Burqa wearing gun owners

There was a time in America where it was a privilege, an honor, and the law that one must, to be able to rightfully carry your weapon of choice out in the open, or concealed, however one wished, and without government interference, without the need for permits, submission to authority for licenses, etc. At one time our Second Amendment covered every citizen, and government protected the rights of the individual. That time has long passed. Since the Progressive movement, and even prior. States, like Tennessee, tried to outlaw the carry of firearms in the 1830's, but state courts rejected the law, and overturned it, based on Second Amendment criteria (“...shall not be infringed”). Even Justice Story, on his treatise on the Constitution, was noted to have written that should any attempt be made against the amendment it would be at the state level, but that if such an attempt were made, that the “Second Amendment” would prevent its being constitutional.

Once relegated (in vogue in western territories before they became states) to the outlaw west, the authority to do this was never considered correct within the United States proper. That is, until the period of Prohibition when running booze became a full time, gangster style job. Prior to that names like Dillinger, and 'Baby Face” Nelson, the James Boys, Ma Barker & her boys, and other bank robbers ran around taking money which the Federal Treasury properly considered within their purview. The Tax man, and revenuers, too became legendary in song, and movie.

In the early 1900's, Timothy Sullivan and the gang at Tammany Hall, the corruption involved, the desire to attain, and hold power, the state of NY determined that due to the rise of murders in NY City that a law needed to be on the books to stop the criminal activity, much of it sponsored by the criminal gangs, many of those run by Tammany Hall itself. Tim Sullivan was a man of ill repute, noted in the Movie “Gangs of New York.” The extent of the corruption was widespread, and the organization was under constant scrutiny, and investigation. The fact is, Tammany Hall was a corrupt political organization as many came to learn, and as many within the system knew at the time. The problem was the power the organization wielded, a power they were reluctant to relinquish to the people, especially the many of “we, the people” being 'undesirables', many illegal aliens, many legal aliens, but thought unequal to those Americans already here who had for generation eked an existence out of the woods, and cities of the new world.

As many states came to realize that their political power could be gained at the behest of the masses by staunching the corruption, and illegality, by keeping the people, in other words, “safe” from the criminal element they found these masses more willing to submit to laws which would stifle their rights. As the educational system devolved to our current 'socialist' public education system, as the criteria to be taught was changed, as the educational processes assumed that propaganda would be better than actual teaching of history, the constitution, the beginnings of our country, and why these then created a capitalist system with a rule of law, all law answering to the constitutionality by the court(s). Whatever happened to these concepts? The people were mis-educated, fed a line of BS for so long that today we don't question our masters, but instead simply kowtow to them. When did the change occur that presumed in a whole people's mind that government was the be all and end all, whereas individual thought, innovation, creativity, responsibility, and individual rights could be trampled upon for the new ideology of the 'common good', the new math, the new world order? How did 'the common good' devolve from “limited government” into 'all encompassing' government?

History relates that it started after the Civil War (War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression, depending on where you live and your ideology). I tend to believe that the states could not only decide to join the union, but given the Declaration of Independence's assumption that one could decide to throw off any government, and design one to fit the needs of the people whom it represented; that secession was legal, justified, and constitutional.

During this after war period, the states often passed laws (Jim Crow) to prevent former slaves from owning, or bearing arms. This, of course, depended on these who were prohibited abiding by the law. As we know, some did not, and those who did often ended up at the end of a noose, put there by white sheeted, and hooded, thugs of the KKK. In essence, the war for liberation (meaning constitutional rights applied to all equally)of the black populace lasted much longer than the Civil War did, by decades. In the 1950's, and 1960's, the Civil Rights movement took off. Prior to this Amendment's 13, 14, and 15, were adopted to try to bring all states into compliance with equality under the law; in essence, true equal justice. However, nowhere was justice ever admittedly equal. Equality can only come from “rule of law,” and adherence to the principle(s) of the law, the primary law in our country being the constitution.

In 1934, FDR passed the first Federal Firearms Act. It disparaged the ownership of the first “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” fully automatic rifles (military assault rifles), and sawed off shotguns, and rifles. Alo0ng with these, the ownership of silencers was also prohibited. That the law was wholly unjustified given that weapons of this type were seldom used, or owned, by the general population, given that the majority of these weapons used were by notorious gangsters, and thugs, the non-necessity of the law couldn't be any more apparent. That one could own these if they applied to the FBI for a permit to do such, that said permit was, in essence, unconstitutional (see the meaning of 'infringed'; 'encroach,' and 'hinder,' among other definitions of infringe).

The Miller decision stated that American citizens could only own those weapons pertinent to militia/military use, but our military had used both shotguns, and full automatic weapons in WWI, which ended a full 16 years before passage of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. The supposition was that such prohibitive laws would make it so costly to own these weapons that only outlaws would own them. At the time, a permit to own such was $200. During the Depression, when most worked for $1 a day, or less, this was cost prohibitive to the general person. This didn't include the cost of attaining the weapon, keeping it in good working order, or supplying it with ammunition. A cheaper alternative ewas the sawed off rifle, capable of being carried discretely (concealed) where ownership of pistols was now under “permit” systems.

Let me first off note here that in the Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham decision (1969), the courts declared that permits for rights were unconstitutional. They quoted the SCOTUS decision of Staub v. Baxley, which decried permits for sales within various districts. There was also a decision about permits being needed to solicit for churches proselytizing door to door. In Shuttlesworth, quoting from Staub, the justices noted that permits for rights were “unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints” on the individual. As such, anyone faced with such a licensing law “may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the (right) for which the law required a license (permit).” One of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, during the Heller decision, asked complainant Heller if he would be acceptable of a permit system in D.C. I had written seven of the 9 justices, RB-G excluded, asking that when they considered the Heller decision that they also announce that not only was “the right to keep and bear arms” and individual right, but also that it was not to be infringed, as the amendment notes. I sent them the information on the Shuttlesworth decision, and asked that the two justices not written to be filled in by the other seven. As we can see, these justices, all 9 of them, didn't follow past precedent in this case, and instead opted for a watered down version of the Second Amendment more consistent with current ideology, and inconsistent with our Constitution's plain language; “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” With what part of this didn't the dissenters concur? Were they using their perceived agenda to create a constitutional crisis? Why did a recent decision in regards the Permit system be turned away by the SCOTUS? We can only surmise that they have done so in an effort to put off the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To what end? Do all those in power believe that our constitution needs revision, and if so, why are they unwilling to do it by the process inclusive to it; amendment? Worse, since even the left today considers “past precedent” so vital in being maintained, given the erroneous decision in Roe v Wade, why would they skip over Staub/Shuttlesworth? After all, it is a “Civil Rights” decision, and all of our rights are civil rights as Abraham Lincoln so aptly made known when he stated our constitution was a “Civil” document.

