Grab your partner and Stand up/ We had better get it right in 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Het3H9iQI

www.bruceolsen4gov.com                     The Next Governor of Arizona 

Kansas Joins a growing list of fed up state Legislators , A nation wide movement in the works.  Demonstrating that the obama/bush agenda is over.  If your in this counry illegally, regardless of where you are from. Suggest that you  pack because you are leaving these sovereign 50 states.  We the states are going to adopt the Immigration policies of Mexico(see below). See the video below,. The Federal Government inside the beltway is about over.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 1615
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal Government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
‘‘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.’’; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
Power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United
States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment
Means that the federal government was created by the states for the
Specific purpose of being an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2010, the states are demonstrably treated as
Agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws may be in direct violation of the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
The United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of
States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may
Not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, ‘‘The United States shall guar-
Antee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government’’,
And the Ninth Amendment states that ‘‘The enumeration in the Consti-
Tution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
Retained by the people’’; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York
V. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply
Commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
And some now pending from the present administration and from Con-
Gress may further violate the Constitution of the United States: Now,
Therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Kansas, the House of Representatives
Concurring therein: That the State of Kansas hereby claims
Sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to
The federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
Be it further resolved: That this serve as Notice and Demand to the
Federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immedi-
Ately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally del-
Egated powers; and
Be it further resolved: That all federal legislation which violates the
Tenth Amendment by threatening civil or criminal penalties or sanctions
Beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers be prohib-
Ited; and
Be it further resolved: That all federal legislation which violates the
Tenth Amendment by exceeding the powers of Congress in requiring
States to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited; and
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 1615—page 2
Be it further resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to pro-
Vide a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Majority Leader of the United
States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority
Leader of the United States House of Representatives and each member
Of the Kansas Congressional Delegation.
I hereby certify that the above CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Originated in the SENATE, and adopted by that body
SENATE concurred in
HOUSE amendments
President of the Senate.
Secretary of the Senate.
Adopted by the HOUSE
As amended
Speaker of the House.
Chief Clerk of the House.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1029116/pg241

April 28, 2010

Texas legislators plan bills similar to Arizona immigration law

STAR-TELEGRAM — First Arizona, next Texas? At least two state lawmakers are planning to file immigration bills similar to a controversial law that recently went into effect in Arizona once Texas lawmakers get back to work in January… (more)

 Georgia governor hopeful says he’ll copy new Arizona law

 Sheriff, lawmaker urge Ohio to pass law like Arizona’s

 Lawmaker wants to bring Arizona immigration law to Utah

Mexican Mewling, Hispanic Hysteria—American Patriots Must Support Arizona’ SB 1070!

More at:  http://www.vdare.com/indexb.asp

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens, by Michelle Malkin:

Article at: http://www.vdare.com/malkin/100427_illegal_aliens.htm

According to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey ’70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of [SB 1070], while just 23% oppose it.’

The essence of SB 1070 is revolutionary because it’s so simple—let Arizona’s police enforce the law, which the federal government has manifestly failed to do. As law professor Kris Kobach, who helped draft the legislation points out, SB 1070 only prohibits actions that, under federal law, are already illegal.

So what’s all the fuss?…

…the Mexican elite is right to fear SB 1070. If it is successful, it is likely to inspire other states to follow suit. Then Mexico’s safety valve may be in danger and its leaders might actually (gasp!) have to figure out ways to create jobs for its own people, rather than dumping its poor on the U.S. welfare system…

Comment (stating the obvious):

AFRICAN-AMERICANS SHOULD SUPPORT SB 1070 – THEY ARE GETTING HOSED WHILE BLACK POLITICIANS LOOK THE OTHER WAY

In some areas of the country, male African-American unemployment hovers around fifty percent. What is surprising is that many blacks and black politicians support massive immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens even though mass unskilled immigration has a particularly dramatic impact on their constituents.

While many black families live in poverty throughout America , black politicians are eager to import more poor people who will compete head-to-head for jobs at the lower end of the economic scale. African-Americans are getting hosed by their own politicians on a grand scale.
Illegal immigration has undercut blacks from the jobs they once held in meat plants, service industries and on construction crews. In many cases they were union jobs that paid good wages with full benefits. Now those jobs go to illegal aliens who work for pennies above the minimum wage.

