(Or: The best counter measure, is too un-invite them.)
Let us talk about the “Horrible” illegal immigration problem in the EU. Today some 40 dead ones were found in a truck. We read many articles of 1000s arriving on the bankrupt shores of Greece and other countries. It is in our news, daily. Remember you see some of the millions of invaders in the USA, every day. Just look around. These invasions should not happen.
Some reports tell us that between 1999 and 2000 there were 3,600.000 home invasions in the U.S. Now this includes break-ins, burglaries, home rapes etc. Rooster knows two people who, were at a guest’s home for dinner, when the house was invaded, by thieves who threaten them and stole all their money, jewelry etc. That is two too many. In the US we clearly see and understand that unwanted entry into anyone’s home is illegal and scary. How come few seem to get upset if the invasion is hidden and many of the invaders are protected by their own Government? You older folks remember the 1944 movie “the Uninvited” with Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey. You younger ones recall the 2000 movie “The Uninvited” staring Mekhi Phlter and Mori Morrow. All shock movies dripping in horror. That is obvious what we think on the subject if it is within our walls. Somehow we are blasé about it if it is outside the house, but in the neighborhood.
Why is it that the U.S.A has not stopped its illegal invasion? Why is it that Europe just does not seem to be able to stop the invasion of 1000s and maybe millions of mostly Muslims from wonderful countries ruled by Muslims? Of course there are others. For example in the EU many are Christians fleeing Muslims. The question is still there. Why can these countries not stop the invasions? They call them migrations. Why?
Success is not difficult. It is time consuming and expensive, but not impossible. So why does it go on? All you have to do is gather up the invaders and deliver them back to the Country they came from. You keep doing that and pretty soon the invasion will become a random crossing. If the Country they came from, refuses to allow your boats to land, then you force the landing with war ships. You deliver them with a month’s supply of food. Point is you find a way to do it. Your Leaders should never allow it to happen. Why do they?
The answer lies in their political beliefs. Socialist/progressives/communists etc. are all one world believers. Borders are in their way for a one world happy family of home invaders. You see they do not see them as invaders, but as poor lost souls following the wrong set of beliefs. Most of Europe’s leaders are people of this belief. Even Merkel in Germany is a soap opera when it comes to these tough decisions. Clearly France, Spain, Italy etc. have no leaders who read history. If they did they would see the terrible things that happened to their countries when invaded by Muslim Armies a long time ago. Those same things will happen when this invasion takes its beach heads and moves further inland. Send them back to the Counties that born them. It is their problem and let them deal with it. It is not the problem of other Countries. If you wonder why Trump is leading in the polls, it is because he alone says he will close the borders and deport the illegals. Europe is desperately in need of someone to take Trumps example.
People with common sense understand what has to be done, but are a forgotten minority. Uninvited…. so to speak.

PROTEST: FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.
Wc 624
Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. 2015


