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

President Obama’s policies on National Defense and Foreign Policy have been in the news quite a bit lately now that Obama-care has passed and Congress is in recess. A few days ago I outlined how the Obama Administration announced that terms such as “Islamic Extremism” will be stripped from the central document defining the United States’ stances on National Security. It has now come to light that the Administration has decided to pull nations like Syria, Iran and Lebanon from the list of places where people traveling into the US will be put under heavier scrutiny by the FAA.

These nations were added to the list in January in response to the Underwear Bomber, Umar Faroul Abdul Mutallab, attempting to detonate a bomb hidden on his person as the international flight that he was a passenger on started it’s decent for landing over Detroit, Mi.

This from The World Tribune Online,

Officials said Syria was one of 14 countries exempted from additional airport security, a measure imposed in January 2010, Middle East Newsline reported. They said the regime of President Bashar Assad was cooperating in helping screen passengers on flights to the West.

“There are new measures that don’t require special treatment of passengers from Syria and other Muslim states,” an official said.

On April 6, the administration of President Barack Obama said the exemptions would also affect Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.

For more than three months, passengers who came from these countries had been subjected to additional inspection, including patting down their entire body before boarding flights to the United States. Iran, Sudan and Syria have been on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist sponsors.

The measures were instituted on Jan. 3 in the wake of a failed bombing of a U.S. airliner by an Al Qaida agent from Nigeria. The would-be bomber, Omar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, had been on a no-fly list meant to prevent entry to the United States.

Officials said President Barack Obama ordered the review that led to the removal of Iran, Syria and other countries from a list that required intensified security measures. They said Obama has sought to base passenger screening in accordance with specific threats to the United States.

“These new, enhanced measures are part of a dynamic, threat-based aviation security system covering all passengers travelling by air to the U.S. while focusing security measures in a more effective and efficient manner to ensure the safety and security of the travelling public,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

I think the important question here is why wouldn’t we want to watch individuals coming from active terrorist sponsoring Nations closer than others? When looking at the reason the Nations were added to the list in the first place, I see no reason why the American People should be put at increased risk by removing them.

In almost every single terrorist attack on American targets, the individuals involved and the organizations claiming responsibility have originated in countries like Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Iran. It is no mystery to anyone that these Nations have a severe problem managing the activities of groups like al-Qaeda with in their borders. For some of these Nations, it’s also clear that they even quietly support and sanction the efforts of terrorism. One of these Nations is Iran, which incidentally was a name removed from the watch list and, of late, has threatened the US by announcing that if Iran is attacked in any way over their nuclear ambitions, “There will be nuclear detonations inside US cities.”

There is also a large amount of conclusive evidence that points to the support of Iraqi insurgents in the form of explosives and small arms coming directly from interests within Iran as well as Syria.

Abdul Mutallab obtained the explosives and support in Yemen from the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda. He then traveled to Giana and purchased a one way ticket with cash to Detroit with a connection in Amsterdam.

Abdul Mutallab made it increasingly clear that using watch lists with individual names was not a broad enough measure to prevent terrorism on US soil. He flew into the US with no luggage and on a one way ticket paid for with cash. He was already listed on a no fly list and he had no issues smuggling explosives onto the plane because he was not screened by individuals under FAA jurisdiction.

One of the quoted reasons for lessening security on individuals coming from these nations was the increased cooperation by the Syrian Government on passenger screening. After all, shouldn’t we trust them to screen their terrorists? Oh wait….

While the systemic failure was very evident, President Obama’s DHS Secretary, Janet Napalitano, was championing the system by announcing, “The system worked!”

It seems this “head in the sand” kind of approach has infected the current Administration in a big way, as evidenced by them, once again, making it easier for terrorists to do harm to US interests, including the American People.

It is obvious to most that the system is not currently working and anything done to further weaken our ability to vet out possible threats to our security internationally should be viewed as pure lunacy at this point.

