Thoughts on AZ bill in regards to racism

The Bill uses “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” language to empower state/city officers to ask about immigration status. If reasonable suspicion and probable cause equated to being Hispanic, and being Hispanic the sole reason for questioning, then it would be racism, and very wrong. Since the overwhelming numbers of illegals are Hispanic this is a very real danger, because no matter what the suspicion or cause was, the person will most likely have the common denominator of being Hispanic. The reasonable suspicion and probable cause has to be something other than race. This is a challenge.There are laws which make racial profiling and discrimination illegal, so if all the officer has is race, the arrested/detained has a case. Additionally there is a clause in the Bill “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL…” A contact purely based on race would not me lawful. Anytime you have a subjective call made by the officer there can be potential issues/abuse. But is this a reason to put the officer in a position where he can’t possibly enforce the law?Without a probable cause/ reasonable suspicion vehicle for the state/city officer, they have to watch trains of people with sacks of personal items, obviously not camping, being led by a black clad guide, and the officer can’t do anything. Everyone knows they are illegals, but all the officer can do is call the Federal Border Patrol, who basically do nothing, but escort them back to the border. There are no consequences.What is the use of a law if you have no mechanism/will to enforce it? I live less than 10 miles from the mexican border. The situation with illegals is ridiculous and defies all common sense parameters. It is very obvious that the real issues are voting block politics and lack of political will. And given the uproar, I'm not sure I blame the politicians for not addressing the 800 gorrilla in the room. Maybe this law isn't the best, there are definitely constitutional issues with States enforcing immigration, but I have to applaud the AZ government for finally taking the bull by the horns.

The Arizona Immigration Bill, Made Simple!

I believe we owe it to ourselves as Americans to examine the actual legislation. I am going over this thing with a fine tooth and I don't know what the uproar is all about. There are no commands for the police to begin segregating the state or to run all Mexicans out of the state. It is actually just more focused left and right limits for the local police. The bill also added one piece of weaponry to the policeforce's armory, THE ABILITY TO QUESTION IMMIGRATION STATUS. I have wondered how that was illegal for a cop in the past. Wouldn't immigration status have a direct impact on the security of a community? Here is the breakdown as I read it along with the link.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Summary of the bill
1. While in a lawful conduct of police actions, police may be allowed to determine immigration status. A persons status will be verified according to 8 USCS sec 1373(c).
2. If found to be illegal, AND having violated a law, the person will be immediately transferred to ICE after release from imprisonment.
3. Officials are allowed to share information and inquire of the immigration status of the individual if:
a. A person attempts to receive public benefits, services, or licenses.
b. A person attempts to get a house or claim housing benefits.
c. A person is detained.
d. A person is a guest worker, and authorities want to validate status pursuant to the INA.
4. This bill especially penalizes those illegal immigrants who are actively engaging in activities that would result in a felony conviction.
5. Police may only make traffic stops when the operator of the vehicle commits a traffic violation.
6. It goes after the hiring of illegals by going after the employers.

Is a fair tax really fair?

Some would say it would penalize the lower income. Others would say it is the American way to be "fair". Others would say that we would lose a lot of money. Two questions:

One, What is the relationship between disparate income taxes and identity/entity politics? If any at all.

Two, Is there any resemblance in the current progressive tax scheme with the motto of socialism, "From each according to his abilities (tax money), to each according to his needs (Identity/Entity group politics)?

Oh, and somebody please answer, I'm tired of boring you guys to death on facebook, so I thought I'd do it here.

What DO we know about Capitalism?

Before I knew about politics at all, the bail-outs happened, and my wake-up to politics and economics was there. This is a quick story on how I was introduced to money and how well the government looked after it.

The main reason I became politically aware was that the TARP and stimulus package were released, in which over one trillion was awarded to banks, the auto industry, favored friends, etc. My thinking was that those people FORFEITED their chance for money, when they started making bad decisions or corrupt practices. Why was my money being given to them as a reward for their bad behavior? Or was it "punishment"?! So I lost faith in both parties after that. Now I read, study, and learn so I can ask them a few questions if I ever get to one of them. I have decided to become an anti-campist campist! Who's with me?
One of my favorite points of Capitalism; when an entity fails and proves it was unfit to compete in the market, it must be consumed by the younger healthier competition, like fertilizer. Where was my bailout? Why not give that same money to the people, let the banks go under, let the people spend, I'm sure someone would start a fresh bank (hopefully honest). Other point, that this is what would happen if Capitalism was used to cure the problem.Widespread hurt throughout the economy. It's the equivalent of pulling off the bandaid fast. If Capitalism had been in effect throughout, enough banks would have fallen and grown to keep a fairly level rate of growth and destruction of good and bad businesses to prevent monopolies and cumbersome large unhealthy companies.
I believe that is the American Dream though, you succeed or fail under your own power. Having your big brother standing there to pick you up when you fall is cheating, especially if the other guy isn't afforded the same opportunity.

Are two genuine ideologies just competing?

As you have the left/right debate always, you develop the conditioning to always debate/disagree. So you learn to argue based on the camp you're in.

Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf

A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy. If anybody does, please let me know, and we'll get it put out there. The Independents need to come out from hiding, and make their voices heard for once. The call for calm, patience, and dialogue is dangerous to a campist.

Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html

The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they were in power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.

How do common sense individuals retake the reigns of society?

Campists, a word all of you should know. It is a dirty word. A campist is someone who takes marching orders from a coalition of others, almost without regard to their own individual circumstance. They will follow the party line at all costs. Needless to say, a campist does not fall under any ideology. Any identity politics can spawn campists. They are the worst danger to us as Americans. They will sacrifice any individual rights that should accompany citizenship if they think their party will benefit. Case in point is the hypocrisy of the left and right as they point the finger at eachother and support their guy for doing the EXACT same thing.
Has our society has become so exceedingly complex, with identity politics and confusing beauracracy, that the nation has suffered for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies? Some groups will say in one area and some in another, and some political physicians will advise completely different medicines/remedies. Are both parties/camps throwing darts in the dark? Do they even know why they consider themselves conservatives or liberals? How many of them do you think even know the history of their own ideology?
"A long habit of not thinking something wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right, and at first raises a formidable cry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine. Why can't we ask politicians to take a pay cut? Why shouldn't their role go back to being public servant? If they were a hired manager of a company, they would have been fired a long time ago. The company being our society and the politicians being the hired manager, but everytime we show up on site, the manager has food all over his face, said no customers were here, said we are out of food, and didn't collect a dime. He also said we need to raise prices on the food and he has some ideas about what we should sell. What a thought?! Fire them, sweep em out, whatever;

Don't be a Campist!

To demote knowledge for society is to promote slavery of the people!