Monday, July 30, 2007

Hate crimes and hypocrisy

Kudos to Michelle Malkin for her usual thorough coverage of issues.

At issue: hate crimes and hypocrisy.

A 23 year old man was arrested on hate crime charges for throwing a Quran into a toilet on two separate occasions.

The story reported on Michelle Malkin's site gives reference to the "Piss Christ" phot by no-talent photographer Andres Serrano. It also makes refernce to the "art" piece The Holy Virgin Mary, adorned with elephant dung.

Makes you wonder what all the outrage was about when another form of art, cartoons, resulted in mass protests, riots and plenty of death threats.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Only liberals on the SCOTUS, damnit!

Good ole' liberal Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D- New York) reports that there aren't enough liberals on the Supreme Court. So, he is determined not to allow the President to pick one. I am curious as to what he means by "extraordinary circumstances". I have no doubt you could call that code for "flaming liberal hippie".

Story (in italics):

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Let's interpret: Because a conservative President may bring forth a conservative candidate, we should abandon precedent in Senate confirmations. And remember, there is no given that a candidate for a position on the SCOTUS is a given. The Senate gives plenty of harassment to candidates. And here is a tip for all of you readers: Whenever you read a quote from a Democrat or liberal, imagine what would happen if a Republican or conservative said the same thing and then consider the outcry and teeth gnashing that would result. That is an excellent way to look at a statement credibility from liberals.

Also, consider the statement "dangerously out of balance". By dangerously out of balance, he means at worst, one more Justice who is closer to a conservative point of view than a liberal one. Remember, Sandra Day O'Connor was by all accounts, a moderate, who frequently sided with Conservatives. She was replaced by John Roberts. William Rehnquist, perhaps the most conservative judge on the bench, save for maybe Scalia, was replaced by Alito, who while conservative, is in all likelihood not nearly as conservative as Rehnquist.

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Wait, they expected them to overturn legal precedents anyway, so their complaint is they are doing it faster? What a lame argument.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said. “There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Oooohhh! We are Senate Democrats! We are easily distracted by "charm" and shiny objects! Just like goldfish!

I am curious as to how the Senate was "hoodwinked". A Supreme Court candidate can't exactly hide his prior work in the legal community, and there is NO way for a candidate to know what cases will be set in front of him, so how could he possibly say what answer he will give before the case is presented to the Court. I am also curious as to the implication here. I have yet to hear a charge of perjury.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.” Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

Just remember this story when and if a Democrat President sends a candidate to the Senate confirmation hearings. All the sabre-rattling over "delays" and "politics" will be loud and large.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

So, rather than doing your job and making sure the candidate was the best choice, you should have spent your time finding ways to not confirm a conservative candidate. Talk about partisan politics . . .

Friday, July 27, 2007

Water rights and water theft.

This post took a few days to write, but as it is such an important issue to the Southwest, it needed to be finished. I encourage any reader to take note of this and refer back to any updates, because this will be a decades old argument before there is a resolution.

Just over a week ago, Governor Schwarzenegger held a few press conferences and spoke about the
dangers of a drought affecting California, particularly Southern California and the San Joaquin valley, which is the lifeblood of California agriculture. He proposed a plan to build more dams and repair the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the San Luis reservoir. He also discussed the All-American Canal, which runs along the U.S.-Mexico border through Imperial Valley, California and parts of Arizona. To give you a brief background, this canal was built in 1940 and replaced a similar canal which ran through the U.S. and Mexico. It is an earthen canal with no lining. It connects with a few other canals and brings Colorado river water through Imperial Valley, the most arid, but 4th most productive agricultural region in the United States.

One of Schwarzenegger’s proposals is to finally line portions of the canal to prevent loss of water through seepage, which is not a new idea. By doing this, Californians would recoup 67,000 acre-feet of water each year, enough for half a million people. Most of the water will go to the San Diego County Water Authority, with 17% reserved to settle water disputes with American Indian tribes in San Diego County. For more information on this project, see
here.

In response to the Governor’s call for help, the LA Times responded with a riveting (sarcasm)editorial piece, dated July, 21, 2007, entitled the “All-American deathtrap”. (In case this link goes dead due to membership requirements, you have the date and paper to see for yourself). Their concern? Not water for Americans, but, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. Their concern over putting in a concrete lining: the water will be too swift, and the sides of the canal to steep to scale and more illegals who try to cross will die. They advocate not lining the canal, but if it is lined, they demand the government provide lifelines, buoys, and steps in the concrete.

The editorial piece ignores the reasonable response of the Imperial Irrigation District, saying this will increase liability. The L.A. Times this makes no sense. Well, we have illegal immigrants who sue for being shot at
while evading arrest and turning on Border Patrol agents, lawsuits for injuries sustained after crashing their vehicle while speeding away from the Border Patrol, and lawsuits saying they did not get medical care "quick" enough while in Border Patrol custody, even for ailments not related to their border crossing. How long do you honestly think it would take for a Mexican family to sue because a buoy line was not tethered properly, or better yet, it inadequate as a safety measure? The editorial failed to mention that the reservoir is already fenced and has numerous no trespassing signs.

Even more importantly, they add to their flimsy editorial the tired old line that “border security is good, but . . .", completely ignoring that no one is forcing people to cross the border illegally and risk their own lives. Once again, the call for the government of Mexico to improve conditions in their country is nowhere to be heard.