So, why is it that we have to “conceal” our firearms when we carry? It is very similar to those in Islam who make note that women must be covered head to toe by a burqa. Are firearms so enticing that more people would carry if they knew it was not only possible, but our God given, constitutionally guaranteed right? And, if it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, why haven't our past presidents taken states to court to get laws which are passed by them which”infringe” the right, and have them overturned? Isn't that their job?

I'm sick of being relegated to being someone who must hide my belief in my constitution. I am sick of being bullied by the media, the police, the government at all levels because I desire, and do, carry a weapon on myself at all times. I am tired of trying to keep it hidden, and should it poke out for some reason being prodded by local para-militarists with guns drawn as if I am some kind of human scum, the lowest of the low, for merely exercising my right as an American citizen? Why is my life jeopardized because I wish to be equal to a para-militarist (local law enforcement)? It seems incongruous with our rights, yet it is happening throughout the United States. Are we now Mexico, Canada, Britain, Australia, or New Zealand? Why is it a law abiding citizen who has a permit is subjected to guns drawn, in your face, confrontation by these para-militarists? And, what right do they have to do so given that the state allows my right to be turned into a privilege, and at my behest, when I comply with their inane, ridiculous, unconstitutional permit system laws?

I'm tired of, in essence, having to wear a burqa over my weapons in public, because I appreciate, and exercise, my right (not state sponsored privilege) to keep and bear arms.

Anyone who has every watched a movie wherein spies are engaged, or where someone holds the key to someone's deepest secrets, and is now blackmailing them, has seen them finagle their opponent by telling them about their "in case of my untimely demise" letter, usually kept with their most trusted associate, or their legal counsel.

What does Moammar Qadaffi's letter say in it? Obama is afraid to kill him. He just wants him ousted, but is willing to kill hundreds, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Libyans to depose him. Meantime, Qadaffi is trying to keep his hold on power, and killing, indiscriminately, his own people. Some say they only want to be free of this tyrant, and dictator, but who put this idea(l) into their heads. For 40 years they have lived under Qadaffi's strong hand, with no inkling whatsoever of deposing him. Of course, perhaps that is why he surrounds himself with a bevy of well armed, ruthless female, Amazon style bodyguards? Perhaps he is constantly being attacked?

Either way, one must consider what is in that letter that Barry Hussein Obama-Soetoro, aka Barry Soetoro, aka, Barrack Hussein Obama wishes kept under wraps. We know Qadaffi's tirade, or was it prophetic, or even announced belief, or perhaps even an announced truth, that Barry Soetoro is a MuSlim. The professorial speech was given shortly after, or just prior to Barry's ascension to the American throne, uh, I mean, presidency. Of course, Barry wasted no time in implementing the programs he thought best for pushing the progressive agenda here in the U.S., even as millions of Americans opposed them.

But, Qadaffi is a world leader. He has access to world leaders from both our own country, and opposition countries, including the former Soviet communists. He may know things about things, that Barry Soeotoro, aka Barry Obama, doesn't want leaked about his heritage, his birth place, his affiliations, etc. The question is, how much more damning can these revelations be than what we already know of this leftist politician rooted in communist/Marxist ideology, Black Liberation Theology, who immediately starts taking over major car companies and offering them to his communist/Marxist oriented union counterparts. What part of Nationalization, and Socialization (NAZIfication), do the American people not understand?

Why is America aiding the freedom fighters in Libya (who may be in cahoots with al-Qaida), while trying to overthrow Qadaffi, when we aren't aiding those in Iran who are more pro-western, more prone to accept democratic ideology. And what of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, etc.? What role has/have American NGO's played in these uprisings? If there have been Americans trying to overthrow foreign dictators at the behest of the Obama regime, to what purpose? Is Barry trying to aid in the setting up of a caliphate in Islamic countries, because, as Qadaffi has said, in reality he is a MuSlim?

Since Barry is trying to aid those whom he picks and chooses here in the U.S. why expect he isn't doing so overseas? Why must America come to the rescue of these freedom fighters in Libya, with the cost of American intervention while America can't give its seniors a Cost of Living adjustment, but not in other countries in the Middle East? Why is no one talking about the role of the left in these uprisings--except Fox News, and Glenn Beck--in the media? Is the media that complicit? If so, why? And to what extent? Why is no one questioning the themes Obama touched upon when running for president, you know. out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, must have congressional approval when no imminent danger posed to the U.S., etc.?

Why is everything Barry is doing meant to harm the people of the U.S., including his MuSlim brethren, and his black brothers? Does he not think all Americans will suffer if white America suffers? Or, does he believe all Americans are bad, all deserving of destruction? Does he hate both sides of his parentage, and what does that say about the ability of him to properly make decisions in regard the best interests of the United States? Or, does he think that black America, MuSlim America, will rise up against this governmental form, and help him to institute an Open Society One World Governmental system? Is he trying to starve America into submission with ever higher prices, inflationary pressure brought about by excessive spending by this administration?

Did no one on the left even consider these questions before they pulled a lever for a Marxist socialist, Liberation Theology, MuSlim parented, and raised (perhaps now an Indonesian citizen), mixed parented, man child? Why is no one in the media trying to see where the real birth certificate is, or looking into the college transcripts, etc.? Are they that embedded with this president that they, too, are wlling to see the destruction of the U.S.? Do they think that their children will not suffer? Are they so wrapped up in the ideology that they can't see how it will affect future generations, or how many deaths of American citizens will ensue at the implementation of this ideology? Or, do they think that no harm will come to them,because they are part of the cabal?

So, I would really like to be a fly on the wall, or the lawyer, or other, that is responsible for holding the letter which holds the key to Barry Obama's past, and his reasons for not wanting Moammar Qadaffi dead.

Warning: Some wording used in this piece night be found objectionable by some people.

I’m a little miffed today. Some might say I’m downright angry. For decades now it hasn’t been ‘Politically Correct’ to refer to persons of color as negro, let alone use the word “n*&&*r.” It is, by their definition, offensive to refer to people of color as “n*&&*r”, unless, of course, one is a person of color. (Please note that the paper--Rochester, NY Democrat & Chronicle--disallowed my original post as it included the words "n*&&*r" and "wh*re," but they were not concerned about the word "injun." I have had to edit out the words as noted.)

