It's a shame that there are people who cannot distinguish between legal immigrants, those who give up everything to come here but get permission to do so, and ILLEGAL immigrants, those who give up everything to come here without our permission. Every country in the world has laws governing who may enter their country and reasons that they might be prevented from doing so. By "stealing" into the country, they bring diseases and other illegal activity which we do NOT need to see come in with them. By applying and going through the process, we can screen the applicants to ensure that the rapists are not coming in with the engineers. That is all we are looking for. So reform -- yes -- make it easier, cheaper, but amnesty? Absolutely NOT.

RE: Culture

Liberals, progressives or whatever you call them have this mentality:

DO AS I SAY; NOT AS I DO.

That is enough of an explanation. Conservative walk the walk and talk the talk.

Duke

I was heartened to see Mark Alexander's response to a reader comment about nazis. FINALLY someone is pointing out that the National Socialist Party were in fact socialists. The left always falls back on calling conservatives (and George Bush in particular) nazis. Bush may have been a lot of things, but socialist he was not.

Perhaps it is time for an essay to point out the fact that the National Socialists were indeed, socialists.

i served in the us army from 1956 to 1959 was overseas for 18 months i have lived in the usa on and off because of employment i was married to a us citizen and i was turned down for us citizinship because i failed to apply for citizinship 6 month prior to my discharge i have an horonable discharge yet i cant get to be a us citizin no one gives a dam about me anywere in the us gove only ones who support me are fellow veterans im 75 years old now and i live in canada now but i love the usa and wanted to have us citizinship before i pass on is there anyone in the usa that can help me

thank you

martin potashner

In response to Peter...The "Mexicans" were not here before the Irish, English and Italians as you said. The indigenous Indian population (not Mexican) of Arizona, Texas, California was under the rule of Spanish soldiers. Mexico as we now understand it, when first formed in the early 1800's couldn't occupy the area of these future states due to warring native american indians. Likewise immigration from states deep in Mexico, like Michoacan or from central America certainly isn't the return to where their ancestors lived. It is movement to where they were not historically or legally.

I take exception to Kudlow's comment re: "Contract with America" which he termed successful.

Once the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich abandoned anything like the rhetoric that got him there. For Mr. Kudlow's information, Mr. Gingrich is a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and has been for a long time. They have sought the subjugation of the US to UN domination in a number of ways. I have never heard Mr. Gingrich speak out against any of their pronouncements or published essays!

Further, he voted for unconstitutional activities on the part of the Federal Government. To wit, helped create the Dept. of Education, voted to increase foreign aid, supported the creation of the WTO (hardly a friend of the US) and he called himself a "conservative futurist" referencing Alvin Toffler's, The Third Wave. Tofler wrote to America's founding parents, "The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented - a democracy for the 21st century."

What happened to his "Oath of Office"? He cannot have it both ways.

No, I distrust him emphatically. He is not a conservative and certainly not a constitutionalist even though he claims to be a history professor!

Beware the golden tongue of an orator!

When I was still in the classroom, I would always get around to telling my students there were three kinds of people in this life. Brilliant people talk about ideas; Average people talk about things; and Mediocre people talk about other people. Unfortunately, mediocrity abounds in America today, especially in our political campaigns where outright lies, and inuendos are far more important then civility and telling the truth. What a pity for us and America.

I would like to interject a thought...We have spent so much money in Iraq that it is clear to me that they didnot want it . We built the most modern Buildings for what? Why can't the U.S. use them such as the Prison.We could lighten the load here and send them the lifer prisoners that ain't never get out and send them to prison over there and it would be a great traing ground for Iraq's police system and this way we can back some of the money..Just a thought..

Great article Ann...

If the sweetest sound you ever heard is the muslim call to prayer...That should be enough evidence...But, just in case...

I say we take a look at the past history of the White House menus for the current administration...

No bacon, pork chops or pork barbecue for 19 months...would probably answer the question quite clearly for both sides...just to be fair.

Thankyou Patriot Post, and Rich Galen for making the point that Martin Luther King's niece Alveda King was a speaker at the event. So far, you are the only media outlet yet to give that recognition to her being there.

From the reflecting pool.

