We The People. . .

Massachusetts' Senate Surprises Many With Strict Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill

Is Arizona catching on?

Senate vote hits illegal residents
Measure restricts immigrants’ access to state services
By Noah Bierman and Maria Sacchetti
Globe Staff / May 28, 2010

The Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown yesterday on illegal immigrants and those who hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a measure of just how politically potent illegal immigration has become, the Senate, on a 28-10 vote, replaced a far milder budget amendment it had passed Wednesday. The sweeping provision, if it makes it into law, would toughen or expand rules that bar illegal immigrants from public health care, housing, and higher education benefits.

The amendment would also clear the way for courts, the state attorney general, and even average citizens to get new tools, including an anonymous hot line, to report illegal immigrants or companies that employ them to the government. Read more at Boston.com.

Five other states are considering a law similar to that passed recently by Arizona, but the Massachusetts senate has beat them with a far reaching bill that affects employment, housing, and welfare. The question is, will the governor Deval Patrick sign or veto it?

I’d Like To Ask Some Embarrassing Questions About the Arizona Immigration Law!

Commentary
by Rick

Here is my questions to President Obama, to La Raza, to the unions, and to others who are participating in which are obviously orchestrated demonstrations against Arizona for passing a law making illegal immigration, illegal:

Why are you bringing race into this? And if, so, why are you neglecting the real racism here? Have you noticed that those who are coming across the border are not white? I wonder why this is. Have you notice that they are mostly mestizos, i.e., a person of mixed racial ancestry, especially mixed European and Native American ancestry? And most mestizos are obviously darker than Caucasians.

In truth, the demonstrations are really against whites, more specifically white men. It is racism injected into the Arizona law issue by the federal administration, La Raza, and many left wing organizations. Now, white men may be culpable, but which white men? Could it be that the whites that govern not only Mexico, but most of South America, are descended from European Caucasians? Yet the president of Mexico had the gall to call the law racist! What is he doing to curb racism in his country?

Are you familiar with the Spanish language novelas on Spanish speaking tv stations showing white hacendados with white clad peasant employees, white managers in business, government? Exceptions usually portray a white land owner who falls in love with his maid. The caste system in Mexico, and other countries, have created the lack of opportunity for the poor indio and mestizo causing them to come over the border looking for a better life. One can not blame them, but the problem lies south of Arizona, not in Arizona.

I have a copy of the Arizona law. It forbids racial profiling, yet, many on the left, some knowing better, claim it is racist and will result in racial profiling. This is not true any more than any other of the thousands of laws in Arizona and in other states.

Those on the left are guilty of deliberate misrepresentations, and yes, deliberate lies! To the progressives who favor open borders, who are the real racists, they will use any means to the ends which they desire for a socialist America.

© Copyright 2010. May be quoted in its entirety by non-commercial web sites if due credit is given.

Student Suspended for Removing Mexican Flag from a Prominent Place in His School

It is time we put a stop to this unpatriotic nonsense. Just a day after the incident in San Francisco, we hear of this story:

Local School Suspends Student for Removing MEXICAN Flag

Yesterday, a [News Radio 740-KTRH] listener’s son was offended that his school, Klein Collins High School, displayed the Mexican flag prominently. His mother called to complain, and the school wouldn’t return her call. The student took the sign down.

The school pitched a fit, reviewed the surveillance tapes, found the student, and suspended him for 3 days. AND he has to pay for the flag. In light of the SF story of students sent home for wearing the AMERICAN flag because it offended the Hispanic students, I thought you’d like to know about a story closer to home.
. . .
You realize, I assume, that if a student removed – or even burned – the AMERICAN flag, they wouldn’t do anything about it, I’ll bet. Story at KTRH, Houston.

The Related California incident:

A handful of California students got an unexpected lesson at their high school this week: Don't wear your stars and stripes on Cinco de Mayo.

Five Morgan Hill, California students were asked to take off their American flag bandannas and turn their T-shirts inside out after students complained, according to NBC news in San Francisco. Read More at nydaylynews.

April 2010: Storm Troopers Protect Obama from Tea-Partiers

This is an absolute shame to see this on Television News Shows. Are we coming to where the right to peacefully assemble will soon be restricted, or intimidated?

Amendment 1, of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Riot police shield Obama from tea-party grandmas
Rooftop snipers eye patriots singing 'God Bless America'
Posted: April 29, 2010
9:40 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Patriotic tea partiers in Quincy, Ill. (photo: Jim Hoft of BigGovernment.com)

When hundreds of tea-party protesters – including many elderly women – gathered outside a civic center where President Obama was giving a public speech Wednesday, they were surprised to be greeted by police dispatched in full riot gear. Read story here.

Where did the riot police come from? Were they locals? Whoever they are, they should be ashamed of themselves. They should be individually charged with violating the (constitutional) civil rights of all of the tea party members assembled.

So You Want To Take Your Country Back--Part 4!

Part 4–Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

What is the Seventeenth Amendment, and why should it be repealed? The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911, the House of Representatives on May 13, 1912, and ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution,... Wikipedia.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

The Seventeenth Amendment ratification was a deadly blow to States’ Rights, and Federalism.

Article 1 of the Constitution originally stated that, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

In their wisdom, the founders of the Constitution in order to preserve the sovereignty of the several states, gave each state senator, selected by the legislatures of said states, one vote. Senators voting against the interests of their states could be recalled and replaced. The founders wanted the United States to be a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. There is a major difference.

The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, giving the vote to the people, who were already represented by the House of Representatives. The amendment was passed by the senate June 12, 1911, and by the House of Representatives May 13, 1912. It was ratified by the states on April 8, 1913. The amendment supersedes Article I, & 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, transferring Senator selection from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state. This was a subterfuge sneaked into the constitution by progressives who were stymied by the senators previously voting for the interests of their respective states. After the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators gradually became more loyal to their political parties than to the states they represented.

Now, to bring this all to the present in the Senate. If the original provision for selecting senators were still in effect, the states could have had immediate input and influence in the health care bill, or could kill it completely. They could recall and replace senators who are pushing laws, which are not supported by the states. Now, various states are passing laws or preparing state constitutional amendments nullifying certain provisions of the recently passed Obamacare bill.

In the primaries and general election in November 2010, we must select senators and members of the House of Representatives who will have in their platforms, a promise to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and to return certain sovereign rights back to the individual states.

Is the FDA Overstepping Its Authority Again?

Commentary--

For years, the FDA has been making decisions on food which in some cases, involve intrastate, not interstate commerce.

FDA hearing to examine salt reduction

By Lorraine Heller, 27-Nov-2007

The US government will this week re-examine its position on salt, a move that could ultimately lead to new regulations and limits governing the use of the compound.

The public hearing, which will take place on Thursday, is a long-awaited move by health advocates who have long been campaigning for stricter limits to be placed on the levels of salt in processed foods. Read more at Food Navigator.

I hope the states are alert on this latest move, and ensure that products made, distributed, sold, and purchased by consumers within the state's borders are not subject to these proposed directives limiting salt in processed food products. These food laws should be constitutionally made by each state.