Felix wrote on Jun 29, 2006 10:09 PM:Councilwoman Esther Sanchez should resign for the good of the city. Councilwoman Shari Mackin exposed Sanchez on the Marina Towers give away, and confirmed the closed back room deals. Councilwoman Esther Sanchez is a lame duck politician.

Lame is right wrote on Jun 29, 2006 10:39 PM:What is lame is your ridiculous statement. Miss Sanchez should not resign. She had the courage to do what was right about Mr. Watanabe and all the corruption at city hall while Mrs.Mackon was still trying to figure out what a real issue is. Mackon may well be a good counselor yet but she sometimes forgets that she owes Miss Sanchez a lot for backing her when she was a nobody. Please stop the rattle about the tower at the harbor. Remember until the actual council meeting on the tower Mackon was still calling it parkland. It was absolutely proven that it is not parkland. All the other stuff is probly just as lame.

Get the facts wrote on Jun 29, 2006 11:49 PM:Sanchez caused the problem. She bullied Watanabe and praised him for doing her bidding. Then, she accuses him and drives him out. She is a bigger problem starter than solver. She is outraged at a report that shows the impact of cancelling RDO. Shouldn't she have known the results before eliminating it? She caused the impacts and then ravages against the study. We will have more studies but they will never make up for her selling out of Oceanside. She should be purged for the good of the city.

Hey lame wrote on Jun 29, 2006 11:52 PM:The only reason it was not parkland is that the council split the parcel taking the parkland out before the BIG give away. And then, gave away to the Tower owners use of the parkland for free. Get real.Get the transcript of the meeting.

Guiseppi = wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:28 AM:…It’s quite typical of the uneducated right, such as letter writer John Hersh of Fallbrook (letter June 30) to ridicule the perfectly good science of belching and farting of cattle, sheeps and humans, and the considerable effect it has upon global warming. If you think it is a laughing matter, just Google up “METHANE GAS FARTING GLOBAL WARMING” and you will discover a plethora of research on this vital subject. Scientists and farmers around the world are debating this very serious subject at the moment. Cow farts? Yes, really, they're talking about farting cows. They're talking about cow burps as well, and sheep burps, and even sheep farts. One of the gases found in farts and burps is called 'methane'. A certain amount of methane in the atmosphere is natural, and is a good thing. Along with other so-called 'greenhouse gases' methane collects in the sky and traps warm air around our planet. Problems begin when the layer of greenhouse gases gets too thick and traps too much heat. This is called 'global warming'. Letter writer Hersh ridicules Al Gore for pointing out the vast emission of methane gas from cattle and bean eating humans is contributing to global warming. We know this is true, not so much because of bean eaters, but because of all the hot gas exuding daily from inside the Beltway. We have no reason to rejoice, however, thinking the emissions from Congress will diminish while they are on recess for the 4th of July holiday: they will simply disperse the emissions in their home districts. NOTE: methane is actually colorless and odorless. If you catch a whiff of a strong political odor over the holiday, don’t blame it on methane. It’s the politician. Right wingers uneducated in microbiology and its role in creating methane gas in the digestive tract are often quick to dismiss the major impact of farts and belches. They are also quick to claim that the emissions from Mt. Pinatubo eruptions dwarfs those of our automobiles. Not so. Careful calculations estimated that Pinatubo’s gargantuan belches (June 1991) spewed about 30 million tons of CO2 into the air. While that is a lot, it is only about half of 1 % of what we humans chung out each year with our infernal combustion engines. All of this is dwarfed, however, by all the noxious emissions from the White House. There is hope on the horizon. Australians ranchers have long been aware that the kangaroo, which eats the same grassy diet as cattle, are fartless. This was an important find for scientists, who are now cultivating several digestive bacteria unique to the ’roo, hoping to transfer it into cattle feed, and perhaps to transfer its genes into beans. While microbiologist are optimistic, political scientists are cautious, warning that the fartless microbe genes will likely reject the politicians. Now the purpose of this long diatribe by GUISEPPI, is to let you know his long winded, flatulent diatribes are taking a break for the long Holiday weekend. No more of his hot air until next week. Breathe easy and go see Al Gore’s new movie.

To JOHN HERSH wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:03 AM:Fallbrook's finest... stop smoking it will ya? Your illogic is ludicrous and incredibly lame. Al Gore is the messenger delivering the results of scientific studies on global warming from around the world. Top scientist's with many decades of experience all agree! You need to stop looking for excuses to do nothing. Such uneducated, illogical thinking such as yours is what got us in this serious crisis.

You go Krista!!! wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:10 AM:You took the words right out of my mouth! These two ARROGANT Senators pay no attention to what the voting people want about ILLEGAL aliens in CA so let's vote them out!!! Let's get active and raise money and work on campaigns for their opponents!!!!!

