America is great because it is free
Over two hundred years ago, our Founding Fathers crafted the Declaration of Independence in the middle of Philadelphia’s oppressive summer heat.
This document, revolutionary for its time, stated that whenever a government “becomes destructive… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
Our Founders’ courageous move to distance themselves from a demanding, overpowering government put their lives and fortunes at risk.
But while their battle for freedom may have been fought in 1776, the battle to keep that freedom still continues.
These days, it often feels as if we are fighting shadows of the same autocracy our Founding Fathers fought to free our states from - an overreaching government.
It may no longer be tea taxes and quartering acts, but we certainly still see heavy-handed government smothering our states with oppressive regulations and a Washington-knows-best attitude.
The increasing taxes, debt, and regulations levied by Washington have increased government control in our everyday lives and slowly sapped us of our civil liberties.
Washington has run amuck, taking our freedoms with it.
America is great because we are free. And the brilliance of our founding documents enshrine these freedoms for each and every one of us.
This is why we must take seriously any assault on these documents as an affront to our liberties. This is why we must demand our leaders set a higher standard of fidelity to the Constitution, not excuses from it.
This Independence Day, as we celebrate our freedoms and count our blessings, we must also realize that our fight still continues.
As President Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Rep. David Schweikert
Blink EV stations
Mr. Sorchych, as if Creekers weren't paying enough to subsidize elite non-taxpayers by keeping the Rural/Metro stations open 100% of the time just in case the elite “might need their services,” now we find we have to pay taxes to subsidize energy costs used by our local "Ego (excuse me, Eco)-tists” to power their "green" vehicles.
One question I never see addressed: If we don't use oil/gas/nuclear power, how is the electricity to be generated for such vehicles? (Please don't suggest hydropower from the lower Colorado river.)
Here's a question for those who don't subscribe to Rural/Metro: Is your insurer aware that you don't?
L. J. Rupp
Cave Creek
Is there politics in the Supreme Court?
The decision of the Supreme Court, regarding Arizona trying to defend itself from foreign attack, smacks of political pressure. It is my, over the top, thought that Obama insisted on this victory or else the mandatory aspect of Obamacare would stand. I think that Justice Roberts felt that the repeal of mandatory health insurance was more important than Arizona's right to protect its borders. I would love to subpoena all of the Justices to find out how much of their decision making relates to the U.S. Constitution and how much is determined by loyal liberals doing the bidding of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Sincerely,
Joseph DuPont
Towanda, Pennsylvania
Editor Note: How shocked we all were when Justice Roberts’ vote allowed the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare by interpreting the individual mandate as a tax.
The importance of the birth certificate
“Birthers” are being misled.
To be eligible to be President of the United States it doesn’t matter where you were born. It could be in a station in Korea, Germany or on an airplane over an ocean.
Senator John McCain was born in Panama. His mother and father were American citizens.
A natural born citizen is meant to be a second generation American citizen. The point is, presidents would not still hold some allegiance to a country other than America.
Example: Chester Alan Arthur. Born October 5, 1830. Place of birth reputedly Fairfield, Vermont. Note: He was probably born in Canada, but since his parents were U.S. citizens, his eligibility for the office of President was not challenged.
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana has Indian born parents. Florida Senator Marco Rubio has Cuban born parents. Obama has a Kenyan born father. When Jindal, Rubio and Obama were born, were both parents citizens? Parents can’t pass on citizenship if they don’t have it.
Natural born citizen is the big question here. See the natural born section on protectourliberty.org.
Sonni Hunt
Payson
A new paradigm
Don, the more than 10 million illegal Mexican immigrants have become the new modern day slaves. Slaves to a new group of slave masters (Democrat and Republican politicians, business owners and corrupt election officials). The illegals have now become dependent on these slave masters for their existence and slave wages. Unfortunately, the American taxpayer is now stuck holding the medical, education and social costs of these illegal slaves.
Denny Thompson
Email
Spite on Question 1 failure
The following article in the "Scottsdale Republic" by one of the leaders on Question 1 indicates this person now wants to scuttle the current arrangement by what appears to be a dirty trick, namely calling for current Cave Creek subscribers to unsubscribe. Shows how fair minded and democratic the original supporters of the issue were in the first place.
Bruce Fulmer
Carefree
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ScottsdaleRepLetters/163414
Financial conscription
No one is going to voluntarily gift their fortune to the federal government, so why doesn't Warren Buffet quit carping about not paying enough taxes and pony up? Because, he doesn't believe it any more than you do. All elitists believe in taxing you while their unspoken personal philosophy is closer to that of the TEA Party; taxed enough already! However, at every turn the federal government seeks and finds a new entry into our wallets; mostly to buy reelection votes.
