Showing posts with label State's Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State's Rights. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Please SUPPORT The New Arizona Immigration Law!

Using the Tea Party PAC Citizen Action Center
http://teapartycac.com/index.php, then using the link near the top of the
middle of that page for MORE info on sending your politicians a letter, I
sent the following email to ALL of my elected windbags...

I hope you'll do that same!!!

Lenny Vasbinder

-----Original Message-----
From: donotreply@votervoice.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Leonard Vasbinder
Subject: Please SUPPORT the new Arizona immigration law!

***Please do not reply to this email--this confirmation simply lets you know
that your message was sent.***

Leonard Vasbinder:

Your message has been sent to the following recipients:

* President Barack Obama
* Vice President Joe Biden
* Senator Mary Landrieu
* Senator David Vitter
* Representative Steve Scalise
* Governor Bobby Jindal
* Secretary of State Jay Dardenne
* Attorney General Buddy Caldwell
* Senator Conrad Appel
* Representative Kirk Talbot


The content of your message is as follows:

Dear [The message(s) you sent had each recipient's name here]:

I'm writing to ask you to please SUPPORT the new law against illegal
immigration recently passed by Arizona, and to ENCOURAGE every single State
to pass the same law.

The simple fact is that the federal government has failed miserably at
protecting our borders and enacting sensible solutions that would protect
our states, counties and cities from bearing the enormous costs associated
with illegal immigration.

The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety
and security of every American is well established. If our federal
government did its job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and
neither would any other State. You need to employ your leadership role as a
servant of THE PEOPLE to assure legislation is passed that will mirror that
of the illegal immigration legislation in Arizona.

Please, do the RIGHT thing -- SUPPORT the new law against illegal
immigration recently passed by Arizona, and ENCOURAGE every single State to
pass the same law. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Leonard Vasbinder

Thursday, May 13, 2010

“THE NEW MINOR(ITY)... ANOTHER RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL... OR NOT?” - Another Article From My Old GeoCities Blog

(Originally written as a letter to the editor in the 1990's and then re-written for my GeoCities blog in 2003 and now here... as it's still applicable today!!!)

If so many "other adults" want to discriminate against 18, 19 and 20 year old adults, then those "other adults" should VOTE to raise the "age of majority" (adulthood) back up to 21 years of age.

Several things that will change or should be changed for "The New Minor(ity)":

1. The new "minor’s" will no longer be able to VOTE, join the military, sign the selective service card, get married, sign contracts or perform any other legal matter reserved for adults. Further, the new "minor’s" should not be allowed to become a legal guardian (parent) to a baby. If a new "minor" has, or fathers a baby, then one of each of the "minor’s" parents or guardians has to sign legal guardianship papers and agree to raise and support the "minor’s" and their baby until the "minor’s" reach the age of 21. One adult parent of the "minor mom" and "minor dad" must sign as legal guardians, making sure the rest of the taxpayers are not forced to pay for the acts of these new "minor’s". (Actually, this concept should be instituted today, even if the age of majority is not raised back up to 21.)

2. The new "minor’s" will be treated as juveniles for all criminal acts as long as they are "minor’s" (i.e.- Slapped on the wrist for most crimes.) Except, I propose creating a "three strikes and you’re out" and "nine innings" program where a new "minor" offender convicted "three times" or arrested "nine times" would be treated as an adult on all subsequent arrests and convictions. (This too would make sense today, even if the age of majority were not raised.)

3. The new "minor’s" should not be taxed in any way, shape or form, since our country was founded to prevent "taxation without representation". Since I don't see where any of the politicians represent the new "minor’s" and the new "minor’s" would not be allowed to VOTE, they should be tax exempt for all income earned and purchases made. (This should be made part of the tax code today.) (But we know that our "tax and spend" politicians are not going to exempt this large group of "minor" taxpayers, even though these same politicians have no problem passing age specific laws and prohibitions against this same group of "minor" taxpayers.)

4. The new "minor’s" will be tax deductible to parents for a few more years. Since the new "minor’s" will not be legally responsible for their actions until they reach the age of 21, their parents will be held responsible for any accidents, civil and criminal actions, debts, education, auto and health insurance, etc. Further, their parents will not be able to treat their new "minor" (18, 19 and 20 year old) children as adults either.

5. The new "minor’s" will not be able to control their own bank accounts or credit cards and would therefore require their parents to co-sign for everything the "minor’s" do. Further, the parents would have to accompany them on trips to the mall, stores, etc. to sign checks and credit card vouchers. This would affect all retail sales, car sales, etc. and would put additional strains on the leisure time of the American family.

6. Of course, the new "minor’s" will not be able to smoke, drink, gamble or buy a handgun, BUT HECK; they can’t do those things now. (Or at least not in the very near future with the way things are going.)

