Tag Archives: illegal immigration

2 Cents Worth On Life Its Ownself

Even with the recent market volatility and crash we believe the price is still a fair one….so pay up and read.

Let’s see, the inflation rate, the real one that includes food and energy is up 3.6% per last week’s report.  The 10 year T-bill is paying barely above 2.0%.   So there are folks and institutions out there willing to pay the Government 1.6% per annum to park their money.   You don’t have to be an economist to see that something is seriously wrong with that picture.   The people who are the backbone of our economy, that work and try to save on a regular basis and keep their debt within the limits they can repay, are being punished for their prudence.   Pardon me, but shouldn’t we be rewarding such behavior?

So with the stroke of an executive pen in the Administration, 300,000 illegal aliens in the deportation process are being given a do-over.  Not only that but they are encouraged to apply for a work permit.   Only those with “serious” criminal records will be subject to the deportation they all deserve.   Again, what kind of behavior are we rewarding?   Isn’t the President sworn to see that the laws are “faithfully executed” per his oath of office?  If this gambit works then why not shoot for 3,000,000 certainly in time for the 2012 elections.   The only limit to this outrage is the depth of venality of the guy in the White House.

In spite of the fact that the Constitution requires compensation for the taking of property, some still argue that our form of government doesn’t favor capitalism and free enterprise.  It is interesting to note that the Virginia Declaration of Rights enacted in May of 1776 in section mentions that purpose of government and the rights of the people.  Including among those rights “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property”…Similar comments and expressions are found throughout the early commentaries and enactments of the Colonies and States in our formative years. 

Speaking of the Revolution, it gets lost in the fog of war and history but the British did make attempts to negotiate a peace.  They proposed free trade, no troops quartered in the Colonies except by mutual consent, representatives allowed in Parliament, etc.  Indeed they made clear we could have a great deal of autonomy “short of a total separation of interest”.  But this was in June of 1778 and the blood was up in the Patriots regardless of the fact that our fortunes on the battlefield were not boding well.  The proposal was rejected by the Continental Congress and we know the rest of the story.

Human nature hasn’t changed a wit since the Garden of Eden.   With the markets in some turmoil everyone you note points the finger at someone else for the troubles.  It’s the big banks, it’s the speculators, it’s the hedge funds or the Europeans in one form or another.  Folks we need and want banks.  Unless you want to go back to the barter era of the barely post cave man stage we have to have a credit function for an economy.  The banks get their money from us and help us.  The speculators are putting their money where their mouth is.  You are free to do the same thing anytime you like.   Real inside information abuse is quite rare.  Do you really believe there is a secret network of tens of thousands of people exchanging secret data among themselves and it stay quiet forever.  Yeah, just like the government secretly is still hiding those aliens that landed in Roswell in 1947.  Hedge funds get their money for all of us.  Pensions, endowments, union funds, IRAs and all the rest and of course the major companies like insurance companies invest their money.  The interest in a hedge fund is spread throughout our society.  Folks, take a look in the mirror.  That secret enemy so many perceive is themselves as Pogo famously noticed.   The market moves based upon hundreds of thousands of decisions made every day around the world.  The median of that needle moves regardless of the decision of individual investors or institutions.   It’s a 24 hour investment world and even if you had New York in your hip pocket with your secret cabal how do you control London, Frankfurt, Singapore or Tokyo?

I guess we got what we wanted with the removal of Mubarak.  But of course there was the attack on Israel just yesterday for Egypt.   The Egyptians disavow any involvement.  Take a look at the map of the region. When the Brotherhood comes to power this fall do you really think they will be pursuing a peace initiative with Israel?   If Qadhafi falls anytime soon don’t you know the Brotherhood will be all over that one too and have a strong influence on whoever ends up running the show in Libya.   We could soon be facing a very hostile environment from Yemen all the way to Tunisia.  Again, look at the map.  Not an encouraging development.  If those revolts are being led by such liberals and freedom lovers do you think they will let your bring your Bible when you go there to visit as a tourist?

