Let's elect a LATINO president.

As the race develops and candidates are throwing their hat in the ring or dropping out, there is a lot of discussion about who is the better candidate. the process has already begun to vet each of the candidates in the race for the republican nomination. The problem is that conservatives are also quickly forming into a circular firing squad. Conservatives have to resist the temptation of attacking every candidate they personally dislike and start looking for the best LATINO candidate. Nooo.... I am not waiting breathlessly for Marco Rubio, although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if he decided to run. Nope, I have developed my own little list of qualities that I am looking for in my next president. I want him to be LATINO and nothing else will do. Call it a litmus test if you want but it is the only way I can be comfortable giving him or her my vote. Yep he/she must be LATINO.

L - Limited government - I want president who believes that government works best when it is confined to a very limited scope and authority. I want the president who believes that the federal government should not tell me what type of light bulb to buy or force me to buy health insurance that I don't want or I don't need. A federal government that will restrain itself from expanding its power over the people and its growth and cost to the American taxpayer. I want a president that will cut the size, scope and reach of government in the everyday lives of all Americans.

A -Adherence to the Constitution and to the rule of law- and by that I mean an originalist vision to the words in the constitution. For example: if the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" that's what it means. The liberal meme that there was no internet in the times of the founding fathers is moot. If all politicians, not just the president, would always adhere to and be bound by the Constitution our nation would be infinitely better off. In the same vein, we as country would be better off if we would just follow the law; from illegal immigration to “legalized” marijuana to food stamp fraud and the rest.

T - Traditional values- what I am talking about is exactly what you think I am talking about; old fashioned morality. Morality and faith in God are what this nation was founded upon, there is no way any intellectually honest person can deny that fact. And the further any society drifts from morality the more it descends into debauchery. We are seeing this happen before our eyes. When a 16 year old gets pregnant out of wedlock is celebrated while a girl who wants to remain a virgin until marriage is ridiculed, we as a society have to step back and really question what we have become. We are teaching our children that promiscuity is acceptable and even giving them the means by which they can be more so. We are teaching an entire generation that dependence on government is OK, rather than trying to instill a good work ethic and teaching the value of job well done and an honorably earned dollar. This lack of morality has decayed our institutions and our culture. Hedonism is not something we as a society and nation should strive for. We must return to an age when we looked out for each because it was the right thing to do, when honor meant something.

 

I -Individual liberty and responsibility- People should be allowed to succeed and fail on their own merits. Our next president must have the strength to leave people alone, and let each person struggle, fail and/or persevere. The government has for too long coddled the American people. What we need is tough love. If you can work then get out there and work and quit making excuses for why you can't. The federal government has slowly and almost imperceptibly made great strides in denying its citizens their liberty through taxation and regulation. Americans seeking to better their lot are hamstrung and restrained by the power of government bureaucracies and mountains of regulations. Meanwhile many Americans are encouraged to neglect their responsibilities as parents, husbands and fathers through a myriad of social programs, which in the end only encourages more dependence on government and further inhibits liberty and opportunity.

N -National defense that is strong, flexible, and dynamic- It only makes sense. Peace through strength is the only real solution. When America shows weakness there is always some despot who will try and poke a stick in her eye. I am by no means giving the DoD carte blanche but there is no doubt that our military should be the most modern, best equipped, best trained fighting force on the planet. The freedoms we enjoy are only sustainable so long as the American military continues to be the premier fighting force in the world and America continues to be a respected super-power.

O - Open markets and free trade- The world is a market and there is one indisputable fact in life: Competition is the incubator for better, less expensive, higher quality goods and services. The next president must realize that the federal government has, for over 70 years, disrupted the free market capitalist system in the United States through subsidies and federal government programs which pick winners and losers. This includes farm subsidies, taxes code loopholes, grants of every sort, as well as laws written to benefit one industry over another, and certain groups of people over others. This must stop. Any time the government at any level interferes or manipulates the market, the only people hurt are consumers, and by that I mean everyone. I want a president that believes in the ingenuity and industriousness of the American people. A president that trusts not only people, but the market to do the right thing. I want a president that believes the power of the market is stronger than the power of government to act in the best interest of people.

A LATINO candidate will be sure to cut across demographic boundaries and should be supported by social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, TEA Party activists, Independents, as well as minorities.

It is time to make history and elect our first LATINO president.

