.
.
.
I’d mentioned that we could use one or two new right-wing or “conservative” writers on this blog, as balance and fisticuffs is what the OJ is all about. I’d want them to be entertaining, informative, and at least honest enough to admit being wrong once in a while – that’s important! Although I realize I would only RARELY agree with them.
So I thought I should let the readers help us decide. Here’s someone I won’t name yet, Orange County born and raised, who comes highly recommended from a loyal Juice reader. Read a couple of his sample pieces – you can respond to them in comments – but vote yes or no NOT on whether you agree with him but whether you think his addition here would be a fun & positive thing. For the discourse, you understand, the discourse.
I’ve told him to stick mostly to local OC issues if he gets the coveted gig. Once fifty of you have voted, it’s decided.
[poll id=”294″]
1. Against Michele Martinez for Mayor (2008)
“Today, I am officially announcing my candidacy for Mayor of Santa Ana.
This decision is one that I’ve considered very carefully and thoroughly. I am running for Mayor because Santa Ana deserves a Mayor who will work FOR ALL OF US.
I believe in Santa Ana, more importantly, I believe together we can bring about the change we believe in for Santa Ana.
As many of you know, I was elected to the Santa Ana City council in November of 2006, and in my role as a council member, I have earned a reputation for seeing that the concerns of my constituents are addressed no matter how large or how small. I have worked hard to earn my constituents trust and respect and I will continue to do so as Mayor. I pledge to create a new, positive city hall, a city where all people from all perspectives feel respected and get the services they deserve. We can make this a better city for all of us and bring hope and inspiration to our neighbors and neighborhoods that have been left behind.
I am asking you to move away from the past, and look to the future. I am urging you not to be afraid of disturbing the status quo. This job is not for one person; it’s a job for a community. I would like to leave you with the following quote from Margaret Mead “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”. So let’s work together to improve this city we love.”
“Santa Ana’s best days are yet to come”
Sincerely,
Michele Martinez
Candidate for Mayor of Santa Ana 2008
Michele Martinez, a member of the Santa Ana City Council, has recently announced her candidacy for mayor of Santa Ana. She positions herself as a great builder of community, a fair leader and a great supporter of this fair city. It is VERY important that voters see through these confabulations and, instead, see Michele for who, and what, she really is…
Not long ago, Martinez, currently a Councilperson for the City of Santa Ana, California, proposed the designation of “sanctuary” for the City of Santa Ana for illegal aliens. With such designation, law enforcement officials would be strongly discouraged from enforcing laws regarding illegal immigration and discouraged from cooperating with Federal authorities in the exercise of their duties as well. Backed by groups such as “Los Amigos of Orange County” (a radical, racist group), Martinez is attempting to rally the support of Mayor Miguel Pulido as well from the rest of the City Council.
Anyone in possession of even the most rudimentary reasoning ability ought to realize that, in taking this position on illegal immigration, or even conspiring to do so, Martinez is in violation of her oath of office. Because her sworn oath is to support and defend The Constitution of the United States, her responsibility is to uphold the laws of this country, which have designated illegal entry as a Federal crime. The law can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001325—-000-.html
In addition, in her refusal to uphold the laws of this state and this nation, as well as her active pursuit to harbor and protect Federal criminals, Martinez becomes an accessory to a Federal Crime:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001327—-000-.html
It’s important to point out that this issue is NOT one of those not-well-defined, loophole-ridden issues of which politicians love to exploit. Rather, because of State Senator Lou Correa, the matter is VERY well defined.
In 2001, Senator Correa requested several opinions from Bill Lockyer (Attorney General). His first question, “Are the mandatory provisions of Penal Code section 834b concerning cooperation, verification, and notification with respect to persons arrested who are suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws subject to enforcement by local law enforcement officers?”, along with the opinion of Lockyer, defined California Law Enforcement role, as well as the role of elected officials, in the matter of illegal immigration.
Lockyer’s analysis can be found here:
http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-213.pdf
To summarize the analysis:
Although (in a rather bizarre summary), Lockyer focuses his conclusion on the finding that local law enforcement agencies are not REQUIRED to initiate cooperation with federal officials with regard to illegal aliens, the Attorney General’s analysis also defined some very important issues:
- Local law enforcement agencies retain the option to cooperate fully with federal law enforcement agencies on the matter of illegal immigration. In fact, the analysis specifies that local law enforcement agencies are REQUIRED, under federal law, to cooperate with federal agencies.
- Any action (legislative, administrative, etc) by a city, county or other legally authorized local government entity to prevent or limit cooperation with federal law enforcement officials is strictly forbidden.