This is just the icing on the cake, however. I’m my next post, I’ll talk about how the Obama Administrations’ policies are setting us up for a major power shift internationally and we could cease to be a player in the world community.

Consider the following facts:

1) Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a law requiring that 1/3 of the electricity produced in California by 2020 must be from “renewable sources”; solar and wind energy are the favored options.

2) The best location in CA for wind farms and solar plants (which need a LOT of relatively flat land, by the way)? Answer: The Mojave Desert, ‘cuz it’s, well,… mostly flat, hot, & windy

3) A lot a progress toward the 2020 goal would be reached with a planned 13 large wind farms and solar plants.

I’m not a huge believer in the practicality of solar & wind power, at least not on a large-scale and with the present level of technology. But, at least this seemed like it would be a decent effort on the part of environmentalists, especially those with money and the power to do something.

Enter: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, which naturally controls the Interior Department’s budget. Feinstein has introduced a “desert preservation” bill — which will likely pass, given her position — that will, among other things, declare a million acres of prime Mojave acreage permanently off-limits to development, including for solar plants and wind farms. Now, that may only be about 1/16th of the whole desert. But, of course, there are things — like cities and lakes and parks and mountains and tourist areas — that make much of the rest of the area unsuitable for putting up a bunch of big windmills and solar panels.

Feinstein’s legislation blocks the aforementioned plans, which, ironically, puts her at odds with her fellow-environmentalist, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy’s venture capital firm has invested in a company that would be opening one of those solar plants. “This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Sen. Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” complained Kennedy. The bill will immediately shut down about a dozen projects, or roughly 10% of those currently under review by the Bureau of Land Management. If the land in question was no better than any other for these projects, I might be more sympathetic. But, apparently, it isn’t.

Feinstein thinks the sight of the solar plants and wind farms from the freeway will ruin the view. (Ironically again, this was the Kennedy family’s complaint when someone wanted to erect wind turbines off Cape Cod.) The question has been raised: “Why is the view from some freeway sacrosanct, whereas building such plants elsewhere in the state is OK?” Also, consider that the average nuclear plant, which is the size of a football field, can reliably supply the electricity that solar plants and wind farms covering many square miles do unreliably. But, of course, Feinstein and her friends are anti-nuclear energy, too.

As Gary Jason concluded in his “Power Play” article for Liberty Magazine (not available online), apparently some environmentalists aren’t as serious about energy production as they like to claim.

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.)

Washington (AP) – Timothy Geithner thinks it’s completely unfair how large businesses that were the recipient of bailout funds have emerged in much better shape than the average American.

“As the President has said, we had to do some very unpopular things,” he said. “People looked at what happened.”

“It’s not fair. It’s Deeply unfair,” he said. “He had to look whether he was going to act to fix it or stand back, and that would have been calamitous for the American economy.”

“Just because this was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a huge amount of damage was done to businesses and families across the country and it’s going to take us a long time to heal the damage.”

I wonder if he feels the same way about all the corporations and banks that didn’t get the funds needed to save their skins because he was funnelling money out the back door of AIG while head of the New York Fed.

If the current administration was so overly concerned with the plight of the American People, maybe they would have used the Tarp funds to bail out the individuals now losing their homes.

Here’s an even better idea; how about taking the remaining 560 billion dollars of unallocated funds from the TARP program and apply it to small business grants and loans to do what they should have done in the first place, stimulate the backbone of our economy. Small to medium sized businesses now feeling the crunch of less revenue intake and upcoming higher taxes and fees related to the new health-care bill are the ones that are going to need our help.

I wonder if those businesses hit hardest on the lower end of the size scale have any hope of gaining assistance. After all, if you don’t actively lobby Washington, it seems you don’t get any play.

As Obama was campaigning in 2008, I seem to remember something he said over and over again about the lobby culture in Washington.

Most businesses in this country don’t have the resources to lobby in their best interests in DC. Most larger businesses, 30 years ago, had a limited number of lobbyists in Washington because they didn’t see a need.