Just as we humans are a part of the primate family so is visible light and gamma rays part of the electromagnetic spectrum family.  So are ultraviolet rays, infrared rays, microwaves, television signals, radio signals, radar, and the ordinary electricity that comes out of your wall socket.  Some of those items seem quite different but they really are just variations or branches of the same family grouping.  The more complex a system the greater the simplicity of its design so often.

The White House announces the famous buses costs 1.1 million each.   Wish the media would check that out.  There is no way that is an honest statement.  They may have paid 1.1 million for the basic bus but with those add -ons there is no way in hell the costs came in at 1.1 million, not even close.   The secret service is just like any other government bureaucracy and once given approval for a project they ain’t going to be careful with your money.

“Today it is not big business we have to fear. It is big government.”  W. Wilkie, industrialist and politician.   www.oclranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Economics, Foreign Affairs, geography, government, history, immigration, Politics

Arizona Immigration Law And The Covenant With The People

Hooray for Arizona in raising a critical issue to the fore where it can’t be buried in the buzz and blur of the headlines.   The good folks in Arizona have stood up to the incompetence and hypocrisy from Washington and thrown down the gauntlet on the question of illegal immigration and security of our borders.   It is about time someone stood four-square for the people rather than political pandering to special interest groups and future votes. 

From the time that people first became agriculturally fixed and abandoned the hunter-gatherer mode of existence, security was a prime issue and that meant securing the “borders”.  Those people who developed an agricultural based society naturally led to the creation of permanent villages and then towns.  They had to protect themselves from the roaming bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers still in the hinterlands so they wouldn’t come and take the fruits of their labors.  That lead to the creation of government and organization of society.  Farming was a joint effort if it was to be effective in feeding the people and allowing the creation of trades, like tanners, metalworkers, scribes and the like.  They had to build canals and storage facilities.   The Sumerians were the first to develop these cities and structures.  The rulers of the people had a “bargain”, you supply the labor to feed us and we will offer protection from the outside world.   Security and safety was the basic trade made between rulers and the ruled.  That was job number one of government.  They quickly learned to control the people who had access to their lands and cities.  Strangers were permitted for trade but it was regulated to protect themselves.  Thus it has ever been since those earliest days of history and pre-history.

Any nation that can’t secure its border and thus its people will have its legitimacy drawn into question with good reason.  What good is it doing if it can’t provide that basic need of the people.  From ancient times to today all nations and empires have recognized the right of each nation to control those who may enter.    That is supposed to be the job of the government, our government.  We have had immigration laws on the books since the 19th century.  It is only since the 1960’s that we have had such loose borders as an unacknowledged policy of the US.  Yes, some people came here illegally even before then but it was never tacitly affirmed as OK.  The major changes in the immigration laws of the ’60’s and then the ’80’s were designed to enhance the political power of the Democratic party.  To believe otherwise is naive at best and places undue and undeserved trust in the politicians.

The Arizona law is a response to the failure of the Federal government to secure our borders.  The Feds are breaking the basic covenant with the people.  It is fine  for the folks inside the Beltway in their Ivory towers to say this is a “mean-spirited” law.  But they don’t suffer the rampage of the illegals pouring over the border.   Many of them are not nice people.  You don’t have to do much research to see the pillage going on in our border areas with Mexico.  From the estimates of the dead from drug violence in Mexico as reported almost daily in the press it is hard to know if more people are being killed in Iraq or Mexico from the chaos.  They have even attacked two of our consulates in the last month. 

