SCOTUS on JUNE 28, 2012

So most of the citizens of the US are against Obamacare... 60% against it in the last poll I saw.

Chief Justice Roberts, who sided with the liberal justices, argued that the individual mandate is a tax—Obama argued it is not a tax.  You can see Obama's argument here:    By ruling it is a tax, Roberts has made the whole thing a political football, and a nightmare for Obama.  Why?  Because the American people will hear the media reporting the individual mandate as a TAX, mostly on the middle class, in direct conflict with Obama’s promise not to tax anyone making less than $250k.

Maybe the Chief Justice is not as whacked as we may have first thought! 

So there will be a revolt in November (VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!), and I’m thinking the new Congress will repeal Obamacare.   Kind of funny, if you think about it.  This will come back to bite Obama in the rear! 

Finally, from page 12 of the decision:  

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of  their political choices.  

Of course, always remember “The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and HIS kingdom rules over all.”  Psalm 103:19

ENEMY OF THE STATE: ENVIRONMENTALISM PART IV

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that Democrats will have enough votes to defeat the amendment. The Nevada Democrat said ‘everyone should calm down on Keystone,’ because the southern part of the project is proceeding and efforts are underway to address environmental concerns raised by the original route.”[1]

Why, I would ask, are the “environmental concerns” of such importance?  Certainly, we do bear a huge responsibility to properly manage the natural resources created by God.  But the environmentalists are consistently holding this nation hostage, this time with respect to the Keystone XL pipeline.  Not only that, but POTUS is lobbying members of the United States Senate, instructing them to vote down a Republican measure that would force the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

How about being concerned about the fuel costs to the rest of the Americans?  Gasoline prices have doubled since the President took office, and he is doing nothing to improve the situation.  He lies when he says he is.  The pain Americans feel when they fill their tanks is somewhat self-inflicted, in that Congress and the President allow themselves to be controlled and manipulated by the fringe enviro-nuts.  We cannot afford a second term!

Environmentalism IS an Enemy of the State!

---

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/obama-lobbies-senate-democrats-to-block-measure-allowing-keystone-pipeline.html

BIAS IN THE MEDIA NO, WHITE HOUSE NO, CONGRESS OR ALL OF THE ABOVE

Everyone was jumping up and down screaming about the terminology used by Rush Limbaugh in discussing the imbedded Sandra Fluke at Georgetown University Law School.  Fluke, a 30 year old “student”, apparently enrolled at Georgetown for the express purpose of getting the Jesuit run Roman Catholic University to violate their beliefs and provide contraception coverage to its students and employees.  The Democrats then served her up on a platter to testify before a Congressional Committee regarding yet another “entitlement”—something the Dem’s are really good at doing.

This was nothing more than an extension of the President’s order to the Roman Catholic Church to provide contraception abortion coverage to their employees.  (See this post)  What the President ordered is nothing less than un-Constitutional.  He does not have the authority to issue such an order.  Obama’s declaration on February 10, 2012, wherein he announced a plan that “attempts to accommodate certain religious employers opposed to a rule that would require them to provide access to birth control for women free of charge.”[1]

So, the focus is on Rush, and not on the anti-Constitutional move by the President.

Of course, some of Rush’s limited show advertisers (as opposed to the thousands of local advertisers who advertise during the show) have abandoned him—much to their financial chagrin).  That’s okay, though, because others will immediately step forward to fill the void, and Rush’s listeners will spend their money on the new advertisers products. 

What follows are examples of the left being so very hypocritical[2]:

Regarding Laura Ingraham

Ed Schultz called me a slut last May...still waiting for Obama's call.  (March 3 at 11:50am)

"..this right-wing slut, what’s her name? Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut!” Ed Schultz

See it here

Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c**t…here

Not a word from the left on these comments…hmmmmm…

---

[1] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/source-obama-to-change-birth-control-rule/1#.T1jlclF2Qmk

[2] With sincere thanks to my politically savvy son…

UNITY AMONG THE BISHOPS...

