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

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.)

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.

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

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

From www.landmarklegal.com

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

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

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

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

Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint

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

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

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

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon, who ruled in December that the de-funding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now(ACORN) was unconstitutional, ruled that long term damage is still being done to the organization because the federal agencies who rescinded the funding have not officially acknowledged the restoration of it. This ruling came down as a response to the Federal Governments request for appeal on the courts original findings last year.

You would think, considering the overwhelming evidence of voter fraud, money embezzlement, the redirecting of funds through dummy non-profits and the videos showing ACORN employees advising a pimp/hooker team on how to hide taxable revenue generated by a brothel populated by underage Honduran illegal aliens, Judge Gershon would at the very least suspend the continuance of funding pending a formal investigation by Grand Jury. I guess we can’t expect much more from a liberal activist bench sitter who was nominated by Bill Clinton.

Instead of doing her job, this “champion” of civil rights and the Constitution ordered the flow of tax payer money to be uncapped once again, then later ordered the agencies who cut the flow of money to basically apologize. The legal order forcing the federal agencies involved to “acknowledge” their “wrong doing” is punitive in nature and couldn’t possibly recover a single ounce of reputation ACORN had in the public eye. ACORN destroyed their own public image long before anyone else could.

ACORN got it’s start in the 60’s under a different name, the National Welfare Rights Organization. One of it’s first actions was pushing the anti-capitalist Cloward-Piven strategy. The ultimate goal was national bankruptcy and economic upheaval by flooding the welfare rolls, or forced “fundamental transformation” of what they perceived to be an evil class structure based around economics. They didn’t manage to bankrupt our Nation but in a matter of years, they did manage to double the amount of people sucking off of the teet of taxpayer funded federal entitlement programs. This comes at no surprise seeing how this is always the inevitable result of liberal “social justice”; more individuals on welfare. Their number one enemy has always been the economic success of individuals over the collective.

They have been intimately involved in the election of sympathetic Democrats on the state and federal political stage and many serious reports of voter fraud have been raised. At this moment, three previous employees of ACORN are currently on trial and face prison time for their part in committing fraud. The example was set from the top.

Wade Rathke

Former ACORN International President Wade Rathke and his brother Dale Rathke, are now being investigated by Louisiana’s attorney general Buddy Caldwell for allegedly embezzling 5 million dollars. ACORN President, Bertha Lewis, had already acknowledged that 1 million was embezzled by the Rathke brothers. Aside from the money stolen, one of the questions we should be asking is why, after finding out what happened, did they covered up the crime for almost 10 years before it was leaked by a disgruntled former executive?

With the 200+ organizations under the ACORN umbrella, there have been many rumors of the funneling of money from non-profits to for-profit organizations and causes the donations were not meant to fund. I’m curious where the trail would lead if someone looked into exactly where all the federal money has gone since they started receiving funding.

Since 1994, Bertha Lewis’ organization has received 53 million dollars of tax revenue. Up until the 2008 Presidential Election, 85% of Americans were not even aware of who ACORN was. These people are crooked, communistic criminals who deserve ZERO funding from federal sources and more than likely should have their tax exempt status yanked. Those that still cling to them as a credible organization to enact real meaningful reform for minorities and low income individuals are either stupid or complicit.

Judge Gershon seems to be one of the latter. You know, they say water always finds it’s own level.

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

In one breath, Pelosi exclaims,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viva La November!

February 10th, 2010

The LA Times published an article today by  Jack Leonard which profiled a three strikes offender from Los Angeles. Some of you might remember Jerry Dewayne Williams from back in 1995 when he made national headlines for being sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pizza from some kids on the local boardwalk. He was then dubbed the Pizza Thief and he was locked up under California’s new three strikes law. Leonard had this to say.

Fifteen years ago, the gangly laborer made worldwide headlines when he was convicted of snatching a slice of pizza from a group of children near the Redondo Beach Pier. A judge, citing California’s newly adopted three-strikes law, sentenced him to 25 years to life.

Williams — dubbed the “pizza thief” — became an iconic symbol in the political and ideological battle over California’s push to get tough on crime. But as the public furor over his case subsided, Williams persuaded a judge to reduce his prison term, and he was quietly released after a little more than five years behind bars.

A decade later, Williams finds himself serving a different kind of life sentence.

“I walk on eggshells,” he said. “Any little thing that I do, I could be back for the rest of my life.”

Controversial life sentences under the three-strikes law are hardly novel. Those sentenced under the law include a thief caught shoplifting a bottle of vitamins and a drug addict who swiped nine videotapes to sell for heroin.

Read the whole story here.

I have one piece of advice for Mr. Williams and I’ll channel Jim Carey from a great movie I think most of you have seen. “Stop breaking the law, ASSHOLE!”

Leonard describes Willams as a “gangly laborer” but fails to say that Williams actually  is a 230lbs, 6′4″ tall former gang member with a LONG rap sheet. He didn’t just swipe a pizza, he used threats and intimidation which turns the crime into strong armed robbery. Because he had several felony convictions before swiping the pizza, he did hard time and, I might say, deserved every second of his time in prison. The litany of criminal activity on his record include robbery, attempted robbery, grand theft auto and drug possession.

After serving only 5 years of his life sentence, his case was reviewed which led to his release. After his release, he left the county without notifying his parole officer therefore generating an arrest warrant, was arrested for public intoxication and was witnessed threating his girlfriend with physical harm involving a “bullet” by two police officers.

Hardly a reformed criminal just “trying to go strait”. This guy is a menace. He claims that he now walks on egg shells; fearing that around any corner may be another felony he might accidentally commit to land himself back in jail. Leonard contends that this case is a worthy argument to strike the law but I contend the opposite. The three strikes law gives criminals like Williams ample opportunity to shape up. The law also keeps career criminals off the streets and prevents them from endangering law abiding citizens. If anything, Williams is one of the best examples that I have ever seen for passing three strikes laws in every state in the country. I may just be Mr. Square, uncool Joe here but I’ve never had a problem avoiding committing felonious acts. Have you?

Leonard should get to the doctor because his heart isn’t just bleeding, it’s hemorrhaging with his lack of belief in personal responsibility and being accountable for one’s actions.