A professor now wants to publish the classics, like “Huck Finn” by Mark Twain, without the word “n*&&*r.” It is used over 200 times in the classic, as is the word “injun,” referring to native Americans, and a euphemism for Indian (for those not old enough to recall western novels, and novella’s) which was what Columbus thought he had discovered when he landed on Hispanola in 1492.

Huck Finn is a classic. It has been required reading within our schools. It’s purpose was to show that slavery was unconscionable. It was prevalent,--but Mark Twain, an Elmira, NY resident for a while, and buried in a cemetery there--during his day. His workshop, where he wrote some of his most notable works, remains at the Elmira College. Formerly on a nearby hillside, it was moved there for preservation. Twain traveled in elitist circles of his time. He also lived in Massachusetts for a time. He spent his boyhood in Missouri, having been born there in a little town on the Mississippi River called Hannibal.

Huck Finn shows the baseness of the attitude of slavery, let alone the inane sufferage of the slaves. The “n*&&*r Jim” was Huck’s companion on the Mississippi for several months as he ran away from home. He was a servant of a couple women who lived in a town on the Mississippi. Jim opened Huck’s eyes to the fact that persons of color weren’t just dumb slaves. They were people of thought, reason, with feelings and emotion, with family, or a desire for family. They were like everyone at the time, except they were enslaved. (There is a problem I see occurring where we are all becoming slaves of the government, Political Correctness, and the like, but perhaps that is for another day.)

Today, after the banning of several books, among them my most treasured “Little Black Sambo,” which I read numerous times as a child, there is a professor who wishes to publish, or republish Huck Finn, without the offensive language of “n*&&*r” and “injun.” To what purpose? Have the words become so offensive? Have our sensibilities become so tainted that we can’t use the wording of “n*&&*r” and “injun’ as a learning process, an enlightenment, if you will, to the evils of slavery, and prejudice?

How will we ever overcome this “cowardice,” as Attorney General Eric Holder has noted, in regards the lack of talk about our prejudices? Is he, and others like him on the left, driving this cowardly denial of the discussion? Or, is it the fact that generations of social program spending, amounting to trillions of dollars,  hasn’t “evened” the playing field for many people of color? (Thus, is it a diversion?) How can it be when it is merely a give away to these people, a hand out, rather than a hand up? And, what makes us think that someone who is of color can’t succeed in our economy, our society, our constitutional republican governmental system? Many prior have. If the community of color cannot, why not? Is it the fault of the people, the businesses, the government, or a smidgeon of each combined?

Is it, at least partially, the fault of the community(ies) in which they live? If it is paramount throughout the community of color, can we not make an assumption that part of the problem is with the community itself? If businesses which sell goods will not locate in these communities due to the inability to make profit, often due to theft (shoplifting), then is it the fault of these businesses, or the fault of the community, and the people who live in it, who are either immune to what is happening within, or complicit in the theft, accepting that what they want they should be able to get, even if it requires some level of deceit, theft, etc.?

Are we talking now/yet? Is this the start of the conversation? Will I be deemed a racist for making the claim(s)? The leftists most assuredly will say that I am even tho, I disagree with the use of the word in casual conversation. However, has anyone listened to rap music of late, especially that by people of color? Does anyone know how many times the word “n*&&*r” is used in rap music these days? Certainly, some musicians, like Will Smith--if rap can be considered music--were averse to the use of “n*&&*r” in their rap songs, because it glorified the word. If they felt it was offensive, why the constant use of it in rap music? Is it because it is a black repeating it that makes it not offensive? I found it offensive regardless, and I’m a white person. Was the use to make it seem less offensive to everyone? Or, was it used as a vehicle to spread hate, and prejudice? Was it a purposeful use? What about the use of “ho,” a shortened version of wh0re, b1tch, and other offensive language in reference to women within these songs? Was that a purposeful usage? And, if so, to what purpose? Was it to inflame?

This is not to mention the first amendment protections afforded our published works. Does someone have the right to print a different version? Certainly, but to what end? Is it just to relieve sensibilities? Shouldn't we see the original to understand the outrage? How will we know of the outrage, of the reason behind it, if the wording is changed? What of all the books out there who already contain the "verboten" (Deutsche-German--for "forbidden" for those not knowledgeable) language? Purposely I have used "verboten" here. This is like NAZI's seeking to forbid Jews from owning, or operating businesses, placing them into concentration camps, and murdering them by the millions. Well, it's not quite as bad, but this is where loss of freedoms eventually leads? Should we not condemn that?

Here's the worse thing. This is a purposeful remaking of our history by people seeking political correctness, denying the fact that words hurtful may be necessary to "progress" to the point where equality is recognized. Unless, of course, the discourse is no longer necessary, the equality is truly either unreachable, or as I surmise, already in place. If that be the case, why the need for reparations, welfare, etc. After all, it was partially because of the migrant worker (at the time predominantly black folks) plight that welfare was initiated.

So, I am angry today, because I find what this professor proposes offensive. Because I find it offensive, it should be stopped. After all, equality demands that if something offensive to one group is denied, then something offensive to me must also be denied. Otherwise, there is not equality, but inequality, prejudice for my opinion versus acceptance of some others opinion.

The classics should remain as they are. If someone finds them offensive, let them not read them. My purpose in this is not to escalate the talk on race. I don’t personally believe in race as an issue (see "Empire" by Niall Ferguson), but as a political tool used to separate “we, the people,” making us less likely to get along, because one thing an over powering government cannot abide is a people united against its "abuses." Instead, it will point to other "supposed" abuses so as to misdirect us.

Race has, also, been used in the past as a tool to create a belief that some of color were lesser people, not educable, not smart, but merely people who were to be bred for slavery. The people of color I have known are intelligent, witty, charming often. One got my joke about “Prince Albert in a can” the other day, and smiled about it. How fantastic that, for a moment, we both found a commonality. How much more do we have in common?