It's good to see the American Roman Catholic bishops united in their opposition to Obama's "compromise", which can be read about here.  No, it was not a compromise.  It was just the liberal's way of deflecting the criticism that came their way when they attempted to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.  

It is clear that the liberals are worshipping at the altar of their religion--the first tenent of which is sexual freedom and freedom to kill babies that "interfere" with their lives--mandated that access to abortion was non-negotiable.  Obama said,

“Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services, no matter where they work.  So that core principle remains.  But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

Understand, Obama is just doing the head fake.  In reality, it is the American taxpayers--made up of approximately 50% of the wage earners in this country--who will be paying for the "services" Obama is so bent on providing.

Smoke and mirrors, folks.  Smoke and mirrors.

OBAMA DECLARES WAR-ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (and its people)

So the Obama Administration thinks they can circumvent--no, eliminate--the First Amendment rights of millions of American Catholics by imposing a mandatory requirement for Catholic institutions to provide abortion coverage to the employees of those institutions.  This action absolutely violates a central tenet held by the Roman church--its absolute opposition to abortion.

Once again, the utopian tyranny strikes, this time at religion, and they obviously took on the Roman Catholics in order to show just what they are capable of doing.  If the Roman church caves--I do not believe it will--or if the government succeeds in imposing this then the rest of those who believe in God will seemingly have no recourse in dealing with the outrageous draconian measures imposed by the government.  

To their credit, American Catholic bishops wrote letters to their member churches, letters to be read yesterday morning during services, in which they informed the members of the ridiculous requirements the statist Obama has imposed.  One of the letters can be read here.  

Not only that, the the United States Army prohibited their Roman Catholic chaplins from reading the letter from the bishop yesterday morning.

Whatever happened to our First Amendment right to free speech?  Oh, I know, Obama decided to unilaterally REVOKE it!

This is pathetic.  We MUST elect a true conservative if we expect to pass down the America we grew up knowing to our progeny.

Oh, Yeah, Let's Be Equal..."the rest of the story"

So if you've read Mark Levin's new book, you have seen that the "masterminds" want to make everyone "equal"...but it's not what you may think.

I found this video (scroll down to second one) of Obama's Axelrod talking about Mitt Romney and how his income is taxed "unfairly" because the rules that are in place are wrong.  He decries Romney's effective tax rate of 15% on his investments as somehow being unfair.  What he does not talk about is the fact that the money Romney has invested was already taxed at 35% and that the 15% is the captial gains tax rate.  So Romney paid 35% on the money he earned, and then pays an additional 15% on the money that original money made for him.  What's so wrong with that?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not certain about Romney and his GOP cred.  It's just that the media (and Obama's minions) fail to tell "the rest of the story".

Beware, folks, of the misinformation that is being pedaled out there!

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America

Mark Levin's new book should be required reading for all 12th grade Government students--at least.  'Twould be better if all high school students were required to read it, but we all know that will never happen.  Reading this book, I learned more about how the Founders came to establish our Republic than all of my prior education and reading put together.

Levin takes the reader through various "ideals" of government, beginning with Plato's Republic, and he succinctly and clearly lays out the "vision" of those he discusses.  Plato, Hobbs, More, and Marx--all preached a similar "vision" in which the individual exists for benefit of the state.

Levin then discusses Locke and de Touqueville--Locke's influence on the Framers and de Touqueville's experience visiting the United States in the 19th century.

This book is an amazing read, providing understanding as to how America started out, and discussing where we are today.  And we are in dire straits.  Administrative law has crushed the American spirit in a way that stifles economic growth.  Levin refers to the Administrative Law section of government as the "unconstitutional fourth branch of government".  More on them later.

Every American who cares for this country--even a little bit--should read this book.  Those who do will walk away with a completely changed perspective regarding what has, does, and will happen in this country.

Taxation with Representation: When Those Who Govern Do Not Pay Their "Fair Share"

So in his State of the Union address a couple of nights ago, the President talked extensively about "fairness" and people "paying their fair share".   Well, Mr. President, how about all those people currently working for you who have not paid their own taxes?


