Viewing 1 - 3 out of 3 Blogs.

John Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that Americans should never fear the federal government because of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The guaranteed rights of security withheld by the Second Amendment of our original Bill of Rights and immediate constitution, is the best strength of freedom and independence. Gun control was the bridge linking 56 million deaths in the 20th century to citizens, dissidents, and minorities being without firearms that could have changed the gloomiest history of the world’s most impressive timeline. And in eight mass-murder crises of the 20th century, it was never about the gun, but about the control.

Switching gears from control to the rates of crime of gun control, evidence has proven that famous gun control laws such as the Draconian gun ban and the Brady law have either failed or had so little gain statistically, that the only component of these gun-control restrictions that are functioning is the control segment. It has been confirmed from misdemeanor and felony records, polls, and interviews, that robbers and other potential wrong-doers, avoid armed citizens and armed complexes. And if this is difficult to comprehend, then consider, how many firearm stores have been robbed? How many police officers have been robbed? Slim to none. Nonetheless, it is still arduous for the entente of the world’s gun-control advocates to comprehend that if everyone controlled a firearm, then the chances of probable criminals avoiding property and violent crimes towards ordinary law-abiding civilians, will sensationally magnify.

Across the world in mostly Asian and European countries, leaders have been influenced by gun restriction promoters to add new firearm access laws due to the theories and beliefs that homicide, suicide, and other crimes that have employed firearms as the method of physical output, will decrease. The results were far from the forecast expected when reality established higher criminal actions over short and long time periods. In England, the violent crime rate soared from 1997-2004 by 118% after the Draconian gun ban, and in 2004, England and Wales had a violent crime rate that was twice as high as the USA whose gun restrictions pale in comparison. Also, Australia has been in the process of passing a multiple series of firearm-restrictions that has led to a gradual increase of violent crimes against the elderly by 6.9% since 1995. Canada has been facing inadequacies too, because after passing new bans on firearm purchases, the Canadian government later admitted that it couldn’t identify a single violent crime that was solved through gun registration. And regarding suicide resulting from gun control, Japan’s suicide rates swamp Americas even though Japan’s gun control laws are much more rigid.

A smarter way to ameliorate the defense against firearm criminality is to begin practices that will deter would-be offenders from committing assault, burglary, etc, with a gun as the employment of force. Instead of adding new confinements to the legal purchasing of guns, increase the penalties and jail time to the convicts that use a firearm in the event of crime. This will be much fairer to probable gun owners and individual nationals because law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm, will not have to suffer the poor judgment of criminals, and the increase will drop a lawbreaker’s incentive to commit crime which will progress the safety of individuals.

The most typical misconception of gun-control is that lax qualifications have led to serial murders, serial rapes, serial robberies, school shootings, and much more. Consider this, since America’s birth, there hadn’t ever been a problem with school shootings until 1966; even though until the date continuing to today, America had more households with guns per household. This is apparent since the leaders of our country encouraged every man/household to own a gun so he will always be ready to be called to the militia if needed. But the explanation of the lawlessness, post-1960s mentioned above, is not only due to an expansion of firearm regulations, but an erosion of culture and family values. Especially now, when property crimes are 2.5 times higher and violent crimes, 4 times higher than 60 years ago. It has proven impractical to continue regulating the purchases of firearms, when the results of higher crime are due to the disintegration of the morals and ethics that this country was founded upon 215 plus years ago. Besides an increase in gun control limits, what other explanation can account for the massive increases in crime? It’s like Peggy Noonan said in her book, The Case Against Hillary Clinton, a ten-year-old child is like a fish who, in the water, has waves of sound and sight that come invisibly through the water (like radar). The fish is bombarded with stuff like: “was found strangled and is believed to have been sexually molested”, “had threatened to kill her children”, and “is thought to be connected to earlier sexual activity among teens”. To retreat back to a more pristine state is impossible and just as difficult to prevent the appending decline in morality. But to continue punishing gun owners is incongruous and irrational, simply because this is the ocean our children swim.

