"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/
Saturday, August 11, 2007
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.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Bull Crap Presented On The Evening News
On the NBC Evening News, 28 July 2007, in a report concerning a home invasion the reporter interviewed a gun store salesman. The salesman, holding a shotgun made the statement "You just point, you don't aim."
In the state of Florida, anyone who uses a firearm against another human is responsible for every projectile that is discharged from the firearm.
"You just point, but don't aim" advice is one of the most truly statements I have ever heard; particularly from a person who makes their living selling firearms.
Statements like that just antagonize those who dislike firearms and make it much harder for the person who makes a conscientious decision to become proficient in and use firearms as a defensive tool.
Persons who are interested in firearms, regardless of how they arrived at that interest should be encouraged to learn how to properly and legally use firearms. In Florida, there is no difference in the accountability of use of a defensive firearm for a police officer or a private citizen.
The police officer is taught self defense, the use of firearms and state law during their police academy. Any private citizen needs to seek out and gain the same knowledge prior to incorporating defensive firearms into their toolbox.
Thanks a pant load for your input Mr Gunstore. Friends like you continue to play right into the anti-gunners sentiments.
In the state of Florida, anyone who uses a firearm against another human is responsible for every projectile that is discharged from the firearm.
"You just point, but don't aim" advice is one of the most truly statements I have ever heard; particularly from a person who makes their living selling firearms.
Statements like that just antagonize those who dislike firearms and make it much harder for the person who makes a conscientious decision to become proficient in and use firearms as a defensive tool.
Persons who are interested in firearms, regardless of how they arrived at that interest should be encouraged to learn how to properly and legally use firearms. In Florida, there is no difference in the accountability of use of a defensive firearm for a police officer or a private citizen.
The police officer is taught self defense, the use of firearms and state law during their police academy. Any private citizen needs to seek out and gain the same knowledge prior to incorporating defensive firearms into their toolbox.
Thanks a pant load for your input Mr Gunstore. Friends like you continue to play right into the anti-gunners sentiments.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Barack Obama, Closer To Madame Clinton Than He Is To Lieberman
Or if you're looking for a Democrat with scruples, he or she is probably not in the race:
Barack Obama, has been running, against Madame Clinton, as a candidate for change. Lets look at his changing positions on Iraq.
On July 18, 2007, Obama supported legislation requiring most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by April 30, 2008.
But in 2004, Obama said that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be "a slap in the face" to the troops.
In 2006, he said that he did "not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops [was] the best approach to achieving" our goals.
In May of this year, Obama promised to provide critical funding for the troops. His exact words:
"[W]hat you don't want to do is to play chicken with the President, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced Humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles."
Then, just weeks later, he voted against the emergency Iraq spending bill that would have provided critical funds for body armor, mine resistant vehicles, and to help combat IEDs.
By his own admission, Obama understands that our enemies will wait us out in Iraq.
But as his position shifts it seems clear that he's more concerned with pandering to the left wing of the party than standing by his previous statements.
Barack Obama, has been running, against Madame Clinton, as a candidate for change. Lets look at his changing positions on Iraq.
On July 18, 2007, Obama supported legislation requiring most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by April 30, 2008.
But in 2004, Obama said that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be "a slap in the face" to the troops.
In 2006, he said that he did "not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops [was] the best approach to achieving" our goals.
In May of this year, Obama promised to provide critical funding for the troops. His exact words:
"[W]hat you don't want to do is to play chicken with the President, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced Humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles."
Then, just weeks later, he voted against the emergency Iraq spending bill that would have provided critical funds for body armor, mine resistant vehicles, and to help combat IEDs.
By his own admission, Obama understands that our enemies will wait us out in Iraq.
But as his position shifts it seems clear that he's more concerned with pandering to the left wing of the party than standing by his previous statements.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
European Terrorist Alert Levels
We have long used colors to describe perceived terror level. Other countries use different systems:
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from"Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to"Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to"Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Not only the English and French are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain, "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
And Finally the Germans have also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher Levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Last, but not least, the Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish Navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish Navy.