Don't Call Them Drunk Drivers

Here we go again. In an “opinion” piece from June 23, Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic re-enforces the tried (or should I say tired) and true method of the left; vilify Americans while at the same time beatify illegal immigrants.

If people want to make an argument for unfettered, uncontrolled, unmonitored immigration then they should just make it. But please stop glorifying illegal aliens as some sort of altruistic population of innocents who should be exempted from criticism because they are "trying to provide a better life" for their kids or family or by using the "we wouldn't have any onions, lettuce,oranges, etc... if it weren't for illegal aliens," meme. give me a break.

First you have to swallow the supposition that the people that cross the border, in violation of federal law, are "migrants." Well the cold hard fact is this: these people are illegal aliens, criminals; just because they are not violent does mean that they do not commit crimes.

Second, even if you recognize that they are illegal aliens, you must somehow absolve them of any wrongdoing once they are in the country. Notice how the illegal alien mother people love to imagine in these hypothetical scenarios, apparently, bears no responsibility for putting her own son in danger of being arrested for violating the law, just so she can get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. What kind of parent are we talking about here? How much more selfish could she possibly be? Here are all these illegal immigrants in this country and Ms. Valdez seems to believe that illegals should be allowed to come and go as they please without any fear of being arrested or deported. That there shouldn't be any consequences for there actions because they pick onions.

And finally you must delude your self into thinking that crossing the border illegally is the ONLY crime/violation of the law they have committed; never taking into account that illegals drive without valid driver's licenses, drive without insurance, present fraudulent documentation to get jobs, steal social security numbers and other identification, fail to pay taxes, and may even commit fraud in order to collect government benefits such as food stamps.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that we use this same logic on drunk drivers. But please, don't call them drunk drivers, call them inebriated chauffeurs. No wait! How about impaired vehicle operators. No, no, no. Stop being so judgmental! They are just commuters. They are just regular people trying to get to work so they can support their families. You shouldn't try to pass laws that further force commuters to go into the shadows. And if a 18 year old commuter is taking his mother grocery shopping he shouldn't fear being arrested for taking his mom to get milk; never mind that his blood alcohol level is .136 and he has been arrested twice before for DUI. Nope. He is just trying to get his momma some milk.

And if you support laws that would prosecute commuters then you must be prejudiced against them and you are only writing these laws to try and get them to stop commuting in your state. Because they aren't doing anything bad, they are just driving under conditions that your average American refuses to drive under. They shouldn't be punished for driving when others refuse to drive. Never mind that in addition to driving while intoxicated they run red lights, fail to yield, speed, fail to signal, and fail to maintain reasonable and prudent distance from the vehicle in front of them. Those are just harassment laws designed to persecute commuters. and putting breath-analyzers in cars is just pure persecution; no one should have to "prove" their sobriety before commuting. We shouldn't pass laws that would discourage commuters from driving. Leave commuters alone.

Silly? Absolutely!! But that is the argument from the left; it doesn't make any logical or common sense when applied to any other group of people or any other type of law, and yet they continue to make it.

How sad.

Money Can't Buy You Love or Education

I read an article in the Arizona Republic that relates what former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said at a meeting of the Arizona Commerce Authority.   Mr. Barrett took the opportunity to talk about the quality of education in Arizona and implied a cause and effect relationship between that and the State budget cuts in education proposed by Governor Brewer.  I don’t think that there is a correlation between the amount of money spent on education and the quality of education received.  This is borne out in study upon study across the United States.  The Heritage Foundation compared federal education spending to National Assessment of Educational Performance and found there was no connection between the two.

But I decided to look up some data myself and see if this was actually the case.  Using data from the US Department of Education I compared the by-state expenditure per pupil in the year 2006-2007 and compared that data to by-state SAT mean scores of college bound seniors for 2007-2008 (the years didn’t match up); the conclusion of this simple comparison is that there is no direct correlation between higher per pupil spending and higher SAT scores.  Washington D.C. scored the highest in per pupil spending at $20,596, yet scored 50^th out of 51 (Maine scored last in all three categories but this is likely due to the fact that all juniors are required to take the test, not just those interested in going to college) in all three SAT categories (reading, mathematics, and writing).  Iowa ranked 40^th in spending ($9,114) and ranked 1^st in reading and mathematics and 2^nd in writing.  South Dakota ranked 42^nd in spending ($8,821) and scored 3^rd, 9^th, and 7^th in reading, mathematics, and writing respectively. 

