Sort of old news, but if you haven't seen the video it's a good one. We need more politicians like Dale and we need to throw out ones like Nancy Pelosi.
Commentary and analysis on all things political. A blog sponsored by the College Republicans at Roger Williams University.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A Not So Happy New Year For California Residents
The democratic supermajorities in the California Legislature have graced the people of the failing state with even more new laws. The legislature passed 725 new laws set to be enacted the 1st of January 2011. Here are just a few examples of the 725 new laws to be enacted in California:
AB 119 prevents insurance companies from charging different rates for men and women for identical coverage.
SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.
AB 1844—informally known as Chelsea's Law and authored by local Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher—will increase penalties, parole provisions and oversight of sex offenders, including a "one-strike, life-without-parole penalty" for some.
AB 1871 allows people to lease out their cars when they are not being used—alleviating the need to purchase additional insurance.
AB 537 will make food stamps an acceptable form of payment at farmers markets through an EBT process.
SB 1411 makes it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone via a social media outlet or through e-mails.
SB 1317 allows the state to slap parents with a $2,000 fine if their K-8 child misses more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse. It also allows the state to punish parents with up to a year in prison for the misdemeanor.
AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.
SB 1449 makes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana an infraction with a penalty of a $100 fine.
AB 12 allows foster youth to acquire state services until the age of 21.
SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.
The whole article can be seen here.
AB 119 prevents insurance companies from charging different rates for men and women for identical coverage.
SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.
AB 1844—informally known as Chelsea's Law and authored by local Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher—will increase penalties, parole provisions and oversight of sex offenders, including a "one-strike, life-without-parole penalty" for some.
AB 1871 allows people to lease out their cars when they are not being used—alleviating the need to purchase additional insurance.
AB 537 will make food stamps an acceptable form of payment at farmers markets through an EBT process.
SB 1411 makes it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone via a social media outlet or through e-mails.
SB 1317 allows the state to slap parents with a $2,000 fine if their K-8 child misses more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse. It also allows the state to punish parents with up to a year in prison for the misdemeanor.
AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.
SB 1449 makes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana an infraction with a penalty of a $100 fine.
AB 12 allows foster youth to acquire state services until the age of 21.
SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.
The whole article can be seen here.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
California Police Officers Kill Man Pointing Water Nozzle After Neighbors Report Him
"LONG BEACH, Calif. (CBS/AP) Long Beach police officers shot and killed a man Sunday when they apparently mistook a pistol-grip water nozzle he was holding, for a gun.
Now family members of the man, 35-year-old Douglas Zerby, are lashing out at the police, saying they made no attempt to contact him before opening fire.
Zerby was gunned down at an apartment building Sunday after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, according to authorities.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a "tiny six-shooter" as described by a male caller.
Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - six from a handgun and two from shot guns, said McDonnell.
"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."
However, police officials say Zerby's behavior prompted the officers' response.
"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
Both officers involved in the shooting were put on administrative leave.
Zerby's sister said police made the family wait seven hours before confirming that her brother was the man who had been killed, and said that her family is considering legal action."
This is one of those stories you come across that makes you feel really sad and angry at the same time. Police in California killed a man for holding a water nozzle because they "thought" or had reports that it was a gun?
First of all, when is it wrong in America to have a gun? Second of all why did the neighbors report him even if he did have a gun? It's his right. They can't take it away from him just because they don't like it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
Even if this man did have a gun, the police still should never just roll on to a scene guns blazing and kill a suspect without informing them of their presence. What a disgrace this is as well as a nightmare this man and his family have to go through.
Now family members of the man, 35-year-old Douglas Zerby, are lashing out at the police, saying they made no attempt to contact him before opening fire.
Zerby was gunned down at an apartment building Sunday after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, according to authorities.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a "tiny six-shooter" as described by a male caller.
Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - six from a handgun and two from shot guns, said McDonnell.
"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."
However, police officials say Zerby's behavior prompted the officers' response.
"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
Both officers involved in the shooting were put on administrative leave.
Zerby's sister said police made the family wait seven hours before confirming that her brother was the man who had been killed, and said that her family is considering legal action."
This is one of those stories you come across that makes you feel really sad and angry at the same time. Police in California killed a man for holding a water nozzle because they "thought" or had reports that it was a gun?
First of all, when is it wrong in America to have a gun? Second of all why did the neighbors report him even if he did have a gun? It's his right. They can't take it away from him just because they don't like it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
Even if this man did have a gun, the police still should never just roll on to a scene guns blazing and kill a suspect without informing them of their presence. What a disgrace this is as well as a nightmare this man and his family have to go through.
Liberal Star Blogger Ezra Klein: ‘Constitution Has No Binding Power on Anything’; Confusing Because it’s Over 100 Years Old
This is almost comical yet sickening at the same time.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Hawaii Governor Brings Back Birther Debate
For about three years now, millions of Americans have questioned Obama's status as an American who was born on our soil. It is my position to agree that people are correct in doing this. This is not a "racist" movement. The United States Constitution mandates that to be eligible for the office of the President of the United States that one must be born in the United States. Why is someone wrong in questioning Obama's status as a natural born citizen?
It is the duty of Americans to question the citizenship status of every President and make sure they are born in the United States. The only reason the "birther" movement still exists is because Obama has refused to release his birth certificate. What is the reason for such secrecy?
The only so-called "proof" shown to the American people was a certificate of live birth posted on a non-government website. This is all a person needs to do to become president? The United States is in a said state of affairs when we disregard the rule of law and let an assumption of birth pass as a constitutional requirement.
