People have often heard America referred to as a “melting pot” – a nation of diversity. This is an undeniable truth. People have come to America from all points of the globe. But until 1965 America was a unique culture that required immigrants to assimilate into its unique society. We did not ask that people forget their heritage or leave it behind. We did require that they leave their “culture” behind. After all, did they not come here to escape a failing culture?
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote in the Federalist Papers #2, paragraphs 5 & 6:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
Note that the people are “united,” by “speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” And before the Immigration Act of 1965 only people that came from similar cultures were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. But since 1965 we have been deluged with people from all cultures forming small enclaves within American society and fracturing the once stable American culture into many that all vie for power and resources.
An awakening has occurred, most notably in Germany and England, that multiculturalism does not and cannot work. For instance, in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has failed completely and is calling on the country’s immigrants to learn German and adopt Christian Values. She went on further to say: “We feel tied to Christian values. Those that don’t accept them don’t have a place here.” 
“British Prime Minister David Cameron horrified European elites when he recently proclaimed that multiculturalism has failed. The idea that all cultures are equal and that they can live happily side by side in one country is false. It just doesn’t work.
And Prime Minister Cameron knows all too well that Britain can no longer ignore the danger of growing and competing cultures within its own borders-cultures that threaten British institutions and British national identity. This is especially relevant in Europe today because of the difficulty of assimilating Muslim immigrants.” 
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…
“In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other.”—Alexander Hamilton
How can America protect its culture when we permit it to be overrun by people with different cultures – who import their own inferior cultures – and refuse to embrace American culture? The framers knew it would be impossible so Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 delegates to Congress the power to control immigration. But Congress failed us as it was insisted we had to let anybody immigrate. In 1965 the Immigration Act abolished the national origins quota system which had limited immigration to primarily people from a culture similar to ours. Dissenters of the Act were ridiculed and labeled as “racist” or “intolerant” – which is still a commonly used attack by subversives within our society today. Multiculturalism is intellectually indefensible. There is no logical argument that can be made in support of it as history demonstrates multicultural societies to be total failures.
Culture and Society go hand in hand. Culture needs society to sustain its existence and society needs culture to hold it together and survive. Language, government and other man made things are a product of culture. This is why we see immigrants form enclaves within our society. It is said they seek to “maintain their identity and heritage.” Which is just another way of saying it is a way for them to ensure the survival of their “culture.”
The result of these numerous cultures within America is that American culture must now compete for power within its own government as well as for resources. It is a fact that cultures compete for dominance in every country where cultures attempt to co-exist. Multiculturalism hasn’t worked anywhere and it’s not working in America.
The result of Western countries importing large numbers of people from incompatible cultures will only result in culture clashes as resources diminish. Conflicts between nations and groups of different civilizations will dominate global politics as we are witness of it in current time.
At this time, America is in great danger of a total loss of its unique culture. We are witness as the many cultures that have set up their own societies within America vie for power within the government. Most notably are Mexican and Islamic cultures that threaten the American culture as Mexicans call for what they believe to be “stolen lands” returned to Mexico and Muslims that simply refuse to assimilate into American society and call for the right of Sharia which is incompatible with American Liberty, Law and Justice – the very founding principles that made American culture so unique.
As I said, conflict will arise between cultures and this conflict will result in the American people saving their unique culture or seeing it come to utter destruction. The result is dependent on the courage of Americans to take a stand in protecting their culture from encroachment by these foreign cultures.
Please take note of this paragraph which demonstrates, once again, that guns reduce violent crime:
“The fact is, violence has decreased, safety is up, and the only place you can’t do that is Corps land,” the Oklahoma lawmaker said. “Corps land has more visitors, more rapes, more murders . . . than we ever had in the parks, but we can’t for some reason — for some reason they don’t want us to be able to express our Second Amendment right.”
U.S. Supreme Court
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
445 U.S. 622
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Argued January 8, 1980.
Decided April 16, 1980.
A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability. Pp. 635-658.
While reading the above, Owen v. City of Independence, I ran across a footnote that I found particularly interesting.
The footnote indicates that all public servants, elected or appointed, are liable for error when violating a citizens rights under Federal Law. Here, in Footnote 25, we have a unique opinion that makes even LEGISLATORS liable.
