Tag Archives: Immigration

DONALD TRUMP’S WALL AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN…. a debate inspired by Pat Buchanan’s “What Trump’s Wall Says to the World”

Asmodeous Rex • an hour ago
Donald J. Trump intention to build a wall at the southern border is an insult to all of Latin America.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim in NY to Asmodeous Rex • 13 minutes ago
Uh huh…
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • 43 minutes ago
I don’t see that the WALL is anything more than a re-inforced border. By your standard, Mr. Asmodeous, isn’t every border an equal insult?

Does your house have walls? is that not an insult to nature, or at least to your local weather and all your neighbors?

Walls don’t work against every kind of invasion or catastrophe (modern bombs and the IRS can penetrate almost everyone’s walls) but walls do serve to establish and declare one’s claim to private space, of reasonable expectation of peace and tranquility within a space that we can call “home”.

I don’t think Trump’s wall is going to change America—but it MIGHT help prevent MORE change than has already happened, and perhaps we can start deporting millions of people BACK on the other side of the wall who should never have crossed the border.

As a Symbol of National Sovereignty and Identity, I accept the need for a wall, although we will need to back up that SYMBOL with substantial action—I’d like to see every Latin American, African, and Asian Naturalized in 1986 by “Amnesty” to illegal alines or who immigrated after that date, lose his or her citizenship….

America is the New Jerusalem of the Europeans, by the Europeans, and for the Europeans….
3 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Asmodeous Rex to Charles Edward Lincoln, III • 36 minutes ago
O.K. Your reply is sensible and polite enough but the USA should be building bridges to Latin America; not promoting distrust and hostility. Are you aware that the USA has spent a lot of money and energy and lives trying to prevent that region from turning to communism?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • 26 minutes ago
That’s kind of preposterous: we have thousands of bridges of every type (air, land, and sea) to and from everywhere in Latin America. It’s easier and quicker to reach Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan, Cancun or Acapulco from any major airline “hub” in the USA than it is to reach Alaska, which is one of our own states. It also easier and cheaper to take a cruise in the Caribbean than to Hawaii or American Samoa…or again, along the “inland passage” to Alaska… just compare the effort it will take you to get to Curacao compared to the Aleutian Islands…. I’ve done both trips….

As it happens, I turned 18 as a legal resident of Honduras while working on an archaeological research project at Copan sponsored by Harvard and the World Bank. And since then I have lived about a quarter of my life in Latin America since then, in Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, and Venezuela….

And I have been living and or visiting in several Latin American countries during Coups…. or kidnappings (I once watched the helplessly as the German Consul in Guatemala was kidnapped)…. And on top of it all, my grandfather did major business with the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, so yes, I’m quite aware of the U.S. attempts to fight communism all over Latin America….

So what exactly is your point? That because we have more-or-less succeeded in keeping communism from taking root anywhere except for Bolivia and Venezuela, and for a time in Chile—we should let all the rest of them in?

Chileans and Argentinians are pretty much “white people”…. as are MOST Colombians and many upper class Mexicans and Brazilians, for that matter, but other areas are much more racially mixed, and “upper class” immigration into the USA is NOT the source of any problems I’m aware of….
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Asmodeous Rex to Charles Edward Lincoln, III • 17 minutes ago
So then what is your point? What you’re saying is that there is already a lot of trade and commerce with that region. Shouldn’t that continue? Why create new hostilities in a region that wants to further integrate. I do hope sane people will stop all this recent madness.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • a minute ago
I guess we’re basically talking past each other about totally different things. You’re talking about Trade I guess, mostly, but I’m talking about the need to preserve America’s cultural and racial integrity by stopping the flood of immigrants. I don’t despise Latin American elites or peasantry IN THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT. I think a lot of valuable lessons can be learned from the study of the Ancient AND Modern Maya—among other things, the value they have placed since the Spanish Conquest on resistance to cultural and racial assimilation.

The Maya of Yucatan and Guatemala are a great noble people. But that doesn’t mean they need to all move to Los Angeles. Out of heir historical physical environment and cultural historical context, I don’t think their nobility will survive any more than their culture. Los Angeles and Phoenix do not need to become Maya Cities—or Quechua cities or Nahuatl Cities for that matter.

