Divide and Conquer - from Racism to Refugees

Put another way, “A house divided cannot stand”.  This month is the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act – an act that was, but should have never been, necessary.  The necessity is demonstrated by how the Congressional votes went (below).  The importance is in the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., and others before and after him; his legacy is not civil rights alone. It was much bigger than that - it was the fight against tyranny and oppression through corruption. Those that have followed in the footsteps they cannot fill have lost that. You can pick up where he left off. He emphasized rights for all - not a few or a group - all rights for all people.

I was thinking of this again last night.  Racists (and sexists) bring up these slanderous issues because they are the guilty ones.  Be ready for these being the accusations of both the 2014 and 2016 elections.  They have no other argument for or against.  They will not admit their bias for voting only or even primarily because of race or sex - emotional and guilty as charged - to make history.  It will happen again.  I have written of this in my book and book blog about the history and direction of our Country.  I am a conservative, but registered Independent – and I vote only on character and no social issues; strip personal identifiers and social issues from the thought and voting process.  Neither party cares about their constituents or supports.  Their constituents and supporters only care about making history and further dividing our Country.  It took 100 years from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act; and 50 years to reverse the progress of a law that should have never been necessary.  The Civil War was not about race or slavery specifically, and if we are not careful -- I fear the next one will be.

From Beers With Our Founding Fathers (originally posted almost a year ago - 07/23/2013) - Is Racism Class Warfare?

"The use of illegal immigrant labor is bigotry.  The politicizing of illegal immigrant labor for the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The politicizing of workplace conditions to the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The politicizing of race for the economic benefit of another is bigotry.  The largest minority in our Country, the world, is the individual.  That is the core issue – we are all individuals, and to make any decisions based on a personal characteristic that is not by personal choice is bigotry."

Continued at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/blog---author-thoughts/is-racism-class-warfare

The events at the border have nothing to do with race or children.  Both are emotional tools to further divide America.  There are more adults crossing and no one cares what race they are - if they are coming from Latin America, that kind of narrows it down.  If this were on the Canadian side, the same basic valid points of contention would exist.  These events also have nothing to do with refugees or asylum.  Specifically, the 1980 Refugee Act:

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by defining a refugee as any person who is outside their country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

I have said this many times and recently...
I 100% support and appreciate those who have come here legally. They should not be pushed aside for those who have stormed the borders. Immigration reform does not include amnesty. Streamlining is one step. Securing the borders is a second step.

The real enemies of any form of immigration – politicians.  Their pawns – you.  The goal is to divide and conquer.

Some have told me I risk friendship posting some commentaries.  How is it risky to express that people are being manipulated into divisiveness.  I have never unfriended a person for their views or beliefs - but have been many times. Tolerance has its limitations, apparently.

How contentious was the Civil Rights Act?  How divisive?  Here are some key votes in Congress…

The Senate version:

• Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

• Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

By North / South (South are the 11 Confederate States of the Civil War)
The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

I fear for our Country becoming more divided - right down to family and friends.  These emotions should never be part of relationships.  Religion, politics - and some say sports - are supposed to be non-starter topics (and they should not be intermingled, just as oil and water aren't).  That is not to say that expressing them is wrong - I think every person should, just not emotionally and not with the intent of changing a person's mind or having a conversation with someone with different views.

Here is an example of what I see as divisive.  I don't like Pat Buchanan, never have.  He should not be in politics or anything related.

"Pat Buchanan, suggests that allowing illegals to continue to enter the country may lead to the ‘breakup’ of the United States."

It is much more than illegal immigration that is shaking the very foundations of our Country.  Its a legitimate concern - but a distraction from others.  Like all problems in relationships, there is not one issue or one solution to our relationship with our government and each other.

The real enemies of your well-being and our freedom are politicians.  Their pawns – you.  The goal is to divide and conquer.  Do not help them with this goal, do not be distracted and do not be part of it.  Do not let yourself be called a terrorist or a racist – or any other label.  We are all mutually and self-respecting better individuals.

United We Stand and Divided We Fall - it is time to be the United States of America, one and all.
-----
Dean A. Beers
American Pariot
Author and Speaker
[email protected]

Suggested additional commentary:"Freedom Party - Advice from a Patriot" (http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/blog---author-thoughts/freedom-party-advice-from-a-patriot) - The progressive-socialist-democrats are experts at divide and conquer.  If race baiting doesn't work, its a war on women or some other social issue that is simply a distraction - but a dividing distraction.

The Rise of the Tea Party Due to Political Disparity

From a friend of many years, admittedly left leaning, but moderate.  “Moderation is the key. As a society, we will never agree until we understand moderation.”

I am right leaning, moderate on social issues and strong on fiscal issues…

Moderates, as much as we might like that, don't exist in party platforms...only in our minds. Democrats are not liberals and Republicans are not conservative. What does exist in reality is either socialist or conservative. Socialism is unconstitutional and conservatism is the foundation of a civilized and productive society and republic.

People are / can be moderate; politicians cannot be because of party platforms. Conservatism is a fiscal ideology, not a social ideology and liberalism is a social ideology. That is what has political parties screwed...social ideologies instead of fiscal.

