Monday, November 26, 2007
OJ Simpson Makes his Endorsement for President
Once you get past the car commercial, you'll see who OJ endorses for President and why.....it should make you think twice, maybe three times about this candidate....
Boston PD to do Warrentless House-to-House Searches to Enforce Gun Prohibition Laws
There is an old English common-law maxim, which is where America got its system of "common law" from, that "a man's home is his castle, that NOT EVEN the KING [of England] and his men may not enter without cause". In America, it has been shortened to "a man's home is his castle" and essentially incorporated into our 4th Amendment. Well that phrase may not be applicable anymore, at least in Boston.
The Boston Police Department has announced that it will do "house-to-house" searches in "high-crime neighborhoods" for firearms in the rooms of "teen-agers". Apparently the Boston PD Brass haven't read either the 2nd Amendment (we all know what that one says) and/or the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure, especially in our "castles", our homes.
They aren't going in unannounced; they are "merely knocking" on everyone's doors and "asking them" for permission to search their homes. If you've ever been pulled over and a cop "asks" you, "MAY I SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE", can you REALLY say "NO, ITS A WASTE OF MINE AND YOUR TIME AND IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT?" No, of course not. What the hell country is this where police and Federal agents in particular can "canvass" neighborhoods (just cause they're poor areas) and "ask" to enter someone's home to look for guns; if you think its hard to tell an officer "no" during a vehicle stop, try saying no to a couple of cops or FBI Agents who are at your door...
For those of you out there on the pro-gun control, yet claim to fight for "civil liberties" side of this issue, we thank you for your support of Democratic Party and the political left, who support gun prohibition laws, because house-to-house searches are the natural extension of these intrusive laws that tell people how they must store, keep, etc. their firearms with in their homes...After all, cops and Federal Agents can't check for a "gun-lock", etc. with in a citizens home without entering it first.
This so-called "modest crime-control law" will "slippery slope" into other areas; perhaps knocks on the doors of the people of Boston (and other cities) "asking" to enter for random drug searches, soon it will go to the parents room where I'm sure a married couple would just love to have cops snooping through they're lingerie drawers, etc. looking for unlocked guns or drugs, etc. Eventually, it will be declared "successful" by the authors of the policy, as bureaucrats always do, and these searches will move to suburban and especially rural homes and most likely to other states and cities.
Since no one is safe from Government when ANY citizen, especially an entire city, isn't safe from Government, it is all of our duties to prevent these laws, protest them, inform others about their existences and get rid of the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. These types of laws that restrict your activities with in your home are what make regular citizens not trust law enforcement and takes us leap years closer to that eventual police state we all thought couldn't happen here.
Beware, "a man's (and woman's) home may not be his/her castle", anymore with programs like these, at least not in Boston.
The Boston Police Department has announced that it will do "house-to-house" searches in "high-crime neighborhoods" for firearms in the rooms of "teen-agers". Apparently the Boston PD Brass haven't read either the 2nd Amendment (we all know what that one says) and/or the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure, especially in our "castles", our homes.
They aren't going in unannounced; they are "merely knocking" on everyone's doors and "asking them" for permission to search their homes. If you've ever been pulled over and a cop "asks" you, "MAY I SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE", can you REALLY say "NO, ITS A WASTE OF MINE AND YOUR TIME AND IT VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT?" No, of course not. What the hell country is this where police and Federal agents in particular can "canvass" neighborhoods (just cause they're poor areas) and "ask" to enter someone's home to look for guns; if you think its hard to tell an officer "no" during a vehicle stop, try saying no to a couple of cops or FBI Agents who are at your door...
For those of you out there on the pro-gun control, yet claim to fight for "civil liberties" side of this issue, we thank you for your support of Democratic Party and the political left, who support gun prohibition laws, because house-to-house searches are the natural extension of these intrusive laws that tell people how they must store, keep, etc. their firearms with in their homes...After all, cops and Federal Agents can't check for a "gun-lock", etc. with in a citizens home without entering it first.
This so-called "modest crime-control law" will "slippery slope" into other areas; perhaps knocks on the doors of the people of Boston (and other cities) "asking" to enter for random drug searches, soon it will go to the parents room where I'm sure a married couple would just love to have cops snooping through they're lingerie drawers, etc. looking for unlocked guns or drugs, etc. Eventually, it will be declared "successful" by the authors of the policy, as bureaucrats always do, and these searches will move to suburban and especially rural homes and most likely to other states and cities.
Since no one is safe from Government when ANY citizen, especially an entire city, isn't safe from Government, it is all of our duties to prevent these laws, protest them, inform others about their existences and get rid of the politicians and bureaucrats that make them. These types of laws that restrict your activities with in your home are what make regular citizens not trust law enforcement and takes us leap years closer to that eventual police state we all thought couldn't happen here.
Beware, "a man's (and woman's) home may not be his/her castle", anymore with programs like these, at least not in Boston.
California Initiative that will Split States Electoral Votes to Make the Ballot
A Republican-linked group called "California Counts" is going to gather enough petition signatures to place a proposal before California voters to change the way the state awards its electoral votes, which could and probably will ensure a Republican Presidential victory in 2008 if passed.
Donors to California Counts include Rep. Darrell Issa (R- Chula Vista), near San Diego - a very wealthy GOP Congressman, Floyd Kvamme - a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is a supporter of Rudy Guliani and Jerold Perenchio - the former head of Univision. The spokesman for California Counts is David Gilliard, a political consultant who was intricate in the California Recall Election of 2003 in which Democrat Governor Gray Davis was ousted from power by current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
David Gilliard predicted the group could submit as many as 700,000 petition signatures to qualify it for the ballot, far above the required 434,000 threshold, which would mean California voters will vote on it during California's June "non-Presidential" Primary.
Republican supporters say the proposal would usher in a new era of fairness in presidential contests because it would award electoral votes based on voting percentages in the states' Congressional Districts rather than the winner take all system (two other states already use this method). But Democrats say it's little more than an attempt to rig the 2008 race in favor of the GOP nominee.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. Under the proposal, the statewide winner would receive only two electoral votes, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if approved by voters - would position a Republican candidate to win almost half of California's electoral votes. Anywhere from 20-25 Congressional Districts in California are safe Republican or Republican leaning, which would make it virtually impossible for a Democrat candidate to win the general election, even if they win Ohio or another swing state.
"It will lose at the ballot box ... it will be a loser for the Republican Party," said consultant Chris Lehane, a leading supporter of Hillary Clinton and long-time Clinton political "hitman" who is organizing opposition to this ballot measure.
If it does qualify, which it will, Democrats likely would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up California GOP turnout that day, making the passage of such a proposal even more likely.
The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics. In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.
Leading Democrats have united with Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to defeat the proposal. A committee formed to oppose the plan, which has ties to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been running ads depicting the proposal as a power grab.
Republican support is not unanimous - and even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has questioned the idea.
Regardless, the proposal WILL make the California ballot in June and the GOP has the advantage in such a situation because GOPers traditionally vote in greater percentages than Democrats in such elections. The real questions now are, will it pass, and how many millions of dollars are the Democrats willing to spend to defeat it (at the expense of other races).
Donors to California Counts include Rep. Darrell Issa (R- Chula Vista), near San Diego - a very wealthy GOP Congressman, Floyd Kvamme - a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who is a supporter of Rudy Guliani and Jerold Perenchio - the former head of Univision. The spokesman for California Counts is David Gilliard, a political consultant who was intricate in the California Recall Election of 2003 in which Democrat Governor Gray Davis was ousted from power by current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
David Gilliard predicted the group could submit as many as 700,000 petition signatures to qualify it for the ballot, far above the required 434,000 threshold, which would mean California voters will vote on it during California's June "non-Presidential" Primary.
Republican supporters say the proposal would usher in a new era of fairness in presidential contests because it would award electoral votes based on voting percentages in the states' Congressional Districts rather than the winner take all system (two other states already use this method). But Democrats say it's little more than an attempt to rig the 2008 race in favor of the GOP nominee.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. Under the proposal, the statewide winner would receive only two electoral votes, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if approved by voters - would position a Republican candidate to win almost half of California's electoral votes. Anywhere from 20-25 Congressional Districts in California are safe Republican or Republican leaning, which would make it virtually impossible for a Democrat candidate to win the general election, even if they win Ohio or another swing state.
"It will lose at the ballot box ... it will be a loser for the Republican Party," said consultant Chris Lehane, a leading supporter of Hillary Clinton and long-time Clinton political "hitman" who is organizing opposition to this ballot measure.
If it does qualify, which it will, Democrats likely would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up California GOP turnout that day, making the passage of such a proposal even more likely.
The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics. In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.
Leading Democrats have united with Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to defeat the proposal. A committee formed to oppose the plan, which has ties to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, had been running ads depicting the proposal as a power grab.
Republican support is not unanimous - and even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has questioned the idea.
Regardless, the proposal WILL make the California ballot in June and the GOP has the advantage in such a situation because GOPers traditionally vote in greater percentages than Democrats in such elections. The real questions now are, will it pass, and how many millions of dollars are the Democrats willing to spend to defeat it (at the expense of other races).
Iowa Citizen Sends Letter to Sen. Harkin Seeking Illegal Status and Benefits
This is not a letter I wrote, but its funny enough to put on a blog:
Becoming Illegal
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his Senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of
Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return
for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as
"in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most
appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Becoming Illegal
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his Senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of
Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return
for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as
"in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most
appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
Race War in Los Angeles Erupting Between Illegal Alien Mexicans and Black Residents
What started as a "Gang/Drug War" has turned into a "Race War" in LA between Illegal Mexicans and Black Residents:
Most of you out there (if you listen to the sensationalist, left-wing corporate media) would think that most racial tensions in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California are "the old black and white" race issues.
Well, not anymore, in fact, despite the Rodney King verdicts, LA Riots and the beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, OJ, etc. race relations between blacks and whites are better than ever.
However, there is a problem with race in LA, and its not what most people would think, its actually between illegal aliens (and legal Mexicans) versus black residents., the tensions are mounting as more and more illegal alien Mexican invaders settle in traditionally black areas of Los Angeles such as Watts, Compton, Inglewood and South Central Los Angeles and over take the black population and then use their numbers to get blacks out of political office, civic leadership, etc.
This story really started around 20-30 years ago as President Bush (41), Clinton (42) and Bush (43) ignored the border knowing that illegal alien Mexicans would hit Los Angeles first (before they would spread to other cities in our nation) and ultimately overtake blacks in numbers and then take away what little political clout they had.
It hit a boiling point around ten years ago when the "East Coast Crips" (a black LA gang) allegedly robbed the "Florencia 13" (a Latino gang made up of illegal aliens and their "anchor-baby" children primarily) of a large quantity of dope. To this day, no one really knows if it happened and the stories about its details change all the time. That being said, it ignited what was at first a "gang war" between black and Mexican gangs over the lucrative drug markets of "Florence-Firestone", a neighborhood (really a "hood") in the north end of Watts.
Once a primarily black community of 60,000, it is now a predominantly illegal alien community of Mexican nationals and their anchor-baby offspring. It didn't take long for this "gang war" to erupt into an all out "race war" where blacks and Mexicans started targeting anyone not of their race (whites and Asians we're exempted from this "unwritten rule").
Even in the schools, on Cinco De Mayo (which shouldn't be an American holiday anyways), black students tear down and even burn Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, etc. and during "black history month", Mexican students tear down pictures of Martin Luther King, etc.
According to Chris Le Grande, a black pastor of "Great Hope Fellowship in Faith" (one of the largest black churches in the community), the violence is getting so bad that:
"Its now to the point where its deliberate, I'm deliberately shooting you because of your color".
In fact, the US Attorney's Office in LA announced sweeping indictments against more than 60 members of "Florencia 13", accusing the illegal alien Mexican gang of waging a violent campaign to drive black rivals and black people in general out of the community.
One of the reasons the authorities gave for the surge in violence was the demographic shift happening there (illegal demographic shift I might add), which has included language and cultural shifts, along with the desire of blacks to defend what little they have.
It is too bad that American cultural centers and cities are being destroyed one at a time by illegal aliens and the American left-wing collaborators who support them.
I will give the black community of LA credit though on this one, they aren't taking it laying down. They're fighting back everyday against this onslaught while whites and other ethnic groups are complacent as the United States is being taken over by Mexican illegals.
News Footage of this problem:
Blacks vs Mexicans in Compton, CA
Blacks vs Mexicans in Pasadena, CA
Most of you out there (if you listen to the sensationalist, left-wing corporate media) would think that most racial tensions in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California are "the old black and white" race issues.
Well, not anymore, in fact, despite the Rodney King verdicts, LA Riots and the beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, OJ, etc. race relations between blacks and whites are better than ever.
However, there is a problem with race in LA, and its not what most people would think, its actually between illegal aliens (and legal Mexicans) versus black residents., the tensions are mounting as more and more illegal alien Mexican invaders settle in traditionally black areas of Los Angeles such as Watts, Compton, Inglewood and South Central Los Angeles and over take the black population and then use their numbers to get blacks out of political office, civic leadership, etc.
This story really started around 20-30 years ago as President Bush (41), Clinton (42) and Bush (43) ignored the border knowing that illegal alien Mexicans would hit Los Angeles first (before they would spread to other cities in our nation) and ultimately overtake blacks in numbers and then take away what little political clout they had.
It hit a boiling point around ten years ago when the "East Coast Crips" (a black LA gang) allegedly robbed the "Florencia 13" (a Latino gang made up of illegal aliens and their "anchor-baby" children primarily) of a large quantity of dope. To this day, no one really knows if it happened and the stories about its details change all the time. That being said, it ignited what was at first a "gang war" between black and Mexican gangs over the lucrative drug markets of "Florence-Firestone", a neighborhood (really a "hood") in the north end of Watts.
Once a primarily black community of 60,000, it is now a predominantly illegal alien community of Mexican nationals and their anchor-baby offspring. It didn't take long for this "gang war" to erupt into an all out "race war" where blacks and Mexicans started targeting anyone not of their race (whites and Asians we're exempted from this "unwritten rule").
Even in the schools, on Cinco De Mayo (which shouldn't be an American holiday anyways), black students tear down and even burn Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, etc. and during "black history month", Mexican students tear down pictures of Martin Luther King, etc.
According to Chris Le Grande, a black pastor of "Great Hope Fellowship in Faith" (one of the largest black churches in the community), the violence is getting so bad that:
"Its now to the point where its deliberate, I'm deliberately shooting you because of your color".
In fact, the US Attorney's Office in LA announced sweeping indictments against more than 60 members of "Florencia 13", accusing the illegal alien Mexican gang of waging a violent campaign to drive black rivals and black people in general out of the community.
One of the reasons the authorities gave for the surge in violence was the demographic shift happening there (illegal demographic shift I might add), which has included language and cultural shifts, along with the desire of blacks to defend what little they have.