Los Angeles has now the largest ZAPOTEC SPEAKING population IN THE WORLD…. larger than any city in the Zapotec Native (Mexican) State of Oaxaca. This is bizarre and perverse. The Zapotec will NEVER become real Americans but they won’t be real Zapotec anymore either. The Nahuatl (Aztec) speaking population of Los Angeles is not far behind. This is insanity. This is a perversion of nature.

And as for Trade, which seems to be your focus, I DO disagree with you if you think that NAFTA has been good for Mexico or that CAFTA is good for Central America.

Many if not MOST of our real racial problems, and especially those of Europe, come from the heritage of a Colonialism which was abandoned, not because the British and French and Dutch (or the Belgians or Germans, for that matter) FAILED at their enterprises of Colonialism, but because of the post-World-War II ideological shift….. towards communistic insanity and the demented doctrine of unearned freedom and meritless equality….

But NAFTA and CAFTA are essentially new Colonialist programs WITHOUT the benefits of Colonial Administration and Education. NAFTA and CAFTA have led to the mutual cultural degradation of North America AND Mexico and Central America…. and I applaud President Trump for his willingness to back away from these catastrophic enterprises (and to avoid new ones like the Trans-Pacific, which would have been the same only MUCH BIGGER and hence much worse).

Isolation leads to diversity…. and diversity leads to greater value in exchange…. So I think that we need to return to a world model where each region develops itself according to local traditions and environmental circumstances, and trade is an exchange of positive values developed in different regions, not moving plastics and electronics from cheap labor areas to expensive consumption areas.

So no, I think that fewer bridges and more barriers will benefit EVERYONE.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Funruffian • 20 hours ago
“To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.’

This wall is more than just Political theater and a way to stymie the bureaucratic onslaught of the Multicultural monster. This is a bold statement White America is making against the world who has intentions of undermining and destroying us. Many other nations have criticized America for years, but at the same token they want to reap the rewards and benefits America has to offer. I know that President Trump finds this attitude obscene.
16 • Reply•Share ›

South-to-North Immigration vs. Population & Cultural Stability & Continuity (Identity Crisis between Europe, America & their Southern Neighbors)

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

WILL THE WEST WAKE UP?

Pat Buchanan on immigration, riots: ‘Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?’

Published: 5 days ago

After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.

Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message:

“There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe.”

According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.

Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.

“We have institutional racism,” says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for “social change.”

Sweden, racist?

Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population.

Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?

The same day these stories ran, the Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.

Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan’s role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.

Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the USA, Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security’s radar.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.

One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.

The “national origins” feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.

But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.

They wanted to end America’s history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.

Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idee fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.

But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.

What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?

Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind.

Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.

And if we bring into America – afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars – peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?

The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.

A Message of Manifest Destiny from the Queen of Mexico and Empress of America: we should be one Nation in North America divided into many local sovereign counties or smaller subunits. Could the “Federalism” inherent in the titles of the Virgin of Guadalupe finally lead (after 163 years) to a truly Democratic-Republican United States of America and the restoration of power to the people throughout North America?

Queen of Mexico, Empress of America---is there a political message here?

 In California, one of the most tortured issues, whether one likes it or not, turns on the position of California as Anglo-Hispanic or “Global” by way of fundamental culture and identity.  Another slogan-like Title of the Virgin is “Madre de la Patria” (“Mother of the Fatherland”).   Still another is “La Morenita”, “the slightly dark-skinned lady”.  

From December of 1531—barely ten years after the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, when there were still enough remnants of the Aztec aristocracy, priesthood, and warrior nobility* (See Note Below) to have dreamed and perhaps even had some chance at a nativistic revolution against the Spanish—the Virgin of Guadalupe both physically embodied and symbolized the unique syncretism of cultures which is that which we call “Mexico” or “Mexican”, the culture of Anahuac and the race of Tlatelolco (the site of the final battle between the Aztec and Spanish in 1521, also the site of Sahagún’s bi-cultural “College” where the Aztec and Spanish aristocracy came together.

And now we face, whether we like it or not, in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and my native Texas, the question of whether the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was a mistake or not: whether the ultimate destiny of the Southwestern United States is Anglo- or Hispanic.  

The Mexicans are winning the birth race and the immigration race, despite the rather nasty political invective (by my fellow WASPS and Anglo-German descendants, primarily) against “Illegal Immigration”.   It was just pointed out to me yesterday by Melody Castillo Gillespie that, under that same Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there could have been no such thing as “illegal immigration” because the freedom to cross the border together with one’s property was absolutely guaranteed, even 12 months after the initiation of a new war between Mexico and the United States, and that Mexicans who acquired property in the United States by contract would be absolutely protected in their ownership on the same basis as other U.S. Citizens: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975 .  

