California Prop 74, Prop 75, Prop 76: Long Needed Reforms.

The Democrat spin doctors are out in force to shoot down California Prop 74, Prop 75 and Prop 76.  Why?  Because Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing them.  No other reason.

Let’s see what they say, so we can avoid the spin.

California Proposition 74:

This California proposition is simple, implementing two needed initiatives:

Increase the probationary period for California teachers before the tenure can be awarded.  Currently, the probationary period is two years.  Prop. 74 extends the probationary period to five.
Make removal of tenured teachers easier.  Two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations constitute a finding of “unsatisfactory performance”.  Teacher evaluation boards would no longer need to give the teacher a 90 day grace period between each evaluation, and would not have to provide additional evidence of unsatisfactory performance beyond that required for the unsatisfactory performance evaluation.

Why Prop. 74 is a good idea:  Teachers need to be held accountable for their actions.  A teacher who isn’t making the grade should be let go, just like any other employee in any other business.  Why do we award tenure, and make it almost impossible to remove tenured teachers, when so many teachers aren’t doing their jobs?

The Democrat Spin (backed by the Teachers Unions):
- PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND UNFAIR. It won’t improve student achievement and it won’t help reform public education in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it will cost school districts tens of millions of dollars to implement. Proposition 74 doesn’t reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn’t improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof.

Clearly A Lie.  This requires you to set aside common sense – if it’s harder to get tenure, and removal is easier, a teacher must perform.   Under the current system, it’s all but impossible to remove an under performing teacher.  Under Prop 74 it becomes a little easier to remove a tenured teacher and requires the teacher have a five year track record before giving tenure.

-PROPOSITION 74 IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT MISLEADS PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TEACHER EMPLOYMENT REALLY WORKS. California teachers are not guaranteed a job for life, which means they don’t have tenure. All teachers receive after a two-year probationary period is the right to a hearing before they are dismissed.

No employee in private business has tenure.  They have to perform or be replaced.  Politicians need to be re-elected – if they don’t perform, they are replaced.  To say teachers deserve tenure is like telling a politician they deserve tenure.

-PROPOSITION 74 IS UNFAIR TO TEACHERS BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE THEY ARE FIRED.

Another Lie.  Proposition 74 does not remove any hearings prior to being fired. Teachers have the ability to appeal all the way to the California State Supreme Court, and this doesn’t change.

California Proposition 75:

This California proposition is even more simple:

This measure amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union.

Currently, unions use member dues for any purpose, and the members are required to pay dues.  In many cases, it’s impossible to stay in a particular job unless you’re in the union, such as public service employees, fire fighters, police, and nurses.

60% of union families are for Prop. 75.

The Democrat Spin (backed by Union Leaders):
-Prop. 75 is unnecessary and unfair. Its hidden agenda is to weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations. Prop. 75 does not protect the rights of teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. Instead it’s designed to reduce their ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety.
In 1998, voters rejected a similar proposition and union members voted NO  overwhelmingly. TARGETS TEACHERS, NURSES, FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE

Smoke, Mirrors, and Lies again – to claim that giving the individual union members the ability to choose not allow their dues to be used for political purposes is a clear increase of rights.  No one’s political voice is affected, and I’d argue that they’re magnified – if a union member doesn’t agree with union politics, the member can choose not to support those politics.

No one is targeted – Union members are simply given a choice.

California Proposition 76:

This one has a few more moving parts:

• Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
• Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
• Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
• Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
• Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
• Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
• Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
• Requires payment of local government mandates.

Minimum California School Funding Changes:
The Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantees still apply.  The main addition with Prop. 76 is the ability for the State Legislature to suspend Prop. 98 by a 2/3 vote. Elimination of Test 3 of Prop 98. (click on the Prop. 76 link above) – Funding will not fall below Test 2 levels.  Test 3 was put in place for slow growth years, while Test 2 was put in place for normal-strong growth years.
If Governor declares a fiscal state of emergency (the main new power of the  Governor…see below)  AND the legislature doesn’t reduce spending within 45 days, the Governor can unilaterally reduce spending, which could include reducing school funding.


The big issue here are the new powers given to the Governor.  Here they are (and study the link above as well):

Fiscal Emergency. The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal
emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.
Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions:
• General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration’s estimates (blog author note: these estimates are subject to public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards).
• The balance of the state’s reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.  Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce
state spending (with the exception of the items discussed below)—at his or her discretion—to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions.