It is too bad that American cultural centers and cities are being destroyed one at a time by illegal aliens and the American left-wing collaborators who support them.
I will give the black community of LA credit though on this one, they aren't taking it laying down. They're fighting back everyday against this onslaught while whites and other ethnic groups are complacent as the United States is being taken over by Mexican illegals.
News Footage of this problem:
Blacks vs Mexicans in Compton, CA
Blacks vs Mexicans in Pasadena, CA
Interviews with Two Miltary Men from Different Eras
This is an Old School GOP exclusive interview with two soldiers. One who is currently in the military and one who served in it in the past. The purpose is to tell their stories and opinions based on their individualized experiences in combat and in the military in general.
They were asked the same 10 questions with a few variations to make them compatible with time period changes, etc. Regardless of your opinion of the war (or America's past wars), the fighters themselves must be respected and this is their opportunity to tell their stories.
The first interview is with with SSGT Derek "AFLACK" Gray, who is currently in the Texas National Guard.
1.What branch are you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
USAF, I first enlisted in October 2000 in the Texas Air National Guard, after 9/11 I have served on Active Duty Ever since.
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I am a member of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston TX, a General Purpose F-16 unit. My Main duties is a 2w1 weapons mechanic. Provide Air Support on various domestic operations mostly training with Army Units. I am not at liberty to disclose areas of Foreign Operation but I will say we have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I am responsible for the Loading and Unloading of munitions both Air to Air and Air To Ground and maintenance of the weapons systems of the F-16, Launchers, Bomb Racks, M61A1 Gun. I enlisted as an A1C 1 level "technical skill of helper very low technical knowledge" and have progressed to a 7 level SSGT "Technical Skill of Craftsman I can do all the work unsupervised and can train lower skilled airmen".
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you have been in your branch.
Working Close Air Support Alert over seas! We would launch F-16s on a moments notice to provide Close Air Support to "troops in contact". We would Scramble Jets with little to No Notice! One of these missions is the one that killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, and if I would have been in Iraq two weeks longer in 2006, I could of launched that Mission! Must to my dismay, I was already home and missed that opportunity!
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War, have you served and describe it?
My general opinion of the Iraq war is that it is an ESSENTIAL battlefield in the War on Terror! It is one THAT MUST BE WON! I have served in Iraq on three occasions and would do it again in a heartbeat! My role was as a weapons Mechanic and we provided close air support, strike and recon of suspected terrorist cells.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that most of the mistakes have been made are because of political correctness. The Media has under minded our mission from day one and because of the constant media attention, alot of the commanders have second guessed themselves because of the "hostile media"!
Now I believe we are on the right track and the results of the surge are breaking the back of the terrorist movement; and the Iraqi people believe in what we are doing and no longer worry about us abandoning them before the mission is complete!
7.Describe any positive things you think about the war effort?
I have seen it first hand on base in the hospital. Many innocent Iraqis were wounded by terrorists and the resolve of both the Iraqi's I have spoken too and wounded American soldiers is the same. WE MUST WIN AND ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH VICTORY in a nutshell.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can?
Generally we all work together to accomplish the mission. We have high morale both at home and overseas. We are professional on the job but at the same time the NCO's (Non-Commission Officers) allow us to decompress and have a little fun without letting it get out of hand! I love the military and the experiences, even the bad ones have served to make me a better person!
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would rebuild the military to the "Reagan" military. One of high morale and high influence around the world. I believe we must contain our enemies and when we engage them, we should do it without any handcuffs to get the mission accomplished; in accordance with LOAC and Geneva Conventions. I would proudly fight in any war in which the final goal is peace and freedom for the captive nations.
10. Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
My experiences working in the hospital when off duty has been an inspiration! 90-95% of the wounded soldiers I have come into contact with just want to be "patched up and sent back to their men". Uncommon valor is a common virtue as much today as it was back in WWII.
SSGT "Aflack" is a host of THE WAR ZONE: Politics and current events from a soldiers perspective. www.blogtalkradio.com/warzone
Tune in M-F 8PM Central Standard Time
The second interview is with PFC Orville Hunter (Army-Ret.).
1.What branch are were you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
I enlisted in the spring of 1941, during peace time, although we knew war was probably inevitable. I served until the end of 1946 in the 8th US Army/Air Corp
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I was a Private First Class (PFC) in the 8th Army and Air Corp [back then the Air Force wasn't a separate branch but part of the Army]. I signed up for service during the Spring of 1941 when I was 21 years old, I was stationed in San Diego when Pearl Harbor hit. I then was transferred to Iceland, where we had bases for our convoy supply and troop deployment routes to England. I then went onto England and from there I fought in Italy, France and Germany of course. We were air support for the Western Allies, did bombing raids over France, Germany, etc. and fought on the ground also.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I had lots of duties during the war including assisting in combat and with supplies, reinforcing other US Army Units and more. I started of as a Private First Class and ended that way, I refused to accept any promotions because I didn't want to be a "decision-maker" who makes the decision that gets my men killed. I didn't want to have that guilt on my hands should it happen.
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you were in your branch.
Around 2 weeks after D-Day, Hitler sent in his best General, Gen. Irwin Rommel to try to push us back off our positions on France's coast. During the German counterattack, a couple of Luftwaffe aircraft [German Air Force] were firing towards some brush that myself and others were hiding in and we shot down two of the planes coming straight at us, with bolt-action rifles.
Our unit also assisted during the last days of the "Battle of the Bulge". We also bombed German military targets in order to give some relief to the Soviet Union, the "Red Army" as they were called. We had many times where air craft would come back with holes in them, damaged, etc. but they'd make it, every time an air crew made it home it was an exciting time, we lived one-day at a time knowing any of us could die in the war.
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War?
I believe that is necessary to win, I don't want to see another generation of brave young Americans like Vietnam coming home knowing they fought in a war that was "lost". I am concerned that Iraq could turn into our version of the "Soviet-Afghan War" [1979-91] where we have a constant flow of suicidal enemies coming in to replace suicidal enemies who have died.
Only time will tell how it turns out, but I think it must be won, if for no other reason, so we can say those that didn't make it home along with those that did can rest in the comfort of knowing their generation fought and won the war of their day.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that it was improper to allow the "lawlessness" in the aftermath of the capture of Baghdad, the looting, etc. because it "set a tone" of lawlessness that has only escalated. I also believe that the President has allowed too much leeway for Iraqi politicians in the "sensitivity" area; its obvious that certain targets who have American blood on their hands like [Shite-Militant Leader] Al-Sadr are not being taken out due to political considerations. The US Army of my era wouldn't of allowed any of this.
Also I believe the President should not have publicly "shifted reasons" as to why we went in there, it takes away from our moral high-ground. I think the war has also been politically correct in some ways.
For instance, in the aftermath of WWII, some fanatical Germans would take shots at our soldiers, bombs would "mysteriously" explode, etc. and when we caught these illegal combatants, we put them in front of a military commission and with in hours they were in front of a firing squad. It squelched even the hardest of Nazi fanatics to calm down. These tactics are being denied our troops today because of political correctness, not because of any illegality of doing them.
I'm also concerned about the old "Yankee go home syndrome", we endured that in WWII, even in countries we liberated and protected. It shocked us when citizens we just saved from Nazi's would say negative things to us. It is pervasive today, even in our media and in the country of Iraq to some extent, and the longer the war goes with out clear victory, the more likely it is that mentality will become pervasive thought, and we'll be forced out. I also don't think the President managed the public relations, aka propaganda of the war very well, from the beginning. All wars must be sold to the public, or they won't last.
7.Describe any positive things you think about the Iraq war effort?
I've heard that the US Military is building schools, hospitals, gas stations, etc., I'm not a big fan of turning the military into a construction crew, but these positive things must be recognized. I also believe that the "surge" and especially the successful division of Sunni militants from Sunni Al-Qaeda members is working. Its the old divide and conquer strategy, its a tried and true method for these types of "non-front line" wars.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can (at that time)?
We all were initially worried about battle with Nazi Forces in Italy and France and elsewhere because they had a reputation for winning at that time and for brutality, we all worked as a team but most of us thought to ourselves that our main purpose was to get out of there alive, but as we saw we could defeat them, our confidence increased. We were like family in the 8th Army/Air Corp, and would do anything for each other, including and especially putting ourselves at risk in order to save others. I love all my brothers in arms to this day.
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would remove unnecessary bases overseas, especially the ones created after we won WWII and ultimately the cold war. Most of us who invaded Germany never imagined we would still have bases in Europe over 60 years later. It creates the "subsidization" of their defense, because they cut their forces, which take tax dollars, knowing the US is there to take care of their business. I wouldn't close bases in the United States, in fact I would increase them and expand the use of the military to border protection (which is allowed under the law, and clearly the Border Patrol is overwhelmed), we seem to care more about other countries borders than our own. I would limit the use of the military to essential foreign operations, those truly representing threats to our national security, including defending our chaotic borders.
I would also try to keep the war on terrorism abroad as a covert, undercover war using Special Forces, CIA and other military units so that we "blend in" with the population and can be more effective in rooting out terrorist cells.
10.Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
I'd like to express some regrets. I believe that FDR should have been more forceful with the Soviets rather than just letting them enslave Eastern Europe. I also feel some remorse for the civilians killed by our bombing raids at Dresden Germany. After the war we learned that it wasn't the "military target" Stalin said it was, he may well have tricked us and the British into doing his "dirty work" for him of liquidating that city (which was destined to be in Communist East Germany) of mostly civilians and potential opposition to a Communist Police State.
I feel we should of also bombed the Nazi death camps because our intelligence air craft picked up "strange pictures of railroad tracks" heading into what appeared to be prisons. By early 1942, we knew exactly what they were, and if we would have bombed the death camps, we could have slowed the Nazi death machine and instead of 6 million dead Jews, there may have been 2 million, or who knows, but I feel we should have tried to hit them being that the people there were condemned to death anyways.
Overall, we served proudly and honorably as do the young folks of today who serve.
They were asked the same 10 questions with a few variations to make them compatible with time period changes, etc. Regardless of your opinion of the war (or America's past wars), the fighters themselves must be respected and this is their opportunity to tell their stories.
The first interview is with with SSGT Derek "AFLACK" Gray, who is currently in the Texas National Guard.
1.What branch are you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
USAF, I first enlisted in October 2000 in the Texas Air National Guard, after 9/11 I have served on Active Duty Ever since.
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I am a member of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston TX, a General Purpose F-16 unit. My Main duties is a 2w1 weapons mechanic. Provide Air Support on various domestic operations mostly training with Army Units. I am not at liberty to disclose areas of Foreign Operation but I will say we have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I am responsible for the Loading and Unloading of munitions both Air to Air and Air To Ground and maintenance of the weapons systems of the F-16, Launchers, Bomb Racks, M61A1 Gun. I enlisted as an A1C 1 level "technical skill of helper very low technical knowledge" and have progressed to a 7 level SSGT "Technical Skill of Craftsman I can do all the work unsupervised and can train lower skilled airmen".
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you have been in your branch.
Working Close Air Support Alert over seas! We would launch F-16s on a moments notice to provide Close Air Support to "troops in contact". We would Scramble Jets with little to No Notice! One of these missions is the one that killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, and if I would have been in Iraq two weeks longer in 2006, I could of launched that Mission! Must to my dismay, I was already home and missed that opportunity!
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War, have you served and describe it?
My general opinion of the Iraq war is that it is an ESSENTIAL battlefield in the War on Terror! It is one THAT MUST BE WON! I have served in Iraq on three occasions and would do it again in a heartbeat! My role was as a weapons Mechanic and we provided close air support, strike and recon of suspected terrorist cells.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that most of the mistakes have been made are because of political correctness. The Media has under minded our mission from day one and because of the constant media attention, alot of the commanders have second guessed themselves because of the "hostile media"!
Now I believe we are on the right track and the results of the surge are breaking the back of the terrorist movement; and the Iraqi people believe in what we are doing and no longer worry about us abandoning them before the mission is complete!
7.Describe any positive things you think about the war effort?
I have seen it first hand on base in the hospital. Many innocent Iraqis were wounded by terrorists and the resolve of both the Iraqi's I have spoken too and wounded American soldiers is the same. WE MUST WIN AND ACHIEVE PEACE THROUGH VICTORY in a nutshell.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can?
Generally we all work together to accomplish the mission. We have high morale both at home and overseas. We are professional on the job but at the same time the NCO's (Non-Commission Officers) allow us to decompress and have a little fun without letting it get out of hand! I love the military and the experiences, even the bad ones have served to make me a better person!
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would rebuild the military to the "Reagan" military. One of high morale and high influence around the world. I believe we must contain our enemies and when we engage them, we should do it without any handcuffs to get the mission accomplished; in accordance with LOAC and Geneva Conventions. I would proudly fight in any war in which the final goal is peace and freedom for the captive nations.
10. Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
My experiences working in the hospital when off duty has been an inspiration! 90-95% of the wounded soldiers I have come into contact with just want to be "patched up and sent back to their men". Uncommon valor is a common virtue as much today as it was back in WWII.
SSGT "Aflack" is a host of THE WAR ZONE: Politics and current events from a soldiers perspective. www.blogtalkradio.com/warzone
Tune in M-F 8PM Central Standard Time
The second interview is with PFC Orville Hunter (Army-Ret.).
1.What branch are were you in? When did you first enlist (month and year if possible) and how long have you been in it?
I enlisted in the spring of 1941, during peace time, although we knew war was probably inevitable. I served until the end of 1946 in the 8th US Army/Air Corp
2.Describe your unit, etc. Main duties and places of domestic station and foreign operation?
I was a Private First Class (PFC) in the 8th Army and Air Corp [back then the Air Force wasn't a separate branch but part of the Army]. I signed up for service during the Spring of 1941 when I was 21 years old, I was stationed in San Diego when Pearl Harbor hit. I then was transferred to Iceland, where we had bases for our convoy supply and troop deployment routes to England. I then went onto England and from there I fought in Italy, France and Germany of course. We were air support for the Western Allies, did bombing raids over France, Germany, etc. and fought on the ground also.
3.Briefly describe your duties and your progression from where you started to where you are now (rank, etc.)
I had lots of duties during the war including assisting in combat and with supplies, reinforcing other US Army Units and more. I started of as a Private First Class and ended that way, I refused to accept any promotions because I didn't want to be a "decision-maker" who makes the decision that gets my men killed. I didn't want to have that guilt on my hands should it happen.
4.Describe any "exciting" or interesting things that happened while you were in your branch.
Around 2 weeks after D-Day, Hitler sent in his best General, Gen. Irwin Rommel to try to push us back off our positions on France's coast. During the German counterattack, a couple of Luftwaffe aircraft [German Air Force] were firing towards some brush that myself and others were hiding in and we shot down two of the planes coming straight at us, with bolt-action rifles.
