Sonoran Way

The desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose... Isa 35:1

About Sonoran Way

Many years ago, we, a family of New York suburban slash city-folk, up and replanted ourselves into the northern part of Phoenix in the Sonoran Desert. What a culture shock! But, hey, they got over it! And we fell in love with the Sonoran, it's beauty, and it's inhabitants. We love sharing what we have discovered, and we hope you enjoy your visit with us today!

Here you will find wonderful Southwest gifts, pottery, toys, one-of-a-kind collectibles, books, and more in our online Shop and our Amazon store. We have dozens of pictures and lots of information about the Sonoran Desert on our Photos page, and links to other great sites about Arizona, the desert, and shopping on our Links page. If you enjoy our site, or have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us on our Links page. Thank you!

Link to Sonoran Way

America, Inc.: Land of Corporate Reign, by Phillip D. Collins

Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”

This model of economic fascism was adopted by Germany and Italy in the 1930s. And, I submit to you that such a marriage between the state and corporate power has taken place here in the United States.

Does this sound like a baseless contention? Allow me to substantiate it with history.

A form of Corporatism began to infect our constitutional republic in the 1930s. It propagated itself under the euphemistic appellation of “planned capitalism” and was hailed as a desirable inevitability. In 1936, Lawrence Dennis published The Coming American Fascism, a polemic contending that America’s adoption of stringent public regulation and the enshrinement of corporate power would invigorate “national spirit.” However, Dennis believed that economic fascism had a major obstacle to overcome.

Dennis wrote, “It cannot be repeated too often that what prevents adequate public regulation is liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights.”

Dennis proffered a chronocentric portrait of America’s traditional republican model of government, caricaturing it as an outmoded “18th-century Americanism” that would eventually be supplanted by “enterprises of public welfare and social control” (i.e., economic fascism).

Further expounding on the prerequisites for the Corporatist restructuring of America, Dennis wrote, “(Economic fascism) does not accept the liberal dogmas as to the sovereignty of the consumer or trader in the free market… Least of all does it consider that market freedom, and the opportunity to make competitive profits, are rights of the individual. Such decisions should be made by a ‘dominant class,’ an ‘elite.’”

The deconstruction of America’s “liberal dogmas” would be facilitated by the Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Contending that “government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it,” FDR successfully installed his National Recovery Administration. Roosevelt’s argument was laced with vintage Orwellian semiotics. In essence, FDR was presenting statism as individualism’s savior. Given statism’s mandate for the subordination of the individual to the collective, this contention would have appeared to have been hopelessly flawed. So, what was Roosevelt actually proposing?

Perhaps Mussolini had already answered the question when he said, “If classical liberalism spells individualism, fascism spells government.”

By depicting the state as the individual’s ersatz savior, Roosevelt was actually empowering the very antithesis of individualism. Roosevelt’s doublespeak worked and America was set on the path to statism, which is a precursor to Corporatism. The National Recovery Administration would be deemed unconstitutional later, but not before it left its indelible mark on America’s federal government. In turn, the burgeoning federal government has gradually wedded itself to corporate interests that are unelected and unaccountable to the citizenry.

And, the rise of Corporatism continues unabated. Presently, there are more private contractors in Iraq than there are American soldiers. One of those contractors is Halliburton, a Texas company formerly owned by Vice-President Dick Cheney. In most instances, these private contractors were merely handed billion dollar contracts by the United States government. Divided up by state-sanctioned monopolies, Iraq has become the playground for war profiteers. Presently, there are 70 court cases against private contractors in Iraq. U.S. gag orders are in place to prevent any discourse over the allegations. With the Administration of George W. Bush firmly entrenched in Washington, there appears to be little hope of those gag orders being lifted. Meanwhile, not a single private contractor has been brought to trial on charges of mismanagement or fraud.

According to a recent CNN poll, 69 percent of Americans believed that the Founding Fathers would be disappointed with the state of America. Is there any wonder why? The system they fought hard to establish is swiftly being supplanted by the prerogatives of corporate reign.

