Life on the Rockpile

Life on the Rockpile
Bob D's effect on women

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Homosexual Marriage

Many consider the English language to be a laboratory where experimental terms may be tried out for public use. The word ‘gay’, for example has been removed from its classic meaning of “Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room. Given to social pleasures.”

Now the word only refers to a man who can only be emotionally attracted or sexually attracted to other men. The classic term used to be sodomite. For women who suffer under their own version of that syndrome, the term is far older, lesbian.

There are many who believe that being attracted to members of one’s own sex can be traced back as far as the dawn of time. The debate over whether or not this is a good this has been going on for just about as long. This article, however, is not about the morality of that issue. It is about what is legal, and it is about what the constitution says about homosexual marriage where the law is concerned.

To begin with, let’s look at the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America,
 ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, has an incredible amount to say about what the homosexual community wants to be made law in this country, to be given the same legal status as a church-married man and woman.

Based on the text and the context of the clause, the federal government is prohibited from making a law that forces any church to violate their practices, as long as those practices cause no harm to anyone. Obviously a church that insists on human sacrifice as a sacrament would be outside of those protections. States, because of this amendment’s relation to the 10th, are also prohibited from making such a law. To put it simply, any church is completely has the constitutional right to refuse to marry a homosexual couple. However, they also have the right to perform said ceremony if they choose to do so. As stated above, Congress does not have the constitutional power to make a law telling churches what they can and cannot do.

States, on the other hand, where civil ceremony is concerned, because of the 10th Amendment have the right to codify homosexual marriage or not. That amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” For a list of the powers delegated to Congress, check out this link. A careful read will indicate that marriage ceremonies of any type are not something the framers of the Constitution considered of paramount importance.

The issue is polarizing, at best. On one hand some consider even the thought of two people of the same sex being given a marriage license the paramount evil, while others believe it to be a life and death issue. Frankly, as far as our Constitution is concerned, it isn’t worth the time of day.

For those of you on either side of this issue currently grinding your teeth in outrage, get over it and think critically for a second. Remember, this discussion is dealing with the legality of the issue, not the morality. What does it matter if one state choses to recognize the legal union of two men or two women? Does that recognition cheapen a marriage performed in any number of churches, Christian or non-Christian, and if so, how? To move outside of topic for a moment, if my neighbors consist of a homosexual couple and the state I live in happens to legalize homosexual marriage, is my heterosexual marriage of close to 40 years suddenly no longer valid in God’s eyes? I cannot see how. There is a difference between what is personal and what is public.

What it comes down to is this; there is a clear separation of powers in our Constitution. There are things the Congress can do and there are things the States can do. Even more importantly there are things the people can do, and the way our founding documents read, the last has more power than the first two. Where homosexual marriage is concerned, it is up to the people, and if you happen to believe that such a marriage is against your spiritual code and your church decides to recognize homosexual unions, you have a right to leave. This also goes for states. On the other hand, if a state or church choses to not recognize said unions, they have that right and all the rainbow marches and name-calling in the world cannot force them to do so. There is a way to do things and that way is laid out in our law.

Those church groups who are attempting to force Congress to outlaw homosexual marriage are just as wrong as those who are attempting the reverse. Our constitution, as has been shown, has wisely left such decisions to the people and to individual states. It would be good to see the same wisdom and maturity shown in the current debate.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

In Praise of Sarah Palin

This article was written for the Canada Free Press a couple of years ago. I have updated it for this blog.

For the life of me I cannot see any logical reason for the intense hatred the left has for Sarah Palin. It is apparent to any critical thinker that those condemning her character, her intellect and even her morality has never seen her in person, much less spent enough time with her to form a reasonable opinion of her character. In spite of this, they still they manage to place her into the same category as a Simon Legree or worse.

 As a historical reference, Mr. Legree was the brutal slave owner and taskmaster in Harriet Beecher’s book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Those condemning Mrs. Palin for simply existing should try reading something other than eastern philosophy.

What did Mrs. Palin do that made her number one on the liberals’ enemies list? Let’s see, for one thing, she does outshine so-called progressive women like Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Maureen Dowd by a huge margin. Physical appearance is a factor. I cannot think of a single woman occupying the left hand of the aisle that wouldn’t require a paper bag over her head. So, what about decorum, the ability to present oneself in debate?

No contest again. Back during the last presidential election’s debates she wiped the stage with Biden. The good senior senator thought he had himself an easy target and instead found himself on the wrong end of a knowledgeable verbal pit bull, complete with a sense of humor.

For the Chris Matthews out there, that means being able to see the funny side of things.

Yes, I can see where being able to mop the floor with a Biden would set some liberals on edge. People like Sarah Palin, especially one on the junior portion of the ticket are supposed to lie down and take whatever drubbing is dealt them without complaint, especially if that drubbing comes from an old liberal that has been gorging at the public trough for as long as Biden has.

What about accomplishments? What has Sarah done to generate such enmity? From the level of vitriol the left throws out whenever just her name is mentioned she must have committed some pretty heinous crimes. At least they must have been worse than those committed by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Sandy Berger, Robert Torricelli, James McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Dan Rostenkowski, and so on and so on, every one of them a Democrat. This link will open a page describing all of these liberal scandals and more. Yet somehow Sarah Palin is worse than all of them combined. Why?

The following is taken from a blog entitled “Unbalanced Libra”. Here’s the link,  It is comprehensive enough to be pasted in without comment:

“Firstly, there is no government closer to the people than at the municipal level. Palin spent eight years in city government, winning a seat on the Wasilla City Council in 1992 mostly thanks to her opposition to tax increases. She went on to serve two council terms from 1992 to 1996. She was elected mayor of the fast-growing Anchorage suburb in 1996 and again in 1999. Mayor Palin had a record of reducing property tax levels, increasing municipal services and attracting new industry to her town. During her tenure in Wasilla, she was elected chair of Alaska’s conference of mayors.