Yet from black politicians nary a peep is heard. One explanation is that many black politicians are wealthy and couldn’t care less about the working stiff.  Having to compete for jobs with 12-30 million illegal aliens is something few black politicians will be faced with but millions of black and low income Americans will.

Black voters better realize that the end result of an amnesty will be more workers competing for jobs helping to drive wages down and unemployment up—the last thing the African-American community needs is to be on the short end of the employment stick.

Pleases pass along ASAP.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/04/libert

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Libertarian Party’s first Presidential candidate John Hospers backs Wayne Root for LP National Chair

arian-partys-first-presidential.html

Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate

Latest CBS News Polls Finds Majority Of Western Voters, Californians, Back Marijuana Legalization by Paul Armentano by Paul Armentano Recently by Paul Armentano: Anti-Pot Propaganda As Stupid As Ever – Yet Our Alarmist Media Continues to Hype It A majority of west coast voters, and Californians specifically, believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal, according to the results of a pair of polls conducted on behalf of CBS News. Fifty-six percent of Californians believe that “the state of California (should) legalize the use of marijuana,” according to a SurveyUSA poll of 500 adults conducted for CBS. The survey results come less than a month after state election officials certified the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 for the November ballot. The measure would allow adults 21 years or older to possess, share or transport up to one ounce of cannabis for personal consumption, and/or cultivate the plant in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence. It would also permit local governments the option to authorize the retail sale of marijuana and/or commercial cultivation of cannabis to adults and to impose taxes on such sales. Personal marijuana cultivation or not-for-profit sales of marijuana would not be taxed under the measure, nor would it amend any aspect of the California Health and Safety code pertaining to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Among poll respondents, support for the proposal was strongest among males (65 percent), “liberals” (77 percent), and those between the ages of 18 and 34 (74 percent). Support was weakest among self-identified “conservatives” (39 percent) and those 65 years of age or older (39 percent). In a separate national CBS poll of 858 adults, 55 percent of respondents residing in the west coast said that they back legalization, and only 41 percent oppose the idea. Nationwide, the poll reported that 44 percent of Americans favor legalizing the use of cannabis, and 51 percent oppose it. Among respondents in the northeast, 44 percent said that they back legalization, versus 40 percent in the south and only 36 percent in the Midwest. A majority of those Americans under age 35 said that they support legalization. Those respondents over age 65 expressed the strongest opposition to legalization (61 percent). A previous poll by Zogby International reported that 58 percent of west coast voters believe that cannabis should be “taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.” In December, a national poll of 1,004 likely voters by Angus Reid reported for the first time that just over half of all Americans endorse marijuana legalization. By contrast, a separate poll published this week by the Associated Press and CNBC reported that 55 percent of Americans opposed the “complete legalization of the use of marijuana for any purpose.” However, 56 percent of respondents also stated that they believed that “the regulations on marijuana (should) be the same … or less strict … (than) those for alcohol.”  April 27, 2010 Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation. He is also the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009). Copyright © 2010 Paul Armentano The Best of Paul Armentano

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Legalization of Marijuana will be on the ballot in Arizona : http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Legalize-it-AZ-medical-marijuana-supporters-aim/V6nQ86_F10O7P5k-snMDVA.cspx

There are other issues here that  never get talked about. I address those issues in my campaign events.  Ron Paul youtube MJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPfQ0LFoMb0  There are other important supporting issues that did not get revealed even in this video.

A friend sent me this site. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/az-libertarian-candidate-for-governor-applauds-new-immigration-measure/

  Suggesting that I answer the hits regarding my position on SB 1070.  So here goes, its real simple.
For those of you that are of the Libertarian party, let me direct you to a book written by your VP Nominie in 2008, Wayne Allen Root.  I think we can assume that since Wayne made it to the number two slot, it stands to reason that the majority of the Libertarian party agrees with his position on illegal immigration.  After reading Waynes book” The Conscience of a Libertarian” I  knew I had found a political home.
Let me suggest that you buy this book and pay particular attention to Chapter 21 page 223-233.  Let me also suggest that you join a minuteman group, go to the border, participate in several events.  After 5-6 events, I will bet a big mac and fries that  your views will be different than they are today.  By the way, I like mine with cheese. ::((.  I can also tell you that having traveled all over the state since September collecting signatures from registered Libertarians. The views expressed above by nay sayers are not common in rural Arizona. Ive received emails from registered Libertarians from all over the state, supporting border security.  And  the Independants are all over making our borders secure and removing illegal aliens from our states.  So I may not appeal to the dope smoking tweakers, thats fine, I never  intended to in the first place.  Havaday

Note :  Wayne Roots  book is a must read , regardless of your preconceived notions.