I can already hear the Democrats howling at this one, but only because their candidate isn’t the current Governor of California.

Democrat Spin(backed by Union leaders):

-PROPOSITION 76 WILL CUT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE, POLICE, AND FIRE. It undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight. And it opens the door to higher taxes.

No, this is a lie.  Budgets are still determined in the normal way, by the legislature.

Governor budget estimates have public and legislative oversight, and must follow accounting standards.

Wow…Democrats decrying a possible increase in taxes…imagine that.

-PROPOSITION 76 OVERTURNS THE MINIMUM SCHOOL FUNDING PROTECTIONS APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS WHEN THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 98. Proposition 76 allows the Governor to permanently reduce school funding without a vote of the people.

This is a lie.  Prop 76 actually increases school funding in slow years.  

The only way the Governor can reduce school funding is 1) a fiscal state of emergency exists and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.

-PROPOSITION 76 DEPRIVES CITIES AND COUNTIES OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN STATE FUNDING NEEDED FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND HEALTH CARE. Incredibly, if a “fiscal emergency” is declared, this initiative requires funding be cut for vital services like education, health care, fire, and police, but actually prevents cutting “pork barrel” road projects.

This is a lie.  Doesn’t even pass the “red face” test.  There are no programs that are “required” to be cut, and there are many budget areas that are protected.

Prop 76 doesn’t deprive anyone of anything.  It sets state spending limits that will keep California financially sound, and allow the Governor to act when 1) there’s a fiscal state of emergency and 2) the legislature doesn’t act.


-PROPOSITION 76 ATTACKS CALIFORNIA’S SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES BY PLACING TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON— THE GOVERNOR. Even if you trust this Governor, who knows what future Governors might do with this unlimited new power.

Scare tactic, and doesn’t pass the common sense test.  Prop 76 puts in a back-stop measure that will allow the Governor to get California in a fiscally sound position when there’s a fiscal state of emergency and when the legislature fails to act.

-THIS INITIATIVE ALSO GIVES STATE LEGISLATORS NEW POWER TO MAKE MISCHIEF. Just 14 of 120 legislators could block passage of the budget indefinitely, putting government spending on autopilot. This could allow the Governor to declare a “fiscal emergency,” giving the Governor sweeping new powers to make state spending
and budget decisions “at his discretion,” with absolutely no oversight or accountability.

Again, a scary lie that doesn’t pass the red face test.  This scare tactic refers to keeping the budget somehow locked in a committee.  Can’t happen.  The Legislature can force a bill out of committee and bring it to discussion and vote.  

-CLAIMS THAT PROPOSITION 76 PREVENTS NEW TAXES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. This initiative does nothing to prevent higher taxes. If it passes, the Governor and Legislature can raise car taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes without voter approval. Even the President of the California Republican Assembly says that Proposition 76 “actually encourages tax increases.”

Where do these people come up with this?  Not only is this a lie, it’s completely made up.  Prop 76 doesn’t claim that new taxes are prevented, nor do its supporters.

Illegal Immigration, Illegal Aliens, All The Time

A New Hampshire judge forbids local police for trying to stop illegal aliens within the United States.  The judge’s reasoning – immigration is the purview of the Federal Government, so state police are under no authority to interfere with illegal immigrants.

So…what is the legal status of a person in a state who is in the United States illegally?  The state can’t simply ignore the presence of the person, otherwise a massive loophole is created that everyone should take advantage of.

The Federal government thinks it’s doing some good on the Arizona border.  The Border Patrol has cut down on illegal immigration through Arizona with an ongoing crackdown that specifically targets what has been the U.S.-Mexico border's busiest illegal entry point, a top federal official said Thursday.

Wait a minute…the Arizona Border is where the Minuteman Project has been focusing their efforts, watching the US-Mexico Border with thousands of volunteers.

Who’s doing the work?
(image placeholder)Illegal immigration...surely contributing to America's downfallby Felicia BenamonSeptember 22, 2005Illegal immigration has been a dominant topic among concerned Republicans in the fight to save our sovereignty in America. Closing the borders to protect against those who would come across our borders to commit crimes and who wish to attack Americans through terrorist activity.


State bordering on illegal immigration disaster
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services September 20, 2005 Gov. Janet Napolitano is going to seek federal disaster relief to help pay for more law enforcement along the Arizona-Mexico border.


Carolinians want less rights for illegal immigrants9/21/2005 5:16 PMBy: Tim Boyum & Web Staff
A new poll shows North Carolinians want more laws restricting the rights of illegal immigrants.

No…they’re not racist.  They’re Americans.  The average American citizen wants fair play, and illegal immigration is the antithesis of fair play.  Allowing illegal aliens into the US, to suck dollars out of the social welfare system is absurd.

Please feel free to return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Bush Not That Bad - Media Needs Balance

That's right...I said Bush isn't doing that bad (certainly not as bad as the media would have you think). The negative publicity is really a media phenomenon, and it's done to sell you content. I want the media to have a little balance - in addition to lambasting him when he really does bad, they really need to also point out when he's done well. (no, I'm not a right wing xtian conservative. I'm a middle of the road athiest who looks at facts, not hype)

What's going well, compared to how Bill Clinton left things:
1) "It's the economy stupid"

• Gross Domestic Product, the measure of the US economy
  

• Bush economy is currently $12.4 trillion
• Clinton economy ended at $9.5 trillion, up from $6.2 trillion
• After 8 years, Clinton grew the US economy by $3.3 trillion, having to deal with the war in the Balkans (a UN action) no major disasters, wars, recessions, etc., and increasing taxes more than any time in US history with the exception of World War 2.
• After 6 years Bush grew the US economy by $2.9 trillion, which includes: surviving a recession brought on by Clinton's massive tax increase, cutting taxes for everyone, 9/11 terrorist attacks, kicking the Taliban out of Afganistan, the war in Iraq.
• At the current rate of growth of the Bush economy, in 2008 the US economy will easily reach $13 trillion.
• Government Income and Spending
• Government income is steadily increasing under Bush. It hasn't quite reached the income under Clinton, but at the current rate of increase it appears to be poised to do so by 2008.
• Government spending has steadily increased under Bush, at a higher rate than under Clinton.
  
• Government deficit spending has increased under Bush.
• When Clinton left office, there was no deficit spending, being in the black by $190B.
  
• Currently, Bush is $416B in the red on deficit spending. Yes, this is bad, but given the size of the economy, this is lower than normal relative to GDP.
  

Jobs:

• Currently the unemployment rate under Bush is around 5%, down from 10%, not bad at all, especially considering the recession he had to deal with. No European country can match this.
• When Clinton left, the unemployment rate was around 4%, certainly better than Bush, and of course, unmatched by any other country. I think that when Clinton came to office he had a high unemployment rate as well.

Afganistan: This country had it's second national election this year as a democracy.

Iraq:

• The Iraqi Parliament has adopted a constitution. A final version has been sent to the Iraqi people, who will vote to ratify it. The Sunni's have come to realize that their refusal to participate in the political process has reduced their influence, and are now working to rectify the damage of non-participation.
• The US is legally and morally justified in being in Iraq, and its cause there is just.
• On the downside, Bush hasn't shown sufficient leadership. He's keeping too quiet, allowing the media to have its way with the spin machine in Iraq. The only news we receive is from the mass media, who are decidedly spewing anything anti-Bush, true or not, in the name of the almighty dollar.

Hurricane Katrina - The mistake Bush made here was in giving in to the Left and assuming responsibility. States are responsible for what happens inside of them. By "giving in", Bush caters to the Left Wing agenda, and sets a dangerous precedent for increased federal government control, taking away control from the States.

Bush isn't doing a bad job at all...hardly stellar, but not bad. The media needs more balance, as they tend to cover negatives, even unfair/untrue negatives, and ignore positives.

Stop Lying Bill Clinton, You're Not President Anymore!

Bill Clinton was interviewed on ABC earlier this week, sometimes mis characterizing the issue, and sometimes flat out lying:

Bill Clinton: "Tax cuts are always popular," Clinton said. "But about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent."

Mischaracterization:
1) The top 1 percent pays 80% of all taxes, so on a dollar basis, the total "value" of the tax cut will appear to be weighted to them. On a percentage basis, the top 1 percent got the smallest tax cut.
2) The tax cut sunsets in 2010. Each year, another higher income bracket actually receives the tax cut. The top 5 percent gets the tax cut only in the last year - they get a tax cut for one year, and it hasn't happened yet.

Bill Clinton:"Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.

This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade."

It's a Lie:
Poverty rate in the US is about 12% of the US population under George W. Bush, while under Bill Clinton it was around 13%. African-American home ownership under George W. Bush is higher than any other time in history. Social welfare and entitlement spending is almost double what it was under Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton: "In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower income working people and benefits to low-income people that helped them move from welfare to work, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works, and we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty, and they got rid of it. And they don't believe in it."

Lie: Bill Clinton gave us the largest tax increase in US history, with the exception of tax hikes during World War 2. Bill Clinton's tax increases but a massive burden on the US economy, precipitating the massive down turn and recession of 2000 and 2001.

Lie: Bush did not repeal one, NOT ONE, of Clinton's poverty reduction programs, and in fact bolstered them. More people were moved off of poverty roles under Bush than under Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton: "But I think the fundamental problem there was, it's like when they issued the evacuation order: That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out."

Mischaracterization: Bush asked Gov. Blanco to evacuate New Orleans days prior to Katrina. The New Orleans plan provided the local government with resources to carry out the evacuation. Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco were asleep at the wheel, and it was them who did nothing to help the poor of New Orleans.

Bill Clinton: "Because the Republicans knew I wouldn't appoint somebody they wanted on the Court, and they knew that I'd appointed judges that were not extreme left-wingers, that were more or less mainstream judges and were unquestionably qualified."

Lie: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the former general counsel for the ACLU. To claim she's not an extreme left winger is absurd. Review her decisions and find the communist underpinnings to her ideology...start with the Kelo decision.

Bill Clinton: "But the administration, then, decided to launch this invasion virtually alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction there."

Lie: UN was unable to complete its inspecitons, and there was plenty of evidence of WMD's.

Bill Clinton: "Now, the question is, after 58 percent of those people voted, after there has been a heroic but so far unsuccessful effort to put together a constitution that everybody can buy off on"

Lie: At the time of the interview the Iraqis were on the verge of approval of the constitution. It's now been approved and printed.

Will The Last American With Common Sense Please Close The Door Behind Them?

The US involvement in WW2 was precipitated by a massive attack on Pearl Harbor, which left over 2000 people dead. Soon thereafter, the US declared war on Japan, and Japanese living in the US were forced into internment camps because of the risk of damage that a few might be able to carry out if allow to roam the US.

In WW2, the US pulled out all the stops and ruthlessly attacked the agressors. The people of the agressor nations were devastated, and future agressors knew on no uncertain terms that the US was a force they didn't want to wake up. The Soviet Union didn't even rattle it's sabers until it had a nuclear arsenal, and never had any desire to meet the US on the field of battle, even though they outnumbered the US at least 10 to 1 in every major weapon type and troop count.

The US involvement in global terrorism was precipitated by a massive attack on the Twin Towers in New York, on September 11, 2001, which left over 3000 people dead. Soon thereafter, the US declared war on "terrorism". Nothing is being done about middle easterners or Muslims living in the US, for fear of political retaliation. Politicians don't like being called "racists", even when the charge is untrue.

In this war on terror, the US is trying to fight a "kinder, gentler" war. Aggressor nations are negotiated with and given economic and financial support, even though they've made their intentions clear - they want the US brought to it's knees. The US isn't really a threat, and is easily ignored. It's leaders are cowed by political correctness and fear of being labled.

Iran has nuclear weapons, as does North Korea, and each act in defiance of the US, and the world. Everyone knows damn well that each of those nations has no love for the US, and would be ecstatic to see one of their nukes make it into a US city.

The US doesn't protect its borders, even though it knows that someday a horrific terrorist attack will come from those who cross those same borders. Muslims and Middle Easterners are given no heightened scrutiny anywhere, even though it's clear that members of that religion and culture were, and are, behind most terrorist attacks around the world.

Neither terrorists, nor the people that support them (implicitly or explicitly) have any reason to change their behavior, because they know the US will do nothing.

Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Vote For Him, Even If You Disagree With Him

Yes...that's right. You have to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, even if you don't agree with his politics.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's the only politician left in Sacramento who listens to what the People want. More importantly, he continues to stand up for what the People have already stated that they want.

Even if you don't like Arnold Schwarzenegger, would you rather have a politician who has her/his own agenda and supports causes you don't agree with, but you have no way of knowing what they'll do in a given situation? Or, would you rather have a politician who will at least uphold what the People have already stated that they want for their state?

