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.

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.)

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

Speaker of  the House, Nancy Pelosi declared that, “We have been very effective in terms of passing the full Obama Agenda in 2009.” This begs the question; does she have an inkling of what the Constitutional Separation of Powers is? Has she even read the Constitution? Last time I checked, the three branches of the Federal Government were designed to be separate and somewhat at odds with each other. They stand as checks against one another to prevent one branch growing disproportionately more powerful than the others. So when the Speaker of the House openly admits that her party has just simply been enacting the agenda of the executive branch, I would say that’s a direct violation.

In one breath, Pelosi exclaims,

“This will be the most honest, and transparent Congress in history” and vows to end the “culture of corruption that has thrived under this Republican Congress.”

And later, in front of the White House Press Corps,

“We have been very effective in terms of passing the full Obama Agenda in 2009. So we know that when you’re effective, you’re a target.”

The only thing the Democrats have been successful in doing is expanding the TARP program, quadrupling the deficit and fording scandal after scandal as of late. The Speaker of the House openly declaring that the Democrats are in the tank for Obama should worry the American people on many different levels.

The Founders of this Nation knew how important checks and balances were in government. These checks and balances serve to prevent those who govern from having too much power over those who are being governed. Just as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the biggest single check to prevent tyranny against the people, the Separation of Powers ensures balance.

The nation that our Founders immigrated from actually had a system very similar to ours but it was missing a few key elements which were later built into our founding documents, namely the U.S. Constitution.

In Britain, Parliament was split into two sections, quite similar to our Congress. The House of Commons was comprised of Members of Parliament that were elected by the British People. The House of Lords was comprised of appointed men of nobility who served for life and often gained their seat out of lineage more than ability or political affiliation.

While the House of Commons was democratic in nature and purported to represent the common man, the House of Lords was the right hand of King George and that relationship stymied and limited the power of the people.

A similar situation almost came about in America when Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court. He was elected on the premise of “change” and a chicken in every pot. Sounds familiar, right? His New Deal promised wide spread taxpayer funded entitlement programs and manufactured work for the unemployed on the tail of the most dire economic disaster this Nation has ever seen, the great depression of 1929. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme court didn’t share his sentiments. This court, unlike the Democrat majorities he enjoyed while in office, was mostly Republican appointed.

During his first term the court began to undo his work by ruling his New Deal laws unconstitutional on close votes. This angered FDR to no end and after starting his second term, he made the decision to tackle the “problem” head on. He saw the super majority in Congress as an opportunity and was determined to take advantage of it.

Introducing legislation that forced Supreme Court justices over the age of 70 to retire, he wanted to swing the balance. If they refused to do so, the new law would allow the current President to appoint judges to sit in tandem to them. 6 of the 9 judges where 70 years old or older and FDR knew he could count on the his super majority to approve his appointments to the court. He would have been able to effectively raise the number of judges on the court to 15 and negate any “problems” he was currently dealing with. This would have been the worst abuses of the Separation of Powers in this Nation’s history.

It failed because his supporters in Congress and even his closest friends and political allies saw it for what it was; an unconstitutional play at blurring the lines between the Branches, thereby instilling in the executive branch disproportionate power over the rest. The bill crashed and burned on a 70 – 20 vote, got sent back to committee and was reintroduced with no teeth and all FDR’s language stripped. Back then, even Democrats believed in the sovereignty of our founding documents.

Although the Supreme Court is not “stacked”, I can see strong correlations between What happened during the FDR years and what is going on now in D.C.

Back then it was a possible collusion between the Executive and Judicial branch that was thwarted by Congress. Now we have close the same thing but the branches involved have changed.

The democrats in both houses of Congress are one senator short of a super majority and we also have a Leftist radical President in office. We’ve seen this kind of majority rule in the Government on both sides before. What’s different this time is that we have The Speaker of the House openly declaring that her party is simply enacting the Executive Branch’s agenda. We also have a President who thinks strong-arming stock investors during bankruptcy proceedings for Chrysler to take .29 cents on the dollar but allowing the UAW to receive a 55% return on their money is good governance.

These are just a few examples of many that again begs a few questions.

Where in the constitution does the President get awarded the power to dictate anything being deliberated on by the Judicial branch? Why, for any reason, is it OK for Congress to simply “enact the Obama Agenda” instead of representing the desires and needs of the American People?

