Tag Archives: Arizona

To my kids

Posted on by
Reply

Let me start off by apologizing. I apologize that as of right now in this first quarter of 2011, each one of you, from the 20 year old to the 6 year old is already $45,000 in debt. I know that amount means in effect, the first 5-8 years of your working careers will be spent to pay off this debt incurred through no fault of your own. And, if these halcyon days of profligate spending are not curtailed, the burden placed on you will be even greater and you may never get free of it.

Somehow, we lost sight of the future in our mad dash to remake the present into something more palatable for our tired, weary eyes. We allowed those whom we elected to office to run amok, unchecked and unchallenged for far too long. We, through inaction, inattention and inherent trust in our elected representatives permitted them unrestricted access to our property, your livelihoods, and your freedoms. They have rewarded us for our lack of oversight by sacrificing your futures on the altar of social justice–equality of outcomes, regardless of personal talent, ambition or work ethic.

A warning: social justice is not justice–respect for the rule of laws and is wholly incompatible with liberty. You, unlike us, must never forget this. Equality of outcomes can never be achieved in perpetuation by legislation or government fiat. People all have varying levels of talent, determination, knowledge, even luck. Do these always pay off as they should? No. Sorry.

Allow me to provide an illustration or two. Your class has a test scheduled that you choose not to study for. The person sitting next to you spent the night before studying, preparing. At the end of the test, you have answered less than half of the questions, most likely providing several wrong answers. Your classmate answered all of the questions, possibly missing a few. Who gets the better grade? Under an equality of outcome scenario, the grades don’t matter. You are both rewarded, simply because you were present to participate.

Lest you think the above little sidebar is an excuse to skip studying for future tests, let me remind you that in our household, as I believe it should be in life, choices bear consequences both good and bad. I’m certain that most of your teachers feel the same way.

One other example. In 2009, the House of mis-Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known most notably as ObamaCare. The passage of this bill was a complete rape of the U.S. Constitution. The majority of Americans did not and still do not want this bill passed. A major portion of the bill requires the purchase of health insurance, a mandate not authorized by the Constitution to any of the branches of our government. When asked about the Constitutional authority of the government to impose such a mandate, then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi responded to the inquiry with “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Justification through arrogance and intimidation. Thug politics at its best.

This bill, if allowed to stand, is another attempt at legislating equality of outcomes. The government bureaucracy, rather than you and your doctor, will decide what care options are best for you. This is only the first step. With the government in the health care business, the intrusiveness will not stop. Every aspect of your life, from what you choose to eat, to what you choose to drive could come under the scrutiny of “public health” interests, and thus further regulation and control. There is much more in this bill and its subsequent beginnings of implementation that bode dire consequences if it is not repealed or declared unconstitutional, but all of that is for another discussion.

In addition to our blind approach to the future, we have also lost sight of the past. We have forgotten that our Constitution sets forth the total extent of powers attributed to each branch of the Federal Government, and that it explicitly confers everything else to the people and the states. The Constitution weighs in heavily on the side of personal governance and the responsibilities that that entails. We have allowed the Federal Government to become leviathan. George Washington said “Government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” We are witnessing the truth of this statement now because we failed to heed the warnings and for that I apologize as well.

Our current president has no respect for the rule of law. When informed that his ban on oil drilling had no legal grounds to be continued and that said drilling should therefore be allowed to resume, our president ignored the ruling, forcing the judge to issue a “Contempt of Court” against the administration. When another judge declared the mandatory insurance provision unconstitutional, our president ignored him as well. He is on the record as stating “I don’t think the American people want us to waste our time re-legislating something that we have already legislated.” And “I will not compromise on anything that puts the future health care of 30,000,000 people that until recently could not afford health care in jeopardy.”

In other words, “I’m right. The laws don’t matter.”

Allow me another sidebar if you will. Those 30,000,000 people that couldn’t afford health care before still cannot afford health care. But they will have access to it because it will be paid for by others through higher taxes, insurance premiums, and fines for failure to participate.

