Curtis Eickerman's Thoughts

I Couldn't Listen to the State of the Union Speech

2012-01-24T20:44:00.002-07:00

I said couldn't as opposed to didn't. Why couldn't I listen to the State of the Union speech? Because I could not tolerate hearing even one more lie.

I could not bear to hear about any new jobs being created while knowing that no such thing was happening. I could not tolerate hearing how the economy was getting better while knowing it is just as bad as ever and getting worse. I could not tolerate hearing about unemployment numbers getting better while knowing the numbers are better because some people have simply fallen off of the unemployment benefit rolls without finding a job. I could not tolerate hearing unemployment is 8-point-whatever while knowing the reality is 18, 19, or 20%. I could not tolerate hearing about any cuts in government spending while knowing government spending is higher than it has ever been and going up. I could not tolerate hearing how we are going to reduce the debt or the deficit while we have done nothing but increase it every year.

Most of all I could not tolerate listening to all the lies while knowing that there would be people all over the country that were believing this garbage.

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? If not, go find it and watch it. It's us.

What do you really want?

2012-01-10T19:17:00.002-07:00

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time, but I'm still not sure I can explain it. Let me start with a quote from a famous speech by Rev. Martin Luther King. He said something I hear almost every morning, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Many people claim to want this although they may be thinking about things other than "the color of their skin." Instead the issue for them may be their religion, their life style, their social position, their financial position, or any of a number of things.

Yet while they claim to just want to be judged "by the content of their character" they too often demonstrate by their actions that they want the exact opposite.

Any time we think that some group with which we feel we are associated should be treated in a particular way we are guilty of the very problem that Dr. King dreamed would one day be gone. You see, to be judged by the content of your character is to give up being treated as a group. It is marked by the desire to be treated as an individual who stands on his or her own.

Discrimination is discrimination. It is a process of treating people as groups rather than as individual people of character. It is every bit as much discrimination to do something for people because of their group status as it is to reject them because of their group status. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. The opposite of discrimination is only the lack of discrimination in any form whether it be for or against.

I've never really counted myself as part of any group. Maybe someone else counted me that way (which would be discrimination), but I didn't.

The day I graduated from high School, over 41 years ago, a Hispanic group gave a scholarship to one of the Hispanic kids in our school. A Black group gave a scholarship to one of the Black kids in our school. A Portuguese group gave a scholarship to one of the Portuguese kids in our school. And on and on. I wasn't any of those. Looking back on it I feel sorry for those people who found it necessary to not just judge people by "the content of their character."

The world might be a whole lot better off if we all just reated each other as individuals, but I think that was the dream.

2011-12-23T15:49:00.006-07:00

I have not posted anything in a long time. There are a few reasons for this. One is that I figure no one cares what I have to say. I was just saying it to get it off my mind. Another was having more of a focus on things transpiring within our immediate family. A third thing was a matter of just wondering why I should bother.

Well, here I am. Some of the questions and concerns remain unanswered and will probably stay that way.

I just want to say that I realize there are some good people in this world even though there are some who are not so good. Unfortunately the people who are not so good get all the attention. That's because they do some really bad things. In the mean time there are good people who do small good things every year, month, week and even daily and get no attention at all.

These are the people who pay somone else's grocery bill without being asked. They pick up litter dropped by other uncaring people. They wait at the stop sign to let someone else go ahead. They get their work done every day without complaining. They do something to let another person know they are cared about.

To all the good people out there who don't get any recognition. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your efforts have been noticed and appreciated.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

Tragedy in Tucson

2011-01-14T17:03:00.001-07:00

Christina Green was buried yesterday. She was born 9/11/2001. She and five others died at the hands of Jarred Loughner on 1/8/2011. It has been a tragedy.

Could it have been avoided? Perhaps. Can such tragedies always be avoided or prevented? No.

The only way to be perfectly safe in this world is to live in a box, do nothing, say nothing, experience nothing and interact with no one. Sounds like being dead, doesn’t it?

We are not in this world to be safe. We are in this world to live our lives to whatever extent we can. There is no such thing as complete safety or security and anyone who promises you these is really just trying to put you in that box before your time. In the mean time, there are those who will claim to be trying to make you safe and secure by keeping you from communicating your real feelings. They will try to keep you from hearing the real feelings of others. They will also try to take away the defenses that the government is not supposed to prevent you from having.

Someone who tries to kill twenty people will not be hindered by laws. There are laws against murder, after all, and we see how effective that was on the 8th of January. More laws and more restrictions on the good citizens of this country will not prevent something like this from happening again.

Consider this, all the law abiding citizens that were present had no intention of killing anyone that day. They could have been armed but they chose not to be. Why? There were probably a lot of reasons. Did any of them consider that they might someday find themselves as the only sane armed person in a position to save the life of a 9 year old child? Probably not. Did it ever occur to any of them that when seconds count the police would be minutes away? Probably not. Did it ever occur to them that someone capable of perpetrating such a heinous criminal act is not going to obey the law? No. Did it ever occur to them that some people really are psychopaths, are completely disconnected from the feelings of others, and don’t live in the same world they live in? Highly unlikely.

Ultimately, the shooter is to blame for his actions. At the same time every sane person in that crowd that day are to blame for their own ignorance, selfishness and cowardice in regard to being prepared, if necessary, to save the life of an innocent person. Of course they might say that they have a moral objection to killing someone. Well, standing there and doing nothing while 6 people were killed has the same effect as pulling the trigger. In Nazi Germany, those who stood by and did nothing made it possible for millions to be put to death.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke

The real purpose of airline security

2010-12-26T12:59:00.001-07:00

Recently in tests of airport security some airports had a 70 percent failure rate. Napolitano dismisses this indicating that many of the tests were old and out of date and that there were other problems with them.

Think about this for a second.

In the tests either contraband items did or did not get past the security screening system. Whether it was done an “old” way or a “new” way is irrelevant. Not being able to identify the “problems” is a clear indication that the only problem is that the security screening system doesn’t work and not that there was anything wrong with the tests themselves.

Any tests that reveals a deficiency is a successful test of a faulty system. Tests that are restricted in ways to only show how good a system is are useless.

In this case there are indeed a lot of fundamental faults in the security system. Why? It’s because the security system is not designed to enhance security. It’s designed to do something else.

Recently the federal government went after an airline pilot who revealed gapping holes in airline security. There are a lot of people who have access to passenger aircraft every day who undergo no screening whatsoever. Why? The government says it is because they can’t screen everyone, and that’s true. So, if you can’t screen everyone what do you do?

Who were the 9/11 hijackers? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon. They were all in their 20’s to early 30’s. They were all Muslim. They were all males.

Who was the “Shoe Bomber”? He was a male British citizen. He was in his late twenties at the time of the attempted bombing. He is a Muslim.

Who was the “Underwear Bomber”? He was a male from Nigeria. He was in his early twenties. He is a Muslim.

Who was the “Times Square Bomber”? He was a male 30 year old Pakistani immigrant who obtained U.S. citizenship through marriage. He is Muslim.

Who was the “Portland Bomber”? He is a 19 year old Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen. He is Muslim.

So why are people attacking the United States? It is because they consider non-Muslim governments to be the enemy of Islam and that they must be defeated, destroyed or converted to Islam.

So, if you had limited ability to screen people to actually try to improve safety or security what would you do? Would you be spending scarce resources screening 90 year old men in wheelchairs? Would you be preventing 5 year olds from boarding a plane because the name John Smith is on a no-fly list? Would you be requiring naked body scanning of 50 year old women? Would you be scanning airline pilots who actually don’t have to take control of the aircraft because they already have control of it?

What part of the population has the greatest likelihood of being a threat? From the above descriptions of known threats it is male Muslims between the ages of 19 and 39 who are foreign citizens or naturalized U.S. citizens of foreign birth.

Does this mean every U.S. Muslim naturalized of foreign male from 19 to 39 is a terrorist? No. This is only part of a profile. So, what else are you looking for? How about all the things that might make someone suspect (what a concept)? Things like buying tickets with cash, flying one way, having no baggage including carry on, and maybe trying to board an international flight without a passport. How about also considering the people who have intimate access to aircraft who can cause harm without endangering themselves like maintenance workers, food service and cleaning crews?

