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.

Who Would Oppose Arizona Clean Elections?

The Arizona Clean Elections Law is neither clean nor fair. It is just one more example of how the best of intentions in law making often end up with unforeseen consequences.

When voters passed the Clean Elections initiative in 1998 most of the general public was unaware of what they were passing. Since the initiative was called “Arizona Clean Elections,” most people only knew that they would like to have fair elections that weren’t overly influenced by “big money” donations and that would give candidates a “level playing field” when it came to campaign donations and spending. Most did not know that it appropriated state funds to go directly to political candidates, and that a more honest name for the initiative would be “Arizona Financing of Candidates from State Funds” initiative. Currently, at a time when we can’t balance the budget, 15 million dollars are appropriated for this purpose.

The funding for this comes from various state sources. Some of the money comes from the voluntary check-off donations on state income tax forms, and some comes from the required $5 donations raised by the candidates, though these are a relatively small portion of their funding. A larger portion comes from surcharges on court fines. The remainder comes from the State General Fund, which comes primarily from various state taxes. So with the exception of the tax form donations, it is funded with money appropriated from the public through fees and taxes.

It gives a powerful advantage to “Clean Elections” candidates over those who wish to run a traditional campaign without public money. Once a state legislative candidate is qualified for clean elections funding, they receive a check from the state for $12,000 to be used for their campaign. If one candidate is running a non-state funded campaign against two other candidates he or she is allowed to raise $12,000 through their own fundraising efforts. Thereafter for every dollar raised by the non-state funded candidate, each of his opponents receive one dollar. So the traditional candidate must spend time fundraising, while the state-subsidized candidates are getting a free ride. Worse is that the distribution of these public funds to government-created “political parasites” is based on the gross receipts of donations. So if a traditional candidate puts on a fund raising event that includes entertainment and dinner which costs $5,000 dollars, and has a “gate” of $10,000 he has $5,000 to use in his campaign, but each of his opponents will get a “matching” check for $10,000. So they each make twice as much money from his fund raising as he does. That means he has raised $5,000 dollars of funds while the state awards his competition $20,000 to campaign against him. Sure sounds fair to me (not).

It also makes campaign finance a requirement to even run in an election; to qualify for “clean elections” a candidate must submit to the Secretary of State not only the required number of valid petition signatures, but must also raise 200 five dollar donations within a certain window of time. So if you had a candidate who wanted to campaign by personally meeting people using no donations or expenditures, that candidate would not qualify for clean elections certification. In this case, Clean Elections is having the opposite effect from what the voters would expect. Furthermore these donations can come from outside the candidate’s district, and they can come from non-citizen residents.

Some might ask, “Why would a candidate go to all the trouble of running a traditional campaign, when they could get a free ride from the Clean Elections?” There are good reasons, some, certainly not all, are listed below:

· The candidate entered the race too late to qualify for Clean Elections funding. This can happen if a candidate drops out for health reasons, death, call to active duty, etc., necessitating a replacement candidate.

· The Candidate runs as a write-in. They are already at a terrible disadvantage; Clean Elections almost guarantees that they never have a chance to win.

· Principal: The candidate is opposed to spending public money on personal campaigns of candidates. Most Constitution-based candidates and fiscal conservatives do not approve of this practice.

On March 9, 2009 the alternative newspaper (read liberal) Phoenix New Times, ran an exposé of clean elections spending of tax-payer money, in which candidates can legally purchase computers, office equipment, video equipment, other electronics, lavish dinners, and other extravagant spending, and keep the booty when the elections are over. All purchased with state money. It further mentions that the Arizona Clean Elections Commission is paying lobbyists to lobby our legislators to support their state-funded department, to give them more power and more state money. They also are paying for advertising campaigns to promote themselves to the public, with state funds.

Since Clean Elections went into effect over ten years ago, it has not reduced the number or the power of special interests and lobbyist. Look at our politicians during the last decade; nothing has changed, they are the same kind of politicians, some good, some bad, as always. All Clean Elections has given us is more state government, more lobbyists, increased costs, a new source for abusing tax money, a new kind of corruption, and a self-serving department that promotes itself with public dollars. As usual, creating more government is not a remedy, but an additional problem.

Gary Hubell on Barack Obama

Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation

Gary Hubbell

Aspen Times Weekly February 2010

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America’s future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America’s resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips - they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and "disabilities." Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN - a taxpayer-supported organization - is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union - whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense - is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from "Independent" to "Republican." I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years - the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website,aspenranchrealestate.com

The Arizona primary elections will be interesting, at least for Republicans. Every incumbent on the ballot, including long time favorite John McCain should be concerned. The right is generating a powerful backlash against those in, or who support, the Obama administration. There is also a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Republicans who have been ineffective in Washington, often because they were willing to “reach across the aisle” on issues on which the grass root constituency are not willing to compromise.

On the other hand the general election will likely be very kind to Republicans who survive the primary. Some of the Democrats have wisely chosen to stay in the background on the immigration issue, trying not to raise the ire of their base liberal voters, nor offend the large Independent swing voters, without whom most cannot be elected. There are just under 1 million Democrats, about 1.1 million Republicans, and about 0.8 million Independents in Arizona. Polls are showing that of Hispanic voters (approximately 250,000) only about 20% support the Republican position of getting tough on illegal immigration and securing the border. That means the Democrats will retain 80% of their traditionally Democrat Hispanic votes; but it is still approximately a five or ten percent reduction in support. The real danger to Democrats comes from the much larger change in the critical Independent voters, who are shown in polls as leaning conservative by about 60%. The remaining parties, such as Green, and Libertarian, generally have little effect on the outcome of elections in Arizona because their numbers are few. Greens have around 4,000 votes and lacking a candidate will vote democrat, and Libertarians, around 20,000, and lacking a candidate will likely vote Republican.

Registered Republicans are much more activated than ever so almost all of them will vote for the Republican candidates. In a state-wide election, all they need from Independents, Libertarians, and Democrats is a total of 379, 000 votes. Polls also show that there are many disaffected Democrats, upset with immigration, upset with Democrats like Grijalva, and upset with Obama and the behavior of the current congress, so if the Democrat party runs its slate of incumbents, they may see significant loss of support from within their own party. Even without such defections at the poll, the Democrats must win at least 479,000 votes from other parties; this now seems like an impossible number with the current state of the total voter opinion.

So as John Q. Liberal looks at this, he asks the question, “How did this calamity happen?” It happened because the vast majority of Americans do not support the liberal platform of the Democrats, they didn’t even support it when Obama was elected, but they were so enraged at politics in general. This especially included the Republicans and the Bush administration for behaving like Democrats, for not making the changes in government that could have been made during the first Bush administration, for participating in the social engineering that led up to the subprime collapse, and for dumping billions into bail-outs. Many conservatives stayed away from the polls or voted for third party candidates. Independents, voted for “change”, even if they didn’t put much stock in the “hope” part of the slogan, because they were sick of the status quo and McCain was seen as status quo. On the other hand, the left, and the people who voted by race, overwhelmingly supported Obama. Those who voted by race were primarily three groups, Africa-Americans who voted about 90% for Obama, uninformed students and young adults, and progressives from across the political spectrum, all of whom were thrilled with the idea of electing the first black president, no matter what his qualifications were.

The result has been an administration that has ignored or reversed virtually every campaign promise, repeatedly made blunder upon gaffe, quadrupled the national debt, created and prolonged the deepest and longest period of both unemployment and recession in decades, has grossly mishandled international affairs, embarrassed the nation with lack of protocol, and apologized to tyrants and enemies. The disillusioned are turning against the Democrats, the swing votes are swinging right, and the silent majority has been awakened. This year’s elections will be very interesting.

This article is pasted directly from another site:

Jewish World Review May 17, 2010/ 4 Sivan 5770

‘Los’ Suns: Stuck on Stupido

By Arnold Ahlert

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ "What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into Suns' games without paying? What if the owners had a good idea as to who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"--Phil Mushnik, NY Post, May 16th, 2010

Nothing illuminates the bankruptcy of liberalism better than liberalism itself. The above quote was a composite of fan responses to Phoenix Sun owner Robert Sarver's idea that his team wear "Los Suns" jerseys to protest the new Arizona immigration law. Is there any doubt how Mr. Sarver would react if what he claims to believe in were directly applied to his interests? How about his players? How many of them would take a salary cut so that "undocumented attendees" whose "only crime" was a desire to see an NBA basketball game could attend one?

There is a reason the expression "limousine liberal" came into being. It aptly describes those who fervently believe in the theory of liberalism--as long as they remain largely immune from its practical application. It is the cabal of self-righteous souls who are positive that Arizonans are racist, xenophobic bigots--but would never stand for illegal aliens sneaking across their property in the middle of the night. It is the same people who encourage family-destroying, welfare dependency--as long as the socially dysfunctional stay in their own neighborhoods. It is those who support all manner of alternative energy--as long as it doesn't despoil their ocean view.

It is those who bemoan the deplorable condition of public schools--even as they send their own children to private ones. It is those who champion financial "reform"--because they already have their wealth, and they don't want any competition. It is those who applaud government-run health care--because they have lifetime access to the best hospitals and doctors in the world, and will never spend a minute in any emergency room rubbing elbows with the great unwashed. It is those who wax poetic about the innumerable shortcomings of the country--from the tenured safety of a college campus.

There are none so enlightened as those for whom "do as I say, not as I do" underlies the totality of their worldview. Unabashed hypocrisy is the foundation of modern-day liberalism. It is the ideology of people who consciences are completely assuaged by the idea of "throwing money" at every problem they encounter--as long as it's other people's money, and someone else is doing the heavy lifting.

How about it, Mr. Sarver? How about allowing free admission to one of your remaining playoff games? How about serving free refreshments? Certainly such a magnanimous gesture is doable. Perhaps you could persuade your players, concessionaires, parking lot attendants, etc., to take a one game pay cut as well--or you could simply pay them and take the hit personally. And since you're apparently comfortable with illegals remaining a permanent part of the Arizona landscape, perhaps the occasional "Free Game and Refreshment Night" could become an equally permanent part of the Phoenix Suns schedule.

And why stop there? Maybe it's time to start replacing some of our mainstream media personnel with undocumented workers. After all, who would be more effective blasting Arizonans and other Americans for their "racist" attitudes than those who have had personal experience with them? Who would make a more effective advocate for "comprehensive immigration reform" than someone who would directly benefit from it?

That is not to say working in the media is one of those jobs "Americans refuse to do," but why should illegals be limited to such work? If we're going to make millions of border-busters part of America, shouldn't some upper-echelon jobs be included in the mix? Isn't that what liberals mean when they talk about "fairness" or "social justice?" Doesn't "spreading the wealth around" apply to everyone? Shouldn't all neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, businesses, etc., experience the "richness of unassimilated multiculturalism" that liberals demand of Arizonans?

Shouldn't everyone walk a mile in someone else's shoes?

Talk is cheap. And no one makes it cheaper than the American left, for whom "feeling good" is all about them feeling good at someone else's expense. There isn't a scintilla of doubt in my mind what the reaction of most liberals would be if millions of stock brokers, journalists, celebrities, college professors, et al, were sneaking across the border and demanding that America "accommodate" their needs and desires.

The late Leona Helmsley once said that "only little people pay taxes." Liberalism has precisely the same price tag: only "little people" pay for the excesses of the self-anointed. Phoenix is the kidnap capital of the United States? I don't live there, but I'm sure Arizonans are racist. Arizona rancher Robert Krentz gets killed on his own property in an area officials already know is an illegal "smuggling corridor?" I didn't get killed and it's not my ranch, and Arizonans have no right to protect their lives and their property if it conflicts with my ideology.

Modern day liberalism is a cancer. It is fascism being sold as progressive thinking by elitists for whom all things counter-culture have become the traditional. It is a knee-jerk contempt for everything that makes this country the envy of the world. Only liberals could believe that importing millions of illegal, low-skill, under-educated people "enriches" America. Only liberals could conclude that "celebrating our differences"--differences which precisely separate Third World nations from First World nations--are "no better or worse" than expecting immigrants to adopt our culture and our values.

Only liberals can lump illegal and legal immigrants into one philosophical package in order to brand those who make the crucial distinction between the two xenophobic bigots.

And only a contemptible media would be such a willing accomplice to such obvious mischaracterizations, misinformation and outright lying perpetrated by the American left. And that's by commission. Here's a statement by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder speaking to the House Judiciary Committee that's been virtually ignored by the MSM:

"I have not had a chance to, I've glanced at it. I have not read it. .. I have not really, I have not been briefed yet. I've only made, made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. "

To what was Holder referring? The Arizona immigration bill, which is all of ten pages long.

Think Holder's the only one? Of course not. Liberal outrage isn't about informed opinion. It's all about uninformed emotion whipped up by those with an agenda--including an Attorney General who ought to be thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed by his ineptitude and his bias, but most assuredly isn't. The Arizona law feels wrong? That's good enough for liberals.

We'll see how good liberals feel in November.

Is Social Justice a Christian Doctrine?

Many people today have taken to saying that if Jesus of Nazareth were in his pre-resurrection ministry in contemporary America (maybe from Nazareth, Texas?) he would be a socialist, a conservative, a revolutionary, a protestor, a militia member, and on and on. I don’t think he would be any such thing.

Was Jesus a proponent of “social justice?” To understand this issue you must look at Jesus’ ministry in context of that era. The society he was in was Jerusalem/Judea as a conquered servant-state of Rome. The Judean government was a puppet government of Rome, but was also notably corrupt, filled with self-serving politicians and appointed office holders. Those who were Roman citizens had considerable human rights, but none of the rest of society did.

At least two types of legal servitude were common in Jerusalem at the time of Christ: captive slaves, who were owned by their masters or by the empire, and indentured servants. A slave was owned, had no civil rights, and was completely at the mercy of their master. An indentured servant was in every respect a slave to their master, and could be beaten or used in any way that the master chose to use them, as long as no Jewish or Roman law was broken. There were various ways in which a person could become indentured, two of the more common being, 1) voluntary for a specified time for specified benefits and or payment, or 2) bound, in which the master paid the debt and/or bought the person from prison and set a covenant with the magistrate for the terms of the indenturement. The term for a bound servant was determined by the cost and an expectation of reasonable profit for the master, so could be for many years.

Normally a voluntary indenturement was for three to ten years, and included room and board, and some kind of payment at the end of the agreement. Fairly commonly, the term also included training the servant in a specified trade or skill. (Indentured servants have been used as far back as recorded history, and the practice was very common in Colonial America where it’s estimated that half the white immigrants came as indentured servants.) In Judea, terms of voluntary servitude ranged typically from three to seven years, but could be longer. While most masters were humane in their treatment of indentured servants, some were cruel and abusive.

Jesus never preached against any of these social or government institutions, and in fact, there are several references in the New Testament where church members are told to be obedient to their master. He told both master and slave to live righteously and be obedient to God. He did not tell slaves to resist or protest, nor masters to give up their slaves. (Some will say that Christ said to “sell all you have and come follow me,” but he was talking to a specific individual not all followers.)

The Jews were heavily burdened by the Roman Empire with oppressive laws and taxes. They were convinced that when the Messiah came, he would come as a military conqueror throwing off the shackles of Rome and ending the excessive tribute she extracted from them. Instead Christ told them to obey the Roman law, and pay taxes to Caesar; to worry about their own sins, spirituality, and morality. The people of Judea despised this attitude, and when given a chance chose the militant Barabbas be set free rather the kindly, healing Jesus of Nazareth.

Some point to His driving the money changers from the temple as His dislike of commerce; but this is untrue. He was upset that they were profaning the house of God, making it a marketplace rather than a place of worship. The message here is that giving respect to God is more important that your livelihood or anything else.

Jesus was not anti-military; he welcomed Jewish temple guards and Roman soldiers into his fold. He never told them to abandon their professions. He did warn against violence begetting violence when Peter cut off the ear of a guard coming to arrest Jesus. But being military or an officer of the law was never criticized. The same is true of hated public officials such as tax collectors and publicans, Christ ministered to them; He condemned hypocrisy among them, but welcomed them to join with Him.

Christ never preached “social justice” as some would have us believe. He preached that no matter what your circumstances in life, each person must live life righteously and kindly, serving God and man, while meeting your legal obligations to the government.

The point is not that forced servitude, slavery, corrupt government, or unfair practices are alright, because they are not. The point is that Christ planted a spark in one individual after another to be good, just, kind, and moral, and it grew to encompass and improve billions of lives. Not by social action, activism, or politics but by touching the heart and soul of one person at a time.

So these activist ministers who believe the Gospel of Christ should be administered by force, coercion, politics, demonstration, or “civil disobedience” are not following in the footsteps of Christ. His was a ministry to the inner goodness of the individual, not to politics, law, or civil justice. Those who justify their politics as Christian activism don’t understand His message.