Again, I apologize for the state of affairs we’ve left this country in for you. We had hoped for better, but hope it seems, is not enough. It requires active participation in the government of this country. It requires voting out the crooks and the elites and the political class and the power hungry individuals and replacing them with citizen representatives who still remember all three portions of government in this country: “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” All too often, our elected officials are more concerned with “of the people” than with the rest of it.

November 2, 2010

Posted on by
3

Random thoughts on this early morning of election day.

  • Voter turnout should be highest in decades for a midterm
  • GOP will most likely get 60 to 65 House seats
    • that might be a conservative number (pun intended)
    • Will not be a vote for the Grand Old Party, but a vote against current, progressive agenda and those pushing, endorsing and voting for it
    • All those elected will bear watching closely for next two years to ensure government “by the people” and not a return to status quo by July or August
    • Primary order of business? Repeal of monstrosity Obamacare the Triumvirate foisted on us in March. Madam Speaker… Read this!
  • Control of the Senate is a possibility

There are several potential issues I see with the above scenarios. Our elected officials from both parties over the last several years have been more interested in exercising dominion rather than in exercising restraint; restraint from interference into the lives of private citizens, restraint on spending and entitlement programs, restraint on the bureaucracy and overall size of the leviathan known as the Federal Government.

The public treasury has been raided for pet projects, pork projects projected pie-in-the-sky projects, and catering to special interest groups. The public trust has been denigrated. The public tolerance has been abused by frequent, premeditated failings by the people’s representatives who currently are viewed in large part as thieves, liars and self-serving, privileged elitists.

And, as the polls begin to open in just a few hours from now, Americans are going to make the time to vote and to say NO to the status quo that we have allowed such free rein in Washington, D.C for so long. The danger I see here is that after voting today, I am afraid that many of us will assume that our job is done. That we have done our duty and have saved the country from the evil politicians in perpetuity and we will slide back into complacency and return to our daily lives, congratulating ourselves on a job well done.

My friends, this cannot happen. We, the people, must from this day forward, remain vigilante. We must hold those elected officials accountable: Accountable to the Constitution, and accountable to us.

A smarter man than I once wrote that “governments … derive their just powers from the consent of the governed“. That’s us. You and me. In this country, more so than any other on the face of the planet and in the history of civilization, “We the People” determine how we are to be governed; how we are to be represented by our lawmakers.

To that end, there will be some changes taking place here at The Unofficial View. In addition to the Op-Eds that I write, as much as it is in my power to do so, I will begin posting links to proposed legislation, both House and Senate, that may require our attention. I will attempt to find discussions of those proposed bills and link to them so that you and I might educate ourselves and then voice our opinions to those we have elected to represent us.

No more health care abominations—or is that Obaminations?—no more “pass it to find out what’s in it”. No more bail outs. The current crop of Grift-resentatives will soon find out how badly they’ve failed us, how far they’ve overstepped their bounds. Those coming in cannot be allowed the same free rein.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin

Yet to come, here at the Unofficial View: “Because You’re Not Smart”.

Mosqueraid

Posted on by
1

I generally fall in the moderate to conservative leaning camp on most issues, sometimes leaning right a little more than at other times. And, though it may not appear to be so at first glance on this topic, I think I still fall on the conservative side.

As I stated in my last post, if the proposed site is private property—and it is—and if all current obligations to the city in terms of fees, building codes, etc. have been met—entirely up to those responsible for such things in the city of New York and no one else—then the Cordoba Initiative should be allowed to proceed.

In the first post on this blog, A Perfect 10, I stated that given enough time, I was certain that the First Amendment to the US Constitution would get at least equal coverage as the 10th Amendment covered in that first post. And now, the First Amendment is taking center stage with the mosque proposal in New York City.

In all of my ranting, all of my jumping up and down, waving my arms shouting for someone, anyone to hear—or listen— “The Constitution says…” I have always tried to be consistent. The US Constitution is a document that grants certain powers—and only those limited powers enumerated in that document—to the Federal Government.

