Looks like they finally got it right.
"Under the new policy, Jacocks said, anyone who is placed under arrest will be asked about his or her citizenship and then, if the person is in the country illegally, police will notify a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) agent. Previously in Virginia Beach, people arrested for minor offenses were not questioned about citizenship."
Of course, Chief Jacocks had to take his shots to make himself feel better...
"Asked about O'Reilly at the press conference on Tuesday, Jacocks said: 'I think he's a pathetic person, short on manners and large of mouth, whose inability to do anything constructive for anyone has relegated him to sitting on his duff and spewing insults and half-truths on a tabloid TV show.'"
Sour grapes, anyone?
Jacocks should realize that he's been attempting to play the "nobody would've cared if it wasn't an illegal immigrant" card. What Jacocks didn't realize is that the incident itself (a drunk-driving accident) opened up a completely different topic (allowing illegal immigrants to repeatedly break the law without even questioning their status).
He also stuck his foot in his mouth last month when he said, “Not only do we not have the capacity to do the federal government’s work in the area of immigration, but we have no business doing so.” Not realizing that being in this country illegally is the law...and it is his organization's duty to uphold the law.
He should've just kept his mouth shut.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
A Story I've been Watching
I've been following this story for a while.
It seems that the URI College Republicans, who placed a satirical advertisement in the school newspaper offering a $100.00 scholarship to a "white, heterosexual male" in protest of URI's apparent abundance of race, gender, and sexuality-based scholarships.
URI's Student Senate has taken exception to this, and has pressured the College Republicans to issue a written apology. So far, the College Republicans have refused to issue any apologies, but have been more than willing to issue a written explanation of the satirical advertisement.
The Student Senate will vote on Wednesday on whether or not to revoke the status of the College Republicans as a school-sanctioned group.
The school's president, Robert Carothers, has directed the School Senate NOT to impose any sanctions on the College Republicans, as that would violate their freedom of speech. The School Senate has decided to go forth with a vote on the matter anyway.
So, what I gather from this, is that the School Senate feels that they have the power to not only tell the College Republicans what they can't say, and what they must say...but that they have the power to override a directive by the man who runs the university.
Where's the ACLU on this one?
It seems that the URI College Republicans, who placed a satirical advertisement in the school newspaper offering a $100.00 scholarship to a "white, heterosexual male" in protest of URI's apparent abundance of race, gender, and sexuality-based scholarships.
URI's Student Senate has taken exception to this, and has pressured the College Republicans to issue a written apology. So far, the College Republicans have refused to issue any apologies, but have been more than willing to issue a written explanation of the satirical advertisement.
The Student Senate will vote on Wednesday on whether or not to revoke the status of the College Republicans as a school-sanctioned group.
The school's president, Robert Carothers, has directed the School Senate NOT to impose any sanctions on the College Republicans, as that would violate their freedom of speech. The School Senate has decided to go forth with a vote on the matter anyway.
So, what I gather from this, is that the School Senate feels that they have the power to not only tell the College Republicans what they can't say, and what they must say...but that they have the power to override a directive by the man who runs the university.
Where's the ACLU on this one?
Weekly Podium: How The GOP Went Wrong (And Can They Fix It?)
In the year 2000, the Republican Party gained something they hadn't enjoyed in several decades. They were fully in charge of the federal government. George W. Bush had just been elected in one of the most controversial elections in American history. The House and Senate were already under GOP control from the Republican Revolution of 1994.
After being pretty well left-for-dead in 1992 after losing the presidency, the Republicans regrouped, and powered by the "Contract With America" and voter dissatisfaction with how Clinton and the Democrats were running things, the Republicans swept into the majority in both the House and the Senate. Six years later, George W. Bush claimed the White House, and by January of 2003, the Republicans held power in both the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government.
This, of course, changed last November. The GOP lost their position of power for various reasons. Many are inclined to blame President Bush, but I believe that there is much more to this than simply blaming Bush.
First of all, the Republicans have always worked well as “the underdog”, in a sense. During Clinton’s administration, the Republicans were very good at rallying public support for their conservative agenda and control of “big government”. Along the same vein, Ronald Reagan was able to push through many of his initiatives despite facing a large Democratic majority in the House (as well as a Donkey majority starting in January of 1987).
