The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “constitutional law”

Defy! Defy! Defy! Florida Voter Purge Will Continue, Defying Federal Warning…

Let’s face it, there aren’t many states with enough gumption and courage to tell the federal government and Eric Holder to go stick it.  Arizona, and now Florida, are two diamonds in the ruff when it comes to having the guts to stand their ground, stand on principles, morals, ethics and clearly a solid Constitutional footing.  In fact, it is the federal government, led by the very corrupt Eric Holder, who is usurping their power and acting un-Constitutionally.  Case in point, Florida’s determination to purge its voting records of individuals who have no legal right to vote.  Why would the federal government demand Florida, any state, cease and desist from such a common sense idea as eliminating unregistered, and illegally registered, voters from the roll of legal, eligible voters?

The Democrat Party controls Washington right now.  They need votes to stay in power and control Washington.  There are simply not enough legally registered voters in Florida that are going to vote Democrat.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Hence, Democrats look for votes wherever they can obtain them, never mind the fact these voters are dead, animated, or illegal aliens.  But, with this warning, what exactly does the government think it can do, or has the legal and Constitutional right to do?  In other words, isn’t this warning just their way (the Obama Administration) of crying wolf?

This brazen, open and public tyranny by Democrats is a clear indication of just how desperate they are for votes, and how arrogant and smug they are to think they are above the law and the Constitution.  But Democrats always think they are above the law.  And as for the Constitution, they never liked it to begin with; never had a use for it, and always saw it as an obstacle to their socialist agenda.  Are any of us surprised that Democrats would stoop this low for votes?

And if you thought Democrats couldn’t stoop any lower (shame on you for not believing just how low Democrats can go) they brought out that old race card thing in their endeavor to paint Republicans as the villains.  Being black or Latino, or non-white (any “minority”) does not guarantee you the right to vote on that basis alone, nor does it grant you some special or unique extra-Constitutional privilege.

If you think you are “disenfranchised” because you can’t get off your lazy butt and go register to vote (which is free to you in most places) you’re only deluding yourself.  You will not delude the Constitution, nor will you delude the votes of legal and eligible voters by your sinister motives, your lack of initiative.  If you can’t legitimately make it out of your house on your own power to go register to vote – get help in doing so.  On the other hand, if you can’t legitimately get out of your house to vote, and you don’t register to vote – how do you defend yourself, and how do you still end up casting your vote?

There is, of course, no racism involved with this purge.  No disenfranchisement, except with those people who don’t have a right to vote in the first place.  Those are the people we want to disenfranchise from the voting process.  Florida has every right under the Constitution to purge unregistered voters.  That the federal government, under the direction of Eric Holder, at the behest of President Obama (who is undoubtedly being coerced by the Democrat Party) would make any attempt to tell Florida it can’t, means that either Democrats think they have enough power in the courts to threaten Florida with legal action or, at this point, being as desperate as they are, they just don’t care and are going for broke.

Either way, it shows how undeniably corrupt they are.  It also shows how shallow they are, how weak, feckless, pathetic and worthless they are having to resort to the race card and racism as their fundamental argument.  Democrats have no merits with which to stand upon, and their two left feet only have them traveling in circles.

In a sense, it’s both heartening and reassuring to see the Democrats so publicly excoriate Florida without warrant because their argument is so baseless, so off the wall, so patently juvenile and offensive it shows Americans for who the Democrats really are.  Aside from ultra die-hard liberals, Democrats have little actual support among Americans as a whole.

Florida’s defiance is breathtaking and encouraging.  And conservatives ought to rally behind Florida and any state that would uphold their Constitutional duties in light of an errant, deceitful, reprehensible government that is sorely mistaken if it thinks it can actually get away with such un-Constitutional behavior.  We sincerely hope Florida will stick to it guns and defy whatever nonsensical warnings from the federal government.  And if the federal government wants to sue Florida – if it thinks it has legal recourse and a case – it can always try.  However, with the election right around the corner, can they afford, can they risk, any more bad publicity?

