The ‘Obama Factor’ and Unemployment Statistics

The state-controlled Democrat Media Complex (DMC) loves to tout tiny improvements in the unemployment rate as evidence that the “President’s plans are working”.

I have to agree — those plans are working just fine — if what the President wants to do is reduce the number of makers and boost the number of takers.  On that score, Obama has made undeniable progress from Day One of his administration.

As evidence –

See the chart below, which shows the Labor Force Participation (LFP) Rate.  This statistic answers the following simple question:

What fraction of our total civilian working-age population is actually employed?

In this statistic, people are counted as either working or not-working.   It doesn’t matter whether they’re looking for work or not.  That makes this statistic harder to “fudge” than the widely reported “unemployment rate”.  While there are month-to-month variations, note the steady, linear decline in the trend lines since Obama took office in January, 2009.  Well done, Mr. President!

This is The Obama Factor.  It’s a phenomenon, a statistical trend, and a chart we should all demand to see every time the state-controlled DMC reports the usual unemployment rate statistic.  If the DMC doesn’t oblige, continuing the malpractice of what it still calls “journalism”, you can find the chart at this link.

So …

Do Obama’s re-election prospects get worse as the LFP rate continues to fall?  One might think so, but the answer is No.  Perversely, his prospects actually get better!  There are two reasons:

First, all those newly unemployed people are prime candidates to become new Obama model-citizens.  He convinces them they are victims of the vilified “1%”, he offers them extended unemployment benefits with more borrowed money, and, with high confidence, he chalks them up as Obama-voters come election time.

Second, once these folks say they are no longer looking for work, they no longer count as “unemployed”.  Consequently, they contribute to a drop in the commonly reported unemployment statistic.

This is terrific news for Obama — a double win — as long as voters remain stone-cold ignorant of The Obama Factor.

As an aside, if you are an Obama believer who is currently unemployed but still looking for work, you could help the president’s “job numbers” if you would just stop looking for work two to three months before the election.  If only half of the unemployed-but-still-looking would do that, the official unemployment rate would drop to between 4% and 5% just before the election.  Wouldn’t that make a great campaign talking point for your beloved leader?

But I digress.

If Democrats/Progressives manage to re-elect Obama, The Obama Factor trend will continue — possibly accelerating.  One day soon there will be so many takers that they can out-vote, out-shout, and out-threaten the makers.  As the takers demand more and more, the makers produce less and less as they lose their remaining incentive to generate new jobs, products, services, and income only to see it confiscated.  Eventually, many of them go on a virtual “strike” as the industrialists did in Ayn Rand’s newly relevant novel Atlas Shrugged.  Soon thereafter, the Democrats/Progressives run out of other people’s money, borrowing power, and resources.

There will then follow some combination of rationing, civil unrest, martial law, tyranny, and virtual slavery to The State. The only alternative will be starvation or imprisonment in The State’s prisons and gulags.  It has happened many times in many places.  WesternFreePress.com recently interviewed three direct eye witnesses (here, here, and here).

Preposterous you say?  Such a disaster could never happen here?  Stick around.  It’s on its way (before 2027) unless we act to stop it.  And Obama recently laid more critical groundwork for this nightmare with his stealthy signature of the National Defense Authorization Act.  That law gives him dictatorial powers over American citizens when and if he chooses.  These powers violate (at a minimum) the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in the Constitution.  But Obama has told us not to worry because he won’t use those powers unless he really has to.  Small comfort.

This November, we have one last solid chance to reverse The Obama Factor, turn the economy around, and restore Constitutionally protected freedoms.  Here’s hoping we score an electoral victory large enough to effect those changes as well as overcome the Left’s continuing attempts to commit vote fraud.

As one of the Republican candidates for President has said, the 2012 election is the most important US election since 1860.  Those who again fall for Obama’s rhetoric, voting for him again despite his record, must share responsibility for the all-but-certain national mega-disaster that is headed our way.

Guest Opinion: Has Raul Grijalva Finally Met His Match?

By Andy Kirchoff

It’s time for another round of America’s favorite political quiz game, “Who’s that Politician?”

Blanca GuerraFor 100 points and a trip to Arizona: “This Grand Canyon State resident was one of 31 congressmen to vote to refuse to certify Ohio election results in 2004, and in 2008 was rated the most liberal congressman in the country by the National Journal. He even co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN).”

