LONE EAGLE OBSERVER HAS MOVED (AGAIN!)!

YES, THIS MAKES THE THIRD MOVE IN A MONTH
BUT THIS WILL BE THE LAST MOVE!
LONE EAGLE OBSERVER NOW HAS
ITS OWN DOMAIN AND WEB HOSTING SERVICE!
COME JOIN US TODAY!


HTTP://WWW.CHARLESAHALL.US

DONATE TODAY TO LONE EAGLE OBSERVER!

Charles A. Hall: "We are asking for donations totaling $100.00 USD to help buy a domain name and web hosting service for Lone Eagle Observer. Please donate today to LEO and help us advance to the next step!" (Read More Here).

Progress: $0.00 of $100.00

I proudly support TserverHQ.com

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

"Charles, what is with all the changes?"

As some of you are already noticing just a few weeks ago I switched from The Hall Review (http://charlesahall.blogspot.com) to the Lone Eagle Review (http://loneeaglereview.blogspot.com).  I switched my Twitter account also from @CharlesAHall to @LoneEagleReview.  I did a lot of formatting, get a lot of images up, advertising set up, writing a half dozen blog posts about the change... and then... just moved it all back!  I did this for several reasons:

  1. I don't know, for the life of me, why I made the switch in the first place.  I thought I wanted a new look, a fresh start, etc.  Well, come to find out, I DIDN'T!
  2. I didn't want to manage two blogs and two Twitter accounts.  It was already being too much.
  3. I wanted the name "Lone Eagle" but couldn't have it so I found a way to still make myself The Lone Eagle without having to make the change.
  4. I wanted to come back to http://charlesahall.blogspot.com and @CharlesAHall because if I needed to run for public office one day I already had a following and didn't have to try to drive individuals to yet another website.
  5. I like having my name in most of the references because then you will understand that is me actually speaking to you and not a nameless person writing under the name "Lone Eagle".
Those are just some of the reasons I decided to move everything back.  This design for Lone Eagle Observer is much better than Lone Eagle Review ever was.  It is much more clean and straight forward.  I believe this Blog will provide a much better avenue to get in touch with individuals following me.

So, we have a new logo, a new logo with new information, thoughts, and ideas coming your way several times a week!

Be sure to follow me on Twitter @CharlesAHall and subscribe to me RSS feed!

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Bush 43 Seeks 3rd Term in 2012

President George Walker Bush, the 43rd President, is seeking a Third Term as President of the United States of America in 2012.  He will be challenging his successor, President Barack Hussein Obama (44th President), in 2012.  Here his is announcement made in Provo, Utah.


Okay, it isn't true, but this is a funny video from Divine Comedy at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Why Lone Eagle Review?

As with anyone that starts a business, a Twitter, a Facebook, or anything that just has to deal with getting an idea out there is always a single question that most will ask: "Why?"

I worked at a company called Ziplocal (formerly PDCpages).  I was in their Inside Sales Department as a Media Advertising Consultant (fancy name for Salesman!).  I would have page after page of businesses to call from Kansas to Oregon, Idaho to California.  When I talked to business owners, managers, or just the individual that answered the phone I knew there was a single thought of their mind, second only to "How much this going to cost me?"  That thought was what Paul Schween, a speaker in Arizona, calls the "W.I.I.F.M." frequency.  That stands for "What's In It For Me?"  (By the way, I recommend Paul Schween to anyone business owner needs help with their sales.  Great speaker.  Heard him in both 2005 and 2006 in Arizona.)

Now you maybe asking yourself "What's In It For Me to follow another blog?"  Here is what I can tell you what's in it for you to follow the Lone Eagle Review (LER).
  1. LER is a website dedicated to promoting the principles of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States.  I have studied the Constitution quite regularly.  Just left of this computer screen is a little holder for my checkbook, pens, and there is a copy of the Constitution.  Maybe you'll learn a thing or two that you didn't know about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.  And I would love to learn from your comments to my posts.
  2. Never stop learning.  People often accuse others that they don't know what they are talking about.  I had this happen most recently with my own grandfather who I'm named after.  He accused me of just being a follower of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and FOX News.  Not only have I not listened to either man since mid-Summer of this year I haven't watched FOX News since we turned off our DISH Network around the same time period.  Getting thoughts and ideas from new sources are a way to expand your knowledge, connect with new individuals and share your own opinions and values.  The more information you tap into the more you learn and the more you learn the better you are at handling yourself when either promoting or defending your values and views.
  3. Conservative and Constitutional opinion without the conspiracy.  This maybe the part that gets me into trouble, but I will be straight forward with you.  There are a lot of "conservative" websites out there that are nothing but lies and full of conspiracy theories.  At LER you won't find that.  I may comment every now and then on a theory I just find completely out in left field but nothing like that will be published here.  Here you can expect real conservative and real constitutional opinion.
  4. Fun!  How often do you get bored with reading the same old political blogs and websites day in and day out?  I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.  Oh, not really.  I read three websites every day on a regular basis: MSNBC, The Associated Press, FOX News.  But I'm not going to load this blog with tons and tons and tons and tons and tons (do I have enough tons in there?) politics?  I'll be mixing it up with a movie review here, a game review there, a report on an evening out on the town here in Utah Valley.  I'm not boring and neither will LER.
Well, I don't want to bore you to death about LER because this is already quite a long blog post.  But those four points should answer the "W.I.I.F.M.?" Grand Question.

Follow-up to 26th October 2009 Posting

Follow-up to 26th October 2009 Post
By Charles A. Hall

Back on the 26th of October 2009 I posted my great disappointment for Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).  I stated in that article, quote: "Why am I disappointed? Well, maybe it is too much to ask but I've never heard a single word back from Congressman Chaffetz since he won the Republican Nomination back in 2008 and has been in office since January 2009. Not one word!"  At the time of my writing that article that was very true, I hadn't heard a single word from my Congressman.

What many individuals don't know is that your Congressman in the House of Representatives is suppose to be your direct link to the Federal Government.  The Founding Fathers set up the Federal Government that the House of Representatives (also known as The Lower House) was to represent The People directly within certain districts of a state.  The Senate (also known as The Upper House) was to represent the States, giving the States a voice in the Federal Government with two Senators each.  The 17th Amendment (http://bit.ly/ft274w) changed that in 1913.  Now The People both elect their Congressman and two Senators.

