If 41 cents of every dollar you made was going on your credit card, would you keep doing it?

According to the Department of the Treasury, 41 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government of the United States was borrowed. 

Think about that. Think about that long and hard. Can you imagine that any sane person can possibly think that this kind of reckless spending can be sustained?  This is the equivalent of a private person making about $25,500 spending $50,000 dollars every year. That means that they had to put $20,500 on the credit card in a single year to hit the same ridiculous deficit spending percentage our government has.

The Bi-partisan Debt Commission report has come out. It's harsh. It's going to ask Americans to accept deep cuts in many of the entitlements that we hold dear. It holds nothing back. Deep cuts are found in health and human services, Social Security, the Department of Defense, all of which been "untouchable" and "third rail issues" until now.

So its surprise to me that the commission itself was only able to get 11 of 17 to support the conclusions of the commission. 

Two examples:
Max Baucus of Montana refused to support it because of the proposed gasoline tax hike that would damage the agriculture industry.  That's nothing. If it were me I would end farm subsidies and let farmers grow whatever the heck they want in quantities they want.

Andy Stern, the president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) also refused to support it, because it would have deep consequences for federal government employee union pension plans.

As long as people continue to think "Think not what I can do for my country, think what my country can do for me" we are going to head down the road of national insolvency.  When will We, the People, wake up and realize that we've allowed our politicians to walk us down a path paved with the false glitter of lies and promises right to the very trapdoor of financial hell?  When will we stop demanding that our government take money from some and give it to others, when in fact there just isn't any more money to take?  Yeah, the rich are rich, but there aren't enough of them nor do they make enough that by themselves they could pull us out of this mess we are in.  We have to reduce spending. All across the board.

Because unlike you or I who have our mortgage company or credit card company to send us into bankrupty, the federal government instead gets to answer to China and Qatar and the United Kingdom.  And they aren't likely to be any more understanding than your local debt collector. What kind of a debt collector would China use, anyway? Do we really want to find out?

8 Stood in the Way

Eight GOP senators voted against the 2-year earmark moratorium.  They are:

1. James Inhofe (OK)
2. Bob Bennet (UT)
3. Susan Collins (ME)
4. Thad Cochran (MS)
5. Richard Shelby (AL)
6. Lisa Murkowski (AK)
7. George Voinovich (OH)
8. Dick Lugar (IN)

With their votes, the resolution failed 56-39.

I hate earmarks. I hate them because they are a backdoor currency to buy votes. And they are hard to find because they are not in the budget package. They can be attached to anything the house or senate passes.  I note that only one of these senators is actually up for re-election next year. That's Mr. Lugar of Indiana.

There are also 7 Democratic senators that voted for the moratorium. They are:

1. Evan Bayh (IN)
2. Michael Bennet (WI)
3. Russ Feingold (WI)
4. Clair McCaskill (MO)
5. Bill Nelson (CO)
6. Mark Udall (CO)
7. Mark Warner (VA)

Which just goes to show that doing the right thing isn't necessarily being done by just the right wing.

Earmarks are a symptom of the problem.

In 2005, the Congressional Research Service found that earmark projects accounted for 1.92% of all federal outlays (spending). Now... that doesn't sound like a lot of money.  Well, OK, in the jaundiced and stratosphere-high world of federal spending, that doesn't sound like a lot of money.  In fact, it would work out to about $47.7 billion dollars, which compared to the $1300 billion that we overspent in 2010, doesn't really seem like much.

However, earmarks are a symptom of a Washington problem that John McCain and a few others have been warning us against for years.  Earmarks are used to buy votes in both houses of Congress.  It's a form of political currency that is used to influence members of both the House and the Senate to vote in a manner that they might otherwise have done.  Here's an example:

House Leader: This reform legislation is very important and we really need your vote in order to guarantee it's passage.
Representative: I realize that this is important to you, but you have to understand that my constituency isn't effected that much by the problem your legislation addresses. And they will object to its cost.
House Leader: Well, what is your constituency interested in?
Representative: We've been trying for years to build that new county library, but the economy has made it difficult to get it done.
House Leader: Well, what if we were to attach, let's say, $600,000 in earmarked funding for that library to the proposed legislation?  
Representative. My constituency will be grateful.  You have my support.

See the problem?  So even though earmarks themselves only represent a small amount of the total federal funds spent, they contribute to a bloated federal budget by making it more palatable to some members of Congress by sending some funding back home where it will do some good.

In the above example, would a new public library be of benefit to the community? Almost assuredly so. But because it's earmarked legislation, it never gets debated as part of the budget.  Therefore, this funding is hard to find and hard to track.

If you get rid of these "pork-barrel" projects and hidden earmarked funding riders, then bills tend to be voted on based only on their relative merit and not because votes have been bought and paid for.  For example, without the sweetheart deals that were made to certain members of Congress in states like Kansas and Louisiana, the United States National Health Care legislation (aka "Obamacare") would probably never have gotten enough votes to pass.

And that's why the Tea Party wants earmarks eliminated.

Quantitative Easing and the 2010 G20 Summit.

From the FT.com (Financial Times): In an article by Ralph Atkins while in Frankfurt, Germany, he wrote about the "collision" course that Germany has plotted with regards to the United States.

Our policy makers are whining about our trade imbalance.  Wolfgang Schäuble accused the United States government of undermining its own policymaking credibility.  "It is not consistent when the Americans accuse the Chinese of exchange rate manipulation and then steer the dollar exchange rate artificially lower with the help of their printing press." He went on to say that American's have lived for "too long" on credit, overblown their financial sector and neglected their industrial base.  There are lots of reasons for the US problems -- German export surpluses are not part of them.

He further pointed out that we don't have a liquidity problem. There's a LOT of money in the system right now.  What he didn't say, but was definitely implied, is that borrowing is low because banks have increased standards for borrowing and therefore far fewer borrowers are found to be credit worthy. 

I've harped on this for years.  Part of our problem is that in the noble but misguided effort to make home ownership attainable to more people, the federal government put great pressure on banks to ease lending requirements, with the result that potential borrowers were not required to provide much proof that they could pay back the money they were borrowing. This risky behavior resulted in the mortgage bust of 2008, although signs could be seen as early as 2005-6.  Federal policy makers tried to exert pressure to roll back these practices but were soundly rebuffed by a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

If our government continues to "monetize our debt", soon the Federal Bank will be the only organization that will be willing to buy our debt, and at that point the "Weimar moment" as Glenn Beck puts it, will happen.  

Call your congressman, call your Senators and inform them that printing money is no solution to our problem.  Demand that they reign in federal spending, but be aware that in so doing you will be asking the government to reduce services, some of which you or someone you love and know are depending on. How tight are you willing to pull your belt in order to gain federal fiscal responsibility? Because until you are willing to live with less entitlements from our government, our government will continue to spend its way into debtor's prison.

Maybe the GOP gets it. Day 2.

Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), who will likely become the House Majority Leader in January, distributed a document called "Delivering on Our Commitment" that will be given to new the new class of Representatives.  In it, Mr. Cantor reveals some detail on his proposed congressional agenda.

1)  He opposes a VAT.
2) Create a forum with the nation to seriously discuss entitlement changes necessary to maintain our obligation to retirees while still reducing overall entitlement expenditures. Outreach to the "minority" party is stressed.
3) Continue the GOP moratorium on earmarked appropriations and based on an outcome of the Organizational Conference, extend it to both parties. In short, no House legislation including earmarks will be allowed to the floor for discussion or balloting.
4) A systematic, piece by piece approach to repealing or defund the United States National Health Care act and replace it with "common sense" legislation. I have no ideal what "common sense" legislation means.
5) Implementation of rules for articulating clear standards for bringing legislation to the floor of the House. In summary, an argument must show that the legislation is not more appropriately a state or local government issue and that Congress is within Constitutional limits to pass such legislation. Further, the legislation must include a plan for paying for its implementation.  Shrinking the size of the Federal Government is a primary goal of these rules.
6) Changes to the Legislative Schedule and House Calendar, with focus on committee hearings and oversight uninterrupted by floor activities such as House votes.  Oversight committee reports can be brought to the floor for debate or even adoption.
7) Eliminate expressions of appreciation and recognition for individuals, groups, events and institutions in order to focus on the critical work ahead of us.  Also, consider designations and namings of post offices or other federal buildngs only once day a month.
8) A renewed focus on standardized goals, objectives and formats of oversight reporting in connection with a greater emphasis on individual member oversight initiative.

