i agree, now lets get down to why your "wrong", the law in all technicality is backing up a federal law. however, there are some clear distinctions as to why you would redundantly remake a law in your state, and it is not becuase the law itself is required, its to start a control test bed.
most people are going to tell you this is about immigration, its not, its about the paperwork. never before in the history of the united states have we ever required a piece of paper to travel through or within states, and since early infancy of the union (not the US) that some states had some restrictions on this as well, but once we became an actual nation these were all but abolished and or ignored.
today we see that this law is going to require law abiding citizen and sovereign citizens of the united states to carry papers to prove this, we can make a clear connection between this and pre-war nazi germany, hitler introduced a law requiring everyone to carry papers to prove nationality to stop terrorism and illegals (jews mainly).
racism is not the main issue here, most of arizona is hispanic/mexican or even better native american, its more about the start of the national ID act, where instead of what it used to be of only requiring you to give a truthful name and date of birth.
you can argue that this is the mark of the beast, im no bible thumper and dont believe in organized religion, but i do know that in the bible it is predicted that a man or entity will require all its people to have the mark of the beast to travel or purchase anything. that mark could be the requirment of papers. you can also argue that these marks have shown up in other countries (germany, N.korea, japan, china, and others) who all require you to carry papers.
all theories aside, do you want anyone to have the power to detain you for the lack of a piece of paper? No, how are little mexican kids suppose to prove legality? how are any kids able to prove legality? can the children and sovereign citizens who have no papers to prove their status, are they to be persecuted for their lack of ability to aquire such papers? And to the above comment, lets logically look at the drug problem, most drugs that are tested within a human body like marijuana can be directly traced back to US government grown marijuana, statisticly speaking more marijuana comes from california, colorado, maine and a few other states than mexico combined. however, this is not said, becuase mexico to the media is the scape goat of all our problems. if some one wants to do something illegal they are going to do that wether they are legal or not, requiring law abiding citizens to go past basic checkpoints for the common good is the same thing the USSR and nazi germany said. its not american to abide by unjust laws, its not american to be totalitarian, its not american to limit travel, its not american to limit any inalienable right.
and to be frank, if your not native american at least 50%, you should in all reason leave. why do i say leave you might ask, its becuase you didnt come in legaly, legally coming into this country is having a native born family, if you are Asian, Anglo Saxon, or have more than 50% from any race other than native americans, you are in logical sense illegal, becuase the united states government illegally took land from us, and then committed genocide on our people to ensure we were unable to fight back. so to say you are legal is to say they are too, they have far more right to texas and arizona than the US ever has and ever will, other than distorted history and illegal activity the united states has no jurisdiction in texas or california or arizona and new mexico, as all of these states were illegally taken from mexico or native peoples. It's also clear that if you want to stop immigrants you have to stop the want, just like water bugs (oriental roaches), they wont bother your home unless they smell water or mold, that is their source of life. if you want (lets just talk about mexico here) mexicans to stop illegally crossing the border, take away the ability for employers to take advantage and instead of giving the illegal a free meal and a ride home, arrest both the employer and the illegals and try them for treason. why treason? becuase its punishable by death, employing the enemy of the state has always been treason and i believe anyone who trespasses onto land that is not theirs is an invader and should be treated as such in the laws of war. so if you want to stop immigrants treat them as foot soldiers, and either open fire if required or arrest them and hold them under the rules of war and try them under those laws. i bet you people stop coming once they see their comrades being put to death for trying to invade our country.be aware that there is a war going on at our mexico border, you can account this to farmer waking up to mortar fire and rpg fire, and having to take up arms to fight off mexican army who are trafficking people and or drugs. also legalizing drugs and taxing them would legitimize the buisness and stop any (most) illegal activity as it would no longer be profitable. right now a gram of high grade marijuana costs more than a gram of gold. fix that and it stops being a viable illegal buisness. please stop blaming drugs on illegals as that is 1% of all drug traffic compared to intrestate commerce.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
America in debt
They are everywhere, reminders that just about every single citizen in this country is in debt, commercials for "get out of debt" services on the radio and television, houses being foreclosed, cars being repossessed, banks shutting down, or being bought up and bailed out. But why, if just about everyone is in over their heads, do corporations get the bail outs? In July of last year, Louise Story for the New York Times wrote about how many banks who received tax payer's dollars to keep them afloat paid out seven figure bonuses to multiple employees. Obviously, this money wasn't paid to the tellers who probably live paycheck to paycheck surviving on $10/hr who could pay off debts (to banks!) with a large bonus, but to the upper management who have multiple savings accounts and more money than they will spend in their lifetime. Why did the bank tellers (and everyone else) have to pay for their bosses' bonuses?
