Two Weeks from Hell

Today was not a good day.

In the past two weeks, four people–four very dear people–have become seriously ill. Two are family members, one is a former family member and the fourth is a blogging family member.

The youngest is my grandson. He just turned 3 months old. He was losing weight and there was no explanation why. So he was hospitalized for testing. After much prodding and poking, reviewing feeding procedures with my daughter, seeing how well this child ate, they finally came to a preliminary diagnosis. Cerebral Palsy. A very mild form, will not affect him in his mental development, is not expected to become worse over time and will only mildly hamper his motor development.

Next is my nephew. He just turned 15. A Texas boy. A star athlete and always in trouble with his mischief. Last Tuesday, he was playing basketball and hurt his leg in the game. It was still hurting so my sister took him to the doctor. I found out today he has osteosarcoma-bone cancer. My sister is in extreme denial, thinking the surgery next week will be simple and non-invasive. After doing some research tonight, I know it’s probably going to be exploratory to determine the size and features of the tumor (calcium malignant, attached at the site) and treatment options. There is a very good chance he will lose part of his leg–if not his life. The exploratory is prior to chemo starting as well.

Then my ex father-in-law. Frankly, I would dance on the graves of my ex and his family. But not him. Out of the entire clan, he was the only one who was ever decent to me. He is in his late 70’s and is suffering from heart failure. He’s been very ill for quite some time, but he has given up. He has been brought home from the hospital to die, and makes no bones to the grandkids he will be spending Christmas with Santa Clause. He isn’t expected to live past Thursday. This once robust, hearty man is a mere shell of himself and it’s heartwrenching to see. He’s worked his whole life for a family full of ingrates, who always put him down because he wasn’t a “book learned” man–although he found a way to put four children through private schools, supported a wife from hell who expected him to cater to her (she refused to even drive a car) while all she could do was denigrate him. He did it quietly, with dignity. When he was out of work from the mines, he worked side jobs and always paid the bills–in cash. He loved his grandchildren, each as they came along. He was the only one in the family to welcome me when I married into it and for that I will always be grateful. While the hellspawn of his family can take a long walk off a high cliff, I do not wish a holiday death on anyone. Having lost both of my parents, it’s hard and it will only hit them just how special this man is after he is gone. And it will be too late for them to say a simple “thank you”.

Last, but by no means least, is our friend Roger Gardner from Radarsite. He is also fighting for his life, but better bloggers than I have addressed Roger and his trials. However, we have good news on Roger–his prognosis is getting better and better each time we hear from him, and we thank God for that.

Two weeks from hell. Four very dear people, ranging in age from 3 months to early 80’s. Obama wants to talk Main Street. I got your Main Street right here. And mine is real–it’s not a fantasyland concocted in the wild dreams of a meglomaniac.

Sorry, Stinky–my priorities are far and away more important than your fantasies.

You will just have to wait until you royally screw up–and then you will most definitely hear from me on your so-called change which is nothing more than recycled Clinton. Yeah–you’re “green”–green from the stench of decay.

I have my family and friends to worry about. Maybe you should get in touch with real Main Street Americans and what is on our minds–not your ice cream dreams and lollipop sundaes.

Two weeks from hell.

Dear Mr. Obama

I was alerted to this video from a post of Laer’s at Real Clear Politics. It’s short, sweet and says it all.

Oh, and as I post this, there are currently 12,051,856 hits on YouTube. The video is below:

Like I said, short, sweet and to the point. McCain/Palin 08

Dear Mr. Obama

I was alerted to this video from a post of Laer’s at Real Clear Politics. It’s short, sweet and says it all.

Oh, and as I post this, there are currently 12,051,856 hits on YouTube. The video is below:

Like I said, short, sweet and to the point. McCain/Palin 08

Clueless, Racist BHO Voters

I first heard about this informal man on the street interview from Boortz about a week ago. Boortz attributed it to Imus, but then later said it was indeed Stern.

Now, I personally cannot stand Howard Stern. However, this video shows and tells who the real, uninformed, racist voters are–those who cannot see past BHO’s color, don’t even know his policy stands or voting record, or who his running mate is. They are only voting black (and BHO isn’t more than 7% black–he’s 48% white, 7% black and 45% arab).