I have only one relevant piece of advice for Mr. Cantor. Every single category of federal spending needs to be critically scrutinized and that there are no sacred cows.  Defense, Health and Human Services, the Federal bureaus and agencies, and yes, even Social Security all need to be looked at with an eye towards the reduction of spending.

Grumpy Conservative, The 2010 Midterm Results Prove Nothing.

As of 5:00 PM on November 3, 2010, I've heard a President admit he made mistakes and I've heard a resurgent GOP and their pundits talking about a "mandate". 

Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio said it best. This election result is not an embrace by the people of the GOP, it is a second chance to get it right.

I'm already betting they don't. Because in order for the GOP to get it right, they are going to have to finally convince the American people that we no longer can afford all the programs, services and entitlements that we have come to expect from our federal government. They are going to have to convince the American people that they are going to have to cut over $600 billion dollars from the 2011 federal budget.  They are going to have to repeal parts of the health care reform. But that's only the start.

They are going to have to convince the people that every category of the budget will need to be cut.  They are going to have cut over $150 billion from health and human services. They are going to have to cut over $150 billion from the federal defense budget. They are going to have to dramatically change the way social security payments will be made to people who retire five or more years from now. They are going to have to cut and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut the budgets of federal agencies like the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FBI, CIA. Across board. Nothing is sacred.

Oh yeah, they are going to have to RAISE taxes too. On everybody. Even those who currently don't pay.

And if you the American people don't buy it, then the GOP and the Democratic party are both screwed and the United States defaults on it's debt in 2012.

But the American people won't buy it so why in the hell am I even bothering? I'll see you in the bread line.

Funny stuff. TOTUS comments.

I follow a blogger site called Barack Obama's Teleprompter Blog. If you are a progressive, you'd be better off not following that link. Stay away. But if you are a little more on the conservative side, like I am, I find this guy to be pretty darned funny.

So here's a "tweet" from TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States).

Big Guy says he's been fighting for America for 2 years, unfortunately for him America has started fighting back.

OK. That's funny.

Quantitative Easing, Round Two.

Read this CNNMoney article.

Back in March of 2009, the Federal Reserve Bank printed $2 trillion dollars ex nihilo, which means that this money was being added to the money supply but was backed by no additional value in our actual treasury.  In April of 2009, every dollar owned by everyone everywhere was worth 17% less than it was just before they printed the money.

Why would they do such a thing? Well, as the article explains, they are doing this because the federal government is finding it harder and harder to get anybody to buy our deficits. You know... those deficits where our beloved federal government, at the behest of the American people is spending more money than they are willing to pay it for the services they demand their government provide.  So, if China or Bahrain or Qatar or the UAE or the UK are no longer willing to buy our bonds, then the Federal Bank is willing to step in.

Yup, they are going to electronically credit the Federal Reserve with an addition $600 billion dollars in order to be able to purchase our own debt. This is also called "quantitative easing", a desperation move that is taken by a government when an economy is stalled but interest rates for lending are already close to zero.  This is also known as "monetizing the debt", something that has been tried before. I document this in a previous blog posting you can read here.

The Weimar Republic, the German government after World War I did this in order to pay off the massive reparations that they were obligated to pay per the Versailles Treaty.  Look it up. It was not a happy time to be a German.

If you are OK with your government reducing the value of every dollar that you have saved or invested, then don't do anything. But if I were you, and especially if you are a Republican, now is the time to fire up your word processor and write your Senators and Congressman and tell them to STOP THIS NOW!

Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus.

As distasteful a tactic as it has been, the Republicans have finally gotten some cojones and have refused to participate in the current administration's reckless spending spree.  Although this President promised to be post-partisan and post-racial, nearly every major GOP led initiative with regards to the health care, TARPII and cap and trade have been rejected out of hand by the dominant party.

So here's President Obama's most recent olive branch to the GOP going forward. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

No, Mr. President. If the current batch of GOP-ers are going to be true to their campaign promises, then the GOP is going to continue to fight you if you continue to add to the crushing debt that is now threatening to destroy our entire way of life.

But thank you, Mr. President, for so eloquently sum up your feelings about the GOP in particular and conservatives in general.  It helps to clarify our choices for the upcoming elections.

Amtrak Posts Record Ridership.

USA Today, in a Mike Chalmers article, reported that Amtrak posted record ridership with 28.7 million riders, an increase of 5.7% from 2009.  Ticket revenue increased by 9% to 1.7 billion.

However, Amtrak posted $3.5 billion in expenses for the fiscal year.
Let's see....  $1.7 billion from ticket sales against $3.5 billion in expenses.  Yup, another year in the red for Amtrak.

Separation of Church and State and the Politicians that Don't Understand It

Recent debate comments in Delaware serve to illustrate just how ignorant or disingenuous our current crop of politicians are with regards to the concept of "separation of church and state".

In a debate on Tuesday October 19th, Republican candidate Christine "the witch" O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coon's position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

O'Donnell asked "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?", and Coons replied that the First Amendment to the Constitution prevents Congress fro making laws respecting the establishment of religion, whereupon O'Donnell said "You're telling me that is in the First Amendment?"

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says verbatim: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

At play here is the fact that the concept of "separation of church and state" doesn't exist anywhere in our Constitution. Historically, this term first appears in a private letter written in 1802 from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.  He writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Interestingly enough, this letter was in response to a written concern by the Danbury Baptist Association that, at that time (prior to the establishment of the 14th Amendment), the Federal Government could force out a state's official church. 

It is important to remember the context in which the States demanded the addition of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution before they would ratify it.  The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing its will upon the people with regards to religion. With their freedom only newly won, the memory of religious oppression and forced conversion by royal rulers was strong enough that they wanted this freedom specifically protected.

Does teaching the concept of creationism in public schools rise to the level of "establishment of religion"?  I do not think so, although better minds than mine have spent much time debating this touchy subject.  Although the United States was founded by men who were primarily Christian in their beliefs, the concept of the world having been created by a singular divine intelligence or pantheon of divine beings is common among nearly all religions. I would agree that any program that would teach the concept of creationism to students in public schools would need to present more than the history as expressed in the book of Genesis (which is a common belief of Jews, Christians and Muslims). But again, would even such a carefully designed program actually bring about the establishment of religion in our schools? I argue that it would not.

More importantly, the "separatists" are perfectly happy to quote the first segment of the first sentence of the First Amendment, but often fail to address the second segment of that same sentence: ... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  While I do not fall into the category of those who take a very literal interpretation of the creation of the universe and the earth from the book of Genesis, there those who do.  If our public schools fail to teach about the alternative belief of creationism, would the government by proxy be guilty of prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  Those students are being presented with a view of the creation of the earth (evolution) which is, in their interpretation, entirely invalid. In other words, those students are being forced to supress their belief in how the world came to be.  I think that this is clearly a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

So... to bring this back around to Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell.  Chris Coons clearly believes that teaching creationism is schools would be a violation of the principle of "separation of church and state". I would only agree with him if only the Genesis creation story would be presented.  But in contrast, Christine O'Donnell should be aware of the fact that when President Jefferson first laid the words "wall of separation between Church & State", he specifically quoted the entire first clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, President Jefferson clearly intended those words to be associated with the protections provided by that Amendment.