The Restoring Honor rally in Washington, DC on 8-28 brought one million of us together as Americans. We filled the area on both sides of the reflecting pool, from the steps of the Lincoln memorial, past the WWII memorial, and out onto the grounds of the Washington monument. We were courteous, quiet, respectful, as we honored those who have served this country with honor. We were reminded that our core values as Americans are faith, hope, and charity and that it is our duty to reflect and live these values every day. And that they begin with us as individuals, most especially in a day where faith appears all but gone, where charity has largely been replaced by forced giving and when there seems little hope. We were shown that in this place we stood among giants, giants who were once ordinary men and women like us but became giants when they rose to their duty before them, did what was right but not expedient, and accomplished the extraordinary. We were asked that we look around us for those among us who would come next. The one who invited us proclaimed that God is not through with human liberty and he resolved that he would not allow it to be lost on his watch. We listened as he read the living words of our Declaration: "… with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." And we began to understand once again what God who had brought us all to this place on this day would yet accomplish with our full reliance on Him.

IN THE ON GOING SAGA OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ALL OF THE HAND WRINGING AND BABEL, CHECK THIS OUT: THE TREATY OF GUADELOUPE-HIDALGO, UPON THE DEFEAT OF THE MEXICAN ARMY AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN BORDER, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES PAID TO MEXACO $15 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE TITLE TO THE SOUTHWESTERN AREAS AND DELINEATED BORDERS. MAY I REPEAT: THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PAID TO THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT $15,000,000.00 AND THEY ACCEPTED IT. SO FROM NOW ON WHEN THE HERETIC SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY BRING OUT THEIR TWISTED EMOTION DRIVEN LOGIC SUCH AS LA RESA ETC. PLEASE REMIND THEM THAT NO ONE IN FRANCE IS TRYING TO RECLAIM LOUISANNA, AND IF THEY EVER DID THEY WOULD BE RESOUNDLY DEFEATED TOO.

I am certainly not sure what country Peter lives in, but by his standards we need to all leave here including the hispanics. We need to return to our countries of origin and the hispanics need to return to Spain. The Native Americans were here long before us or the hispanics and that includes South America as well.

Also "they are wrong for living in the land where their culture originated". Since when did the hispanic culture originate in the US? There is a history here but it was long after they chased the Native Americans out of what is currently Mexico City.

Thier current culture started there and not here.

Martin Potashner, have you talked to a US Congressman? Even if the bureaucracy has shuffled you into a hole with no way out as far as they are concerned, Congress has the authority to pass a special bill to grant you citizenship. This has already been done a number of times in situations very much like yours. Given your veteran status, I am sure any Republican Representative will be happy to help you.

A political leader must keep looking

over his shoulder to see if his boys are

still there. If they aren't still there,

he's no longer a political leader.

-----Bernard Baruch (1870-1965)

Once and for all, let me explain the realities of immigration for those who insist this land was "stolen," or that Europeans were illegal immigrants too:

Once upon a time all human migration was achieved through force of arms. Europeans were no different than any number of Arab, African, or Asian tribes on the move for something bigger and better. When Europeans reached America's shores there WAS no comprhensive government, hence no laws against anyone settling here. Yes, it got violent as have similar conflicts the world over. The ones with superior weapons and tactics win. In America's case it was the Europeans.

Fast forward a couple of hundred years; most continents are settled and populations increase. Technology and agriculture make moving unecessary for most. Society flourishes. Leisure time enables people to dissect their world and write books about it. People realize their culture lost out and they start whining, citing "imperialism," "racism," and other clap-trap. It's only imperialism if you lost. So there IS no perfect parallel between Europeans arrival on the new continent. Vini, vidi, vici. That's the way it was until European society brought Christianity and stable economies to the world.

Christianity, with the central tenet of forgiveness, inhibits the "eye for an eye" tribal retaliatory mindset and enables a functioning economy to take hold. So spare me those melodramatic claims that European immigration was illegal too. We now have laws. Those who wish to partake of the security offered by these laws are expected to obey them. If they want to invade this country then let them take up arms in manly fashion and declare war and invade us. Anything else is just plain rude.

Incredibly well said Sandy!! Thank you.

It is very strange that the posters are ready and willing to say that the Mexicans were here first. Have they forgotten the fact that they took over land that first belonged to the Indians,the first settlers of the land. Since they are so upset by the non-fact that Mexicans were here first, I would expect them to contribute financially to the many Indian Nations that have been moved away from land that is rightfully theirs.

They can start by sending a substantial sum to me, a member of the Cherokee Nation.

