For months now, I’ve told you in this blog that Obama’s attempt to overturn Arizona’s SB 1072 anti-illegal immigration law would fail. Well, it has. In a majority decision, the US Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 on Thursday, May 25, 2011, that the Obama Administration was on the wrong side of this issue. Arizona’s Attorney General is moving forward to appeal a lower court’s decision barring the law from taking effect. The lawsuit was filed by the US Justice Administration, and was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). You may recall that the USJA also allowed the Mexican Government to participate a party in the lawsuit; a first ever, to my knowledge, that a foreign government was allowed to participate in a lawsuit brought by the US federal government against a sovereign US state.
What the US Justice Administration didn’t seem to understand was that SB 1072 simply pulled together existing federal laws into one all encompassing bill and added additional teeth to it. Eric Holder, who heads up the US Justice Administration, alleged in their complaint, filed at the behest of the Obama Administrative, that only the federal government can establish or dictate immigration policy. While true, Arizona wasn’t seeking to “establish” its own immigration policy. It merely codified existing, but unenforced federal laws.
You see, this was an attempt to confuse the argument by the Justice Administration to convince the high court that the Arizona governor and legislature had in some way gone “rogue” the way it did the liberal media outlets in order to intimidate over states to back off their efforts to curtail illegal immigration. As it turned out, Holder and Company was successful in only pulling the robe over just three of the Justice’s eyes, namely Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Of course, while they never had a chance with the America People, but the federal government seems less concerned these days with the interests of the average American and more focused on special interest groups. The decision opens the door for other states to move forward with their own versions of SB1070. The law will go a long way in preventing businesses from hiring illegal aliens as well as curtailing attempts to hide or provide assistance to illegals in Arizona.
The law also upheld the use of E-Verify by companies. E-Verify allows a business to ensure that the social security number match the name of individual. While it doesn’t “punish” businesses that don’t use E-Verify, they do lose the ability to cite not using E-Verify as a defense when they unknowingly hire someone here illegally.
The next big fight and I mean “big” fight will likely be Obama’s second attempt to find a way toward some form of amnesty for the estimated 13 million illegals currently living in the US (you can also bet that he won’t call it “amnesty” after his last thumping). Part of that fight will, no doubt, include an amendment to make basic English (read, write, and spoken)required for all immigrants, and to make Enlgish our "offical" national language.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/high-court-sustains-ariz-employer-sanctions-law/
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Best Government Money Can Buy?
I’ve been meaning to write about one of the most underreported and far reaching political events since President Theodore Roosevelt’s Trust busting days at the turn of the century (no, the last century as in 19th). One of my pet peeves is the “corporatization” of the American political system. I believe business has the right to do what it does, namely to provide a product or service, and make a decent profit for the owners and/or shareholders. I also believe we, the huddled masses, have the right to collectively bargain for a decent wage. I believe too that we have the right to individually bargain for a decent wage based on the worth we add to the company.
Corporations are considered, in the eyes of the legal system, to share many of the same “rights” that ordinary individuals have. They are, however, artificially created entities (think of them as corporate “Frankensteins”). However, they have been restricted from directly contribute money to candidates. Instead, they had to rely on indirect or obscure means such as through lobbyists, PACs, etc to influence policy. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also know as the McCain-Feingold Act further restricted their influence. This law, challenged in the Supreme Court, revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie which was produced by the conservative Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.
During the oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and/or movies made or sold by corporations or unions. In short, corporations (and unions) were barred from direct contributions of campaigns. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision by 5 to 4 of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. Now, they were back in the game!
Now, you may or may not realize this, but there are currently over 24,000 lobbyists in Washington DC alone. For every $1.00 they spent on legislators, they expect to save approximately $6.00 in taxes. Nice deal if you ask me. While the court’s ruling lessens (ever so slightly) the direct influence of lobbyists, it makes corporations immensely more powerful. The precept that financial contributions are an “expression of the free speech” and are protected by the First Amendment has often espoused by Kentucky’s very own senior senator, Mitch McConnell, who also opposed provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill. I have to disagree, here’s why.
You and I are limited in terms of maximum allowable contributions under existing campaign finance laws, as well as by our income, in expressing our “free speech” while corporations like Exxon for instance are, well, let’s just say that their “free speech” is substantially more persuasive yours. Let’s take a couple other examples. What if I work for a corporation which makes contributions to certain candidates I oppose? Should they be allowed to use money; profit made off my labor to so? What about the stockholder? Should corporations use money, which could be paid out as dividends or reinvested and spend it on politicians whose policies I may or may not agreed with?
