blackpundit.com

California Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer ejected a comment during questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looking into Iraq policies in which the media reflects as “harsh and outrageous”. Although I do not care for Boxer and her policies (especially on gun laws), I do not think that her statement, “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.” necessarily means that Condoleezza Rice is a childless woman, as the media puts it. Immediate family can mean brother, sister, father, mother, husband, or just a family member that she is extremely close to. An immediate family is just a close member of the family. I think that the media is just running out of news and they needed something to target to get some ratings. Also, as Condoleezza Rice puts it, she was confused on the statement of Barbara Boxer. I think the only way to understand the meaning of what Boxer said is to let her explain herself. If you would just listen to the head of the media news about this issue, you would swear with your life that Boxer explicitly said, “Condoleezza Rice is a childless woman!”

Oh wait… What am I doing, I am defending a democrat! This is a first!

When a person serves time in jail for a crime that they have done, supposedly they have paid their debt to society for that crime. If a person does 5 years for Grand Theft Auto, dept paid. Or if a person does 10 years for having sex with a minor, dept paid. Actually no, the debt is not paid. Depending on the type of crime you have done, for the most part, you will be paying your debt to society for a very long time. You will be paying this debt by being affected on obtaining jobs. Serving time in jail is supposedly rehabilitation (another story). Once out, supposedly you are let out into the world again with a fresh start. Go out, get a job, and start over. But how do the government expect someone out of prison to get a job if every job is rejecting them because of a felony or registered sex offender tag found from a background check. The way the system is set up is that a person with a criminal history is more liable to go back to jail for doing a crime to survive because the disability of finding a job. I have known a few people in this situation. They have paid the debt to society, get out of jail, and cannot find jobs. Every time they go out to find a job, every thing is great until the background check. Once an employer sees a felon from a background check, they will treat that person like they have a disease or something. This is really not fair, especially when a person did not do a crime that has anything to do with the position they are applying for. For example, if a person has a felony for possession of drugs and that person is applying for a customer service position, it is not fair for that person to be rejected from his/her felony when drug possession has nothing to do with a customer server position. Now if the situation was such that a person that is applying for a position at a financial institute and that person have a felony from tax fraud, I can then understand why it would be fair for that financial institute to reject that applicant. That applicant has done a crime that is related to the employer’s line of business. I believe the solution for this is to categorize crimes and each employer will only have access to the categories that is specific to their line of business. If the crime that was on a persons criminal record does not have any relevance to the line of business to which they are applying for, then that business should not have any access to that crime.

Ok, lets see what the Senate is focusing on since the Democrats have taken over:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to head the U.S. Senate’s environmental committee.

‘’Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this,'’ Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. ‘’The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well.'’

Boxer’s elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as the Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.

The California Democrat is one of the Senate’s most liberal members and replaces one of the most conservative senators, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue ‘’the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.'’

Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.

“That’s like a tsunami hit the committee,” said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. “You can’t find two members or people more ideologically different.”

Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund sites across the country.

On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a California law signed this summer by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That law imposes the first statewide cap on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California’s emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.

OKAY!!! YEAH, this is the first thing on there list that they are focusing on…

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Thousands of people across the country protested Friday against legislation cracking down on illegal immigrants, with demonstrators in such cities as Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta staging school walkouts, marches and work stoppages.

Congress is considering bills that would make it a felony to be illegally in the United States, impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants and erect fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border. The proposals have angered many Hispanics.

I don’t understand some people. To me this is a no-brainer. How do you protest something like this? Illegal immigrants come and crowd our public schools, use our medical services, use our welfare and they don’t even pay taxes. Double negative here people! They use all of our services and they don’t pay taxes, but yet we are trying to keep them here. Isn’t this ironic?

Also, how is it fair to other foreigners? Since we are trying to give open borders to Mexico, what about the people in other third world counties who would love to live out here. Like Haitians and Cubans. Hispanics has increased to about 70 percent (raised from 60 percent) of all illegal immigrants, and since the other illegal immigrants are just a small fraction compared to Mexico, then why not let them in with no problem. That is only fair, right? Only focusing on letting Hispanic illegal immigrants would make us prejudice, right?