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from"Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to"Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to"Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Not only the English and French are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain, "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
And Finally the Germans have also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher Levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Last, but not least, the Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish Navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish Navy.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Shame Of It
On the 4th of July, 2007 Senior Airman Matthew J. Marren was shot in the chest by an anti-war zealot who specifically targeted the victim
The 4th of July, is celebrated as the most patriotic day of the entire year. This is the day when those in, or those who have served in, the military are honored by their countryman for their present and past service.
On this special day, a military person is targeted and shot by an anti-war zealot and the media barely manages to report the incident.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how much news coverage would be available if any military person, mentally unstable or not, targeted and shot an anti-war protestor.
The 4th of July, is celebrated as the most patriotic day of the entire year. This is the day when those in, or those who have served in, the military are honored by their countryman for their present and past service.
On this special day, a military person is targeted and shot by an anti-war zealot and the media barely manages to report the incident.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how much news coverage would be available if any military person, mentally unstable or not, targeted and shot an anti-war protestor.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Karzai Pardons Teen Trained as Bomber
A fourteen-year-old boy, Rafiqullah, said men at a Pakistani madrassa (religious school) showed him and two of his classmates videos of suicide attackers and taught them to drive a car and motorcycles.
Then they gave Rafiqullah his mission: kill an Afghan governor.
Rafiqullah said he walked eight hours from Pakistan to the Afghan city of Khost, where a militant named Abdul Aziz tried to pump up his courage. Aziz provided him with an explosives-laden vest whereupon the teenager confessed his fears.
When he said he was afraid to carry out the suicide attack, Abdul Aziz pointed a gun at him and told him that he would be killed if he did not carry out the attack.
President Hamid Karzai declared Rafiqullah an innocent pawn manipulated by terrorist militants and on Sunday freed the teen, who appears to be at least the third child co-opted by Taliban fighters to carry out attacks since April.
Karzai said, "Today we are faced with a fearful and terrifying truth, and that truth is the sending of a Muslim child to carry out a suicide attack."
Last month, a 6-year-old boy in Ghazni province said the Taliban forced him to put on a suicide vest and walk up to American soldiers, a potential attack was foiled when the boy asked Afghan soldiers for help.
In a gory Taliban video that surfaced in April militants are shown instructing a boy of about 12 as he beheaded an alleged traitor with a knife.
Rafiqullah said at least two other teenage boys his age had been indoctrinated to carry out suicide attacks at his madrassa.
The United Nations considers the use of such young combatants as constituting a war crime.
Soap Box Ravings says while the United Nations says using children as soldiers is a war crime, they do nothing about it in the many countries, particularly in Africa where it occurs often. I would also like to point out that this teen was sent to kill another Muslim, because that Muslim was not a Taliban believer.
Soap Box Ravings also wonders if the United Nations has an official position on cutting another humans head off with a knife to make a propaganda video.
Then they gave Rafiqullah his mission: kill an Afghan governor.
Rafiqullah said he walked eight hours from Pakistan to the Afghan city of Khost, where a militant named Abdul Aziz tried to pump up his courage. Aziz provided him with an explosives-laden vest whereupon the teenager confessed his fears.
When he said he was afraid to carry out the suicide attack, Abdul Aziz pointed a gun at him and told him that he would be killed if he did not carry out the attack.
President Hamid Karzai declared Rafiqullah an innocent pawn manipulated by terrorist militants and on Sunday freed the teen, who appears to be at least the third child co-opted by Taliban fighters to carry out attacks since April.
Karzai said, "Today we are faced with a fearful and terrifying truth, and that truth is the sending of a Muslim child to carry out a suicide attack."
Last month, a 6-year-old boy in Ghazni province said the Taliban forced him to put on a suicide vest and walk up to American soldiers, a potential attack was foiled when the boy asked Afghan soldiers for help.
In a gory Taliban video that surfaced in April militants are shown instructing a boy of about 12 as he beheaded an alleged traitor with a knife.
Rafiqullah said at least two other teenage boys his age had been indoctrinated to carry out suicide attacks at his madrassa.
The United Nations considers the use of such young combatants as constituting a war crime.
Soap Box Ravings says while the United Nations says using children as soldiers is a war crime, they do nothing about it in the many countries, particularly in Africa where it occurs often. I would also like to point out that this teen was sent to kill another Muslim, because that Muslim was not a Taliban believer.