I have often written on these pages about the strong historical connexions which exist between Anglo-American and Latin-Hispanic culture and history on this continent—especially but definitely not limited to the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.  

I do not, in any way, agree with the oppressive and homogenizing practices of globalism, but I see no realistic way to argue or maintain that the three Nations of North America do not share a common destiny.   I have lived at different times in the United States, where I was born in Texas, Mexico, where I have spent more time than any other foreign country including England (where I lived with my parents when I was a small child, until age 6), and Canada (where I have lived less time but from whose population I have derived several of the great and deepest friendships I have known in my life).   Crossing back and forth between the three countries of North America would seem to be a fundamental right of liberty, and yet it is one of the most hotly contested issues in America.

I submit that, if elected as a Senator from California, addressing these issues of historical identity, historical injustice, and ethnic affiliation and “destiny”, whether Manifest or not, will be one of the most serious issues I would address.  I fear and despise the “mainstream” Republican approach to immigration from Mexico which would perpetuate the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of hardworking economic immigrants and utilize all the injustices inherent in the modern American judiciary against people of Hispanic speech and “southern” North American origin.  But I equally despise the “mainstream” Democrats who would use issues of welfare and “entitlement” to social services and assistance essentially to wipe out Anglo-American culture and give a superior advantage to immigrants for the purpose of socially and economically destabilizing, and politically disenfranchising, the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-German, and general Anglo-European (non-Hispanic) population.

Local cultural and ethnic autonomy needs to be established throughout the American Southwest.  Counties, Cities, and unincorporated areas must be given, perhaps according to the principles of local determination for each geographically coherent unit of 100,000-250,000 people (“neighborhoods” in Los Angeles) that they can select their identity and structure the nature of government and laws to avoid homogenization by “majority rule” (especially since there is simply no genuine population majority along ethnic or cultural lines anywhere in the Southwest anymore, but especially in California).  

I would particularly suggest the devolution of legislative control over executive (police) authority and judicial decision-making to the county or municipal level in each and every area where this can conceivably be done, including but not limited to issues of family law, domestic violence, local property ownership and control, so long as all of these processes are subject to general and specific regulation by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the general precepts of the common law of contracts, property ownership, and the definition of (most) crimes.

The only way for such a process of political decentralization to take place is if the Federal Government abdicates its current policy in favor of increasing centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the government in Washington D.C..  If it is possible for the United States government to USURP unconstitutional power over all matters touching upon family, contract, and ownership of property, it should be possible for the United States government to RETURN that power to the states and local governments, to ABDICATE its central roles.  

Once again I recommend a recent book I read on one of the oldest constitutional principles uniquely designed for North America, in 1650 by Lord Baltimore, the founder of Maryland.  Carl Douglas 2011, “The Baltimore Principles“, Mesa, Arizona: the Arnett Institute.  This book clearly shows how Constitutional abrogation and tyranny can best be preserved by granting increased power to local governments through a system of vertically integrated bi-cameral legislations starting at the local and county levels, where the people vote for one house at EACH level of government, but the governmental representatives elect representatives to a SECOND house at EACH Level of Government.  

Full implementation of the Baltimore Principles would permit the devolution of local power downward on the vertical scale of hierarchy, thus permitting, at once, the equation of Federal (“Title 25”) Indian reservations with Counties or Municipal Governments as local sovereign entities while still preserving the Federal Nature of the United States, and even permitting such a process as the integration of all three countries in North America (subject to full open and honest plebiscite, NOT tainted by voter fraud or computerized manipulation) in such a manner as to maximize personal freedom, local autonomy, and abolish the injustices created by NAFTA and what amounts, in essence, to massive cross-border fraud, exploitation, and invited and fostered welfare dependency.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Note*And, yes, the Tenochca-Mexica clearly had a society divided into three functional categories exactly corresponding to those posited as diagnostic characteristics of Indo-European Soceity by Georges Dumézil.  This three-part organization (without direct Dumezilian reference) is most clearly outlined in Rudolph van Zantwijk’s 1985, “The Aztec Arrangement” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), although it was reasonable clear from Jacques Soustelle’s 1961 Daily Life of the Aztec, and indeed, directly from the organization of Fray Bernaldino de Sahagún’s 16th Century twelve volume Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España.”  