[Footnote 25] See, e. g., Globe 305 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (“But if the Legislature enacts a law, if the Governor enforces it, if the judge upon the bench renders a judgment, if the sheriff levy an execution, execute a writ, serve a summons, or make an arrest, all acting under a solemn, official oath, [445 U.S. 622, 644] though as pure in duty as a saint and as immaculate as a seraph, for a mere error in judgment, they are liable. . .”); id., at 385 (remarks of Rep. Lewis); Globe App. 217 (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
Do you see it? “But if the Legislature enacts a law…” and all that follows… “THEY ARE LIABLE.”
Here is a remedy for every bad law, every encroachment made and liberty stolen. If we hold them liable for what they have done and seek restitution … we may be able to roll back their ever advancing infringement on our rights which are guaranteed by the Supreme Law of the Land: The Constitution.
The public servants that believe they have immunity because they are following some “law” or “regulation” need to be put on notice that there is no such immunity for their error. This can be an important part of our arsenal in the protection of our Liberty. But I believe this process would hinge on specific use of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would be essential to include all pertinent writings regarding the intent of the founders for the particular right protected in order to establish without doubt that the Federally Protected Right has been violated.
Can State Representatives be held liable for violation of rights protected under Federal Law (the Constitution)? Why not? Could we not hold all responsible and file claim seeking remedy? Could a single case filed against a State Representative result in a recall with a special election? The possibilities are endless.
It is my belief that this could be a greater weapon when used LOCALLY to keep city, town and county public servants in line with the Constitution. As this remedy may be applied much easier locally and as it gains momentum it can then be applied to State officials. But this can be used immediately and effectively in all situations involving Law Enforcement Officers.
Your comments and ideas are appreciated.
We are at the threshold of a fundamental evolutionary change for mankind. As the articles, movies and pictures posted here have demonstrated, we have been moving towards a one world governing body referred to as The New World Order. There is a solution to the many problems our world faces. Please take the time to view this movie which addresses each of these problems individually, laying out the entire insidious plan for world domination and then reveals the solutions we can implement to change that direction and put an end to the machinations that would steal our Liberty and even our very lives.
For More Information:
May 19, 2010
There is a certain segment of the patriot community that consistently harps the chorus that we cannot change our system of government because the system is not the original intention of the founders of this free Republic. They chant that the system was hi-jacked and changed. My personal argument against their despairing outlook is that if the system were hi-jacked once it can be hi-jacked again … by us.
Of course, this is met with more despairing arguments such as the systems use of fraud during the election cycle and the vast amounts of money used to target the millions of malleable Americans which, even though disgusted and angry with the current state of affairs, are still unaware of the cold hard facts, the cause of these problems and the undeniable solutions.
As these disenchanted patriots move further away from the problems we face by disassociating themselves with the current form of government by use of various “paytriot” processes, there are many of us that have put on our gloves and jumped into the ring.
Through organizations like The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, The Tenth Amendment Center and the Tea Party we have been making excellent strides. These victories are not only becoming numerous but as visible as highlighted text. The writing is on the wall for the “establishment”.
Note the recent victories at the ballot box during this primary cycle:
Good Bye Arlen Specter! The fourth Democrat to lose a high profile race. And this loss comes in spite of his attempt to ride the Obama wave of popularity by changing parties in order to retain power.
Hello Rand Paul! And he is just one of many constitutionalist “Statesmen” that have joined the fray. A sound victory with more than 60% of the vote spells trouble for the status quo. The fact that Obama and his left leaning policies are not so well loved in Kentucky would make it appear to be an insurmountable task to stop Dr. Pauls march to the Senate.
As intended, there will be sweeping changes in the bodies that occupy both Houses… regardless of the money or fraud the “old guard” devotes to their efforts to retain the status quo. The “Obama” factor has become a liability as his popularity may not even be close to the numbers promoted by his adoring, boot licking media mouth pieces.
All the good news from the primary elections is just a small part of the battle. States are beginning to find their spine and are ready to stand on their own, making the hard choices and accepting the responsibility to deal with the burden and problems characteristic of those choices. Many local communities, Counties and States have passed legislation barring the enforcement of the Patriot Act, any amendments thereof and certain Executive Orders.
The ongoing efforts of the several states flexing their muscle include not only the “10th Amendment” legislation being passed in State Houses but also legislation designed to nullify the usurpation of State power by the federal government. Current nullification efforts include: Firearms Freedom Act, Medical Marijuana Laws, REAL ID, Health Care Freedom Act, Bring the Guard Home, Constitutional Tender, Cap and Trade, Federal Tax Funds Act, Sheriffs First Legislation, Federal Gun Laws, and Regulation of Intrastate Commerce.