But please don’t get me wrong here. I am for immigration, but legal immigration. Now if you want Hispanic immigrants to come across our boarders, then fight for easier immigration laws. Laws that would make it easier to get visas. But don’t accept something illegal and make it seem like it is legal. That’s contradicting, isn’t it? At least this way, they will be paying taxes too!

WASHINGTON - Efforts to allow illegal immigrants to eventually become legal U.S. residents were given little chance of winning congressional approval as the Senate began work on an election-year immigration bill.

The legislation pits several Republican constituencies against each other. Social conservatives and governors say the tide of illegal immigrants is overwhelming their state budgets, but businesses say they want to keep them as a source of labor.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he does not object to allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal permanent residency after several years of work, as proposed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

First, how can you propose a legislation that allows ILLEGAL immigrants to earn LEGAL permanent residency after several years of work if the workers are ILLEGAL. Isn’t this contradicting to laws? Laws must obey other laws, right? And the only way this legislation works is if a person breaks a law and be an illegal immigrant and works for several years to get their permanent residency.

Second, if this law was to take affect, then wouldn’t this create a stronger burden on our state budget? Illegal immigrates would be even more aggressive to get over here if they knew all they have to do is work for several years as an illegal immigrant and they could get their permanent residency.

Maybe I am missing something here!

John Tierney of The New York Times writes:

Black Students Lose Again
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: January 7, 2006

Democrats once went to court to desegregate schools. But in Florida they’ve been fighting to kick black students out of integrated schools, and they’ve succeeded, thanks to the Democratic majority on the State Supreme Court.

The court’s decision on Thursday was a legally incoherent but politically creative solution to a delicate problem. Ever since Florida’s pioneering statewide voucher program began, Democrats have been struggling to deal with the program’s success.

Most of recipients have been black students like Adrian Bushell, whom I wrote about last year. Without a voucher, he would have attended Miami Edison, a big public high school in a poor area with a 94 percent black student body and a total of six non-Hispanic white students.

Instead, he’s now a 10th grader at Monsignor Edward Pace, a Catholic school that is 24 percent black. His experience is typical. In other places that have tried vouchers, like Milwaukee and Cleveland, studies have shown that voucher recipients tend to move to less segregated schools.

Besides helping Adrian (who’s got a 3.1 average and plans on college), the Florida program has also benefited students in public schools like Miami Edison. Because each voucher is worth less than what the public system spends per student, more money is left for each student in the public system. And studies have repeatedly shown that failing Florida schools facing voucher competition have raised their test scores more than schools not facing the voucher threat.

A program that desegregates schools and improves test scores wasn’t easy to attack in the Legislature, but the courts offered a more promising battleground for the teachers’ unions trying to stop it. Florida’s Constitution has a version of the Blaine Amendment, a ban on aid to religious institutions that might be construed in some states (but not in others) to prohibit school vouchers.

A lower court in Florida ruled that the voucher program violated the ban on religious aid. The State Supreme Court could have simply affirmed that conclusion, which would have been legally defensible (although mistaken, in my view). But then it would have faced a messy new set of questions.

If the Blaine Amendment prohibited vouchers, couldn’t it also prohibit the state aid now going to hospitals, colleges and preschool programs run by religious institutions? Would the court have to end programs that were popular with the public and inoffensive to Democratic teachers’ unions?

The judges ducked these inconvenient questions by ignoring the Blaine Amendment and using another rationale. They ruled that the voucher program violated a state constitutional requirement to provide a “uniform” system of public schools.

The majority’s decision was eviscerated in a dissent by two Republican judges who use adjectives like “nonsensical” to describe the legal reasoning. The dissenters argue persuasively that nothing in the Constitution forbids the Legislature from setting up other programs beyond the public school system.