Consider this. Has TSA security screening ever detected and stopped a terrorist from boarding an aircraft? What? You’ve never heard of it happening? Do you realize that this would be front page news if it had ever happened?

OK, so if the TSA system is not designed to screen for actual terrorists, what is it designed to do? Well what is it doing?

The bottom line here is that completely innocent people who fit no criminal profile and with no identified “probable cause” have been manipulated into waiving their Fourth Amendment right, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Is naked body scanning without probable cause unreasonable? Yes. Are intrusive body pat downs without probable cause unreasonable? Yes. Is probable cause just the act of buying a ticket and boarding a plane to see aunt Suzie? No.

So what has been accomplished by the present security system? The federal government has manipulated people into eliminating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution without a single vote.

So, now what do you think the airline security system was really designed to do? I think it is already doing what it was designed to do and I don’t mean enhancing our security.

So Many Fronts

2010-12-20T18:45:00.001-07:00

It’s not being paranoid if they really are out to git ya!

I don’t remember a time when if feels like our way of life is being attacked on so many fronts at the same time. One day you find that the economy is racing for disaster. The next day you find a school preventing a student from displaying the American flag. The day after that you discover the government is preparing to allow the United Nations to dictate our ability to “bear arms.” Then you find out how various government officials are supporting a Mosque near ground zero followed by news that a church that was damaged on 9/11 near ground zero is prevented from rebuilding.

In the same week you find out that the dollar is headed for the bargain basement and the government is eyeing the possibility of grabbing your 401K. Shortly thereafter you find that Social Security benefits are being reduced but they want to increase your Social Security taxes. In the mean time your house valuation is dropping like a rock while your property taxes are rising.

The government insists on searching citizens, including the elderly and babies, to make sure they are not terrorists, but attacks a State for trying to stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing its borders. We are supposed to be constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches, but are in danger of an $11,000 fine if we protest having a TSA agent inside our pants (the kind of behavior that would get any non-TSA agent jail time).

You see people trying to deal with the insanity in one area and before they make any progress something even crazier (is that a word?) crops up. It’s like playing “wake a mole.”

Terrorism and Manipulation

2010-12-20T10:22:00.001-07:00

I'm not a conspiracy nut, at least I don't think I am, but it is getting harder and harder to ignore evidence.

My son and I have discussed this at length and there is a consistent theme for the last 40 years. In this case it is Wikileaks.

The thing that at first defies understanding, if true, is having an approximately 20 year old PFC with what should have been Top Secret clearance considering what he had access to. I am doubtful that a 20 year old PFC can acquire a Top Secret security clearance. Then allowing said PFC into and out of an area where he had access to this material carrying any kind of computer media. In this case it is said he had a CD RW disguised as a music CDROM (not much of a disguise). Then he had access all by himself without any oversight so that he could copy the material from a computer that did not have external media access disabled as it should have been (both CD write and USB stick access should have been disabled).

Over and over again we find the same pattern which appears once again. Someone in a position of authority (not our PFC) wants something to happen for an unknown reason. Then it is just a matter of finding the guy who may already have some motive for doing the wrong thing. You enhance that motive by making sure he talks with the right (wrong) people. Then you give him the access he would need to do the job and make sure the obstacles stay out of the way.

Think Lee Harvey Oswald, 1963. He somewhat magically went to Russia and returned. The last obstacle was the Secret Service agent who was supposed to be riding on the back bumper that day (he would have been in the line of fire). Hopefully you have seen the video where this agent is inexplicably ordered not to assume his normal position at the last moment much to his dismay.

The Christmas underwear bomber who received assistance getting on a plane, paying for a one-way ticket in cash, with no passport on an international flight all AFTER his father warns officials that his son is a threat.

We've seen how authorities spot these people in advance. The most recent case in Portland. Once they have them spotted it is only a matter of letting the ones that are likely to do what you want them to do get away with it. In fact, there was the FBI memo noting the problem with potential terrorists getting flight training BEFORE 9/11.

As they say follow the money.

Kennedy may have been about to pull the plug on Vietnam. Kennedy dies and we stay mired in Vietnam 10 more years.

9/11 happens and we get wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The shoe bomber fails to light his shoe (I have serious doubts whether it COULD be detonated). What do we get? The average citizen agrees to searches that previously would have been considered unreasonable.

The underwear bomber fails (again doubtful it could be detonated) and we get body scanners and intrusive pat downs that would have not only been considered unreasonable but rape.

Wikileaks happens and the government is on the verge of killing free speach on the internet and putting the FCC in control of the last free media.

This could all be the old adage of not letting any catastrophe go to waste in furthering your agenda. Or it could be much worse and entail actually orchestrating the catastrophes themselves so that it's all a big scam.

As is often said, the nine most frightening words in the english language are, "I'm from the government and I'm
here to help." (Ronald Reagan)

Watch your neighbor watch you

2010-12-06T19:35:00.008-07:00

The following came from http://www.suite101.com/content/fear-and-secrecy-in-the-nazi-police-state-a260577
------------------
Jul 12, 2010 Michael Streich

Living in Hitler’s Germany characterized every aspect of what is often referred to as a “police state.” Everyday Germans were drafted into Nazi control and secrecy, often without realizing it. By employing fear techniques, few government agents, such as the Gestapo, were actually needed to control the masses. Such tactics involved normal citizens willing to spy on neighbors, teachers reporting on what their students may have said in class, and monitoring newspaper and radio usage.
-----------------

Then we have the following from your friendly United States government.

-----------------
Press Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Dec. 6, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country—launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.

“Homeland security starts with hometown security, and each of us plays a critical role in keeping our country and communities safe,” said Secretary Napolitano. “I applaud Walmart for joining the ‘If You See Something, Say Something’ campaign. This partnership will help millions of shoppers across the nation identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to law enforcement authorities.”
-----------------

See the similarity. If you don't you might need a new pair of glasses. Having the populace fearful and suspicious of each other and ready to turn each other in for the security of "the fatherland" or "the homeland" is how a facist government controls the people. It keeps them too busy to realize the real enemy is those who pit them against one another. They pit the poor against the rich, race against race, religion against religion, political group against political group. Why? Because united we stand and divided we fall.

Maybe we should build a bunch of Walmarts along our southern border.

Setting the Record Straight

2010-11-28T09:44:00.007-07:00

There is an intenet hoax email being circulated perporting to cite the words of Dr. Emanuel Tanay. The words are not his, but the contents of the email are real. They are the words of Paul E. Marek and were published in 2007. The article can be found here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996 and it is presented below.

For the record, Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.

Published: 03/18/07, 4:46 PM
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek

History lessons are often incredibly simple.

I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Adar 28, 5767 / 18 March 07

Obama as God

2010-11-21T13:23:00.008-07:00

So where's the cover with Obama as Mohammed? Oh, that's right, if you annoy the Religion of Peace, or would that be the religion of blow you to pieces, they might declare that you should be killed.

Of course Obama isn't God or even "a god" with a small g. After all he can't even keep his stories straight without the assistance of a teleprompter. As such, he's not even a particularly adept empty suit.

Instead, Obama is just the latest "installed" figure head for those who pull the strings to advance their agenda for further control of the masses. He's just the front man.

Manipulation is often achieved by offering people two choices, neither one of which is actually a real choice, while hiding the other possible choices.

For example, you can have my healthcare changes or none, you can have my immigration policies or none, you can have my economic policies or none, you can have naked body scanning by the TSA or sexual molestation frisking by the same TSA.

Those who are informed know there are other choices. Putting up with manipulation is not required.

TSA Psychological Warfare

2010-11-11T18:22:00.000-07:00

Listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig

I think it can be successfully argued that both body scanners and the agressive pat downs one can be subjected to if choosing to "opt out" is little more than psychological warfare being perpetrated on the general public. It does nothing to enhance security by virtue of the way it is being done. However, psycholgical warfare is a two way street.

Imagine asking a TSA agent if he is aware that the latest terrorist bomb designs are triggered by body scanners and asking him where he figures it might be a safe place for him to stand?

Imagine asking the "pat down" person if they are aware that the latest terrorist bombs are pressure triggered and asking them if they are getting paid enough to risk triggering one?