Ron wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:29 AM:I was watching some, what I like to call "Must watch TV" last night, my favorite channel C-Span. It was a hearing of the GHouse Armed Services Committee. Duncan Hunter was chairman, and David Kaye, former UN weapons inspector was testifying. It was a long, hard slog, as the President likes to say, but Duncan Hunter got David Kaye to admit there were, and still are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Recently a cache of over 500 chemical weapons was found by our soldiers, but amazingly, this story wasn't front page news. Mr. Kaye went on to say, they knew before we went into Iraq that these chemical weapons were literially scattered all over Iraq, and in fact, each Iraq General of the Repubilcan Guard had their own private stash. Again, I'm wondering why this wasn't front page news, then he said it. It is a semantical argument as to what "he" believe constitutes a WMD. In Mr. Kaye's definition, a WMD means a nuclear device. He further went on to say, WMD actually refers to an old Soviet legal/political term used by Moscow to fight Regan in a propaganda war, back when Regan wanted to put short ranged nuclear missiles into Europe. He further said, chemical weapons of the type Hussien had were both degraded, and were not of the manufactured quality used by the Russians, because the Russians used a binary mechanism to stablize the gas, until it's use. He said, the Iraqi's did not have this technology, and used an older Soviet technology of a single canister style round. Duncan Hunter then produced the report from U.S. NBC teams cleaning up this newly found site in Iraq, in which they say, more than half the artillery shells, and a third of the rockets found were this "binary" type technology. Why is this important? Because the Iraqi's had made the jump in technology to produce a even more stable chemical weapon. And Mr. Kaye was aware of this. Mr. Kaye has jet setted around the country telling all of us, there were no WMD's in Iraq, and we knew this before we went in. He was wrong, and is wrong, and had to admit it last night in front of a Congressional committee. You see, Mr. Kaye, like many others are using word games to now try to tell us, there are still no WMD in Iraq. Well, Mr, Kaye, and the rest can't have it both ways. Mr. Kaye said: "They knew these weapons were scattered all over Iraq, before the war." And now we know they had Soviet technology binary weapon systems available for use during the first days of Iraq freedom. He tried to argue they were degraded, yet when asked how a binary shell degrades, he had no answer. He couldn't, because it doesn't. The Soviet technology allowed both them and the Iraqi's to stock pile these chemical shells for years, even decades, he eventually said. It was, in my opinion, must watch TV, too bad the rest of the hate Bush media, didn't think so.

Concerend Citizen wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:32 AM:Today's paper makes it abundantly clear that Sanchez is wrong for Oceanside. Her dragging her feet on the Rancho del Oro interchange will make the existing traffic mess worse. Not to mention her opposition to the airport, selling of the public's valuable asset like the Marina Towers, denying the highest bidder of the Yucca Street property, denying the TenPoint solution to cool the gangs this long, hot summer.........PS Recall Sanchez.

DontEatMeat wrote on Jun 30, 2006 6:52 AM:Mooo HERSH. This is so stupid. When everyone stops eating "meat" farmers and ranchers will stop GROWING/RAISING cattle sheep pigs etc. These animals will live their natural lives and then die out. We win when we use logic and reason, not stupidity.

stop the personal blogging wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:06 AM:e-Comments was a good idea, but gasbags like Ron, Gueseppi have sucked all the joy out of it...how about some rules, NCT, before you lose as many net-readers as you and other publishers have lost paper readers.

CraigTrueAmerican wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:12 AM:YAAKOV BEN KAHANE Go back and read his letter again. He typed slowly so you could understand his point. Americanism is embracing the future and following our laws and society evolves using these principals. Your use of the word liberal is infantile. Your "un-american" word useage is a mirror for your beliefs. Read his last line of his statement again, slowly. Be a true american and embrace the world as it is, not your fantasy world of hatred and ignorance.

To Krista wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:23 AM:Sorry but Feinstein will win again. Most of us are not fooled by this sudden resurgance of the age old immigration debate. Fortunately, the overly conservative San Diego County truly has no political clout in California and Feinstein will win.

Get ready: a question! wrote on Jun 30, 2006 8:15 AM:Hello, bloggers. I know this is unusual in diatribe-land, but I have a question that maybe you can answer. We've heard a lot about "signing statements", statements that the President makes when he signs a law, giving him interpretive powers over the law. So my question is this: do signing statements carry across administrations? To use an example, Bush made a signing statement about the torture ban recently. In 2008, does the elected President continue to have Bush's "freedom to interpret", or whatever you want to call it (I am trying not to make this a partisan issue, it's really a straightforward question) or does the signing statement pertain only to Bush himself, the person who made the statement? Thanks

Cabbages & kings wrote on Jun 30, 2006 8:25 AM:Do the people who want affordable housing, schools, freeways, flood control, water, sewer, hospitals and libraries understand that those things can’t be built without sand and gravel? Do they understand that when sand and gravel in not available locally it must be hauled many miles, to the further detriment of traffic, air quality, and the local economy?