Soap Box Ravings also wonders if the United Nations has an official position on cutting another humans head off with a knife to make a propaganda video.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
History Repeats Itself, While Government Does Nothing
Today, a man has appeared in court in Sydney, Australia after causing thousands of dollars worth of damage during a 90-minute rampage.
Soap Box Ravings wonders how many more times this must happen in the world before our liberal friends start screaming for the government to seize all tanks and armored vehicles in the hands of the public. In fact bulldozers, which closely resemble armored vehicles, also should be seized because they are so similar. I mean after all, they are to noisy to use for deer hunting and nobody really needs one. They should all be in the hands of the military or police.
Soap Box Ravings wonders how many more times this must happen in the world before our liberal friends start screaming for the government to seize all tanks and armored vehicles in the hands of the public. In fact bulldozers, which closely resemble armored vehicles, also should be seized because they are so similar. I mean after all, they are to noisy to use for deer hunting and nobody really needs one. They should all be in the hands of the military or police.
Just ONE Example In The News
Suspect In Girl's Slaying Investigated In Other Cases
In Tacoma, Washington police named the suspect, Terapon Adhahn, in the abduction and slaying of a 12-year-old Tacoma girl. They also said the 42-year-old man is being investigated in connection with other crimes -- locally and in other parts of the country.
Police said Terapon Adhahn is being charged with failing to register as a sex offender and that he would be charged in the girl's death.
Adhahn, a Thai immigrant who was convicted of incest in 1990, is being held at a federal detention center because he could face deportation for his 1990 incest conviction, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lorie Dankers said earlier this week.
He also has been charged in Pierce County with failing to register as a sex offender, and would face that charge before being deported.
Court records show Adhahn was charged in 1990 with raping a 16-year-old relative. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of first-degree incest in exchange for completing 60 months of sexual-deviancy counseling.
Soap Box Ravings says 1990 plus 60 months of counseling and maybe a year of court translates to "This subject has been running loose since approximately 1996 and it is only now that he is locked up for possible deportation for a crime he pleaded guilty for in 1990. 2007 minus 1990 is basically 17 years this pus bucket has been loose and possibly causing harm.
Furthermore Soap Box Ravings would like to extend a "Hearty Well Done" to those public officials as well as those elected officials that have and continue to allow these illegals to remain in this country. And for the record, in my opinion, he became an illegal when he committed a crime and was not deported.
In Tacoma, Washington police named the suspect, Terapon Adhahn, in the abduction and slaying of a 12-year-old Tacoma girl. They also said the 42-year-old man is being investigated in connection with other crimes -- locally and in other parts of the country.
Police said Terapon Adhahn is being charged with failing to register as a sex offender and that he would be charged in the girl's death.
Adhahn, a Thai immigrant who was convicted of incest in 1990, is being held at a federal detention center because he could face deportation for his 1990 incest conviction, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lorie Dankers said earlier this week.
He also has been charged in Pierce County with failing to register as a sex offender, and would face that charge before being deported.
Court records show Adhahn was charged in 1990 with raping a 16-year-old relative. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of first-degree incest in exchange for completing 60 months of sexual-deviancy counseling.
Soap Box Ravings says 1990 plus 60 months of counseling and maybe a year of court translates to "This subject has been running loose since approximately 1996 and it is only now that he is locked up for possible deportation for a crime he pleaded guilty for in 1990. 2007 minus 1990 is basically 17 years this pus bucket has been loose and possibly causing harm.
Furthermore Soap Box Ravings would like to extend a "Hearty Well Done" to those public officials as well as those elected officials that have and continue to allow these illegals to remain in this country. And for the record, in my opinion, he became an illegal when he committed a crime and was not deported.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Urine Test
I did not write this, I got this in my e-mail. I am retired and I no longer have to take urine tests for employment, but I was subjected to them for most of my working life and if I was seeking part-time employment, I would probably still be told to contribute.
The following is the e-mail I received:
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Soap Box Ravings says he will pass this on to his elected Florida Representatives, with their proposed changes in real estate taxes they may want to reduce the costs of welfare, especially that paid to those using illegal substances.
The following is the e-mail I received:
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass.
Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Soap Box Ravings says he will pass this on to his elected Florida Representatives, with their proposed changes in real estate taxes they may want to reduce the costs of welfare, especially that paid to those using illegal substances.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Virginia County To Do Feds Job
Virginia County Requires Police Officers to Check Immigration Status
In Prince William County, the Board of County Supervisors passed a resolution that requires police officers to ask about immigration status in all arrests if there is probable cause to believe that a suspect has violated federal immigration law.