This morning I talked to a 45 year old legal American of Mexican desent.  He told me 1070 is long over due.  He is a block layer, tried to get a job at a local school project. The crew were all  illegals, the contractor told him they did not need any more people,.  The project was at a local school. This legal citizen pays taxes, that unfortunately fund this school. But since he is an American, they wouldnt hire him.  E-verify is not being enforced in rural Arizona. That must change and will if Im elected Governor.

If you want something to really worry about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

“They need to pass this law in California,” says Monique Johnson, an African American who describes herself as “liberal,” but takes serious concern on the illegal immigration issue. She is talking about the great new law in Arizona that makes it–guess what–a crime to be in this country illegally. Fifteen out of twenty African Americans we talked to agreed with the Arizona law; however, many were afraid to give their names for this article in fear of the open borders lynch mob going after them.

“African American children have had enough,” a school teacher in Pasadena tells us. “They have been harassed, beaten, and ridiculed by illegal immigrant children who shouldn’t even be here.” The teacher went on to tell us on how one of her students attempted to commit suicide after contantly being called the “N” word by Mexican illegal immigrants. However, the story has not received any airtime because the liberal media is afraid of offending illegal immigrants.

Opponents of the new Arizona law say that racial profiling will now become legal. “These same people certainly don’t consider it a problem when illegal Mexicans purposely target African Americans and other races,” believes Kyle Anderson, an African American law student in Westwood. However, he believes that the law will also be overturned in some court, just like the great Proposition 187 was.

African Americans need to take a stand against the racist, illegal invasion of people that live and breathe hatred. Please go to numbersusa.com and learn how you can help. This group is very supportive to African American causes.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30616-LA-African-American-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d24-Los-Angeles-Many-African-Americans-praise-Arizona-immigration-law?cid=channel-rss-Politics

www.bruceolsen4gov.com

What have we really accomplished over the past 46 years? My view is this, every two to four years we move our issues from one side of the isle to the other. This election cycle the Dems are the enemy, the next cycle the Repubs are the enemy. Fact , it’s just a game, to keep the electorate fired up. The result  the same, crooks stay in power, and the goal of socialism keeps creeping along under the radar. I believe there are only two ways to fix this. First install a third party into the fray. Or second, eliminate the parties altogether. The later is my preference. Maybe we should all become Independents. Read the following speech by Ronald Reagan, read it twice. See if you see what I see. The same issues he talked about in 1964 exist today. The only difference is the numbers are demonstrably worse and the names have change. Having read this speech last summer, was a contributing factor in my conversion to the Libertarian Party. The common denominator in the following speech is the Republican and Democrat party.They were the problem then just as they are today.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

 

 1. illegals are not friends of the State 2. no power over them has been granted to the federal government (United States) 3. 10th amendment applies, and the States can make all laws regarding illegals 4. the Health Care Bill, which assumes powers toward illegals, is utterly void and of no force   e.    Be It Resolved: That illegal aliens are not friends of the State and are under the jurisdiction and the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and so commonly known as the “Health Care Bill” or otherwise known as “Health Care Reform” which assumes powers over aliens, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.   For the entire Quo Warranto Demand Letter it is in the press release list on my website www.ginoforgov.com , or click this link: http://ginoforgovernor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:ginos-demand-to-governor-gibbons&catid=34:press-releases&Itemid=55 , or just google search it.    

Sincerely,
Gino DiSimone
Candidate, Governor of Nevada 2010, Independent non-partisan,  GIN !  (Go Independent Nevada ! )
www.ginoforgov.com
775-544-2765

SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.

History

8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Laws 2007, Ch. 279 enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (Act).  The Act: expands aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity to include the intent to obtain employment; prohibits an employer from intentionally employing an unauthorized alien or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien; requires the Attorney General (AG) or county attorney to investigate complaints and classifies filing a false and frivolous complaint as a class 3 misdemeanor; provides for license suspension for the first violation; requires license revocation on a second violation during a probationary period; and after December 31, 2007, requires every employer to utilize E-Verify to verify employment eligibility.  Laws 2008, Chapter 152 further amended the Act.