(OR: Where & how you are born matters.)
Several Candidates for President are beginning to talk about the citizenship of babys born in the USA of parents who are here illegally. Those who argue such a baby must be citizens are the same ones who tell us the minute before a baby is born it is not human. This is just a hint that their logic may be flawed.
To understand the issue, we must know it is not solved by the Constitution. Second, we must know and understand significant court comment on it. The main body of the Constitution is silent on anchor babies. In fact it left citizenship to the States. Citizenship becomes a part of the Constitution only in its amendments. The birthright issue comes to pass only because of the existence of the 14th Amendment. Its language, which some argue says children of illegals are citizens, is as follows:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Obviously the above language does not mention children of illegal trespassers. At best it’s language is ambiguous when it says “ born or naturalized… and subject to….” What does “… subject to jurisdiction…” mean? If being born and naturalized was all that was meant then why condition that event, by “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”. Why was this condition added? Logic tells us that if we have no jurisdiction of an illegal, then we also have no jurisdiction of its baby seconds before it is born and right after. Illegals make illegals so to speak. The word jurisdiction must have meant something other than the power to arrest and deport. Let’s step back in time to learn the reasons the 14th Amendment was created in the first place. Certainly knowing what the writers had in mind should help logic and common sense.
Winning the Civil War was its cause. With the end of slavery three Constitutional Amendments were passed to hopefully clear up the citizenship issue of slaves. They are the 13, 14, and 15th.
Amendment 13: This simply removed Slavery and Involuntary Servitude and gave Congress (Not the States.) power to enforce it.
Amendment 14: This attempted to define Citizenship (see above) and specifically said no State could deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process and equal protection of the law. This reinforced the power granted Congress in the 13th. It went on to talk about apportionment and election of members of Congress. While at it the writers added that the US Gov. could not assume any debts of the Confederate States. Clearly the intent was the slavery issue.
Amendment 15: This was the final wrap up of the slavery issue by declaring a State could not deny votes based on race, color, or servitude.
Using common sense these three focused on slavery, its destruction, and feared resurrection. The issue of birth rights of illegal trespassers was not in the intent and was not in the mind of those who approved the amendments.
How did the Anchor Babe concept get pulled out of this ambiguous language? Well the Liberal members of our Supreme Court did the deed. The case most used as the source is “United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898”. The issue here was the citizenship of children born to people here legally, but not citizens. By the rules of interpretation this ruling should never have been applied beyond its facts. The Court did not have before it the issue of the parent’s illegality. Another case used as the fountain head is Plyler vs Doe (1982) where a footnote seemed to say that presence here legally was not relevant. Again it was an aside. It was not an issue clearly framed by the pleadings or otherwise before the court. This being so it should not be a ruling of the court.
The result is that there is no clear Court Case, interpreting the Constitution directly on the issue. At best, if the issue had been before the Supreme Court its ruling should have said the Constitution is silent on the matter. It is akin to Presiding Justice Roberts calling Obama’s Health Care, a tax. Justices sometimes pull issues out of thin air.
This means that Congress has the power to pass a law saying birth right means both parents, or one (If it wants.) must be legal citizens. Of course the pro-aggressives will appeal it, and finally, for once, the issue will be directly put to the Court.
Oh, yes finally the stock market is acting like a real market. Good luck.

PROTEST: FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.
Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. Aug. 2015


(OR: Look behind Bernie’s large crowds and ask, why?)
This Morning it was reported that the national tax income for 2015 is estimated to be Two and a half trillion dollars. The most ever. However the national expense is ½ trillion more than that. (500 plus billion for those in Isla Vista). The current national debt is 18 and a half trillion dollars and rising. If we spent all the annual income (impossible) it would take 10 years to pay off the debt. This terrible situation is because of Socialism. Just as with all Socialist experiments, if we continue, we will implode because the giveaway mentality will crush productivity.
The above is why Bernie Sanders matters. In one respect he is honest. He tells everyone he is a true blue Socialist. This means he will continue the above debt accumulation until our cornucopia is empty, like Greece and Puerto Rico are right now.
What we can learn from Sanders Campaign is awesome. Keep in mind the Democrats have a primary candidate who is a closet socialist. She does not pull instant or big crowds. Bernie’s are like Flash Mobs. By the thousands (27.500 in L .A. Portland 28,000: Seattle 15,000} these Socialist/ Democrats just appear out of the woodwork. That they show up in such numbers is what is important. Why and who are they? The why is because they are ardent Socialists? They are those brain washed by years of education failure. The who, is that they are mostly middle age and young folks. They are rushing to listen to an old white haired man, who looks his age, and speaks poorly. When someone takes his mic he lets it go. What attracts them is not the man. It is the fact that he is a card carrying, in your face, Socialist. What does this all mean? To the Conservative, this can mean only one thing. There is a tidal wave of Socialists out there ready to continue the destruction of our Republic. Let them find an American Lenin and there will be no stopping the plunge. Do not doubt me. They already have had nearly 8 years of rampage with Barrack. Most of you did not think sane people could vote for such a disaster a second time. They did. Their sanity is in question. The Conservative must understand he or she holds the life jacket in their hands. If properly handled it will save anyone, and everyone. If not we all will sink in the same cesspool of greed and entitlement. It will not be enough to win the next election. Why? Because a win will give conservatives only 4 years. We will be beset by debt problems, which makes any more time problematical. What is required is not only a victory but a meaningful reeducation of these hordes of thieves who stand at the gates ready to demand you feed them and take care of them. This then is the challenge. Is there one of the candidates who understands this and has the guts and fortitude to do it? The beginning could be as simple as denying Federal Aid to any School System that does not teach the merits of a Republic and the failures of Socialism. The second effort would be by advertisement handed out to TV and radio that do the same. The GOP candidates, Rooster sees, do not give much hope. Which one of them has said Socialism is a cancer of peace? Which one has said the greatest killers of their own people have been socialist governments? Which one of them has said Socialism destroys productivity? Which one of them has said the old order must be changed? Which one has said it like it really is? With Socialist stupidity failures around the globe you would think it easy to point this out. You would think pointing to Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Puerto Rico Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, etc. in your face, failures of Socialism, would be easy. No one is doing it. You would think telling people that the only thing they have to fear is free stuff, itself, would be on the lips of true leaders. It is not on the lips of those running. Trump, Cruz and maybe one other could, but will they? Think of this. China is stumbling and will fail. Germany is the strength of the EU. If it fails (Right now it is in decline.) who will bail out future members like Greece? If the USA fails there is no country or group of countries which could bail us out. Our chaos will be very personal.
PROTEST: FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG. It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution. Wc 678 Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use. 2015



