I'm sick of PC non-action! Fortunately, I've been shown a way to correct that problem. First, we have to identify the problem, and the problem is us. We are still too fractured, which limits our effectiveness when we try to influence our legislators. We can fix that.

Keep in mind that we have already proved that we can be effective. We killed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act TWICE! We killed the DREAM Act and the AgJOBS Act. We showed our legislators and ourselves where the real power lies in our country. Now it's time to formalize it.

Someone else posted a link to something called the Bonn Temporary Amnesty Initiative, also called the Safe America Act. Mr. Bonn has drafted a bill which can get all the illegal aliens out of the country in 16 months! I've read it and it looks like it should work.

Someone else posted a response saying that it was amnesty and there was no way they could support it. Well, that piqued my interest enough to cause me to take the link and read more. The BTAI/Safe America Act does contain amnesty, but only to the extent of immunity from prosecution for immigration-related offenses. It does not provide ANY path to citizenship, those who wish to return must go to the back of the line and apply for a visa just like everyone else.

BTAI uses the carrot and stick approach to get them to volunteer to leave. The carrot is essentially a bribe - and ATM card with $1000 for an adult or $600 for a child, that they get when they return to their home country. They can't just go home, get the card, and come back because they get it in 12 deposits to their card account over a year's time. That's a lot of money when applied to all the illegal aliens in the country, but it's still less than it would cost us for them to stay in the country for another year or two. The stick is that if they are still in the country when the program ends they are automatically classified as Class 1 Felons and will be considered to be terrorists. Every law enforcement agency in the country will be used to hunt and capture them. Even the National Guard and the military (under civilian control) will be used.

That should be enough to get any patriotic American interested enough to take the following link and check it out for themselves. PLEASE look at it, then download the PDF file and read the whole bill. It is very detailed, including humanitarian issues.

The Patriot Union of America 

Every special interest group (SIG) in the country has its own political action committee (PAC). They use those PACs to get laws passed that favor their interests. It's time we had one of our own, a patriot action committee... or perhaps a Patriot Union of America. We used ALIPAC, Grassfire, NumbersUSA, Public Citizen, Townhall and others to good effect but we can be much more effective if we organize better. We need to make our legislators understand that we are watching everything they do, not just immigration. We can clean out DC if we concentrate our efforts and combine our voices better. "Hold their feet to the fire" has never been a more appropriate phrase.
If the Congress of the United States (both houses) will not represent us and our States, it's time we formed an organization for ourselves. After all, we are the largest special interest group.

While you're at it, click on the link to the left (in Blogroll) for The Constitution Party and maybe you will find, like I have, where you were supposed to be all along.

The immigration problem, as big as it is, is only part of a bigger problem. The bigger problem is international trade, or rather, what the international traders will do to maximize their profits.

Here it started with NAFTA and continues with the SPP - Security and Prosperity Partnership. They will morph into a North American Community, and that will eventually become the North American Union. That is exactly how the Eureopean Union was developed.

Then there is the Law of the Sea treaty, which the Senate is inclined to ratify and the President has already stated he will sign.

With each step along the way a little more of the Sovereignty of the United States will be eroded away. Think it can't happen?

Then ask yourself how Mexico can interfere with the execution of a Mexican national in Texas? President Bush directed that his case be "reviewed" because he hadn't been advised that he could seek help from the Mexican Consulate. What standing does a Mexican Consulate have in a Texas court?

There may be specific reasons for allowing illegal immigration and the subsequent strain on the U.S. economy.

At least three of the top four Republican presidential candidates and three of the top four Democrats, plus more than three of the top Bush Admin officials are reported to be members of the same international business organization. The source of that may not be very reliable, but we should be VERY wary on the off chance that it is correct.

Why aren't Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo getting more press coverage? They both have some interesting positions on important issues. They both have positions which contradict the front-runners on important issues.

I'm not sure, now, that things are much different than they would have been if Kerry had been elected. I'm not sure things will be much different if Hillary is elected. Two or three more months and we won't be able to tell the parties apart.

Sure, there will be a lot of dirt-throwing and squabbling, but after the election not much will change if any of the front runners are elected.

One of them WILL be elected if we don't short-circuit them in the primary elections. To do that, we need to come together on ONE candidate to overcome the big money donations of the 'big guys'.

I propose that the excerpt below, from USC Title 8, does not confer citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens.

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; [my emphasis added]

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

Just think about it. Why is paragraph (b) necessary? Would not a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or aboriginal tribe already be a citizen of the United States if born here? Maybe not. Their tribes are recognized as independent nations within the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That means it is possible to be born within the United States and not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I believe that an illegal alien or immigrant (parent) is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States until (in the case of an immigrant) they take the oath of allegiance. It is that oath which puts them under the jurisdiction of the United States. I submit that a newborn baby is under the jurisdiction of its parents, and its citizenship is that of its parents.
 
If that is not true, then the U.S. can take a newborn baby from its parents, then deport the parents and keep the baby. Not that we would, but it would be legal under the law if we interpret the law that way. Actually, that is exactly what happened with Elvira Arellano. She was deported but her son was allowed to stay. If the law had been properly applied her son would have accompanied her.