Provisions

Enforcement of Immigration Law

• Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
• Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
• Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
• Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
• Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø        A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø        A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø        A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø        A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

• Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation imposed, ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be immediately notified. 
• Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
• Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an unlawfully present alien to a point of transfer that is outside of Arizona.
• Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:

Ø        Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license. 

Ø        Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.

Ø        If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.

Ø        Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

• Stipulates that these provisions does not implement, authorize or establish and cannot be construed to implement authorize or establish the REAL ID Act of 2005, including the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
• Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
• Requires the court to order any that a violating entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions. 
• States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the state Treasurer for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.
• Authorizes the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency that prevails in a case brought under these provisions.
• Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
• Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document

• Specifies that in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) or 1306(a).
• Stipulates that the immigration status may be determined by:

Ø        A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.

Ø        ICE or CBP pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

• Prevents a person convicted of the new offense from being eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon, commutation of sentence, or release from confinement on any basis except for as authorized by the Director of the Arizona Department of Correction until the sentence imposed has been served or the person is eligible for release due to early release credits. 
• Requires the court to order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of:

Ø        At least $500 for a first offense.

Ø        Twice the amount the person was ordered to pay for the first offense if this is the second or subsequent offense.

• States that the court will collect the assessments and transmit the collected monies to the Department of Public Safety for deposit in a special sub-account of the account established for GIITEM.
• Stipulates that monies in the sub-account are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail costs relating to illegal immigration.
• Stipulates that any record that relates to the immigration status of a person is admissible in any court without further foundation or testimony from a custodian of records if the record is certified as authentic by the government agency responsible for maintaining the record.
• Makes a first offense a class 1 misdemeanor. 
• Increases the penalty to a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense while in possession of:

Ø        A dangerous drug (A.R.S. § 13-3401).

Ø        Precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine (A.R.S. § 13-3404.01).

Ø        A deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-3101).

Ø        A dangerous instrument (A.R.S. § 13-105).

Ø        Property used for committing an act of terrorism (A.R.S. § 13-2308.01).

• Makes violations a class 4 felony if either:

Ø        It is a second or subsequent violation.

Ø        Within 60 days, the person has been removed from the U.S. either under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a or 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work

• Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
• Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. 
• Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person who is unlawfully present who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.
• Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.

Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens

• Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:

Ø        Transport or move an alien in a means of transportation, or attempt to do so, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø        Conceal, harbor or shield an alien, or attempt to, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø        Encourage or induce an alien to come to this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that doing so would be a violation of law.

• Specifies that a means of transportation used in a violation of these provisions is subject to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
• Specifies that these provisions do not apply to a Child Protective Services worker acting in the worker’s official capacity or a person who is acting in the capacity of a first responder, an ambulance attendant or an emergency medial technician and is transporting or moving an alien in relation to emergency medial services.
• Stipulates that violators are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and subject to a fine of at least $1,000.  However, a violation involving 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony and subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien involved.
• Requires a peace officer to immobilize or impound a person’s vehicle if the officer determines either that:

Ø        In furtherance of the illegal presence of an alien and in violation of a criminal offense, the person is transporting or moving, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø        The person is concealing, harboring or shielding an alien in this state, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Employer Sanctions

• Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must admit the substantial elements of the violation.
• Stipulates that the employer has the burden of proof proving the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

Ø        The idea of committing the violation started with the officer or their agents.

Ø        The officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

Ø        The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officer or agents urged and induced the employer to do so.

• Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped if the employer was predisposed to violate the law and law enforcement merely provided the employer with the opportunity.  Additionally, it is not entrapment for law enforcement to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.
• Requires employers to keep a record of the employment verification from E-verify for the duration of an employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer.