“Next for Sarah Palin was service as chair of the Alaska Conservation Committee, a board which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry. In this appointive position she began to gain what would become extensive and valuable knowledge and experience in the area of one of America’s most pressing issues - energy. It was in this job where Palin first really demonstrated the toughness, political courage and maverick spirit that would years later so impress presidential candidate John McCain.

“She resigned in January 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.

“State law barred Palin from speaking out publicly about ethical violations and corruption. However, she was vindicated later in 2004 when Ruedrich, who’d been reconfirmed as state chairman, agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking state ethics laws. She became a hero in the eyes of the public and the press, and the bane of Republican leaders.

“In 2005, she continued to take on the Republican establishment by joining Eric Croft, a Democrat, in lodging an ethics complaint against Renkes, who was not only attorney general but also a long-time adviser and campaign manager for Murkowski. The governor reprimanded Renkes and said the case was closed. It wasn’t. Renkes resigned a few weeks later, and Palin was again hailed as a hero.

“In 2006, Palin ran for governor and was elected in a landslide. According to Fred Barnes: With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, “It turned out Palin caught the temper of the times perfectly,” wrote Tom Kizzia of the Anchorage Daily News. She was also lucky. News broke of an FBI investigation of corruption by legislators between the primary and general elections. So far, three legislators have been indicted.

“In the roughly three years since she quit as the state’s chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the “body count” of Palin’s rivals.

““The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah,” says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called “Voice of the Times,” which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct.

“As governor, Sarah Palin’s list of accomplishments lengthened rapidly. She used her line-item veto to cut $268 million from Alaska’s state budget.

“She stood up to some of Alaska’s most entrenched interests, including three big oil companies (BP, ConocoPhilips, and ExxonMobil) who hold the lease rights to much of Alaska’s oil and gas wealth:

“Once in office, Palin took an aggressive stance toward the oil companies. Her nickname from high-school basketball, “Sarah Barracuda,” was resurrected in the press. Early in her term, she shocked oil lobbyists when she was so bold as to not show up when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson came to Juneau to meet with her. Palin, after scrapping Murkowski’s deal, would not give Big Oil the terms they wanted, yet insisted that the companies still had an obligation under their lease to deliver gas to whatever pipeline Alaska built. She invited the oil companies to place open bids to build a pipeline, but they refused. A bid by TransCanada, North America’s largest pipeline builder, was approved by the legislature in August.

“Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski’s previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska’s oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Recently, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.

“Some other Palin accomplishments include supporting and signing an ethics bill passed by the Alaska legislature and creating the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council to find innovative solutions to effectively provide access to, and help reduce the costs of, healthcare.

“As governor, Palin was commander of her state’s National Guard. Not content to merely sit on the title, she traveled to Kuwait to learn about her troops’ mission there. On the return trip to Alaska, she stopped in Germany to visit wounded soldiers in the hospital, an activity that Barack Obama did not see fit to engage in during his own overseas venture, blaming the Pentagon for his snubbing of the wounded.

“More accomplishments: Gov. Palin signed a resolution in opposition to the FAA’s plan to increase taxes on aviation fuel, impose user fees and slash airport funding. Also, before Palin became governor, her predecessor Frank Murkowski had purchased a Westwind Two business jet for the governor’s use at a $2.5 million price tag, despite the objections from the state legislature and the public. Her first order of business after taking office was to put the jet up for sale.

“Palin did keep the governor’s state-owned Chevy Suburban, but she got rid of the driver, saying it was wasteful for the state to pay someone to drive her around, since she was perfectly capable of driving herself. The governor’s gourmet chef also got changed from a full-time to a seasonal-only basis because Palin considered it a luxury she didn’t think Alaskans should be paying for. Her political enemies called all this “superficial pandering.”

“Alaska is the only one of America’s states which borders on two foreign countries. Sarah Palin is chief executive of our most important energy state, one which lies only a few miles from Russian territory. She has negotiated sensitive agreements on fishing rights and other matters to keep the peace up there. She’s also worked on important trade deals with other countries. She has received foreign heads of state and had discussions with them.”

Some attempt to label Mrs. Palin as a quitter because she left her term as Governor unfinished. What those same labelers leave unsaid is that their unrelenting frivolous lawsuits were costing the State of Alaska hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend its Governor. Another bit of trivia the liberal is uncomfortable in detailing in this is that Alaska law forced its under siege Governor to allow the taxpayers to foot that bill. They only way Sarah could ease that burden was to retire. Would any innocent liberal Governor do the same? That is highly doubtful.

As you can see, accomplishment is the least of Mrs. Palin’s problems. Quite frankly she has a bigger wealth of accomplishment than Obama and his entire cabinet combined. There will probably be screams of outrage from the left on that one, but honestly, based on what this woman has done in the face of intense opposition from both sides of the aisle, Barack Hussein Obama is a rank amateur compared to her All Star performance.

So here is my estimation as to why she is so hated by the left. She is an accomplished, well-spoken housewife and mother; faithful to her God, husband, her children and to her constituents. She has a proven record of honesty and self-sacrifice for the good of those who elected her. No wonder the left considers her such an incredible danger. She would be someone who could sit in the oval office with the complete confidence of the majority of Americans behind her, regardless of party. She had to be stopped at all costs because her record is truly unassailable outside of the realm of the lies the liberals live in.

To sum it all up, Sarah Palin’s character rests upon a rock-solid foundation of achievement.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Human Life

The great state of Texas is beginning the process of removing Planned Parenthood from the publicly funded organization list link.  As anyone who reads this column should know, I am an unashamed proponent of life. I know (which is far stronger of a stance than mere belief) that life begins at the moment of conception. There is far too much science to prove this. So the question is really, when do any rights of humanity become endowed upon this life?

