With all of the misinformation in the press about the new Arizona immigration law, I have included a link to the new law and some selective quotes and commentary about that law.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

As with most new legislation, the intent of the Arizona statute is spelled out in the initial paragraph:

“The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona.  The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.  The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

Could anybody disagree with the fact that we have an illegal alien problem?  Well apparently MSNBC does:

“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.  The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).”

“The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.  What fewer people have noticed is the phrase ‘lawful contact,’ which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. ‘That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,’ says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. As far as ‘reasonable suspicion’ is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It’s not race – Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Finally, the new law imposes criminal and/or civil sanctions for specific activities:

“It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.”

“An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.”

Sanctions leaved at both the employee and employer attack the problem at both ends.  Clearly given the high unemployment rates for American citizens, this provision should be a viewed as a welcomed sight.

While no law is perfect and some problems will arise, it is imperative that this problem take center stage and that steps be taken to enforce our federal immigration laws.  If Washington remains paralyzed over this issue, then each state will be forced to examine their situation and implement similar sound legislative fixes.  Do we really want 50 individualized statutes covering immigration?

The importance of a candidate’s forum should never be underestimated.  Last week, I attended a forum featuring candidates for various local and federal offices.  The format was prearranged, with 2-3 specific questions provided in advance to each candidate in their respected races. As I told another attendee, these forums can be more entertaining than Monday night television.

While a debate format tends to be move lively, and may more readily expose candidates’ weaknesses, the minimal preparation needed to answer two – three relatively simple questions seemed to have stumped some of the participants.  Even with several weeks to prepare, a few of the candidates publically demonstrated why they should not be elected to any office.

One would expect that each candidate had researched his/her race enough to know what the responsibilities and the limitations are of the office they seek.  Unfortunately, it was obvious last week that some candidates had absolutely no clue, and in fact, they demonstrated a gross lack of knowledge of government in general.  Even worse than that, in more than one hotly contested race, several candidates failed to appear at all.  I find it incredibly pompous for any candidate to skip this type of event, and I believe it demonstrates extreme arrogance and indifference towards the voters.  If you are asking people to vote for you as their representative, the least you could do is attend a community event where the majority of your competitors attend.

Finally, and sadly, I also continue to be amazed at the lack of voter involvement in these types of events.  I find it hard to imagine how a voter can sift through the large number of candidates and make an informed, educated decision without doing the minimal amount of “research” into the candidates.  Clearly mailers and radio/TV/newspaper ads are completely self-serving and thus cannot provide enough substance to educate the public.  Additionally, in my home county, news coverage of contested political races is almost non-existent until just before Election Day—which of course excludes those who elect to vote early.  Therefore candidate’s forums take on added weight and significance and should be seen as an opportunity to evaluate the candidates in person.

I believe that the combination of voter apathy and the reliance on biased news media to provide information in contested political races has led to the continued election of officials who appear to be oblivious to the real needs and/or concerns of the voters.  Despite the recent surge in the “Tea Party” movement, many voters’ only interest in their elected officials is a “what’s in it for me” attitude.

I applaud groups that go to the effort to host candidate’s forums or debates, the voters who take the time to attend, and especially the candidates who attend and are prepared to honestly air and discuss their views on the issues that are important to us all.

While I never forward chain e-mails to my friends and family, I received one recently that reminded me of a fact most people in the United States are not aware of—our elected representatives in Congress are themselves exempt from most of the laws that they pass!  A recent example of this: Obamacare.

If “Obamacare” and the vast number of other laws which curtail our freedoms and raid our pocketbooks were applied equally to our elected officials, would the bills ever pass?  I doubt it.  So how do you stop this new “Roman Senate” from unilaterally imposing their will upon us without personally suffering the consequences?  Vote them out of office?  Trust them to do the right thing?  Of course not!  What about a new amendment to the Constitution?

In that e-mail, the original author included language that he/she believes would do the trick:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States “.

Without discussing the mechanics of amending the Constitution, this idea has serious merit.  When most people are faced with decisions that have a major impact upon their lives or wallets, they (hopefully) evaluate the ramifications of that decision.  Unfortunately, our elected representatives do not have to evaluate their decisions at a personal level because they are most likely not affected by the bill they are considering.  Again using Obamacare as an example, the rules and regulations contained in the initial 2,700+ page bill apparently do not apply to members of Congress—they have their own “Cadillac” Health care coverage.  Once again, it appears that the only thing most of our elected officials appear to be concerned with is raising money and getting reelected—not whether or not their decisions negatively effect the rest of us.

Why not ask your elected official what they think about this “new” amendment.  Ask them if they would propose or support such a bill—remember, these people were elected to work for you, not to sit around in togas and sandals drinking wine.

When did our form of government begin to look like that of ancient Rome? Despite our founding father’s desire to create a more responsive form of government for our fledgling nation, their experiment continues to run full speed toward an elitist professional political class who has nothing in common with the citizens they represent. Fortunately for our “Roman Senate” (and House), the only uprising they should be worried about is the people becoming educated, fed-up, and actually voting. “Et tu Brute?”

Clearly the reason the Constitution contained two bodies of representation was to place controls over the exercise of power by the few over the many. Unfortunately, with the advent of career politicians, something which was unheard of in the 18th Century, the focus is now not on the represented but the representatives themselves. It seems that our elected leaders spend more time trying to protect their positions than trying to help their constituents. Voters are bombarded with commercials, flyers, phone calls and requests for money earlier and earlier in each successive campaign season. If you did not know better, you would think that the job of our elected leaders was to raise money to get elected instead of representing the interests of their district.