Your direct life line to the Federal Government is your Congressman, your Representative in the House.  If that individual doesn't communicate with you what they are doing in Washington, D.C., what they are doing with your tax dollars, what they are doing to represent you that individual no longer deserves to represent you.  That is how I felt about Congressman Chaffetz ten months into his first term.  Since then my opinion has changed.

I have written the Congressman several times and have heard back from him on different issues.  I am very confident in his voting record and standing up for the People of his District, the State of Utah, and the US Constitution.  The October 2010 of The New American's Freedom Index showed that the Congressman had a 93% rating (http://bit.ly/fGQXLK).  That for his votes in the 111th Congress the Congressman was in line with the Constitution 93% of the time.  So there is some room for some improvement, but not much.  For that I am thankful.

I'm happy and proud to state that I voted for the Congressman during the 2010 Midterm Elections.  I'm glad he is getting on the right track.  Rumor has it that he maybe getting a Chair in one of the House Subcommittees in the 112th Congress.

The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism

There is a Fox News Reporting six-part series going on by Fox News host Brit Hume entitled "The Right, Fall & Future of Conservatism."  It is dealing with conservatism in the 20th Century, I believe, here in the United States.  I haven't been able to watch a single episode yet, but I plan to here very shortly.  Each episode seems to be between ten (10) and fifteen (15) minutes long.  You can get the first five episodes at HyperBlogCafe @ .

Goals of the Lone Eagle Review

The Goals of the Lone Eagle Review are not simply to create another blog with political ramblings, but to have a place to interact, share ideas, and promote the Constitution of the United States.  But it isn't limited to politics either.  No, it will include more: movie and game reviews, information about my family and our adventures, and other topics.

It is my hope to also launch a YouTube channel so you can heard my opinions and views, just not read them.  Lone Eagle Review has a bright future in store!  Hope you become a part of it!

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Self-Proclaimed Lone Eagle

Hello everyone, my name is Charles Hall. I am the self-proclaimed Lone Eagle. Why do I say I am a Lone Eagle? Eagles fly alone for the most part, though they do occasionally flock together. As Peter Nye from the New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation has pointed out, quote: "They usually fly alone, although some may follow others to feeding grounds, like from the morning roost, or when going back to the roost in the late afternoon" (http://bit.ly/eEFvaH). Well, I follow a few other Eagles to feeding grounds, but for the most part I always seem to be by myself. My opinions are sometimes out of line with even the most die hard conservative because I believe the Constitution of the United States to be an inspired document from God, the Almighty. It is the base in which nations have modeled their own governments after.

If you Google "The Lone Eagle" the first hit you get is a website about Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly across the vast Atlantic Ocean solo. After self-proclaiming myself a "Lone Eagle" I did this Google search and let me state now: In no way, shape, or form am I saying I'm even remotely close to comparison with Brigadier General Lindbergh. Mr. Lindbergh was THE Lone Eagle and I am merely a Lone Eagle.

It is my passion to help average citizens, such as myself, to understand the world around them. I'm no teacher, I'm a student, but I love to teach and to learn. The understandings of the United States Constitution and the real impacts on our daily life, how those they call themselves "leaders" are actually "representatives", how the average American can and will make a difference.

You maybe asking yourself a very simple question: "Is this another crack-pot conspiracy, 'down with the government' blog/website?" The answer is simple: no. I don't do conspiracy theories, I don't do "down with the government." We have an almost perfect government already in place, it is those that run the government that are not perfect. I love the Preamble of the Constitution that states, quote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." I love that part! The People of this country hundreds of years ago wanted to form a union among themselves that inspired to be perfect! I just love that part! Our Founding Fathers gave us the tools that we need to establish this "perfect union" and now we have to just use the tools given to us.

I hope that you will follow me, share your thoughts and ideas with me, and together we can start to change this country back to what the Founding Fathers gave us: a true and free Republic. "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863).

Launch of the Lone Eagle Review

Welcome to the Lone Eagle Review! This blog is brought to you by the thoughts and ideas of Charles A. Hall. The Lone Eagle Review is being designed to give a citizen's take on the current situation of the world, mainly in the United States. Lone Eagle Review will not be completely limited to the realm of politics, but also to other issues in the United States and around the globe. Subscribe today and keep up with "An Independent View On Your World!"

Charles A. Hall has been actively involved in the realm of American politics since the 2004 Presidential Election. He has written several dozen articles that have been published online to varies social media websites. Charles studies articles from MSNBC, The Associated Press, and Fox News to formulate his own ideas and opinions. Charles understands the great power of the Internet to move along thoughts, ideas, and opinions. He greatly welcomes outside comments to further refine his own values and views.

Some old articles from Charles' old blog (The Hall Review) will be transferred over to this blog to help increase content and give you a sense of what Charles believes in over the past several years.

Donations to the Lone Eagle Review will and are greatly appreciated to help further the thoughts and ideas of Charles. With enough donations we can purchase a domain name, an independent web server, and more!

Thank you for joining the Lone Eagle Review and following the Lone Eagle.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Val Peterson: Vote of No Confidence

People have described me as a "rank and file" Republican.  Well, I dispute that because I don't see myself as a rank and file Republican.  I'm a self-described Reagan Conservative.  I look at the issues from three individual sources most of the time: MSNBC (Liberal), The Associated Press (Moderate), and FOX News (Conservative).  I also read articles posted on Real Clear Politics that compiles articles from around the country and even some internationally.  One case I make that I am not a "rank and file" Republican is my severe dislike and disappointment for Congressman-elect Val Peterson (R-UT59).

Val Peterson was recently elected to represent District 59 in the Utah State House of Representatives.  He won his seat with 4,376 votes to Democrat challenger James Greer's 922.  Well, clearly District 59 is a Republican-held district and who would believe it never was?  It is Utah after all, right?  Oh, and only 48.42% of Utah County voted on November 2nd.