How about unions? I am a strong supporter of organized labor and any other organization which promotes the wellbeing of working men and women. However, what about unions or similar groups which automatically deduct money from members via dues, etc. and pool in order to donate to specific candidates and/or a particular political party (normally Democrat)? If I happen to dislike that candidate or party, I am, in effect, forced to make a second “contribution” to support that individual or political party of my choice. My argument here is that I don’t like the idea of money being taken from me, directly or indirectly, without my expressed consent. Call it a “sovereign individual” issue if you will. I believe in individual choice when it comes to giving money.
But again, we have the issue of “value” to even this type of “freedom of expression”. Simply put, corporations can donate far more than unions and certainly more than individuals. And again, its money derived from the efforts of its employees. I didn’t hire on to support my company’s political agenda.
In doing some research for this article, I found that I am definitely in the minority. According to a Gallup Poll conducted on January 20, 2010, 57% of Americans regard campaign contributions as a form of free speech, and agreed that the same rules applied to individuals should apply to corporations and PACs (55% to 39% with 6% having no opinion). When broken down along party lines, 62% of Democrats felt contributions were protected under the First Amendment, as did 64% of Republicans. Interestingly, Independents, who now constitute the largest voting block, were nearly split with 48% agreeing with 44% disagreeing.
Concerning contribution limits, 52% of Americans felt that we need to cap the amount money donated. Again, along party lines, 49% of Democrats agreed as did 53% of Independents while only 49% of Republicans did. Regarding individual contributions, 61% on those surveyed thought contributions by individuals should be limited while 76% felt corporations (and unions) should be capped.
The poll seems to suggest, at least to me, that Americans recognize that giving money to whoever you want to is a form of free speech and except that corporations and unions should have the same right, though with greater restrictions. To me, this expresses our sense of fair play and the realization that to in order to maintain a level playing field, donations by businesses, PACs, unions, and so forth have to be capped lower.
I have to agree with a January 21, 2011 New York Times editorial calling the decision a “blow to democracy”. With elections, at practically every level, nearly out of the reach of the average citizen-candidate, we are no longer a nation of “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Obama is already gearing up for the first ever $1 billion dollar president election. I find that obscene. We quite literally now have the best government money can buy, or to put it another way, we now have the government we deserve since the American People have largely been asleep at the wheel until recently (thank you Tea Party) while our government has been hijacked and our Constitution distorted. I believe Big Business already has far too much control in Washington, our state capitals, and even in our city halls. The time has come for a change. We need term limits and we need serious campaign finance reform.
Gall Poll Results:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx
New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Contributors to Barack Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
Contributors to John McCain:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
Corporations are considered, in the eyes of the legal system, to share many of the same “rights” that ordinary individuals have. They are, however, artificially created entities (think of them as corporate “Frankensteins”). However, they have been restricted from directly contribute money to candidates. Instead, they had to rely on indirect or obscure means such as through lobbyists, PACs, etc to influence policy. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also know as the McCain-Feingold Act further restricted their influence. This law, challenged in the Supreme Court, revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie which was produced by the conservative Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.
During the oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and/or movies made or sold by corporations or unions. In short, corporations (and unions) were barred from direct contributions of campaigns. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision by 5 to 4 of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. Now, they were back in the game!
Now, you may or may not realize this, but there are currently over 24,000 lobbyists in Washington DC alone. For every $1.00 they spent on legislators, they expect to save approximately $6.00 in taxes. Nice deal if you ask me. While the court’s ruling lessens (ever so slightly) the direct influence of lobbyists, it makes corporations immensely more powerful. The precept that financial contributions are an “expression of the free speech” and are protected by the First Amendment has often espoused by Kentucky’s very own senior senator, Mitch McConnell, who also opposed provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill. I have to disagree, here’s why.
You and I are limited in terms of maximum allowable contributions under existing campaign finance laws, as well as by our income, in expressing our “free speech” while corporations like Exxon for instance are, well, let’s just say that their “free speech” is substantially more persuasive yours. Let’s take a couple other examples. What if I work for a corporation which makes contributions to certain candidates I oppose? Should they be allowed to use money; profit made off my labor to so? What about the stockholder? Should corporations use money, which could be paid out as dividends or reinvested and spend it on politicians whose policies I may or may not agreed with?
How about unions? I am a strong supporter of organized labor and any other organization which promotes the wellbeing of working men and women. However, what about unions or similar groups which automatically deduct money from members via dues, etc. and pool in order to donate to specific candidates and/or a particular political party (normally Democrat)? If I happen to dislike that candidate or party, I am, in effect, forced to make a second “contribution” to support that individual or political party of my choice. My argument here is that I don’t like the idea of money being taken from me, directly or indirectly, without my expressed consent. Call it a “sovereign individual” issue if you will. I believe in individual choice when it comes to giving money.