Conclusions (citizens of Santa Ana should resolve the following):
Whereas…
1. Law enforcement agencies in Santa Ana are obligated to cooperate with federal officials to enforce laws regarding illegal immigration. Though not specifically required to initiate such cooperation, they MAY voluntarily initiate such cooperation, free from hindrance by any elected official.
…and, whereas…
2. Any elected official who attempts to hinder, obstruct or legislate non-cooperation between Santa Ana’s law enforcement and federal agencies with respect to illegal immigration law is in violation of the law, both state as well as federal.
Therefore…
3. In attempting to designate Santa Ana as a ‘sanctuary’ for illegal aliens, Michele Martinez is in direct violation of state and federal immigration laws.
BUT THERE IS MORE TO THIS STORY…
Whether by malicious design or happenstance, Michele Martinez seems unable to grasp the deepest and most damning significance to her actions. Because of her (and others’) inaction with regard to illegal aliens, the people who suffer the most, (those most directly and negatively affected) are her own constituents, especially those of Hispanic descent who are living and working in California LEGALLY. Illegal aliens are currently absorbing much of the labor market traditionally occupied by legal residents. So, the people and families who put forth the effort to obtain legal status in this country, who are now paying taxes and contributing to our society and culture, are being knowingly subverted by Martinez, who, as I stated, either does not realize the consequences of her foolish actions, or, more likely, does not care.
A strong message must be sent to the Mayor, all members of the City Council and ALL voters in Santa Ana, that Michele Martinez’ actions will not be tolerated, and her remarkable contempt for state and federal law, as well that of her oath of office is grounds for a recall. At the very least, Martinez’ support of illegal immigration ought to prevent her from becoming mayor.
If Michele Martinez, or any other elected official or special interest group, continues to pursue this course of action, those entities must be investigated and found in violation of state and federal immigration law and prosecuted.
It is shameful enough that this elected official, entrusted with the security of our city, state and country, has decided instead to serve her own misguided agenda, but it is unconscionable that she would pursue that self-serving agenda at the expense of her own constituents.
2. The Stem-Cell Debate: What is the Issue?
President Obama, through an executive order, reversed an executive order, generated by President Bush, which disallows the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Also included in Bush’s ban was the use of embryonic stem cells, other than already existing lines.
What, exactly, IS the debate regarding “stem cell research”? The debate can be viewed from two different perspectives: funding and source.
The funding…
There are two primary ways to fund stem cell research: privately and publicly.
- Privately means through private donations, venture capital, etc.
- Publicly means through government funding.
One camp (Conservatives) believes that government-funded anything is wasteful spending. Additionally, conservatives believe that it is not the Constitutional function of government to fund things like stem cell research.
The other camp (Liberals) believes that Government should fund stem cell research. Liberals believe that the Government should fund everything, regardless of cost or waste.
The reality is that, dollar-for-dollar, funding through private sources is FAR more efficient than funding through the government.
So, when Michael J. Fox tries to make Jim Talent look like a bad guy by saying that he does not believe in the funding of stem cell research, what he REALLY means is that Jim Talent does not believe in GOVERNMENT funding of stem cell research. Jim Talent would rather have 80% of each dollar spent actually go towards research, as opposed to less than 2% of a Government-funded dollar.
Jim Talent, like most other Conservatives, wholeheartedly believes in the PRIVATE funding of certain types of stem cell research….which leads to the other part of the debate…
The source (of stem cells)
There are several sources of stem cells. Stem cells can be harvested from a fetus, from umbilical cords, from adults, from placentas as well as a host of other sources. But, actually, this part of the debate can be narrowed to just two categories: “fetal (embryonic) stem cells” and “all other sources”. The reason for the debate is twofold as well: prospects for cures and destruction of tissue source.
Fetal (embryonic) stem cells
Prospects for cures
Thus far, stem cells derived from aborted babies have resulted in precisely zero cures. ZERO. In fact, at this time, research utilizing stem cells from aborted babies hasn’t even shown any promise or hope of curing anything.
Destruction of tissue source
Fetal stem cell research requires the destruction of the source of the tissue. In other words: in order to obtain fetal stems cells, the fetus (also known as a baby) must be destroyed (also known as aborted).
All other sources
Prospects for cures
Research utilizing stem cells harvested from “other sources” is ALREADY showing tremendous promise in many areas. A few of those include:
– Remission of Lupus
– Remission of Crohn’s disease
– Remission of Parkinson’s disease
– Muscle tissue repair (in the case of congestive heart failure)
– Restoration of bone marrow in cancer patients
– Remission of Leukemia
– Treatment of urinary incontinence
– Treatment of Sickle Cell Anemia
– ……a host of others….
Destruction of tissue source
All other sources of stem cells (adult, umbilical cord, placenta) do not require the destruction of source tissue. In other words, no one is aborted in order to harvest “other source” stem cells.