But even more troubling is that our representatives think they know what is best for their voters without even asking.  How many times have we recently heard that a specific form of government-controlled health care is what we need, despite the fact that a large majority of the population believes otherwise? By staying in Washington and only occasionally returning to the districts they represent, senators and congressmen become more attuned to the ways of Washington than the problems at home. Is there a viable solution to this problem?

Term-limits may be the answer. In fact, some candidates agree, and promise their constituents that they will only serve a limited number of terms. But can we trust that they will keep their promise, especially after becoming enmeshed in the political environment in our nation’s capital? Can we honestly expect Congress to pass a law limiting the number of terms that they, themselves, can serve, thereby limiting their own power and influence? During this election cycle, why not ask your candidate if he/she believes in term limits. Their answer may surprise you – and give you an insight into their true character.

When you read a commentary in a newspaper that in its simplicity “hits the nail on the head,” you just have to pass it along. In his letter to The Washington Times, Dr. Milton R. Wolf talks about his meeting with Representative Dennis Moore. In his letter, Dr. Wolf poses some very significant questions he would like to see his representative answer for the voters back in Kansas’ Third Congressional District. Maybe each voter in American should contact their representative and ask similar questions. Unquestionably, if more light is shed on the hidden deals being made that saddle only some of the taxpayers with the financial burden of government-controlled health care and that create disturbing federal oversight of personal health care decisions then we may yet avoid a monumental catastrophe. Take five minutes and see what I mean . . . .
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/questions-for-your-representative/

On Saturday, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration is calling “for a broad overhaul of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, proposing to reshape divisive provisions that encouraged instructors to teach to tests, narrowed the curriculum, and labeled one in three American schools as failing.” Praising Mr. Obama’s efforts, the NY Times noted that: “The administration would replace the law’s pass-fail school grading system with one that would measure individual students’ academic growth and judge schools based not on test scores alone but also on indicators like pupil attendance, graduation rates and learning climate.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?ref=politics But did the teacher’s unions have the same glowing praise for the President’s proposed changes?

In statements made to the USA Today, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said teachers “should be empowered and supported — not scapegoated.” Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, said the union was expecting a broader effort. Instead, the blueprint still relies on standardized tests and “too much top-down scapegoating of teachers and not enough collaboration.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-14-education_N.htm

While there are many to blame for the current state of our Nation’s failing schools, asking the federal government to dictate the direction and administration of our education system will never lead to a successful outcome. In his 2011 budget summary for the Department of Education, the President noted that “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) delivered nearly $100 billion to States and school districts to help address budget shortfalls… http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/11summary.pdf Now the administration wants to throw even more money at the problem than last year ($77.8 billion up $3.5 billion from 2010) tied to its massive education bureaucracy ($1.8 billion budget and almost 4,000 full-time employees). Is this the future for our next generation—constant tinkering from the politically-driven politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. How can students ever be expected to know what is important in their education if the “adults” continually change the “rules?”

Maybe we should return the control of our schools back to the states and eliminate the Department of Education. This would push the responsibility for education closer to the end-users (parents, teachers and students) and eliminate a large federal expenditure for administrators in the process.

With the continued growth of the federal government and vast entitlement programs coupled with the political views of the current administration, who will be left to pay the bills? In his March 4, 2010 Article, William Beach of The Heritage Foundation reviewed the historical trends associated with federal spending and entitlement programs and exposed some very disturbing trends. Mr. Beach noted that:

Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. The number of taxpayers is shrinking–and the country may be rapidly approaching the point where more than one-third of Americans do not pay taxes for benefits they receive….

Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits–which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program.

Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes–and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government.

http://www.heritage.org/Home/Research/Reports/2010/03/The%202009%20Index%20of%20Dependence%20on%20Government

With unemployment figures in double-digits, the recent crisis involving both financial and housing markets and with Obamacare looming, is our system of government tacking hard towards socialism? This country was based on the concept of hard work and self-sufficiency. Decades ago, it was a badge of shame to be out of work or on the government dole. Unfortunately, that belief has been replaced by an entitlement mentality and “what’s in it for me.” I had always told myself that I would never see any of the money I put into Social Security, but I never suspected that my children and their children would pay so heavily for the excesses my generation has heaped upon them. Maybe it’s time to tell our elected leaders to cut federal spending and not to create vast new entitlement programs when we can’t afford the ones in place now.

Despite polls that show a continued lack of support with the voters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Fox News Sunday that the healthcare bill will pass by next weekend.

With a full press on from the White House, how can House Democrats with districts that oppose the Senate’s health care bill back the President but still avoid a backlash from their constituents?  According to the Heritage Foundation, the House can use the following procedure:

House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the president.  First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill.  It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added.  This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure.  The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote.  The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate Obamacare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/obamacare%E2%80%99s-procedural-fraud-on-the-american-people/

With this backdoor procedural maneuver looming, it is little wonder that White House officials on Sunday dared the Republicans to bring it on during this fall’s 2010 midterm election.

“We’re happy to have the 2010 elections be about the achievement of health care reform. That’s a debate I think we’re obviously comfortable having,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on “Fox News Sunday.”  “Make my day,” added senior White House adviser David Axelrod.  What debate?  If you are not forced to vote on Senate bill then why worry what effect it has on the nation?  If your District supports the bill, you can claim victory.  If your District is against the bill, just claim you never voted for it.

Only in Washington can you go both ways and never suffer the consequences!