Without term limits in Congress, the House and Senate are looking more like the House of Lords every day. Come to think about it, we might as well throw a cape and crown on Mr. Obama as well.

The separation of powers were built into our constitution for a very important reason. I think it’s time we remind them of it.

Contact Congress and let them know how you feel by using the links below.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Viva La November!

On March 4th, Sen. John McCain(R-AR) and Sen. Joe Lieberman(D-CT) introduced new legislation aimed at streamlining the arrest, interrogation and detainment process for what they call “Enemy Belligerents”.

The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 was received with little fan fair and almost zero media coverage. Do a Google search utilizing the name of the bill to see that outlets like MSNBC, CNN and the traditional networks like ABC, NBC and CBS don’t come up at all.

Considering this bill is set to give the President of the United States the power to arbitrarily suspend habeas corpus on a whim, one would think more coverage would exist.

Click here to read the full text of the bill and here to read Sen. John McCain’s statement to the Senate.

The only major news outlet to pick this up, however scant their coverage, was Fox News.

The legislation by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would result in banning all civilian trials for terror suspects who have been classified as enemy combatants and forcing their cases into military commissions.

The bill lays out “comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” according to a release from McCain’s office.

“Unprivileged enemy belligerents considered to be a ‘high-value detainee’” would be required “to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the President,” the release states.

Mandating military tribunals instead of civilian trials for terrorists sounds like a great proposition and should be the standard. The issue I have with this bill is the broad scope and loose language it contains.

Contained in this bill are provisions to detain indefinitely any individual deemed a “possible threat” with no provisions to differentiate between enemy terrorist combatants taken from the battle field and American citizens simply exercising their first amendment rights.

This bill allows, at the discretion of the CIA, FBI, DHS or the President, for someone to be held indefinitely without charges or representation; basically without any miranda rights what so ever, whether they committed a crime or not.

You could be thrown into a deep hole in some secret prison for the rest of your life without breaking a single law and without ever having the ability to redress your accusers. There is no accountability built into this travesty of a bill to check abuse by the governing body of this Nation and no safe guards that it won’t be used for other reasons. The definitions contained within the bill are so vague and loose, anyone could be classified as an “Enemy Belligerent”.

Terrorists should be interrogated and imprisoned long enough to gain as much intelligence as possible. The ultimate goal and end result should be a military tribunal to protect our intelligence community and gathering methods and to ensure justice is done. Although they should not be given the same rights and protections as American citizens, with all the revelations that have come out over the last few months about the activities of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the propensity for abuse encapsulated in this far reaching and broad legislation is easy to see.

Here is a paragraph from a DHS report on domestic extremism.

Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Quite a few of us could easily fit into the above definition simply for voicing a dissenting view. I vocally express my displeasure with the Federal Government right here on this website. Should they consider me a threat because of my discontent? Should I be detained for possible “future crimes” I may commit down the line? I’m here to inform and share my opinions and am grateful for the opportunity to do so because of the 1st Amendment. Lets not forget why we are here; the dissent and discontent of our Founders who would be turning over in their graves right now if they could read this bill.

I was very surprised to see McCain’s name on this bill. With all due respect and gratefulness to Sen. McCain for the great sacrifices he made for his Country, you would think he would know better than this. He spent the better part of six years as an Enemy Belligerent in the custody of the Viet Cong.

This bill is downright Orwellian in nature and unconstitutional on so many different levels. Where is the line drawn and who will decide who is and isn’t a possible threat? Where is the check to create balance in this proposed system? The American people simply MUST stand up against this extreme violation of the principals that this great Nation was founded on.

They have been chipping away at The Constitution bit by bit for the last 150 years. They just switched from a chisel to a jack hammer.

You often see the numbers 419 on patriot types blogs. Heck, I’ve even noticed them on my son’s HALO game. What do these three simple numbers stand for? Is it some secret code? A cryptic message that only Patriots know? Yes and at the same time, a resounding No! 419 refers to April 15, 1775. This is a red letter day in American History and for patriots all over the world. That was the day the shot was fired that was heard around the World. The day that the Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought.