The correct answer is Rep. Raul Grijalva (minus 100 point for anyone who answered Gabrielle Giffords. She’s far more moderate in both her politics and persona). In spite of this deeply liberal worldview (and voting record to match), he has handily won re-election in his D+6 District since his first foray into Congress back in 2002. There are various reasons for his electoral success. I would speculate that part of his success is simply due to his visible contrast to the rest of the Arizona political class. In a political climate defined by the politics of immigration restriction, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is an anomaly. Rather than embrace the “stand with Arizona” motto of the tea party, he opted to organize a “big-business” boycott of the very state he represents in Congress. When SB1070 author and now former State Senator Russell Pearce (R-AZ) was pandering to neonazis and racists, Grijalva was organizing for the pro-reconquista group MEChA. If nothing else, Grijalva has been the voice of the disaffected fringe left of Arizona – such political posturing is bound to attract some political support, even as it alienates other potential allies.

A more likely (admittedly partial) explanation of Grijalva’s political success is his strong support from Veteran’s Groups. His record on veteran’s issues is indeed very commendable; he’s filed and/or supported many bills on behalf of Veterans over the years, including the popular REVAMP Act, a bill designed to repair crumbling Veteran’s facilities. Certainly, focusing constituent services on veteran’s assistance is a praiseworthy trait. Alas, “one-issue” voters do not a Republic make, and Grijalva’s attention to this issue can’t conceal his far left-of-center beliefs on other issues.

Enter Blanca Guerra, Arizona co-leader of Café Con Leche Republicans. She’s pro-immigration reform, but doesn’t embrace Rep. Grijalva’s economic extremism. She’s socially conservative with private sector experience and business acumen. She’s even able to neutralize Grijalva’s pro-veteran bona fides, as Blanca is a veteran of the United States Air Force. Grijalva’s renown and the overall partisan nature of the 7th CD will certainly be difficult to overcome. Nonetheless, Grijalva’s intemperate and ill-fated response to SB1070, when combined with his virulently left-wing ideology, could allow a Republican the opportunity to oust him from his seat. Needless to say, we’re very proud of Blanca here at CCLR, and we’d love nothing more than to see Blanca’s campaign send shockwaves throughout the Arizona political establishment. Here’s your chance, Arizona GOPers: let’s give Blanca the support she needs to win this thing!

Arizona TARS Double Membership in 2012

Arizona TARS Double Membership in 2012

Dissatisfaction With Economic and Jobs Outlook Under President Barrack Obama a Driving Influence

Phoenix, AZ, March 19, 2012: Arizona Federation of Teen Age Republicans (AZ TARS) has had over a 90% increase in membership over the past year. The Organization has also seen a large increase in the number of student run Clubs chartered this year as well, touting a 100% increase in the last 6 months. Most new members and clubs registered have been due to the increasing unpopularity in Arizona of President Barrack Obama and his policies that affect teens.

“Young adults are among one of the Nation’s most unemployed demographics and are keenly aware of the hardships their families are seeing due to the lagging economy”, Executive Director of AZ TARS, Dusti Martin said. She also noted that, “These students are motivated. They are dissatisfied with the current Administration and its agenda and they are determined to make a difference. We have not seen a membership increase like this in Arizona in over a decade.”

Arizona TARS was started in the 1970′s by State Adviser Lois J. Fitch to educate and involve students in their local, state and national civic processes. The National Teenage Republicans was started 10 years earlier in the 1960′s and is also seeing a dramatic increase across the nation. Notable former AZ TARS include Congressman David Schweikert and former State Treasurer Dean Martin as well as many other locally elected officials.

###

The Tail Wagging the Dog; Same-Sex Couples in Arizona

Population of Arizona?   6,392,017 souls or approximately 11 people per acre when spread out over the entire state.

Number of husband and wife households in Arizona?    The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 1.15 million husband and wife households in Arizona.   Number of same-sex households in Arizona?   The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 21,000 same-sex couples in Arizona.

So how does that work out?  About 1.83% of couples identified in Arizona by the U.S. Census Bureau are same-sex.  Think about that.  What does that figure suggest for the overall GLBT population of Arizona?  Even being generous and posting that figure at 3% still only yields less than a single legislative district (there are 30 of those).

