Search This Blog

Monday, October 17, 2005

Genius' Need Not Apply

I have always wondered what makes a person want to run for elected office. On the local level it makes sense; your child goes to the school so you run for the school board. The city you live in does not run to your liking so you run for a council seat. Or even mayor. The state senate or assembly becomes a little more dicey, ie money and time and you must lick many a boot just to receive a few crumbs for your district. But in my non-humble opinion the governors' seat is the place to really make change. But unfortunately, you have to be independently wealthy or owe your soul to many a devil. So I have devised a plan to vault myself into the Mansion: Map out four promises of change and stick to them. Don't lie or waiver or make deals. Each of the promises will represent each year I am in office. Since I have never held office special interest and long time moss growing incumbents can take a flying leap. The 9th circus court will be reminded that the majority rule. Plus I am bigger and stronger and we can take "it out side" if need be...Pencil necks! So here I go with promise number one:
1. NO STATE PROGRAMS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. This will include deportation for the illegals who are incarcerated. Nothing personal it is just the law. Non profit organizations may provide services while people are relocated to their country of origin.
2. SECURE THE MEXICAN BORDER. I would reallocate monies saved from promise one to pay for state law enforcement. Also secure all ports of entry.
3. RESTRUCTURE DMV. A one time registration fee and no smog checks for vehicles newer than 1995. Driver's license renewal will be once every five years, subject to driving record.
4. ALL STATE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE PART -TIME EMPLOYEES. That is right, they are OUR employees. Even the governor!
5. I know, I said four but my 5th would be not to run for a 2nd term.

With all the surplus funds schools and social programs can be properly funded.
You may not agree with all or any of the above and that is fine, but it would sure be nice if our future elected officials would clearly state their positions! It does not take a genius to be a politician, sorry for stating the obvious. But we sure deserve someone who is honest.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Thank God and a Vet for What You Have.

The only difference between our fighting men of today and those in WWI,II, Korea, Vietnam, GI,and II is the way they are allowed to fight. Watching the alphabet news channels' coverage of the war and listening to most politicians and commentators, it is apparent our boys have their hands tied behind their back. Car bombs? If it moves blow it up. If a shot comes out of a building, level it. If a city is hostile, raze it! War is not a social experiment. And as Truman posted on his desk," The Buck Stops Here." Unfortunatley, President Bush is no Truman.
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.
In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.
Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.
As well as the troops who landed in Normandy on D-Day, and those in supporting roles at sea and in the air, millions more men and women in the Allied countries were involved in the preparations for D-Day. They played thousands of different roles, both in the armed forces and as civilians.
How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?
“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles.
Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

Save Our People From Whom?

I am tired of people who will use any type of problem to not only self promote, but also create a "Racial" issue where none exsist. Being poor is not a racial issue, it is a work issue. Being an illegal alien is not a racial issue, it is a legal issue. If you want racial issues just Google Farrakhan quotes. You want racial issues check out La Raza. The partial article is from a 10-09-05 article posted by MSNBC.
10 years after march, new storms roil America
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2005
Farrakhan's customary incendiary comments
“The need to save our people — it’s so much bigger than the personality or the baggage that has been heaped on Louis Farrakhan or others,” Farrakhan said. “Katrina has focused this agenda.”
In recent weeks, Farrakhan has raised eyebrows by speculating that New Orleans’ levees did not collapse beneath the rising waters of Lake Pontchartrain, but that they were bombed.
“Is this a means of getting rid of the poor? The black?” Farrakhan asked in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “Is this a means of ensuring that in the elections there will never again be a black or Creole mayor of that city?”
Hispanic, Asian groups weigh inOfficials with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, are battling the deportation of some undocumented hurricane survivors http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9644203/