May 1, 2011—May Day—Any Revolution in 2012 Needs to Start NOW!

Lots of “New Age” books predict the beginning of a new era, or a radical transformation of global consciousness and awareness, beginning in 2012—roughly correlating one interpretation of the Ancient Maya Calendar to predictions about the future.  It happens that I studied the Ancient Maya, as my primary area of specialty, among several other ancient civilizations, during my years in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, 1975-1992.  By some weird coincidence, the Ancient Maya Temple most commonly illustrated on the dustjackets and covers of paperbacks about the transformations owing to the Maya Calendar is the Castillo at Chichen Itza, one of the most widely visited archaeological sites in the world today, which also happens to be the subject of my 1990 Doctoral Dissertation “Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan” submitted to the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University, under the Chairmanship of the late Gordon Randolph Willey—a true philospher king among professors if ever there was one.   In that dissertation I explored a great many things, from observations about linguistic terms, phrases in hieroglyphics, or stratified trash heaps and ancient house floors and pottery fragments which could never be interesting to anyone other than the most enthusiastically focused Maya specialist, to concepts like cycles of conquest and rulership articulated through metaphors of ethnic domination, on the one hand, and, on another three-part social and governmental organization as a universal principle of cultural, economic, and political evolution, ultimately leading me to a “natural law” theory of the United States Constitution.  I ultimately left archaeology and history because I felt oppressed by and in the real world, and a need to try to make things better—to challenge the corporate-governmental obliteration of the individual which, sadly enough, is something one can definitely feel operating on university campuses and in academics in general.  In short, I started my adult life on the half-island (Halbinsel, Peninsula) of Yucatan, and in the socio-cultural island of academics at Harvard, but I weighed life on that island and I found it wanting.  (Still, it makes an interesting introduction and theme to talk about running in 2012.  I will turn 52 next year, and 52 was a very significant age or era in ancient Mexico/Mesoamerica—the nearest thing to a “Century” in their calendar in fact, in terms of delineating historical time periods or eras.)

So I found out for myself that no man is an island (nor is any woman).  But in the modern world, insular thinking is promoted as socially useful.   We are all urged to act like atoms and to assume that we can live our lives unconnected to each other and to society.  We should accept our place in the world and just have as much fun or fulfillment as we can, and not try to change things.  I was born in 1960 and sometimes regret I was not born a decade or so earlier, because the decade of the 1960s, when I was just a baby, toddler, and prepubescent boy, was the last time people completely rejected individual helplessness.  Those who were either the children of WWII or post-war “baby boomers” born from 1940 right up until the mid-1950s seem to have had a chance, an opening, to see the world as “their oyster” and to try to remake it.  They believed in love and revolution.  In 1968 there was a world-wide student uprising comparable to few global events except for 1848 and 1918.  For the most part the radicals of the 1960s failed, but some of them were my teachers and professors in college, and their influence on me was huge, even if I only adopt their optimism and belief in the possibility of change, and not in their specific ideologies.

I think that the time has come for a new revolution, a new birth of freedom.  The world has grown progressively more stale and repressive throughout my life.  Selfish ideologies have been exploited by the state and corporate powers-that-be to destroy genuine activism, genuine popular political involvement, discourage real corporate consciousness, and above-all to weaken the family and small-community groups of every kind.

That the California elections of 2012 will be a largely non-partisan is a mixed blessing.  I see my own politics as more a derivation of the time of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe where the chief political party in the United States was called the Democratic-Republican Party.  I would rather see myself as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic affiliated with those third-fifth Presidents than any other political group in history.  I would admire Andrew Jackson without qualification for his abolition of the Bank of the United States, but he presided over and commanded the trail-of-tears and the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from my native South—and it is almost impossible to forgive him that particular offense, series of genocidal offenses.