Arizona was 46^th in spending ($8,335) and scored 30^th in reading and mathematics and 31^st in writing.  I am not saying this is great, and there is certainly room for improvement.  But consider that Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, and Utah were 47^th, 48^th, 49^th, 50^th and 51^st in spending per pupil and all of them achieved better results than did Arizona; Oklahoma scored in the top 15 in all three categories.

Of the top ten states in spending per pupil (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Connecticut, Alaska, Massachusetts, and Maryland) none of them had scores in the top 10 in any of the three categories.  Arizona scored better than six of them in reading and mathematics and better than five of them in writing.

What does this indicate?  That throwing money at education is not the answer.  The real answer lies in how kids are spending their time in the classroom.  I continue to see articles about different curricula and how the newest technique will make great strides in educating children.  But I think that we as a society should just concentrate on the basics; reading, writing and mathematics.

Teach kids phonics; school districts should get corporate licenses for “Hooked on Phonics” or other phonics teaching systems.  It is the easiest way for kids to learn the language; that is true for reading and for writing.  There are 26 letters, six vowels, and 44 sounds and once kids learn them there is practically nothing they can’t read.  I can still remember my teachers and my parents telling me to “sound it out” whenever I saw a word I didn’t previously know; that’s the beauty of phonics.  If school districts switched to a phonics curriculum they would also save tons of money; there is no reason to buy new books every third year, since phonics don’t change.  The only things that a district would need to purchase are workbooks. 

Make kids memorize multiplication tables and other standard "non-changing" building blocks to include geography (states and capitols), history (the preamble to the Constitution, the Gettysburg address) and biology (taxonomy).  Through route memorization kids will be able to easily retrieve information, and as they get older the comprehension and application will come much easier.   Make mathematics a priority, math is critical for higher learning, plus it is very valuable in every day use as we get older. 

There are a myriad of ways to improve education in Arizona or anywhere else for that matter, but the key is to focus and stop all the distractions; chief among them is that spending more money will get you a better education.  Quit changing the curriculum every year and changing teachers every two hours. Encourage healthy competition, both in the class and on the playground, and push kids to outperform their peers.  Reward children that excel and give extra time to the ones that are putting forth the effort but don’t see the results. 

And finally, stop giving kids an excuse to underperform.  I always read about how inner-city or minority kids are at a disadvantage.  This very may well be, but it is not because the child is incapable of achievement. It is because we inculcate that child with the idea that he is handicapped by his environment.  Rather than teach children that their achievement is limited by their environment, we as a society, should endeavor to teach children to triumph through achievement in spite of it.  

Society should make a quality education a common denominator for our children rather than a socio-economic divider.

Why Somos (We Are) Republicans Aren’t

An acquaintance of mine sent me a link to an article titled “Somos Republicans” will not be endorsing Gabriela Mercer in which Somos Republicans expressed that they would not support Gabriela Mercer in a race against Raul Grijalva.  I have read about Ms. Mercer’s announcement to run in Arizona’s 7^th Congressional District, but I was curious as to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse her candidacy.  I didn’t understand why any Republican organization would immediately rule out an endorsement without even waiting to see how many candidates there are and which one best aligns with its values.  I didn’t know much about “Somos Republicans” so I went to their website and started to analyze it.  The more I dug in the more I believe that this group should not be called “Somos Republicans” (We are Republicans) rather “Apenas Republicans” (Barely Republicans).   How did I come to this conclusion? Well… 

First let’s discuss Somos Republicans’ Principles.  Let me just say that I also believe in the Right to Life; free market capitalism, low taxes, small government, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage.  It isn’t until you get to the last “principle” that you begin to understand Somos Republicans’ real raise d’être; Amnesty!  Below is the final principle for “Somos Republicans”:
Humane Viable Immigration Solution. Tough immigration is not a conservative “value” but rather an issue.  This issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that directly affects the well-being of our community. We believe this issue has been largely ignored, and it has placed Republicans and our community in a predicament which is inconsistent with the economic realities of our Free Market Capitalism, labor demands, and humanitarian tradition. Therefore, it is imperative that we promote a viable solution to this dilemma that is in concert with our economic demands. Such humane and viable solutions ought to resonate with ideals of President Reagan, Bush, and Conservative Think Tanks–such as the Goldwater Institute, the Hoover Institution, and CATO–that, too, have argued that a solution to this predicament is long overdue.

