Monday, March 25, 2019





Saturday, March 23, 2019

2014 warning continues relevatn

American Citizens Lobbyist Group
New Jersey
Monday, September 15, 2014
Weekly Issue Flyer

NJ’s fiscal woes mount as S&P cuts credit rating due to budget shortfalls

That means New Jersey can no longer afford to be a sanctuary State.

With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration.

This will require immediate spending cuts.
S&P’s announcement followed the Treasury Department’s disclosure Tuesday that the state’s revenue collections for the fiscal year that ended June 30 had come in not $1.3 billion short, but almost $1.6 billion in the red, creating an immediate hole in this year’s state budget that will require yet-to-be-disclosed spending cuts.

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level.
The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments

Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion nationwide.
Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

From an economic point of view alone we see that the State of New Jersey spends $2.1 billion annually on the illegal immigrant population here in the form of services consisting of education for the children of illegal immigrants, health care for their families, and incarceration for the criminal element in their community.

These estimates do not, however, take into account the “collateral costs” of paying welfare benefits to Jersey citizens and legal residents who have been displaced from their jobs by illegal immigrant workers in addition to the cost of health care facilities and prisons.

Since Jan. 1, 2014 thru July 31, 2014 over 1,877 unaccompanied children were accepted into NJ to be released to sponsors putting a further burden on our severely challenged budget.

You can all take a first step by requesting that Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (District 32) gets the Labor committee to take action on A1271 which prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens and requires employers to use E-Verify program.    

Thank you for taking the time to read our very real concerns.
American Citizens Lobbyist Group - NJ
Basil Mantagas, NJ Director, 646-825-0776,
9.15.14, Illegal aliens a big drain on the NJ budget

Friday, March 15, 2019

Things in life provide for unintended futures. Times passed and memories of life come to the front. Fresh out of high school, and some out of their military duty earned apprenticeships at the long gone Philadelphia Navy Yard. What we learned also gave us memories and some accessed and climbed the ladders available. We remember the ships, the experiences, good and bad, as well as friendships developed. Many of us lived with the scars of our asbestos exposure. 

Thinking back on the friendships, leaves us feeling as though; who, what, when and what next. As we served during our employment we often observed numerous gray hulks of retired warships sitting mothballed only to consume pier space in their mothballed retirement. Recently one of our good memories reached an end where the asbestos took its toll. Many Craft- persons that never saw shipyard service also are seeing their retirement from life by the scars of a substance that was at one time used as a safe insulator. All of us will at some point leave this world. 

Monuments are erected to those who served our country. Many of those under tribute by a monument are daily remembered. On the first Monday in September we will commemorate the working people of the world. The construction workers are memorialized and celebrated by the Skylines of the cities constructed. 

Thursday a friend and co-worker was well received into Our Lord’s Dry Dock. Thinking back on his life, he and many others worked to construct our sky line monuments; whether industrial, utility, business or dwellings, those edifices all, were erected with efforts of; Architects, Drafts people, Engineers, Laboring trades people, and their supporting families. The families of the workers are honored for their efforts wherein they provided a home for their loved members whom contributed to the construction of the everyday skyline monument.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019


Perspectives on the Constitution: A Republic, If You Can Keep It

A Republic, If You Can Keep ItBy Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D.
While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic. Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.
Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty--"democracy"--as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.
Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of "Franklin" which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.
But as fragile as America's federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.
The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program--their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians--are fit objects of national shame, not honor. But statesmen of succeeding generations--Lincoln foremost among them--would continue the quest for a "more perfect union."
Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the "popular will" can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the "popular will" is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.
As we look at the state of our federal union 211 years after the Founders completed their work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation's most powerful symbol of unity--a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.
On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the "pursuit of happiness."
The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today's conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery--a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.
If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
Dr. Richard Beeman is professor of history and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. The University is NCC's academic partner, and for the year 1997 – 98. Dr. Beeman serves as vice chair of our Distinguished Scholars Advisory Panel.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

IBD Editorial

FBI Officials Wanted To Charge Hillary Clinton — Turns Out, They Should Have
Deep State: The plot, as always in the Russia investigation, thickens. It never thins. Now we find out, contrary to what former FBI Director James Comey said, that top FBI officials wanted to charge Hillary Clinton for criminally misusing her homebrew email server and compromising American secrets. The lies continue to unravel.
X alit Captions
This is the Deep State on steroids. If newly appointed Attorney General William Barr decides to clean house, and we hope he does, he'll have his hands full.
Meanwhile, as former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe continues his self-destructive book tour, it's increasingly obvious he too was part of a far-reaching plot to take down President Trump. They based it on the flimsiest of evidence.
Of course, as we've said, it's possible Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a surprise up his sleeve when he wraps up his Trump-Russia investigation. But if not, then the actions of key leaders in both the FBI and Justice Department constitute an extra-constitutional effort to subvert America's democratic republic. That is, a silent coup.
That's the clear subtext of testimony last October from FBI General Counsel James Baker, the FBI's top lawyer in 2016, indicating both Comey and Clinton lied. Though he spoke to Congress in October, Baker's actual remarks only came to light this week.
Hillary Clinton: Unpunished Crimes
Baker told Congress that, despite her denials, Clinton and her team mishandled "highly classified" information on her server, and that they should have known they did so. That's a crime.
Contrary to Comey's glib self-serving comment that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Baker said that he still thought Clinton should be prosecuted "pretty late" in the game and that FBI debates over charging her with a crime continued "I think, up until the end."

Baker backed off from seeking prosecution for Clinton after being convinced by higher-ups — like Comey — that they couldn't prove she intended to expose classified documents across her unsecured email server. So therefore, a prosecutor couldn't prove criminal intent.
The only problem is, that's not the law. As Fox News noted this week, "Federal law states that 'gross negligence' in handling the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines, and there is no requirement that defendants act intentionally or recklessly."
Deep State Interference
In other words, Clinton's clear reckless negligence itself warranted charges. But because of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others at the FBI and Justice Department, she was never charged. Instead, they used charges contained in an unverified dossier financed by Hillary Clinton to begin their relentless pursuit of Donald Trump.
This isn't the first time we've talked about this, by the way. Way back in October of 2016, we led our editorial with this: "When FBI Director James Comey dismissed the case against Hillary Clinton he said it was because no reasonable attorney would take the case. Now we learn that there were plenty who would have done so."
In short, we said, she should have been charged. She wasn't.
At the time, we based our opinion on a 2016 Fox News report that noted,  "Career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged."
If anything, Baker's testimony confirms that two-year-old Fox report.
Will Barr Act?
So career investigators and attorneys wanted to charge Clinton, but were derailed, as Baker said, by higher-ups. For the record, that means Comey and the ever-growing cast of characters in the Justice Department and FBI lied, dissembled and covertly supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. It was a clear violation of the law.
The attempted coup by the Deep State cannot go unpunished. It will seriously endanger the rule of law in our country. The only real question is who should be charged first? Clinton? Or her Deep State allies who did all they could to undo a legitimate American presidential election on her behalf?
Once again, we hope William Barr has the answers.