You can find out by taking this short quiz.
Hat Tip: Pacetown
Monthly Archive for September, 2004
Page 2 of 13
This is incredible. The tagline on the article reads, “Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses.” What? Those without licenses are breaking the law, how is that discrimination? Of course this story originates from Oakland where liberalism runs amok.
OAKLAND — Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.
The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland’s streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.
This article is written by a staff writer for the Oakland Tribune named Heather MacDonald. However, I’m having trouble following Heather’s statement that “illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.” How can an ILLEGAL immigrant otherwise be obeying the law? They are here illegally. Every moment of every day their bodies are on this side of our national border, they are in violation of federal law.
Legislation that would have allowed illegal immigrants who submit to background checks to apply for a California driver’s license was vetoed this week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Thank goodness for Arnold. If Davis were still in office, that would have been rubber-stamped and on its way to implementation.
Oakland at least seems to have one Council member with a modicum of common sense.
However, the month-long moratorium on checkpoints has outraged Council member Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland), who calls the change a threat to public safety.
“It is absolutely insane to stop these checkpoints,” Reid said. “I would not want to explain to a mother why we stopped doing these checkpoints when we know they work and her son or daughter was killed.”
He’s quoted further down the article as well:
Reid said he has little sympathy with Rodriguez’s position.
“I don’t care if they are illegal immigrants,” Reid said.
“They should not be driving on our streets without a license, without insurance. I expect the Oakland Police Department to do its job and get them off the street.”
What’s most appalling about this is that the city is debating new checkpoint guidelines.
The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.
So they want to call the people who will be breaking the law and let them know how to avoid the police? Why not call up some bank robbers and arrange for them to get keys to all the area bank vaults? How can you run a city that way? If political correctness was a country, it seems Oakland would be a good choice for its capital.
UPDATE: I got so mad reading that, I forgot the Hat Tip to Michelle. Sorry about that.
UPDATE II: It seems even someone as whacko as Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown can even tell this is a bad idea, and the checkpoints are back on. And they’re going to tell everyone where they are, not just the illegals.
Puh-lease. What’s Kerry scared of, people finding out what he’s actually said and done? “Please stop telling the truth about me, or I’ll take my ball and go home.” Whiner. Here’s a tasty part of the article:
“I’m calling them ‘misleadisments,’” Kerry said of the adverts. “It’s all scare tactics … because (Bush) has no record to run on.”
Hello? Two liberated countries, millions of liberated people. Bringing the economy back from a Clinton recession and the devastating effects of 9/11, those ring any bells, Senator? Speaking of having no record to run on, why does Kerry not have anything to say about his twenty years in the Senate? Thomas Sowell has this to say about it:
If someone applied to you for a job but didn’t want to talk about what he has been doing in the last 20 years, wouldn’t you be suspicious? Might you not think he was insulting your intelligence by expecting you to hire him on the basis of what he did decades ago?
Yet for the most important job in this country — indeed, the most important job in the world — Senator John Kerry has applied by talking about what he did in a wholly different job back in the 1960s.
Never mind that people who were actually there with him in the 1960s dispute what a great job he did then. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did and none of the things that eyewitnesses in Vietnam said he did. How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?
The Kerry campaign and the liberal media want to make this election a referendum on President Bush, especially as regards Iraq. That too is an insult to our intelligence.
If the same job applicant who won’t discuss his own qualifications just keeps complaining about the performance of someone whose job he wants to take, would you think that was enough reason to hire him?
What is Kerry’s record? That he was in Vietnam? That’s certainly the only thing he’s telling us about. What legislation has he authored in his twenty years in the Senate? What legislation has he authored that improved the American economy? That has improved education? His silence on this issue is deafening.
Go pick up a box of Kleenex, wipe away the tears, and quit your crying, you’re embarassing the country.
US Troops in Germany are upset with a possible change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would make paying for sex a punishable offense. Come on, these guys go to war for us. If they’re in a country where they can have some paid companionship legally, cut them some slack.
This one’s called “Searching” and it points out Kerry’s flip-flopping in his Iraq policy.
I can’t wait for the debate Thursday. Did everyone hear about Kerry wanting the temperature in the auditorium below seventy degress? Apparently, he sweats quite profusely. But Team Bush didn’t agree to that. Apparently, they gave up most of what they were asking for. Paul at Wizbang gives the details.