To continue Mr. Peterson campaigned pretty hard (in my opinion) during the Republican Primary, beating out Republican Primary challenger Michael J. Thompson 1,541 to 961.  I didn't have the chance to vote in the Primary because I was in Washington State all during June and didn't get a ballot sent out to myself (which my was own error).  On the day of the Primary (June 22, 2010) he posted on his Facebook (which is a HUGE tool for candidates today) about how it was a great day to exercise our liberty.  On June 25th he posted that he was humble to be the Republican nominee for District 59.  It took three days to post that acceptance for a twenty second post.  And what more did we hear from Mr. Peterson since June 25th?  Nothing!  Not a peep!

The 2010 General Elections came on November 2nd, 2010 and when did Mr. Peterson submit his acceptance to those he is going to be serving?  November 4th!  That is two (2) days after the election was over!  Mr. Peterson, when a vote is going to be happening on the State House Floor on May 1st are you going to show up on May 3rd?  I think a little respect and timeliness should be given to your constituents who you were just elected to represent.

I checked Mr. Peterson's election website for news, events, town hall meetings, debates, etc. for his bid for State House.  I didn't find anything!  There was nothing on his Facebook!  There was not even a Twitter account!  Facebook and Twitter weren't even on his website!  Mr. Peterson, there are many young individuals that are in your district that basically live on Facebook and Twitter!  Why are you ignoring them?  My wife (21) and I (25) use Facebook for almost everything (besides shopping... most of the time).  I just don't understand!

In his acceptance on November 4th (remember, two days after the election was over) he stated, quote: "Meeting with the great people of our district throughout this election has been one of the greatest experiences of my life."  Um... Mr. Peterson, when did these meetings happen?  Were these meetings in people's homes, going door-to-door, etc?  When did you get out and meet people?  I live over on Main St by Gold's Gym and I don't remember you ever stopping by.  He goes on to further say, quote: "I look forward to working together to represent our community, families, and values."  How can you know our community if you really didn't meet those that you will be serving?  Granted, you, Mr. Peterson, have lived here longer then I have and know you neighbors, but what about the rest of us in the district?

This also makes me to believe that individuals in my district just looked for the (R) next to the name and voted.  I'm not calling anyone ignorant or uninformed, but call into question if people really knew who they were voting for, what a person stood for, etc.  Yes, Mr. Peterson has information on his website about his values and views on government, etc. but he, in my opinion, didn't get out and meet the people to promote those values and views.

Mr. Val Peterson is the only person in the 2010 General Elections I didn't vote for because of this fact that I believe he just put the (R) next to his name and knew that was enough to be elected to the State House of Representatives.  I contacted Mr. Peterson for information and received none.  Very big disappointment.  I had this same disappointment with Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) who represents the District 3 of the State of Utah in the US House of Representatives.  He hadn't returned anything of my letters or requests for information.  I was very disappointed.  But since my writing a note similar to this one about Mr. Chaffetz I have been contacted via letter several times in response to my disappointment (hopefully this produces the same results).  That has greatly changed my opinion of Mr. Chaffetz and his ability to represent me in the US House of Representatives.

I cast a "Vote of No Confidence" on Mr. Peterson and his true ability to represent District 59.  Maybe I wouldn't be as "bitter" if he actually campaigned for this people of trust.  I live in District 59, have for the last two years and will continue to live here while I attend Utah Valley University.  Mr. Peterson is my representative to the State of Utah, but I am serverly disappointed in a man that slaps an (R) next to his name and believes that is enough.

Mr. Peterson, I would love to change my opinion of you as I did with Mr. Chaffetz.  I will see how you do during your tenure in office, if you will actually reply to my e-mails then for more information, etc.  If you'd like to talk please drop me a line.

Mobile: 360-477-7461
E-mail: rogue_outsider@yahoo.com

###

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

TSA and the Constitution

Today (Wednesday, 24 November 2010) will be a busy day at airports across the United States.  Millions of people are expected to be traveling across the country and internationally for the Thanksgiving Weekend.  Well, we've all have probably heard from someone, saw it on the news, or read it online about these new Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) policies about these full-body scanners that produce basically a virtual naked image of a person.  If you don't go through these new scanners you are subject to an "enhanced" pat-down that include the feeling of your "private" areas for both men and women.

Now our leaders and their, not ours, appointed personnel are saying we, the citizens, need to use common sense and just basically do as we're told (for the most part).  Some are saying we need to find a "balance" on safety and privacy.
I'm looking at this debate and I'm saying to myself, "Okay, the full body scanner I think I could handle.  It is a virtual image, not me standing in for a porno shoot, and as long as they don't look at my 'private' parts, I'm probably okay."  Now to the "enhanced" pat-down that includes touching of the "private" parts.

The Constitution of the United States states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now several things stand out here:

  1. "the right of the people" - This is a defined right.
  2. "secure in their persons... and effects" - That is meaning me and my belongs.
  3. "unreasonable searches and seizures" - I don't think saying no to possible Fifth Amendment violation is unreasonable, do you?
  4. "shall not be violated" - meaning you don't cross over this line!!!  PERIOD!
  5. "but upon probable cause" - You have to have probable cause that I'm about to commit a crime.  A little *beep* and light from a machine doesn't say I'm about to commit a crime, it says I might have forgotten a quarter in my pocket!
Probable cause has been best defined as, "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".  I believe that feeling up a person is a violation of this right.  What they have described in these articles for these "enhanced" pat-downs is basically what I was taught over a year ago when I took the Bail Enforcement Academy course to become a Bail Recovery Apprentice!  Bail Recovery Apprentice is another title for Bounty Hunter.  These are things that I was taught when I arrest someone that has jumped bail and how to search them!  On possible criminals!  Not some lady that had breast cancer and has an artificial breast!  You don't ask that person to remove that because you don't have probable cause to execute that search!

Where do you draw the line?  Well, I believe the line has already been drawn and that line is clearly stated in the Constitution of the United States under the Fourth Amendment.

The common sense needs to not be by the people, but our elected representatives and their appointed/hired personnel.  Can we use drug and bomb sniffing dogs?  A bomb sniffing dog has great smell, why not have them sit next to the scanner and sniff the air and if something goes off then you may have probable cause because this animal is trained in detecting that chemical.

I believe that this has been a big mess that TSA could have avoided if they just read the Constitution every now and then because I believe these "enhanced" pat-downs are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment because they do not have probable cause to treat a traveler like a terrorist.

