Arizona

I've been thinking about Arizona's new law regarding illegal aliens for several days--since it was passed. At first, it seemed like competing principles--in order to uphold one, I'd have to betray the other.

Normally, I'd have no qualms about inviting any Mexican, Canadian, Englishman, Asian, African or South American to come to any one of the United States to work. In the capitalist society we once were, there was always too much work to do and too few minds and hands to do it. Despite the excesses of some few government subsidized industries and the excesses that attend them, there was plenty of work for immigrants from all parts of the world, and room for them to advance their lives by the use of their own minds and skills.

Today, the once great States have been cruelly smeared into a slimy mess that is becoming more and more like an European fascist dictatorship. Skilled technicians, professionals and scientists are finding it ever harder to enter the country to seek to better their lives, while unskilled laborers are allowed to sneak in, and once here are never to be questioned or challenged.

Many find work, and that's fine. They also are invited to avail themselves of all the largess of a bloated government without having to pay the dues. Free medical care (which most citizens don't get), free government schools (such as they are) many of which offer classes in the student's first language (eliminating the need to learn ours), and the ability to drive the public streets unlicensed and uninsured with impunity (which citizens cannot), to name three.

Many have called for the closing of the borders, to stem the flow of illegal aliens, though I have not. A far better solution would be to disassemble the welfare state, to detax and deregulate business and return to the capitalist origins that made the States great. The services that the illegal aliens get gratis and that the rest of us pay confiscatory taxes for could be provided for far lower cost, far more efficiently and with no strings attached by the free market--in which everyone buys and pays for what he desires--and gets it!

Arizona is a sovereign State. Under the Tenth Amendment, an admonition which the rogue federal government chooses to ignore almost completely, Arizona can control its own affairs independently of the federal government. True, the Constitution reserves to the feds the task of controlling the borders, but the federal government is criminally derelict in this duty.

Further, the federal government unConstitutionally forbids Arizona to withhold welfare state services from illegal foreigners. Arizona is challenging the federal government to "do you job, or we'll do it."

I can't blame them, and I think it'd be good if other States follow Arizona's example.

Or, better still, do away with the welfare state, embrace laissez faire capitalism, and let us pursue our careers in freedom.

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

On Being Neighborly

On the Bill O'Reilly show, in his interview with B Hussein Obama, O'Reilly asked (not a direct quote), how is your "tax the rich" proposal not a means of redistributing wealth? The Democrat candidate replied: “If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

Before I go any farther, allow me to note another observation about the mannerisms of "He whose middle name shall not be mentioned." We hear a lot about Obama's wondrous speaking ability, which he demonstrates every time he has a script. Whenever Obama doesn't have a script, his speech is halting, full of ums and uhs, misspoken phrases and hasty corrections, etc. Why does he do that, one might ask. Bill Clinton did the same thing. Here's why they do that: They know they can't say what they really think, so they're desperately trying to figure out what they think their audience wants to hear.

That's also why their statements vary greatly from one audience to another, and why they have to continually revise what they say, and try to explain what they really meant when they insult a certain segment of the voting public.

Now, to my main thesis. In the first place, the above quote is not an answer to O'Reilly's question. If Obama has one consistency, it's his failure to answer a question as asked. I've never heard him give a direct answer.

One thing he does, however -s say words to the effect of, "As I've been saying for the past two years...." then proceeds to revise something he's said in the past, to fit the current situation.

Let's take a quick look at the "answer" he actually gave.

If one is well off, one might very well go to restaurants often. 'Tis the nature of the economy that most waitresses don't earn a lot of money.

Some actually do, if they're good waitresses, in tips, but that's not noticed by our not-very-experienced candidate--I suspect he's a cheap tipper.

Since he has no experience with giving waitresses tips according to their ability to help give him a happy dining experience, he doesn't put two and two together. He seems to think that, rather than giving the waitress a well-deserved tip, he wants to force all of us to give her the tip by taxing us and giving her a government check. I guess. The answer, as I've implied, isn't very clear.

Suffice it to say, that the quote strongly suggests that Obama wants somebody else to give the tip.

Cheap is as cheap does.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California