The Unfinished Business of the Federal Government (or We have met the enemy and they is us)

I'd be willing to bet that more than 70% of the American public is completely ignorant with regards to the responsibilities of the U.S. federal Congress.  Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

But the partisanship being displayed by both the Republicans and Democrats have made the environment in Washington so toxic that Congress has utterly failed in this fundamental and Constitutionally mandated responsibility. 

A federal income-tax hike in the midst of our weak economic recovery seems unfathomable. Such a hike will surely stifle consumer spending and either stall or dampen any recovery we might experience going into 2011.  And yet, our Congress completely failed to come to any agreement on the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", which are scheduled to expire on December 31st of this year.  Worse yet, here we are in late September of 2010 and we don't even know what the tax tables are going to look like for next year. How can our vaunted and esteemed Congress possibly budget when they don't even have a GUESS as to what revenues will be?

So we don't get a federal budget. Of course, the political junkies will tell you that Congress is not required to provide a federal budget. And they're mostly right. But how can you possibly control spending unless you create a budget and then try and stick to it? Or maybe it's that our "transparent Congress" doesn't want to pass a budget because then they might be expected to actually control spending. Hmmm...

That same "transparent" Congress (reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous promise) has failed to adequately investigate misconduct charges leveled against Representatives Charlie Wrangle (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

But Congress CAN raid our empty treasury to authorize a $42 billion "small business  stimulus" bill even though small business aren't likely to borrow money for expansion or hiring because the tax hike will discourage consumers from parting with what little discretionary spending they still have in their own household budgets. More "chicken in every pot" politics and Americans LOVE it.

Every taxpaying citizen I talk to (I don't talk to non-taxpaying citizens because they have no skin in the game so why in the hell do I care about THEIR opinion?)  laments the fact that the government spending is completely out of control. And yet, when I start mentioning reduction of the budgets for the Dept. of Education, teachers scream. Or if I mention reduction in Medicare/Medicaid then seniors and the unfortunates of our society scream.  Or if I mention reduction in military spending, then the hawks and those serving in the military scream. 

Our elected leadership has utterly failed (for at least 60 years) to give it to us straight, to give us the plain, unvarnished truth.  If you want to have a healthcare system like Sweden's, or Canada's, or the United Kingdom's, then you have to pay taxes like a Swede, a Canadian or an Englishman. Or, if you want lower taxes, then you must do more for yourself and your community and expect less from your government, especially with regards to entitlements and the redistribution of wealth.  But our Congress and our President (again, for over 60 years), has told us we can lower taxes and still provide all the entitlements that you could ever ask for.

I do not lay the huge mess, the possibly unrecoverable mess, at the feet of Pelosi, Reid and the President. I lay it instead at the feet of every Congressman that ever asked for an earmark, every President that pushed social-engineering through government programs, every Senator that ever tacked on unrelated resolutions to authorizations (ala Harry Reied and the "DREAM" act for the current Defense Spending Authorization). Ultimately, I lay our huge mess on every American that still refuses to do with less of their piece of the entitlement pie and still expects our bloated federal government to reduce spending.

So Congress is going into recess. Well, during that period I guess the important and constitutionally mandated business of the people will have to wait. But by the same token, if they are in recess then they can't do any more harm to us.  I guess that's the silver lining. But that sure isn't the American Exceptionalism I grew up with.

Glenn Beck cranks up the culture wars.

Rich Benjamin, in an article on cnn.com (click here) made a series of arguments designed to support the position that Glenn Beck, the wildly popular conservative pseudo-religious radio and talk-show host, has "cranked up" the culture wars.

His first argument is based on the claim that despite Beck's assertions to the contrary, the August 28th rally in on the Washington Mall was a political rally. He points to the presence of a rally participant wearing a t-shirt with the message "If you can't love America, move back to Kenya."  Even though Beck specifically directed the attendees to not bring signs of any kind.  Even though not one speaker mentioned President Obama by name, or the Democratic party. It's reaching way down into the barrel to label this a patriotic rally based on a few t-shirt slogans. 

With regards to the "tea-party" opinion that President Obama is a marxist/socialist, well, it does seem to be that way. The massive expansion of nationalized health care at the same time that 47% of American workers (the majority who are in the poor, lower income and lower middle income brackets) do not pay any income taxes at all is seen by most fiscal conservatives as redistribution of wealth, a fundamental tenet of socialism.  He also rammed cash for clunkers down our throats, encouraging people to buy cars with taxpayer subsidies. Again, money moving from those who pay taxes to many who do not.  This was followed by cash for toasters, encouraging people to buy new appliances with... you guessed it... taxpayer subsidies. 

And for good measure let us not forget the first time homebuyer credit of $8,000 dollars (in 2009) and homebuyer assistance program of $6,500 dollars, again targeting those in the lower income brackets (most of whom pay no or little in income taxes) with money taken from the income tax payers.

There's lots more where that came from, but I think that the citations above are a clear indication of a political motivation on the part of the president and his party to move money from those who can afford to pay taxes to those who cannot. Is, or is that not socialism?

He further claims that the claims on the part of the conservative factions that President Obama is a communist or marxist or socialist is similar to admittedly similar claims against Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960's  The huge difference is that the attacks against Dr. King where clearly fueled by racist hatred, especially in the South.  But in the case of President Obama, we only have to look at the record of legislation passed during his administration to see what is plainly written.

As an aside, Reverend Al Shaprton claimed that the push by the "tea party" to restore "state's rights" is a direct assault on the civil rights movement and is a conscious effort to rollback those hard won gains.In this case the US federal government through civil-rights legislation signed in the late 60's forced states to accept a federally mandated standard for guaranteeing the protection of the civil liberties and rights of minorities.  There is no question that under the guise of state's rights, many states (again especially in the South) implemented legislation that unarguably were designed to deny or obstruct the rights of minorities, and particularly blacks, to vote, equal access to education and government services. 

But today, the resurgence of state's rights advocacy is couched firmly in the US federal government's failure to uphold its end of the contract that binds the states of our union together.  The federal government continues to spend more and more and yet services seem to decline or fail altogether. Immigration laws, especially with respect to the prosecution and deportation of aliens living here illegally, including border security is one aspect of the federal failure. Another is the inability of the government to respond quickly to natural disasters. The 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster clearly demonstrated the red-tape that obstructs swift response by the federal government as well as the complete and utter lack of coordination between federal, state and local emergency response agencies.  Our national infrastructure is coming apart. Roads, bridges and dams are falling into disrepair before our very eyes, and yet there is no money to fix them!  People who genuinely need government assistance can't get it while shysters and thieves who have studied the system collect "overpayments" from the government with impunity. The US Dept of Education consumes more tax revenue than ever and yet our nation continues its slide into mediocre scholastic performance among industrialized nations.

States are understandably outraged.  They are being forced by federal mandate to spend more money on federal programs and yet they do not have the access to print more money when their budgets are bled dry.  Not to mention that progressive legislation in states like Michigan, California, Arizona and Ohio have literally bankrupted them. States and local communities would very much like to have more say in the standards of education and welfare that they provide to their citizens, but are continually stymied by an outrageous and bloated bureaucracy that is reflected in the HUGE amount of regulatory law that those bureaucracies are expected to enforce. 

I understand the need for regulations, but when the process for getting FDA approval to get a drug to market can cost multiple billions of dollars. And yet, after getting such approval, a drug company is completely unprotected against expensive lawsuits when unknown side-effects not discovered during the FDA approval process inevitably arise. Question: If the FDA won't stand behind its approval process by helping to defend the pharmaceuticals, why in the hell do we force them to seek FDA approval? 

With regard to Mr. Benjamin's concern that a third of the nation thinks that President Obama is a muslim. Well, I don't get that either.  And we further agree that birthers are idiots. 

But I think that the charge of the current administration's movement of the nation to a more socialist government is completely founded and beyond debate.

Alan Simpson Calls It Like He Sees It on Social Security, a Giant Milk Cow

Read the article here on CNNMoney.com

Things have gotten so bad here in the United States that I have just about given up blogging about it.  Why bother? No matter what I say (or I do) it doesn't look like anything's going to change.