Logically, it is a truism that enforcing the law can’t of itself be illegal.  Some of said that it will be racial profiling.  Some would argue that that wouldn’t be a bad idea anyway but that is not true.   The new law requires that there be a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal before they can be questioned about their status.   That is basic criminal 101.  The law enforcement people have had that right to question all of us since the beginning if they suspect you have committed a crime.  The law books are replete with cases regarding the legitimacy of search and seizures and probable cause for the search.  Some one driving at 3 am on a goat path a few miles from the border with a truckload of people, trespassing on private property that has been so marked and cutting fences to do so, and who can’t produce any valid proof of identity is a viable suspect.

No one would dispute that the Border Patrol would have the right to stop and question such a person in those circumstances.   I ask you what difference does it make whether that interrogation is conducted by a Border Patrol agent or the local sheriff’s’ deputy?   They are investigating a probable violation of the law.   Either the person is legal or illegal and if illegal there are and should be consequences.  You would think that the Feds would give a great shout of thanks to the people of Arizona for helping out with the problem.    Why is one cop ok and another not?   Frankly, the States are authorized under Article One of the Constitution to “raise troops” in the face of an emergency.   When one sees the mayhem along our border a very good argument can be made that the States are only responding to an emergency when the Federal government is unwilling or unable to provide the protection our fellow citizens are entitled to.  One death of a US citizen along the border is one too many.   Where is Black Jack Pershing when we need him?

The honey suckle is beginning to bloom and the peaches have emerged on the branches.  It will only be about a month and we can have fresh peaches right off the tree.  Chill them in the frig for an hour or so and they taste great.  If you are ambitious you can make peach home-made ice cream by slicing them and adding them to the vanilla ice cream.  What a treat on a warm late spring night.  www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, geography, government, history, immigration, Politics

Schools, Illegals, Debt Crisis–Revisit Plyler?

Many of you may not be aware that it was a Supreme Court decision almost 30 years ago that required the States to provide a free public education to illegal aliens in this country.  The case was Plyler v. Doe.  You can use your search engine to look up the case.  I encourage you to do so.  If you disagree with any of my comments then form you own but at least have them based in law and fact.  You don’t  have to be a lawyer to understand the rationale of the case.  Read it and also read the dissent by Burger.  It was a 5 to 4 decision.  The decision was very much fact based and perhaps it is time to revisit that issue anew. It is timely because of the incredible debt burdens facing the US and the individual State–California comes to mind.  The financial burden of educating or at least allowing attendance in our schools for illegal aliens is enormous.  You can find your own estimates about how many there are in California, Texas and Arizona and then multiple that number by the average cost per child for public education.  It is a staggering multi-billion dollar number each year for the respective States.

A little history about the Plyler case is in order for those not familiar with it.  As is so often the case this lawsuit was not brought by a poor down trodden  illegal Mexican against the State of Texas.  There was a liberal organization that was promoting this issue.  They picked the plaintiffs and they certainly carefully picked the court where they would file suit.  The filed before Judge William Wayne Justice.  A very, very liberal judge in the Eastern District of Texas.  He would have made a San Franciso liberal look like a right winger by comparison.  If a case before him involved a current liberal cause asserting some alleged civil right you could predict the outcome when the suit was filed.  The only issue would be how he would manipulate the facts to conform with his personal views of social needs and his view of the world.

The Plyler case does acknowledge the constitutional position that there is no right to a public education under the Constitution.  This they had to do because education is a State matter reserved to them under the 10th Amendment.  They used tortured interpretations of the 14th amendment to justify their majority opinion.  It was an equal protection of the laws case according to them.   The case recognizes that it is limited to the particular facts before the Court at that time.  The Court acknowledge that States and the US can discriminate among classes of people within their borders for legitimate and compelling reasons.  Thus illegals were denied many social welfare benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamp benefits and many others.  The distinction must be for a legitimate public purpose.  The State of Texas argued that saving huge sums of money that could then be used to improve its school system for its citizens and resident aliens was a legitimate purpose but the Supremes in their infinite wisdom said no.  They wax eloquent about their opinion that a well education population is good for society and that the children are here for reasons beyond their control because it was their parents that brought them here.  Interestingly the Supreme majority recognized that the States have a right to bar some privileges to illegals.  Specifically the States can prohibit employment of illegals because it furthers a Federal goal of stopping illegal immigration.  You might note that a few States have begun this process in the last couple of years and their illegal population has declined–see Oklahoma.