Link

Best of All Words Editing and Proofreading

Frequently, the first impression you make on others will be by way of your written words. Our many years of experience have taught us that it's nearly impossible to detect all errors in your own documents. You need a fresh set of eyes and an unbiased mind, and that's where we come in.

The staff at Best of All Words will make the best of your written words, wherever they are:

• Essays
• Reports
• Manuals
• Websites
• Theses
• Résumés
• Correspondence
• Manuscripts
• Brochures
• Proposals
• Blog entries
• Term papers
• Newsletters
• News articles
• Translated text
• Technical documents
• Press releases
• Magazines

Within these materials often lurk misspellings, typographical errors, grammatical mistakes, incorrect punctuations, clumsy wordings, and poor sentence structures. Best of All Words will seek them out and eliminate them all! Make sure your first impression is a great and lasting one.

We offer professional service, fast turnaround, and competitive rates. You choose whether you'd like us to actually correct the errors, or to only indicate them for you so that you can make the changes and learn from your mistakes, or both. See our Services page for further information.

Be confident that you're using the Best of All Words! To try our service for free today, send a sample of your writing -- one or two pages -- to our editors at mail @ bestofallwords.net. We will return it, polished and perfect, within 48 hours.

Visit Best of All Words today!

Shopping Website to Benefit Cystic Fibrosis

Innovating the way people give and support their favorite charity, Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis has been made publicly available.

Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis has created an easy way for individuals to ensure their favorite charity receives a portion of the profit from their online purchases. When an internet user wishes to make a purchase with any of over 400 leading online retailers (such as Barnes and Noble, Wal-Mart, Disney, Macy's, Dell, Linens N Things, Staples, and many, many more), all they need to do is locate them within the Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis retailer directory and use the link provided for that vendor.

"As someone involved in the technology industry, and the parent of a child with Cystic Fibrosis, I was looking for an innovative way to fund raise for Cystic Fibrosis research" states Clicks! for the Cause, Inc. Vice-President, James Stewart. "The goal was to give people an opportunity to shop online with their favorite online retailers, as they normally would, and support life-saving research at the same time".

Every retailer within the Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis directory is listed with a percentage or dollar value clearly stated next to their name. This value represents the amount of their purchase that goes directly to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. By reviewing this information, shoppers can feel good in knowing the exact amount of their purchase that will go life-extending Cystic Fibrosis research.

In addition to the Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis website, several supporting tools have also been made publicly available. The Clicks! for Cystic Fibrosis toolbar integrates directly into Internet Explorer, saving users the time of having to access the website. Additionally, a custom Windows Vista Gadget and Firefox custom Search Engine have also been made available for use.

Visit Clicks for CF today!

Americans Are Living (And Dying) In A Militarized Police State

by Dave Gibson

Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.

No less than 70 percent of U.S. cities now have SWAT teams. In cities with a population of 50,000 or more, 90 percent have SWAT teams.

Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska told the Washington Post that SWAT teams are currently sent out 40,000 times a year in the U.S. During the 1980's, SWAT teams were only used 3,000 times a year. Most of the time, SWAT teams are being sent out to simply serve warrants on non-violent drug offenders.

Many municipalities are using Homeland Security grants to even purchase large armored vehicles. The Pittsburgh Police Department now uses their 20-ton armored truck complete with rotating turret and gun ports to deliver many of their warrants. Pittsburgh Police Sgt. Barry Budd recently told the Associate Press: "We live on being prepared for 'what if'."

Our police departments now regularly receive free surplus equipment from the U.S. military, which they readily accept. The training being given at many police academies appears to be the type of tactics one would use in Baghdad, rather than Baltimore. It would seem that our police officers are being readied for war, with the American public as the enemy. In the last several years, there has been a transformation from community policing to pre-emptive assaults

On January 24, 2006, Dr. Salvatore Culosi was shot and killed outside his house by a Fairfax County SWAT officer. Police used the SWAT team to serve a documents search warrant, after Dr. Culosi came under suspicion for taking sports bets. The investigation began after Fairfax Detective David Baucom solicited a bet with Dr. Culosi at a local sports bar.