Microsoft is a great example of how businesses seem only as interested in politics as politics is interested in them.

Before the DOJ went after Microsoft for “non-competitive practices”, they had one single lobbyist in Washington. Now they have hundreds and have become one of the largest political contributors on the Hill.

Mr. Obama has done a great job of setting up the tit-for-tat culture on Capital Hill. One only has to look at how many of his “saved and, or created” jobs have gone to union labour while the average American gets stiffed and is forced to collect unemployment benefits.

It’s pretty plain to see that the squeaky wheel gets the Obama-grease. while Congress was in recess this last week, he appointed 11 positions in his cabinet, none being vetted and most either tied to or working directly for lobby firms.

While the number of lobbyists fell by over 500 individuals in 2009, the amount of money actually spent increased to over 3.46 billion dollars.

It makes me wonder, If I had the cash to buy a ticket, could I spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom or maybe join the Obamas’ for dinner unlike a certain Prime Minister who visited last week? From what’s been shown over the last few months, it seems everyone in DC has a price.

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!”

Monday, the day after the Health-Care vote and subsequent passage of the monstrosity, Bart Stupak, arguably the deciding vote, went on FoxNews with Megyn Kelly for an interview.

After watching this video, I find it amazing that this simpleton made it to such a high position within his party. On one hand he admits that the executive order that was promised him prevents tax payer funded abortion and then on the other hand, acknowledges that it has no teeth and is meaningless. His fall back to the cancel or repeal of said executive order is to count on pro-life groups to sue the federal government? Like that hasn’t been tried before with failure as a result.

Stupak has been purchased like a second hand paperback book at a garage sale. At least Landreau and Nelson got value out of their bribes. All he got was a meaningless piece of paper and 980,000 dollars to fix up an airport or two in his home state.

This video does a fairly good of job explaining why the executive order is flawed while Megyn Kelly does a great job of forcing Stupak to acknowledge the fallacy of the whole situation. After the video, be sure to read the full text of the executive order.

Executive Order

- – - – - – -

ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.   The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2.  Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.  The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.  The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.  In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office.  Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3.  Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program.  Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.  Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions.  I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.  Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

We used to say, “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!” There was a time when people still actively described America as containing mountains of gold and opportunity and people flocked to our shores in droves. These people came to America with nothing but the clothing on their backs and the drive to build a life for themselves as Americans.

These individuals changed their names to sound more American. In the 1860’s my great, great -insert a few more- Grandfather, when entering this Nation from Ireland, changed his last name from the traditional Irish name he had all his life to something he felt would allow him to assimilate better into American society. They wanted to learn English and had a strong desire to fit into the new culture they were thrust into after leaving Ellis Island for the first time. It wasn’t an easy proposition to be dropped in the middle of a city, in a strange place where you’ve never been and can’t speak the local language but these people thrived. They learned the language, the customs and the system. They started businesses and became self sufficient. Some of the largest corporations we see today got their start in some small shop by individuals who came from a different land. Flash forward to today and things have changed quite a bit.

The immigrants that come to America today are not too terribly different than 150 years ago. More tend to be able to speak English than before and are, by the statistics, more likely to start a small business than even natural born Americans. What has changed in the 21st century is not the nature of immigrants, it’s immigration itself; the illegal immigration problem.

During the 1920’s, illegal immigration was the subject of heated Congressional debates. Edward H. Dowell, vice-president of the California Federation of Labor, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Immigration in February of 1928 about the burden of the unrestricted flow of Mexicans on the state’s taxpayers, prisons, hospitals and American workers’ wages. He estimated that while 67,000 Mexicans entered the U.S. legally the prior year, many times that number entered illegally.

