Tag Archives: Arizona

Tea Party defeats jobs bill!!??

Posted on by
Reply

The President’s jobs bill was defeated in the Senate last night. According to some, the Tea Party is to blame.

The vote last night — we were very pleased with it. I was surprised with some newspapers saying ‘setback,’” Schumer said. “This is one more step as part of our plan, which is basically, first to focus on jobs and the economy like a laser — we’re in complete coordination with the White House on that — and to show that we want to change the dynamic on jobs and the economy and Republicans are blocking it.

— Sen. Charles Schumer (D- NY), quote on Roll Call’s website

When Senator Schumer says the word Republican lately, what he really means is Tea Party.

“The republic has a whiff, after the debt ceiling debate, that the Republican Party has become quite extreme because it’s been sort of run by tea party Congressmen and Senators, even though they’re not a majority in either house,” Schumer said. “They’re standing in the way — on every issue. … “

ibid.

So, obviously, the Republicans, I mean, the Tea Party is to blame for the President’s jobs bill not passing.

Ummm… Senator Schumer, by your own admission the Tea Party does not have a majority in either House, and your party currently enjoys the majority in the side of the House that you work in. There were two defectors from your own party on this bill. So just exactly how did the Tea Party defeat it?

Of even more concern than this particular distortion of the truth is the proposed extortion of the intelligence of the American people in Schumer’s words as he continues to discuss what he calls “Tea Party Economics:

“They’re standing in the way — on every issue. … We’ve got to get some money pumped into the economy in the next year or two to avoid the tea party double-dip recession.”

Now we know why the economy is so sluggish. Those damn Tea Partiers, all of which have only been in office less than a year, and at no time comprise a majority of votes in either House are simply standing in the way of growth and progress. And they must want to see the economy fail. We have to blame somebody, right?

Unemployment has been at over 9% for far longer than the Tea Party representatives have been in office, mortgage foreclosures topped 1 million in 2010 for the first time in history due to Fed interference and mishandling of the mortgage industry (under laws all forced on the banking industry by Schumer’s party), the Federal Registry has been appended by 80,000 pages of regulations since the current administration came into power, and new pending legislation (such as Obamacare, passed by … hint: not the Tea Party) cast future viability for businesses in doubt. None of these issues are the result of Tea Party candidates now holding office in the House and Senate. They are all results from the failed “major transformation of America”, to use our current President’s words. They are a result of government over-reach, government over-interference, and government over-regulation.

They are an attempt to divert blame from where it truly belongs. Schumer, the President and others in the Democratic party all appear to want us to believe that the $800B+ of stimulus money that went to crony capitalists and special interest groups wasn’t enough to spur the economy, so we need another $400B + to help push things along. Can you say Solyndra?

Senator Schumer appears to be unconcerned with the ever expanding national debt, as witnessed by his words to, in effect, throw more money at the problem, and he has an odd notion of where blame should fall when his party, in the majority, remember, fails to pass a bill in his section of Our House.

Time for some House cleaning.

===================

Links

Mouth With Sharp Teeth Bites Taxpayers Again

This man fits in perfectly with the Because You’re Not Smart crowd discussed earlier here at The Unofficial View

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.

SOTU – In Retrospect

Posted on by
Reply

I have not yet read through my notes taken during the President’s State of the Union address last night. They are somewhere in state between chaotic and unprintable, so this is nothing more than an overview and a bit of editorial.

I am concerned about several things in the President’s SOTU address last night. First and foremost is his intransigence on the health care bill, recently repealed by vote of the people’s representatives in the House. More of “just wait… you’ll love it.” And the bashing of insurance companies. “I will not allow insurance companies to go back to declining coverage for pre-existing conditions…” Belief does not an expert make. Yet, the President appears to believe that just by wishing to have every person covered for whatever reason should make it so. Obviously, no concern for costs, increased coverage premiums for those that pay. He seems to believe that by wishing those costs to not exist, they will simply disappear.

His emphasis on green jobs is scary. Like many more trillions of dollars scary: 80% of our energy from clean sources by 2035? That means coercion through regulation and fines and forcing higher priced energy on the American public. More shared sacrifice. It is also another case of government attempting to pick winners and losers and set the rules of the game to benefit a few at the expense of the American public.

He wants to take the “billions of dollars we give to the oil companies” and give them to researchers for work in developing better, more efficient means of producing these clean energy sources. This idea raises several questions to my mind. First of all, where did he arrive at that number of billions? Is that from tax breaks provided to oil companies? If so, that does not constitute money we have available to, in effect, transfer from one account to another. Removing those tax breaks will inevitably result in higher prices for those energy sources. The American consumer will foot the bill for those higher prices while at the same time fund those additional billions of dollars for new research and technologies.

The tax breaks are the same type of tax breaks offered to other businesses and include depreciation and other costs of doing business.

We should allow the free market to encourage those companies and other innovators to do their own research into alternatives and find ways to bring those products to the court of public opinion to potentially live or die on their own merits, and not with government endorsement and backing and rigging the game.