The Tea Party is excoriated by the media as ultra-right-wing racists, etc.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First, take a look back and see the direction our Country has consistently transitioned since the dawn of the 20th Century – left, ‘progressively’ left.  That leaves anything else as becoming more and more right.  Compared to the socialist / progressive agenda, yes, the Tea Party is far right.  But let’s first look at that before continuing with the ideological disparities – one ties into the other.

FYI - the reason the Tea Party is seen as 'far right' is because the moderate left has long been far left and the GOP has Gotten Obviously Progressive (left).  On a scale of 1-5 for right, Tea Party is about 3.  There is no relationship between Tea Party and those 4-5 far right groups.

This is what Tea Party represents, and I stand behind it - most people do, they just are afraid to be labeled...
-- No more bailouts
-- Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government
-- Stop raising our taxes
-- Repeal Obamacare
-- Cease out-of-control spending
-- Bring back American prosperity

Do you agree or disagree with these concepts?  The alternative is socialism...
-- Nationalize consumer services
-- Increase the size and intrusiveness of government
-- Continue raising our taxes
-- Ignore failures of Obamacare
-- Ignore out-of-control spending
-- Lower socioeconomics over American Prosperity

To better explain the concept of political disparity, here is an excerpt from my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com):  Political Ideologies - From Lug Nut to Wing Nut.

Through the centuries of our Country, there have been changes in the political party landscape every few decades.  Parties may change names but not ideologies, or ideologies but not names – historically even a whole new name and ideology.  These represent the continued advancement of our Country – not progressive movement or forward movement; those are both ideologically socialist slogans.  Capitalism advances every person, society and our Country as a whole – it has never failed!  One example would be the Democratic ideology through the 1960’s that was for lower taxes and not asking what your unearned entitlements from your country are; but, what your country needs of you.  These ideologies of the Democratic party have morphed into the polar opposite – increase taxes, more taxpayer government handouts and unearned entitlements, reduced earned benefits and unfathomable increased spending.

I am a conservative Independent.  Both parties are wrecked by focusing on social issues.  It is what attracts the Parasitic Cult, but repels the Fiscal Culture.  If there is no economy, social issues do not matter.  As the left (Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.) focus more on social issues, the faster the spiral into the economic abyss we go.  If discussing politics, religion and social issues among friends is taboo – why in the world would these subjects be made part of the candidate’s party platform?

Independents are not party affiliated because the parties have become incoherent to the core issues – the economy and our Constitution.  Both parties are guilty of:    1) A form of indentured servitude or slavery through illegal immigration pandering; 2) A form of indentured servitude or slavery through perpetual unearned taxpayer funded government handouts; 3) Continuing the divisiveness needed to feed the disparity of socioeconomic classes; and 4) Vote pandering.

The political ideology scale is generally subdivided into fiscal, earned benefits and unearned handouts, social and religious parts of the overall equation.  But – only the economy matters, and therefore also funded earned benefits; nothing else does – they are personal, not political.  Politics is only business, nothing personal.  However, unearned entitlements (taxpayer funded handouts of the Parasitic Cults) are personal and valued by the socialist Democrats.  So focusing only on those – the Parasitic Cult tends to be more left of center and the economy class tends to be right of center.  Although parties and ideology may seem close to center, they are a full span apart – they are essentially polar opposites.  As an analogy, if the United States coasts are fives and you live in Denver (Colorado), with a friend living in Indianapolis (Indiana), and a mutual friend lives midway in Topeka (Kansas) – Denver and Indianapolis are equidistant from Topeka, but you are both twice as far from each other as to Topeka.  Distant, whether across the aisle or across the country is relative to the starting and end point, not the center.

Independents are still looking for their ideal party to come to grips, we can see why there is such divisiveness between political views – and by inference – personal ideologies and agendas.  There is a warning to this – the more divisive these ideologies and agendas become, the closer our Country is to anarchy.  Anarchy will happen when both ideologies find themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Hear me again – the Parasitic Cult and their socialist party will continue to indoctrinate and victimize while moving left.  The Fiscal Culture cannot continue to move right – must jettison the social issues and non-economic issues.

-- A Republican is not necessarily a conservative; a conservative is not necessarily a Fiscal Culturist;
-- A liberal is not necessarily a socialist; a socialist is not necessarily a Parasitic Cultist;
-- Fiscal Culture – typically a conservative who values the free market capitalist foundation, history and future of our Country;
-- Benefit Culture – Benefits are ‘Earned’ entitlements, and are not remotely synonymous with ‘Unearned’ entitlements. Earned benefits include Social Security, pensions and other beneficiaries of government and private programs due to their personal contributions.  The Benefit Culture should be aligned with the Fiscal Culture; and
-- Parasitic Cult – Their existence is dependent on taking from others without any personal contribution or responsibility; they are pathological victimizers.  This would include ‘Unearned’ entitlements (government handouts) such as taxpayer funded public assistance beyond Well Fair, medical care and other benefits of government and private programs without any personal contribution and a false sense of otherwise deserving by an non-existent ‘right’ as opposed to a real need or special privilege.

