I posted last night about the awful Tim Tebow tax sign that has popped up in Searcy. Now a citizen watchdog has submitted this photo of a pro-tax sign in front of Sidney Deener elementary school:
The watchdog also confirms that a sign is being displayed in front of Southwest Middle School as well.
If the signs are on school property, it is unclear at this point whether or not that would be illegal, but as a general rule, it seems to be a no-no to put election signs on public property. At the very least, I think these signs — which clearly imply endorsement of the tax by these schools — are being inappropriately displayed. Public property shouldn’t be used for electioneering and that is a principle that is woven through Arkansas ethics laws. That property belongs to all of us taxpayers, including me. I don’t want it being used to push a tax hike.
If the signs are not on school property, then they are in the right of way, which is a violation of the city code, according to the city of Searcy Code Enforcement’s Mike Cleveland. He made a few candidates move some signs last election cycle because they were “too close to the street,” telling them it was against city law to put signs in the right of way — I wonder if Mr. Cleveland will enforce the law in this case?
I have also personally seen a sign at the entrance of Harding University on Race Street which leads me to believe that the pro-tax workers, in all of their recklessness, are simply sticking signs wherever they want them and not thinking of the legal ramifications.
Cindy Barker of the White County Election Commission tells me that the commission has no jurisdiction over sign placement until election day. She says this issue would likely fall under the purview of the state Board of Education.
I read this article by Grover Norquist yesterday and found it simply too fantastic not to share with you.
Here’s a preview:
In his 1984 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Walter Mondale announced that if elected president he would raise taxes. He lost the electoral college 525 to 13, carrying only the District of Columbia and his home state of Minnesota.
Since then the two Democrats who won the presidency have promised that to pay for larger government they would only raise taxes on “the rich.” Bill Clinton defined the rich as the top 2% of income earners.
Even with the president promising to tax only the rich, why did 75% of Americans believe they were the ultimate targets of any threatened tax hike? The history of trickle-down taxation over the last 100 years and the last two Democratic administrations suggests an answer.
Read the rest of the article for yourself at The Wall Street Journal. You will not be disappointed. These are the types of economic lessons that are not taught in schools–intentionally.
Here’s a list of our top stories from this week:
- Congressman Crawford called me. He told me his millionaire surtax plan would only break his no-tax pledge if he voted for it–and he does plan to vote for it, if it makes it to the floor of the House–but ‘it would be worth it.’
- KARK continues their assault on journalistic decency. This time, Coach Bobby Petrino was the victim. The Patriot offered heart-felt prayers to Mark Zuckerberg on Coach Petrino’s behalf, per the request of KARK.
- Obama is against judicial review! Except when it fits his agenda, of course.
- Arizona leads the way on education reform. They’ve set the bar pretty high for Arkansas & the rest of the country.
- 2nd episode of Patriot Talk released. A guest & I review the Obamacare Supreme Court hearings.
- Arkansas Business, other blogs pick up on our KARK story. Also, KARK’s news director lies to me, and I explain my outrage further.
- Remembering why we celebrate Good Friday. The day death died.
In this week’s episode of Patriot Talk, guest Derek Glover & I discuss the Supreme Court hearings from last week. We also discuss the ramifications for Obama’s campaign if the law is struck down or upheld.
Hope you enjoy:
Articles referenced in this episode:
Jonah Goldberg article: http://bit.ly/HWVM3I
Kennedy quote: http://bit.ly/HWVUQG
I have contemplated this post for over a week now because I know some nut is going to try to use my comments to portray me as anti-2nd Amendment. So I ask that as we have a conversation about this sensitive issue that everyone have an open mind & remember that my only objective is the discovery of truth. Anyone who knows me knows that I am plenty pro-gun rights. But I reject the notion that being ‘pro-something’ means we cannot have adult discussions about whether or not that position is constitutional. My desire with The Arkansas Patriot, and now with Patriot Talk, is to have a conversation about the constitutionality of an array of issues & the intent of our founders. This article is simply an attempt to do just that.
Allow me to begin by saying: I love the 2nd amendment. I love the 10th amendment. I love liberty. I’m also a big believer in original intent–the idea that the founders who wrote the Constitution knew what they meant better than we do, and that their foresight is better than ours. So this last week when I ran across a headline about one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senators supporting a bill that has been bouncing around Congress for awhile, I felt like this was a good time to have a conversation regarding the federal Bill of Rights & how they apply to the states.
