The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the Marine's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.

Finally the Marine's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly.

Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.

You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]".

He had been repeating it to the Marine almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.

This Marine stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong.

Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully.

Finally, in a wail of agony the Marine shrieked "I give up", and we gently backed the sailor away from him.

I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today.

I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that Marine's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:

This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.

Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a ceasefire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.

President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire.

Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success:

1. Instigate a war.

2. Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your ass handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.

3. Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.

4. Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once.

In fact it worked so will for the Egyptians in 1973, that to this day they celebrate the Yom Kippur War - a crushing defeat at the hands of Israel - as a military victory! No kidding... it's a national holiday over there!

President Lahoud has already begun to shriek like a school girl to the UN Security Council to "Stop the violence and arrange a cease-fire, and then after that we'll be ready to discuss all matters."

Uh huh. Forgive me if I find that a tad hard to swallow. He allowed Hezbollah to take over his country. He allowed the regular Lebanese army to provide radar targeting data for the Hezbollah missile that struck the Israeli destroyer. He has turned a blind eye while Iranian and Syrian weapons, advisers and money have poured into his country.

And now that his country is in ruins he wants to call it a draw.

As much as it may sicken the world to stand by and watch it happen, strong hands need to hold back the weak-hearted and let the fight continue until one side finally admits unambiguous defeat.

Originally posted by David Bogner on July 16, 2006 on the following website:
http://bogieworks.blogs.com/treppenwitz/2006/07/thanks_i_needed.html

« Close It

What many of us don't know is that the battle for this piece of volcanic real estate that reeked of sulphur was one of the bloodiest of World War II. Beginning on February 19, 1945, Marine forces, 70,000 strong, fought an unknown number of deeply entrenched Japanese defenders inch by inch, yard by yard, for five weeks. In the end, the Marines took over 25,000 casualties, with more than 6,000 killed in action taking the island.

We would fail in our duty, not just to each other as Americans, but to our brothers and sisters around the world, if we failed to remember the eloquent eulogy delivered by an American rabbi at the dedication of the Marine Cemetery at the end of the fighting.

Rabbi Roland B. Gittlesohn was the first Jewish Chaplain for the Marine Corps. More than 1,500 Jewish Marines were in the invading force at Iwo Jima.

Rabbi Gittlesohn was in the thick of the battle, ministering to fallen Marines of every faith under enemy fire. He shared their fear, horror and despair. His unending efforts to comfort the wounded and inspire the fearful earned him three decorations.

After the battle, the Division Chaplain, Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, asked the rabbi to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery on Iwo Jima. Cuthriell wanted all the fallen Marines honored in a single, non-denominational ceremony. Unfortunately the Marine Corps, being a reflection of America, was still strongly prejudiced. A majority of the Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves. The Catholic chaplains, in particular, and in keeping with what was then Church doctrine, opposed any form of joint prayer service.

To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. But Gittlesohn wanted to spare his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment, and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittlesohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:

"Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding, and other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores.

Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich men and poor . . .together. Here are Protestants, Catholics and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many men of each group are admitted or allowed. Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy.

Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery.

To this, then, as our solemn duty, sacred duty do we the living now dedicate ourselves: to the right of Protestants, Catholics and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price.

We here solemnly swear that this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."

Among Gittlesohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains who were so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittlesohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript, and unknown to Gittlesohn, distributed thousands of copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters home. An avalanche of coverage resulted with major news magazines publishing excerpts and the entire sermon being read into The Congressional Record. The Army broadcast the sermon to American troops throughout the world.

In 1995, the last year of his life, Rabbi Gittlesohn re-read a portion of the eulogy at the fiftieth commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Washington. In his autobiography, Rabbi Gittlesohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."

Hat tip: Suzanne R.

« Close It

APPROPRIATE: To set apart for, or assign for a particular use, in exclusion of all other uses; as, a spot of ground is appropriated for a garden. [Webster’s 1828]

MONEY: 1) Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. 2) Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it. If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money. [Webster’s 1828]

CHARITY: Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions (Alms - Any thing given gratuitously to relive the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity), or gratuitous services to relieve them in distress. [Webster’s 1828]

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

AUTHORITY: Legal power or a right to command or act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children. Power; rule; sway. [Webster’s 1828]

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

I began, 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'

'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man, who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

'I admit the truths of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.'