There is only one possible way to fix this – elect Fiscal Culture candidates, regardless of their party affiliation or your own.  There is a political axiom – ‘party trumps candidate’ and I agree with this – except the Republic party is full of Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) or GOP being Getting Obviously Progressive a/k/a progressive conservatives (Democrats that simply have not changed party affiliation).  To be certain of a Fiscal Culture candidate on the general election ballot, it is important for all social platform candidates to be removed in the caucuses and primary elections.  Then, and only then, will party truly trump candidate and the Fiscal Culture be victorious.
-----
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker – Beers with our Founding Fathers
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers

Unilaterally Legitimizing Terrorists

More than a week has transpired since the trade of Bowe Bergdahl for five top-ranking Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.  Information and commentary has made all the circuits.  The dust has begun to settle on the event and initial comments.

This commentary is not about the status of Bowe Bergdal – whether POW, MIA, AWOL, deserter or traitor; I hope the Army Criminal Investigations Division and Judge Advocate General conducts a detailed investigation and determination.  Additionally, this is not about whether Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should be closed.

This commentary – like my other commentaries – is about the continued blatant disregard for the law of our land – our Constitution.

The two key points to this commentary are simple:  1) “negotiating with terrorists”; and 2) “no soldier gets left behind on the battlefield.”

Let me be clear – there has been, continues to be, and this incident makes clear – grounds for impeachment.  Impeachment is a two-pronged process:  1) House of Representatives draws up articles of impeachment; and 2) Senate hears the impeachment process.  The House presents their articles and tries them before the Senate as jury, and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding.  Our Country will always be further divided by an impeachment process; however, a house divided can be saved – a house burned to the ground, as Rome burned, is gone forever.

Background
Our country initiated a response to 9/11 to remove the Taliban from being unelected government of Afghanistan (1996, think coup d’état) to restoring an elected government.  Without going into the issues of the seated government, let’s simply adhere to the premise that the Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan, never legitimately was or recognized, and Afghanistan has an elected government.  Moreover, the Taliban and its members are on the US terrorist groups list.  War is legally defined as between legitimate countries and governments, as are prisoners of war.  Because of the 10-plus year War on Terror, recognizing both the actors and prisoners in war has become difficult and changed legal meanings.

Then PFC Bowe Bergdahl was reported missing from his Afghanistan post in 2009.  In 2010 a US Army investigation concluded he deserted his post.  He has remained the last US service member in captivity from the war on terror in Afghanistan.  Was he a soldier left behind, or a deserter?  That will be conclusive at a later time.  For this commentary, his status as a prisoner of war is recognized.

The US has had a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.  By definition, terrorists cannot negotiate.  They further their unjust causes through terrorizing people.  That is how the Taliban came to be in power, and it is why they remain an enemy.

The US has also had a long standing military ethos of leaving no soldier behind.  Soldiers have also had an ethos to not be traded for terrorists.

To negotiate with terrorists is to empower them.  That is how the Taliban remained in power, and it is why they were removed.  To have negotiated further gives them the recognition of the authority that the war was to have stripped them of.

Incident
The process of securing the release of Bowe Bergdahl became a priority when “Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible. The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement of the NDAA.”  This requirement is a 30 day notice to the Congress of actions by the president, including prisoner exchange.

What was Bowe Bergdahl’s health concerns giving rise to exigent circumstances?  How was that of more consideration than five high-ranking terrorist leaders?  This is not to say that Bowe Bergdahl’s life was not worth saving or negotiating for.  It is to say that when these terrorist leaders are free to return to the battlefield, they will endeavor to take the lives of more US soldiers.  Of course, the terms of the release were that they would be confined to the borders of Qatar for a year.  Well, that’s comforting.  Remember when England negotiated with Libya to release the dying terrorist responsible for the Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland?  Yeah, he was in really bad health at the time of his release.  The five terrorists were also greeted as heroes and the US continues to weaken.

Key Points
-- President Barack Obama – some know who he is and what he represents, many still do not – or at least will not accept it. 

After his initial statements, this is what the president had to say, “I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government, and a view that was shared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is something I would do again and will continue to do whenever I have an opportunity.” [underscored emphasis added].  We have not heard from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we have heard from former members.  I certainly hope this was not unanimous – or even one vote of support – by them.

-- Sen. Lindsay Graham – a GOP (Getting Obviously Progressive) is reported to have said ‘If Obama pulls this again, there will be impeachment talk.’  First thought is, ‘AGAIN’?!; but…

What he actually said was, “It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay now without a huge backlash.  There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.” Graham did not say he would talk of impeachment, just some on his side would (his side, which side - he is most often Progressive leaning, but he calls himself a Republican).

-- Susan Rice – is the National Security Advisor, and has been during each scandal of this administration.  She is the first to be sent out to inform the public of the position of the administration, as it relates to how the public is group think how events unfolded.

She was directly asked, "Did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?”  To which she responded, “…what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield. In order to do this, it’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.  We would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform. So, because it was the Taliban that had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back.”

The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan, never legitimately was or recognized, and Afghanistan has an elected government.  Moreover, the Taliban and its members are on the US terrorist groups list.  Rice was reminded of this, to which she responded, “We actually negotiated with the government of Qatar, to whom we owe a great debt.”

