Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed immigration bill S.B. 1070 into law. Here is the fact sheet for easier reading. Some people are calling it the toughest immigration bill to date. The bill is designed to help curb crime committed by illegals in Arizona by expanding the ability of local law enforcement to aggressively enforce current laws on the books on both the state and federal level. Arizona ranks 6th on the list of states with the biggest populations of illegals currently residing in the US and has seen some of the largest population growth in the last 10 years.

The media on the left has been painting this bill akin to Nazism and state sanctioned racism, which comes at no surprise to me as that seems the typical tactic these days. If the Left can’t go after something with facts, they play the race card like it’s a pass at Disney Land.

The bill does nothing but enable law enforcement to enforce laws already on the books. Previously, an individual had to be suspect of committing a crime before a police officer could require them to provide identification. With this new law going into effect in August, the police in Arizona will be able to require individuals to produce identification on the grounds of suspicion of illegal status.

Contrary to how it is being portrayed, there are stringent controls in the bill to define criteria that must be met before police can stop you and/or require identification.

According to Governor Brewer,

“It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid — stable and steadfast.”

Later in her address she stated,

“Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.

I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections.

That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from “solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…”

The bill already required that it “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

While the general protection was already included, I believe the issue is so important, we needed to make it CRYSTAL clear.

And I believe that we need to more than simply inscribe it in statute.

Words in a law book are of no use if our police officers are not properly trained on the provisions of SB 1070, including its civil rights provisions.

Today I am issuing an executive order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board – AZPOST — to develop training to appropriately implement SB 1070.

Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.”

The following day, hundreds of people turned out in the streets around the capitol to protest the law, claiming it will increase racial profiling and the power of law enforcement to discriminate against Latinos through the bypassing of probable cause.

When an individual voiced his position of being for the new law, police had to step in and remove him for fear of his safety. As the police were escorting him away from the protesters, a small riot broke out, resulting in rocks and water bottles being thrown at police and 1 arrest was made.

After reviewing the video below, it is very clear that more arrests would have resulted but the police were grossly out numbered and, I am positive, fearing for their own safety as well. I think it funny how the main stream media tries so hard to portray Teapartiers as radical, violent racists ready to explode like a powder keg when it’s clear to see the violent tenancies in America today tend to reside cleanly on the Left side of the equation.

Here is another video a little closer to the action.

People say no human being should be considered “illegal”. I say they should be if they’ve committed a crime and the illegal violation of our sovereign border is not just a crime, it’s a felony.

SB 1070 was passed by a majority vote and garnered strong support from both sides of the political spectrum. It gained that support largely because of the increasing violence in Arizona and other border states and the increased financial burdens imposed on Arizonian taxpayers because of the influx of immigrants across their southern border.

This from fairus.org, The Federation for Immigration Reform.

FAIR estimates the illegal alien population in 2005 at 489,000, which is the 6th largest in the U.S among the FAIR estimate. This number is 73% above the U.S. government estimate of 283,000 in 2000, and 456% above the 1990 estimate of 88,000.

According to an estimate of the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2005 there were an estimated 400,000 to 450,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona. That ranked fifth among illegal alien populations in the United States in the PEW estimate.3/

In 2000 nearly one-third of all of Arizona’s children are either foreign born or the child of an immigrant. Seven percent are first-generation immigrants (foreign born) and 24 percent are second-generation (a child of an immigrant). FAIR estimates in 2004 that the taxpayers of Arizona spent $748.3 million per year on illegal aliens and their children in public schools.

FAIR estimated that in 2005 the cost of illegal immigrants to taxpayers in Arizona topped 1.3 Billion dollars and with the obvious increase in populous numbers, that cost has done nothing but go up.

On October 2nd, the Maricopa County, Arizona District Attorney’s office released crime statistics covering the current issues. Overall, while illegals represent only nine percent of the population in Maricopa County they are responsible for approximately 22% of the crimes committed. Here is a breakdown of statistics by crime category. Illegal aliens account for:…

33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs.
35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping.
20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI.
16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes.
18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes.
44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud.
85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID.
96% of those convicted of human smuggling.

In Maricopa County, when looking at the incarceration rate vs Offenses per 100,000 of populous since 2004 and up until the end of 2008, you can clearly see that there is a direct corollary between the two figures. A tougher approach to law enforcement by Sheriff Joe Arpiao -including additional training on immigration enforcement for his deputies by ICE- coupled with increased cooperation between his offices and the Maricopa County Prosecuting Attorney’s office, crime has fallen dramatically. Since 2004, the county has seen a decrease in crimes committed per 100,000 in populous by 8% from 2007 to 2008 and an overall 18% decrease since 2004. Incarceration rates over the term increased over 29%.