'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'

He haughtingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

'If I don't, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.'

No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

'Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

'My name is Bunce.'

'Not Horatio Bunce?'

'Yes.'

'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain; no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them.

They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.'

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."

From the Historic Documents archive published online by The Federalist Patriot at
http://FederalistPatriot.US

« Close It

What the media portrays as the two major political parties in American politics, apparently both have degenerated into a self-anointed “elite ruling class,” all of similar socialist persuasion who are now working in concert (walking in lock-step) with President Bush. I think the expression is a "toady." It would appear that less than a handful of U.S. Congressmen see their duty as anything but to themselves, their re-election, self-aggrandizement and obtaining personal wealth at the expense of American citizens.

The main stream media (with the notable exception of Lou Dobbs) remains silent on what is a clear and present threat to United States’ national sovereignty. This might come as a surprise were it not for the media’s tiresome daily support of open borders and unrestrained migration of illegal aliens. Christian leaders remain equally silent, supporting their own self interests derived from open border policies above their American citizenship.

It seems hardly an overstatement to say that the United States is on the verge of foresaking its national sovereignty, and ultimately its independence, as the vast majority of our country's elected leaders (Congressmen, Governors, state legislators, county and city governments) sit stunningly silent in apparent tacit approval.

A reasonable person has to wonder if Congressmen themselves are too ignorant to understand the outcome of their own NAFTA and CAFTA legislation. Why does it take “Joe 6-Pack” American to point out that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), signed by President Bush with foreign leaders, was nothing less than a treaty which should have been ratified by Congress. Equally problematic is that both NAFTA and CAFTA were legislated in defiance of the majority of Americans, the “will of the people.” SPP is a direct outgrowth of the 1994 NAFTA legislation. A less than objective overview of SPP can be found at www.spp.gov.

Is it remotely possible that a hemispheric “one unified North American Union” was intended by Congress from the beginning and legislated under the (dis) guise of “free trade agreements?” To adopt such a cynical viewpoint would give Congress too much credibility in the face of historical fact. Ignorance is more likely the correct choice were it not for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has quietly introduced a bill, S.3622 to create a "North American Investment Fund" that would tap both U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico.

In either event, the wishes and desires of Americans have not been permitted to figure into the history-altering SPP treaty decisions. What happened to the U.S. Constitution along the way? Has it become mere toilet tissue in the view of government elites? Where are the proud defenders of the United States of America, those war heroes, Senators John “IED” McCain * and John Kerry? Trust between the American people and our government is imperiled by such thoughtless failures of leadership on immigration reform and border security.

Fortunately, there are people like Lou Dobbs who are alert - a few precious souls who are simultaneously both awake and conscious, and concerned (alarmed) about Bush's proposed North American Union.

It would appear Congressional authority has unquestionably been usurped. A treaty, both in form and substance, has been signed and implemented, while being passed off as only a 'declaration and outline of mutual priorities'.

It woud seem reasonable to conclude that any agreement, whether binding the United States in fact or principle, to protect the security of Mexico and Canada is arguably a treaty. In any event, any agreement that permits Mexico and Canada joint regulation of any aspect of United States trade would be foolish at a minimum, but the the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), comprised of North American business leaders, has already begun their joint oversight of trade and security issues.

Numerous provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA, and SPP by definition, subverts and subjugates the authority of Congress to foreign nations. Critics have argued this point before each piece of free-trade legislationwas passed by Congress - both NAFTA and CAFTA. SPP contains within its pages the agreement to share responsibility for the security of all of North America - whether formal or informal, the elements of a mutual defense pact. Has Congress and the President of the United States both decided to share United States sovereignty with both Canada and Mexico, i.e., subjugate United States sovereignty to the trilateral mutual interests of the three nations? Apparently so, and without any voice from American citizens.

Very few citizens have had the opportunity to voice their concerns except as a “letter to the editor?” Few have access to national audiences. What choice do most citizens have but to use the internet and make calls to radio talk shows? The point is, and you know it to be true intuitively, that American citizens are totally ignored today by anyone who is in possession of a national platform.

