START TREATY BAD FOR AMERICA

The approval of the START Treaty by the senate is being heralded as great news for world peace. It is not. It does primarily three things, none of which enhances the chance of peace on earth:

1. It limits, equalizes and reduces nuclear strategic warheads between Russia and the US, who hold by far the most capability in this area. However, it is really nothing more than a gesture since either nuclear superpower could destroy the earth with the weapons they retain.
2. It does nothing to reduce/equalize tactical nuclear weapons; Russia has more than 10,000 of these, the US about 500. So it leaves the US with a clear nuclear disadvantage.
3. It prohibits us from implementing missile defense systems. This reduces the safety of Americans. When you consider that North Korea now has, and Iraq boasts that they will soon have, the ability to launch nuclear ICBMs against America, it is very bad idea to disallow the ability to defend ourselves against nuclear attack.

There is always the hope that Russia will reject the treaty, but since it clearly swings the nuclear advantage to them, that is unlikely to happen.

While START may be a triumph for Obama and, it is a travesty for Americans.

WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THE "DREAM ACT"

The concept behind the Dream Act is that people who as children were brought illegally into the country by their illegal alien parents, were raised here, educated here, and think of themselves as Americans should be able to easily become citizens.

Those supporting this act in congress consider it a matter of fairness. These young men and women are graduating from high school and supposedly only after applying for college or a job find out that they are not American citizens, but are in fact illegal aliens. As such they are subject to arrest and deportation, just as their parents are. Supporters point to the fact that these people had no choice in coming to the United States, they did not steal across the border of their own volition, but were brought in as innocents by their parents (who themselves were only seeking a better life). All this is more or less true, though each individual case would probably have its own characteristics.

Therefore, they say, it is only fair that, if they have not committed crimes, and have completed high school, they should be able to attend college as a resident and upon graduation become a citizen. A second path to citizenship in the proposed Dream Act would be for them to join the US military and upon receiving an honorable discharge they would become citizens.

I find a few things wrong with the basic premise and suggested solution proposed as part of the dream act. The premise that they are somehow victims doesn’t really make sense; consider the following points:

· They are in the United States in violation of our federal immigration law

· They have received an elementary and high school education from our public school system

· They have enjoyed government services intended for citizens

· They have lived in better circumstances than they would have in their homeland

· In many, if not most, cases the parents have worked without paying taxes

· It is most likely that the majority of these students have known before they finished high school they and their family are illegal aliens, they just never thought they would be caught.

As you consider these things it is clear that they have directly benefited from their parents’ illegal activities, and are not victims of our system, but have victimized the system. They were not entitled to the benefits they have already received. In spite of this, the proposed act would give them resident student status, so they would pay in-state tuition and would be entitled to grants, loans, and scholarships. In-state students are subsidized by taxpayer money, so they would continue freeloading on the American Taxpayer. They would also be in competition with students who are legal citizens for this education, grants, loans, and scholarships. As if that isn’t enough, because of their minority status, they would actually have an advantage over legal citizens. This act is not a "dream" for legal citizens who are displaced by illegals.

The second proposal is more rational – After honorably serving in the armed forces, having taken the oath to defend the Constitution, and swearing loyalty to the US, they would be qualified to become naturalized citizens. This is something that has historically been done before; non-citizens who volunteered in our military and served honorably have been granted citizenship. So I say “no” to enrollment in college as a step to citizenship, but yes to military service as leading to citizenship. If they want to be citizens let them join the service, and upon release go through the naturalization process.

Conservative Analysis Of Keith Alexander's Positions

Candidate Keith Alexander’s web page (www.gokeithaz.com) has a list of eight commitments; the things he will work to accomplish when elected to represent Arizona Legislative District 5 (Apache, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties). I have provided my views on these eight items (which are bullet points on his “Issues” tab) in the following article.

· Repeal the state property tax. This tax has never been a good fiscal idea, since the tax is based on the valuation of property, which can fluctuate wildly depending on the real estate market and the general state of the economy. So in bad periods when most tax sources shrink, the property tax often has the greatest devaluation, meaning those things such as school and fire districts suddenly have a substantial portion of their operating revenue taken from them; this is often money that has already been committed and budgeted based on projected revenue, so when it suddenly reduces, the agency is unable to meet their budgets and contractual obligations. The revenue from property tax is a relatively small portion of the state budget, and should be raised in other ways.