Dr. Culosi was standing outside his home while talking with Det. Baucom, when SWAT Officer Deval Bullock quickly approached with his gun drawn and fatally shot Dr. Culosi in the chest. Court documents report that Culosi never made any threatening movements and made no attempt to run as he watched the SWAT team move in around him.

Dr. Culosi had no history of violence nor any criminal history whatsoever. He operated two successful optometry clinics at Wal-Marts in Manassas and Warrenton, Va. His parents have filed a $12 million lawsuit against the county of Fairfax, Va.

On the night of January 17, 2008, a police SWAT team surrounded Ryan Frederick´s home in Chesapeake, Va. The police were there to serve a drug warrant based on a tip from a criminal informant.

As usual, 28 year-old Ryan Frederick had gone to sleep early in order to leave the house before dawn for his job with a soda distributor. He awoke to a commotion of screams and the distinct sound of someone breaking down his front door.

Frederick´s house had been broken into a few days earlier, being a slight man of only a little over 100 pounds, Frederick feared for his safety. After the break-in, he purchased a gun.

Understandably frightened, Frederick grabbed his gun and when he got to the front of his house, he saw a man trying to crawl through the bottom portion of his door. Terrified that the intruders had returned, he fired.

The man he shot was not an aggressive burglar, nor a drug-crazed murderer, he was Det. Jarrod Shivers. The police detective and military veteran died almost immediately. Frederick was charged with first-degree murder and now sits in a jail cell awaiting trial.

As for the marijuana-growing operation for which police were looking, nothing was found. Only a very small amount of marijuana was discovered on the Frederick property, only enough to charge him with misdemeanor possession. Frederick has admitted that he uses marijuana occasionally but has never been involved with producing nor selling the drug.

Ryan Frederick has no prior history of violence, nor any criminal history whatsoever. He took care of his grandmother until her death two years ago, had a full-time job, and recently became engaged. In his spare time, he worked in his yard and tended to his Koi pond…Not quite the drug kingpin type!



However, based solely on the word of an informant, police obtained a warrant and stormed into this man´s house in the dark of night. The information turned out to be false, a police officer and father of three is dead, and a decent young man´s life is now over.

When Ryan Frederick awoke to the sounds of his home being invaded, he did what many of us would do. He acted reasonably when he grabbed his gun to defend himself and fired at a man who he believed was breaking into his home to do him harm.

Had the police simply went to his home during the daytime and knocked on his door, they could have questioned Frederick and found their information to be groundless. A little traditional police work could have saved the life of a police officer and the Shivers and Frederick families would have remained whole.

The Ryan Frederick story is truly frightening because this same scenario could play itself out in your home or mine. In the age of militarized police departments, we are all in danger.

Here are a few more recent victims of our militarized police departments:

Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mom who was shot by police for picking up her legally registered handgun. She went for her gun to defend herself after a SWAT team in the middle of the night, broke into her Baltimore, MD home. Police stormed her house that night because they claim to have found marijuana seeds in the family's trash can.

Rev. Acelyne Williams, 75 of Boston, died of a heart attack as a SWAT team broke into his home. Police actually had the wrong address.

92 year old Kathryn Johnston who was so fearful that she never left her home and would only open her door after friends who placed her groceries on the front porch had left, was killed by an Atlanta SWAT team last year. An erroneous tip from an informant was enough for the Atlanta Police Department to invade her home. Police have since admitted to lying to obtain a search warrant and to planting drugs in her home after killing her.

In 2006, a 52 member SWAT team stormed into a Denver home in search of a friendly small-stakes poker game. The same thing happened a few months later when SWAT and K-9 units barged in on a charity poker game in Baltimore.