Our unit also assisted during the last days of the "Battle of the Bulge". We also bombed German military targets in order to give some relief to the Soviet Union, the "Red Army" as they were called. We had many times where air craft would come back with holes in them, damaged, etc. but they'd make it, every time an air crew made it home it was an exciting time, we lived one-day at a time knowing any of us could die in the war.
5.What is your general opinion of the Iraq War?
I believe that is necessary to win, I don't want to see another generation of brave young Americans like Vietnam coming home knowing they fought in a war that was "lost". I am concerned that Iraq could turn into our version of the "Soviet-Afghan War" [1979-91] where we have a constant flow of suicidal enemies coming in to replace suicidal enemies who have died.
Only time will tell how it turns out, but I think it must be won, if for no other reason, so we can say those that didn't make it home along with those that did can rest in the comfort of knowing their generation fought and won the war of their day.
6.Describe any mistakes you think have been made in Iraq, if any?
I believe that it was improper to allow the "lawlessness" in the aftermath of the capture of Baghdad, the looting, etc. because it "set a tone" of lawlessness that has only escalated. I also believe that the President has allowed too much leeway for Iraqi politicians in the "sensitivity" area; its obvious that certain targets who have American blood on their hands like [Shite-Militant Leader] Al-Sadr are not being taken out due to political considerations. The US Army of my era wouldn't of allowed any of this.
Also I believe the President should not have publicly "shifted reasons" as to why we went in there, it takes away from our moral high-ground. I think the war has also been politically correct in some ways.
For instance, in the aftermath of WWII, some fanatical Germans would take shots at our soldiers, bombs would "mysteriously" explode, etc. and when we caught these illegal combatants, we put them in front of a military commission and with in hours they were in front of a firing squad. It squelched even the hardest of Nazi fanatics to calm down. These tactics are being denied our troops today because of political correctness, not because of any illegality of doing them.
I'm also concerned about the old "Yankee go home syndrome", we endured that in WWII, even in countries we liberated and protected. It shocked us when citizens we just saved from Nazi's would say negative things to us. It is pervasive today, even in our media and in the country of Iraq to some extent, and the longer the war goes with out clear victory, the more likely it is that mentality will become pervasive thought, and we'll be forced out. I also don't think the President managed the public relations, aka propaganda of the war very well, from the beginning. All wars must be sold to the public, or they won't last.
7.Describe any positive things you think about the Iraq war effort?
I've heard that the US Military is building schools, hospitals, gas stations, etc., I'm not a big fan of turning the military into a construction crew, but these positive things must be recognized. I also believe that the "surge" and especially the successful division of Sunni militants from Sunni Al-Qaeda members is working. Its the old divide and conquer strategy, its a tried and true method for these types of "non-front line" wars.
8.What do you think of the general "culture" of the your branch of service and describe it if you can (at that time)?
We all were initially worried about battle with Nazi Forces in Italy and France and elsewhere because they had a reputation for winning at that time and for brutality, we all worked as a team but most of us thought to ourselves that our main purpose was to get out of there alive, but as we saw we could defeat them, our confidence increased. We were like family in the 8th Army/Air Corp, and would do anything for each other, including and especially putting ourselves at risk in order to save others. I love all my brothers in arms to this day.
9.If you could write military strategy for the United States, what would the general use and role of the military be?
I would remove unnecessary bases overseas, especially the ones created after we won WWII and ultimately the cold war. Most of us who invaded Germany never imagined we would still have bases in Europe over 60 years later. It creates the "subsidization" of their defense, because they cut their forces, which take tax dollars, knowing the US is there to take care of their business. I wouldn't close bases in the United States, in fact I would increase them and expand the use of the military to border protection (which is allowed under the law, and clearly the Border Patrol is overwhelmed), we seem to care more about other countries borders than our own. I would limit the use of the military to essential foreign operations, those truly representing threats to our national security, including defending our chaotic borders.
I would also try to keep the war on terrorism abroad as a covert, undercover war using Special Forces, CIA and other military units so that we "blend in" with the population and can be more effective in rooting out terrorist cells.
10.Anything you else you would like to add, any good war stories showing valor, etc.
I'd like to express some regrets. I believe that FDR should have been more forceful with the Soviets rather than just letting them enslave Eastern Europe. I also feel some remorse for the civilians killed by our bombing raids at Dresden Germany. After the war we learned that it wasn't the "military target" Stalin said it was, he may well have tricked us and the British into doing his "dirty work" for him of liquidating that city (which was destined to be in Communist East Germany) of mostly civilians and potential opposition to a Communist Police State.
I feel we should of also bombed the Nazi death camps because our intelligence air craft picked up "strange pictures of railroad tracks" heading into what appeared to be prisons. By early 1942, we knew exactly what they were, and if we would have bombed the death camps, we could have slowed the Nazi death machine and instead of 6 million dead Jews, there may have been 2 million, or who knows, but I feel we should have tried to hit them being that the people there were condemned to death anyways.
Overall, we served proudly and honorably as do the young folks of today who serve.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Fearing a Massacre: Oregon Teacher Fights for Second Amendment Rights to Bring Firearm to Work
Oregon Teacher Fights for Second Amendment Rights to Bring Firearm to School
By Old School GOP
NOTE: IN LIGHT OF the October 10, 2007 SCHOOL SHOOTING ATTACK in Cleveland AND the October 11, 2007 UNCOVERED PLOT TO KILL AT A PENNSYLVANIA HS, WE CAN NO LONGER DO THE OLD LIBERAL LEFT WING "DUCK AND COVER" none sense when it comes to SCHOOL DEFENSE.
IT IS TIME TO ARM CERTAIN TEACHERS ON CAMPUS....PLAIN AND SIMPLE.....We can train able-bodied teachers at the local police academy, certify them through back ground checks (just so you know, as a former teacher, I had to go through FBI, US-DOJ, CA State and Local law enforcement background checks just to enter the classroom), train them to act through rehearsals of such events and ultimately take back control the classrooms and hallways of America's schools.
THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OVER!!! But the LEFT won't budge and continues to AID under-age KILLERS on our campuses by keeping staff from carrying firearms....
What you about to read is the story of an Oregon teacher who has filed a court case seeking to declare her Second Amendment Rights as valid in her state, regardless of where she works.
Commentary: As a former teacher, I agree with the attempt by Oregon High School Teacher Shirley Katz's desire to bring a firearm to campus for self protection. In her case, she claims her ex-husband is a threat to her along with her fear of a "Columbine-style" High School attack happening at her school.
When I taught (at a High School in California), I discovered that is takes "SWAT" an average of 30 minutes or more to fully respond to a school shooting. This is scary considering how quickly kids with semi-automatic weapons can kill in large numbers. However most states leave teachers and staff defenseless by declaring our schools "gun-free zones". In most states, violating gun-free zone laws can cost you ten years or more of your life in prison, a catch-22 for staff, either violate the law and potentially live through an attack, or don't violate the law and end up in the grave yard.
This lady has passed the requirements of her state to own a weapon and obtain a concealed permit, and thus should be allowed to carry her gun onto campus, who knows maybe her doing so will save lives in the future. Imagine if even one or two of the people in the classrooms at Virginia Tech had firearms (one man killed during that incident had a permit but wouldn't carry his gun on campus because he wasn't interested in VA State Prison, perhaps in retrospect, a prison cell would be much nicer than a grave-marker), perhaps the death toll would have been cut in half, or a fourth.
The fact is, "gun-free" zones do nothing more than make the madman "a King" because he will never abide by such laws, whereas the common folk will listen to the law and thus be subject to potential death. Aside from the madman, those that support gun-control laws are also partially responsible for the deaths we've experienced because they create the conditions that allow these people to commit their attacks with no infringement from an disarmed public.
Article about this:
English teacher Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol with her to school because she fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She's also worried about a Columbine-style attack.
But Katz's district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.
"This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun," said Katz, 44, sitting at the kitchen table of her home outside this city of 74,000.
"I have that (concealed weapons) permit. I refuse to let my ex-husband bully me. And I am not going to let the school board bully me, either."
In Oregon, a sheriff can grant a concealed-weapons permit to anyone whose criminal record is clean and who completes a gun-safety course.
Thirty-eight states, along with the District of Columbia, prohibit people from taking guns to school, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. But it's unclear if special weapons permits offer an exemption, since the council does not track such exceptions.
School Superintendent Phil Long insists employees and students are safer without guns on campus. The district plans to make that argument when the case comes before a judge on Thursday.
Katz's request appears to be rare. School security consultant Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services in Cleveland, said he has never heard of a similar case while working in 45 states.
Katz won't say whether she has ever taken her gun to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," she said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."
Katz never owned a gun until she and her then-husband, commercial photographer Gerry Katz, moved to Oregon from Atlanta eight years ago and bought 20 acres on a gravel road in the foothills of the Cascade Range.
"Being out in the country, we just felt we needed to have a gun here for personal safety," she said.
In 2004, Gerry Katz, who had a concealed weapons permit, was arrested for pulling a .38-caliber revolver after a confrontation that began in a parking lot with two men whose car almost hit his.
According to the police report, he did not point the weapon at anyone. The police seized it, and the charges were later dismissed. Gerry Katz said he never went back for his gun.
Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies.
He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.
"She's just scamming everybody," he said. "As soon as this thing started ... I called the principal at her high school and told her ... I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her."
Oregon had a school shooting in 1998, when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to school and opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, killing two and wounding 25 others.
Since then, the Legislature has considered barring people with concealed weapons permits from carrying guns in schools, but the bills have failed, said Dori Brattain, general counsel to the Oregon School Boards Association.
Some South Medford students say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a teacher carrying a gun, especially since they cannot bring even scissors to school.
"I totally understand she wants to protect herself," said Lauren Forderer, 16, a junior. "But I don't agree she should bring her problems around 2,000 other people."
Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.
"The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you're carrying," she said. "So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target."
By Old School GOP
NOTE: IN LIGHT OF the October 10, 2007 SCHOOL SHOOTING ATTACK in Cleveland AND the October 11, 2007 UNCOVERED PLOT TO KILL AT A PENNSYLVANIA HS, WE CAN NO LONGER DO THE OLD LIBERAL LEFT WING "DUCK AND COVER" none sense when it comes to SCHOOL DEFENSE.
IT IS TIME TO ARM CERTAIN TEACHERS ON CAMPUS....PLAIN AND SIMPLE.....We can train able-bodied teachers at the local police academy, certify them through back ground checks (just so you know, as a former teacher, I had to go through FBI, US-DOJ, CA State and Local law enforcement background checks just to enter the classroom), train them to act through rehearsals of such events and ultimately take back control the classrooms and hallways of America's schools.
THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OVER!!! But the LEFT won't budge and continues to AID under-age KILLERS on our campuses by keeping staff from carrying firearms....
What you about to read is the story of an Oregon teacher who has filed a court case seeking to declare her Second Amendment Rights as valid in her state, regardless of where she works.
Commentary: As a former teacher, I agree with the attempt by Oregon High School Teacher Shirley Katz's desire to bring a firearm to campus for self protection. In her case, she claims her ex-husband is a threat to her along with her fear of a "Columbine-style" High School attack happening at her school.
When I taught (at a High School in California), I discovered that is takes "SWAT" an average of 30 minutes or more to fully respond to a school shooting. This is scary considering how quickly kids with semi-automatic weapons can kill in large numbers. However most states leave teachers and staff defenseless by declaring our schools "gun-free zones". In most states, violating gun-free zone laws can cost you ten years or more of your life in prison, a catch-22 for staff, either violate the law and potentially live through an attack, or don't violate the law and end up in the grave yard.
This lady has passed the requirements of her state to own a weapon and obtain a concealed permit, and thus should be allowed to carry her gun onto campus, who knows maybe her doing so will save lives in the future. Imagine if even one or two of the people in the classrooms at Virginia Tech had firearms (one man killed during that incident had a permit but wouldn't carry his gun on campus because he wasn't interested in VA State Prison, perhaps in retrospect, a prison cell would be much nicer than a grave-marker), perhaps the death toll would have been cut in half, or a fourth.
The fact is, "gun-free" zones do nothing more than make the madman "a King" because he will never abide by such laws, whereas the common folk will listen to the law and thus be subject to potential death. Aside from the madman, those that support gun-control laws are also partially responsible for the deaths we've experienced because they create the conditions that allow these people to commit their attacks with no infringement from an disarmed public.
Article about this:
English teacher Shirley Katz insists she needs to take her pistol with her to school because she fears her ex-husband could show up and try to harm her. She's also worried about a Columbine-style attack.
But Katz's district has barred teachers from bringing guns to school, so she is challenging the ban as unlawful, since Oregon is among states that allow people with a permit to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.
"This is primarily about my Second Amendment right and Oregon law and the simple fact that I know it is my right to carry that gun," said Katz, 44, sitting at the kitchen table of her home outside this city of 74,000.
"I have that (concealed weapons) permit. I refuse to let my ex-husband bully me. And I am not going to let the school board bully me, either."
In Oregon, a sheriff can grant a concealed-weapons permit to anyone whose criminal record is clean and who completes a gun-safety course.
Thirty-eight states, along with the District of Columbia, prohibit people from taking guns to school, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. But it's unclear if special weapons permits offer an exemption, since the council does not track such exceptions.
School Superintendent Phil Long insists employees and students are safer without guns on campus. The district plans to make that argument when the case comes before a judge on Thursday.
Katz's request appears to be rare. School security consultant Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services in Cleveland, said he has never heard of a similar case while working in 45 states.
Katz won't say whether she has ever taken her gun to school, but she practices with it regularly and has thought about what she would do if she had to confront a gunman. She would be sure students were locked in nearby offices out of the line of fire, and she would be ready with her pistol.
"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," she said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."
Katz never owned a gun until she and her then-husband, commercial photographer Gerry Katz, moved to Oregon from Atlanta eight years ago and bought 20 acres on a gravel road in the foothills of the Cascade Range.
"Being out in the country, we just felt we needed to have a gun here for personal safety," she said.
In 2004, Gerry Katz, who had a concealed weapons permit, was arrested for pulling a .38-caliber revolver after a confrontation that began in a parking lot with two men whose car almost hit his.
According to the police report, he did not point the weapon at anyone. The police seized it, and the charges were later dismissed. Gerry Katz said he never went back for his gun.
Shirley Katz said she bought her own gun in 2004 after Gerry Katz grabbed her by the throat and threatened to kill her — an allegation he denies.
He argues that her desire to take her gun to school is about reopening their divorce to get exclusive custody of their 6-year-old daughter.
"She's just scamming everybody," he said. "As soon as this thing started ... I called the principal at her high school and told her ... I am not coming to your school. I am not a threat to her. I have no desire to hurt her."
Oregon had a school shooting in 1998, when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to school and opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School in Springfield, killing two and wounding 25 others.
Since then, the Legislature has considered barring people with concealed weapons permits from carrying guns in schools, but the bills have failed, said Dori Brattain, general counsel to the Oregon School Boards Association.
Some South Medford students say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a teacher carrying a gun, especially since they cannot bring even scissors to school.