That question is enough to send many of the pro-death crowd into a screaming frenzy because if what we now call the de-humanizing terms of zygote, fetus, etc, is recognized for what it really is, human life, what they now see as a fundamental right becomes rather an act of legalized murder. The vast ingrained hypocrisy is that many of this group will also stand vigil protesting the execution of a serial killer whose primary target was children. Is it not interesting that the simple act of turning off the public spigot is enough to send the pro-abortion crowd into screams of protest? By this legislative act, Texas has not said that women cannot kill unborn babies, but has simply said that the state will not pay the Planned Parenthood Organization to promote the practice, so why the outcry that Texas is discriminating against poor women and has no feelings for the plight of rape victims?

Is it because of the cost? No, since nearly every private health insurance company out there has provisions for paying for the procedure. Is it because of a preponderance of pregnancies are potentially deadly for the mother and only a government supported program can care for them? Please, there is not a single medical issue that the private sector cannot and has not failed to deal with better and more efficiently than the public. In every case, except in the less than 1/10th of 1% of pregnancies that require a D&C to save the mother’s life, the unborn child can be saved as well. It is only a matter of cost.

Any reasonable thinker would wonder why Planned Parenthood and the organization’s supporters are reacting as strongly they are to this legislation since not one of the protests has mentioned the cost to PP, only the supposed inconvenience to an assumed host of unwed mothers. A quick look at the money this supposedly unbiased group spreads around, link shows a considerable bias, especially in the favor of those politicians who have shown a consistent antipathy toward the typically historical American values.

Regarding those medical procedures that can save but the mother and the child, however, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd will only support those procedures that kill the child. Therefore, from this point on pro-abortion will heretofore be call pro-death for the sake of accuracy

I want a member of the pro-death camp to answer this question honestly and without rancor: what is the result of human conception if it is not human? Is the result some sort of science fiction script? Is it insectoid, reptilian, feline perhaps? I can almost guarantee that not one of them will give a well-reasoned answer because the only scientifically correct answer is “human life”. There are stages within the growth of this life where it has yet to achieve measurable sentience and there are stages where it is completely reliant on the mother for sustaining that life, but if not human, what is it? I have yet to receive any answer to that question from any abortion supporter.

You see, when the rhetoric is broken down and the discussion is brought to fundamentals there is no room left for semantics and this is what really bothers the fanatics on both sides. Where abortion is concerned, most of the fanatics live on the left but not all of them. Those who shoot abortionists are just as wrong as those doctors who violate their oath by hiding behind contracts. The Hippocratic Oath as translated from the Greek reads thusly:

“I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

“But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

“I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

“In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

“All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

“If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”

There is no room in the oath, if it is followed honestly, to perform an abortion. In fact, every man or woman who becomes a doctor gives an oath stating that they will not perform the procedure. So it would seem that Texas is actually helping the medical profession keep its word.

The writers objecting to the action of the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry’s upcoming signature did not bother to do any research; they simply reacted because that state was supposedly violating an article of their faith. The pro-death crowd calls for tolerance, but reacts with intolerance when someone disagrees with them. Past writings give ample evidence to that.

For what it’s worth, the way the Texas legislature has dealt with this issue is a shining moment America should be proud of and I, for one, will state that fact boldly.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Real Americans

One of the most striking impressions I gained while serving as a state representative was that Party, not State, not Country, was placed in a position of much higher importance than anything else. Even campaign donations (read bribes) took a subordinate position. One member of my caucus stated his primary purpose for being in office. “I want to #@!! them,” he said. He meant the Democrats. It did not matter if the legislation had any merit, not even if it saved the taxpayers money. Beating the enemy was all. This attitude also ran rampant throughout the other side of the aisle. Four of my bills were taken from me and given to the Democrat leadership because I was a member of the minority party and my bills were viewed as a violation of the cardinal rule: a freshman legislator shall not propose legislation good enough to pass, especially if it is better than their leaderships’ bills.

Many questions have been asked about why our government seems so inadequate in solving our ongoing problems. The simple answer is that the parties are too busy fighting each other to actually accomplish anything. Compounding that is the fact that they also don’t want to upset any of the big money people who typically donate to their campaigns, even if it is the right thing to do. Frankly, the leadership in our political parties has been bought and paid for. They will do everything they can do to keep the rabble rousers (read real representatives) out of office.

I have always believed that if an elected official becomes aware of a wrong being perpetrated, that official should take steps to stop it. I did so when I was approached by a group of casino employees upset over their tips being stolen from them by the casino owner. In researching this I found a state law that forbids the taking of tips. My own party attacked me over this, claiming I was violating the “free market”. The fact that a law was being broken was beside the point. After that I received a phone call from the current minority leader asking me to step down. In reality, the party in Nevada is owned my own party was contacted by those interests profiting off the theft of tip and told to remove an irritant. As properly purchased politicians they jumped to obey.

There is a difference between a real free market and the term as used by bought and paid for legislators. The free market as envisioned by the commerce clause as far back as 1887, link, was meant to prevent the formation of monopolies and to regulate certain types of trade so that it remained competitive. “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” It did not, as seen by the text itself, allow cheating, stealing, abuse of employees, slavery, etc…

Anyone who has ever watched the TV series The West Wing is familiar with the character Wesley. That character, throughout the series, consistently argues against allowing the Republicans to win anything, even if that win benefits the country. The unfortunate truth is that Wesley’s attitude prevails in American politics. Elected officials are Democrats, not Americans; Republicans, not Americans; and it doesn’t end there;

Ever hear of Affirmative Action? It is a nasty piece of legislation that legitimizes discrimination because someone’s ancestor may have been discriminated against by someone else in the past. Simply because one applicant may be the best qualified isn’t enough. They also have to be the right color, sex, politically correct micro demographic and so on. In essence it is Washington saying that in this case, two wrongs do make a right.  What it has actually done is keep the division going. In the US we do not have Americans in a variety of colors, we have African Americans, Mexican Americans, and so on…We are so busy creating and maintaining socio-political barriers to divide our populace that we have become antagonistic toward those who try to scale the wall. How dare we even suggest that we become one country with our own language, our own culture and our own laws? So what if every other country out there does so?