Today, we read:  "36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes".  REALLY?  And that's not the half of it.  Employees in the US Senate, in the House of Representatives, Homeland Security, Department of Education--these Federal employees owe major back taxes.  Problem is, no one is doing anything about it.


Not surprisingly, the Treasury Department have tax scofflaws too...of course, who can blame them?  The Treasury Secretary himself owed $42,000 in back taxes at the time of his nomination to the position. 


In the end, then, we have the opposite situation as did those fine folks who revolted against England in the 18th century.  Instead of "no taxation without representation", our cry today must be "taxation with representation, but only for certain people".

Enemy of the State: Environmentalism Part III

So Obama caved to the envronmentalists and refused to sign off on the Keystone XL pipeline.  His "excuse" was worthless.  Here America is, in the depths of a major recession (read: depression), over 8.5% unemployment, more citizens on food stamps than ever before, businesses moving out of the country, small businesses unable to risk hiring, and Obama--who claims to want to "create jobs" goes thumbs down on a project that would have provided employment to tens of thousands, would have generated an incredible amount of money in taxes, and would have cut down our dependence on foreign oil.


But no, Obama thought his plan for America was more important...

Newt Neutered John King from CNN!

Watching the debate last night proved worthwhile.  CNN's John King, the moderator, decided to start with a question related to Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations against him.  Never mind the allegations first appeared two years ago, and supposedly occurred 12 or 13 years ago.

I find it weird that ABC decided to air the interview immediately before the primary in South Carolina, but certainly not surprising!  Anyone who pays attention these days (and for the last 15-20 years) will see that most of the media does not "report" the news, but seeks to create it.  Of course, when Clinton had the affair with the White House intern, IN the White House, the media said it was no one's business.  And Clinton was tried for lying under oath!

No, I am not defending Gingrich for his sins.  I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the liberal media, which is less and less disguised as time marches on.  After all, who has never transgressed the Moral Law of God?  Let him who is without sin...

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigration

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Death Panels...

Driving home yesterday, I was listening to Mark Levin, which is something I do fairly regularly.  The man is brilliant, and not only understands, but can explain the United States Constitution. 

A man called during the second hour and identified himself as a neurosurgeon.  It should be noted that Levin’s folks vetted the guy, and confirmed he was who he said he was.

This doctor went on to explain that he had recently attended a conference in Washington, DC, sponsored, in part, by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.  During that conference, the doctors were provided information distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services discussing care for “units” (Obama-care speak for patients) over the age of 70 who had neurological issues such as a stroke or aneurism. 

These docs were informed that before a “unit” can be treated for stroke or aneurism, a group of “administrators”—not physicians—would have to make a determination as to whether or not the procedure would be worthwhile for the “unit”.  If a determination was made that intervention would not be beneficial, then the “unit” would be provided palliative care only—making the patient comfortable.  Translation: using narc drugs to relieve pain.  No surgery. 

So Sarah Palin was right—there will be “death panels” making determinations as to who receives treatment and who does not.

To hear the call, go to http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# and click on show for 11/22/2011, and listen beginning at 44:30

The website for the Congress of Neurological Surgeons is: http://www.cns.org/

They held their 61^st Annual Meeting of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, from October 1^st to 6^th, 2011, in Washington, DC, just as the caller said.

Look out folks, the socialists are coming at us at full speed!

Mass Murder in Tucson

Unbelievable. In the wake of the contemptible murders in Tucson, there are those who would place the blame for the murders on anyone or anything but the killer himself. It takes me back to my college days, and the Sociology classes that purported to explain deviant human behavior by citing environmental reasons that contributed to such behavior. The professors cited family issues, work environments, and disrupted relationships. Today political discourse is cited as a contributing factor to the killer’s deviant behavior.

Of course, once I began my career, I quickly learned that all of those explanations were nonsense and they were quickly tossed out the window. I quickly learned that people who choose to do what they do make those choices themselves. They, and they alone, are responsible for their actions.