When the Republicans attained the power that they had not been used to, it almost seemed as if a sense of revenge, power-greed, and lack of PR tact combined to bring them down. Republicans attempted to bull-rush bills into fruition, using their majorities to push their initiatives through. These were the same tactics that people did not like about the Democrats from 1993-1994, which led to the Republican Revolution in the first place.
In 1994, Republicans realized that they were entrusted with this kind of majority power by the American public because the American public was disenchanted with the Democrats. Middle America was tired of big government, and moved in favor of a more moral-based, smaller-government party who would bring some sense of personal responsibility and morality to a White House that had been riddled with sexual, moral, and personal scandal for the previous 8 years.
However, 9/11 changed the political climate. Bush, who ran on a domestic-policy platform, was now forced to become much more of a foreign-policy president than he (and the party) could have ever planned on.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush and the Republicans pushed through initiatives to help safeguard our country from future attacks. Perhaps emboldened by the success of these initiatives, the Republicans began enlarging the size of government. It seemed that the mentality to expand the government’s powers to increase protection against terrorism now seeped into other aspects of Republican policy.
While they never approached the size and scope of governmental expansion that the majority of Democrats tend to stand for, the shift away from the appealing principles of Republican conservatism has alienated many moderates, who had swung in favor of the GOP between 1992 and 2004.
The Iraq War has not helped Republican causes at all, and has given the Democrats a rallying point for public support. However, I’ve always thought that Democrats would not be so strongly opposed to this war if it had been advertised as “military action to stop the Kurd and Shiite genocide by Saddam Hussein.” Democrats love military actions that stop genocides (see Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999). But I digress…
This shift, however, was not necessarily completely the fault of the Republican politicians, though.
The Democrats, reeling from the loss of Congress to the Republicans and the subsequent loss of the White House, spent several years regrouping and shuffling the party’s leadership, bringing fresher faces to the forefront. Since the nation began it’s recovery from the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats have worked to rebuild their party structure and began unifying their causes with two goals in mind, regain the Congressional majorities and regain the White House.
So far, the plan has worked, but it has not been as victorious for the Democrats as they would hope. As I have observed previously, poll numbers are not necessarily great for the Dems, evidence that the American public voted “against the Republicans” in 2006...not “for the Democrats.” With the GOP mired in a popularity downfall, the Democrats are out for political revenge. So far they’ve done a pretty good job of casting a critical eye on conservatism in general, even though it has been at the expense of the image of their own liberal ideals.
The Republicans haven’t done anything to promote their own image, Democrats are taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them, and then you have the media…the third prong of the GOP fall from grace.
The general mainstream media, for the most part, is liberal. This tidbit of knowledge is very common, and it supports the aims and goals of the Democrats. Ever since the Vietnam War, the general mainstream media has become aware of it’s own self-importance, and has become increasingly efficient in delivering news with their own proverbial “spin”. While many cry foul of a certain network not being as “fair and balanced” as they say they are, their version of the “spin” is one of the exceptions, not the rule, among the mainstream media outlets.
Nonetheless, the liberal mainstream media’s irresponsibility in reporting the news has been allowed to happen due to the apparent inability of the GOP to handle the leftward spin. It seems that Bush’s administration, no matter what they try, cannot seem to handle the spin. The media, realizing this, has capitalized on this opportunity to further their own agendas, and has furthered the Democratic agenda in the process.
Conservatism in general is under a lot of scrutiny and attack in the media, whether on the talking-head shows, in newspaper op-ed columns, or in political blogs. As my compatriot Hunter Golden has opined to me more than once, “conservatives are losing the propaganda war…badly.” Republicans and conservatives in general are portrayed as war-mongering, selfish, greedy, elitist, bigoted, and religious zealots. This image lingers despite the fact that those who fit the description are on the fringe of conservatism, and are not what constitutes the bulk of conservative-minded Americans.
Due to the current political atmosphere, many good initiatives have fallen by the wayside, One of the biggest reasons why is because George W. Bush has been unable to sell the American public, the media, or key Democrats on his policies in a convincing manner. This is a prime example of the Bush administration’s inability to handle the spin created by the media or the opposition.
To his credit, Bush has attempted to remain optimistic that he can work with the current Democratic majority in forging a bright future for America, despite the fact that the Democrats are not interested in any kind of bipartisanship at this time. It is this kind of optimism for the future that GOP leaders need to carry forward into the 2008 campaign season.
The GOP is in a position to restructure their leadership and rejuvenate the waning support and interest of conservatives and moderates both. New faces are emerging as old stalwarts are on their way out, and there is a growing sentiment amongst conservatives that all is not lost for the Republican Party.