So what prompted this article?  The fact that in spite of numbers so statistically small, the Associated Press, FoxNews Phoenix, ABC15, and the Arizona Daily Star actually expended time and space reporting this minor factoid.  And, I’ll bet this isn’t over.  By the end of the news-day today several more of Arizona’s MSM will have carried the same story.  And by the end of the week, they’ll be editorials, commentary (like this one) to fill a book!

Why?  How is a small stadium (about the size of Chase Field) of people among so many more millions a “news story”?  How about how many children have a father living in the same household or how many female veterans are homeless in our state?  Priorities.  What’s important.  That’s what the media reports.  If they are simply keeping score then the numbers aren’t encouraging and perhaps don’t warrant the amount of attention given to GLBT issues in the media.

Are they a viable component of Arizona’s population?  Absolutely.  Do they receive more than their share of attention and political clout disproportionate to their numbers?  Absolutely.  In our state today aren’t there more important issues to address such as the growing influence of Chinese investment in U.S. resources?

And of course, maybe we should be paying attention to that whole Debt-Ceiling issue now raging in Washington.  After all, $0.40 of each dollar spent by the federal government daily is borrowed.  How sustainable is that?

(picture courtesy of the website Global Cocktails)

 The point?

There are more important issues today than tracking same-sex couples, so why does the media expend the energy on this issue?  How much energy and capital is expended on the GLBT community in Arizona and why given what a small segment of the overall population they truly are.

 

 

Lessons from the Ruins of Detroit

Devastating photos of the once booming American city Detroit, Michigan were brought to my attention yesterday. Watch this video as photographers Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre reveal the Ruins of Detroit.

YouTube Preview Image

What would lead to such devastating outcomes? I would argue several factors.

1. Industrial Exodus: Probably the most dramatic and immediate factor for the decline as major companies either went out of business or packed up operations and moved to more favorable business climates. One thing I cannot document without detailed research is whether the companies moved to other states or oversees altogether. I would presume that the majority of these companies moved to southeast Asia where labor is cheaper.

2. Impact of Unions: Most likely the rising influence of unions over the last few decades probably led to an increase in the cost of doing business. This probably forced these companies to relocate to right-to-work states or oversees where labor is cheaper.

3. Increase in Corporate Tax Rates: Another indirect result of raising taxes on Michigan-based companies, the cost of doing business increased on these companies which led to their demise or departure to more tax-friendly business climates.

4. Decline of an Ownership Society: As government and business interests conflicted, more people lost their jobs and ended up dependent on government to survive. With no personal investment in owning property, the result is no pride in ownership.

5. Inherently Doomed Public Education System: a union-controlled public education system with a voracious appetite for a rapidly declining tax base and no desire to be innovative is probably the major reason for a population of individuals who lack even basic math and reading skills. (I’d like to see how the private schools are doing in comparison.)

Now it’s your turn. I’d love to read other’s thoughts and comments about what happened in Detroit and especially how Arizona is different in the factors I’ve mentioned.

The ‘A-B-C’ Republican team from LD-5 arrives at the Arizona Legislature!

Rural Arizona can be proud of several legislative teams now serving in the Arizona Legislature. One particular newly-elected triad arrived this last Monday from Eastern Arizona and was welcomed by constituents from across their district.

LD-5 ABC TeamSenator Sylvia Allen (re-elected) and newcomers Representatives Brenda Barton and Chester Crandall conducted their own lunchtime gathering on the House lawn immediately following the Governor’s State of the State address. With food (Malachi Meats) specially brought in and served for the occasion, the Legislative District 5 Republican team entertained supporters from across their district.

One of the larger legislative districts in Arizona, LD-5 covers a significant portion of Eastern Arizona including Navajo, Apache, Gila, Greenlee and Graham Counties. Constituents made the trek from as far as Winslow, Concho, Morenci and Safford to have lunch and show their support for the new Republican team. (In the past, LD-5 have has a mix of conservative Democratic and Republican teams representing it.)

Sally Nabor, a resident and community activist, drove from Morenci to lend her support for the team. Nabor, who has lived throughout the district, was the first female truck driver for mining company, Phelps Dodge. Now she works in the community and spends her summers as a camp host in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Sally has been involved in politics for years and even served a term as President of Flagstaff Republican Women. These days, she’s considering a run for her county board of supervisors.

LD-5 LunchShirley Dye, made the relatively shorter drive from Payson. Also a political activist, Shirley serves in several capacities including on the board of the Rim Country GOP and Payson TEA Party. During the event, she welcomed the A-B-C team and noted the many things her organizations are doing to win conservative voters.