Cutting through the crap
There are three REAL arguments regarding stem cell research:
- Private funding is ALREADY taking place with regards to stem cell research, utilizing “all other source” material. Why?
- It shows HUGE promise
- It has ALREADY resulted in specific cures in humans
- It does NOT require the abortion of an unborn baby
- Liberals, when they ask for support (increased taxes) of “stem cell research” are actually asking for GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF FETAL (EMBYONIC) STEM CELL RESEARCH. You see, very few private sources exist for the funding of Fetal Stem Cell research. Why?
- It show little or NO promise
- Harvesting of cells requires the destruction of the source tissue (an aborted baby)
The facts regarding this debate really are not very difficult to ascertain. Nor are they difficult to interpret. The BIG question, then, becomes “WHY DO LIBERALS SUPPORT GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH?” Why would they throw our tax dollars away on an area of research that has yielded zero results, zero hope for any result and requires the termination of a life in order to experiment? This leads to my third, and final, argument:
- Liberals support “stem cell research” (as defined in point #2) for these reasons:
- It makes for bigger Government.
- It makes Liberals appear sympathetic to those with debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s
- IT ACTIVELY SUPPORTS ABORTIONS-ON-DEMAND. In fact, it creates a market for aborted babies.
To summarize
In truth, the key to understanding the debate over stem cell research can be summarized thusly:
- Conservatives (Republicans) believe in private funding of NON-fetal stem cell research. Why? Because this method has already yielded results and does not require abortion of a baby as a means of harvest.
- Liberals (Democrats) believe in Government funding of fetal stem cell research because they wish to shore up support for abortion-on-demand.
If s/he replaces you, I’d be all for it. You’ve got a window to beat Red County at what they really started with the OC Blog. Their content is down to one or two posts a day, and they’ve lost their OC focus. No blogger over there is consistent enough to develop a following, and even the non-anonymous ones are people no one’s heard of. Otoh you, Vern, are a a hyper-ordinary knee-jerk liberal with a record. Everyone’s tired of your shit.
Btw, your poll’s not working.
Ouch. Hyper-ordinary, am I. Never been called that. Try the poll again, I think I wasn’t supposed to post it twice.
Too complicated, try again
no vote
Screw the conservative voices…….I’d rather read Ron and Anna’s blather……
BORING…get Bartlett!
I second the boring comment
Yes, get Bartlett. He’ll put Jerbal in his place!
Boy, and I thought I was too windy most of the time. Is there an executive summary?
Over but not out.
Haven’t you confronted an attorney who when asked to prepare a brief comes back with 100 pages of text? Watch out. Vern is a lawyer in training.
I guess you didn’t look at this, Larry. It is a right wing blogger auditioning for this blog. Seems everyone thinks he’s too long-winded. I actually thought he should have put up some of his shorter more humorous things, but I guess this stuff is what he’s most proud of.
Vern.
Don’t misread my comment. I commend you for your efforts to enlarge the tent. I am not taking issue with the potential candidate.
Your challenge is to fill the blog with a combination of quality and quantity writing that reflects all ends of the political spectrum
Too long. Cut to the chase.
It looks like the liberal riff raff have very shot attention span or an allergy to good argument – after all, you can call someone a “hater” in just a few words, it takes more time and effort to actually craft a sound argument – but then again the liberal riff raff doesn’t want sound logical argument. I like this guy.
And then there’s the possibility – what about Geoff Willis?
Vern. Great idea. You get the whole package. A blogger and a property rights attorney.
Here is another missive by the same Right Wing blogger:
In a profession whose practishioners profess openmindedness, the scientific world sure gets rocked alot!
The same academicians who proudly declare “the proton is the smallest unit in the universe”….well, that was true until the quark was discovered, which led to the proclamation “the quark is the smallest unit in the universe!”.
Or how about “Darwinism is settled science!”….until it was discovered that the “evidence” proving speciation was either falsified or unrepeatable (leaving precisely ZERO evidence to support the theory of speciation).
Or how about “Pluto is a planet”….until the latest claim that “Pluto isn’t a planet”……
…the list goes on and on, the examples myriad, the list growing to staggering lengths…leaving the scientific world permanently shocked, perplexed and flummoxed.
And yet they continue to make the proclamations….
Currently (until this week, that is….) it has been assumed that DNA-based lifeforms cannot function without the vital element phosphorus (which is one of the six needed for cells to function…the others are carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur). This week, it was announced that certain microbes in Mono Lake can freely replace phosphorus with arsenic…and get along just fine, thankyouverymuch. That’s right…..they don’t need phosphorus!
And scientists, as a body, are once again SHOCKED!
Kinda make you wonder about some of the other “settled science”….you know….like “Global Warming”, life on other planets requiring carbon, etc…..