Republicans are going to win some seats in the House and Senate. So what? Who cares?  Republicans spend money almost as fast as Democrats do and what's worse.  Americans are learning their lesson. Consumer credit card debt has dropped to it's lowest level in 8 years, and that trend seems to continue. No kidding. I wish Congress and our state legislatures would go to town on that little lesson. When times are tough, you stop or slow spending and you sure as heck don't rack up even more crappy debt.

Speaking of trying to stop or slow spending... our country is in big trouble. We've added 3 trillion (with a "t" folks!) to the national debt in just two years and at the rate we are going, we will be unable to even pay the INTEREST on that debt. At that point, insolvency is just around the corner and then everything will become unhinged.  Whether it's the military, the welfare state, or social and civil engineering, the fact is that the American people are about to face the biggest crisis of this nation's history, and that is that unless we accept some pain (quite a lot actually) RIGHT NOW, we will completely collapse before the end of the decade if not sooner.

Americans expect to receive their Medicare and Medicaid, and WIC, and Food Stamps, and Social Security payments, etc. And any time anybody talks about cutting them, the political discourse turns into a caterwaul of biblical proportion.  Social welfare programs represent about 37% of our nation's total annual expenditure. The other big pole under the tent? The military, which accounts for about 32% of our total annual expenditure. When you include the money we spend annually to service the national debt, only about 20% of our annual budget (budget, ha ha, that's a good one, we aren't running on a budget right now and Pelosi & Co. have informed us that we won't get one this year) is "discretionary spending" on items like... regulation enforcement (FAA, SEC, SCC, HUD, Dept of Education, USDA, USFS, USPS, etc....) all the other services that we like to have.  So... as I've previously stated on this blog.  Not only must taxes go UP, but government spending in ALL areas of the budget has to go down.  Which means a lot more people out of work...  If you cut the military, then all those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines find themselves without work.  You get the idea.

Finally, Americans themselves are addicted to entitlements.  Former US Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) is in hot water because in an email response directed to an executive of the Older Women's League called it right on the nose when he said in part:
"I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Securityy who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've a point where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!"

Yah, it's probably a bit more blunt than the email's recipient (a woman) probably can handle.  But it's right on the nose. We've been getting dire warning and predictions from wizards of smart for more than two decades that the national debt and the entitlement system in this country were going to push us into national insolvency.  And while the sky was falling we continued along as those everything was just fine.


Well, everything is not just fine. Standard and Poors, a premier financial ratings company, has warned the United States just today that it better do something about the ballooning debt right now or our AAA credit rating will be lost.  Once that happens, you can kiss any chance of getting anybody to buy anymore of our debt goodbye. And when that happens, the Federal government will run out of money. Not just to help fund stimulus packages, but to pay out social security checks, pay for interstate highway maintenance, and send out federal inspectors to make sure our eggs don't have salmonella poisoning in them.  Oh wait.... we're paying for that?  Didn't work out so well, did it.

Have a nice day.

Capitalist Hogwash Concerning SB1070

I've never heard of Alex Nowrasteh before today and I've only heard in passing of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  But the headline in his June 28th FoxNews.com opinion article, "Arizona Declares War on on Capitalism", certainly caught my eye.

A summary of his dissertation is as follows: Illegal immigrants don't commit a disproportionately high rate of crime and Arizona is simply punishing businesses. He then cites US Bureau of Justice Statistics to show that from 2006 to 2008 both violent and property crimes dropped significantly. 

Mr. Nowrasteh doesn't bother to mention that in that time frame (specifically, 2007) Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires that all employers use the Federal e-Verify system (admittedly a flawed system) and that any employer that knowingly hires undocumented workers will face a 10-day suspension of their business license on the first offense and permanent suspension of their business license on any subsequent violations.

It is believed by many in Arizona that the drop in crime can be at least partially attributed to the enforcement of this act, which went into effect on January 1, 2008, because of a sudden migration of undocumented persons away from Arizona (to Texas, I am told. Sorry, Texas).

Mr. Nowrasteh then goes on to say that SB 1070 and the Legal Arizona Workers Act essentially turns every business and employer into an immigration agent of the state.  Well... in a word, Yes.  There is precedence for this.  Every business that sells goods or services to consumers are expected to collect local, state and federal sales taxes.  Every business that hires employees (as opposed to contract workers) must withhold federal taxes from employee paychecks and forward that money to the IRS.  Every business must conform to OSHA, Dept. of Labor, or Dept. of Sanitation requirements.  Every business must conform to equal employment opportunity regulations to prevent discrimination.  Every business must pay a wage not less than the federally mandated minimum wage.  So, Mr. Nowrasteh's point is somewhat muted by the fact that businesses are already conforming to a myriad of laws, rules and regulations being mandated from all levels of government.

What Mr. Nowrasteh does not point out is that any undocumented worker must provide some form of identification in order to be employed. That's what e-Verify is all about.  So of course, any illegal immigrant that is using bogus identification is causing material harm to a legal U.S. citizen.  That illegal immigrant can cause irreparable damage to credit ratings and worse, legal history. 

Mr. Nowrasteh makes the claim that many of the people that illegally migrate to the United States do so because they have no chance of doing so legally.  Really?  It may be hard, yes. It may cost money, yes.  But have "no chance of doing so legally"?  Please, Mr. Nowrasteh, would you mind submitting any kind of example or proof to support this statement. What utter hogwash.

I believe that Mr. Nowrasteh's underlying motive for this article is exposed in this one sentence buried deep in the midst of this article: "Now, businesses are going to be further punished when they do what naturally comes to them: lowering costs and passing those savings onto consumers."  Yup, if you run a business that is caught hiring illegal immigrants and paying them sub-minimum wage or worse, under the table in order to avoid federal tax withholding collection, then you are going to be punished.  Mr. Nowrasteh's capitalist world of minimized costs at all costs is creating and perpetuating a permanent serf-class in this country. Is that really what America is all about in your world, Mr. Nowrasteh?  Laborers who are viewed as two-legged mules, to be fed and watered occassionally, but who ought not to expect any joy in life? 

If Americans want a high standard of living (high pay), then they have to expect that they will have to pay for that standard when buying goods and services from domestic businesses.  I take pride in the fact that many of the companies that I do business with aren't the cheapest, but that every time I make a purchase, I'm helping their employees to live the "good" life.

Kevin Costner, Actor and Environmentalist Entrepreneur

British Petroleum has been largely "stymied" for 52 days with a oil spill disaster of immense proportions. Some estimate that the amount of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico may actually be 100,000 barrels, or five and one-half million gallons per day.  I think this is a highly pessimistic value, but even one-tenth of that is far too much.

While BP has spent nearly two months either trying to stifle, plug or siphon the gusher results appear to be disappointing. On June 5 they claimed to capture 640,000 gallons and yet the "spill cam" looked like most of the oil was escaping into the ocean.  BP is also employing clean-up crews to begin the labor-intensive process of cleaning decaying crude oil from the coast line of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Florida. CNN reporters have caught video images of many of their workers spending most of their time sipping water under pop-up tents instead of actually cleaning, so this effort is questionaable.

It may not be too facetious to say that God is doing his part. So far, the weather has kept the oil slick away from the dreaded "loop" current that would whisk the oil out of the Gulf around the Florida peninsula and north along the U.S. eastern seaboard.  But we can't count on that forever, especially with hurricane season's official start on June 1st. 

It's hard to tell what the hell the federal government has been doing. There is no question that Vice-admiral "Thad" Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard has been working hard monitoring the situation and coordinating efforts. In fact, he officially retired in May but he's still the operational commander. Kudos to him.

Congress, on the other hand, wants to criminally investigate BP. Good timing. BP's stock prices plummeted on that news. That removes money from BP's liquid assets that are going to be needed to pay for the repairs to the wellhead, cleanup effort as well as the loss of income from tens of thousands of Gulf residents who directly make their living from the sea.