Globe-Miami was also well represented by Pamela Burruel who actually resides near Roosevelt Lake. Pamela has been hard at work registering Republicans as the President of the Cobre Valley Republicans Club. During the last election cycle, this conservative champion traveled throughout Gila County to get Allen-Barton-Crandall the votes they needed.

The small town of Concho was even represented by Republican Barry Weller, another Republican outstanding in his community. Weller a former Navy nuclear operator, is especially interested in Arizona’s energy and utility policies. He attended the entire day’s event not only to support his legislators but also to talk energy policy with other elected officials.

During the gathering, Sonoran Alliance spoke with Representative Barton and Senator Allen. When asked what they thought would be the most important legislative issue this session, they both agreed that the State budget would dominate all legislative priorities.

Representative Brenda Barton & Sally NaborBarton, stressed the critical situation of our current demand on resources and services. “We simply don’t have enough money to meet every need,” she explained. “This will be a tough time for everyone as we make cuts all around.”

Asked about her legislative priorities, Representative Barton listed the budget, taxes and regulations as her top goals. “We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses to recover and start hiring people again,” she said.

Barton also pledged to represent rural Arizona as her secondary set of goals.

Senator Sylvia Allen agreed with Barton’s assessment on the state budget. “Taxes and regulation on businesses need to be addressed in order to start moving the economy forward again,” she said. “We need to attract new business and protect existing business if we want to jump start this economy. Reducing taxes and regulation are a good place to start,” Allen asserted. The second term senator also recommended appealing to California business to relocate to Arizona instead of leapfrogging to Texas.

Other legislative priorities for Senator Allen include reestablishing a balance between federalism and state sovereignty and allowing the State of Arizona to use its own resources without heavy-handed federal regulations.

Senator Sylvia AllenMonday’s event also marked an important turn for the Republican party in rural Arizona. The Fifth Legislative District has not had three Republicans represent the district since redistricting occurred in 2001 nor prior to that. And the 2010 election cycle also saw changes occur in other rural districts such as LD 23 and 25 where Republicans had a clean sweep.

If rural Arizona politics are becoming more Republican in recent elections, then LD-5 is a good example of the conservative leadership rising from within the district. The legislative triad of Allen, Barton and Crandall represent such conservative values and the voters who elected them have sent a message that rural Arizona will be heard and effective.

DID CENSUS BUREAU DELIBERATELY DISTORT ARIZONA’S CENSUS DATA?

          There was much fanfare this week as the Census Bureau unveiled the official Census figures before the end of the year, as required by law. Everyone here in Arizona was paying particularly close attention.  There was certainty that Arizona would pick up one legislative seat to nine, and who knows perhaps a 10th?

          Of course, as has been well detailed, there was a slowdown in settlement here in Arizona by illegal aliens after the 2004 proposition requiring employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens and requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. This law perhaps single handedly derailed any opportunity, in fact most certainly prevented Arizona from picking up two additional seats instead of just one.

          What can’t be explained however, is the incredible drop in population from the July 2009 estimates from the US Census Bureau when contrasted with the Official Census as of April 1, 2010; the figures that were just released this week.  Here are the gory details:

          According to Quick Facts, Arizona’s estimated July 2009 population was 6,595,778. The population change was 28.6%, a very healthy increase.  HOWEVER, the “Official” Census figures showed Arizona’s population on April 1st this year to be only 6,392,017!  This is a precipitous drop of over 203,000 people in Arizona, and only a 24.6% change from 2000!  Now when you compare the difference for any other state in our region, or across the country, no other state had any population drop! Oops! The exception is Michigan, which did show a loss of 83 thousand people in the same time. That’s not surprising, since the auto industry has been demolished by the Obama and the Unions. Now just NW of Arizona in Nevada, the fastest growing state in the nation; in spite of the Nation’s highest unemployment rate at 14.3% STILL gained 57 thousand people in this same time that Arizona lost.  The facts don’t lie, so WHY would there be such a change? Don’t take my word for it look at the websites and compare the figures for yourself.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/index.php     http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

          Well, obviously the answer is wrapped around the most significant legislation in 2010, SB1070, which required the state police departments and County sheriff’s offices, to verify identity and citizenship of anyone who is stopped for some other violation.  Certainly this legislation pushed the Illegal Immigration battle to the forefront of the National debate.  However, the Legislature did NOT EVEN PASS the law until April 19th and the governor signed it on April 23rd! So IF the Census bureau figures are based on April 1st population and they show such a huge drop in population BEFORE April first, ISN’T it the cruelest of April Fool’s jokes?