Congressional office staffers and home district office personnel have similarly adopted the attitude, “repel all boarders.” They will greet you with a warm smile, acknowledge your concerns, and give reassurances that the matter is of “utmost importance” to your elected representative. That is of course, assuming you can get an “appointment” to be heard – which is often very difficult – to the point many simply give up. Congressmen in Arizona even control who will be permitted attendance at their townhall meetings.

There are only two men in Congress who have forcefully spoken out: Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Both are opposed to President Bush’s vision and unconstitutional implementation of a North American Union. As you heard in the film clip, SPP will have both military and economic implications, which arguably makes SPP nothing less than a treaty, cleverly disguised to prevent public or Congressional debate.

To illustrate the unanimity of this Congressional movement to abandon the United States of America as a sovereign entity, these two men - Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul - plus Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth and Wisconsin Congressman F. James Sensenbrenne, are the only ones in apparent opposition out of 535 Congressmen, 435 House members and 100 Senators.

Reflect on the incredible number of U.S. Congressmen who cling desperately to power but have lost the courage and conviction they once had as Americans, and who can no longer be trusted to defend America's sovereignty and independence. If we needed proof of that assertion, we need look no further than their arrogant daily denigration of our own Armed Forces for personal political gain, and their willingness to commit treason to undermine the successful defense of the United States of America.

A battle for United States’ national sovereignty and independence is coming! How far are you willing to go to fight for your own liberty? It would be a good decision to make now. You will have to make that decision very, very soon.

As you depart from this article, it would be a good idea to watch the film clip one more time to fully grasp the enormous implications of SPP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." —Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

Red State Patriot

* Intermittent Explosive Disorder

« Close It

Sen. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill would have authorized $1.8 billion to build the security fence as promised by the lawmakers and the Bush Administration. Two months ago members of the Senate voted 83-16 to build the fence along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In that same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed that 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border. But the May vote only authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers. With the Senators now on record as voting for border fencing and barriers, without the appropriations, in reality they've voted not to build the fence they authorized. This is the second glaring instance of similar behavior by Senator Jon Kyl in recent months.

"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions said on the floor of the Senate just prior to the vote, which was aired on C-Span, but not by any of the broadcast or cable news shows.

The appropriations bill, which allocates over $30 billion to the Homeland Security Administration, which includes $2.2 billion for border security and control (but no fencing), passed on a 100-0 vote. The cost of the fence ($1.8B) would have been 6% of the Homeland Security budget appropriation. Funding for the fence could have been added to the bill by amendment instead of prorata reducing the Homeland Security budget. It could have been funded over several years. It would have been in the bill in the first place if there was any desire (or intention), either by the Administration or Congress, to build the border security fence. Any number of funding scenarios were available to the Senate and the Administration.

Why not put the cost of a border security fence in perspective? Over $100B in taxpayer funds has already been distributed to Gulf Coast states by Congress after Hurricane Katrina and Rita and more is on the way. And yet American citizens can't find jobs in these Gulf Coast states because they are inundated by literally hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 called for at least 2,000 more Border Patrol agents per year along our border with Mexico to stop the unrelenting flow of people and illegal drugs into this country. But the Bush administration provided funding for only around 200 additional agents. President Bush then promised to deploy by August 6,000 National Guard troops to support the U.S. Border Patrol on the border with Mexico. Now, in mid-July, having already missed a June deadline, fewer than 900 have moved into place along the border.

As proposed, the Sessions amendment would have required some across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill to fund the fence, which in itself is a breath of air in financial responsibility. It would have meant cutting roughly 6% of the very few newly authorized border-patrol agents put into this bill for political posturing and providing fewer detention beds for illegal aliens. Not only have roughly 90% of the border-patrol agents approved in previous legislation never materialized on the border, they are the most expensive and least effective of all available options. The few National Guard units sent to the border are serving no interdiction function. More detention beds will not begin to solve the problem. In the meanwhile, Congress and the Main Stream Media make denigrating remarks about the cost and effectiveness of the fence to sway public opinion.

It seems intuitively logical that the fence is needed now -- right now -- and should have taken priority, except apparently to those Senators who have no intention (refuse) to stem the flow of illegal aliens -- 71 of them.

