Siege at Wounded Knee 1973

The header to this blog says (as part of the explanation of the name of the blog) "I'm not talking about the war [on terror]. The title of this blog is an argument that an armed citizenry will keep any governing body in check better than an unarmed citizenry."

I checked with a couple people that were pretty aware of what made the national news in 1973 (about the Siege at Wounded Knee) and one told me:

"I believe it was reported as the government trying to control a bunch of terrorists."

That just gives me cold chills because I personally remember watching the news in 1993 and hearing reports that the government was "trying to control a bunch of terrorists" in Waco, Texas. (I think we all know what a sham that turned out to be)

I also remember hearing in 1992 that "an officer and a suspect in Idaho have been killed in a firefight between Federal Agents and suspected domestic terrorists".

The truth about the 1992 incident (Ruby Ridge) isn't so clear cut in favor of the government.

Witnesses have said the sharpshooter fired as Mrs. Weaver, 42, held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let Randy Weaver, their daughter and Mr. Harris inside.
Given what I know of the track record of Federal law enforcement, it is EASY for me to give the Native Americans at Wounded Knee the benefit of the doubt.

It really doesn't matter two hoots who occupies the oval office when it comes to federal law enforcement bending the rules and abusing their power. It has happened over and over again under Democrat and Republican presidents and I don't see any reason to believe that this One will take any steps to "Change" this.

"Buy 'em cheap and bury 'em deep".

Officially President-Elect

It is official.

The man that has been referred to as "President-Elect Obama" in the mainstream media (or simply "President Obama" in their more unguarded moments) was officially declared the next President of the United States by the House after they tallied the Electoral College votes.

The AP story actually says "THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE".

No, its a ceremony. No surprise, no news. But this is part and parcel of the media's love affair with Barack Obama that we have been forced to watch during the past several months. These clowns have collectively thrown all pretense of "objectivity" out the window. (My personal favorite is Chris Mathews' quote "...when I hear Barack Obama speak I get a furrowing up my leg...and that's an objective assessment." )

The Fence Is Going Up!

One of the FEW responsibilities of a valid government is to protect the safety and security of it's citizens. To this end there has been *much* discussion as to what should (or should not) be done to protect the southern and northern (landlocked) borders of the United States of America.

This morning on the radio, one of our local radio commentators interviewed a judge from Cameron county concerning progress on the border fence.

Good fences make good neighbors, right? Funny thing is, when the border fence is referred to in Spanish, I have *never* heard it referred to as a "fence" (cerca). Without exception, people speaking Spanish refer to this as "El Muro" (The Wall). More than once I have been speaking with bilingual friends and the subject has come up. When I have asked the question "Have you ever seen pictures of the Berlin Wall coming down? This is not a Wall - this is a fence." the response has been "Well yeah but you know...".

That's the problem. I do know.

What is being built looks to be a sensible fence. It will not be located on the levies and have to be torn down in 2011. It will not be built inside city limits. Those two particular genius proposals (and all the resultant flap about "The Wall" cutting Brownsville in half as it followed the levy) are complete inventions of local Rio Grande Valley politicians. (I know you will be as shocked as I was to learn that politicians had actually lied...)

These same politicians are now hanging their hopes on Barack Obama to "Stop the Wall". But, by their own admission, Obama "has a lot on his plate" and he "might not be able to give the necessary attention to a small piece of South Texas".

All this would mean that, despite the best efforts of local politicians, the American government has actually taken steps to protect American citizens.

Love it or hate it, comments are encouraged.

The American Form of Government

Before you start ranting about the virtues of "democracy" just take 10 minutes and Watch This Video.

Hint: We (the USA) are NOT a democracy.

The American Flag - Section 8

The other day while talking with a friend I stated "I know that should not be done because it violates 'Rule 8'." I was wrong - the law I was thinking of is Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8.

As penance for my misquotation, here, in its entirety, is Section 8 of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code. And one question - does letter "f" apply to a header in a pickup truck?

TITLE 4--FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 1--THE FLAG

Sec. 8. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.

(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

(Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1497.)

America Has Lost A Giant

William F. Buckley Jr., founder of National Review, Emmy winning host of "Firing Line" and one time candidate for mayor of New York City is dead at 82.