But again, we have the issue of “value” to even this type of “freedom of expression”. Simply put, corporations can donate far more than unions and certainly more than individuals. And again, its money derived from the efforts of its employees. I didn’t hire on to support my company’s political agenda.
In doing some research for this article, I found that I am definitely in the minority. According to a Gallup Poll conducted on January 20, 2010, 57% of Americans regard campaign contributions as a form of free speech, and agreed that the same rules applied to individuals should apply to corporations and PACs (55% to 39% with 6% having no opinion). When broken down along party lines, 62% of Democrats felt contributions were protected under the First Amendment, as did 64% of Republicans. Interestingly, Independents, who now constitute the largest voting block, were nearly split with 48% agreeing with 44% disagreeing.
Concerning contribution limits, 52% of Americans felt that we need to cap the amount money donated. Again, along party lines, 49% of Democrats agreed as did 53% of Independents while only 49% of Republicans did. Regarding individual contributions, 61% on those surveyed thought contributions by individuals should be limited while 76% felt corporations (and unions) should be capped.
The poll seems to suggest, at least to me, that Americans recognize that giving money to whoever you want to is a form of free speech and except that corporations and unions should have the same right, though with greater restrictions. To me, this expresses our sense of fair play and the realization that to in order to maintain a level playing field, donations by businesses, PACs, unions, and so forth have to be capped lower.
I have to agree with a January 21, 2011 New York Times editorial calling the decision a “blow to democracy”. With elections, at practically every level, nearly out of the reach of the average citizen-candidate, we are no longer a nation of “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Obama is already gearing up for the first ever $1 billion dollar president election. I find that obscene. We quite literally now have the best government money can buy, or to put it another way, we now have the government we deserve since the American People have largely been asleep at the wheel until recently (thank you Tea Party) while our government has been hijacked and our Constitution distorted. I believe Big Business already has far too much control in Washington, our state capitals, and even in our city halls. The time has come for a change. We need term limits and we need serious campaign finance reform.
Gall Poll Results:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx
New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html
Contributors to Barack Obama:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
Contributors to John McCain:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
Saturday, May 07, 2011
What's Behind the Price of Gas?/Photos of a Dead Terrorist
For most Americans, Friday brought some welcome news. This was one rememberable week. The murderer Osama bin Laden got what he deserved; hand delivered by the US Navy Seal’s Team Six (thank you gentlemen) from America. The economy showed some times of growing and adding some 244,000 new jobs. Lastly, the price of oil dropped to $97.00 a barrel; down from $113.00. This should translate to a drop of about 20 cents a gallon in the next few days (have you ever noticed how the price can go up a nickel or more during a single day but takes a week to drop?). It’s the price of oil that I’d like to talk about in this column.
Prior to this week, the big five oil companies—Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, and Conoco posted record profits…again. Americans are suffering at the pump with near five dollar a gallon prices (in some places like Hawaii, the price was already over $6.00 a gallon). How could this be? Well, the big five made $34 billion dollars in the first quarter of the 2011. Yes, you read that right. Exxon made the most with $11 billion dollars. Up 69% from the same time last year, which was a record at the time. To put it another way, that translates to roughly $82,175.00 per minute. Over the last 10 years, the oil companies have made 1 trillion dollars in profits. In just 2008 alone, they made $100 billion…in profit.
Queasy yet? If not, this should do the trick. As if this obscene profit and the price at the pumps aren’t enough, did you know that the American Taxpayer pays between $4 billion and $9 billion to these same oil companies in the form of federal tax subsidies? That’s about $36.5 billion over the past decade. Now, I don’t begrudge any business making a profit. However, I do have a problem with a $34 billion profit while I struggle with filling up my tank and at the same have to pay to support these same corporations. To me this is a classic example of not just corporate greed, but the corporate domination of the federal government, which, by the way, includes both political parties.
So, just out curiosity, I wondered how much it cost to produce one barrel of oil. Did you know that the cost to research, develop, drill, pay taxes and salaries equals $30.00 per barrel? Yelp, just $30.00. Everything else is profit. And did you know that the big five have stashed away $1 trillion in cash reserves? Apparently they are expecting a very rainy day. The money is allegedly being held for future research, investments, and offset any “down year”, which they haven’t had in about 10 years. Personally, I suspect it’s also being held to keep any “green” technology or alternative energy off the market.