The decision has disillusioned Adrian and his grandmother, Ramona Nickson. “I just don’t even want to think of sending him back to public school,” she said. Other parents in Florida worry that more programs are in jeopardy, like the scholarships given to thousands of disabled students in private schools. Or the many charter schools in the state, which may not suit the judges’ personal vision of a “uniform” system.

“It’s difficult to predict what will happen next after a decision as devoid of legal principle as this one,” said Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice, which represented the voucher recipients in the case. “The judges decided what decision they wanted to reach and worked backward from there.”

Adrian was supported by the Urban League of Miami and other advocacy groups for blacks and Latinos, but not the N.A.A.C.P. It abandoned him - and the majority of African-Americans, who favor school vouchers - and sided with the teachers’ unions.

The group that once battled the segregationists’ fiction of “separate but equal” schools signed on to the legal fiction that there’s something admirably “uniform” about a public school monopoly that keeps students in Adrian’s neighborhood trapped in a segregated, inferior school.

It’s sad to see the N.A.A.C.P. working to keep them there, but it’s not surprising now that the group is virtually an arm of the Democratic Party. The unions dominating that party have no qualms about sending Adrian back to a segregated school that has just lost its chief incentive to improve. The party now has a new educational motto: separate but uniform.

A good friend of mine wrote a good article on Stanley “Tookie” Williams, the founder of the crips.

Stanley “Tookie” Williams Must Die

There is a lot of attention being paid to this issue as the date of Mr. Williams execution approaches. I for one have to say that I am appalled by what I have seen and heard so far. In fact I’m outraged. I would like to say that the time for our society and Black Americans especially, has come to deal in reality. The reality that “Tookie” is a murderer responsible for the deaths of not only 4 innocent persons. But he is also a founding member of the Crips which by itself places the blood of a few thousand others on him as well. And to this day the Crips continue to destroy lives in our cities nation wide. This is directly attributable to him. Now I will briefly address some of the issues that are being brought forward on Mr. Williams behalf and I will close by directly addressing the so called “community leaders”.

Perhaps the most legitimate argument for sparing Mr. Williams life has nothing to do with Mr. Williams. And it is the issue of the death penalty. My personal belief is that we need a death penalty to deter individuals who would otherwise harm of kill people. Studies have shown that the threat of facing the death penalty has influenced many would be killers to reconsider in the moment of truth which is a good thing. And it also helps to bring closure to the families of victims in murder cases. Now having said all of that it is a personal opinion and I acknowledge that everybody will not agree and some feel that the death penalty is morally wrong. My counter argument is that we live in a democratic society. We do have the power to pass laws prohibiting the use of the death penalty. And should the people of California vote in favor of such a law, while I disagree with it, I would support it until I had a chance to vote it down. But because the death penalty IS LEGAL and is on the books. In order for our laws to have legitimacy, WE MUST CARRY OUT THE SENTENCE. Otherwise what would be the point of having it on the books? So my conclusion is that while I understand people’s moral opposition to the death penalty, it is a legal method of punishment and therefore we must carry it out when it is handed down in the sentencing phase to maintain the integrity of our legal system.

Speaking of the legal system. Many have argued that Mr. Williams has not received a fair trial and was not judged by his peers. Well I would say that’s nonsense. The jury that found him guilty did have a black person which is roughly proportional to the number of Black Americans in the population. Also it would be highly unlikely for a member of the Crips to actually show up to jury duty. So Mr. Williams was given a jury most representative of the society in which he lived. And that Jury was able to make the judgment that Mr. Williams did in fact commit the accused crimes based on the available evidence which included his own Shotgun and a shell casing that matched it.

In regard to evidence, Mr. Williams has many times appealed his case and on each occasion his appeal has been overturned. As time progressed there have been technological advances that would have been able to refute the evidence against him if it wasn’t true. But because Mr. Williams did in fact kill people and did in fact found the Crips his conviction stands as it should.

