Should “under God” remain in the Pledge of Allegiance? My two cents worth.
Well, I’m not a high falootin lawyer or historian, but I play these roles on Facebook. In my tiny brain world, I look back to the first paragraph of the Declaration of independence, which says,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Next, I look to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901) from which I quote,
“The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.””
The first official action of this nation was to recognize our foundation on unalienable rights granted us by our Creator, God, El Shaddai, El Omnipotente – some of the names by which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is known.
From the beginning there have been partisan factions (Federalists v. Anti-federalists, Democrats v. Republicans, etc.), one winning the arguments through elections, then the other taking the helm of the ship of state. Should we pledge our allegiance to the ebb and flow of man made policy or to the Eternal Rock upon which we “hold these truths to be self-evident”?
I say removal of the phrase “under God” from the pledge is tantamount to abandonment of our historical foundation whose builder and maker is God. Or, as Benjamin Franklin so famously stated at the Constitutional Convention that produce our Constitution,
“In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ”Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.”
Ignorantes liberales y cómplice de Medios equivalen a Obama con Reagan
Los demócratas y sus voceros de los medios afirman semejanza entre la acción inconstitucional por este presidente en ejercicio quién, en contra de la ley, en contra de la opinión pública, concede “amnistía” para millones de inmigrantes ilegales.
En primer lugar, vamos a ser muy claro en la historia. Lo que ocurrió en 1986 no fue un decreto inconstitucional, pero una ley aprobada por el Congreso, firmada por el presidente Reagan.
Ronald Reagan reconoció el limbo jurídico en el que millones de inmigrantes latinos vivían. El presidente hizo un caso al Congreso a la ley de artesanía que aliviaría el sufrimiento de millones de personas que viven entre nosotros a la vez que la creación de barreras para futuros cruces fronterizos ilegales.
¿Fue la ley en realidad la amnistía? De hecho lo fue, pero el lenguaje del proyecto de ley era ‘legalización’, no ‘amnistía’.
“Yo creo en la idea de una amnistía para los que han echado raíces y ha vivido aquí, a pesar de que un tiempo atrás que pueden haber entrado ilegalmente.” – Ronald Reagan, 1984
La Ley del 1986 Reforma de la Inmigración y del Control
“Se aprobó la Reforma de la Inmigración y la Ley de Control y promulgada el 6 de noviembre de 1986. El propósito de esta legislación era modificar, revisar, y la reforma / re-evaluar la situación de los inmigrantes no autorizados establecidos en la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad. El contenido de este proyecto de ley es abrumadora y se divide en varias secciones, como el control de la inmigración no autorizada, la legalización y la reforma de la inmigración legal. El enfoque de este précis será en el aspecto legalización del proyecto de ley.
“Este proyecto de ley dio a extranjeros no autorizados la oportunidad de solicitar y obtener un estatus legal si se cumplen los requisitos estipulados. El destino o el estado de todos los que aplica cayeron en manos de “entidades designadas” y, finalmente, el Fiscal General de los Estados Unidos. Los solicitantes tenían que demostrar que vivían y mantenían una presencia física continua en los EE.UU. desde el 1 de enero de 1982 no poseen antecedentes penales, y proporcionar la prueba de la inscripción en el Servicio Selectivo. Por otra parte, los solicitantes tenían que cumplir con los requisitos mínimos de conocimiento de la historia de Estados Unidos, el gobierno y el idioma Inglés o estar siguiendo un curso de estudios aprobado por el Fiscal General.
“Este proyecto de ley también esbozó las previsiones para los viajes, el empleo temporal “, declaraciones falsas, limitaciones numéricas, los ajustes para el estado y el tratamiento de las solicitudes por “entidades designadas “. Por otra parte, después de un solicitante se le asignó un estatus legal o considerará residente legal temporal, fueron descalificados de la recepción de todas las formas de asistencia social pública por cinco años. Las reglas para las aplicaciones y la asistencia social no se aplicaban a los inmigrantes cubanos o haitianos.” – Resumen por Kurtis Meese
Así que, ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre Obama 2014 y Reagan 1986?
Muy simplemente estos dos puntos:
Ronald Reagan no hizo DECRETO de amnistía. El presidente Ronald Reagan firmó la ley un proyecto de ley elaborado por el Congreso. Presidente Reagan siguió precisamente la Constitución.
