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.

Are you wondering why it’s so hard for us responsible Americans to get a home loan or modification? Take a look towards One West Bank, the FDIC, Goldman Sachs and the transfer of taxpayer funds to individuals like George Soros and John Paulsen. Unlike the American people, who incidentally would be looking at prison time for this kind of fraud, this is how the Obama Administration pays it’s bills.

This will make that vein on your forehead bulge like a water-weenie!

This plainly looks like fraud and theft of tax payer funds to me. Anyone ready for November? I know I am.

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.)

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

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

Calling for Global Jihad…

Espousing the killing of the Jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there you have it.

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

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

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

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

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

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