"I totally understand she wants to protect herself," said Lauren Forderer, 16, a junior. "But I don't agree she should bring her problems around 2,000 other people."
Even if she wins, Katz said, she may not bring the gun to school.
"The whole point of carrying concealed is no one should know you're carrying," she said. "So I feel like my carrying concealed on campus now sets me up as a target."
Gov. Schwarzenegger and Liberals in CA State Capitol Lied: Budget out of Balance by $8.6 Billion
CA State Admits Deficit Could Hit $8.6 Billion
12 October 2007
On the day the California budget was signed, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Budget Director said this was a balanced budget—that was a mere eight weeks ago.
The leftists who run CA's State Legislature said the same thing. They even had a charade show with the Governor proclaiming that the "system in CA works".....
The same people now declare the deficit is $6.1 billion and could reach $8.6.
How did a balanced budget hit a deficit of over $6 billion in less than two months?
How can we trust the current prediction? Without hesitation, the budget deficit will hit $10 billion and maybe even higher at the end of the fiscal year.
What is your prediction?
Oh, by the way, they have already said next years deficit STARTS at $5 billion....Any bids as to high CA's budget deficit will reach? BTW - If we merely cut illegal aliens off of GOVT programs in CA, we'd save $10 Billion per year.....enough to have our socialist cake and eat it too!
Don't worry for those you in other states, you'll soon find yourselves in similar positions with increasing costs, non-popularity of tax increases and an unwillingness to say "NO" to the people whose special interests are slurping up tax dollars.
State budget forecast worsens By Judy Lin -
Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau - October 9, 2007
Just weeks after lawmakers enacted a state budget amid partisan turmoil, finance officials say revenues are slipping below projections, making it likely that next year's problem will be worse than expected.
California could face a $8.6 billion operating deficit if the state's economy and soft housing market continue through the rest of the fiscal year. Such a potential shortfall would widen the current $6.1 billion gap by another 40 percent.
"It's fair to say the revenue situation is not going to be as good as we had hoped," Finance Director Mike Genest said in an interview with The Bee last week. "It's likely the $6.1 billion (deficit) will be higher."
What's more, several of the assumptions that went into the current spending plan - such as the $1 billion sale of EdFund - are deemed to be shaky. EdFund is the state's student loan guarantor.
State departments have been told to propose no new spending next year unless they cut a like amount from an existing program.
12 October 2007
On the day the California budget was signed, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Budget Director said this was a balanced budget—that was a mere eight weeks ago.
The leftists who run CA's State Legislature said the same thing. They even had a charade show with the Governor proclaiming that the "system in CA works".....
The same people now declare the deficit is $6.1 billion and could reach $8.6.
How did a balanced budget hit a deficit of over $6 billion in less than two months?
How can we trust the current prediction? Without hesitation, the budget deficit will hit $10 billion and maybe even higher at the end of the fiscal year.
What is your prediction?
Oh, by the way, they have already said next years deficit STARTS at $5 billion....Any bids as to high CA's budget deficit will reach? BTW - If we merely cut illegal aliens off of GOVT programs in CA, we'd save $10 Billion per year.....enough to have our socialist cake and eat it too!
Don't worry for those you in other states, you'll soon find yourselves in similar positions with increasing costs, non-popularity of tax increases and an unwillingness to say "NO" to the people whose special interests are slurping up tax dollars.
State budget forecast worsens By Judy Lin -
Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau - October 9, 2007
Just weeks after lawmakers enacted a state budget amid partisan turmoil, finance officials say revenues are slipping below projections, making it likely that next year's problem will be worse than expected.
California could face a $8.6 billion operating deficit if the state's economy and soft housing market continue through the rest of the fiscal year. Such a potential shortfall would widen the current $6.1 billion gap by another 40 percent.
"It's fair to say the revenue situation is not going to be as good as we had hoped," Finance Director Mike Genest said in an interview with The Bee last week. "It's likely the $6.1 billion (deficit) will be higher."
What's more, several of the assumptions that went into the current spending plan - such as the $1 billion sale of EdFund - are deemed to be shaky. EdFund is the state's student loan guarantor.
State departments have been told to propose no new spending next year unless they cut a like amount from an existing program.
San Francisco Liberals Finally Saying NO to the Homeless
12 October 2007
By Old School GOP
The Liberals (really Socialists) in San Francisco can not be honest with themselves. That is a socialist/left-wing trait. One day they want the homeless and let them run wild on the streets of San Francisco, the next day they see the chaos San Francisco has become and complain.
From the article below:
"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone."
Yes it is a liberal versus conservative thing.
Conservatives (and Libertarians) for years have been saying no to letting homeless folks aggressively panhandle, use drugs and alcohol out in the open, defecate and urinate freely on the streets, etc..
For years left wing socialist activists have ignored these conservative complaints, or even filed court cases to protect these activities, at a high cost to both cities in terms of quality of life and tax dollars.
San Francisco is what happens when Socialists run a town. Is this a city you want your children to live in, walk around, support? A place where you can walk down the street and watch a homeless person crap in public....
This is why the school population in SF is declining. Decent people, mainly liberals in this case, want the best for their children and SF is not a place for families, it is a fantasy city where basic anarchy rules the day.
It is a city where anything goes and good people, in this case old-fashioned liberals, have to endure it. This is splitting the truly "common-sense" liberals of SF against the Socialists who want to see the destruction of American society and structure as we know it.
Article about this:
'Enough is enough,' S.F. says of homeless Residents of a famously liberal city appear to be changing views
C.W. Nevius, SF Chronicle, October 9, 2007
San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.
"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."
Consider the case of David Kiely, who has lived in the South of Market area for 18 years. He bought a home when prices were low and now lives there with his wife, Jenny, and their three boys, ages 7, 4 and 1. Kiely insists "we're not some white, yuppie parents saying we can't take this." In fact, he says, they donate to programs for homeless people at Glide Memorial Methodist Church and the food bank at St. Anthony Dining Room. But he's finally saying "enough is enough."
"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."
Trent Rhorer, executive director of San Francisco's Human Services Agency, is at ground zero for homelessness concerns. He's heard it from local residents at meetings, he's read the polls, and he noted the huge response to Chronicle columns about the homeless people and intravenous drug users in Golden Gate park. Like others, he thinks there's been a change in the way San Franciscans think the homelessness problem should be approached.
"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone. What research has shown and what we have seen from visits to cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and New York is that you need to combine good social outreach with law enforcement."
That means something more than an offer of help, which often is declined anyhow. (One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached.)
"Maybe," Rhorer says, "you just need a guy with a badge standing over them and saying, you can't stay there any more."
That's tough talk for a city that's been known as a friendly place for those down on their luck. And in previous years it would have been a political non-starter. When Mayor Frank Jordan tried to push homeless people off the street with his "Matrix" program, the crackdown got much of the blame for his failure to win a second term.
But this has the feel of a new day in San Francisco.
"Homelessness, and quality of life issues, are dividing the liberals and the progressives in this city," says David Binder, a statistical analyst and founder of David Binder Research. "The liberals will say we've got to get tough on the homeless and the progressives are more old-line liberal."
How that debate will come out is anyone's guess, but it is hard to disagree with Latterman's blunt assessment, which is, "People are just pissed. For the first time, even the left is saying they've had enough."
In an informal poll by SFGate.com, 90 percent of respondents said Mayor Gavin Newsom's crackdown South of Market was a great idea.
Latterman points to the neighborhood uprising in the Haight when it was proposed that a needle exchange program be moved to the Hamilton Methodist Church. When some 200 residents showed up, mostly to protest the idea, it was shelved.
"One sample doesn't make a trend, but it is telling," says Latterman. "C'mon, they live in the upper Haight. They're liberal by definition."
But they are also, in many cases, homeowners and thus have a sense of ownership and emotional investment. That's another part of what has caused this sea change in thinking. From TIC (tenants in common) units, to condominiums, to luxury townhouses, the city has created the potential for an influx of buyers, despite the downward trend in home sales in much of the country.
Cathy Pickering, assistant project manager for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, suggests a look to South of Market, which is within Newsom's pilot program to issue citations to vagrants on the sidewalks and streets. What once was an area of old warehouses now is booming.
"As you travel around South of Market," she says, "there is no doubt there has been a huge increase in residents."
Some of them are young couples, able to buy into their first home. And some might be empty nesters who have sold their home in the suburbs, following the national trend and moving to an urban center. But either way, they can understand the objections of a father like Kiely.
"We go out to drive the kids to school," he says, "and there's human poop between the cars."
There must be many who are as fed up as Kiely, because politicians like Newsom are taking a tough stand. In an election year, you can bet he wouldn't go out on an unpopular limb. Now it will be interesting to see how the Board of Supervisors, traditionally progressive and more pro-homeless people, will react.
One proposal that could come from the Newsom administration is some form of a "sit-lie" law. Rhorer says the idea is "that you can't be in the same place on the sidewalk for longer than a certain time." (Even Berkeley has a version of that for Telegraph Avenue.) That would create howls of protests from the advocates for homeless people (and it should be said that such laws have had mixed success), but usual arguments against strong action against vagrants might not be as effective with the new mind-set of city residents.
"This isn't the war in the Iraq," says Latterman. "We've been fed that line for a long time. If you support this, you're a Bush supporter. You're a fascist. Maybe people are fed up with that."
Sound off: Have something to say on this story? Call (415) 777-6268 to comment for an Open Mic podcast on sfgate.com. How you can help
— To volunteer to help provide services to the homeless, call Project Homeless Connect: (415) 255-3908.
— To contact authorities about specific problems related to vagrancy and the behavior of a homeless person, call the city's services hot line: 311.
By Old School GOP
The Liberals (really Socialists) in San Francisco can not be honest with themselves. That is a socialist/left-wing trait. One day they want the homeless and let them run wild on the streets of San Francisco, the next day they see the chaos San Francisco has become and complain.
From the article below:
"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone."
Yes it is a liberal versus conservative thing.
Conservatives (and Libertarians) for years have been saying no to letting homeless folks aggressively panhandle, use drugs and alcohol out in the open, defecate and urinate freely on the streets, etc..
For years left wing socialist activists have ignored these conservative complaints, or even filed court cases to protect these activities, at a high cost to both cities in terms of quality of life and tax dollars.
San Francisco is what happens when Socialists run a town. Is this a city you want your children to live in, walk around, support? A place where you can walk down the street and watch a homeless person crap in public....
This is why the school population in SF is declining. Decent people, mainly liberals in this case, want the best for their children and SF is not a place for families, it is a fantasy city where basic anarchy rules the day.
It is a city where anything goes and good people, in this case old-fashioned liberals, have to endure it. This is splitting the truly "common-sense" liberals of SF against the Socialists who want to see the destruction of American society and structure as we know it.
Article about this:
'Enough is enough,' S.F. says of homeless Residents of a famously liberal city appear to be changing views
C.W. Nevius, SF Chronicle, October 9, 2007
San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.
"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."
Consider the case of David Kiely, who has lived in the South of Market area for 18 years. He bought a home when prices were low and now lives there with his wife, Jenny, and their three boys, ages 7, 4 and 1. Kiely insists "we're not some white, yuppie parents saying we can't take this." In fact, he says, they donate to programs for homeless people at Glide Memorial Methodist Church and the food bank at St. Anthony Dining Room. But he's finally saying "enough is enough."
"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."
Trent Rhorer, executive director of San Francisco's Human Services Agency, is at ground zero for homelessness concerns. He's heard it from local residents at meetings, he's read the polls, and he noted the huge response to Chronicle columns about the homeless people and intravenous drug users in Golden Gate park. Like others, he thinks there's been a change in the way San Franciscans think the homelessness problem should be approached.
"I don't think this is a conservative or liberal thing," he says. "This is quality of life for everyone. What research has shown and what we have seen from visits to cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and New York is that you need to combine good social outreach with law enforcement."
That means something more than an offer of help, which often is declined anyhow. (One city official estimated that nine out of 10 say they are not interested in a shelter or housing when approached.)
"Maybe," Rhorer says, "you just need a guy with a badge standing over them and saying, you can't stay there any more."
That's tough talk for a city that's been known as a friendly place for those down on their luck. And in previous years it would have been a political non-starter. When Mayor Frank Jordan tried to push homeless people off the street with his "Matrix" program, the crackdown got much of the blame for his failure to win a second term.
But this has the feel of a new day in San Francisco.
"Homelessness, and quality of life issues, are dividing the liberals and the progressives in this city," says David Binder, a statistical analyst and founder of David Binder Research. "The liberals will say we've got to get tough on the homeless and the progressives are more old-line liberal."
How that debate will come out is anyone's guess, but it is hard to disagree with Latterman's blunt assessment, which is, "People are just pissed. For the first time, even the left is saying they've had enough."
In an informal poll by SFGate.com, 90 percent of respondents said Mayor Gavin Newsom's crackdown South of Market was a great idea.
Latterman points to the neighborhood uprising in the Haight when it was proposed that a needle exchange program be moved to the Hamilton Methodist Church. When some 200 residents showed up, mostly to protest the idea, it was shelved.
"One sample doesn't make a trend, but it is telling," says Latterman. "C'mon, they live in the upper Haight. They're liberal by definition."
But they are also, in many cases, homeowners and thus have a sense of ownership and emotional investment. That's another part of what has caused this sea change in thinking. From TIC (tenants in common) units, to condominiums, to luxury townhouses, the city has created the potential for an influx of buyers, despite the downward trend in home sales in much of the country.
Cathy Pickering, assistant project manager for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, suggests a look to South of Market, which is within Newsom's pilot program to issue citations to vagrants on the sidewalks and streets. What once was an area of old warehouses now is booming.
"As you travel around South of Market," she says, "there is no doubt there has been a huge increase in residents."
Some of them are young couples, able to buy into their first home. And some might be empty nesters who have sold their home in the suburbs, following the national trend and moving to an urban center. But either way, they can understand the objections of a father like Kiely.
"We go out to drive the kids to school," he says, "and there's human poop between the cars."
There must be many who are as fed up as Kiely, because politicians like Newsom are taking a tough stand. In an election year, you can bet he wouldn't go out on an unpopular limb. Now it will be interesting to see how the Board of Supervisors, traditionally progressive and more pro-homeless people, will react.
One proposal that could come from the Newsom administration is some form of a "sit-lie" law. Rhorer says the idea is "that you can't be in the same place on the sidewalk for longer than a certain time." (Even Berkeley has a version of that for Telegraph Avenue.) That would create howls of protests from the advocates for homeless people (and it should be said that such laws have had mixed success), but usual arguments against strong action against vagrants might not be as effective with the new mind-set of city residents.
"This isn't the war in the Iraq," says Latterman. "We've been fed that line for a long time. If you support this, you're a Bush supporter. You're a fascist. Maybe people are fed up with that."
