 US Seaport Commission Executive Director Jonathan Moseley Esq. addresses seaport security at Camp David area American Leadership Conference.
Text
of Jon Moseley's letter to Congress about Dubai operation of
U.S. Seaports (PDF).
|
American Border Control |
NEWS |
Save Long Beach Harbor Petition
Click here to Sign our Petition to Stop
Shipping Container Dipping in Long Beach Harbor
Our RSS feed is: Click here to donate to the work of American Border Control Because we are an IRS recognized non profit 501(C)4 organization, donations are not tax deductible. |
|
“Right to Work” in Mexico demanded for U.S. Citizens “Gang of 8” immigration plan should be amended in light of Mexico’s 4.47% unemployment rate vs USA rate of nearly 8%
A conservative advocacy organization has taken aim at the U.S. Senate “Gang of 8” proposal for “comprehensive immigration reform.” American Border Control (ABC) demands equal time for American citizens in Mexico to match the benefits being proposed for illegal aliens from Mexico. If they are to be given this new “right to jobs in America” then, says ABC, Americans should have the right to hold jobs in Mexico as well. American Border Control Executive Director Jon Moseley points to the big mistake many Americans are making as they look at the proposal being pushed by liberal Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer and moderate Republican Senator John McCain, saying “the Mexican unemployment rate for December is only 4.47% compared to the U.S. unemployment of the past four years of 8%.” Moseley says what is really a shock to Americans as they consider the Schumer-McCain “Gang of 8” proposal to liberalize American immigration law to allow 11 million illegals to stay in America, is that when you adjust and convert the Mexican average pay vs USA average pay, then in Mexico the average salary is $49,574 per year, as documented at the American Border Control website. “Mexico is hardly the land of poor peasants and starving children that American liberals keep pushing to create sympathy for their proposals to liberalize American immigration law and give illegal Mexican aliens new rights in America, which we Americans are denied in Mexico.” American Border Control opposes attempts to liberalize American immigration law because “we should first secure our borders and enforce existing laws before changing our laws to attract even more illegal immigrants.” “Even with the concessions of more liberal Senators Schumer and McCain and with conservative Marco Rubio now in their corner this is a bad deal for America and we urge Senators to reject it,” said ABC Executive Director Jon Moseley. Additional details documenting the ABC stance against liberalizing American immigration reform can be found here. -30- For a 1 page copy of this news release with the "news release" header and contact information suitable for circulation click HERE) Additional details documenting the ABC stance against liberalizing American immigration reform can be found HERE.
NewsRelease “AMERICAN BORDER CONTROL” ORGANIZING ARTICLE 4 CONSTITUTIONAL DEMAND BY BORDER STATES REQURING WASHINGTON TO SECURE BORDER March 21, 2013 (Fairfax, Virginia) -- American Border Control (ABC) is urging legislatures of States along the Mexican border to formally demand that the United States Government immediately secure Arizona’s border with Mexico. ABC is lobbying individual State legislatures to co-sponsor a formal, Constitutional resolution of the legislature. Section 4,
Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution commands the United States Government: · Section
4, Article 4 is unconditional · Section
4, Article 4 is objective, not subjective · Section
4, Article 4 does not allow any decision by Washington · In sharp contrast to almost everything else in the U.S. Constitution, this does not empower the U.S. Government – thus allowing Washington to make a decision. This highly unusual provision requires the U.S. Government to take action when requested by a State. · Section
4, Article 4 requires that “The United States shall
… protect
each of [the States] against Invasion . . .” · Section 4, Article 4 requires that “The United States shall … protect each of [the States] . . . on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” · A response is mandatory by the United States Government. There is no decision for Washington to make. Washington must act. Thus, it is a constitutional command that the United State Government “shall” protect the Border States against (a) invasion and (b) domestic violence related to a failure to secure the border. Border incursions by violent drug smugglers and other criminals form the primary basis for this Constitutional demand. To protect against these criminals, the U.S. Government is Constitutionally required to secure the State’s borders (for all purposes). Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Border States gave up many of its rights to pass laws controlling trespassing and incursions when Arizona joined the union of the United States of America. But Article 4, Section 4 was a corresponding guarantee that the U.S. Government would take over that responsibility. As a condition of Arizona giving up the power that the U.S. Supreme Court says has been ceded to the Federal Government, Arizona received in return an absolute, unconditional guarantee of protection from the Federal Government. Therefore, Arizona does have the power under our U.S. Constitution to force action by Washington to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico to the same extent that Arizona handed over such power to the Federal Government. “Invasion” does not necessarily have to be large. In 1789, a typical military action could be a small cross-border raiding party. A state of war might involve months of inactivity in between small battles. Violent incidents across the Mexican border demonstrate a pattern of violence with systematic coordination, comprising Invasion. American Border Control is suggestingthat it may be an impeachable offense for the Commander in Chief to disobey this clear and unequivocal command of the US Constitution. Also, such a Constitutional imperitive could affect how courts decide various cases in pending litigation. Using a different legal claim as the basis could change the legal analysis. ### For release on or after: 2/27/06 For further info: Jonathan Moseley contact@jonmoseley.com www.USSeaportCommission.org
Demands Extensive Hearings by U.S. Senate & Congress:
United States Seaport Commission calls on Congress to
overturn Dubai Ports World Contract and evict China
Ocean Shipping Company from Long Beach, California
A
leading conservative cause public policy organization
is asking Congress to make it illegal for any company
which is owned, controlled or dominated by any foreign
government to manage or exert any form of control over
any seaport ports of entry into the United States.
Demanding
that Congress “reverse a policy mistake of the
federal government that has cut across Administrations
from President Bill Clinton through the current
President Bush,” Jon Moseley, the Executive Director
of the United States Seaport Commission said in a
letter to Congress released on February 27, that
“Foreign governments must not gain control or
continue their control over ports of entry in the
United States.”
Targeting
both the recently signed Dubai Ports World $6.8
billion contract to take over six major eastern
seaports and the China Ocean Shipping Company
operating out of Pier J in Long Beach, California,
Moseley said these operations constitute a “clear
and present danger to America and
our
legitimate national security interests” in his
letter to Senators and
Congressmen.
The
U.S. Seaports Commission has published two books that
explain the
dangers
of potential adversaries controlling seaports of the
United States: China Doll: Clinton-Gore and the
Selling of the Presidency,
and Stealth Invasion
(nearly
2 million copies), and was the founding sponsor and
organizer
of the Western Conservative Conference.
The
text of Moseley’s letter to Senators and
Congressmen, and his
full
statement on this issue, can be found at
www.USSeaportCommission.org. -30- |
|||