Let us first look at the questions.  Somewhere in the Fox think tank they got it wrong.   They decided to attack the candidates rather than facilitate the poor souls up on the stage.   The stage was well done, but we could have used more meaningful questions on the burning issues of the day.  The general question of candidates non-support of the eventual Nominee was a set up.  They knew only Trump would raise his hand.  Meagan’s surprise attack on him,  about his views of women was especially wrong.   It was kind of like the question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”  Just wrong, that’s all.

Both events were pretty much the same in results.  No clear winner, but we did observe a bunch of folks who should get out of the way.   In the first debate only Perry stood out as a decent candidate. He was much improved over his poor performance when he last ran for the nomination.  Much has been said of Florina, as having done a fair job. Her answers were ok, but you should never forget that when she was head of Hewett Packard she did a poor job of leading, and was complicit in the general CEO rip off of large companies.  She also lost a major bid at election in California.  Track records are much more important than the words used in a debate.

The main event was handled about as well as can be done in a crowd.  Trump received the most screen time, and Ron Paul the least.  We could have done with a lot less screen time of the moderators.   Jeb Bush showed his true soft side personality.  His achievements in Florida were only fair on the conservative litmus test.   Carson is a good conservative and said the right things, but he to, suffers from a speaking voice that gets lost in a good wind.  Christie lost it on his response to being called for hugging Obama.  Cruz, unfortunately was avoided by the moderators and his questions did not let him shine in the small window they gave him.  Rooster likes Cruz.  His deeds are impressive as he battles the “Good Old Boy” network in the Senate.  He has the guts to go out front and do battle. Huckabee, a seasoned politician and political figure handled himself well, but Rooster is not impressed with his ability to call an ace an ace and demand performance of others.  Kasich’s answers were just what the main stream news folks love.  There was little that pleased the conservative love meter.  Ron Paul was pretty well sidelined, and out of the game.   We really did not get much information from him and the questions given him were weak.   Before the next debate he should comb his hair, and stand a little taller.  Rubio handled himself well.  Was he given a break, because of his Cuban history? Maybe.   Again however, his personality is not top-gun caliber.  Trump was Trump, the super salesman, with a big voice and larger than life handshake. The jury is still out on his conservative core beliefs.   There is a sinister campaign, being put out by the left, that he is a secret agent for the Clintons.   This could hurt him. If he does not get on it right now it will gather steam from the conspiracy types. Certainly he has some of the Reagan attributes, a voice you can hear and courage.  His donations to Democrat candidates will not sit well with the main line conservatives. It is way too early to judge him a winner.   Scott Walker did fine and his track record of standing up to the establishment and entrenched unions in Wisconsin is admirable.   Rooster just wishes he would find a capable speech coach, to help him raise his voice, open his eyes and sound like the combatant his record portrays.

Clearly this debate did not produce a dominate personality with strong conservative credentials.  The handlers and seconds have a lot of work before the next round.