These deceases in the crime rate can be directly attributed to Sheriff Arpaio’s efforts to curb illegal immigration in Maricopa County and a strong dedication to enforcing current laws while others , like San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, insist on providing a safe haven by openly choosing not to enforce current immigration laws. I posted about California’s issues here last month.

According to the Cochise County sheriff, problems associated with illegal immigration cost residents 37 cents of every tax dollar they pay. Cochise County is a border town in Arizona, and shares 84 miles of border with Mexico.

Regardless of what some may want you to believe, border states like Arizona have a real problem on their hands. Some residents are afraid to leave their homes alone at night.

On the heels of reports surrounding the killing of Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher in Cochise County, people have had enough. Investigators said that Krentz was likely killed by an illegal immigrant who wanted the ATV he was riding on his property. After being shot Krentz attempted to drive away from the individual and later died traveling to get help.

18-20% of our prison system’s population are illegal immigrants while they only account for 3 to 5% of the over all population in the United States. California’s prison system is now inundated with illegals, primarily from Mexico. As of 2005, 240,000 incarcerated nationally were illegal immigrants.

Proponents of illegal immigration claim that these people, although a felon the second they cross our border illegally, are simply hard working people looking for a better life. I think the numbers speak for themselves and put that soundly to rest.

It’s high time we address the real issue here. It isn’t that they just need a “break” and will be productive members of our society. They have proven that wrong time and time again. For what ever reason, be it cultural or moral, the raw facts show a great number of people illegally crossing the border from the south are not the type of people we wanted to welcome into our country with the statement, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The fact that illegal border crashers are felons the second they jump the fence must be addressed. Our enabling of their crime just cheapens our own citizenship and what was sacrificed to provide the freedom and liberty bestowed to us. The fact that the current Administration is doing nothing about the issues furthers the evidence that they view these people as nothing more than another base of voters to pander to.

As I outlined here, there are solutions to this problem that can provide for the safety and well being of citizens and provide an avenue for those wishing to come here to do so legally. Because we have allowed the problem to foment for so long, we made made  it necessary to make some hard decisions as well such as the deportation of individuals discovered as illegal with no exceptions and a hard line needs to be taken with the Mexican Government who, by all accounts, openly encourages it’s citizens to cross illegally.

Not all those wishing to come here from Mexico represent a criminal element. I’ve been to Mexico and have met many generous, kind and wonderful people there. Many who are here illegally would gladly live in Mexico if only they could support the same lifestyle and prosperity that they enjoy in the US but the law is the law. If any other nation in the world were experiencing the kind of frequent violations of their sovereign border as we do every day, they would dispatch their military in force and view what the Mexican Government is endorsing as an act of war.

If we choose not to be the Nation of laws as set forth by our Founders, choose not to be a Republic, then we have nothing. Our laws have been put in place not only to protect the citizen but also to protect and enforce our founding documents which are the foundation of our free society. We can not selectively choose where and when we will enforce and uphold our laws. They must be applied justly and evenly to everyone.

Kudos to Arizona for looking out for and protecting their citizens by taking care of the issues the Federal Government refuses to address. Maybe, just maybe, this will help people understand why most things in our Nation were meant to be addressed at the local and not Federal level.

A bit old but still relevant is yet another open letter to President Barak Obama from a prominent figure in business in America. This time Lou Pritchett, former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble, shares why President Barak Obama scares him and I think his thoughts are shared by many.

There seems to be an unending supply of people from with in the business world that are coming out to share their concerns with how the current administration is handling things.

Just last week I featured an open letter from Ronald S. Lauder, the President of the World Jewish Congress. It can be found here. In it, Lauder expresses his deep concerns on the Administration’s about face turn on policy concerning Israel and President Obama’s lack of action with an impending entrance of Iran into the nuclear club.

This from Snopes.com concerning the authenticity of the Pritchett letter.

Lou Pritchett is a former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter”…

“I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.”

And the letter authored by Mr. Pritchett:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of
the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy
League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing
up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t
understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with
radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce
these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and
deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country
where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a
government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on
our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that
lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the
world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against
certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you
on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing
points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and
omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s,
Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of
view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not
feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

I couldn’t have said it better, Mr. Pritchett

Recently, an open letter by Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, has been circulating the Internet concerning new US policy on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process and the current Administrations new found lack of support for Israel in the face of the rising nuclear threat coming from Iran.

The United States has been a strong supporter of Israel and their establishment of the Jewish State in the region since it’s inception in 1948. Before the liberation of Iraq, Israel was the only democratic nation in the region that we could call a strong ally. The support afforded Israel not only came from the US Government but also from a large majority of the American People.

Since entering office in January of 2009, President Obama has largely ended this support both in the peace process with the the Palestinian Authority and militarily as well, greatly reducing arms sales and support for Israel’s ability to defend itself from the numerous nations surrounding it bent on it’s destruction.