Of course you better have a recording of what you say to be able to prove you made no threats.

The truth is that if there were any credible bomb threat they wouldn't be radiating the bombs and having unprotected minimum wage untrained personnel risk setting them off in the middle of a crowd of people.

Liberals don't relize what they are saying

2010-09-20T19:25:00.002-07:00

Colin Powell said that he sees illegals all the time and that they are working all around his house. However, it is actually a violation of federal law to knowingly hire an illegal alien, or once you know someone is illegal to keep employing them. Someone must have pointed this out to Mr. Powell.

So, now it is time for a clarification. Now his comment has been further "clarified" to point out that he doesn't actaully employ any of them. He just sees them working for other people. So what is the problem with that?

Well, one would assume he didn't walk up to any of these people who are working for someone else and ask them "for their papers." Heaven forbid. Only a Nazi would do that. Mr. Powell wouldn't be caught dead doing it. So, how does he know they are illegal? Obviously by just looking at them. What?

Mr. Powell is racial profiling? He is determining someones legal status by their appearance?

If so Mr. Powell is a racist and doesn't even realize he admitting to it. Way to go.

For those of you who are illegal, you might find it interesting what liberals really think. The bottom line is that they need a "poor" class that depends upon them to keep them in a position of power. However, for them to stay in power they need the "poor" class to never go away. Yes, that's right. You won't really get anywhere by depending on them, because they are depending on you to stay "oppressed."

Immigration legal precedents

2010-07-05T09:50:00.001-07:00

I thought this was a rather good summary of the situation.

Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law

• May 1, 2010

Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.

We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.

You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.

I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.

Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.

Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.

Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.

Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.

The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”

If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.

Reality versus Talk

2010-06-29T17:06:00.001-07:00

President Obama produces a lot of talk that sounds like he is doing something, but the reality is very different.

Well after the promised timing of representatives from Washington being promised to arrive to “discuss” things with Governor Brewer, the anticipated meeting finally took place. It amounted to an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation. Despite requests they did not provide any hard copies to follow or keep for reference. For anyone with gray matter between their ears, providing a hard or soft copy of a power point presentation is easy. So this is clearly a matter of refusal as opposed to inability. That is, they didn’t want any record of what they presented to leak out.

Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border and here is why:

1. Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).

2. National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.

3. National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.

4. National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.

5. 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired (we’re talking about a 3 or 4 strand barbed wire fence that can be cut with wire cutters).

6. The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.

So, first of all, the 524 Guard troops will not be here all at the same time, but even if they were this would be ludicrous. This would amount to one solder for every 11 miles of border if they worked 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. But that’s OK because they are not going to be allowed to patrol the border anyway. They are going to be desk jockeys.

It’s all smoke and mirrors to look like the administration is doing something without doing anything at all. The big accomplishment is giving Mexico $310 million. For what? So they can upgrade the equipment the Cartels are using to cross the border and shoot at us?

Boycott Arizona?

2010-06-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

In regard to boycotting Arizona…

I hope you understand that "illegal" is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a color. It is people who direspect the laws of our country. It is people who have murdered citizens of our state. It is people who have raped people in our state. It is people who have shot, wounded and killed police officers in our state. It is people who are running drugs into our state. It is people who are crushing the ability of our medical care facilities to take care of them. It is people who are taking jobs of our citizens while we sit here with a 10% unemployment rate. It is people who have stolen cars from us, wrecked our cars without having insurance, and running from the scene of major accidents.

Armed illegal aliens in this state are responsible for 3500 acres of our state being off limits to Arizona citizens. The National Guard you might think have been sent here by President Obama are still nowhere to be seen. Of course when they arrive they will be relegated to desk jobs, unarmed and prevented from actually patrolling the border. The people President Obama said would be here to discuss options with our Governor in two weeks are still not here a month later.

So, do you want the illegal aliens in your state? Should we send them to you? Do you want them on the streets driving cars with no respect for our laws while your family is on the road with them? When the first thing they do is disrespect the laws of the United States by entering it ILLEGALLY, why would you expect them to respect any other laws? Oh, and you realize the illegal aliens who are entering Arizona are not just from Mexico, right? They are also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Yemen, and a whole lot of places that support terrorism.

You probably also fail to realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants to the United States here in Arizona that are dismayed, frustrated and even more angry about these people who are breaking the laws of the country of which they worked so hard to become a legal citizen.

Do you realize that the 1070 law that everyone is so upset about has more restrictions against profiling than existing Federal law? Have you actually read the law? It is available right here so you don’t have to be ignorant of what it actually says: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf It’s a whole 16 pages so it won’t take long to read.

Ignorance can be remedied. I hope it is possible for you to learn from this before you become the next target of uninformed attack.

Remember, there are those who are always ready to manipulate the uninformed as pawns in the quest to achieve their hidden agendas.

He said, He said

2010-06-22T17:11:00.003-07:00

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl reports that Obama said that he is not securing the border because if he does he won’t get any Republican support for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
Then an Obama spokesman calls Senator Kyl a liar while refraining from using the word “liar” specifically. When asked if the White House would release what exactly Obama did say to Kyl, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said at Monday’s White House briefing there would be no direct quotes given and, "The president's feelings on immigration are crystal clear."

The bottom line here is that someone is not telling the truth. Any parent has been faced with this one at one time or another.

How do you tell if someone is lying? One way is if their actions are not matching their words.

Let’s see. Obama said he is going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.

Crickets chirping.

Nope, no National Guard has been sent to the border.

Obama met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and promised that he would be sending people out to talk with her in detail in two weeks.

More than two weeks later… more crickets chirping.

Nope, no one has arrived. Just a statement by way of Ecuadorian television letting Arizona know a law suit is coming.

Obama and his people have said they have been involved with the oil spill from “day one” (boy I hate that phrase). What have they actually done?

Turned down offers for assistance. Stopped barges that were sucking up the oil. Prevented the building of berms that could have kept the oil from reaching shore, but otherwise … crickets chirping.

No actions actually aimed at stopping the leak or collecting the sludge. I guess being there from “day one” means reading the newspapers while on the golf course.

There is definitely someone here whose actions indicate a propensity for lying.

Tale of yet another City

2010-06-05T15:35:00.006-07:00

From Fox News - June 1, 2010 - 11:32 AM by: Dan Springer: "One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law. "

Boy it's a good thing those Seattle council men and women are keeping their focus on what's really important. You people in Seattle have so much to be thankful for in regard to the way they are protecting you from people who are trying to put a stop to those rapes and murders down in Arizona.

Un-fricking-believable.

Sleep tight Seattle.

A Tale of Two Cities

2010-05-31T13:05:00.001-07:00

This is not really a tale of two cities, but it is a tale of two groups of people in the same city; Phoenix, Arizona.

This weekend there were two groups of people coming to Phoenix for two very different reasons and with two very different behaviors. One group came to the Phoenix Comicon, and the other group came to protest bill 1070 which was signed into law recently by the Governor of Arizona.

Attendees at the Phoenix Comicon included a lot of people who are in the entertainment industry, many of whom are quite liberal in their beliefs. Celebrities included Wil Wheaton, LeVar Burton, Johnathan Frakes, John Schneider, James Marsters, Aaron Douglas, Gary Lockwood, Kier Dullea, Stan Lee, Chas Masterson, and many more. The underlying theme in what many of these people talked about inevitably involved their thankfulness to the fans who allow them to do what they love to do, and a deep seated respect for their fans. They respected the people who came to see them, and the people who came to see them gave their respect in return.

Then there are the people who came to Phoenix to protest bill 1070. These are people whose whole outlook seems to revolve around disrespect. They disrespect both Federal and State laws regarding illegal immigration. Some of them have disrespected the international border of the United States. They disrespect the Constitution of the United States by demanding “rights” that are not rights at all, but a privilege. They disrespect the populace in general by demanding the people of Arizona be punished by a boycott that will predominantly harm the very people they claim to be supporting.

You get what you give. Respect is never earned through disrespect.

Idiocracy

2010-05-23T10:36:00.003-07:00

"Idiocracy" is a 2006 comedic film, directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph.

The film tells the story of two people who are taken into a top-secret hibernation experiment that goes haywire, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated to the point where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and what is left of humanity is a uniformly stupid society.