Well said Sandy. The only thing I would change is the word "rude" with "cowardice"

I am consistently amazed that there has been no "Offical" recognition of the Original 13th Amendment that has been hidden from our history and if it were to be recognized, as it was ratified by the states and was in print, then our stepping back in history would free us to step forward once again as a Republic for the united States of America:

Article 13, the Titles of Nobility and Honour Amendment (13th Amendment) is found in all the copies of the Constitution for The United States of America printed between 1819 and 1867. After the bankers took control of the U.S. following Lincoln's uncivil "Civil War", the 13th Amendment mysteriously disappeared and Federal government grew out of control.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." 13th Amendment

Bishop David

Now, this could be very interesting.....

"A failure is not always a mistake, it may simply be the best one can do under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying."— B.F. Skinner

Wrong Court Ruled on Arizona Law In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, "Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder.

But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S.. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.. And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ..

Trent asks, "Why no guest worker program?"

As an ex-patriate and Cold Warrior who lived and worked in Germany as an Army Officer and also as a civilian, I can tell you that the Turkish guest workers there lived and worked under sub-standard conditions. Sowing seeds of resentment for two generations started bearing fruit last summer in the Paris suburban riots. "Guest Worker" is a liberal euphemism for apartheid. It is antithetical to our Declaration of Independence "all men are created equal". Just one more example of politicians of all stripes kicking the can down the road for future generations to address.

Obviously the only "removal" of so-called officials from office for high crimes and misdemeanors - as well as treason and failure to fulfill their oath of office to uphold the Constitution - which implement the obamanation's agenda for America must be done by the people.

THANK YOU FOR THE CULTURE COMMENT. I WAS CURIOUS THIS WEEKEND IN WHAT CONDITION THE RALLY ATTENDEES LEFT THE GROUNDS, REMEMBERING THE INAUGURATION MESS, AND YOU LET ME KNOW!

Regarding the 14th Amendment, I think it needs to be repealed and replaced with automatic citizenship for children born here if either parent is a citizen or a legal resident alien. There is no reason to withhold citizenship from the children of those who play by the rules of law. As for how to best deal with illegals, they should be considered enemies of our country, and we should arm our border patrol with shoot to kill orders for anyone who crosses our border illegally, whether man, woman or child. For those already here, bullets are much less expensive than deportation, and as an extremely fiscal conservative, I think the least expensive method is the best.

To Sharon and everyone else:

At the conclusion of the 8-28 rally we walked across the back half of the reflecting pool grounds, across the WWII memorial, and past the Washington monument. Trash was piled next to receptacles in place there. As far as I could see in any direction, the grounds looked completely clean. It was as if we were never there.

Busshein Oblama admitted he was a Muslim when he slipped while being interviewed by Stephanopoulous & Steppy reminded him he is posing as a Christian, (I'm sure the video can be found on some website unless the Secret Service- isn't the Secret Service required to take the Oath to defend the Constitution?- has hacked it out of existence, or maybe Winstson has updated the news on that score). Anyway it must have been a non-telepromter moment.

I am so sick of hearing "undocumented" aliens compared to immigrants who entered legally. There is NO comparison. The latter are immigrants, and the former are criminals guilty of breaking and entering! The term "illegal immigrant" is a contradiction in therms. We are therefore justified in requiring non-citizens to have entered the country legally before their children born here can be considered citizens. Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences visit later generations - something their parents should have considered before breaking our laws, and something our own "leaders" have misunderstood for more than a century.

Chief Justice Roberts should come forth & set aside the opinion of this Judge Bolton, & forbid the 9th district Court of Appeals from hearing arguments in this case. He should strongly reprimand AG Holder for his mistake in filing the case in the AZ Federal District Court & he should announce the time when the SCOTUS will hear this case, the ASAP the better.

Surely, men of good faith can agree that a sovereign nation, governed by the Rule of Law, has the duty and responsibility to control access to its country. It's not only a matter of controlling the flow of immigrants in an orderly manner to facilitate appropriate assimilation, but it's increasingly, given the threat of worldwide terrorism, a matter of national security.

Why is it that I am considered to be a racist if I expect people to obey the law. Why is it that some one would consider any illegal act OK. Illegal Immigration is still illegal, the name should say it all. May be if we sent all illegal immigrants to Nancy pelosi's house she would take them in.