Sound off: Have something to say on this story? Call (415) 777-6268 to comment for an Open Mic podcast on sfgate.com. How you can help
— To volunteer to help provide services to the homeless, call Project Homeless Connect: (415) 255-3908.
— To contact authorities about specific problems related to vagrancy and the behavior of a homeless person, call the city's services hot line: 311.
The Hypocrites of Hollywood Are Caught Causing "Global Warming"
The Hypocrites of Hollywood Are Caught Causing "Global Warming"
12 October 2007
Pass this article along to your friends interested in global warming.
As usual, the Hollywood folks consider themselves special people. (Those of us who live in other parts of California know first hand the attitudes of self-grandeur these folks have.)
Private planes, mansions, lots of "toys", these folks have big entourages moving in secure vehicles, and while they don't want you to have a simple hand gun, they hire bodyguards that carry semi-automatic weapons.
This does not count their trips to foreign nations and lavish spending on those dates.
And this is just their personal lives, the movie business itself is the NUMBER 2 (in more ways than one) polluter of California, second only to the oil industry....an industry they love to attack, well if they keep up their lack of environmentalism, they'll have no one left to attack except themselves....but we all know that won't happen due to simple arrogance.
These folks want all of us to drive hybrids, use light bulbs that "don't pollute", turn off our lights at night, not use our AC or Heat to comfortable levels, etc., yet they run wild with environmental abuses, as you'll see in the article dealing with this.
Don't you think that we should all demand Hollywood types live as they want us to live?
Article about this:
Editorial: Hollywood: green or gullible? While stars tout their environmental concern, the film industry pollutes like few others.
Orange County Register editorial, 10/09/07
It's not easy being green. Consider Hollywood. For all its high-profile posturing on matters environmental, the entertainment industry is second only to the oil industry among major California polluters, the Associated Press reported in Sunday's Register.
Movie and TV production consumes enormous amounts of power to run bright lights, to feed large casts and to air-condition huge soundstages over-heated by the industrial-strength lights, AP writer Gary Gentile observed.
It's difficult to typecast Hollywood as environmentally friendly. A two-year UCLA study released last year concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major California polluter, second only to the oil industry.
But if there's anything Hollywood can get behind, it's trendy movements. So for now, color it green, at least superficially. It's true that while moving in the green direction Hollywood's realized economic benefits switching to more efficient lighting and cooling systems, and cutting back gasoline consumption with hybrid cars. But many efforts have more crowd appeal than substance, which is unsurprising considering it's Hollywood.
Actor George Clooney recently told Time Magazine, "I'm a big proponent of cleaning up the environment. I have two electric cars. But I also have a big weak spot because I've flown on private jets." It's just a guess, but Mr. Clooney's carbon footprint probably is on the plus side after factoring in his private-jet flights, even after subtracting the effects of his electric cars. Speaking of guesses, the significance of the carbon-footprint concept is little more than guesswork, at least as advanced by global warming alarmists.
Alarmists claim CO2 causes global warming. In fact, science says it's more common for CO2 to follow, rather than precede, increases in temperature. Water vapor is by far a more significant atmospheric factor. The problem is, much less is known about water vapor's effects than even is known about CO2, which isn't much to begin with. While water vapor in clouds increases temperature by preventing heat from escaping into space, it also has a cooling effect by preventing the sun's rays from reaching the earth.
What we know for certain is there are people making money operating so-called "carbon credit" markets. This, perhaps unsurprisingly, is one way Hollywood makes itself appear greener.
Ostensibly to offset greenhouse gases their production activities create, studios and producers purchase carbon credits through brokers, the AP reported. The money supposedly helps a polluting company become "carbon neutral" by investing in tree planting or in wind power developments. But would tree planting have taken place or wind power technology been developed even without the cash? Is it merely a scheme for middle men to take a cut while check-writers ease their guilt without changing their behavior? Buyer beware.
Reality often has little to do with Hollywood's fantasy factory, where appearances are everything.
Whether CO2 emissions are offset by such schemes begs the question. CO2 is an essential atmospheric gas, the very stuff on which plants subsist. It's created every time you exhale. Considering CO2's tenuous – perhaps non-existent – causative relationship to global warming (which itself is less than 1 degree over the past 100 years), it strikes us as a foolhardy investment. Appearances, aside, that is.
12 October 2007
Pass this article along to your friends interested in global warming.
As usual, the Hollywood folks consider themselves special people. (Those of us who live in other parts of California know first hand the attitudes of self-grandeur these folks have.)
Private planes, mansions, lots of "toys", these folks have big entourages moving in secure vehicles, and while they don't want you to have a simple hand gun, they hire bodyguards that carry semi-automatic weapons.
This does not count their trips to foreign nations and lavish spending on those dates.
And this is just their personal lives, the movie business itself is the NUMBER 2 (in more ways than one) polluter of California, second only to the oil industry....an industry they love to attack, well if they keep up their lack of environmentalism, they'll have no one left to attack except themselves....but we all know that won't happen due to simple arrogance.
These folks want all of us to drive hybrids, use light bulbs that "don't pollute", turn off our lights at night, not use our AC or Heat to comfortable levels, etc., yet they run wild with environmental abuses, as you'll see in the article dealing with this.
Don't you think that we should all demand Hollywood types live as they want us to live?
Article about this:
Editorial: Hollywood: green or gullible? While stars tout their environmental concern, the film industry pollutes like few others.
Orange County Register editorial, 10/09/07
It's not easy being green. Consider Hollywood. For all its high-profile posturing on matters environmental, the entertainment industry is second only to the oil industry among major California polluters, the Associated Press reported in Sunday's Register.
Movie and TV production consumes enormous amounts of power to run bright lights, to feed large casts and to air-condition huge soundstages over-heated by the industrial-strength lights, AP writer Gary Gentile observed.
It's difficult to typecast Hollywood as environmentally friendly. A two-year UCLA study released last year concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major California polluter, second only to the oil industry.
But if there's anything Hollywood can get behind, it's trendy movements. So for now, color it green, at least superficially. It's true that while moving in the green direction Hollywood's realized economic benefits switching to more efficient lighting and cooling systems, and cutting back gasoline consumption with hybrid cars. But many efforts have more crowd appeal than substance, which is unsurprising considering it's Hollywood.
Actor George Clooney recently told Time Magazine, "I'm a big proponent of cleaning up the environment. I have two electric cars. But I also have a big weak spot because I've flown on private jets." It's just a guess, but Mr. Clooney's carbon footprint probably is on the plus side after factoring in his private-jet flights, even after subtracting the effects of his electric cars. Speaking of guesses, the significance of the carbon-footprint concept is little more than guesswork, at least as advanced by global warming alarmists.
Alarmists claim CO2 causes global warming. In fact, science says it's more common for CO2 to follow, rather than precede, increases in temperature. Water vapor is by far a more significant atmospheric factor. The problem is, much less is known about water vapor's effects than even is known about CO2, which isn't much to begin with. While water vapor in clouds increases temperature by preventing heat from escaping into space, it also has a cooling effect by preventing the sun's rays from reaching the earth.
What we know for certain is there are people making money operating so-called "carbon credit" markets. This, perhaps unsurprisingly, is one way Hollywood makes itself appear greener.
Ostensibly to offset greenhouse gases their production activities create, studios and producers purchase carbon credits through brokers, the AP reported. The money supposedly helps a polluting company become "carbon neutral" by investing in tree planting or in wind power developments. But would tree planting have taken place or wind power technology been developed even without the cash? Is it merely a scheme for middle men to take a cut while check-writers ease their guilt without changing their behavior? Buyer beware.
Reality often has little to do with Hollywood's fantasy factory, where appearances are everything.
Whether CO2 emissions are offset by such schemes begs the question. CO2 is an essential atmospheric gas, the very stuff on which plants subsist. It's created every time you exhale. Considering CO2's tenuous – perhaps non-existent – causative relationship to global warming (which itself is less than 1 degree over the past 100 years), it strikes us as a foolhardy investment. Appearances, aside, that is.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Ron Paul IS NOT a "9-11 Truther" and Why he and Alex Jones Needs a Political Divorce
As of late, a number of low-level members of the so-called "9-11 Truth Movement", a movement lead by Texas Radio Show Host Alex Jones and a number of other leaders who believe the US Government orchestrated 9-11, have been questioning GOP Presidential hopeful Texas Rep. Ron Paul's "commitment" to the "9-11 Truth Movement".
First off, from day one, Ron Paul has NEVER said he buys into the "conspiracy angles" of what happened prior to, during, or in the aftermath of 9-11. He has said that he believes the so-called "9-11 Commission" report was a sham that covered up for the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and ESPECIALLY for the Clinton Administration and its impotence towards terrorism, and even the beginnings of the Bush administration; and you know what, he's probably right. In my opinion, the 9-11 Commission report was a sham, there are MANY unanswered questions about what was known, when did they know it and why wasn't 9-11 stopped.
Just a couple of questions include: why was there NO RECORDING of the plane that hit the Pentagon except for a grainy recording only showing an explosion – you would think, well at least HOPE the Pentagon (our most secure secrets are located there) would be FILLED with cameras everywhere and there HAS TO BE some recording of the flight that hit it, yet the Pentagon "says there is none"; which is a suspect claim.
What about the "Phoenix memos" where FBI Agents told their superiors they were seeing dangerous trends in American flight schools, etc. (I'm NOT going to argue the validity of EACH AND EVERY individual point on 9-11 or I'll be writing for the next decade).
Rep. Ron Paul has raised these questions and has promised a NEW INVESTIGATION into 9-11 if he should be fortunate enough to be elected. The problem for him now though is, since he's interviewed with Alex Jones in the past (only to tell his views, not to reinforce the hosts), mainstream voters now associate him with what they believe to be a conspiracy theory movement. It DOESN'T HELP that where ever he goes, there are "9-11 Truthers" following him praising him and the media picks up on this, INCLUDING and especially non-libertarian right-wing talk radio; which results in Ron Paul along with other libertarian-conservatives being marginalized, even by their own party.
At the same time Ron Paul is being damaged by the "9-11 Truthers", they are being damaged by their outward support for him because by discrediting him with the general public, they're making it even less likely he will ever get into the White House. If he (or Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, the only other GOP candidate that has openly criticized the 9-11 report and wants to reopen the investigation) doesn't get elected to office, America won't see a new, impartial 9-11 investigation. Thus, the "9-11 Truthers" will have shot themselves in the foot because they won't get the new 9-11 investigation they've been arguing for over the last 6 years.
Thus, it is to the benefit of BOTH Ron Paul and the "9-11 Truthers" and their leader Alex Jones, to quietly "divorce" themselves from each other, otherwise BOTH of their goals fail. Its a simple argument of "battle tactics" in politics; without the quiet "pull out of Alex Jones and the 9-11 truther troops" from "Ron Paul country", "Ron Paul country" will be devastated and destroyed, and Alex Jones and his troops will be stuck in a "quagmire" they can't win.
First off, from day one, Ron Paul has NEVER said he buys into the "conspiracy angles" of what happened prior to, during, or in the aftermath of 9-11. He has said that he believes the so-called "9-11 Commission" report was a sham that covered up for the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and ESPECIALLY for the Clinton Administration and its impotence towards terrorism, and even the beginnings of the Bush administration; and you know what, he's probably right. In my opinion, the 9-11 Commission report was a sham, there are MANY unanswered questions about what was known, when did they know it and why wasn't 9-11 stopped.
Just a couple of questions include: why was there NO RECORDING of the plane that hit the Pentagon except for a grainy recording only showing an explosion – you would think, well at least HOPE the Pentagon (our most secure secrets are located there) would be FILLED with cameras everywhere and there HAS TO BE some recording of the flight that hit it, yet the Pentagon "says there is none"; which is a suspect claim.
What about the "Phoenix memos" where FBI Agents told their superiors they were seeing dangerous trends in American flight schools, etc. (I'm NOT going to argue the validity of EACH AND EVERY individual point on 9-11 or I'll be writing for the next decade).
Rep. Ron Paul has raised these questions and has promised a NEW INVESTIGATION into 9-11 if he should be fortunate enough to be elected. The problem for him now though is, since he's interviewed with Alex Jones in the past (only to tell his views, not to reinforce the hosts), mainstream voters now associate him with what they believe to be a conspiracy theory movement. It DOESN'T HELP that where ever he goes, there are "9-11 Truthers" following him praising him and the media picks up on this, INCLUDING and especially non-libertarian right-wing talk radio; which results in Ron Paul along with other libertarian-conservatives being marginalized, even by their own party.
At the same time Ron Paul is being damaged by the "9-11 Truthers", they are being damaged by their outward support for him because by discrediting him with the general public, they're making it even less likely he will ever get into the White House. If he (or Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, the only other GOP candidate that has openly criticized the 9-11 report and wants to reopen the investigation) doesn't get elected to office, America won't see a new, impartial 9-11 investigation. Thus, the "9-11 Truthers" will have shot themselves in the foot because they won't get the new 9-11 investigation they've been arguing for over the last 6 years.
Thus, it is to the benefit of BOTH Ron Paul and the "9-11 Truthers" and their leader Alex Jones, to quietly "divorce" themselves from each other, otherwise BOTH of their goals fail. Its a simple argument of "battle tactics" in politics; without the quiet "pull out of Alex Jones and the 9-11 truther troops" from "Ron Paul country", "Ron Paul country" will be devastated and destroyed, and Alex Jones and his troops will be stuck in a "quagmire" they can't win.
San Deigo CA County Board is Sending a $101 Million Dollar "Immigration Bill" to the Federal Government
For those of you who are sick of illegal immigration and the treasonous politicians from BOTH parties who support it or at least REFUSE to stop it, you'll get a kick out of this.
What if every city, county and state that has illegal aliens costing them money, sent a bill to the Federal government?
What if when the feds refused to pay, they sued and put liens on Federal government property? It sounds great to me, I'd love it if the States could SEIZE FEDERAL PROPERTY in order to recoup the cost of illegal immigration.
At some point there will be a judge who agrees with the communities; then we will see if the Feds start enforcing the laws. I'm willing to bet once there is an economic toll to be paid by the FEDERAL GOVT lead by the President and Congress, then we'll actually see some badly needed changes.
I also think that PRIVATE CITIZENS who have lost family members due to illegal immigration should be able to SUE THE PRESIDENT (and other high-level officials of our Government) and the FEDERAL GOVT DIRECTLY.
Maybe the "Aristocratic Class of politicians" who support amnesty or partial amnesty, etc. will take notice once their individual wealth starts getting seized to pay for their lack of border enforcement. Here's a sobering statistic, 48,000 AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS since 9-11; more than Iraq, Afghanistan, 9-11 itself, V-Tech, Oklahoma City, Waco TX, etc. combined, then multiplied by 4.
What do you think about this approach?
Here is the article about this:
Supervisors vote to send Bush immigration a ’bill’
By: GIG CONAUGHTON , North County Times, 9/26/07
County study says illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $101 million in 2006
SAN DIEGO — County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to send President Bush a $101 million bill to reimburse county taxpayers for what a county-commissioned study stated illegal immigrants cost them last year.