Obvious the above proposals are ridiculous. I think that all "18, 19 and 20-year-old adults" should have the same rights and privileges as any "other adult". Because of spineless politicians, special interest groups and the "other adults" (who sit quietly by and watch as this age discrimination takes place), many of the rights and privileges are being stripped, or have been stripped, from the new "minor(ity)".

I propose reversing this trend and giving back all of the adult rights and privileges to 18, 19 and 20 year olds and getting rid of this new "minor(ity)". Or we should VOTE to change the age of majority back to 21 years of age and strip anyone under 21 of all rights and privileges, granted to adults, and the responsibility that comes with those rights and privileges.

NOTICE:

ALL OF YOU SPINELESS POLITICIANS AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (i.e.-M. A. D. D., etc.) CAN NOW TELL ALL THE "OTHER ADULTS" TO STAND UP, FOR A FEW MORE YEARS, AND RAISE THEIR NEW "MINOR" CHILDREN AND THE BABIES THAT COME WITH THEM. FURTHER, YOU CAN TELL THE "OTHER ADULTS" TO PAY THE INCREASES ON THE FAMILY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY THAT WILL INEVITABLY HAPPEN WHEN ALL OF THESE NEW "MINOR’S" ARE ADDED BACK TO THE FAMILY POLICY. THE "OTHER ADULTS" WILL HAVE TO HELP WITH THE SHOPPING AND GO TO TRAFFIC COURT AND JUVENILE COURT WITH THEIR NEW "MINOR" CHILDREN. THE "OTHER ADULTS" WILL ALSO BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR NEW "MINOR" CHILDREN UNTIL THEY REACH THE AGE OF 21, INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT AGE OF 18.

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RAISE THE AGE OF MAJORITY BACK TO 21?

Sarcastically yours... or not?

Lenny Vasbinder

Here's the original post on GeoCities, now archived on the Wayback Machine Internet Archive...

http://web.archive.org/web/20050214191609/www.geocities.com/LennyVasbinderPI/Politics_TheNewMinority

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

My Even More Ridiculous Proposal...Or Not? - Another Article From My Old GeoCities Blog

Here is another archived article I did on my GeoCities website years ago but with all of the "State's Rights" issues happening right now due to the illegal ObamaCare legislation that infringes on State's rights and citizen's rights, I thought I would re-post this old article here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050329022622/www.geocities.com/LennyVasbinderPI/Politics_Ridiculous

I originally wrote this Letter-To-The-Editor to several papers back when former President Clinton was proposing a Federalized DWI Law, which I thought was ridiculous, so I called this...

MY EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL.. OR NOT?

Since everyone associated with Washington, D.C. (i.e.-FEDERAL POLITICIANS, NON-ELECTED FEDERAL JUDGES, WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS, ETC.) want to tell the States, Parishes, Counties, Cities and the People how to regulate themselves, or face CUT-OFF or CUT-BACK of Federal Funds, why not just DISSOLVE ALL CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT? Then we can make all of the existing state and local laws, rules and regulations into federal laws, rules and regulations. Then we can just let everything and everyone be run by the Federal Government in Washington, D.C., since there is already the President, Congress and all the various Federal Agencies run by bureaucrats already.

NOTICE TO ALL CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS AND EMPLOYEES:

If you do not want MY EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL to eventually come true, then you better start showing some autonomy and follow the ideas and dictates of our Founding Fathers. Begin by immediately protesting any federalized proposal that contradicts or usurps our State, Parish, County and City laws, rules and regulations, and the beliefs of the majority of the people. For example, Louisiana politicians eventually raised the drinking age from 18 to 21, not by a vote or proposal by our people, but ONLY after federal threats of cutbacks in federal highway funds, and lobbying by special interest groups.

An 18, 19 and 20 year old is either a MINOR FOR ALL PURPOSES or an ADULT FOR ALL PURPOSES, which includes buying a beer. This has nothing to do with promoting drinking and driving or relaxing the existing DWI laws, as I am against that, but it is RIDICULOUS that the liberals in Washington, D. C. want to stop an 18 year old ADULT from buying a beer, even though these same 18 year old ADULT men are required under federal law to register for the selective service, be eligible for the draft and even go to WAR for our country. These same 18-year-old ADULTS have the right to vote which many politicians seem to forget!

NO POLITICIAN IN WASHINGTON, D.C. OR ANY STATE that I know of has ever proposed a criminal law against two minor teenagers that have sex and make an illegitimate baby! Which is more detrimental to society? The 18 year old ADULT who buys a beer or the unmarried teenage moms with illegitimate babies. Once again, I am not saying it is O. K. to drink and drive, only that a LEGAL ADULT should have all the other rights and privileges as any other LEGAL ADULT, since two minors can legally make illegitimate babies without any legal repercussions. IN FACT, WE END UP PAYING THEM TO DO IT, VIA WELFARE AND OTHER SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

The latest reported statistics claim that there were 40,000 traffic fatalities and the overwhelming majority WERE NOT caused by drunk drivers, and of the ones that were caused by drunk drivers, the average blood alcohol content was 0.17%. In that same year, there were an estimated 1,000,000 abortions, and more than 20,000,000 abortions since Roe v. Wade, yet when our State tried to curb these irresponsible people, the Courts said NO!

