I've been looking at the Constitution Party as a prospective new political home, since I can not stay with the Republican Party. The Constitution Party has selected Dr. Charles Baldwin as their candidate for the Presidency. Dr. Baldwin has a number of articles published at his web site, Chuck Baldwin Live , and I've been reading them. He isn't very impressed with John McCain, so he and I are in agreement so far.

"On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to "family values" voters. He is no friend to America's blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration.

On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism."

Chuck also agrees with me (or is it I with him?) that McCain is the greater of the evils we have to choose from (provided by the two major parties), not the lesser.

"America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country's independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and "free trade" deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain."

It sounds to me like he gets it. If you'll follow the link above and click on the seventh article in the list (Only A Miracle Can Save America Now) you can read the whole article I've quoted from above. Better yet, read them all so that you can get a good idea of where he is coming from. I'm very impressed, but I won't criticize anyone who disagrees with me. We each have the right to our own opinions.

Then consider this: There are currently 39,139,653 registered as Democrats, 29,955,197 registered as Republicans, 23,315,495 registered as Independants, and only 384,722 registered with the Constitution Party - even though it is the third largest party in the country. I think we can take 10 to 15% of the Democrats, 50 or 60% (and maybe as much as 85%) of the Republicans, and as much as 85% of the Independants; that is, get them to join the Constitution Party and vote for its candidate, Chuck Baldwin. That would bring the Constitution Party up to the size of the Democratic Party and make the Republican Party into a permanent minority party. Would it be easy? Of course not. Can we do it? Absolutely! How? That's a good subject for a future article.

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 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.