President Obama is looking for whose "ass" to kick. Good for him.

With all this... up steps Kevin Costner, the star of the much-maligned movie "Waterwold", a forgettable movie.  In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 it occurred to his research scientist brother Dan Costner that there must be a way to separate oil and other fluids from water, as long as their specific gravity is different.  What they developed was a high-speed high-capacity centrifuge.  Since oil is lighter than water, when spun rapidly in a cylinder the water will pool around the outside off the cylinder while the oil will collect in the center of the fluid column. The oil is then pulled from the center while the water "spills" out of vents at the top of the center. Testing has shown that water heavily contaminated with Alaska crude was extracted with a better than 99% purity level.

He applied for a federal license from the U.S. Department of Energy in 1993 and the devices have been shown to work for nearly two-decades. Kevin Costner is a partner in the two companies that manufacture and sell these devices: Ocean Therapy Solutions (http://www.ots.org) and Costner Industries Nevada Corp (http://www.cincmfg.com). While these devices were designed with oil-spill cleanup in mind, they can be used for other purposes, such as water-contaminant removal.  Considering the magnitude of the Prince William Sound contamination, you would have thought that these things would be purchased by the federal government and/or the oil companies by the dozens. Mr. Costner has to date sunk nearly $26 million of his own money into this idea, and was quoted by the London Mail in 2007 as having lost $40 million in all the technologies that his companies have invented.  But for some reason, neither the U.S. federal government (especially MMS or DOE) or the oil industry seemed to be very interested in this technology.

Until now.


Mr. Costner is reported to have said that the ideal use would have been to immediately collect the oil/water from the gusher and process it. The largest unit that his company makes, a 2 1/2 ton stainless steel monster called the "V-20", can process 200 gallons per minute, or 12,000 gallons per hour. The other beautiful thing about his centrifuges is that they are chemical-free. That's right. No dispersants of any kind. Additionally, they are relatively mobile and easily installed on barges, sea platforms or ships.  Ten of these devices theoretically can process 2.8 million gallons of fluid per day.

Why the hell aren't these devices on every drilling rig and oil platform? Why is there no stockpile of these devices?

Having reviewed the information from the literature on their websites, I'm comfortable in stating that had these devices been in place, the Gulf Coast would have seen little to no contamination.

If one assumes that these centrifuges work as advertised and the video shown on OTS.org is not doctored, then the fact that the MMS did not insist that there be a stockpile of these devices, purchased by the oil industry and stored by the federal government as a hedge against disasters such as this should be the real criminal investigation.

Mr. Costner and his companies are the proof of what people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other so-called "right-wing wackos" have been braying: Private entrepreneurs will always be the provider of solutions to our problems.  Kevin Costner can apparently do what neither BP or the U.S. federal government cannot; turn oil back into water.

Boycotts work two ways.

My beloved wife and I had planned on going to Anaheim this October and spend a fun weekend at Disneyland.  I've been wanting to see the "Haunted House on Holiday" exhibition for the last couple of years and we finally seemed to able to arrange things so that we could go this fall.

Well, all of a sudden, California cities started making a fuss about Arizona's anti-illegal immigration enforcement laws, also known as "SB 1070", also known as "Arizona Safe Neighborhoods and Law Enforcement Act".  Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Berkeley (OK, Berkeley isn't a surprise, really) have indicated that they will boycott contracts with Arizona.

Clearly, they've not actually read the law (even though the total number of changes to existing Arizona state statutory laws account for only about 16 pages or reading).  Clearly, they've not yet seen that the law can only be enforced as part of a "contact by law enforcement officials" for other reasons and that questions can only be asked about immigration status if "reasonable suspicion" arises as part of that lawful contact.  They've also clearly not read the even more strongly worded amendment that specifically prohibits the use of race in evaluating "reasonable suspicion". 

OK, California. Have it your own way. But although your contracts with us are important to us, I know that tourism from out of state visitors is also important to you.  So let me point out a few things:

1. Rasmussen polls:
1. 53% in Pennsylvania favor passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
2. 57% in Texas support passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
3. 68% oppose boycotts of Arizona over SB1070.
4. 55% nationally favor immigration law similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
2. Pew Research Center
1. Broad approval for New Arizona Immigration Law
1. 73% approve requiring people to produce documents verifying status. (86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, 75% of Independents)
2. 67% approve allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify status.
3. 59% approve the general provisions of SB1070.
3. Gallup Poll
1. Among those who have heard of the law, 51% favor and 39% oppose it.
4. MSNBC/Telemundo
1. 61% favor AZ SB1070, although only 31% of Latinos favored it.

So... if you look at these results, it's pretty simple: Nearly 2/3 of the nation disagrees with the city council rulings for San Diego, Los Angeles and Berkely (amongst others). And just as California wants to flex it's financial muscle (oh... wait... what financial muscle? Isn't CA like 21 billion in the hole?),  so can we who support AZ SB1070.

You remember that California vacation I alluded to earlier? Well, we're going to Jackson Hole, Wyoming instead.

Yes! The American Way! Sue Google Instead of Trusting Your Own Eyes!

I was wandering around the internet on Tuesday after Memorial Day when I came upon this article. Once again, I felt my blood rising to a boil as yet another American citizen, probably spurred on by a money-seeking ambulance chaser lawyer, tries to turn an irresponsible tragedy into a trip to the great American lottery.


Lauren Rosenberg, a California visitor to Park City, Utah, was struck by a vehicle while walking along State Route 224, which is a rural highway with no sidewalks. I have found no details of the incident to determine if Ms. Rosenberg was on or off the roadway when she was struck.

She is suing for damages, which is expected. However, she is suing Google because when she used the Google walking paths mobile phone application, the route suggestion did not warn her that pedestrian right-of-ways or sidewalks might not be present during all stages of her route.

So, when she arrived at State Route 224 instead of turning around or trying to find a safer route, she continues on in reckless disregard for her own safety.  Once again, a human being finds themselves victim to an unquestioning reliance upon technology, even when the manifest evidence before their eyes shows that such reliance is questionable at best and downright dangerous.

While drivers of motor vehicles have a responsibility to operate them in a safe manner, pedestrians are expected to stay out of the way of roadways which are not designed for foot traffic.  Her own eyes and wisdom should have warned her that State Route 224 was unsafe, but she willingly placed her own safety in jeopardy. She rolled the dice, and she lost.

I do not know the specifics of this incident. Was Ms. Rosenberg on the roadway when she was struck? Did Mr. Harwood, the vehicle's driver, maintain control and a safe lookout while he was driving?  Were there lapses in judgment or alertness on either or both parties?  Mr. Harwood stands at significant legal peril, but Google should be held blameless in this matter.  Users of Google maps, which is in my opinion an extraordinary tool of immense usefulness, should be expected to use discretion at all times.  Should Google maps present a suggested route that physical examination proves to be unsafe then by all means other routes should be considered. That's what being an adult is all about.

Intended Consequences of SB 1070, and the Pain it Will Cause.

Today, azcentral.com ran a story about one of the very predictable results of the new Arizona immigration law (SB 1070); illegal immigrants going even further underground than they currently do.

The article is here.

The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the headline: "Arizona immigrants move deeper into the shadows".  The story is about a Mexican born naturalized US citizen, who is married to an illegal alien, also a Mexican and their US born daughter.  In the context that the wife is an immigrant, I suppose the headline is technically correct, I still resent the title because only those who are here illegally or those who are aiding and abetting illegal aliens in their efforts to remain here illegally have to move deeper underground. Legal immigrants who are following the law have nothing to fear from SB 1070.

The summary of the story is that the wife fell in love with her husband to be and had already made plans to marry him when he revealed that he was in the US without permission.  Since then, they have been carefully controlling their daily and weekly activities to keep a low profile. They keep a neat yard. They dress nice. He works hard. They obey all other laws. They immaculately maintain their vehicle in order to avoid traffic stops. In other words, they sound like nice people. People that I would like as neighbors.