Irresponsible people having un-protected sex and using abortion as a means of birth control are far more detrimental to society than an 18 year old ADULT buying a beer.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, who were, and still are much wiser than most of the current politicians, was that each State should have autonomy without an overpowering and encumbering Federal Government telling them or their people how to run THEIR STATE. This was intended so that States would be different as far as laws, rules and regulations are concerned, so that each State would have to compete for business, industry and even to attract and retain its tax paying citizen base. For example, if one State started taxing and regulating people too much more than another neighboring State, those people, businesses and industry could move to the less burdensome State. These types of market forces would have caused States to compete with lower taxes, better schools, better police and fire protection, better roads, etc., in order to attract and retain more people and businesses. This same analogy applies to Cities, Parishes and Counties within any given State.

I think that the way the Federal Government is now collecting the money (i.e.-our tax dollars) and only giving it back to us if we "stay in line" with Washington, D. C. is RIDICULOUS, and against the original intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution of The United States.

IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN ANY GIVEN STATE WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM HOW TO LIVE, WORK AND RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, THEN THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE TO DISSOLVE THEIR CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AND GO UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. THE PEOPLE IN THAT STATE, THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH FEDERAL CONTROL OF THEIR STATE ARE FREE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER MORE FAVORABLE STATE.

NOTICE TO CITIZENS:

IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE ABOVE TO HAPPEN, START TELLING YOUR CITY, PARISH, COUNTY AND STATE LAWMAKERS AND BUREAUCRATS TO STAND UP TO WASHINGTON, D. C. (many cannot, due to being so spineless) AND DO WHAT OUR CITIZENS WANT, NOT WHAT SOME FEDERAL JUDGE, POLITICIAN OR BUREAUCRAT WANTS US TO DO!

For example, tell our ELECTED Sheriffs and Judges to stop releasing prisoners due to some liberal Federal judges ruling and just pack the convicted criminals into the jails until the seams are bulging. WATCH THE CRIME RATE GO DOWN THEN! It should not cost the taxpayers $25.00 to $40.00 per day to house convicted criminals while they serve out their punishments. Until our elected Sheriffs and Judges start standing up for STATES RIGHTS, we will continue to pay huge amounts of money to give these convicts free living space, free meals, free medical treatment, free recreation, etc., etc.

I KNOW THAT SOME OF THIS SOUNDS RIDICULOUS AT FIRST BUT RE-READ THIS LETTER AND START THINKING ABOUT THE OVERALL MESSAGE. IT ACTUALLY STARTS TO MAKE SENSE!

Lenny Vasbinder

P.S.-This writer has no financial interest in any alcohol beverage outlet, but is very interested in RIDICULOUS government policies and against the ever-growing size of the Federal Government.

Here is the Preamble of The Constitution and The Brittanica Concise Reference excerpt from Yahoo!

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Brittanica Concise Reference from Yahoo! Reference site explains the Constitution as follows:

(Pay particular attention to the 2nd Paragraph)

Fundamental law of the U.S. federal system of government and a landmark document of the Western world. It is the oldest written national constitution in operation, completed in 1787 at a convention of 55 delegates who met in Philadelphia, ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation. Because ratification in many states hinged on the promised addition of a Bill of Rights, the Constitution was not fully certified until 1791.

The framers were especially concerned with limiting the power of the government and securing the liberty of citizens. The Constitution's separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the checks and balances of each branch against the other, and the explicit guarantees of individual liberty were all designed to strike a balance between authority and liberty.

Article I vests all legislative powers in the Congress--the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article II vests executive power in the president. Article III places judicial power in the hands of the courts. Article IV deals, in part, with relations among the states and with the privileges of the citizens, Article V with amendment procedure, and Article VI with public debts and the supremacy of the Constitution. Article VII gives ratification terms. The 10th Amendment restricted the national government's powers to those expressly listed in the Constitution; the states, unless otherwise restricted, possess all the remaining (or "residual") powers of government. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by Congress on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. (All subsequent amendments have been initiated by Congress.) Amendments proposed by Congress must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states. Twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789. In addition to the Bill of Rights, these include the 13th (1865), abolishing slavery; the 14th (1868), requiring due process and equal protection under the law; the 15th (1870), guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race; the 17th (1913), providing for the direct election of U.S. senators; the 19th (1920), instituting women's suffrage, and the 22nd (1951), limiting the presidency to two terms. See also civil liberty, commerce clause, Equal Rights Amendment, establishment clause, freedom of speech, judiciary, states' rights.

Sincerely,

Lenny Vasbinder
Related Posts with Thumbnails

World Flag Counter added 04/14/2010 and U.S. Flag added 04/26/2010, so the numbers are WAY low.

free counters Free counters!

Followers