Because of the current Administrations lack of support for Israel, both Russia and China have made it increasingly clear that if a military option was implemented to resolve the current issues with an impending nuclear Iran, they would respond and have stated that any attack on Iran by Israel would start a new “world war”.

Alienating our allies by appeasing our enemies has become a regular tactic for Obama in his foreign policy. The missile defense shield debacle is a great example of how Obama believes that appeasing Nations like Russia in the hopes of furthering his agenda has backfired and only served to worsen relations with other Nations; Poland and the Czech Republic. After committing to the  canceling of the missile defense program in the hopes of more Russian cooperation with sanctions in Iran, Russia backed off and stated that the desired direction of the White House was “not within it’s best interests”. This not only weakened our ability to provide additional layers of defensive missile protection for our allies and US military bases and personnel but made the US appear weak to our enemies.

Now, in an effort to improve relations with Muslim Nations in the Middle East, Obama seems to be using the same tactic of appeasement; alienating Israel, our long standing democratic ally, in an effort to gain favor from Nations that more than likely will never become a true ally of the United States and have historically been increasingly hostile to democracy and human rights.

At some point, someone should let Mr. Obama know that France tried similar tactics 70 years ago and it didn’t work. The difference here is that, if the same result as what befell France happens to us, there will be no one to step in and liberate the American People.

We are on a dangerous road today. We don’t need appeasement and apology tours. We need a strong national defense and we need to send a message to those that would challenge our sovereignty, allies and interests abroad that you don’t F with the United States of America, period.

A great man once said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the United States was too strong.”

We need to return to a stance of strength and steadfast support for those Nations who subscribe to the rule of law and natural rights.

If you desire more information about Ronald S. Lauder or the World Jewish Congress, click here.

Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today.  We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel.  We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.”  This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions.  Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions.  It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution.  Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.  Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later.  Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000.  Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this:  what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement?  Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety.  Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel?  Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence.  How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East?  The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known.  But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy?  Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims?  History is clear on the matter:  appeasement does not work.  It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region?  Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today?  That threat is a nuclear armed Iran.  Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace.  But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above.  Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy.  It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people.  In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress

Why It Is Important And How It Applies to The Current Debates Concerning Gay Marriage and Healthcare Reform – Part 1

Let me start out by saying that this article does not take a position pro or con on the issues of gay marriage or federally mandated healthcare reform. Rather, the purpose of this article is to address what I perceive as a major gap in the way some people reason while engaging in the current debates. That gap has resulted, I believe, from a lack of understanding of the role legal precedent plays in interpreting Constitutional provisions and applying them to current legal disputes. In other words, It is one thing to desire a particular legal outcome: the right for gays to marry for example, which will be the subject of Part 1 of this article. However, to get there, one must be familiar with the due process and equal protection clauses, how they have been interpreted in the past by the Courts and how the Court’s holdings would need to be extended in order to get to that result: in other words, the role of legal precedent.

Our system of justice was born out of the English common-law system. Put very simply, this means that the courts will be presented with a case or controversy. The Court will issue its holding after applying the law in question to the particular facts of the case. That holding becomes legal precedent for how a future court will rule assuming the same or similar facts under the same law. This is called the doctrine of stare decisis ( let the decision stand). In order for a Court to extend a legal precedent to later cases before it that do not involve the same facts or issues, it must determine that the case before it, while not factually identical, involves parallel issues or is otherwise analogous in some way to the facts presented in a previous case(s) on which the court intends to rely.

An example of this presents itself in examining how the controversial ruling in Roe v. Wade (the Constitutional right to abortion) came to be. A few years before Roe was decided, the U.S Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law which banned the use of birth control devices. That case was Griswold v. Connecticut, which was decided upon the (also controversial) right to “privacy,” which although not explicit in the U.S Constitution, the Court found to be implied by the 4th and 5th amendments. Roe v. Wade obviously went beyond Griswold, in that now the Court was not dealing with the right to procreate, but the right to terminate a pregnancy after conception. The Court used the same analysis as it did in Griswold, and extended the right to privacy to include the right to abortion.

It is anticipated that, regardless of how the current federal gay marriage trial ends, the matter will be appealed all the way up to the U.S Supreme Court which will have to use legal precedent to reach its decision, assuming it agrees to hear the case.

The main argument on the pro-gay marriage side would be that forbidding individuals to marry the person of his/her choice regardless of gender violates either the due process or the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. It is settled law under due process jurisprudence currently that one has the right to marry someone regardless of race. The Court would need to be convinced that sexual orientation is analogous to race, and thus, the legal precedent should be extended under due process analysis.