CNN obit

Boston Globe article

International Herald Tribune article

Deportation By Attrition

While surfing for "odd news" I ran across this article. It is about illegal immigrants returning to Mexico because of stricter laws going into effect in Arizona.

Just a couple exerts from the article: (emphasis mine)

Dozens of immigrants are leaving the U.S. daily, and even more are expected to leave once the sanctions law takes effect in January, provided the law survives a last-minute legal challenge, said Rosendo Hernandez, president of the advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders.
"If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave," Hernandez said. [Thats the idea]
In what are considered bellwethers of permanent moves back to Mexico, the Mexican consulate in Phoenix has seen a dramatic increase in applications for Mexican birth certificates, passports and other documents that immigrants living in Arizona will need to return home.

The situation of the specific family featured in the article is described:(again, emphasis mine)

They and their two children had originally entered the United States legally with tourist visas and then stayed beyond the expiration dates. The couple had no legal status to work in the U.S., but both were able to get jobs using fake documents, Jorge at a small landscaping company, Liliana at a Burger King. Two years ago, their third child, Michael, was born in Arizona, making him a U.S. citizen.

Just a heads up - some of the comments on the article are just flat racist. Two communication problems can be seen when the issue of immigration is discussed:
1) Some people have a problem expressing their political views without stating their prejudice; this gives rise to the other problem
2) Some people seem to feel that any comments concerning the illegal immigration problem are inherently racist.

Look folks, any country that cannot (or will not) defend its borders ceases to be a sovereign nation. Illegal immigration in this country is a problem and it's not racist to say so. To ignore the problem of illegal immigration is tantamount to putting your head in the sand.

Merry Christmas.

The Real LOST

This is from an email update from NewsMax.com

To get the total scoop on how Bush is once again siding with liberals go here.

Rudy Giuliani has become the latest Republican presidential candidate to denounce the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty now working its way through the Senate. The treaty, called LOST by opponents, would empower a United Nation-affiliated organization to control the world’s oceans. On Wednesday (October 31) the Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.

U.S. participation in the treaty, which has been signed by 154 other countries, has been held up since 1982 when concerns about deep-sea mining rights arose during the Ronald Reagan administration. President Bush favors signing the treaty, and the Pentagon has called fears about ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. unfounded.

But in a statement posted on Giuliani’s campaign Web site on Oct. 30, he said: “I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan. "I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations. “But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as along as it fails to address these concerns.”

GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee had previously come out in opposition to the treaty. [Guiliani is late to the band wagon on this one.]

The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, an organization that opposes LOST, has charged that it would force the U.S. to give up certain controls of its territorial waters. It said in a press release: “The emerging debate about the Law of the Sea Treaty will enable the electorate to choose between those who favor … greatly empowering world government agencies and unaccountable international bureaucracies on the one hand and those who are intent on preserving and promoting American sovereignty and interests on the other.”

Despite passage of the treaty by the Senate committee, it faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate. “This treaty will not be adopted,” said Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz. “There aren’t the votes to pass it.”

Why do politicians not understand that surrending American sovereignty is not good for America? Defending the interests of a nation is part of a politician's job. Politicians around the world are looking out for their own interests - why is Bush so spineless when it comes to defending this country?

John Glenn vs Howard Metzenbaum

I'm sure many of you have seen this email but, if you haven't I'll let you in on it since I seem to get all sorts of interesting stuff from my friends (if you have my email address and you aren't sending me interesting stuff, this is a hint :-)

While the heart of the email is true, parts of it are just plain wrong. Let me show you the good stuff and then let you know what got embellished and/or changed. The point here is that many times those on the far left are so outrageous in their statements that there is no need for us to embellish the truth.

From the email:

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program.

It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.

I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell them they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell me that those people didn't have a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - some men - who held real jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I have held a job, Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

Supposedly this took place as an exchange between Senators Metzenbaum and Glenn (both Democrats btw) on the Senate floor January 26, 2004.

Now the entire truth (according to truthorfiction.com's answer ) is a bit different but for those of us who are concerned about truth, I think it is important.