What I'm upset about also is that it is people coming from outside the United States, traveling into the States trying to do these terrorist acts, not actual individuals inside the United States since September 11th.  Why are the American people being punished and inconvenienced because of these people not even in our country?  Answer me that.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

After the Midterm War...

After the Midterm War…
20 October 2010
By Charles A. Hall

On October 13th, President B. Hussein Obama stated to a magazine article that the Republicans will have to get along with the President (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/13/obama-republicans-learn/).  I can’t believe the arrogance of this individual.  Yes, the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.  Yes, the Democrats took control of the White House in 2008.  Now, two years after the Presidential Election the Democrats are going to lose the House of Representatives and even possibility a majority in the Senate.  This is a repeat of the 1994 Mid-terms, right after President Bill Clinton was elected into office.  When will the Democrats learn?

From Fox News: “President Obama reveals in a magazine article that he is weighing what to do if Republicans win the House majority next month, and has come up with a novel approach: Make the GOP work with him.”  Now wait a second, wait a second?  Shouldn’t the President be working with the GOP?  Doesn’t he need the GOP and not the other way around?  I believe that the President needs to get off his high horse and come back down to realty that his party has messed up, big time.  The majority of Americans were and still are against cap-and-trade and ObamaCare.  They are mad about Congress spending and spending and spending.

“But Charles, why are you mad about spending now when President George W. Bush spent a ton?!”

At the website http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov/ you can see the Debt Held by the Public (a.k.a. the Federal Deficit) down to the penny.  When President Bush was sworn in on January 20th, 2001 the debt was at about $5.72 Trillion.  When he left office eight years later on January 20th, 2009 the debt was at about $10.62 Trillion.  Over eight years the debt raised about $4.9 Trillion.  That is a lot, but remember we were, and still are, fighting two wars and had some ups and down.

Now from January 20th, 2009 to present:  When President Obama took office the debt was at about $10.62 Trillion.  Today (20 October 2010) the debt is about $13.66 Trillion (latest numbers available was 16 October).  So less than two years later since President Obama was sworn in the debt has raised $3.04 Trillion!  That is around 62% of the total debt President Bush has to claim, but over an eight year period!  Now, who is really spending more: Bush or Obama?

I thought I would just address that because many would probably bring it up.  Please feel free to challenge me, but remember this: present me with evidence, facts, etc.  And be civil.

Back to the subject at hand: after the war…  President Obama is going to have to learn to get along with the GOP because without them he will not be able to move any of his agenda through.  No more back dealing (yes, there was plenty during ObamaCare), communication with the GOP, etc.  But a lot of responsibility will rest on the GOP.

The GOP is going to have to have a set agenda with solutions on many issues: the economy, jobs, healthcare, immigration, border security, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  The GOP needs solutions to these problems.  They are riding the Anti-Washington wave right now and that is fine, but after November 2nd they need a plan.  Without a plan to solve many problems the GOP just might not hold the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate, come 2012 without this.

I don’t know what the GOP might do but they need to be open and clear on what they intend to do after November 2nd.

###

Sunday, May 9, 2010

ROTTEN Hall Children - TAKE II!

Back in November 2009 I wrote the note "ROTTEN Hall Children". Well, this is TAKE II of that note after now being a father.

Rachael joined our family on 6 April 2010 (five years, by the way, from when her daddy entered the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah). And this morning (9 May - Mother's Day) my wife has me watching "Say Yes To The Dress" on TLC. I looked at my little girl and said, "You have a limit of $5,000 for your wedding dress." My wife laughed at me. I went back just now and read the "ROTTEN Hall Children" and just laughed. This is what I put down for a Hall Daughter:

A SINGLE HALL GIRL
First Car - $2,000
Mission - $15,000 (If she decides to go on one : two years + dresses + passports + etc.)
College - $50,000 ($12,500/year for four years)
Wedding - $5,000 (Anything more she is paying!)

Total - $72,000

I just couldn't help but laughed because I just told my daughter, who won't remember anything that I say at all, she could spend $5,000 on a dress and it was the price I said would be her whole wedding! HAHA! I guess things do change once you actually have a child.

So, make to the budget board for the kids!

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Battle of Immigration Reform: A Citizen's Take

The Battle of Immigration Reform: A Citizen’s Take
By Charles A. Hall

If you are staying in touch with any of the major news networks or even your local newspaper or local news website you will find story upon story, article upon article about the recently passed and signed into law immigration reform in the State of Arizona. Now before I proceed I’ll say that I haven’t read the entire law, just the cliff notes version, what I’ve watched and read in the news.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is a huge step in the direction of a growing issue: illegal immigration. Let me repeat that: ILLEGAL immigration! Those that enter into the United States of America outside of legal means are illegal, meaning against the law. Am I against immigration into the United States? No, I am not, I am a supporter of immigration because America was built upon immigration from the pilgrims to present day.

This bill has addressed many pressing concerns that have threatened the sovereignty and security of the State of Arizona. When an illegal immigrate enters the borders of the United States whether it be from Canada, Mexico, Cuba, or any other country these illegal immigrates are also entering our states, counties, and cities. The State of Arizona, and any other state in the Union, have the right to protect their borders, their citizens, their homes, their schools, their children, everything inside their borders they have the right to protect.

The United States of America is a country made up of States to form a Union. The Federal Government only gets its power from The People and the States. Without either the Federal Government has no power. Each state has the right to protect themselves.

I believe that too many people look at illegal immigration is just people coming into the country and there is nothing we can do about it until the Federal Government does something about the issue. This is not true. States have the complete right to protect themselves and 1070 has done this for the State of Arizona.

Racial profiling has come into the picture, that law enforcement officials will be going after everyone and everyone that are Latino, Cuban, African, etc. No, I don’t think so. I believe law enforcement officials have better common sense than we give them. Law enforcement officials must have “reasonable suspicion” to search an individual for weapons, drugs, etc. This is one step down from “probable cause.” You need probable cause usually to enter a home or the nature. Law enforcement officials only need reasonable suspicion to pull over a vehicle that they believe maybe a drunk driver on the road. I do not believe that 1070 will create a whole new level of racial profiling.