          Now, WHO would EVER question the integrity of the Census Bureau? Well let me remind you of one crucial fact: The Obama administration took the control of the Census away from the Commerce Department, moving it to the White House.  So I ask, WHO would EVER question the integrity of the White House!!??

          Yes, there were recent news reports that we’d lose population due to SB1070, perhaps as much as 100K  (Many in Arizona might say, ’Good Riddance!’).  But 200K? And BEFORE the bill even passed? Give me a Break!  Why should we trust a bureaucracy and the Political Party that encourages IRS to investigate Non-Profits who oppose abortion, and prosecutes actors while ignoring the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner? This is the administration that is ready to hire over 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the Health Care bill, threatens to shut down the Internet and demands that Fox News and Glenn Beck to be silenced. Why WOULD we trust anything they tell us?

          SO, while we were indeed in the hunt for that elusive tenth Congressional seat, perhaps even passing Washington, and having indeed passed Massachusetts and Indiana in population; this White House controlled Census now shows us losing 203K in nine short months. All BEFORE SB1070 became law. Who woulda thunk it!?

A Tale of Two Headlines

Conflicting headlines today in two local new sources:

“Hispanic buying power hits $34B in Arizona.” This appears in the Phoenix Business Journal written by Lynn Ducey and details the influence of the Hispanic community in Arizona.

The second headline is from The Arizona Capitol Times: “Latinos face cultural, structural barriers in building wealth.” Written by Alyssa Newcomb, this article details the financial barriers and hardship of Latinos seeking to save and build wealth.

The first article touts how the Hispanic community is growing in influence among the business community:

“What this shows is that we not only matter, but we matter more every day,” said Hispanic Chamber Interim President and CEO, Gonzalo de la Melena.

The later article bemoans the difficulties Hispanics face in the financial services industry due to citizenship, culture and language barriers. Here’s a quote from that article:

According to a Filene Research Institute report by Barbara Robles, a former Arizona State University professor who is now a senior researcher for the Federal Reserve System, the gaps on a series of median financial indicators continues to widen as the population ages.

The sharp divide between the net worth of Latinos and the rest of the population creates a group that is poorly equipped to deal with emergencies or retirement. Robles’ report says that for every dollar of non-Hispanic white net worth, Latinos hold only 40 cents.

The Real Reasons Behind Washington’s Attack on Arizona’s 1070

The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot – we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population. 

Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995

Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.

“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”   — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” – Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997

“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).

Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:

Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]

Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin.  [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that's keeping that country stable?]

Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]

Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]

In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006″ specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined.  Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details.  To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency.  These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil.  This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise.   In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)

In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

Now does it all make more sense?  Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona?  Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?

And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate?  Is it beginning to make some sense?  Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.


Voting was never a root canal

Emil FranziOnce again Oro Valley is conducting a mail-in election. And once again I will tell you why the concept is fundamentally wrong.

It makes voting easier? Check Iraq or Afghanistan or lots of other places trying to build democratic regimes where they still shoot at you for making the attempt. Voting was pretty damn easy here for quite a while.

My liberal Democrat radio co-host Tom Danehy, who shares my opinion on this subject, reminds us of a news clip from a Philippine election in which an official with a ballot box is being chased by a group of thugs. Not shown is the part where they succeeded and killed him. I witnessed a few years back huge lines in Rocky Point when they were holding something unusual in Mexico – a real election. People wanted to be part of it.

We had it pretty soft. Having to actually leave home and go to a safe polling place isn’t exactly a root canal.

Voting by mail does make it easier – for the election bureaucracy. They prefer to use the money involved to hire a few more permanent employees rather than go through the hassle (for them) of using Election Day temps.

The costs involved are clearly increased in some areas (postage) and decreased in others (poll workers), but that should never be a deciding factor. Ahead of even cops, courts and armies, choosing who’s in charge is the first and most primary duty of government.

At-home voting destroys the secret ballot. Why do you think we have those little booths and curtains? So husbands can’t muscle wives or wives husbands. Mailing out ballots is an invitation to cajole by anyone from the family patriarch and union boss to your mama.