Gay Marriage And Why The Majority Rules, Not The Tyranny Of The Minority

Where the United States Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the rights of minority are not infringed upon.  However, the Constitution is not vocal on every single “rights” issue the minority so passionately protests be inducted into the Constitution.  And where those “rights” do not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the minority seeks aid from Leftists and liberal activist judges to “reinterpret” (bend and skew) those Constitutional rights to include language that was never intended so that those “rights”, although they do not exist in the Constitution, become protected.  And while they are not protected explicitly by the Constitution, they are protected by those same liberal activist judges and courts, until they can be successfully removed, effectively blocking the right of the majority to overturn those laws.  In essence – it is the tyranny of the minority which is oppressing and suppressing the rights of the majority.  That is un-Constitutional.

How can you accept something, anything, as a “right” that does not yet exist?  Further, how can you protect that which does not yet exist?  The minority wants gay marriage, which does not exist as a right in the Constitution, (and therefore cannot be Constitutionally accepted and protected) to be Constitutionally accepted and protected nonetheless.  It is in that act of liberal blindness, and throwing lawsuit after lawsuit at every court in America, hoping enough lawsuits will “stick” (and that has been the case, especially with liberal courts) so that enough legal protection and cover for whatever “rights”, gay marriage notwithstanding, the minority advocates for becomes legally protected without ever having to actually be Constitutionally protected or pass Constitutional muster first.

The Left, invoking stare decisis, and the passage of time, and pointing to decided and established law as justification enough to keep such laws intact, becomes irritated and frustrated when those laws are challenged on their Constitutionality.  They further become heated when courts begin to dismantle those coveted laws, finding those laws, rightly, to actually be un-Constitutional.  When the minority is in the majority, in specific pockets of America (San Fransisco, for example) and they, as a majority in those specific locales, pass laws as a majority in their communities, those laws, by virtue of having been passed by a majority (although they represent a minority in the rest of America) become law.  That is Constitutional, and conservatives, although we may not necessarily agree with those laws passed, respect and uphold the right of the majority when they do pass such laws.  Why (and this is rhetorical for obvious reasons) doesn’t the minority have that same respect for the majority when the majority passes laws they, the minority may not necessarily agree with?

The Constitution protects the majority and the right of the majority to pass laws the minority may not approve of, or feel suppresses them.  Remember – the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority in many instances, but not every single “right” is Constitutionally protected.  In other words – if gays and advocates for gay marriage want gay marriage to be Constitutionally protected it will first take a majority in the House and Senate to support and pass a new gay marriage amendment and then send that amendment to the states for ratification, in which it will also take a majority of states to make that gay marriage amendment law.

Since there is not a majority in the House and Senate that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment; and since there is not a majority of states that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment, there is little hope of gay marriage actually becoming Constitutional law any time soon.  This does not stop gay rights advocates from trying to work around the Constitution by using activist judges and courts, in what can only be considered and construed to be acts of tyranny against the majority, to push through their gay rights agenda.

Every one of these attempts is un-Constitutional, and for all their “progress” when more conservative judges who are strict Constitutionalists begin replacing liberal activist judges, those laws will begin to fall, much to the chagrin to liberals.  And that “progress” will push them back.  Liberals, who deal strictly through emotions and emotionally based arguments (as opposed to fact based arguments) will never understand this.  Nor will liberals ever understand their use of hypocrisy and double standards, while it may assuage them, while it may comfort them, does nothing but show how shallow they are, and are willing to be.

In other words – what will happen when a majority of citizens in a state votes to legalize gay marriage in that state and the minority, those that still oppose legal recognition of gay marriage in that state, demand their “minority rights” supersede the majority’s rights and gay marriage be null and void on that basis?  Will the majority then recognize the “rights” of the minority?

Abortion Not (Just) A Religious Issue – It’s Terry O’Neill Who Is “Poppycock”

Unborn Baby-killer supporter (is that too strong?) Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, like most pro-abortion supporters lives under the delusion that only religious people are, or would ever consider being, anti-abortion.  While it is probably true that most non-religious people would support abortion just as most religious people would be opposed to it, religion in of itself is not necessarily the only, the over-all driving force, or most important factor, behind ones pro-life motives.

What is?