One of the main problems with property tax is that it adds a burden to both business owners and home owners. This adds to the overhead cost of businesses and to the cost of ownership for the home owner, so it is a disincentive for business, for expansion, for buying a home, and for making improvements on those properties. To me, though, the worst aspect of property tax is that it is a permanent “mortgage” on the home; even after the property has been fully paid for and is fully owned by the taxpayer, the property can still be lost to taxes. When bad times hit, a property owner should not have to worry that their property can be taken from them by the government and sold at auction. If nothing else, they should be able to know that their property is fully theirs and they can have a roof over their head no matter what.

· Defense of the Second Amendment. Reduced to its simplest terms the second point of the Bill of Rights guarantees to American citizens the right to own, keep, and bear arms in their home and on their person. This was so important to the Founders, that it is the second right they enumerated when naming the “God-given rights” of which the Constitution says the Government has no authority to abridge. Every citizen who has not been convicted of criminal behavior has a right to keep and bear arms, for self-defense, for sport, for collecting, or any other legitimate reason they might own a gun without any form of permission from the government.

· Protect the Unborn. If a serial killer is arrested for murder, he is entitled to due process of the law before his liberty and or life are taken. Yet the most innocent of human life, the unborn child, has no due process for their life to be taken. Abortion for the convenience of the mother or as a birth control method is morally and ethically wrong. There may be some legitimate reasons why a pregnancy should be terminated, but whether there is or not, no panel or judge or defender represents the unborn. They cannot defend themselves, so society has an obligation to defend them.

· Secure the Border. We have heard repeatedly that border security should be a part of “comprehensive immigration reform.” Nothing could be more bogus than that claim. Securing the border against illegal entry, controlling entry, activities, and exit of foreigners, and protecting citizens from disease, economic hardship, criminals, and enemies of the state are a primary function of the federal government and must come before any changes to the immigration law is made. Before changes are made to the immigration law, citizens should demand an explanation of what needs to be changed and why. The current administration is blatantly refusing to enforce their laws, and attempting to keep states from enforcing them. Immigration laws should be enforced as written before there is any discussion of even minor changes to the law.

· Reclaim States Rights from the Federal Government. Over the last 100 years, the federal government has infringed on both the rights of the states and of the citizens by positioning themselves over activities that should be controlled at the local or state level. There are too many government programs and departments, too many mandates, and too much coercive power in the hands of the federal government. The federal government needs to be shrunk by 50% or more, and many parts of it should simply be done away with to undo the federal power grab.

· Cut Business Regulations. One of the most intrusive areas of the federal government, and to a lesser degree the state, is in business. The free market has enriched America and made us the most vital economy in the world. Socialism and interference from the government is a threat to our economic system, and our country’s existence. The government has no Constitutional right to take over or subsidize businesses, to fire executives, to place government officials on boards of directors, or to bail-out businesses that have made bad decisions. They have a right to regulate interstate and international business, but that is the end of their authority. Environmental laws based on bad science, ownership of natural resources, and other regulatory interference with businesses need to be reigned in or eliminated. In those instances when it is necessary for regulations to be put into place on business, they should always have a defined term (a “sunset clause”) that ends the law. Passage of a new bill would be required to keep the law.

· Eliminate State Subsidized Campaigns. Arizona Clean Elections’ payment for candidates to run for office is neither clean nor fair. Politics have not gotten any better in the decade since this bill was passed. It is just wrong for state money to be used to support a candidate. This practice has recently been suspended by the courts, but this needs to go away completely.

· Protect Traditional Family Values. The left has been hammering away at the basic American values of husband, wife, family, religion, and the right of citizens to live in communities which freely express and protect those values in school, work, public meetings, government offices, or anywhere else in our country. There is no provision for separation of church and state in the Constitution, only for allowing citizens to worship how they wish with no single state-sponsored religion. Public prayer and tolerance of other religious beliefs have been a benchmark of Americanism from the beginning and should be allowed to continue unabridged. We are not embarrassed that America is the most powerful, wealthiest, most charitable, and most innovative country the world has known. The world is a better place because we are here, and anybody who thinks differently is either a fool or just plain evil.

Keith is taking a stand to curb the excesses of government, re-establish traditional resource-based job opportunities in rural Arizona, lessen the taxation, regulation, and general government burden on business in our counties, and restore power to state, county, and local government and the citizens of Arizona. I urge you to vote for Keith Alexander for State House of Representatives in LD 5.

The My Turn article in the July 10 Arizona Republic by Edmundo Hidalgo states that he is hoping Arizona will put its best face forward, we certainly aren’t doing so with his ethnocentric diatribe. Perhaps if he spent more time understanding the English language, he would have a better grasp of Arizona’s immigration law. In particular he seems to not understand the meaning of three English words: Criminal, illegal, and alien.

