Changes in regime are always a little dangerous.  We can never fully predict the future of a change in regime, whether it be in the United States, France, Russia, China, or Iran.  With the presidential and legislative elections for the US coming up later this year, a regime (or ‘administration’) change could happen.  With multiple Republican candidates battling it out, even the outcome of the primaries is quite uncertain.  And, quite frankly, some of the candidates scare me.  I think that every voter needs to make sure that they are fully aware of the stances the politician they favor has on certain issues, such as foreign policy towards Iran and China.

But it is not just the United States going to vote and having transitions in government.  A third of the world’s nations will have elections or governmental transitions this year, including 4 out of the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (US, France, Russia, and China).  Although the main focus of the 2012 election for the US will likely be on the economy, we should endeavor to take note of what other transitions will occur this year.

Egypt is a notable nation having elections, following the overthrow of Mubarak.  The parliamentary elections will take place during January, February, and the beginning of March, and presidential elections are also going to be later this year.  So far, it appears as though the Muslim Brotherhood will have the greatest amount of support in that country, which may drastically change US foreign policy towards Egypt.  The Salafi-al-Nour Party, which claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is just like all other parties and does not really adhere to Islam, is also becoming surprisingly popular (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/04/egypt_s_salafi_surge).

Russia’s presidential elections will be on March 4.  Although Vladimir Putin is expected to win, he is facing unexpected protests and opposition, which will likely continue into his third term as president.

China is going to have a transition to the Communist Party’s 18th Congress.  This new government will have to deal with a faltering economy, social unrest spread by the Internet, the political transition in North Korea, disputes with neighbors, and a US garnering further attention in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mexico is having an election, influenced by the drug cartels and the failing drug war launched by the current president.  The results could effect the relationship between the US and Mexico, as well as Mexico’s relationship with Central American nations, where the drug war has begun moving.

Iran is also going to have a parliamentary election, the first polls since the disputed 2009 election.  These elections will pit the supporters of the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  With current events (war games in the Persian Gulf, threats from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, and the approaching of a nuclear-armed Iran), the relationship with the US could change drastically following both nations elections this year.  I recommend that particular attention be paid to Iran this year.  (I may follow up this blog post with one solely on Iran in the near future)

2012 is set to be a big year.

Articles of Interest:

Stances of Candidates in Relation to Foreign Policy:  http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/campaign-2012/pr1576

It’s Not Just Obama:  20 Elections that Could Change 2012: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/30/2012_global_elections

There is an all-out civil war in Libya, with NATO forces continuing to perform air strikes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576364910965100534.html

Yemen appears to be next in line for a new regime. The president of 33 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has left the country to seek medical treatment.  However, he still refuses to give up power at this time, despite internal and international pressure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/8557926/Yemen-rejoices-as-Ali-Abdullah-Saleh-flies-abroad-for-treatment.html

The brave pro-democracy citizens of Syria have continued their protests despite increasingly deadly and bloody attempts to silence them.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/syrian-snipers-fire-as-protesters-retreat-20110605-1fnel.html

In Egypt, there are already calls for a second revolution.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m31.shtml

24 hours later, President Obama advised Mubarak to step aside, which he did, in a sense, proclaiming that he has chosen not to run for reelection in the upcoming September elections.  The protesters are being told by the Egyptian military to “go home,” but the Egyptians are not convinced that they will get the reforms they seek, especially while Mubarak is still in power.

Also, in other Middle East news, following the riots in Tunisia and Egypt, King Abdullah II dissolved the Jordanian government in the face of small riots in his own country and established a new prime minister, boosted economic opportunities, and gave Jordanians greater political power.  The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t believe the change is enough.

And to continue the turmoil, today Ali Abdullah Saleh has responded to protests against him in his country by announcing that he will not remain in power nor turn over power to his son as previously intended.

Wow.

Keep an eye on the Middle East turmoil.  History is in the making – and no one knows what the result will be.