Yet, if one goes to a courthouse, anywhere in this country, and listens to arguments being made, one will walk away with an earful of reasons, excuses, explanations, and motivations for a defendant’s criminal behavior. What will be missing is the truth: the defendant did what he did because he chose to do so.

Our society today is such that people want to identify the trigger that causes others to engage in behavior that is not acceptable. The reason people do that is to make themselves feel better—about themselves and about others around them. They want to feel better about the society in which they live.

Today, members of Congress are talking about enacting laws that would restrict the language one can use in the midst of political discourse. The truth of the matter is that blaming the use of metaphors, and outlawing such language, will not prevent a person from going out and killing people. Such legislation will not stop a person who has purposed to take the lives of others. Such thinking is nonsensical. Think about it. We already have laws prohibiting murder, robbery, rape, and theft. Those laws do not stop those who decide to do what they want to do.

What about the husband who lies to his wife as to his whereabouts the night before? Would it be accurate to blame his wife for his lie, because the husband was worried his wife might yell at him?

In addition to those who want to introduce legislation limiting metaphors in the midst of political discourse, there are others who want to limit what can be said on the radio. Passing legislation in the midst of national hysteria would be grossly irresponsible. Not only that, but one of our most cherished rights, that of free speech, would be set on the proverbial slippery slope to flagrant restrictions on what any of us can say. Setting that ball in motion would be irrational.

The mass murderer in Tucson killed because he wanted to kill. On the last day, the responsibility for what he did will be his and his alone.

Tom McClintock...a Patriot!

Yesterday, the President of Mexico stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and decried the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, the law that absolutely mirrors Federal law. El Presidente did not decry Federal law, but the Arizona law. What's the difference?

What is even more disturbing than a head of state standing in OUR House of Representatives criticizing our laws was the Democrats who gave him a standing ovation for his comments. Wow.

Fortunately, Congressman Tom McClintock stood up and gave an incredibly patriotic speech, "taking exception" to the comments by the Mexican President.

Kudos Tom!

Arizona...armed drug smugglers

I talked to an old friend yesterday, a guy I worked with during my career in law enforcement. He retired to Arizona, and lives about 100 miles from the border on his 10 acres. We talked about the Arizona illegal immigration law, and he told me, "those people in Michigan, Washington State, and New York have no idea what goes on down here. The people coming in from Mexico will usually go around the other side of the mountain, but sometimes they cross on my land. They leave lots of trash, burn cars they find along the way and do other things to property belonging to American citizens. The drug smugglers will sometimes try to intimidate the cattle ranchers, but recently they picked on the wrong rancher--he fired back when they opened up with their assault rifles. What the smugglers don't seem to get is everybody in Arizona is carrying a gun. I don't go anywhere without my gun".

The old West still lives...because the federal government refuses to do its job, and is critical of states that exercise their rights on behalf of their citizens.

Hi-ho Silver!

Napolitano's Turn in the Fish Barrel...

The Secretary of Homeland Security is another in a growing list of government officials who degrade, criticize, condemn, and pass judgment on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law without having read it!

Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledged, under questioning by Senator John McCain, that she had not read the law, but in the same breath, assured the Senator she would not have signed it. (Fast forward to 7:35 to get to the relevant content)

No wonder our government is broken! We have our Congress voting on legislation that they have not read—ie, Nancy Pelosi saying they had to pass the health care bill to find out what was in it.

As if that was not enough, we have other public officials being highly critical and disparaging of the Arizona legislation that they have not read—legislation that mirrors Federal law! Napolitano, Holder, and the President of the United States who said, “If you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, your going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen, that’s not the right way to go,” Obama said during a town hall event in Iowa. It is so obvious that even Obama did not read the legislation! That is nothing short of disgraceful.

These people are not only incompetent, but they are not up to the job! If these kinds of bungled missteps took place in the private sector, they would be out on their ears, with the admonition “don’t let the door hit you in the…” That our tax dollars are going to pay for such idiocy is mind-boggling.

