Wednesday, November 3, 2010

What is wrong with the left coast?

Well, as good a day as it was for the conservative cause, I still find a few glaring errors in judgment committed by the people of California and Nevada.
One:  California re-elects Jerry Brown to be Governor.  Yep, the very guy who back in the 1970's took Ronald Reagan's state and began it's transformation into the socialist utopia we can all be proud of today....entitlement driven and debt ridden, the state is bankrupted by the very policies began 35 years ago by then Governor Jerry Brown...and the people of California elect none other than Jerry Brown to be governor yet again.  Way to go!  You apparently aren't broke enough yet.  And whatever happened to Linda Ronstadt?  I had the biggest crush on her in grade school.

Jerry Brown, busily driving small businesspeople out of California, and killing his constituents individual initiative, back in the 1970's.
Two:  I guess skyrocketing unemployment (16 percent at last count), record foreclosures, vacant neighborhoods, a housing market where a great majority of the people now owe more on their homes than they are currently worth, and a populace fleeing the state, are no reason to make any changes.  Harry Reid has been involved in politics since the 1970's, he has presided over the biggest expansion of Federal government power and Federal spending in the history of the United States, while back at home his state burns, and how do the people of Nevada punish him?  Not with the walking papers he deserves, but with yet another term as their Senator!  Good on you, Nevadans!  You have now shown the rest of the nation how tough you really are! Don't let the worst economic conditions in the nation faze you, heck no! Your votin' the same fella back in so he can keep up the good work!

How can you tell when Harry Reid is being obnoxious?  His mouth is open!
All I can say is that California deserves what they get, and Nevada is populated by far too many former Californians.

 

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Albuquerque city council narrowly defeats banning Kirtland Air Force Base nukes.

I could only laugh out loud when I was in Albuquerque on Friday, October 1st, and heard on the radio that the city council had "narrowly" rejected a measure which would have asked the Federal government to remove and dismantle possible nuclear weapons stored at Kirtland Air Force base, which borders the southeast part of Albuquerque.  The air force has never confirmed, nor denied, that nuclear weapons even exist at Kirtland.

The measure was sponsored by Albuquerque City Councilman Rey Garduono, who was quoted as saying: "I hope (the munitions) will never explode or have anything disastrous happen, but I don't understand why people are so reluctant to discuss the issue and deal with it. We need to."

Predictably, the 4 Democrats on the city council voted for the measure, while the 5 Republicans on the council voted against it.

Never mind that in the early days, the reason Albuquerque had grown into the city it is today is precisely because of the presence of the base, which today brings over a billion dollars a year into the area, and directly provides nearly 30,000 jobs, not to mention many thousands of ancillary jobs.

Never mind that there have been rumblings of a possible closure of Kirtland Air Force Base over the last decade, which periodically cause local politicians to spring to life as most vocal proponents of all of the benefits to the community, and state of New Mexico, provided by the base.

It would appear that the Democrats on the Albuquerque city council once again showed their true stripes by welcoming the jobs and revenue provided by the Air Force, while at the same time proposing and voting for a ridiculous measure that would essentially be a "kick in the teeth" to the very mission of the U.S. Air Force, which is to protect our nation using the most state of the art methods available, including modern nuclear weapons.

Some politicians truly do want to have it both ways, loudly proclaiming to want jobs, jobs, and more jobs, especially in today's era of high unemployment.  But then they will condemn the very creators of those jobs through nonsensical, (and incidentally non-binding) actions such as this.

 

Friday, September 10, 2010

New Mexico Gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez says she will revoke illegal's driver's licenses.

During a press conference I attended in front of the Motor Vehicle Division in Farmington, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez called for an end to the state's policy of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and went one step further in saying that as Governor, she will do all she can to revoke those driver's licenses already issued to illegals.

When asked by a reporter how the state of New Mexico would be able to afford revocation of possibly thousands of driver's licenses issued to non-citizens, given the state's current budgetary concerns, Martinez replied that the actual mechanics of would be simple, done merely through the MVD's computer system.  Then a notice would be mailed to those who's licenses were revoked.