-- Hillary Clinton – was the Secretary of State during the 9/11/2012 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.  Four US citizens were left to die – the Ambassador to Libya and three operators holding down as best they could, their Alamo.

Hillary Clinton was asked if a deal was made with the devil.  She responded with, “I think this was a very hard choice… If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation…we bring our people home.”

In Conclusion
First, this latest scandal is the predicted result to distract from the multitude of more serious scandals impacting our Country.  I am not diminishing one soldier’s captivity – regardless of circumstances.  I am asking why it is so easy to have one event about one person take away from the reality in which we find ourselves.

The two key points, as taken by many, from this commentary are simple:  1) “negotiating with terrorists”; and 2) “no soldier gets left behind on the battlefield.”

I believe the president has the power and duty to act in the release of prisoners of war – or any captive of any military action.  That power and duty must fall within specific parameters, whether Congress is notified or not - exigency has not been defined in the applicable law.  For purposes of this commentary, let’s simplify this to three things:  1) a soldier in captivity (status unknown); 2) a recognized terrorist group; and 3) five recognized high-ranking terrorist leaders.  The latter two are the key – the US does not negotiate with terrorists and no president has the authority to negotiate with terrorists, whether in unanimous agreement by 'his principles in his government or not'.

These negotiations involved Qatar, perhaps an ally – but all countries will always be beholden to and complicit with their counterparts.  Susan Rice would now have us believe that foreign countries tell us what to do.  That the US did not know five senior Taliban terrorists would be traded.  Regardless of an intervening party, terrorists were negotiated with and sworn enemies were released to return to the battlefield.

We cannot forget that Hillary Clinton is the media favorite to run on the Democrat ticket for president.  This would be her second round; her first officially.  Recalling that as a very forgiving First Lady, she set the precedent for the current First Lady in making policy recommendations and decisions as if elected to office.  “We bring our people home.”  To her it doesn’t matter if it’s in body bags or not, or if the terrorists are given aid and comfort.

Listen closely to what is being said about this prisoner trade...

"His father, Bob Bergdahl, spoke a few phrases in Pashtun, saying that his son is having trouble speaking English after his captivity in Afghanistan, according to a military press service."
-- I haven't heard of any POW forgetting their native language. Sen. McCain was broken, but he didn't speak only Vietnamese.

Secretary of Defense Hagel was asked if this prisoner exchange could lead to more breakthroughs with the Taliban. Getting Bowe Bergdahl out of captivity was the first concern, he said.  “Whether that could lead to possible new breakthroughs with the Taliban, I don’t know. Hopefully it might,” he said.
-- Breakthroughs with the Taliban? The Rules of Engagement have long been insufficient. A breakthrough is not needed - just breaking them. I guess this affirms that the US policy on negotiating with terrorists has changed.

Those responsible – apparently unanimous – should be held for treason in the prisoner swap. They returned five leaders of our sworn enemies back to the battlefields and we now ‘owe a great debt’ to Qatar.

Meanwhile...everyone will become distracted by the (yet another) scandal. Begs the question...what's really up?

Remember this – 'my principles' in 'my government' and the president would do so again - that is, act as his own government – even negotiate with terrorists, recognizing them and legitimizing them, while endangering US military personnel, embassy personnel and citizens.  The point that should be taken from this commentary is that the president continues to act unilaterally, and without recourse.  There has been time for investigation and resignation.  We are long past that time.
-----
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker – Beers with our Founding Fathers
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers

Please refer to the following related commentaries:

Past the Time for Resignations - the Time is for Impeachment
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/past-the-time-for-resignations-the-time-is-for-impeachment.html

The RICO Administration
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/08/the-rico-administration.html

Constitutional Apathy is Destroying Our Country
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/constitutional-apathy-is-destroying-our-country.html

2014 Year of Reclamation
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/01/2014-year-of-reclamation.html

Nationalized Train Wreck
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-train-wreck.html

UPDATED - Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Benghazi
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/05/1.html

UPDATED - Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Journalists, DOJ and OUR  First Amendment
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/05/11.html

Tri-Fecta of Scandals - IRS Corruption
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/tri-fecta-of-scandals-irs-corruption.html

President's Legacy Tour - Avoiding Scandals and Scams
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/presidents-legacy-tour-avoiding-scandals-and-scams.html

Are You an Enemy of the State?
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state.html

Headline – Prince Charles: reform capitalism to save the planet

In a speech to business leaders in London, prince Charles said that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.

Full story - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10859230/Prince-Charles-reform-capitalism-to-save-the-planet.html

Climate change (you can't say 'global warming' any more) – really?  No, and here is why – at the very end of his speech, “I remember when the Iron Curtain came down there was a certain amount of shouting about the triumph of capitalism over communism. Being somewhat contrary, I didn't think it was quite as simple as that. I felt that unless the business world considered the social, community and environmental dimensions, we might end up coming full circle.”

Royalty is socialism – they have to have socialism to survive and thrive.  Here is what his speech was really about:

Headline – British Royal family’s savings down to just $1.6M: report

“The Royals need to stop spending so much money, English officials warn, as Queen Elizabeth’s savings plunge from $58 million to $1.6 million. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are falling apart, with ancient boilers costing $1.2 million each year.”