Until the last few weeks I would have categorized such a movie as interesting entertainment, but highly implausible. Then evidence to the contrary kept mounting.

Attorney General Eric Holder criticizes the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration bill, then admits he hasn't even read it. Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, criticizes the bill then admits she hasn't read it. State Department representative P J Crowley, among others in the State Department, criticizes the Arizona bill then admits he hasn't read it. The Mayor of Los Angeles begins a boycott of Arizona and doesn't realize his own state has a law equivalent to the Arizona bill.

What's going on here? Idiocracy! We don't even have to wait 500 years for it.

Ignorance revisited

2010-05-14T20:15:00.010-07:00

I pointed out earlier that so many people who potificated endlessly about Arizona's illegal alien law have invariably not even read it. Then guess what?

United States Attorney General Eric Holder who went on at great length last week about the failings of the Arizona law was finally asked If he had actually read the law. His answer? No, he had not "had the time" to read 10 pages. So how did he form his opinions about it? He glanced at it and read "media reports".

Great. He is deciding things by listening to politically controlled media rather than reading things for himself and actually putting two brain cells together and attempting to think. I'm sorry, but that is just moronic.

Oh, and how about those in California (or would that be Kallefornia) that are so opinionated about the Arizona law? Would it surprise them to know that they have a state illegal alien law of their own which says:

Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b

"(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

"(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."

Oh, and this is not an option. That's what a "shall" statement means. EVERY law enforcement agency in the state is absolutely required to abide by this. Furthermore this law says:

"(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited."

This means it is against the law to not abide by this law.

Maybe we should boycott Kallefornia? After all, their law doesn't expressly prohibit "profiling".

There are no UN experts on human rights

2010-05-12T19:02:00.005-07:00

Now Arizona is even making the international scene over our law to allow police to arrest illegal aliens. Supposed “experts” in human rights for the United Nations have spoken.

“GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.

"The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.

The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:

"Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.

"Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

"James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

"Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.

"Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.

"Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.”

Maybe “expert” means people who used to be “pert” because there is certainly no indication that anyone at the United Nations has any idea on human rights issues. Let’s look at recent history.

March 2010

Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality. Of course this was the same country that hung a woman last week and in April Iranian women were rebuked for causing earthquakes with their immodest dress.

Now, women in Iran are being admonished, and threatened with arrest and imprisonment, for having tan skin. Tehran's police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has declared: "In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins. We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

Sounds like the “experts" at the UN are right on top of the situation alright. But of course there are other times that their “expertise” has failed them, like in 1994.

In the Spring and early Summer of 1994 something over 1,000,000 people were killed as an act of genocide in Rwanda. Now in the UN’s defense their mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.

Oh, but that’s right, genocide WAS being committed. Of course that didn’t prevent the UN from stepping right up and doing, uh, absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that on April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day, 1,000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.

Still the UN did exactly nothing.

Of course Arizona has also been called misguided by our current president. Of course at the time of the Rwanda genocide then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview that he also did exactly nothing in response to the Rwanda genocide. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.

Pardon me if I puke over all the “experts” who have not even read the Arizona law and have no idea that people here are being killed by illegal aliens. The last three law officers killed in the state were murdered by illegal aliens, and a sheriff deputy was shot just about a week ago because he ran across over 15 illegal aliens being smuggled into Arizona. Of course there was also the farmer who was killed by an illegal just last month. He was providing the illegal alien with water.

Now the United Nations “experts” claim that Arizona is bound by an agreement made by the United States. There are two equally viable solutions to that problem. Can you think of what they might be?

You don't get it both ways

2010-05-09T12:27:00.003-07:00

It can be successfully argued that the federal government has defaulted on its responsibility to protect the states against foreign invasion. As a result at least one state, Arizona with more to come, have decided that self protection in the form of state laws pertaining to how to handle illegal aliens is required. Then comes the next step.

The federal government is considering a lawsuit to prevent the states from protecting themselves against the very thing the federal government has failed to do.

You don't get it both ways.

The federal government cannot fail to do its job and at the same time prevent the states from protecting themselves from federal government failure. The right to self protection cannot be usurped by the federal government. This is particularly true since the the only authority the constitution gives to the federal government is to set a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization of aliens who are "legally" in the United States (Aticle 1, Section 8).

Since all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt are reserved to the states, or the people, the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from protecting itself from illegal foreign invasion.

Eric Holder, go pound sand.

I have a dream

2010-05-05T16:51:00.002-07:00

Every morning on “Conservative Talk Radio” in Phoenix I hear Dr. Martin Luther King saying, “I have a dream today. One day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Last night I had a dream. It didn’t make any sense at all, but it made me think of something this morning. Why is it that when something makes no sense in a dream do we not realize it makes no sense? Why don’t we realize we are dreaming as opposed to thinking rationally? That in turn prompted me to wonder about something else. When people who are awake do something completely illogical, are they just not thinking or are they dreaming?

Here in Arizona we recently passed a bill which can be used to allow local police to arrest people who are in this country illegally. Arresting a lawbreaker, what a concept. The result has been that a significant segment of the liberal population across the country has taken up the idea of boycotting Arizona businesses and in particular conventions and resorts. They claim they are doing this because arresting illegal aliens would be targeting Hispanic people, yet they don’t realize it is they who are targeting Hispanic people.

Right or wrong, a large segment of hospitality industry employees are Hispanic. I won’t even debate whether they are here legally or illegally. Regardless of their status, a boycott of resorts and conventions have a direct bearing on their employment. No conventions, no vacationers, no need for hospitality employees.

So let’s get this straight. Because an illegal alien law might possibly be mis-used, although we can’t identify exactly how, we will boycott the industry that employs the people we are claiming to help so that they all lose their jobs?

Does the illogic of this escape everyone? Is this a dream or perhaps a nightmare?

Immigration Law and Ignorance

2010-04-29T17:54:00.004-07:00

Arizona recently passed a state law regarding illegal immigrants. Then there was an uproar. Those opposing the law made all kind of claims about what was in the law. The problem is that what they claim is in the law just isn't there.

What I have noticed repeatedly is that people opposing the law have a lot to say about it, but there seems to be no sign that any of them have actually read it. If they did they would be very surprised that it is only a re-statement of existing federal law. So what's the difference and why the uproar? It appears that the opponents aren't afraid of what the law says. They are afraid that they are about to find themselves dealing with state law agencies that will "enforce" the law as opposed to federal law agencies which have "failed to enforce" the law.

It also has not escaped my notice that those making erroneous claims about the law are never asked if they have actually read it. So this leads to an obvious question.

Are these people just ignorant?

Ignorance can be corrected. One really ought to do some research to find out what is really going on before they stick their foot in their mouth. If one finds out what things actually say and how they work it can be an amazing eye opener.

I'm afraid with the "dumbing down of America" we are dealing these days with a lot of people who have become dependent upon people telling them what to think because they have been systematically trained to not think for themselves.

The Spirit of 1776

2010-04-21T02:24:00.005-07:00

These days there is a growing undercurrent of those who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the present actions of our government. Many find a resonance with the statement of President Ronald Reagan who said, "In this present crisis government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem."

Is it genetic memory, reincarnation of our revolutionary ancestors, or a spiritual connection with our forefathers? Whatever it may be, there are many who are beginning to relate to the the motto of, "No taxation without representation."

Whether it be health care legislation, cap and trade, or some other form of socialized government imposition, many are recognizing that our government is increasing its control and demands over our lives and decreasingly paying any attention to the will of its constituency. This is a replay of the theme that culminated in the American Revolution and many are beginning to feel a deep kinship and gut level identification with our ancestors.

In the American Revolution it was not everyone who opposed the the mindless taxation and arrogance of King George, but those who did refused to knuckle under. "Give me liberty, or give me death," was not just a bunch of words spoken by Patrick Henry. It was the attitude of a people who refused to let things continue on an unjust path.

Those who are spiritual decendants of our Revolutionary War forefathers can only be pushed so far and no farther.

Is Jopseph Stack a hero?

2010-02-22T17:46:00.006-07:00

On February 18th, 53-year-old Joseph Stack, killed both himself and a 67-year-old IRS employee, Vernon Hunter, by flying a small private plane into a building.