I tried to ignore the incoherence of the statement and try to dissect what “Somos Republicans” is trying to say.  But this is tough, because as far as I am aware, Immigration is solved.  A person that wants to immigrate into the United States goes to their local consulate or embassy, gets in line and submits an application for entry into the United States, they wait for a visa and when they get it they are free to enter the country and proceed to apply to become a permanent resident and ultimately a US citizen.   I believe what they probably wanted to address in the “principle” is “a humane and viable solution to the illegal immigration issues facing our nation.”  So why don’t they say that?
“Somos Republicans” then states that “tough immigration” is not a “conservative ‘value’” but an issue; “tough immigration” isn’t an issue either, it is an adjectival phrase absent a noun to modify, but I digress.  I assume they are talking about tough immigration policy or laws or legislation or proposals.  Anyway, it isn’t tough immigration they are talking about; it’s really “tough anti-illegal immigration policy” that they are addressing.  And again “Somos Republicans” fails to use the word illegal.   Their “principle” then goes into some rambling about putting “our community” into a predicament. 

The bottom line is: There is nothing inconsistent with people wanting the law to be adhered to and enforced.  The fact that “Somos Republicans” addresses labor demands and economic demands in the statement proves the shortsightedness of the group; with the national unemployment rate over 9% there is no “labor demand.”  I know, I know, illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but if that was the case before it sure isn’t now.  “Somos Republicans” also talks a lot about being “humane,” and a “humanitarian tradition.”  Has anyone at “Somos Republicans” done some research on the Chinese when they came over to build the railroads or the Irish or the Italians to compare the “humane” treatment they received?  The only tradition that I know of is one of working.  People worked and they either found some measure of success or they didn’t.   And the most important part is that the great majority of immigrants prior to the 1960’s all came to the United States legally.  Illegal immigration as a policy issue is a rather recent phenomena.
Finally “Somos Republicans” throws around names like Presidents Reagan and Bush, sprinkle in the Cato and Goldwater Institutes, and the Hoover Institution and Presto! “Somos Republicans” has established its bona fides as a Republican entity. 

But let’s get back to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse Gabriela Mercer.  Well they NEVER TELL YOU!!  They mention Ms. Mercer twice in the article; once in the Headline and once in the first sentence when they mention that the Republican Party needs to find a better candidate.  This is a bloggers version of a drive-by shooting.  
“Somos Republicans” leaves the reader contemplating Ms. Mercer’s candidacy while they continue on with statistics from a Pew Hispanic Center survey trying to convince the Arizona Republican Party, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be reading the article, that 80% of Hispanics are against “SB1070 type of laws”.  (An assertion that is specious at best and dishonest at worst.) And, that no one should support any candidate that favors SB1070.

There is only one problem.  The Pew study that “Somos Republicans” diligently cites over and over again was conducted in 2008.  As a refresher, SB1070 was passed and signed by Governor Brewer in 2010.  So whatever questions were asked by the Pew Hispanic Center, they were not in regards to SB1070. 

In addition to this small, seemingly insignificant fact; is the fact that in the same Pew Study, only 44% of the over 2000 people that were interviewed, were US citizens and registered to vote. 
“Somos Republicans” then let’s their target audience, the Arizona Republican Party, know that any Hispanic who supports SB1070 is a “token” “yes-man” and that these Hispanics don’t know how Latinos really feel.  This is the tired old meme taken right out of the leftist book of tactics and is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with “Somos Republicans” view on illegal immigration: if you can convince everyone that pro-SB1070 Hispanics are “tokens” then they aren’t worth listening too because they are a super small minority. To discredit the people who disagree with you by calling them names is something worthy of a 4^th grade playground; How truly juvenile. 

Then… the coup de grâce!!  “Somos Republicans” tells the Republican Party that it must “prove to the increasing number of Hispanic voters that all Republicans are not a bunch of bigots who want to empty a clip on “illegals.” So, the burden of proof is on Republicans to prove they are NOT a bunch of bigots.  This can be accomplished by denouncing those that “Somos Republicans” says should be denounced. (For the Record: I do believe that Virgil Peck should be held to account for what he said.)  And then mention Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King, so no one gets confused about who “Somos Republicans” considers extremists.  And finally…. the digestif to wash the whole thing down, “Somos Republicans” reminds everyone that they are Ronald Reagan Republicans and want to restore the Party of Abe Lincoln. 