Tio Sam wrote on Jun 30, 2006 8:50 AM:I hope that by some magic or act of a deity, the concept "unAmerican" vanishes forever. It reminds me of charges of 'blasphemy' in mideival days. It can only mean "I don't like your ideas, but to make me sound like more than a single person, I'll call my ideas the real ones of this country." America has always been, and hopefully always will be, an evolving, changing thing. When I hear someone calling someone else unAmerican, I hear the echo of goosestepping boots.

A reader's guide to the blogs wrote on Jun 30, 2006 8:58 AM:Leonard Cohen wrote: "There is a crack in everything...that's how the light gets in." And this is good advice for anyone interested in making best sense of these blog-conversations-debates. When an argument or disagreement breaks out, pay attention to the points people make that get NO response...these are the aces of the match. Most of the bloggers have a set of scripts in their heads that they see as absolute truths, and they trade these back and forth. They take the form of, "Oh yeah? Well, what about THIS?!" But every now and then an idea or statement comes up and is never answered. There's a reason, folks. No scripted retort... Now the reader still has to decide if the serve was in bounds or not (i.e., if the statement was just wacky), but if it wasn't, that's where you'll find the best ideas.

Hub wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:27 AM:to "Get Ready": I would be shocked if future presidents would not carry some, all, or even more of these interpretive powers into their administration. Bush is trying to set a precedent for more Executive power, based primarily on the War on Terror. If future presidents continue this expansion - so be it. Why would they be only unique to Bush? Realistically, many of these expansions will probably eventually be checked by the Supreme Court either sometime during the remainder of his term or in a future administration. But that's how our system works.

Oceansidekos wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:40 AM:Ron-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA, but I'm sure you knew that) held a press conference Wednesday to announce the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. Why Santorum? He's not the logical person to make this announcement - oh- that's right- his numbers are tanking and he's in for a fight to the death to hang on to his seat this year. Now come on, Ron. If this were the big deal you say it is, you can't tell me that your buddies at Fox wouldn't be all over this, with Cheney and Rummy oozing self-righteousness to Britt Hume, Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto. Rupert Murdoch would NOT sit on this story, nor would Sun Yung Moon (owner of the Washington Times and UPI among other media outlets.) You can cook the science and technology all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is old stuff from when Saddam was actively building his weapons arsenal, and since he stashed it all over the country, it was pretty much inevitable that some of it would be left hanging around in various places. I didn't catch the Kaye testimony, but will look for a podcast on C-Span's website. But you really need to do some investigating of your own into who owns the media in this country. There may be more reporters that lean left (and these days even that sounds prepostorous to me, but I know I'm biased) but ultimately it's guys like Murdoch and Moon who control the message, and for them it's all about the money. Even the Union Tribune, which until an errant reporter picked up on Randy's dirty dealings (which they ignored for how many years?) was always a water carrier for each and every Republican, advertises their Pulitzer Prize winning series on the Dukester on Air America's local affiliate, cuz they know people are listening and they need subscribers. But truly, nose around a little and find out who owns well over 75% of the media in this country- right wingers. And Moon is just crazy-scary. There oughta be a law against people like him owning anything that has to do with the dissemination of "news."

Too Fine wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:48 AM:Feinstein in German translates into “refined, fashionable” and “stone, precious stone”. Feinstein in English translates into “go-along, get-along, rollover Democrat”. I hope the Democrats can come up with a better, true-blue candidate than Lady Dianne. She’s so far to the right, like Hillary, that you could call her a Republican. Just this month she voted with every single Republican to support the Bush lie-and-die policy in Iraq, voting $66 billion to continue the war indefinitely. She has voted for every single appropriation for this war, which is now estimated will cost over a $1 trillion. She continues to support this illegal and immoral war, yet wipes her hands of all the horrors of the war. She is part of the moral problem. We have much more moderate candidates than Feinstein who represent the true values of peace and moderation of the Democratic Party. Just this week she voted for a Constitutional amendment to curb Freedom of Expression First Amendment rights. This woman is a nice but dangerous lady. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party now: too many nice Democrats going along with the war crimes of this president.