“Decades of frustration, borne out of police brutality, systematic corruption and desperate poverty, exploded into revolutionary anger overnight. And the bad news for Mubarak is that this anger shows no sign of abating” (Bradley, Daily Mail).

And Mubarak is refusing to step down, despite the pleas of the people.  Instead, the police and military have been mobilized against the protesters, and the death toll is already above 100.

And throughout these riots, the White House has claimed its neutrality, a shocking contrast to the America of the past where freedom from dictatorships was who we were.  We believed in freedom.

Thus far, Americans have not been targeted as part of the protest, but it will not be long before the Egyptian people, and perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will use this to their advantage, realize that a main reason Mubarak and his government have remained in power so long is support from the United States.  As we do so often in our recent history, the United States has backed yet another dictator over the freedom of its people.  Other examples in the Middle East are the Shah of Iran after the CIA/MI6 overthrow of the Iranian democratic leader and (ironically) Saddam Hussein.  America’s more recent track record doesn’t bode well.

With America being such a great ally of Egypt, one must wonder who America is friends with – the hated dictator or the people of Egypt?

America was founded on an uprising against a King and Parliament who overtaxed and treated the colonies like a group of second-class citizens.

The people of Egypt have been the victims of brutality (example: a 13 year old boy beaten and raped by police for suspicion of stealing tea), vast corruption, and censorship.  Egypt has out up with more than our Founding Fathers did before they chose to retake their freedom.  And yet the President of the United States will not choose to support the protesters and the freedom of the Egyptian people because of political bounds to the dictatorial government of Egypt?  What happened, America?

Why has President Obama said that protesters have the responsibility to “express themselves peacefully”?  Think about it.  Expressing yourself peacefully in a regime that throttles the press, arrests and beats citizens without cause, and Obama would have them express themselves peacefully?  President Mubarak has already closed all routes of effective expression of opposing views peacefully.

And as history should teach us, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” (JFK).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1352090/EGYPT-RIOTS-Hosni-Mubarak-beware-comes-next.html#ixzz1Ci1Y2qEo

Even the imperial British government did not withhold as many rights, take as much hard-earned money, or spy so intently upon the citizens of the colonies.

We broke off from the British Empire because we were not given the full rights as citizens.  We now have far fewer freedoms, far less independence, and we pay far too high a cost, all for supposed “security.”  Look at our borders.  Look at how not even the states themselves are being permitted to protect themselves.

Look at how you can’t properly protect yourself.  Look how you don’t really own your own property, nor even the money that you work hard to earn.

Nor even that backyard garden, apparently:

(fortunately, this bill seems to keep getting more and more of it struck out)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510

http://www.federalobserver.com/2010/08/07/sb-s510-will-allow-government-to-put-you-in-jail/

Is this what we wanted?  Where is our freedom?

This is, at best, conscription for service to the federal government and, at worst, forced slavery upon the American population.  College does not get your service postponed, unlike the draft, if the government and/or President requires the service from you.  The President can declare a national emergency and have complete control over the 18-42 year old population of America.

What do we owe the federal government?  We have a federal government in order to protect us, our property, and our rights – but they are not protecting us.  The Southern border is being overrun, the federal government unjustly and illegally takes great portions of the money we earn, and they constantly instate new laws and regulations that limit our rights.

The Founding Fathers would be furious and horrified by what our once great nation has become.  We are slaves to our government, instead of the being the free peoples we ought to be.  The colonies broke away from the most powerful empire in the world because they were not given proper representation in the government, and because their rights as human beings (and British citizens) were being violated.  Now our rights as American citizens are being violated, and have been grossly violated for generations.

Now I ask you:  what are we going to do about it?