The Bill of Rights is a restatement of the Founder’s belief in the personal liberties of the citizens. It is not a granting of rights to the people, as it is so often, mistakenly regarded today. It is a warning issued to the Federal Government not to inhibit, intrude or infringe on those rights ALREADY BELONGING TO THE PEOPLE.

The First Amendment guarantees to all citizens of this “shining city on the hill” the rights of free speech and the freedom to practice, or not, any religion of their choosing. We all know this. Most of us espouse that as part of what it means to be a real American, although some have attempted to occlude the freedom to dissent with whispers of racism of late.

But this post is not (directly) about the current president nor the crop of Grift-resentatives in Congress, nor the burgeoning rampant explosion of Government and its continued incursions into the lives of American citizens.

Rather, it is a post directly about us, the American people. It is about our character, our heart, and our souls. It is about what makes us who we are, who we perceive ourselves to be, and our place in the world. It is a post about what I believe makes us American, and acts as a buttress to this shining city on the hill.

Should we be allowed to quote the Constitution, to lean on its authority only when it is convenient, or when we feel it supports our position? Should we arbitrarily decide when to enforce the provisions set forth in the Constitution or when to ignore it?

I can almost hear the chorus from right side and several on the left side alike, “No”.

Followed by “But…”

There can be no “but…”

Either the Constitution means what it says, and we, as Americans, follow it, or it is just another interesting, historical document that gives a general overview of America and her history. Either it is the basis of our law, and sets forth the guiding principles of the land, or it is not. Either the entire document is static in its current form, including the Bill of Rights, or any and all of the Amendments guaranteeing our freedoms are subject to the whims of the majority and to the feckless interpretation of those in power, regardless of when or whomever those might be.

That is tyranny waiting to happen! That is complete and utter rule of might makes right; that is true democracy—majority rule, and NOT the federal republic this country was established as, and has survived as for more than 230 years. If its principles can be ignored, circumvented, or cheated, even “just this once”, than the whole document, and the whole individual liberty promising Bill of Rights are just so many empty words that can be applied as the political class sees fit. Or not, if they so deem.

I understand the angst the proposed building of this mosque has generated. I understand the feeling of “that’s just not right.” I understand the thought of “that’s not how I (we, an American) would do things. We’re more sensitive to people’s feelings than these/those/other people are.”

But feelings do not make law; at least not yet in this country. Majority rule is not the driving force behind our society. Laws, processes, even protests are all part of what makes this “great experiment” continue to work.

Show of hands if you’ve ever heard, or said something like this: “We may disagree, but I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me.” Are those just empty words, too?

But what about radical Islamic, crazy, jihadi terrorists who might try to infiltrate this country and kill innocent American citizens? We need to be better at preventing radical Islamic, crazy, jihadi terrorists from getting into this country. That is a job for the intelligence agencies and the police forces of this country. And the military. And, in all honesty, we as citizens. This country is engaged in a war with groups of people who have sworn to destroy us.

Their way of life is foreign to us. Their wish for subservience to their god and dominion over the rest of the world is not much different than others of their ilk throughout history. Americans as a whole have always rejected those types of controlling ideologies.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

— US Declaration of Independence

I have no doubt that we will continue to do so. Forcefully if necessary.

But, what about home grown terrorism, and the possibility of this mosque preaching anti-Americanism while its members chant “Death To America! Kill the Great Satan!”?

Is that any different—or worse—than Reverend Wright preaching essentially the same thing while our current president sat and didn’t hear him for twenty years? Or celebrities that openly mock this great country and all that it stands for while praising the humanity of tyrannical dictators?

What about protecting American citizens which is also mandated in the Constitution?

If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.

— attributed in various forms to Benjamin Franklin

When security comes at the expense of liberties, as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, that is a dangerous slope to find ourselves on. Who gets to decide what freedoms will be compromised? Who gets to decide on enforcement of the policies? Who gets to decide how universally any remaining freedoms are to be applied? And what happens in the future when the current “norm”, may be replaced by a new “norm”?

