20 July 2010

Consistency: Worth Its Weight in Airspace

Actually, it's worth even more than that. ;)

Recent news indicates that the FAA has declined Idaho's request for use of additional horizontal airspace for military training. 

The rejection of that request makes it highly likely that neither Mountain Home AFB nor Gowen field will win the F-35 training mission that the State has been practically counting on.

It is also highly likely that the denial of this request is at least *a little* related to Idaho's rather blunt rejection of another federal agenda: the Obama health insurance mandate.

While I'm far from surprised that the federal government appears to be dealing less-equitably with a State who's leading the charge in a campaign to directly challenge their unconstitutional federal mandate, I'm not shedding any tears over the likely loss of eligibility for the F-35 mission.

When I decided to support Idaho's challenge, the F-35 campaign was in full force.  It occurred to me then that there could (and probably would) be repercussions for the federal challenge; and that they could (and probably would) be exercised via the federal treats we were courting.

I anticipated a federal slap in return for smacking a federal hand, yet I fully supported - and still support - Idaho's challenge to Obamacare and everything that "health" "care" mandate entails.

Why complain?  If we honestly believe in the principles we're defending, we should be willing to accept the consequences, just or not.

12 May 2010

My Thoughts on the Arizona Kerfuffle

[Updated 13May2010/0825: manually numbered points for ease of reference.]

I've been almost completely absent from the blogosphere lately, and for good reason. I'm focusing on my family and my locality. I still engage in real-life discussions and occasional Facebook debates, but the time it takes to narrow my thoughts to a single topic and compose any manner of coherent, complete commentary, let alone engage in further discussion, is something I don't have in any measurable quantity right now. There are far too many topics, and far too little dedicated "thinking time."

That said, I have been thinking about the recent Arizona legislation in regard to handling illegal immigration, (how could one possibly escape it?); and at a friend's request, here - in no particular order of either occurrence or significance - are my current thoughts on it:

1. It's being made into a much bigger deal than it is.

2. It's hard to sort through the propaganda to find the truth.

3. I'm glad I withheld judgment until I'd read it.

4. I'd prefer more narrowly-tailored language than "any lawful contact."

5. It's ridiculous that so many States, organizations, and individuals are condemning Arizona for enforcing laws to which they are subject, as well. Where was this widespread outrage when the Federal law was passed?  And if they're so opposed to it, mightn't it be wise to work on the Federal law instead of "boycotting" a State?

6. We're being propagandized to hate each other based on false classifications, instead of listening to each other or having rational discussions.

7. Re: concerns of racial profiling: isn't some profiling necessary? Hunting down a lawbreaker without any sort of description would be pretty difficult.

8. The race-mongering critics seem concerned that all AZ police will immediately adopt SS practices. I'm not.  Now, revoking Miranda rights, on the other hand... I have a BIG concern about SS practices stemming from that.

9. Much more than race, I've heard from people who actually live or lived in the affected area that there is a noticeable cultural/behavioral distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones.

10. If it were some racist campaign, they'd be rounding up everyone who might possibly be Hispanic and interrogating them. If it looks like that could happen, I'll fight it by speaking out. In the meantime, I'm vigilant, not overly concerned.  That kind of evil actually has happened in this country before, and it was - oddly enough - during another era of rapid government expansion.

Some notes on immigration in general:

A) I really don't have an inherent problem with people who cross the border illegally to seek a better life for themselves and/or their families.

B) I have a major problem with gangs and crime crossing the border illegally. Also legally.

C) I think we should have a strong, secure border.

D) Perhaps a more effective approach than targeting who-knows-how-many individuals would be to turn off the faucet of employment for them.

E) Employing illegals creates a permanent under-class and is IMMORAL in every way.  Make no mistake: It is modern slavery in the USA.  Illegals are easily exploited and have no legal protections or recourse.  Because of this unprotected status, it is immoral to encourage illegal immigration, whether by employment, benefits, or other means. 

F) Illegal immigration, through that cheaply-paid underclass, has skewed our economy.

G) I believe in the rule of law, intelligently applied.

H) IMO, hard-working, otherwise-honest illegals may rightly be granted a streamlined way to citizenship once the border is secure.

I) It should be much less prohibitive to become a citizen, legally.  Cost- and time-wise, it's a nightmare.  When that is people's only option, it doesn't surprise me that so many seek the "undocumented" route.

    That's it for now... feel free to leave feedback. :)  I've been weighing this for a long time.