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."
Friday, October 12, 2007
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)