When I was a private investigator I would sit in my vehicle for hours on end and I had several law enforcement officials come to my vehicle and speak to me. “What are you doing here,” they would ask. I would identify myself and they would ask for my license. Now, do they have reasonable suspicion that I could be up to no good or lying? Yes, they do! I’m a twenty-four year old individual just sitting in a vehicle for the last eight hours outside of someone’s house! Do I believe they are profiling me because I’m twenty-four and sitting in a vehicle? NO! I believe they are doing their job. I would give them my license, they would run a quick check, find out I’m okay, and they would be on their way.

This scenario I have just presented is no different then what 1070 has done for the State of Arizona. This isn’t a new level of racial profiling, this is protecting the sovereign State of Arizona. Arizona has the right to protect themselves if the Federal Government doesn’t. Let us look at another scenario:

The defense of the United States lays with the Federal Government, correct? There is also laws that allows the states to form their own militia and to protect their sovereign borders. The National Guard is technically run by state governments as each state government is the state’s national guard commander-and-chief. So, if a state government calls up their state guard and their militia to protect their borders which border another country are they taking away from the Federal Government? I would say… NO! Why, because they have the right to protect their sovereign state and their citizens.
I praise the State of Arizona for taking an important step in state sovereignty and state rights. I am very pleased that the state is taking a more pro-active role in protecting their citizens. I fully agree with 1070 and hope other states will follow Arizona’s example, including Washington (my home state) and Utah (my current state of residence).

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

My Answers to the DNC...

In response to this article:
http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=21254&content=31993588&pageNum=-1

1. Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
No comment.

2. Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?
YES!

3. Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?
YES!

4. Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
His policies are!

5. Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
YES!

Monday, October 26, 2009

Disappointment in Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT)

Disappointment in Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT)
By Charles A. Hall

22 October 2009

This is going to be a short little note but I want to just take a moment in expressing my disappointment in Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R) who represents Utah's Third Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. Why am I disappointed? Well, maybe it is too much to ask but I've never heard a single word back from Congressman Chaffetz since he won the Republican Nomination back in 2008 and has been in office since January 2009. Not one word!

Every issue (about five over the last nine months) I have written Senators Bob Benneth (R-UT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on I have received a response from (e-mail or letter). Is it a standard letter? I don't know, I hope not, but I don't know. Nothing I've ever written Congressman Chaffetz on has every been returned with his stance and promise to do this or that.

I wrote former Congressman Chris Cannon on one issue and that was about an individual (I forget who it was and all I can remember is this person was a Republican) in the House wanting to reinstate the "Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994." I wrote him expressing my disappoint in this Congressman and told him not to support it. I received a response back less than three weeks later. Again, I have never received anything back from Congressman Chaffetz and I'm very disappointed in him because of it.

Heck, I've even received things back from the White House and I don't even like the President! This was clearly a form letter, but it was something!

"I am here to serve the residents of the 3rdCongressional District, and so is my staff."

"If you’d like to contact me about a legislative issue, please e-mail me; or phone me at (202) 225-7751; or send me a letter by mail."
(http://chaffetz.house.gov/contact/index.shtml)

Yes, I've tried to contact you but you haven't returned my time as my elected representative.

Why am I bringing this up now to the general public and especially to those in Utah Congressional District 3? Because just yesterday ads started popping up here on Facebook about donations to Chaffetz Re-election Campaign for 2010. This has me thinking, "I want an open government, I want to be able to hear from representatives and know exactly what they are doing. Do I want to re-elect someone that isn't open to me?" Am I being unreasonable? It is unreasonable to want to get a response from my representatives? They aren't my leaders, they are my representatives. In the words of Ross Geller (played by David Schwimmer) in Friends, "IS IT?!" Or do I want to support another candidate that holds the same values and views that I do but who will be open to the people he/she serves?

###

Monday, October 19, 2009

DC Voting Rights: Ignoring the Constitution

DC Voting Rights: Ignoring the Constitution
By Charles A. Hall

18 October 2009

In the 17 October 2009 issue of The Deseret News (a Utah based newspaper) talked about the once thought dead bill of giving the heavy Democrat friendly District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives while giving a fourth Congressional seat to the State of Utah (DN, B1-B2)

In Utah who supports this bill:
-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
-Congressman Jim Matheson (R-UT2)

In Utah who opposes this bill:
-Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT)
-Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT1)
-Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3)

Who has it right? I’m going with Senator Bennett and Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz. Why? Because to have a full voting seat in the House of Representatives that seat needs to belong to a state as stated fully in the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

The several States DOES NOT equal the District of Columbia. In the United States of America there are FIFTY (50) STATES and NOT fifty-one (51) states.

The Twenty-Third Amendment of the Constitution states:
“1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”

This is dealing with the Presidential Election and authorizing the District of Columbia to have three electors in the election. Nothing in this amendment, nor in any other part of the Constitution, states that the District of Columbia gets a voting seat on the House.

“Hatch, however, said the Constitution also allows federal taxation and jury trials only for residents of states, but courts have ruled such language also applies to D.C.” (DN, B2).

Here is a few things wrong with this:

1) The courts do not make law or amendments to the Constitution. They are to simply make sure that the laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President of the United States follow the Constitution (which we see they really don’t do that now days).

2) Senator Hatch needs to read the Constitution a little closer. Under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17 it states: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,”. Congress has the power to lay whatever taxes they want on the District of Columbia and say that federal taxes apply to it. That is granted by the Constitution!

3) Under the Sixth Amendment (Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses) of the Constitution it states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,” It mentions both “State” and “district” in this amendment. The “district” no doubt refers to the District of Columbia.

So maybe that is why the courts ruled the way they did on federal taxes and speedy trial, Senator Hatch? Maybe they were following the Constitution after all…?

“Chaffetz especially contends the bill is unconstitutional because the Constitution allows House representation only for states, and D.C. is not a state” (DN, B2). I agree with Congressman Chaffetz.

Where is this bill attached to? A defense bill. It is called a “rider”, something that has nothing to do with the bill as a full but added on at the end so it would pass with the full bill. These things can be good and bad. A rider to a credit card bill helped pass legislation to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms in national parks (which I loved!). But with this same method this method could be used to pass a National Health Care System and this bill to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House of Representatives. What is the difference? Concealed carry in national parks is constitutional under the Second Amendment, National Health Care System and D.C. voting rights aren’t.

What can you do to stop this bill that would, once again, ignore the Constitution?

1) Write your representatives in Congress (both House and Senate) and tell them “NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! NO TO D.C. VOTING RIGHTS!”