The resolution also requires county staff to verify a person's legal status before providing certain public services provided by county offices.
According to Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart, "We know this is a federal issue, but I think the citizens have a right to expect that their local government and the state government are going to do whatever they can to address the problem."
(Soap Box Ravings wishes that Florida elected officials would follow this initiative. If enough states start passing realistic laws that affect illegal immigrants then the federal officials who are derelict in their duties may be forced to follow. Perhaps the County should bill their services to the Federal Government for each check they make.)
In Prince William County, the Board of County Supervisors passed a resolution that requires police officers to ask about immigration status in all arrests if there is probable cause to believe that a suspect has violated federal immigration law.
The resolution also requires county staff to verify a person's legal status before providing certain public services provided by county offices.
According to Board Chairman Corey A. Stewart, "We know this is a federal issue, but I think the citizens have a right to expect that their local government and the state government are going to do whatever they can to address the problem."
(Soap Box Ravings wishes that Florida elected officials would follow this initiative. If enough states start passing realistic laws that affect illegal immigrants then the federal officials who are derelict in their duties may be forced to follow. Perhaps the County should bill their services to the Federal Government for each check they make.)
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
My Comments Regarding My Senator's Response
Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:
Dear Soap Box Ravings:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
As you may know, on June 28, 2007, the Senate voted to set aside debate once again on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.1639).
(Soap Box Ravings says both Florida Senators, Martinez (Republican) and Nelson (Democrat) voted identically with Yeas for this vote.)
I firmly believe addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner is critical to our nation’s security and continued prosperity.
(Soap Box Ravings Feels that this is a BS position to ramrod a bill through the system and to garner votes while Senator Martinez tries to retain his position while pandering votes.)
While securing our borders is top priority,
(Soap Box Ravings feels that "top priority means first priority and needs to be taken care of before any other step, NOT in conjunction with any other step.)
we must also address the economic and law enforcement realities of having millions of illegal immigrants already living and working in the United States. Any solution to this problem must be practical to be effective.
(Soap Box Ravings feels that once you identify and remove the known criminals, sex offenders, and possible foriegn agents from the mix; the rest can then be processed to become accepted by this culture if that is what they want or they can be carded to be farm workers if that is what they desire.)
Efforts to secure our borders should be coupled with necessary changes to our current ambiguous and ineffective immigration policies to maximize security for our country.
(Soap Box Ravings believes that if our borders are secured, we will no longer have our "current ambiguous and ineffective immigration policies.")
Additionally, gaining operational control of the border will not cease the problem if we do not gain control of our employment system.
(Soap Box Ravings did not know that a goal of our government was to gain control of our nations employment system.)
Please know that, I will continue to work
(Soap Box Ravings sees not so much work as a stampede to give US Citizenship to a large number of people who have and continue to break our laws with the assistance of our duly elected representatives who have sworn to uphold our laws.)
with President Bush and my colleagues in Congress to develop a plan that will halt the flow of illegal immigrants crossing our border while implementing needed changes to our immigration laws.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
Dear Soap Box Ravings:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
As you may know, on June 28, 2007, the Senate voted to set aside debate once again on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.1639).
(Soap Box Ravings says both Florida Senators, Martinez (Republican) and Nelson (Democrat) voted identically with Yeas for this vote.)
I firmly believe addressing this issue in a comprehensive manner is critical to our nation’s security and continued prosperity.
(Soap Box Ravings Feels that this is a BS position to ramrod a bill through the system and to garner votes while Senator Martinez tries to retain his position while pandering votes.)
While securing our borders is top priority,
(Soap Box Ravings feels that "top priority means first priority and needs to be taken care of before any other step, NOT in conjunction with any other step.)
we must also address the economic and law enforcement realities of having millions of illegal immigrants already living and working in the United States. Any solution to this problem must be practical to be effective.
(Soap Box Ravings feels that once you identify and remove the known criminals, sex offenders, and possible foriegn agents from the mix; the rest can then be processed to become accepted by this culture if that is what they want or they can be carded to be farm workers if that is what they desire.)
Efforts to secure our borders should be coupled with necessary changes to our current ambiguous and ineffective immigration policies to maximize security for our country.