Barack Obama hizo un decreto dictatorial de amnistía general. Como presidente, el presidente Obama ha violado la Constitución.
Resumen
Presidente Reagan y yo compartimos algunas cosas en común.
Nosotros dos vivieron y trabajaron entre los inmigrantes latinos, él en California, yo en el sur de Texas. Así fue, llegamos a amar y apreciar a los latinos.
Nosotros dos somos ex demócrata que se convirtieron en republicanos, debido a la dirección hacia abajo el partido demócrata estaba llevando la nación.Él se convirtió en un republicano en 1962, yo en 1980.
Nosotros dos entendimos que los inmigrantes que “han echado raíces” en este país y con éxito criado familias y trabajado entre nosotros deben establecerse en un camino hacia la ciudadanía.
El presidente Ronald Reagan, a diferencia de este presidente en ejercicio, entendió la sabiduría de nuestra Constitución y el proceso prescrito de legislar. En 1986 el Congreso 99a consistió en 100 senadores (47 D’s, 53 Rś) y de 435 representantes en la Cámara (253 D’s, 182 R´s).
La Ley de Reforma y Control de Inmigración de 1986 fue aprobada por un Congreso BIPARTIDISTA y firmada como ley por un presidente republicano.
La hipocresía del momento (y la hipocresía de la izquierda)
En mayo de 2008, Jorge Ramos, de Univisión entrevistó candidato Barack Obama. La promesa de Obama:
“No puedo garantizar que va a realizarse en los primeros 100 días. Pero, lo que puedo garantizar es que vamos a tener en el primer año una ley de inmigración que apoyo firmemente y que yo estoy promoviendo. Y quiero que mover hacia adelante lo más rápido posible.”
Si usted no puede creer lo que escribo, ¿puedes creer lo que dice que Barack Obama? (video en inglés)
Supongo que ahora lees lo que dijo y que escuchaste con tus propios oídos su promesa. Así es, mis amigos demócratas izquierdistas, ¿por qué no hace lo que prometió?
El Congreso número 111 fue totalmente controlado por su partido. En el Senado, había 57 D’s, 2 independientes que votaron con el D’s y sólo 41 Rś. Demócratas controlaban el Senado. A lo largo de la Cámara, había 255 D’s y sólo 179 R´s.
El candidato Barack Obama hizo dos grandes promesas: ObamaCare y Socorro para los residentes inmigrantes latinos. Era el jefe de su partido. Él tenía el control total del Congreso. Se abrió paso entre la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible (aka ObamaCare), pero no cumplió su promesa a los extranjeros indocumentados latinos que viven entre nosotros.
¿Por qué?
Mi opinión: No le importaba un pizca por los extranjeros ilegales que viven en ‘limbo legal’. Este presidente tiene un solo objetivo y que es la destrucción total de esta república que él ve como una potencia colonial (no somos). Él odia todas las cosas ‘colonial’, a pesar de que él nunca vivió bajo el colonialismo.
Él nos ha desarmado por la destrucción de nuestro arsenal nuclear estratégico hasta el punto de que estamos a la par con Rusia. Él hace tratos secretos con los musulmanes, más recientemente con el ayatolá de Irán.
Oro que Dios abrirá los ojos de nuestro entendimiento colectivo que este asunto de la inmigración actual no es más que una estratagema política para dividir aún más a nuestra gente. Pocos legisladores demócratas se han despertado, pero es probable que sea demasiado tarde.
La auto-nombró tirano en jefe se ha ido debilitando nuestras fuerzas armadas, cuadruplicado nuestra deuda nacional, desarmados nosotros en la faz de la inminente guerra mundial y borró efectivamente nuestras fronteras.
¿Qué es una nación?
Un diccionario dice que una nación es “una comunidad de personas constituidos por una o más nacionalidades y que posee un territorio y un gobierno más o menos definida”. Fronteras controladas definen el territorio.
Un diccionario de negocios dice que “el término ‘nación’ hace hincapié en un grupo particular de personas,” país “hace hincapié en las dimensiones físicas y límites de un área geográfica, y” Estado “una entidad jurídica y política de autogobierno”.