I can’t wait for November!

Separation?

We all know how the “separation of church and state” position evolved over time in this country. We all are aware of the threat to churches should they take official “political stands” in this country.

Yet a couple of days ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Catholic bishops and priests to preach “immigration reform” from the pulpit.

“The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels,” she said.

Are you kidding me?

Certainly, preaching on subjects relating to “social justice” (a good discussion of social justice here) is not foreign to the Roman Catholic Church. This writer can recall attending “catechism class” in junior high, and being indoctrinated with the concepts of “social justice”. “Social justice” in today’s vernacular can be defined this way: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice. Glenn Beck opines correctly: The term "social justice" has been completely perverted and hijacked by progressives. It doesn't mean simply "help the poor" to them. It does to some people, but not to radical progressives.

The statists in this country jump up and down and scream when someone even appears to “mix” church and state. Yet, Pelosi gets a pass on her exhortation to the Catholic church leaders to preach social justice in the framework of immigration reform.

Interestingly, she claims to be a Catholic, yet Pope Benedict and Pelosi do not agree on issues the Catholic Church has deemed important. In fact, in 2002, the Vatican issued a doctrinal note on "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life," which states rather succinctly that politicians who profess to be Catholic have a "grave and clear obligation" to oppose any law that attacks human life.[1] While it was signed by John Paul II, it was also signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

In February 2009, Pelosi had the opportunity to meet with Benedict. The Vatican issued the following statement after the meeting:

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development…

After that meeting, on Meet the Press, she continued to argue for “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby.

Pelosi and separation…hmmm…

---

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/pelosi-pope-meeting-minds/

Holder Critical of AZ Law...Yet...

Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, has been highly critical of the relatively new law in Arizona relating to unlawful immigration. He has said that one of the concerns he has is that it will lead to racial profiling.

He has said that the law is an unfortunate law that has the potential to lead to abuse. He said the Justice Department is reviewing the law with DHS to determine how to react to the law, “including the possibility of a court challenge”.

Keep in mind, he is a lawyer. Keep in mind, he is the head of the Justice Department of the United States of America.

Yesterday, May 13, 2010, he admitted to Congress that he had not even read the law. Yet, for days, he was highly critical of the law.

How is it that he can be the head of the “Justice” Department?

Environmentalism: Enemy of the State (Part II)

I opined in Part I that the members of the extreme environmental movement make up the second greatest enemy of this country. Of course, terrorists are the number one enemy.

Al Gore and his ilk have reached deeply into the pockets of the American citizens, slowly over time. Amazingly, Americans are allowing this to happen without the slightest peep. Everyone knows the analogy of the frog in the pot—a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water will jump right out. But a frog in a pot of lukewarm water, will adjust to the increasing temperature of the water as the heat is raised, until it boils to death. Too many Americans are frogs.

Too many Americans buy into the myth of man-made global warming—a myth because it is not based on scientific fact. More and more, the truth regarding man-made global warming alarmists is coming out. Their data is contrived, and their published works are intentionally filled with untrue data and statements (lies).

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., the author of Climate Confusion, makes a clear case for “How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor”. It is a must read.

The Really Inconvenient Truths, by Iain Murray, lays out “Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About—Because They Helped Cause Them”. This book will open the reader’s eyes to how the environmentalists actually harmed humans and how environmentalists have actually harmed the environment. For example, Murray identifies the reason for the exponential increase in malaria cases in Africa, cases that have resulted in an exponential increase in the death rate. It all has to do with the elimination of DDT and the falsified reasons for discontinuing its use. Oh, and it involves extorting nations in Africa to discontinue the use of DDT or else run the risk of losing financial assistance from the United States and from European countries. This book is also a must read.

It’s all about the money. Scientists, in order to receive funding for their research from the United States government, crank out the “results” the government wants to see. Spencer makes it really clear how this worked at NASA.

Unless the American people wake up, we will be subjected to the Federal Government reaching even more deeply into our pockets—Cap and Trade. More on that next time.