It’s also quite obviously a fraud magnet. Why the same Republicans who are convinced thousands of illegal aliens are voting at the polls are ignoring a system that eliminates their having to go there to do it is beyond me. I recognize that most voting systems are legit, but it doesn’t take much dog barf to ruin an otherwise great burger.

While supposedly being in the best interest of individual voters, the at home ballot can screw them in two ways by returning it too early or returning it too late.

Return it too early and you may learn something that would’ve changed your mind about a candidate or an issue. The elimination of late information was sold as a virtue by advocates of early voting because it would eliminate last-minute smears. It also eliminates last-minute facts. Which is why many folks hold onto their ballot until the last minute.

Only return it too late and it doesn’t count. One stat I have never seen election officials produce is how many ballots get tossed every time for late delivery.

But my greatest complaint is that the entire concept (beyond taking care of the ballots of those physically unable to get to a polling place including those who are out of town) is totally demeaning to the election process.

What advocates are really saying is “we recognize this voting thing is really not important to you. You’re right — it’s no big deal. We want to make it so easy it won’t inconvenience you at all.” Turnout is not increased by telling people voting is not worth much effort.

Election days used to be local and national events. They were part of that Norman Rockwell kind of glue that helped hold the country and its culture together. To eliminate them is to eliminate one more part of what made America a great nation.

THEY’RE OBSESSED

A few days ago I posted a piece (CELEBRATION, ANYONE?) that featured the following paragraph:

“Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.”

The Census Bureau provides for us another example of the “Liberal policy-makers and administrators” that I wrote about in that paragraph. Question #8 of the 2010 census form asks: “Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” If the answer is ‘yes’ there are several boxes for you choose from that identify the specific type of “Hispanic” that you are. Among the selections are “Mexican”, “Mexican Am.”, “Chicano” (Does anyone know which country “Chicanos” come from?), “Puerto Rican” and “Cuban”. By the way, can someone explain to me what the difference is between a “Mexican” and a “Mexican Am.”?

If you answer ‘no’ to question #8 question #9 then, allows you to declare what race you are. A few of the options include “White”, “Black”, “African Am.”, “Negro”, “American Indian”, “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Filipino”, “Vietnamese” etc. Apparently none of these groups was special enough to merit a whole question just about them—they had to be lumped in with the “White” people. Let the healing begin!

The concept of being judged not be the color your skin but by the content of your character was a fundamental component of the Civil Rights movement that I once supported but, it is not a component of modern Liberal philosophy. Liberals are obsessed with race and skin color. I wouldn’t mind their obsession if they quietly kept it to themselves but, they keep forcing it on the rest of us. They’re not interested in simple equal protection of the law for all people. Instead, they want to engage in social engineering by redistributing wealth and bestowing rewards and preferences on some groups based upon their victim status and voting value to Liberal politicians.

If Liberals were really ‘liberal’ in the true meaning of the word they’d quit asking the rest of us intrusive and insulting questions that keep the nation racially divided. Leave us alone!

CELEBRATION, ANYONE?

Whew! Black History Month ended just in time to give Americans—exhausted from a month of vigorous celebrating—time to recover. Promoters of Brown History Month, Yellow History Month, Red History Month, White History Month and Green History Month will continue to have to wait for a month of their own. There was a time when we celebrated the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in February but Liberals put an end to that (be warned, they’re still working on exterminating Christmas). I wonder what Barack Obama does during Black History Month—since he’s only half black maybe he only celebrates half the month?

Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.

While we’re on the subject of needless celebrations maybe it’s time we resurrect one of the ancient celebrations and replace Black History Month with it. The Romans had some exciting ones to pick from and none of them have yet been ruined by Liberals. We could have it in February and best of all, all Americans could participate—not just the preferred few.

Sonoran Alliance on Sunday Square-Off!

Sonoran Alliance was featured on this Sunday’s edition of 12 News’ Sunday Square-Off. That’s right, yours truly made my debut appearance on the show in which I had the opportunity to represent conservative Arizona bloggers and activists.

Brahm Resnik hosts this weekly show which is always fast-paced and quick thinking. My two co-guests were Katie Hobbs from the liberal blog, Democratic Diva as well as a Democratic candidate in LD-15, and Casey Newton from the Arizona Republic. The show will actually not show tomorrow morning because it is being pre-empted by another show but you can view it online right here on Sonoran Alliance.