The last complication, which leads to the most dangerous predicament, is the hazard of the continuing slope effect that leads from one gun control constraint to another. An example, what happens if the country or the state establishes a five-day waiting period; why not make it 10 days, 20 days, a year? It is much more probable to accomplish this feat as compared to lowering the time waited or removing a different restriction. Principle reason, all it takes is a nationally famous tragedy to occur and the buzz and propaganda will burst, advocating for more appropriate gun-obtainable qualifications. And when this tragedy happens, the gun advocate side never gets its objection heard because the masses are filled with an emotion that cannot conceive the insecurity of increasing gun control laws. This in turn, may lead to a new gun control restriction since “gun availability” is the root of national tragedies. And then another national misfortune eventuates, and the call for newer firearm control qualifications happens again, locally and nationally. The consideration that the new limitations or the corrosion of morality may have been the underlying factor of the newest tragedy, ceases to present itself as the core issue of the affliction. This, and other deliberations, results in the never-ending production of gun control restrictions until law-abiding citizens never again, have the option of maintaining a firearm.

America’s Bill of Rights was created by intelligent men who experienced the tyranny of oppression and the expulsion of civil liberties. They were all well equipped to write a constitution that protects the essential rights guaranteed to a free people’s country. The second amendment was created just in case the other nine were ever to be ignored, therefore, they would never advocate for laws that restrict access to the intangible rights of our firearms. Crime rates were not the ambition behind the second amendment because our founding fathers knew the greater risk lied in governmental oppression. This needs reiteration; the fundamental principle of gun rights is not and never will be crime, but keeping the government from ever becoming inhumanely authoritarian.

What happens when the firearm restriction slope ends and you have met total and outright gun control? Currently, this point seems impossible and likely to never occur; but what about American citizens 30 years ago? They would never have been able to comprehend the fact that we have waiting periods and are unable to purchase a variety of firearms with more restrictions on the verge. What about the patriots who spilt blood at Concord and Yorktown? They would’ve never been able to imagine that one-day dishonor would be dealt to their deaths when Americans become complacent and, one-day, lose the appreciation that they are free because the government should never have the power to restrict a citizen’s ability to defend themselves from oppression. Representatives from 13 colonies and 56 gnomic signatures understood that an autocratic or despotic government is only a few steps away, even in a Democratic-Republic. And currently, Americans need worry about this predicament because the government has taken away the best means of physical protection in certain forms. To bank on the dream that American bureaucrats do not have the power or will to continue removing firearms is a gross misunderstanding. Ask the Mensheviks. Ask the protestors at Tiananmen Square. Ask Anne Frank.

Gun control may begin with preparations to solve a domestic firearm problem, but the end result has always concluded much worse than the initial intention. And this terminus fathoms only one belief that 56 million dead victims were unable to cope; that gun control will never be about the gun, but about the control.

In the midst of a recession, the President and congress has devised together a bi-partisan package that MAY have capabilities of curing the housing markets and the economy in general. Well I have a solution, enforce border/ illegal immigration laws, deportation, and easier methods of citizenship (so immigrants can begin paying all taxes as soon as possible) that would stem from deportation (because with less immigrants in the country, the line for becoming a citizen would go down). This will remedy the stumbling fiscal policies, because at the lowest estimates illegal immigrants cost, according to many compiled sources of 2006, $338.3 billion dollars a year. And based upon the National Academy of Sciences, for every $1 to $10 billion dollars a year that illegal immigrants vamp America’s budgets, American taxpayers pay $15 to $20 billion dollars. The economic fall-out is broken into segments like the middle-class fissure, expensive welfare programs, dissipation of education, sending money back to Mexico, and a lack of hospital care.