It would seem that the only certainty in the scientific world is the lack of imagination by it’s practishioners…….
Vote YES for the Right Wing blogger – he will piss you off – guaranteed!
THE OVERTURNING OF PROPOSITION 8
Rather than rehashing all the arguments, pro and con, surrounding the ludicrous 9th Circuit ruling, I’d rather take advantage of the slippery slope and propose some new legislation, based solely on the mentality that drove this decision. So, advocates are needed to file suit on behalf of the following issues:
1. A suit to allow the legal union of human and animal.
2. A suit to allow a white person to be legally qualify as “black” or “Hispanic” (and thereby qualify for racial quotas)
3. A suit to allow multiple marraige (bigomy, polygamy, etc)
4. A suit to allow a heterosexual person to legally qualify as homosexual (thereby qualifying for “protected status”)
We can start there. Who KNOWS what else can be sued-for…
Bottom line: regardless of this decision, the union between same sex partners ISN’T “marriage”. NOTHING will change the definition.
I told you that he would piss you off – vote YES for the “Right Wing Blogger” !!
Vern – has Phobius voted yet?
Phobius voted aye.
I voted “no” because of his introduction of bestiality into the marriage equality debate.
Hmm… I see he’s a little ahead now after being behind for a while. I also see 200 people have read this story, but only 27 have voted – what’s up with that? No wonder American democracy is sucking wind.
Vern,
You know that the Right Wing Blogger is not making a comparison here.
What else is off limits?
I know I’ve heard his semantic dodges explaining that that’s not exactly what he’s doing, but how else does this sound to anyone who reads it?
Rather than rehashing all the arguments, pro and con, surrounding the ludicrous 9th Circuit ruling, I’d rather take advantage of the slippery slope and propose some new legislation, based solely on the mentality that drove this decision. So, advocates are needed to file suit on behalf of the following issues:
1. A suit to allow the legal union of human and animal…
He’s protested twice to me privately that he’s not comparing gay sex to bestiality, or gay marriage to human-animal marriage, so now I’ve carefully characterized what he does as the “introduction of bestiality into the marriage equality debate.” Can’t deny that. And we ALL know it’s really a cheap attempt at humor based on the fact that gay sex seems strange and icky to many of us.
Vern,
You know who I am….
Evidently, I must….AGAIN….clarify my position (no pun intended) on the “gay marriage” issue.
The REASON why I include, among other things, bestiality in the argument against “gay marriage” is to emphasize that a union between man and beast would NOT qualify as a “marriage” either. “Marriage” is SPECIFICALLY defined as a union between one man and one woman. This precludes from “marriage” ANY union NOT comprised of one man and one woman.
(and, I’ll remind you of the news piece that came out….no pun intended…this week about the guy in Australia who “married” his dog….)
But of course, I say this knowing FULL well that the folks who continue NOT to understand it will not suddenly understand it now….or ever.
(Lends credence to my belief that Liberalism is a psychological disorder….)
Hugs and kisses….
The “Right Wing Bogger”
Let’s consider why I, a liberal, understand what you’re saying – what you claim your intent is – while also seeing that you are also “introducing bestiality into the marriage equality debate,” and considering that grotesquely insulting to our gay brothers and sisters.
Is it just that liberals are uniquely capable of seeing (or at least admitting) that words and statements can mean more than one thing?
Two things:
First, in the spirit of “insult” argument, perhaps I should be insulted for having been called a “homophobe”, especially in light of the fact that I have stated CLEARLY that I do not care what people do with their lives, as long as a) they take on all consequences of their decision and b) they do not, with their choice, violate the rights of others. Now, I’ve made this clear twice, but already know that it won’t change anything.
Second, some of what you say about words “meaning more than one thing” certainly can be true. But, perhaps you will learn, over time and exposure to my rants, that this is rarely, if ever, the case. You may have noticed that I don’t parse my words. Nor do I hold back. The arguments I forward are fact-based, with some opinion thrown in. How my positions are interpreted is of no concern to me….either the reader is intellectually honest, or they are not. “Words”, it would seem, are in ‘the ear of the beholder’…. 😉
RWB
Oh….and by the way….my avatar? Thanks for the cool gun! I LOVE it! Completely cool!!
RWB
I come back here because it seems like this might be an ok place again and find out I can not vote! What a bummer because another person in this building already voted I can’t lame!
Go to Kinko’s young lady! Or the library. Or call a cousin in Baltimore and have them vote for you.
Welcome back!
That’s slightly inconvenient don’t have time for that! I vote YES YES YES but only once at least in spirit!
We are not voting for president here – just for the ability to have discussion and debate.
Vote for free speech !!
Vote YES for the Right Wing Blogger !!