Saturday, May 27, 2006

 

El Presidente Fox Is on His Soap Box

Does anyone have a problem with the leader of a nation - Vicente Fox, Mexico - that is having a mass departure of its residents telling the leaders of another nation how it should govern its immigration policy?

I recently saw a stat that said that nearly one in ten Mexican citizens reside in the United States. I suppose El Presidente Fox must believe he has the right to some governing in the US when that much of his populace lives here.

What do you think?

Friday, May 26, 2006

 

"Dr. Death" Rethinks "Dignity in Dying" Campaign

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2008364&page=1

Dr. Jack Kevorkian sits in jail - dying. He has no apparent regrets for assisting the deaths of the terminally ill. However, he does regret the method used to bring the story of the dying to light.

Kevorkian now believes he should have worked within the legal means available to him. Rather than admitting that assisting those who were dying to achieve their wishes was wrong, Kevorkian says that his method of promoting the "Death with Dignity" idea was all wrong. Big surprise.

There were two primary camps opposed to Dr. Death and his supporters. One group opposed the death with dignity campaign on moral grounds. Their argument centered around a double nucleus of the sanctity of life and the moral imposition of having a physician carry out the death procedure. This group was the most vocal and contained the majority of supporters.

The other group opposed Kevorkian on legal grounds. Their view was, and is, that assisted suicide is illegal and anyone assisting in the death of a patient is violating the law. This group consisted of law enforcement and the legal community. It was this group that actually stopped Kevorkian in his tracks as his now sitting, and dying, in prison.

The ABC News story, linked above, seems to show that the moral issues have had no effect on Kevorkian. His "rethinking" of the "Death with Dignity" campaign falls on deaf ears because the lack of a moral change in viewpoint.

What if a rapist decided in an interview that he has changed his opinion on rape? But, rather than saying that rape is wrong and that he will never attempt another one, he says that what he has concluded is that the method in which he raped his victims, and ultimately got caught, was wrong. How then do we view the rapist? As reformed? Then why should we view Kevorkian any different?

He has stated through inference that he would still help people commit suicide, just that he would not be as public about his methods.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

 

Questions to the Candidates for Arkansas Attorney General

I have a few questions for our Attorney General candidates. If you have a question you would like to pose, put them in the comment section and I may add them to the list. As the candidates respond, this post will be updated with their exact quote. While I may personally lean to one candidate over the other, I believe in being honest when reporting information. Both candidates have my promise of fairness and honesty.

Questions:

1) Considering the high cost of education, is there a legal way for the State of Arkansas to provide an education for the children of American citizens without having to provide the same educational opportunities to the children of illegal or undocumented aliens?

2) With the rising cost of electricity and natural gas, what recourse do Arkansans have, given that utility companies must seek approval for rate hikes?

3) Hypothetical Question - A popular mayor in a mid-sized city takes some money under the table for a project and is found out. His voting tendencies run along the same lines as your party and he has been beneficial to candidates from your party in the past. What actions do you take?

Monday, May 22, 2006

 

Mexican Stand-Off On Policy

Mexico's Double Standard on Immigrants
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4932879

While Mexican authorities and rights groups call Americans racist for demanding control of our southern border, Mexico continues to do the very thing it condemns. If you are not Mexican, you cannot work in Mexico, except in very specific cases.

While Mexico's foreign born citizens make up 0.5% of the 105 million person population, the foreign born residents (legal and illegal) in the US make up 13% of a 299 million person population. Also, where the US grants citizenship to nearly a half-million people annually, Mexico grants citizenship to roughly 3,000 people per year.

"Do Unto Others..."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20060418-1004-mexico-mistreatingmigrants.html

How does Mexico treat illegal aliens from Central America? Certainly not in the manner they expect the US to treat their citizens that cross illegally into our border states.

"Considered felons by the Mexican government, they fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers simply take all their money."