You also must be reminded that the Texas law challenged in this case did allow the illegals to attend public school; it did require them to pay the tuition to the State for this educational opportunity.  The Supreme Court blithely ignores this factor.   They do have to acknowledge that the States have the right to help enforce Federal policy for deportation of illegals and that these children are subject to deportation along with their parents under Federal law.  They ignore any comment on the fact that these kids were able to be identified for purposes of the suit as plaintiffs and thus their parents which would bring deportation which is a legitimate State purpose.  Justice Burger in his dissent notes this inconsistency.  The majority rejects the notion that saving billions of dollars is in the public interest of a State.   What more “compelling government interest” could there be in these times?  

The majority concludes by stating that if a State wishes to prohibit a public education to illegals it must justify it by “showing that it furthers some substantial State interest”.   They stated that it was not done in this particular case.  The matter is not done.  Our facts are different now than they were 30 years ago and the financial conditions of the nation and the States are certainly much different now than then.  The issue should be re-litigated with new evidence of the financial burden.   We also have a different court at the moment and it might be more receptive to the need to reduce State budgets.  I mean California can’t pay its bills. Why is it paying the bills for illegals to attend their schools. 

Please read the case for yourself.  It is another classic example of judges legislating from the bench.   Burger in his dissent makes it clear.  Just because the legislative or executive branches of government don’t perform  as some might want that does not justify the judiciary taking the role of legislative power brokers creating law them deem in the best interest of a State or the Nation.  That is why we have elections.

“The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, n0r does it vest judges with a mandate to try remedy every social problem”. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 US at 74.  www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Foreign Affairs, government, immigration, Politics

2 Cents Worth on Life Its Ownself

When Clinton pushed for and got Congressional approval for the repeal of Glass-Steagal it allowed the distinction between commercial banks and investment banks to disappear.  Many hailed that as a great achievement.  The White House then took the position that the distinction was old hat and a product of an earlier era that no longer applied to the looming 21st century needs of the financial world or the economy of the US domestically and globally.   Those commercial banks were not allowed to make investments but performed the traditional bank function of taking deposits and loaning to individuals and companies.  The investment banks were not allowed to take deposits and advanced money for capital or for secured loans to businesses.  Yes, it was an old fashioned approach.  There was really nothing wrong with the idea of allowing the banks to take on all aspects of banking.  The problem was that Government, Inc. then pushed even harder with its regulations and the CORE type legislation and compounded the problems by allowing the Too Big To Fail doctrine to take root.  I have no problem with banks filling both roles but I do have a problem with them being bailed out if they make bad decisions. 

Less than generation ago the investment banks were all partnerships.   The partners had their own money at risk in virtually all their new deals they promoted.  Yes, they used others peoples money but they had some real skin in the game themselves.  You had to actually buy with real dollars your partnership position in those firms.  Needless to say they were more cautious when they had their own money at risk.  Contrary to the majority of the hedge funds today.  Now those banks do deals all the time by investing other people’s money and taking a commission in cash or cash and a piece of the deal for their services.  In addition they collect management and administration fees for their alleged work.  I like the old way better. 

The staffs in Washington are too darn big!   No Senator or Congressman needs more than two secretaries and three staff members.  Remember that each and every committee in the Congress also has a staff and some of them have dozens of people on the federal payroll.  That is ridiculous.  They all feel like they have to justify their position and are constantly planning their next piece of legislation.  Wouldn’t it be nice if someone running for Congress ran on a platform of repealing useless or even harmful laws.  How about eliminating the pointless agencies of government like the Depts. of Education and Labor.  Those are just starters.  We have labor laws, why the agency?  Education under the Tenth Amendment is strictly a State matter.  We could save billions and the States would have those funds to use as they see fit and tax their residents as they think best fits their local needs. 

