Schwarzenegger’s Credentials Leave a Lot to be Desired
Feb 23, 2007 Uncategorized
Arnold Schwarzenegger has done a fairly decent job running the state of California. It can not be an easy task to run a state that is nothing more than a bunch of densely populated loony bins surrounded by more Mexicans than reside in Mexico. There is an article where he defends Hillary Clinton by saying that people should stop criticizing her about her vote to authorize war. I have never had a problem with her vote. I would not have had a problem if she had voted against the war. Where I have a problem is the way she distances herself from what she did. She claims to have taken a choice based on what was believed to be good intelligence but chides Bush for relying on that same information. Hillary is also unable to stand up and say “I voted for it because at the time it was the right thing to do.” Instead she allows herself a benefit no one else gets and that is to say if she knew then what she knows now she would not have done it. We would all love to be able to have that power as I am sure there are many decisions people have taken in the past they would love to be able to use what they know today in order to decide. The thing is, it is easier to say what your decision is when you are aware of the outcome.
The article has one other item that is disturbing:
Schwarzenegger, a Republican who favors abortion rights, stem-cell research, gay rights and gun control, will give a speech at the National Press Club Monday stressing the importance of centrism in American politics. The Politico
Arnold is a Democrat who is registered as a Republican. All of those views with which he agrees are part of the Religion of Liberalism. He is truly a RINO and that might play well to the dysfunctional crowd in California. The rest of us will be very happy, thank you very much, if Arnold and his views stay confined to the borders of his state.
Tags: Commentary
The Problem with the Judiciary
Feb 23, 2007 Uncategorized
Anna Nichole Smith died recently in what some refer to as a tragic death. While any death is tragic it was not hard to see that this woman was on a path to destruction. Her lifestyle finally took its toll on her and she succumbed to the stress. There have been several post mortum battles going on involving a number of men who claim to be her baby’s father as well as battles regarding where she will be laid to rest.
I don’t really care how this plays out. Someone is the baby’s father and she will eventually be buried. This all played out in court this past week and the circus posing as a courtroom provided insight into what is wrong with the judiciary. The judge in the case, Larry Seidlin, had the difficult task of deciding who had the right to decide where Smith was to be interred. He anguished over this before taking a decision to release her remains to the baby’s guardian. In so doing, he began to cry on the bench and then he did something that is beyond comprehension. He imposed his beliefs into the matter. He said that HE wanted Smith buried in the Bahamas with her recently deceased son.
The role of a judge is to hear and see facts presented in a case and to take a decision regarding that case based solely on the facts disclosed. Seidlin interjected his desire into the case and that is wrong. His sole responsibility was to hear the case and decide who was allowed to determine Smith’s final resting place. It was not up to him to tell people where he wanted her buried because, in all honesty, he had no dog in the race. It was not proper for him to express his wishes. This little piece of information might unduly influence the unlucky person who was charged with control over the fate of her remains. Perhaps that person had not decided or was leaning to toward burying her in another place. The judge basically said you have custody and this is what I want done.
This courtroom was not the court of Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown where the judges routinely express their personal beliefs and push their value systems on those before the court. This was a court of law, and while the aforementioned are as well, their primary goal is to increase ratings and revenue. Seidlin’s court was charged with carrying out the law and he failed to do that professionally. Perhaps he was playing up to the cameras and all the media attention in order to get his own TV show. If so, he put his personal goals above his professional responsibilities and that is not in keeping with the time honored traditions of our courts.
If this guy gets a show I can not imagine who would watch it. He is a buffoon and would probably use his crying shtick as the basis for the show. “Your wife left you for a woman? (sobs and tears begin to flow) Oh how terrible! Boo hoo, judgment for the plaintiff, bring me a tissue…”
Related item:
ABC News
Tags: Commentary
Iran Defies the World
Feb 22, 2007 Military
The United Nations, the know all, be all, end all, has imposed sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching Uranium. Instead of stopping the process Iran has gone full speed ahead and is enriching a lot of Uranium that it insists is for peaceful purposes. One day we are going to wake up to the news that Iran has a nuclear weapon and the outlook in the Middle East will be even more bleak than it is now. The UN will review the findings of the report on Iran and get really tough with some new sanctions, unless of course one of the other permanent members decides against it.
We have a lot of Democrats insisting that we need to retreat from Iraq and leave the Iraqis on their own to work out their problems. Unfortunately, our departure would leave a huge void that Iran would love to fill. The idea that they might just do that with nuclear weapons in hand should give everyone cause for concern. The mad man Iranian President will use nukes in order to achieve his goal of wiping Israel off the map. Once that happens the world will never be the same. It will be too late to go back and try to figure things out. As they say, you can not unring a bell.