A universal argument for Mexican immigrant-amnesty and permissive border protection is Hispanics will do the jobs that Americans will not do. No, Hispanics do the jobs that Americans used to do before wages were driven down because of the laborious and cheap work offered by Mexican immigrants. It wasn’t even until the last few years that developing a trade such as painter, plumber, or electrician was considered middle-class work. Now people skilled in these areas suffer from unemployment because illegal immigrants do this work for minimum wage; and minimum wage for the average American family is financially unlivable. But as stereotypes preach, Mexicans live 3 or 4 families to a house, which makes them capable of living off multiple minimum wages. And according to Bear Stearns, between 4 and 6 million jobs since 1990, have been replaced by illegal immigrants willing to do the job at much lower wages.

Based upon CNN transcripts, $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the foundations of government assistance programs, he did not intend to rehabilitate the depressed economy by giving free handouts to illegal immigrants who do not contribute to society monetarily. He was not a nativist but a financial realist, who understood the concepts of a sound pecuniary policy, and knew the impairments funding illegal immigrants, would accomplish for the job and national market and, therefore, would strongly advice against us doing the opposite of his successes, especially to prevent the appending recession. My favorite statistic, involving Illegal immigrants on welfare, sourced from the 2006 INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants, less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking crops but 43% are on food stamps. Point being, if an illegal immigrant is not paying taxes, then it is not economically feasible to subsidize the alien with government welfare if the assisted will not benefit the country.

Pressing “2” for English, a hot disdain of many native-born English speaking citizens. What about taxes paying for English-to-Spanish translators in certain public schools, mostly elementary, because some of the students may not speak English? Well if just the fact that illegals are allowed to attend public schools without the ability to interpret the native linguistics does not inspire reform in one’s own learning capabilities, then the amount of $12 Billion dollars annually, being spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally who cannot speak a word of English, should invigorate variance, for the sake of your wallet, in budgetary policies. This can be solved though, just by simply imitating a succeeding method of another county. How about Mexico’s? It does not have to suffer economic repercussions because of bi-lingual programs in the public school system. In fact it doesn’t even allow the interpretation of a foreign language with anything government related.

Well unfortunately, because of the immoral antidote of foreign remittances, Washington has had the luxury of printing money uncontrollably, which if continued, will hurt or destroy the American dollar as a result of high inflation rates. In 2006, illegal aliens sent back home to their native land, $45 billion dollars, which has masked the truth that illegal aliens are unable to curb America’s appending inflation rates. And yearly now, the Mexican markets are benefiting from the pouring of American dollars into itself, which is driving down the validity and moral integrity of our currency’s value. Of course there are trillions of dollars abroad other nation’s economies, but starting somewhere (especially with a reparation that would restore America in everything, our illegal immigration problem) would protect the sanctity of the dollar.

The most pressing problem monetarily is America’s hospitals in the Southwest that are shut down or verging a shutdown because of free healthcare given to illegal aliens due to the Emergency Room and obstetrician policy which disallows refusal for any reason except crowdings. And the ones that feel these impacts the most are the local-taxpayers of these areas, who now are sometimes refused service or forced to face the inevitability of long lines because of the flooding of illegal aliens. In Bisbee, Arizona at Copper Queen hospital, 2/3 of its operating budget is spent on uncompensated services for illegal aliens; and this statistic is common among numberless hospitals scattered across the Southwest. These numbers force shortages in staff, available rooms, and emergency care, which have sparked protest by many tax-paying citizens and the hospitals themselves, both whose efforts have reached no avail.

Anchor babies also hurt America’s hospitals (anchor babies are babies born in the USA, automatically granting citizenship) because the cost of paying for the obstetric care of the baby and service to the mother runs around an average of $5000 per birth. In 2005, an estimated 380000 anchor babies were born in the USA, and to give credit to the illegal mother and/or her family, 2.8% of the costs were covered by the illegal(s). In just Colorado alone, the state’s medical programs had to pay $30 million dollars for anchor babies. So besides illegal immigrants aggravating a loophole in American judiciaries which places the new baby in foster care, and consequently will create a larger crime threat, or with a legal family member since the “anchor” of the baby does not gain citizenship, the economy suffers tremendously. In California alone, 66% of all births are to illegal immigrants paid for by the California taxpayer, which accounts for a large portion of the medical losses in California at around $79 million dollars. These same varying percentages toll out $74 million dollars in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million dollars in New Mexico. And because of the tenacity on Capitol Hill, tax-paying Americans in California, Texas, and all between, will continue to receive poor punctuality with healthcare around their hometown or maybe no care at all.