Was Joseph a hero? In a word, no. He didn't become a hero by flying a plane into a building and killing a random person any more than the people flying planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentegon did on September, 11th.

So, was he just a nut? I don't think so. I think he's a little more like a canary in a mine.

Long ago, canaries were used in mines to protect the miners from poisonous gas build up in the mines. Canaries, it seems, were more susceptible to such gasses and would die from breathing them long before they had reached levels that would be dangerous to the miners. So, when a canary died, you knew that something bad was beginning to happen.

Joseph Stack was a canary.

This is a man who, for all appearances, was rather marginally stable. He could withstand just so much before he went over the edge and did something a more rational person would not have done under the same circumstances. Notice I said "more rational" rather than just rational. There are matters of degree to rationality just as there are to mental illness. You see if Joseph Stack could be pushed over the edge, there is a slightly less susceptible canary who is just one step short of the same kind of action. Then there is yet another right behind him.

The higher the level of stress being placed upon people the higher up the "rationality chain" such behavior may progress. The issue is not whether Joseph Stack had a problem, but whether we are all being subjected to something that is very bad for all of us?

Perhaps we should pay attention to what the dead canary is telling us.

Discouragement has its limits

2010-02-07T14:26:00.004-07:00

There is no doubt that people are discouraged. Some are losing jobs. Others have been struggling to find jobs with little if any success. All are suffering the loss of buying power for whatever money they have as the dollar takes a beating. City and State governments are on the verge of bankruptcy and are trying to find ways to grab whatever money these people have left. They are even beginning to tax food, an absolute necessity.

People have been discouraged and downtrodden before. They withstood an oppressive system for a very long time. They found ways to "make do" and work around the system. They worked around an oppressive tax system. They found ways around a government that no longer represented them.

Then there was a Revolution.

Ellie not so Light

2010-01-29T20:14:00.002-07:00

So, it seems Ellie isn't a woman, and isn't light either. Instead he's just a large liberal who is firmly entrenched in the idea that the end justifies the means. Is this really any surprise?

Lying is exactly what Cass Sunstein was suggesting.

Who is Ellie Light?

2010-01-24T08:14:00.007-07:00

Ellie Light has managed to get "letters to the editor" published in about a dozen different newspapers including USA Today. These letters are all in support of the Obama administration, and strangely they list different local addresses all over the country.

Obviously Ellie Light is not as she portrays herself, a local concerned citizen. Also, it is likely that Ellie Light is a pseudonym.

Now I've found that pseudonyms sometimes can be connected with the real name of the person if you know what to look for. For example, Light... maybe Sunlight? Sunlight... maybe Sunstein? Ellie... maybe Spanish Ella indicating a woman? Woman Sunstein? Mrs. Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein would be Samantha Powers who is the woman removed from the Obama campaign after she called Hillary a monster. Hmmm

Interestingly Cass Sunstein advocates that there should be Government stealth infiltration of various sources of information which could be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also has proposed that the Government could make secret payments to called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging. This is based on the idea that those who don't believe government will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government. His recommended program would be aimed at those the administration considered guilty of advocating false "conspiracy theories," which he defines as: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Powerful people... Mrs. Sunstein... Ellie Light? Would that be a conspiracy theory?

People who desire power and authority

2010-01-10T11:01:00.002-07:00

We all know people who desire power and authority. They are the ones who want to control everything and everyone. They want you to live your life their way. They want you to look the way they want you to look, behave the way they want you to behave, think the way they want you to think, avoid the things they want you to avoid, talk the way they want you to talk, and like every bit of it for your own good of course.

They are liberals.

These are the people who are drawn to positions of power and authority the way a moth is drawn to the light. They are compelled from within to be part of Home Owner Associations, School Boards, City Councils, and any of a number of elected positions.

Unfortunately the people who seek these positions are often the very people that should not be in them because they are there for the wrong reason. Their reason is "to control" rather than "to serve."

Transparency of government

2009-12-30T12:26:00.002-07:00

Where did it go? The transparency I mean. What happened to all of the promises to do everything out in the open for all to see? What happened to the promises of posting legislation for 5 days prior to a vote? What happened to doing away with earmarks and putting an end to "buying votes" with them?

Yeah, I know, they were just campaign promises. By that I mean lies. When do we learn that that these people are not to be trusted any father than we can throw Washington DC?

Why redistribution of wealth doesn't work

2009-12-27T09:50:00.002-07:00

I think I have finally begun to understand why redistribution of wealth doesn't work.

The socialist agenda has a couple of main thrusts. One, being rich is bad. Two, the money from the rich should be distributed to those who are not rich. But why? Ultimately this means that those who are not rich are trying to become rich by acquiring the money from those who are rich. Does the illogic of this strike you? Those who are not rich are trying to be what they despise.

Did you ever notice that when poor people rather abruptly come into a situation of wealth it doesn't last? People win a lottery and are instantly wealthy by worldly standards. Then in less than two years they aren't just bankrupt, they owe way more money than they won. How is this possible? It's possible because these people apparently insist on being poor. Oh they don't think that's what happened, but it is. They have taken an amount of wealth that by any stretch of the imagination should have lasted them several lifetimes and made it go away.

Then there are other people who have nothing and allow themselves to succeed. They take nothing and turn it into a lifetime of wealth, and I am not referring to those who do illegal things to achieve this.

In the final analysis you could take everything away from the wealthy and completely level the playing field. In less than two years the formerly wealthy would be wealthy again, and the poor would be poor again. The bottom line is that "people are created equal" but they don't stay that way.

No taxation without representation

2009-12-22T07:04:00.003-07:00

This was the big issue that lead to the Revolutionary War. The colonies were being bled dry by taxes imposed from Great Britain yet the colonies were not being represented in the decisions. Is it any different now?

In pole after pole the citizens of the United States are saying in majorities of 60%+ that they want the Federal Government to stay out of health care. Yet the Federal Government, to the tune of 60%, insists on being in the health care business which will mean increased taxation.

That means that 40%+ of the citizens of the United States are not being properly represented by their government. Instead they are being "dictated to." The last time this happened the following was the outcome.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Recognize it? Perhaps not, considering the dumbing down of America. It's the Declaration of Independence."

You've never heard a name before, then...

2009-12-19T17:16:00.002-07:00

The name Maurice Strong is one with which I wasn't familiar until today. Then suddenly the name is everywhere and I heard it three times just today. For those who are where I was yesterday, Maurice Strong is one of those "men behind the curtains" that is running the show.

He is the guy who prompted all of this global warming environmental nonsense many years ago. If you want to know how we got where we are this is the man to start with.

I don't know what he's smoking, but...

2009-12-17T17:37:00.002-07:00

Recently President Obama gave himself a grade of "a good solid B+" for his first year in office. Now he is claiming if we don't get his healthcare plan (which isn't his in the first place) that the country will go bankrupt. Well, I'm not sure what he's smoking lately, but it must be some really good stuff because he's clearly out of touch with reality.

First of all, you can't go where you already are which is bankrupt. Of course hundred's of billions in bailouts, Cap and Trade that would drive businesses bankrupt which would kill tax income, raising the debt limits for the United States, funding wars in two countries, and signing spending bills in the trillions of dollars hasn't already driven us over the edge in his mind. No, it's failing to spend yet another trillion dollars on a healthcare plan that establishes yet more government panels, departments and agencies that will make us go bankrupt.

President Obama really merits a grade of "F" for "Failure" to have anything between those ears but hot air from Al Gore's global warming.

Enemy of the Constitution of the United States?

2009-11-14T21:09:00.003-07:00

We've all heard the oath regarding protecting the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but what does that mean?

In the past it was easier to tell who the enemy was. They were a nation whose government literally declared war on the United States. There was no doubt who they were and what they wanted. People even dressed in uniforms so that combatants were easily distinguished from non-combatants unless you were dealing with spies. In addition, such wars could be declared to be over when those in charge on one side or the other surrendered.

Today there are no declared wars. There often are not uniforms on one side or the other so that you are not even sure who the combatants are. There is no nation that declares war, and you can't even tell who is in charge or if anyone is really in charge. So, who is the enemy?