What should not be lost on any American citizen is that a border security fence would be the least expensive long term solution by a wide margin. It would also be the least manpower intensive. It would be the most effective in detering illegal immigration, thwarting terrorist and drug cartel incursions, and reducing human smuggling. Arguably, detention beds are a laughable slight-of-hand by the Senate to give shelter, food, medical care and comfort to illegal aliens at taxpayer expense before they are returned to Mexico to try again.

It seems hard to imagine a single dollar in the Homeland Security Department budget appropriation that could be more important than border security fencing. "Americans should be outraged," said a Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous. "Did anyone really believe these guys [senators] want to secure the border?" he said. Another Border Patrol agent was less diplomatic: "Our leaders are not serious about border security ... It's a con-job on the American people."

It is a safe bet to conclude that if the United States Senate (or the President) had any intention what-so-ever in stemming illegal aliens at the border, funding for the border security fence would have been included in the Homeland Security Administration budget appropriation.

Sessions Amdt. No. 4659, As Modified
Vote: 00200
Date: 13 July 2006
Issue: H.R. 5441
Question: S.Amdt. 4659
Result: Rejected by a vote of 71-29
Description: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Income redistribution (redistribution of wealth) is a political policy promoted by liberals as part of their ideology, and understandably it is opposed by conservatives. The basic premise of the belief system underlying liberalism is that money (wealth) should be more equally distributed so that accumulated wealth benefits all members of society, regardless of who earned it, and that the rich should be obliged (forced) to assist the poor on the pretense that the income shifting mechanism benefits the whole of society.

Thus, earned money should be redistributed from the earner to those who have not earned it, creating a more financially egalitarian society. Politicians expect - no, demand public funds, your tax money to subsidize those who they have arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged (in return for votes). The entitlement culture (egalitarianism) is saying you owe it to them.

Egalitarianism is a liberal moral doctrine imposed by force. It is an ideology that equality ought to prevail throughout society even if it is at the detrimental expense of many members of society, typically those in the top 50% of American wage earners (those with a joint income over $30,000 per year). The most common form of egalitarianism today espoused by liberals, of whom both political parties are rife, centers on the belief that government should engage in an unnatural communal approach to individual income.

"Who is supposed to be equal?"
"In what respect are they supposed to be equal?"
“At whose expense are they supposed to be equal?”

Apparently it isn’t enough that equality already exists in all endeavors of the American mind, hands and heart, only that those Americans who compete poorly believe they are wrongfully and/or “unfairly” materially disadvantaged and therefore should be subsidized by others in society.

• According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law.
• According to education egalitarianism, everyone ought to be provided an education.
• According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth.
• According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs.
• According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power.
• According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity.
• According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

With the exception of the last liberal epistle, American society is egalitarian. Few would dispute this as a fact except to be argumentative. The final premise regarding material and financial wealth is understandably the greatest source of consternation and debate. Those receiving have come to expect it. Those giving have come to resent it. The undeniable correlation is an inverse relationship between material egalitarianism and the American Economy, the latter peaking over 30 years ago. Material egalitarianism (redistribution) continues to grow unchecked, arguably beyond reason, and seemingly without limits.

Our founding documents provided all egalitarian equalities, short of income and education redistribution, which only began after income taxes became a national reality and Congress attempted to engineer social mores with the revenues. Until then education was viewed as the reward for seizing opportunity, regardless of am individual's material circumstances. All that need be provided was opportunity.

Often, liberal proponents of redistribution argue that the rich are somehow exploiting the poor, first by the rich educating themselves, then working, achieving and enriching themselves, and somehow gaining “unfair” benefits as if by deceit and avarice. Socialists, a synonym for liberals, contend redistributive practices are necessary in order to redress the imbalance. Today, even when opportunity is spurned by the recipients, as in education for example, all other forms of wealth are never-the-less liberally redistributed with life-time tenure.