Full story - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/royal-family-financial-crisis-article-1.1593645#ixzz332lCXc8j

My book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ covers the history and direction of our Country, and those issues of past and present and will set the course of our future.  What did I have to say about royal families and socialism?

From the chapter, ‘The Magna Carta’ – “It is important to note nearly every country, until the birth of our own, was ruled by royalty – king or queen, emperor or empress, czar or czaress, etc.  Other countries were ruled by dictators, etc.  Royalty also consisted of lesser titles, but no ‘commoner’ was in a ruling party – the world was dominated by a class system, with no chance of changing one’s status.  The status of royalty was said to be granted by god and birth.  Royalty ruled by absolute authority, until the Magna Carta and representation in a parliament.  The Magna Carta, for the first time, limited royalty and empowered – to a constrained degree – the citizens.  It should also be noted that the events leading up to this historical event were based on a conflict between the Catholic pope, and excessive – extortion levels – taxes.”

As they say, follow the money.
#####
Learn the answers and history of our Country, Founding Fathers and Founding Documents detailed in the newly published ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ – all formats (paperback, Kindle, etc.) are available from http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/order.html

The history of immigrant and naturalized citizenship

An excerpt from ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’

What is the history of immigrant and naturalized citizenship?  The Fourteenth Amendment of 1868 provides, among many things to include civil rights, that any person born in the United States should be a citizen.  Although a Supreme Court decision has ruled that a person born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship or immigration status, is a United States citizen, this is severely abused (see below) and likely not the underlying intent of the decision.

The original Supreme Court decision testing this was based on a case in which the son of legal immigrants to the United States, but later illegitimized by an anti-immigrant law specific to an ethnic group.  Under the enforcement of the act, his parents voluntarily returned to their native country and he accompanied them.  Upon his return he was denied entry as being a non-citizen; even though he was born to parents lawfully in the United States.  In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen by birth, and would be applicable to any person born in the United States.  It is important to note that his parents were legal immigrants, until a law was passed that prejudicially altered the status of an entire ethnic group, their own, illegal.  I submit that the intent was not to grant citizenship by birth to those whose parents illegally entered the United States to give birth.  This decision was appropriate, but has been hi-jacked.

The status of legal immigrant residence in the United States should not be perpetual, or if warranted should be by test.  Part of that test is to not have been a burden on taxpayers, and having been a productive member of society and to have never entered the United States illegally or been born to one or two parents that entered illegally.  I agree with granting the right to seek naturalized citizenship to any person having held a valid legal immigrant visa for ten years and would renounce any other citizenship.  If a person is born in the United States to one or both parents who are illegally in the United States and wishes to seek naturalized citizenship, they must obtain the same legal status as a legal immigrant, but would be referred to as a legal resident alien.  Any person naturalized under a legal resident alien status could not sponsor any person for immigration or citizenship.

******
Learn the answers and history of our Country, Founding Fathers and Founding Documents detailed in the newly published ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ – all formats (paperback, Kindle, etc.) are available from http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/order.html

Patriot Minute - Give Me Liberty!

Although not a 'founding document' Patrick Henry’s ‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ speech before the Virginia Convention March 23rd 1775 was the significant, and moving, oration before the Virginia Convention.

View the video here - http://youtu.be/nBIAUsR8rGE

Subscribe to these videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker
[email protected]

Tri-Fecta of Scandals – Journalists, DOJ and OUR First Amendment

Updated 06/01/2013
Did Eric Holder 'mislead' Congress or a judge? 

Well...mislead means, "To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving."

What was that oath he took when testifying?  Oh yeah, "...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..."   And the oath for an affidavit it that it is factual, in other words - NOT misleading.

Let's look at the definition of perjury, "The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."  Swearing to an affidavit is also under penalty of perjury.

Hmmm...there's that word, 'mislead' within the definition of 'perjury'.

First, Holder signs a misleading affidavit accusing a reporter of espionage - treason - and tells Congress, "With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy."

So, he was accusing a reporter of a high crime, but had no intent to prosecute?  Maybe not prosecute - but certainly persecute.

Originally posted 05/30/2013
I first began to write about this ‘Tri-Fecta of Scandals’ (before the media picked up the term) at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-train-wreck.html.  I have also written about the dog and pony show of Holder reviewing the DOJ policies and protocols involving the investigation of reporters.  Many have said he should not investigate himself.  True, but there is no investigation happening – read more at
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/the-president-did-not-order-a-doj-investigation.html.

The other two scandals in this Tri-Fecta of Scandals are detailed at:

Tri-Fecta of Scandals - IRS Corruption http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/tri-fecta-of-scandals-irs-corruption.html   Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Benghazi http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/tri-fecta-of-scandals-benghazi.html  

“Its not the scandals, or even the depths of the scandals, that should concern you - the American People.  It is the potential of the scandals.  Like an iceberg, be concerned with what has not surfaced (only 1/9 of an iceberg is above the surface).

How this current legislative branch handles the tri-fecta of scandals of the executive branch will literally define the future of our Country.” – Dean A. Beers, author and American Patriot

Why are people upset about the DOJ grab of journalist communications records?