But, he is still here in violation of the law, and she is aiding and abetting him. Their daughter is growing up believing that her family are all US citizens, a lie.  One day, be it tomorrow or in ten years, he may be found out and when it happens, he will be deported with the inevitable result that their family will either be ripped apart or they will leave together to go to Mexico, where they will have far fewer opportunities.

This is the consequence breaking the law. He entered the country illegally, and she has supported and aided him ever since she found out that he was an illegal alien.  Until proven otherwise, the US and Arizona are both governed by laws, and justice must be blind when upholding it.  Either that, or we abandon the law. To do so would be, in my opinion, just as unjust if not more so to the millions of people that have become naturalized US citizens by following the law, or the hundreds of thousands more who continue to follow the law and are still patiently awaiting naturalized US citizen status.

The story is tragic. But it is not a tragedy of injustice. It is the tragedy of a nice little family that turned a blind eye with regards to immigration law and are both daily paying the price.  And potentially to pay the highest penalty for breaking it.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

USCD panel of legal professors state that SB 1070 probably passes Constitutional muster.

Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Tribune reported on May 14th that a panel of three law professors discussing Arizona law SB 1070 could well pass constitutional muster, although violations could occur during enforcement. 

The article is here.

The primary points made by the professors were:
1) It does not appear to give law enforcement more authority, contrary to claims by opponents of the law.
2) The the law was carefully written by Russel Pearce with the help of Constitutional law professor Kris Kobach of the Univ. of Missouri. It mirrors federal immigration laws. Because immigration law is adjudicated  by the federal government, the Arizona law could be pre-empted because federal law overrides state law. Arizona is essentially notifying the federal government that it will enforce the law until the federal government explicitly orders them to stop doing so. Since there is no conflict, the likelihood that the federal government will "pre-empt" the enforcement of this law is unlikely.  Further, if SB 1070 is found fail constitutional muster, that means that federal law ALSO fails constitutional muster, an unsavory consequence for the federal government.

The Danger of Playing Economic War When you are DOWNSTREAM

Interesting, considering the situation that exists between both Southern California and Arizona. They both are states that border Mexico. Their electorate are mutually groaning under tremendous budgetary shortfalls that are pushing our public programs to their very limit. 

However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft.  Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States.  Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants.  Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally. 

For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will.  This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce.  Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this.  But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.

Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).  Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet.  I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'. 

Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented.  President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.

Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services.  With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon. 

However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality.  Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power.  I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:


May 18, 2010


VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL


Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:


I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).


You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)


I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.


If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.


People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.


Sincerely,

Commission Gary Pierce


The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.

If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.

Factoid of the day.

I typed "miserable president" into Google search engine today (May 17th @ 10:11 AM MST), and here's what I got:

Well, for once I agree.

The Unbelievable Media Bias

NewsBusters reports that when prompted by Katie Couric during an interview, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the person responsible for the failed car bomb in Times Square was "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Yup, Mayor Michael thinks it might be one of those "tea party" people, you know, an angry WHITE guy. I can only imagine how disappointed President Obama was to find out that in fact, the guy is actually a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani decent. Sorry Mister President, you won't be able to blame this one on those angry gun-toting white males.

Of course, Arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement laws are whipping up angst all over the United States. The day of the bill's signing, pro-illegal-immigration supporters were throwing water bottles and other objects at Phoenix police. Looters have damaged stores in several cities during these protest marches during the May day weekend. Yet the press is characterizing them as "unfairly repressed", yet when tens of thousands of tea party people march on Washington DC and other U.S. cities, even though no crimes were reported, they are characterized as full of "hateful, racist and bigoted" people.

Speaking of Arizona's new law, I've read it in it's entirely and there is absolutely no provision for a police officer to lawfully stop somebody and ask them for their papers. Period. These new laws may only be acted upon in a situation where a person has already been legally detained for other reasons (traffic stop). The only possible cause for concern is that it makes the hiring of day laborers from the road side illegal, which in my opinion is good law.

Speaking of peaceful assemblies, several thousand American citizens had a rally in Arlington, Virginia where each and every one of them was wearing or carrying a firearm. I can't speak as to whether any of them actually had any bullets in them, although even an unloaded firearm can really smart when you use it to butt-stroke some idiot. But while the press was lamenting the implied threat of these citizens who were, in fact, doing nothing more than exercise their 2nd Amendment right, I note that nobody was shot or killed or even just injured by some kind of firearm discharge. What?! How can that be? Guns KILL people right? I guess this shows what the NRA people have been talking about for a long time. People kill people, and these people decided to be lawful citizens on that particular day.

So, just so I can call it right out where people can either praise or pillory me for it.

Large group of white people assemble to protest Obamacare, or lack of illegal-immigration law enforcement, or to lawfully assemble with their firearms, is a bunch of racist, bigoted, bible clinging members of hate groups just brimming with hate and ready to explode into seditious violence.

But large groups of non-white people who clearly support illegal-immigration, who break store windows and throw objects at the police, who threaten reporters, slap them and then tell the police that THEY have been assaulted (look it up on the net, it actually happened just this weekend), they're just "unfairly repressed" people.

And the main-stream media talking heads actually have the temerity to look me in the face and wonder why Fox News is kicking the living crap out of all the other news sources?

Arizona SB 1070: Here's what it actually says...

If you want to see the actual bill as passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the Governor, you can go here.

I have attempted to summarize it as much as possible below.

Changes are made to Sec 2. Title 11, Chapter 7 of Arizona Revised statutes, amended by adding article 8.
8.a) No official or agency of any Arizona juridiction may adopt policies that limit or restricts enforcement of federal immigrations laws.
8.b) When lawful contact made by Arizona law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be an illegal alien, a reasonable attempt will be made to determine the person’s immigration status.
8.c) If it is determined that the person is an illegal alien and convicted of a violation of Arizona jurisdiction law, they shall be immediately transferred to ICE or the US Border Patrol.
8.d) Notwithstanding other law, law enforcement may securely transport an alien in their custody to a federal facility in Arizona or other point of transfer to federal custody outside law enforcement agency jurisdiction.
8.e) Law enforcement may without warrant arrest a person under probable cause to believe that person has committed a public offense that makes person eligible for removal from the U.S.
8.f) Except as restricted by Federal law, Arizona officials may not be prohibited or restricted from transmitting, requesting or storing immigration-related status information for the following purposes:
8.f.1) Determining eligibility for any public benefit provided by any political subdivision of Arizona or the Federal government.
8.f.2) Verification of claim of residence or domicile is required under Arizona law or judicial order pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in Arizona.
8.f.3) Confirming ID of any person who is detained.
8.f.4) If person confirmed to be an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the Federal Registration Laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and National Act.
8.g) A person may bring an action to challenge any official or agency of an Arizona jurisdiction that adopts or implements a policy that restricts full enforcement of federal immigration law. If an official or agency has been found in violation, the court shall:
8.g.1) The person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney feeds
8.g.2) The entity will pay a civil penalty of not less than $1000 or more than $5000 for each day the limiting policy was in effect after the filing.
8.h) The court shall collect civil penalties from 8.g and remit them to the Dept. of Public Safety for the Gang and Immigration Intellgence Team Enforcement mission fund.
8.i) A law enforcement officer is indemnified for reasonable costs and expenses, incurred by any action so long as the officer is judged to have acted in good faith of enforcement of the law.
8.j) Guides implementation.