Supervisors said they had taken similar actions before, sending "illegal immigrant" bills to the federal government in 1994 and 2001. Those bills were ignored, and were seen largely as symbolic gestures.
However, Supervisor Bill Horn, who pushed hard for the county study that was released two weeks ago — and other supervisors, said it was time to seek reimbursement again because the federal government has not stopped illegal immigrants from crossing the border and using services that taxpayers pay for.
Armed with the study, supervisors specifically voted to enlist the help of Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, to promote legislation that would:
# make it easier for local law enforcement officials to track illegal immigrants wanted for crimes;
# change the Medicare Modernization Act to pay local hospitals $155 million for unpaid bills from illegal immigrants;
# make the federal government pay local governments from the Social Security fund into which people pay but do not collect, often because they have worked using phony Social Security documents. Reports have estimated that illegal immigrants pay $7 billion in taxes into that fund each year.
Local governments in border states have said for years that the federal government’s failure to stop illegal immigration has cost them billions of taxpayer dollars in services rendered.
The county study, which supervisors voted to pursue in May 2006, was largely based upon anecdotal information rather than solid statistics. It did not attempt to quantify potential economic benefits that illegal immigrants might provide.
Horn said he asked for the new study so the county could get a picture of what illegal immigrants cost local taxpayers.
He said Tuesday that he did not intend for the board’s vote to be a symbolic gesture, even though previous "illegal immigration bills" sent by the county to the federal government in 1994 and 2001 have not been paid.
"I don’t want to just grandstand, I really want the money this time," Horn said. "The bottom line is the county of San Diego’s taxpayers are bearing an unfair burden for porous border. It’s the federal government’s job to enforce the border, and if they refuse to do it ... I think they should face the consequences of their action."
Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Bilbray, said by telephone Tuesday that although the congressman was not currently sponsoring legislation that would address the county’s request, he intended to do so. Bilbray said in a written statement Tuesday that he was "eager" to work with Horn for reimbursement.
Bilbray, who was once a San Diego County supervisor, is chairman of the immigration reform caucus, a group of more than 100 congressional representatives who favor stricter immigration enforcement legislation.
San Diego State University professor John Weeks helped compile and write the study for the county. As he wrote in the study, Weeks told supervisors Tuesday that illegal immigrants do contribute to communities in a variety of ways by spending money and providing services.
But, he said Tuesday, they were unlikely to generate much property-tax revenue that makes up the majority of the county’s spending money.
"Working undocumented immigrants make an economic contribution," Weeks said. "But the issue for this board is that it is very unlikely that they put back into county coffers the amount of money that is spent providing services to them or on their behalf."
No one came forward to criticize the study at Tuesday’s meeting. The American Friends Service Committee — a Quaker human rights organization — has said it was afraid it would promote "anti-immigrant sentiment."
Weeks said the study used interviews with county department heads to suggest that roughly 10 percent of their annual budgets were spent on services for illegal immigrants.
The study suggested that those costs amounted to $101 million in 2006, three-quarters of which was used for criminal justice costs, such as jailing and prosecuting. Remaining costs were spent on health, social services and other programs.
The study did not account for the costs of education or unpaid medical bills for illegal immigrants, although it used estimates from the Hospital Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties to come up with its figure of $155 million in unpaid medical care costs.
Other supervisors said it was time for the federal government to pay up.
"It’s outrageous to say the least," Supervisor Dianne Jacob said. "Inexcusable."
What if every city, county and state that has illegal aliens costing them money, sent a bill to the Federal government?
What if when the feds refused to pay, they sued and put liens on Federal government property? It sounds great to me, I'd love it if the States could SEIZE FEDERAL PROPERTY in order to recoup the cost of illegal immigration.
At some point there will be a judge who agrees with the communities; then we will see if the Feds start enforcing the laws. I'm willing to bet once there is an economic toll to be paid by the FEDERAL GOVT lead by the President and Congress, then we'll actually see some badly needed changes.
I also think that PRIVATE CITIZENS who have lost family members due to illegal immigration should be able to SUE THE PRESIDENT (and other high-level officials of our Government) and the FEDERAL GOVT DIRECTLY.
Maybe the "Aristocratic Class of politicians" who support amnesty or partial amnesty, etc. will take notice once their individual wealth starts getting seized to pay for their lack of border enforcement. Here's a sobering statistic, 48,000 AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS since 9-11; more than Iraq, Afghanistan, 9-11 itself, V-Tech, Oklahoma City, Waco TX, etc. combined, then multiplied by 4.
What do you think about this approach?
Here is the article about this:
Supervisors vote to send Bush immigration a ’bill’
By: GIG CONAUGHTON , North County Times, 9/26/07
County study says illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $101 million in 2006
SAN DIEGO — County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to send President Bush a $101 million bill to reimburse county taxpayers for what a county-commissioned study stated illegal immigrants cost them last year.
Supervisors said they had taken similar actions before, sending "illegal immigrant" bills to the federal government in 1994 and 2001. Those bills were ignored, and were seen largely as symbolic gestures.
However, Supervisor Bill Horn, who pushed hard for the county study that was released two weeks ago — and other supervisors, said it was time to seek reimbursement again because the federal government has not stopped illegal immigrants from crossing the border and using services that taxpayers pay for.
Armed with the study, supervisors specifically voted to enlist the help of Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, to promote legislation that would:
# make it easier for local law enforcement officials to track illegal immigrants wanted for crimes;
# change the Medicare Modernization Act to pay local hospitals $155 million for unpaid bills from illegal immigrants;
# make the federal government pay local governments from the Social Security fund into which people pay but do not collect, often because they have worked using phony Social Security documents. Reports have estimated that illegal immigrants pay $7 billion in taxes into that fund each year.
Local governments in border states have said for years that the federal government’s failure to stop illegal immigration has cost them billions of taxpayer dollars in services rendered.
The county study, which supervisors voted to pursue in May 2006, was largely based upon anecdotal information rather than solid statistics. It did not attempt to quantify potential economic benefits that illegal immigrants might provide.
Horn said he asked for the new study so the county could get a picture of what illegal immigrants cost local taxpayers.
He said Tuesday that he did not intend for the board’s vote to be a symbolic gesture, even though previous "illegal immigration bills" sent by the county to the federal government in 1994 and 2001 have not been paid.
"I don’t want to just grandstand, I really want the money this time," Horn said. "The bottom line is the county of San Diego’s taxpayers are bearing an unfair burden for porous border. It’s the federal government’s job to enforce the border, and if they refuse to do it ... I think they should face the consequences of their action."
Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Bilbray, said by telephone Tuesday that although the congressman was not currently sponsoring legislation that would address the county’s request, he intended to do so. Bilbray said in a written statement Tuesday that he was "eager" to work with Horn for reimbursement.
Bilbray, who was once a San Diego County supervisor, is chairman of the immigration reform caucus, a group of more than 100 congressional representatives who favor stricter immigration enforcement legislation.
San Diego State University professor John Weeks helped compile and write the study for the county. As he wrote in the study, Weeks told supervisors Tuesday that illegal immigrants do contribute to communities in a variety of ways by spending money and providing services.
But, he said Tuesday, they were unlikely to generate much property-tax revenue that makes up the majority of the county’s spending money.
"Working undocumented immigrants make an economic contribution," Weeks said. "But the issue for this board is that it is very unlikely that they put back into county coffers the amount of money that is spent providing services to them or on their behalf."
No one came forward to criticize the study at Tuesday’s meeting. The American Friends Service Committee — a Quaker human rights organization — has said it was afraid it would promote "anti-immigrant sentiment."
Weeks said the study used interviews with county department heads to suggest that roughly 10 percent of their annual budgets were spent on services for illegal immigrants.
The study suggested that those costs amounted to $101 million in 2006, three-quarters of which was used for criminal justice costs, such as jailing and prosecuting. Remaining costs were spent on health, social services and other programs.
The study did not account for the costs of education or unpaid medical bills for illegal immigrants, although it used estimates from the Hospital Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties to come up with its figure of $155 million in unpaid medical care costs.
Other supervisors said it was time for the federal government to pay up.
"It’s outrageous to say the least," Supervisor Dianne Jacob said. "Inexcusable."
Once Again, the Rules Change for Mexico...
Press Play on this Video then read my writing and that of the newspaper I got it from:
Wall Of Voodoo - Mexican Radio
..
Add to My Profile | More Videos
As we all know, under federal law it is illegal to hire illegal aliens, anywhere in the United States, California and YOUR STATE included. These laws don't stop at the "left-wing ran sanctuary city line".
The city of Vista in San Diego County California has decided to violate Federal law by allowing businesses to hire those that jump our borders and who scam our visa systems, if they get a permit (which costs money, so is this really about compassion for the "poor, helpless border jumper" or a new source of revenue?)
Essentially Vista gives a permit for people to violate our federal immigration laws, and for those of you who support the drug war, aka prohibition, who say "medical marijuana cards" in CA, CO, NV, etc. is the same thing, you ARE WRONG. The US Constitution specifically grants the Federal Government control over immigration, IT DOES NOT give drug control to the Feds, COURTS have done this, not our founders.
So CA, etc. are perfectly with in their 10th amendment rights when issuing pot cards, but they ARE NOT when they cross into immigration.
In response to this rogue city in CA, it has been asked for a list of federal law violators and of course the ACLU have filed a case to protect these businesses that fire Americans and hire border jumping criminals who come here ILLEGALLY.
Government entities give out permits all the time, and they are MADE PUBLIC. After ALL, YOU AS A CONSUMER have the right to know a contractors license status, business permit status, etc. How about keeping private building permits or city contracts? No one would stand for it. But YET AGAIN, thanks to the ACLU and LA RAZA Mexican border jumpers and visa scam artists along with their American allies, our standards and practices of Government seems to change....but only for them.
Its rather obvious that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, YOUR FAMILY and ESPECIALLY YOUR COUNTRY...
Here's an article that this commentary was taken from:
Issues of immigration, privacy rights clash in Vista ACLU sues to block the city’s release of names of residents who obtain a permit to hire day laborers. Newspapers oppose the bid.
By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2007
VISTA — The often-emotional debate over immigration roiling cities across the country has morphed here into an unusual clash between individual privacy rights and public access to governmental records.
The privacy rights at issue are not those of the immigrants but of the residents who hire them as day laborers from ad hoc hiring centers, mostly the parking lot at the Vons shopping center at Escondido Avenue and South Santa Fe Way.
The government records in dispute are permits Vista City Hall issues to residents wishing to hire laborers. Many of the laborers are illegal immigrants, to the consternation of anti-illegal immigration activists.
Under a controversial ordinance adopted last year, residents are required to get a hiring permit — which is accompanied by information about immigration and workers’ compensation laws and a sample "contract" in English and Spanish.
The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial counties filed a lawsuit in July to block disclosure of the names, addresses and phone numbers of permit recipients after a Vista resident aligned with an offshoot of the anti-illegal immigration group the Minutemen requested an updated list.
A San Diego County Superior Court judge today will hear arguments from both sides as he considers the ACLU’s request for a permanent order barring release of the names.
Judge Michael Orfield on July 9 issued a temporary restraining order until attorneys could file their written arguments.
The ACLU is concerned that residents hiring day laborers could be harassed by activists opposing illegal immigration. Vista has had several demonstrations over the volatile issue, with sheriff’s deputies keeping opposing sides separate.
A coalition of newspapers and the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. is opposing the ACLU’s bid.
So is a Washington, D.C.-based group, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which argues in favor of tougher enforcement of immigration laws.
For a year the names were routinely disclosed to the public without incident in this city of 90,000 in northern San Diego County.
But when the ACLU this summer settled a lawsuit that had sought, unsuccessfully, to overturn the Vista ordinance, it garnered a promise from the city to notify the group when anyone asked for the names.
And when Michael Spencer of the Vista Citizens Brigade requested the names, the ACLU sued again.
ACLU attorney David Blair-Loy said the names do not fit the definition of public records.
Those records, he said, allow the public to assess the workings of government, not to pry into the lives of citizens.
In this case, he said, the names have nothing to do with how well government is working. He noted an appeals court decision that upheld a decision by San Jose to withhold the names of people making noise complaints.
California, he noted, has a right to privacy embedded in the state Constitution.
"To me," he said, "this case is not about immigration. It’s about a constitutional right to privacy."
But immigrant rights are a priority for the ACLU. Although it failed to overturn the Vista ordinance, it persuaded nearby Escondido last year to drop an ordinance that would have required landlords to check immigration status before renting an apartment.
"It’s an obvious issue for us, given the fact we’re a border chapter," said Blair-Loy. "We go where the issues are."
Alonzo Wickers IV, a lawyer for the Los Angeles Times, finds the ACLU arguments "frankly kind of silly because this information had already been released and there is no evidence that permitees have suffered any sort of harassment."
Attorneys for The Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, and the North County Times have filed lengthy arguments in opposition to the ACLU.
"There is a substantial reduction in your expectation of privacy when you seek a permit from government," Wickers said. "This battle over immigration threatens to undermine the right of public access to public records."
Of 121 people who have sought permits, the names of 111 were released before the ACLU lawsuit was filed.
A code-compliance officer patrols the Vons parking lot in Vista every day except Sunday, reminding would-be employers that they need a permit, which can be issued, free of charge, on the spot.
The ordinance does not require employers to check the immigration status of workers, but the information that accompanies the permit details the legal downside of employing people who are in the country illegally.
Deputy City Manager Patrick Johnson said the permit process seems to have eliminated the problem of employers ripping off day laborers by not paying them or not giving them a ride back to the hiring spot.
The Vista City Council, battered by months of heated controversy over immigration, has opted not to enter the legal fray.
City Atty. Darold Pieper said the city believes that the names are a matter of public record and should be disclosed but is willing to abide by whatever Judge Orfield decides. Pieper said that even without his participation, the courtroom will be filled with lawyers primed for passionate argument.
"There will be a great deal of articulation already," he said.
Wall Of Voodoo - Mexican Radio
..
Add to My Profile | More Videos
As we all know, under federal law it is illegal to hire illegal aliens, anywhere in the United States, California and YOUR STATE included. These laws don't stop at the "left-wing ran sanctuary city line".
The city of Vista in San Diego County California has decided to violate Federal law by allowing businesses to hire those that jump our borders and who scam our visa systems, if they get a permit (which costs money, so is this really about compassion for the "poor, helpless border jumper" or a new source of revenue?)
Essentially Vista gives a permit for people to violate our federal immigration laws, and for those of you who support the drug war, aka prohibition, who say "medical marijuana cards" in CA, CO, NV, etc. is the same thing, you ARE WRONG. The US Constitution specifically grants the Federal Government control over immigration, IT DOES NOT give drug control to the Feds, COURTS have done this, not our founders.