The Democratic Presidential hopefuls have made statements that, with regard to Iran, all options are on the table. The Boozer Ted Kennedy said the same thing recently on one of the talking head shows. The candidates have certainly taken that position which is a very unique one to have. You see, they are opposed to our military action in Iraq, which was taken on the premise that Hussein had WMD, (he had WMD including a nuclear program) but they are willing to leave the military option (everything on the table) open with regard to Iran. How can they claim to be against the war and the use of our military in Iraq and yet say that the option of using our military in Iran is a viable one?
Our men and women in the armed forces are watching these idiots and they completely understand what is going on. The warriors know what some of their leaders are doing to them and they do not appreciate the fact that the leaders did not have the courtesy to use Vaseline. If the Democrats are ever successful in pulling our troops out of Iraq and bringing them home in defeat and disgrace then every one of them should refuse to go to Iran, should the Democrats use that item from the table. The troops can tell them to go pound sand and to fight the war themselves.
Our brave warriors would not do that and they would fight when and where they are told, but no one could blame them for a mass mutiny. No one could blame them for attacking and taking over the Congress instead of Iran. I am not advocating such a move but I would certainly understand it. The real enemy within is the Democratic Party and the Democrats in Republican clothing. They are undermining the war effort and the effort of our troops. They should be overthrown and a new government installed and we can do that in 2008. We can get rid of ever person who is up for reelection and put some new faces in there.
I recommend that soldiers who are brought home and are eligible to leave the service at least consider that option. I love the service and I would do anything in the world for my soldiers but I do not want to see them abused. The Democrats might conclude that Iran is the RIGHT war and force troops into action there only to pull them out when it takes longer than expected. Additionally, Iranians would be energized by our cut and run defeat in Iraq and would be ruthless in their desire to kill Americans. Why go through that? If there are not enough troops the Democrats can fight their own war (though it will be called America’s war as opposed to this one which is labeled Bush’s War) or they can reinstate the draft and really piss off a bunch of people. It does not matter, they will blame it all on Bush anyway.
I make the proposal that all the options can only remain on the table with regard to Iran so long as we continue our mission in Iraq. If the Democrats cut and run from Iraq, the military option for Iran has to be removed from the table. I don’t care if Iran nukes half the Middle East, we will not get involved. Besides, doesn’t the Democratic Party believe that the UN should handle everything and that all problems can be worked out by talking? Unfortunately, a decision like that would take stones and I don’t believe Bush or the Republicans would have any in this situation.
We are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. If we are going to go into Iran then we need to stay in Iraq and complete the mission which means winning. If we are unwilling to do that then we need to sit back and watch the fireworks. Though if we do go into Iran we need to go big. No more pussy footing around and no more policies and rules of engagement that hamstring our troops. Overwhelming force wins wars.
God we need more George Pattons and fewer Benedict Arnolds.
Related Story:
My Way News
Tags: Commentary
Maryland to Kill the Death Penalty
Feb 22, 2007 Political
It was only a matter of time before the bleeding heart liberals in the Maryland Legislature got around to repealing the death penalty. Now this has not happened yet but it is going to because Maryland is infested with Democrats and the newly elected Governor, Saint Martin O’Malley, is against the death penalty. There are many arguments against the death penalty but one of the main ones is that blacks in Maryland are Sentenced to death more than whites, especially if the black killed a white. While this is true, racism has nothing to do with it. The fact is, there is a lot of black on black killing in Baltimore City but the City WILL NOT seek the death penalty. Baltimore, which was run by Saint O’Malley, is a killing field and it refuses to go after the death penalty and that is why there are no blacks on death row for killing other blacks.
Saint O’Malley testified on the death penalty issue and he made some preposterous statements. Let me start off by stating that O’Malley spouted off statistics. Never, ever listen to this man when he gives you numbers. He gave us numbers for years concerning crime in Baltimore but he seems to use these creative accounting methods in order to skew numbers in favor of what he wants. Here is what O’Malley said:
O’Malley testified that the murder rate in states that had the death penalty was 46 percent higher in 2005 than in states without it. He also said that while the murder rate has been on the decline since 1990, it has fallen by 56 percent in states without the death penalty, compared to a 38 percent drop in states that have it. WBAL
This is interesting in several ways. First, O’Malley uses statistics to show us that in states that do not have the death penalty murder has dropped more than in states that do. It is interesting that he would use statistics about other states to make his point because when you point out to him that states with open carry laws for hand guns have lower crime rates he back peddles and says that Maryland has a carry law. We do but unless you have documented proof (i.e. police reports) of multiple threats or unless you are a judge (or I suppose a well connected person) then you will not get a permit. Even veterans of the armed forces are not allowed to carry a gun. But I digress. I do not know if these statistics are true and if they are, can we show causation? There are many reasons that crime goes up. In Texas, where they have a fast lane to the electric chair, the death rate might be going up. That might be because they have untold numbers of ILLEGALS crossing the border every day and bringing crime right along with them. My point is, O’Malley is using numbers for bluster but they mean nothing.