2) Pass the message along to your family, friends, neighbors, and others and have them write their representatives as well.

3) Post this information anywhere you can to get the message out!

Let me also set the record straight on this: I’m fine with voting rights for the District of Columbia IF it were a state! I’m not against them voting in the House of Representatives, but they need to be a state! If they ever did become a state (which I doubt they ever will be because the Founding Fathers didn’t want one state claiming the Seat of Government that is why they created D.C.) then they can have their full voting rights. Until then, the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Maybe look at passing an amendment or something like the 23rd Amendment? *shrugs*

Pass the message along and stop this bill!

###

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Gun Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime!

Gun Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
By Charles A. Hall

Saturday, 17 October 2009

The debate about gun rights and gun control rages on on a daily basis. I receive at least two e-mails a day about “gun control this” and “gun rights that.” To me it is a literal battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. And I will tell you right now that the forces of good are those that want to protect gun rights, gun owners, and preserve the Second Amendment (National Association of Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Defenders of America, etc.). The forces of evil are those that want to not only limit the Second Amendment but completely and utterly destroy it (The Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, President B. Hussein Obama and his Administration, and almost every Democrat in Congress).

Yes, I have called these individuals The Forces of Evil. Why? Because instead of protecting the Constitution of the United States (which politicians make an oath to preserve, protect, and defend), our Nation, and Her citizens they are harming and destroying it one bill at a time until we, pro-Second Amendment citizens, don’t have the strength to fight anymore.

Watch the following clip from the 1970s show “All in the Family.” Archie Bunker (played by the late Carroll O'Connor) had it right and so did America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

“What was the first thing the communists done when they took over Russia? Answer: gun control.” This is a historical fact! The same can be said about China and Nazi Germany. But is this really a thing of the past? If you said “yes, it is” you are wrong!

In 1996, after several massacres, new laws were passed in Australia to basically ban all longarms, pump shotguns, and handguns from private ownership. Handguns can still be obtained after a huge waiting period, large fees, and you must be apart of a shooting club to get “permission” to have a gun for “shooting purposes.”

In 1997 under the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 private gun ownership in the United Kingdom became illegal. All British subjects had to turn in their firearms. Did you know that even the United Kingdom’s Olympic Shooters can’t train in their own country? They have to go to neighboring countries that allow private gun ownership to train so they can represent their country to the world, but as long as it isn’t on British soil. The 2012 Summer Olympics this ban will be lifted ONLY for shooting events in the Olympics, but not for British citizens.

Here is a news report about the gun registrations and then gun bans in both the United Kingdom and their former colony of Australia:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1c_1228321106

And just coming to my attention this evening was that Canada, our northern neighbor, passed a law (C-68) that as of 1 January 2001 all guns must be registered in the Canadian Firearm Registry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulation), failure to do so results in no more guns and off to jail for you. Canadians can still purchase a firearm as long as you wait for your Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and be a member of a certified range. “Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of persons, including most security guards, to carry restricted or prohibited firearms in public, although generally carrying non-restricted firearms is permitted (although subject to other restrictions such breaching the peace if carried in manner that might alarm bystanders, such as in a city setting).”

Watch this video on Gun Control in Canada and tell me this can’t happen in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw

Now we show that gun control and gun registration isn’t a thing of the past, it has happened in three different countries in the last thirteen years. All three countries have already seen an increase in crime rates since they have instituted their bans on private gun ownership. Why? Because the law-biding citizens have given up the fight and have turned in their guns, the criminals have not. Who is gun control protecting: the innocent or the guilty? If we just look to these three countries it is the criminals.

In the movie above about Gun Control in Canada you heard it from police officers/constables themselves that such laws are ridiculous and don’t work, almost “unenforceable” as one constable put it. It only disarms the innocent and protects the guilty. Now here are a few other videos from ABC News series “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel” that look at gun control right here in the United States:

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

(A great part about the video about it shows that the gun ban in Washington, D.C. didn’t stop crime, it increased it!)

Gun Myths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

What I like in these two videos is that the criminals they interview in a maximum security prison say they will still carry a gun even if the law says they can’t, that the law will not stop them.

Criminal #1 (Video 2): “When I had a gun, I didn’t care what laws they had… I’m not going into no store to buy a gun so I could care less if they had a background check or not.”

Criminal #2 (Video 2): “I bought it on the street.”

It is true that most every criminal buys their firearms on the streets on the black market. Instead of targeting gun shops and law-biding citizens with gun regulations why not focus effort on tracking down black markets and getting those guns off the “streets” (literally)?

During the 2008 Presidential Election I was talking to some individuals about then Senator B. Hussein Obama (D-IL) running for President of the United States and his anti-gun/pro-gun control record. A person that overheard our conversation said, “He isn’t going to take our guns away.” I’m sorry to say but this person is very naive.

In February of this year President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, seemed to have “jumped the gun” announcing that the President would be seeking to reinstate the “Assault Weapons Ban” that was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1994 and that expired in ten years later in 2004 due to its “sunset clause” under President George W. Bush. As shown in the ABC News videos the assault weapons ban didn’t decrease crime, it increased it! Holder backed off as the pro-gun rights movement went on the attack, having already known it was coming and were prepared to head it off before it could go any further. Good move, Attorney General Holder, stay away from our guns!

All three countries and their citizens that I have listed have said the exact same thing: Do not believe for one second that it can’t happen in the United States because you are next. And right they are.

House Bill 45 (also known as Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009) will do exactly what has already been talked about from the British, the Aussies, and now Canadians. Not only will this bill start the process of taking private firearm ownership away but will also invade your right to privacy via your home and medical records. Here is National Association for Gun Rights Executive Director Dudley Brown about this bill:

NAGR – H.R. 45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yz6FwMJmMM

He identifies the following in this bill:

--Written exam before firearms purchase (I thought they couldn’t do this to exercise your right to vote, but they can for your right to keep and bear arms?!)

--Releases medical records (No more right to privacy there!)

--Two day waiting period

--$25 tax on any gun purchase (More taxes! YEAH!)

--A National Database of Firearms Owners (just like Soviet Union and Nazi Germany!)

--Massive, new penalties against the firearms industry (Destroying capitalism?)