PROTEST:  FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG.  It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.

Wc  677

Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use.  2015


(OR: Political mistakes, repeat themselves.)

For those who recall 78 records, there was something special about the sound and clatter  when the needle ran out of recorded space and began to flop  around in the center.  Suddenly you had a strong urge to make it stop.   So it is with historians, such as the Rooster, when he feels the sound and fury, repeated in Politics.  That sound and fury occurs when a society rotates from freedom to socialism, and back again. It is a cabal of whiners, lazy people, do-nothings, and greedy who create a society which takes from others to give to “ more deserving”.  This goes on until the producing victums re- take control once again.  They then restore individual freedom which includes free enterprise, free speech, freedom of worship, dignity to the human spirit etc.  The only controls they impose are those to control the evil ones.  There are a never ending supply of them.   All along the way the producers are attacked by the Cabal.  In time the cabal, like a swarm of bees will begin to win, and the merry-go-round resumes.   In short history has been a battle between the producers and the non producers.  In all of history, only once or twice has a government come along that has lasted a long peaceful time.   Like a merry-go-round there are different rides.  There is one for socialism, one for communisim, one for conservatism, one for destroyers, one for builders and so forth. Too often the change is swift and terrible   In the mix in different ways,  is the misuse of the ability to vote.   It is fine line between having your money taken by the vote of a 45 Cal. Pistol, and the vote of the majority around you.   In the final analysis what you earned is taken from you.   One is considered illegal and the other legal. The result can be the same.   One certain change for the better would be to control the misuse of the vote so that the legal does not have the same impact as the illegal.  That is to say, control the vote so that the voters cannot vote themselves a vacation and free stuff at your expense.

The best form of government is a Republic with limited democracy.   In a Republic the people do not have a direct say.  They cannot directly vote themselves candy.  Their power is filtered through representatives, whom they select by vote. This provides debate, aging of the wine, selection, and time to reflect.   Yet, the candy taking can be regained by voting in legislators who will get the candy for you.  This is happening in the United States today.

A significant  answer would be to root out conflicts of interest in the voting process.  In American, (which is going down the drain because of conflicts of various interest), it could be done and could be done peacefully.  The odds are against the latter, however.  One political observer and teacher after another has stated that Democracy is doomed once the voters discover  they can vote themselves money they do earn.  It is true, also in a Republic.  It happens when the voter votes in the candy taker.   In America even Social Security which the socialist government should have protected has  been given away to those who did not earn it It is a huge Ponsi scheme where the current payers are paying for the users and there is not enough left for the payers when they want to become users. In the non government arena men are sent to prison for this.   Food stamps have been thrown around like cafetti.   All manner of other welfare has been dangled in the face of the freeloader and producer alike.  Any mathematician worth his or her salt knows all the free stuff has a dooms day.   Any elementary teacher will tell you, nothing will be learned if the kids have the power to vote for what is next.   If there is a possibility  a free government to last a long time it must cast out conflicts of interest in voting.

In the Republican type, it would be relatively simple.   For example if you as a voter depend on governmental money for income, you have a clear conflict of interest in voting for those who hand it out.  Such a conflict should prevent your voting for any part of that Government.  For example a federal employee, or one receivning food stamps, or one otherwise being taken care of by the Federal Government, should not be able to  vote for federal officials.  They can vote for State and local governments where they do not have the conflict of interest.  The point is they should not be able to vote for the hand that feeds them.   The payment of taxes does not overcome the conflict, however the lack of paying taxes should be a factor.   If a person does not pay taxes to the Government they are to vote for, they should not be eligible to vote.  Of course it is a conflict of interest.  It is in their best interest to continue not paying their fair share

The elimination of conflicts of interest  would  curtail greed and self enhancement.  Voting for a Senator, a Member of the House, the President etc. would be limited to those who pay for that part of government which is applicable.

Of course this is not the total answer, but it would go along way to slow down the process of legal taking, otherwise known as theft.

PROTEST:  FLY THE BETSY ROSS FLAG.  It is the one flag where all the States supported the Constitution.


Rooster Bradford, gives up all rights to this article and seeks no compensation for its use.  2015