Val Peterson: Vote of No Confidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

TSA and the Constitution

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

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

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

Now several things stand out here:

1. "the right of the people" - This is a defined right.
2. "secure in their persons... and effects" - That is meaning me and my belongs.
3. "unreasonable searches and seizures" - I don't think saying no to possible Fifth Amendment violation is unreasonable, do you?
4. "shall not be violated" - meaning you don't cross over this line!!!  PERIOD!
5. "but upon probable cause" - You have to have probable cause that I'm about to commit a crime.  A little *beep* and light from a machine doesn't say I'm about to commit a crime, it says I might have forgotten a quarter in my pocket!

Probable cause has been best defined as, "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".  I believe that feeling up a person is a violation of this right.  What they have described in these articles for these "enhanced" pat-downs is basically what I was taught over a year ago when I took the Bail Enforcement Academy course to become a Bail Recovery Apprentice!  Bail Recovery Apprentice is another title for Bounty Hunter.  These are things that I was taught when I arrest someone that has jumped bail and how to search them!  On possible criminals!  Not some lady that had breast cancer and has an artificial breast!  You don't ask that person to remove that because you don't have probable cause to execute that search!

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

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

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

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

After the Midterm War...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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).