San Francisco declares WAR on Immigration law and order!

Let's just say for arguments sake that a certain high powered national politician from San Francisco, waaay back in May 2005 co-sponsored legislation that went a little like this:  Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration.......Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue.   Furthermore, in election year rhetoric, this same high powered national politician from San Francisco stated on October 26, 2008:    While some in the hard core pro-immigrant community will no doubt push to kill any bill that does not include a path to citizenship, hopefully they will realize after two prior failures that the only way we will improve the immigration system is to accept compromise.   Would you say that this politician respects the law of the land and would represent the will of her constituency?   Would it be fairly safe to say that there is some semblance of reason and a willingness to protect the law abiding LEGAL residents of this country?

Fast forward to October 26, 2009 and those kooky, crazy liberals are having some fun in the rave party that is San Francisco City Hall!  Seems as if it's not good enough that illegal immigration is sucking the life blood out of the state of California and possibly making it go bankrupt, but now the Board of Supervisors have overturned a law enacted by Mayor Gavin Newsome (D) in which juvenile illegal aliens are deported when they commit a crime and providing safe haven to other illegals that report criminals and criminal activity.   As Mayor Newsome put it, the Board of Supervisors "perverted" the law and created an extreme safe haven for illegal's to basically do what they want in this country.  Of course there are some that contest that San Francisco has pushed hard to extract themselves from the union, but that's a different matter altogether. 

The prime sponsor of the Board of Supervisor's legislation is none other than a previous illegal alien, David Campos.  Mr. Campos apparently can't seem to discern the difference between what illegal activity is and the rights of those who don't participate in illegal activity.   The very fact that Mr. Campos is here seems to justify his view of the boundaries being stretched as to what criminal activity is.  In his jaded his view, he now has fellow enablers (by an 8-2 vote) that will thumb their nose at the laws of this country.  He has painted this as some sort of Rockwellian portrait of families sitting by the table sitting down to Sunday dinner and being ripped apart by a system that is victimizing the fact that they're simply illegals trying to make their lives better.  Could Mr. Campos and his fellow crack smoking liberals be further detached form reality?  These are criminals that committed a crime by being here in the first place and then exacerbating it by committing another crime!  Furthermore, he has given protection to the criminals by providing a safe harbor to those the original law was intended to combat.  

So, getting back to that certain high powered national politician from San Francisco.  I wonder where she will sit on this legislation?  I wonder if she truly believes that "We are not here to reward law-breakers" and that she is truly willing to stop the insane policies of the liberal enclave she has helped to build.  I truly wonder who the real thugs are?  The criminals doing the crimes themselves or the system that enables them?  At what point to does the federal government begin to take back our country by enacting laws that protect the ones that are here legally, and stop empowering those who aren't.  At least Mayor Newsome has the common sense to understand the difference between social activism and enabling criminal activity.  Apparently that line does not exist in 8 of the 10 minds that were elected to the Board of Supervisors for San Francisco county.  That hefty a plurality should be troubling enough to the constituents of that city.  Maybe now the outrage might shift the insane politics of San Francisco to some sort of moderate profile that RESPECTS law abiding citizens for once.

THIS JUST IN.....CNN SPIN IS IN FULL FORCE!!!!

As I was enjoying my morning coffee, for some inexplicable reason, I decided to check out the latest Communist News Network (CNN) branch of the Obama Administration website.  Directly from the CNN Money site, in big bold letters was the headline:

Jobs outlook brightens

National Association for Business Economics says more U.S. firms are planning to hire and increase investment in the next six months.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/26/news/economy/NABE/index.htm?postversion=2009102607

WOW!!  Praise GOD!  We're out of the woods and we're headed back on the path of prosperity with a promise of health insurance for every man, woman and child regardless of citizenship!!   New cars for everyone!!  Mortgages, schmortgages....that's for people who work for a living.  Anyone making over 100k will take care of everyone else.  The new Reich....err.....I mean...the new order is in full bloom!!   Next up, marijuana legalization and alternative lifestyle education for every child in public education!! 
 