Liberal vs. conservative ideology.  In other words, the vast majority of self avowed liberals, including those who describe themselves as “religious” are pro-abortion.  Whereas, most self avowed conservatives, including those who describe themselves as “non-religious” are pro-life.  Most non-religious people lean towards liberalism, as most religious people lean towards conservatism.  However, most liberals leans toward being pro-abortion, just as most conservatives lean towards being pro-life.  Religion, in this sense, is irrelevant.

Conservatives value human life, from the moment of conception, throughout one’s life unto death, and beyond, and are willing to make sacrifices in order to protect and preserve life which liberals are not willing to make.  Sacrifices which include giving up, or postponing, one’s ambitions in order to care for a new child.  Most often this burden falls on the woman who, if she is working, must give up that position.

Liberals, and especially liberal feminists like Terry O’Neill, despise and loathe the idea of women having to succumb to such an “ordeal”, to anything that would lessen their ranks and numbers in the workplace, that would revert them back to “homemaker” status.  Feminists see this as “going backwards in time”.  This is why they fight so fiercely for abortion, for the right of a woman to “choose”, for the right of a woman to end her pregnancy by terminating (killing) the unborn child within her that, if allowed to live, would hamper and strain the new mother to no end, stall or prevent “progress” and ‘equality” for women.  It is so much easier to just kill the unborn child, from the liberal point of view.  Even from the religious-liberal point of view.  But not the conservative point of view.  Or even the non-religious-conservative point of view.

That is why liberals neither put value on unborn life, nor consider, or would consider, an unborn child as a human life.  If they ever did that, their entire pro-abortion, “right to privacy”, a “woman’s body” argument would be ripped to shreds.

And it is why O’Neill would have this to say about abortion, the Catholic Church and any federal regulation which would intrude on a woman’s right to “choose”:

“[F]or a bunch of men who, forgive me, don’t get pregnant and who refuse to allow women into their own ranks of leadership, to presume to say that they can make a thing that has a conscience that trumps the conscience of an individual woman is simply laughable, but in a sad way.”

So, O’Neill is revealing not only her anti-Catholic bigotry, but her overall condemnation of the “thing”, as she describes the living fetus.  And she is using religion as the basis, the foundation, for her discontent and for the obstructionism which she contends is coming only from the point of view of “radical and “extremist” right-wing religious fervor, which feminists and liberals always do.  But this is where she is wrong.  It is not coming just from the religious aspect.  Mostly, but not entirely.  The pro-life sentiment comes entirely from the conservative aspect.  For, it is conservatism which attests that the value of human life “trumps” an “individual woman’s” right to end that life.

O’Neill is saying here that it is “unconscionable” not allowing a woman to legally abort her unborn child because it could potentially represent regress to that “individual woman” and therefore, from O’Neill’s point of view, harm progress for all women and “women’s rights”?  Didn’t Nancy Pelosi have that same problem, not too long ago, with the Catholic Church?  And somehow we are to believe O’Neill, a liberal and a feminist, has more of a conscience than a pro-life conservative, religious or not.

O’Neill’s statement came in response to a reporter’s question about NOW’s support for a new federal regulation, issued under President Obama’s health care law, that will require all American Catholics as well as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

O’Neill’s war with the Catholic Church and religion goes beyond its opposition to abortion, but is heavily centered around it.  And using the First Amendment, freedom of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment she attacks Catholic Bishops who would fight to retain their own right not to be forced by law to dispense contraception or pregnancy ending pills to patients who might want them.

“In fact, any restriction on women’s access to birth control violates that individual woman’s right to the freedom of religion under the First Amendment; violates her right to the equal protections of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; violates her right to privacy under Griswold vs. Connecticut; violates her right not to be discriminated against in the workplace in violation of the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and violates her rights under the Pregnancy Act”.

However, her contention that it is religion, and only those who hold religious values, which is in the way of the “progress” women have made is misguided.  Devout, religious Catholics working in hospitals, of their own free will, have bound themselves to the concept that contraception equals the destruction of an embryo, which at that stage has conceived life.  But there is a vast and fundamental difference between something taken which prevents a pregnancy from occurring, and something taken after the pregnancy has occurred, which ends, terminates (kills) the pregnancy already underway.  This isn’t merely a religious concept but a scientific one as well.  Science has shown conclusively that life begin at conception.  Therefore, religion is out of play and conservatism, religious or not, and the value we ascribe to life, replaces it.