With his most recent executive order Lord Obama has saddled us with billions of dollars in entitlement expenses paid to support education, health care, housing, transportation and welfare costs of millions of un-deportable illegals. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not agree with this policy; nor do they choose to burden themselves with its cost. Obama's concern is not with the taxpayer, but with reelection.
Justice Roberts snuggled up to the high court’s Socialist block of activists to craft a ruling pursuant to a predetermined objective. If the "Affordable" Health Care bill is allow to stand it will cripple the American economy for generations. We taxpayers and our posterity, will be shackled with financial conscription into infinity.
Randy Edwards
Cave Creek
Fixing U.S. economy
In the June 26 issue of Mohave Valley Daily News was the article “POLL: No one likely to fix U.S. economy.” I think the POLL is right! Why? Because too few politicians recognize the monetary policy established by the privately owned, deceitfully named bank called the Federal Reserve System (FED) requiring we use monetized debt as our medium of exchange is unconstitutional, mathematically unstable, ungodly, and designed to enslave us. The few who do recognize it lack the courage and integrity to try to return our monetary policy to that called for by the Constitution.
What is this policy you ask? In the words of the Department of Treasury it’s this: “The actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks.”
That is, we have no money in America which by definition must be a “storehouse” of value; only instruments of debt called Federal Reserve Notes (look in your wallet) as a medium of exchange! So where are we to get the “money” to pay the interest on this debt? The Department of Treasury responded by saying: “money to pay the interest on borrowed money comes from the same source other money comes from.” Our debt must grow exponentially!
Clearly, the only possible outcome of this policy is for the few families who own the FED to eventually hold title to ALL real wealth of their choice, a mortgage on the remainder, and a claim on all future production. Being a gambler, I’ll wager $100 to $10 that Obama, Romney, nor any of our elected officials will help “fix” this policy destroying our economy.
Insanity is repeating a process and expecting a different result! Clearly, voters should stop electing any incumbent if they want to “fix the U.S. economy.”
Walter Myers
Bullhead City
Corporation Commission does not need bipartisan effort
In a recent editorial, Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman echoes the nauseatingly typical cry for a “bipartisan effort” with respect to subsidies for solar. For those who do not spend their lives in political activities, you need to know that those who call for a “bipartisan effort” always do so in the name of more government spending or some new government program. Neanderthal conservatives like me are admonished to get in line and authorize more spending of other people’s money. In Newman’s case he is decrying the reduction in spending for the solar rebate program.
Solar subsidies are one of the biggest boondoggles in government today. The waste of taxpayer money is never ending. In my Air Force career we used to say that you could make anything fly, including a brick, if you gave it enough thrust. Similarly, you can make any product “viable” with enough government subsidies.
Liberals like Newman think that they are smarter than the market and smarter than any consumer or any business owner and that taxpayer money (actually ratepayer money, but it’s the same thing in a government granted monopoly power company) should be used to encourage solar development because Newman and his liberal friends know it is better for us, even if the free market continues to signal us that it is more expensive.
Thankfully, a couple of the corporation commissioners have seen through this boondoggle and decided that there, at least, must be some limit. Commissioners should extend this logic and abolish all the subsidies and let market forces decide which type of fuel is used to produce electric power. Saving the taxpayers money really is a worthy bipartisan goal.
Roy Miller
Phoenix
Bill Wilson
Americans for Limited Government
Carefree Sign Conundrum
I certainly can’t speak for all Carefree residents, but all those I do speak with have a definite opinion about signs. So far, none have been enthusiastic. To me, the recurring issue of signage is like a migraine – a puzzling, painful annoyance that just won’t go away.
Every town has a unique character, with its very own attractions or detractions. It is typically straightforward to distinguish towns which are bustling centers of commerce from those which offer the tranquility of a quiet, dare I say, bedroom community environment. I have a very definite view of Carefree, which I can assure you is not based upon Carefree becoming a bustling hotbed of commerce. Yes, I like the convenience of modest shopping nearby and yes, I also like the flexibility of dining in a few good restaurants close to home. I’m not as interested in numerous galleries or trinket shops. How many trinkets, sculptures, or paintings does anyone need?
It seems to me that for the past 10 years, Carefree administrations have been fixated on bringing tourists and/or outsiders into town. The visitors are not necessarily encouraged to make Carefree their home, rather they are simply encouraged to spend money here. When one contemplates the reason(s) for that focus the answer generally centers on revenue. It takes money to fund government operations. Sales tax revenue is the fuel of Carefree government, and as the role of that government has expanded, the need for more and more fuel has also grown. Rather than concentrating on the needs and opinions of most Carefree residents, recent administrations have increasingly sided with merchants (many of which are non-residents) and a certain merchant group. Could Carefree get along nicely with a smaller government, thereby relieving pressure to generate ever increasing tax revenue? I believe it can.