The 'structure' of our health care system is up-side down.

The federally funded programs we have are focused on paying for doctor, hospital, and preventative costs, while research and development are done by private pharmacological corporations. Those corporations patent their findings and charge high prices for them to recover the costs of the research and generate profits.

Maybe if we reversed that the system would work better.

I mean, let's pay for the development of new medicines with public funds, and the patents for new ones be owned by the government. When new ones are found and tested the gov't could license ALL the 'pharma' companies to produce them. That way every new drug would be a 'generic' from day one. The producers would face price competition and the drugs would be less expensive.
Not only that, but more resources could be directed at natural sources for new medicines. Has anyone bought any vitamens lately that say "with Lycopene" on the label? Lycophene has been available in health food stores for a long time, and has been proven to be effective in improving 'heart health'. It's the chemical in some vegetables that gives them their red color. Plant extracts (phytochemicals) do not treat the symptoms of a disease or condition, they cure the disease or correct the condition. Unfortunately, phytochemicals can't be patented because they occur in nature, so corporations can't make big profits from them.

Wal-Mart fills prescriptions for a large number of generic medications for $4.00 each. How much would insurance costs go down if ALL medications were $4.00 per prescription?

I know that we provide grants and other forms of 'support' for developing new medicines already... so why do the companies who develop those new medicines get the patents? Or do they?

The other side of the system is insurance. If the price of drugs came down significantly the cost of insurance would also come down. An 'assigned risk" system could be used to ensure that insurance is available to everyone. Insurance companies could get tax deductions for the 'above normal' costs (to them) of servicing high-risk policies. They also adjust rates based on personal choices which statisically increase the risk of a high pay-out.
The general idea is to get the government out of the insurance business and put them into the business of co-ordinating and funding research. Sure, research is expensive, but I think that the savings to the public would substantially outweigh the costs of research. Additionally, researchers would be just as motivated to find naturally occuring treatments and cures as to developing expensive procedures to synthesize drugs from those naturally occuring chemicals.

Crazy idea?

P.S. There are already natural treatments and cures for many of our problems, like cancer and diabetes.

The Constitution of the United States is an amazing document. It establishes the three branches of the U.S. government with limitations on each and grants authority to each branch to act within those limitations. It is the supreme law of the land and can only be changed by an amendment ratified by the States. This is what I was taught in school: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the amendments.

It is not strictly true.

The President, in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph  2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;"

We all know that the President can negotiate a treaty, and that it has to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That doesn't sound too bad. YET!

And according to Article VI, Paragraph 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

Whoa, what's this? ANY treaty, once ratified and signed by the President, effectively becomes a part of the Constitution! Treaties only have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, but amendments to the Constitution have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States! It's easier to change the Constitution by treaty than by amendment.

Like the Law of the Sea, for example. That treaty has been described as the biggest international undertaking in all of history. It creates a massive bureaucracy under the auspices of the United Nations and controlled by them. The "one state, one vote" power structure of the United Nations theoretically allows states with just eight percent of the world's population to pass a resolution by two-thirds vote.

I don't like it!
 
Now, when the Senate tries to "ram" something like the Law of the Sea treaty (or the Comprehensive Immigration SCAMNESTY bill!) through without debate by "unanimous consent", something smells fishy. Why don't they want to debate it publicly, allowing the citizens of the U.S. to learn what the treaty obligates us to and/or what outside authority the treaty might place over us? WHAT is the SENATE trying to hide from us?

I'm not saying that we should NOT approve of the Law of the Sea treaty. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm just saying that we should KNOW what it is we are getting into BEFORE we get into it. It's very difficult to get the general population to agree on making changes, especially significant changes, to the structure of the government. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! Such changes should not be possible with just a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the President's signature.

NAFTA is a DISASTER. It is the "baseline" from which is derived the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the SPP is the base upon which the North American Community will be built. The North American Community will evolve into the North American Union. Those are the exact steps used to establish the European Union.

The Law of the Sea treaty could be the first step toward establishing the United Nations as a global government. No sane American wants that. We've seen how good the UN is at getting anything done (unless it's an under-the-table deal for highly placed officials). We've seen how good they are at enforcing their resolutions. Personally, I'd rather send the UN packing. I'm sure either New York City or the Federal government could make better use of the building(s) and facilities. But that's just me.

It seems like the President and many in Congress want to merge the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. I was just wondering about something. With statements made by the previous and current Presidents of Mexico, they have already abrogated the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which ended the war between Mexico and the U.S. and that should return us to a state of war. Mexico has encouraged her citizens to cross the border illegally and take up residence in the United States in violation of our immigration laws. The President of Mexico has publicly stated that "where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico." The President of the U.S. has told the Mexican people (when he was in Mexico) that he would work for them on immigration issues.

If the President and Congress really want to extend U.S. Constitutional protections and federal privileges to citizens of Mexico, why don't they just annex Mexico? Annex Mexico and everybody gets what they want. The President and those globalists he represents get two thirds of the North American "Community" (Union) they want, Mexicans get free access to all of the U.S. rights and privileges we have (because when we annex Mexico we make all Mexican citizens U.S. citizens), businesses get all the labor they can use BUT they have to pay them at the going legal rate, we eliminate the need for a border fence, we eliminate delays in border crossings, the advantages go on and on.