The email says that Glenn's reply is "a pretty impressive impromptu speech". The truth is that it is impressive even though it was not improptu. Also it did not happen in 2004 and it did not happen on the Senate floor.

From truthorfiction.com:

"It happened during the campaign debate in 1974 when Metzenbaum was running for reelection and Glenn was challenging him. Metzenbaum made a widely publicized statement that said that Glenn had never met a payroll (he didn't actually say that he'd never held a real job). In other words, Glenn had been a military man not a businessman, like Metzenbaum, who had created a major newspaper and a nation-wide parking company."

So, this was a prepared speech from Glenn, a very respectable man that, if I'm understanding this correctly, wasn't yet a Senator.

Also truthorfiction.com mentions that they can find no evidence that Metzenbaum was ever a "lawyer for the communist party". I also checked out wikipedia's article on Metzenbaum, and, even though wikipedia can "tend towards the left" (but that's another post) they will, from what I can tell, include any skeletons in the closet of public figures. btw, Metzenbaum did support Glenn for the presidency in 1983.

Once more, what is the point? The point is this - Senator Howard Metzenbaum implied that being prepared to die for the cause of freedom was not as significant as "making a payroll".

But you say "He said this in 1974 - why do I care in 2007?" One simple reason. We. Are. At. War. But you say "I don't see any invading armies, I don't see this "war on terror", it's just a political ploy." Let me tell you, you have the right to express your opinion - that is one of the great things about the United States of America. Do you know why you have that right?

You have the right to express your idiotic, namby-pamby little opinions because of people who were prepared to die for the cause of freedom, that's why.

Don't dare ever forget that.

Don't dare let your children forget.

Proposal for California's Electoral Vote Could Benefit GOP

The article is here and, lest you think this some kind of "Republican plot", here is a very interesting quote from Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party (emphasis mine):

The California Democrat later compared the Electoral College to the Mafia, saying that the founders created it "because they had little faith in the voters, and this was a check made on the voters. The voters could 'make the wrong decision" in the general election, and the electors could put the fix in. Well, that's like the mob. That's kind of outdated."

.

At least he's not bitter about the 2000 presidential elections, right? Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral vote and in 2004 he won both the popular and the electoral vote. Incidentally, the Bush "upset" was the third time a US President has won the electoral vote without getting the popular vote. But I digress...

.

Mulholland (the Cali Dem advisor) had just finished basically accusing Arnold (the Governator) of trying to force the issue onto the ballots. Hm.....the Governor of California is trying to let the people of California decide how the electoral votes of the people of California are allocated. Yeah, somebody tell me - what is the problem when people govern themselves - isn't that what we're all about?

Old Friends

This morning we postponed leaving on vacation so that we could go have coffee with some old friends. They're not old - they're younger than my wife and I, but we've known them for seven or eight years.

We had a really nice visit but I can't tell you their names or where they live or even show a screenshot from Google City Lights of their "neighborhood" at night.

Why all the "cloak and dagger", you ask? Let me put it to you this way - we were talking about blogging and net stuff and when I mentioned the name of my blog the man said "It'll probably be blocked". Even though I sometimes find the ACLU (and their ilk) annoying, THANK GOD for differences of opinion and freedom of speech in the USA! And for the 2nd Amendment - that's the one that protects all the rest.

They say "You don't know what you've got until it's gone" - I sincerely hope that this (very comfortable) next generation learns the value of their freedoms before it's too late.

First Amendment - Establishment Clause

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let's take it phrase by phrase - feel free to rip my analysis to shreds.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
This is referred to as "The Establishment Clause" and, simply stated, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that there was not a "Church of America". Just a quick look at English history will show abuses by the Church of England. The Church of England is arguably the only major denomination that was started so a King could get a divorce. I'm not trying to throw stones but this is NOT the best reason to start a church and this kind of start will put you on shakey ground morally.

If by "Founding Father of the USA" you use the criteria that the person did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
(a total of 204 individuals) then this group pretty much covers the Western religious spectrum existing at that time. Heck, Thomas Jefferson himself is claimed by Anglicans, Unitarians, Deists and Episcopalians and is often quoted by atheists.