Is the proposed location in bad taste? In my opinion, yes. Is the timing for this idea somewhat suspect? Yes. Are there questions of motives, hidden agendas, collusion? Yes. Is there any reason, given public sentiment and the hue and cry of public outrage to allow it to proceed if the owners of this particular piece of private property choose to build it there? Yes.

Otherwise, we might just as well burn the Constitution and start over. Who’s got a match?

While we wait…

Posted on by
Reply

While we wait to see how many of the candidates for US Senate from the state of Arizona will respond to my inquiries about an online interview with unofficialview.net, I can think of no good reason to interrupt the posts here.

According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, http://bit.ly/dnegsy, the primary issue on the minds of the American people this election year is that of reigning in the intrusiveness and limiting the reach of the Federal Government.

We can bandy about words like [S]socialism, fascism, communism and any other currently existing or yet to be named-ism and still spend no real time getting to the heart of the matter. The crux, as I see it is this: How much influence, how much invasion of privacy, how much control do you, as a member of this society, as an American, wish to allow the Federal Government to have on your life?

Simple as that. Not your neighbor’s. Not the corporate exec who tools around town in a different vehicle every day; not all those people that are opposed to your sensible, political viewpoints. Yours.

If you would not want something foisted on you and your family, why would anyone ever vote for someone who would force something on another family or another group of people? Political winds change. Parties in power fall out of power.

All too often, the resurgent party appears to be out to punish the preceding party and their supporters. Let me give you an example.

If you’ve read any of this blog, you know by now that I am tremendously opposed to the Obama Health Care Bill. Personally, I hope the Republicans can gain enough seats and find enough balls to repeal it. (The two conditions may be the very definition of non sequitur.)

Gasp! The horrors! Denying health care coverage to 30 million people just deemed worthy and declared eligible by the Federal Government to receive those benefits. How can you be so cruel?

So, what happens if it isn’t health care? What if it’s the car (and no, that’s not cars) you can drive? What if it’s what food you eat? What if it’s raising the costs of what you pay for gas for your car, and the energy to heat your house under the guise of shared sacrifice? What if it’s the EPA attempting to legislate the wind?

Sound foolish? Right now in OUR Houses of Congress, and in the offices of many governmental departments, all of these issues are being proposed, discussed, debated and voted on. Did they ask you your opinion on any of these things? Me too, neither.

What happens when one of the two major political parties in this country falls out of favor with the voters? Any honest observer will tell you that the winning side attempts to impose as much of their agenda as possible while at the same time attempting to siphon off as much dignity from the losing party as possible. Sometimes, it appears that victory is measured in the amount or retribution—read revenge—the winners are able to extract from the losers.

I know, that’s politics with the career politicians in this country. But, again, that brings me back to my point.

How much do you, as an individual. want/wish for/expect the Federal Government to do to/for/because of you? How much leeway should we allow them? When is enough enough?

I already know my answers to those questions. Do you?

Update on the Interviews

I have received a reply from Mr. David Nolan regarding the interview. He asked for some time to respond to the questions and I was more than happy to agree. His answers will be posted first, once I receive them and others, if they choose to respond, will follow.

Thank you, Mr. Nolan.

Update II

Aug, 12 – Have just heard from Mr. Ian Gilyeat, also said he would provide answers to the Unofficial View survey.

Thank you, Mr. Gilyeat.

Election Issues

Posted on by
2

The following is a list of questions that unofficialview.net is sending out to all candidates from Arizona running in this year’s election. We are hoping those running will participate and provide us with answers to these questions. Stay tuned—we’ll see if any of them choose to respond.

1) What is your plan to secure the US / Mexico border?

2) In your opinion, what is needed to stimulate the economy?

3) Should we, as a nation, continue to provide stimulus money and/or subsidies to businesses or industries that are struggling to stay in business?

3a) If so, which industries and how much assistance?

4) This country is currently facing the highest deficit in history. What is necessary to reduce this deficit?

4a) Would you support a balanced Federal budget initiative?