The Department of Justice seizing the records – phone and email – of media agencies and their reporters.  The DOJ asserting that these reporters are traitors to our Country.  The media, much of them, have long been the administration’s lap dog – until they became the target of corruption. 

Is the media becoming racist?

Funny, the media has decried the Tea Party and other groups casting an eagle’s eye on this administration for not liking the character of the president (they call it racism - character is inside, race is outside - we look into the person, not at the person). 

Now that they don't like his character (they must becoming racists) they are crying foul. 

They've lost what they thought was their friend.  Apparently they did not read 'The Art of War' - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  Welcome to war media.

The recent revealing that the DOJ has accused reporters of being traitors and then seizing their communications records – business, personal, employer and family – is egregious.  Any acceptance of this will be acceptance for this to be used against citizens; it has long been, we should not be naïve.  Now that the media has been targeted, it is a scandal.  For years – even before this administration – citizens have been targeted, but ignored as a scandal.   Imagine the IRS, who has now been revealed as targeting groups opposed to this administration, and the DOJ joining forces to all but physically attack citizens – emotionally, financially and other means.  To control a person’s money is to control them and their freedom.  I believe that is the ultimate goal.  The media is supposed to be the ‘fourth branch’ of government – the primary watchdog to keep the citizens informed and government in check – forming a triad of citizens, media and government.    The methods used by the DOJ to seize media records essentially what happens in criminal investigations of national security – secrecy to protect the integrity of the investigation and people involved.  You, as a citizen, would never be told of the seizure of your communications.  However, the media – under our First Amendment – is traditionally told in advance.  In this scandal, they were not.  To the media, that is the scandal.  To us the scandal should be why are our First Amendment rights being violated without recourse, but those of the media protected?  Because the president and the media have been each other lapdogs.  

Substitute yourself for the Fox reporter, James Rosen.  Eric Holder signed an affidavit – a document under oath presented to a judge – that stated, ‘...there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation (espionage act) at the very least, either has an aider, abettor and/or co-hyphen conspirator of Mr. Kim.’  Holder has accused the reporter of treason, being a traitor.  When testifying – that is LYING – before Congress, Holder stated, ‘You got a long way to go to try to prosecute people, the press, for the publication for that material.  Those prosecutions have not fared well in American history...’ and ‘Well, I would say this.  With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy.’  Remember, the scandal broke, he lied and then the affidavit for the warrant was exposed.  I put this in the correct time line so that you can easily see that he knew well of his actions and testimony.  What he did not expect was to be caught.  I am a legal investigator, and would be pleased to deconstruct his testimony and these cases to expose them for what they are.

Now, how does this tie into the IRS scandal?  Because, in my view, the targeting of some of the media has been for the very same reasons.  Not because of a leak of national security – one of the most serious he has seen in his 30 years.  No, it is to push a corrupt and socialist agenda.  Kill the watchdog and rob the house.   Government is a bureaucracy – it works from memos and policies.  The frontline of the DOJ went to the very top to have at least one very illegal search warrant affidavit signed by Holder.  Where there is one, there are two – and so on.  Moreover, these frontline employees did not come up with these illegal acts themselves – they were directed to.  Why else go to the top?  They simply do as policies and regulations dictate.  Like the IRS, the DOJ has the ever growing and perpetual authority to make your life miserable – to shut you down.  That is why you should be concerned – if they will try to take down the media and groups opposed to their corruption and agenda – imagine what they will do to you.   Imagine you are posting on your social networking, even your private email and phone conversations, about your disagreement with certain government bureaucracies and political groups.  It’s your First Amendment right, together with every other person, to do so.  We first learned you it might begin with receiving letters and phone calls from the IRS disputing your tax filings, perhaps being audited and/or penalized.  Now we know that the DOJ may become involved.  Although this has not been a scandal yet – it will be, just hold tight.

Like the IRS, the DOJ has only one position – their position, no compromise.  Especially if any resolution rests solely at their discretion of disclosure – by criminal charges filed against you, possibly as a traitor – of their actions.  This is where Holder flat LIED.  He claimed no intent to prosecute – for the highest crime against our Country, espionage – but signed off under oath on a search warrant to seize communications records of a reporter of a news agency that has long been critical of the socialist agenda and corruption of this administration.

The media is a behemoth – and competitive.  This scandal is the first to unite them.  So much so that they have all declined Holder’s invitation to meet off the record to discuss the scandal and his review of the DOJ’s policies and protocols involving the media.  They have responded that any meeting would be on the record and in the presence of legal counsel.  Good for them.  Could you do this?  No.

Imagine that you are targeted, questioned, arrested or even charged for high crimes and misdemeanors by the DOJ.  These are founded only by their actions as provided for in their policies and methods – apparently with complete disregard for the law.  Holder is the highest law enforcement officer of our Country.  You are against a behemoth that is essentially omnipotent and self-regulating, without a special prosecutor.  Your life – your family - has been hurt emotionally and financially, and your freedoms seized - by the actions of the DOJ, either deliberate or by circumstance.