Appeals and rush to carry out the sentence. I would like to say that perhaps one of the greatest deceptions is that Mr. Williams is being rushed to his death. That claim is flat out laughable. First of all these crimes happened in 1981 if I recall correctly. This means that Mr. Williams has been on death row longer than some of this article’s readers have been alive! I think that 20+ years of appeals is enough and in reality too long but I digress.

Then there is the argument that because Mr. Williams has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and has written children’s books ect. He should be spared. First it should be noted that Mr. Williams Children’s books were ghost written and he allowed the writers to use his name. Second the Nomination of the Nobel Peace Prize is subjective and originated in Europe where the United States practice of putting incorrigibles to death is frowned upon. In other words the Nobel nomination for Mr. Williams represented yet another European anti American protest which used the Nobel Prize nomination visibility to elevate the European objection to the Death Penalty to the spot light. Let me just say that America is an independent nation and while we are appreciative of the advice we receive from allies. Foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our legal processes.

What effect would Mr. Williams execution has on young would be gang members looking for a way out and people in general. We ideally it would have the effect of making people see the high price to be paid for committing savagery on fellow human beings. You will not hear that said aloud in the mass media. No instead you will hear things like Mr. Williams death will harden people and lessen the incentive for people to change. This is pure and utter nonsense. It’s meant to take advantage of weak minded people. Anybody who wants to leave gang life style need only to reflect inward and ask what it is about them that makes them want to get out. And then they must WORK and actually do it themselves for it to have any meaning. There was crime prior to Mr. Williams, and there will be crime when he is gone. So whether or not Mr. Williams lives or dies it irrelevant in that context except maybe that by letting him live. We will be showing that actions don’t have consequences.

Hollywood. I use the term Hollywood to describe the collage of celebrities and activist who have attached themselves to Mr. Williams for various reasons. The bottom line is that Hollywood is not qualified to discuss or decide upon the legitimacy of the death penalty alone. That is a right that belongs to the voters of California. All of us. And the People have decided. Hollywood actors have jobs just like the rest of us. And if this debate were about acting methodology, rapping or how to be a celebrity. I would not question their expertise. But when it comes to issues such as laws, politics and ethics. I think it’s disingenuous for them to use their celebrity influence to demonize people they don’t agree with. For them to claim their OPINIONS are anything more than that is an abomination.

Race pimpin’. I remember reading and listening to Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Real community leaders. I remember reading about Rosa Parks. To me, those individuals are community leaders. A real community leader would have the guts to stand up in front of the TV cameras and tell the people that when you do the crime you do the time. And that murdering people has to have consequences or we will have anarchy. Even the Bible says an Eye for an eye! Stanley “Tookie” Williams is a murderer not a saint. Enough racial bigotry still exist in America that Black Americans must choose carefully those issues to rally behind so as to be taken seriously when it matters! For example, when a Black American is more qualified and its time to get promoted to CEO and all the other candidates are white! Then when and if race has anything to do with non selection, people will take the allegation more seriously. For Black Americans to waste political capital on a convicted murdered and founder of a gang that has killed more US citizens than the 9/11 attackers is ludicrous! There is a limit to the amount of times one can cry wolf before people stop listening. So called community leadership are taking advantage of and exploiting Black Americans for their own reasons that will cause far more harm than good by arguing that somehow Mr. Williams’s execution represents some sort of racism! In fact those so called community leaders should be rejected for such outrageous behavior. Tell the truth.

Not before concluding I’m going to speak briefly about religion for the benefit of believers and non believers alike. When Jesus hung on the cross. Next to him was a criminal who was also being executed. This criminal asked the Lord for forgiveness which Jesus granted because of the Lords knowledge of the sincerity of this persons heart. And after giving that forgiveness, the criminal died shortly after as a result of his crucifixion. According to Jesus this man was allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven. But only AFTER confessing and then being EXECUTED HERE ON EARTH. Considering that it would be within the Lords power to save this mans life. Why was it that only Jesus arose from the grave? I’ll withhold the answer so that individuals can reflect on this point.

In addition to sending Mr. Williams this letter and attempting to visit him. Here is what I am advising Mr. Williams to do and it is what I would do if I was in his shoes. I would tell Mr. Williams that he has a unique opportunity right a lot of the wrong he has done and perhaps he could even attain immortality by doing the following. Mr. Williams could write a letter to the public and specifically the youth. In his letter he should renounce the Crips and gang banging. He should use his life as an example of how the gangsta lifestyle is not good and should not be emulated or encouraged. And most of all he should apologize to the victims. Including all those victimized by gang violence. He should also tell the activist making false allegations of racism to leave and not make a mockery of the hardships that Black Americans have had to face when legitimately falsely accused in the past. And then He should walk into the death chamber and accept death as a payment for his sins. This would demonstrate to the youth that crime has consequences. But even more powerful it would demonstrate his willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. Through this act of courage he would influence many times more people, draw attention to the issue of the death penalty so that a true public discussion of its merit could take place. And he would be showing to a lot of young men how to be a man and accept responsibility for his actions. In this act he would instantly become the father of so many young men who never had a man around to show them what being a man means. His actions would be talked about, movies would be made and Mr. Williams, Stanley “Tookie” Williams, would never be forgotten. In a sense he would become immortal. And in his final act, Stanley “Tookie” Williams would achieve, Redemption.

Sincerely
Brandon

Typically, Fox News is considered to be a conservative news channel and CNN is considered to be a liberal news channel. As we all know, liberals supposedly are for the poor and minority, etc. If this is the case, then why is CNN making less fortunate Blacks look bad. This clip by CNN shows CNN news reporters questioning the “Conspiracy Theory” of the Levy. They are targeting Blacks who they know that is not educated and creditable on discussing this topic. It looks like to me CNN is making fun of those unfortunate Black victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Ex-Sectary of Education Bill Bennett made a very strong statement the other day saying:

Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Yes, this is a pretty harsh thing to say, especially over the air. Although, this may offend many African Americans, as it does offend me, we cannot ignore the truth. And the truth is, blacks are responsible for more crimes than any other race. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that Blacks are responsible of more than 50 percent of violent crime and over 36 percent of property crime which is the highest of all other races for these two categories. Violent crimes consist of rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault and property crime consist of household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft.

Although what he said is harsh, if you erase offense of race, his theory is reasonable. You would probably have to think out side the box to understand this. If you have something that produces the majority of an action, and if you remove that something, then that action will be reduced.

Was what he said harsh? Yes. Was what he said wrong? Not in theory.

I was listening to ” Rush Limbaugh” the other morning and he was discussing on why is it that when non-blacks criticize black political leaders like the black mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, it is racist. On one of his calls, he asks this one black lady a very good question. He ask, “Why is it that many blacks do not look up to people like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas?” The lady on the phone gave a really good answer. She said, referring to blacks, that all of our lives we hear on how the “White Man” keeps us down. After hearing this over and over again and without actually seeing this, we tend to believe this. Especially hearing this since you was a child. Then you hear strong influential political leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton whose job is to bring this idiotic concept home. Therefore, this deters many blacks to look up to people like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and may I add, Walter Williams. She also mentions that many blacks do not have much access to learn about people like Thomas Sowell because of where he writes his columns. I agree with this woman 100 percent. I do believe this is one of the main reasons why blacks do not look up to more dominant black political leader.

Also, it is funny how people like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton promote this “White Man” concept, but they had a front seat and spoke at the Democratic National Convention with the “White Man” liberal John Kerry.

(Ranting) To those who believes in this “White Man” keeps me down concept. GET OVER IT!!! The white man is not trying to keep you down. This concept is your excuse for your lack of success. Also, stop looking for handouts. Get up, get out, and get your own success. If you are waiting for the “White Man” to pay you back for all the horrible things they did to our ancestors, like reparations, you will be waiting forever. It is not going to happen! Our true black political leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcom X lead the path of racism to where it is today, minimum! Today, blacks are as equal to others more than it has ever been. Let us take advantage of this and let us live prosperous. Let us stop making excuses for our own failure. Let us teach our kids about how important education is. Let us reduce separatism from other races. Let us learn from the “White Man” or any other race on how to create success and riches. If each individual black person does this, we will prosper as a race of proud Black Americans.

Political analyst on KCAL-9 TV Los Angeles, Ms. Stewart, has an article in the ($$) Wall Street Journal describing Ted Hayes. A must read for those that don’t know who Ted Hayes is.

Rasta Republican

By JILL STEWART
April 28, 2005 12:07 a.m.; Page A19

LOS ANGELES — Condoleezza Rice and Ward Connerly once epitomized black Republicans in California. But their ilk now also includes Ted Hayes, a social activist and inner-city coach whose billowing robes and dreadlocks don’t exactly conjure up an image of the GOP.

More blacks than ever support vouchers and faith-based initiatives, and side with President Bush on gay marriage. Mr. Hayes recently made the transition himself, ending a long journey for this former leftist who founded Dome Village, an outcropping of pod-like homeless shelters along the freeway in downtown Los Angeles.

There are other prominent black Republicans in California, of course, such as syndicated radio host Larry Elder and community relations expert Joe Hicks. But even among these unusual thinkers, Mr. Hayes stands out. He’s an intense critic of L.A.’s powerful “black old guard” — Democratic politicians, charity bosses and inner-city preachers who, for a generation, have responded to poverty and illiteracy by demanding government programs and blaming white racism.

Not surprisingly, plenty of people wish pesky black Republicans like Mr. Hayes would just slink away. He has skewered L.A.’s entrenched black leaders as “Negro officials,” and he has the street cred to get away with it. As L.A. endured another crisis between black leaders and cops recently, he refused to denounce police for shooting dead a 13-year-old, Devin Brown, after a car chase. Instead, Mr. Hayes’s press release faulted black church leaders who, despite their great power, rarely point to the lack of parental responsibility.

A totemic figure in L.A., Mr. Hayes has long emphasized problem-solving and individual responsibility. If you want to stop kids from shooting people, Mr. Hayes has told appalled black preachers and activists, stop blaming cops and “white folks” for urban tragedy and start blaming the lackadaisical inner-city family culture you support.

Mr. Hayes spent last fall tooling around the fortified neighborhoods of South Los Angeles, knocking on security screens and urging stunned residents to vote Bush. He explained that the Democratic Party was the Klan’s party in the 20th century, and the party of the slave trade before that. A lot of people he met didn’t know their pre-1960s history. He’s ever unflappable. In early December, he appeared on Fox News to vociferously defend the right of Condi Rice to be Republican. His segment was introduced by a bemused Brit Hume, who hardly knew what to make of the Rasta Republican.

To illustrate how easily civility can rub off on urban kids if adults take a stand, Mr. Hayes in the 1990s founded a cricket team in rundown Compton , comprised of Latino teenagers and homeless men. The team, called “Homies and Popz,” toured Ireland and England, playing at Windsor Castle, where Mr. Hayes chatted with the Earl of Wessex. Mr. Hayes’s son, Theo, a co-coach, told an interviewer that none of the cricket-playing kids has become a gang casualty. The Los Angeles Opera commissioned a 40-minute opera on the team by Michael Abels, and the Homies won two victory cups in the L.A. Social Cricket Alliance, a league dominated by Brits, Indians and other googly-bowling expats.

Mr. Hayes can ignite controversy, as when he persuaded L.A. officials to sign a declaration two years ago calling on Muslims to denounce global terrorism more vehemently. City leaders rewrote the declaration, making Mr. Hayes’s original wording tougher. When Muslim leaders expressed outrage, city officials quickly apologized. Mr. Hayes still smarts over public criticism of him by Muslim leaders arising from the incident, which he says could be cited by radical Islamists as reason to harm him physically.