As for equal protection analysis, we all know that laws do in fact discriminate. For example, all states have age restrictions on voting and on buying alcohol. The test of whether a law violates the equal protection clause depends upon either the right involved or the class of persons it burdens. The Courts will apply one of three levels of scrutiny to the challenged law to determine whether the equal protection clause has been violated: Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or minimum scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny of the law will be employed if the Court determines that the law burdens a fundamental right OR involves a suspect classification. If strict scrutiny applies, the state government must show that it has a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest. Some fundamental rights that have been enunciated by the Courts over the years are the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to contract, the right to have access to the courts, the right too procreate, the right to direct a child’s upbringing and the right to marry a person of any race. Thus far, the right to marry has not been extended to the right to marry someone of the same gender. Hence, if using this rung of the equal protection clause, this is step one–convincing the Supreme Court that under legal precedent, the right to marry a person of ones’ own choosing must include a person of the same gender. Assuming the Court is convinced that the precedent should be extended, it will then apply the strict scrutiny standard to the law in question. If the law in question is in a state like California that has domestic partnership laws, it is unclear how the Court would rule. Presumably, the Court would examine the provisions of the domestic partnership law and determine whether it provides the same legal protections to domestic partners as to married couples. If the Court determines that it does, the law may withstand even strict scrutiny. However, if the Court decides that the word “marriage” is necessary to confer the same rights notwithstanding the provisions of the domestic partnership statute, then presumably, California’s law prohibiting gay marriage would not withstand strict scrutiny.

As for suspect classifications, which also require strict scrutiny, thus far, sexual orientation has not been recognized as a suspect class which currently includes race, religion, National origin, or alienage. Again, if the Court can be convinced that sexual orientation should be included as a suspect class, strict scrutiny and the above analysis would be employed. The next classification is called “quasi-suspect” (which applies to laws that burden gender and illegitimate children) where a law challenged on equal protection grounds is subject to intermediate scrutiny: that is, the law must show that it serves an important state interest, and that the classification is substantially related to serving that interest. Thus, if the Court finds that disparate treatment under the law based on sexual orientation is analogous to that based on gender, the Court will apply this test–which obviously is less stringent than the strict scrutiny test described above.

Finally, all classifications that are not deemed suspect or quasi-suspect or as burdening a fundamental right are subjected to merely, minimum scrutiny or the rational basis test. Under this analysis, the challenged law will stand if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This is the easiest test for the state to pass, particularly in a state like California with an existing domestic partnership statute.

In sum, the due process and equal protection analysis provided above are at the core of the gay marriage issue, and will be used by both sides to frame the debate as the matter is litigated through the federal courts–and most likely all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

(In Part 2 of this Article, I will address what I believe will be the constitutional challenges to the recent healthcare reform legislation.)

On April 7th, the Obama Administration announced it will be striping terms like “Islamic Extremism” from the central document defining the United States’ stances on national security. Evidentially, the Administration is afraid of alienating Islamic nations. Members of the Administration said that defining the war on terror as a war against Islamic extremism would be viewing Muslim nations through a lens of terror. I am of the opinion that doing so may not entirely be a bad idea. It wasn’t the IRA who killed almost 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

More and more these days, Islamic leaders are seeing a climate of tolerance in the western world. This climate of tolerance is creating an environment where they are no longer afraid to come out and publicly share their views on subjects like Jihad and the killing of non-Muslims. Below is a video of British Mullah Anjum Chaudri describing how he believes the killing of “non-believers” is justified. This is not an isolated thing as video after video of major players in the Muslim world have come out in support of the “convert or die” mentality.

Calling for Global Jihad…

Espousing the killing of the Jews.

These are but a few examples of what we are dealing with. These people believe that their religion gives them the right to subjugate and or kill you for not believing in their God. This fanaticism has driven thousands to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up taking as many as possible with them. This “Religion of Peace” convinced men that blowing up the World Trade Center and killing 2800+ Americans was justified because they didn’t believe in Muhammad. It convinced Nidal Hassan in Texas to massacre 13 Soldiers and wound another 30 while screaming “Allah Akbar” in the name of his religion.

In the month of March, 2010, there were 165 attacks abroad perpetrated by extremists in 15 different nations. These attacks killed 1300+ innocents and critically wounded another 2000+. They call it the “Religion of Peace” but as a friend of mine, Angelo of ConservativeRule.com, likes to put it, Islam is the “Religion of Pieces”. We know where these people came from and we know their motivations.

Islamo-fascism is sprouting up all over the globe. Most people understand that countries like Yemen and Pakistan are hotbeds for terrorism, providing cover for jihadist training camps and affording known figures in the terrorist world aid. What most people are not aware of is that this fanaticism is spreading everywhere like wildfire. Along with the Middle East and Northern Africa, groups like al-Qaeda now have a strong presence in Asian nations like Japan and the Philippines and there are known Islamic terrorist organisations in Chile, Honduras and Columbia as well.