First, to the Republican Party:  Be aware of what this group stands for: AMNESTY! If you are pro amnesty then you have found the right Latino group for you. If you chose to affiliate yourself with “Somos Republicans” be aware that you are taking the side of illegal aliens over law abiding immigrants and citizens (Somos is anti-SB1070 and Pro-Sanctuary City), you are taking the side of illegal students from foreign countries over US Citizens from out of state (Somos is Pro-DREAM Act), and you will be affiliated with the pro-amnesty movement. I am a Hispanic that believes in the rule of law and supports efforts such as Arizona SB1070 to control the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. I am one of the tokens of whom “Somos Republicans” speaks, but I am not alone. Ignore me at your peril. 

To Gabriela Saucedo Mercer:  I do not know you personally but, as they say; you can tell a lot about a person by who his/her “enemies” are.  And if Somos Republicans is your “enemy” then I support you in your efforts to unseat Raul Grijalva in Arizona Congressional District 7 as should every republican in the state.

Service to Country

 **This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Whatever happened to the ideal that this nation once held, expressed in the words of John F. Kennedy? Which words you ask?

“Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country.”

The idea of serving one’s country, somewhere in recent history, has become antithetical to the psyche of most of today’s American politicians.  Politicians are supposed to represent us, the people.  You may be asking yourself, how are politicians relevant to the conversation with regards to service to country?

Well, politicians should have service to country as their number one priority. The problem is that most politicians believe that the “country” is the federal government; actually the country, the nation, is the people.

We the people are what make this the United States of America.  Unfortunately, all too often what we hear about our senators and representatives is what they do for their district or their state and nothing about what they do for their country, for our country.  There are literally hundreds of examples where those in Congress put their district/state above country; these examples are called earmarks. Earmarks, whatever you want to argue, do not benefit the United States as a whole.  They may benefit certain people in certain geographical areas, maybe. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, through the earmarks process, has essentially built his own personal airport to make it convenient for him to fly back and forth to Washington D.C.  Aside from the less than 50 people who work to keep the airport open, the airport benefits no one.

Congressmen and Senators have forgotten their raise d’être.  Our representatives act more like agents on behalf of the federal government rather than agents of the people who elected them.   My view is that the original purpose of our representatives was to hold the line against the federal government taking and/or infringing on the rights of the individual based on state or region.  The congress was supposed to represent states rights against the power of the federal government.  Congressional representatives from each state were supposed to stand up to the federal government and ensure that their constituency would not be disadvantaged among the states with respect to the passage of any law.  And, that any laws that they passed had been vetted by all representatives of all the states to ensure that the benefit of those laws was for all the states, and for the nation as a whole.  Congressmen and Senators have morphed into a group of elitists who, in cooperation of the federal government, pass legislation which has steadily worn away at the rights of individual citizens.   Politicians have forgotten that their purpose is not to facilitate federal policy but to protect the people from it.

And it is not just the politicians who are at fault.  We, the American people are also responsible.  People need to understand that even though their congressman gets 15-20 million dollars for some project in their district, they still must pay the 10-20 billion dollar price tag for all the other projects in the legislation passed.  The bottom line is that it is not a very good investment.

The problem is this: Most people justify this spending with kindergarten logic.  “Everybody else is getting something, why not us.”  So constituencies may actually encourage their representatives to request earmarks and thereby waste more of our collective money. This is also true for subsidies, of all kinds.  People want the government to stop spending money, except when it comes to the money that benefits them.  The government subsidizes wheat farmers, sugar farmers, Amtrak, energy companies, tech companies, etc. In an article in 2006 the Cato Institute had the number of Federal Subsidy Programs at 1696. 

The American electorate is starting to educate itself.  But beyond education we as a nation must start to wean ourselves from the federal teat of subsidies and earmarks.  Communities must express their disdain for earmarks and subsidies both inside and outside their congressional district.  And hold their representative accountable for driving the nation further into debt.  This may affect the community in the short term, but in the long term it is very good for the country, for the USA.