If her argument against Catholic based hospitals, publicly funded, was merely with a pill to block the pregnancy from occurring, O’Neill would have a point.  The sperm itself is neither a life nor a human life, but merely the vessel in which is contained the information for building life.  Likewise, the egg is neither life, nor human life, but merely where that life will be housed, built and ultimately created once the sperm (the vessel) reaches it.

Look at it this way – the average male produces hundreds of millions of sperm on an ongoing basis, and many times that throughout his life.  If each individual sperm really was a life, and human life – and if God (or any Creator) actually does exist, and cares deeply about life, its sanctity and value, to the highest regard, why allow billions, hundreds of billions, of sperm to simply die in the process of finding their way to the egg during intercourse?

The same holds true for the egg.  A woman, on average, ovulates every month.  During ovulation a new egg is created.  12 eggs a year.  If each individual egg was a life, and a human life, why would God allow for the destruction of eleven those eggs?  All twelve in a given year if there is no intercourse.  Consider the vast waste of sperm and eggs!

And while private Catholic, or any religious based, hospitals ought to have the right not to dispense medication counter to their beliefs, those which are public, and funded in part, or entirely through taxpayer dollars, have an obligation to the entire community.  However, public or private, any hospital, religious or secular, with regards to its employees, needs to retain their rights where dispensing life ending medication (contraception) is concerned.  In other words, any hospital, and any of its staff, need to retain their First Amendment rights to not provide to any woman any contraception, including condemns, which conflicts with their own personal religious values.  If a woman goes to a public hospital for contraception she needs to find someone who is not bound by religious doctrine who can help her.

But O’Neill’s contention is that all hospitals, and all its staff, ought, and need, to check their religion and their religious values and convictions at the hospital’s main entrance door.  This is more than wrongheaded – it is unconstitutional.

In fact, the Obama administration has an obligation to allow every individual–individual faithful Catholic–to make her own mind up about whether she will use birth control and whether she will have an abortion. That’s the Obama administration’s obligation. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ claims that institutions can have consciences–that’s poppycock.”

What is “poppycock” is that statement and this one:

It [allowing hospitals a waiver from being legally compelled to provide contraception] violates the law, six ways from Sunday, to put any kind of restriction on it.”

What is “poppycock” is her long held war on religion, her ongoing war with Catholics, and Catholic Bishops in particular, and her ascertain that there is a fundamental constitutional right for any woman to have access to any form of contraception which is designed solely to end a pregnancy; and that hospital staff, religious or not, who are pro-life, by law, and under penalty of fine, firing, jail or anything else, must dispense it to women.

What is “poppycock” is the idea that religion is in the way of a woman’s “progress”.  What is “poppycock” is the idea that abortion itself is “progress” for women.  What is “poppycock” is the idea that liberalism, liberal feminists and all pro-abortion supporters “trump the conscience” of conservatism and conservative pro-life supports, religious or not.

That is “laughable”.

Activist Judges Are Traitors; Allow Sharia Law, Radical Islam, To Override American Law

Although there is nothing within our Constitution which supports any American judge’s right or prerogative to look elsewhere when deciding a case before them, outside the Constitution, and outside the United States of America, liberal, activist judges have been getting away with it for decades.  Now comes word an activist appeals court in Denver has invented a way for radical Islamic Sharia Law to seep its slimy way into America.

The Denver court came to this heinous decision after the anti-American group CAIR (Center for American Islamic Relations) filed suit against Oklahoma.  Seventy percent of its people had previously passed a state constitutional ban on Oklahoma judges using international law, including Islamic law, when deciding cases.  CAIR saw an opportunity to further weaken American law and force Islamic Sharia law on all Americans and took it.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

Said Awad:

This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact.”