Imagine finding out that persons of similar concerns and circumstances have also faced the wrath of the DOJ for exercising the same First Amendment rights – or any of our Bill of Rights.  Years later, after many questions it is learned that a special internal team of prosecutors were organized to target certain individuals and groups of similar concerns and circumstances – and they have been harmed by the willful, but revealed illegal, actions of the DOJ.  The damage is done – you are not a behemoth, like the media.  It is time for the media to be part of the individual collective and not government bureaucracy.

Imagine this happening to persons of race, gender, culture or other identifying trait that is inherent.  No one would stand for it.  These have happened – they were wrong; still do – and they are wrong.  Imagine that these tactics were used for personal and political gain.  It has happened and no one is above the law.

This is what is happening now – this new scandal is not the last.  The media that question the policies of our government (which is We the People) and direction of our Country have been under selective attack for exercising their First Amendment rights.  These attacks appear to slither through the bureaucracy and leadership of the DOJ and the executive branch – Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice and White House.  The media has long been distracted by this third scandal of the Tri-Fecta.  It should not feel protected from the second scandal – they too, I predicted, have been targeted by the IRS.  That will make them relentless.

One would think that this Tri-Fecta of Scandals, dog piled onto many other scandals, would be sufficient to break the back of this corrupt administration and lazy Congress.

Now that this cup of napalm is sitting his Holder’s hand, he has felt a ‘creeping sense of personal remorse’ after being caught.  The weight of a press feeding frenzy has forced Holder to reconcile his progressive views with his direct involvement in orchestrating the investigation against Fox’s James Rosen. There is no remorse.  It is an attempt at damage control and rethinking how he applies his progressive ideologies to his involvement in these witch hunts.  This is founded by his recent attempts to meet with stakeholders – off the record. 
There is no remorse.  It is an attempt at damage control and rethinking how he applies his progressive ideologies to his involvement in these witch hunts.  This is founded by his recent attempts to meet with stakeholders – off the record.  When was the last time a person could be off the record with a law enforcement official?  When that person asserted their Fifth Amendment Rights.  That is what Holder wants – the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment from those whose First Amendment Rights he violated.  He was to tell his story, but not be held accountable.

As detailed in the 'First Amendment - Personal Freedoms of Expression' chapter in my book, one manner of controlling freedom is by believing government grants freedoms.  One manner of protecting them is to assert they are natural birth rights.  Express and redress of grievances against government is protected by our First Amendment.  Attempts of revoking the exercise of this freedom have existed since the time of keeping the populace illiterate, through the progress of the printing press - from which the media evolved.  To control the media is to control information, free thought, free expression and the ability to have one additional check and balance of the government of the People, by the People and of the People.

Eric Holder asserted an accusation of treason by espionage against the media - right now one reporter, but it will be more - and then tried to claim that no such prosecution was intended.  That is perjury of an affidavit under oath, perjury of testimony to Congress under oath, and a violation of due process of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of our Bill of Rights.

I don't think you would stand for it - and you shouldn't. 

Past the Time for Resignations - the Time is for Impeachment at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/past-the-time-for-resignations-the-time-is-for-impeachment.html

I don't think you would stand for it - and you shouldn't.

Don't forget to order the book at www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com/order.html

These media groups have given in to Holders equivalent of 'let me come clean but don't prosecute me' with off the record meetings.  He is essentially pleading the Fifth to the public, with the aid of these media groups:
The Washington Post, Politico, ABC and USA TODAY. After negotiations between the news organizations and the Justice Department, media lawyers will attend as well as journalists.

These media groups, some the personal lapdogs of the DOJ and White House, have declined to be part of the dog and pony show, or a confessional for Holder:
Fox News and the Associated Press - whose reporters also had phone records seized by the Justice Department - CNN, NBC, CBS, the Huffington Post, the New York Times and McClatchy Newspapers.

Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Benghazi

Updated 05/01/2014
I have not posted commentary on this topic in the last year - because it has been the same mantra by the administration and dismissal by the media.  Only in the last couple weeks have those most prominently involved (and with a future at stake) begun to 'regret' their actions (or inactions) of this tragic event.  Now that additional communications have been released, and military witnesses finally coming forward, may the truth - already known - be revealed and confirmed; but I doubt admitted to.

What difference does it make?  Well, given that since 09/11/2012 the media and administration would have you dismiss the embassy attacks as a spontaneous riot due to an obscure video found only on the Internet - to some it has meant at least proving fraud and corruption.

Americans should not - and at one time would not - have tolerated this of any administration, or dismissal by the media.  But, now that the media has been - again - embarrassed and proven to be lap dogs, it can only be said...

I tried and did tell you so...almost a year ago (posted 05/19/2013)

Why are people upset about Benghazi?

I first began to write about this ‘Tri-Fecta of Scandals’ (before the media picked up the term) at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-train-wreck.html -

“Its not the scandals, or even the depths of the scandals, that should concern you - the American People. 

It is the potential of the scandals.

Like an iceberg, be concerned with what has not surfaced (only 1/9 of an iceberg is above the surface).

How this current legislative branch handles the tri-fecta of scandals of the executive branch will literally define the future of our Country.”


Imagine your neighborhood experiencing an increase in suspicious and criminal activity. You ask for extra patrols and are told it is not warranted.