The bottom line is that WE, all Americans, must stand up and tell our representatives that what we want is not more from the federal government, but less.  That what we want is the government to get out of the way of ideas and innovation; not create more obstacles and red tape.  That we know better what our communities need than the federal government; that any subsidy to any organization, group, region, or state, is money that is taken from us, collectively.  We don’t need handouts to succeed; we can do it ourselves, through hard work, sweat and effort.  It is through individual effort and achievement that all of us can serve our country.  Let’s stop asking our government to do for us what we should be doing ourselves and for our nation; once we are free of the addiction to government largess we can begin to use our talents and energies to serve our country.

Representatives in Congress beware.  It is no longer good enough for you to bring home the bacon.  You had better figure out how to cut the fat.  The electorate has awoken and will now hold you accountable for dragging the nation further into the open pit of debt created by this Congress, and the ones before it.  If you, as representatives, want to serve your country then do it by protecting your constituency from taxes, excessive regulation and an ever intrusive government and creating an environment conducive to small businesses, entrepreneurs and working people.

Today we probably need to modify what JFK said. Ask not what your country should do for you; ask what your country is doing for you that you should do yourself.  Because it is only through action of a free people that liberty is able to flourish, grow and expand.

THE TYRANNY OF TAXES

 **This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Have you ever asked yourself how much the government really takes from you on a monthly basis? And I am not just talking about the federal government but the state, county, and municipal governments.  None of us really think about all the taxes and fees that come out of our pockets.

Think about it.  You pay taxes on your income every paycheck; if those were the only taxes you paid life would be great.  But that is only the beginning, unless you live in Florida or Texas, you also have to pay state income taxes.  You go home with your check lightened by federal and state income taxes, Medicare, and social security taxes.  So you are driving home and realize that you need gas for you car; you stop at the gas station and fill up. You pay anywhere from 30-60 cents for each gallon of gas (that is between $4.50-$9.00 on a 15 gallon tank and $7.50-$15.00 on a 25 gallon tank.)  You get home and sit at the kitchen table with a calculator and the bills that have arrive by mail. You start writing checks; you pay your electricity bill plus taxes; natural gas bill plus taxes; water bill plus taxes and fees for sewer service; cable or satellite service plus taxes; internet services plus taxes; phone bill plus taxes and 911 fees; cellular phone service plus taxes plus taxes and surcharges.  You pay your mortgage and pay taxes through the escrow account.  With the money you have left you go out to eat and pay taxes on that. Buy a fountain drink at the convenience store and pay taxes on that. Buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine and pay taxes on that.  Buy clothes for you and your kids and pay taxes on that.  You buy tickets to a baseball game and pay taxes on that.  Go to the movies and pay taxes on that.  You pay taxes on all the consumables you need for your home from toilet paper to soap to toothpaste.  Any service that you need, from an oil change to a haircut, is taxed.  You can’t even take a vacation from it because your airline ticket, hotel and rental car are taxed.  Not a day goes by that you aren’t taxed in one way or another.  Obviously some places are worse than others.

It is a wonder we have any money left at all. We as a people need to demand a stop to all this taxation, demand relief from those whom we have empowered to represent us.  We are essentially suffering the same fate as the colonists prior to the revolution, with a twist: Taxation with misrepresentation. But it is our fault.  We have subjected ourselves to this tyranny. And we must take responsibility as a nation and as an electorate, to get ourselves out.  The Tyranny of Taxes is slowly taking away our liberty. We are evermore becoming indentured servants to the leviathan we call the Federal Government.  Worse yet, we are enslaving our children and grandchildren to a life of making the minimum payment on a multi-trillion dollar credit card just to keep ahead of the interest.

We work everyday in an effort to achieve the American Dream and instead of government that encourages our efforts we have one that impedes them.  Instead of creating an environment that is conducive to innovation the government has done everything it can to stifle it.  Rather than lower taxes to stimulate growth and expansion of the economy, our government raises taxes and discourages investment and entrepreneurialism.

Look around and ask yourself, is my money well spent?  Is it invested well?  Should I be forced to help pay for someone else’s house or brand new car?  Should I have been forced to by General Motors, Chrysler, or AIG?  Could I have used that money more efficiently?

