Many futurists are predicting that there will be more sanctuary cities in the United States of America. These are cities that harbor illegal aliens or those who are here on overstayed visas. Even though they're in violation of federal law, these cities will not enforce those federal laws and they simply ignore them.

Yet, at the same time these cities, along with their Senatorial and Congressional district politicians attempt to bring home the bacon or federal monies that come from United States citizens or taxpayer's monies. It seems rather unfortunate that on one hand these cities want money from the federal government and that on the other hand break federal laws.

After all, we are the United States of America and not the united countries and each city, county and state is part of the United States, as we are one nation. Why is it that some cities become sanctuary cities and violate federal law; laws that we all agreed upon and live under as part of our Constitution?

"They are just coming here to build a better life," is often the mantra of those who support illegal immigrants coming into the United States of America. Our newest President says he understands these issues in his campaign speeches and asks citizens to rethink any condemnation of vilification of illegal aliens, especially when they are here doing jobs that Americans will not do.

If we continue to allow illegal aliens to enter our country from our southern borders, eventually all the people in the world that are making one dollar per day are going to want to come and live in the United States of America and there are 2 billion of them. And mind you we only have 303 million people in the United States of America that are citizens. We cannot feed and support the whole world and we do not have the room or the resources to afford them even if we wanted to.

Nevertheless, you can expect more sanctuary cities, more political correctness.

By: Lance Winslow
Lance Winslow's Bio Lance Winslow's Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net.

There are a lot of liberals out there vying for the Presidency in 2008. Some have that little "D" for Democrat next to their name while others have an "R" for Republican. And we haven't even gotten into discussing other parties infested with liberals like the Greens, Socialists and Communists; the latter of which will probably just throw support behind the Democratic Party nominee anyway when all is said and done.

All these candidates have their eyes set on the Presidency and the role of "Commander in Chief" because liberals see their roles in government as one of "commanding" America how to act. Someone should tell them however that is not what the founders meant by the President being "Commander in Chief".

Liberals want to be the "commander" of our lives, institute "command" economies and all the wonderfully failed policies of the past. They want to "command" us all how to save for our retirements, to "command" that we must provide for the retirement of others at gun point and under penalty of imprisonment, to "command" that we must have government run health care, to "command" that we must pay for the health care of others that might not even want it, to "command" how many miles to the gallon our cars get, to "command" how many gallons of water our toilets can hold, and so on. They want to "command" us right down the road already traveled by so many into oblivion.

They do this, of course, because they claim to believe in compassion. But they have no real compassion for those that they saddle with the yoke of government and enslave into the service of others. Benjamin Franklin wisely said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." By that standard our republic ended long ago.

But then again, what did he know right? He was just some old white guy of European decent that helped form a nation that enslaved poor black people and suppress the rights of women. Well, one can also argue that he helped form a nation that fought long and hard to free the slaves and give women equal rights too. But that wouldn't fit the template. So we'll just ignore that.

Freedom isn't easy. And it sure as heck isn't perfect. But it works pretty darn well when it is embraced.

Today, contrary to Franklin's admonitions, we've become a nation full of people voting themselves money and requiring that others pay the tab. We have become a nation all too willing to accept a "Commander" in Chief, or even Chiefs when you consider all the would-be "commanders" in Congress.

We have bastardized what were once grand ideas and a sound blue print, save a few blemishes, and departed from the principles of liberty while seeking out our next "commander" to lead us. We have ditched the concept of a confined and limited scope of federal government to tax and spend clearly described by James Madison in Federalist 41:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

"Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"


We, as Americans, are all in this, the great and continuing experiment of America, together. And if you listen to the carefully worded rhetoric of would-be "commanders" seeking our votes in 2008 you might be lulled into a sense of believing that they are right there with us. Like when Hillary Clinton says, "I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society".

That is a pretty broad and perfectly couched statement and it is a sentiment that, without looking at her proposals, and proposals by other liberals, anyone would tend to agree with. But the devil, as they say, is always in the details. Her idea of being "in this together" is having government confiscate the wealth of others who have worked for it and which has been freely given in exchange for services. Or as Hillary puts it, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." How nice. But I already have a mommy and I have grown up and don't really need another.