MB wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:03 AM:Mr. John Taylor gives credit to Sanchez for the "Watanabe/Watson/Jepsen connection." Here's an idea you want to consider: Sanchez couldn't control Jepsen so he had to go. The way Sanchez accomplished this was to discredit Watnaabe. Jepsen was the real taget. Just a few short months before this disclosure, Sanchez, Mayor Wood and Shari Macken publically praised Watanabe for his great work in traffic control (stop signs and calming traffic) at a city council meeting. By the way, I doubt that any traffic studies were done as required. Watanabe could do no wrong! All of a sudden Watanabe is the bad guy? You be the judge. Intimidation - sounds familiar i.e. Department heads who have "moved on to new challenges."

to Hub from Get Ready wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:04 AM:You misunderstood, maybe. I know that all Presidents DO signing statements. I was wondering if the particular ones that Bush did (or his predecessors) carry over. Let's say McCain is the next President (funny example, chosen at random): can he specifically ignore the torture thing because Bush said he could, or does the statement end with Bush's presidency?

Kerry wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:05 AM:An age old immigrant debate? The reason this debate was moved to the front of the American public's agenda is because of illegal immigrants and their supporters waving the MEXICAN flag in our streets and demanding rights! This has never happened before! This isn't "age old." It just kicked it into high gear. It made Americans aware of the audacity of illegal immigrants and their supporters. It made Americans even more adamant about something being done to enforce laws. Maybe Feinstein is getting nervous; she actually voted yes on the flag burning amendment; the first patriotic thing she has done! Is it because she is being scrutinized; and is up for re-election?

SIGNING STATEMENTS ANSWER wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:07 AM:About those 750 signing statements in which Mr. George Bush has pledged to break the law if he chooses. The question asked: If one president presumes himself above the law, does his successor inherit the same right? In the Bush-a-maniac world, the power goes with the office, not the man. If a Republican president rules he can break the law with impunity because of the powers granted the office, his successor enjoys the same impunity by occupying the same office. Furthermore, a new, Democratic president can revoke all the rulings of his predecessor, and establish a new body of laws of his own. In effect, we relegate Congress and the judiciary to token roles. This will work well for the people, of course, so long as we have a social Democrat in office. Perhaps it would be better if we had three equal branches of government, with a strict separation of powers.

Jules wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:09 AM:Oh Please another one has gone plain silly. Yaakav what are you talking about where do you get this "Liberal push for a conviction of Marine and Navy hero's"? What liberals are pushing this? Liberals are the ones who believe innocent until proven guilty Republicans do not! you are the ones yammering that we should kill all civilians because they must all be guilty. But your kind only believes in justice for some. And give us all a break your just writing partisan drivel when you say that liberals would be fine with a Muslim symbol on Mt. Soledad. You know maybe if you made any sense or had anything useful to say except to put up straw men you could be part of the solution not the problem.

Get Ready wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:49 AM:Can someone just answer my question? Am I asking it badly?

PK wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:24 AM:I have made an interesting observation while reading through these blogs. I have only recently began reading the "Letters to the Editor" section and participating in the blogs to voice my opinion. I have found that the majority of the Republicans/Conservatives make statements that voice their opinions and ideas and respond to other Liberal points of views with other arguing points. However, I find that the majority of the Liberals come back with the elementary school response of ,"Oh yeah! Well, your stupid!". These blogs are about debating points of views, not calling names and not telling people that they are dumb. I take these responses as a result of not having anything valid to say in return. So, to all you liberals, keep going with those insults and name calling and we will continue to work on making this the best country in the world.

Jules to get ready wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:27 AM:Good question I do not know. I do know that it brings up a lot of interesting idea's such as when (Yes I said when) We have a Democrat in the White house will that person have the same powers? That should freak alot of the GOPS out there.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:40 AM:In Response to "Get ready: a question [630815a] Great question! I went to Wikipedia and found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement "No United States Constitution provision, federal statute or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements" "Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself." "The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements. Marbury v. Madison (1803) and its progeny are generally considered to have established judicial review as a power of the Court, rather than of the Executive" "To the extent that a signing statement would nullify part or all of a law, the Court may have addressed the matter in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), which invalidated any form of line item veto." Wow ... I could go on, but not everyone is interested. Those who are, please check the website. They go on to discuss Executive Orders. 6301140a

The Court and Guantanamo wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:51 AM:In today's LA Times (by Rosa Brooks) QUOTE: The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention. But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act. The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo. END QUOTE So even if Congress were to create a new law allowing these tribunals, the larger point remains, that detainees are not outside Geneva Convention law. Interesting!