The government should have put more thought into where to spend that money that went to bailing out banks and car dealerships. The internet has floated figures around, such as, if all the money was divided equally among citizens 18+ it would mean roughly $425,000/person but the math was wrong and it would only be $425/person. If the government bailed out the citizens 18+ that had debt that would take X percentage of each paycheck to pay off, then they could have really done something. Obviously, there will always be those people who just go buy new things and don't pay off debts, but even that would stimulate the economy more than giving it to those who already have millions and are just going to stash it.
Then, the government ran Cash for Clunkers where people could take their gas guzzling cars and trade them in for money down on new cars. Sounds like a good idea, but if these people were actually driving clunkers in the first place and not newer cars it's probably because they can't afford car payments (sure, there are people who are just frugal and don't spend when it's not necessary, but that's not the majority of American citizens). Sure, cars can be repossessed, but they lose so much value when they leave the lot alone, then the car has be sold as used and the bank takes a hit not making their money off of that loan. Much like when everyone was qualifying for good sized mortgages, they took on more debt than they could possibly pay off, the banks had to repossess many houses, and now the houses aren't worth anywhere near as much and banks have to salvage what they can.
As a society, Americans got greedy and started looking to other countries for cheaper products and cheaper labor and as we crept into the red we began to borrow money from the same countries we were pumping money into. Now, we don't have enough money staying inside our own country to sustain us and something needs to be done. Something better than handing trillions of dollars to corporations, something to level the playing field within the country again, and that something is up to the government to figure out.
The government should have put more thought into where to spend that money that went to bailing out banks and car dealerships. The internet has floated figures around, such as, if all the money was divided equally among citizens 18+ it would mean roughly $425,000/person but the math was wrong and it would only be $425/person. If the government bailed out the citizens 18+ that had debt that would take X percentage of each paycheck to pay off, then they could have really done something. Obviously, there will always be those people who just go buy new things and don't pay off debts, but even that would stimulate the economy more than giving it to those who already have millions and are just going to stash it.
Then, the government ran Cash for Clunkers where people could take their gas guzzling cars and trade them in for money down on new cars. Sounds like a good idea, but if these people were actually driving clunkers in the first place and not newer cars it's probably because they can't afford car payments (sure, there are people who are just frugal and don't spend when it's not necessary, but that's not the majority of American citizens). Sure, cars can be repossessed, but they lose so much value when they leave the lot alone, then the car has be sold as used and the bank takes a hit not making their money off of that loan. Much like when everyone was qualifying for good sized mortgages, they took on more debt than they could possibly pay off, the banks had to repossess many houses, and now the houses aren't worth anywhere near as much and banks have to salvage what they can.
As a society, Americans got greedy and started looking to other countries for cheaper products and cheaper labor and as we crept into the red we began to borrow money from the same countries we were pumping money into. Now, we don't have enough money staying inside our own country to sustain us and something needs to be done. Something better than handing trillions of dollars to corporations, something to level the playing field within the country again, and that something is up to the government to figure out.
RE: Political Campaign Finance Reform
http://mynewpoliticalpov.blogspot.com/2010/04/political-campaign-finance-reform.html
This is a great summation of what is and has gone on in the financial portion of the electoral process; however, there was no solution presented. I would like to go ahead and provide a solution that may better the situation entirely.
