Brief State of the Union Address Thoughts

I watched the State of the Union address and it mostly went the way I expected it. Nothing out of the ordinary. If anything, the speech was actually a bit dull, lifeless, and a bit scattered. Some points I found noteworthy were:

  • Obama effectively backing fracking after killing Keystone oil pipeline. He does know fracking is one of the most damaging to the environment, right? So if he backs fracking then why kill the Keystone pipeline. A bit hypocritical for one espousing green jobs.
  • The expected “fairness” issue, which is misleading and downright false, being used to push class warfare once more.
  • No real mention of the President’s failure to repair the economy, nor taking responsibility for his failed economic policies.
  • Another attempt at getting the DREAM Act put into place, forgetting somehow that he couldn’t even garner Democrat support for a bill rewarding illegal aliens while ignoring the needs of its citizens.
  • The lie that ObamaCare relies on a reformed private market, not a government program. ObamaCare clearly creates a government program for those who’ve bothered to read it, such as myself. (That puts me way ahead of the politicians who voted for it without reading it.)
  • The bailout of the auto industry is thanks to Bush, not Obama. It should have never happened. Failing companies should be allowed to fail, so new ones can come in and take their place. By supporting these companies they’ve actually hindered smaller companies (i.e. Arcimoto, Tesla, et. al.) from being able to enter the market without interference from the Big 3.

State of the Union Address

I have not decided whether to watch the State of the Union address by President Obama or not. I probably will, but I fear it is simply going to become a platform for Obama’s re-election campaign rather than a true statement on the status of our nation and his intended plans. Instead I expect to hear a number of the following things:

  1. Fairness. Or Obama’s version of fairness, which based on his record means what he thinks is fair, not necessarily what is actually fair. Another reference often used to refer to redistribution of wealth and raising taxes.
  2. Bolster economy and jobs growth by pushing for green jobs. This was tried and already failed. Solyndra anyone? How about the Fisker debacle? Better still, why kill the Keystone oil pipeline deal that would create jobs, especially given the presence of one pipeline already in operation? Anyone with half a brain knows we need to utilize all energy resources in this country.
  3. End income disparity. In other words, class warfare and demonizing successful Americans.
  4. Corporations are evil. Even as the President takes money from companies like GE that made record profits but paid nothing over the past few years.
  5. The Rich are evil and should pay their fair share. Which they actually do comparatively speaking when you look objectively at the amount of revenue they generate for the government.
  6. America’s policy failures are Congress’ fault. Ignoring of course complete Democrat control of the Congress for his first two years and his own lack of leadership skills.
  7. Tax reform. But is it really tax reform or just another stab at redistribution of wealth? How about a plan in which all Americans pay taxes, especially the 40% or so who currently pay nothing.
  8. The GOP is evil for not working with him. Of course, he’ll ignore the rage over his party abusing their control over the Congress to push things people didn’t want like ObamaCare (socialized medicine/individual mandate/new taxes/less care/less choice) and  Stimulus (a payoff to unions and party supporters) without working with the Republicans. He’ll also conveniently forget that the Senate is still in control of his own party.

Obviously, I’m skeptical of the President’s speech. But then I’m skeptical of his entire presidency for good reason. Maybe he’ll surprise me.

Arizona News Bits: Bill to End Unemployment Discrimination, Fast and Furious Investigation

Job Shop: Lawmaker Wants to End Unemployment Discrimination

Democratic state Rep. Ruben Gallego of Phoenix says the bill would add “long-term unemployment status” to the list of factors that employers are prohibited from considering.

Yesterday I posted about California addressing the discrimination against the unemployed. Today, an Arizona representative in the state house wants to put forth a bill addressing the issue. I think it’s a good idea, but unfortunately the representative putting the bill forward may have killed it due to his efforts to repeal SB1070, efforts that are dead on arrival in the state legislature if legislative leaders are to be believed.

Hopefully, his fellow representatives can look past his anti-SB1070 efforts and work together in crafting an anti-discrimination bill for the unemployed. I say hopefully because rhetoric from the anti-SB1070 crowd has poisoned much political discourse here in Arizona an a variety of issues by those few who’ve tried to turn everything into an issue of race or ethnicity. Most have put in on the back burner until the SCOTUS makes a final determination later this year but there always those who fixate on issues.

Lawmakers Propose Local Fast and Furious Probe

Now state lawmakers are taking the investigation into their own hands. House Speaker Andy Tobin and other Arizona lawmakers are forming a bi-partisan committee to investigate whether Fast and Furious broke any state laws or if any new laws are needed.

I’m not surprised at this since United States AG Holder’s Justice Department refuses to do a proper investigation into the issue and agencies involved. Unfortunately, I also already know what associated federal agencies are going to do: claim immunity under federal law for any potential criminal activity that they participated in. In other words, more corruption from the federal government in it’s failure to protect the American people and uphold the law.

