999. Incontrovertible Conclusions on Globalism

REGULATED MULTICULTURALISM VS IMMIGRATION INTERNATIONALISM

Have you ever looked at Title 8 of the United States Code?  Our immigration laws contain miles of tangled entry processes, standards, and conflicts.   There are lots of ongoing requirements as well as a great range of varying discretionary powers such as some we saw used in the Trump administration.  However, the laws on paper and whether they are being applied accurately in the real world are two different worlds.  Sometimes legal requirements are broadened, narrowed, or otherwise altered by government.  Sometimes the law is ignored altogether.  Sometimes the vastness of one single section will directly conflict with other parts of that section or other related laws.  Sometimes Title 8 enforces constitutional principles and sometimes it violates them.  We have seen over and over how all of these dynamics always lead to serious "legal errors."  The lawlessness of our immigration has demonized regulated multiculturalism and conflated the concept with out-of-control internationalism in the minds of many.  Our country is legendary because of the progress that has always come out of regulated multiculturalism since the beginning.  Thousands of new technologies have been produced by talented individuals who could not produce their works in the turmoil at home.  Albert Einstein is only the most publicized example.  We know our role in shrinking Cuba to a state of clinging to power when diplomacy helped their professionals realize they must either escape or succumb to the pressures of misincentivized economics.  The confused state of our immigration system itself is creating a real-world national emergency.  We cannot move from one extreme to the other by bottlenecking ourselves even further like world-renowned isolationist countries. The matter of fact is that we need to completely reconstruct our immigration laws and take adequate action that will shut down all immigration entry qualifications except for the very strictest asylum standards until then.

INVESTING IN TAXPAYER'S RETURNS VS FEDERAL IMPERIAL EMPIRE

The fundamental errors with UN subsidization and spending, power distribution, and priorities is probably a more important topic than globalism at the domestic level, but far less clear and undeniable.  As the single largest contributor to the UN, we are an equal member of the neofeudalistic security council trusteeship with a veto power that has only created problems here and everywhere else.  Our structural problems at home reflect those in the UN: we are funneling trillions of dollars into various armed conflicts around the world in self-interested ways, making so many people around the world and even here think they "hate America."  Many Americans have by now heard of what I've been calling "secret CIA wars in South America."  The worst part is that the taxpayer has been stiffed throughout this process of letting middleman contractors act on behalf of our military for profit.  "Blowing up brown children" has costed so much to gain very little.  However, history seems to have a cyclical formula for peoples who isolate themselves from the outside world, so moving from one extreme to the other has not suddenly become a realistic solution in this case.  Maybe the United States does not need the expensive power to "make war" since our professionals could never clarify the details between defensive actions anyway.  Maybe our foreign policy should always be geared specifically toward the return for the taxpayer as opposed to so much spending in hopes of patronizing foreign influences.  Meanwhile, the federal bureaucracy is entangled with more costly hardships for us than protections, securities, and benefits.  Partisan advocates need to find a better solution than moving from one extreme end of federal bureaucracy to the other whenever the party in power changes, such as abolishing it by dividing it up into executive-independent federal circuits and shrinking it according to the original CoS petition.  Imagine if the national Congress did not have the highly-misunderstood, far-reaching powers of our current one, but instead was possibly just a constituent and professional body with legislative powers limited only to constitutional accountability, "foreign policy," and to prescribe for the proof and effect of State works.  A central government would not be highly encouraged to expend itself on foreign imperialism if its domestic bureaucratic empire were suddenly deconstructed.  China, Russia, and other imperial cultures could not exploit low-level, anti-American propaganda if we deconstructed our empire and finally forced accountability from our powers that be.