The battle for Freedom and visible change in the political landscape continue in spite of the efforts of certain groups to bolster their numbers with insistent argument that participation in the “system” is futile. History is being made and these people will never be able to say they were a part of it. While others take to the work they stand on the sidelines believing the fairy tale that “if” they could swell their numbers they “might” be able to “apply pressure” that would bring about the desired change. (Note to those that have made this argument: After reading your argument here, doesn’t it sound a bit foolish?)
Personally, I believe these groups to be dead on regarding specific issues but totally disagree that participation in efforts to retake the government are futile. It is my belief that if the States really want to demonstrate the true extent of their power they should deny the Federal Government one of these powers. That power would be the right to issue a Passport. By reclaiming this specific right the States would be making the strongest demonstration of their Sovereignty that could possibly be made. And for those of you that do not believe the several states have the right to issue Passports I would say to you that you are ignorant of the form of government we live under. When I see a serious effort to promote the reclaiming of this rightful power by the several states begin in earnest… I will be one of the first on board.
But Please … don’t ever tell me that participation in these efforts to retake our government are an effort in futility. Join us. Fight the Good Fight.
April 21, 2010 – by Donny Shaw
One of the great political success stories of the past couple years has been the audit the Fed movement. Starting with an unlikely partnership between the far-right Rep. Ron Paul [R, TX-14] and far-left lawmakers Rep. Alan Grayson [D, FL-8] and Sen. Bernie Sanders [I, VT], the push to open up the Federal Reserve to a complete government audit for the first time ever (H.R.1207) has attracted more than 300 co-sponsors in the House and was included in the House’s financial reform bill that was approved last December (see the audit the Fed language in the context of the bill here).
But now that financial reform has moved into the Senate, the audit the Fed proposal has disappeared from the bill and there is virtually no talk of trying to put it back in. Instead, the Senate financial reform bill as written by Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd [D, CT] includes a section that looks deceptively like a Fed audit, but would actually do nothing to open up the Fed or remove the special audit restrictions that have allowed the Fed to operate in secrecy for decades.
For the rest of this article including the provision as it currently exists in the senate bill click Here.
Tue Mar 23, 5:50 PM
MIAMI (AFP) – In a sign of political battles to come, 14 US states filed lawsuits Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of health care reform just moments after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
Other states are expected to join the fight against the far-reaching reforms which could place huge burdens on state budgets. Many are also considering legislation to block a provision which requires most people to buy insurance or pay a fine.
“This lawsuit should put the federal government on notice that Florida will not permit the constitutional rights of our citizens and the sovereignty of our state to be ignored or disregarded,” said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.
McCollum, a Republican who is running for state governor in the upcoming election, said the federal government had no right to impose a “tax on living” by forcing people to buy insurance.
The historic 940-billion-dollar overhaul will extend coverage to some 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured, ensuring 95 percent of US citizens under age 65 will have health insurance.
The lawsuit filed in a Florida federal court calls the reform bill an “unprecedented encroachment” on state sovereignty by requiring states to spend billions on expanding health care coverage to the poor.
“This is not a partisan issue,” he told reporters. “It’s a question for most of us in the states of the cost it is to our people and to the rights and freedoms of the individual citizens.”
McCollum was joined by the Republican attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington, as well as the Democratic attorney general of Louisiana.
by Rob Natelson
If there were any doubt that our constitutional protection has been lost, that doubt should be removed by the congressional vote subjecting the personal health care decisions of every American to central governmental authority.
By an extremely narrow majority, the House of Representatives has crammed a profoundly unpopular and unconstitutional measure down the throats of the American public: And not only unpopular and unconstitutional, but expensive enough to virtually ensure our nation’s eventual bankruptcy.
Unless it is overturned, nationalized health care will complete the process of changing the Founders’ system of a government dependent on the people to one where the people are dependent on the government. Citizens will be thoughly re-molded into subjects.
The unseemly legislative conduct (the Founders would have called it “corruption”) leading up to the vote have communicated even to those previously not paying attention that federal politicians are now absolutely, utterly out of control. The majority in Congress has rendered it perfectly clear that there is no constitutional or legal restriction they will not violate.