Like our government, our education system is in rapid decline not simply because we refuse to pay for the tools to do the job properly, but because we have surrendered to the politically correct forces who insist on maintaining the walls. The school board in my area has members who actively fight against those methods proven to work in the classroom because those methods are not politically popular with their party leadership.

The Democrat Party will not support anything that upsets the fanatical left. As a result, the party of John F. Kennedy seems to support international terrorism, the killing of healthy, living babies via partial birth abortion, the granting of amnesty to the vilest of serial killers, the removal of personal responsibility regardless of the action or the harm it causes others, the removal of any right that promotes self-reliance, the destruction of heterosexual marriage and the core family unit, the elimination of Israel as a state, and the dissolution of America as a sovereign nation. Too many people have forgotten that it was the Democrat party that went to war to retain the right to keep slaves, not the Republicans.

However, my own party is not populated with saints. By no means; the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and Reagan has metastasized into an organization that openly supports massive corporate theft, human trafficking, the resurgence of plantation style slavery, the elimination of small business and the destruction of effective public education. Many times I have witnessed bills that promoted real free market enterprise quashed, not because the Democrats objected but because those owning the GOP did not want their monopoly inconvenienced. A bill going after the human trafficking hidden behind the massage parlor industry was attacked equally by a well know civil liberties group and the GOP leadership. The GOP called it an infringement upon business. Seems the women being abused didn’t matter as long as a profit was being made. The civil liberties folks simply were interested in collecting their $600 and hour. There was no mention made of the civil liberties of the enslaved women.

Either way we lose if we continue to nominate people like McCain and Romney. Men like that, men who will go along simply to get along and maintain the status quo are possibly even a greater danger to our country that that posed by the current administration because they will not have the courage to begin the process of bringing America back to its roots. Unfortunately the past few elections have shown that the American voter is a creature of emotion rather than intellect. They will vote a party out of office only when they have been personally affected by that party’s policies in a negative fashion, or have been convinced by clever media spin that such as happened. Far too many voters in this country do not care to do the research necessary to understand the issues and the backgrounds of those running for office.

If this situation does not change we may be the last generation who remembers a truly free America simply because the average American voter no longer cares who runs their party.

Friday, June 24, 2011

What price honesty?

Have you ever wondered what would happen to our lives if all of a sudden people decided to stop being dishonest? The cynic would claim that such an event could be the beginning of mass violence, murder, suicide and economic collapse. They would claim that our society, nay, the entire world is deeply rooted in a culture of deception. People have been conditioned to not only accept the little lies we consistently tell each other, but have come to expect them to the point that, when confronted with actual truth, they cannot process it.

When Bill Clinton faced the news camera and shook his finger at America while lying about his affair with Monica Lewinski, it was apparent, even to his most fervent followers that he was not being honest. Later, it was revealed that very few of his published honors and accomplishments were based in actual fact. That revelation has done little, if any to harm his ongoing career after the White House.

George Bush the elder also lied to America in much the same way. The only difference was that his lie was economic rather than lurid, but being a Republican in a country controlled by liberal media and thought police, his punishment was swift and politically devastating…for about four years and then the previous-mentioned liar came in.

Al Gore has to be the champ when it comes to spinning falsehoods, though John Kerry and his imagined heroism comes in a close second. Global Warming is simply the greatest hoax pushed upon the world stage…period. Nothing else even comes close. What is most amusing is how Gore and his fellow extremists explain that the current cooling trend is nothing more than a prime example of how drastically “climate change” is affecting the earth. Yes and, Glen Beck said it best, “Exxon’s massive profits are simply an example of how little money they are making.” Try telling the people in Fargo they are in danger of dying from global warming. The last winter temp there was several degrees below zero. And, of course, the media are being extremely quiet about the reduction in sunspot activity which every reputable scientist agrees could lead to another mini ice age. Again, lies supporting the left side of the aisle are quite acceptable.

I remember the Spotted Owl controversy in the region where I grew up. One of the last jobs I did as a sign shop owner involved a Circle K store with an occupied owl nest in its sign. Seems Spotted Owls can only survive in old growth Circle K forests, and yet, the tenacity and adaptability of supposed endangered species is continuously a nonstory.

Here in Nevada, I tried proposing an immigration reform bill. What surprised me was that it wasn’t the Democrats who opposed it, it was the Republicans. They claimed I was trying to bankrupt the state. These legislators are also people who claim to love the constitution. They claimed to be moral and to love the law. They lied. They were not concerned about business being able to make ends meet as much as they were concerned about the next campaign contribution and their ability to spend it on nonpolitical goodies. So, where is the difference between the two major parties on this?

The truth is expensive and it can be inconvenient, but it will never disappoint and it will never cheat. So we kick out all the liars. Will that ruin our country? No, even though very few would agree with that assertion. Simply because a man or a woman happens to occupy a position of power does not mean that they are the best person for that job. Obama is a prime example on the left and John McCain is a prime example on the right. Rather, consider this, how about electing people to office with a deserved reputation for honesty?

What do you think would be the economic picture if every politician upheld the truth and went after those who cheated, lied and stole? So we wouldn’t have Bush, Cheney, Reid and Pelosi. So what? Is any one so naive to believe they are the best we could get?

Friday, June 17, 2011

Welfare Reform

One of the repeated themes from the progressive left is to label any and all tax reductions as “socialism for the rich”. Of course, not a single member of the main stream media has ever bothered to deconstruct that phrase because the result of doing so would should just how inane, and, to be frank, revealing such an exercise would be.