Why would the L.A. Times be opposed to making it easier for Southern California to obtain water? Last time I checked, L.A. was in Southern California. The reason is simple: this is not the main reason why they are opposed to the lining. The story you did not hear involves water seepage and lawsuits going back years before Governor Schwarzenegger even considered running for office. The earliest story I found went back to 1998. You see, the
water seepage is used by farmers in Mexico, near the border, and they don’t like the idea of lining the canal, which will cut down the water they are stealing. It’s not like they don’t get water. In fact, there is a 1944 treaty wherein the United States created dams, waterways and reservoirs, and Mexico has access to a good portion of that water. As the linked study states, in addition to the water seepage that is being taken, Mexico has not followed up with payment of their water obligations by diverting water which flows to the Rio Grande and have fallen behind on their commitments time and time again.

Mexican farmers and environmental groups (of course) have sued the United States, seeking (and obtaining) a temporary injunction, preventing the lining. However, in their quest for a permanent injunction, a federal court has unbelievably sided with America for once, saying that it
lacked jurisdiction over the Mexican claims. Imagine that!

In addition to not paying for what they owe, Mexican farmers and businessmen are upset that the United States “dares” to protect its own interests and does not want Mexican farmers stealing what they are not entitled to. Fortunately, due to a law signed by the President last December, the lining can be started with no delay. We will just have to weather the flood of additional lawsuits which are sure to come.

One again, I see a continuing mentality and pattern when it comes to United States - Mexico relations. The U.S. creates something, then invites their neighbors to participate, only to have our neighboring country violate the terms of the agreement and demand what they are not entitled to. On top of this, they find every opportunity to undermine the spirit of the law and choose to not respect our laws and rights. Then, when the United States finally does something about it, the liberal medica portrays the United States as harming their poor, defenseless neighbor to the South. Does this sound familiar to the illegal immigration problem we face?

Monday, July 23, 2007

How to personally offend a "gangsta"

I found this story today on a local news website, and it made me chuckle. Let me say right off the bat that "50 cent" has every right to be upset over the use of his image without consent. Though he is a public figure, I do believe in his right to privacy. What I would like to know, however, is what he was "personally offended" about.


Rapper "50 cent" is suing Traffix, Inc. for damages over use of his image in the pop-up game "Shoot the rapper". In all fairness, it is not 100% certain it is his image, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I find this interesting because 50 cent is all about guns and violence. He has been shot himself, and raps about shooting others. I found these lyrics, they took me a whole 35 seconds to find them online. My favorite lines include:

"I put a hole in a n**** for f****** with me"
"I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder, 'Till I bust a clip in your face p****, this beef ain't over"
"Every night, I talk to god, but he don't say nothing back. I know he protecting me, but I still stay with my gat"

Three references to 50 cent shooting someone, and that is just one song. It makes me wonder if he is outraged because he was not paid for the use of his image, or if he finds the image of shooting someone offensive. Maybe it's just his own image being shot is what's offensive to him.

I guess Al Sharpton's assault on gangsta lyrics continues to fall on deaf ears.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Prove who you are to vote? That's outrageous!

I read this "controversial" article a few days back on the Randi Rhodes Show blog and commented on it there. The skinny: The Michigan Supreme Court rules that citizens of Michigan may have to show ID to vote. The usual sides take their shots.

Conservatives believe that this measure protects voters from fraud and protects the sacred right to vote. You know, VOTING. The fundamental right this great nation is based on. The ability to select who you want to represent you. An attempt to have your voice heard. Government run by and for the people. Any of you having flashbacks of your High School civics class?

Liberals bring out the tired old "discrimination" and "poll tax" arguments, saying it disenfranchises minorities and the elderly. The Detroit branch of the NAACP throws the ever-present race card, comparing it to a poll tax used to prevent blacks from voting.

Let's think about this a little. How does this disenfranchise anyone, except people who would cast illegal votes? Requirements: You are supposed to show an ID. 95% of voters already have acceptable ID. An ID can be purchased for $10, and the fee can be waived if you cannot afford it. Further, if you have no ID, you can sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury saying you don't possess one. This means, the elderly, the poor, and minorities (those who are targeted by Democrats and the NAACP in this article) are all taken care of. This ALSO means you still don’t have to have an ID to vote. How again does this disenfranchise anyone?

I believe this law is not strong enough, but that's an argument for another day.

This is yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. Every day the liberal media sources scream how your rights are not protected, or being destroyed by the right. Yet when someone tries to protect your rights, it is either A) racist, B) prejudicial, C) has too many religious overtones, or D) favors the wealthy. May I live to be 100, I will never understand this type of mentality.

While I was reading this, I was reflecting on another country and their voting requirements. Mexico has one of the
most advanced identification systems in the world, and it is considered an example for democracies around the globe. In addition to the elaborate security of the company who manufactures the ID cards, the cards themselves include a hologram, special fluorescent ink, bar code, and special codes in magnetic strip. Are you telling me that Mexico can develop a brilliant and effective ID program, but the United States cannot?

Your thoughts?

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

A Darwin candidate

The skinny:

A man (who was drinking, of course), meets an early demise after jumping from the roof of a house, into a swimming pool.

This reminds me of a joke: What is the last thing a redneck says before he dies? Answer: "Hey everybody! Watch this!"

Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses . . . and more Cubans

Hands down, this was the story of the day, dear reader. Cuba is upset with the United States. How is this a story you might ask? Becuase of what they are mad at. Cuba, that bastion of freedom, land of magnificent health care, and wonderful educational opportunities is upset that the U.S. is not accepting more visa's from citizens who wish to flee Cuba.

Yes, you read that right. Despite all the people who come here in boats, rafts and other floatation devices, we must do what is "right" and step up and give more people immigration benefits and resettlement assistance. While were at it, we should stop the "wet feet/dry feet" policy, or our interdiction policy and just let anyone come over here. Remember, to not let them come would infringe on their rights to "political asylum"! There are enough of our tax dollars to go around! YEE HAW!