¿Somos una nación en riesgo de ser disuelto? No lo sé. ¿Serán los Estados Unidos de América en humo? No puedo predecir eso, tampoco. Pero, esto sí sé: nuestra nación, nuestro país no es mencionado en la Biblia tiempos finales profecias.
Para terminar, yo despido los medios de comunicación liberales sin sentido que comparan ésta inconstitucional “amnistía” ilegal decreto de Obama con la ley de 1986 firmado por un presidente real.
Conozco al Presidente Ronald Reagan: Barack Obama is no Reagan.
Ignorant Liberals and Complicit Media Liken Obama to Reagan
Democrats and their media mouthpieces claim likeness between unconstitutional action by this sitting president who, contrary to law, contrary to public opinion, granted ‘amnesty’ to millions of illegal immigrants.
First of all, let’s be perfectly clear on the history. What happened in 1986 was not an unconstitutional decree, but a law passed by the Congress, signed by President Reagan.
Ronald Reagan recognized the legal limbo in which millions of Latino immigrants lived. The president made a case to Congress to craft law that would alleviate suffering for millions of people living among us while also setting up barriers to future unlawful border crossings.
Was it amnesty? Indeed it was, but the bill’s language was ‘legalization’, not ‘amnesty’.
“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.” – Ronald Reagan, 1984
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
“The Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed and signed into law on November 6, 1986. The purpose of this legislation was to amend, revise, and reform/re-assess the status of unauthorized immigrants set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The content of this bill is overwhelming and is divided into many sections such as control of unauthorized immigration, legalization and reform of legal immigration. The focus of this précis will be on the legalization aspect of the bill.
“This bill gave unauthorized aliens the opportunity to apply and gain legal status if they met mandated requirements. The fate or status of all those who applied fell into the hands of “Designated Entities” and finally the U.S. Attorney General. Applicants had to prove that they lived and maintained a continuous physical presence in the U.S. since January 1st, 1982, possess a clean criminal record, and provide proof of registration within the Selective Service. Moreover, applicants had to meet minimal knowledge requirements in U.S. history, government and the English language or be pursuing a course of study approved by the Attorney General.
“This bill also outlined previsions for temporary residents’ travel, employment, false statements, numerical limitations, adjustments for status and treatment of applications by “Designated Entities”. Furthermore, after an applicant was assigned a legal status or deemed a temporary lawful resident, they were disqualified from receiving all forms of public welfare assistance for five years. The rules for applications and welfare assistance did not apply to Cuban or Haitian immigrants.” – Summary by Kurtis Mees
So, What’s the Difference Between Obama 2014 and Reagan 1986?
Very simply these two points:
Ronald Reagan did not DECREE amnesty. President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill crafted by the Congress. President Reagan followed the Constitution to the letter.
Barack Obama made a dictatorial decree of blanket amnesty. As president, President Obama violated the Constitution.
Summary
President Reagan and I share(d) some things in common.
We two lived and worked among Latino immigrants, he in California, I in south Texas. So it was, we came to love and appreciate Latinos.
We two are former Democrats who became Republicans, due to the downward direction the Democrat party was taking the nation. He became a Republican in 1962, I in 1980.
We two understood that immigrants who “put down roots” in this country and successfully raised families and worked among us should be set on a path to citizenship.
President Ronald Reagan, unlike this sitting president, understood the wisdom of our Constitution and the prescribed process of lawmaking. In 1986 the 99th Congress consisted of 100 Senators (47 D’s, 53 R’s) and 435 Representatives in the House (253 D’s, 182 R’s).
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was passed by a BIPARTISAN Congress and signed into law by a Republican president.
Hypocrisy of the Moment (and hypocrisy of the left)
In May of 2008, Jorge Ramos of Univision interviewed candidate Barack Obama. Obama’s promise:
“I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But, what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.”
If you can’t believe what I write, can you believe what Barack Obama says?
I assume now you read what he said and you heard with your own ears his promise. So it is, my Democrat leftist friends, why did he not do what he promised?
The 111th Congress was totally controlled by his party. In the Senate, there were 57 D’s, 2 I’s who voted with the D’s and only 41 R’s. Democrats controlled the Senate. Over in the House, there were 255 D’s and only 179 R’s.