She went on to say that as Governor of New Mexico, she would do all she can to provide extra support to the Sheriffs of New Mexico's counties that border Mexico in order to fight crime committed by Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally, as well as to help stem the flow of illegals coming across New Mexico's border with Mexico.  She stated more than once that this would include supporting the use of unmanned drone aircraft, and creating an environment of greater co-operation between sheriff's departments and the Federal Border Patrol.

Martinez also alluded to the fact that Arizona's controversial immigration law will likely drive many current illegals from Arizona to New Mexico, since currently New Mexico has the reputation of being a sanctuary.

She also stated that she would seek to ensure that every person who is arrested and goes to jail in New Mexico would have their resident status checked, and that those found to be in the U.S. illegally would be reported to Federal Authorities.

Martinez stated that not only is New Mexico's current illegal immigration policy dangerous to the people of New Mexico, but is also dangerous to citizen's of the entire United States, since once an illegal alien is provided a state issued New Mexico driver's license, that person has ID that can be used in all 50 states.

Martinez responded to several question from reporters with quick, direct, and pointed answers, and showed a command of the subject.  It is my belief that Susana Martinez's tough stand on illegal immigration is only one of many ways her "Bold Change" can help New Mexico become a leader in policy that can benefit the entire nation. 

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for investigation into "Cary Nickel's Worth" blog.


Well, not exactly.

What Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi actually said was:  “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.”

On Monday, August 16th, I wrote an entry concerning President Obama's voiced support of the Islamic Mosque at "Ground Zero", where thousands of innocent Americans died in an attack by radical Muslims.  In that entry, I also voiced my opinion against the construction of said Mosque.  An opinion a majority of Americans agree with.

So, does Nancy Pelosi actually want to investigate how my blog is being funded?  Well Speaker Pelosi, you don't have to investigate me..I'll just tell you right here, right now:  My blog has yet to be funded at all, and I've been spouting off here since April, so if you've got any stimulus money laying around, please shoot it right to me, o.k.?

"Code Enforcement" and "Planning and Zoning", threats to private property rights.

I live in San Juan County, New Mexico, way up in the rural Four-Corners region where wide open spaces and vacant land far exceeds any urban sprawl or development.  Minimally maintained, and even non-maintained, dirt roads outnumber paved routes by hundreds of miles, and where some folks are stuck at home after heavy rains or snowstorms because the county simply doesn't have the resources to be everywhere at once with their graders or snow plows to re-open those routes blocked or washed away.

Recently, what appeared to be a small rainstorm completely washed away a bridge that served as the only crossing of a very large "wash", known locally as a "arroyo".  Several families were temporarily cut off from "civilization" until a temporary road could be built pending repairs.

Just yesterday (8/17/10), New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared Farmington a "disaster area" due to flooding which occurred two weeks ago.  (Incidentally, I drove through some of the affected "disaster area" the day after the flooding, and there was no "disaster".  Farmington merely was seeking, and will receive, a state "bailout").

On the very same day the area was approved for it's government bailout, the County where I live, despite supposed "disaster", held a meeting of the county commission and approved the creation of a "Code Compliance Department", with a quarter million dollar per year budget, a new full time employee, and the approval of the use of expensive-to-operate heavy equipment to "help" the county's new department accomplish it's goals.

And what are those goals?  No one really knows yet.  The county enacted a trash ordinance, but did not act on any other matters that require a Code Compliance Department.  As far as I can tell, they are planning to spend $250,000 a year to hire someone to drive around and tell people they can't burn their garbage, but must have it hauled to the local dump or a waste transfer station.  I guess they plan to use the "heavy equipment" to help haul that trash if a landowner cannot, or will not, do it him or herself.

I've lived here 8 years, and have yet to see a burn barrel  (They were a standard fixture in the back yards of homes when I lived in southern Illinois 25 years ago), or anyone burning their garbage. Awareness of the possible negative environmental results of burning such things as plastics have pretty much taken care of such issues.

So, like most governments, it would appear that they plan to spend a lot of tax dollars stretching an already stretched budget,  to address a nonexistent problem.  And they are doing it during a time when that very same government is professing to be broke, and is supposedly scrambling to find ways to raise taxes or fees to cover current revenue shortfalls, and existing problems such as the "disaster" of a few washed out roads.

However, as onerous as that is, the bigger issue here is the creation of a "Code Compliance Department" in the first place.