--A Federal ban on any private gun sales (No more grandpa’s giving a .22 rifle to their grandkids and teaching them to shoot!)

Now I will be honest that I haven’t read the whole bill (I let groups like NAGR do that for me most of the time) and I will be looking it over soon myself. A myth I have heard about this bill (that I will verify at a later date if it is myth or fact) is that it will allow the police and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to come in and make sure your firearms are locked up and out reach of children. Now if they aren’t (like I have a firearm right now on my desk that stays there, but won’t be there after my first child is born in April 2010) they can hull your butt off to jail and say goodbye to your Second Amendment right along with all your other rights.


This looks like liberty and freedom to me! NOT!

In April of this year President Obama went to Mexico and came back with a little unknown treaty that would institute a national gun registration to help in the “War on Drugs and Cartel” in Mexico because some say that the cartels are getting their guns from the United States and shipping them back to Mexico. So to protect Mexico the American people will suffer.

Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o

In Article VI of the United States Constitution it states in the second paragraph, quote: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any States to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The watered down version of this part of the Constitution: If the Senate ratifies the treaty it will create a national gun registration without the vote of the House of Representatives or debate by The People. How damaging is that?! Is that what the Founding Fathers wanted with this part of the Constitution? I am attending a six-week class called “Know Your Constitution” and instructor Sheryl Devereaux says, no, it isn’t. This part of the Constitution is about the safety and security of the United States, mainly in regard to treaties to end conflicts.

At this same class when we were talking about the Second Amendment one individual said she would like to see assault weapons banned and out of the hands of citizens. I had to pipe up and say that we can’t allow even that to happen because if you give the anti-gun movement an inch they will take a mile. Any gun legislation is bad because it just keeps opening the door for the gun control and anti-gun movement to get in a little further and further. We have seen it in England, Australia, and Canada. We can’t give them anything because if we do, if we let our guard down, amen to our rights!

There are a few lines I like to use when people ask me why I carry a firearm:

“Because I can’t carry a cop.”

“When seconds count the police are just minutes away.”

“A gun in the hand is better then a cop on the phone.”

There is a coming storm and it is just off the coast of the United States. We see the storm coming from Mexico, we see the storm from Washington D.C., we see it in state capitals across the United States, there is a storm coming. We must head it off as quickly and as fast as possible, just as hotshots in California Wildfires do.

The Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime!
The Fact: It Increase Crime!

The Myth: Gun Control Will Make Our Streets Safer!
The Fact: It Will Make Our Streets More Dangerous!

The Myth: The Second Amendment Is A Thing Of the Past!
The Fact: The Second Amendment Is Alive And Well In The 21st Century!

The Myth: Pay No Attention To The Man Beyond The Curtain!
The Fact: Throw That Curtain Open And Watch With Both Eyes! (Unless he is in the shower, then keep it shut.)

The Myth: H.R. 45 Will Never Pass!
The Fact: That Is What They Said In Australia, England, And Canada! If Unchecked It Will Pass!

The Second Amendment protects all of our other rights. It is The People’s Check on the government!

Thomas Jefferson: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

###

Friday, October 16, 2009

The Idle "Y" Generation

The Idle “Y” Generation
By Charles A. Hall, “Tony”

Friday, 16 October 2009

Let’s go through the generations since The Greatest Generation.

The Greatest Generation (World War II Era) – These were young men (and women) that stood up against pure evil. Yes, evil, and answered the call to defend their country, their liberty, their families, and the cause of freedom. They stormed the beaches at Normandy, France. They fight in the cold of winter at The Battle of the Bulge. They fought through to Berlin, Germany and into Austria. They were truly The Greatest Generation. They sacrificed so that we could enjoy freedom and liberty.

The Baby Boomers (late 1940s to early-mid 1960s) – These is where the author’s parents hail from (though they claim to be Generation X). These are the off-spring to The Greatest Generation, the generation born with a literal “silver spoon” in their mouths. The days of “Leave It to Beaver” and “Happy Days” where there were nice middle-class houses with white picket fences but then came the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Some of these Baby Boomers answered the call of their country yet again but as we see through the 1960s there seems to have been more whining, complaining, and moaning. Lost was the sense of patriotic duty to country (at least in the opinion of the author’s take on history).

Generation X (early-to-mid 1960s to late 1970s) – The “Baby Bust” Generation where the population increase rate dropped. These started off somewhere in the early-to-mid 1960s. They lived mostly through the Cold War and still (in the opinion of the author) were a bunch of misfits always whiny, complaining, and moaning about the government. Some have even called it “The Doom Generation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X).

Generation Y (mid-to-late 1970s to early 1990s) – Enter the author’s generation! This generation is also known as “The Milleniums”, “The Echo Boomers”, Generation Next, or Net Generation. “Members of Generation Y are primarily the offspring of the Baby Boomers” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y).

Now we have an overview of generations spanning the better part of the second half of the 20th Century. But this article/blog (whichever you wish to call it) is not focusing on The Greatest Generation, The Baby Boomers, or Generation X but is focusing on the author’s own generation: Generation Y!

Some have called Generation Y as “Generation ‘WHY? Why have them?”. Well, the point of this article isn’t about answering that question because the author doesn’t have an answer to that question. The point of this article is to look at the latest generation that is now all of age to be active members of political society in the United States of America.

(Switching from third person to first person talk now.)

My wife often makes fun of me that I’m “too” political, I spend too much time online talking and reading politics. Well, I disagree with her on this. I believe that members of my generation, Generation Y, need to be active in the political realm. Why? Because what is going on right now in Washington, D.C. and State Capitols will effect us for the REST of our lives. The youngest member of my generation is around 18 to 20 years old of age. They are individuals that can now vote in Presidential, Congressional, State and local elections. But do they? Well, let’s look at some numbers.

In the 2008 Elections there were about 231.2 million eligible voters in the United States and only 56.8% (132.6 million) of eligible voters turned out to the polls to vote (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). That is 109.5 million voters that didn’t cast their vote and let their votes be heard.