This is also the same woman who proclaimed that she wanted to seize oil company profits so the federal government could better use. Bet that makes all of you out there with 401ks, union retirements, pensions and IRAs invested in the oil companies happy right?

It is not just Hillary Clinton that desires to be our "commander". Barack Obama, once you wade through all his similar "we're in this together" speak designed to lull Americans to sleep has the same desires and goals stating "Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy." (Obamaforillinois.com May 2, 2004) and dictating ("commanding" through government force what wages must be paid: "Obama voted to increase the minimum wage to $6.50 an hour" (Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America" Jun 21, 2004)

When did we stop believing in freedom? When did we stop believing that people making their choices and rising and falling by the virtue of those choices was so bad? And when did we start looking for someone to "command" us from on high?

Have we not seen how poorly that works? Have we not seen the utter collapse of "command" economies and nations like the former Soviet Union and even Castro's Cuba? Have we been so blind to the havoc wreaked by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in the past months? Have we not witnessed the anemic growth of even just soft socialist nations in Europe?

Have we really degraded so much as a culture where a "Commander" in Chief is more preferable to the blessings of liberty?

By: J.J. Jackson
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Infidel T-shirts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

The headline for an Associated Press story online Tuesday was very clear if you happened to miss it: "It's Up to You Now - Sheehan Quits".

Apparently Cindy Sheehan is done being the public face of the anti-war movement.

"I've been wondering why I'm killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved in to George Bush," said Sheehan, "I'm going home for awhile to try and be normal." Sheehan will be flying from Texas to her home in California.

Her online diary bid goodbye to America, noting that "you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it," and then the parting words "It's up to you now."

Like most wannabe martyrs, she stopped just short of saying "drive in another nail".

Clearly Cindy Sheehan has suffered more than any other mother or family in America who has lost a loved one since the Iraqi War started, and she was willing to put her enormous sacrifice on public display for everyone to see.

Clearly Cindy Sheehan would stop at nothing to throw herself on the ground, weeping and wailing over her loss in an effort to save her beloved country.

It only took Cindy Sheehan about two years to figure how to deal with and apparently accept life's misfortunes. I would suggest that her son, a war hero who willingly joined the volunteer Army and served his country well, paid a far bigger price for his convictions than his mother. I doubt her two-year protest enhanced his sacrifice and image one iota.

I often wonder about protesters like Cindy Sheehan, and thousands of others that have preceded her in various causes.

Think about all of the people who are out to "change the world" into their idea of a better place, and never get anywhere. They want to change everyone else, but not change themselves.

Cindy Sheehan may have learned one of life's great lessons: you can only control yourself.

Some folks get the silly idea in their head that they can control what someone else is thinking, what they are doing, who they are with, where they are at, and what they are saying.

"I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey (her son) was killed and especially since I became the so-called 'face' of the American anti-war movement," said Sheehan in her diary.

Clearly Cindy Sheehan minced no words in her protesting efforts, calling President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world" (a feat that easily topped the 9-11 terrorists who slammed into the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 Americans), a "fuhrer" (there is no record of Bush being a ruthless, tyrannical leader), an "evil maniac" (a violent and dangerous person dressed in a devil's costume on Halloween), and a "filth-spewer" (a corrupt and decadent person spewing obscene and offensive language).

In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter points out that "Liberals prey on people at a time of extreme emotional vulnerability and offer them fame and fortune to be that month's purveyor of hate. Victory goes to the most hysterical."

How is it, I wonder, that an average person can go on a two-year protest around the country and not have to work or lose their job, not have to pay their mortgage or lose their home, or not have to have a source of income to pay their living expenses.

The answer, of course, is to find a sugar daddy, like the Democratic Party.

Cindy Sheehan may be one of the most sincere people in America, but she is also one of the most sequacious (unthinkingly following others).

The online story went on to say that when she had first taken on Bush, Sheehan was a darling of the liberal left.

"However," says Sheehan, "when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used."