So if I run for United States Senator in 2012, it will be as a Democratic-Republican Constitutionalist, and since there are no parties planned for the February 2012 election, I will just state my basic positions and as time goes by articulate the ways in ways and on which issues I would most strongly disagree with the incumbent, an extremely wealthy woman and entrenched establishmentarian named Dianne Feinstein.   Suffice it to say that she is active in the following committees and subcommittees, and my policies in all of these fields, shaped by my own life-experience based ideologies, are close to the polar opposites of Senator Feinstein’s:

Committees

  • Committee on Appropriations  (Feinstein Supports Every kind of Government Welfare and Bailout—supported by the twin pillars of confiscatory taxation and massive government borrowing—I oppose both)
    • Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (in particular—I would liberate the Food and Drug Administration from control by “Big Pharma”—so that “experimental” drugs available in Europe and Asia could be more readily introduced, at much less cost, than in the United States today—deregulation is competitive freedom but deregulation is also deflation of prices—deregulation is also REAL freedom because I would fight to end the war on drugs, repeal all Federal restrictions on the sale of “recreational” drugs, and release EVERY Federal prisoner convicted ONLY of drug-related offenses).
    • Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies  (The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution should no longer be the basis of 99% of Federal Legislation and Jurisprudence—the power of the Federal Government to invade people’s lives must be cut down to the “original” (extremely limited) concept of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce;
    • Subcommittee on Defense  (there is no greater set of welfare programs today for both corporate and private America than defense spending—this must end, or at least be radically curtailed until we can audit the foreign consequences of our recent adventures overseas, at least to the point of estimating the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as a direct result of American intervention and policies in those countries). 
    • Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development  (Known by the Anthropological and Historical name of “ORIENTAL DESPOTISM”–the original and most ancient form of governmental economic subsidies and social control through social welfare was through irrigation and other water-redistribution programs—these are, by and large, horrible perversions of nature and ecological disasters—no federal money should ever go to build or maintain dams—many existing dams should be torn down and decommissioned, their social and ecological consequences are so disastrous—and yes this means I would support a federal policy of de-urbanizing parts of Southern California)(The Opposite of “Oriental Despotism” is the kind of individual freedom that could come from non-centralized systems of electrical production which can even be produced at the neighborhood or family home level—including solar and wind power—diffusion of technology in these fields will clearly result in “a new birth of freedom” and the expenditure of governmental funds to educate and enable people to learn and control such technologies will ultimately lead to a diffusion of centralized power in each of the political and energetic and corporate senses).
    • Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Chairwoman) (The abuses of private property rights by well-meaning ecological programs can go on ad infinitum, and are close related to dependence on centralized power sources addressed and described above).
    • Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies  **(ALSO related to the decentralization of power sources described above).
  • Committee on the Judiciary (the Federal Judiciary has become callous and impervious to all but corporate interests—the Federal Judiciary must be restored as the bullwark for constitutional rights and individual liberties—of the common man and his family against the oppression of local oligarchies, what the authors of the Federalist Papers called “the tyranny of local majorities”—but at the same time the Federal Courts must be purged of political judges who serve the amplification of Federal Power and insulate the Federal and State Governments from accountability—Judicial Immunity must be radically reduced and restrained, and Federal Judicial review of governmental activities at both the State and Federal level must be afforded the power already implicit in so many under-used statutes relating to civil rights and governmental oversight).
    • Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts (“ditto”—repeat the above paragraph here—-Congress should prohibit the Federal Courts from requiring State Bar admission of any attorney applying to practice in Federal Court—a “bar admission” test at the Federal level is long overdue—and no requirement of graduation from an ABA Law school should be required either—any person who can pass a Bar Examination, oral and/or written, should be allowed to practice before any Federal Court, but the exams should NOT be graded by the judges before whom lawyers are meant to appear, argue, and whom they are hired to persuade).
    • Subcommittee on the Constitution (“ditto”—repeat all of the above paragraphs here—Congress should expressly repeal the judicial abstention doctrines including Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris—the private bill enacted to this precise effect for the sole benefit of Terry Schiavo should be made a public law of general application—the Courts refused to hear her case regardless, but if they get used to the idea that they are REQUIRED to take all cases within their constitutional jurisdiction—there might be many changes in the American Civil Rights Landscape).
    • Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs  (“ditto”—but especially repeat the paragraph above about ending the so-called “War on Drugs” and releasing all Federal prisoners who have been convicted of no factual crimes other than those based on drug-trafficking and/or ownership).  
    • Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees  (Another huge population of innocents inhabit our prisons—immigrants who came to this country with no more criminal intent than my own ancestors did—namely to make a better life for themselves—America cannot be a lifeboat for the world, but we cannot criminalize conduct which is inherently good—that by which people seek honest work to provide for themselves and their families—rather, we need to abolish the beacons of welfare and work-free social benefits which bring the least desirable immigrants in, and liberate business from labor controls and regulations which render American productivity all but impossible, and require that Americans depend like parasites upon the productivity of the rest of the world, many of whom respect our money only because of our military might and brutality, euphemistically called the “Full Faith and Credit” of the United States)
    • Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security  (Dianne Feinstein is one of the staunchest supporters of the 2001 Patriot Act, its extensions and amendments, the 2007 Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), and their predecessors including the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] which all but abolished the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States—I will fight tirelessly for the repeal or judicial demolition of all of these oppressive laws on the grounds of constitutional violation and infringements—FISA must be the first to go followed by the Patriot Act and AEDPA—No Longer Can America be Prison-Planetary Center of the World).
  • Committee on Rules and Administration
  • Select Committee on Intelligence (Chairwoman)(all aspects of the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Arms, Tobacco, and Firearms agency must rolled back or abolished; the Department of Homeland Security must be abolished; there is no constitutional authority for Federal Police Forces within the United States—only the foreign activities of the Central Intelligence Agency can be tolerated, and those must be made to conform strictly with the Law of [Civilized] Nations).