Countries like Russia know the threat well. On March 29th, 2 “Black Widow” female Chechnyans with bombs strapped to their bodies bombed 2 Russian train stations killing 38 people and wounding another 64. An Islamic group from the Northern Caucasus region claimed responsibility for the acts. Russia is a country that has been hit especially hard over the last 10 years. Back in September, 2004, Islamic terrorists took 1,100 hostages at The Beslan School in in the North Causasus. The resulting bloodbath left 334 hostages dead, 186 were school children, and hundreds injured and many reported missing.

What happened in Russia was horrible and inexcusable but no one was hit harder in one single terrorist action than the United States. It’s amazing to me how quickly some forget that day. I remember it well; I watched it live on the television unfolding before my astonished eyes.

Our current government is so quick to denounce these facts that they weaken us. We are no longer to call an act of terrorism for what it is but instead, a “man made disaster”.

Nations like Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia claim to be against violence in the name of Islam but time and again have been proven to harbour, finance and spread terrorism. Whether it be through direct support or a lack of action, nations that allow terrorism to propagate should be held accountable. If a terrorist act was perpetrated by individuals from Yemen, trained in Yemen and allowed to live in Yemen then Yemen has some responsibility in the situation.

If we don’t hold these nations accountable for their complicity then the war on terror will never be won. Mr. Obama’s willingness to be soft on terror with his warm and fuzzy policies, entertaining civilian trials for those that conspire to kill us and his refusal to confront nations like Iran and their nuclear ambitions will only serve to weaken our ability to protect our homeland.

Iran is an example of how disastrous Obama’s policies could be. Because he drug his feet on the issue of Iran becoming a nuclear state, the material and technology they are developing could very well end up in the hands of a terrorist group bent on detonating a nuclear or dirty bomb on US soil. The resulting loss of life would be staggering and possibly reach well into the hundreds of thousands. Because of his lack of support for Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, nations like Russia and China have now come out saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in a “world war”. With the support of the United States, Russia and China would not have been so willing to attempt to tie up Israel’s ability to protect itself from the threat of a nation who’s leader openly calls for the total annihilation of their country.

The Obama Administration’s stance on terror is weakening us and could very well result in another 9/11 style attack on US soil. I pray everyday that it never happens but it seems inevitable.

We need hard lined policies designed to combat this threat to our security and to freedom and liberty world wide. Now is not the time to join hands and sing Kumbayah. Now is the time to take the fight to those who would hurt us. Now is the time to tell these terrorist harbouring nations that we will not allow them to stand by as Islamic terrorist organisations train and prepare on their soil. I can’t remember ever reading about any non-Islamic group detonating anything on US soil unless you include Bill Ayers or the Black Panthers. I don’t need to point out the connections there.

Now is the time to do what ever is necessary to ensure the security of America and free people everywhere. I don’t know about you, but if I knew someone wanted to kill me and I saw them rushing at me with a knife, I’d put em down first and worry about everything else later. This is life or death, not foreign diplomacy.

Many of you know that I have been in a slump when it comes to writing. The current Political situation had me down and I could not get inspired to write. I had an opportunity tonight to watch a History Channel documentary on America’s Forgotten War, the War of 1812. This was one of America’s Darkest hours.

On August 24^th 1814, the British Army under the command of General Robert Ross sacked and burned Washington. The White House and the Capitol building were burned and the city was a firestorm. As the British Army advanced, President James Madison, who was out rallying the troops, sent word to First Lady Dolly Madison to evacuate the White House. Dolly was a spunky lady and would not leave with out saving a portrait of George Washington.

As the British Army was involved with the destruction of the Nations Capitol a strange thing happened. A freak storm came up; a Hurricane! It was so fierce that it put out the fires and drove the British from the Nations Capitol. The Hurricane was so fierce that it killed many of the British troops. When President Madison finally rode back into the city, he rode among the people speaking words of encouragement, though exhausted from four days in the saddle.

The next few days were crucial to America. General Ross marched on Baltimore, Maryland and one solitary man, changed the course of the war. An American Rifleman, whose name has been lost to posterity, (according to Baltimore tradition, two American riflemen, teenagers Daniel Wells and Henry McComas, aged 18 and 19, respectively, were credited with killing Ross.) took careful aim and killed General Ross. The British promptly returned fire and killed this unknown marksman. General Ross was replaced by another officer, a cautious man. A man who’s cautiousness would hurt the British greatly.

The British Army continued on to Baltimore to attack Fort McKinley. Colonel George Armistead, the American Commander at Fort McKinley, felt that he needed something symbolic to rally the people of Baltimore. He commissioned a local seamstress, Mary Pickersgill, to make an oversized American Flag for the sum of $405.90. Meanwhile, an Attorney named Francis Scott Key, who was a prisoner aboard a ship in Baltimore Harbor, witnessed the terrible battle that took place and as the sun rose the next day he penned the following poem.

Originally entitled “The Defense of Fort McKinley” it would be renamed “The Star-spangled Banner”. It inspires us still today. We see how both the Hand of God and the tenacity of the American people won out. Our great country survived these events and we can survive all that are thrown at us now.