In addition to profits, the oil execs are busy pumping up the prices of their own sources of revenue---stocks. Exxon has taken some of its profits and purchased $5.7 billion dollars of its own stock and anticipates buying another $5 billion dollars, while the “poor” cousin, Conoco, which earned a mere $3 billion during the first 3 months of year, bought back $1.6 billion of its stock. Why would they do that you wonder? Simple. It artificially drives of the price of the stock, which makes it stockholders even more money. These people stay up late at night thinking about these things!
So, the next time you pull in to “fill ‘er up”, just remember that your tax dollars are helping contribute to that queasiness you’re feeling. When election time rolls around wherever you live, be sure to “thank” your Congressperson or Senator at the polls.
Osama bin Laden’s Photos
As everyone on the planet now knows, Osama bin Laden is dead thanks to the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, and especially to US Navy Seal Team Six---hooyah! There’s a lot of speculation as to whether or nor he was armed; intended to surrender or not and so forth.
First off. Who cares? Bin Laden was a cold blooded murderer who thought nothing of killing innocent men, women, and children. Human life meant nothing to him. America did not need to trauma and expense to bring his likes to trial. Can you imagine the cost of providing security? Where would he be held? Would this be an American trial? After all, he masterminded murder in several countries, and let’s not forget that some of these countries don’t have the death penalty so someone like Osama would sit in prison at taxpayer expense. Personally, I can’t see holding the likes of bin Laden one day at taxpayer expense. I can’t even see paying for the food, medical care, or anything else to keep him alive in prison.
Not only would this be a security nightmare, but he would become the focal point of terrorist groups around the world. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of hostages would be taken (and murdered) to free him. How many buildings and other structures would be bombed while he was being held? Some of our European “allies” have shown time and again their willingness to deal with terrorists. I don’t think it would be a matter of which one would cave, but which one would cave first.
As for the alleged outrage of killing an “unarmed” man, are they serious? Men like bin Liden wouldn’t hesitate to kill. Remember, Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger were “unarmed” too. This was simply a matter of who shot first. Besides, what do you expect? Should our sailors have said “please”? Should they have waited until he pulled his gun or grenade? In a combat situation, you act first. Period. As for calls of “revenge”, let’s not forget that he started the fight. We ended it. What are we supposed to do? Let people like him keep on hitting us and do nothing out of concern about possible “revenge”? I don’t think any reasonable person would accept that kind of logic.
Should we have informed the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, or the Pakistani government? In normal circumstances, I would say yes. However, we needed to act on very time sensitive information pertaining to a very elusive target which required absolute perfect timing. Second, Pakistan’s military has let Osama slip through their fingers at least twice before. Third, Osama was living a very comfortable life in a military town that’s home to Pakistan’s version of West Point. Abbottabad is full of military personnel, as well as retired generals, intelligence officers, police officers, and government officials. He was living in the largest house in the area (which was also heavily fortified). Wouldn’t you have thought someone would have checked this out? The Pakistani government and/or military may not have known he was there, but it is a damning critique of their abilities.
Finally, the death photos. Should they be released? Obama says no because he’s more worried about the sensibilities of the Moslem extremists who already hate us than the widows and children of 9/11 or the American People. The liberal media is characteristically defending his decision and, naturally, the American People are opposing it. Listen, we as a people need closure. We need that visual confirmation. It’s part of human nature. The Arab people have seen worse on their local news. Arab media didn’t hesitate to show the three burned and mutilated US solders hanging from a bridge during the invasion of Iraq. They think nothing of showing innocent men and women having their heads sawed off. The photos of Saddam Hussein’s two sons were published, and video of his hanging were shown.
Obama did release the pictures of the Osama’s dead son and some of the others killed on May 2nd. So, why not allow us the closure of seeing the corpse of the man who caused so much bloodshed and sorrow?
Prior to this week, the big five oil companies—Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, and Conoco posted record profits…again. Americans are suffering at the pump with near five dollar a gallon prices (in some places like Hawaii, the price was already over $6.00 a gallon). How could this be? Well, the big five made $34 billion dollars in the first quarter of the 2011. Yes, you read that right. Exxon made the most with $11 billion dollars. Up 69% from the same time last year, which was a record at the time. To put it another way, that translates to roughly $82,175.00 per minute. Over the last 10 years, the oil companies have made 1 trillion dollars in profits. In just 2008 alone, they made $100 billion…in profit.
Queasy yet? If not, this should do the trick. As if this obscene profit and the price at the pumps aren’t enough, did you know that the American Taxpayer pays between $4 billion and $9 billion to these same oil companies in the form of federal tax subsidies? That’s about $36.5 billion over the past decade. Now, I don’t begrudge any business making a profit. However, I do have a problem with a $34 billion profit while I struggle with filling up my tank and at the same have to pay to support these same corporations. To me this is a classic example of not just corporate greed, but the corporate domination of the federal government, which, by the way, includes both political parties.