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Against Unemployed

California Considers Outlawing Discrimination Against Unemployed

A bill introduced Jan. 5 and sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Michael Allen wouldn’t allow unemployed job-seekers to sue for discrimination, but companies that violate the law would face investigation and fines of up to $10,000.

“There’s been an increasing utilization of using this as a crude screening process to keep applicants from even being interviewed,” Allen told The Huffington Post. “It’s better to be proactive rather than to let this become a common practice.”

I rarely like government making regulations on business given the plethora of bureaucracy such laws often create, but this is one of those times were such regulations I feel are necessary. I’ve known several people that were denied jobs simply because they were currently unemployed at the time the interviewed. I was once told that I fit all the criteria for a position but that I was not selected to be hired solely on the grounds that I was not “currently employed” while undergoing the hiring process. I discussed the issue with the HR person, who agreed with me that it was silly not to hire a perfectly qualified candidate based on their current unemployment, but ultimately it was the bosses decision to make. While I felt it unfair I moved on as working for such a company, in my opinion, isn’t worth it as such an attitude often reflects a lack of commitment and respect by the employer towards their employees.

Unfortunately, I’ve heard similar stories from assorted friends, family, and associates over the years, particularly when the recession really hit hard between 2008-2010. I’ve even seen posts at job board over the last couple years while I was hunting for contract and freelance work with the ridiculous requirement that one must be employed in order to be hired. In other words, it’s slowly becoming a serious problem and a means used by some unscrupulous employers to justify their personal biases. (I still get amusement over an HR person for a foreign company wanting to hire American engineers and designers insisting I was lying about being a U.S. citizen because I had a “strange accent”. I assume they meant my native Arizonan accent, which is rare and really not that noticeably different.)

Yes, employers want their employees to be up to date on their skills, but an employed person is not necessarily one who has kept current for their field. (I’ve certainly met enough to confirm that over the years.) This desire for skilled labor does not justify discrimination in any form, especially against those who need the work the most: the unemployed.

I guess it’s a good thing I simply don’t get the need of others to discriminate. If someone’s qualified and can do the job, who cares about their appearance, gender, beliefs, or any of the rest. If they can do the job and work with their fellow employees to accomplish tasks, that is what should matter.

Obama Bans Uranium Mining in Arizona For 20 Years


In a statement issued by Senator John McCain, he said the move “is a devastating blow to job creation in northern Arizona, particularly in Mojave County.” McCain went on to say that the decision made by the administration was impacted by a campaign that placed the love of the Grand Canyon in direct opposition with a form of mining that occurs several miles from the walls of the Grand Canyon and in no way affects the quality of drinking water.

My only question is this: was the 20 year ban based on genuine environmental concerns or politics? I’m suspicious given the current administrations oft abusive and over reaching claims to authority over the business and people of the United States in recent years including interfering with legitimate business practices (i.e. interfering with Boeing opening a new facility) and private property rights (i.e. EPA threatening owners of property with fines for building homes of their private land).

While I am concerned about preserving Arizona’s natural heritage (far more so than the arrogant and ignorant President and Congress whom regularly try to undermine Arizona and Arizonan’s independent inclinations) I question the ban given the poor economy and the administrations active efforts to drive up the cost of energy in order to push a biased green agenda that is already leading to investigations such as Solyndra. I also have to question that if the uranium mining is as dangerous to the environment as they say, then why not have all the mining shut down? It just smacks of political pandering, especially given the administrations hostility towards certain forms of energy generations such as nuclear power.

As noted in IER’s Tom Pyle issues statement on Arizona mining ban | Institute for Energy Research

“Today’s announcement further compounds a man-made energy crisis that has been planned and executed in Washington D.C. To push back uranium exploration in Arizona until 2032 greatly hinders our ability to meet the challenges of our energy future with clean, safe nuclear technologies. It also appears to fundamentally undercut the administration’s own goal of reducing carbon emissions.

To meet our nation’s need for energy we must employ all sources, including nuclear. This ban appears to be in direct opposition to the administrations claims that it wants to solve America’s energy woes.

For now I’ll try to ignore my inherent distrust of the Obama administration and give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but there is no way you can convince me that this was done for anything but political purposes for an election year in which the incumbent President could lose re-election.

Regime Change 2012
Vote All The Bums Out!

Obama Approves GMO Corn and Herbicide Over Public Health and Food Safety

Wholesale Approval of Genetically Engineered Foods — Obama Administration Disappoints/Angers Public | Cornucopia Institute

While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.

I’m not surprised in the least that Obama has once more sold out the American public to his corporate donors. This time he’s just being thorough by polluting the entire food supply, destroying organic growers and leaving future generations to suffer from cancers and deformations as a result of these dangerous chemicals and frankenfood. Just another reason to make sure Obama is denied a second term as President.