The trouble with “potentially” is just that: meaning possible. It also incorporates the possibility of not reaching its full potential, giving it a landing place anywhere on the scale between imminent and impossible. We can only hope that that landing spot is closer to the former and not the latter, but that is impossible to predict without the aid of billions of dollars in tax payer money.

I thought it was very clever—as in sly clever, bordering on willful deception—to repeatedly use the term “invest” as opposed to “spend”. Government investment of any kind is spending. Government has no money to invest that it did not first confiscate from someone else. Usually, that’s you and me, and the companies we choose to do business with. So, rather than spending any more, which in today’s political climate is anathema even to all but the densest Keynesians, we’re going to invest. That’s just a feel good word if I’ve ever heard one, and a word used intentionally to hide the true meaning behind his statements.

So, in effect, what we got was more “hope and change”, a vision of a brighter future, regardless of the costs, a new term for government spending and business as usual from a President that acknowledged a shellacking in the midterm elections. Election season for 2012 has begun.

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”.

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.

Meanwhile…

Posted on by
Reply

From the looney bin… ummm… other side, we get this reaction:

“We believe the court ruled correctly when it prevented key provisions of SB1070 from taking effect,” Justice Department spokesperson Hannah August said. “While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive. States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.”

First of all, there was no patchwork of policies. Arizona SB 1070 mirrored Federal Law and simply stated Arizona’s intent to enforce those laws. And while we’re at it, yes local enforcement of Federal law would most definitely disrupt current Federal enforcement, because the Federal Government is NOT DOING ANY enforcement.

And

“The court’s decision to enjoin most of SB1070 correctly affirms the federal government’s responsibilities in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws,” said Deputy Press Secretary Matt Chandler.

And I as a citizen of the United States of America affirm the federal government’s responsibility in that area as well. DO YOUR JOB!

Mr. Chandler continues:

“Over the past eighteen months, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as well as continue to secure our border.”

hmmm… 1200 National Guard troops to be deployed along the entire U.S. / Mexico border. Yep, that certainly qualifies as unprecedented. A photo op in D.C. and a promise to “send some people” to investigate in a couple of weeks. Yep, unprecedented there, too. Cries of racist and failure to read the bill… okay, I’ll grant that that may be unprecedented.

The balance of Mr. Chandler’s statement is a clever attempt to deflect conversation from the real issue. The REAL issue is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, an invasion, and not simply an issue involving criminal aliens. Federal Law requires coming to this country through proper channels. It requires proper documentation. Already existing Federal Law makes NO DISTINCTION between ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and criminal aliens.

And lastly, “as well as continue to secure our border”… Yeah, right.

More here

McCain-Kyl statement on SB1070 ruling

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl have issued the following statement:

Excerpt: “After this decision, it’s even more important to implement our Ten Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.”

Read more… »

Governor Brewer’s Statement

Posted on by
Reply

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.” Read more…»

Update, July 28, 2010 Arizona SB 1070

Posted on by
1

Well, we now have our answer. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has struck down several major provisions of Arizona SB 1070, in effect handing victory to the Federal Government in the case.

According to The East Valley Tribune, a Phoenix area newspaper, among the provisions struck from the bill are:

1) Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;

2) Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documenation;

3) Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;

Let’s look at them in order–after a rereading of Federal Law.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code,

“Improper Entry by Alien”, any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

– Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

– Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

– Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime… a felony

Number 1 above. This strikes me as a common sense provision. A simple inquiry should constitute “reasonable attempt”. Followed with the requirements of Federal Law, as discussed below, any person unable to confirm their legal right to be present in this country can be referred to ICE – the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement division responsible for dealing with illegal aliens. The attending police officer has done his job to protect the citizens under his jurisdiction and upheld Federal Law.

Nubmer 2. Quote from U.S. Code, Title 8 (the current law of the land):

Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

This one should be self-explanatory. Federal Law says that such documentation is to be carried at all times. Arizona SB1070 simply reaffirmed that necessity.

Numer 3. From the Federally mandated I-9 form, which is a prerequisite to being hired, under the heading What is the Purpose of This Form it states:

The purpose of this form is to document that each new employee (bot citizen and noncitizen hired after November 6, 1986, is authorized to work in the United States.

Requirements are various documents that prove either citizenship or that the individual being considered has sufficiently followed Federal procedures granting him or her the privilege of working in this country.

Judge Bolton’s ruling strikes this requirement from Arizona law. This is asinine! How can a provision that restates Federal Law be considered overreaching?

Make no mistake. This case brought by the Federal Government against the state of Arizona was not about jurisdiction. It had nothing to do with States’ Rights versus Federal Rights. It was about political grandstanding, catering to another class of “victims” in an effort to secure votes.

The victory in this case goes to the Federal Government. I can live with that. So, as a legal citizen of the United States of America, I say to the Representatives and the Senators who make our laws and to the Executive Branch whose responsibility it is to enforce those laws, do your job. You have just been informed that, yes, it is Federal responsibility to handle immigration. Fine. Do your job and enforce the immigration laws on the books for the last 60 years. If they don’t, We The People can simply vote them out of office.

Arizona Immigration Law

Posted on by
Reply

I had intended to write a post on the new Arizona Immigration law, but then, I found this piece that covers the topic in depth and pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. It is written by Tad Wesley and you can read it here.