In a recent two part survey conducted by the town, signs were not anyone’s priority, not by a long shot. But all of us have noticed that signs somehow manage to remain a hot topic. Do you know of anyone who had difficulty spotting Easy Street when the street signs were green? Clearly a small vocal minority of individuals are hell-bent on making more signs a Carefree staple. One council member, Mr. Van Allen, has actively been trying to have you, Carefree’s silent majority, render an opinion. It seems the mayor’s perspective is that few, if any at all, have complained about signs. On the other hand, the merchant group continues to lobby for more signs. We all need to pay attention. Test signs will have been erected in the first days of July. The locations will be on Pima, just south of Cave Creek Road and in the median on Cave Creek Rd at Carefree Drive. It has been implied that this iteration of signage will be more in character with Carefree than the ‘circus-like’ signs of recent vintage.
Do we need any signs at all? I believe we do, but we need to establish the proper balance between what is good for residents and needs of commerce. Our town center was cleverly and neatly tucked away from the main arterial roadways which lead to Carefree. That design by the often mentioned founding fathers was intentional. I feel that a ‘few’ modest directional signs would be helpful in assisting visitors locate our commercial core. I further believe the directional signs can be tastefully crafted, and need not harp on promoting businesses; Carefree signs should promote Carefree. Merchant, or Merchant group, advertising should promote business. The fundamental principal of small business success is a simple one; if you have a product or service of value, that people want, they will come and the business will thrive.
Whether you agree with my point of view or not, please make your opinion known. At present, only certain voices are being heard. One way or the other, we need to get rid of the migraine.
John Traynor
Carefree
Can you help me out here?
Not being a lawyer, I am confused.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona cannot have a law that makes it illegal for someone in the U.S. illegally to work in Arizona. Because the U.S. has such a law, Arizona cannot have a similar law. The U.S. alone has the right to enforce (or most often, not enforce) the prohibition against illegal aliens working in the U.S.
Here’s my problem:
There are also U.S. laws against bank robberies and kidnappings. If I follow the Supreme Court’s logic then Arizona should not have any laws against bank robberies or kidnappings, nor should Arizona apprehend bank robbers and kidnappers as those are federal responsibilities and those laws can be enforced (or not enforced) at the sole discretion of the president. Note that we also have federal laws governing voting intimidation but the president has ordered that “black on white” intimidation not be enforced (remember the Black Panthers in Philadelphia).
I also recall the history of WWII when there was a federal POW camp near Phoenix. As I recall the story a half a dozen or so German POWs escaped the prison and were at large in the community. Our police eventually captured them as they were hiding under bridges. Now how would that work today? First, since the POWs were under federal jurisdiction, the Phoenix police could not be involved. Also, how could the feds approach the escapees? They couldn’t “profile them” because they looked different, wore ragged clothes or did not speak English. After all, they could be German-American citizens who did not speak English. And the feds could not ask them for ID papers simply because they were sitting under the shade of a bridge. Or, as would probably be the case today, the president would not allow the feds to apprehend these escapees because it might offend the German-American voters to whom he was pandering.
Now consider that we no doubt have a few thousand Middle Eastern jihadists that slipped across the Mexican border into the U.S., bringing their kids with them. The kids have been filled with the jihadist theology all of their lives. But they have kept their noses clean (except for having false IDs and working without a permit, which are “non-crimes” in the federal parlance). Now at age 25 these jihadists apply to join the U.S. military and seek citizenship under Obama’s self-proclaimed “Dream Act.” (This will automatically give the parents a free pass also because the feds are not going to expel the parents of “Dream Act” kids.) Meeting all of Obama’s “qualifications” they are accepted and a year later they are supposedly “defending“ my grandson’s flank during a military action in Iraq. This is ABSOLUTE MADNESS! When I was in the Korean War I sure as hell did not want a Korean citizen defending my flank. And yet today 17 percent of our marines are not American citizens.
And while all of this pandering for Mexican votes is happening, each year we have fifteen million refugees who are fleeing countries where their very lives are being threatened. But they die while waiting in the “legal immigration” line … because they do not have relatives here that form a voting block to protest in the streets for them. And this is “justice” and “strong family values”?
What in the world is wrong with us that we permit this? Or do I simply not understand the legal “logic”?
Jack C. McVickers
Scottsdale