The Scott heard ’round the world – Even here in Arizona!

The insurgency against “fundamentally changing America” has begun!

With the victory tonight in Massachusetts, the “Progressive’s” effort to “fundamentally” socialize America has been derailed!

Democrats (and even incumbents) across the country need to be very afraid as conservatives and independent voters who are now leaning right of center, are out for “political blood.”

Here in Arizona, even our own incumbent Republicans should not take it for granted that they are in good favor with the voters. Governor Brewer should expect to face an extremely difficult primary by challenger John Munger and man on a mission, Dean Martin, who has been warning for over a year of the impending Arizona budget doom.

Democrats in supposedly “safe” districts should now take heed as insurgent-backed conservative candidates like Ruth McClung and Janet Contreras wage ground-level campaigns against incumbents, ultra-liberal Raul Grijalva, and deeply submerged, Ed Pastor. The best and most tangible consequence of the Massachusetts miracle would be for both these women to receive the full-fledged support of tea party activists and anyone intolerable of the status quo.

Kirkpatrick, Mitchell and Giffords can also expect the same type of beating from whoever wins the GOP primaries in their districts.

If fiction can become cold hard reality in a place like Massachusetts – the bluest of blue states in the union – it can even happen in Arizona’s purple districts.

Finally, Senator McCain should not take it for granted that “this is his time” despite his best efforts to give the perception he is leading the charge. This is no longer his battle. This is the people’s battle now – those who have tirelessly worked, protested and waited for battleground days as today. The people want fresher angrier people from among their midst to wage this war of ideas. Old warriors step aside. New warriors have arrived and it is their time.

Aborting and Importing – Is Immigration the Replacement for Native Born Population?

Where has the color blind society gone?

Where has the color blind society gone?

WASHINGTON — The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jO8jbAnwaP-wLfs93UGI-l_-llMgD9CKM8VG0

It was once said, by the losing side of the last major debate over immigration,  ‘… they who control a nation’s immigration policy control the future of that nation.’

That was said in 1924 just prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924.   Many are unaware that in the nearly two decades leading up to this legislation , the issue of immigration had been building to a crescendo of national passion and debate.  So what’s changed?

Consider carefully the policies, cultural practices, religious orientation, and achievements of the United States prior to the last huge wave of population migration onto our shores.  This flood of humanity, many responding to the words on the Statue of Liberty, lasted for just a bit more than one generation, about 30 years.

During that time our population grew dramatically and peoples mostly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region fled oppression and  sought new political expression within our borders.  Certainly they did not assimilate immediately.  However, its been now about three generations and look at the changes in our policies, cultural practices, religious orientation and society today.  The wave of immigration shown in this chart certainly changed America.

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagans limited amnesty program in the 1980s

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagan's limited amnesty program in the 1980's

Now consider the abortion chart below (provided courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Abortions in the US since RvW

This graph is a link to source.

There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.

Conservative immigration statistics; the impact on population however is culmutive

This graph is a link to original

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Unlike any culture in history, we are aborting our children.  Have we bought into the Self-Hate so much that we are committing a protracted national and cultural suicide?

America can you handle the CHANGE?  You’ll have to.  Consider once again that we are aborting our native born population and importing their replacements.  The numbers speak for themselves.

Presently the Department of Homeland Security estimates the population of individuals residing within the United States now to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million souls.  This does not include children of undocumented residents.  They are counted as legal citizens under a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.

A glimpse of the past is necessary once again here.  In 1964 the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, and under Republican President Richard Nixon the first Affirmative Action programs were instituted in 1971.  There are 2 cases ruled by the SCOTUS that directly shaped the outcome of these actions;   Griggs v. Duke Power Company in 1971 and  the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 in which a minority student was admitted to the university’s medical school with a C+ undergraduate grade average over a non-minority student who held an A- undergraduate GPA.

The entire point of this trip down memory lane is to understand where we are as a people today.  To understand why the Associate Press in conjunction with other mainstream media chose to highlight the story that is linked to in the opening paragraph of this blog.  Why does it matter when the whites become a minority?  If we are moving towards a color blind society, it should not.  Yet there it was in big headlines on Yahoo.

Please understand, Veritas is not really concerned about daily life in the North American Union much after 2040.   For me the point is moot.   My hope is to bequeath to posterity an  independent, sovereign and color blind United States in which the innocent unborn native population will realize the American Dream.   Unchecked immigration is no substitute for a healthy birthrate.