5) The entitlement programs currently in place in this country are fiscally irresponsible, given the amount of money required to meet our existing obligations and the tremendous amount of outstanding debt we have. What changes need to be made in terms of government spending to reduce the debt and improve the financial stability of the Federal Government?

5a) Are my taxes going up? If so, are you voting yes on any proposed tax increases?

6) Many polls show that 50-60% of Americans are unhappy with the passage of the health care bill last March. If given the opportunity, would you vote to have it repealed?

7) What does the phrase “life, (personal) liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” mean to you?

8 ) According to the US Constitution, powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by that document are reserved to the States or to the People. How deeply should the Federal Government be involved in the lives of individual Americans?

9) If elected in November, what proposed legislation should we the public look for from you?

10) In your opinion, what is the most critical issue facing our country today?

A Partial Reading List for Today

Posted on by
Reply

Obama’s campaign promise of change left out the bit about its being change in which those who think they know what’s good for us pass a law that most of us oppose with a passion.
The Daily Beast

Yes, I read the last one in that list, just as I intend to read the bill first word to last word. “The Moment” is a synopsis of “The Plan”, a brief outline and overview of everything this administration and the liberal socialist leadership of grift-resentatives intend to do to this country. It should be required reading for every American, followed by a good hand washing, mouthwash, and a refresher course on the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Quotes of note

Posted on by
Reply

George Washington, wisely noted: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Wonder what George, and Thomas, and Patrick, and John, and Ben and the other Founding Fathers of this country would think of how the Federal Government is continually encroaching into our lives and divesting us of our freedoms today? Would they sit back with their arms crossed and smugly say “We told you so”, or would they be convening a new Congressional Congress and resending the Declaration of Independence to the current crop of career politicians? Maybe they’d even be planning a new Tea Party! Oh, wait. Those have already started. Welcome back, George.

A Perfect 10

Posted on by
2

— jmr, phoenix

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

—excerpt from the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution

The complete text of the U.S. Constitution including the Bill of Rights is available here. Have you read it? Has your Congressional Representative?
The text of the amendment quoted above is probably the most appropriate starting point for this blog and its initial post. Yes, freedom of speech is more important, for without it, I could not post this nor future snippets of opinion. So, though more important, not equally as appropriate given the prevailing winds of change in our country. Don’t worry — I’m certain, that if I am at this long enough, Amendment I will get more than a fair share of attention as well.

I am not a Constitutional lawyer, although, probably forty years too late, I now think that would have been an extremely satisfying career. I think it would have been a privilege to argue the finer points of Constitutional law.

The 10th Amendment, however, is not one of those finer points. It is more akin to a massive blunt instrument wielded with great force against a solid object. Its words are clear, concise and require no interpretation. It is a clear command to the Federal Government to keep its hands off what does not belong to it, to keep its nose out of where it has not been granted access and to subsist within rigid and legal boundaries.

It explicitly states that the Federal Government has absolutely no authority in matters not directly given to it by the states or the Constitution. It gives no leeway for any politician or lawyer to speculate on how large a role the Federal Government may be able to play in the lives of the American people.

It means the President of the United States does not have the authority to fire a janitor at a public or private company, let alone the CEO, no matter how much power the President may have in the world. It means Congress does not have the authority to enforce its edict that baseball “clean up its act.”

In fact, after the protection of the borders, the raising and collecting of taxes, and controlling immigration, the Federal Government doesn’t have legal leeway to do much else according to the Constitution. The cynic in me at this point says, “one outta three ain’t bad.”

In the U.S., however, over the last century, it has become socially acceptable to protect people from their own foibles and failures, much less mistakes, and expect the government, as some neutral third party to provide the protection.
—Richard Browne

As Mr. Browne indicates, the government should never be allowed this level of infringement into the affairs and everyday happenstance of the American people. Government of any kind, by its very nature is voracious, insatiable.

The more we ask government to do, the more money—taxes—they require to do it. The more we expect them to be responsible for, the less efficient those services become. The more we allow the government to control, the fewer our options for dissent.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
—Wendell Phillips (1852)