So there's no way that you would get this crowd to agree on one government sponsored church. Where all the hay gets made is when folks start saying that "X" or "Y" constitutes a "state sponsored church". When anything about public schools comes up, I like to point to the history of "public education" and how it was started in this country and say "The question is not whether or not we should have prayer in public schools. The real question is whether or not we should have public schools." But you knew I would say that, didn't you? :-)

More later.

The Bill of Rights

Initially I had planned to just do one post on the "Bill of Rights" and then go to some other subject important to our American way of life. If you know me at all, you know that I harp about the 2nd Amendment more than any of the rest. To give a fair treatment to the entire Bill of Rights, I have decided to give a tiny bit of history and then treat each of the amendments in it's own separate post.

What we commonly refer as the Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution. The founding fathers had just written this awesome document (the Constitution) and then realized that it could use a little clarification.

Just a quick "bumper sticker" synopsis of each amendment might go something like this:

1st: Right to Free Speech
2nd: Right to Keep and Bear Arms
3rd: Freedom from Unwillingly Housing a Soldier
4th: Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
5th: Freedom from Testifying Against Yourself
6th: Right to a Speedy Trial
7th: Right to Trial by Jury
8th: Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishments
9th: Just because a right is not specifically excluded from the government does not mean that the government automatically has that right. (i had to read several things just to get this flawed understanding of Amendment Nine and still my explanation is not very clear.)
10th: Rights not specifically given to the central government belong to the states and the people.

Most of us that have grown up in the United States have heard quite a bit about Amendments One, Two and Five. The Left loves One, the Right loves Two and we ALL love to "plead the fifth". We hear less about Amendments Four, Six, Seven and Eight but we still hear about them on "Law and Order", etc.

More later.

How Do They Lean?

Here, in alphabetical order, are several of the current Republican Presidential hopefuls (and a few possible "spoilers") and how they lean politically according to http://www.ontheissues.org/ : (The grid with the political philosophy is at the bottom of each person's ontheissues page)

Mike Bloomberg (Moderate Libertarian Liberal)
Sam Brownback (Libertarian-Leaning Conservative)
Jeb Bush (Populist-Leaning Conservative)
Newt Gingrich (Libertarian-Leaning Conservative)
Jim Gilmore (Populist Conservative)
Rudy Giuliani (Moderate Liberertarian Conservative)
Chuck Hagel (Libertarian-Leaning Conservative)
Mike Huckabee (Moderate Conservative)
Duncan Hunter (Moderate Conservative)
John McCain (Moderate Conservative)
George Pataki (Moderate Populist Conservative)
Texas Representative Ron Paul (Moderate Libertarian)
Mitt Romney (Moderate Populist Conservative)
Mark Sanford (Populist-Leaning Conservative)
Tom Tancredo (Moderate Conservative)
Fred Thompson (Moderate Conservative)
Tommy Thompson (Moderate Populist)

You can go here for the Vote Match quiz used to "score" these candidates. According to this 20 question quiz. If you are at all interested in the issues and who becomes the next person to be "the most powerful person in the free world", then you should take the quiz. This grid idea is more informative than the old "left or right" and it is very interesting to see where exactly on the grid the candidates fall.

The first time I took the quiz it told me "Your political philosophy is Populist-Leaning Conservative". After a couple hours of reading info on the ontheissues website I took the quiz again and now it tells me that I am "Hard Core Conservative" (I think I got fed up with all these "Moderate Conservatives" and their policy statements :-)

The "useless information" tag is tongue in cheek. This information is only useless if you don't care. (yes sir, i am opinionated - God Bless America)

Preamble

Shakespeare is credited with saying "Brevity is the soul of wit". Perhaps the framers of the Constitution had "the bard" in mind when they wrote the "intro" to our Constitution. It is one sentence tells what they were attempting to accomplish with the Constitution and some of the means that they intended to use to get this done.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is interesting to me that this one sentence introduction has been referred to by the Supreme Court of the United States "as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution" at least five times.

Old Glory

Wow! Too much good info to try and cram it all in one post so I'll give you links to the info.

A short History of the American flag.

Two different accounts of the specific flag that was first called Old Glory here and here.

The history of the United States maritime flag or Jack. And here is a link to an image of the first naval jack. The "Don't Tread on Me" naval jack was "reinstated" in recognition of the current War on Terror.