For those of you that slept through your American History class in High School, I’ll give you a refresher.  The Militia in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts had been stockpiling weapons and the British Military didn’t like it. 700 British Army Regulars, under the Command of  Lt. Colonel Francis Smith, were dispatched from Boston to confiscate these weapons.

Yes, gun confiscation has happened before in America, and it can happen again.

The word leaked out and Paul Revere and William Dawes were sent out to warn the local Militias. Just as the sun rose that fateful morning the first shots of the American Revolution rang out. The Lexington Militia, badly outnumbered, fell back toward Concord. Word of the battle spread like wildfire and, by the time the British Army arrived in Concord, they were met by several hundred Colonial Militiamen. They clashed again at the Old North Bridge in Concord. Several Hundred Militiamen defeated three companies of the Kings Troops. Farmers defeated the best Army in the world that day.

In the poem “Concord Hymn” by Ralph Waldo Emerson it describes the battle like this.

Concord Hymn

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare,
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

I’ve often wondered who first fired that shot heard ’round the world. Was it fired by a youthful Militiaman nervous at the prospect facing the British Redcoats? Was it an overeager British Infantryman? I have a friend who believes that somebody slammed a door and all hell broke out. I have my own theory and If you don’t like it then tough; its my theory and I like it. I am a Christian and I believe that America is a land ordained by God to be a bastion of Freedom for all faiths where they can worship, How, Where, and What they may!

I have been accused of taking the Bible to literal at times, so bear with me. Do you remember John the Apostle of Jesus who desired to tarry on the earth until Jesus returns again. I can imagine him standing in the background, watching the events unwind. He can see the Militia wavering. He knows that America needs to be free for Christians to worship freely, so he draws a flintlock pistol from his waistband and pointing it skyward…fires. The rest is history. You don’t need to believe my theory; but it is kind of fun.

Remember Lexington and Concord!

419

The FCC is a Commission that was established by the Communications Act of 1934. It regulates TV, radio, telephone, cable, cell phone and satellite companies, while granting broadcast license’s and regulating media ownership (but it can only issue regulations and enforce laws that are in fact enacted by Congress.) Sounds pretty strict huh?

In 2003 at the Golden Globe Awards, U2 front man -and egomaniac- Bono said on live radio/tv, “this is really, really, fucking brilliant”

Over 200,000 complaints were immediately received by the Federal Communications Commission regarding the Golden Globes Awards Show’s broadcasting of the word “Fucking.” All complaints cited that The Awards Show had violated federal indecency and obscenity laws.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3045A1.pdf

Is the following quote what you would have expected to get as a reply from the FCC in regards to this incident?

“To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Applying that test, we find that the material broadcast during the Golden Globe Awards program was not obscene. The use of specific words, including expletives or other Four letter words does not render material obscene.”

“Moreover, the complained-of material does not depict or describe sexual conduct and thus does not meet the obscenity standard under Miller v. California. Because the broadcast does not meet the obscenity standard under Miller, we deny the complaints alleging that the broadcast was obscene.”

Michael Powell (Initially nominated by Clinton in 1997, and then named Chairman of the FCC in 2001-2005, by G.W. Bush) was Chairman at the time of this incident. He could have set the bar high for moral values on tv and radio in this country at this very time, but instead set the bar for mediocrity. Now you know who to thank when you walk into your kids playroom and they have the remote in their hand and this is on the tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyiHDH40Oes&feature=related

Just think about it, if “Fuck” is now acceptable on tv, anything else beneath it is now fair game. To be fair, “Family Guy” has been on tv since 1999 and has always been raunchy (which I sometimes do find amusing) and is said to be for adult humor, but it’s marketed for children. This is what I have an issue with. Hell, why wouldn’t toy companies jump at the chance to sell figures of animated characters who have high tv ratings…and use vulgar language. If the FCC has no issue…why should anyone else right?

http://www.toywiz.com/familyguy.html

Some shows or movies on tv, like “Saving Private Ryan,” or the South Park movie, “Bigger, Longer & Uncut” you are actually hearing it as you would at the movie theater, which is not edited of vulgarity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5iKrEXLzXg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBweq6rHnzA&feature=related

Comedy Central is notorious for the “F” word…enjoy these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_aK6TqIK4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhXVknk-Iqs

Ain’t that a F’ing hoot?