What is socialism? As defined by the dictionary:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Now, if you happen to be a person who feels more comfortable with making your own decisions, socialism is something you need to run from, but for the purpose of this column is granting a tax reduction to someone who produces wealth a form of socialism? The dictionary definition doesn’t really tell us, so let’s take a look at the words of America’s first socialist President, Barrack Obama to Joe the Plumber, “If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." link

For some reason the Obama mindset is that if a business is making gross revenues of $250,000 or more it is making too much money and needs to be trimmed back to a level more comfortable to the liberal ideology. Of course, many of those advocating that the Joe the Plumbers of this world need to be kept in their economic place have no problem at all with their own wealth ballooning, link, as Nancy Pelosi did when her own portfolio increased by 62%. It makes one wonder what their reaction would be if the Obama redistribution scheme was applied to them? Nearly every tax the rich plan brought forth by the Democrats has been manipulated in such a way that members of congress with considerable wealth came through unscathed. Not so the Joe the Plumber demographic.

So, using the words of Barrack Obama, socialism involves taking wealth from the ones who have earned it and redistributing it to those who have not. This cannot be an accurate definition of the “socialism for the rich” talking point. If the government chooses to not take something from a person or a business, it is not giving them anything. It is the same Democrat doublespeak where reducing the size of a tax hike is called a tax cut. If a person is allowed to keep more of what they earned it cannot be socialism because the money in their account was earned, not taken by the government from someone else. The word stolen could easily apply here.

Many in the socialist rank and file seem to consider the Obama’s in our government as a sort of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Again, the comparison does not stand up to deconstruction. If the Robin Hood legend has any basis in historical reality, the monies stolen had actually originated in the form of taxes taken from the working poor and were eventually destined to fill the government coffers; seems to me that Robin Hood more closely fit the Tea Party ideal than the Democrat.  

The form of socialism we have in America is really nothing more than a tile in the chain of dominos lined up by those who would desire this country’s dissolution. There was a time when the poor had a way to better their lives even when they had no truly marketable skills, the program, championed by President Nixon in the 1960’s was called Workfare, link. Many in liberal circles complained bitterly about the program claiming it was a violation of the recipients’ civil rights, however the US Constitution has no enumerated right to laziness. It does reiterate the Declaration of Independence’s clarion call to pursue happiness, but again, the lazy pursue nothing.

Workfare allowed the indigent to build a resume of accomplishment. Using this form of welfare, a number of things happen. The recipient has to show initiative in order to be paid. Through that initiative they begin to learn the systems and value of work/rewards. And, they begin to build marketable skills beyond that of clicking the button on a remote. The problem the socialists have with this is that such people no longer require government assistance. They will eventually, through experience, graduate from the big government mindset and learn that industry has its own rewards and that those rewards far outstrip the Obama/Pelosi meager handouts.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Just How Stupid Are We?

In their unending quest to prove that they are more equal than conservatives, the left have established the talking point of calling anyone who disagrees with their anointed king “racist”, and if that dissenter happens to be black, “Oreo”, or the Bill Cosby name for Clarence Thomas, “Brother Light”. The assertion is that there can only be one political world view for anyone wearing a dark melanin on their epidermis. For the Democrat readers, that means a dark skin tone. I have shocking news for the liberals; you can disagree with Obama and not be racist. In fact, it would be un-American to not disagree once in a while.

The recent news of the Obama Administration actually telling a private business who they can have as a boss is an example of just how far to the left this country has swerved. If this had happened during the fifties, an impeachment trial would now be an ongoing event. What is the most dismaying part of this drama is the sanguine attitude of the GOP regarding the President’s illegal action. Perhaps none of them have read the constitution lately. Just how stupid have we become?

That brings me to my core point. Would you be shocked to find that many who call themselves conservative are actually more liberal than most Democrats? No, I am not writing hyperbole to prove a point. Sadly, I am writing actual fact.

The country of Columbia was at one time the murder capital of the world. A few years ago they elected a non-politician/non-soldier to be their president. This new leader came from an education background and immediately moved to change the way things were done in his country. Educational spending went from a tiny percentage of the gross to 40%. The few elite private schools now had real competition and that competition had all the tools the private schools used to consider theirs alone. Columbia went from murder capital of the world to one of the safest countries per capita in the world. What about the social services, the military? They found that an educated populace becomes more self-reliant and more willing to be a part of the country’s production rather than a drain. What a concept! That brings us to our collective stupidity/

Here in the U.S., we spend about 1% of that 40%…and we complain about doing that. Many in the GOP consider the teaching profession an enemy, placing them ahead of Islamic Terrorism in the list. Some have even gone so far as to try to logically prove the necessity of a dependant class as an important portion of America’s labor force. In that, they are marching lock step with the extreme left in this country. They want, in essence, to have their cake and eat it too. When I was in State Government, I had a fellow Assemblyman tell me that my bill to curtail illegal immigration would bankrupt the state. This same Assemblyman had, a few days before, lauded Oklahoma and Arizona for passing similar legislation.

The hypocrisy taps are running wide open. During his term, President George Bush Jr. trumpeted his “doing the jobs American’s won’t do” tripe. Newspaper publishers in my state, on one hand, decry the cost of illegals, while using them in their own printing facilities as a cost-saver. Our black messiah, Barrack Obama, chides the same industry he forced, as a member of ACORN, to issue unsafe loans, for issuing those loans. Here in Nevada we had a governor who called for more emphasis on vocational education, and then tried to cut the education budget in his state, in some cases by nearly 50%.

It is becoming politically correct to expect certain demographics in this country to act as if everyone else owes them a living. This means that if someone rises up and objects to a portion of their income being taken away to pay for yet another baby born into poverty, they are not just branded greedy, they may even be breaking federal law…by the Obama/Pelosi standard, and the mass media supports that view.