The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

There cannot be two sets of laws for Americans.  There cannot be one set of laws for Muslim Americans, and another set of laws for the rest of Americans.  We all live under the U.S. Constitution, not the laws of another nation, and certainly not a dangerous, barbaric, inhumane, evil and deeply zealous and radicalized religious doctrine which has no basis in either American law or reality itself.  If this decision is allowed to stand (and it will be appealed) it will set a very dangerous legal precedent in America which will topple our Constitution and make it obsolete.  If Muslims can have their own set of laws, in place of the Constitution, it is inevitable, then, other groups will petition to have their own set of laws as well.

How in the hell can a nation function with multiple sets of laws, when judges are able to look beyond our Constitution and pick and choose from established laws set in other countries?  If that is allowed to happen, what will prevent judges from simply deciding cases based on their own personal opinions, beliefs and biases?  What happens when a judge must decide a case on a particular day he/she woke up on the wrong side of the bed?  Judges are supposed to be impartial.  Judges are supposed to look no further than what law has been established in America by American lawmakers, and by the American people.  The U.S. Constitution is supposed to be the final authority, not the constitution of Iran, Cuba, China or the United Nations or anywhere else.

Imagine if a judge in Iran, Syria or some other nation where Islamic Sharia law is LAW, and said, “Well, this American law is better than the law we have here.”  He’d be stoned to death.

And yet, there is an audacity, and a disturbing arrogance among a growing population of Muslim Americans who desire to be governed by Islamic Sharia law, rather than American law.  Who the hell do these people think they are?  And why are more of us not as outraged over their actions which, if successful, will destroy the fabric of our Constitution which is already being attacked and ripped apart by liberals, leftists and socialists in America.  If Sharia law is allowed to be established in America, every evil tame committed in the name of Sharia law elsewhere in the world will be committed here.

There will be the stoning of women and girls who are accused, falsely, of infidelity, adultery, sexual inadequacy, or any other excuse male Muslims have in getting rid of them.  If you are gay, and you thought Christianity was your enemy, just wait until Sharia law gets through with you.  If you are a Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity, under Sharia law you will murdered as well.  And what happens when these Muslims start killing Christians and Jews living around them?  What happens to these Muslims who, although they commit murder under American law, under Sharia law they are fully protected?  If Sharia law is allowed to co-exist with what is left of our Constitution, our Constitution will not be there to protect anyone living under Sharia law, or outside it.

Look at it this way.  Sharia law is guided by the Qur’an and what Islamic Imams interpret from their Holy book.  Now, suppose Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed tried to get a law passed which would allow for American law to be guided by the laws of the Old Testament in the Christian Bible.  We don’t have to imagine the outcry which would result.  And yet, the same useless looney tunes on the left which hate Christianity with a passion, enough to make Satan jealous, are silent on Sharia law.

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death.

This is absolute B.S.  Unless he wants his wife and daughters buried alive with him, or for some other malevolent or violent outcome to befall his family, American law is not going to interfere with his life or the execution of his will.

Muslims who immigrate to America, and become American citizens, like every other immigrant, have an obligation to embrace all things American, including American law.  But when they start coming here and demanding we embrace their nation’s laws, especially if those laws are barbaric and inhumane, they can go to hell.

Ladies and gentleman – we have a war on our hands.  What is going on in America with regards to the weakening of our laws is real, it is dangerous and it is treasonous.  It is not something to take lightly.  Activist judges who use their power to establish law outside of our Constitution, from laws established elsewhere in the world are traitors.  CAIR, the ACLU and all the leftists and liberals in America want us to do nothing about this.  Because doing nothing allows them to move forward, freely, unhindered with their anti-American agenda.

When they succeed you will not have freedom of anything any longer because the Constitution, our Constitution, which guaranteed freedom, liberty and independence will no longer exist.  Sharia law will have taken its place, or some other legal precept.

And if you try to stop it only after it takes hold, under Sharia law, right here in America they will kill you, the same as they do now in every other part of the Muslim world where Sharia law is the LAW.

There is yet time to stop CAIR and other anti-American groups from destroying America.  But only if we do something.

Will we – do something?

Silly Hispanics – America Is For Legal Americans (And That Includes Alabama)

What does it mean to be an American citizen these days?