Look at the recent midnight vote in the California legislature, taken under the cover of Hurricane Katrina - Our State "representatives" voted on two issues that the People of California have ALREADY voted No on: Gay Marriage and Driver's Licenses for Illegals.

For crying out loud - Gray Davis was kicked out of office on the Licenses for Illegals thing! What makes the California State Representatives think the People of California have changed their minds in a little over a year? Most Americans are pissed off about Illigal Aliens, and now the California Legislature votes to give drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens?

WTF!

Gay Marriage - Californians have made their voice heard - they don't want gays to be able to get married and have the same status as a heterosexual couple. Like it or not, the people have spoken. Now the Legistlature votes to change all that?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is vetoeing both the Gay Marriage and Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens bills. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only one standing up for what the People have already stated that they want - No Gay Marriage and No Driver's Licenses For Illegal Aliens.

I Finally Saw Hitch

So, I finally watched Hitch last night, the movie in which Will Smith plays a Date Doctor/match maker/cupid ("Hitch"). [Author's note: you have to have seen the movie to understand the following]

While the movies was cute, I gave it a "thumbs down". What I didn't like about it was the portrayal of women a being not responsible for their actions. The main female character, Sarah Melas, a columnist for a popular newspaper, doesn't research her facts, and ends up printing false information about Hitch. Sarah also has relationship issues (the same as Hitch) - she can't open up, and is scared about being in a relationship.

Sarah isn't called on the carpet to make amends for her false reporting on Hitch, and it's Hitch who has to pursue Sarah to happily conclude the movie. So...not only does she ruin Hitch's career, and almost ruin many good relationships that Hitch has helped match-make, but it's Hitch who has to go out and fix the relationships, and plead with Sarah to take him back.

What sort of twisted shit is that? Sarah screws up her facts, and it's Hitch who has to beg and plead to her?

Women are people too, no more no less. They should be responsivle for their actions.

Most are, of course, and this was only a movie...it simply sends the wrong message.

Don't Discount The Value Of A Good Professional

I changed commodity brokers some time ago, and I'm really regretting it.

My first broker I felt was letting me get into too many positions at once. Sure it was exciting, but I was just learning the ropes and didn't have the temperment. So I changed brokers.

At the time I changed, I became really gun shy, so I let my new broker trade the account in an area he claimed he was good at, the Canadian Dollar. Fine. Well, I got busy with work and lost track of things for a while, and a few months later came to find out that the new broker lost 90% of my money. The account size is so low that another broker wouldn't let me switch over.

I spent the past 3 months building up the account again and was getting close to the threshold for other brokers to take me as a client. BAM I did one slip up that a competent commodities broker would have caught (I trade spreads, and something happened where I lost legs of a couple of spreads, as the system treats everything as a unitary transaction and not a spread - complicated story), and had to get out of all of my positions to avoid further loss.

My first broker would have caught this before it became an issue. My current broker, because I don't let him trade my account as he likes, ignores me. I can't leave him because my account is too small to be accepted by another broker (there's a minimum account size that brokers want).

So I'm back to square one. Where I was when my current broker had lost over 90% of my money. On the upside, I know how to build the account. On the downside, I have to start all over again.

Katrina: Don't forget who said what and when.

From AP: Before the Hurrican Katrina hit:

“Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor [Nagin] at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.”

Here’s the story in Blanco’s own words:

Just before we walked into this room, President Bush called and told me to share with all of you that he is very concerned about the citizens. He is concerned about the impact that this hurricane would have on our people. And he asked me to please ensure that there would be a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans.

Sloppiest of Wet Dreams: US President Responsible For New Orleans

I didn't write this, and I don't know who did, but it's right on point

Local politicians are empowered with great authority in our society - and the fact is that he failed in his role and is pushing the blame elsewhere!

Interesting facts of life................

In case you aren't familiar with how our government is SUPPOSED to work (pursuant to New Orleans Disaster Recovery Plan):

The chain of responsiblity for the protection of the citizens in New Orleans

is:

1. The Mayor

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security (a political appointee of

the Governor who reports to the Governor)

3. The Governor

4. The Head of Homeland Security

5. The President

What did each do?

1. The mayor, with 5 days advance notice, waited until 2 days before the storm before he announced a mandatory evacuation (at the behest of the President). He failed to provide transportation for those without transport even though he had hundreds of buses at his disposal.

2. The New Orleans director of Homeland Security failed to have any plan

for a contingency that has been talked about for 50 years. Then he blames

the Feds for not doing what he should have done. (So much for political appointees)

3. The Governor, despite a declaration of disaster by the President 2 DAYS

BEFORE the storm hit, failed to take advantage of the offer of Federal

troops and aid. Until 2 DAYS AFTER the storm hit.

4. The Director of Homeland Security positioned assets in the area to be

ready when the Governor called for them.

5. The President urged a mandatory evacuation, and even declared a disaster

State of Emergency, freeing up millions of dollars of federal assistance,

should the Governor decide to use it.

Oh and by the way, the levees that broke were the responsibility of the

local landowners and the local levee board to maintain, NOT THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT.

The disaster in New Orleans is what you get after decades of corrupt

(democrat) government going all the way back to Huey Long.

Funds for disaster protection and relief have been flowing into this

city for decades, and where has it gone, but into the pockets of the

politicos and their friends.

Decades of socialist government in New Orleans has sapped all self reliance

from the community, and made them dependent upon government for every little thing.

Political correctness and a lack of will to fight crime have created the

single most corrupt police force in the country, and has permitted gang

violence to flourish.

The sad thing is that there are many poor folks who have suffered and died

needlessly because those that they voted into office failed them.

For those who missed item 5 (where the President's level of accountability

is discussed), it is made more clear in a New Orleans Times-Picayune article dated August 28:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a

mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray

Nagin.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said

President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation

for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. (emphasis mine)

The ball was placed in Mayor Nagin's court to carry out the evacuation order with a 5-day heads-up, he had the authority to use any and allservices to evacuate all residents from the city, as documented in a city emergency preparedness plan. By waiting until the last minute, and failing to make full use of resources available within city limits, Nagin and his administration f**ked up.

Mayor Nagin and his emergency sidekick Terry Ebbert have displayed

lethal, mind boggling incompetence before, during and after Katrina.

As for Mayor Nagin, he and his profile in pathetic leadership police

chief should resign as well. That city's government is incompetent from one

end to the other. The people of New Orleans deserve better than this crowd

of clowns is capable of giving them.

If you're keeping track, these boobs let 569 buses that could have

carried 33,350 people out of New Orleans-in one trip-get ruined in the floods. Whatever plan these guys had, it was a dud. Or it probably would have been if they'd bothered to follow it.

As for all the race-baiting rhetoric and Bush-bashing coming from prominent

blacks on the left, don't expect Ray Nagin to be called out on the carpet

for falling short.

Illegal Immigration: When Are We Going To Wake Up?

The US is about the most benevolent nation in the world when it comes to illegal immigration. Almost every other nation goes to great measures to eject illegal immigrants as soon as possible. Yet the US does not.

There are opposing forces joining to keep the illegal immigrants flowing into this country:

Business: Cheap labor is the name of the game. The decline of patriotism and morality of the US is clearly reflected in capitalist extremism - increase profits at all cost. Go for the short term and let the long term sort itself out. Illegal immigration and the mass exodus of manufacturing to Asia are direct results of this.

"Free Market!" is their battle cry, but the market is hardly free, and businesses turn a blind eye to selling out the country that gave them the opportunity to become great, claiming "free market" economics.

The long term effect of the "Free Market" will not be free. Export of technology, enrichment of other nations who have no love for the US, selling out our low/unskilled labor force by removing traditional avenues by which they can gain skills and experience lead us ever further down the road of incompetence.

The only job that is tough to export is management, and at this rate we'll be a nation of managers in a generation or two, as all "real work" jobs find their way to fully competent foreigners willing to work for less. Heaven forbid the US would ever need to ramp up domestic manufacturing for any reason, like national defense.

Liberals: In the name of "Equality" the cry is to give everyone, and they mean EVERYONE a fair chance. Don't worry about complying with laws, those are just there as "guidelines" that need not be followed.

Hell, US "Santuary Cities" such as Los Angeles and San Francisco flaunt federal immigration laws in passing statutes that punish their own officials for enforcing any sort of immigration law.

John Kerry's stance, representative of the Democratic Party, was to give illegals citizenship if they could remain here for 5 years. Just give it to them if they could avoid the law for 5 years.