Anyways, I understand the distinct differences in regards to the word “Fuck” and how it’s used in different situations (I chose to only type the word if absolutely necessary in this article, to me it’s not a chance to abuse the word but to expose it.) If I were to yell it in anger or in a crazed state (like when a Kenyan Communist was named President,) it is done so in anger and frustration, I’m not implying anything in a sexual nature. But it’s the way the word is distorted to “Fit” into a sexual nature, or even if someone is not mature enough to know how to exactly use the word if they wanted to do so, like say “Our” young children. Yep, kids of all ages watch tv and change channels and know how to use the radio. How could any of this backfire on our society? I dunno…ask the rappers how fast it took them to sabotage their own culture with suggestive lyrics and innuendos.

http://www.songarea.com/music-codes/2_live_crew.html

What a coincidence. The Powells both F’ing over the country at a time when they could have done the right thing to actually help the country.

First, Michael did so by making a decision that poisoned the moral fiber of the country with a long and repetitive trickle,

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=3863

then his Father supported a F’ing Communist who was running against his own party…because the Commie was/is/half black… his decision was more of a slap in the face to white people as opposed to his son’s slap in the face of this country’s basic moral fiber.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/

F’ing unbelievable huh? I have nothing against any of the shows or movies mentioned- I actually watch the shows regularly and Saving Private Ryan is in my top 10 films of all time, but they do not belong in the “mainstream” for our children to witness. Society is crumbling and with families using television as a “sitter” so to speak, our youth is being corrupted with a smile.

Thank the Powells for teaching our youth that vulgarity is acceptable in everyday use, and choosing sides based on skin color only is the correct thing to do.

www.conservativerule.com

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

All I ever needed to know about Politics…I learned as a Boy Scout. You may think that this is a naive attitude, and not on par with the 21^st Century; but I beg to differ. I say that if our Politicians and the American People knew and kept the core principles of Scouting, our country and the world would be a much better place.

Let’s break it down with definitions; because some these words are not in some peoples vocabulary anymore . The Scout Law says the following.

A Scout is Trustworthy,

Trustworthy- adjective

1. Worthy of trust or belief .
2. Taking responsibility for ones conduct, and obligations.

Trust , belief and  responsibility are interesting words to be sure, but what do they mean? We put our trust in our elected officials and it is our belief that they will do what is right. That third word, responsibility, is not a popular word in our day and age. Whose responsibility is it to care for our families well being? Is it the Governments? I say NO! America was founded on principles of self-reliance, hard work and stick-to-it-iv-ness. We have a sacred trust given to us by the Almighty to care for and love our families. It is not the Governments job!

Loyal- adjective-

1. Steadfast in allegiance or duty.
2. Inspired by love for your country.
3. Unwavering in devotion to friend, vow, or cause.

Loyalty is a strange thing. It must be earned. It cannot be bought, bartered or traded. If a man or woman cannot be loyal to their spouse how can they be loyal to anyone? They must love our country, even with it’s imperfections, and be devoted to it. Has America made mistakes? Yes we have, that is inevitable. But we still do more for this world than any other county on the face of the Earth. We have leaders that I swear hate this county and they apologize for us at every opportunity. To quote the great John Wayne, “Never apologize, it’s a sign of weakness!” That does not mean that we should not try to correct our mistakes. We need to be steadfast and unwavering in our devotion to America.

Helpful- Adjective

1. Providing assistance or serving a useful function.
2. Of service or assistance.
3. Showing a willingness to cooperate.

Serving a useful function…Hmm? Is tearing apart the family by making America a  welfare state a useful function? Is this doing good for our Country? Is putting restrictions on business’s that thwart progress and kill jobs helpful? Is putting burdensome tax’s on families so that they cannot support themselves helpful.

Friendly – Adjective

1. Characteristic of or befitting a friend.
2. Favorably disposed; not antagonistic or hostile.
3. Of or belonging to your own countries forces, or an ally.

Would some of the actions of our Politicians be what you would do to a friend? Are their actions favorably disposed to the people or are they hostile to their constituents. Are they truly our allies, or are they are enemies.

Brave- Adjective

1. Possessing or displaying courage, able to deal with danger or fear without flinching.
2. Invulnerable to fear or intimidation.