If in fact all men were created equal, why are some still receiving welfare? Egalitarianism is nothing less than the liberal acknowledgment that nobody is created "equal," except arbuably in the eyes of the law in the United States of America. Egalitarianism is also a profound liberal acknowledgment that redistribution will be a wildly successful method in a representative society to obtain and hold on to power. Thoughtful reflection will convince anyone that redistribution benefits no one - except politicians. (See archived article: The End Times)

“Unfair” is the key word. Everything depends on the vantage point of the person using the word. In typical fashion, the person using the “unfair” word has either: (1) never had to compete for anything in their life and seeks equitable distribution of national assets without competition, or (2) is so poorly prepared to compete, often by presonal choice, that productive citizenship is not reasonably possible. Congress has seen fit to reward the latter’s stellar performance with lifetime tax-free annuities on behalf of the rest of us, members of what should be Team America.

From each according to his ability (education and work ethic and a host of other attributes), to each according to his need (lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc.). It is often lost on ideologues that education and work ethic are somewhat redundant and typically the result of personal choice.

You may not believe it today, but redistribution has only just begun. If the current Administration has not made you a believer, it is hard to imagine what could.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

Source: Spanish newspaper article on Judaism (published in English)

« Close It

A tragedy is something that due to its randomness and unpredictability, it is something that we can grieve for, but something that is a part of fate that we must simply move past. A tragedy may or may not call upon the survivors to take action; it is dependent on the specifics of the event. Even if that tragedy calls for lessons that can be implemented to prevent future tragedies, there is no moral component which requires retribution. The word "tragedy" is morally neutral. This is the reason that the mainstream media and those politicians who prefer moral relativism with inaction, drone on with the repetitive, soothing, mantra of the word "tragedy". They seek to lull the American public into acceptance and resignation, rather than allow them to maintain the fast-fading moral outrage that followed the events themselves. That moral outrage was the correct response, not an overreaction. That moral outrage and chest-expanding impulse, demanding swift, absolute, and merciless retribution, was the healthy response to what the events of 9/11 truly were. Not a "tragedy", but an "atrocity".

An unknown number of Islamic fanatics, unable to fulfill their desires to completely destroy Western Civilization, had 19 of their agents succeed, in seizing civilian airliners, packed with men, women and children passengers, only to slam them into buildings packed with office workers. This is the very definition of atrocity. The largest casualties occurred in buildings of a completely civilian nature. A horrific atrocity. The fanatic’s efforts were encouraged and cheered by the large number of their co-fanatics throughout the Muslim world. This intentional, diabolic, murder of civilians was not tragic, it was an atrocity. Worse still, it was an atrocity lauded or at least excused by the breadth and depth of the members of a specific religion. It was not a tragedy they celebrate, it was an atrocity. It should be repeatedly called such, by any responsible speaker or writer. The western world should not be sad, we should be outraged, and we should remain so, for as long as a single mullah, Imam, or cleric continues to praise or excuse this atrocity that opened our new millennium.

by David Roth
July 12, 2006

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

« Close It

Another example of running out of gas is the decision to restore diplomatic relations with Libya, headed by the lunatic ruler, Moammar Gadhafi. This has been portrayed as a great breakthrough because Gadhafi has given up his weapons of mass destruction programs. But he still has the blood of dozens of Americans on his hands, including the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988, and he has never been prosecuted for these crimes. In addition, Gadhafi remains a dictator who shows no sign of giving any freedom to the Libyan people.

Still another example of a foreign policy that is running out of gas is the meeting that took place in Washington, D.C. between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a former leader of a terrorist organization.

It got almost no attention from the media, but Rice met with Agim Ceku, the so-called Prime Minister of Kosovo. We say "so-called" because Kosovo is not a country-not yet. It is a province of Serbia that is now under occupation by foreign forces, including from the U.N. and NATO. Ceku is a former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), the terrorist group that started a civil war that led to President Clinton ordering NATO intervention in the country on the pretext that he was stopping a "genocide" being committed by the Serbs.

Ceku, who was indicted by Serbia in 2002 for war crimes, is accused of responsibility for the murders by KLA terrorists of 669 Serbs and 18 members of other ethnic groups, 518 counts of inflicting serious bodily harm (including torture) and wounding, and 584 counts of abduction, many of the victims of which are presumed dead. Even after the end of hostilities between Serb forces and NATO, Ceku was accused of continuing attacks on Serbs, driving two-thirds of them from the province of Kosovo.