To many, altruism is a selfless state of mind where you give up your own needs to meet the needs of others. Altruistic acts are the stuff of Saints and Nobel Peace prizes. The Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.”

To give of ones self in order to benefit those you love without regard to your own needs is a compassionate endeavour to say the least. Individuals like Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela come to mind when looking at the meaning of the word. These two people gave to others and, in the process, sacrificed much of their own needs and desires in order to better the world around them. They worked to change the evils of their surroundings for the betterment of mankind. Change was needed in order to feed starving children in poverty stricken nations and end race related discrimination in South Africa. They fought for change and gave of themselves immeasurably to get it.

Change is a funny word these days. It gets thrown around quite a bit. There is an individual in all of our lives here in America that is espousing change to combat what he perceives as wrong with our society. He coins the term self sacrifice and talks about the hard choices we need to make as a nation. The thing about his version of change and sacrifice is that they do not fit the definition of altruism. Well not exactly. It’s more like altruistic collectivism.

Barak Obama wants to give unselfishly to the poor in this nation and he doesn’t care who has to sacrifice to do it or how big that sacrifice will be. The current administration is now in the process of throwing threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at getting their monstrous 2000+ page takeover of our medical industry through Congress. Obama and his ilk almost went as far as directly violating the Constitutional process of the passage of laws in order to ram it through, even though an over whelming majority of Americans said they didn’t want it. Thousands protested on the steps to the Capital in DC while the vote went down.

Is he asking too much of us? Is providing insurance to the poor above what is already offered worth the utter destruction of our constitutional republic? He says it’s because we all have to make “sacrifices”.

Verizon, Caterpillar, AT&T and Deere and Co. have all announced the “sacrifices” they will have to make with AT&T announcing the largest loss to the tune of almost 1 billion dollars in additional expense in the next quarter because of added costs associated with the newly passed Healthcare bill.

AT&T receives a tax subsidy that offsets their costs associated with providing retirees with insurance and the new bill kills that tax break.

As many called it before the passage, this bill will most certainly not improve coverage and lower costs. Verizon has announced it will have to review existing coverage levels for their retired and current employee base because of the giant new costs they will incur as a result of the legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) has released a statement calling for the attendance of these four corporations. This from the Daily Herald;

Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

It seems the savings come at a cost. And they say trickle down economics is a fairy tale…

Both Howard Dean and Max Baucus have admitted to the bill being about redistributing the wealth in America.

So there you have it.

Obama wants 300 million people to sacrifice their freedom and liberty in order to “give” to the other 20 million -by liberal statistics- who don’t have insurance. He may sacrifice the United States Constitution and everything this nation was built upon. This is the “fundamental transformative change” he was always talking about on the campaign trail.

Altruism by proxy is not altruism at all. It’s called socialism, Marxism, communism; three things that have never worked in the history of organised government and have always led to tyranny. You are being told to lay down your future and your liberty so others may rise and be damned the consequences of it all. The collective must rise above the individual and become “altruistic” even if it kills them.

The Russian government asked something similar of farmers after the turn of the 20th century and it led to one of the worst famines in recorded history. Hitler asked similar things of the German people in the late 30’s and it led to a World War and millions of deaths. Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, Pasha; the list is long of individuals through out history that sought the sacrifices of the individuals of their nations in order to further personal ideologies and causes.

Obama is not asking us to turn over our crops, guns and land yet but that is because the Constitution is still alive and kicking for the time being. If this keeps up it won’t be doing anything for very long.

The line must be drawn and drawn soon. Our government is growing impatient with us. After the destruction of our Constitution, what do we have left? After the framework of our great republic is trampled underfoot in the name of altruistic sacrifice during “crisis”, we will see real crisis in this Nation like never before.

We have an opportunity now to educate those who we love and deal with daily and then another opportunity in November. Even though we may have lost the battle last week, the war rages on and we must continue to fight.

Obamacare was signed into law on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. I guess it’s all over except for the shouting, right? Well, not exactly.

It might be important to compare this gargantuan entitlement program with another program; one which supposedly would “solve all the problems of the elderly”.  Yes, I am referring to FDR’s Social Security Act of 1935.  You might be asking yourself what the similarities between a program that deals with health care and one that grants retirement benefits could possibly be.  The similarities are NOT in either of the bill’s language.  Instead, the similarities are with the Congressional and Presidential PROMISES that were made in order to pass both bills.

In light of the Un-American Health Care Bill that was passed Sunday, here are several things for you to think about in going forward. We might as well compare this health care monstrosity with another entitlement program that the government sang high praises for and then bastardized. Do you hear the promises that the Democrats are making now in regard to your health care? Well here are some other promises that Democrats made when Social Security was enacted. Feast your eyes on this.