Imagine your home under siege and you call 911. You are told that there are no officers that can respond - at any time. You are left to defend yourself and watch your family killed.

Imagine that you question - perhaps through civil litigation - the actions of said unresponsive law enforcement agency. No one with that agency can remember where they were, or what happened, how they found out and who gave what orders. One tells you that it doesn't matter what happened or why - it happened.

Imagine finding out that there were officers nearby - perhaps they would have been too late - but would have responded if they were notified.

Imagine their leadership has taken credit for giving orders that successfully took down some of the criminal king pins of your community, but now that leadership cannot accept the fault for their inactions.

I have never known a law enforcement agency to NOT respond to such an incident (not saying it hasn't - I haven't known of one) and it would not be tolerated by any community.

Law enforcement command are notified of critical events for several reasons. One is so they don't read it in the news or find out about it when a reporter calls them for a story quote. I think it is safe to assume that protocol extends to the leadership responsible for the current tri-fecta of scandals.

I don't think you would stand for it - and you shouldn't.

How Government Harms and Individuals Help

Today I saw a news segment about a very interesting person.  Not being a sports fan, the story initially did not interest me – he is a multiple award winning sports writer.  What did interest me, at first, was his unexpected rise as a novelist after writing about the final months of a college professor he had.  As with life, various unexpected connections in this story led to what interested me most – his multiple charities and compassion for others.

As a Tea Party person – we are branded as anything but compassionate; and I adamantly disagree.  Compassion is our foundation.  Keeping government out of our personal lives and our purpose.  Tea Party core principles of supporting the original U.S. Constitution as the founders intended, limited federal government, state and individual rights, balanced budgets, individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility through individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, free markets and ultimately giving the power to the States and to the people.

What does this have to do with the story I watched unfold?  Simple – in content and context, it revealed the problems of big government and values of the Tea Party.  However – don’t tell anyone!  The network, program and famous host are all very much anti Tea Party (or anything remotely separated from liberalism).  These people would not recognize the reality and value of what the Tea Party represents.  The sports writer, like so many, very much does – whether a person attaches themselves or not, they are part of this ideology.  As I mentioned, he has several charities and programs – from his local area of Detroit to Haiti (where he spends four days a month at an orphanage he supports).

Detroit is an excellent example.  It has been part of the socialist political program for generations and is socioeconomically unmatched – thankfully – anywhere else in our country for its despair; although there is some competition to be as big a failure.  He noticed that homeless families faced a dire situation – they could not get medical care at government funded clinics for fear of being reported as having no physical address.  This little problem could be reported to social services and the children removed.  Why?  Simple – the clinics receive taxpayer funded government program benefits.  As a result, they must comply with federal rules and regulations.  For childrens’ safety, they must report any abuse and neglect – such as no physical address.  How did our sports writer, a person of unexpected fortune through hard work and entrepreneurship saw a need and a way to fill that need.  He did the same in his own life – he wanted to be a musician, and having no success applied for the first writing job he saw – sports.  How did he fill that need?  He built a clinic that would not accept any government funding and would not ask questions unrelated to the childrens’ health.

How interesting this concept is.  Social needs satisfied through the gifts of another’s fortune and compassion.  We see this during natural disasters – charities and churches provide services and shelter to those in need – no questions asked.  The most Christian based services do not ask the spirituality or denomination of those in need, they simply provide.  This is an example of how

The core principles of limited government, state and individual rights, individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility through freedom, and free markets that truly - not symbolically - benefit all.  This is not new, as it has existed for generations, and has all but disappeared over the generations.  As noted in my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’, our healthcare system was originally based on charitable giving.  The town doctor would provide his services and fees were based on the ability of the patient – from cash to chickens.  No filtering of funds through regulations and administrative costs.  This is where all government programs fail amid their perceived successes.  This program in Detroit, and so many like it nationwide in the poorest communities, survive on the generosity of those more fortunate, the time of those who volunteer, and the ability to ignore onerous regulations that only government can promulgate.  Remember the 'its takes a village to raise a child' mantra?  Coming from a person and group agenda in which only government can provide - and not a village - was the tragedy.  Americana has proven time and again that families raise children and community supports families in need - not government.

The Tea Party is not a political party – it is an ideology that freedom comes first and exists in all people.  Freedom is not granted, it is a right of birth.  Similarly, human nature and generosity is not affiliated to any political party.  It is a trait that roots in freedoms and also exists in all people from birth.  Like freedom, this generosity of human nature can be lost if we give in to the confinements of politicizing life.  This sports writer, and so many like him, live by the ideals and concepts I propose in my book for correcting the direction our Country has found itself.
-----
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker
Visit us at www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers and www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

Patriot Minute - Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower voyage was intended to reach the mouth of the Hudson River.  Due to not landing at the intended settlement area, there was no one that had power over them – essential anarchy.  Many of the pilgrim male leaders (but not a majority) of the voyage chose to form the first government and drafted The Mayflower Compact.   This document is the first colonial governing document. 


View the video here - http://youtu.be/2l1h9XPnJNc

Subscribe to these videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/PatriotBeers

Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
author and speaker
[email protected]