Sec. 3. Title 13, Chapter 15, Arizona Revised statutes modified as below:
15.a) In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:
15.a.1) Present on public of private land in Arizona.
15.a.2) In violation of 8 USC Sec 1304(e) or 1306(a).
15.b) In enforcement of this section final determination of an alien’s immigration status shall be determined by either:
15.b.1) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to veiry or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
15.b.2) A law enforcement officer or agent communicating with US ICE or US Border Patrol pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c).
15.c) A person sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence until sentence is served.
15.d) In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the reason to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:
15.d.1) At least $500 for first violation.
15.d.2) Twice the amount from 15.d.1 if person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.
15.e) The court will collect these assesements and distribute them to Dept. of Public Safety, subaccount for Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission appropriations.
15.f) This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.
15.g) Violation of this subsection is a class 1 misdemeanor unless
15.g.1) A class 3 felony is committed while in possession of
15.g.1.a) A dangerous drug as defined in 13-3401
15.g.1.b) Precursor chemicals used in manufacture of methamphetamines in violation of 13-3404.01.
15.g.1.c) Possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument as defined in 13-105.
15.g.2) A class 4 felony is committed if the person
15.g.2.a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section
15.g.2.b) Within 60 months prior to violation, has been deported from the US pursuant to 8 USC 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the US to 8 USC 1229c.

Sec.4 Section 13-2319 AZ revised statutes amended:
Insert section E:
E) Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
Redesignate section E as section F.

Sec. 5 Title 13 Chapter 29 AZ Revised Statues amended by adding 13-2928 and 13-2929

Section 13-2928 makes it illegal to pick up anybody from a street, roadway or highway for the purpose of work at a different location if the vehicle impedes normal traffic. It also makes it illegal to enter a vehicle under the same circumstances. Finally, it makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. 13-2928 will be a class 1 misdemeanor.

Section 13-2929 makes it illegal for anyone to attempt to, or actually perform any of the following if they know or recklessly disregard a person’s illegal immigration status: transport, move, harbor, conceal, shield, or encourage to reside in this state unlawfully.

Modification of Sec 23-212 to define entrapment of businesses by law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances such as law enforcement initiating idea to commit the offense, with or without inducement and it can be shown that employer was not predisposed to commit offense prior to contact with law enforcement agents.

Section 23-214 is modified to specify that employers shall participate in e-verify and maintain the record of verification of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

Section 28-3511 modified to permit the removal, impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle if the person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to do so of an alien in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is residing in the U.S. unlawfully.

AZ SB1070: If it's making people this mad, it must be a good thing.

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” – wrote Thomas Paine during the U.S. War of Independence at a time when Continental forces had not yet won a major battle. After the Christmas Eve assault on a vastly superior force of Hessians, mercenaries on King George’s payroll and possessed of a ferocious reputation, the Continentals got into the habit winning far more frequently than losing.

Today the people of the United States are now faced with a similar situation within the narrow context of illegal immigration. I will not go into why so many people from Mexico, Central and South America are trying to get into the U.S. other than to say that there are job opportunities here that don’t exist in their own countries.

In 1954, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service executed Operation Wetback (what a HORRIBLE name), which focused on removing 1.2 million illegal immigrants from the southwest. It focused, unsurprisingly, on Mexicans in the nation illegally.
In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 restricted, for the first time, the number of Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. It has failed to work.
In 1976, President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. Congress tried to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented workers. The proposed legislation was so unpopular that it failed to get out of committee.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1996, which granted amnesty to about 2.3 million undocumented workers but was also supposed to restrict business from knowingly hire them. It has failed to work.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It increased Border Patrols, built a 20-mile long fence from the Pacific, changed rules for immigration detention. It has failed to work.
In 2005, President George Bush signed the REAL ID act, which further restricted political asylum, increased immigrant enforcement rules, and imposed federal restrictions on the practice of state driver’s licenses to immigrants.
In 2006, Congress tried to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 and 2007. Both were supported by President Bush. However, since a key component of these acts were to grant amnesty to an estimated 12 million to 21 million undocumented aliens, populist backlash was unprecedented and the legislation never made it to the President’s desk.

This lists only recent attempts by the federal government to control the influx of immigrants or to address the problem of illegal immigration, In fact, the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited the importation or migration of foreigners under contract to perform labor in the U.S. and its territories.

So, with regards to Mexican illegal immigration, the border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) are now filled to the brim with Mexican illegals because it is supposedly “racist” for the United States to enforce its own sovereignty with regards to controlling who is permitted within our borders.

Since 1954, the illegal immigrants are 21 million to zero. Zero! Have you looked at Mexico’s own laws concerning illegal immigrants? That’s a topic for another blog, but suffice it to say that in Mexico, it’s a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Illegal re-entry after deportation carries a ten year sentence. Mexico maintains a nation population registry that tracks all outside tourists. Citizens of Mexico must carry an identity card. Visitors not carrying appropriate documentation are subject to arrest. Finally, foreigners may be deported without due process.

President Obama, representing the U.S. federal government, laments Arizona’s attempt to get this problem under control as “misguided”. Yet, Arizona SB1070 is fully compliant with the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. SB1070 does NOT permit Arizona law enforcements officers to stop anybody at anytime and request “papers”. SB1070 does not permit officers to stop people for the purpose of identifying undocumented workers. However, SB1070 does permit officers, under circumstances of reasonable suspicion, to investigate whether a person detained for other reasons might be an illegal alien. In this case, “reasonable suspicion” can be interpreted to mean that if an officer stops a person for violating a traffic law, for example, and upon routine request for driver’s license and registration information, the driver cannot provide the license, the officer might then be permitted to inquire further as to the detainee’s citizenship status.

Since the federal government has elected through its non action to enforce its own immigration laws, the several states of the Union are obligated to protect their lawful citizenry. If that means that we get a hodge podge of immigration laws and differing levels of enforcement, there is nobody that President Obama and Congress can blame but themselves.

SB1070 is now law. Let the lawsuits begin.

Judge Napolitano of Fox News said it best. This is an embarrassment to Arizona.

It will cause Latinos, who are natural "social conservatives" to flee the GOP and seek sanctuary with the Democrats.

He predicted that it will be challenged constitutionally. He believes that either the Arizona Supreme Court, or possibly the U.S. Supreme Court will prevent this law from being enforced from the git go. In fact, he said that a challenge will probably happen "tomorrow".

Who lost? Pretty much everybody.

Who won? Even though the law will be shot down by judicial challenge, Governor Jan Brewer will win with her GOP constituency, which will help her dramatically in the primary. However, she gave her eventual Democratic opponent a huge gift.

My steadfast opposition to this bill doesn't change the fact that the federal government, by its very inaction, guaranteed that the several States are going to start trying to get this issue under control. Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 are all directly to blame, along with all the Congresses that served along those Presidents. President Obama less so only because he's only served as President for just over a year.

My steadfast opposition to this bill does not change my opinion concerning illegal immigration. If you enter this nation without its expressed permission, you are a lawbreaker and you should seek forgiveness, because in so doing you disrespected the people and the laws of this nation.

Tragedy in Arizona. SB1070 will become Law today. And it didn't have to be...

The story of SB1070 is a testimony of the complete and utter failure of the United States federal government to come up with a sane solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

Let's call a spade a spade right now. Illegal immigration is actually a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I have no hard facts or statistics to back up my next statement, but reason and prudence dictates that over 99.9999% of the people who have entered our country illegally are doing so out of desperation to find a job, any job that will put food on their family's dinner table and maybe put a decent roof over their heads. And it's American greed, on the part of private individuals and on the part of American business interests.

The homeowner that has an undocumented worker trim and maintain their yard or property because they can get the work done at a low cost is guilty for this problem.

The business that employs undocumented workers by sharing taxpayer SSN or EIN numbers, or pays them under the table for low wages is guilty for this problem.

The Latin-American community, and especially the Mexican-American community are guilty because they have done absolutely nothing to help stem the tide and in fact are actively involved in protecting them. What infuriates me is that they constantly paint this issue as evidence of racism by the government. State Senator Russel Pearce has stated frequently that "illegal immigrant" is not a race issue. It's a crime. Somehow, it seems that illegal immigrants have some kind of "right" to live here in the United States. Nothing is further from the truth. If you are not born a U.S. citizen, then you must earn the privilege. And that can't be done while living in the shadows.