In short, compared to Senator Dianne Feinstein I am indeed a Red Revolutionary—and so I announce my candidacy on May Day, and ask for your contributions and support.   I will probably need to raise five-to-fifteen million dollars even to have a shadow of a chance.  Just by way of comparison, this is what Barbara Boxer’s Finances looked like—and she was a “shoe in” for reelection in 2010— last year (according to http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006692):

Cycle Fundraising, 2005 – 2010, Campaign Cmte

Raised:  $29,331,343 Sparklines Explanation coming soon
Spent:  $29,537,796
Cash on Hand:  $603,248
Debts:  $25,000
Last Report: Friday, December 31, 2010

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
EMILY’s List $366,637 $360,608 $6,029
University of California $97,890 $97,890 $0
Girardi & Keese $92,000 $92,000 $0
News Corp $75,400 $70,900 $4,500
Time Warner $71,850 $61,850 $10,000

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms $2,006,477 $1,862,106 $144,371
Retired $1,461,076 $1,461,076 $0
Women’s Issues $1,153,692 $1,122,797 $30,895
TV/Movies/Music $966,958 $876,158 $90,800
Democratic/Liberal $699,196 $676,740 $22,456

Now, even though I have a place right next door to UCLA, I doubt that the University of California will support me, and especially because I am a former lawyer, who opposes the State Bar and legal monopoly generally, I am unlikely to receive any significant support from members of the legal profession.  On the other hand, the Entertainment and Movie Industry?  Well, in the past five years I’ve dated one B-/C+ Movie Actress, one or two or three “models” and…. yeah there was that former swimsuit model from Israel too, but I suppose I shouldn’t really count on her support….ehem…..  Oh and for Easter I went to church with Tom Hanks….. so who knows?  Maybe he’d see a certain “Forrest Gump” potential in me…..and then again, maybe not……

But you see, unlike last year (2010), when I thought about running, as of this date I already have already spent the first couple of hundred dollars, having campaign business cards printed up and I have even given out a few dozen—starting last week on Easter Sunday, another day for which the color red is traditional—celebrating the Resurrection—which as I told people, is another metaphor for saying, “THE PEOPLE WILL RISE AGAIN.   Albeit that modern Easter Red is normally paired with white, though more with green than blue—in celebration more of the “Rites of Spring” and the reemergence of the green world than of “true blue” valor….  But it will take plenty of fool-hearty courage to go against Diane Feinstein and actually try to win/unseat her, in a non-partisan free-for-all.

I am a victim of several modern trends in law and politics, social engineering and credit finance, and it is for those reasons and because of those experiences that I am running:

(1)   Nine-Eleven years ago I lost my licenses to practice law in Texas, Florida, and California, in that order, due to the practices of Judicial Despotism and “Integrated” State-Bar Monopolistic practices—as a consequence I am against all schemes of state-professional licensing, all systems of state-regulated monopolies, and all restrictions on freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-advocacy, and freedom of expression and association.  Indirectly, but only indirectly, my professional setback also resulted from the increasingly totalitarian identity laws in the United States which make us all dependent more on our social security numbers than anything else—the disbarment pretext (since the Federal Judges who agreed and conspired against me couldn’t very well state that they hated me for bringing multiple civil rights suits on behalf of non-ethnic, non-minorities) was an indictment for misstating two digits of my social security number on an application for a non-interest bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank on Congress Avenue in Austin in November 1996—a mistake which was never noticed by the bank until United States District Judge James R. Nowlin (now retired, Western District of Texas) appointed an FBI investigator Nancy Houston to tail me for two years and find something against me, or else.