In meeting with Ceku, Rice was not only ignoring his record of violence, but lending the weight of her office to his campaign to separate Kosovo from Serbia and make it into an independent state. If this happens, it would become a Muslim state, by virtue of the fact that most of those left in Kosovo are Albanian Muslims. The Serbs, by contrast, are Christians.

The KLA, which was later disbanded and whose members were integrated into a "Kosovo Protection Corps," was accused of engaging in jihad terror practices such as the beheading of victims. Photographic evidence depicts this.

So we are fighting Muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan but helping them come to power in Kosovo?

This is a foreign policy that has run out of gas and is running on empty. Strangely, Rice is continuing the Clinton policy on Kosovo. No wonder conservatives like Babbin are throwing their hands up in despair.

By Cliff Kincaid
July 11, 2006

Link to original article:
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4699_0_2_0_C

« Close It

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..." Unfortunately, President Bush appears to have betrayed his conservative fiscal and social base and joined with Congress in mindlessly expanding socialism and abandoning any pretense of national sovereignty.

Alexander Tyler warned us of the predictable cycle of never-ending greed and re-election self-interests of individual U.S. Congressmen. Today we watch in prophetic amazement as Congress votes to enshrine themselves, loot the U.S. Treasury in self-interest spending, and defraud fellow Americans of their earnings. Arguably, there is no spending by Congress – none - that is not now motivated by self-interest instead of national interest.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase – no doubt a conservative estimate.

Some have argued that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. In a contrary viewpoint, have we not passed the point of apathy? Freedoms are becoming, if not scarce, at least less abundant. Our primary concern should be one of liberty.

Today’s governmental dependence is more likely a reliable indicator of the beginning of this nation’s “end times.”

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Governor Napolitano wants to project a “moderate” image, but when compared to her record, her image appears to be the cruel hoax of fantasy merchants. Arizonans citizens have become the victims -- each and every voter, and each and every taxpayer.

Governor Napolitano has shown her loyalty to the teacher’s unions over parents, trial lawyers over patients, illegal immigrants over public safety, high taxes over economic growth, eminent domain over private property, self interest over the citizen welfare, and a ballooning taxpayer funded bureaucracy over a limited, efficient government.

A historical review is in order. Governor Napolitano’s legislative veto legacy includes bills she vetoed promoting English immersion and education, a high-tech border radar system, a prison in Mexico to house illegal immigrant criminals, more stringent driver's license ID requirements, National Guard at the border, a state trespassing measure, common-sense ID requirements, and other policies to help Arizona conform to federal law. She vetoed bills which would have given parents more choices in the quality of their child's education by allowing more tax credit allowances to Arizonans, allowing colleges and universities to sponsor charter schools, and allowing more options for student loans. The governor also vetoed bills relating to parent involvement in education and increases in funding to needed school programs. Napolitano vetoed bills which authorized tax deductions and breaks for all Arizonans, including property taxes. The governor was unwilling to accept the legislature's proposed budget, insisting that her much larger tax and spend philosophy was what Arizonans wanted. Napolitano vetoed bills requiring more-thorough accountability reports for both state agencies and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. She also vetoed bills which would have helped to educate voters on ballot propositions. The governor vetoed a bill which would have helped to keep more doctors in the state by limiting frivolous lawsuits in the emergency room and several bills that would have helped small business avoid frivolous lawsuits relating to disputes and worker’s compensation. The governor vetoed numerous bills on abortion, including proposals which would have required notarized parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, and prohibit state funds from being used to pay for abortions. Napolitano vetoed a bill which sought to prevent the governor from seizing firearms from citizens in the event of an emergency, thus raising questions about the governor's commitment to uphold Second Amendment rights. The governor vetoed several bills which would have helped law enforcement officials crack down on drunk driving and other crimes.

Las Vegas odds makers suggest there is a strong probability that the Commissar will be the first Governor in the history of the United States to seek political asylum in another state upon her departure from public office in Arizona.

A conservative will always tell you that facts are required to form valid opinions. What follows are the facts. Form your own opinions as to the gubernatorial unworthiness of Ms. Janet Napolitano.