(Soap Box Ravings believes that if our borders are secured, we will no longer have our "current ambiguous and ineffective immigration policies.")
Additionally, gaining operational control of the border will not cease the problem if we do not gain control of our employment system.
(Soap Box Ravings did not know that a goal of our government was to gain control of our nations employment system.)
Please know that, I will continue to work
(Soap Box Ravings sees not so much work as a stampede to give US Citizenship to a large number of people who have and continue to break our laws with the assistance of our duly elected representatives who have sworn to uphold our laws.)
with President Bush and my colleagues in Congress to develop a plan that will halt the flow of illegal immigrants crossing our border while implementing needed changes to our immigration laws.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Wishful Thinking
This is an e-mail that I received from my little brother titled:
"Some Serious Considerations About Wishful Thinking"
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
"Very few people were true Nazis, " he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.
Now, we are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of fifty shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority," the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia included Russians who just wanted to live in peace. Yet according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 66 millio! n people . The peaceful majority was irrelevant.
China 's huge population -- it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Soap Box Ravings says: "Thanks Brother, I only wish I had thought to write this myself. I am in complete agreement with whoever put this together."
"Some Serious Considerations About Wishful Thinking"
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
"Very few people were true Nazis, " he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.
Now, we are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of fifty shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority," the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia included Russians who just wanted to live in peace. Yet according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 66 millio! n people . The peaceful majority was irrelevant.
China 's huge population -- it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Soap Box Ravings says: "Thanks Brother, I only wish I had thought to write this myself. I am in complete agreement with whoever put this together."
Monday, July 02, 2007
It Is About Time
Commentary on a USA TODAY report by Tom Vanden Brook:
The Pentagon approved a 600% increase in production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to protect soldiers from makeshift bombs in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made the vehicle the Pentagon's top priority. The MRAP's V-shaped hull and raised chassis are up to four times safer against the top threat to U.S. troops in Iraq — improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
Gates said Friday he was pushing industry and the military to build MRAPs faster: "For every month we delay, scores of young Americans are going to die."
Soap Box Ravings notes that it took a change in the Secretary of Defense to get the equipment our troops need in Iraq
That recommendation followed a visit to Iraq by a high-level Army team to assess soldiers' needs and which vehicles would best fill them.
Soap Box Ravings wonders why there isn't a "high level team" on site in Iraq 24/7 to continuously ascertain troop needs.
"We're going to aggressively pursue maxing out production, definitely for '08," Sliwa said. "We're extensively testing the vehicle to ensure the soldier's very well protected."
FLASHBACK: Corps refused 2005 plea for MRAP vehicles
The Pentagon's move boosts the Army's MRAP total from the 2,500 the service had originally sought and the Pentagon's total commitment to almost 23,000 vehicles. That includes 3,700 for the Marines and 1,500 for other branches of the military.
The Pentagon's decision to build more MRAPs may encounter opposition from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who leads the committee that writes the defense budget.
Murtha said he wouldn't support more than $6 billion in MRAP spending for next year because contractors can't build the vehicles fast enough.
Soap Box Ravings notes that Representative Murtha is the "Marine" in Congress who wants the US out of Iraq. Basically, he is just another Democrat looking for ways to not support our troops in their mission.
The Army's bill for MRAPs next year would be $8.1 billion, according to a memo from Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren.
MORE: Army seeks $20B for protected vehicles
To meet the increased demand, the Pentagon awarded contracts to nine companies in January to develop and build vehicles for consideration for its MRAP program.
Since April 23, the Pentagon has awarded contracts worth about $1.6 billion to three companies to build 3,130 MRAPs, records show.
Last week, Australian television reported that Thales Australia would make 1,500 MRAPs for the Pentagon, although that has not been confirmed by the Defense Department.
Soap Box Ravings does not give a damn about what country manufactures these pieces of equipment as long as they are made to function in accordance with their specifications. These units are needed now, more troops will be killed or injured while these are being manufactured and tested. If any manufacturers have them "on the shelf" then they need to be procured from the shelf. The troops needs must come first.