Unfortunately, this is the part where the sound effect of the record skipping happens...brrrrrrrrppppp.....or for those that are more inclined to relate to a Bugs Bunny cartoon.....WHAAAAA, WHAAAAA, WHAAAAAA!!!   Not so fast folks.  Let's take a look at what the NABE REALLY said:
 
The key part CNN failed to report was that according to the same NABE site, The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10 percent in the first quarter of next year and edge down to 9.5 percent by the end of 2010.  The business outlook is quite muted, with moderate gains expected and a slow recovery in process, but certainly not the big bold headlines that CNN put on their site.  A key element of the CNN article, which was hugely cherry picked for it's vaguenss, never made a mention of exact jobless numbers.  A closer look at the paragraph states: 
 
The National Association for Business Economics said the number of employers planning to hire workers over the next six months exceeded the number expecting job cuts for the first time since the recession began in December 2007. 
 
So if you break this down, the article is accurate, but clearly taken out of context to meet the agenda needs of the Obama New Order Gestapo.   So, if a .3% increase from 9.8% jobless rate over the next 15 mos. is what you call a bright outlook, well, this administration is for you!!

Just for kicks and giggles.....in the time I've written this article, the DOW has dropped 100 points....I'm just saying.....

The Letterman Standard

The recent admission from David Letterman struck me as odd the other day.  Now I know that marital infidelity isn't something new, nor is it earth shattering in the entertainment business.  It's simply just not newsworthy these days of "open relationships," reality shows, and your sex just a quick click of the remote control.  Jon Gosselin isn't really seen as the bad guy to Kate and the kids, even though he was the one who left them for more nubile pastures.  Infidelity is just not newsorthy these days, well, unless you're the extreme narcissist that Letterman is.  Drama is what he wants, so he'll share all his little failings in life to bring you into his egomaniacal empire.  It pays the bills and it feeds his ever increasing arrogant self indulgence.   None of that is what struck me as odd.  Just seems so "hollywood-ish".

What did strike me as odd is the stark contrast between the Military and the rest of the world on this subject.  While matters of the heart are seemingly fair game these days, the morality of scrogging the help is an absolute taboo in the Military.  If you want to get an immediate one-way ticket back to the civilian life, be in a position of leadership and indulge in carnal  knowledge of one of your subordinates.  It doesn't matter if both of the participants are single, the same age....whatever the reason.  The policy is quite clear.  Zero "fraternization" will be tolerated.  The policy reads....Personal relationships between officer and enlisted members that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in rank and grade are prohibited.  Furthermore, the policy between senior enlisted (E-7 to E-9) and subordinates (E-1 to E-6) are as follows: Personal relationships between Chief Petty Officers (E-7 to E-9) and junior personnel (E-l to E-6), who are assigned to the same command, that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in grade or rank are prohibited.  These policies have practical use in the workplace to respect the differences in rank so as to not foster favoritism and maintain military discipline. 

Letterman's extortion attempt clearly indicates the pitfalls of workplace sexual misadventures.  The thing that really caught my attention was an ABC Poll which said that nearly 60% of Americans see nothing wrong with consential workplace affairs between seniors and subordinates, with close to 20% seeing it as a big problem.  That's a stark difference between military and civilian worlds. 

Boys and girls being what they are, the policy still cannot stop all laws of nature to be ignored.  In a 5 year period between 1999 and 2004, of the nearly 1300 command jobs throughout the United States Navy, 80 commanders had been relieved of their commands due to fraternization.  Those number peaked especially during 2003 at the height of deployments during the War on Terrorism at 26.  Considering the length of deployments, the lonely aspect of being a commander without peer groups to socialize or commiserate in certain circumstances, it's quite remarkable that an average of 16 per year out of 1300 commands, lead to this kind of behavior, which seems to fly in the face of civilian scrutiny.   Still, there is value in the policy and should be a matter of practice, rather an inconvenience of policy.