Welcome to the real world, Cindy, not the world of make-believe protest.

What made Cindy Sheehan actually think the Democratic Party was not using her as a spin doctor so she could out put an unfavorable interpretation of President Bush and the Iraqi War to the media? It sure made it much easier for liberal party hacks would not have to look like an ass railing on Bush when they could pay Cindy Sheehan to do the same thing.

When her act did not serve the Democratic Party anymore, they dropped Cindy like a 100-pound sack of monkey crap. Not to worry, the Republicans are not beyond doing the same thing.

When protesting is your job and they stop paying you, you go home and look for another job. If Cindy Sheehan wants to remain in the protesting business, her resume could impressively state that "I have a proven track record of using my protesting tactics to attract national attention, and have been credited by some with starting a movement."

Author Letitia Landon said something that may help explain why protesters protest: "Whatever people in general do not understand, they are always prepared to dislike; the incomprehensible is always the obnoxious."

There are a lot of radical groups out there that could use Cindy Sheehan's help in promoting their cause, and would be willing to pay for the effort.

Many of these organizations offer free housing, free meals, free transportation, free baby-sitting services for those too young to stand up and hold a poster, free posters, and free uppers to get you buzzed up for attack on the perceived enemy at hand.

On Memorial Day, Cindy Sheehan apparently had an epiphany (no, nothing that holy, I am talking about a moment of sudden revelation or insight) and came to some "heartbreaking conclusions".

After thinking things over (this may have been one of the first times Cindy was using any thought power since starting her urge to protest), Cindy said she was "going to take whatever I have and go home."

Heck, I remember that the kid who brought his football over for the Saturday afternoon game was the same kid that left and took his football home when things were not going his way.

I am glad you have had some personal growth, Cindy. Welcome to adulthood after motherhood.

Despite appearances, we all have an amazing tendency to act in our own best self-interest. Not surprisingly, this could be one reason why America, despite its faults, is the greatest, most prosperous and most successful country on planet Earth.

No wonder foreigners and outsiders love to attack us, and might do so more often if we were not so busy attacking each other to notice.

Copyright © 2007 Ed Bagley

By: Ed Bagley
Ed Bagley is the Author of Ed Bagley's Blog, which he Publishes Daily with Fresh, Original Articles on Lessons in Life, Movie Reviews, Jobs and Careers, Sports or Internet Marketing intended to Delight, Inform, Educate and Motivate Readers. Visit Ed at . . . http://www.edbagleyblog.com and check out Ed's other websites at . . . edbagleyblog.blogspot.com.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

On May 24, 2007 California Senator Barbara Boxer voted against the 'war funding bill' saying the following:

It doesn't seem to matter how many Americans die in Iraq how many funerals we have here at home or what the American people think this president won't budge.

This president wants to continue his one-man show in Iraq

That's the only thing he'll sign. He doesn't respect the American people on Iraq, and he doesn't respect the Congress.

It seems to me that ultra liberal Barbara Boxer is the one who doesn't care 'how many Americans die in Iraq' as she she is one of those who voted to deny our fighting men and women the money to fight and protect themselves.

In my opinion when she says that she wants the President to respect Congress she means she wants the President to follow her dictates no matter how lame or how much her dictates could harm America. She has shown no respect for the President. Why should the President show her respect especially since she has does nothing to earn the respect of the President or anyone else. Even liberal Senator Diane Feinstein of California voted yes on the bill.

As to her statement that the President 'doesn't respect the American people'. She seems to be the one who doesn't respect the American people, as no matter how many are against the war, the majority still wanted the funding bill to pass.

In my opinion, Barbara Boxer, like many ultra liberals feels that cooperating means doing things her way and her way only. It appears that she will harm this country and it's people in any way she has to in order to get her way. She's like a spoiled little child, who if she can't have a toy will break it rather than let anyone else play with it. The main problem is that the toy she is trying to break right now is America.

When will Californians learn to stop electing spoiled selfish children like Barbara Boxer to high political office? When will Californians learn that people like Barbara Boxer don't care about Californians or America? They only care about power. They don't care about who they harm as long as they get their own way.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.