This video also shows why stupid people shouldn’t vote. Voting is a privilege, not a right (I DARE you to show me where it exists in the Constitution or Bill of Rights). I personally believe it’s an obligation. However, if you’re going to vote, take the time to educate yourself. Otherwise, you belong in the never-ending parade of stupid (phrase swiped from Jon Justice on 104.1 The Truth).

Here’s the video:

‘Nuf said.

Clueless, Racist BHO Voters

I first heard about this informal man on the street interview from Boortz about a week ago. Boortz attributed it to Imus, but then later said it was indeed Stern.

Now, I personally cannot stand Howard Stern. However, this video shows and tells who the real, uninformed, racist voters are–those who cannot see past BHO’s color, don’t even know his policy stands or voting record, or who his running mate is. They are only voting black (and BHO isn’t more than 7% black–he’s 48% white, 7% black and 45% arab).

This video also shows why stupid people shouldn’t vote. Voting is a privilege, not a right (I DARE you to show me where it exists in the Constitution or Bill of Rights). I personally believe it’s an obligation. However, if you’re going to vote, take the time to educate yourself. Otherwise, you belong in the never-ending parade of stupid (phrase swiped from Jon Justice on 104.1 The Truth).

Here’s the video:

‘Nuf said.

Arizona’s Ballot Propositions–Statewide Only

I’m swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state’s propositions so they’re all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a “yes” or “no” vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE–as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a “transfer tax” when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you’re taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person’s Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person’s or Entity’s Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity’s right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity’s health care choices.

Simply put–this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal–constitutionally–to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 – Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we’ve seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. “Electors” herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as “Electors” in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you’re charged, a “no” vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing “payday loan” licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner’s Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of granting “prospective buyers” a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller’s financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people–pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ “unauthorized aliens,” suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona’s current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

“Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?” Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary – $24,000

Proposed Salary – $30,000

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators’ salaries to $30,000 per year.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators’ salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year’s ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

Arizona’s Ballot Propositions–Statewide Only

I’m swiping an idea from Eric over at The Tygrrrr Express who just published the California Propositions. It seems like a GREAT idea to publish my state’s propositions so they’re all in one spot and people can review them. CAVEAT: I will emphasize key words in each proposition and explain what a “yes” or “no” vote means on each. How you choose to vote is YOUR CHOICE–as long as you get out and VOTE!

Proposition 100
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to Article IX of the Arizona Constitution by Adding a New Section 24 Relating to a Prohibition of Any New Real Property Sale or Transfer Tax in Arizona.

Descriptive Title: Prohibits State, County, City, Town, Municipal or Other State Political Subdivision From Imposing Any New Tax, Fee, or Other Assessment On the Sale, Purchase, Transfer or Other Conveyance of Any Interest in Real Estate After December 31, 2007/

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after December 31, 2007.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law, which allows taxes on the sale or transfer of real estate.

Simply put, this proposition is meant to stop the imposition of additional taxes on the homeowner, in particular a “transfer tax” when the property is bought/sold. If passed, it will put a stop to a double taxation situation wherein you’re taxed on the sale/purchase of a property, as well as paying the property tax.

********************

Proposition 101
Official Title: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article II of the Arizona Constitution by Adding Section 26 of Article II; Relating to Freedom of Choice in Health Care.

Descriptive Title: PROHIBITS (this is a biggie key word here folks, read this CAREFULLY) Laws That: Restrict Person’s Choice of Private Health Care Systems or Private Plans; Interfere With Person’s or Entity’s Right to Pay Directly for Lawful Medical Services; Impose a Penalty or Fine for Choosing to Obtain or Decline Health Care Coverage or For Participation in Any Health Care System or Plan.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity’s right to pay for lawful medical services and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity’s health care choices.

Simply put–this is a two-fold law. On the one hand, the current law apparently has the right to penalize a person for choosing their own health care. This proposition seeks to overturn that restriction and make it illegal–constitutionally–to penalize a person for choosing and paying for their own health care rather than being told who they can see or what services they can pay for. It is essentially a first strike proposal which helps YOU retain who YOU want to provide your medical services rather than the state or any other entity telling you who you HAVE to utilize. It also keeps you from being penalized for exercising your choice for your care.

********************

Proposition 102
Official Title: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1042 – Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending the Constitution, by adding Article 30; Relating to Marriage

Descriptive Title: Defines That Only a Union of One Man and One Woman Shall be Valid or Recognized as a Marriage in This State.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Simply put, same sex marriage is currently illegal in Arizona; however, it is not a part of the state Constitution. This proposal would make that law a Constitional Amendment and thereby protect it from depredations such as we’ve seen in California, Vermont and Massachusetts. It is worth noting the people of Arizona have consistently voted to keep the current law as the law.