The bill before Congress would reportedly allow concealed carry permit holders to carry across all state lines, a decision that has always been made by the states themselves, not the federal government. Ironically, the bill is entitled the “Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” But what about this bill respects states’ rights? And is this even constitutional?
(Of course, I am operating on the premise that some people in this country still value the idea of constitutionality.)
The idea of leaving decisions related to gun laws to the federal government is a debate I have had with many close political, gun-loving friends before. The general consensus among them has been, “It may not be within the originally intended powers of the federal government to act in this way, but as long as they’re being ‘pro-gun,’ I’m okay with it.” In other words, “As long as big government is acting the way I want it to, it’s fine.” Another argument that has been made is, “Well, the 2nd Amendment! What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand??’ ” And lastly, I have been told that I may be right about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, but “it doesn’t matter, because we passed the 14th Amendment, so the U.S. Constitution does now apply to the states.” Let’s take these points one at a time.
The idea that we can use big government for our purposes is wrongheaded and dangerous. It’s a similar reaction that many had in response to the PATRIOT Act. When Bush was in office & the act was originally passed, many conservatives were okay with the measures taken to keep Americans safe, even if it cost us a little liberty. We trusted Bush. But when Obama came into office and we begin to see how some provisions of the act could be abused, many changed their tunes. Likewise, many who may want to support these efforts to impose gun-friendly laws on states should be leery of what this could mean if Democrats were to once again gain control of both houses of Congress. Would folks in this camp support the federal government telling businesses that they must allow guns in their stores? Big, centralized government is still big, centralized government. I don’t like it ever, regardless of whether or not it appears to be doing something I like.
Then we have the argument that I have somehow missed the ‘shall not be infringed’ clause of the 2nd amendment. Trust me, I’ve read it, and I’ve studied it. The problem with this argument is that the 2nd Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, not the state constitutions. Until a series of Supreme Court rulings in the late 19th century (the Slaughter-House Cases) and the passage of the 14th Amendment/Incorporation Clause, the U.S. constitution didn’t trump the states. The 2nd Amendment restricted the federal government from infringing on gun rights, but it did not restrict the state governments. It is true that most states passed their own Bill of Rights & amendments similar to the federal version, but the U.S. Constitution was never designed to trump states’ laws. This was part of the founders design to keep the federal government restrained & states relatively sovereign, allowing for some variation in freedoms.
Look, if California wants to outlaw guns, that’s fine with me. I really could not care less. I am not going to live there, and they’re probably going to do it anyway, so be my guest. But if Arkansas tried to restrict gun rights in any way, I would be up in arms (see what I did there?). This is my state, where I live, and I like our freedom. We should have the right as a state to determine how we are going to handle gun issues.
This design is truly part of the beauty of the system that the founders designed: We are one nation, united under one federal government, but we still have local control over critical issues of freedom. If I don’t like the laws in Arkansas, I can move to Texas. But if the feds pass a stinker of a law, where am I to go? States were designed to be laboratories of democracy. Bills like the federal right to carry stomp on that design.
Now, as for the argument that ‘the 14th Amendment changed all that:’ Yes, the 14th Amendment did change some things, many of them positive, like standardizing citizenship & providing equal protection. But how silly is it to think that an amendment passed in 1868 could change the original intent of the founders nearly 100 years prior? I am a little rusty on my con-law, but I believe a look at the congressional record will show that many conservative congressmen at the time were very concerned that the 14th Amendment would be used in the exact way it has been, endlessly expanding the federal government’s power. Proponents of the amendment argued it would be not be used in that way. So you could say that even the original intent of the 14th Amendment isn’t being applied.
The bottom line is this: We either believe in original intent, or we believe in a ‘living document’ We are either against big government, or we are for big government. We are either against federal mandates or we are for federal mandates. We cannot have it both ways.
If we are for big government, we should 1. Stop calling ourselves conservatives & 2. Brace ourselves. Because you see, a government that is big & powerful enough, outside of its constitutional authority, to mandate that states accept gun-friendly laws is a government big enough to take guns away.
From my perspective, a national right to carry bill is dangerous and unconstitutional. Once we allow the federal government the right to force states to recognize concealed carry permits, we have officially opened the door to allowing the feds to take the permits away.
(Send hate mail to ArkansasPatriot(at)gmail.com or hate tweets @nhhorton/@ArkansasPatriot)
I mean, why shouldn’t he? They’re a great company after all, and they employ hundreds of Americans. We salute you, Dr. Pepper.