Red State Patriot
---------------------

IMMIGRATION

2006

Vetoed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have increased border security. The bill would have empowered local law enforcement to crack down on both fraudulent documents and employment of illegal aliens. HB 2577

Vetoed a bill that would have created the state crime of trespassing in order to give local law enforcement a tool to cut down on illegal immigration. SB 1157

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) employees to confiscate fraudulent documents. SB 1523

Vetoed a bill that would have made English Arizona's official language. SB 1167

Vetoed a bill that would have required proof of citizenship to obtain certain taxpayer-funded state benefits. HB 2030

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed a private prison to be built along the border in Mexico to handle detention of criminals along the border. HB2709

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed local law enforcement to help federal authorities enforce immigration laws. SB 1306

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited law enforcement or other government agencies, commissions, and boards or districts from accepting identification documents unless they were issued by a United States political subdivision, Indian tribe, or state or federal authority. SB 1511

PROTECTION FROM VOTER FRAUD

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have ensured voter privacy if that voter used a provisional ballot.

Vetoed a bill that would have required proof of identification before obtaining a provisional ballot.

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have required voters to present identification to an election official at a polling place.

EDUCATION / SCHOOL CHOICE

2006

Vetoed a bill which would have allowed an employee to elect a reduced withholding by the amount of the tax credit for contributions to a school tuition organization, a public school in support of extracurricular fees, character education programs or a qualified charitable organization that provides assistance to the working poor. SB 1151

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed school tuition organizations (STOs) to get more funding by offering additional tax credits. STOs help students who can't afford private school to get a private school education. HB 2004

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have given another option, called Industrial Development Accounts, for financing student loans. SB 1340

Vetoed a bill that would have given tax credits to individuals or organizations that donated to student tuition organizations. HB 2379

Vetoed a bill that would have supplied vouchers to ensure all Arizonans have a free choice in their child's education. HB 2782

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed organizations and individuals to get tax credits for donating to student tuition organizations. SB 1527

Vetoed a bill that would have required schools to inform parents of their rights related to the school system. HB 2431

Vetoed a bill that would have limited the amount of money schools would get to spend on desegregation activities. HB 2498

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed community colleges and universities to sponsor charter schools. SB 1085

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed students in kindergarten and first grade to participate in the technology assisted project based instruction (TAPBI) program regardless of previous school attendance. Additionally, the bill would have added three reporting requirements for schools selected to participate in the TAPBI program. HB 2618

TAXES / BUDGET

2006

Vetoed a bill that would have made a deposit of some of the budget surplus into the rainy day fund Napolitano purports to support. HB 2006

Vetoed a bill that would cap the tax rate school districts could assess on property, given the skyrocketing property valuations in Arizona. This is the second year in a row she vetoed this type of bill, and because of this, taxes have increased in certain school districts. SB 1206

Vetoed a bill that would have cut the budget to the Tourism and Sport Authority. HB 2007

Vetoed a bill that would have authorized the Legislature to appropriate non-custodial federal monies. This is the fifth time she has vetoed the bill. HB 2650

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have capped the tax amount school districts could assess because of Arizona's rising property values. HB 2143

Vetoed a bill that would have capped the tax amount school districts could assess because of Arizona's rising property values. SB 1246

Three line item vetoes in the budget that would have cut funding to the Tourism and Sport Authority and monitor how federal funds are spent. HB 2770

Vetoed a bill that would have regulated the tax valuations of electric utilities. SB 1247

Vetoed a budget bill because it was not her budget. SB 1202

Vetoed a bill that would have reduced the assessment ratio for business property and increased the Homeowner's Rebate program and caps the qualifying tax rate and county equalization assistance for education rate. SB 1095

Vetoed 14 bills because the legislature did not accept the governor's budget. As part of her vetoes of the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, Napolitano rejected a business property tax cut and a tax cut to encourage large companies to expand or locate in Arizona. SB 1394-1399, 1401-1408: (14 bills)

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have modified the Department of Revenue's formula used to determine the valuation of telecommunications companies' property. HB 2085

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed a taxpayer who is protesting a notice of tax deficiency from the Department of Revenue (DOR) to bring action directly to tax court. Allowed a taxpayer who disagrees with a DOR private taxpayer ruling to appeal the ruling to the State Board of Tax Appeals. SB 1314