Perhaps my anger is misplaced. Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Janet Napolitano was correct. The system did work when Umar Farouq (who's a Freak) Abdulmutallab tried to bring down a passenger airliner on a flight from the Netherlands to Detroit. However, the system that worked wasn't the one put into place by the current DHS Secretary, nor the Barry Obama-Soetoro administration. It wasn't even the system in place during the George W Bush presidency, and certainly not the one under President Willie J Clinton.
The system that did work was the one put in place by our nations founders generations ago, and not lost on current Americans, especially those who understand that system. That system is the militia, who come to the rescue, who take matters into their own hands, who do what DHS is supposed to do prior to allowing foreign nationals to board our planes, and even what DHS is supposed to be doing with the Air Martial Service.
The system was adequate, but not up to par. Abdulmutallab should never have made it off that plane alive. There should have been a hundred passengers putting bullets into his head, and torso. Instead, the passenger militia is relegated by inane law to either submit to the inanity, and the depravity, of such souls as al-Qaida's Abdulmutallab, and men/boys similar to him, or take matters into their own hands ill equipped to do the job.
But who is to blame? Is it DHS? Is it the "W" Bush administration? Is it the Clinton, the GHW Bush, the Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, or even prior administrations? Was it Jefferson for not ordering the marines to kill every Islamic back in the early 1800's when his administration went to war with Islamic terrorist pirates?
Is it the people on the ground, the Islamic mobs, the Islamic extremists, who wish to live a depraved life, killing those who break Sharia'a law, and seeking to impose their type of law, and will, on the rest of us through violence perpetrated to scare us into obeisance? Is it some part of the current administration, and past leftist administrations, whose desire to "all get along" has led to Political Correctness, and all it portends, including the disarming of the general populace of Americans under some sick belief that they know better than generations of Americans before them who used the rifle and pistol, the bomb, the mortar, the machine gun, and all other manner of devices to kill our enemies, and keep us free from such tyranny?
Yes, a system is in place, but it is hampered by our inane government that thinks it can impose its will, can keep us safe, can be all to all, when it can't even run the Department of Homeland Security correctly. When it puts in place devices which do not make us safer, but instead impede us from doing what is necessary to protect fellow passengers,  crew, and Americans on the ground, then it has gone too far. It has done what it was never meant to do. It has subverted the will of the people, and the Constitution. It has, in essence, become, like those we are now fighting, tyrannical in its own right.
Free passengers to carry arms. Let them be the arbiters of peace in the air. Let them, and their fellows, have peace of mind knowing they are responsible for that planes safety. Even go so far as to deputize them, and arm them if unarmed, and not a danger themselves (criminals, or former criminals), whenever they attempt to board a plane. Make them aware that it is not only their right, but their DUTY to stop evil people from perpetrating violent, and vicious acts, against their fellow passengers, and fellow Americans. It's time to stop the inanity, the imbecilic way our government has stopped us form being responsible for ourselves and each other. Return us our freedom!

This weeks Hamlin/Clarkson Herald (NY) has a report on its front page about WWII prisoners in Hamlin, NY. Apparently, these Italian  and German prisoners were used as labor on nearby farms, and in food processing plants. Hamlin had a large complex which was then run by  Duffy Motts. Motts was bought out by Cadbury Schweppes, and the plant hasn't been in operation for over 30 years now.They made apple sauce, and prune juice, among other things.

The story relates how prisoners were treated, with a pen put up to keep prisoners who tried to escape, or who did other things contrary to decency. The pen had no structures inside it. The prisoners slept on the ground at night in the clothes they had on during the day. They spent the day in the sunshine, or the rain.

Anyone who has spent a summer day in western NY can tell you the sun beats pretty hot on some days, and sunburn is easily obtained in short order. Rains are cold, and often sleet, or snow, may accompany them. A couple years back there was  major snowstorm in the first week of October. One summer day in the early 1970's my little brother was running throgh the yard when pea sized hail started raining down. "Lookm little ice balls," he retorted. It is said that during fall and winter prisoners acted much better, preferring the barracks and bunks to the elements day and night.

Apples, plums, peaches, cherries, tomatoes, cucumbers, cabbage, squash, corn, are, or were, staples of upstate, western NY, Lake Ontario's loam soiled border lands. Plum pumice (the remains after juice was removed, included prune pits) was dumped on nearby farms, and used to fill swampy areas, one area of which borders my neighbors land. Several people I know, including my father-in-law, and my best man, used to deliver the pumice by the truckloads to local farmers, or to their own property. My father-in-law dumped over 100 truckloads on his 4.5 acre plot. You'd never know it to look at it today. The large piles are no much smaller having eroded, and decayed to the point that they are a tenth their original size, or less. The soil is fertile, and very soft, excellent for growing root crops such as potatoes, Jerusalem artichoke, carrots, parsnips, garlic and onions. Other crops grow on it to proportions unimaginable. Good food from good soil.

 But the key here is that easily constructed wooden shacks surrounded by chain link fence topped with barbed wire were easy to set up, and kept the prisoners very well. After the war ended, many wished to stay in the U.S. knowing that--the author states he doesn't know how they knew--they were going to be returned to areas where the Russians (Soviets)  had control. They wanted nothing to do with the mad Russian cossacks, and their evil. Yet, was Hitler any worse? Were his economic, and social, policies better than the Soviets? Our forefathers, even those who hailed form Germany of the Hitler era thought so. So why does America rush to Soviet, or National Socialist style governance?

Have we become so enamored of our government, is our belief in its benevolence so unrestrained, that we are willing to  allow them to take over our businesses, our Health Care decisions, our lives, cradle to grave? What of American freedom, individual liberty, that can do spirit that made America grow faster, and become the most powerful nation to ever roam the Earth's seas, to fight major world wars, and win, to develop technology that could land a man on the moon, and put a space station in orbit around our planet, and to deliver supplies to it, and return to Earth none the less for wear? What of the technology to create instant communication with pictures, between individuals, on phones so small they fit in the palm of our hands, to send pictures through the air the instant we take them, to go from LA, to NYC in a matter of a few hours by plane, to have such an advancement in society that no other country to this time has been able to touch us, in fact, for the most part fear us, our abilities, and capabilities?

And, yet, we are willing to accept, now, some form of socialist policy that will make us give up all that has made us great, all the freedom that made one of the world's greatest powers in WWII, the Nipponese, say that they could never attack America in a land invasion, because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass? Today we are willing to give up our guns, give up our freedoms, for what? A Great'er' Society? A more civilized Politically Correct, hate filled, division of our people through hyphenated Americanism? Is that the America which was able to make itself great, to conquer a wild continent, to totally destroy enemies in world wars, to tame wildernesses, to build massive dams, to tame nuclear power, to release it to vanquish foes, to right civil wrongs? Is this still the same country people flee to from other nations to make a better life, to fulfill an economic destiny, to be free to pursue their passion, make a name for themselves, or simply survive in a land where they are free to pursue these freedoms, these blessing bestowed upon us by a 'greater hand'?