During this last school year I had the opportunity to observe a number of classrooms in action. This particular school has a student population roughly 50% poor black to poor Hispanic and a good portion of those Hispanics are not in this country legally. What is remarkable is the attitude of a significant number of the black students, they are not only unmotivated to learn, but they occasionally become verbally abusive when a teacher attempts to get them to understand a concept outside of their tiny little welfare world. When questioned on their attitude the normal response is, “It’s a black thing.” Where did this come from?

Over the years the liberals in government have been working at destroying free America. One of their weapons in their revolution is to not just create but to grow the dependent class. When an entire generation in this country has been raised to believe that they are being a traitor to their race, Doctor King’s dream has not only been supplanted, it has been made into an enemy. How many times have we seen young black men and women looking into the camera with dead, droopy eyes that contain no hope whatsoever? How many times have we heard them speak in barely intelligible sentences? It is not a “black thing” it is the result of buying into what has amounted to cultural terrorism by the liberal Democrats.

Can America afford to do what Columbia did? Of course we can. Will we? Not with our current leaders. The Democrats love the current result and the Republicans have bought into the idea that teachers are their enemy. We don’t have a single political leader with even a microbial amount of courage. Typically the voters go along with the media talking heads and prevent the courageous from being elected. They let the liberals do their research for them. That is not to say we don’t have office holders with courage. In fact, we do have some politicians with courage to spare in spite of the media, but in Washington, they are the ones issued the basement offices and we usually get rid of them in the next election before they can affect any change.

That is how stupid we are.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

One Last Quiche

In addition to blathering on and on about political issues, I also have a hidden shame, I write PI mystery novels. This is a sample of the second book in my Tony Mandolin series. If you like Jim Butcher or Simon Green, you'll like the Fog City Mysteries. Consider it sort of like Sam Spade with the X Files mixed in.

One Last Quiche
A Tony Mandolin Mystery

By Robert Lee Beers
Chapter 1

            It didn’t look like a troll at first. Hey, this is San Francisco, all sorts of varieties of the weird, the wild, the wonderful and the far-from-wonderful can be found here, and I guarun-damn-tee you that I’ve seen plenty of city folk who could pass for troll. Well, ok…troll-ish; sure, they didn’t have the tusks or the olive-green knobby skin, but they certainly had the personality, the facial hair and the size, and some of them were men. This one…troll, for damn sure.
            I had just left a bar I frequented, the Summersault, and was heading towards the corner where Polk intersects with Eddy when this long arm reached out of an alley and dragged me into the shadows.
            Trolls have two outstanding weaknesses -- sunlight and Christianity, unfortunately I don’t usually carry a copy of the King James edition with me into bars. As for sunlight, there is a reason why trolls love the city by the bay; a nice thick layer of high fog tends to cut sunlight down to a tolerable level, especially if you’re a troll.
            With strength capable of ripping a solid-core door right off its hinges, the troll heaved me further into the alley.
            I tried to roll as I hit, but it’s kind of hard to do that when you’re bouncing off an old rusty dumpster.
            It’s funny how the mind works in times of stress. Mine decided to go for gallows humor, the phrase, that’s going to leave a mark, popped into my head as I slammed into the pavement.
            Trolls, unlike vampires, are, thankfully slow, even if they are, excuse the pun, monstrously strong. Any human with even a bit of coordination can dodge a troll’s attack.
That is, if that human wasn’t covered in brand new bumps, bruises and contusions. I think