The federal government is in a real rough place. Back in the 1980's, Pres. Reagan granted amnesty to roughly two million illegals, with the understanding that the gates to the country would then become more strongly guarded. Businesses and private citizens alike claim that they need the low labor costs that undocumented workers provide in order to stay competitive. And yet, the federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to be able to track the activities of every alien currently in our country.

So the federal government has done nothing for over twenty years. The number of illegal aliens in our nation has grown from an estimated two million in the 1980s to somewhere between twelve and twenty million today. The vast majority of these people are working in hotels, fast food restaurants and in the agricultural sector. But that doesn't change the fact the government has no visibility to what these people are doing in our country.

In Arizona, five of the last eight police officers who were killed in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants, most of whom were involved in illegal drugs or human trafficking. Additionally, in just the last couple of months the murders of several southern Arizona ranchers have been tied to drug runners who are Mexican nationals.

I want to make my position perfectly clear. SB1070 is bad legislation and bad law. I believe that it will be challenged as being in violation of Constitutional guaranteed rights to protection from illegal search/seizure. I believe that it will open the door to many instances of racial profiling. I should point out that racial profiling works, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a violation of basic civil rights.

But what is Arizona to do? Our officers and citizens are being killed by Mexican nationals who are in our state illegally. The federal government is doing very little to stem the flow across our border. It is also doing nearly nothing to help those who desparately want to work in the United States but who are also not U.S. citizens.

Catholic churches are strangely aligned with human traffickers and their drop-houses by providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. The Church is doing so for very human and compassionate reasons. The human traffickers have very different reasons. They are protecting valuable assets, nothing more than human "cattle" in their eyes.

To add insult to injury, the federal government in the form of President Obama calls SB1070 to be misguided. I disagree with that entirely. I believe that SB1070 is actually a sign of desperation, a sign of a state legislature and governor who has pleaded with the federal government for help. If the federal government would step up to the plate and actually perform it's constitutionally mandated duty to both enforce our border security as well as to provide a mechanism for people who want to work here to let them do so.

So, what would I do if I were King of America?

1. I would give American businesses until Jan 1, 2012 to verify that every single employee can be verified to either be a United States citizen or a foreign national that has a valid work-visa. After that date, any business found to employ undocumented foreign nationals will be fined daily at a rate of $100 per day per undocumented worker until the employees are terminated. Failure to solve the problem within 30 days will result in progressively higher fines and/or suspension/termination of business licenses.
2. I would provide an application process where a foreign national (but specifically Mexicans) could apply for a work visa from their own home. They would have to provide their respective national ID number. The U.S. government would have one month, upon receipt of the application, to determine if the applicant has a criminal history or pending criminal case. Upon approval, the applicant would be directed to a valid port of entry, whereupon after paying an application fee of $350.00, they would have full fingerprinting, a photograph taken. That information would then be immediately registered in a federal database. The applicant could then stay in the country for the duration of the visa provided that they checked in with ICE every 90-120 days.
3. Deportees would go into a federal database, along with their fingerprints. Once in this database, it would become part of the e-verify system, and being flagged as a deportee should be an automatic "do not hire" flag.
4. Once the applicant is an approved alien worker, they can immediately go on the list to become a United States citizen.
   

I'm sure there's more.... but that's a start.

Arizona Enforces What the U.S. Government Will Not

The State of Arizona passed Senate bill 1070, a wide-ranging illegal immigrant measure sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce. This bill is now sitting on the desk of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, and you can be that this one is a nasty poser for her.

It makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and gives state and local law enforcement broad authority to determine an individual's legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual may be in the U.S. illegally.

Sadly, since our Federal government does not have the political will to enforce Federal law concerning border security and the problem of illegal immigration, Arizona has been forced to this difficult pass.

There have been three Arizona ranchers killed recently, and the evidence strongly points to Mexican nationals in the U.S. illegally, probably either part of the illegal drug trade or the human smuggling trade. Frustration is so high on the southern border of the state that a militant militia group is offering it's services to provide armed patrols along the border to interdict persons crossing the border. It would be laughable except that the ranchers are frustrated and scared.

Why is it that those advocates for leniency on illegal aliens steadfastly do these things?

First, they do nothing to discourage persons who contemplate coming to the U.S. illegally.

Second, once they are here, the advocates actually assist them in going underground, being paid under the table, and moving further into the heart of our country. You never hear them encouraging these good people who become law breakers by this action to turn themselves in or to return to their homeland. NEVER.

Third, they fail utterly to acknowledge that any sovereign nation has a right, and responsibility, and a duty to know the identity of any foreigner who desires admission.

Fourth, they fail to identify and condemn business and industries that employ these people.

In the face of such advocacy to promote this illegal behavior the State of Arizona has been forced to take action that it would otherwise not take.

I hate this bill, because the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply desire to find work. However, the safety and security of our people demand that we take this action, with all of it's police-state like apparatus.

God help us all.

Like it or not, the US is still a superpower. What?

In a response to a question about how the recent U.S. led "nuclear summit" would affect Middle East peace efforts, part of his response was this:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them, and that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

I was not aware, Mr. President, that being a military superpower was a burden. In fact, I feel that it's quite the other way around. Being a nation that generates such wealth that we can maintain such a powerful military is a privilege and blessing that allows us to share the principles of peace, equality and personal freedom throughout the world.

Of course, when the character of the government no longer represents equality and personal freedom, then maybe the fact that we are the sole superpower should be a matter of concern for all. At one time, the United States was considered a beacon, an example of a government established by the governed for the benefit of the governed, not a privileged ruling class. And the military might that backed that government was in opposition to tyranny. And that military might was only ever intended to protect our way of life, and to help other people to gain their freedom, if only by the living example that it COULD be done.

I think that Senator McCain, Obama's Republican opponent for president in the last election said it as well as can be said:

"That's one of the more incredible statements that I've ever heard a president of the United States make in modern times. We are the dominant superpower and we're the greatest force for good in the history of this country, and I thank God every day that we are a dominant superpower."

Amen, Brother McCain.

Right is Right, Whether You Are Left or Right.

I saw this on CNN today. I can't really tell whether this woman is conservative or progressive, but it doesn't matter. Her message in this iReport is valid for all citizens of the United States who are fed up with non-representing Representatives and Senators.



Dig it? Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Paradise Valley DeMolay Chapter Regains it's Charter on March 27th

After several years, DeMolay International will once again have a Chapter in Paradise Valley Lodge in Phoenix, Arizona.

DeMolay International is a young men's organization whose purpose is to create a safe environment in which to learn leadership and business skills that will benefit them in their future vocations. This is done through regular business meetings and the teachings of the seven cardinal virtues of a DeMolay: Filial Love (Love of family), Reverence for Sacred Things, Courtesy, Comradeship, Fidelity, Cleanness and Patriotism.

The public installation of officers will take place on March 27th, 2010 at 7:00 PM, to be held at the Paradise Valley Silver Trowel Lodge building.

The members of the chapter have decided that their new Chapter will be named "Paradise Valley Chapter", although the chapter ID will be different and they actually replace Albert Buhlen Chapter.

The initial officers to be installed:

Andy Kendig - Master Councilor (President)

Dakotah Crabtree - Senior Councilor (1st Vice President)

Billy McKean - Junior Councilor (2nd Vice President)

Jared Truettner - Senior Deacon

Sean Sigler - Junior Deacon

Timothy Dougherty - Chaplain

Matthew Kirshman, Jr - Marshal

Phelen Bennett - Junior Steward

Advisory Council to be installed:

Glen Van Steeter - Advisory Council Chairman

Gregory Weisman - Chapter Advisor

Mat Brassard - Ritual Advisor

Laura Van Steeter - Financial/Fundraising/Hospitality

Chris Hagenian - Athletics/Sports

Executive Officer Gary Garafola will be installing the chapter and will also present the charter to the Chapter.