So CA, etc. are perfectly with in their 10th amendment rights when issuing pot cards, but they ARE NOT when they cross into immigration.
In response to this rogue city in CA, it has been asked for a list of federal law violators and of course the ACLU have filed a case to protect these businesses that fire Americans and hire border jumping criminals who come here ILLEGALLY.
Government entities give out permits all the time, and they are MADE PUBLIC. After ALL, YOU AS A CONSUMER have the right to know a contractors license status, business permit status, etc. How about keeping private building permits or city contracts? No one would stand for it. But YET AGAIN, thanks to the ACLU and LA RAZA Mexican border jumpers and visa scam artists along with their American allies, our standards and practices of Government seems to change....but only for them.
Its rather obvious that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, YOUR FAMILY and ESPECIALLY YOUR COUNTRY...
Here's an article that this commentary was taken from:
Issues of immigration, privacy rights clash in Vista ACLU sues to block the city’s release of names of residents who obtain a permit to hire day laborers. Newspapers oppose the bid.
By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2007
VISTA — The often-emotional debate over immigration roiling cities across the country has morphed here into an unusual clash between individual privacy rights and public access to governmental records.
The privacy rights at issue are not those of the immigrants but of the residents who hire them as day laborers from ad hoc hiring centers, mostly the parking lot at the Vons shopping center at Escondido Avenue and South Santa Fe Way.
The government records in dispute are permits Vista City Hall issues to residents wishing to hire laborers. Many of the laborers are illegal immigrants, to the consternation of anti-illegal immigration activists.
Under a controversial ordinance adopted last year, residents are required to get a hiring permit — which is accompanied by information about immigration and workers’ compensation laws and a sample "contract" in English and Spanish.
The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial counties filed a lawsuit in July to block disclosure of the names, addresses and phone numbers of permit recipients after a Vista resident aligned with an offshoot of the anti-illegal immigration group the Minutemen requested an updated list.
A San Diego County Superior Court judge today will hear arguments from both sides as he considers the ACLU’s request for a permanent order barring release of the names.
Judge Michael Orfield on July 9 issued a temporary restraining order until attorneys could file their written arguments.
The ACLU is concerned that residents hiring day laborers could be harassed by activists opposing illegal immigration. Vista has had several demonstrations over the volatile issue, with sheriff’s deputies keeping opposing sides separate.
A coalition of newspapers and the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. is opposing the ACLU’s bid.
So is a Washington, D.C.-based group, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which argues in favor of tougher enforcement of immigration laws.
For a year the names were routinely disclosed to the public without incident in this city of 90,000 in northern San Diego County.
But when the ACLU this summer settled a lawsuit that had sought, unsuccessfully, to overturn the Vista ordinance, it garnered a promise from the city to notify the group when anyone asked for the names.
And when Michael Spencer of the Vista Citizens Brigade requested the names, the ACLU sued again.
ACLU attorney David Blair-Loy said the names do not fit the definition of public records.
Those records, he said, allow the public to assess the workings of government, not to pry into the lives of citizens.
In this case, he said, the names have nothing to do with how well government is working. He noted an appeals court decision that upheld a decision by San Jose to withhold the names of people making noise complaints.
California, he noted, has a right to privacy embedded in the state Constitution.
"To me," he said, "this case is not about immigration. It’s about a constitutional right to privacy."
But immigrant rights are a priority for the ACLU. Although it failed to overturn the Vista ordinance, it persuaded nearby Escondido last year to drop an ordinance that would have required landlords to check immigration status before renting an apartment.
"It’s an obvious issue for us, given the fact we’re a border chapter," said Blair-Loy. "We go where the issues are."
Alonzo Wickers IV, a lawyer for the Los Angeles Times, finds the ACLU arguments "frankly kind of silly because this information had already been released and there is no evidence that permitees have suffered any sort of harassment."
Attorneys for The Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, and the North County Times have filed lengthy arguments in opposition to the ACLU.
"There is a substantial reduction in your expectation of privacy when you seek a permit from government," Wickers said. "This battle over immigration threatens to undermine the right of public access to public records."
Of 121 people who have sought permits, the names of 111 were released before the ACLU lawsuit was filed.
A code-compliance officer patrols the Vons parking lot in Vista every day except Sunday, reminding would-be employers that they need a permit, which can be issued, free of charge, on the spot.
The ordinance does not require employers to check the immigration status of workers, but the information that accompanies the permit details the legal downside of employing people who are in the country illegally.
Deputy City Manager Patrick Johnson said the permit process seems to have eliminated the problem of employers ripping off day laborers by not paying them or not giving them a ride back to the hiring spot.
The Vista City Council, battered by months of heated controversy over immigration, has opted not to enter the legal fray.
City Atty. Darold Pieper said the city believes that the names are a matter of public record and should be disclosed but is willing to abide by whatever Judge Orfield decides. Pieper said that even without his participation, the courtroom will be filled with lawyers primed for passionate argument.
"There will be a great deal of articulation already," he said.
THREE GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SIDE WITH LINCOLN
Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party was against prohibition laws including Federal Drug Laws, and now we see that THREE Republican Presidential Candidates are siding with the founder of the party. They are Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and too some extent Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.
Over the years, the DEA (and its predecessor the Federal Bureau of Narcotics) has defeated EVERYONE who has crossed it including liberal hippies in 60's and 70's, drug companies (although the drug companies have started to gain victories against the DEA now due to lobbying efforts), libertarians, Constitutional traditionalists, etc.
However, they have a new battle against members of the Republican Party who are increasingly seeing the drug war for the failure that it is, in terms of tax-payer costs, etc. and view it as an unwarranted Federal Intervention into the rights of the States. THE DEA IS GOING TO FIND THAT TAKING ON THE GOP IS GOING TO BE IT'S TOUGHEST BATTLE YET, and THEY JUST MIGHT LOSE!
This reason is, with every other group the DEA fought against, they could argue either that “they just want to do their drugs”, or “they just want to profit off of the drug business”, these arguments DO NOT HOLD UP against RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES, who are primarily interested in REAL CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE in America and are also typically religious folk and thus have no personal gain from changing drug laws, except a safer society due to the end of the ills of prohibition.
The DEA is in for a surprise and one can be rest assured that they're already mobolizing to ensure Tancredo, Paul and Huckabee are defeated by the candidates in the GOP that are prohibitionists and still think we can actually win the drug war aka prohibition.
Since the original debate in which the three came out against the drug war, we now have Illinois Democrat Senator Barack Obama “finally weighing in” on this important issue of States vs Federal Rights, Equal Justice Under the Law, etc. He is calling for a review of certain Federal sentences for drug possession crimes. My question, where have the DEMOCRATS been when it comes to discussing the drug war? I haven't heard them address these issues, IF anything, they want to expand prohibition laws to tobacco, guns and “unhealthy foods” such as "trans-fat acids", etc. Under a DEMOCRAT administration we'll all be in jail for being ourselves and not eating tofo every night!
For other good articles about these and other issues of the day, click the link above.
GOP Debate in Which Tancredo and Ron Paul come out against drug war, Mike Huckabee wants to scale it down:
Friday, September 28, 2007
Prohibition Laws Must Be Destroyed
As of late, both State and Federal politicians (and certain unscrupulous and greedy trial lawyers) have sought to pass laws that prohibit or at least "regulate" our personal habits, (and those that provide us with servicing our appetites) or sue to destroy these industries. These laws and lawsuits include: attacks on "trans fat acids", "unhealthy-fast-food", tobacco, etc. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll choose for myself what I eat or don't eat or what goes into my body.
These laws come as no surprise to those who have seen the pattern of government intervention in both our personal lives and the free market that started around 100 years ago. Laws that prohibit the personal use (or sale) of goods and services (when no one other than the user are affected) are rightfully called "prohibition laws", as labeled by the father of the GOP, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln once opined, "prohibition laws strike at the very heart of what it means to be a free American in that they seek to legislate a man's (or woman's) appetite and makes crimes out of things that are not inherently crimes". Lincoln would never have supported ANY Federal (or State) prohibition laws such as drug, tobacco, prostitution, gambling, food, etc. It is unfortunate that BOTH Democrats and Republicans seek to keep existing prohibition laws in place (especially Federal laws that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments such as drug laws) and to expand them into new areas. The 10th Amendment grants states (and the people) the rights of criminal law-making and enforcement authority. That's why prostitution, gambling, murder, rape, robbery laws, etc. are usually state laws.
Fortunately, not all is lost, there are some Republicans who are actually fighting for Lincoln's views (against prohibition laws, especially Federal drug and gun prohibition) including: CA State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Victoria, TX), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R -Littleton, CO), to name a few...
It basically started with prohibiting heroin and cocaine in 1914 (and 1918) at the Federal level (before that we had a "states-rights" system in place, which worked better) by Woodrow Wilson, the blatantly racist Democrat who primarily passed these laws in order to "round-up" minorities. He used false public-safety justifications for these laws when race was his main issue. At that time, it was common for American citizens to drink Coca-cola (which contained cocaine) without any major problems (now that stuff was the "real thing"). Americans also used patent medicines containing opiates, cocaine, etc., again rarely with major problems. Some people had issues, but they largely used drugs indoors and approached treatment facilities and their churches when their use was problematic.
From there, prohibition spread to alcohol, which proved to be an abysmal failure, but at least the Federal Government made it illegal the way the Constitution mandates, which is through a Constitutional Amendment (there has NEVER been a Constitutional Amendment for drugs, firearms, etc., courts have simply "given" the Federal Government the authority to regulate drugs, guns, etc.). It was later repealed in 1933.
After that, (in 1934) we had our first Federal firearms regulations, which required a "tax stamp" to own certain weapons, however the government refused to issue tax stamps (which in effect made the weapons illegal). That false model was used to make marijuana illegal in 1937, under the "closet-racist" FDR. Just like with other drugs, marijuana wasn't a big issue and America's once-thriving "Indian-hemp" industry (as marijuana was traditionally known as), which started during the colonial days was destroyed by legislation.
Hashish, which made it's American debut at the World's Fair in the 1880's (fair-goers used "huka" pipes to smoke it at the booth, I'm sure the food booths appreciated the secondary business) was also included in the act. It too wasn't a public safety issue, but was made one by racist Democrats.
After that, it went to other drugs, then lower level firearms. Finally, we saw the attacks on tobacco. We also saw political and judicial attacks against basic children's toys due to accidents, etc. Now we see food on the list. I have a feeling I know what products are going to be declared regulatable next, however I won't make any predictions out of fear I might tip off the politicians and cause them to happen sooner.
The fact is, prohibition laws are wrong and illegal. We as Americans should no longer tolerate politicians that seek to pass them or those that don't fight to repeal them. The Judicial system should also restrict them when applicable.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Klansman Given 3 Life Sentences for Killing Black Males Over Second Amendment Civil Rights
Klansman Given 3 Life Sentences for Killing Black Males Over Rumors They Attempted to Excersize Their Second Amendment Rights
Jackson, Miss. --- Friday August 24, 2007 will go down in history as a great day for both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. This is because a now-convicted elderly Democrat Klansman named James Ford Seale has been given three life terms for killing two black male 19-year-olds simply because there were "rumors" going around that "black males in Mississippi were 'stockpiling' weapons".
The case started with the mere "rumor" of black citizens attempting to excersize their Second Amendment Rights, not even proof that they were doing so, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME EITHER. And being the PRO-GUN CONTROL group that Nazis and the Klan were and are (well, gun control against everyone who isn't a Nazi/Klansman), they decided to enforce their anti-gun (when it comes to non-whites) views and killed the two teens; by abducting them, beating them severely while interrogating them about "the guns" (they had the right to own by the way), and then they were bound and dumped alive into the Mississippi River. Even if the men were stockpiling guns, WOULDN'T YOU TOO IF YOU LIVED IN TERROR LIKE BLACK FOLKS DID IN THE 1960's and before? A dead Klansman doesn't hang anybody.
This is an "unspoken area" of the civil rights movement, the right to full and equal rights including the right to protect oneself and ones family by using the SECOND AMENDMENT from terrorist organizations like the Nazis / Communists / Socialists / Islamo-fascists, street-gangs and other criminals, and most importantly, FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. Keep in mind, MANY KKK members also wore the same uniforms as the police in their areas; as such blacks could not trust law enforcement, and firearms are the only answer for protection against direct murder and assault plots when you have no one you can trust in Government to turn to for equal protection.
Unfortunately, in today's world, the ignorant left-wing block of black voters have fallen into the Democrats' racist gun law trap again. This time Democrats use "Uncle-Tom" front-men like "Al Sharpton", "Jesse Jackson", etc., who are too ignorant to UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF RACIST GUN PROHIBITION LAWS as being mechanisms of OPPRESSION against blacks in the past and the present, to push their racist anti-Second Amendment Democrat agenda. (In fact, blacks are DISPROPORTIONATELY convicted and imprisoned for simple gun prohibition offenses, at a rate higher than any other race, more than 3 times their actual population percentage).
These two "rhyme-time Democrat-plantation stage-performing fake-intellectuals" are essentially doing the Klan's work for them, helping to pass gun prohibition laws, incarcerating blacks for violating them, etc. The Klan nor the Democrats couldn't have asked for better allies than the "Two Toms". (Rumor has it that Sharpton was a long-time snitch working for the FBI informing on other blacks as well, look up 20/20's Al Sharpton report; now he is going after the First Amendment Rights of Rap Artists, yet he hides behind it any chance he can get).
In today's world, the Democrats may not hang blacks from trees for violating their racial standards, instead they send them to prison. They don't disarm them through kidnappings and drowning them alive in rivers, they do so with gun prohibition laws which leads to arrests, and long prison sentences. The Democrats use different tactics, but the outcomes are similar.
Jackson, Miss. --- Friday August 24, 2007 will go down in history as a great day for both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. This is because a now-convicted elderly Democrat Klansman named James Ford Seale has been given three life terms for killing two black male 19-year-olds simply because there were "rumors" going around that "black males in Mississippi were 'stockpiling' weapons".
The case started with the mere "rumor" of black citizens attempting to excersize their Second Amendment Rights, not even proof that they were doing so, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME EITHER. And being the PRO-GUN CONTROL group that Nazis and the Klan were and are (well, gun control against everyone who isn't a Nazi/Klansman), they decided to enforce their anti-gun (when it comes to non-whites) views and killed the two teens; by abducting them, beating them severely while interrogating them about "the guns" (they had the right to own by the way), and then they were bound and dumped alive into the Mississippi River. Even if the men were stockpiling guns, WOULDN'T YOU TOO IF YOU LIVED IN TERROR LIKE BLACK FOLKS DID IN THE 1960's and before? A dead Klansman doesn't hang anybody.
This is an "unspoken area" of the civil rights movement, the right to full and equal rights including the right to protect oneself and ones family by using the SECOND AMENDMENT from terrorist organizations like the Nazis / Communists / Socialists / Islamo-fascists, street-gangs and other criminals, and most importantly, FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. Keep in mind, MANY KKK members also wore the same uniforms as the police in their areas; as such blacks could not trust law enforcement, and firearms are the only answer for protection against direct murder and assault plots when you have no one you can trust in Government to turn to for equal protection.