That is the question which is being asked everywhere in America where local and state governments are passing laws to deal directly, and more strictly, with illegal immigration.  Alabama is the latest state to draw attention, and fire, for asking this question.  Sadly, up until the 1980’s this question never needed to be asked or addressed.  From the time of our country’s founding, until Ronald Reagan made the worst mistake of his Presidency and signed into law an amnesty for three million illegal immigrants, we knew exactly what it meant to be an American.  No lines, no shade or shadows in the law in that regard.  And once Reagan signed that law, he unwittingly opened up a Pandora’s Box.

As Arizona, Alabama and other states try to put the lid back on that box, liberals keep removing it, opening up new holes around it to ensure illegal immigration into the United States continues unimpeded.  Why?  Votes!

In today’s society we have reached critical mass.  Because of liberal intervention, because of their continued assault on, and dismantling of, our laws and our Constitution, it has become virtually impossible to ensure all people in America, citizens and non citizens alike, are here legally.  Most definitely they, liberals, have made enforcing our laws uncomfortable, to the extent it isn’t worth the hassle or the bother for many in law enforcement, or in politics, to uphold their sworn duty – if in upholding our laws it makes their jobs and their lives that much more difficult.

Why should someone, anyone, who is in America illegally, and knows it, at all times not be in constant fear they will be caught?  Why should someone who is here illegally, and caught, not expected to be deported?  Why, rather, should someone who is here illegally expect, demand as it were, to be protected, coddled and afforded the same rights as an American citizen?

Because, according to liberals, to not grant these rights and protections to illegal immigrants is tantamount to racism.  Make sense?  Also, according to liberals, not only is it asking too much to ensure all people in America have a legal right to be here, the question itself is so audaciously controversial and racist it ought not to be asked at all.  They, liberals, have latched themselves part and parcel to so called “immigrants rights” groups who demand equal status, guaranteed Constitutional rights and protections for people who are in this country illegally, aligning themselves with others in the Hispanic, Latino and Mexican communities in and around America who have a blatant disregard and hatred of America and American law.

This stench, this seething, bubbling, rotting, deep-seeded arrogance that many in the Hispanic, Latino and Mexican community have and espouse towards American law, and therefore America itself; their unfounded, misplaced bitterness; their errant, misdirected, hypocritical vitriol continues to rattle ones intellect.

We recognize the fact that there are decent, law-abiding and upstanding Hispanics, Latinos and Mexicans who have immigrated to America in order to make a better life for themselves and their families – and have done so legally.  We have always commended them.  We also recognize the fact that there are many millions of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexicans who have come to America for jobs, education, healthcare, etc. for themselves and their children – and have done so illegally in order leech off the hard work of law abiding American citizens.  We further recognize the fact that liberals have a vested interest in seeing illegal immigration into the United States continue.  We have always condemned them, and their actions, and we will continue to fight them everywhere they attempt to rip our Constitution and our laws to shreds.

Alabama has passed one of, if not, the toughest anti illegal immigration bills in the country in response to a growing illegal immigrant population into its state.  As a sovereign state, Alabama has the right to pass such laws, as do all American states.  Other states are looking very closely as to what happens with Alabama’s law.  What the courts ultimately decide will have a direct bearing on the action these states take to protect their own borders from unwanted, unregulated illegal immigration.

As it becomes apparent to supporters of illegal immigration that the courts have sided with Alabama, and against them, they have ramped up their campaign, using the civil rights movement of fifty years ago as their stage, comparing the plight of black Americans (who were Americans to begin with) as their spring board.  In other words – these pro illegal immigration groups have sunk to a new low.

If Alabama’s law is ruled unconstitutional – which it is not – by a judge or a court that does not respect rule of law, or our Constitution, then it will open up the real possibility for an influx of illegal immigration into every state in the Union.  If Alabama is blocked from protecting its state, its borders, its legal citizens, it means illegal immigrants will legally be able to attain free housing, free education, free healthcare, jobs, and all the protection and rights we as American citizens enjoy and pay for, at our expense as taxpayers.

If that happens, then the obvious question still needs to be asked.  What does it mean to be an American citizen?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: