VOTE: Should the Orange Juice take on this right-wing blogger?




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”


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:—-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:—-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:

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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):


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.


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.


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.

  1. Privately means through private donations, venture capital, etc.
  2. 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:

  1. Private funding is ALREADY taking place with regards to stem cell research, utilizing “all other source” material. Why?
    1. It shows HUGE promise
    2. It has ALREADY resulted in specific cures in humans
    3. It does NOT require the abortion of an unborn baby
  1. 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?
    1. It show little or NO promise
    2. 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:

  1. Liberals support “stem cell research” (as defined in point #2) for these reasons:
    1. It makes for bigger Government.
    2. It makes Liberals appear sympathetic to those with debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s
    3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Liberals (Democrats) believe in Government funding of fetal stem cell research because they wish to shore up support for abortion-on-demand.

About Admin

"Admin" is just editors Vern Nelson, Greg Diamond, or Ryan Cantor sharing something that they mostly didn't write themselves, but think you should see. Before December 2010, "Admin" may have been former blog owner Art Pedroza.