Even that sort of dread doesn’t seem as tough as being a black Republican some days. He was outraged when a liberal white radio personality called Condi Rice an “Aunt Jemima” for embracing Republicanism, and even angrier when top black Democrats stood silent. He founded ABE — American Black Elephants — a group that so far has 10 members. At a recent L.A. County Republican Party meeting, Mr. Hayes erupted into “God Bless America” after watching slides from a soldier who’d just returned from Iraq. Less emotive Republicans, though startled, joined right in.

Mr. Hayes’s Republican bent has strained relations within his family. His daughter, Joanna, who won gold in the Athens Olympics in the 100-meter hurdles, explained on PBS last year that after much political confusion, she’s learned to be deeply proud of her dad.

Yet in spite of the gnashing of teeth he provokes, Mr. Hayes earns grudging respect. In the ’90s, with nonprofits citing a lack of “affordable housing” as a key cause of homelessness, Mr. Hayes — living among the domes — suggested that many black homeless men were modern-day tramps who viewed the middle class with disdain. But he was constructive, not merely critical, and proposed a National Homeless Plan to enlist corporations to help resistant homeless men support themselves in special communities — winning private contracts like those that now go to incarcerated prisoners.

A principled man (like Mr. Connerly, the University of California regent who persuaded voters to end affirmative action in college admissions), Mr. Hayes has the courage of his convictions. Recently, he met with L.A. City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa to sound out his thoughts on the Hayes-Muslim dustup. Mr. Villaraigosa, for his part, is seeking to become the first Latino mayor of L.A. since Abraham Lincoln’s time, and has been peeling black votes away from incumbent James Hahn. He needs not to alienate the dreadlocked and outspoken Republican.

Mr. Hayes’s victories are small — enjoying face time with a busy politician, teaching street kids the finer points of cricket, and helping homeless men pull themselves together. Each is a part of the Hayes project. And he’s got patience, especially when it comes to broadening the Republican tent. Or, as Ted Hayes might call it, the Republican dome.

Ms. Stewart, a Los Angeles-based writer and syndicated columnist, is a political analyst on KCAL-9 TV Los Angeles.

Here are some good facts on unemployment during both the Clinton and Bush administration:

February 1997 Under Bill Cinton:

11.3 = Unemployment rate among African-Americans.
8.1 = Unemployment rate among Latinos.
4.5 = Unemployment rate among Whites.

February 2005, Under George W. Bush:

10.9 = African-Americans.
6.4 = Latinos.
4.6 = Whites.

Percentage says it all…

HatTip to PoliPundit and Hispanic Pundit.

Whelp, it looks like another war is about to happen. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has said Tehran will never give up nuclear technology although international pressure continues. He also warned of massive consequences if Iran was treated unfairly and claims the nuclear program is for peaceful and needed nuclear energy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the other hand is being very aggressive with the Iranian President, stating that they must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or “the next steps are in the offing.” “And I think everybody understands what the ‘next steps’ mean”, Rice told reporters. Ok, this is getting ugly here. And note that President Bush said that Iran was part of the “axis of evil.”

Ex-President Carter noted that the U.S. military was “bogged down in Iraq and overextended” and he thinks diplomacy is a proper approach which he believe exactly what President Bush is doing, as announced by Condoleezza Rice.

I would like to forward you guys a post by El-Oso about “Understanding Minority Conservatives.” I am under the assumption that El-Oso is currently a liberal that is now seeing things differently and is almost converting to become a conservative with the help of HispanicPundit (correct me if I’m wrong). Here is an excerpt on how El-Oso is now seeing his political stance:

I’ll tell you something that I rarely tell anyone: I secretly want to be a conservative.

I don’t want to have to tell anyone what they should do with their money. I don’t want to be the one going up to some rich guy and saying, “look man, don’t you think you should be spending some more of your money on schools and less on all those cars?” Or telling my employer that he should really be offering me health care. Or telling some hardworking businesswoman who has spent the last two years looking for the perfect place to put her business, “sorry, but I think it might affect this rare species of birds that calls this place home. Or even demanding that a company not selectively hire employees based on age, sex, or ethnicity. All this regulation that we as liberals, demand of our government. I wish I didn’t have to be a part of it.