Much like NFC football having to change its offensive playbook because of inadequate results over the last few years, America needs to change its foreign, criminal, political and economic playbook with illegal immigration and the illegal aliens spinning the wheels. Reform knocks at the US government from its bold and patriotic citizens and a liberal movement is moving itself with a conservative agenda. I’m going to throw my plan into this melting pot of ideas which the disposition of adopting all of Mexico’s immigration methods. As I have preached the deficits of the American immigration policy, I tabulated the retributions and consequences of Mexico’s policies and see the scale soaring in favor of ratification. The policies: you must speak the Native Language, no unskilled workers are allowed, no bilingual programs in the government, Foreigners cannot vote or hold political office, if you are here, you must invest 400 times the min wage, no waterfront land (if you buy land), no rights of protest, no foreign flags, no slander of the President or his policies, if you are here illegally, you automatically go to jail.

This leads me to end with a quote that the presumptuous Rush Limbaugh once said on his talk show regarding Mexico’s policies towards immigrants, “That’s how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country, yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets. How do you say Double Standard in Spanish? How about: No mas.”

I am new here and if anyone comments (or whatever the term here is) i will post the second part (this is only the first part). Also, the myspace account above has my other blogs i've posted.

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt wrote in a letter to the America Defense Society, "In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Every year, the status quo regarding securities of illegal immigration spirals even farther down than any common, sensible American would have estimated. Our former presidents, especially the ones involved during our industrial revolution and early twentieth century, spin in their graves when they see our loss of sovereignty, high crime rates, rising likelihood of terrorist actions, a weak foreign policy towards our Latin American partners, and our nation's economic drainage; all in due or done course, because of the parasitical harm entrenched into the US by the effects of illegal immigration. The first duty of our elected representatives, furthermore, it to protect the rights of the American people and uphold the constitution. But the sole loyalty Theodore Roosevelt pertained to in regards to the American people, is now just a hulking paradox in today's politics when the majority of politicians have sold his/her soul to the corporations that feed, fiscally speaking, off the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.

The toll of illegal pioneering has come in more forms than just a harsh collapsing attack of the economy, but has reached other mediations with losses to the American national sovereignty and an increasing likely hood of another terrorist attack. America's sovereignty is now just a pawn in the game of political chess, when our politicians now put his/her wallet above the welfare of the United States. Illegal immigration is putting our nation's sovereignty at risk because of a fiscal plan in place known collectively as the North American Union or the Tri-lateral Union. The North American Union is a tri-sponsored plan with President George Bush, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Prime Minister Steven Harpor of Canada. Its plans are to compete with the European Union's Markets and the ever increasing value of the Euro; and these economic workings have been progressing since 2006 with no signs of a terminus coming in the near future because of the corrupt politics in relations to the North American governments. The developments of the North American Union show themselves in the form of rising inflation rates, the development of the NAFTA superhighway, open borders, and low tariffs which encourage foreign investments of the American infrastructure.

These arrangements of the North American Union tie into the underachieving status quo of the US domestic policy towards illegal immigration. Due to a fear of worsening relations between Mexico and the US; American politicians and government officials choose not to enforce the laws of our judicial system which rigorously state that immigrants who have traveled to America illegally, are not even supposed to be on our soil and are definitely not entitled to the programs and luxuries paid by the American taxpayers. A central component of our porous borders and unlawfulness towards America's own judicial policies is due to the politicians of the North American Union embracing the impossibility of a change to the status quo. Indirectly, the North American Union will result in worse problems within the US, not just economically and judicially; but far worse aspects: the loss of our currency, flag, national anthem, and many other national entities that protect America's sovereignty. In conclusion of the North American Union, America's stance regarding legal immigration, or lack thereof, results from a scare of worsening our relations with Mexico, which has made it morally and politically impossible to change the status quo of immigration.