Part of what will be necessary for the GOP to get back to what made them appealing to many Americans in the first place. In a 2006 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey best-described what the Republicans have to do to reacquire mass public appeal…
“The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits. But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security. Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.”
Armey later states, “When we get back to being the party of limited government, putting a national agenda ahead of parochial short-term politics, we will again be a party that the American voters will trust to deal with the serious challenges facing our nation.”
These statements are very accurate in their depiction of the road the GOP must take to become the party that America trusts for the future. As the future of the Republican party comes into being, future party leadership must bring something new to the party’s ideology, while still remaining to it’s true base of limited government and agendas built for the long-run.
If not, the GOP (and conservatism as a whole) will be in for a seriously tough time until at least 2016.
After being pretty well left-for-dead in 1992 after losing the presidency, the Republicans regrouped, and powered by the "Contract With America" and voter dissatisfaction with how Clinton and the Democrats were running things, the Republicans swept into the majority in both the House and the Senate. Six years later, George W. Bush claimed the White House, and by January of 2003, the Republicans held power in both the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government.
This, of course, changed last November. The GOP lost their position of power for various reasons. Many are inclined to blame President Bush, but I believe that there is much more to this than simply blaming Bush.
First of all, the Republicans have always worked well as “the underdog”, in a sense. During Clinton’s administration, the Republicans were very good at rallying public support for their conservative agenda and control of “big government”. Along the same vein, Ronald Reagan was able to push through many of his initiatives despite facing a large Democratic majority in the House (as well as a Donkey majority starting in January of 1987).
When the Republicans attained the power that they had not been used to, it almost seemed as if a sense of revenge, power-greed, and lack of PR tact combined to bring them down. Republicans attempted to bull-rush bills into fruition, using their majorities to push their initiatives through. These were the same tactics that people did not like about the Democrats from 1993-1994, which led to the Republican Revolution in the first place.
In 1994, Republicans realized that they were entrusted with this kind of majority power by the American public because the American public was disenchanted with the Democrats. Middle America was tired of big government, and moved in favor of a more moral-based, smaller-government party who would bring some sense of personal responsibility and morality to a White House that had been riddled with sexual, moral, and personal scandal for the previous 8 years.
However, 9/11 changed the political climate. Bush, who ran on a domestic-policy platform, was now forced to become much more of a foreign-policy president than he (and the party) could have ever planned on.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush and the Republicans pushed through initiatives to help safeguard our country from future attacks. Perhaps emboldened by the success of these initiatives, the Republicans began enlarging the size of government. It seemed that the mentality to expand the government’s powers to increase protection against terrorism now seeped into other aspects of Republican policy.
While they never approached the size and scope of governmental expansion that the majority of Democrats tend to stand for, the shift away from the appealing principles of Republican conservatism has alienated many moderates, who had swung in favor of the GOP between 1992 and 2004.
The Iraq War has not helped Republican causes at all, and has given the Democrats a rallying point for public support. However, I’ve always thought that Democrats would not be so strongly opposed to this war if it had been advertised as “military action to stop the Kurd and Shiite genocide by Saddam Hussein.” Democrats love military actions that stop genocides (see Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999). But I digress…
This shift, however, was not necessarily completely the fault of the Republican politicians, though.
The Democrats, reeling from the loss of Congress to the Republicans and the subsequent loss of the White House, spent several years regrouping and shuffling the party’s leadership, bringing fresher faces to the forefront. Since the nation began it’s recovery from the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats have worked to rebuild their party structure and began unifying their causes with two goals in mind, regain the Congressional majorities and regain the White House.
So far, the plan has worked, but it has not been as victorious for the Democrats as they would hope. As I have observed previously, poll numbers are not necessarily great for the Dems, evidence that the American public voted “against the Republicans” in 2006...not “for the Democrats.” With the GOP mired in a popularity downfall, the Democrats are out for political revenge. So far they’ve done a pretty good job of casting a critical eye on conservatism in general, even though it has been at the expense of the image of their own liberal ideals.
The Republicans haven’t done anything to promote their own image, Democrats are taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them, and then you have the media…the third prong of the GOP fall from grace.