God Bless America and all those who support her! We are a country of laws. Racist, or not, is not the question. This may over simplify the case, but everyone must to wake up. No one can expect to put 10 lbs. of anything in a 9 lb. contailer! Where is the logic of using up any more of our scarce resources on people, who are here illegally? Obviously we cannot provide for the people, who have paid into the system, and have earned the benefits and services that are being squandered. This is the abuse of power congress misused the trust from our citizens! Why does the electorate not demand that the congress repeal the laws that make these legislators "above the laws" of this country? They should supply their own retirement and health care. The whole issue of making them "exempt from any law" is unconstitutional to begin with! If this would happen, the welfare/social programs would be headed in the right direction in two(2)weeks, or less. Also, why has no one in a leadership position not demamded to see the "president's" credentials? If he is from Kenya or Indonesia, which apparently many believe (including is wife), then he does not belong in the white house and this left wing assault on our way of life would cease! Goverenment must be sized down! Law and reality must take the lead and control our future. What would stop this curel slaying of our constituition is forcing the parties to put qualified candidates up for election, for every election. We cannot exist any longer tacking along our present course.

P.S. I must point out that the removal of Cherokees ( including some of my ancestors )from the southeast United States on the Trail of Tears was an example of low-down, scurvy, double-dealing. Congress had ruled in the tribes' favor and Jackson ordered the Cherokee to be forcibly moved. THAT was theft, ocurring as it did, after due process of law had been followed by the Indians to address their grievances. But to claim that the original settlement on this continent was illegal is spurious.

Regarding birthright citizenship and "anchor babies": I agree with Trent in finding somewhat troubling the idea of denying citizenship to the American-born babies of illegal immigrants. I am not yet satisfied with the explanations of what exactly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and feel it is un-American to punish children for, literally, the crimes of the mothers.

But if I may propose a compromise: rather than trying to change the Constitution, why not just remove the incentive for pregnant women to come to the US to give birth? An anchor is of no use without a chain. What we need to do is to refuse to allow these American-born children to serve as sponsors for their parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. There is nothing wrong with deporting a mother and having her take her American-citizen infant back with her. Just because we do not wish to see families broken up, it does not necessarily follow that those intact families have earned a right to reside in the United States.

If you swear on the Bible to Protect and Defend this country and then ignore your responsibilities to the point of aiding and abetting the enemy. Surely you are eligible for dismissal. This country needs to be willing to embrace impeachment, when necessary. If not a valuable deterrent goes wasted.

The citizens of Wyoming are starting to get national identity cards (oops new drivers licenses) thanks to Dubya. If I tell a police officerI am an illegal alien (oops undocumented worker) instead of showing he license will he let me go?

They want to call Glen Beck's Honor Rally rscist! How about the Million Man Rally a few years ago! Thae was a rascist rally if ever there was one. Made up of blacks and, unlike Glen Beck's gathering, they(the Million Man rally) left a mess to clean up on the mall!!

I have heard people say that Obama and the Democratic run House and Senate are incompetent...as if they do not know what they are doing. I have read here that.."Obama has lost his connection with the American people. He's aloof without inspiring confidence"....No they are not incompetent or aloof..they know what they are doing and they are doing it according to their agenda. Obama is not aloof and has not lost his connection with America. His connection with America was hope and change but did not tell us what that entailed because he did not want us to know. So Obama is doing what he wants to do and Nancy and all the others in the Democratic majority run House and Senate are doing what they want to do. They know what they are doing and doing it.

When is America going to wake up!!!

I oppose illegal immigration and support Arizona. But the Supremes have held that that grant of original jurisdiction does not prohibit other courts from having overlapping jurisdiction.  Unless a matter falls within that list, the Supremes cannot hear it as an original matter, but just because it falls on that list doesn't mean that they MUST hear it as an original matter.

Congress is empowered to create inferior tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction.

This was a great edition of the Brief. There is no easy answer to the question of illegal immigration but granting citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants should looked at very carefully. Note Psalms 79:8 Do not hold against us the sins of the fathers.

What’s needed is a comprehensive review of immigration policy and electing enough republicans to both the house and senate to curb Obama’s policies.