I sensed more than anything else the descending foot and rolled out of the way just in time. The troll’s heel thudded into the blacktop and continued on for several inches. I got lucky and the foot got stuck.
            Unlike concrete, blacktop is flexible and under pressure it can become gooey. The troll being trapped gave me the time I needed to collect my thoughts and scrabble out of range.
            With a final grunting heave the troll pulled its foot free, along with a good-sized chunk of blacktop, but by that time I was at the alley mouth and accelerating. Sure, there was a danger of it chasing after me, but its best run was my jogging speed and then there were the pedestrians. San Francisco’s sidewalks almost always have crowds during the day, and Trolls don’t do crowds. Lucky me.
            My name is Tony Mandolin and up until last year I was an ordinary, run of the mill private investigator with a penchant for being able to find things for my clients. I have no super powers, extrasensory perception, magic or special fighting ability. What I do have is a very annoying stubborn streak and a tendency to cheat when backed into a corner. Nothing stops an aggressor faster than a quick knee to the tender moments. I don’t hit girls.
            Some people would consider me tall, but on the not too odd occasion my 6’3” has looked pretty puny in comparison to the other guy…like a certain troll for example. In my younger days I was tending toward blonde with a reddish beard, when I forgot to shave. Now the temples are turning grey, the beard is more white than red and the eyes have an ever growing set of carry-on’s. I do keep in shape, but it takes more these days to get the same result. The ladies don’t run screaming when they see me, but the current crop of Tom Sellecks are in no danger.
            About a year ago I was thrust into a world I had no idea existed. According to a certain alcoholic pixie I know, my human eyes were opened when I decided to take on a case that eventually involved a vampire with ties to the police commissioner’s office. How my eyes were opened is still unclear, but now I can see the world of faerie. That’s right; the world of the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson and all the other writers of bedtime stories intended to give little boys and girls’ bad dreams.
            Faeries aren’t nice. In fact, in most cases they aren’t even cordial. Most of them tend to think of humanity as an irritant at best and a food source at worst. Some, such as my booze-loving pixie can be bargained with, as long as you understand that the penalties for violating the terms of a faerie contract are far more severe than those imposed by, say,  the IRS. At least the government doesn’t turn you inside out to think about how badly you screwed up.
            The other thing about faeries is that they can’t lie, but that just means they have had millennia to figure out ways of twisting the truth. They make used car salesmen, stock brokers and lawyers look like rank amateurs.  That makes bargaining with them about as safe as step dancing on quicksand.
            The one good thing about the vampire case was it earned me enough green to buy myself a house. It was no mansion, but it was certainly better than a third floor walk-up overlooking an alley. Not to mention that, being paid off and all, the monthly breakdown of taxes made my house a lot cheaper than rent. I didn’t have a Pacific Heights address by any means, but my front porch did look out on a nice neighborhood park right across the street and it even came with a garage, a rarity in the city. Now all I needed was enough scratch to afford a car and some driving lessons.
            I still kept my office. There was a nice comfortable feeling about having a spot in one of the seedier parts of the city with a glass door that had my name on it. It felt like tradition, and ever since last year, for me, tradition had become rather important.
            I’d also picked up a partner, of sorts. One Franklin Amadeus Jackson, Frankie to everyone else except the police and a certain billionaire and crime lord we’d helped out.
Frankie, besides being a black man, was the size of one of your average draft horses, incredibly strong and a raging cross-dressing diva…when the mood took him. Imagine a Cher impersonator wearing size 16 pumps and you get the picture.
            Ever since the vampire case, Frankie had taken to dressing like Sam Spade rather Fthan Samantha. I have to say, his Bogart was a better impersonation than his Shatner.
            Even though I was able to see all the assorted dwellers in the world of faerie, that didn’t mean I had an automatic ticket to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It does exist, you know, but that gold belongs to the Leprechauns and Leps tend to get rather possessive about their gilt. You know that series of horror movies about a certain Irish fae? They are closer to the truth than is comfortable.
            The last big case I’d had brought in enough of a payday to buy the house, but it had also been the last big payday. It seems the police commissioner never forgave me for being partially responsible for the capture of her meal ticket, even if that meal ticket happened to be an electrolyte-sucking vampire responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of innocent humans. Since then the lovely Ms. Commissioner had managed to scare off every whale in the ocean. Sure, I still got the occasional cheating husband/wife case, and finding lost poodles kept the utilities paid, but I was getting damned tired of subsisting on pot noodles and coffee.
            Ex-police Lieutenant Rorche, a mustachioed, blonde, slightly overweight mass of corruption who had tried to kill me…twice, continued to cool his heels in an orange jumpsuit while reflecting on his various sins. I was almost becoming used to the idea of not having to look over my shoulder. But…Rorche wasn’t the reason for my problem with the commissioner. Neither were Randal Driver, the wealthiest man in the state, nor Antonio Luccesi, the top crime boss in the city, even though they were mostly responsible for forcing the commissioner to back off when she tried to put a wedge in the investigation I had involving her favorite vampire. Driver’s twin daughters were killed by the vampire and, through no little effort on the part of yours truly said vampire was delivered into Mr. Driver’s loving hands. However, the world of politics being what it is, my two favorite whales were occupied with protecting their own assets; pun intended.
            So, Tony Mandolin, private eye with one foot into the world of faerie, is forced to pay his bills finding lost fidos and proving whether or not so and so is cheating on so and so.
            I made it back to my office with no further interruptions. Opening the door revealed the pile of mail that had been shoved through the slot while I was out. Sorting through it showed me several offers I couldn’t refuse, a couple of pleas from Nigerian royalty for me to share their wealth…as long as I was willing to launder it for them, and, of course, the usual bills.
            A glance at the phone told me no new messages had come in, and another glance at the clock told me I had a couple of hours to go before I could honestly turn the open sign around to read closed. And my stomach was already starting to growl.
            I used to chuckle at the portrayal of private eyes on television, especially the movies done in the old days. Gorgeous woman walks through the door and       bam, the PI’s world suddenly becomes exciting. I used to laugh, until just exactly that happened last year. Now I was getting used to experiencing the other part I used to chuckle about, playing solitaire.
            Frankie came into the office while I was trying to find the red jack I needed. He had on his Bogart trench coat and fedora, plus a suspicious-looking bulge under the coat. Well, suspicious only if you didn’t know the bulge was caused by a squirt gun filled with white vinegar. The last big case, remember? Contrary to popular opinion, vampires do not drink blood and they actually like the taste of garlic. Their food of choice is actually the body’s electrolytes which makes their physiology very sensitive to acid, hence the vinegar.
            “Hello, lover,” Try as he may, Frankie has a real problem keeping the diva out of his voice. He may look like an NFL lineman posing as a PI, but scratch the surface and you get a full on Judy Garland. “My, don’t we look busy today. Has Tony finally succumbed to ennui?”
            “Don’t start, Frankie,” I growled, “Or I may tell the next client that you just love looking for lost kittens.” Frankie is terribly allergic to cat dander, swelling and itching allergic.
            “Heaven forbid,” He held up both hands in a warding gesture, “Never let it be said that Franklin Jackson, PI can’t take a hint. Besides, I just may have landed a case that will ease that bruised ego of yours.”
            “I told you before, Frankie, I don’t take same sex cheating cases, regardless of the size of the deposit.”
            “Au contraire, lover, this case has nothing at all to do with your typical fare. This little jewel involves blackmail and quite possibly…murder,” he phrased the last word using two long drawn out syllables.
            I put my cards down and leaned back in my chair. “Tell me more.”
            He perched on to the corner of my desk, but backed off when I gave him the stink eye. “Well,” he lisped, sulking, “this friend of mine is a Michelin three star chef. Her specialty is quiche…”
            “Let me guess,” I interrupted, “her name is Loraine.”
            His eyes widened. “How did you know?”

Real Immigration Reform

The Obama Justice Department seems to believe that their mandate is to support not only illegal immigration, but to prosecute any border agent who successfully stops an incursion. They have now thumbed their nose at the GOP controlled congress for attempting to investigate Obama-aided gun running to the Mexican cartels.

Again, the US Constitution has become an inconvenient document that the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore. This question has to be asked, how long will the American voter allow the poison of political correctness to leech away their freedoms and their prosperity? We really do not need more immigration control bills, what we need is the vigorous enforcement of the laws already in place to protect our border.