Miscellaneous

• Authorizes peace officers, in the enforcement of human smuggling laws, to lawfully stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
• Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S. 
• Establishes the GIITEM fund (fund) and directs monies collected from penalties resulting from policies limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law to the fund. 
• Requires the Arizona Department of Public Safety to administer the fund, which is subject to legislative appropriation and is to be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement for costs relating to illegal immigration.
• Contains intent and severability, implementation and construction clauses.
• Specifies that this act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
• Makes technical and conforming changes. 

www.bruceolsen4gov.com

Call Today 800-351-5111           Affiliate Program Member’s Login Home Services Products Why Incorporate? Which State? The Ultimate Business Credit Builder Why NCP? Contact Us Testimonials Press Room Fast Start Blog           NCP is proud to be partnered with… See Our Complete Partner Program Listing       Cash Lines of Credit      Home > Research > Why Nevada? > Follow up on Allodial Title ……. For more information scroll down to the bottom or click here! Follow up on Allodial Title in Nevada And Mortgages Can a Mortgage be Obtained After Allodial Title is Established Without Affecting the Benefits of its Protection? Allodial title can be a useful tool in shielding assets from a creditor, as the normal limit of $125,000 becomes limitless for those who obtain this type of title to their residence, and file for homestead protection. One requirement for obtaining allodial title is that the home “and the land on which it is located are owned free and clear of all encumbrances.” NRS 361.900(5). This raises a question. Can a mortgage be obtained after allodial title is established without affecting the benefits of its protection? A review of NRS chapters 361 (“Allodial Title”) and 115 (“Homesteads”) indicates that the answer is “yes.” If a homeowner (or owners) meets the requirements of NRS chapter 361, “the state treasurer shall issue a certificate of allodial title to the homeowner for the home, its appurtenances and the land on which it is located.” NRS 361.900(8) (emphasis added). Once established, the allodial title “is valid for as long as the homeowner continues to own the residence,” NRS 361.910(1), with one exception: the homeowner voluntarily relinquishes the allodial title. Id.; NRS 361.915. (Relinquishment is automatic if the property is sold, leased, or transferred, or if it is “converted to anything other than a single-family dwelling occupied by the owner.” NRS 361.915(1)(c).) Thus, NRS chapter 361 makes it very clear that once the requirements of allodial title are met, the title remains valid for as long as the owner retains ownership and occupancy and the building remains a single-family dwelling, unless the owner voluntarily relinquishes title. It is important to notice that the taking of a mortgage after the establishment of allodial title does not result in the automatic relinquishment of the title. That only occurs upon a change of owner, occupant, or the nature of the property. Therefore, nothing in NRS chapter 361 prohibits the taking of a mortgage after allodial title has been established. It is Important to Notice that the Taking of a Mortgage after the Establishment of Allodial Title does not Result in the Automatic Relinquishment of the Title! NRS chapter 115 supports this conclusion. A homestead “is not subject to forced sale on execution or any final process from any court,” NRS 115.010(1), with certain exceptions. The main exception is that the homestead protection is limited to $125,000 of equity in the property. NRS 115.010(2). Further, the homestead protection “does not extend to process to enforce the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of the property, or for improvements made thereon, . . . or for legal taxes, or for any mortgage or deed of trust thereon executed and given.” NRS 115.010(3). When allodial title is established, however, the rules change. First, the $125,000 limit disappears, and the exemption “extends to all equity in the dwelling, its appurtenances and the land on which it is located.” NRS 115.010(2). Further: If allodial title has been established and not relinquished, the exemption provided in subsection 1 extends to process to enforce the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of the property, and for improvements made thereon, including any mechanic’s lien lawfully obtained, and for legal taxes levied by a state or local government, and for any mortgage or deed of trust thereon. NRS 115.010(9). As this section indicates, one who obtains allodial title is exempt from court process by any creditor wishing to enforce a mortgage obligation. But, as already stated, allodial title cannot be obtained unless the property is free and clear of all encumbrances. Thus, the protection from a holder of a mortgage would be a nullity unless one who has allodial title can take out a mortgage after meeting the requirements of NRS chapter 361. Stated another way, if a mortgage cannot be taken out after allodial title is obtained, then a mortgage could not exist prior to obtaining allodial title, or after it is obtained. If this was the case, why does NRS 115.010(4) provide a homestead protection against a holder of a mortgage for those who possess allodial