Being brave isn’t always about charging the enemies guns or facing man-eating beasts. It is about having conviction to your values and beliefs. It is about not be intimidated into doing things that you do not believe to be right and true…damn the consequences.

Clean- adjective

1. Free from dirt or impurities; or having clean habits.
2. Free of restrictions or qualifications..
3. Free from impurities.
4. Without difficulties or problems.
5. (Religion) ritually clean or pure.
6. Not spreading pollution or contamination..
7. (Of behavior or especially language) free from objectionable elements.
8. Free from sepsis or infection, or corruption.
9. Morally pure.
10. (Of a manuscript) having few alterations or corrections.
11. marked by or calling for sportsmanship or fair play.
12. Thorough and without qualification.
13. (Of a record) having no marks of discredit or offense.
14. Free of drugs; “after a long dependency on heroin she has been clean for 4 years”.

I really didn’t expect there to be so many definitions for clean. It must be more important than even I realized. Our politicians need to be beyond reproach. Being clean doesn’t always apply to your personal hygiene, even though that is very important. It is a state of being. They are human and make mistakes. That is what repentance is for. They need to be men who’s conscience is clean.

Reverent- adjective

1. Feeling or showing profound respect or veneration.
2. Showing great reverence for god.

Reverence is showing respect for solemnity, and office. Respect is another good word for reverent. Not all of our Founding Fathers could have been considered religious men; but they had a belief in a Supreme Being and showed respect to him. They respected the office that they held and tried to do it justice.

The Scout Oath states:

On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God, and my Country. To help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

I can’t think of a better oath for any person. I was taught to keep my oaths. I have taken several Oaths throughout my life. I do not make any oath that I don”t intend to keep. An Oath is a sacred thing. My marriage vows are an oath, and a covenant between myself, my wife and God. I took another Oath when I pinned on a badge as a Law Enforcement Officer. This is an oath that is given to anyone holding public office; whether they be a Police Officer, a Soldier in the United States Military or an Elected Official. It differs according to the job. This is the Oath of Enlistment for the U.S. Army. I think that you will get the gist of it.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I, along with many others, have taken an Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I keep my Oaths…I hope you do as well.

February 9th, 2010

The city of King, North Carolina recently declared a state of emergency the other day. This makes sense considering the sheer amount of snow that dropped on them and the ensuing mayhem on the roads. What didn’t make sense is their almost all out ban on personal possession of firearms. There is a law on the books in King that states that during a state of emergency declaration, no one may leave their private property in the possession of a firearm, licensed to carry or not and makes it a crime to have a gun in your personal vehicle. Here is an excerpt from WXII Channel 12 online.

KING, N.C. — Residents in King were fumed over the weekend after a state of emergency declaration restricted the sale of alcohol and the carrying of firearms in vehicles.

King Police Chief Paula May said she’s received hundreds of threats related to the restrictions, which banned driving from 12 a.m. Sunday to 5 a.m.

The state of emergency for King was declared by members of the City Council after Stokes County authorities also declared a state of emergency.

Under North Carolina law, May said, when a state of emergency is put into place that includes a ban on driving, the sale of alcohol and carrying of firearms in vehicles is also banned.

“I think there’s been some misinterpretation that I personally have declared martial law and taken away people’s right to bear arms and that’s erroneous,” May told WXII reporter Jermont Terry. “By law, statue 14-288.7 automatically went into effect. And that law which goes into effect when there’s a state of emergency prohibits the transportation, purchase sale and possession of firearms other than on one’s own premises.”

Click here to read the whole story.

This is alarming on a number of levels and brings to mind Hurricane Katrina in LA and the police going house to house confiscating privately owned firearms. I’m perplexed as to why city or state law is allowed to circumvent and contradict it’s residents Constitutional rights?! Short of declaring martial law, no agency has the right to suspend anyone’s rights or due process and it seems to me someone needs to challenge what happened in King. The law states that a state of emergency prohibits citizens from selling, purchasing, transferring – yes thats right, you can’t give it away to a family member – or possessing a firearm outside of your residence. It also banned the sale of alcohol and put into effect a curfew. So in other words, because of a snow blizzard, they throw the constitution away. This just smacks of an opportinuty for the NRA to file a BIG lawsuit.

I hope they do.