Put it in perspective, since 2008, the federal government has spent:

  30 billion to bailout Bear Stearns

400 billion to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

180 billion to bailout AIG

  25 billion to bailout GM and Chrysler

700 billion to bailout banks through the TARP program

787 billion in the “stimulus package”

    5 billion in earmarks included in the Omnibus bill

According to the US Census Bureau there were 281,421,906 people in the United States in the year 2000.
For easy math let’s say that there are currently, 300,000,000 legal citizens and residents today.  That would mean that if you added up all the spending, just for the programs and bailouts listed above, the government could have sent out a $7090 check to every man woman and child who is legally in the United States.  For a family of four, that would mean $28,360.

HOW WOULD YOU SPEND $28,360!!

Ask yourself who knows better how to look after your family; you or a collection of 500 individuals in Washington D.C. who have never seen you, never talked to you, and seem unwilling to consider your future and the future of your children and grandchildren.  And don’t seem to understand that what they are doing not only affects us the people but our nation.  They are jeopardizing the future of the United States of America.

THE TIME IS NOW

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Before I start this article and before people begin to rake me over the coals for flawed legal analysis, let me caveat this article by saying that I am NOT a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).  I am writing this article on some of my own observations and, ­­dare I say it, common sense and logic.  I have read the decision by Judge Bolton as it relates to the Arizona law SB1070.  It seems to me that the entire judgment was a travesty to a society founded on law.  The federal government’s argument is ridiculous and the judge’s ruling even more so.  Part of the judge’s ruling states the following:  "Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities."

What could be more of a priority than to ensure the safety of the citizenry and security of the borders?  Isn’t this the primary function of government and more specifically the Department of Homeland Security, to include the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

But beyond that, it seems to me that if we are to extend the same logic that the judge used in this ruling to all laws that are overseen by the federal government as the basis for a preemption argument we, as a nation, are in big, big trouble.  Here is just one example:  Arizona state law classifies as illegal, under Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-3552, the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (excerpt follows):

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification
A. A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:
1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.
3. Permitting a minor under the person’s custody or control to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

AND here is the federal Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251
§ 2251. Sexual exploitation of children
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

They are quite similar.  As a matter of fact, the federal law is, essentially, restated in the state statute.  Much the same way federal immigration law is restated in AZ SB 1070.   Are we to understand that state and local municipalities are prohibited from enforcing child pornography laws because this would pre-empt the federal government as it would divert resources from the Department of Justice’s other responsibilities and priorities?  I would hope NOT.  I think it is safe to say that most sane people would say that IF there were a sudden rise in child pornography and local jurisdictions began to refer cases to the DOJ for adjudication that they would expect the DOJ to take those cases.  Using Judge Bolton’s ruling as a guide it would be possible for the DOJ to claim preemption because they have other responsibilities and priorities and a sudden increase in Child Pornography cases would divert resources.  Does that make sense to anyone?

A by-product of the ruling is the idea that a State may not enact a law to support and supplement federal law. This can and may have far reaching ramifications and unintended consequences in the future.  This has the possibility of affecting prosecutions and verdicts in many jurisdictions.

But there are more basic questions.  For example:  What does it mean when the federal government takes a position against the enforcement of a law that would have the effect of assisting that same federal government in fulfilling its obligation under the United States Constitution in favor of millions of law breakers?   How does the federal government justify a position of accepting the status quo rather than accept the help of state, county and municipal jurisdictions indentifying, detaining and arresting people who have violated our countries immigration laws? What has happened to the rule of law?

There is no argument that the federal government has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect and defend the general welfare of the citizens of this country.  No one is denying this fact.  What is unbelievable is that the government, while acknowledging its failure to properly enforce the law, continues to erect obstacles to ensure the status quo.  The solution to the border problem is not solved by closing park lands and erecting signs south of Phoenix warning citizens that there are drug smugglers in the area, but by immediately increasing forces along the border to keep the smugglers out.  The government’s response to Arizona SB1070 is inconceivable, but somehow, not surprising.

How many hospitals must be shut down?  How many billions of dollars must we spend on social services, medical care, and schools?  How many citizens and legal residents must be assaulted, robbed, raped, and killed before we finally demand that the federal government do its job?  We have to ask ourselves, how long are we going to accept the federal government’s dereliction of duty?  How long are we going to wait for the petty politics in Washington to catch up to the real world realities along our southern border?  There comes a time when states must take a stand for what is right and what is just.  There is a time when states must act in the interests of their citizens’ safety and security.

For Arizona, that time is now!