So, just out curiosity, I wondered how much it cost to produce one barrel of oil. Did you know that the cost to research, develop, drill, pay taxes and salaries equals $30.00 per barrel? Yelp, just $30.00. Everything else is profit. And did you know that the big five have stashed away $1 trillion in cash reserves? Apparently they are expecting a very rainy day. The money is allegedly being held for future research, investments, and offset any “down year”, which they haven’t had in about 10 years. Personally, I suspect it’s also being held to keep any “green” technology or alternative energy off the market.
In addition to profits, the oil execs are busy pumping up the prices of their own sources of revenue---stocks. Exxon has taken some of its profits and purchased $5.7 billion dollars of its own stock and anticipates buying another $5 billion dollars, while the “poor” cousin, Conoco, which earned a mere $3 billion during the first 3 months of year, bought back $1.6 billion of its stock. Why would they do that you wonder? Simple. It artificially drives of the price of the stock, which makes it stockholders even more money. These people stay up late at night thinking about these things!
So, the next time you pull in to “fill ‘er up”, just remember that your tax dollars are helping contribute to that queasiness you’re feeling. When election time rolls around wherever you live, be sure to “thank” your Congressperson or Senator at the polls.
Osama bin Laden’s Photos
As everyone on the planet now knows, Osama bin Laden is dead thanks to the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, and especially to US Navy Seal Team Six---hooyah! There’s a lot of speculation as to whether or nor he was armed; intended to surrender or not and so forth.
First off. Who cares? Bin Laden was a cold blooded murderer who thought nothing of killing innocent men, women, and children. Human life meant nothing to him. America did not need to trauma and expense to bring his likes to trial. Can you imagine the cost of providing security? Where would he be held? Would this be an American trial? After all, he masterminded murder in several countries, and let’s not forget that some of these countries don’t have the death penalty so someone like Osama would sit in prison at taxpayer expense. Personally, I can’t see holding the likes of bin Laden one day at taxpayer expense. I can’t even see paying for the food, medical care, or anything else to keep him alive in prison.
Not only would this be a security nightmare, but he would become the focal point of terrorist groups around the world. Who knows how many hundreds or thousands of hostages would be taken (and murdered) to free him. How many buildings and other structures would be bombed while he was being held? Some of our European “allies” have shown time and again their willingness to deal with terrorists. I don’t think it would be a matter of which one would cave, but which one would cave first.
As for the alleged outrage of killing an “unarmed” man, are they serious? Men like bin Liden wouldn’t hesitate to kill. Remember, Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger were “unarmed” too. This was simply a matter of who shot first. Besides, what do you expect? Should our sailors have said “please”? Should they have waited until he pulled his gun or grenade? In a combat situation, you act first. Period. As for calls of “revenge”, let’s not forget that he started the fight. We ended it. What are we supposed to do? Let people like him keep on hitting us and do nothing out of concern about possible “revenge”? I don’t think any reasonable person would accept that kind of logic.
Should we have informed the Pakistani intelligence, the ISI, or the Pakistani government? In normal circumstances, I would say yes. However, we needed to act on very time sensitive information pertaining to a very elusive target which required absolute perfect timing. Second, Pakistan’s military has let Osama slip through their fingers at least twice before. Third, Osama was living a very comfortable life in a military town that’s home to Pakistan’s version of West Point. Abbottabad is full of military personnel, as well as retired generals, intelligence officers, police officers, and government officials. He was living in the largest house in the area (which was also heavily fortified). Wouldn’t you have thought someone would have checked this out? The Pakistani government and/or military may not have known he was there, but it is a damning critique of their abilities.
Finally, the death photos. Should they be released? Obama says no because he’s more worried about the sensibilities of the Moslem extremists who already hate us than the widows and children of 9/11 or the American People. The liberal media is characteristically defending his decision and, naturally, the American People are opposing it. Listen, we as a people need closure. We need that visual confirmation. It’s part of human nature. The Arab people have seen worse on their local news. Arab media didn’t hesitate to show the three burned and mutilated US solders hanging from a bridge during the invasion of Iraq. They think nothing of showing innocent men and women having their heads sawed off. The photos of Saddam Hussein’s two sons were published, and video of his hanging were shown.
Obama did release the pictures of the Osama’s dead son and some of the others killed on May 2nd. So, why not allow us the closure of seeing the corpse of the man who caused so much bloodshed and sorrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
