Political Correctness: The REAL Border Crisis

With the flood of criminal aliens - and yes, that's exactly what they are, criminals - crossing our border from Mexico and certain Central and South American nations, I've been seeing far too many comments from leftists calling conservatives "racists" and "haters," as well as a few more......strongly worded, shall we say......insults because we dare to decry what's happening. I think it's past time to address a few of them.


My personal favorite, but easiest to debunk, is the "if you're not 'Native American,' everyone here is an illegal immigrant." First, "Native American" is a complete fallacy. To accept that humans are native to the Americas requires one to disbelieve the theory of evolution and its belief that humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge. Two, there were no laws governing the immigration of peoples into what is now North and South America, therefore nobody emigrated here "illegally." Oh, by the way, I was born here in the United States, so in reality, I am a "Native American," and as I also have Cherokee and Creek in my ancestry, I have a claim to this land even if we play by the liberal's rules. Facts are such stubborn things, aren't they?


Don't get me wrong, Europeans committed heinous acts against the American Indians. The Americas were essentially stolen from the American Indians, but - and here's the important part - American Indians stole land from other American Indians. *GASP* Entire tribes were eradicated - not just by the Europeans - but by their own brethren.


Tackling the "racism" insult, I believe it's appropriate to point out that "American" is not a race. I'm really not sure if I can make that any more clear. America is an ideal more than anything else. No other nation of which I'm aware permits one to become a citizen and be considered just as much of a "countryman" as someone actually native to that nation. An American can't become French like a Frenchman can become an American. The Founders and Framers, in their customary brilliance, deliberately designed our system that way.


Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration and/or immigrants: Our issue is with illegal "immigration." Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how "inconsequential" that law seems to be to the apologists out there. We're not talking about going a few miles per hour over the speed limit here; we're talking about a major law which is supposed to have real consequences. When someone comes here illegally, they are essentially engaging in the theft of something that others worked incredibly hard to obtain legally for themselves and their families. Let's not mention the mockery illegals make of the legal immigrants and the laws of the United States.


Conservatives don't "hate" people either, on the whole. Hatred is exclusively the bailiwick of the Left. All one need do to verify that is look at comments from leftists on conservative pages and blogs. Their intolerance of views other than their own is legendary. I have been called racist just for being a conservative, a homophobe for believing in traditional marriage, an islamophobe for daring to point out what the main stream media refuses to - that muslims (lowercase to show disrespect) want to kill us if we don't convert to islam.


We, as Americans, from both the Right and the Left, are in danger of losing the greatest nation in the history of this planet. That may not bother the liberals, but it sure as hell bothers conservatives. It should bother all Americans, whether they be natural-born or legal immigrants.


It's not being lost due to an outside military force. No nation on the face of the globe has the power to stand against the United States (although I would argue that, under this administration, our global military power and effectiveness is steadily shrinking). This invasion of criminal aliens won't be the primary reason for the fall of the United States; it's more of a symptom of the illness. The sickness is the failure to enforce our laws for the sake of political correctness.


The first step the United States should take is to secure the borders and all other ports of entry into this country. There should be absolutely no possible way to enter this nation without authorization, or should be so ridiculously expensive to achieve as to make it literally worth waiting and legally immigrating. Liberals love to say we should accept Obamacare because it's the "law of the land." Leaving aside Obamacare's questionable constitutionality, what's also the "law of the land" is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I don't hear a single liberal speaking out in favor of that law. In fact, when democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they soon defunded the law.


The second step to solve this crisis should be to deport all illegals. No amnesty, don't pass "Go" and collect $200 - just get them out. We've done it before, we can do it again. The Border Patrol is much larger, by orders of magnitude, than its 1950's version, not to mention the huge advances in technology. There is no excuse for not deporting those illegals who are found, and political correctness be damned.


A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and breaking the law is breaking the law. We cannot, and should not, reward lawbreakers for thumbing their collective noses at our immigration laws. It is such a fundamentally simple concept to me that it's incredulous that so many people don't seem to understand.


To be a liberal, one has to be blissfully stupid, as well as willfully ignorant. They seem to have a deliberate mental disconnect from reality, but to claim, as liberals do, that racism and hatred motivates the desire to control immigration into the United States requires a suspension of disbelief that stretches credulity beyond the most fantastic tales ever told. I, for one, am tired of it. ~ Hunter

The TRUE Meaning of the 2nd Amendment

Let's take a look at the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, shall we?

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...” - this, despite what gun-grabbers will say, is not the main part of the 2nd amendment. Truth be told, there's really not much reason for this to even be part of the amendment, except to explain that the “militia” was made up of all free, able-bodied men (to the Lurking LiberTrolls, that would be We the People), as is shown in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

“... the right of the people (there We are again) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” this IS the main part of the 2nd amendment. There is no possible way to misinterpret this *unless* you have an agenda. The Framers were incredibly brilliant in their use of the word “Arms” - they understood that advancements would be made in the field of firearms. If you read the words of the people who actually wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you'll see that it was their intention to ensure the people (that's US, LiberTrolls) were on an equal footing with any military, from any country, including our own.

I'd prefer you look them up yourselves and make up your own mind, but here's a few pertinent ones. The first three quotes are the ones I believe most thoroughly destroy the “militia” argument.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

These are but a few of the quotes from this nation's Founders, detailing the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms. There is no “redefining” it, there's no quibbling about the militia. *WE* are the militia, even today. That may make some people uncomfortable, but their discomfort doesn't make it any less true.

What I really want to know, gun-grabbers, is why you feel that every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is an individual right except the “right to keep and bear arms.” The meaning of the word “people” doesn't vary throughout the rest of the document. Why is it only different in this circumstance? ~ Hunter