Unfortunately, not one member of our congress seems to have the courage to do that. So what do we do? When congress fails to enact one of more of the 18 enumerated powers given to it through the Constitution, it is left to the states to pick up the slack. A few states have done so and have been promptly sued by Washington for their trouble. What the papers will not tell you is that every state enacting immigration reform has experienced a positive impact on their budgets.

 I wager if you take the time to call them and ask that question you will get some form of boilerplate evasion. My reception was considerably colder. The Democrats and their media supporters see every illegal as a potential vote…regardless of what the constitution or what federal immigration law says. The sad part is that too many Republicans see them as cheap labor, far cheaper than even the minimum wage teenagers their constituents have as children. Even more unfortunate is that our Washington administration sees them as eventual soldiers for the revolution.

Read the text of this 2007 bill and then ask your representative why such a bill would bankrupt the country. You see, that is what my fellow Republicans told me it would do. The Democrats consider it a violation of the Constitution, yet I cannot find any text or context that gives our protections to those who violate our border. What I do see is that the bankruptcy is already happening because the current administration is actively waging a legislative war against this country.

Immigration Bill Draft Summary
Bob Beers, Assembly District 21, Nevada, 2007

  • Creates the Nevada Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2009.

  • Legislative statement of intent that failure to enforce immigration law harms the safety and welfare of citizens and legal residents of Nevada.
  • Declaration that the State has a compelling interest in insuring that government agencies and employers fully cooperate in the compliance with and enforcement of federal immigration law.

  • Replicates in state law the federal statute making it a crime to move, transport, or attempt to transport persons known to be illegal aliens within Nevada.
  • Replicates in state law the federal statute making it a crime to conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection in any place within the State persons known to be illegal aliens.
  • Provides an exception for the transportation or harboring of illegal aliens if it’s associated with the provision of any benefit guaranteed to illegal aliens by federal law, or regulated public health services provided by a private charity with private funds.

  • Restricts eligibility for state driver’s licenses and identity cards to citizens, nationals, and legal immigrants. 
  • Allows legally present nonimmigrants to be issued temporary licenses and ID cards valid only for the period for which the nonimmigrant has been admitted to the U.S.
  • Provides an exception for schools IDs, as long as the school ID clearly states that the document is only valid for identification purposes at the institution where it was issued.

  • Requires jail officials to attempt to verify the citizenship or immigration status of any person arrested or confined through the federal Law Enforcement Support Center operated by U.S. DHS.
  • Requires foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to be deemed a flight risk for bond determination purposes.

  • Defines the terms “status verification system”, “public employer”, “subcontractor” and “unauthorized alien” for the purposes of Section 7.

  • Requires all public employers to register and participate in one of two federally implemented verification systems to verify federal employment authorization of new employees.
  • Prohibits public employers from contracting for services with contractors who do not participate in a verification system to verify the status of all new employees after July 1, 2008.
  • Prohibits contractors or subcontractors from entering into contracts with public employers unless they participate in a verification system to verify the status of all new employees after July 1, 2008.
  • States that it’s a discriminatory practice for an employing entity to discharge a US citizen or legal resident alien while retaining an illegal alien, hired after July 1, 2008, in a comparable job as the discharged employee. In order for such a discharge to be considered a violation of this section, the employer had to know, or reasonably should have known, that the retained employee was illegal.
  • Any employer using a status verification system to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires after July 1, 2008 is exempt from any liability arising from this section.
  • No cause of action for violating this section can be brought against an employer, unless it arises from the provisions of this section.

  • Requires all state and local agencies to verify lawful presence of applicants for state or local public benefits using the federal SAVE system.
  • Provides exceptions for certain emergency and humanitarian public services designated by the U.S. Attorney General.

  • Requires individual independent contractors to show their contracting entity documentation to verify employment authorization, or the contracting entity must withhold federal income tax at the top marginal income tax rate.
  • Any contracting entity who fails to do this is liable for the taxes that should have been withheld.
  • This section applies only to business relationships between individual independent contractors and contracting entities, not employees and employers.

  • Authorizes the State Attorney General to negotiate a memo of understanding between Nevada and the Department of Justice or Homeland Security regarding enforcement of federal immigration law in Nevada.
  • Prohibits any local government in this state from passing an ordinance or law restricting the ability of a law enforcement officer or government employee to communicate or cooperate with federal officials regarding the immigration status of anyone in the state.
  • Prohibits any government official or entity in the state from restricting another official, entity, or public employee in the state from sending or receiving information regarding the immigration status of any individual to or from the Department of Homeland Security.
  • Establishes a private right of action for any individual in this state to file for a writ of mandamus against any local or state government agency not cooperating with the provisions of this section.

  • Prohibits individuals not lawfully present in the country from receiving postsecondary education benefits or resident tuition.
  • Provides an exception per the provisions of Section 13.
  • States that the provisions of this section do not apply to any student enrolled in a college for the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year who received resident tuition per current law.

  • Contingent upon funding, DPS shall establish a Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit.

  • Allows a person without legal citizen status to enroll in an institution of higher education and receive resident tuition, only if they have:
Ø  Graduated from a state high school;
Ø  Resided in the state with a parent or legal guardian while attending a state high school for at least two years before graduation;
Ø  Met the admissions requirements of the college;
Ø  Provided the college with a copy of a filed and pending application or petition for legal status; or
Ø  Provided the college with an affidavit that they will file such an application as soon as they are eligible, but in no case later than one year from the date that a process for legalization is available to them;
Ø  If such an affidavit is filed, they have to provide the college with a copy of a filed and pending application or petition for legal status no later than one year from the date that a process for legalization became available to them.
Ø  Provided documentation of legal immigrant status.

  • No student shall have to meet additional conditions for resident tuition who qualified for resident tuition per the provisions of a previous version of this law during the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year.

  • Effective date – October 1, 2009.