The Court and Guantanamo II wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:59 AM:And here's today's Philadelphia Inquirer: "Even if Congress were to provide specific authorization for the military commissions as currently configured, it would not be enough to make them legal in the eyes of the court. The trial procedures in the military commissions deviate significantly from those laid out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice to be used in courts-martial. This violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which states that any detainee captured during armed conflict can only be tried in "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." It is this part of the Supreme Court's decision that will have an impact far beyond the walls of Guantánamo. In ruling that Common Article 3 applies to the detention of Hamdan, the Supreme Court has rejected the fundamental premise upon which Bush has built the war on terrorism. The Bush administration has consistently asserted that the war on terrorism was a new kind of war, rendering "quaint" and "obsolete" more than 100 years of U.S. military practice of applying international humanitarian law to armed conflict. As a result, Bush unilaterally declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda and threw out prohibitions on abusive interrogation techniques. The Supreme Court has now forcefully stated that Bush was wrong, that the conflict with al-Qaeda does fall under the Geneva Conventions and that the United States is obliged to provide the minimum protections of Common Article 3 to any detainee captured during this conflict."

Ron wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:01 PM:Hey Oceansidekos, I hope you saw my reply from yesterday. Regarding what I watched last night, I saw it on C-Span, not a right or left outlet, to my knowledge. And in fact, I watch it so much, my wife often gives me the "look", married guys know what I'm talking about. So, I dont see where, where it came from is an issue. Regarding the weapons being "old", you really need to watch the hearing. They also said, and I failed to write it, that Hussien had began a smaller production line of VX nerve agent in 1998. Kaye kept wanting to talk about weapons made between 1984 and 1991, yet he had to admit, as did the other witnesses, Hussien was attempting to re-establish his chemical weapons programs after Gulf War I, and during UN sanctions. Oil for Food, obviously paid for it. They also discussed the gassing of the Kurd's, and again, Kaye admitted they had used a nerve agent on them. The key difference is the rounds and rockets being found now are the "binary" technology, Russian technology, perhaps. Although, I have read in other places where both Germany and France had provided Iraq with the equipment to synthesis chemcial weapons. This is why Clinton tomahawk'd the supposed "baby-milk factory." I'm fuzzy right now, but year was that? Mid-late 90's as I recall. As to why the press isn't covering it, I don't know. Santorum has a tough race, and yes, he's pulling out everything he's got. But watch the hearing, let me know if you come away with something different. I think the main point is this. The Administration had always argued, in fact, Colin Powell before the UN argued, the US couldn't live with the idea that Hussien was attempting to re-establish his chemical weapons program, and could hand off weapons to Al-Qaeda type groups. This was the fear. This was the heart of the case. Hussien was an imminent threat because we knew he would "do business" with terrorists. Kaye was very helpful in my understanding of how vociferous the regime was to hide, and intimidate the UN inspectors to prevent them from finding weapons, or program materials. Question has always been, since no chemical weapons were ever fired upon our troops was, if he didn't hide them, why didn't he just let the inspectors do their jobs, and get out? And the bluffing before the war. Why would you threaten to use something, when you don't have it, when the rest of the world believes, and they all believed, that he did? I guess we'll never get an naswer to that one. But, obviously not a good poker player.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:17 PM:In response to TioSam, who hopes that the term "unAmerican" will go the way of "blasphemy". Shorthand words are often popularized because of space and time constraints. "UnAmerican" is shorthand for "unfaithful to the principles and public safety of America." And BTW "blashpemy" is also a shorthand term that 'TS' implies is outdated. Only for people with a convenient view of God. My dictionary doesn't consider the word to be archaic. "To speak in an ierreverent manner [of God or sacred things] Any attempt to lessen reverence for God. Speak ill of, malign." So to attempt to weaken the uniquely American principles, is unAmerican. I know that may be inconvenient for some to consider. But, OH WELL. 6301216p

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:33 PM:I agree with the bloggers who have asked for a limit to the size of posts. If to 'filibuster' means to dominate the conversation, is 'blogbuster' the equivilent for message that are waaaay long? I know you guys have a lot to say, but please do us all a favor and break your comments into more digestible bytes. I personally just pass over any message with your moniker. It's not because I can't handle reading long passages, but my online time is limited and I don' t have the time to read, what is often a rambling rant. I have forgotten the source of a quote I saw recently "If I had known the subject better, I could have been more brief in my comments." 6301232p

Memo to locals wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:35 PM:Memo to local officials: Don't look to the feds to solve every illegal immigration problem. Start with your own housing code enforcement. How many illegal boarding houses are allowed to proleferate? Do what you can do within the scope of your authority. It only takes political will to DO WHAT YOU CAN DO. Unless the feds rule each county and city in the US, all control over the local effects of illegal immigration is not the fed's problem. Is it against local law to give false ID to cops? Are there local zoning laws against unlicensed boarding houses? Does each city require that all businesses use the Employment Verification Program to check for valid ID? Effects of illegal immigration are 100% local.