We can do this by shutting down the electoral process entirely and start holding popular vote elections. The campaigners would then also be regulated to free advertisements on all stations, and free venues to speak at. Also, accepting any money from anyone except for gas and travel would be reason for the candidate to lose his chance to be voted in; this would need to be regulated heavily, but you could have 2 people per candidate checking expenses versus donations to ensure no money is being made.
On top of this, you would also need to require that all candidates have a fund for their campaigners who are working solely for this person, but this would be monitored by an independent company.
The key to stopping corruption is the flow of money, and I think you're right, no law can stop this, however fundamentally changing the electoral system to exclude the need for money would. If money makes little to no difference in how you can campaign it will do little to influence.
I also believe any money given to a foundation or anything related to the candidate would be included as a contribution.
This is a great summation of what is and has gone on in the financial portion of the electoral process; however, there was no solution presented. I would like to go ahead and provide a solution that may better the situation entirely.
We can do this by shutting down the electoral process entirely and start holding popular vote elections. The campaigners would then also be regulated to free advertisements on all stations, and free venues to speak at. Also, accepting any money from anyone except for gas and travel would be reason for the candidate to lose his chance to be voted in; this would need to be regulated heavily, but you could have 2 people per candidate checking expenses versus donations to ensure no money is being made.
On top of this, you would also need to require that all candidates have a fund for their campaigners who are working solely for this person, but this would be monitored by an independent company.
The key to stopping corruption is the flow of money, and I think you're right, no law can stop this, however fundamentally changing the electoral system to exclude the need for money would. If money makes little to no difference in how you can campaign it will do little to influence.
I also believe any money given to a foundation or anything related to the candidate would be included as a contribution.
Imperialism in the USA
During the Spanish-American War the term imperialism was coined when the idea of an American Empire became popular. Since then, Marxist theorists have pushed the idea of imperialism stemming from capitalism and modern conservative and liberal theorists cite the idea when opposing aggressive U.S. policies.
The American government has a tendency to be big brother to those people they see as oppressed; they fight the battle for them, then take over and tell them what to do while sticking around to make sure their directions are followed to a T. For example, the United States worked together with Emilio Aguinaldo to declare the Philippines independent from Spain, then the U.S. joined forces with Spain and received the territory from them as a result of the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. government decided that Filipinos were ready for independence "Only through American occupation"(Dr.Schurman) and made the Philippines a commonwealth, that is not independent or free! Then the U.S. decided to establish a government very similar to the United States government for them - big brother took advantage of the trust he gained by "helping" at first and used it to become the new bully - this led to the Philippine-American War. To sum the story up, the Philippines did not start self-government until 1934 and their independence was not recognized until 1946, and the U.S. still has military bases there; no sibling defies the big brother who resides in the next bed without consequence.
Perhaps a better example of the current political American Empire would be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in the same Treaty of Paris as they did the Philippines, and the US decided the people there also couldn't control themselves and set up a system of military rule with officials appointed by the President of the United States. Eventually, Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship and got to be drafted into US wars; then in 1947 they got the right to vote for their own governor,but not in US presidential elections, and their representative in the US Congress is a non-voting member - big brother deciding to let little brother make suggestions as to how he bullies, but getting no real say. How is it fair to let them be drafted, but not vote into office the people who have the power to initiate the draft?
All of this "helping" other peoples by telling them what to do isn't working out so well for the United States. The further we expand our reach the more we are stretched creating less ability to control what happens to our nation. The great Roman Empire had the same problem, conquered too much with too little. What goes up must come down, and all empires must fall. It's time we try to work together with other nations as equals and not as the bossy big brother who takes his way whether anyone else agrees or not or we too shall see the collapse of our government.