When someone straps on body armor and large caliber weapons, their adrenalin levels begin to surge. As they arrive at the scene, those levels increase. When these now militarized police officers actually break into a dark home and begin shouting at terrified citizens, severe injury and death is likely to occur. It is beyond reason to employ these tactics on anyone other than hardened, violent criminals.

SWAT teams were created in the wake of the 1966 University of Texas sniper shooting spree by ex-marine Charles Whitman. Police did not have the firepower to reach Whitman, who was perched atop the 27-story clock tower. Civilians with hunting rifles came to the scene and joined with police in the effort to stop Whitman. Eventually, police officers and a well-armed citizen scaled the stairs of the tower and killed Whitman, but not before he killed 17 people and injured another 31. As a result of the incident, police departments began to assemble small teams of highly trained officers with equipment specific to sniper shootings, hostage situations, bank robberies, etc.

SWAT teams were designed to deal with very violent individuals who represent a clear and present threat to the public. However, they are now being used to execute warrants on non-violent offenders and even those who have no prior criminal history at all. Turning our neighborhood cops into shock troops will do nothing but erode public confidence in the police and endanger the lives of innocent Americans.

Recently, Boston´s new police commissioner William Fitchet announced that the department´s Street Crimes Unit will begin wearing military-style black uniforms, to instill a sense of "fear." At last week´s city council meeting, police Sgt. John Delaney told council members that the black uniforms would send the message that officers were serious.

Did someone declare martial law?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60717

Prison Nation, by L. H. Rockwell, Jr.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Americans, perhaps like all people, have a remarkable capacity for tuning out unpleasantries that do not directly affect them. I'm thinking here of wars on foreign lands, but also the astonishing fact that the United States has become the world's most jail-loving country, with well over 1 in 100 adults living as slaves in a prison. Building and managing prisons, and locking people up, have become major facets of government power in our time, and it is long past time for those who love liberty to start to care.

Before we get to the reasons why, look at the facts as reported by the New York Times. The U.S. leads the world in prisoner production. There are 2.3 million people behind bars. China, with four times as many people, has 1.6 million in prison. In terms of population, the US has 751 people in prison for every 100,000, while the closest competitor in this regard is Russia with 627. I'm struck by this figure: 531 in Cuba. The median global rate is 125.

What's amazing is that most of this imprisoning trend is recent, dating really from the 1980s, and most of the change is due to drug laws. From 1925 to 1975, the rate of imprisonment was stable at 110, lower than the international average, which is what you might expect in a country that purports to value freedom. But then it suddenly shot up in the 1980s. There were 30,000 people in jail for drugs in 1980, while today there are half a million.

Other factors include the criminalization of nearly everything these days, even passing bad checks or the pettiest of thefts. And judges are under all sorts of minimum sentencing requirements. Now, before we move to causes and answers, please consider what jail means. The people inside are slaves of the state. They are captured and held and regarded by their captors as nothing other than biological beings that take up space. The delivery of all services to them is contingent on the whims of their masters, who have no stake in the outcome at all.

Now, you might say that this is necessary for some people, but be aware that it is the ultimate assault on human dignity. They are "paying the price" for their actions, but no one is in a position to benefit from the price paid. They aren't working off debts or compensating victims or struggling to overcome anything. They are just "doing time," costing taxpayers almost $25,000 a year per person. That's all these people are to society: a cost, and they are treated as such.

And the communities in which they exist in these prisons consist of other un-valued people, and they become socialized into this mentality that is utterly contrary to every notion of civilization. Then there are the relentless threat and reality of violence, the unspeakable noise, the pervasiveness of every moral perversity. In short, prisons are Hell. It can be no wonder that they rehabilitate no one. As George Barnard Shaw said, "imprisonment is as irrevocable as death."