There are over 60 million born in the Y Generation. According a 20 July 2009 release from the United States Census Bureau only about 49% of voters between the ages of 18 to 24 voted (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html). Now I’m not a math major and there could be “finer” points but for the sake of argument we are going to cut use the following number dates and numbers:

Generation Y
Dates: 1979 to 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y#Demographics)
Age Range (2008): 14 to 29
Eligible Voters: 44 million

How did I get the rough number of eligible voters? Again, I’m not a math guru but I used the following formula:

60 million / 15 years = 4 million * 11 years (18 to 29 years of age) = 44 million voters

Generation Y – Ages 18 to 24
Dates: 1984 to 1990
Eligible Voters: 24 million

I got the above numbers using the same formula as above.

Out of 24 million only 11.76 million (49%) voted. That is 11.76 people that didn’t have their voices heard! Not even half did have their voice heard through the Ballot Box! Something is wrong with that…

Did you know that there was only a spread of 8.5 million votes between Barack Hussein Obama (D) and John McCain (R) in the 2008 election?

Obama – 66.8 million votes (53%)
McCain – 58.3 million votes (46%)
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)

Now one could argue that those 11.76 million people that didn’t vote could have made it even a bigger win for Senator Obama or it could have swung the election to Senator McCain. Then we look at the Electoral College and States and everything else! We won’t go into all the factors but what I’m getting at it that too many individuals, especially from my own generation, aren’t being involved in the political society of the United States.

Movements like “Turn Out The Vote” and other political action committees/groups work hard to get individuals out to vote. I believe that voting is the most patriotic duty one can do (other than laying down one’s life for their country) in the United States of America.

What is the point of this article? The point I’m trying to make is that individuals in my generation, and every other generation, need to get involved. They need to not stand idly by and not do anything. So what can you do?

1) Register to vote and keep your voting registration current (like if you move).
2) Vote in local, state, and national elections when the time comes.
3) Sign up for e-mail alerts from your elected representatives (yes, they say something intelligent every now and then).
4) Join /sign up for memberships/e-mail alerts from organizations that fit your political ideals (there are plenty out there).
5) Write your elected representatives and tell them what you think about issues and tell them, not encourage, how they are to vote and not the way their party would have them vote. Even if you are a member of one party and have an elected representative from another doesn’t mean you should be silent. Continue to speak up and be heard.
6) Encourage others around you to do the same.

I have a friend that doesn’t vote. He doesn’t understand why it is so important. I watched part of a PBS presentation the other day on the Constitution of the United States. One of the ladies they interview brought up this point of why you should vote:

1) Do you own or plan to own a car?
2) Do you know you are going to have to register that car?
3) Do you know you are going to have to get a license?

Those are all “yes” answers. She said, “Those are three reasons why you should vote.” Her point was that your elected representatives effect your car registration payment, requirements to get your license, etc. That is just something very basic people don’t think about, she said, and she is right.

Make sure you vote, make sure you stay informed, make sure you have your voice heard. Now is the time to get involved more then ever in the history of the United States. “One voice can and will make a difference.”

###

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Traitor in the Republican Party

This note is going to be brief, but I need to say it.

Yesterday (Tuesday, 13 October 2009) the Senate Finance Committee passed America's Healthy Future Act of 2009 through committee. The vote was passed by a 14-9 vote with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) being the only Republican to vote that bill. Why? Here are her words:

"...when history calls, history calls."

She herself said she didn't agree with everything in the bill but "history was calling". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! She is more worried that she had her vote as an "AYE" for that bill because she wants her place in history? Yes, okay, but it WILL NOT be the history she hopes for. If passed, her name will be infamous for destroying the HealthCare system in America and possibly America itself. HealthCare WILL rip this country apart. How do I know? I look at history, the very history Snowe hopes for herself, and that HealthCare was a prime target for Lenin and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. HealthCare is at the heart of every nation and if the government can control it they control the people.

The People of the United States are suppose to control the government but with ANY HealthCare bill the people will not longer be in control but the Government will be.

Did you know that this bill that was passed brings the entire burden of providing HealthCare is on the citizen and not the employer. Employers ARE NOT required to help their employees with HealthCare. My wife and I make it okay now but what happens if her company dumps her health coverage? We WILL NOT be able to afford it. And since we can't afford it the Federal Government WILL increase my taxes and if I can't pay that they are going to give me FINE AND PRISON TIME! How is that helping the American people?

Senator Snowe has secured her place in history but it will be the History of the Downfall of the Republic.

What do I say: "When In Doubt Vote The Bill Out!"
Meaning: If you don't like even a little bit of the bill for the benefit of the people your represent to its fullest and that of the American People you don't vote for the bill! You vote it out of committee, out of the docket, out, out, out!

Thursday, October 1, 2009

ROTTEN Hall Children!

So as many my know my wife and I are expecting our first child (we want five, by the way). We were coming back from dinner and were talking about college, Latter-day Saint missions, cars, weddings, etc. We wanted to do the numbers and see exactly how much these kids would cost us and here is what we came up with:

NOTE: I did what I called the "WORST CASE SCENARIO", meaning this is what I would love to be able to provide for ALL my kids. So some may look at this and laugh, saying, "Wishful thinking!" Again, "WORST CASE SCENARIO" if I could provide everything they need when they "come of age."

A SINGLE HALL BOY
First Car - $2,000
Mission - $15,000 (two years + suits + passports + etc.)
College - $50,000 ($12,500/year for four years)
Wedding - $1,500

Total - $68,500

Now we included a "wedding fund" for a boy because we still have to buy stuff for The Groom's Dinner, tuxedos, etc. so we wanted to prepare ahead.

A SINGLE HALL GIRL
First Car - $2,000
Mission - $15,000 (If she decides to go on one : two years + dresses + passports + etc.)
College - $50,000 ($12,500/year for four years)
Wedding - $5,000 (Anything more she is paying!)

Total - $72,000

IF we had FIVE BOYS and NO GIRLS: $342,500
IF we had FIVE GIRLS and NO BOYS: $360,000

Let me say one thing: THESE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE SPOILED IF I CAN AFFORD THAT MUCH! THAT IS A DANG NICE HOUSE! THEY BETTER EARN IT!

Am I going to give handouts to my kids? Nope, not at all. They are going to work, help pay for their missions, cars, etc. Do I want to be able to help them out? I sure do.

WOW! $343k to $3460?!?! Wow! They better be worth it in the end! Well... I know they are. :D

And as my wife just said, "You'd better get a pretty dang good job." Well, I'm working on that as well. :D