********************

Proposition 105
Official Title: Majority Rule-Let the People Decide Act-Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article IV, Part 1, Constitution of Arizona, by Adding Section 1.1 Relating to Initiative Measures and Requiring That Any Mandatory Tax or Spending Increase be Enacted by a Majority of Qualified Electors (more key words here folks).

Descriptive Title: Requires an Initiative Measure That Establishes, Imposes or Raises a Tax, Fee or Other Revenue, or Mandates a Spending Obligation, Whether on a Private Person, Labor Organization, Other Private Legal Entity or State, Shall Not Become Law Unless the Measure is Approved by a Majority of Qualified Electors Registered to Vote.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Simply put, this is worded in such a way as to take away your privilege to vote on a measure. It would take the power of the voters out of the hands of the voters on monetary issues and put it in the hands of the government wherein only the government has a say on what taxes can be imposed. “Electors” herein is meant to be representative in the same manner as “Electors” in a presidential race. If you want to retain control over your money and your taxes and what you’re charged, a “no” vote is the only vote.

********************

Proposition 200
Official Title: Payday Loan Reform Act

Descriptive Title: Extends Payday Licensing Program Indefinitely; Allows Electronic Debit Agreements; Prohibits Services Over 35 Days; Requires English or Spanish Agreements; Prohibits Certain Fees; Requires Payment Plan if Requested; Prohibits Arrangements With Customers Having Outstanding Repayment Plans; Allows Licensee to Make Other Loans; Requires Licensee to Maintain Minimum and Maximum Net Worth.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing “payday loan” licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licenses to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50,000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate July 1, 2010.

Simply put, this is designed to halt the abuse of payday loans by customers and the abuse of customers by payday loan outlets. It requires more flexibility for loan repayment and prohibits usurious interest rates. Unfortunately, it also panders to the illegals who refuse to learn English, as well.

********************

Proposition 201
Official Title: Homeowner’s Bill of Rights

Descriptive Title: Allows Prospective Dwelling Buyer Lawsuit; Permitting Lawsuits Despite Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements; Prohibits Seller Attorney Fees; Shortens Notice and Response Time; Requires Seller Inspection and Licensed Contractor; Requires Seller Contract Provide 10-Year Warranty; Seller Must Disclose Conflicts; Gives Buyer Cancellation Rights; Expands Time to File Improvements Suit; Expands Purchaser Remedies.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of granting “prospective buyers” a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replacement option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship,requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller’s financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to the real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Simply put, this is designed to take away all choice a homeowner may have as to who they hire to make any repairs/improvements to their home. At such time as the homeowner decides to sell their home, it puts extraordinary burdens on them prior to sale. It will have an impact on current home sales as well as new home sales. It also allows people who DO NOT BUY the home to sue the homeowner as if they had indeed purchased the home. It leaves a homeowner wishing to sell their home completely vulnerable with no recourse while the buyer or alleged buyer has all recourse.

********************

Proposition 202
Official Title: Amending Title 13, Chapter 20, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 13-2008, 13-2009 and 13-2010; and Amending Title 23, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by Amending Sections 23-211, 23-212, 23-213 and 23-214 and Adding Section 23-215.

Descriptive Title: Modifies Laws (more of those code words people–pay attention!) That Suspend or Revoke Business Licenses for Employers Who Knowingly or Intentionally Employ an Unauthorized Alien; Increases Penalties on Identity Theft Related to Employment; Adds Fines on Employers Who Pay Improperly Reported Cash Wages; Establishes Presumption Favoring Employer That Verifies Employee Eligibility Under Federal Law.

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ “unauthorized aliens,” suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona’s current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Simply put, a yes vote undermines the current employer sanctions law, a law voted in by the people. This one is written to be purposely misleading, hoping to revoke a law already on the books, and which has been challenged repeatedly in court. Such challenges have been driven back and the law stands. Now, the intent by the border lobby groups, is to trick you, the voter, into repealing the law you already voted in by using such misleading wording.

********************

Proposition 300
Descriptive Title: Provides for an Increase in the Salaries of State Legislators From $24,000 to $30,000 Per Year.