When will the people make the government come up with the costs each year for the education and medical treatment of illegal aliens?  Not those estimates of the alleged benefits we get from their taxes they pay.  I mean what taxes?  If they are illegal they don’t have a social security number to pay taxes or if they do it is phony or even worse stolen.  I am proud of our nation and have no problem with any citizen receiving the benefits under any of our laws including those entitlements.  But I don'[t feel any obligation to pay one cent for an illegal that doesn’t even respect our laws.   Maybe 10 plus unemployment will change some more minds about the money drain they are on our economy.

Storms have influenced so many of the great events in our history.  When the Redcoats attacked Washington in the War of 1812 the greatest danger they faced and what really ran them back to Cheasepeake Bay was a huge line of thunderstorms they blew in after they burned the Capitol.   D-Day was postponed and almost ruined because of the weather.  The Spanish Armada was given a severe blow by the British in 1588 but they still had a formidable fleet after the initial encounter off the southern coast of England.  What brought them to total ruin was a great storm that drove their ships ashore on the coast of France and the Netherlands.  After that the threat was over for England.  The Spanish lost more ships in the storm than in the encounter with Drake.  Of course if helped that the English had longer range cannon than the Spanish.

Will Government, Inc. put up some new restrictions on the ownership of gold in the near future?  Don’t laugh, it has happened before in 1933 and again in 1971.  The dollar weakens and more people are turning to gold for safety.   The Indians just bought 200 metric tons of gold.  That is a huge amount.  They clearly thought carefully about that transaction.  Our mounting debt and the ever burgeoning debt is a legitimate concern for the value of the dollar in a few years.  At some point Government, Inc. will have to pay attention to the problem because others around the world are.  Using inflation to reduce our debt will only further weaken the value of the dollar and confidence in the dollar.  It won’t happen next week or even next year, but watch for it.  Invest wisely.

We all have First Amendment rights to speak our minds and express very strong opinions.  I have no problem with that.  You can’ advocate a Nazis view or even a Commie one.  But we don’t have a right to serve in the military.   Someone please explain how a guy like Hasan was allowed to remain in the military when he clearly was a Muslim extremist? 

Your home and the office building where you work in all likelihood has a lighting rod.  Such a simple device yet so valuable.  It has saved countless lives over the years.  You owe it all to Ben Franklin.  He didn’t even collect royalties.    http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Culture, Economics, government, history, immigration, Politics

Fences and Walls Make Better Neighbors

Ben Franklin and others long ago recognized that good fences make for good neighbors.  That has been true for lo these many millenia.   Earliest man quickly learned how to construct walls around the places where they lived and later raised their crops as a protection against the wild beasts and from the ravages of their fellow man bent on mischief.

There is the Great Wall of China, the fences that line the entire 38th parallel in Korea separating the north and south, there was the Berlin Wall until Reagan got it torn down, the Walls of Jericho, the fencing along portions of our southern border with Mexico and all the great cities of Europe had their walls surrounding them from Greek and Roman times until only the last few centuries.  There is a long and tried history with the use and protection of the walls or fences.  The Great Wall of China was built to protect it from the Mongols and it worked reasonably well for a very long time.  Hadrian’s wall in the north of England kept the Scottish hordes from middle and lower England for a long period of time.    That fence and minefield separating the two Koreas has worked out pretty well for us for over 50 years so far.  With the way things are going in North Korea we should be glad that it is there.   I do recall several times over the last few decades when one liberal or the other thought we should dismantle it as a gesture of good faith to the North!    Funny how no one is talking like that now.