Really think about it.  Has immigration become a substitute for a natural birth rate?  And consider the impacts of a generation of immigration, remembering the first huge wave of immigration from Eastern Europe and the changes it has wrought in all sectors of our society and has influenced our view of government and society.

So what might the United States look like in 3 generations following the mid-1980s, or a decade before there is no more ethnic majority?  And what cultural, political and religious changes will their posterity on our shores bring?    Here are the sources for the look of the future.

Country of Origin (January 2006)

Mexico 6,840,000 57%
Latin & Central Amer. 3,000,000 24%
Asia 1,080,000 9%
Europe + Canada 720,000 6%
Rest of World 480,000 4%

Tucson airport scraps use of racial preferences in contracting

by Mark Flatten
Goldwater Institute
 
The operators of Tucson International Airport have scrapped the use of racial preferences in awarding concession contracts. That is in sharp contrast to efforts by the City of Phoenix to preserve race-based programs at Sky Harbor International Airport.
 
The Goldwater Institute reported in October that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program at Sky Harbor has allowed lucrative airport concession leases to go to a small group of political insiders. The owners of companies deemed “disadvantaged” are often little more than a name on the lease, brought in to meet requirements for participation by minority and woman-owned businesses that are set by Sky Harbor officials.

Among the biggest beneficiaries of the program at Sky Harbor is Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, owner of a DBE-certified business which is part owner of a Chili’s restaurant franchise in Terminal 4.

Airport operators in both Phoenix and Tucson suspended their use of “race-conscious” methods after a 2005 federal court ruling required detailed disparity studies to justify using race as a factor in awarding concession contracts. If airport operators cannot meet their goals through race-neutral means, they can resort to “race-conscious” preferences based on race and gender, if they can prove those methods are necessary to offset the effects of discrimination.

Even though Tucson did not attempt to preserve the preference program it had been using before the court ruling, it still has a goal that 16 percent of airport concession sales will be attributed to firms owned by minorities and women. But airport operators will achieve that goal without resorting to preferences that take race or gender into account, according to Paula Winn, spokeswoman for the airport authority.

Phoenix, on the other hand, has gone to great expense to justify the preference program at Sky Harbor. Phoenix officials commissioned a disparity study in 2007 that to-date has cost taxpayers more than $600,000. The study results are due in December. While the study has been underway, Phoenix extended leases issued while race and gender preferences were in effect.

Regardless of the study results, on the 2010 election ballot Arizona voters will have their say in whether or not government offices can use race and gender preferences in contracting.
 
Mark Flatten is an investigative reporter for the Goldwater Institute.

Demographics no excuse for Arizona’s dismal test scores

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
I received the following question after last week’s article explained that (once again) Arizona scored below the national average on the Nation’s Report Card, this time in Math: 
 
Do these test scores take into consideration the massive influx of students who do not speak English and who do poorly on tests?
 
Before I break the data down by ethnicity and other student groups, I want to note that the JLBC reveals that total inflation adjusted spending per pupil increased by more than 20 percent between fiscal year 2000 and 2009 alone.
 
Ok, buckle up for a ride through the scores, it is going to get rough.

  • In 1992, white Arizona students scored 2 points below the national average of white students; in 2009 they scored 5 points below the national average. Five points represents about half a grade’s worth of learning. Essentially, white students in Arizona are about half a grade behind white students nationally.
  • Arizona’s African American students scored 6 points ahead of the national average for African Americans in 1992. In 2009, they tied the African American national average.
  • In 2003, Arizona’s Asian students scored 2 points below the national average for Asian students. In 2009 they scored 10 points below their national peers, or a full grade level behind. Over the course of this decade, Arizona’s American Indians doubled their learning gap from 5 to 10 points, and are now also a full grade behind other American Indians.
  • In 2000, Arizona’s ELL population scored 4 points below the national average, but in 2009 they scored 17 points below the national average. Immigration obviously played a role. But, if you examine the trend for non-ELL students you find that they scored 4 points behind the national average in 2000, but 7 points behind in 2009.

Some of the gaps grew larger while scores actually improved, but the overall trend is unmistakable: Arizona isn’t keeping pace for any student ethnic subgroup. Are demographics a challenge? Yes. But they are no excuse.
 
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.