Private property rights have always been one of the main tenets of our free society.  People who own land have traditionally been able to do with that what they wish to do, within reason.  As long as those actions do not negatively effect their neighbors.  And there are limits to even this.  Obviously, some uses of land, such as for agricultural purposes like farming the raising of livestock, are going to effect the neighbors through increased heavy equipment traffic, or the associated odors or dust that occur.  Allowances are usually made for such things, as they are merely unavoidable aspects of such industries, and have been proven relatively harmless.

Health and sanitation codes already exist in most developed areas, which cover things such as sewage disposal, garbage and refuse, etc.

When cities and counties create "Code Compliance Departments", they are usually created to address the merely visual aspects of peoples private property.  Just like with any other government agency, it is always first created with the idea of benevolence and advertised as a way of "helping" people achieve some goal.  But helping them do what? In reality, what happens is someone, usually a government entity, must set "standards", and then force everyone to live within those standards.  And therein lies the danger:  Who creates the "standards"?  And what limits will be put on them?

Does government merely say "clean up your land" and then go away?  No.  What usually happens is once government gets their foot in the door, in it's every increasing desire for authority, government will gradually increase and tighten those "standards" until like in many cases, the citizens become servants of government, rather than the other way around.

First, they will regulate common sense issues like accumulated refuse such as household trash.  Next, someone decides it would be a good idea to pass an ordinance against weeds growing on private property. Never mind that the very same government might never mow the weeds along road "rights of way". (I've lived in the same house in my county for 8 years, and the county has NEVER mowed the weeds along the dirt roads in my neighborhood.  I've taken care of them myself)  Next thing you know, you cannot leave your shovel and rake, or lawnmower sitting outside where people can see them.  Then it escalates into the government telling you what color you can paint your fence, or your house.  And then they tell you you cannot keep a vehicle on your property unless it is "operational", and being "operational" includes being registered and insured to drive on a city street, not merely a vehicle capable of starting up and driving.  Eventually, the code enforcement inspector becomes bold enough to start interpreting the rules him or herself.

I once lived in a community where a Code Enforcement Officer told me it was illegal to change the oil in your own car, on your own property.  The reasoning?  She said inoperable vehicles were not allowed to be stored on private property, and during the time the oil was drained from the vehicle, the vehicle was inoperable, thus, the land owner could be cited for having an inoperable vehicle on his or her property.  I seriously doubt that when the ordinance was passed which outlawed inoperable vehicle on private property, that the folks who wrote the law, nor the folks who voted to pass it, had any idea that the law would one day be twisted like a pretzel into something that would make it illegal to do routine auto maintenance on one's own property..but so it goes.

In that same community, I used to hang my laundry up on an outdoor clothesline because the weather was so hot in the summer that clothes dried as fast outside on the line as they did in an automatic dryer.  Drying your clothes using completely solar power sounds like an environmentally responsible act, right?  Well, I was once cited by the city Code Compliance Officer for keeping a "dish full of miscellaneous objects" on a table in my carport.  The "dish" was a stainless steel hubcap, and the "miscellaneous objects" were clothespins used to hang up my laundry.  Not only was I utilizing solar power to dry my clothes, I had recycled an old hubcap into a rust free container for my clothespins, but that was not allowed.  I wonder what the city would have thought about one of those cloth hanging bags for clothespins that you hang right from the line.
It is ridiculous stuff like this that makes "Code Enforcement" so dangerous to private property rights.  What starts out as regulating what should be common sense issues, which can be taken care of with existing sanitation ordinances, eventually grows to become some bureaucrat's excuse to perpetuate their own job. After all, it's tough to find a reason to maintain a quarter-million dollar per year "Code Compliance Department" once everyone has taken out the trash.

Beware of out of control government.  Beware of "Code Enforcment" Officers, who come to your home and say "We're from the Government, and we're here to help you."  Once the government tells you how to live on your own property, is your home really your own?

Monday, August 16, 2010

A Mosque at "Ground Zero". Did the United States vote for this?

Exactly how long can President Barack Obama expect to continue to have the support of anyone if he continues to make decisions that are opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people?

President Barack Obama's support of the controversial Mosque at the "Ground Zero" location of the Muslim terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001, is only the latest in a long string of support for measures unpopular with a majority of U.S. citizens.

