additional violations of federal authority to extents formerly unimaginable in a free society.

Here’s the history. We the people, acting through the authority of our various states, agreed to form a separate entity in order to handle certain things that should not be done separately, and redundantly, by the various states, such as printing money, defending the borders, etc. All powers and authorities not specifically given to the new entity, the “federal” government, were specifically retained by us — the people, and the states.

So the parties to the agreement are the people, the states, and the federal government. And the third one was created for the first two, so … be clear on who works for whom. The federal organization works for us, not the other way around. It was created to do certain things, and no more.

Within the federal governement, there are three groups: the Legislature, where we send representatives to make decisions for us; the Executive, to do what the Legislature tells it to; and the Judicial, to provide courts for inter-state and federal issues that the Legislature lets it address. (The Congress can remove specific bills from review by the Supreme Court, and has done so; were you aware of that? Art III, Sec 2, Para 2.)

One interesting conclusion from this review is that the Supreme Court did not originally have, and should not rightfully today have, the right to declare what is “Constitutional”, for they are a subservient part of the arrangement, not the maker of it. How did their actions become immune from being declared “unconstitutional”?

But the overwhelming issue has become: when the federal has gone feral, and takes advantage of its enormous taxing power (and potentially its military power) to grossly violate its charter, what options do we have?

The first is, obviously, to change our elected representatives, as soon as that can be done given the election cycles.

Another, more immediately, is to cause them, by sheer force of public objection, to stop doing the objectionable and illegal things. The huge, spontaneous, and completely orderly demonstration of “we the people” in Washington on 9/12/2009 was a superb example of such objection.

But when the people have discovered they can vote themselves public money, and our leaders use public money to buy future votes, there may be too many people supporting this public theft to “vote them out”. Then what?

Both the people and the states have authority over the federal government in all matters not delegated to them. Federal actions taken illegally do not have to be obeyed. Juries can refuse to enforce bad law, because the law is defective, whether the accused violated it or not. States can demand compliance with the 10th amendment, and refuse to tolerate federal encroachment.

Two earlier practices need to be restored, as well.

Nullification: the refusal to obey unconstitutional orders. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, among others, were fans of this approach.

Impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, that is, the violation of the public trust (a completely different question than whether or not they have broken any laws). For example, any elected official violating his oath of office by voting for clearly unconstitutional measures should be removed immediately; why wait until another election cycle, if an elected official is misbehaving that badly?

Your thoughts?

Glenn Beck’s Superb 9/11 Speech

Glenn Beck remembers, reviews the history of Ground Zero since the attack, and asks a simple question: Why has it not been rebuilt? Here is the video, courtesy of GlennBeckClips.com.

Healthcare Reform

As I write this, President Obama is beginning to speak to the joint session of Congress, promoting his agenda of dramatically increased government control of our healthcare system.

I can barely stand to watch. I now understand what he is and how he works, and what he is doing to the country makes me almost physically ill, so I can barely listen.

The problem is that he is never a leader, never a statesman, never presidential. He is always the manipulator.

It’s not that he lies. A person with narcissistic personality disorder can pass any lie detector test. Reality is what he chooses at any particular time, so he’s not lying. So to speak.

But he is aggressively Marxist, surrounds himself with openly-proclaimed revolutionaries and far-left radicals, and does not waver in his agenda for transforming the country. So it is always about manipulation of those he needs to “redirect”, and I can hardly bear being in his audience.

But what about healthcare reform? Don’t we need it?

If the goal were really to provide more effective and less expensive healthcare, to reduce the cost and availability of health insurance, etc, those are quite achievable. Nothing of what Mr. Obama is promoting will have those results. I have to conclude that those are not his real purpose. Eerily enough, that’s the obvious conclusion about the financial bailouts, the TARP plan, the incredibly expensive Stimulus bill … none of them included either the necessary mechanics or accountability measures to ensure success. Their purpose was clearly not as stated on the surface; rather, massive payoff of supporting interest groups and funding of his support base for future operations seems to be the obvious purpose of those actions: use of public money to ensure personal success in the coming years.

Texas has solved the tort reform issue. Physicians are flooding into the state, so much that the approval process, carrying out due diligence with each applicant, was running six months behind at one point. By capping the amount that can be awarded for “pain and suffering”, Texas allowed the cost of medical malpractice insurance to drop dramatically for healthcare providers, thereby reducing the cost of practicing medicine in Texas and encouraging the establishment of many more medical providers. Isn’t that what we want? More doctors, less cost? If Texas can do it, why can’t Washington figure it out?

What about health insurance? Why is it so expensive?

The answer is not hard. Think about the areas of life where choices are plentiful, costs are continually dropping, quality is high, and everyone who wants to can partake of the benefits. Personal computers, for example. Cell phones. Home appliances. All but the very poorest in America enjoy luxuries of life that place them in the top 1 or 2 percent of the world’s population. What makes that possible?

Freedom. Limited government involvement. Capitalism, which is the freedom of everyone to serve everyone else as well as they can, and be rewarded by their customers with success and growth.

Is that not true with health insurance? Not at all.

In two obvious ways, the federal government drives health insurance cost far higher than it should be, if I understand things correctly.

First, insurance companies are only allowed to offer their products to a limited geography: their own state, for example. So they must be profitable while selling to a restricted area, a limited number of customers.

Secondly, they are required to include all sorts of coverage than any given customer may not want, and therefore would not normally pay for.

I just purchased a new pair of glasses. It was entirely up to me as to the quality of the glass or plastic used for the lenses, the brand and style of the frames, the coatings to be applied, the warranty coverage protecting me against damage of the product, etc. What if that purchase were regulated by the government, because, after all, you must have protection against UV radiation, you must protect your eyes from the wear and tear of high-glare situations, you must have the highest level of safety (bendable frames, unbreakable lenses, etc)? And therefore all those choices were predetermined by regulation from Washington?

The answer is obvious. I would pay hundreds of dollars more for those glasses.

We simply need to let the insurance companies be free to compete across the nation, and to offer the varieties of plans that can be tailored for what each of us need. Just like computers, just like home appliances. If we will do that, the same result will occur: wide variety of choices, low costs, high quality.

It’s not that hard. Less government involvement, not more, produces freedom, choice, affordability, and high quality of products. Every time.

As I write, he says the time for bickering is past, and he is declaring all the things his bill will force providers and insurers to do, and the things that they will not be allowed to do. I guess that means the time for drafting a plan that actually reduces the cost of healthcare and increases its quality is past, and the time for the Democratic majority to drive us over the cliff of socialized medicine has come.