By definition a criminal is a person who breaks the law. That which is illegal is any act or item that has been prohibited by law. An alien is any person who is a citizen of one country living in another country. I spent a couple of years living and working in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and the whole time I was there I was an alien. I had entered with a visa legally so was classified as a legal resident alien. Had I been smuggled into Canada, I would have been an illegal alien. There is nothing demeaning in any part of any of these terms. They are not “hurtful” or “dehumanizing.” The only hate seeping into these terms are by those who hate truth.

He is right that there is a lot of inaccuracy in identifying the criminal impact of illegal aliens in the US, in part because very frequently there is not identification of illegal aliens in our criminal system and prisons. However, the US Department of Homeland Security say that the illegal population in the US it between 6 & 8% of the population. The US Border Patrol reports that 17% of illegals apprehended by them have prior US criminal records. Illegal aliens make up 22% of the prisoner population of Maricopa County. Criminal activity of Illegal aliens is clearly disproportionate to that of the general population.

I don’t know the source of the 9000 deaths caused by illegal aliens in the US cited by Hidalgo, or how accurate it may be; however, considering that there are about 12 million illegal aliens in the US, that is not an unrealistic figure when you consider murder, gang shootings, auto fatalities, and other crimes and accidents caused by illegal aliens. Hispanics are the victims of most crimes committed by illegal aliens. No matter what the actual number is, even one death caused by an illegal is too much considering that they have no right to be here to begin with.

I find Hidalgo’s column inaccurate, ethnocentric chauvinism, inflammatory, and extremely offensive. It’s a shame that he doesn’t have the same enthusiasm for rule of law and the well being of his fellow American Citizens as he does for those who have no right to be here.

Both Politcal Parties are the Same? False.

I keep hearing that there is little difference between the Republicans and Democrats. This is not true. There has never been greater difference between them. Below is a table with the known positions of the two parties on some issues. This is not all inclusive, but still gives a clear picture that the two parties are poles apart.

Republican Position The Constitution defines the basis of our law, when weighing constitutionality the original intent of the authors should be the guiding principal. The only valid method for changing the Constitution is via the amendment process. One of the basic responsibilities of the Federal Government it to protect the nation with a strong military. Our military must remain under the command of the United States and her military officers. Taxation is a burden on citizens and a limiting factor to our freedom. Excessive taxation depresses the economy and reduces incentive for new business. Taxes should be kept low and fair to all, those who earn money through their work or investment are entitled to keep as much of their income as possible. - The Federal Government is charged with protecting citizens of the United States and their rights. It should be meticulously and vigorously enforcing immigration law and protecting the border. Existing Immigration law needs little change; it mostly needs enforcing, including arresting and deporting all illegal aliens, arresting those who hire illegal aliens in violation of the law, and in providing secure borders. The unborn have a right to life. No life should be taken without due process. - Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. - Any benefits, controls or limits that are applied to special interest groups should be equally applied to all. If unions and community political organizations are allowed to lobby congress, any groups with differing views, including religions should be able to lobby congress. The size and power of federal government should be limited; it is a burden on the citizens, and the states. Give citizens liberty and self-determination

Democrat Position The Constitution must continually change to remain relevant to changing times. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional based on contemporary relevancy. - - A strong military must be maintained, but we do not need the current level of manpower and funding. We should work more with coalitions and alliances, particularly with the United Nations. - Taxes should paid on a graduated scale with the poor paying little or no taxes and those above poverty paying more, with the “rich” paying much more of their income in taxes. Taxes should be a way to redistribute wealth so that more people enjoy “economic justice.” Corporations are inherently greedy so must be taxed. Current immigration law makes it too difficult for people to come into the US to work, and too difficult for them to become citizens. We do not need more border security; our southern border has never been more secure. We cannot deport twelve million illegal aliens who are currently here, so we need to have a fast track for citizenship for these people. - - Women have right to unregulated use of abortion, including those done with government funding, and partial birth abortion. Any two adults who wish to be married should be able to do so, regardless of gender. Democrats protect the lobbying and organizational rights of unions and other organizations that fit their political ideals, but strive to suppress and limit those that take differing views. - - We need more government to protect the people from their own ignorance and excesses. The government is best equipped to help the people.

Property Taxes - A Bad Idea

Taxes have always been viewed by Americans as a burden to be controlled and limited. The imposing of taxes on Britain’s American colonies without the colonies having any input into the tax decisions and no recourse for opposing them was a major factor leading up to the American revolution. One of the earliest acts of revolutionary resistance was the Boston Tea Party in which colonists painted as Indians (Native Americans) raided British merchant ships and dumped their cargo of fine Indian (from India) Tea into the harbor, thus denying the crown and British merchants any revenue from the lost cargo.