Workers in the US were already feeling the crunch from the influx of illegals coming across the border to gain agricultural work to support their families in Mexico. By the time Eisenhower took office, the amount of illegal Mexican border crossings were estimated at exceeding 1 million annually. There is currently no way to reliably track these numbers. All figures are estimates and are refuted to be both much higher and also much lower depending on who is doing the refuting but one thing is for certain, this Nation has a real problem on their hands.

For some the issue lies within the employment sector of our economy, claiming these “migrant workers” are taking jobs away from Americans that need work but can’t find it. We have over 15,000,000 unemployed in the US right now and an estimated 12 to 30 million illegals working primarily in the lower skilled agricultural marketplace. Quite a bit of the money paid to these illegals ends up getting pulled out of our economy and gets sent back home to Mexico to help support their families. While the individuals are in our country, they take advantage of all the services we offer to citizens but pay very little out in taxes aside from meager sales tax revenue and gas sales. The larger issue here is not jobs, it’s the strain on our economy from the usage of services and the collection of monies from entitlement programs.

It was reported a few days ago that in Los Angeles County, California, 50 million dollars was spent in the support of anchor babies and their illegal immigrant parents just for the month of June. At the current rate, the county alone will end up paying out over 600 million dollars this year just to illegal immigrants and their American born children. These numbers do not include medical care, public safety costs or the costs associated with supporting those incarcerated within the county’s jail and prison systems.These individuals also take advantage of many other public, tax payer funded, services such as fire/EMS, law enforcement, public education, public roadway infrastructure, sewer/sanitation services and other often over looked services which have to be paid for through tax revenue collected at both the county and state level. When you factor in all the other services, the over all cost to the county skyrockets to a whopping 1 billion dollars. Another thing to be considered here is the interest that must be paid on the public debt incurred to provide the 1 billion dollars in services on the county level.

While contributing significantly less in tax revenue to the communities where they live, households comprised of illegal immigrants collect an average of 10,000 dollars more per year in welfare benefits than those who are here legally. While Americans tend to contribute more than they take during working years and take more than they contribute during their shorter retirement years, illegals who are low skilled workers tend to take more than they contribute to the public coffers right from the get go.

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. The startling figure is that over 108,000 of them were incarcerated in California. Since 2005, these numbers have greatly increased.

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. The crime rate among illegals in this country is staggering. In the city of Los Angeles, 95% of the 1200+ outstanding warrants for homicide target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of the 17,000 fugitive felony warrants are for illegals.

I’m not sure I can feel sorry for California in all this considering how utterly welcoming they have been over the years, opening their arms wide to the problem with sanctuary cities and law enforcement scared of being accused of “profiling” people. They have allowed the issues in the front door and now they have an out of control shortfall topping well over 20 billion dollars and a Latino gang population bigger than most other states combined. They have some real issues that, if not dealt with quickly, will end the state as we know it. As of this writing, people are leaving California at unprecedented levels and soon they will be left with nothing but those sucking off the teet of their liberal disease. They must pass sweeping welfare and immigration reform now before it is too late. But what can be done?

The most prevalent thing I hear from the pro-immigration people is amnesty which will serve nothing but to legitimize the law breaking, society draining illegals and allow for massive chain migration. The immigrant population would double almost over night and our Nation doesn’t have the room nor the economic facilities to deal with that. We would see the welfare rolls exponentially increase as well as our local, state and federal publicly held debt. Think this recession is bad now? While all they have to offer is “legalize em’” to make the problem go away and create a new Democrat army of minority voters, they always complain that no one else ever offers a solution to the problem so I’ve decided to offer one.

It is important that those who need a safety net to maintain food for their children and a roof over their heads has that safety net but this is out of control and creating a great hardship for Californians and American’s in general. Welfare should be a temporary way for individuals to get back on their feet, not to support them for the long term. We need to be realistic here. Thinking with your heart is a great thing but only if the results are fiscally sustainable. In California, the current system is bankrupting the entire state.

I’m not against immigration and welcome those who wish to come to our country legally with open arms.

I am, however, against illegal immigration and something other than legitimizing them needs to happen. Immigration reform should absolutely NOT include amnesty.