Now in regards to terrorism within the USA, our open borders are leading to a higher risk of another attack within America. You may ask yourselves "why are our airports so secure that a 84-year old woman in a wheel chair will get a strip search to prevent another terrorist attack in the USA, and yet we leave our southern borders uncovered so that if a terrorist truly wanted to get in, he/she could sneak in from Mexico to the USA just like many of the illegal Latin Americans within the USA do already?" The answer doesn't lie within a lack of security, but more of an ignorance of checks and balances regarding national security. Post-9/11, America established new ways to prevent another terrorist aggression with the creation of the Patriot Act, wire-tapping contracts with phone companies, the department of homeland security, and an increased usage of Naval base, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. But the paradox inserts itself when America feels defended because its citizens lose their rights entitled by the constitution in the name of security, yet according to a 2006 homeland security press-release, 650 suspected terrorists were apprehended while crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

As incongruous as it may be understood, high numbers of American victims of theft, rape, and murder along the Southwest border has not encouraged new reform of border security and judicial processing of illegal immigrants. With the inconceivable statistics concerning crime rates amongst illegal immigrants such as 95% of the warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants; the evidence for political and defensive alteration is abundant. Of the estimated 7% of the US population being illegal immigrants; 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are illegal immigrants and 30% of convicted inmates in the state and federal prisons are illegal aliens costing $3 million dollars a day. The percentages may bring shock, but the shock should not be on account of the numbers, but on the fact that the American government and law enforcement allows these blasphemies to continue reoccurrence. What most do not realize, complying with the laws already in place by the American government, state and federal, could prevent the majority of this criminal activity.

Smuggling drugs by way of infiltrating the Southwest border, has proven to be, statistically speaking, the worst part of criminal enterprise economically and historically. Since the presidency of Ronald Reagan in 1980s, stability regarding the progress with the War on Drugs is just that; stable. Making proficient change to decelerate drug smuggling, drug usage, drug violence, drug creation, and drug dependency, has shown difficulty because of inadequate defense against the chief import of drugs, illegal alien drug smuggling. Drug smuggling across the Mexican border accounts for 80% of the heroin and 50% of cocaine in the USA; and for the cocaine at least 4.5 million pounds is smuggled across the frontier with a street value of at least $72 billion dollars. These numbers should hold undeniability that instituting more security and creating a military specified wall, is the principal first step in ameliorating the progression of the war on drugs.

Contemplation referring to why many Hispanic immigrants have traveled seeking permanent or temporary residence, has usually been explained with Mexico being to poor to take care of themselves and the USA, "containing an abundance of work and resources", will cure the unemployment and poverty of Mexican immigrants. A feeble foreign policy towards Mexico and other Latin American Countries has and will not hinder a continued illegal immigration to the USA. You may ask, "Why do we need to strengthen our foreign policy and make it harder on these countries than the present situation already has placed itself upon?" The reasons aren't to morally, economically, and spiritually destruct Mexico because America feels a need to backlash with disdain. It is because Mexico has the resources, opportunity for work, and a fortunate location needed to uphold a middle-class economy. If an American foreign relations committee were to force Mexico to evenly distribute taxes and, moreover, spread its resources amongst it poverty-stricken citizens from its 11 billionaires (10 of whom made the 2007 Forbes list), Mexicans could function in their own country without the apparent need to come up to generous USA. Besides upholding mining resources and being the 4th richest nation in oil amongst the world, Mexico in 2001 had the highest GDP in Latin America, 22.5% ahead of Brazil. As a result of poor governmental policies within Mexico, Hispanics are financially forced to travel to the USA illegally to stay above its own poverty level and without a North American intervention, this will continue and both the citizens of Mexico and the Economy of the USA will continue to fall expectedly until the status quo concerning foreign relations is updated.

www.myspace.com/jordan978