Fences don’t project a negative or hostile attitude toward those on the other side of the fence necessarily.  Some neighbors who are close friends have fences between their homes and are happy for the privacy it affords.   Yes, a fence does convey the message that “this is mine” and entry is by permission only.  There is nothing wrong with that at all unless you want to live in a society that does not permit private ownership of property.  The Commies didn’t allow private ownership and even they built walls.  Their walls were all by the State and definitely conveyed the message that this did not belong to you and you couldn’t cross without the requisite permit.   They had not only the Berlin Wall but they had “walls” everywhere.  During the Cold War the people in the Communist lands couldn’t travel anywhere even within their own borders without a pass from the government.  They had walls within walls. 

We need a wall along our entire southern border, not just the 700 miles that was planned.  I use the past tense because it is obvious that the new guy will not even build out that much.  Mexico is in near chaos at the moment and has been teetering on the brink of such a condition for years now.  Their cultural is fine for them if they like it but it is not an American cultural or even close to it.  They have a very socialistic outlook on economic theory.  I offer Pemex as exhibit A in that regard.  They have tried to expand their economy with experiments here and there with some free market efforts but they have been feeble and mostly ineffective.   They do in fact look to the Government as the answer to all their problems andissues.   They do not comprehend the concept as we know it of the rugged individualist.  They are more like the Chinese and view most things through a group effort whether that “group” is a political set or subset of their nation, the Catholic Church or some cartel these days.  We of course have some of that cooperative spirit ourselves as do all peoples.  There has to be some of it to have any sense of community or willingness to join together for a common good.  But the differences in magnitude are tremendous between Mexico and the US in that regard.  We will never be pals with Mexico.  We can and should be good neighbors.    We have the right to expect the same thing from them.  The corruption there is to the point of being now endemic and so corrosive that it is accepted as the ordinary course of business.  We need to protect ourselves from the negative effects of that corruption.  There is absolutely no evidence on the horizon that that situation is going to change anytime soon.  Policemen are bribed and bought regularly and they even resign or are assasinated on a weekly basis.   Their army is no better.  Who could you turn to there for help?   

Let’s build that fence and make it airtight.  We will be better off for it in the long run.   We have the right and the obligation to our own citizens to protect ourselves from the violence corruption and cultural and economic differences between our nations.  If they are allowed to continue to swarm over the border we will become the Balkans.  If you think it couldn’t and won’t happen I suggest you read some more history.  They will not quit coming until they can’t.  Every nation must decide its own destiny and those peoples ultimately get and deserve the government and economic system they allow to rule them.

If my math is right Government, Inc. has just doled out over 7 billion to the car companies to build those green cars, electric.  That is in addition to all the tens of billions that was already advanced to them.  How many people will pay the extra price for those electric cars.  I have another concern for those folks.  I wonder how long the batteries last in those cars?  Ten thousand miles?  One thousand miles.  What will it cost each time they have to be replaced?  I bet it is more than pocket change.  Just buy four size D batteries at the store.  In addition where will they go to get them replaced?  Will you have to leave your car there for an entire day to change the batteries?  What will be the service charge for those new batteries?   It is going to be an expensive proposition, far beyond anything that has been discussed  to date.   http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

1 Comment

Filed under business, Culture, Economics, Foreign Affairs, geography, government

Hot Issues Through the Prism of Process

Our nation has to deal with emotional and controversial issues on a continuing basis.   There has always been one topic or another that is the issue de jour during ever era.   For the last few decades we have had to deal with intergration, abortion, gay rights and gun control matters that evoke the strongest and most passionate of debates and disparate views as to dealing with such matters.   It is not always the substance that causes as much uproar for some of us as the process by which we change are laws or regulations.   There are those who are not consumed one way or the other on the abortion arguments but feel very strongly about the way the abortion laws have been determined in our nation. 