So I also oppose the social security system as a system of national identification, quite apart from my belief that as a system of social-welfare it has been catastrophically mismanaged and makes a mockery of honest government.  I have come to realize that the society security system is one leg of a triangular system involving the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Social-Welfare system, which together delineate the “Brave New World” in which we live, in which individual freedom (including individual identity), private property, the family, and capitalism are all simultaneously being wiped out in favor of atomized citizenship in a totalitarian-corporate-governmental oligarchy based on the polar opposites of common ownership and common dependency.

My proposed solutions are: (1) abolish the requirement that attorneys belong to “integrated State Bars” controlled by the Judiciary—in fact, abolish the licensing of attorneys all together eventually, so that judges have little or no control over the advocates who appear before them, (2) abolish the social security system all together—start over, if there is political will to do so, from scratch, or just let private investment and insurance take over the fields of retirement and income security—where these fail, I would advocate Christian Socialism—by which I mean that we should all follow the teachings of that certain famous Jewish Rabbi born in the time of Augustus Caesar who advocated that everyone should sit at the same table and eat the same bread and wine—and he urged people to do this against all social norms and governmental orders, rather than following them.  One need not believe in either his virgin birth or divinity to recognize that his philosophy is morally superior to state mandated redistribution of wealth, or that it is as morally consistent with Buddhism and Pagan Redistributive Feasting as with any other customs.

(2)    Not coincidentally, I think, the economic hardships brought about by my professional loss of standing and income triggered my exposure to a second round of disasters—namely in family and domestic relations law.  To make a long-story short, by September 18, 2002, I found myself in front of, and at the mercy of, another brutally despotic Texas judge, this time of the State Family Court variety, named Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Williamson County.

Judge Jergins epitomized everything that a judge should not be, and briefly summarized the abuses of our times by explaining to me that whatever he said to do or not to do was in “the best interests of the child” and that he considered any deviation from his orders to be “felony-level child abuse”, even when his orders concerned my speech to and communication with my then ten year old son Charlie about what HE considered best for him.
I have since realized that the most insidious welfare abuses are those committed by child-protective services and “state social engineer” judges like Jergins and their cohorts of guardians ad litem, attorneys ad litem, social workers, counselors, psychologists etc.

Over the past decade, I have developed a simple solution here also: the family courts must all be abolished, and the Federal Sponsorship of their “child protective services” through Title 42 Welfare programs simultaneous erased from the map of the world.   My work in Texas and Florida has convinced me of a simple truth: Family Courts and the regulation of the Family by the state is the antithesis of the spirit, if not the letter, of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as to the “impairment of contracts” clause of Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment.  So all family courts need to be abolished—marriage and family organization should be returned totally to the people and such private institutions as they wish to foster, be these Churches or Mutual Assistance clubs or anything else.  My late aunt Mildred on her death bequeathed away a large collection of fine fur coats to the benefit of a battered women’s shelter which accepted no state or federal funds at all, but existed only through private contributions.   In such settings, the government does not become an institutional terror which replaces private abuse with public abuse.

(3)   As a consequence of both my financial decline as a result of disbarment by a judge-run lawyer’s monopoly and my oppression by the family courts—I ran into the third problem set—loss of property through foreclosures resulting from predatory lending.  Mortgage finance abuse and redemption is in fact the field that occupies most of my time these days.

The solutions, again, are relatively straightforward but draconian in their impact on the banking and financial interest at the heart of the world Status Quo:  abolish all federal regulations permitting and promoting the securitization of debt—creating black ink out of red ink generates economic incentives almost as perversely counterproductive to social and economic well-being as the anti-production, hiding and evading ideology of the Federal Income Tax.

In short, we need a nation free from murderous foreign policies coupled with massive fraud, deceit, and deception at home.

In the spirit of the 1960s—“Let the Sun Shine, Let the Sun Shine In…” and in the spirit of earlier populists—let our Campaign Song be—“This Land is Your Land, this land is my land, from California, to the New York Island—from the Redwood Forests, to the Gulf-Stream Waters—this land was made for you and me.”  But above-all—

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!