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Our Boy Does Disappoint

President Bush's decision not to nominate a true conservative should finally prove to everyone that he is not what he says he issue refuses to close the borders. He refuses to fight an all out war in Iraq. He refuses to veto any spending bill. He refuses to fully support Israel. He refuses to cut foreign aid. And his refusal to nominate Janice Rogers Brown is just plain wrong. The article below is awesome.
One-Sided 'Balance' If Ruth Bader Ginsburg could replace Byron White, Janice Rogers Brown can replace Sandra Day O'Connor. BY MANUEL MIRANDA Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
As soon as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in June, Democrats called on the president to name a moderate "consensus" replacement that would preserve the balance of the court. Now they are at it again.
By her voting record, Justice O'Connor was toe to toe with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist 80% of the time, but where she parted with him, on key social issues such as Roe v Wade, is exactly where politically-minded Americans draw the battle lines. So naturally she has become the judicious voice of moderation for liberals. The president probably should have left John Roberts as Justice O'Connor's replacement. Unfortunately, we now have to hear Democrats and Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter make calls for balance.
But in the second round of replacing Justice O'Connor, liberals have adapted and added a second tactic. As I wrote in a previous column, Democrats, having neither a majority nor a viable filibuster threat, are launching a targeted pre-emptive strike by naming the potential nominees they will fight against. Coincidentally these are the only potential nominees that conservatives will likely lift a finger to fight for.
The left's main target is the jurist liberals know is the president's ultimate Katrina exit strategy, Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Although at her hearing she was a model of grace and intellect and she wrote more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court, liberals paint Brown as "unrelenting" and a "lightning rod." Her critics say that she has not been on the federal appellate court very long, even though she has now been on as long as David Souter had been when he was elevated, and she would have had more than two years' experience had Democrats not filibustered her nomination.
Last week, even the reputedly honest Russ Feingold of Wisconsin could not resist taking a gratuitous swipe at Judge Brown while announcing his support for Judge Roberts. Mr. Feingold suggested that Judge Brown would bring back the Lochner era. That was a reference to a 1905 Supreme Court decision in which the court replaced the economic policy judgment of a legislature with its own. It was like saying no more ice cream to a room full of children.
In truth, Judge Brown has written disapprovingly of Lochner: "The name has come to symbolize judicial usurpation of power . . . using the due process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written." Despite this, liberals insist that Judge Brown favors the Lochner decision because she criticized a small part of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's dissent. Holmes said the U.S. Constitution did not reflect an economic structure, such as respect for private property. Judge Brown thinks that it does.


The call for balance is vapid given that a president is elected with the understanding that he will nominate someone to the Supreme Court in keeping with his judicial philosophy. George W. Bush made this a cornerstone of his campaigns. If a national election is not sufficient to gauge public opinion, a Gallup poll in July found that 70% of Americans want the high court either to be more conservative or to stay as conservative as they perceive it now to be. An Opinion Dynamics poll one week later asked this question: "When a Supreme Court justice retires, do you think the president has an obligation to replace the retiring justice with another justice with similar legal and political views?" An overwhelming 67% said no. The president is on sound footing if he leans to the right.
Not surprisingly, there is also a double standard. In 1993, when President Clinton needed to replace the retiring associate justice Byron White, a John Kennedy appointee who had been one of two dissenters in 1973 (together with Justice Rehnquist) on Roe v. Wade, no one called on him to maintain the "balance" of the court. He nominated the most pro-abortion feminist activist he could find. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was then confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 96-3.
But the left is so reliant on its balance argument that when Republican senators, and this writer, pointed out that Justice Ginsburg had posited that prostitution was constitutionally protected and that the age of consent should be lowered to 12, the same people who have distorted the records of Bush judicial nominees echoed in outrage and obfuscation. The problem is that it's true.
In papers Ms. Ginsburg wrote while she worked for the ACLU, she argued against criminalized prostitution and said that it was "arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions." In lawyer-speak that means that she, at least, tended to think prostitution fell under the constitutional right to privacy. She did not say "some would argue" or that it was "arguably not within the zone of privacy." And if arguably Mrs. Ginsburg did not aim, as her defenders say, to lower the age of consent, she was guilty of sloppy lawyering when she recommended that a statutory-rape law that had the consent age at 16 be replaced by a proposal that had it at 12.
But that is not all. The woman nominated to replace Roe's leading dissenter, Byron White, was not only pro-abortion, she wrote that the federal government should be constitutionally required to subsidize elective abortions. She urged coed prisons; criticized the Boy and Girl Scouts for perpetuating "gender" stereotypes; and suggested that "Parents Day" might replace Mother's and Father's day. Ms. Ginsburg had also opined that a law restricting the rights of bigamists "is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."
Of course, when they confirmed Justice Ginsburg, liberals did not worry about balance. Actually, if not for their double standard, one might think that they had no standards at all.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007324