Candidate Barack Obama made two big promises: ObamaCare and Relief for Latino immigrant residents. He was the head of his party. He had total control of the Congress. He pushed through the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), but he did not fulfill his promise to Latino undocumented aliens living among us.
Why?
My opinion: He cared not a whit about illegal aliens living in ‘legal limbo’. This president has but one goal and that is the utter destruction of this republic that he sees as a colonial power (we are not). He hates all things ‘colonial’, even though he never lived under colonialism.
He has disarmed us by destroying our strategic nuclear arsenal to the point we are on a par with Russia. He makes secret deals with Muslims, most recently with the Ayatollah of Iran.
I pray God will open the eyes of our collective understanding that this ongoing immigration issue is nothing but a political ploy to further divide our people. A few Democrat lawmakers have awakened, but it’s probably too late.
The self-appointed Tyrant-in-Chief has been weakening our military, quadrupling our national debt, disarming us in the face of impending global war and effectively erased our borders.
Are we a nation at risk of being dissolved? I don’t know. Will the United States of America go up in smoke? I can’t predict that, either. But, this I do know: our nation, our country is not mentioned in Biblical end-times prophecies.
In closing, I dismiss nonsensical liberal news media that likens Obama’s unconstitutional, unlawful “amnesty” decree with the 1986 law signed by a real president.
I know Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama is no Reagan.
Nancy Pelosi, ever ready to defend the Dictator-in-Chief, says the “Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order”. Well, not exactly, Nancy. You see, Miss Nancy, at the time of the proclamation, those states in rebellion were effectively under martial law and this fact was included in Lincoln’s proclamation.
Of particular interest, Madame Former Speaker of the House, the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those states in rebellion and not to adjoining states that remained joined to the Union.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 says, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Not even one of these sovereign states within the Union is in rebellion. At least not yet. Therefore, she-who-should-know-what-she’s-talking-about, the Emancipation Proclamation was NOT an executive order like those of your#fascist president.
Dirty Secret Made Public – You Have A Need To Know
With one hand, Obama has been forcing career military personnel out of service before they are eligible for retirement benefits, in most cases. With the other, he is recruiting debt-burdened college graduates to refill those ranks.
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady
Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady, a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions in Vietnam, recently spoke to the media regarding Obama’s secret, yet obvious plan to demoralize and shrink the ranks of the U.S. Military’s sharpest and most experienced leaders. Read more from 3% Nation: http://threepercenternation.com/2014/11/patrick-brady/
Obama isn’t exactly shrinking the size of our military officer corps, he is changing the makeup of officer ranks in the Army and Navy by luring debt-laden college graduates through “Loan Repayment Programs”. Join up and your student loan debt, up to $65,000, simply disappears.
Obama discards loyal American military officers the way one takes out the trash. He is now staffing the ranks of military officers by buying their loyalty. It’s a contract with the devil. Plain and simple.
Back when Ted Cruz was running for his present office, I had occasion to discuss this with his father, Rafael Cruz. Rafael said to me, “No, John, we support our military.” Yes, I replied, and Obama is developing a military that will turn on us. Hitler did this with his officers. All tyrants throughout history have done this.
What can you do? First of all, discourage high school graduates from becoming encumbered by student debt. Point them to programs like http://www.collegeplus.org/ by which they can earn their university degrees without all the unnecessary expenses.
Click on the image above to learn about Personalized higher education solutions for students ages 14 and up
Second of all, but not least, become a person of prayer, calling on the Living God to turn the hearts of our people to Jesus Christ. Only another Great Awakening can save us from certain calamity.
Is there cause for immigration reform? Adjustments, yes. Reform, no. Real immigration reform came about when all laws and policies affecting immigration were resolved into one law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952.
Lawmakers made an adjustment to the 1952 law by means of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that legalized otherwise illegal immigrants. The law was designed to bring relief to illegal aliens residing within our borders and to deter further illegal immigration.
The INA and the IRCA were the product of a bipartisan Congress.
President Barack H. Obama says he cares about undocumented, illegal aliens. He cares about the offspring of illegal aliens – these offspring are known as “Dreamers”. Dreamers are caught within an limbo not of their choosing. These youngsters in most cases were not born here, but were brought by their parents. For all intents and purposes, they are American kids, 100% American all the way to the music they listen to, the clothes they wear and the language they speak. It is indeed time for an adjustment, but not “comprehensive immigration reform”.