“Shall the Recommendation of the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers Concerning Legislative Salaries be Accepted?” Yes/No

Recommendations, if Approved by the Electors, Shall Become Effective at the Beginning of the Next Regular Legislative Session Without Any Other Authorizing Legislation.

Current Salary – $24,000

Proposed Salary – $30,000

A “Yes” vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators’ salaries to $30,000 per year.

A “No” vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators’ salaries at $24,000 per year.

Simply put, do we give the bums a raise or not?

********************

Those are the statewide propositions on this year’s ballot for Arizona. Mark your ballots carefully. Think before you write. Above all, VOTE!

The Reason "Why"–Redux

Please contact Miss Beth for contact information for the copyrighted designer and order information of the above lapel pin.

ANY QUESTIONS?

More tributes at these sites:

An Ol’ Broads Ramblings Blah Blah Blog Lord Nazh’s Daily Ramble But That’s Just My Opinion 123beta American and Proud American Truckers at War Reject the U.N. TexasFred’s Diamond in the Rough Long Live the Republic Lubbock Marine Parents Basti Say’s For Serenity’s Sake Political Vindication Blue Star Chronicles Rantings, Ramblings, and Other Miscellaneous Stuff The Median Sib Pierre Legrand Isn’t it Rich GM’s Corner The Discerning Texan Southern Sass on Crime YID With LID Driving Out The Snakes Conservative Cowboy INSIGHT on Freedom Freedom Eden JB’s Corner Israel Matzav Potpourri Warriors For Innocence Big Dog’s Weblog The Outraged Spleen of Zion DeMediacratic Nation Blonde Sagacity Dragon Lady’s World Hillbilly White Trash Pirate’s Cove Invincible Armor MamaArcher’s Blog 1389 Blog Antijihadist Tech Traction Control

The Reason "Why"–Redux

Please contact Miss Beth for contact information for the copyrighted designer and order information of the above lapel pin.

ANY QUESTIONS?

More tributes at these sites:

An Ol’ Broads Ramblings Blah Blah Blog Lord Nazh’s Daily Ramble But That’s Just My Opinion 123beta American and Proud American Truckers at War Reject the U.N. TexasFred’s Diamond in the Rough Long Live the Republic Lubbock Marine Parents Basti Say’s For Serenity’s Sake Political Vindication Blue Star Chronicles Rantings, Ramblings, and Other Miscellaneous Stuff The Median Sib Pierre Legrand Isn’t it Rich GM’s Corner The Discerning Texan Southern Sass on Crime YID With LID Driving Out The Snakes Conservative Cowboy INSIGHT on Freedom Freedom Eden JB’s Corner Israel Matzav Potpourri Warriors For Innocence Big Dog’s Weblog The Outraged Spleen of Zion DeMediacratic Nation Blonde Sagacity Dragon Lady’s World Hillbilly White Trash Pirate’s Cove Invincible Armor MamaArcher’s Blog 1389 Blog Antijihadist Tech Traction Control

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that’s the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I’m simply pro-child. I don’t believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason–when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I’ve heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I’m screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don’t like them, don’t listen. But don’t attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this–you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don’t have to face the gruesome reality of your “choice”). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They’re all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn’t work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don’t and you aren’t. When you are out of line with the Church because you don’t understand something or don’t know something, that’s fine–as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will–yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don’t get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm–life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968–in the wake of the advent of “The Pill” and the subsequent sexual revolution–Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is “New Questions” Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, “Interpreting the Moral Law” Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd’s Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on “Meet the Press”:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, “Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?” what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

To answer the simple question “When does life begin?” Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don’t ask the Doctors of the Church to “make that definition.” One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: “And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, ” p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
-Pope John Paul II; “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says “that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all–to do so would force her to change her position. And no “ardent, practicing Catholic” has ever been, or ever will be, “pro-choice” on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi’s Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

“I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart,” he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

“Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family,” he said.

“For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,” the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it’s stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It’s a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker’s Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn’t lax enough–they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, “freedom” to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don’t understand the Church will not change her stance on these items–ever. No matter the currently in vogue “revolution”, the Church will not change for expediency. She can’t change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn’t strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this–artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior–the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No–because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of “women’s choice” espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:

I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for “women’s rights”.

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called “religious” as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it’s because those who believe in this kind of “enlightenment” are truly dangerous–and yes, evil. This isn’t about a woman’s choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy–I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.