Have we advanced so far that we have come full circle to a neo-slavery, a slavery to government, and to its largesse? Is our desire to succeed so great, our fear of failure even greater, that we think we need a bloated bureaucracy to tell us what to do, when to do it, what job to be at, and when? Is that the America which allowed prisoners of war to work in its farms and fields? Is this the America at which these people preferred to stay rather than face Soviet domination? Are we willing to accept Soviet domination today because we are no longer great? Or are we doing it to satisfy some deeper desire to overcome, to atone, to seek the wisdom of our minority oppressors because it makes us feel better about ourselves? When did we become such a touchy-feely society, such a bunch of pansies, and posers? Was it the 1960's "Better red than dead" phenomenon that led us to this? Was it the peace and free love of the hippie movement? Was it the unwashed masses of illegal aliens yearning to be free who changed us? Or, was it, as I believe, we who took ourselves to the abyss?

All the immigrants I know who came here to flee the oppression of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Hu, Castro, the Iranian mullah's, did so for a freedom that we take for granted, and are willing to sell for a few pieces of gold. We are willing to accept slavery that we might not have to suffer? Yet, our forefathers suffered greatly, in trenches in France, in frozen foxholes in Bastogne, on France's Normandy peninsula on Utah, and Omaha, Beaches. These brave souls sacrificed their blood and treasure to free slaves, to free whole people's from the tyranny of European imperialism. And, we are willing to give it up so easily to a Marxist Kenyan Muslim/Christian, and his ilk, who won't show his birth certificate, fights having to do so, and is most likely no cooperative because he knows that if he does he will be seen for the fraud, the charlatan, the unconstitutional president, that he is? What has become of this nation? What has become of our courts that they would rather accept his charlatan than ask for proper procedure be followed, ask that the birth certificate be produced? Can our country, the greatest nation ever, not survive a minor constitutional crisis in which we have to have a new election, one where we check the birth certificates of the people running for the office to assure they are constitutionally eligible? are we that fragile a society that such will tear us asunder? If so,  perhaps Jeff Snyder was right. Perhaps, Eric Holder is right. Perhaps we are a nation of cowards?

As a teen, I used to walk daily past the old prison where captured German troops were kept in the Orleans County, NY, Village of Albion. Perhaps other villages, or towns, had these still up in the late 1970's. Today, the site is an apartment complex.

What is my point? Well, just this, during WWII, we housed foreign soldiers on our soil. There was never any talk about trying them for crimes, or terrorist activity. There was never any talk of returning them to their homes, their home country, or any other country, until the war was ended. Many in the area told stories of how some stayed within the community, and the United States, afterward. Whether these stories are true, or not, is a matter for historians to investigate.

We simply housed them until after the war was over, then returned them to their home countries as was necessary. They were "Prisoners Of War," treated in accordance with international law.

Today we argue about whether the terrorists must be tried for crimes, and whether these should be military, or civilian trials. Should they remain jailed at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) Naval Base? Should they be tried as enemy combatants, or as persons who have committed a criminal act? Can we prosecute them for a criminal act which may, or may not, have been on our soil? For instance, if the person was arrested in Afghanistan on the battlefiled, and they are members of al-Qaida, do we prosecute them for simply being in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, or must they face a world court? Since the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan at the time of our attack, if they are Taliban, how long can they be held? When will the war against the Taliban end? Has it ended yet? How would we know? If they admit to being al-Qaida do we prosecute them as William Clinton's administration would have, in civilian courts, or as George W. Bush's would, in military tribunals?

Should the known terrorists, or any of the other enemy conmbatants, have all the rights of an American citizen, even though captured on the battlefield of another country, where U.S. troops engaged them? If they have all the rights in a civilian court, will that compromise security here in the U.S., or cause the government to have to give up secrets about how we track their terrorist buddies, and any other top secret information? Will it open others of our own (U.S. citizens) to possible trial should something come about which shows that these committed acts which were against the law?

Well, we do have past precedence on our side. The keeping of enemy combatants on our soil, imprisoned as such, not subject to trial, or other, only herein kept so as to see to it they remain out of any future fighting, as POW's, is precedent. The left would have us believe that terrorism is a criminal enterprise, but is killing multiple thousands of people at one time, or even attempting such, in the guise of religious jihad (Holy "war"), something we should even consider a criminal act? Is Holy "War" a terrorist act, or an act of warfare, subject to world laws, and world courts? Should they be tried in our courts, or in a world court? If tried in a world court, will they be subject to, once again, using their status to reduce our governments ability to protect us? Not that our current government seems likely to do such, being more worried about Christian's, gun owners, and right wing "extremists, but I become redundant, within our own country?

And what of the recent arrests of four criminals in NY City who were attempting to blow up Jewish synagogues, and take out at least one of our military planes, in a coordinated attack. These were, supposedly, former criminals, recruited by Islamists while in jail. Should we waterboard them to find out if they came by their desire to plan this attack with the assistance of their former jail Islamic leader, or other Islamic leader of any sect(s) outside the prison?  Will we need to? Since it was FBI in coordination with NY City police who brought about the arrests, does the U.S. government even have jurisdiction? Perhaps we need treat them as we would any other murder, or attempted murder, perp? Are they liable for the same civil rights as any other enemy combatant, or are they to be treated as just another group of crimials, tried in civilian court?

And what of their religious affiliation? Should our government be more watchful of Islamic groups within our own country? Or should they continue to be much more concerned about right wingers, tea party-ers, Christian groups, and other who believe in the principles of Constitutional Republican governance, instead of the Communist/NAZI (National Socialist) takeover of the nation's businesses, raising taxes on the people to allow this government to take what cannot rightfully (Constitutionally) be their domain?
 
Should these four be housed in a POW camp within our borders? What of the Gitmo detainees? If we do, at what level of security? Do we do a supermax camp? Do we treat them as we did the German POW's in WWII? Simply keeping them in barracks within a fenced in lot of a few acres, with barbed wire on top? Should we feed them as we did the Germans, many having never eaten so well in their lives prior?

Or, are these combatants more likely, if they escape, to continue with their terrorist ways? If they did, and do, would the government be able to keep them from killing multiple numbers of us, or would  they allow us to protect ourselves by reinstating the original Second Amendment? Since we know this administration sees the Second Amendment as a hindrance to their plans for communist control, and NAZIfication, of our society, would they even be amenable to such? Or, would they celebrate the death of every American citizen, especially if one of those is one so designated as possible internal dissenters, i.e., rightwing Constitutotional Republicans, gun owners, or Christians, at the hands of an escaped jihadi terrorist?

And, is that why some people want to know more about  Massa (master, from "Roots") (President) Obama-Soetoro, his origins, and whether he is, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen? Or is it his past history in Indonesia, where he was schooled as an Islamist for several years? Or was it his time spent in Pakistan which many are worried about, at a time when travel there was restricted to U.S. citizens?  Or, could it merely be the quickness, the recklessness, with which he has tried to institute the federal government into all facets of American life?