Here we go…

1. Close the border and spend the money to properly patrol it. If you want to come in to this country, make it impossible to bypass law enforcement or border customs to enter.

2. Hold the Mexican Government accountable for fostering and encouraging the influx of their people coming across the borders into our Country. They give out guides on how to sneak into our country to their citizens and openly encourage it. We should use our trade with Mexico as a tool to send them a message that their encouragement of the behavior either stops or we sanction them, period. Withhold any and all financial aid if they don’t want to cooperate. We also need to REQUIRE that the Mexican Government pays for the costs associated with the internment of all the Mexican illegals within our prison system. Any other country in the world would have threatened military action against Mexico for this open violation of the sovereignty of international borders.

If these people could live as well in Mexico as they can here in the United States they would all HANDS DOWN stay there. Quite a large number of these illegal’s actually spend harvest here and then take their American dollars home for the winter to Mexico. If the Mexican Government could get a handle on the drug trade and start to create real honest opportunity for the Mexican people, the amount of people coming north would GREATLY fall off. One of the issues with the Mexican Government is their strong feelings of being elite and better than the people they govern. Not so different than here but our founders did a much better job of controlling the elitism with precepts contained within our founding documents.

3. Hunting down and rounding people up on buses is not logistically possible and the propensity for issues including abuse and lawsuits is huge. Instead, anyone caught in the commission of a crime or is otherwise found, through normal legal process, to not have legal status to be here should be deported immediately, including their American born minor children, unless deportation represents putting them in immediate harm’s way. NO SANCTUARY CITIES unless the cities giving sanctuary don’t mind a complete ceasing of any and all federal subsidies for their infrastructure and school systems. State Governors allowing their Mayors to create sanctuary cities should also see stiff penalties and sanctions when putting their hands out for federal assistance. This is a harsh way to do things but it still puts the ball in their court and allows them to make the choice themselves. Stop breaking the law or face these consequences.

4. Go after the employers who employ these individuals. If we take the reasons away that drive them here in the first place, less will attempt to enter the US illegally. Anyone who says, with over 15 million unemployed Americans, that they can’t find non-illegal laborers is full of horse hooky. Maybe we should be mandating that citizens who are currently on public assistance and unemployed should be out in those fields working instead of the illegals. If they don’t like the work, they can opt-out of receiving welfare checks and food stamps and find better employment elsewhere.

5. All encompassing term limits on public assistance, with the exception of people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves, i.e. mentally or physically disabled, elderly or the infirm. There is no reason why, within two years, an individual can’t become self sufficient in this nation to the point of not needing welfare. There is no reason why people can’t be responsible enough to know, if you have unprotected sex, you more than likely WILL get pregnant. We need a return of personal accountability and responsibility in this Nation and the only way that will happen is if our communities and Governments begin to HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

6. Streamline the process for those wishing to enter legally so the wait goes from 8 to 10 years down to a few. This is the Nation of Nations. I don’t hate Immigrants. Unless you’re full blooded Cherokee, your family’s journey started here through immigration as well. Both sides of my family immigrated here.

7. NO CHAIN IMMIGRATION. The only way a baby born in the US receives citizenship is if they were born to a US citizen. Period.

8. Develop and build an international network of free Nations willing to help give asylum to individuals from violent or tyrannical Nations. UNICEF would be an awesome organization to help spearhead this. America IS the land of the free and the home of the brave but we are but one Nation among many who should be helping to care for those at risk and in danger. Those truly needing political asylum make up a very small amount of our illegal immigration problem but this needs to be addressed just the same. This system would spread the burden thinner.

One way or the other, we need REAL reform and we need it NOW. We need reform that first and foremost addresses the economic impact of the situation and, 2nd, takes into account the needs of Americans before the needs of individuals elsewhere. We have people right here in this country that need a hand up and children about to apply for college without knowing how they’re going to pay for it.