Mr.Conservative wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:53 PM:The Fourth of July Holiday is upon us again.I just want to say have a safe and happy holiday to all you whiners and complainers. I will pray for all of you to be safe,even if you are a Demoncrat.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:54 PM:Please do yourself a favor and take a humor-break. Check the San Antonio Express News for cartoons by Leo Garza. His "everyman" character - Nacho Guarache - is just wonderful Check the 'toon for 6/27. Or 6/13 for a perfect way to dispose of loudmouth knowitalls. Remember Proverbs 17:22 "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine..." 6301251p

to Barb wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:17 PM:"unfaithful to the principles and public safety of America"? So an empty word is said to be defined by an empty phrase. Most people think, for example, that America is less safe as a result of Bush's policies. Is Bush unamerican? Would this change if the majority thought us safer under his policies? How about speeders on the freeway? How about health insurance companies? Which principles? Would you say that Mr. Kahane's letter shows him to be an accurate user of the word, or to be unamerican himself? And when I spoke of blasphemy, I intended it to indicate not the actual insulting God, but, as is historically the case, someone's interpretation of that act...dangerous then, dangerous now. Finally, I think it's downright unamerican to tell people how long their blogs should be...you are completely free to read them or not, or to read as much of them as you like.

Jules wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:22 PM:Mr Conservative, because we read the news and are un-satisfied with what this administration is doing in oh so many ways, and because we state our opinions just as you do, that makes us whiners and complainers. Your letter started out civil and then went straight into the gutter. But that is par for the course.

Hub wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:32 PM:I second Barb V.V.'s suggestion that future blogs should become more brief. 100 words max would be nice. But then again, I would miss out on Ron's extremely well done essays several times a day. Guisseppe's too, so I can get a good laugh once in awhile. Either way, it's the blogmaster's call; I'm surprised he or she hasn't clamped down yet, as is done in the letters (200 words max).

Hub wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:42 PM:to "Get Ready" (again): Barb V.V. did a nice job explaining the general aspects of the signing statements. Of course, I'm not going to pretend I am an expert on them by any means. However, in regards to your question assuming whether Pres. McCain would have to be bound by Bush's signing statement: Even if he is bound, i.e., if there was a clause in Bush's signing statement stating that all future presidents must adhere to said signing statement. What would prevent McCain from signing his own signing statement which voids Bush's signing statement? Per Barb's research, the Court hasn't ruled on this completely so the statements seem to me to be temporary Executive stop gaps to assist the pres. Again, some or all of which will probably be ruled an "overstep" by the pres in many instances.

For Ron, wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:52 PM:The Department of Defense these 500 shells as DE-GRADED WMD's to the point that they are about as strong as the chemicals under your sink and the most they could possibly do is create a burn, kind of like Draino would do. He said we should only hope that these are the types of weapons used because the loader of the shell would have more damage done to himself. The Department of Defense has known about these shells for two years and believes there are probably 5000 more. It is possible the chemicals contained in the shells were sold to Saddam by the US and Donald Rumsfeld. Bush knew about these weapons when he himself declared that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Don't you think Sean Hannity would be screaming 24 hours a day on this?

To Mr. Conservatives wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:55 PM:Liars, cheaters and crooks are what this Republican majority has turned out to be, eradicating our civil rights and favoring Corporations over the people. They, the liars, cheaters and crooks, are your Delays, Frists, Neys, Libbys, Rumsfelds, Cheneys and Bush. History will show that this is the most unpatriotic group of carpetbaggers since the Civil War.

Get Ready to Hub & Barb wrote on Jun 30, 2006 2:06 PM:Thanks for your thoughtful answers about the signing statement question. I will look up Barb's suggestions, and I think Hub is probably right that a future President could, via something like another signing statement, interpret past laws as s/he wished. Interesting. Thanks again.

to PK wrote on Jun 30, 2006 2:30 PM:you're kidding, right? Right?!?! you can't seriously see it that way, can you? Boy oh boy, you are hilarious.

To Guiseppi et al wrote on Jun 30, 2006 2:39 PM:Re. Global Warming . . . You desperately need to visit this web site . . .

Take The Positive wrote on Jun 30, 2006 2:39 PM:While I will be the first to say that I have yet to agree with anything Mr. Conservative has to say, why is it so impossible to simply thank him for his kind wishes for the holiday weekend? Getting so twisted in knots over some side-stepped name calling just seems to be a waste of energy. Everyone please enjoy the holiday ... make it safe and celebrate the freedoms we have to come back and argue another day.