Here is a list of the promises that were made by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the US Congress in reference to the Social Security Act.  Notice the outcome of EACH of the promises.

Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program in 1935. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
*No longer Voluntary*

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.
*Now 7.65% on the first $90,000*

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
*No longer tax deductible*

4.) That the money that the participants were to program would be put into an independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
*Under Johnson the money was moved to the general fund and spent*

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
*Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed*

In light of the fact that many of us have paid into FICA for years and a few might be receiving a Social Security check each month (after the government takes 85% of the money), here are some other interesting facts that many may be unfamiliar with.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
*A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.*

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
*A: The Democratic Party.*

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
*A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US*

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
*A: That’s right!  Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!*

So, let’s take a look at just some of the PROMISES that Obama and Congress have made in regard to Obamacare (I’ve only listed 10 but there are several others):

1) If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
3) There are no such thing as “death panels”.
4) This program will be deficit neutral.
5) Obamacare will not provide for government funded abortions.
6) The program will reduce the cost of health care across the board.
7) The program is NOT a government take-over of your health insurance.
The entire process of reforming health care will be televised on CSPAN.
9) All bills will be available for public review for 72 hours before they are voted on.
10) The program will not be paid for by cutting Medicare benefits for seniors.

Have all of those promises been kept?  Already, we can say that a few of them have blatantly been broken (8, 9 & 10).  And with what happened with the promises of Social Security, do you believe that the Democrats or Obama intend on fulfilling any of the others?  Their record is not what you would call “stellar”.

It will be up to us, the American citizen, to either A) hold the politicians ACCOUNTABLE for the promises that they have made to each and every one of us, or B) get their democratic behinds OUT of office and repeal this legislative abomination.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

Stupak and the Blue Dogs caved / drank the Kool-Aid / got bought off — don’t hold your breath for that executive order, Bart — and the Senate’s bill passed the House. Now what?

Some on the Left (and part-time Republicans like David Frum) are saying that the passing of Obamacare signifies a “Waterloo” moment for the Republicans & conservatives. Now, I don’t know much about the Waterloo Campaign, but I understand that Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo marked the end of the war and the end of Napoleon’s rule. So, I guess this is supposed to be it for the Republican Party as we know it — the end of any meaningful resistance to Obamacare and the end of the days of influence/relevance for the GOP and its supposedly heartless, hatemongering, “Right Wing Conspiracy” cheerleaders.

Naturally, I disagree with the sentiment. For one thing, the poll numbers for Obamacare were clearly in our favor — somewhere between 60% & 70% were/are against it. Other surveys indicate that America still leans conservative. We may be down, but we’re not out. If I was a better student of military history, I might be able to come up with a better metaphor. I’m thinking maybe something to do with George Washington and his battered & beleaguered troops in the American Revolution. There were many battles, and they suffered many defeats. Yet, through a combination of “luck”, Providence, perseverence, bravery & skill, and the overconfidence & arrogance of their enemy, the American colonies won (against superior numbers) their independence from the elitist, tax-obsessed oppressors. See the parallels?

Of course, this wasn’t just any fight, this “battle for healthcare reform”. It was one where the larger opponent tied the smaller opponent’s hand behind his back, took his gun and left him with a knife. And, as the fight progressed, the larger opponent kept changing the rules. (OK, I could try to carry this analogy out further, but it’s late, so I’ll stop.)

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago. Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.

[But,...] This is not the end of the fight; it is the beginning of the fight…. The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future. Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over. Together we will prove that this will not stand.”

– Newt Gingrich

General Washington pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. So, what can we do? A number of things are already underway or in the works:

1) Republican Senators are doing all they can (within the rules) to fight the “reconciliation” maneuver being used to pass the House-required “fixes” to the bill. (For example, there is still the issue of whether “reconciliation” rules can be bent far enough to pass non-budgetary proposals.) From what I can tell, the “fixes” have to be passed as is, as a package. So, if any changes are made to the “fixes”, it will have to go back to the House for a vote. (Or, whatever Pelosi & Co. can cook up to get around a vote, if they don’t think it will go their way.)

2) Republicans in both houses are releasing “repeal” bills. It’s a longshot, and it won’t happen anytime soon — not with our current, Democrat-dominated legislature, of course. And it probably won’t have a chance until at least 2012. But, the reasoning is that a) talk in Congress, the media, & the public will keep the idea alive and “get lawmakers on the record” before upcoming elections; and, b) the bills will be in place for if/when Republicans regain the majority (see below). Some Republicans in Congress see such efforts as a distraction and an unrealistic goal. But, as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, “Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go after it.”