A number of points in the U.S. Constitution specifically limit the Federal Governments power over both the states and the individual citizen, including controls and limits on Federal Taxes. The Founding Fathers intended that most taxes would be assessed and collected by the lowest levels of government, where the people have the greatest control. They would be appalled at the vast size of our Federal government and the resulting huge tax burden. They might also take issue with the tax burden from even the state and local governments, since through the years, particularly in the last century our governments have invented, or had imposed on them by Federal and State laws, a great increase these locally controlled taxes. One of the principals that was strictly adhered to in the first half-century of the nation, was that tax money was not to be used for the benefit of individual citizens, nor for charity; those were things that the community was expected to take care of by other means. Neighbors were expected to come together to aid each other with donations of both work and monetary consideration to help those dealing with misfortune or tragedy.

One of the local taxing methods that I find particularly distasteful is the property tax. Taxes based on the value of property are bad for several reasons. They add to the burden of owning a home or a business, making it more difficult to own property. It adds to the overhead cost of a business making less likely to succeed. Property taxes provide a disincentive for increasing the quality of property, since improving property increases its value, thus increasing the taxes placed on it. They also are susceptible to the fluctuations in market, making it an unpredictable source on which to make fiscal budget projections; this is a major cause of Arizona’s recent budget revenue shortfalls. In a free society ownership of homes and businesses is both one of the greatest measures of success and an indicator of a dependable future. Once a person has paid for his property, or has a meaningful equity in property, they should be able to be confident that they will continue to own that property without the government holding it hostage for taxes. Because of property tax, if an owner comes on economic hard times for whatever reason, their property can be seized and sold at auction for taxes. That means that the property never actually belongs to them, because the government can take it from them. Ones property should be free from both taxation and seizure.

The question could be asked, “Then how would such things as schools, fire districts, sewer districts, etc. be financed?” First the percentage of the total state and local taxes that comes from property tax is a fairly small percent. Most of the revenues are raised by sales tax and income tax. The property tax could be done away with by simply shifting the exact same level of taxing from property to other taxes. The net change in taxation would be zero. It would also reduce the government overhead, by doing away with the whole government assessment of property value, so by that would lower government cost.

This method of consolidating and simplifying our tax structure will help to lower government costs, so will lower the demand for taxes. The concept could be applied to the full range of taxes, bringing about a more equitable, smaller, less expensive system of taxation. In the case of the property tax, doing away with it will give a property owner actual right to his property so that even in complete economic disaster they would not lose their property. They would still own their assets, and would still have a roof over their head.

No New Law Needed for Anchor Babies

The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) to the Constitution includes a citizenship clause, created specifically to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, as the first article of the Amendment, “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is a qualifier to the birth clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which has been ignored, allowing the misconstrued idea that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to anyone who happens to be born on American soil. This Amendment was authored by Senator Jacob Howard, Republican from Michigan. In explaining the 14th Amendment he said, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers...” You cannot get more specific about the intent of the citizenship clause.

An 1873 opinion of the US Attorney General validated the intent of the Senator by stating that “under the jurisdiction” does not include aliens, because “they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to only a limited extent.”

The 1924 Citizens Act kept the jurisdiction clause intact and unchanged, as did the 2006 Federal law. There is no basis for anyone to grant citizenship to the child of an alien, legal or illegal, on the basis of circumstance of birth.

There are many people today who were born of alien parents and given US Citizenship, largely because of ignorance of the law by those completing and registering birth certificates. This most likely was not a matter of trickery on the part of the parents, nor was it collusion on the part of the doctors and state registrars. It was simply that they never thought to consider citizenship, when documenting the birth. That has changed. Illegal aliens eventually caught on to this, so that today there are more “anchor babies” than ever being born, and the parents are knowingly and deliberately taking advantage of this lack of vigilance. We now have probably millions of citizens who got their citizenship through this mistake. So the problem has two parts, those who are already citizens, and those who will be born here under these improper conditions in the future.

My opinion is that we need to enact a law (or just an executive order, because the law already makes these births non-citizen births) that declares a moratorium on registering alien births as US Citizens at a specific date, and thereafter requiring parents to prove their citizenship before a child is registered as a citizen. Our existing citizenship law grants automatic citizenship to children born in the US to at least one citizen parent. I think this would solve the “anchor baby” problem going forward, and would not punish those American citizens who had nothing to do with their improper certification as citizens. Once the “anchor baby” scam is ended, there will be one less incentive for people to come into the country illegally.