POTUS

"We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress," the president said. "We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens, and law-abiding immigrants, into subjects of suspicion and abuse."

With that statement, POTUS, a supposed law professor (or should I say “lecturer”?) has revealed a dangerous fact: he did not read the Arizona bill. Why dangerous? It is dangerous because he was a lecturer in a law school, but instead of reading the bill, he echoes the comments of the media such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and their ilk. He didn’t read it—that’s dangerous. It is dangerous because in addition to the fact that it is so blatantly obvious he did not bother to read the Arizona law, he did not have any of his minions bother to brief him on the law. Otherwise, POTUS would not have made such a dimwitted statement, a statement that has no basis in fact. He is the President, for crying out loud! He should have read it!

He also said, "Make no mistake -- our immigration system is broken". Well, duh! Plain and simple, illegal immigrants flood into the USA because this Administration is afraid to offend—afraid to offend those who donate money, afraid to offend those they count on for votes. But Obama and his folks are most afraid of offending the illegal immigrants, which would, logically, include potential terrorists.

By now, those who have taken the time to read the law know that law enforcement cannot make contact with anyone regarding their immigration status unless the officer has probable cause to make contact for another, unrelated reason.

Now, POTUS is making noises, along with Holder, indicating they will challenge the Arizona law in court. It was noted recently,

“The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before – and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal-appeals court.”

Wow…

Racism in Arizona? I Don't Think So...

So now, it seems, if someone is asked for their identification, that is a racist act. How inane can these people be???

The fact of the matter is that we ALL are asked for our identification every day, when we:

• Use a check to pay for a purchase
• Make a purchase of certain over the counter medications
• Are stopped by the police for a traffic violation
• Check into a hotel
• Sign up for a gym membership
• Start with a new physician
• Purchase adult beverages if we appear to be on the younger side
• Obtain or renew our drivers license
• Apply for a Passport
• And a myriad of other activities we engage in every single day!

Now the liberals have defined being required to show one's identification as "racist" if it occurs in the State of Arizona.

Arizona has it right. The law (here) is written very well (I've read it, have you?), and the accusation that "racial profiling" will take place is without merit. The Governor of Arizona has mandated that every peace officer in the state be trained in the implementation of the new law by June 30th. One can bet that officers in that State will be very careful in how they enforce the new law. It is a good tool, designed for the good of the people of the State of Arizona, and one can be assured they will not want to lose it in a court case.

Peace Officers will not be stopping people "willy nilly". Just as we are asked for our drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance when stopped by a police officer, Arizona officers will also ask for evidence of being in the United States legally if the person cannot produce the three previously mentioned documents.

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.” Such speech is not only destructive, but does not contribute to the general good. Inflamatory speech such as his only highlights his ignorance. Any thoughtful person will see that while Obama is driving us toward socialism, the Arizona law is not in any way like Nazism.

The legislators in Arizona were well within their rights in passing the new law. The Federal government (currently read: Obama) has dramatically failed to secure our borders. Obviously, the Congress and the Executive branches of goverment did not learn anything from what happened on September 11th. Their failure gave the State of Arizona the green light to take matters into their own hands. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the State the authority to deal with the problem.

Just as it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, it is the responsibility of each State to provide security for its citizens, particularly when the Federal Government FAILS to carry out its mandate.

Even Democrats in Arizona supported S.B. 1070! Seventy percent of Arizona residents favor the new law. So do I.

Arizona's new Law

It is amazing that the State of Arizona--part of the United States of America--had to literally take the law into its own hands today with the signing into law the bill that will enable them to protect themselves from the Mexican drug cartels that penetrate our border every day (here).

The Obama Administration (as with previous Presidents) bears a responsibility to protect all citizens of this country. After writing to the President no less than five times (!), the Governor signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 in to law.

Why will the Federal Government not do what is supposed to be done, yet does meddle in private business and health care? Instead of bolstering protection at the border, the President criticized the bill saying it would threaten "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans". He wants to "reform" immigration law (read: grant amnesty).

That's just nuts.