The Constitution of the United States defines what the United States is. Contrary to what some have said, it isn't just a piece of paper. It IS the United States. Without the Constitution there is no union of states. So it is ultimately relevant in determining friend from foe.

Those who reject what the Constitution says are its enemies. Those who try to misrepresent what the Consitution says are its enemies. Those who try to ignore what the Constitution says are its enemies. Those who try to regulate ways around what the Constitution says are its enemies. Those who try to breach the boundaries that the Constitution sets are its enemies.

Sadly these days the biggest enemies of the Constitution are elected members of our very own government. They are the ones who misrepresent it, try to regulate around it, ignore it and breach the boundaries set by it. Worst of all. We let it happen. We were asleep at the wheel. We didn't put these people to the test and hold them accountable. We failed to keep ourselves informed and failed to watch those that we elected to be sure they were doing what we elected them to do.

It doesn't have to stay this way. The same spirit that established the United States of America still exists in its people. We've awakened in the past and have done what needed to be done. It's not too late. It only becomes too late if you give up, and true Americans have never been the kind to give up.

Do they take us for idiots?

2009-10-28T20:29:00.003-07:00

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's solution to fixing the Democrat Heathcare bill is renaming the Government Option/Public Option and calling it the "Competitive Option." This is just another example of how intellectually bankrupt these people really are. They honestly think that calling a turd a rose will make it smell better and we will just fall in love with it.

I think this is just an example of how the poor education they have been dealing from the liberal education system has boomeranged on them leaving them mentally deficient to the point that they think we have become as ignorant as they are.

An old acquaintance of mine would have said, "They are guilty of drinking their own bilge water."

H.R. 45

2009-10-22T20:02:00.002-07:00

Gun control strikes again. In the name of trying to do the right thing after an innocent person is killed with a gun, yet another bill is written that, if passed, will achieve the abolute opposite of its intent.

When will people learn that criminals won't obey yet another law when they already are disobeying the ones that lead to them hurting people in a myriad of ways. So here we have another law that will impose more regulations, restrictions and costs on law abiding citizens and do absolutely nothing to improve any aspect of this world. Then on top of it all, citizens will, in ex post facto form, become criminals for even owning a gun if they don't jump through all the proper hoops that accomplish nothing of value.

The sadly funny part is that a convicted felon could even lie on all the application forms and be immune from prosecution because they can't be convicted of lying on the forms because they are immune from being compelled to tell the truth on the forms (they can't be compelled to do something that incriminates themselves). Neat huh? On the other hand someone who is not a convicted felon could become a criminal and be convicted simply by making a mistake on the license application.

The world is upside down.

Afghanistan Exit Strategy

2009-10-16T10:30:00.004-07:00

Remember when the left kept after the "Where is the exit strategy?" and "We never had an exit strategy for Iraq." Well... Fast forward.

Obama insisted that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. The general he appointed wants another 30,000 troups. Obama is only considering 10,000 to 15,000, but what questions are NOT being asked? You got it. Where is the exit strategy? Do you have an exit strategy? When will you be pulling troups out? What is your schedule for leaving Afghanistan?

Why does no one point this out. Oh, yeah, the people who were harping on this are the same ones that voted for Obama as President for his Nobel Prize winning hope and change. What a sad joke.

Zero Tolerance = Zero Thinking

2009-10-15T09:32:00.002-07:00

I'm getting real tired of zero tolerance policies particularly in relation to schools. Twice in the last week good kids got in trouble doing something that shouldn't have been a big deal. One is suspended for 30 some days even though he is a great student and an Eagle Scout and the other is a cub scout.

In both cases the students did something they should not have done although neither of them even knew what they did was a problem. Should the authorities reprimand them? Of course. Should there be some kind of discipline? Absolutely. Should they be suspended from school and threatened with a long period in reform school? Not a chance.

In both cases the authorities say that there is a zero tolerance policy at their school and they have to do these outlandish things. Hogwash. It is not a "Zero Tolerance" policy although they may call it that. It is a "Zero Thinking" policy.

Zero Tolerance would mean that they are not going to let someone do something wrong and get away with it. Zero Thinking means that they are going to do something "stupid" about the situation without due regard for all the circumstances surrounding the situation. Zero Thinking policies are born out authorities trying to escape from taking responsibility for their own actions. They want to just blame some piece of paper, but that doesn't fly. If you abide by a piece of paper telling you to do something stupid you have only proven that you have an IQ lower than the fools who wrote such ignorant rules.

But such is the dumbing down of America.

Anita Dunn, Venezuela here we come

2009-10-14T09:22:00.008-07:00

It's started. Anita Dunn, White House Communication Director, has pointedly made a direct attack on Fox News claiming they are not really a news network and calling them a "wing of the Republican Party."

So the only news outlet that is not demonstratably in the pocket of the DNC and Obama is now being singled out for a direct attack. How soon will it be that any network that is not biased towards the administration is just shut down a la Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez's operation in shutting down radio and TV stations?

This is becoming so flagrant that even coorespondents within the other networks are beginning to see the writing on the wall and cautioning that this is not "right" (pun intended). Maybe they are beginning to realize that, if you only need news reporting on how "good" you are doing, it only takes ONE network to do that and all their jobs are in jeopardy.

It's all fun and games until "you" get hurt.

Obama Money

2009-10-13T10:07:00.005-07:00

Most have heard about the women joyfully announcing that they are going to get Obama money from "his stash" and having exactly zero idea where any such money might come from. Well, that's not an isolated incident.

I know someone who works to register people for college classes and he has been fielding calls for months regarding women who believe that they can register for college and that Obama is going to "pay their way." Why do they think this? Because they have been taught to eat fish, not how to fish.

There is an old adage that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalism doesn't want people to know how to fish, it wants them to depend on the next handout and be lost without it and therefore remain dependent upon liberals for their very survival. Why? Because, when people are dependent, those upon whom they depend have the power and control.

If you can keep people dumb and dependent you don't have an informed populace, what you have is slaves dependent upon their master for food, clothing, and their very survival. As those who have been slaves begin to figure this out and become educated, the liberals among us move on the the next under-educated group and welcomes them into the fold of salvery and dependency. This has most recently become the illegal aliens from Mexico, Central and South America.

Will people eventually learn? Not if you can keep them ignorant of history and the way the world actually works. So as long as they think they are getting free money to do things "from Obama's stash" the liberals have them right where they want them. There is an old saying that there is no one so blind as he who will not see.

There is no one so enslaved as he who refuses to be free.

Why government bailouts can't work

2009-10-12T16:16:00.004-07:00

Where does the money for the "bailouts" come from? Taxes. Where do taxes come? The people and businesses who are working. What happens if you keep raising the taxes to get more money for the bailouts. Less people and businesses will be working and more will need bailouts.

Hmmm.

Eventually everyone will be in the little red wagon and no one will be pulling it, and we'll all be going exactly nowhere really fast.

As President Regan said, "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem."

Pocket Constitution

2009-10-10T18:51:00.003-07:00

Boy, I've done it now. I'm one of those guys who now has in my possession a pocket version of the Constitution, Amendments and the Declaration of Independence. You know what amazes me? It's so small yet not really small print. The document that established the United States of America does not occupy volumes and volumes of legalese and incomprehansible legal jargon and doublespeak.

The founding fathers were very intelligent and amazingly concise, direct and comprehensible in what they put in writing. It's taken over 230 years to try to undo what they did. Hopefully it will take hundreds more without succeeding.

Nobel Peace Prize?

2009-10-09T19:17:00.003-07:00

I'm not sure what they are smoking in Norway, but it must be some good... stuff. Obama was "nominated" for this when he had been President for less than two weeks and had done... nothing. Now, almost 9 months later, if Saturday Night Live is any indicator, he has still done... only "Jack" and "Squat."

And for this he gets the Nobel Peace Prize?

Maybe the Academy should immediately award the Oscar for best actor to somebody they think might do some kind of good picture next year.

From all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC

2009-10-08T21:05:00.002-07:00

Senators and Congressmen take the following oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "

Have you asked a Congressman or Senator what they have done to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I have. I never got an answer.

So what do you do if you think your Congressman or Senator is the domestic enemy of the Constitution?