title? If a mortgage could not be obtained on allodial title property, the reference to mortgages in NRS 115.010(4) would be meaningless. As a matter of statutory construction, no interpretation of a statute is legitimate wherein a law is rendered a nullity. Therefore, NRS chapter 115, similar to chapter 361, allows for a mortgage to be taken on a piece of property after allodial title is established. The fact that no law prohibits a mortgage on a piece of allodial title property does not mean that a bank will be eager to loan the money. This is so, since NRS 115.010(4) provides the allodial property owner with absolute protection from legal enforcement of the mortgage, if homestead protection has been filed. Thus, if a bank extended a mortgage to the owner of a piece of property on which allodial title is held, and the owner defaulted, the bank could not execute against the property in question in any way, no matter the size of the loan. Its only recourse would be to attach other assets owned by the debtor. This, of course, may not be enough to cover the amount of the mortgage. This being the case, a bank would not be anxious to extend a mortgage to the owner of an allodial titled property, unless other guarantees were made to ensure repayment. In conclusion, the plain meaning of NRS chapters 361 and 115 indicates that the owner of an allodial titled property can obtain a mortgage on the property after allodial title has been established. However, given the legal protection provided to allodial titleholders who also file for homestead protection, such a mortgage may be difficult to obtain. (Of course, if one has allodial title but has not filed for homestead protection, a bank may be more willing to make a loan.) Ready to Incorporate? Call NCP Today! 1-800-351-5111 And You Will Avoid Costly Mistakes! Advanced Research: Why Nevada? Why Nevada?- Discover the invaluable benefits you get when you incorporate in Nevada. 16 Reasons to Incorporate in Nevada?- This is the major reason why you need to incorporate in Nevada. Piercing the Corporate Veil – The #1 reason for you to incorporate in Nevada. The Application of Forum Law to “Pseudo-Foreign” Corporations - This research attempts to answer the question of whether or not a state can apply its own law regarding piercing an entity to so-called “pseudo-foreign” corporations. Does Nevada Share Information with the IRS? -This sought-after secret is finally revealed! What Liability Are You Exposing Yourself to When You Serve as a Director of a Corporation? - Discover why Nevada Gives You Powerful Protection from Both “Inside” and “Outside” Liability! Nevada VS. Delaware -Learn the accuracy of the claims made in “Nevada vs. Delaware” reported on many web sites in our industry. Can Your Business Entity Protect its Assets in The Event of A Divorce in Nevada (A Community Property State)? – Learn what the RULES really say! Follow up: Allodial Title in Nevada And Mortgages – Find out if you can get a mortgage when you have Allodial Title. Strategies that Don’t Work in Nevada – Discover what our competitors DO NOT want you to KNOW! The Advantage of Incorporating in Nevada – Discover advantages of incorporating in Nevada when your entity registers as a foreign corporation in California. Allodial Title in Nevada – Discover how to protect 100% of your equity in a Nevada home. Does your state do the same? California had the Highest Percentage of Cases in which Courts had Pierced the Corporate Veil! – Discover why it is especially important for anyone operating in California to have the strong corporate veil Nevada offers! California’s Approach to Piercing the Corporate Veil to Foreign Corporations – Learn how California aggressively attacks corporate privacy. California’s Approach to Choice of Law in the Absence of an Effective Choice by the Parties – Learn what jurisdiction is all about. The Approach of New York, Wisconsin, and Texas in Applying Their Law to Foreign Corporations (as Compared to California) Three states with a different approach. Do you Need an Office and Bank Account in Nevada? – Unless your employees and business are located in Nevada, most likely, the answer is NO! Untruth Vs Truth – Many of our competitors hope you skip past this section. Snake Oil Strategies Proposed by Others That just Simply Don’t Work – The most important article on this site!       Home|Introduction|About NCP|Testimonials Research|Facts|Why Nevada?|What’s New|Services|Company Store|Clients Only|Contact NCP|Top 10|Tour Our Office Resources|Site Map|Privacy Policy|NCP’s Policy   FREE 96 PAGE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE! Download TODAY, “The Insiders Guide to Incorporating Your Business and Protecting Your Assets!” For more information Click here! Type in your name and email address and click on Submit Now below!   Free Name Check!Is Your Nevada Corporate Name Available? Michael Gerber Rebroadcast! Listen to the Entire Interview! How to Keep Your Business in the Top 5%! Insights from a Marketing Veteran with 30-Years of Experience! Why Most Businesses FAIL! Promotional Strategies to Get You More Business! Learn More! News Update: Scott Letourneau, CEO Interviews Michael Gerber, Founder of the E-Myth!         News Update: NCP appeared on CNN Headline News – Pat Summerall’s Success Stories!   ©1997 – 2010 Nevada Corporate Planners, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Customer Service | Warranties, Disclaimers and Legal Rights | Earnings Disclaimer | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

