Free Republic

I don't know too much about Meg Whitman except that she has practical hardheaded intelligence. I know she understands business, she's met a payroll...she isn't a talented and capable "activist", which seems to the main criteria the Dems look for nowadays. Therefore, I like her so far!

She has a solid cadre of center-right political heavyweights, some of whom I know personally, lining up behind her, and she has a capable staff of advisers so that is a good sign too.

I think a smart, female moderate with an R next to her name is probably well positioned to break out of the political fog in 2010 and capture the top political prize in what can only be described as the most dysfunctional state in the union.

I like her E-Bay creds which speaks to her understanding of technology and the internet economy. Hmm...I think we could do a lot worse...

“If they strung it with Light Emitting Diodes would it be the LED Zeppelin?”

only if it was named by Keith Moon

Not me...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984463/posts

Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari...

APFN Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:15 72.201.43.207

Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency By Janitsar on Nov 18th, 2008

Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a natural born citizen …

The following remarks were prepared for testimony in front of the California State Senate's "Labor and Industrial Relations Committee" chaired by State Senator Richard Alarcon (D) San Fernando Valley. The commiittee postponed the hearing for this Bill at the last minute but the issue remains.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you on this important issue.

As has been mentioned already, my name is Joe Armendariz and I am the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and the Santa Barbara Industrial Association.

I am also serving my first term on the Carpinteria City Council having been elected in November of 2004.

Both of the organizations that I represent are nonpartisan and active in public policy with a primary focus on fiscal, economic and regulatory issues within Santa Barbara County.

I am here to speak in support of Senate Bill 692 which would add the California Highway Patrol to the Joint Enforcement Strike Force as well as authorize a comprehensive study by the California State University regarding the costs and benefits of illegal immigration.

However, first I want to take a moment to recognize the sensitivity of this issue.

I understand that men and women of goodwill can and will disagree about our nation's immigration policy.

Nobody, however, should dispute the obvious; illegal immigration is by its very nature antithetical to the rule of law and is therefore something that no serious nation should accept in this new age of global terrorism.

Now, I am a Republican and so it might seem typical or expected that I would have the views I have with respect to illegal immigration, but this was not always the case.

In fact, in 1994, I found myself in the interesting position of being a minority who belonged to a political Party with too few minority members in it.

Add to that the fact that, with respect to the issue of illegal immigration - and as manifested through CA Prop-187 - I also held a minority view within my own Party. To be clear; I opposed Prop-187.

I opposed Prop- 187 for many of the same reasons that some of my political hero's, including Jack Kemp; Bill Bennett; and former Wall Street Journal Editor, the late Robert Bartley, opposed Prop-187.

Like them, I believed Prop-187 was bad politics for the Republican Party and would risk alienating a natural constituency; hard working, law abiding Hispanics. After all, as my Dad used to say: Blood is thicker than water.

But as the old saying goes; that was then and this is now.

My understanding of the negative impacts of illegal immigration, circa 1994, was much different than it is today.

Moreover, few serious minded people would deny that this phenomenon has grown considerably worse since 1994.

Indeed, it is now estimated that there may be as many as 20 million illegal immigrants living in this country. And this estimate might actually be conservative.

Today, illegal immigration, particularly- if not especially - in California has reached crisis proportions.

Why is it a crisis?

1. I believe our failure to stop illegal immigration is a crisis because it places a tremendous fiscal strain on local governments ability to deliver essential programs and services.

This is the case because it not only requires public resources to deliver services to illegal immigrants, but illegal immigrants participate in an underground economy which robs local governments of the revenues they need to deliver the services they provide.

2. I believe our failure to stop illegal immigration is a crisis because it provides a useful camouflage for terrorists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans, to enter our country undetected.

According to the Commission on Human Rights: Every year nearly 1 million slaves are smuggled into countries around the world, including America.

The overwhelming majority are women and most are bought and sold for sexual purposes. What a world!

Here is the point: a global system that can smuggle slaves can also smuggle terrorists.

America seems to lack the will to do very much about this clear and present risk to our national security.

3. I believe our failure to stop illegal immigration is a crisis because it is contributing to the slow and steady decline in the quality of life in many of our local communities.

Many illegal immigrants live in overcrowded conditions, in predominantly single-family neighborhoods, and it is evident to many of the families who live in these overcrowded neighborhoods that those who come here illegally lack the interest and/or the desire to fully assimilate.

This lack of assimilation results in the gradual transformation of once attractive neighborhoods into something resembling third-world living conditions.

This observation is not intended to be mean-spirited. But to be candid; this predictable and unfortunate culture clash puts neighbor against neighbor. And very often, it requires local authorities to get involved.

As this problem grows more frequent and prevalent throughout our communities, impacted neighborhoods eventually lose their appeal as more and more established families leave the area in search of a better quality of life.

This problem is especially bad and growing progressively worse in my own small beach community of Carpinteria. And I refer you back to my first concern...the cost of providing local services to illegal immigrants with diminishing resources in which to do it.

So it would seem to come full circle.

Now, having said all this, I also want to be perfectly clear about the following:

I do not support closing our nations borders and effectively stopping all forms of legal immigration.

To quote the famous Catholic Priest from Notre Dame, Father Hesburgh, the reason we need to close and lock the back door of illegal immigration is so we can keep open the golden door of legal immigration.

I believe this speaks to our nation's true heritage. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Unlike some, I do not worry about those who come to America to work hard, pay taxes and play by the rules. In other words, I don't worry about those who come here to become Americans.

Moreover, I recognize the tremendous political, economic, social and intellectual contribution of immigrants. From Hamilton, to Carnegie to Einstein to Kissinger to Schwarzenegger.

I am here today in support of Senate Bill 692 because it attempts to accomplish that which has gone unaccomplished for far too long; to quantify the costs of illegal immigration while helping us realize the benefits of legal immigration.

When my constituents ask why the government they support, with an increasing share of their income, via taxes, lacks the financial resources to deliver basic services including fixing roads, incarcerating criminals and educating their children, I need to provide them a better explanation than to simply say it's the state legislature's fault.

Therefore, to conclude, I urge this committee to support SB 692 so that we can begin to accurately quantify the costs of illegal immigration and the benefits of legal immigration as it pertains to the real cost of government in California.

I believe this is an idea whose time has come.

I also hope this discussion can take place without the usual shenanigans by those who insist on using the issue of race as political currency. We must face these important challenges by appealing to our better angels, as opposed to our lowest common denominator.

Some of the challenges we face include the breakdown of our will to control the border and our seeming indifference to the importance of why immigrants should learn to become Americans.

It has been said and it is certainly true that we are a multi-ethnic society. But, it is also true that we must resolve to become one civilization; American.

And it seems obvious to me that in order for us to effectively address this issue on a macro scale, we must first understand its fiscal implications at a micro level. SB 692 will help us do that.

Thank you and I would be happy to entertain any questions.

There is no question about the fact that Agricuture is a huge contributor to the state's gross state product. In Santa Barbara County, where I live, it is the number one industry, in terms of gross output.

Unfortunately, it is also one of the lowest paying industries in the county, second only to tourism. This old-economy industry is very high input and relatively low output once you calculate its impacts on local infrastructure and multiplier affects on the regional economy.

It is extremely labor intensive which is what drives the state's illegal immigration problem. So, no doubt it is big business in California, and it would be close to impossible, politically, to argue for its replacement as a matter of economic policy. But, it must be done if we are to have any success in stemming this tidal-wave of illegal immigration.

California can import most of its food from the Midwest, Latin America, China, and even Eastern Europe. What we can't import is good-old-fashoned American ingenuity which if properly motivated and allowed to flourish will raise the living standards of all Americans while increasing our after-tax disposable income as well.

The solution to illegal immigration, ultimately, it to move away from a resource based economy (agriculture) and into a knowledge based economy (science and technology). California should export innovation and intellectual property and import lettuce, tomatoes and strawberries.

Interesting thought.

When and what did Tom quit?

The same can be said about California. With a hiring freeze in effect, the state government grew by more than 40,000 people between 2001-2003. Oh and every one of those new hires is a member of the Public Employee Union.

Who said anything about paying for it Up Front? It is $15 per week from their pay checks. Moreover, the margins [profit] in the grocery business are puny...competition is severe because of innovators like COSTCO, SAM'S Club and Wal-Mart.

These are the gales of creative destruction, they better get used to it, because it is a phenomenon that is here to stay.

The stores are not asking the employees to give up health insuranc benefits, but simply to help absorb a small fraction of the exhorbitant increases the stores have realized for the last few years.

Asking employees to contribute $780 dollars per YEAR for their dependent costs is a steal for the employee. I know people who are paying $500+ per MONTH for their family coverage through their employer. Most employers contribute nothing for dependent costs.

Some people, even some conservatives, continue to believe labor unions are a necessary evil. The morality of the market, in terms if its efficiency in allocating goods, services AND labor, render this anti-democratic-capitalism institution irrelevent.

He was still an "ambassador" to the UN. In fact, serving in the Economic and Social Council, where he represented the interests of the United States in the U.N. General Assembly.

LOL...such ignorance writ large.

Keyes was UN Ambassador when Reagan was President. His moral code was instrumental in leveraging the morality and virtuous courage of Pope John Paul. Together, these three great men stood shoulder to shouder while their ultimate goal for humanity was pursued; the systematic destruction of the most evil regime on earth; the Soviet Union.

LOL...The Democrat party is morally bankrupt and the price for admission, is to spend all ofones time loitering in an intellectual ghetto.

I'm afraid their downfall occurred when they nominated a so-called moderate/centrist/conservative southern politician in 1992.

Interesting. For someobody with a damaged political future, McClintock enjoys the highest favorability numbers of any politician in California, including Diane Feinstein.

As for debating ideas, perhaps if Arnold had some, there would have been a debate.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, he does have some ideas:

He says he will do everything for the children, but supports abortion on demand.

He supports gay adoption, but opposes gay marriage.

He supports giving schools more money from the budget, but he also supports a spending cap. (Prop-98 already requires 40% of the budget be spent on K-12).

He opposes raising taxes, but says Indian Tribes should pay "their fair share" (he is apparently oblivious to what the Tribes contribute to their local communities)

He supports industrial sector jobs, but seeks to strengthen environmental regulations (as if CA doesn't have enough green tape strangling industry already).

He favors "local control", but wants to strengthen the Coastal Commission (which removes local control of land-use decisions)

Etc, etc, etc, and on and on...

LOL..."terrorists" vs "terrorism" is a distinction, without a difference. And now, it would seem as though you are suggesting Tom McClintock is Gay...referring to his use of the word terrorists as: "drama queen hysteria".

The tediously inconveneient fact, Jorge, is the word terrorist is an apt description for those who would choose to terrorize somebody for exercising their God given right to pursue happiness. McClintock has every right, in the world, to be in this race and quite frankly, the more we learn abour Der Arnold, with each passing news cycle, I thank God he is in the race, so those desiring a flight to quality have somewhere to go, besides down.

Jorge says:
"One more example of how some attempt to expand the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone who opposes them in any manner.
Incredible."

ter·ror·ism:
1: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

ter·ror:
1: a state of intense fear 2: one that inspires fear 3: a cause of anxiety

So Jorge, I'm curious, what expansion of the definition of terrorism are you referring?