Is this what the United States voted for in 2008?  A President that is so disconnected with his constituency that he feels he can do anything he wants, regardless of what is right for the United States?

It's almost is if President Obama wishes to go down in history as the most contentious person to ever hold the office.  He campaigned to be a  someone who would "fix" whatever supposedly ailed us after 8 years of George W. Bush, what the radical left calls the worst 8 years of leadership ever seen in America.  Acting as the ultimate snake oil salesman, "Barack Obama and his traveling Medicine Show" went from town to town proclaiming the virtues of some ethereal "Hope" and "Change" to an audience apparently hungering for whatever "Hope" and "Change" they could envision within their own minds, and slightly over half of the voters fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

The result has been the most leftist surge in Federal policy since the Roosevelt Administration of 70 years ago.

From almost the start, a juggernaut of titanic proportions leaped forward with it's own version of "Hope and Change", beginning almost immediately with a hefty tax increase, when President Obama signed the largest tobacco tax increase in history, breaking a pledge he repeatedly made during his campaign that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not pay "one dime" in increased taxes.  The average smoker's household now pays and average of $630 a year in taxes, which is heavily weighted toward those who make far less than $250,000 a year, as lower income people smoke more.

Then came ObamaCare, which has stubbornly clung to a 60 percent disapproval rating from it's inception, yet was passed by the Reid/Pelosi congress and signed into law by President Obama regardless.

Then there was the outrage over the Obama administration's decision to haul 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed before a civil court in New York City, which angered Americans nationwide.

Add to that the Obama administration's battle with Arizona over illegal immigration, despite the fact that fully 60 percent of Americans, and 70 percent of Arizonans, support the state's efforts to curb it's own immigration problem, after decades of Federal failure to properly address the issue.

And then there is President Obama's history of statements that appear to have been intended to invoke racial tension, intentionally or otherwise.

And now, President Obama's vociferous support of radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's plan to build a Mosque at "Ground Zero" in New York City has sparked public outcry, after the proposed Mosque itself has been soundly denounced by a large majority of Americans as a "slap in the face" to both the victims of the Muslim terrorist attacks and their families, and to the United States at large.

How can President Obama expect to effectively lead the nation after fracturing it's population into so many different opposing factions?  As someone who promised unity after the supposed "divisive" leadership of President Bush, it would seem Obama, through either bungling and inexperience, or by design, is taking the nation even further into chaos and discontent, building upon his administration's failure to make any headway in improving the economy.

Building a Mosque at "Ground Zero", where thousands of Americans died at the hands of Muslim terrorists, IS a slap in the face to both New York City, and the U.S. at large, and flies in the face of the supposed "peace" and "unity" that Islam would like to project to the world.  The mere idea of it raises the ire of patriotic Americans.  And it should.  Other than putting up a monument praising the 9/11 terrorists themselves, I can think of no better way to permanently rub salt into the wounds opened in the United States by the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history.

That our President should support such a move is a further indication of exactly how President Obama is leading us in exactly the wrong direction.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Florida: The next immigration battle.

Florida has become the next state to introduce a tough illegal immigration bill, following Arizona's early lead which has led to stern rebukes from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, overwhelming public support for Arizona, and a lengthy court battle as the Federal Government attempts to exert it's power over the state.

Kudos to Florida for standing up for the law, let's hope the bill moves swiftly through the Florida legislature, and that other states soon follow.

In an interesting turn of political events, the bill pits Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for Florida's governorship, directly against turncoat former Republican and current Independent Governor Charlie Crist, who is running for U.S. Senate, and who has expressed a more liberal opinion on illegal immigration, including stating that illegal immigrants should be counted in the U.S. Census as a means of getting more "pork" out of Washington, D.C.  It will be interesting to see what Crist's reaction will be.

Florida introduces tough immigration law.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arizona: The Federal Government vs. the People of the U.S.A.

Yet again, the Obama administration has forced an issue in direct opposition to the will of the majority of U.S. Citizens.

Well over half of all U.S. Citizens support the State of Arizona's right to defend itself from the illegal alien invasion coming across out southern border.  In Arizona itself, 70 percent of the population support the Arizona Immigration Law.

