Review on Proposition 8 Ruling

Classmates Blog

Wow, I had no idea that Judge Walker overruled the majority. Although I completely support gay marriage, I believe that when the American people speak, they've spoken. He definitely should not have overruled them. This "I know better" attitude is exactly what we need to avoid as our country continues to grow and become more dependent on federal government. If politicians start overruling what we vote for, our country will lapse into tyranny. I total agree with with the Judge says, that banning gay/lesbian marriage is unconstitutional, which might be why he feels like it's okay to overturn the decision of Californians, but he definitely should have gone about it in a more lawful way. With such a close vote and liberal population, it might have been easier and less bloody to call for a revote. Overstepping the constitution and the foundations of American democracy is no way to go about solving another unconstitutional problem. It shows blatant disregard for the system, the constitution and the people of California. His cause is just, but because of the unlawful actions he took, he may have set the gay/lesbian community back even farther.

Possible ramifications may not be good in either camp. Politicians may start to believe that they have more power than they do and start overruling the citizens more frequently. People also might be so enraged by Walker overstepping his bounds that they will vote against the banning of proposition 8, or similar propositions just to "show him" or put him in his place. In any case, as soon as our politicians start thinking it's okay to go against the vote of American citizens our country will go into chaos and we will officially have lost our coveted democracy. No matter how just the cause might be, opposition need to be done the right way so that you can feel good about the victory afterwards and know that the support of the people is behind you. Stealing the crown is no way to become king.

Most people know what they want and if the government goes through the motions of calling a vote, they need to stick with the results.

The Growth of the Federal Government

If Thomas Jefferson could see our country right now, he would undoubtedly be appalled and horrified by the enormity of the federal government presence in citizens' everyday lives. The federal government has gone from an institution worried about stepping on any toes to a huge monopoly trying to worm its way into every system, business and household to gain more power. The reason for this is not because of tyranny - its even more insulting than that. The federal government believes that YOU are not capable of taking care of yourself and wants to be your nanny state. They bail out businesses to gain control, hand out money to gain control and force industries, such as healthcare, under their control. Getting handouts from the federal government may not seem so bad at first glance, after all, who doesn't like getting "free" money? Eventually, we will all be suckling from the tit of the federal government, unable to live our lives without it. The function of the federal government is not to pay our bills or to solve our problems, it is simply to protect our rights. If our rights are protected, then, there's no need to further regulation. We should not depend on the federal government to take care of us, they should simply protect us. They have gained so much assumed power that President Bush assumes it's peachy to listen in on private conversations, FDR thinks he's Robin Hood and Obama thinks he's this big hero for forcing people to buy healthcare. Wiretapping is not okay, federal healthcare is not okay, welfare is not okay. Taking money against the person's will is stealing, especially if it doesn't even benefit them. No, benefitting their morality doesn't count. You have no right to make other people pay for your morals. I would give everything I had to something I supported before I started stealing from others, which I would never do. How many of you who support the taking of other peoples money have given every cent you own to your cause? Stop giving the federal government the power to steal more money from American citizens. Stop letting the federal government expand.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned - this the the sum of good government."

-Thomas Jefferson

Critique on an Opposing View of SB 1070

Link to classmates blog

"Amongst other things states don’t have the power to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. That’s the job of the federal government." I don't recall this type of immigration law being delegated as a federal right in the US Constitution. According to the 10th amendment, any rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states, so, actually, Arizona does have the right to impose their own set of immigration laws. The first clause of the SB even states that, "NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW." This is a common misconception and the federal government loves it. They want you to think they have a lot more power than they actually do. An example of this is the healthcare bill passed by president Obama. He mandated that by 2014 all Americans must have some form of healthcare or pay a fine. He has no authority to do this. Texas, among other states, sued the federal government for this unconstitutional law.

Another point of yours that didn't quite settle with me is that you seem to think that Arizona police officers are going to become Mexican hunters. This is not the case. Quoted from SB 1070, "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." Officers will not seek out brown people and demand to see proof of citizenship. The minute they did that to a high-powered Hispanic, the state of Arizona would see a multi-million dollar lawsuit. What the SB 1070 law allows for is requesting proof of citizenship when a crime, such as a robbery, has been committed or, when applying for a job. I wonder if you've even read the SB 1070 or just take what you hear about it for truth. Carrying around proof of citizenship doesn't seem a the nightmare you paint it out to be. I carry my drivers license on me all the times and never once has it bothered me or seemed inconvenient. Pulling out a piece of paper every once and awhile seems like a small price to pay to reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Millions of American tax dollars are going towards putting illegal immigrants through school. I don't see why, if someone want to be in America so badly, that they wouldn't fill out the application and pay the fees. What if they can't afford the fees? I hope they're not moving to America to become a homeless bum, so, if they aren't, their going to have an income which means they can pay the fee and pay taxes. If people want to come to America, they need to do it the right way. Americans shouldn't have to pay for bleeding hearts. I've provided a link to SB 1070

Immigration Updates

After I wrote my last blog, I found out that Obama succeeded in striking down the most controversial parts of the new Arizona immigration law. He claimed that asking people to prove their immigration status is illegal. The Judge, Susan Bolton, also struck down the part of the law that made it a crime for an immigrant not to carry around immigration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an ILLEGAL immigrant to seek and perform work. So, now, Arizona can have stricter laws regarding immigration but they have no way of finding out who is an illegal immigrant and in the mean while, illegal immigrants can work as much as they want. I think what Obama is missing is the fact that they are ILLEGAL, which means against the law. They take jobs from Americans and take our tax money without giving any in return. In Texas, illegal immigrants don't have to provide a birth certificate to attend public school while US citizen must provide a valid birth certificate, if they cannot, they may not be able to attend public school. How is this fair? In my previous blog, I pointed out that Mexico has stricter immigration laws than anywhere in the US, including Arizona. Why is it so unjust to prohibit illegal immigration, especially when illegal immigration is prohibited to US citizens. Maybe Obama is just soft because his roommate in college was an illegal immigrant, or, maybe he doesn't comprehend the term "illegal." I think Arizona is completely within bounds to enforce all proposed laws, including the ones shot down by Bolton. I think the country would be in a lot less debt if we had stricter border control. I'm not saying America for Americans or anything like that. There is a process in place for becoming an American citizen and people wanted to become one should follow the process, become a citizen legally and pay into the system just like all other American citizens.

Immigration Hypocracy

I've had to listen to countless bleeding hearts say how "wrong and amoral" Arizona's immigration laws are. How we pride ourselves in being to country of opportunity and then deny it to immigrants. They believe that Arizona is being too harsh on the illegal immigrants in the state and that the law must be abolished; that it is an embarrassment to America. This article points out that Mexico itself has immigration laws that are much more strict an much more harsh for violators. "Anyone, especially close to the border, can be stopped without reason and must show proof of citizenship." If they cannot to so, they are at the mercy of the Mexican army. The author's audience is the population of Americans opposing the Arizona immigration laws. His purpose is to inform them that Arizona is not only completely within its rights to create and enforce these laws, but they are also completely justified. One radio host said that Arizona should have mirrored the Mexican immigration laws in their act. The Americans opposing the news laws would NEVER head on over to Mexico and oppose the racist government for fear of getting killed on the spot. As the article points out, they just want to support the "cause" without actually informing themselves of the law in place, which in fact, does not state that the police can pull you over with no just cause. Arizona's laws are completely within bounds and are not amoral, unjust or racist.

How Many Economists Does it Take to Change a Florescent Lightbulb?

On July 20, 2010, Dan Turner of the L.A. Times wrote an article bashing some of the people opposed to Californian proposition 23. His targeted audiences were 1) the "scientists and economists" who put together the list of "scientists and economists" opposing proposition 23, to let them know that their "list" has no significance whatsoever and 2) the American people. His claim was that getting 118 "leading economists" to agree on an issue as controversial as global warming is impossible and doing so makes even the biggest believer of global warming raise their brow. He backed up his claim by pointing out that leading economists don't agree on anything and certainly not something as huge as global warming. He also pointed out that Americans are already skeptical when it comes to trusting organizations with academic sounding names and the Union of Concerned Scientists won't get a second thought.

I love this article because it highlights the real problem of the global warming debate. According to the IPCC, "long term climate prediction is not possible" so all of these scientists stating otherwise are bafoons. The problem arises when American citizens see all of these scholarly articles and consensus performed by "doctors and scientists." With all the skewed data and graphs being thrown around, it would be a miracle if anyone could actually put out 1 chart that goes along with all the "data" being thrown around. I'm not quite sure why these panels of scientists are so eager to throw around data and sign petitions, but in doing so they are making a mockery of the institute of science. The economists mentioned in the article are pushing for action again climate change now when it has already been said, and is actually quite obvious, that we don't know what the climate is going to be like so far in the future. It would be a risky venture financially and the last thing we should be thinking about during an economic depression.

Barack Obama Proposes New Death Tax

I think this is a really interesting article because it really shows how far the President is willing to go when it comes to tax increases. Every dime you've earned in your lifetime is taxed and now, Obama wants to tax it all again when you die, decreasing the inheritance you pass down to your family. This tax is not only on your savings, but also any businesses or properties you owned. During the Bush administration, the tax was repealed and now Obama is trying to bring it back. Where is the justification in taxing money that has already been taxed at LEAST once?