What's more, everything we know about government applies to this ultimate government program. It is expensive (states alone spend $44 billion on prisons every year), inefficient, brutal, and irrational. The modern prison system is also a relatively new phenomenon in history, one that is used to enforce political priorities (the drug war) rather than punish real crimes. It is also manipulated by political passions rather than a genuine concern for justice. The results of the drug war are not to reduce consumption but rather the opposite. Illegal drugs are now a $100 billion dollar industry in the US, while the drug war itself costs taxpayers $19 billion, even as the costs of running the justice system are skyrocketing (up 418% percent in 25 years).

People say that crime is down, so this must be working. Well, that depends on what you mean by crime. Drug use and distribution are associated with violence solely because they are illegal. They are crimes because the state says they are crimes, but they do not fit within the usual definition we find in the history of political philosophy, which centers on the violation of person or property. What's more, the "crime" of drug use and distribution hasn't really been kept down; it has only gone further underground. It's a major irony and commentary on the workability of prisons that drug markets are very active there.

Now to causes. Some social scientists give the predictable explanation that all this is due to the lack of a "social safety net" in the U.S. In the first place, the U.S. has had such a net for a hundred years, and yet these people seem not to have noticed, even though no such net is big enough for some people. Moreover, it is more likely the very presence of such a net – which creates a moral hazard so that people do not learn to be responsible for their own well-being – that contributes to criminal behavior (all else being equal).

There are those on all sides who attribute the increase to racial factors, given that the imprisoned population is disproportionately black and Hispanic, and noting the disparity in crime rates in such places as Minnesota with low levels of minority populations. But this factor too could be illusory, especially as regards drug use, since it is far more likely that a state system will catch and punish people with less influence and social standing than those whom the state regards as significant.

A more telling point comes to us from political analysts, who observe the politicization of judicial appointments in the United States. Judges run on their "tough on crime" records, or are appointed for them, and so have every incentive to lock people up more than justice truly demands.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned so far in the discussion is the lobbying power of the prison industry itself. The old rule is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And so it is with prisons and the prison-industrial complex. I've yet to find any viable figures on how large this industry is, but consider that it includes construction firms, managers of private prisons, wardens, food service providers, counselors, security services, and a hundred other kinds of companies to build and manage these miniature societies. What kind of political influence do they have? Speculation here, but it must be substantial.

As for public concern, remember that every law on the books, every regulation, every line in the government codebook, is ultimately enforced by prison. The jail cell is the symbol and ultimate end of statism itself. It would be nice if we thought of the interests of the prisoners in society and those that will become so. But even if you are not likely to be among them, consider the loss of privacy, the loss of liberty, the loss of independence, the loss of all that used to be considered truly American, in the course of the building of prison nation.

But won't crime go up if we abandon our prison system? Let Robert Ingersoll answer: "The world has been filled with prisons and dungeons, with chains and whips, with crosses and gibbets, with thumb-screws and racks, with hangmen and headsmen – and yet these frightful means and instrumentalities and crimes have accomplished little for the preservation of property or life. It is safe to say that governments have committed far more crimes than they have prevented. As long as society bows and cringes before the great thieves, there will be little ones enough to fill the jails."

Link

Only A Miracle Can Save America Now by Chuck Baldwin

Every four years, conservative "pragmatists" trot out the "We Can't Let So-And-So Win" mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called "conservative" Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different.

This year's Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and "gay rights." To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall.

So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John "McSame" McCain.

Let's be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one.

On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to "family values" voters. He is no friend to America's blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration.

On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism.

But this is where the Boogeyman comes in.

At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, "We can't let Hillary Clinton win. We can't let Barack Obama win." Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican "bigwig." (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.)

I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the "lesser of two evils" but "the evil of two lessers." (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are "crunch time" for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues.

America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country's independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and "free trade" deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain.

I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, "So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other." To which I say, No you don't. You can think outside the box. You don't have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates. You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate.

I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush's preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government--not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state--is a wasted vote!

At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience?

It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can't win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don't act like people of principle.

If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America's independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that.

America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we--as did the priests of old--would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document--as did our Founding Fathers--that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle.

I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who "has no chance of winning" in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me?

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080415.html