"In the night, you hear the gunshots, and it's the judiciales (state police) chasing the migrants,” Virginia Sanchez, a housewife who lives in the town of Tultitlan, said. “It's not fair to kill these people. It's not fair in the United States and it's not fair here.” Sanchez lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border.

My View

The US should, and generally does, treat illegal aliens humanely. No other nation in the world has immigrants risking their lives at the rate Mexican citizens do to come to find work and freedom. That bodes well for the US. However, control of our borders is mandatory if we are to continue to have these opportunities for immigrants and the native population of our country. I do not believe we can stop all illegals nor can we deport all illegals. But, we must try. We cannot catch all murders, yet we try. We do not catch all speeders, yet we try.

Illegal aliens are criminals in this respect, they broke this nation's laws by entering in the manner in which they did. While they do provide a valuable service in many areas, illegals also drain public coffers by using government services and hospitals without regard to cost. These are service that should be provided to native born Americans first. If we have financing available afterwards, then yes, we should assist those others in need.

Ultimately, we need to revisit the manner in which we provide documentation to aliens that wish to come to the US. If the legal process can be cleaned and speeded up, fewer people would seek illegal means to arrive. Strengthening our border security is a prime objective, but streamlining the process will alleviate the burden on security.

None of this can be done overnight. There is no :magic wand." We must be vigilant in the process. But, we must proceed in this manner.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

 

Why I Am Voting For Jim Holt

In 2004, I supported Jim Holt in his run against US Senator Blanche Lincoln. Despite being outspent by a tremendous amount and a state wide media that was hostile to him, Holt made the race closer than any incumbent is ever comfortable with. Why? Because Jim Holt stands for the same core values that a majority of Arkansans stand for. Though he lost, his message got out. The people who had an opportunity to meet him found they were in agreement with him.

I found him to be an engaging person that understands the fears and needs every family faces. Raising their children while schools teach material they find objectable, working extra jobs just to afford the taxes imposed upon them, and defending the sanctity of life and marriage are important to Jim. I discovered that he is not, by any means, the extemist the media portrays him to be. He is a strong Christian, a veteran that dearly loves his country, and a father that provides and impeccable example for his children.

Jim Holt has my vote for Lt. Governor of Arkansas. How will you vote?

Below are a number of reasons that I will be voting for him beyond what I have already stated. The information gathered is from a friend that compiled this data. It can all be verified. I invite each of you to endeavor to discover the truth. You too will find Jim to be a remarkable Arkansan and a friend.

Who has stood by Jim Holt? How about small and independent business, the National Rifle Association, and Arkansas Right to Life for starters?

Senator Holt has a 100% rating by the National Federation Of Independent Business & sponsored Act 2287 to protect property rights.

The NRA has given Senator Holt a straight "A" rating.

Sen. Holt was given a perfect voting record by Arkansas Right to Life.

State Senator Jim Holt voted against these bills in an attempt to protect Arkansans from an over reaching state government and slow or stop runaway spending of taxpayers dollars.

Holt voted against SB42 the bill which resulted in $360 million tax to increase our sales tax to 6%. 2003 Session

Holt voted against Act 84 to pay an Ohio company $10 million to assess the school buildings in the state for needed improvements which will result in a few billion dollars for buildings according to several sources. 2003 Session

Holt voted against the facilities bill that allows the State to take over all school facilities in Arkansas (Facilities Committee recommended 4.5 BILLION for next five years.) 2003 Acts of Second Extraordinary Session of 2003.

Holt voted against the Omnibus bill Act 1467 which implemented a government controlled curriculum in every school in Arkansas and will result in additional state department employees. Only four other senators voted against it. 2003 Session

Holt voted against Act 98 in 2003 to give $107 million dollars to Arkansas Department of Education for 32 new employees. 2003 Session

Holt was the only senator to vote against allowing the isolated school district to be closed which has now caused numerous children to ride the bus in several schools 1 hr 45 minutes one way (3 ½ hours a day on the bus) 2005 Session

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?