Funeral

2009-10-06T21:10:00.002-07:00

Last Saturday was Dad's funeral. Everything went well, but it's still hard. My son took it pretty hard and I understood why. Yes, he is sad about grandpa being gone, but he's also very angry, but maybe not for the reason you might think.

Adam is angry because, for all the sacrifices grandpa and all of his generation made in WWII, here we are now on the verge of losing everything they fought for. To be more exact, we are not losing our freedoms we are giving them away in the name of security. However, as Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

Freedom comes with a price.

Hope and Change

2009-09-27T03:05:00.007-07:00

When did standing by the words of the Consititution of the United States become "probable cause" for detainment, search and seizure?

Multiple times this year people citing the constitution has been used as an example of those of whom you are supposed to be wary. They are potentially "domestic terrorists" and should be subjected to intense surveillance, detention, and otherwise un-warranted searches. These and other cautions have come from the heads of federal, state and local agencies as well as non-government groups and it's not just words.

If you think trying to adhere to your Consitutional rights won't get you in trouble these days it might be a good idea to check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks&feature=PlayList&p=254B3ADB194B895E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=51 .

In these cases the authorities cited "probable cause" as simply not allowing a search without a warrant. What? Yes, "probable cause" was knowing and requiring the authorities to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the law in regard to requiring actual probable cause and a warrant before allowing a search.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In the above situation the person stopped at a checkpoint as required by law and refused to allow a search of his vehicle. Is refusing to allow a search without a warrant "probable cause"?

Quite simply, the answer is no. Any person subject to the Constitution of the United States has the right to insist that law enforcement be required to make their case to a judge to establish that law enforcement has probable cause to get a judge to issue a warrant for a search. Otherwise any law enforcement officer could at any time knock on your door and ask to search your house. If probable cause was established by citing your Fourth Amendment right to have them obtain a warrant the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningless.

Laws and Criminals

2009-09-24T19:27:00.004-07:00

I've wondered for quite some time when it will be that some people "get it" then I saw the T-shirt. It said, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy." This was obviously thought up by someone who gets it.

A lot of people think laws somehow prevent or discourage people from pursuing criminal behavior, and that simply isn't the case. Laws only tell criminals what might POSSIBLY happen to them IF they get caught.

I say POSSIBLY because there is a large chance of beating the system on a technicality even if you do get caught. I say IF because there is a large probability that they won't get caught at all. That's why so few people are responsible for such a large percentage of the crime. Criminals know this and they simply play the odds. The people who don't commit crimes because of laws already would not be committing them because to commit a crime would be at odds with their personality.

I don't steal, not because of a law, but because I simply don't steal. I don't burglarize homes, not because of a law, but because it's wrong. I don't put a gun in someone's face and rob them and maybe kill them in the process, not because of a law, but because its wrong. But what about the criminal.

The criminal doesn't care if anything is wrong, the only thing holding him or her back is realizing they have to avoid getting caught, or if caught; convicted. More laws don't hold them back. Stricter laws don't hold them back. So, what do more laws do? Let's consider gun control.

Will criminals abide by laws that restrict the ownership or possession of guns? Why would they? They already disobey laws because they commit crimes. What's one more law especially if disobeying it makes committing crimes easier. With a gun they might eliminate witnesses if necessary. They also do not depend upon obtaining guns "legally." In fact they prefer obtaining guns illegally since it makes them "harder to trace" which goes along with avoiding capture.

So, who would obey gun control laws? It would be the very people who would not be committing crimes with them in the first place. Does that mean gun control would simply have no effect? Quite the contrary. It means crime would increase.

Criminals would have all the guns they have always had, but the people they prey upon would be completely defenseless. Remember criminals "play the odds" and now the odds are shifted. There is less risk of being stopped or captured or leaving behind any witnesses. But what about the police? Can't we just depend on them to stop the criminals? No. We might depend upon them to catch a criminal after they have committed a crime, but unless the police have an immediate response time to a call for help, you are on your own for defense. And that's why the T-shirt made so much sense.

Ted Eickerman 2/2/1919-9/20/2009

2009-09-22T06:10:00.006-07:00

My father, Ted Eickerman, passed away Sunday evening. He was 90 years old and a good father. He was one of those who came from "The Greatest Generation." He grew up in The Depression, was in WWII, subsequently owned his own business for a while, then worked until his retirement for Sturgeon and Beck (a car dealer) as a Body Shop man and later as Body Shop manager for many years. After being retired for a year he went back to work restoring antique tractors part time for the owner of Soults Pump & Equipment in Tulare until he retired a second time at the age of 79. Dad developed Vascular Parkinsons disease in his later years and it wore away at him and eventually left him unable to walk or take care of himself.

We miss you Dad.

Beyond the birth certificate

2009-09-20T11:34:00.005-07:00

Obviously there has been a lot of discussion about Obama's birth certificate(s). However, what is not discussed is what would happen if it did turn out that Obama did not actually meet the Constitutional qualifications for election to the Presidency. So, let's just consider what might happen if it turned out that Obama was actually born in Kenya to a U.S. mother and a Kenyan father which would make him a citizen only of Kenya.

One could argue that any bills that Obama signed are nullified. Also any agreements Obama entered into with any other foreign head of state would be nullified. This would mean something like an official "do over" would have to take place. How this would happen is anyone's guess since we would be in a situation which has never happened before.

Would Joe Biden become president? One could argue that Biden himself was also elected in what could only be deemed a fraudulent election. So, would that lead us to the Speaker of the House? Well, Nancy Pelosi signed DNC documentation indicating that Obama was offically nominated for President and met the Constitutional requirements to fill that office. Clearly that would not be true but would immediately call into question whether she was part of a conspiracy. One could certainly make a case for anyone associated with the certification of the nomination being disallowed from assuming the Presidency.

That takes us clear down to President pro tempore of the Senate (ex-Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd) and following him, the Sectretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who was appointed by Obama (uh oh). Interesting. In fact, almost all of the rest of the string of succession are Obama apointees.

By the content of their character

2009-09-19T10:40:00.000-07:00

In Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

President Obama whose father came from Kenya and whose mother came from the United States (both members of the "human" race) has been subject to a lot of judgement recently. That has been particularly true in regard to his statements about the various healthcare bills circulating through the U.S. Congress. Sadly, there are people who apparently still cannot get past the color of his skin. No, I'm not talking about the people who disagree with him. I'm talking about the people who do agree with him.

The only people who can't seem to deal with President Obama based upon his actions and decisions are those who are trying to forward his agenda. They are the ones who insist on hearing things that are not said, seeing actions that never happened, and making racial based statements about things that have nothing to do with race.

I have my doubts that Martin Luther King would be very proud of them today. Racism is a two way street.

Thomas Jefferson was right

2009-09-18T15:08:00.000-07:00

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson.

The other day Nancy Pelosi looked visibly shaken and said, "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it created a climate in which violence took place." She was speaking in response to the fact that Rep. Joe Wilson had the audacity to say, "You lie," to the President of the United States in public. She was noting how this sort of thing has lead to violence in the past.

Right or wrong, I think Rep. Pelosi is finally beginning to get the message. The next sentence in Thomas Jefferson's quote is, "Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Could H1N1 be a self fullfilling prophecy

2009-09-17T21:05:00.001-07:00

Clearly there is a lot of fear based information being circulated about H1N1 and the vaccine to be used against it. We hear about the potential for contamination of the vaccine with other viruses. We hear about the potential harm that could happen to a person's immune system due to the use of adjuvants in some versions of the vaccine. You hear about the potential for people developing Guillain Barre syndrome. But not too many people mention the fact that the vaccine just might be the mechanism for turning H1N1 into the massive pandemic people are afraid of.

There is something known as virus vaccine shedding, and it is proven fact with certain live virus vaccines and the H1N1 vaccine is a live virus vaccine. In fact, virus vaccine shedding is the reason the Sabin polio vaccine (remember the sugar cube doses), were pulled from the market in the United States.

Polio was virtually eradicated through the use of the Salk vaccine which was based upon injecting a dead virus into people. The people developed a resistance but there was absolutely no danger of getting the disease itself because the virus was actuallly dead. Then came the Sabin vaccine which used a weaked live virus. But something went wrong.