ACCOUNTABILITY

2006

Vetoed bill that would have ensured JLBC oversight when the Attorney General settled a case. HB 2191

Vetoed a bill that would have directed how unregulated federal monies would be spent. This is the fourth time she vetoed this type of bill. HB 2005

Vetoed a bill that would have investigated the office supply contract recently entered into with Staples by the state. HB 2102

Vetoed a bill that would have required the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) to submit a copy of the annual financial report to the Legislature. HB 2186

Vetoed a bill that would have permitted and established procedures for the Arizona Supreme Court to determine whether a citizen initiative contains more than one proposed amendment before the proposed measure is placed on the ballot, helping initiatives not to be struck down on the single subject rule. HB 2373

Vetoed a bill which would have made numerous changes to, and aided in increasing the transparency of, the assessment and collection of municipal development fees. HB 2381

Line item veto. Vetoed a provision that would make employees hired after December 31, 2006 exempt from the pay raise. HB 2661

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required legislative lawyers to write the information that is sent to voters about local ballot questions. HB 2328

Vetoed a bill that would have required JLBC oversight of appropriation transfers to the Department of Education. HB 2033

Vetoed a bill that would have transferred Capitol Police from being governed under the Department of Administration to the Department of Public Safety. HB 2404

Vetoed a bill that would have required legislative oversight of federal funds. HB 2226

Vetoed a bill that would have required the Citizen's Clean Elections Commission to report rulemaking statistics on their website. SB 1427

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have continued the Arizona State Board of Examiners of Nursing Care Institution Administrators and Assisted Living Facility Managers (Board) for ten years. SB 1012

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have authorized the Legislature to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, the purpose of which must be consistent with federal law. HB 2248

DOCTORS / SMALL BUSINESS

2006

Vetoed a bill that would have cut taxi driver worker compensation program. HB 2478

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed arbitration to be used to resolve disputes between an employer and any employee. SB 1075

Vetoed a bill which would have limited the cause of action for breach of an employment contract or damages for wrongful termination to one year. SB 1370

Vetoed a bill which would have helped to lower the number of frivolous malpractice law suits brought against emergency room doctors. HB 2315

ABORTION / RIGHT TO LIFE

2006

Vetoed a bill which would have encouraged doctors to further educate patients on the risks of egg donating prior to performing the procedure. SB 1097

Vetoed a bill that would have required minors to notify their parents that they are having an abortion and present the doctor with a notarized document granting permission. The governor argues that this is an undue burden, although that minor girl would still have to have a parent present in order to get her ears pierced. HB 2666

Vetoed a bill that would have required physicians to inform women who were seeking an abortion in the second trimester or later that the baby in the womb can feel pain. HB 2254

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited government from using state funds to pay for most abortions. SB 1325

Vetoed a bill that would have classified the selling, purchasing or offering to sell or purchase a human egg for human somatic cell nuclear transfer as a class 6 felony. HB 2142

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed pharmacists not to sell a prescription if selling that prescription would violate their conscience. HB 2541

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have prohibited abortion without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman, and prescribed criteria for an informed consent and provided penalties for noncompliance by a physician. SB 1077
Vetoed a bill which would have increased the limits on 'judicial bypass' used to circumvent Arizona parental consent laws for abortions. HB 2776

2003

Vetoed a bill that would have exempted a religious employer from providing prescription contraception methods to its employees. Additionally, it exempted several health care providers and health care organizations from liability through the exclusion. SB 1089

SECOND AMENDMENT

2006

Vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the confiscation of firearms in an emergency. The governor said this has never and would never happen in Arizona, but it was exactly what happened in New Orleans to law-abiding gun owners trying to defend their property from looters after Hurricane Katrina. SB 1245

CRIME

2005

Vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement to immobilize or impound the vehicle of anyone who is found to be driving under the influence. SB 1089

2004

Vetoed a bill that would have allowed an inmate sentenced to a term of probation immediately following a term of incarceration to be eligible for a temporary release and established a new procedure for removing a prisoner from work furlough. HB 2129

AND IT ISN’T OVER YET ….

« Close It