I take offense to both of the comments on the illegal immegrants (aliens). As was pointed out several months ago by Michele Malkin, the United States is NOT a nation of immigrants, but that 85% are decendents of immigrants and are now US Citizens. Does either of these guys live in the southern part of the United States, Florida to California? If so then they can see the devastation that the illegalls are creating. Do we want to open the borders to the gangs that are killing people in masses. They ARE NOT doing jobs that Americans won't do, contrary to what the news media says. And the Mexicans have learned to work our welfare system, living in Mexico and having a postoffice box across the border in America to receive their checks, both welfare and Social Security and folks that is a fact. And the US are sending school buses to the border to pick up students to be educated in the US, and in their language. This is happening in Texas, Arizona, and I'm sure in California. They are not being educated to assemalate into the US and become citizens, another fact. Everyone is NOT entitled to live here, work here and receive our benefits, welfare, social security, hospital care, etc. And the statement of punishing the "father". Really, who is being punished here. The woman/mother comes into US, has no money, cannot/won't pay the hospital, has the baby and stays, both receiving all the benefits of an American mother. One small difference, the American mother is more likely to have a job. Both of these guys need to do a little research on the subject and they would quickly find out how draining this is to our economy. Thank you Alexander for your insight into this hugh situation that will only become more aggravated until our Government decides to enforce the current laws. By the way I live in West Texas.

I cannot speak for all of the southwest, but when it became a republic, Texas did not have many Mexicans. There was a colony of Canary Islanders in San Antonio. There were soldiers and clergy in various places, 99% Spanish as from Spain. Texas was just not a place Mexicans wanted to go. As I recall in colonial days, the settlement at Nueces (Corpus Christi) was the only one which had any success getting Mexicans to come to Texas.

Re: The Left - The crab instructs its young: "Walk straight ahead...like me."

Why do we have any laws at all, if they are only going to be ignored? Illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, undocumented citizens - yes, we are a country of immigrants, but "immigrants" are those folks who have come to this country legally; who settle in and adopt this country as their own, who assimilate into the culture and contribute to its well-being. They play by the rules, knocking and entering through the door legally provided.

Then there are those who snuck into America illegally, who began to avail themselves of her benefits without contribution. Keep "birthright citizenship" for children of illegals? They have climbed in America's window, thrown her out of her bed, cooked in her kitchen, raided her fridge, sat on her couch, watched her tv. Now the liberals want to hand over the keys to the car...

Jonah Goldberg says, "Obama has lost his connection with the American people." If by connection he means to the fairy tale vision of hope and change that some Americans had in 2008, then he is technically correct.

In my opinion, BHO never had a connection with the American people. Rather, he was a "Pied Piper", and those Americans who were living in the fantasy have finally started waking up and smelling the coffee.

Trent and Peter, in their "Reader Comments" today exemplify the "sin of the Left". They FEEL rather than THINK.

I am all for immigrants coming to this nation, complying with our laws, and becoming citizens (and their children too). But just because a child is born here, that doesn't make them a defacto citizen.

If you and your pregnant wife came to visit me for 2 weeks, and your wife happened to deliver in my guest room during your visit, that would not make her child a member of my family just because it was born under my roof. The child would be come a member of my family if I adopted it, not because it was born in my home.

Equally true, if I have a 4 bedroom house and only 2 children (thus a spare bedroom) and you live in a 2 bedroom house and have 4 children (thus 4 kids in one room), that does not give you the right to put one of your kids up in my spare room just because I'm more "advantaged" by my situation and you are more "disadvantatged" by yours.

What gives an individual in a poorer country with fewer opportunities the RIGHT to come to this country and become a citizen? Nothing! They do not have the RIGHT. They have the OPPORTUNITY to come here, comply with our laws, and, if they are good guests, then we will make them a citizen, a member of our family.

Law doesn't trump human dignity, it glorifies it. If there is no rule of law, there is no respect for anything, much less people. Look at the people who commit crimes and have no sense of right and wrong - do they respect their victims? Those who respect the rule of law, respect people and property.

I was at the Restoring Honor Rall this past Saturday with my brother and another Marine. The crowd was made up of absolutely our best citizens! There were old people, babies, families, and all manner of citizens. Everyone was very sociable and polite. People helped others, allowed others to pass in front of them, no line breaking, rude remarks, or any other social faux pax that I am used to. Everyone took turns everywhere I saw and you could see a great movement in the faces and hearts of our citizenry. It gave me goosebumps thinking of so many people there for the same grand purpose. I was on the reflecting pool and there were so many people crowded together it was difficult to sit on the grass, yet I didn't hear one cuss word or see the usual conflicts when you get large crowds together - simply amazing. As far as trash, I was specifically looking around for it - and there was absolutely NONE! There weren't even cigarette butts or small candy wrapper trash that is normally in such places - we all remarked about the condition of the park. One last note - I noticed that many people thanked the park police and other organizers for their assistance and service. With citizens like this, not only am I certain honor can be restored, but certain of victory over any agenda which takes us away from our Constitutionally outlined God given rights.

My thinking on illegal immigrants continues to morph.