 Click here, and you will see, why we must take our land back from the United States Government CORP. : http://www.libertyforlife.com/law/law-allodial_title.htm

 We salute ICE , Next they should target these phony taxi’s running between Tucson and Pheonix.

ICE Busts Massive Human Smuggling Ring That Stretches Length of U.S.

More than 800 law enforcement agents swooped down on a massive human smuggling ring in Arizona early Thursday morning, delivering a “stunning blow” to a criminal network that helped shuttled illegal immigrants all around the country.

Thursday’s strike is the largest coordinated action ever led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which partnered with eight other federal, state and local agencies to arrest 47 suspects in Phoenix, Tucson, Nogales and Rio Rico, Arizona.

“Alien smugglers are a scourge,” ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton said. “They violate our borders … [and] profit at our expense by knowingly breaking our laws, day in and day out. Today we turned the tables on the smugglers.”

ICE agents targeted shuttle van services they believe have ferried thousands of illegal immigrants from southern Arizona to Phoenix, providing passengers fake $30 ride receipts and even coaching them on how to answer law enforcement agents if the buses were stopped at immigration checkpoints along the highway. From there the illegal immigrants were left at drop-houses or brought to shuttle services that offer rides to destinations all over the West Coast.

ICE alleges that the businesses are part of a larger smuggling operation that carries illegal immigrants over the border from Mexico “to the far corners of the United States” — places as far-flung as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Morton said multiple rings had been “stopped in their tracks,” touting what he called an “unprecedented level of cooperation” with Mexican federal police, which arrested a leading smuggler south of the U.S. border on Thursday.

Inside the U.S., the owners and operators of the Tucson-based Saguaro Roadrunner Shuttles, America’s Shuttles, Guerro’s Shuttles and Nogales Express Shuttles were all targeted in the raid, as were the operators of a fifth shuttle company in Phoenix, Sergio’s Shuttle.

On the surface the vans appear like any other shared-ride shuttles, taking about a dozen passengers around southern Arizona. But ICE officials said the companies relied almost entirely on criminal activity.

ICE dubbed the investigation “Operation In Plain Sight” because of the “brazen” nature of the alleged smuggling scheme, which helped immigrants from Mexico, Central America and even China escape the watchful eye of border agents.

“The defendants wrongly believed they could operate with impunity by hiding behind the veil of legitimacy these businesses provided,” said Morton, adding that ICE has “dismantled these transnational organizations and literally seized the engines that were driving the criminal enterprise.”

U.S. Attorney Kenneth Burke said the operation dealt a “stunning blow” to international smuggling, “a vast conspiracy unearthed and now dismantled.”

ICE officials said the smugglers were not believed to be violent, but stressed the far-reaching implications of their alleged crimes.

“This isn’t a mom and pop enterprise. It’s major international crime operating across borders with profits literally into the billions,” Morton said.

“The smugglers care about only one thing: money. They aren’t concerned about the human cost or the toll smuggling takes on our quality of life, the integrity of our borders or our nation’s security.”

Law enforcement agents executed dozens of search and arrest warrants as far away as Tennessee on Thursday, the culmination of an investigation that has lasted more than two years.

Officials denied that the timing of the raids was tied to the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was gunned down on his own property on March 27. Officials investigating the killing believe an illegal immigrant may have been responsible for the killing, which occurred near Arizona’s border with Mexico.

The raids — long in the making — had been delayed multiple times, ICE officials said.

Thursday’s actions involved agents from nine law enforcement agencies: ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection, Arizona’s Department of Public Safety, Pima County Sheriff’s Department, Tuscon Police Department and Phoenix Police Department.

ICE officials said they were not focusing on rounding up illegal immigrants but on bringing in the smugglers themselves, some of whom are citizens and legal residents of the U.S. The agency said it would take appropriate enforcement action if illegal immigrants were encountered during the raids.

Indictments were being issued against the owners and operators of the shuttle services on charges that include money laundering, alien smuggling and conspiracy. Suspects are due in court as early as Friday.

Officials said they seized $10 million in assets, including real estate, vehicles used for the smuggling and other property.

ICE officials predicted that the strike would put an immediate freeze on smuggling activity in Arizona, having “dismantled” the smuggling network and arrested key players in the international ring.

Though ICE predicted other groups would move in to take the place of the smugglers rounded up Thursday, the agency believes it will take a good deal of time for so sophisticated an operation to be put in place again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/15/ice-busts-massive-human-smuggling-ring-stretches-length/?test=latestnews