Hey El-Oso, I believe most conservative, including minorities see things this way.

The Center for Immigration Studies shows the high cost of cheap labor. Based on Census Bureau data, their studies showed that illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. Here are the findings of their study:

• Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
• Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
• With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
• On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
• Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
• If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
• Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status — what most illegal aliens would become — can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
• Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
• The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain — many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
• The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
• The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants’ education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

As you might know, Arizona is fighting against illegal immigration cost. Here are some of the problems and costs they are facing.

Every day as many as 4,000 illegal immigrants cross the border into Arizona, and you pay for it in ways you might not even think.

At Senator Jon Kyle’s request, his organization calculated the cost to Arizona hospitals for treating illegal immigrants at 31 million dollars in just one year.

And Rivers said the expense could be much more.

She demands legal documentation, but she thinks many workers can easily get fake documents — just as they would do to apply for Welfare.

And according to the Center for Immigration Studies, Welfare payments, including food stamps to Illegal immigrants in Arizona cost us $4,698,000 in 2001.

There’s another expense you’ve probably never imagined.

Tucked behind a familiar stretch of I-10, and right across from one of Phoenix’s most popular resorts is an indigent burial ground.

Many of the grave sites are marked John Doe or Jane Doe.

They’re likely illegal immigrants who died shortly after coming to the United States.

In the last five years Maricopa County alone has buried 100 unidentified people at an estimated cost of more than $197,000. That’s enough to pay the five year salary for any one of the more than twenty Maricopa County jobs now open.

$31 million dollars in hospital cost in one year is VERY expensive. I am happy to see someone is trying to do something about this issue.

Here is a funny clip on President Bush’s second term. Enjoy!!!

It seems like the left are extremely furious because of President Bush’s second term.

The US Democrats vowed to fight “extreme” Republican policies as George W Bush saw in his second term as president with a lavish inauguration.

Despite their poor showing in last November’s elections, they said they would refuse to be sidelined.

They have demanded a full debate in Congress before approving Condoleezza Rice as the new secretary of state.

But some Democrats said they were heartened by the conciliatory tone of Mr Bush’s inaugural speech.

“Today… Republicans are hoping that we’ll fade into the background,” he wrote. “They’re hoping that for the next two years we’ll sit on the sidelines, and let them ram their agenda through.

“But we Democrats will never step aside. While Bush tries to build his legacy on a series of attacks against working families, the middle class and seniors, Democrats will be there to stand up.”

But correspondents say that resolve may be tested domestically in the coming days after the Democrats delayed the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state until next week.

They said they wanted more time so they could debate Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

What’s up with these democrats always picking on Condoleezza Rice? Well, I guess I can understand their frustration. If it was the other way around and the majority of the government was democrats and liberals, I’ll be pissed too. I can only image them applying their agenda: high taxes, abused social programs, affirmative action… Yuk!!! Well liberals, it looks like you are on the sidelines.

“The biggest difference seems to get the least attention: With private accounts, money is invested in the economy, creating additional wealth, from which pensions can be paid. With Social Security, the money is spent as soon as it gets to Washington.” –Thomas Sowell

Star Parker introduces a statistical analysis on affirmative action by a law professor from UCLA by the name of Richard Sander. Please note that this law professor is a long-time liberal and advocate of race-conscious public policy.

This statistical analysis goes as follows:

The study, “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools,” argues, using statistical analysis, that although total elimination of racial preferences would cause a 14 percent reduction in the number of blacks accepted to law school, there would be an 8 percent increase in the number of blacks actually becoming lawyers. The reason for this, according to the analysis in the 100-plus page study, is because of the improvement in grades, graduation rates, and rates in passing bar examinations that would result from color-blind admissions policies.

It would be good to see the validity of this statistical analysis. But I know there will be many pro-affirmative-action-bashing people out there off the top saying his data is wrong. I just hope his data have some truth to it, because I feel that it’s time for affirmative action to go.