 Essentially our laws are made by legislative enactment, executive order or a ruling of a court.  The process of rendering our laws and therefore our justice is supposed to be subsumed by our Federalist system of Government.  There is supposed to be a balance between the powers of the States and the Federal government.  In some matters the Constituion is clear that the Federal authority is controlling such as in matters dealing with patents, bankruptcy, immigration, and power to make international treaties.  In other areas the power is intended to be exercised by the States.  The most common of these would be education and criminal laws.   Whenever there is a crossing of the boundaries there is an increase in tensions and political conflict.   Each politcal entity protects its turf like a mother bear.   These powers and limitations are spelled out quite clearly in Article One of the Constituion and the 9th and 10th Amendments to it.  

What did and still appalls me about the Roe v. Wade case was not the substance so much as the method of that law’s creation.  It broke the traditional pattern of our Federalist system.  The Supreme Court created out of whole clothe a new “right” of privacy and then followed on by postulating that such right included the power of a woman to control her own body and that of an unborn child.    There was no legislation regarding this matter at the Federal level.  The various states had their own laws regarding abortion rights or restrictions as the case may be.  What infuriates me about the decision is not the effect of the ruling as much as it is the ruling itself.  The Court legislated from the bench.  You can read the Constituion for yourself and I encourage you to do so and even read earlier decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution and you will find nothing there that even hints at such a right.  If the various states wished to be pro choice with their legislation that would have been alright with me.  I might personally have opposed such laws but at least the laws would have gone through the political process and thus vetted by the voters in the individual states.  We might well have ended up with a hodge-podge of laws regarding such an issue but that would have been fine with me.  Our freedoms and rights are intertwined with the Federalist system.  Over time the most favored choice of the people in the states would have prevailed and most importantly the law would have been respected and the people would have been much more willing to accept the outcome whatever it was.  The worst thing is to have a new law created by judicial fiat or executive edict where the people feel they have no voice in the process and thus the outcome.

Education is strictly a state matter and no business of the Federal government.  The Feds should be nothing more than cheerleaders on this issue.  There should be no Department of Education.  All those billions collected in federal taxes each year should be eliminated from the Federal budget and the states left free to tax at equal, lesser or greater amounts as they see fit to run their educational system.  Now we are in situations where the Federal money comes from Washington with strings attached that would make a spider envious.  Every dime of that money is flying in the face of our Federalist system.  Why do we tolerate it?

The process of making our laws is so important to reinforce the concept of the rule of law.  That concept is the foundation of our entire political and economic structure in this country.  When a court creates new laws it make the people feel alienated and thus often hostile to that law.  You know what–the people were alienated and that is why they feel that way.  The were cut out of the process. 

The most recent example of this abuse of the political and Constitutional process is the executive order regarding gays in the military.  Again the substance of the issue is not what makes my skin crawl, it is the process.  The Constituion provides that Congress can establish the rules and regulations for our army.  When an important issue to some folks is removed from the political cauldron however messy, it is taking power away from the people and will always make them resentful.  A resentful population is never a good thing.   Most of us most of the time will accept and live by the outcome of our traditional political processes.    This is true even when we don’t like the outcome as long as we felt we had a voice in how the law was made. 

I hope Sotomayor is listening to the people.   Most dictators never focused so much on the outcomes as they did the process.  If they could control the process of government they would achieve their goals.  Then they would usurp the process so it was taken away from the people.  

With its current and re-occurring budget mess why don’t the folks in California require an accounting of the cost for medical care and education provided to the illegal aliens? It would be billions per year.  Per court ruling they might have to allow them to enroll in school but they can ask them about their status; there is no law against that and indeed would only be enforcing our laws.  Same is true with the free medical care, ask them, make them sign.  Advise if they lie it is a state crime for fraud and that they will be turned into the immigration authorities.  Explain to me again why we should be obligated to educate people who aren’t even citizens or legal residents?  These are people who are supposed to be deported, not rewarded.  www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Culture, government, immigration

Message From Europe

The election results are finally tallied from all the recent voting in Europe.  We already know the outcome of the California tax issues elections.  Seems that some one in Washington should start paying attention to these results.  The mantra has been around for a few decades that California leads the way in the US on all issues.  They do it first and then it spreads to the nether reaches of this fair land so the theory goes.  In economic, social and cultural aspects there has been a strong element of truth to that adage for a number of years.  Seems as though those Tea Parties carried a bit more heft than some of the politicians would care to acknowledge.   IsCalifornia leading the way again?