"NEOFEUDAL" ELITISM VS "POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY"

Instead of relying on the guarantees we seceded from the British empire over themselves, and those that have been adapted into constitutions around the world, powerful globalists have cast an unconstitutional shadow over our foundational laws and those in other countries to establish a distinct governing class worldwide.  Instead of rule by popular sovereignty, law, and freedom, the biggest buyers systematically patronize our politicians with campaign contributions to the point where the constituent is scoffed at as the lowest priority on their agenda.  Constitutional think-tanks in our country vary greatly in their funding influences and adjudicatory/"interpretive" worldview, as well as political ideology.  Heritage foundation pays a great deal of attention to detail on its introductory content and equal protections page, only to justify paying little attention almost everywhere else.  Constitution Center provides an opposing viewpoint feature, but only with opposing viewpoints still ultimately favorable to them.  Cornell Law School captures a much greater volume of the information, but mostly by highlighting special-interest driven cases.  The problem with their interactive annotated constitutions is that the lawyers authoring them were picked out by whatever special interests behind the given organization's publishing power, for which we would need the unobstructed opportunity to fully examine in order to conclude upon.  The oversimplified, agenda-driven nature of their arguments is readily observable through a comparative analysis of them.  The summaries posted on this website do not treat our laws like the same postmodern tool of subjective interpretation that professionals have exploited since courts were directly ruled over by feudal separation of powers, they arguably represent the views of any reasonable American who has invested a great deal of time to look into the primary sources for themselves.  In case you missed them, I will review two highly observable key topics that the global elite cast "an empty shadow of the law" over us with for injustice the most, in our country.
          Full Faith and Credit of States, US CONST Art IV Sec. 1: Whether States must give some or full faith and credit to recognize and "remedy" each other's public acts, records, and judicial proceedings is a hot topic full of empty, partisan debate.  The clause is not supposed to give federal courts the power to "choose in each case between competing State policies involved" like it did in Hughes v Fetter (1951).  Unfortunately, the boundaries of judicial power to resolve direct conflicts on the same subject matter ONLY have not been the focus of disputes, except where the circumstances of the case faintly forced the topic into question.  Later cases have correctly identified that this power cannot be "arbitrary and unfair," but this is only part of the equation.  The court has adopted a view favoring the usurpation of the legislative power to "prescribe... their proving... and effect."   Precedent moves back and forth from recognition and "enforcement," to aggregate of contacts, to full de novo choice, to an "arbitrary, unfair forum law" view where no faith and credit is recognized.  The landmark case for this "unwritten constitution" to effectively rewrite our constitution with unwritten feudal traditions directly turned down an opportunity for constitutional review in favor of an even more indirect version than "judicial review" (Calder v Bull, 1798).  Who really believes that our republican constitution permits for unwritten traditions only known to professionals to preempt our foundational laws?  "Look, see, this precedent from the old empire says the opposite of why it was protected against in the constitution in the first place, ha haha haha."  The threshold between the legislative prescription power and the court's power to resolve disputes over what defines "full" faith and credit are unclear.  The clarity for the separation of power we are looking for may be characterized by this "remedy" vs "enforce" difference, rather directly on its face, that none of the professionals forcefully identified in landmark cases.  What union cannot put an obligation for States to respect each other, not itself, into force?
          Unimpaired Retained Rights, US CONST Amd IX: The limited enumeration of legislative powers does not provide clear entitlements for specific legal injuries resulting from legislation that oversteps the scope of rights derived from Art I.  By technicality, if not for Amds. IX and X, the addition of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would have even still created a dangerous exception for federal implied powers to the rest of its federalist design.  Powerful interests today have distorted these exchanges between the founders to argue against the concept of specific, untouchable "retained rights" to accountability in the federal system as well as the strict construction of the amendment itself.  A less distorted view is that only the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States are "retained rights," but that specific, well-established language would obviously be necessary to limit the scope (Russel Chapman).  Another argument asserts that only the first eight amendments are "retained rights" based on the unclear language, but the conventions clearly designated the amendment toward State interests (381 US 510, 1965).  Nothing in the language indicates the amendment does not include penumbral rights, privileges and immunities, and statutory rights.  In fact, the strict construction amounts to "no retained right... denying or disparaging another," so what are the supposed foundations to say it can inherently deny and disparage some categories of rights?  This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent perverse misapplication of the well-known maxim that an affirmation in particular cases does not imply a negation in all others, nor that a negation in a particular case implies an affirmation in all others.  Deniers of retained rights are apparently blind to the paradox in their arguments: they express fear that the mere acknowledgement of some rights creates the possibility of denying and disparaging others, but this disacknowledgment fundamentally denies and disparages those rights on the books being disacknowledged.  How do they do it?  
The procedural rights highlighted by the debate over the Bill of Rights are nowhere as clear as the substantive rights, for no right or power to be used to impair another, articulated very directly in the construction of the amendment.