The general mainstream media, for the most part, is liberal. This tidbit of knowledge is very common, and it supports the aims and goals of the Democrats. Ever since the Vietnam War, the general mainstream media has become aware of it’s own self-importance, and has become increasingly efficient in delivering news with their own proverbial “spin”. While many cry foul of a certain network not being as “fair and balanced” as they say they are, their version of the “spin” is one of the exceptions, not the rule, among the mainstream media outlets.
Nonetheless, the liberal mainstream media’s irresponsibility in reporting the news has been allowed to happen due to the apparent inability of the GOP to handle the leftward spin. It seems that Bush’s administration, no matter what they try, cannot seem to handle the spin. The media, realizing this, has capitalized on this opportunity to further their own agendas, and has furthered the Democratic agenda in the process.
Conservatism in general is under a lot of scrutiny and attack in the media, whether on the talking-head shows, in newspaper op-ed columns, or in political blogs. As my compatriot Hunter Golden has opined to me more than once, “conservatives are losing the propaganda war…badly.” Republicans and conservatives in general are portrayed as war-mongering, selfish, greedy, elitist, bigoted, and religious zealots. This image lingers despite the fact that those who fit the description are on the fringe of conservatism, and are not what constitutes the bulk of conservative-minded Americans.
Due to the current political atmosphere, many good initiatives have fallen by the wayside, One of the biggest reasons why is because George W. Bush has been unable to sell the American public, the media, or key Democrats on his policies in a convincing manner. This is a prime example of the Bush administration’s inability to handle the spin created by the media or the opposition.
To his credit, Bush has attempted to remain optimistic that he can work with the current Democratic majority in forging a bright future for America, despite the fact that the Democrats are not interested in any kind of bipartisanship at this time. It is this kind of optimism for the future that GOP leaders need to carry forward into the 2008 campaign season.
The GOP is in a position to restructure their leadership and rejuvenate the waning support and interest of conservatives and moderates both. New faces are emerging as old stalwarts are on their way out, and there is a growing sentiment amongst conservatives that all is not lost for the Republican Party.
Part of what will be necessary for the GOP to get back to what made them appealing to many Americans in the first place. In a 2006 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey best-described what the Republicans have to do to reacquire mass public appeal…
“The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits. But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security. Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.”
Armey later states, “When we get back to being the party of limited government, putting a national agenda ahead of parochial short-term politics, we will again be a party that the American voters will trust to deal with the serious challenges facing our nation.”
These statements are very accurate in their depiction of the road the GOP must take to become the party that America trusts for the future. As the future of the Republican party comes into being, future party leadership must bring something new to the party’s ideology, while still remaining to it’s true base of limited government and agendas built for the long-run.
If not, the GOP (and conservatism as a whole) will be in for a seriously tough time until at least 2016.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Broken Records
After hearing some of the speeches by the Democratic presidential hopefuls out in California, I ask myself "haven't I heard this before?" Will the Dems ever stick to their promise of focusing on all the issues, instead of pushing a single issue over, and over, and over, and over...
Personally, at this point, we know the spending bill that the Dems sent to Pres. Bush's desk will be vetoed. If the Dems attempt to continue to push this same bill, they will bog down Congressional activity with this, further hampering their image in the public eye...which is already suffering from a "lack of action" image, as seen in quite a few polls.
We need a compromise, and there is one floating out there right now. There is a proposed spending bill with the benchmarks that force Iraq's government to start taking more accountability in protecting it's own people (with no set timetable for withdraw) is the true spending bill that Congress should pursue sending to the President's desk. Should that bill reach the Oval Office, Bush should realize that this is probably as close to a clean bill as he is going to get from Congress, and sign that into action.
At least this way, we can allow General Petraeus a chance to carry out this new troop surge and battle plan that has begun to turn the tide. What you don't hear in the media is that there is less sectarian fighting this year (pretty much since the troop surge began) than in the previous years of this war.
Something for you people to mull over...
Personally, at this point, we know the spending bill that the Dems sent to Pres. Bush's desk will be vetoed. If the Dems attempt to continue to push this same bill, they will bog down Congressional activity with this, further hampering their image in the public eye...which is already suffering from a "lack of action" image, as seen in quite a few polls.
We need a compromise, and there is one floating out there right now. There is a proposed spending bill with the benchmarks that force Iraq's government to start taking more accountability in protecting it's own people (with no set timetable for withdraw) is the true spending bill that Congress should pursue sending to the President's desk. Should that bill reach the Oval Office, Bush should realize that this is probably as close to a clean bill as he is going to get from Congress, and sign that into action.