Polio cases began reappearing. Worse yet the people getting the disease were family members or others associated with someone who had received the new Sabin vaccine. As t turned out every new case of polio could be connected to someone who had been vaccinated, but why?

Well, a weaked virus which enters the human body can indeed confer a level of protection for the person who has been vaccinated. However the virus does exit the body through feces, sweat, coughing, and just from the breath. Essentially the vaccinated person temporarily becomes a carrier of a no-longer-weakened strain of virus. The virus that is expelled is once again at full strength and capable of infecting anyone who comes in contact with it.

Will this happen with the H1N1 live virus vaccine? Who can say since the vaccines will start distribution and use before clinical trials are complete. After all it wasn't a detected problem with the Sabin vaccine either, because, guess what? No one was looking for bad effects to people who were not the ones receiving the vaccine.

So, think about it, if H1N1 is shed from vaccinated people, a pandemic of catastrophic proportions will have been CAUSED by massive vaccinations.

Response to Rep. Harry Mitchell 9/16

2009-09-16T20:11:00.001-07:00

Below is my response to one of those form letter emails you get when you write to Rep. Harry Mitchell.
-----------------------

Mr. Mitchell,
I fully believe this is a waste of time, but I'm going to respond to your form letter email which is not an answer to anything I have sent to you.

You said, "Thank you for participating in my live telephone town hall on health insurance reform. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the important components of health insurance reform, update you on the status of this legislation in Washington, and answer questions."

That thing you inappropriately refer to as a town hall was anything but a discussion. It was predominantly a presentation by you with extremely limited feedback from a handfull of people. A town hall is when you have the guts to get up in front of a whole auditorium of people and face real questions and get real responses. As I told you in the email I sent that very night, the purpose of a town hall is not for you to tell us the way things are but for you to get a real feel from your constituents for how we want things to be. No guts no glory Mr. Mitchell.

You said, "Throughout the August district work period, I have had the opportunity to listen to the thoughts and concerns of thousands of constituents about health insurance reform. This is an intensely personal issue that affects us all."

Does that include the time in August that you were doing your tour in Israel?

You said, "During the live telephone town hall, I was pleased to have the opportunity to answer many questions. However, with more than 14,000 participants in the town hall, I unfortunately could not get to everyone's questions."

In addition to your telephone travesty I personally attended both Shaddeg's and Flake's town halls which were real in-person meetings with constituents. Each of them easily received 10 times the direct comments and questions with a thousand times better feel from the constituents than you did regardless of how many people you were pontificating to.

You said, "I agree with Sen. John McCain when he says that we cannot afford to do nothing. More and more families are losing access to the care they need, and our economy is suffering as businesses try to cope with escalating costs. Individuals with pre-existing illnesses or chronic disease are often denied coverage."

Well, I disagree with both of you. In truth we can ill afford to do the wrong thing just so that we can claim we did something. Doing the wrong thing in haste can end up helping no one and instead hurting everyone. Hurt everyone that is except government employees like yourself who will be exempt of course. Have you signed on to that bill that would require all Congressmen to take the public option?

You said, "Insurance premiums are rising, due in part to the costs associated with millions of Americans who lack coverage. The average American family is paying an extra $1,100 in premiums a year to pay for the shifted cost. While I support reforming of our health care system, current proposals in Congress are still not complete."

Time for a little dose of logic Mr. Mitchell. Those costs don't go away. They still get shifted. They just get shifted to the taxpayers while making a little detour through the government so you guys get your cut. So, instead of $1,100 of shifted cost burden it will be more like $2,000. Great cost saving. Oh, you meant that **you** will get to save our money from **us**! I get it.

You said, "First of all, I believe that reform should provide more choice, not less. I would not support a plan that would make you change your insurance."

I have seen no version of the bill that would not result in the extinction of existing plans in five years or less. It's the old bait and switch. Sure you can keep your **existing** plan, it's just that your current plan won't **exist**. It's an old magician's trick to give people what seems like a choice when in fact no real choice exists.

You said, "I oppose a government takeover of the health care system, also known as a single-payer system. I would vote against any proposal that would result in a government takeover."
Of course you wouldn't. It is never presented as a take over even when that is what it is. You always get to pretend it isn't. Then you don't get stuck with the result, but we do and we don't want it period.

You said, "In order to for any independent insurance option to be effective, I strongly believe it must operate on a level playing field with other private options-in other words, it cannot have any competitive advantage that could lead to unfair competition."

There is nothing that can ever be a level playing field between a government run system that takes it's losses out of the taxpayer pockets competing with insurance companies which don't get to tax people or print their own money.

You said, "I will not vote for legislation that would lead to rationing of care."
Systems are self regulating based upon cost or by rationing. There is no third alternative. If the cost is not in part carried by the person being cared for they judge the service to be free and the demand goes through the roof. Then the only way to keep costs down is by rationing. This kind of system involves rationing, official or unofficial, everywhere it has been used.

I'd go on, but like I said at the beginning, it's probably pointless. You are going to do whatever you are going to do, and in 2010 I'm going to do what I'm going to do at the voting poll.

Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
Democrat, 5th District

Bill of Rights birthday

2009-09-16T04:48:00.001-07:00

I just found out yesterday that the birthday of the Bill of Rights is December 15th. On that day in 1791 the first ten amendments became part of the Constitution of the United States of America. This came up because our family was talking about the whole 9/12 demonstation in Washington DC. We were talking about these things because it came to our attention that White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the demonstrations in Washington, D.C., Saturday did not represent the views of the broader public when it comes to health care reform.

You know, when you tell that to a bunch of people who are trying to get you to hear what they have to say you are asking for more of the same. You think people would have learned that from all the demonstrations in the '60s. If one demonstration didn't get people's attention there were more and they got bigger.

So, if the Whitehouse is going to be that dense, what if next time not only do you clog Washington DC, but every state capitol? That would give all the people who couldn't get to the U.S. capital a closer place to go to so that they can also participate. What date do you do this? What are we trying to get through to these people? Ultimately it is all about freedom and... RIGHTS! What better day than December 15th which is the birthday of the Bill of Rights!

Political Discussion at Gun Show

2009-09-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday (9/12/09) my wife and I went to the Crossroads of the West Gun show at the fairgrounds in Phoenix. There were a lot of people there, and no I'm not some kind of maniac. My wife purchased a stunner she could carry with her while attending night classes. I bought a flint/steel/Magnesium fire starter. You can always have it with you and never worry about needing a lighter or matches or having matches that get wet.

Anyway, while working our way through the buildings there was a group having people sign a petition for Senator McCain to run for Senate again. I politely said no, but was asked, "Why?" Well, since he asked I said it was because I think McCain is a Liberal in conservative clothing. He said OK and I walked on. Then he asked my wife not realizing we were together and she called me back to where they were standing. He said, "Oh, he's not going to sign I already asked him." Then my wife asked why and I told her the same thing. At that point one of the other guys standing there decided to engage me in further discussions.

We probably talked another 10 or 15 minutes on a variety of subjects. I'm not sure how it came about but at one point we were talking about the Joe Wilson ("You Lie") situation. I told him I didn't like the way McCain wanted Wilson to apologize. His point was that during a Presidential speech to the Congress was not a proper place for such a thing, to which I responded that I though it was about time someone called Obama on all the lies he has been telling. The bottom line here is that I don't have much patience for people who lie regardless of their supposed position. As I said at the time, I respect the office of the President, but that doesn't mean I have any respect for a person occupying that office when he is telling lies.

In the end we agreed to disagree, but I told him that if the choice next time around was between McCain and someone more liberal I would vote for McCain even though I wasn't interested in signing the petition.

First Blog Posting

2009-09-13T15:55:00.000-07:00

I've speculated about doing this for quite some time. In the past I have been a presence on a number of newsgroups and forums, but my participation there has waned in recent years. Now I'm thinking about producing some postings on new topics and thought this might be a good approach.

I go by my real name. I almost always have done so. I figured if something is worth saying it's worth standing behind it and letting the chips fall where they may. Hopefully that is a good decision because recently I have become one of those "sleeping giant" people who have been awakened by the current political turmoil. I didn't realize how much until I spent a lot of time the other day engaging a political supporter for McCain in regard to the recent Joe Wilson situation in the Congress.

Well, let the games begin.