I ask: Does President Obama truly care about Hispanic immigrants? Does he? If he truly cared about them he could have easily signed any number of laws favored by democrats the first two years of his administration when both houses of Congress were democrat controlled. But he didn’t. No, sir. He didn’t. He cared that much. So much he did NOTHING for them.
What is Obama’s true perspective on Latin American immigrants? Is there any way to know for sure? Well, let’s consider his own words from his book, ‘The Audacity of Hope – Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream’.
I quote:
“There’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our southern border. The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skilled workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on our overburdened safety net.”
I invite you, my democrat friends, to hear the above words spoken from the mouth of your fearless leader, the author himself.
Between now and January 4, 2015, Barack Obama appears ready to unleash a torrent of unconstitutional executive orders, creating immigration law out of thin air. As a constitutional republic, his tyrannical executive orders are tantamount to corrupt governance, as immigrants experience in their home countries.
I have he audacity to say, we are in spiritual warfare. The only sure remedy for an attack by evil is for we the people to fall on our knees, repent of our sins and call on the name of El Shaddai, the Almighty God to save us.
In invite my Hispanic readers to acknowledge Obama’s scorn for Hispanics.
John White
AMENDED 11/17/2014
July 25, 2011
Remarks by the President to the National Council of La Raza
OBAMA: …Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. (Applause.) And believe me, right now dealing with Congress —
AUDIENCE: Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can!
OBAMA: Believe me — believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. (Laughter.) But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it!
OBAMA: That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written…
Spanish-language news service Univision Noticias breathlessly asks “El presidente Barack Obama anunciará pronto una #AcciónEjecutiva para ayudar a millones de indocumentados pero no sabemos a cuántos beneficiará ni cuándo lo hará.”
Translation: “President Barack Obama will soon announce an #ExecutiveAction to help millions of undocumented immigrants, but we don’t know how many will benefit or when it will happen.”
Article I, Section 1 says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” ‘All’ is another adjective that means, “the whole or full amount of or number of“.
Summarizing, the Constitution clearly states the Congress creates ALL law. The president is duty bound to execute laws created by Congress. No president has constitutional authority to create law out of thin air, not even when he styles his unconstitutional laws as ‘executive action’.
Immigration and Nationality Act – the Law Created by the Congress
The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law. – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
The INA was a creation of a bipartisan 82nd Congress. Republicans held majority in the Senate, Democrats in the House. Speaker Sam Rayburn was a prominent Texas Democrat.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)
Public Law 99-603 (Act of 11/6/86), which was passed in order to control and deter illegal immigration to the United States. Its major provisions stipulate legalization of undocumented aliens who had been continuously unlawfully present since 1982, legalization of certain agricultural workers, sanctions for employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, and increased enforcement at U.S. borders. – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
In 1986, when the IRCA was made law, it was Republican President Ronald Reagan who signed and executed this law. The 99th Congress consisted of a Republican controlled Senate and a Democrat controlled House. IRCA was passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by a Republican president.
A Pen and a Telephone – Tyranny At Work
If by now it’s not obvious this sitting president is an outlaw, then this truth will never penetrate your reality. “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure … that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And, I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions.”
Are reforms to the INA in order? Most assuredly and it is the role of Congress to reform, amend, this law. Immigration is not “broken”. We have lawful processes for immigrants to enter for a variety of reasons: work, study, medical care, diplomatic mission or citizenship. From time to time, adjustments are necessary to better serve the common good. Dictator Obama’s pen and phone routine cannot serve the common good for several reasons, chiefly his threatened action would be UNLAWFUL and worthy of impeachment. Creation of and changes to laws is the purview of elected representatives in Congress.
Communicate with your three lawmakers to tell them to oppose Obama’s unconstitutional behavior.
Dangerous Times
2014 election victories for Republicans across the nation were clarion calls to reverse tyrannical actions by this sitting president and a democrat senate majority. Despite this very clear statement by fed up voters, American citizens, Barack Hussein Obama intends to defy the Constitution and implement his dictatorial will over the objections of our citizens.
Between now and January 4, 2015, we are a nation at great risk as this leftist president forges his personal agenda on our nation.