Read this preposterous bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5741

1. The very first thing on the legal challenge reads “In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”
   1. According to the Tenth amendment to the United States Constitution, any power not given to the federal government through the constitution, is reserved to the states respectively. The Constitution as it stands, does not give the government authority to force a state to allow illegal immigrants to reside in its own state respectively
   2. The Supremacy Clause is about the Federal Government being able to make treaties with foreign countries and requiring the recognition of these treaties in all states within the union. There is no treaty that requires a state to allow illegal immigrants to stay within its own state, so this point is null.
2. The second point in the challenge starts by reading “In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”
   1. This is incorrect; however, in United States Code Title 8,1227, there is a list of deportable offences. These include criminal offences, entering the country under false pretences, and falsifying documents. According to the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, they are required to ensure that states enforce federal law.
3. When reading more into the second the phrase “Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws.”
   1. S.B. 1070 starts by stating “The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. ” The bill states from the very beginning that it is not creating a new law, but creating a way to enforce the laws that are already in place.
   2. Also S.B. 1070 refers to “cooperative enforcement.” This could be referring to enactments from the department of homeland security that can be found here. Within this fact sheet it talks about cooperation with state and local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. S.B. 1070 is attempting to work with the DHS not work against it.



According to the lawsuit, the federal government wants to permanently declare S.B. 1070 invalid, “because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” Incidentally, United States Code Title 8, 1227, a law by the federal government, allows the deportation of immigrants through a criminal act (such as moral turpitude, murder, forgery, trafficking, falsely claiming citizenship, being an illegal immigrant, etc.) – so, technically, the Arizona law is actually in accordance with the federal government code on this matter.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is the main argument for the federal government’s case in the lawsuit. Here is was has been dubbed “The Supremacy Clause” in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

For years, the government has interpreted this passage as meaning that anything that the government does comes first over the states and citizens. However, this is incorrect: this clause makes it so that any treaties or laws made in accordance with the Constitution by the federal government supersede laws and treaties made by the individual states. The meaning of this clause, and much of the Constitution, has been lost to the federal government.

The lawsuit claims that the United States government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters, and then goes on to make the (absurd) claim that this power derives from the United States Constitution. Ironically, the Constitution the government claims is on their side in this matter is actually very much the opposite.

As I have already shown, the Supremacy Clause can only apply if the laws made by the federal government are in accordance with the US Constitution. There is only one reference to immigration/migration in the entire Constitution, in Article I, Section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So, until the year 1888, the government could do nothing about immigration except put a tax or duty on the importation. Thus, now, they have the right to deny the immigration of peoples, but they can do nothing to force said immigration, or even to make laws about it at all – it isn’t up to the federal government. Thus, the “Supremacy Clause” cannot apply.

The lawsuit says that: “The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders.” Interestingly enough, nothing is really being done by the federal government to stop the illegal immigration into Arizona.

The federal government is, essentially, in a business contract with the states. The government keeps their end, the states/citizens keep theirs, the partnership continues. If, at any time, the government does not keep their side of the agreement, the states and the citizens have a right and duty “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” (Declaration of Independence). As Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”

Here is part of the agreement:
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Shall protect each of them against Invasion? Does the illegal immigration over the Southern border, which is putting a burden on the economy, not to mention causing deaths and disappearances, not count as Invasion? How can it not be considered such? Yet the federal government, in one of the few things that they are supposed to do, is turning a blind eye, and even attempting to stop the states from protecting themselves.

This conduct alone, this extreme breach of contract, means that the bonds between the federal government and the States are legally dissolved. Legally, the federal government no longer has any power.

And, just to add to the reasons why the federal government has no right to be our federal government, I present, once again, the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Arizona lawsuit has no legal grounds whatsoever – in fact, this lawsuit exposes how illegal our own government is.

Yet another fail of the American Education System…

Read More:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/06/24/county-supervisor-peggy-west-dumbest-poltician-east-of-the-mississippi/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/where_is_arizona_dont_ask_pegg.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/24/dem-county-supervisor-arizonas-law-might-have-been-justifiable-if-it-was-a-border-state/

Read more:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/72-don’t-know-much-about-history/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/percent_gain_americans_have_its_QhGoegTLwJImnd06KuWUrO#ixzz0sZ8PBBu6

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/02/dont-know-much-about-history/?iref=allsearch&fbid=e083dIoeIbM