3) Over 3 dozen state governors and their attorneys general are suing Congress — 14 have already filed — for passing an unconstitutional law. Of the two main issues that come up, the first is the mandated health insurance. The argument (with which I agree) is that the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to force any citizen to purchase any good or service, let alone from any particular merchant/source(s). The other concern is the unsubsidized billions of $ the states will have to come up with to support the millions of additional people being put into the Medicaid program. Most states are already casting about for ways to meet their budget; they can’t afford to have this thrown on top, too.

5) It doesn’t really matter now, but had the “deem and pass” strategy been utilized by Speaker Pelosi to force Obamacare through without a House vote, Mark Levin — popular conservative talk-show host and constitutional law scholar — had already drafted a lawsuit to be immediately filed against President Obama, Att. Gen. Eric Holder, Sec. of Treas. Timothy Geithner, & Sec. of HHS Karen Sebelius for allowing such an “unconstitutional contrivance” to be used. (Not sure why Pelosi and Reid weren’t included.) Sort of a moot point now, but I am glad someone was prepared to challenge that ridiculous maneuver in court. There may still be opportunity for a similar challenge….

6) Stay Active! We need to continue to write; call; sign petitions; attend rallies; volunteer & donate to conservative candidates, PACs, Tea Parties, and other groups; etc. Let the current administration and its cohorts know that we will not stand idly by as they transform us into the European Union West. The rhetoric from the Right must be challenging and forceful, yet respectful (of persons & offices, not ideas). Marxist thought may be tolerated in America — people are free to read, say, and believe what they want — but it is, arguably by definition, NOT American and should have no part in our government.

7) Take back Congress and Take back America! In November 2010, we can begin voting out/against any candidates who aren’t & weren’t fully against Obamacare. We cannot let a few months’ time wash from our memories the stain that they left on the Constitution and our freedoms. We must vote solidly conservative leaders into office, so that they can begin repealing Obamacare, either in pieces or as a whole, if possible. We must replace it with REAL healthcare reform — common-sense, patient-centered, market-driven, and not under Big Brother’s control.

Let’s make Washington proud. George Washington, that is — as well as the rest of America’s Founding Fathers and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s get America back on track! Can we do this? With the right people, the right strategy & tactics, with focus and perseverance, and with blessings & guidance from God above… “Yes, We Can!”

Yesterday, the Landmark Legal Foundation, headed up by Mark Levin, announced it’s intentions to file a lawsuit against the Federal Government in response to the “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590 in the House. Mark Levin is a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host, best selling author, lawyer and constitutional scholar.

The “Slaughter Rule”  is a rule change in the house stating that what ever health-care bill passes in the Senate is considered passed in the House. This allows those wary about being on the record for voting for the health-care bill to unofficially vote for it without actually going on record with their support.

From www.landmarklegal.com

Landmark Legal Foundation to File Suit to Stop President’s Health Plan if ‘Slaughter Rule’ is Used

(LEESBURG, VA, MARCH 17, 2010)…Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,” “self-executing,” or “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance.

“Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn’t. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution.”

(A draft of the complaint Landmark will file is available at:

Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint

We’ve been dealing with the  impending use of reconciliation because the Dems lack the vote for a real passage of the bill. Reconciliation is a parliamentary tactic that has only been used for budgetary legislation in the past and, although usage on the health-care bill is a dastardly and underhanded tactic, it would still represent a direct vote on the bill.

What Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are suggesting  is an entirely different thing. The constitution clearly states that in order for a bill to get to the President’s desk, it must pass a vote in both houses of Congress. A rule change or amendment that says the House voted on a bill without actually voting on it is nothing but a tactic to allow some to retain political capital at the expense of the will of their constituents.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United 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.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

One way or the other, if a bill is to be signed into law, it is overwhelmingly clear that it must first pass a vote in both houses of Congress.

I commend Mr. Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation for their vigilance and resolve in the name of justice for the American people. We’ve all written, called and emailed our Representatives in both houses of Congress to no avail. I’m not sure I have ever received anything but a pre-written auto response from any of them with the exception of one. Norm Dicks, after I sent him a particularly scathing assessment of his chances for re-election because of his support for Obamacare and Cap N’ trade, signed me up for his newsletter. In his response, Dicks said that since it had already passed “his House”, I shouldn’t bother him with emails about it. I wrote Maria Cantwell in October and two days ago, I received her robotised auto-response thanking me for my interest in the “Congressional Process”.

I’m done contacting  Congress. They no longer represent my interests in my home state.I’ll wait and contact them with my ballot in November. If Pelosi and her motley crew manage this take over of the constitutional process, we will only have one front left for which to fight on, the Supreme Court of the United States.

They may be our only allies left and with precedent already set in the arena of Judicial Review, the American people might actually have a fighting chance of restoring our founding documents that are now being trampled under the feet of our current group of politicians. Write the Justices and let them know how you feel about this blatant disregard for the Constitution. Please remember to be respectful.

The Justices do not have e-mail addresses, but you can write to them at:

Justice (or Chief Justice) (Justice’s Full Name)
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543