And, why is it he doesn't know about, that George W. Bush didn't know about, these past internment (POW) camps of WWII? Does he think that U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were the only ones kept prisoner here in the U.S.? That, after all, is the history the majority of us are taught.

Hillary today said she wants to repeal the gas tax. Instead she wants the oil companies to pay the tax for us. Where does she think the oil companies are going to get the money to pay for the additional tax? Does she think they are just going to pull it out of a hat like a magician does a rabbit?
No, Hillary is being disingenuous, because she knows that costs of doing business are passed on to the consumer, and every tax is simply another cost of doing business. It may sound good to the gullible, but mainstream, educated America knows different, and better.
Mainstream Americans' know that in order for a business to pay a tax they have to do it out of any profit they may make. In order to make a profit, the company must recoup the cost of the tax. Thus, Hillary seeks a shuffle of the deck. She doesn't really want the gas tax cut. She merely wants us to believe that she is responsible for doing such a thing. It will be a point in her hat, as if the point in it now isn't enough.
You can believe Hillary if you want. As for me, I would rather a tornado struck my house, and carried it away so it could fall on her in Indiana.

Middle America has been showing its strength, not just through its guns, religion, and supposed bigotry, but by its votes. Pennsylvania's primary proved this. Middle America is clinging to its guns because it sees candidates such as Barack, Hillary, and McCain as unlikable, not capable of change, and not working for the American people, their claims to be doing so to the contrary.

Americans see higher taxes in their future. They know that Social (in)Security (SinS) cannot be maintained without further raises in FICA, or revenue, something I proclaimed back in the Reagan era when the government was in another hoodwinking mode. Back then, FICA was raised to make the program solvent, but the premise was that the money taken in would be used for expenditures today, making the receipts years out pay for them. Well, as Barack's preacher, Reverend White has so succinctly stated, "...the chickens have come home to roost," and they forgot about the nest egg they had saved for us almost two generations ago.

Anyone with half a brain could have seen that SinS cannot ever be workable (even in FDR's time there had to be some) given it takes from today's generation to pay for today's recipients. Never was any money saved, or st aside, in a special fund. It was merely put into government IOU's. These IOU's are coming due, and the only way to prepare for the payouts is through printing of more money, or raising taxes, both of which will lead to inflation.

But, the government, long ago, figured this into SinS by reconfiguring the way they calculate inflation. Thus, real inflation is hidden in number crunching numb nut formulae, which only a mathematics scholar can understand. But, boots on the ground, "we the people," have figured it out long ago. They saw larger pay out for goods and services did not equate with government numbers. Today real inflation, for the market basket of goods of middle America, has increased 50%, if not more, in just a few short years, but calculations by our government have inflation below 3% most years. This doesn't add up in the super markets of America. Foodstuffs are considerably more expensive today than they were just a few short years ago, and with the food shortages being predicted, with other countries holding our debt, what commodities will they demand from us first? Will it not be our food, of which they are in short supply? So, our money will come bac to us in higher food prices.

What Obama doesn't understand is that middle America clings to its guns and religion because it is on that which they can rely. God is a constant. Guns are a means to hunt food, and protect our homes and loved ones, for surely our open borders government isn't protecting us. Surely bigotry never enters the equation in most of middle America, because most of middle America could care less about hatred sensed by the left. The left's senses have been dulled over the years by constant diatribes about race. Blame for the hardships of different segments, and let's be clear here, it is one main segment which has fallen on hardship, the black community. Latino's seem able, especially the illegal immigrant community, to find jobs, and make something of themselves. Asian immigrants fare well, both academically, and monetarily. Their work ethic is such that they are able, and capable. But, blacks, and some portion of Latino's whose families have been here since the welfare generation of the 1060's, especially those in inner city areas, have forgotten any work ethic they may have had. That is not the fault of middle America, but the fault of our nation's leaders, and the leaders within those inner city communities. They were looking for handouts when they should have been looking for hand ups. Worse, Barack's middle America was oblivious, or more importantly, unable to make a difference because of the high concentration of inner city socialists (for that is what the Democratic Party has become) voter registration.

What middle America has a problem with is the ever growing phenomenon of government. It can no longer afford the luxurious government social(ist) programs foisted upon it, especially with rising inflation, and ever higher taxation at the state and local levels. And, this is what the people see from Democratic candidates. Certainly they will save SinS, but at what cost to America's youths. And, why can't America's youths wake up to the fact that Barack will be selling them down a river of higher taxes, and lower wages, inflation which eats up their earning potential, and saddles them with increasing debt as much as it does the government. So, if Barack really wanted to become one with middle America he woud join them in expecting lower inflation, guaranteeing them lower taxation, fewer social programs, and a revived economy. He would seal our borders, an seek to return that population which lives here outside of our laws for the sake of middle America. Instead, Obama will keep blaming us for the problems when it is leadership which is supposed to fix them. Instead, the fixes are always temporary. The government programs ever increasing trying to fix what government cannot fix. But, I don't think any of the three top contenders understand this.

The SCOTUS has the onus now to set the gun control debate right. The lower (D.C. appeals) court ruled correctly--as has been seen in many briefs, and other court rulings--that this is an individual right.

Emerson v. U.S. (1999), argued that the right is individual. The Clinton administration JD sought that the 5th Circuit Court rule it a collective right of the state, even though there is no mention of the state, or even the federal government within the 2A. The 5th CC ruled 2A an individual right.

Those who argue for permit systems, waiting periods,  are also barking up the wrong tree. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Staub v. Baxley, and Cantwell v. Connecticut have all ruled that permits for rights are unconstitutional prior restraints on the individual, which means that all rights are individual.

Now, to the militia. Federal law states militia are every citizen between 18 and 45 with some officers up to 65 years of age, is a member of the militia. Militia law also requires each person to go everywhere armed, and ready to use those arms, unless there is some preemption for religious reasons (conscientious objectors).

There are two forms of militia. The organized, put together by the state, and the unorganized, which includes every individual citizen regardless of signing up to join a state's militia. The National Guard law was passed in 1903. The militia law predates it by over 100 years.

Since the militia are all persons over 18, since most every college student is over 18, or bordering on that age, they are members of the unorganized militia, As such, they are required by law to have with them, at all times, some form of firearm/armament.

Arms are considered any form of weapon to which the NG, or other organized military body might be privy, so said Tenche Coxe. He also noted these weapons were the "birthright" of every American/


Preeminent Legal Scholar, and Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe wrote, "There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus  that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states  to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists - thanks largely  to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law  professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns."
 "My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise. I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."