The question I would ask old Marty is; does having the death penalty cause the smaller decline in murder rates or does actually enforcing the penalty do it? As I stated, Baltimore City does not seek the death penalty and there are around 300 murders there each year (even when Marty was Mayor). In the surrounding counties prosecutors seek the death penalty when it is warranted and guess what? The murder rate is a fraction of that in Baltimore. Harford County had about 9 murders last year.
I believe the death penalty is a deterrent. The criminal who gets executed will never be a repeat offender. If they switch to life without parole there will be nothing to keep murderers from killing correctional officers. Oh wait, The Maryland bills allow people who murder law enforcement officers to get the death penalty. I have read both HB 225 and SB 211 and they both clearly indicate that a person who murders a law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, or members of other select groups, may receive the death penalty. This is where things start to really make my blood boil. Why is a cop any better than a regular citizen? His life is not worth any more than mine or yours and yet the person who murders him will get the death penalty and the guy who murders your mother will get life without parole.
What makes law enforcement officers better, or worth more? Of the 300 or so people killed in Baltimore City last year I wonder how many were police officers. I have not heard of any but I will say 10 and that is way too high, but we will say it for the sake of argument. That means that out of 300 or so, 290 were regular citizens. You are much more likely to be killed if you are Joe six pack than if you are a police officer. Additionally, police officers get to carry guns. They are armed and able to defend themselves. How much sense does it make to execute a murderer who killed another guy with a gun but only put him in jail if he kills a defenseless person? Police officers have the means to protect themselves and we have already shown that they are very unlikely to die by being murdered. Their biggest threat is automobile accident. In that same Harford County, the first police officer (deputy sheriff) to die in the line of duty in over 100 years died when he had a heart attack and crashed his police car.
I say that if Saint O’Malley is so sure that the death penalty does not deter crime and that it might even increase violence then we should not have the death penalty for any murder. What is the purpose of executing a cop killer other than to DETER other criminals from killing cops. If it really has no deterrent value then we just need to abolish it completely. In other words Marty, either we keep it or we get rid of it 100%. Stop being a hypocrite and act like a man. If you are opposed to the death penalty then you are opposed to the death penalty IN ALL CASES.
The death penalty in Maryland was reinstated in 1975. Since that time the state has executed 5 people. That’s right, in 32 years we have executed 5 people. Except for Texas, this is the pattern in most states. Murderers are more likely to die of old age before they ever get the injection. So how much of an effect could Maryland’s death penalty have had on increasing or decreasing murder rates? In effect, Maryland has not had a death penalty (other than to hand out the sentence) and yet our murder rate keeps going up (thanks to Marty’s Baltimore). Maybe if Baltimore had applied the death penalty it would not be a modern day killing field.
The sponsors of HB 225 are here and SB 211 here. Perhaps we should allow them to repeal the death penalty but only if we can execute them if a convicted murderer, murders again. In any event, take a look at the lists. Call them and ask them what their stance on abortion is. I believe most of them support abortion. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who will fight tooth and nail to keep murderers from receiving the death penalty will fight just as hard to allow a woman to murder her unborn child.
Seems to me they have their priorities all wrong.
The number 300 for murders a year in Baltimore City is close to the average. The City has had from around 250 to well over 300. In any event, the majority were NOT police officers.
Tags: Commentary, Political
John Edwards Might Need a Surgeon
Feb 21, 2007 Uncategorized
Looks like John Edwards might need a surgeon to remove his foot from his mouth. That is where he firmly placed it when he indicated that the greatest short term threat to peace was Israel should that country decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the “I” word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close. [my emphasis] Variety
NRO’s Jim Geraghty asked the same thing I was thinking; “Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?”
Israel is a tiny little country backed up to a body of water and surrounded by enemies on all adjoining land. The President of Iran has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and the rest of the Muzzie world is hell bent on destroying Israel. They love killing Jews and they love launching rockets into that little country every damned day.The idea that Iran could have a nuclear weapon and launch it at Israel is frightening and yet very real. Iran has made it their mission to destroy Israel and the Breck girl says that Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is the greatest short term threat??
This man is very liberal and very out of touch. He has this two Americas idea and wants everyone to think he is one of the guys but he lives in that special America, the other side that he depicts as wrong for existing while others live in poverty. He bought a house large enough to put a small village in (the largest in his county) and he is worth millions. He thinks Israel is the greatest threat to short term peace and he is willing to cut and run from our enemies.
Cross this idiot off the list. He will not survive the primaries (though I would not mind seeing him beat Hillary).
Tags: Commentary