The American government has a tendency to be big brother to those people they see as oppressed; they fight the battle for them, then take over and tell them what to do while sticking around to make sure their directions are followed to a T. For example, the United States worked together with Emilio Aguinaldo to declare the Philippines independent from Spain, then the U.S. joined forces with Spain and received the territory from them as a result of the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. government decided that Filipinos were ready for independence "Only through American occupation"(Dr.Schurman) and made the Philippines a commonwealth, that is not independent or free! Then the U.S. decided to establish a government very similar to the United States government for them - big brother took advantage of the trust he gained by "helping" at first and used it to become the new bully - this led to the Philippine-American War. To sum the story up, the Philippines did not start self-government until 1934 and their independence was not recognized until 1946, and the U.S. still has military bases there; no sibling defies the big brother who resides in the next bed without consequence.
Perhaps a better example of the current political American Empire would be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in the same Treaty of Paris as they did the Philippines, and the US decided the people there also couldn't control themselves and set up a system of military rule with officials appointed by the President of the United States. Eventually, Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship and got to be drafted into US wars; then in 1947 they got the right to vote for their own governor,but not in US presidential elections, and their representative in the US Congress is a non-voting member - big brother deciding to let little brother make suggestions as to how he bullies, but getting no real say. How is it fair to let them be drafted, but not vote into office the people who have the power to initiate the draft?
All of this "helping" other peoples by telling them what to do isn't working out so well for the United States. The further we expand our reach the more we are stretched creating less ability to control what happens to our nation. The great Roman Empire had the same problem, conquered too much with too little. What goes up must come down, and all empires must fall. It's time we try to work together with other nations as equals and not as the bossy big brother who takes his way whether anyone else agrees or not or we too shall see the collapse of our government.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Oh health care reform how I love thee.
To say it nicely we are looking at times that would make any past president curdle in fear. We have had many clear passages showing that our for fathers did not want a large massive government running everyday life. We have just seen this, and found that it further deepens the faults of our already broken system. Mr.Fumento writes that many americans do not want healthcare reform that is fast versus done right.
He also states that this is likely a bill passed to be a win for dems, considering they had yet to get one. With most polls showing that americans do not want this kind of reform and are all around disapointed and or angry. We can agree with Mr.Fumento when he says that there are major flaws that could cost us in the long run. Which is where we all look at for long term healthcare.
We can see that Mr.Fumento is appealing to a broad audience and that he has done just that with the full facts laid out just enought to riddle the pages. We find that his information backs his idea also, giving multiple instances where the majority was against healthcare reform or parts of it respectively.
He gives far more evidence than required to be credible and coherent to his point being given, He has accomplished his goal which is to show that the bill is not "by the people" or "of the people" it was only "for the people" mandated by our big brother, who clearly knows what is good for us. Mr.fumento is hinting at a bigger picture and does this well without getting to many boxers in a wad.
He also states that this is likely a bill passed to be a win for dems, considering they had yet to get one. With most polls showing that americans do not want this kind of reform and are all around disapointed and or angry. We can agree with Mr.Fumento when he says that there are major flaws that could cost us in the long run. Which is where we all look at for long term healthcare.
We can see that Mr.Fumento is appealing to a broad audience and that he has done just that with the full facts laid out just enought to riddle the pages. We find that his information backs his idea also, giving multiple instances where the majority was against healthcare reform or parts of it respectively.
He gives far more evidence than required to be credible and coherent to his point being given, He has accomplished his goal which is to show that the bill is not "by the people" or "of the people" it was only "for the people" mandated by our big brother, who clearly knows what is good for us. Mr.fumento is hinting at a bigger picture and does this well without getting to many boxers in a wad.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
secrets
Our government seems to make its ideals very clear, including being transparant. But, when it comes to the most crucial times of all we find out government and even ourselves lying to each other and our own. We are always reminded that when in times of war and other periods where security matters; its O.K. to keep secrets and murder, mame, and just all around teach a lesson to. in our latest escapades we surely keep secrets from our neighbors and others due to the lack of trust in one another...a scare tactic. The government has done this years and years over and over, but the best that they can come up with many a times is less than sub-par for a cover up. including this article where our beloved transparant government blatantly tells us they have lied all be it in the past it still rings true to this day and age. Believe me humans dont just change over a few decades this still goes on, please read between these lines and get to the bottom of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585784,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585784,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)