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!

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).

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!

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?

###

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!

###