Where you see it as another way of breaking the backs of the working class, I actually see it as treason. Since they can't, after all, predict the weather from day to day this scam is another pyramid scheme for Wall Street and the utility companies, since although appears you are not as old as I am, those energy companies have been getting bucket loads of grant monies from the Feds since the 70's to find "green energy" alternatives. And simply used it to build up their influence and profit margins instead. And most of these are "public" utility companies. And if Congress and the Pres hadn't allowed most of those companies to move offshore as they did, or at least taxed them as the imports they were once they did, China's problem would not now be our problem.
This is global socialism, and that entire bill unconstitutional. And I, as an American and not globalist, am outraged beyond measure, and this President is absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER AND NO AMERICAN obviously.
See above, it is the local government that requests those work visas, not the feds.
And we stand to lose the west and Southwest very soon unless something is done, since it is much easier to conquer a country from within than from without - and Mexico is just licking its lips to get back Arizona,Texas and New Mexico - and so are those militant Mexican nationals who live in this country, whether legally or illegally - because their "allegiance" is to Mexico many of them above the U.S., and don't lose their citizenship even after becoming a citizen in this country.
And more lives have been lost in the border states due to this situation than 20 9/11s.
Not to mention the first sentence is entirely untrue. The Constitution states in the preamble, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES......FOR US AND OUR POSTERITY. Nothing about non-Americans, and there is actually a provision in it that thestates were to be taxed for the amount of foreign labor requests that were issued - SINCE IT IS THE STATES THAT REQUEST THOSE WORK VISAS, NOT THE FEDS. In other words, your states are in collusion with the feds on this outsourcing and insourcing - and the American people are paying the taxes for all those benefits they receive. The contribution does not outweigh the costs. And did you know that in Mexico, non-citizens are precluded from being involved in public policy and the politics of the country, and cannot even own land there - it must be leased for term periods. And the drug trade actually is their largest export, which they sell out in front of the high schools and middle schools in order to get their customers as young as they can get them for future profits.
There is no such provision as "executive orders" or "signing statements," and the President was giving absolutely no authority to "make law," nor was the Supreme Court - only to veto any and all unconstitutional legislation - and strike down any and all unconstitutional laws, and uphold those that are - using the clear, common useage language in the Constitution, nothing more.
So the post stands as the "intent" of the founders, and is supported by the history behind the "intent" as stated by Mr. Franklin - it was sectarian differences they wished to avoid - and freedom for Americans to worship God according to their own understanding, in the church of their choosing - and for the government to stay out of church business, but also protection for federal officials in their performance of their duties and allegiance is to the Constitution, not President, and protection of their religious beliefs also which precluded them from being asked to swear allegiances to the state or president as a test of loyalty.
This is where our courts and judiciary have gone off the deep end in now viewing that clause as "freedom from" with respect to their deliberations and determinations - when in such an instance it is protection of freedom and life that should have come before all else.
And that woman hung on after those hydration tubes were removed for over 14 days, when most people could not last more than three or four. So what did that say about Ms. Schiavo's "will" to live?
What is going on in this country in our state and federal judiciaries now in their constant violations of our Constitution, and adherence to "judge made" and "case law" over the clear terms of the Constittuion is nothing more than criminal.
So in the instance of Ms. Schiavo, her individual religious beliefs were not taking into consideration, barring any living will the judge should have erred on the side of "life," not death - especially due to the rather questionable circumstances still regarding her initial collapse, and the testimony which was precluded from many in the nursing homes in which she had been given care that she was conscious. The judge even refused to personally go visit - and instead unilaterally signed her death order. Catholic's also do not believe in divorce as it is a "sacrament" in their church, and so even if Ms. Schiavo was being mentally or physically abused by a spouse, she most likely would be one of the last one's to file for a divorce due to Church teachings.
In the Schiavo case, that judge's primary duty was to uphold the Bill of Rights where there was a concern over a "life," and to take that woman's individual religious beliefs into consideration. She was , according to many sources, a believing Catholic. Catholic's do not believe in "suicide" and she was not being kept alive artificially at all, simply being given basic sustenance that you would give any ill patient or an infant for that matter. Food and water is basic in order to sustain any human life on any level.
Finally, as an example take the Teri Schiavo case for instance. Since this country was founded on religious freedom, and in the courtroom there is still a choice now whether a witness wishes to simply affirm his testimony, or swear on the Bible - there is and always has been religion intended in our public venues. The Bible has always historically been used in order to swear in witness testimony - except within the past twenty years or so - and "historically" the intent of the founders always remained that that would be the case, otherwise it would never have been used at all after the Constitution was ratified.
So we agree to disagree. And I assume you are a lawyer, so that would explain our disagreement - since lawyers look at "words" and as with our Supreme Cout - even redefine the English language in order to justify their positions at times.
Which is why about 3/4's the laws in this country at the present time are blatantly unconstitutional. They aren't even reading bills now before signing them. So all three branches have trashed it on every level progressively, and especially in this century.
Which is why we are where we are today. With an unconstitutional privatized bank actually in power, and "global" corporations (since the founders wished to break free from global government and control, that just goes to show you how corrupted it has become), rather than a true representative government of the people.
Foreigners now have more "rights" in this country than the lawful citizens. Ask any Arizonan whose been victimmized.
The federal governments powers were actually quite limited, and the Constitutution is only 23 pages long and was written in order that the people could understand it. And the Supreme Court cannot "amend" it at all in any of their decisions - since there is an amendment process within it, and they are not a part of it at all.
So I agree that this provision was to protect the individuals rights of worship, but do not agree that this meant that religion was to be kept out of public venues entirely on any level. As a matter of fact, the first schools were held in churches, and the first books given in public schools in order to each reading were Bibles, since those were the only books which were available in the amount necessary.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint