The majority of politicians are aware of the information presented here, they just don't care.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth., heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States."
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, Hell, get rid of 'em, We will all be ahead before the end of the 1st year!!!
Soap Box Ravings says "Americans need to first wake up and then pay attention."
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
What's With This
Soap Box Ravings wonders why when the subject of any Democrats criticism responds, such as al-Maliki's response to Senator Clinton and Senator Levin, it is reported as "Iraqi Leader Lashes Out at U.S." The media never describes the statements of the Democrats as lashing out.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
One For The Dogs
Michael Vick was identified by a police canine who hit on drugs in a car in a night club parking lot. The subject who owned the car was Vick's cousin Davon Boddie.
After arresting Boddie, the police got a search warrant for the address Boddie provided as his. When police searched the address they identified 66 dogs and evidence of dog fighting.
Michael Vick's claim that he was never there was proven to be false.
Soap Box Ravings, a retired MCPO and now a retired police officer always loves it when the puzzle fits together. A cop and a dog, doing their job. I have always maintained that the we, the police, are not so smart but that the bad guys are soooo stupid. Just like the idiot who gets mad at his "Old Lady" and calls the police to throw her out while he "forgets" about the warrants issued in his name. A professional officer when involved, runs every ones name. The results are often very surprising. During my tenure, I never had to look for an arrest, they came to me like I was a ***t magnet.
After arresting Boddie, the police got a search warrant for the address Boddie provided as his. When police searched the address they identified 66 dogs and evidence of dog fighting.
Michael Vick's claim that he was never there was proven to be false.
Soap Box Ravings, a retired MCPO and now a retired police officer always loves it when the puzzle fits together. A cop and a dog, doing their job. I have always maintained that the we, the police, are not so smart but that the bad guys are soooo stupid. Just like the idiot who gets mad at his "Old Lady" and calls the police to throw her out while he "forgets" about the warrants issued in his name. A professional officer when involved, runs every ones name. The results are often very surprising. During my tenure, I never had to look for an arrest, they came to me like I was a ***t magnet.
I Wonder Why
Clinton Says Attack Would Help GOP
By Alexander Mooney,CNN for AOL, 2007-08-25
WASHINGTON (Aug. 25) - She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.
Soap Box Ravings believes the "Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists" is really not equipped at all, specifically since she has no understanding of the fight being conducted by our government at the present time.
Soap Box Ravings also wonders if an attack by terrorists before the election would benefit Republicans does that not indicate some essential flaw in the Democrats strategy or their basic party platform as related to the defense of this country.
Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.
"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."
A major difference between Soap Box Ravings and Senator Clinton is that we disagree on who made the world dangerous. It can be argued that many previous governmental decisions, both Republican and Democrat, contributed to the many people in this world who hate us, Muslim or otherwise. However, we did not initiate the attacks on the United States up to and including the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."
Soap Box Ravings wonders if you can't even identify the enemy, how can you be the "best Democratic Presidential candidate "to deal with that.""
Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.
A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."
Soap Box Ravings wonders exactly what experience of Senator Clinton is going to ensure the safety of the United states. Her spokesman always make unverifiable claims concerning her strengths and experience. They never specifically point to anything verifiable.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."
"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.
New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.
"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.
By Alexander Mooney,CNN for AOL, 2007-08-25
WASHINGTON (Aug. 25) - She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.
Soap Box Ravings believes the "Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists" is really not equipped at all, specifically since she has no understanding of the fight being conducted by our government at the present time.
Soap Box Ravings also wonders if an attack by terrorists before the election would benefit Republicans does that not indicate some essential flaw in the Democrats strategy or their basic party platform as related to the defense of this country.
Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.
"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."
A major difference between Soap Box Ravings and Senator Clinton is that we disagree on who made the world dangerous. It can be argued that many previous governmental decisions, both Republican and Democrat, contributed to the many people in this world who hate us, Muslim or otherwise. However, we did not initiate the attacks on the United States up to and including the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."
Soap Box Ravings wonders if you can't even identify the enemy, how can you be the "best Democratic Presidential candidate "to deal with that.""
Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her health care plan.
A Clinton spokesman, Isaac Baker, told CNN "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."
Soap Box Ravings wonders exactly what experience of Senator Clinton is going to ensure the safety of the United states. Her spokesman always make unverifiable claims concerning her strengths and experience. They never specifically point to anything verifiable.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."
"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.
New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.
"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Some Law Enforcement Words Of Wisdom
Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."
"I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy."
America is not at war. The U.S. Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.
When seconds count the cops are just minutes away.
When a reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45". The Ranger responded with, "They don't make a 46".
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity".
========================================================================
The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady
commented on his wearing his sidearm.
"Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?"
"No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."
========================================================================
"Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it"
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."
"I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy."
America is not at war. The U.S. Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall.
When seconds count the cops are just minutes away.
When a reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45". The Ranger responded with, "They don't make a 46".
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity".
========================================================================
The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady
commented on his wearing his sidearm.
"Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?"
"No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."
========================================================================
"Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it"
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
One "Democrat" Worthy Of A Vote
Al Qaeda's Travel Agent
Senator Lieberman writes about the supply of terrorists entering Iraq through Syria.
Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires we target its links to "global" al Qaeda who enter Iraq through Syria. Foreign fighters (al Qaeda) in Iraq are supported through the Damascus airport. Syria as a country with much more control of their citizens than our country. In fact they have so much control it is impossible to believe al Qadea passes through without the Syrian governments knowledge.
You can see Senator Lieberman's complete article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010496
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Soap Box Ravings believes this is a "Democrat" with principles. He does not appear to need a poll to identify the "right thing to do." The Democrats dumped him because of his failure to toe the party line thereby ensuring he stands apart from the likes of Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry and many other panderers of the Democrat party. I am sure Harry Truman and John Kennedy would be proud to call this man a friend.
Senator Lieberman writes about the supply of terrorists entering Iraq through Syria.
Defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires we target its links to "global" al Qaeda who enter Iraq through Syria. Foreign fighters (al Qaeda) in Iraq are supported through the Damascus airport. Syria as a country with much more control of their citizens than our country. In fact they have so much control it is impossible to believe al Qadea passes through without the Syrian governments knowledge.
You can see Senator Lieberman's complete article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010496
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Soap Box Ravings believes this is a "Democrat" with principles. He does not appear to need a poll to identify the "right thing to do." The Democrats dumped him because of his failure to toe the party line thereby ensuring he stands apart from the likes of Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry and many other panderers of the Democrat party. I am sure Harry Truman and John Kennedy would be proud to call this man a friend.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Soap Box Ravings Presents This For Your Reading Pleasure
"I've Changed My Mind"
by USCCA Member 'yankeedime'
I try to be open-minded and study both sides of an argument. After studying the gun control issues I have to say that I now support gun control because...
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles', because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/
by USCCA Member 'yankeedime'
I try to be open-minded and study both sides of an argument. After studying the gun control issues I have to say that I now support gun control because...
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles', because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/
Friday, August 17, 2007
Gun Tracking In New Jersey Or Looking In The Wrong Direction
The Governor of New Jersey announced that New Jersey will become the first state in the country to step up its tracing of illegal firearms by sharing a federal gun database. Gov. Corzine said the state would now have real-time electronic access to a database maintained by the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that lists a gun's first buyer, date of sale, and the retailer from which it was purchased.
Soap Box Ravings would like to point out that a firearm may have had many legal owners since it's original purchaser in many states is not required to register the private party sale of a firearm.
Supposedly, this would give New Jersey a powerful mechanism to analyze illegal gun violence and trafficking patterns, officials said, and potentially allow authorities to quickly link crimes in several towns.
The announcement came a week and a half after three college students in Newark were executed in a school yard though officials said the agreement had been in the works for six months.
Soap Box Ravings wonders about the position of the liberal Governor and the liberal State of New Jersey with respect to illegal immigrants living in the State of New Jersey since at least one person arrested for the execution of three college students was an illegal alien indicted last month for raping a five-year-old girl repeatedly over a four-year period and threatening to kill her family. Yet, the police in Newark are told by government officials to disregard any subjects supposed alien status.
Corzine said the partnership "will allow us to pursue, arrest and prosecute the purchasers and sellers of illegal guns that have plagued our streets and communities for far too long."
"This is not the only answer, but it is a fundamental building block" in curbing gun violence in the state, Corzine said. He said he would encourage other governors to make similar agreements.
In Soap Box Ravings opinion, we again see the liberal change of targets to protect the illegals. Even though we have an illegal alien, wanted for sexual offenses for about 14 years who has participated in the execution of three college students, it is obvious to the politicians of New Jersey that this is a firearms problem. This just screams "liberal smokescreen."
"Comprehensive firearms tracing and analysis saves lives -- that's the bottom line here today," said Mark Potter, special agent in charge of the ATF's Philadelphia division. Potter said guns can only be accurately traced if their serial numbers can be retrieved.
Soap Box Ravings points out that the tracing of firearms is done after the criminal act has been committed if the firearm is recovered by law enforcement. Removing all illegal aliens from the United States would reduce the crimes committed by illegal aliens to zero.
Camden's top law enforcement official, Arturo Venegas Jr., said the database -- and having information from every local police department -- would be "fantastic because it enables us to move faster in determining whether we have illegal guns," regardless of where they come from.
Soap Box Ravings' "Emperor Principle" says that police brass love anything that increases their power base and gets their department more money to spend. If the Empire is not growing, the Empire is dying, there are no static Empires.
In a country that can track the great grandmother of a cow bred in Canada for mad cow disease, or botulism from lettuce in a single California farmer's field, I believe we should be able to register and keep track of aliens living in this country.
Soap Box Ravings would like to point out that a firearm may have had many legal owners since it's original purchaser in many states is not required to register the private party sale of a firearm.
Supposedly, this would give New Jersey a powerful mechanism to analyze illegal gun violence and trafficking patterns, officials said, and potentially allow authorities to quickly link crimes in several towns.
The announcement came a week and a half after three college students in Newark were executed in a school yard though officials said the agreement had been in the works for six months.
Soap Box Ravings wonders about the position of the liberal Governor and the liberal State of New Jersey with respect to illegal immigrants living in the State of New Jersey since at least one person arrested for the execution of three college students was an illegal alien indicted last month for raping a five-year-old girl repeatedly over a four-year period and threatening to kill her family. Yet, the police in Newark are told by government officials to disregard any subjects supposed alien status.
Corzine said the partnership "will allow us to pursue, arrest and prosecute the purchasers and sellers of illegal guns that have plagued our streets and communities for far too long."
"This is not the only answer, but it is a fundamental building block" in curbing gun violence in the state, Corzine said. He said he would encourage other governors to make similar agreements.
In Soap Box Ravings opinion, we again see the liberal change of targets to protect the illegals. Even though we have an illegal alien, wanted for sexual offenses for about 14 years who has participated in the execution of three college students, it is obvious to the politicians of New Jersey that this is a firearms problem. This just screams "liberal smokescreen."
"Comprehensive firearms tracing and analysis saves lives -- that's the bottom line here today," said Mark Potter, special agent in charge of the ATF's Philadelphia division. Potter said guns can only be accurately traced if their serial numbers can be retrieved.
Soap Box Ravings points out that the tracing of firearms is done after the criminal act has been committed if the firearm is recovered by law enforcement. Removing all illegal aliens from the United States would reduce the crimes committed by illegal aliens to zero.
Camden's top law enforcement official, Arturo Venegas Jr., said the database -- and having information from every local police department -- would be "fantastic because it enables us to move faster in determining whether we have illegal guns," regardless of where they come from.
Soap Box Ravings' "Emperor Principle" says that police brass love anything that increases their power base and gets their department more money to spend. If the Empire is not growing, the Empire is dying, there are no static Empires.
In a country that can track the great grandmother of a cow bred in Canada for mad cow disease, or botulism from lettuce in a single California farmer's field, I believe we should be able to register and keep track of aliens living in this country.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Second Amendment, It Still Means What It Says
"THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT"
by J. Neil Schulman'
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
All other rights reserved.
Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/
by J. Neil Schulman'
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
All other rights reserved.
Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/
Public Schools Need to Stick to Reading, Writing and Math All Conducted In The English Language To Accepted State Standards
On Friday, the embattled principal of an Arabic-themed public school in New York resigned after coming under fire for failing to condemn the use of the highly charged word "intifada" on T-shirts.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how many Puerto Rican, Haitian, Native American or Hindu themed schools exist in the New York City school system. But I point out for example: a school that is 100 per cent full of students of Puerto Rican ethnicity is not the same thing as a Puerto Rican themed school. Soap Box ravings says "Some folks in the leadership positions of the New York City school system should also be resigning for wasting government funds."
Debbie Almontaser was supposed to oversee the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. The New York City's Department of Education says it remains committed to launching the school in September.
A number of conservative Web sites, blogs and other publications have come out against the school. Some have questioned Almontaser's character and tried to paint her as a radical Muslim with a dangerous agenda.
Soap Box Ravings is of the belief that an Arab does not necessarily have to be Muslim. He also believes that all who are believers in the Muslim religion are taught the same things; therefore all who profess to be believers have all the knowledge they need to become "radical Muslims."
Almontaser has said the school will be teaching culture, not religion. The academy, named after the famed Lebanese-American Christian poet who promoted peace, would be one of a few in this country that incorporate the Arabic language and culture.
Soap Box Ravings opinion is if you live in this country, you should learn our culture. If the parents of Arabic children want them to learn the Arabic culture, they should teach them. If the decide they do not like our culture, the entrance door opens both ways. We do not force immigrants who do not like it here to stay here.
Almontaser's departure comes on the heels of an editorial flaying in the New York Post and an article this week that connected Almontaser to Arab Women Active in Art and Media.
That group, Arab Women Active in Art and Media, is selling shirts imprinted with the words "Intifada NYC." It shares office space with the Saba Association of American Yemenis, which counts Almontaser among its board members.
The (unidentified) tabloid asserted the shirts had a subversive meaning: "The inflammatory tees boldly declare 'Intifada NYC' — apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."
Almontaser, a public school teacher with 15 years of experience, told the paper that was a stretch and defined intifada as basically meaning "shaking off." However, in this country the word is most often associated with the violent Palestinian uprising against the Israelis.
She said the shirts provided an "opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society ... and shaking off oppression."
Mayor Bloomberg said on his radio show that "she's certainly not a terrorist" but called her resignation the "right thing to do."
Soap Box Ravings wonders how Mayor Bloomberg can state so positively that "she's certainly not a terrorist." As a retired police officer, I know that many of my peers would like to know how to positively identify whether some one is or is not a terrorist.
So far, 45 students have enrolled in the school, which will eventually cover middle and high school.
Soap Box Ravings wonders what the cost is to the educational system in the State of New York to set up this school for 45 students. I bet there are lot of groups in New York State that could cough up 45 or so students for their own educational system. Somehow, I would bet there are at least 45 Nepalese in need of an eduction. Just think about all the themed schools there could be: misplaced red necks, maple syrup makers, steel workers, street kids, hot rod lovers, biker groups, etc.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how many Puerto Rican, Haitian, Native American or Hindu themed schools exist in the New York City school system. But I point out for example: a school that is 100 per cent full of students of Puerto Rican ethnicity is not the same thing as a Puerto Rican themed school. Soap Box ravings says "Some folks in the leadership positions of the New York City school system should also be resigning for wasting government funds."
Debbie Almontaser was supposed to oversee the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. The New York City's Department of Education says it remains committed to launching the school in September.
A number of conservative Web sites, blogs and other publications have come out against the school. Some have questioned Almontaser's character and tried to paint her as a radical Muslim with a dangerous agenda.
Soap Box Ravings is of the belief that an Arab does not necessarily have to be Muslim. He also believes that all who are believers in the Muslim religion are taught the same things; therefore all who profess to be believers have all the knowledge they need to become "radical Muslims."
Almontaser has said the school will be teaching culture, not religion. The academy, named after the famed Lebanese-American Christian poet who promoted peace, would be one of a few in this country that incorporate the Arabic language and culture.
Soap Box Ravings opinion is if you live in this country, you should learn our culture. If the parents of Arabic children want them to learn the Arabic culture, they should teach them. If the decide they do not like our culture, the entrance door opens both ways. We do not force immigrants who do not like it here to stay here.
Almontaser's departure comes on the heels of an editorial flaying in the New York Post and an article this week that connected Almontaser to Arab Women Active in Art and Media.
That group, Arab Women Active in Art and Media, is selling shirts imprinted with the words "Intifada NYC." It shares office space with the Saba Association of American Yemenis, which counts Almontaser among its board members.
The (unidentified) tabloid asserted the shirts had a subversive meaning: "The inflammatory tees boldly declare 'Intifada NYC' — apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."
Almontaser, a public school teacher with 15 years of experience, told the paper that was a stretch and defined intifada as basically meaning "shaking off." However, in this country the word is most often associated with the violent Palestinian uprising against the Israelis.
She said the shirts provided an "opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society ... and shaking off oppression."
Mayor Bloomberg said on his radio show that "she's certainly not a terrorist" but called her resignation the "right thing to do."
Soap Box Ravings wonders how Mayor Bloomberg can state so positively that "she's certainly not a terrorist." As a retired police officer, I know that many of my peers would like to know how to positively identify whether some one is or is not a terrorist.
So far, 45 students have enrolled in the school, which will eventually cover middle and high school.
Soap Box Ravings wonders what the cost is to the educational system in the State of New York to set up this school for 45 students. I bet there are lot of groups in New York State that could cough up 45 or so students for their own educational system. Somehow, I would bet there are at least 45 Nepalese in need of an eduction. Just think about all the themed schools there could be: misplaced red necks, maple syrup makers, steel workers, street kids, hot rod lovers, biker groups, etc.
Monday, August 06, 2007
This Is Government Cute
Sorry About the Bombs; Here's Your Bill
From AOL.com; Associated Press; August 06, 2007
SURF CITY, N.J. - The Army Corps of Engineers, which accidentally dumped sand filled with old military ordnance on Surf City's beach, now wants the town to help pay to remove it.
Local officials are angered by the suggestion that they should help foot the bill for a federal goof that already has cost the town an unknown amount of tourism business.
"If they're talking about getting any money out of Surf City to pay for their mistakes, they can forget about it," Mayor Leonard T. Connors told The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Army Corps spokesman Khaalid Walls said local governments are routinely asked to help pay for projects.
"That's protocol. All our projects are cost-shared," Walls said.
The town had to close its beach in March after World War I-era ordnance, including fuses and other military hardware, started surfacing in sand pumped ashore during a $71 million beach replenishment project.
According to Walls, the Army Corps unwittingly took sand from an offshore site where the military had dumped explosives decades ago.
More than 1,100 explosives, each about 4 inches in diameter and 8 inches long, were removed from Surf City's beach.
Surf City reopened its beach over Memorial Day weekend with new rules: Don't use metal detectors, don't dig more than a foot into the sand, and report anything suspicious to lifeguards.
Even so, visitors since then have found about a dozen more munitions, the Army Corps says. The Army has an ordnance specialist at the beach full time to take charge of discovered explosives.
It's unlikely that one of the explosives would ever detonate, but it would be extremely dangerous if it did, said Keith Watson, the Army Corps' project manager.
Soap Box Ravings loves things like "unlikely" and "but" used in the same sentence. Usually the person who makes that type of statement is smart enough to remain anonymous.
The Army Corps, along with state and local officials, are considering a possible closure of the beach during the winter to clear out more ordnance.
Again, Soap Box Ravings sees occasional flashes of freaking genius in government as all the levels, Federal, State, and local consider "possible" closing the beaches.
The Army Corps might sieve the entire beach with machinery, or it might bring back the ground-penetrating metal-detection equipment used in the spring.
Soap Box Ravings wonders if mere possession of these pieces of ordnance is legal for anyone except the military.
However, we have to remember, that perhaps the Army, as well as many of our citizens believes that when an error is made it can not be their fault.
From AOL.com; Associated Press; August 06, 2007
SURF CITY, N.J. - The Army Corps of Engineers, which accidentally dumped sand filled with old military ordnance on Surf City's beach, now wants the town to help pay to remove it.
Local officials are angered by the suggestion that they should help foot the bill for a federal goof that already has cost the town an unknown amount of tourism business.
"If they're talking about getting any money out of Surf City to pay for their mistakes, they can forget about it," Mayor Leonard T. Connors told The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Army Corps spokesman Khaalid Walls said local governments are routinely asked to help pay for projects.
"That's protocol. All our projects are cost-shared," Walls said.
The town had to close its beach in March after World War I-era ordnance, including fuses and other military hardware, started surfacing in sand pumped ashore during a $71 million beach replenishment project.
According to Walls, the Army Corps unwittingly took sand from an offshore site where the military had dumped explosives decades ago.
More than 1,100 explosives, each about 4 inches in diameter and 8 inches long, were removed from Surf City's beach.
Surf City reopened its beach over Memorial Day weekend with new rules: Don't use metal detectors, don't dig more than a foot into the sand, and report anything suspicious to lifeguards.
Even so, visitors since then have found about a dozen more munitions, the Army Corps says. The Army has an ordnance specialist at the beach full time to take charge of discovered explosives.
It's unlikely that one of the explosives would ever detonate, but it would be extremely dangerous if it did, said Keith Watson, the Army Corps' project manager.
Soap Box Ravings loves things like "unlikely" and "but" used in the same sentence. Usually the person who makes that type of statement is smart enough to remain anonymous.
The Army Corps, along with state and local officials, are considering a possible closure of the beach during the winter to clear out more ordnance.
Again, Soap Box Ravings sees occasional flashes of freaking genius in government as all the levels, Federal, State, and local consider "possible" closing the beaches.
The Army Corps might sieve the entire beach with machinery, or it might bring back the ground-penetrating metal-detection equipment used in the spring.
Soap Box Ravings wonders if mere possession of these pieces of ordnance is legal for anyone except the military.
However, we have to remember, that perhaps the Army, as well as many of our citizens believes that when an error is made it can not be their fault.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The Selling of Principles
The 2008 Democrat presidential candidates all seem to agree on one thing:
The United States should immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.
The Democrats' eagerness to abandon the mission in Iraq is puzzling, since they all claim to be committed to rooting out terrorism wherever it exists.
In May 2007, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards said it is "obvious" that al Qaeda is trying to establish a base in Iraq that they can use to plan future attacks.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But do you dispute that al Qaeda has a presence in the al-Anbar province, in other provinces in Iraq, that they're trying to establish a base there from which to do their evil deeds?" Edwards: "No, of course I don't dispute that. That's obvious." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 5/2/07)
In June 2007, Edwards pledged to fight terrorists abroad so we would not have to fight them at home.
Edwards: "As President of the United States I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies." (Former Sen. John Edwards, CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
Edwards' recent remarks echoed his 2004 Vice Presidential nomination speech, where he said that he and John Kerry would send an "unmistakable message" to terrorists.
Edwards: "[W]e will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you." (Former Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The 2004 Democratic National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/28/04)
Barack Obama has also voiced concerns of a terrorist threat.
Obama: "We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)
Even Hillary Clinton agreed that those who have attacked us must be destroyed .
Clinton: "[L]et's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)
If Democrats acknowledge that al Qaeda is in Iraq, and say that we should destroy terrorists wherever they are, why are they willing to risk Iraq becoming a safe haven for our enemies?
Keeping our nation safe requires more than words.
It requires principled leadership and a commitment to fighting terror that these candidates simply, in my opinion, do not demonstrate.
Soap Box Ravings has to agree with the statement above. None of these candidates appear to demonstrate a belief in the principles required to fight terrorists worldwide. Their principals seem more related to evacuating Iraq as fast as possible, raising taxes and opening the borders of the United States to illegal aliens.
The United States should immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.
The Democrats' eagerness to abandon the mission in Iraq is puzzling, since they all claim to be committed to rooting out terrorism wherever it exists.
In May 2007, Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards said it is "obvious" that al Qaeda is trying to establish a base in Iraq that they can use to plan future attacks.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But do you dispute that al Qaeda has a presence in the al-Anbar province, in other provinces in Iraq, that they're trying to establish a base there from which to do their evil deeds?" Edwards: "No, of course I don't dispute that. That's obvious." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 5/2/07)
In June 2007, Edwards pledged to fight terrorists abroad so we would not have to fight them at home.
Edwards: "As President of the United States I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies." (Former Sen. John Edwards, CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
Edwards' recent remarks echoed his 2004 Vice Presidential nomination speech, where he said that he and John Kerry would send an "unmistakable message" to terrorists.
Edwards: "[W]e will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you." (Former Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At The 2004 Democratic National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/28/04)
Barack Obama has also voiced concerns of a terrorist threat.
Obama: "We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)
Even Hillary Clinton agreed that those who have attacked us must be destroyed .
Clinton: "[L]et's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidates' Debate, Orangeburg, SC, 4/26/07)
If Democrats acknowledge that al Qaeda is in Iraq, and say that we should destroy terrorists wherever they are, why are they willing to risk Iraq becoming a safe haven for our enemies?
Keeping our nation safe requires more than words.
It requires principled leadership and a commitment to fighting terror that these candidates simply, in my opinion, do not demonstrate.
Soap Box Ravings has to agree with the statement above. None of these candidates appear to demonstrate a belief in the principles required to fight terrorists worldwide. Their principals seem more related to evacuating Iraq as fast as possible, raising taxes and opening the borders of the United States to illegal aliens.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Affordable ??? Health Care
This was sent to me by Senator Martinez (R,FL). The comments in italics are those of Soap Box Ravings.
SENS. MARTINEZ, BURR, COBURN, CORKER, & DOLE INTRODUCE “EVERY AMERICAN INSURED HEALTH ACT”
Plan would provide access to health insurance for the uninsured, lower costs for all, and increase personal control of health care
July 26, 2007 - Washington -
U.S. Senator Mel Martinez today joined several colleagues in introducing the “Every American Insured Health Act,” a bill to provide all Americans – regardless of age, income or employer – with access to affordable, high-quality health insurance through the free market.
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder who is included in the "all Americans" as well as the Senator's definition of "affordable" high quality health insurance.
“It’s time for a major debate on health care insurance. Not enough people have access to affordable healthcare and the Congress has not done enough about this crisis,” Martinez said. “The bill we’re introducing today opens the debate on making health insurance more affordable and accessible to all Americans. Our aim is to remove inequities in our tax laws and make tax relief for health insurance available to everyone.”
Soap Box Ravings has noticed that a lot those included in "everyone" include, but are not limited to, illegal aliens and they do not pay any taxes.
The plan provides an avenue to ensure all Americans have health care coverage thereby reducing the number of uninsured Americans and lowering health care costs for all citizens. The proposal gives every American the right and resources to purchase health care in the free market and encourages individuals to take control of their own health.
If Soap Box Ravings is not mistaken, everyone already has the "right" to purchase any type of insurance, health or otherwise. It is not their right to purchase insurance which is the problem. It is their ability to pay for that insurance which is the problem.
“This reform creates a free market for healthcare and empowers people with the right to choose their own plans,” Martinez added. “Giving Floridians and all Americans the peace of mind that healthcare is accessible and affordable will be an incredible breakthrough.”
The bill was introduced by Senator Martinez and U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Corker (R-TN), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a practicing physician, and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).
Key provisions of the Every American Insured Health Act:
1. Give every American the resources and the right to purchase health care in a free market
2. End the tax code discrimination against those who cannot get insurance through their employer by giving a flat tax break to every American
3. Encourage individuals to take control and become smart about their health insurance
4. Eliminate the current cost shift in the health care market that drives up costs for everyone
5. Ensure peace of mind about affordable, high-quality health insurance for all Americans
Soap Box Ravings wonders how you "give" every American the resources without stripping the "give" out of other Americans pockets, since we have a limited number of Americans who can "give."
SENS. MARTINEZ, BURR, COBURN, CORKER, & DOLE INTRODUCE “EVERY AMERICAN INSURED HEALTH ACT”
Plan would provide access to health insurance for the uninsured, lower costs for all, and increase personal control of health care
July 26, 2007 - Washington -
U.S. Senator Mel Martinez today joined several colleagues in introducing the “Every American Insured Health Act,” a bill to provide all Americans – regardless of age, income or employer – with access to affordable, high-quality health insurance through the free market.
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder who is included in the "all Americans" as well as the Senator's definition of "affordable" high quality health insurance.
“It’s time for a major debate on health care insurance. Not enough people have access to affordable healthcare and the Congress has not done enough about this crisis,” Martinez said. “The bill we’re introducing today opens the debate on making health insurance more affordable and accessible to all Americans. Our aim is to remove inequities in our tax laws and make tax relief for health insurance available to everyone.”
Soap Box Ravings has noticed that a lot those included in "everyone" include, but are not limited to, illegal aliens and they do not pay any taxes.
The plan provides an avenue to ensure all Americans have health care coverage thereby reducing the number of uninsured Americans and lowering health care costs for all citizens. The proposal gives every American the right and resources to purchase health care in the free market and encourages individuals to take control of their own health.
If Soap Box Ravings is not mistaken, everyone already has the "right" to purchase any type of insurance, health or otherwise. It is not their right to purchase insurance which is the problem. It is their ability to pay for that insurance which is the problem.
“This reform creates a free market for healthcare and empowers people with the right to choose their own plans,” Martinez added. “Giving Floridians and all Americans the peace of mind that healthcare is accessible and affordable will be an incredible breakthrough.”
The bill was introduced by Senator Martinez and U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Corker (R-TN), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), a practicing physician, and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).
Key provisions of the Every American Insured Health Act:
1. Give every American the resources and the right to purchase health care in a free market
2. End the tax code discrimination against those who cannot get insurance through their employer by giving a flat tax break to every American
3. Encourage individuals to take control and become smart about their health insurance
4. Eliminate the current cost shift in the health care market that drives up costs for everyone
5. Ensure peace of mind about affordable, high-quality health insurance for all Americans
Soap Box Ravings wonders how you "give" every American the resources without stripping the "give" out of other Americans pockets, since we have a limited number of Americans who can "give."
Barack Obama, The Military Strategist
On July 30, 2007 Barack Obama stated that he would not hesitate to use military force to defend American interests when he explicitly promised to send troops into lawless tribal areas of Pakistan to conduct counter-terrorism operations, even if required, over the objections of Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf.
Soap Box Ravings wonders about the sovereignty of the State of Pakistan. President Bush at least used the failure of Iraq to comply with a United Nations Mandate to invade Iraq.
At the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars yesterday he said, "But let me make this clear: There are terrorists in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Soap Box Ravings notes the Senator Obama says that terrorists are plotting to strike again, but he continues to fight the President of the United states who is causing major harassment to these terrorists worldwide.
Vowing to send two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois also stipulated that US military and economic aid to Pakistan should be conditional on Pakistan doing more to assist US objectives. "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."
Obama put President Musharraff on notice, making it clear that as US president he would expect progress towards political reform in Pakistan, too. "We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair - our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally," he warned.
Soap Box Ravings wonders how easy it is for the leader of Pakistan to conduct political reform and have free elections as he upsets the tribal areas to make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from staging attacks on Afghanistan from Pakistan. Let us not forget, when the Palestinians voted in Gaza they elected Ha mas and then their country basically self-destructed.
Mr Obama's speech yesterday combined a new toughness on pursuing terrorists wherever they may be found with a scathing indictment of President George Bush's policies and conduct of the war.
Soap Box Ravings believes that pursuing terrorists wherever they may be found is a basic tenet of President George Bush and finds it surprising that Senator Obama is mimicking the President.
He accused the Bush administration of hoodwinking the American people, deliberately scaring them while applying "a rigid 20Th-century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."
Again Soap Box Ravings wonders if Senator Obama understands that sending combat brigades into Pakistan would be that same 20Th century ideology mentioned in the above paragraph. Or maybe it's different if you do not "deliberately scare" the American people.
He asserted: "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Last, but least Soap Box Ravings would like to point out that Senator Obama would only be changing the location of what he says the terrorists really want: " a US occupation on undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in Pakistan. That would be in addition to any disaster he would leave in Iraq.
Soap Box Ravings wonders about the sovereignty of the State of Pakistan. President Bush at least used the failure of Iraq to comply with a United Nations Mandate to invade Iraq.
At the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars yesterday he said, "But let me make this clear: There are terrorists in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Soap Box Ravings notes the Senator Obama says that terrorists are plotting to strike again, but he continues to fight the President of the United states who is causing major harassment to these terrorists worldwide.
Vowing to send two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, the senator from Illinois also stipulated that US military and economic aid to Pakistan should be conditional on Pakistan doing more to assist US objectives. "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."
Obama put President Musharraff on notice, making it clear that as US president he would expect progress towards political reform in Pakistan, too. "We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair - our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally," he warned.
Soap Box Ravings wonders how easy it is for the leader of Pakistan to conduct political reform and have free elections as he upsets the tribal areas to make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from staging attacks on Afghanistan from Pakistan. Let us not forget, when the Palestinians voted in Gaza they elected Ha mas and then their country basically self-destructed.
Mr Obama's speech yesterday combined a new toughness on pursuing terrorists wherever they may be found with a scathing indictment of President George Bush's policies and conduct of the war.
Soap Box Ravings believes that pursuing terrorists wherever they may be found is a basic tenet of President George Bush and finds it surprising that Senator Obama is mimicking the President.
He accused the Bush administration of hoodwinking the American people, deliberately scaring them while applying "a rigid 20Th-century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."
Again Soap Box Ravings wonders if Senator Obama understands that sending combat brigades into Pakistan would be that same 20Th century ideology mentioned in the above paragraph. Or maybe it's different if you do not "deliberately scare" the American people.
He asserted: "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Last, but least Soap Box Ravings would like to point out that Senator Obama would only be changing the location of what he says the terrorists really want: " a US occupation on undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in Pakistan. That would be in addition to any disaster he would leave in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)