The Democratic governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has recently made headlines in his quest to make Obama's "birth records" public. I applaud Governor Abercrombie because he is now doing what Obama should have done in the first place. If Obama is trying this hard to keep this information secret, spending millions in court to have this information kept classified, doesn't he realize that if he is truly a citizen born here then he has nothing to worry about? Only time will tell.
It is the duty of Americans to question the citizenship status of every President and make sure they are born in the United States. The only reason the "birther" movement still exists is because Obama has refused to release his birth certificate. What is the reason for such secrecy?
The only so-called "proof" shown to the American people was a certificate of live birth posted on a non-government website. This is all a person needs to do to become president? The United States is in a said state of affairs when we disregard the rule of law and let an assumption of birth pass as a constitutional requirement.
The Democratic governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has recently made headlines in his quest to make Obama's "birth records" public. I applaud Governor Abercrombie because he is now doing what Obama should have done in the first place. If Obama is trying this hard to keep this information secret, spending millions in court to have this information kept classified, doesn't he realize that if he is truly a citizen born here then he has nothing to worry about? Only time will tell.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas from the College Republicans at Roger Williams Unviersity
To all of those that celebrate Christmas this time of the year, have a very merry Christmas.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
More on Healthcare
This video is from a doctors point of view, it was from before the election, but after the healthcare bill passed. The more I hear the more scared I get.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Problem with Funding Scientific Research
First some background, to anyone who knows something about basic economics this is a review, to everyone else, there is the problem in economics of a "public good" (the best example being a fireworks display) where it is non-rival and non-excludable. Aka its hard to limit who sees them and who does not and one person watching them does not take away from another person watching them. The problem with this is who provides it? You have a problem with "free riders" where people do not pay for it, but still get to enjoy it. The first conclusion everyone leaps to then is government should pay for it.
In recent years there has been a huge push that scientific research is a public good and therefore should be provided funds by the government. The problem is as soon as it's government funding people tend to be much more wasteful of money and lets face it the federal government nor our state government can afford much of anything these days. So the big question is...... is there a way to still do research and not have the government adding to their deficit to do it?
This video does a great job of giving an alternative, one that is literally right under our nose.
In recent years there has been a huge push that scientific research is a public good and therefore should be provided funds by the government. The problem is as soon as it's government funding people tend to be much more wasteful of money and lets face it the federal government nor our state government can afford much of anything these days. So the big question is...... is there a way to still do research and not have the government adding to their deficit to do it?
This video does a great job of giving an alternative, one that is literally right under our nose.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Government Gives Itself Power to Regulate Internet
via The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.
The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.
A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.
The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC's action "flawed" and said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations."
The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.
Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn't be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can't block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.
Related
The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure.
"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."
Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats.
Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing.
"In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.
Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on "net neutrality," or the idea that Internet providers can't deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop.
In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn't have clear authority to enforce net neutrality.
The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.
The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.
A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.
The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC's action "flawed" and said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations."
The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.
Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn't be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can't block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.
Related
The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure.
"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."
Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats.
Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing.
"In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.
Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on "net neutrality," or the idea that Internet providers can't deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop.
In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn't have clear authority to enforce net neutrality.
The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
With other Debates Done START to Begin
The easiest side to see for many of these issues being debated in the senate now is the liberal side of the argument. You really have to stop and think to understand why there is opposition to a treaty that on face value seems to provide only good intentions. The START Treaty (for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) when first looked at is about reducing arms between the US and Russia and starting up inspections between the two countries again. So what',s wrong with that? Well the problems start as you begin to look at the actual wording in the treaty as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona did with his proposed amendment that was voted down (59-37). The specific wording in the bill that comes into question is:
“Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”
This wording is very ambiguous to say the least. This raises some very important questions. Such as who is getting more out of this treaty? What is this interrelationship that will become more important? And how will this link between our offensive arms and defensive arms impact the defensive ones?
Defensive arms can incorporate many things, the most obvious would be weapons we have in our country to defend ourselves against different possible attacks. But what the treaty is more likely going after, which could potentially be even scarier, is shutting down and dismantling our Missile Defense Systems in Eastern Europe. For those that don't know, this system was set up so that if Russia were to attack, the system would counter-attack target key areas in Russia, terminating their Second Strike capability. This ensures that they can not continue to attack us if their surprise first strike takes out all of our defenses within our country. All this is likely because our capabilities greatly reduces Russia's world prestige and makes them feel bad. The most recent NATO summit agreed with our placement of these defenses, meaning this is just another way Obama, the Democrat led senate, and even some GOP senators are trying to lead us down the road to submission, which as Regan said so well is not a choice between peace and war, but a choice between freedom or slavery.
We can all agree (or I hope we can) that the world would be a better place if nuclear weapon stockpiles could be reduced or even better eliminated. But is there a possible way to do this? Are we fooling ourselves thinking that by us making all these concessions it will make other countries see how we are stepping up to reduce our nuclear stockpiles, so they should reduce theirs? It might be just me, but I don't think North Korea and Iran are going to do that, they are going to laugh and continue to increase their ever expanding arsenal.
Many say the GOP are just trying to delay for the sake of delaying and kill the treaty. But the truth is, something with such huge ramifications needs more than just a glancing over before it is passed. We know very well that Obama will not be one to go through and make sure everything is satisfactory. At this point he just wants a couple of things checked off in his very large "to do" list, with very few checks so far.
In reality the most important question of them all is why are we taking the time to go through this? Our economy is in shambles, we in the middle of massive government take overs with rising unemployment. Why are we worrying about Russia? Russia is not important anymore!!! Out of all the foreign threats to our country I believe we can all agree Russia would not even be put in the top three. We have Iran and North Korea developing Nuclear programs, we have China buying/developing who knows what. And Mexico taking over more and more of our country. Why is Russia such a top priority?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)