Ron wrote on Jun 30, 2006 3:26 PM:Thank you Barb for reminding me, this is not my personal blog site. I will do my part to reduce my Global Warming, and try to cut them short(er). And I'm dedicating this short one to Al Gore. Amen.

JulesTo Take the positive wrote on Jun 30, 2006 3:50 PM:Why is it impossible for Mr. Conservative to take the high road and simply wish all a happy holiday? No he had to take a shot, and a backhanded wish just like a backhanded compliment which is meaningless. Here is how to do it- To all bloggers have a happy and safe holiday.

Mr. Conservative wrote on Jun 30, 2006 3:58 PM:OK ok, have a safe and happy weekend, use your sunscreen and have lots of fun.All of you...

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:08 PM:I am surprised that the blogmaster hasn't set a limit on the size of posts. Dose he/she read them all to make sure that nothing bad gets said? Otherwise, it's no skin off my teeth. I don't read the long long posts. And to Mr. No Name [anonymous post] Sorry, you folks couldn't think of a name for you -- please take note that I am not telling people how long to make their posts. But as an FYI and out of consideration for fellow bloggers and the poor guy who watches over the blog [are you blind yet?] if sonemone wants their thoughts to be read by others, shorter is better than longer.

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:10 PM:How amazing that any rational person can believe that a global government will better protect our "inalienable rights" better than the US Constitution, when we often can't get the government closest to us [city, school board, etc] to do as we wish. Will a government melded from Canada, Mexico and the US be better for us? It reminds me of a story about a thrifty grocer who bought a sale lot of odds and ends of liquors and poured them into a common vat. When asked what he was making, he said he didn't rightly know, but he thought it would turn out to be Port. Each nation in our hemisphere is unique, with unique challenges and blessings. Sentimentalists who will tout for a melded AmerCanMex regional government may cite Acts 17:26 God has "made of one blood all nations" conveniently omitting the rest: "and hath determined the bounds of their habitation." We do no favor to the people of the Americas or the rest of the world, if we allow our national sovereignty to be compromised for the sake of the free flow of commerce or people. 630410p

Want to be a citizen? wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:24 PM:Anyone want to take a citizenship questionair on MSNBC? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/?ic I missed 2

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:30 PM:Hey guys ... I may want to repent of my request for shorter blogs. One of the things that I miss from the old Blade Citizen [morph from earlier OC Blade Tribune & Coast Citizen] is the many long essays by locals in each issue. That's really what the long blogs are. But my eyes get tired reading online. So be kind to old eyes, OK? 630429p

the angelfire site wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:51 PM:The recommended angelfire site (from the posting of 2:39) is an interesting compilation of articles, most stating that the global warming idea is one of many to attack industry/business/capitalism, "the market". If you backtrack the site to its source, you find a very strong libertarian ideology, "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market". If you want to read about this kind of capitalist anarchy, I recommend the site!

Gary wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:28 PM:Mention the word “amnesty” and the Bushistas go absolutely ape-offal, don’t they? Look, most people don’t speak precisely or carry a thesaurus around with them so that they can have just the right word handy for any occasion. “Amnesty” has a dictionary meaning, a legal meaning, and a colloquial meaning, and the politicians just don’t seem to get it that ordinary people don’t give a hoot about what a word means legally, they want to know what does it mean in the real world? People hear the word “amnesty” and for those old enough to remember, it brings back memories of a huge mess, a textbook example of government incompetence, and most of all breathtaking dishonesty. We were told that (a) those who did not qualify would be kicked out and kept out, (b) that there would be enforcement both at the border and in the interior, and (c) that it would be a one-time-only event. Inasmuch as we’ve been lied to on all 3 counts, I think we’ve earned the right to be not entirely trusting of anything that looks like an amnesty. Which brings us back to the meaning of the word. I am sure that all sorts of words have been focus-grouped to death, to find the least objectionable word or phrase for this, but there really isn’t one. Whether it’s called “amnesty” or “earned legalization” or “path to citizenship” or “banana” it all means the same thing to most people: leniency when it’s really not warranted or deserved

Barb V. V. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:41 PM:630540p Pick up the story from another CA paper: " The Senate’s top Democrat this morning withdrew his objections to sending the Senate immigration bill to the House as part of a tax bill, a maneuver needed to bypass a constitutional requirement governing how Congress deals with legislation. " Wowser! A MANEUVER to cover the fact that the Senator's mad hurry to pass a massive immigration bill that most of them had not read, overstepped the bounds of their Constitutional authority. It seems that charging illegals $2000 for a guest-to-citizenship pass is something that only the House can do. So these sly foxes took a bill already passed by the House, stripped out all its wording and inserted their huge give-away. And that is the MANEUVER that Senator Ried is proud of.