Just wondering.

Rickey Braddam

OK, I messed up. I stayed home in 2006 and helped us lose both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It wasn't a conscious decision to get even with Bush and the GOP, but I was plenty PO'd. What I did was wrong.

I have a chance to try to correct my error, though, and that is why I started this blog. That, and Townhall started limiting comments to articles so much that I couldn't post sections of Title 8, USC, of sufficient length to show that I wasn't 'cherry picking' info to mislead someone.

Several have commented to articles that they would not vote if the Republican candidate was X, or would only vote if it was Y. That is extremely counter-productive and can easily result in the Democrats controlling both houses and the President's office. Some have commented that if that happens they would strongly consider taking up arms. That won't be necessary. We have the strength if we build the determination to succeed to take back one if not both houses as well as keep the Presidency.

But we MUST vote.

First, we MUST VOTE in the Primary elections. That means we must convince any who left the Republican Party to re-register as Republicans. We need their votes in the Primaries to help ensure that we are able to overcome any candidates fueled by big money machines. We have to make sure that we don't have to vote for a candidate who has been bought before the general election even happens.

Second, we MUST accept the winner of the Primary election as the Republican candidate, warts and all. How can we expect to be able to bring swing voters to our cause if we can't demonstrate solidarity and unity among ourselves. No one will side with a disorganized crowd or mob. We must all adopt winning the Presidential election as our most important goal. We can discuss the merits and flaws of those we have to choose from publicly and loudly until the Primary, but once the choice is made we must all support that choice whole-heartedly. Anything less dooms our candidate to failure.

That doesn't mean we can't establish conditions before the Primary. Below are some I would like to have adopted.

Our candidate must be honest beyond reproach. He must hold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in all things political. He must be dedicated to enforcing the Nation's laws fully, equally, and completely.

I would like each candidate to sign a pledge to choose the first runner-up in the Primary as his candidate for the Vice-President, and that he would accept being chosen if he were the first runner-up. First, by virtue of being the first runner-up, he is our second choice for the Presidency. Therefore, it is logical that he should be the one first in line to succeed the President, act as President when (and if) necessary, and ascend to the Presidency if necessary. We can always short-circuit that line at the Primaries if we find it necessary.

I'll stop here for now and watch for comments, then add more later.

Well, it's later... and it looks like John McCain will be the Republican candidate. I'll vote a straight Republican ticket downstream, but I absolutely can not vote for McCain. I just can't. I see the man as a bald-faced liar, a liberal, and one who stands against everything I believe in. His stand for amnesty for criminal alien invaders is a deal-breaker. Sorry.

 NOW it's even later. McCain pulled off a miracle for himself, and possibly for us too. He selected Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate. That changes everything... with the addition of the Republican Party platform which proclaims that the Republican Party is against amnesty for illegal aliens. Now I have someone to vote FOR who can help steer the Republican Party toward the Constitution and Conservative principles. There isn't TIME to build a third party that is strong enough to defeat either major party. If McCain doesn't follow the Constitution (strictly!) we have four years to build the Constitution Party and we can work to defeat any attempts he might make to take our country farther to the left.

The main thing is: GET OUT AND VOTE on November 4th! That's the only say-so we have and the only way we have to hold our public servants accountable for their actions. If we don't do our jobs of controlling them we deserve to be controlled BY them!

Rickey Braddam

His military record is history, what is important now is what he has done recently. He has opened his mouth on the record on numerous occasions and exposed a character that is very disturbing to many of us.

The most troublesome thing for me is his pre-investigation/pre-trial conviction of the Marines accused in the incident at Haditha. Whether any of our Marines were guilty of crimes or not, Murtha's words will be broadcast repeatedly to Muslims all over the Middle East. They will use his words to incite young Islamics to join the Jihad against America. Now, to top it all off:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/9/220042.shtml?s=al&promo_code=3863-1
and a longer article here:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml

From which this is excerpted:
"Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine."

That isn't all, though. He has taken money from the U.S. treasury and given it to his constituents via earmarks. That many others in Congress have done the same thing does not excuse him for doing it. His own constituents should recognize that he is being dishonest and buying their votes. I would be very offended if one of my legislators thought they could buy me.

He has publicly threatened, loudly and aggressively, his peers who had the nerve to question earmarks he was defending.

My view on that is best expressed by this article on Davey Crockett:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

There is nothing to prevent me, nor any of you, from donating to candidates running for Congressional seats in states other than our own. I won't do that as a matter of course, but there are certain ones I think need to be replaced because they are traitors to the Constitution. I will help support replacements for them.

The one thing our Representatives and Senators have proven beyond any doubt is that the government is totally incompetent at running any kind of business. For examples, just look at Social Security (Insurance), IRS, any part of the Department of Education, FDA... but this list could go on forever.

I want to get this posted today, so I'll stop for now and come up with a new rant later.

Rickey Braddam