Here is my current stand;

1) Passing too many laws creates a lawless citizenry. It's completely inevitable and understandable that, at some point, the best of the best will throw up their hands and do what they must to live, and they will say, "The heck with the law. The lawmakers have lost their marbles."

2) There is a huge demand for Mexican Labor, which is, in may instances, infinitely superior. Sorry, my fellow Gringos. Try talking seriously to those running businesses that traditionally favor the Latino labor pool. There are cultural value issues at work that make the discussion laughable among those who Comprendo. "I don't hire white hippies anymore," would be the short version of that discussion. There is a real world, whether one likes it or not.

3) This labor market should be satisfied legally.

It cannot be because the Government inevitably over-reaches. One large landscaping company had 40 legal seasonal employees from the "H24 Program" (someone will correct me). Same guys came and went year after year, till the Government clipped the Quota one year, and left the owner high and dry.

Such programs should match exactly what free enterprise requires not what government deigns.

And they should not be a cash cow for gov't coffers.

Final Proposal:

Set up such programs as are needed in ways that are not burdensome and then just fine the stew out of anyone hiring illegals.

If everyone who wants to come and work here can come legally, and be assured that they can go home and return again unmolested, they will not be inclined to stay here, only for fear of having to repeat the travail of another illegal entry!

We don't need 10 million new citizens, for the Demo-gogues to manipulate.

We need 20 million new hemispheric participants in Free Enterprise!

And any new citizen candidates should bring distinct skill sets that enhance our economy rather than threaten to further burden it.

To Trent - Congress needs to define a clear path to citizenship? I work with two people who have recently become US citizens. They seem to have found the legal path.....

To Peter - Alexander said it right. Without the rule of law, the house will crumble. You speak of the intent of the Founders- where did they state they wanted law-breaking immigrants? I have no issue with Hispanics living where their ancestors did, as long as they do so legally. In that fantasy world, I'll go storm someone's home that resides on my paternal grandparents' farm that was taken by imminent domain and set up residence there. If you happened to live there, what then? Will you give me a key to the house, free food, cell phone, bus ticket...?

The Last Word - By the way, Franklin Graham said essentially the same thing as McConnell and nary a word was heard about it. But which word should we take Obama at again? Where he says he is a Christian, or where he states "...my Muslim faith" during an interview and doesn't correct himself until the interviewer points it out? Confusing at best.....

LEOPARDSEAL- Sorry No Sale! "I oppose illegal immigration and support Arizona. But the Supremes have held that that grant of original jurisdiction does not prohibit other courts from having overlapping jurisdiction. Unless a matter falls within that list, the Supremes cannot hear it as an original matter, but just because it falls on that list doesn't mean that they MUST hear it as an original matter. Congress is empowered to create inferior tribunals with concurrent jurisdiction." The Supremes have no power to change the original or appellate jurisdiction of anything as listed in USConstitution ArtIIISec2Par2, & Congress may change that list, but they should be careful to do so by amendment not statute. The only things they may do legally by statute to the Judicial Branch is set the number of Justices to sit on SCOTUS & other inferior courts they may create, & consent to the executive appointments to those benches.

@Larry Cline -- The sponsor issue is irrelevant, since the child may not sponsor any relative unitl he is 21. The child is still an American Citizen - even if the parents take him to their home country, as it is meet they should - unless and until he openly and consciously gives up that right. I feel that such a declaration should only be honored by the United States if done by the child at or above the age of legal consent in America - where the issue is pending - so that the child may be considered to have made the decision free from duress and in possession of the requisite mental faculties.

@Leopardseal -- Then the Supremes are rewriting the Constitution - something they are not empowered to do.

They are, indeed, empowered to establish lesser courts, but this is to the same effect as Jethro taught to Moses in order to allow swifter justice and less stress on Moses.

This does not, however, permit them to rewrite the very same set of instructions that created the Supreme Court and outlined its jurisdictions. That would be like your children rewriting the rules of your household - not bloody likely, eh?

As the Constitution CLEARLY outlines the conditiions for both original and appelate jurisdictiion, there is no wiggle room provided, and there is not authority given the Supreme Court to relegate or confer that authority upon a lesser court. I think that the time has come for popular review of the Supreme Court to be amended into the Constitution.

@ S J Landaas -- Recall, also, Ezekiel 18; If we are to be holy, because our Father is holy, then we must each of us look only to the sins of the sinner - and not his father.

I know, it's a failing of mine. God bless you and yours, Brother.