The California vote was not only against raising taxes it was also a referendum on the growth of government and the deficit spending that goes with that unrestrained growth.  There was a hue and cry that painful cuts would have to be made in State services if these issues failed even though the California government has added over 150,000 employees in this century already.  The voters get it and still didn’t want any increase in taxes and more expansion of government.  What particularly got my attention was the spread in the vote–the five issues rejected were voted down by virtually a 2 to 1 ratio.  That is a landslide in political terms.   The Washington crowd appears to be moving along blithely ignoring those results as though they didn’t happen.  That vote I hope is only a straw in the wind for a growing rebellion by the taxpayers against Government, Inc. and the desire of politicians to sop up even more of our economy into the maw of government like a cat licking the last drop of milk from the saucer.   It would be nice if all the planned US government expenditures were put to a referendum right now.  I wonder how well, TARP, PIPP, TALF, the mortgage rescue plans, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the GMAC funding and the insane purchasing of Treasury bills by the Federal Reserve would do in such a vote.  Those guys spending our money might give a moment’s thought to the next election which looms around the corner with each passing day.  The health care plan alone will drown us in debt and higher taxes with no end in sight.  Everyone wants better health insurance but at what price?  

The European elections are even more interesting.  There was a decided lurch to the right by the Europeans across the Continent and the UK.  So many of our academics, pundits and politicians of the liberal wing have been wanting to emulate that European model in socialism and to expand the size and scope of our government and they must be disappointed.  Just as California leads the way in the US  many of our liberal friends they have always looked to the European model as the template for their game plan in the US.  The swing to the right was not isolated to only a couple of countries but was spread from the Dutch to Spain to the UK to France and Germany, Italy and the Scandanvian lands.  Those folks knew what they were voting for and it clearly was for putting the brakes on government growth and higher taxes.  It seems the socialist agenda is waning in favor among the voters of Europe.  They have always been much more “liberal” in social matters than we have been and they are accustomed to the government running and/or owning significant portions of their industries.  The European governments’ percentage of GDP has always been much higher than ours and now ours is heading in that same direction.  But the Continentals are backpedaling in a major way.  Apparently many of them have had about all that Mother Government they can stand and would like a little more freedom and lower taxes for a change.  It was quite strking also when analyzing the results that the left wing parties lost ground from previous years.  It was not only a growth on the right but a loss of the left that produced the rather dramatic European results. 

On immigration matters the Europeans are bringing to rein in their open arms philosophy and intergration policies.  Several of the anti-immigrant parties will have representation for the first time in the European Parlianment.  That is stunning given the history of Europe since the War.  They apparently do want their borders protected and don’t want to be “Balkanized” or “Islamified” as some of the papers stated it.  Maybe those in Washington calling for amnesty for illegal aliens will pay heed to this trend.  The Europeans are tired of their riches and generosity being abused by those who come there illegally. 

You are urged to do your own reading about these vital elections.  Reach your own conclusions.  The British are clearly pulling back from government expansion and higher expenditures and deficits.  Labor is on its way out.   That special relationship we have with them should be used as a learning tool for our politicians.  They are going one way and we are heading in the opposite.   That  is truly an astounding circumstance and only the second time in my lifetime.  Thatcher was the first.  Europe sent us our forefathers four centuries ago and maybe now they will send us lessons about taxes, size of government and restrained government from abroad.

“Any pary which takes credit for the rain must not be surprised if its opp0nents blame it for the drought.”   Dwight Morrow

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Culture, Economics, Foreign Affairs, government, immigration