Unfortunately, in today's world, the ignorant left-wing block of black voters have fallen into the Democrats' racist gun law trap again. This time Democrats use "Uncle-Tom" front-men like "Al Sharpton", "Jesse Jackson", etc., who are too ignorant to UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF RACIST GUN PROHIBITION LAWS as being mechanisms of OPPRESSION against blacks in the past and the present, to push their racist anti-Second Amendment Democrat agenda. (In fact, blacks are DISPROPORTIONATELY convicted and imprisoned for simple gun prohibition offenses, at a rate higher than any other race, more than 3 times their actual population percentage).
These two "rhyme-time Democrat-plantation stage-performing fake-intellectuals" are essentially doing the Klan's work for them, helping to pass gun prohibition laws, incarcerating blacks for violating them, etc. The Klan nor the Democrats couldn't have asked for better allies than the "Two Toms". (Rumor has it that Sharpton was a long-time snitch working for the FBI informing on other blacks as well, look up 20/20's Al Sharpton report; now he is going after the First Amendment Rights of Rap Artists, yet he hides behind it any chance he can get).
In today's world, the Democrats may not hang blacks from trees for violating their racial standards, instead they send them to prison. They don't disarm them through kidnappings and drowning them alive in rivers, they do so with gun prohibition laws which leads to arrests, and long prison sentences. The Democrats use different tactics, but the outcomes are similar.
This is Corruption the Los Angeles Way.....
Los Angeles City Councilman Assists Girlfriend in Increasing Property Value
Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon proposes to reclassify his girlfriends (soon to be wife) street from a busy highway designation to a quiet "collector" street to assist her (and ultimately) him in profiting in some of her other investments on her street. He also proposes protecting her from mandatory property loss which is common under street-classification changes; it 's a mandatory version of "eminent domain."
Although it is shady, quasi-ethical and should raise questions; in Los Angeles, it is still 'technically legal' for Councilman, Mayors, etc. to do favors for girlfriends, friends, etc. involving city action, (there is a ban on immediate family members such as spouses). How the 'Alarcon scam' works is, the street becomes more residential, and thus the property values increase due to it becoming a "quieter" neighborhood, Alarcon's girlfriend will be able to to tear down her 1950's era home (homes in LA came with more property back in those days) and build as many as 9 homes, which of course can be sold, rented out, etc.
His simple, but highly lucrative move, proves that LA politics is just as corrupt as ever, it may not always be the "mafia-related" graft you see back East, or the "good-old-boy/I-run-this-County-types" you'll find in the South, but it is dirty, with a unique, Hollywood, LA glitz to it. You got it, it involves crookedness based on sexual relationships (when you combine the Mayor of LA's recent sexual deviation from his wife to a Spanish News Anchor "covering him", really "covering for him"), you hence have, "Corruption, LA-Style".
As an advocate for local control, it would be best to see the voters of LA take note of this, and then mobilize to change their City laws to disallow LA politicians from giving away tax-payer benefits to anyone they have a personal relationship with, or their relatives, etc. Heck even "cereal box" contests are better regulated for "conflict of interest" violations than LA politics.
By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2007
Traffic congestion is a sensitive political issue in the San Fernando Valley, especially for residents frustrated by the cars that cut through their neighborhoods.
Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon quietly drafted a measure two months ago to deal with a tiny piece of that traffic, calling on the city bureaucracy to downgrade a street in his district from a busy highway designation to a quiet "collector" street.
The proposal affects just one block of one street in Panorama City. And that block of Wakefield Avenue happens to be the place Alarcon lists as his home — a 1950 tract house belonging to Flora Montes de Oca, the woman Alarcon plans to marry today.
The councilman's proposal seeks to "preserve the residential character" of Wakefield. But the plan could provide another benefit to Montes de Oca, who plans to tear down her rental house and replace it with as many as nine homes.
Montes de Oca faces the prospect of giving part of her property to the city for a required street widening once she builds. But if Alarcon's request is approved by the council, she would be spared from forfeiting up to 2,850 square feet of her lot at Nordhoff Street and Wakefield.
Nothing legally prohibited Alarcon from writing the council motion; the state's conflict-of-interest law keeps politicians from acting on property owned by spouses — not girlfriends or fiancees.
Still, the proposal troubled Robert Stern, who heads the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies and wrote the 1974 law.
"Is there no shame?" he asked. "There's nothing illegal. But [this] is doing something that affects him personally."
Alarcon disagreed, saying he won't own the property even after he is married. But he will be required by law to recuse himself from voting on matters directly affecting the property, leaving the decision to his colleagues and the city bureaucracy.
"Obviously, when we get married, I can't be involved," he said.
The house owned by Montes de Oca is one of only two on the east side of Wakefield between Nordhoff and Terra Bella streets — the 338-foot stretch covered by Alarcon's motion. Just two lots away from Montes de Oca's property, 26 town houses are under construction.
Alarcon said his proposal, drafted in June, would bring a long-awaited traffic fix to Wakefield. Asked why that proposal didn't create the appearance of a conflict of interest, Alarcon replied, "Well, we weren't engaged when I did it. Or at least, when the issue came up."
An hour later, Alarcon's office issued a news release about today's wedding, saying the couple had become engaged in February — four months before he introduced the motion regarding Wakefield Avenue.
Alarcon first listed the home as his address Nov. 9 — two days after voters passed Proposition R, the measure that eased term limits and allowed him to seek a third term on the City Council. (He had just been elected to the Assembly in that same election.)
During the City Council campaign, an image of the house — one that showed a weed-filled, unwatered frontyard and a mattress on the curb — was used in a campaign mailer by an opponent who questioned whether Alarcon was living in the home.
Now, Montes de Oca may also have to move into the house, which the councilman described as seriously in need of repair. That's because he has been unsuccessful at convincing his colleagues to redraw the boundaries of his council district so he can move into Montes de Oca's other house in Sun Valley, where she lives.
Alarcon said he had failed to persuade Councilwoman Wendy Greuel to support the change, which would shift at least 200 of her constituents into his district. Greuel, for her part, said she was not yet convinced that residents just east of the Hansen Dam Golf Course support the change.
Alarcon asked Greuel again as recently as two weeks ago and failed to make progress. And although the councilman has not given up, he said he and Montes de Oca may settle together in the house on Nordhoff Street — complicating construction plans.
"The site plan she's drawn up actually is individual houses — separate, detached housing, I should say," he said. "But we've got to live by the law, and she's willing to live there. If that's what the law demands, that's what we're going to do."
Although Wakefield Avenue is 75 feet wide, it would need to be 90 feet under its current designation once any town homes or apartments were built on the block, said Jane Blumenfeld, head of citywide planning for the Planning Department. To accomplish that, any developer would need to contribute part of the lot, Blumenfeld said.
Alarcon said Montes de Oca had no comment, because she shies away from the public eye.
His colleagues — some of whom plan to attend the wedding — declined to comment when asked if they would support the motion.
But Councilman Dennis Zine said that he sees such street reclassifications as routine and that Montes de Oca's development work would help the economy.
"I don't think there's anything sinister," he said. "They're trying to build homes in a community where people are trying to live comfortably."
Second Phase of NAFTA Begins; Spells Doom for American Trucking Industry
Implementation of Second Phase of NAFTA Starts End of US Union-based Trucking
Now that the 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stop the implementation of the initial stage of the Second Major Phase of NAFTA (the RIGHT of Mexican Trucks to travel throughout the entire US - regardless of how much they pollute, how dangerously maintained they are, what types of "loads" they're really carrying, and God only knows the driver-regulations that will be in place; but don't worry, our Government says they can monitor this); I believe we will see the decline and ultimate END to union-controlled trucking in America, and most likely non-union as well.
For years the unions have fought this (legitimately in my opinion), and have had some degree of success in preventing its implementation, which Presidents' Clinton and Bush BOTH PUSHED for solidly (along with former President Bush Sr. and his Council on Foreign Relations friends, who lobbied for NAFTA heavily). The unions main allies have been a few Federal Courts and certain members of Congress, mainly social conservative Republicans who view such treaties as surrendering American sovereignty, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Victoria, TX) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton, CO) and solid Union Democrats such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland, OH).
However, it looks like the ride is over "so to speak" as the new "Pelosi-Reid" Democratic-controlled Congress is seeking to "suck up to Mexico" (not just on this issue, but also on illegal alien amnesty, the NAFTA "Super Highway" which will rip through the heart of the Southern US into the Mid-West and onto Canada, the North American Union, etc.) as is the current President.
So unless our current Congress is willing to buck the economic and political pressure and block this concept, you can say "hola" (Spanish for "hello") to trucks from Mexico on a permanent basis. Be prepared for our highways to become far more dangerous, ready for an exponential increase in illegal aliens (who will simply pack themselves in many of these trucks and travel unfettered to any city in America), possible use of these trucks for terrorism since most will not be subject to search and Mexican companies are easy targets for Middle-Eastern terrorists to infiltrate...and the loss of American jobs, especially those in unions because it will be much cheaper for firms to use Mexican trucks to haul goods.
I personally do not support this, but since Congress nor the Executive Branch are willing to act in favor of the American worker and small-businessman, the Supreme Court is the only place left to ultimately go to stop this (there are some procedural moves that can be done in lower courts to delay parts of this). But due to the 1920 Missouri vs. Holland Supreme Court Ruling (a judicial activist one by the way), International Treaties TRUMP the RIGHTS OF AMERICANS, EVEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and thus I see no way of this not happening, unless the Supreme Court reverses this BAD PRECEDENT.
Eventually, as the trend of using Mexican trucks increases, the wages and then the jobs themselves of American truckers will largely end, including non-union. It's unfortunate, but such is life in the "Bush 41-Clinton 42-Bush 43" eras' of "The New World Order, NAFTA and the North American Union.CA Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Democrats "Global Warming Plan" Drives Industry Out of CA
CA Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Democrats "Global Warming Plan" Drives Wonder Bread out of CA; 1300 Southern Californians to Lose Jobs
Wonder Bread announced its leaving the state of California permanently. They did the typical press release explaining their "surface" reasons for leaving. The real reason is the loss of hope for industry in California's future associated with CA Gov. Schwarzenegger's job-killing compromise with Legislative Democrats, the now infamous "Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006".
As is with most items of Government, truth in advertising doesn't apply to legislation (especially their titles). This bill (the mandates of which will be addressed below by State Senator Tom McClintock's blog commentary), has little to do with global warming, because California can't stop the Earth's natural geological cycles, plus any "reductions in man-made global warming" will be offset by industry and jobs simply moving to Mexico, or if our country is lucky, perhaps another state, where the emissions from those factories, etc. will resume.
Like Nevada and Arizona, whose populations have dramatically increased as Californians have left the state in pursuit of better opportunities for enterprise and thus employment. Since factories, etc. will move to more hospitable territory, they will release essentially the same amount of bi-products into the air and thus the only real loss won't be of pollutants, it will be JOB LOSS in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in particular, California as a whole.
Any other state that considers following Arnold and the Democrats of California's lead better think twice; don't let CA be your state's example in this area, the consequences will be decreased private industry employment, and a few more jobs created at the welfare office and unemployment office.
Blog about this:
From www.carepublic.com
A daily blog by Senator Tom McClintock
• No Wonder...
Gov. Schwarzenegger's drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions got a major boost this week when the makers of Wonder Bread announced the total withdrawal of their bread products from Southern California. Interstate Bakeries, the makers of Wonder Bread, Roman Meal, Home Pride and Baker's Inn breads announced the closure of four bakeries, 17 distribution centers and 19 outlet stores, leaving 1,300 Californians out of work. The iconic breads – that had been staples of Southern California grocery stores since the 1940s – will completely disappear from shelves starting October 20th.
The parent company, Interstate Bakeries, blamed the high cost of doing business in California. The company has been losing money in California for some time, hit by a number of concerns including declining demand and non-union competitors, but their principal problem was simply California's growing hostility to human enterprise.
Not mentioned by the company was this grim reality: Gov. Schwarzenegger's AB 32 mandates a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. A principal byproduct of baking bread is – you guessed it – carbon dioxide. Indeed, without carbon dioxide, there's no such thing as bread as we know it. Bread gets its spongy texture from yeast converting glucose into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The familiar smell of bread baking is the oxidation of the ethyl alcohol as these gases are released during heating.
But not any more. No Wonder.
Wonder Bread announced its leaving the state of California permanently. They did the typical press release explaining their "surface" reasons for leaving. The real reason is the loss of hope for industry in California's future associated with CA Gov. Schwarzenegger's job-killing compromise with Legislative Democrats, the now infamous "Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006".
As is with most items of Government, truth in advertising doesn't apply to legislation (especially their titles). This bill (the mandates of which will be addressed below by State Senator Tom McClintock's blog commentary), has little to do with global warming, because California can't stop the Earth's natural geological cycles, plus any "reductions in man-made global warming" will be offset by industry and jobs simply moving to Mexico, or if our country is lucky, perhaps another state, where the emissions from those factories, etc. will resume.
Like Nevada and Arizona, whose populations have dramatically increased as Californians have left the state in pursuit of better opportunities for enterprise and thus employment. Since factories, etc. will move to more hospitable territory, they will release essentially the same amount of bi-products into the air and thus the only real loss won't be of pollutants, it will be JOB LOSS in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in particular, California as a whole.
Any other state that considers following Arnold and the Democrats of California's lead better think twice; don't let CA be your state's example in this area, the consequences will be decreased private industry employment, and a few more jobs created at the welfare office and unemployment office.
Blog about this:
From www.carepublic.com
A daily blog by Senator Tom McClintock
• No Wonder...
Gov. Schwarzenegger's drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions got a major boost this week when the makers of Wonder Bread announced the total withdrawal of their bread products from Southern California. Interstate Bakeries, the makers of Wonder Bread, Roman Meal, Home Pride and Baker's Inn breads announced the closure of four bakeries, 17 distribution centers and 19 outlet stores, leaving 1,300 Californians out of work. The iconic breads – that had been staples of Southern California grocery stores since the 1940s – will completely disappear from shelves starting October 20th.
The parent company, Interstate Bakeries, blamed the high cost of doing business in California. The company has been losing money in California for some time, hit by a number of concerns including declining demand and non-union competitors, but their principal problem was simply California's growing hostility to human enterprise.
Not mentioned by the company was this grim reality: Gov. Schwarzenegger's AB 32 mandates a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. A principal byproduct of baking bread is – you guessed it – carbon dioxide. Indeed, without carbon dioxide, there's no such thing as bread as we know it. Bread gets its spongy texture from yeast converting glucose into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The familiar smell of bread baking is the oxidation of the ethyl alcohol as these gases are released during heating.
But not any more. No Wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)