None other than George Washington noted, “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Further, he stated, "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

Cesare Beccaria was a citizen of Rome during its heyday. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."-Cesare Beccaria's quote; On Crimes and Punishment, 1764, translated by Jefferson and copied into his Commonplace Book of great quotations.

So, there is great precedent for what Sen. Bailey-Hutchison, and her colleagues, have put together.
Paul Rusin

What did we learn from Omaha

    This question must be posed after the mall shootings of late. First, we learned that guns kill, and quickly. But, we all knew that.
    Second, we learned that criminals can get guns regardless of how they do it, whether it be through further criminal conduct (theft of a gun), or from friends, or relatives. In the case of Robert Hawkins in the mall in Omaha, Nebraska, he stole the weapon, and AK-47 from his step father.
    Third, we learned that there are a lot of screwed up children, who grow up to be screwed up adults, thanks to our permissive society which allows abortion (murder of the innocent pre-born), pre-marital sex (not only do we  not blackball people who indulge in such behavior, but we think they are great role models; further, we allow that teens will have sex, without marriage, and encourage them through sex education, handing out condoms, and the like), divorce--the single greatest scourge to be allowed by our permissive 1960‘s era hippie society. Drugs, and gangs, have exacerbated the problem with movies which glorify the gangsta way, rappers which expound on the gangsta path, and seem to encourage, rather than excoriate, these behaviors.  
    Further, many of these rappers are responsible for some of the gang violence perpetration, many having been gangbangers themselves prior to their new rapper life. You can take the boy out of the ‘hood, but not the ‘hood out of the boy.
    They, also, through their music, perpetuate stereotypes of girls, and women, as ‘ho’s, and bitches. Respect of others is less than tolerated, with ‘dissing becoming the most pervasive reason to blow the brains of another out. No ones understands sticks and stones anymore, or popping someone in the mouth for saying something stupid (not that this is proper behavior, either). Instead, we don’t pop another in the mouth for fear s/he will draw a gun and shot us. Better to shoot first, and be seen as someone who won’t be a walking carpet, than to iron out the problem with the person, even I this has to be done in a forum such as court, or other.
    In fact, police, courts, and the like, are also places where “the man’ is, and which are not to be trusted, not that the rest of us do not agree that police and courts are no longer where we might find justice. My son had a tooth knocked out in school in a malicious attack, but the courts ruled that the parent(s) of the child responsible could not be held liable for costs associated with tooth replacement, time missed from work, gas, wear and tear on the vehicle when in transport. That the judge may have been friends with the perp’s father didn’t even enter my mind.
    Another thing which has contributed to the lawlessness is the public disclosures by our elected representatives. Their inability to keep their pants on, to allow women, to take advantage of their position, and to accept that such advantage is to be expected. Shame on Bill for allowing a blow job in the Oval Office, let alone Hillary for remaining married to him. The only saving grace for my sanity is that she knew of Bill’s infidelity, and perhaps encouraged it so the frigid fish she is might not have to do the deed with her, now despised, and hated, husband. Besides, she looked at the long term picture, which included a senate seat in NY State, and a presidential bid.
    Which isn’t to say that these two are the only ones. Many of our representatives have been found lacking in morality. A mayor of Washington, D.C., is caught with drugs, and using cocaine. A senator from Idaho is accused of soliciting gay sex in a men’s bathroom in an airport, several Congressmen are arrested and placed in jail for crimes. One from New Orleans, has $90,000 in cash found in his freezer--giving  a new meaning to cold, hard cash--during Hurricane Katrina, which devastated that cities poor areas. Incompetence ensued prior to the hurricane by Mayor Nagin, who is then reelected after he messed up. Further, his violations of civil liberties in the confiscation of (still not returned) firearms from law abiding citizens, leaving them to the depredations of the gangbangers, drug dealers, and others who had not evacuated the city. One senator from West Virginia, who was a former KKK member of high rank, still sits, and still expounds morality in that once austere body.  The Clinton fundraising machine, the Gore fundraiser at the Buddhist compound, point to fraud, and abuse of major proportions. Even when caught, sometimes funds are not returned. How can one expect good, moral behavior from our populace when our leaders are so corrupt.
     So, one thing we have learned is that evil is pervasive, that our leaders do not show themselves anymore moral than the people, and in fact, probably less so if one takes into account the numbers so related in an email that goes around every so often detailing the number of moral, political, and criminal members.
    Then, there are the numbers of laws which relate to firearms. This number started as some small number which primarily prevented blacks from owning, as this would prevent depredations of them, and their communities, by KKK members, and others. Those laws were as bad as current laws, some 20,000 plus, which prevent the law abiding citizens from keeping, and “bearing arms, wherever they go, including shopping malls in Utah, and now Omaha, and airplanes (9/11), which could have prevented as much carnage as occurred. It only takes one alert citizen to save the day. But, our congress, our senate, our state legislatures, constantly, and consistently, side with Law Enforcement unions, whose very reason for wishing more, and tougher laws against gun ownership must be held suspect, given that they benefit from larger police numbers which relate to higher pay scales for the union bosses.  And don’t tell me with the number of crooked cops discovered every year, pervasive in the pre-Katrina New Orleans, that those cops voted as union bosses are going to all be pure hearts. I simply won’t believe you.
    “We, the people” must be allowed our rights so as to prevent, or help prevent, carnage such as occurred in Omaha. It is the least our legislators can do to make the killing field(s) of our streets, malls, airways, etc., even.
Paul Rusin
Holley, NY

Many a person, atheist, or agnostic, has related how the Bible is simply a book of books written by old dead guys, that God doesn't exist, couldn't exist, never existed, that God is a figment of people's imagination, that God was something made up by early man to keep society in check, and thus is no longer necessary, because that is the purpose of the state.

How wrong on all counts. Firstly, let's examine those who say that old dead men wrote the Bible, that it is irrelevant, and that these were simply rants. Certainly, old dead men wrote the Bible. On that we can all agree. The question is were they men of God, ordained by God to write what they did, and clearly men who had met God, whether in the flesh, or in His spirit form.

Some question whether God was/is a real entity, but we clearly see from various scriptures that God intervened, if not directly, then indirectly, whether through His angels, or through divine intervention, in people's lives. There are too many instance related for this to be a fluke. Jacob wrestled with God, most likely Jesus, the son of God. Daniel was saved from being eaten by lions while locked in a den of them for a long period of time. Jonah was swallowed by a whale, spending three days, and three nights in its belly, after rejecting God's call to go to Nineveh to warn them of impending doom. Those who think that God was irrelevant, or that these stories are simply fables, fail to see the relevance today in prophetic happenings, most of prophecy sealed up until the end time. That meaning we are, or were, incapable of understanding most of it until the latter days of the end of the age of man. 