UPDATE: Apparently, Bush is following up the commercial message on the campaign trail:
“It’s been a little tough to prepare because (Kerry) keeps changing positions on the war on the terror,” he joked.
“He voted for the use of force in Iraq and then didn’t vote to fund the troops,” Bush said. “He complained that we’re not spending enough money to help in reconstruction in Iraq and now he’s saying we’re spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq and now he calls it the wrong war.
“He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself,” Bush added to hoots of laughter from his supporters.
I was sent a press release this morning for a new documentary film opening next month entitled “In The Face Of Evil: Reagan’s War In Word and Deed”. Here is an exceprt from their website:
In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed is a man and nation’s journey through the heart of darkness—and what that journey means for us today. This film is not a biography of Ronald Reagan, but a hard-hitting look at leadership and moral courage. Based on Peter Schweizer’s acclaimed bestseller, Reagan’s War, the new feature-length documentary film, In the Face of Evil, chronicles the brutal conflict between totalitarianism and freedom as seen through Ronald Reagan’s forty-year confrontation with Communism.
Reagan’s struggle began in direct conflict with Soviet-backed street-level violence during Communism’s attempt to take-over Hollywood during the 1940’s; it continued through his “wilderness years” on the mashed potato circuit in the 50’s, then on to his confrontation with the radicals at Berkeley in the 60’s showing, throughout, his challenge of the Establishment’s policy of détente, his steady rise to power, his rejection by his own party, and his focus on the need for a complete victory over Communism.
More than a traditional war film, In the Face of Evil plays out on an epic scale… from the back-lots of Hollywood, to the jungles of Central America; from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the palaces of the Kremlin; to the Brandenburg Gate in the heart of a divided Berlin…
They have a list of dates on the website for theater openings, currently Dallas and Houston seem to be the major venues, but hopefully they will be announcing more theaters soon. There is a trailer also, but you’ll have to do some clicking on the site to get to it, a direct link isn’t listed. The official release date is set for October 15th. I certainly will be making time to see this film, and once I do, I’ll post a review.
Last night I went and saw “Shaun Of The Dead” and I must say, this is one of the funniest films I’ve seen in quite some time. You can check out the website for the movie here.
It’s billed as “A romantic comedy. With zombies.” I’ve heard people saying that this movie is the new “Evil Dead” and it you listen carefully towards the beginning of the movie when Shaun goes to work, he says something to the effect of, “Ash is out today, I will be taking over” so they even give a nod in the movie to the Evil Dead series.
I don’t know how wide a release this movie is getting, but if it comes to your town and you like romantic zombie comedies, this is one film you won’t want to miss.
From today’s NY Post:
John Kerry once claimed that unnamed foreign leaders were hoping he’d win the election. Maybe he meant Jacques Chirac or Osama bin Laden — but, clearly, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is not among Kerry’s supporters.
Not based on Allawi’s remarks in Washington yesterday, anyway.
Allawi delivered a stinging rebuke to Kerry’s “defeatism” and painted a hopeful, though realistic, picture of conditions in Iraq, and where they’re heading.
“It’s a tough struggle with setbacks,” Allawi said, “but we are succeeding.” Iraq is “emerging finally from Dark Ages of violence . . . corruption and greed.”
And, in his most blunt rejoinder to Kerry, the Iraqi premier insisted, “We are better off, you [America] are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.”
On Monday, Kerry had asserted the opposite: “We have traded a dictator for chaos that has left America less secure,” he said. Indeed, Kerry repeated that claim — that America is weaker and less safe now — no fewer than six times.
To Kerry, Iraq is “a mess” — the result of “colossal failures of judgment . . . with terrible consequences.” Asked Kerry, “Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?”
Yesterday, Allawi said just that.
Go read the whole thing, it’s a good op-ed. piece.
UPDATE: Just in case you don’t read the whole thing, here’s another short bit that shouldn’t be missed:
Allawi had a good lesson regarding Kerry’s gloom: The “doubters,” he said, “risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists.”
My, but that sounds like what he was doing after he came back from Vietnam. Well, at least there’s one thing he hasn’t flip-flopped on.
John Kerry flip-flops so much, it’s almost getting boring mentioning it, but he’s done it again. John Kerry on Crossfire in 1997:
“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” said Mr. Kerry. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”
I’ve been trying to figure out what exactly Kerry’s policy is on Iraq, but I’ve nearly given up trying.
Recent Comments