Between Business and Liberalism, there's no representation for the normal American, most of whom are opposed to illegal immigration. Yet the normal American is forced to foot the bill for illegal immigration. California alone pours $16B per YEAR into social programs that support illegals, and for what...a stick in the eye from their "representatives".

France Expels Illegal Immigrants, Why Can't The US??

France expels 13,000 illegal immigrants:

In a meeting with police officials, Sarkozy said that “France managed to expel 12,842 by the end of August,” adding that “so far, we have succeeded in achieving 56% of the hoped-for total of 23,000,”

In 2004, France expelled 18,000 foreigners.

Sarkozy has refused all the attempts made by different humanitarian associations and communities, explaining that “the European Court of Human Rights does not allow people to live wherever they like,” added the Moroccan daily.

Bush's One-Two Punch Killing The US

No...it's not Iraq. The US was legally and morally justified in invading Iraq. I don't agree how the Iraq conflict is being prosecuted, but I'm just an armchair quarterback. War is war...if you're going to fight one, it should be no holds barred, to quickly end it, and cause future adversaries to take pause before considering opposing the US.

No...it's not Katrina. FEMA taking 24 hours to get in gear is nothing. I was in the Northridge Earthquake, and it took FEMA weeks to show up. Bush falling on the sword was stupid IMHO, but given that he's 75% modern liberal, appeasement is no surprise.

No...Bush delivered the nation a one - two punch in the form of social welfare spending and illegal immigration:

Punch One: He's devoted record spending to social welfare programs, almost double what the Clintons provided. Under Clinton, $191B was spent. Under Bush it's something like $364B...almost double of Clinton. Bush's social welfare spending is 14% of GDP. Why did Bush increase this? You'd think it was to pander to America's poor, and to some extent it is...at least he can point at the numbers when the Cindy Sheehan's of Katrina start their tirades.

No, the real reason is:

Punch Two: Encouragement of illegal immigration. He's done absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration, and in fact, he's encouraging it. By mentioning amnesty programs, work programs, and the like, illegals are more motivated than ever to come over here.

Social welfare is well funded - probably the best funded social programs in US history - so the illegals will be taken care of by the State when the get here. If an illegal works here long enough, he/she becomes eligible for US Social Security, and all the benefits that come with it (even if she/he moves back to Mexico!) - medicare, for example. Free health care from the most advanced nation in history is a given, as are numerous other social programs.

Jobs - The US economy is booming, and jobs are plentiful. If you're willing to work for sub standard wages, employers are even more motivated to hire. Working tax free and sending money back to take care of family outside of the US is something hard to ignore for the peasantry of nations around the world.

There are no politicians willing to take a hard stance on illegal immigration. I predict that something will be done about it IFF 1) there's a major terrorist attack on US soil and 2) it is traced back to illegal border crossings. When this occurs, whomever is President will have a lot to answer for.

There's little difference between Repulicans and Democrats these days, so I really don't care which party gets slammed for this. I wish there was a Bull Moose party with a no nonsense leader, who could be diplomatic when called for and effectively use the Big Stick when necessary.

Please return to your regular programming now.

Illegal Immigration Taking Entry Level and Low/Non Skilled Jobs

The recent displacement of New Orleans hurricane refugees underscores this in a big way.

Going from one of the biggest enetitlement receiving areas of the nation, to be dispersed to remote locations that don't have you in their welfare system encourages one to get a job. However, what many of the refugees are finding is that illegals have taken the jobs that they otherwise could have had, and that are typically quite plentiful. Among these are restaurant workers, gardeners, house keepers, baby sitters, and construction, to name a few.

"But these are jobs that Americans just don't want to do!" Bull shit. If you leave your big city and drive a couple of hours into the "sticks" you'll find normal Americans doing all of these tasks, and more. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area...if I drive a few hours north, not only do Americans do all these things, but there are no illegals (the smaller cities/towns don't have the services illegals need, I think).

Don't be too proud Bush: Foreign Aid On The Way!

I'm happy to have found out that other countries are pitching to help the US in its time of need.

Offers have been received from Russia, Japan, Canada, France, Honduras, Germany, Venezuela, Jamaica, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, China, South Korea, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, NATO and the Organization of American States, the spokesman said. (from an article on foxnews.com)

I'm actually quite relieved, and I think we should accept their help.