The Pentagon approved a 600% increase in production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to protect soldiers from makeshift bombs in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made the vehicle the Pentagon's top priority. The MRAP's V-shaped hull and raised chassis are up to four times safer against the top threat to U.S. troops in Iraq — improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
Gates said Friday he was pushing industry and the military to build MRAPs faster: "For every month we delay, scores of young Americans are going to die."
Soap Box Ravings notes that it took a change in the Secretary of Defense to get the equipment our troops need in Iraq
That recommendation followed a visit to Iraq by a high-level Army team to assess soldiers' needs and which vehicles would best fill them.
Soap Box Ravings wonders why there isn't a "high level team" on site in Iraq 24/7 to continuously ascertain troop needs.
"We're going to aggressively pursue maxing out production, definitely for '08," Sliwa said. "We're extensively testing the vehicle to ensure the soldier's very well protected."
FLASHBACK: Corps refused 2005 plea for MRAP vehicles
The Pentagon's move boosts the Army's MRAP total from the 2,500 the service had originally sought and the Pentagon's total commitment to almost 23,000 vehicles. That includes 3,700 for the Marines and 1,500 for other branches of the military.
The Pentagon's decision to build more MRAPs may encounter opposition from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who leads the committee that writes the defense budget.
Murtha said he wouldn't support more than $6 billion in MRAP spending for next year because contractors can't build the vehicles fast enough.
Soap Box Ravings notes that Representative Murtha is the "Marine" in Congress who wants the US out of Iraq. Basically, he is just another Democrat looking for ways to not support our troops in their mission.
The Army's bill for MRAPs next year would be $8.1 billion, according to a memo from Acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren.
MORE: Army seeks $20B for protected vehicles
To meet the increased demand, the Pentagon awarded contracts to nine companies in January to develop and build vehicles for consideration for its MRAP program.
Since April 23, the Pentagon has awarded contracts worth about $1.6 billion to three companies to build 3,130 MRAPs, records show.
Last week, Australian television reported that Thales Australia would make 1,500 MRAPs for the Pentagon, although that has not been confirmed by the Defense Department.
Soap Box Ravings does not give a damn about what country manufactures these pieces of equipment as long as they are made to function in accordance with their specifications. These units are needed now, more troops will be killed or injured while these are being manufactured and tested. If any manufacturers have them "on the shelf" then they need to be procured from the shelf. The troops needs must come first.
Secret, What's A Secret
Reported on Monday, July 02, 2007, ABC News Reports:
Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
A "secret" U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.
Soap Box Ravings asks: If the report is "Secret," why is an un-named official even discussing it?
U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
Soap Box Ravings asks: What kind of comment would you expect a responsible public official make about an official report?
Soap Box Ravings says: Any idiot could figure out that Al Qaeda is going to attack their targets any where and at any time. Al Qaeda has publicly stated this in the past. The "secret" report can not say anything but "there will be attempts in the future." And every country on the receiving end knows damn well that the attacks are coming. The only people that are always surprised are those with their heads buried in the sand, of which we have many in this country as does the rest of the free world.
Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
A "secret" U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.
Soap Box Ravings asks: If the report is "Secret," why is an un-named official even discussing it?
U.S. officials have kept the information secret, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States did not have "have any specific credible evidence that there's an attack focused on the United States at this point."
As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft."
The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff declined to comment specifically on on the report today, but said "everything that we get is shared virtually instantaneously with our counterparts in Britain and vice versa."
Soap Box Ravings asks: What kind of comment would you expect a responsible public official make about an official report?
Soap Box Ravings says: Any idiot could figure out that Al Qaeda is going to attack their targets any where and at any time. Al Qaeda has publicly stated this in the past. The "secret" report can not say anything but "there will be attempts in the future." And every country on the receiving end knows damn well that the attacks are coming. The only people that are always surprised are those with their heads buried in the sand, of which we have many in this country as does the rest of the free world.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
I Saw A Bumper Sticker Today
The bumper sticker said:
Clinton Lied
Nobody Died
I thought about that for enough microseconds to figure out what they were trying to say.
The Lie is "Clinton Lied, Nobody Died"
The Truth is "Clinton Lied, Many Have Died"
Soap Box Ravings
Clinton Lied
Nobody Died
I thought about that for enough microseconds to figure out what they were trying to say.
The Lie is "Clinton Lied, Nobody Died"
The Truth is "Clinton Lied, Many Have Died"
Soap Box Ravings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)