Yet our Federal government, ignoring the general population yet again, has taken Arizona to court to block the implementation of state law.  And on the surface, it appears the Federal government has won, at least for now.

But in a time when it already looks like Democrats are losing their "mojo", is it wise to continue to anger the electorate, particularly this close to an election that is going to decide the fate of the supposed "Obama Mandate"?

In short, has the Federal government really "won" anything?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has already stated that Arizona would take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus guaranteeing the agitation of an already open wound as the the battle over the "rights" of illegal aliens remains in the forefront of America's minds through election day.  Governor Brewer re-confirmed this intention to Sean Hannity on his Fox News Channel television program just hours after U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down much of Arizona's law.  The Arizona Governor is overwhelmingly popular in her home state, and enjoys an over 20% lead over her opponents in the political race to hold on to her job.

It's also clear the people of the United States want our borders under control.  Illegal aliens, coming to the United States with relative impunity, present a problem that is overtaxing the economies of many states, not to mention their bringing in dangerous drugs, and criminal activity including the outright murder of U.S. Citizens.  The Obama Administration, by actively seeking to thwart any and all attempts to control our border with Mexico, has shown it's utter disdain for the United States and it's people.  Every poll shows U.S. Citizens are fed up with the Federal Government's unwillingness to handle our southern border situation.

It would seem that the current administration has just handed it's political opposition another political weapon to use against it in the few short months leading to election day.

In a personal experience, As the manager of a rental firm, I once had an employee, who already had years of service with the U.S. Coast Guard under his belt, apply for a position with the U.S. Border Patrol.  I fully supported his decision, and he kept me informed during the lengthy process so that I could be prepared to replace him when the time came.  Finally, after some time, he got "the call" and reported for training.  After all of the effort involved in obtaining the job, it took less than a year for him to leave the position, disillusioned over the fact that it appeared every roadblock was put in the way of actually enforcing border security.

Though I was sad to see such a fine person, who put so much effort into obtaining the position, leave the Border Patrol in what amounted to complete disgust, I wasn't surprised.  The stories he told concerning some of the border security situations he was involved with while patrolling the California coast in the Coast Guard appeared to be precursors to the bureaucratic nonsense he experienced during his short time with the Border Patrol.

Invaders climbing border fence
It's become obvious, through it's actions, that the Obama Administration, and the Federal government in general, expresses open contempt for the idea of "rule of law", or any semblance of border security.  In less than 20 pages, Arizona's immigration law practically mimics Federal law concerning immigration policy, Federal law, which by the way, the Federal government refuses to enforce.  And though the State of Arizona must bear the burden of illegal alien invasion in not just economic terms, but in actual physical harm done by criminal activity of illegal aliens, including the murder of Arizona's citizens, and the destruction of lives through drug use, the Federal government appear to be willing to allow a certain amount of murder and mayhem in it's quest for power it itself refuses to use.

Like most U.S. citizens, I'm 100 percent in favor of LEGAL immigration to our country, regardless of race. Members of every nationality have something to offer the United States.  However, national security dictates that the flow of immigrants be controlled, monitored, for health, economic, and national security reasons.  The uncontrolled flow of people into the United States at our southern border presents problems in all three categories.

The only way, it would seem, to force Federal government action on the border, is to create a massive shift in power at the ballot box this November.  It's more than apparent, as shown by their very arrogance, that our current group of do-nothing representatives at the Federal level are more interested in maintaining their level of personal power and comfort, than they are in creating an atmosphere where U.S. citizens can experience any semblance of the same comfort.  It's doubtful that many congresspeople, or even the President himself, has ever had to experience the results of their policy of inaction on the border.  And it's doubtful, in their insulated lives which revolve largely around around the D.C. political scene, that any of them will ever experience the level of anxiety felt by the average citizens in our border states due to the out of control illegal alien presence. Indeed, no less than President Obama himself refused the invitation of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to actually visit the southern U.S. border with Mexico, instead preferring to lecture Governor Brewer about how the southern border with Mexico is the "most secure it's ever been".
Murdered Arizona rancher Robert Krentz

Tell that to the family and friends of longtime Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was shot dead, along with his dog, by an illegal invader from Mexico, while riding an ATV around his ranchlands earlier this year.