At least this way, we can allow General Petraeus a chance to carry out this new troop surge and battle plan that has begun to turn the tide. What you don't hear in the media is that there is less sectarian fighting this year (pretty much since the troop surge began) than in the previous years of this war.
Something for you people to mull over...
TJ Hooker: Not A Hillary Fan
William Shatner has an opinion, and you should read it.
It gave me a good chuckle, that's for sure. The best part is in reference to a possible Hillary Clinton presidency, in which Shatner replies
"She wins, I puke."
I guess if she does win, I'll be sharing a bottle of Emetrol with Captain Kirk.
It gave me a good chuckle, that's for sure. The best part is in reference to a possible Hillary Clinton presidency, in which Shatner replies
"She wins, I puke."
I guess if she does win, I'll be sharing a bottle of Emetrol with Captain Kirk.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Jim Webb proves 49% of Virginians Were Correct!
Respect is to be given to Virginia Virtucon and Right-Wing Liberal for their coverage of this tidbit of news.
When asked why he voted for the timetable to get out of Iraq, after being opposed to such a timetable during his campaign, Jim Webb let loose with this whopper of a statement...
"There will be very little motivation for al-Qaeda to continue in Iraq once we have left."
WHAT!?!?!?
So the man sits on a certain position, because he knows it will play to the moderates in his home state. He then blatantly turns around and votes against the position he was sitting upon for all those months during the summer and fall of 2006. He then justifies his flip-flop with one of the most ludicrious statements of the year, if not the decade. This is lunacy of Harry Reid proportions.
C'mon Jim, you may have been "born fightin'", but you're "livin' in lockstep" with your party.
When asked why he voted for the timetable to get out of Iraq, after being opposed to such a timetable during his campaign, Jim Webb let loose with this whopper of a statement...
"There will be very little motivation for al-Qaeda to continue in Iraq once we have left."
WHAT!?!?!?
So the man sits on a certain position, because he knows it will play to the moderates in his home state. He then blatantly turns around and votes against the position he was sitting upon for all those months during the summer and fall of 2006. He then justifies his flip-flop with one of the most ludicrious statements of the year, if not the decade. This is lunacy of Harry Reid proportions.
C'mon Jim, you may have been "born fightin'", but you're "livin' in lockstep" with your party.
Can You Feel My Eyes Roll?
PETA, once again, proves that some people have too much time on their hands.
Is this the kind of bumbling lunacy that our society has come to?
Of course, what do you expect from an organization that hands out comics to 8 year olds that depict a housewife bloodily disembowling a bunny so "she can get fur for her coat"?
Please...
Is this the kind of bumbling lunacy that our society has come to?
Of course, what do you expect from an organization that hands out comics to 8 year olds that depict a housewife bloodily disembowling a bunny so "she can get fur for her coat"?
Please...
Maxine Roles on Republitarian
For those of us who live in the 26th Senate District of Virginia, a big "kudos" to Myron over at Republitarian held a forum for people ask questions for Democratic candidate Maxine Roles to answer.
Although the forum is closed, you can access the questions and answers here.
I didn't ask any questions, but I did read the answers Roles gave. She was brave enough to face the public's questions...but didn't seem to offer anything concrete, nor did she elaborate on her differences with the incumbent, Sen. Obenshain. She did dodge a few legitimate questions completely, such as whether she voted for or against the gay marriage amendment.
Kudos to Roles for stepping up and taking advantage of the opportunity presented to her. However, as of right now, Obenshain still has my vote.
If you're in the 26th District, go to the link above and decide for yourself! Goodnight, everybody.
UPDATE!
Apparently, according to Whackette, the forum is an open forum, and not a live one as I thought it was. So go ask more questions if you'd like, although many good questions were asked.
Although the forum is closed, you can access the questions and answers here.
I didn't ask any questions, but I did read the answers Roles gave. She was brave enough to face the public's questions...but didn't seem to offer anything concrete, nor did she elaborate on her differences with the incumbent, Sen. Obenshain. She did dodge a few legitimate questions completely, such as whether she voted for or against the gay marriage amendment.
Kudos to Roles for stepping up and taking advantage of the opportunity presented to her. However, as of right now, Obenshain still has my vote.
If you're in the 26th District, go to the link above and decide for yourself! Goodnight, everybody.
UPDATE!
Apparently, according to Whackette, the forum is an open forum, and not a live one as I thought it was. So go ask more questions if you'd like, although many good questions were asked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