Oceansidekos wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:09 PM:Barb- some of us may write longer entries, but you hold the record for the most entries. I think word for word you have us all beat, even the eloquent Guissepie and the prolific Ron. And Ron- I never questioned your source for the hearings- I'm a big C-Span watcher as well, as I stated. I was just remarking that if the story had legs, there is no way it would have been ignored by the sources I named, most notably Fox News. I also checked the websites of Bill O, Sean H and even Michael Savage (who has videos of beheadings on the front page, but it is, well, a "Savage Nation" after all) and no one is talking about this. I also couldn't find the story on the C-Span website earlier today. Rick Santorum has nothing about it on his website, and even a Google search didn't produce anything recent regarding Kaye. I would like to find it though, so if you can point me in the right direction, please do so. And yes, I did read your post from last night. Actually I AM very nice - just angry. But Bob Ney's pending indictment a la Randy Cunningham will doubtless cheer me up, if only fleetingly. I do agree about it appearing more like a dialog - probably a good thing. And finally, for PK: it is nearly impossible for someone who has strong feelings one way or the other to be objective about anything, much less language. The interesting thing is that when you read invective from someone who agrees with you, you (and this is not you specifically but the universal "you" - as in "one" - but that gets awkward) tend to just ride with it, because it feels like truth. When someone uses the same sort of language but doesn't agree with you, every word jumps out like a snake to bite your sensibilities. If you go back and read through these, I think you will find name calling on both sides, and that reasoned discourse is there from both sides as well (except for Mike America.) You, in fact, have said some pretty insulting things; they were insulting to me, at least, even though you didn't name me specifically.

David wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:37 PM:Rod, I ask you: Do you feel better after your ranting about warmongers? Your letter is a good example of why we should sit on what we write before we send it. It helps us sound less like an imbecile.

To Jules wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:45 PM:True ... but do two wrongs make a right? I guess if you feel the need to stoop to the same level then yes ... and go for it. For me, I have more important things to do. But, again, it was just a suggestion. Have a great holiday!

Jules wrote on Jun 30, 2006 8:43 PM:To to Jules, I know you are correct in saying "do two wrongs make a right" No they do not. You make a good point I also have more important things to do, I guess I am easily baited. My Bad. I also agree with David I should sit on what I write before I send it. I have been called to task on some of my blogs and deservedly so. I also can reason and admit my transgressions and mistakes. And I have made more than one apology. I am very impressed with many writers of all sides because if you make a valid point and show some research and reasoning, I am more inclined to see your point of the matter. While I will not always change my mind it does give me food for thought. I love that we are fortunate to still live in a country that allows this give and take of our freedom of thought and speech. By writing and expressing your thoughts you all are important to these rights, and I hope this Independence Holiday we can all keep that in mind. I may get fiesty but I am human. I was not being sarcastic when I said I wish you all a happy, safe and introspective Independence Day.

L in C wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:35 PM:If you ask me I quite enjoy some of the long comments some people make. (They are usually more interesting then reading the articles the NC Times report) These posts also give me the comfort of knowing I am not the only one who has certain issues on events in the news. And being this is America and so many of our rights are being stepped upon and taken away by the govenrment its these posts that keep the spirit of 'freedom of the speech' alive (until such time as some judge rules freedom of speech unconstitutional and the whole thing just dies} Then were all in deep u know what. Isnt it amazing that one person can ruin it all for tens of millions of people should that one person decide he is right in his beliefs or his bribery promises and justs steps upon the first ideals of this country? One person vs. ten million people!!!!!! And not a gald darrend thing u can do about it.

Sick of It wrote on Jul 1, 2006 11:06 AM:I'm glad to see others also have noticed the J Stryker Meyers articles are closer to a gossip column than journalism. Using multiple unnamed sources in almost everything you write makes you seem like a liar.

Dear Ron wrote on Jul 1, 2006 7:46 PM:I can answer your question about why WMDs being found in Iraq didn't make it into the news. Because it is total bull. Even the right-wing Bush media didn't write about it which should tell you something. Even the constant lies by Bush and people like you could not find WMDs BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THERE! Bush knew this prior to the war but due to the contant spewing of false information by him and the deaf, dumb and blind a lot of people like yourself are in a hole. You can't crawl out of the hole by lying or twisting the truth but you don't get it. The liberals didn't take us into an unnecessary war, destroy our treasure and destroy the very fabric our nation was made great with. Face it like a man and learn the truth for the sake of our country.. ha ha fat chance. If you admit the horror of the Bushies you would feel the deep shame you are a part of. That won't happen because you have no shame.

Just as I suspected wrote on Jul 6, 2006 2:55 PM:Barb V.V. doesn't have a life.