And last but not least, rules from Title 4 of the US Code concerning the US flag, how to display the flag, how it should or should not be used and other interesting stuff.

Fireworks

After giving my little idea more thought I believe that, if I'm going to do any justice to this idea I'm going to have to take it in small pieces. There is just so much cool stuff to be patriotic about!

I like this - it turns out that I'm already learning more about my nation's history.

I was just about to tell you what I have heard all my life about the 4th of July and fireworks. You see, since I was a little kid I have heard it repeated that the tradition of fireworks had to do with commemorating America's victory in the War of 1812. You know - "... the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air..." and if I had told you that, then I would have been wrong. As it turns out (according to PBS) the idea of fireworks on the 4th of July are almost as old as the Declaration of Independence.

According to an article from PBS.org : "On July 8, 1776, the first public readings of the Declaration were held in Philadelphia's Independence Square to the ringing of bells and band music. One year later, on July 4, 1777, Philadelphia marked Independence Day by adjourning Congress and celebrating with bonfires, bells and fireworks."

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Two reasons for this particular post:

1)A couple different times I've had one friend or another ask me something to the effect of "Do you have to be so political?" or they've just come right out and said "You're too political." But it has been my experience that once people understand why I feel the way I do, then, oftentimes they no longer see me as being "too political". (This doesn't work 100% of the time but most people get it)

2) Several people close to me either are in the long process of legal immigration / naturalization or they have already come through the arduous process of legal immigration /naturalization to the USA. Interestingly enough, my acquaintances who are legal first generation immigrants rarely question my political zeal. Go figure.

So to remind myself (and for the benefit of my friends who may not understand) how our system of government is supposed to work here in the US of A, and why our system of government works so well (even though it doesn't look like it sometimes), I will be presenting a series of posts on the Constitution, traditions and some of the reasons behind our patriotic ideals.

Happy (early) Fourth of July!!

Fake Job Ads Defraud Americans

If you're feeling especially sensitive, high-strung or "politically correct" right now, then you might want to wait and read this post later when you're a little more

Okay, here is fair warning to the world at large. If I hear One More "Intelligent" Adult tell me that immigrants "only do jobs Americans won't do" I'm not even going to justify it with an answer I'm just going to hurl on their shoes.

My answer to this inane argument in the past has been a comedic 'Oh no, you can tell that's not true just by watching "Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe" on the Discovery channel.' but that no longer seems to be sufficient.

Now there is evidence on YouTube of immigration attorneys from the law firm of Cohen & Grisby explaining "how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans...". Click HERE to see the video for yourself. When you get good and mad remind yourself that these clowns are not breaking the law. There are enough loopholes written in the current immigration laws that allow these people to technically "follow the law" with NO intention of offering a job to a qualified American citizen.

Now I ask you, do you really think that Congress can be trusted to come up with good immigration legislation? Do you really think that Congress cares about what is best for American workers? Do you really believe what Ted Kennedy, John McCain and President Bush say about this latest attempt at amnesty?

We have tried amnesty over and over and illegal immigration only increases. Ted Kennedy has already pushed SEVEN amnesties into law and each time illegal immigration increased.
From NumbersUSA:
1986 - Blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens
1994 - Section 245(i) amnesty for another 578,000
1997 - Extension of Section 245(i)
Also in 1997 - Amnesty for close to a million illegal aliens from Central America
1998 - Amnesty for over 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
2000 - the "Late Amnesty" for another 400,000
Also in 2000 - the "LIFE Act Amnesty" for another 900,000 [another extension of Section 245(i) ]

Senators are supposed to be smart people. Tell me this - Why would any of these Senators believe Ted Kennedy when he says this amnesty bill will end illegal immigration with a track record like his?

Let's give Attrition Through Enforcement a chance. This approach hasn't been seriously attempted yet and, as you can see, the "Amnesty" approach is failing miserably.

America:Freedom to Fascism

This movie is an hour and 49 minutes long.
Some of this information I've heard many times over the past 25 years.
Some of this information I had never heard before.
All told, this is the scariest thing that I've seen in a long, long time.
Tell me what you think.