The story of Jesus Himself is detailed by at least four of His disciples, and mentioned by several more. They relate how many of them saw Him after His death in spirit form. How could that be unless He was real. Even speculating that angels may have had a hand must include the fact that angels come from somewhere. The multitude of people's touched by the loving hand of Christ is too innumerable to mention. 

To those who state that the Bible is just a bunch of books written by old dead men, not relevant today, simply fiction, deliberate lies, or fairy tales, these preclude the very, and actual hand God had in saving the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, intervening in the life of Lot when He was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, speaking directly to Noah instructing him to build an ark, and bringing the multitude of beasts to that ark to be saved from the destruction of the Earth through flood, the longest day wherein God lengthened the day of battle for the Israelites so as to help them become victorious, and not lose their battle edge, the striking down of the walls of Jericho simply by blowing trumpets, and walking in circles around that walled citadel, saving one portion of it in which a believer in God resided, and so many more interventions, and direct communications related, it is hard to imagine that there isn't a living entity of magnificent power, so powerful in fact as to stop the Earth from turning, to cause great gales in which people are swept off a ship and swallowed by a whale, to open a path through the Red Sea wherein the Israelites made passage, and then watching as the pursuing Egyptian army is swallowed up by the massive walls of water. Knowing that the Moabites, whom the Israelites first came into contact with after leaving Egypt, were defeated without a man amongst the Israelites killed. Thousands of men meeting in battle, and only those of the opposition end up dead? How preposterous! Yet written down for all posterity. 

Does God exist? I would have to say given the evidence, that He does. That many, even after reading this, could still deny His existence is a mystery to me. 

As I was watching the Democratic candidates debate on CNN the other night I noticed that Hillary was refusing to answer the question posed her by Tim Russert in regards illegal alien licensing in NY State. Given that I am a resident of NY State, given that approximately 70% of the people of NY State don't want illegal aliens to get driver's licenses, regardless of the form, I think I am in pretty good company when I state that Hillary blew her big chance to pander to the far left, and win some talking points in the leftist major news media, what some refer to as the Main Stream Media (MSM).

Most residents of NY State are having enough problems with illegal aliens. They speak a language many do not understand, and those that do, are often put off by them. For instance, my daughter worked at a local grocery whose clientele include a lot of immigrants who speak no, or little English. During checkout, she noted one Hispanic stated she was very good looking and he wouldn't mind doing her. She spoke up, in Spanish, that such language was uncalled for, and would cease, or she would call the owner/manager. The Mexican was flabbergasted that she even understood what he said, but that is what 3 or 4 years of high school Spanish will do for you. I taught her right, and well, and she learned amazingly, She is now a chemical engineer. 

Which brings me back to my point. Hillary has shot herself in the foot, first by being wishy washy on her desire to allow illegal immigrants licensed status (which Dick Morris stated on O'Reilly's FOXNews show, O'Reilly Factor, as being for before, and now, even having voted for the amnesty bill), but also to gather mainstream media focus for her campaign. Of course, given the sentiment in the country, the overwhelming antipathy towards illegal immigration, the people sitting in jails for doing illegal things here in our own country, the fact that Hillary, and most of the other's on the left, and that were on the stage that evening, are for illegal immigrant welfare, licenses, etc., but against unconstitutional--albeit politically accepted, even by many on the right, and many gun owner's and hunters, as well--licensing of firearms owner's for concealed carry, it is no wonder Hillary tried to steer clear.

Her position that the matter was precipitated by President Bush aside, it being a bogus, nonfactual claim--he wanting such an amnesty package--her diatribe also pointed to the fact that she wasn't prepared for such a question. Her opponents, rightly, pointed out her talking out of both sides of her mouth. As she did on the matter of troops in Iraq, another position on which she wants it both ways, she hemmed and hawed, and placed blame elsewhere for the failures of her party to make headway on the illegal immigration amnesty. Had they (Democratic Party operatives in the Senate) the courage to pass such a bill, it is most likely President Bush  would have signed it. Given that they knew the fatal outcome of such--an indeterminate loss of seats in the congress in both houses by Democratic Party candidates--it is no wonder she has, and is, shying away from proprosals to indoctrinate the country into the belief that we "need" Mexican, and other illegal, immigrants. Perhaps we do, but we should have a system that doesn't offer amnesty, or driver's licenses, but that offers them a way into, and a definite time frame for leaving, the U.S., so that they may pursue the jobs which no other American is willing, or able, to do. 
 
Further, we need to stop this belief that we don't have Americans who could do these jobs. We had American migrants who did them for many generations prior to welfare becoming a concept during the Johnson administration. I recall the many girls, and boys, who would come to the western NY orchards to pick cherries, peaches, pears, tomatoes, apples, and other fruits and vegetables. I also recall their downtrodden faces, knowledge being that they were hungry, didn't get to bathe properly, often smelled bad, were unkempt from having to take care of themselves, their parents in the fields and orchards from sun up until sundown, and some well past that time. I recall them not being with us permanently, either, most skipping out for warmer climes, and other fields, and orchards, of the south, and west.

Some people used the farms as ways to make extra money, as well. Some, who had been migrants prior to welfare, and finding work at local manufactories, etc., knew the lucrative nature of the fields for extra income, and this could still be the norm if we allowed that people were willing to work the extra evenings, and weekends, and if we required those living in rural areas who were on welfare to be supplemented by that social program if they worked in the fields, and orchards, and made substandard wages. If they refused because of medical problems, they should be switched to the Social Security Disability system. Should they refuse because they thought the work demeaning, then their welfare payments should be discontinued.
 
The whole key here is that Americans will work if they are required to, if it is out of necessity, and if they aren't beholden to government programs for their next paycheck. This can only be accomplished by changing the welfare system, reforming it so that ability to get on, and off is easier. But, then again, once an American finds out how much money they can make doing this type of work, they might be more inclined to stay working, or once they see the glorious nature of a hard days work, and an honest wage, they may become less enamored of the welfare program(s), preferring instead to work for a better wage, and more money, without strings attached. What would we do with all those who currently work for the welfare system who would be put out of work because of the lower welfare numbers? Well, perhaps they could pick apples, too.

The main thing is we need to recognize who Hillary is, and what she stands for: That is bigger government, higher taxation, less freedom of choice for the individual, and more power to her, and her elitist cabal.