Archive for January, 2008

This month, I received the results of a called-for study detailing the costs of services delivered to illegal aliens. The estimated drain on County services and community medical providers is more than $250 million a year.

The numbers only confirm my suspicions, but the findings are worse than I could have imagined because the estimates are likely on the low-side. While more than $100 million in taxpayer’s dollars is drained from our budget every year to provide services to people who are in this country illegally, there is another $154 million in costs for un-reimbursed emergency medical care. This is not a direct County cost; however, it is a huge hit on the community.

I asked for action to determine the financial impact of illegal aliens to County services in my State of the County Address as Chairman of the Board in 2006. Now we have the numbers that show how much money is being diverted that could be used to do such things as fix roads and provide better public safety. This is a hidden redistribution of taxpayer’s dollars amounting to $100 for every citizen in our County.

I am preparing a response to the study and will present findings to the entire Board of Supervisors at our meeting on September 25, 2007. I would welcome your comment any time and at that public meeting. If you would like to have a copy of the Undocumented Immigrant Study, please go to our website at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/cnty/bos/sup5/.

Holy CRAP!

250 MILLION in just 1 County!
Full Study


Read Full Post »

Conservatism dead?

I have been trying my best at not blogging about the current primary elections.
Mostly because I believe that every one of them suck.

Rudy has bowed out and even though Rudy was one of the reasons I realized I am a conservative I am glad he did. He ran a horrible campaign and really had no vision that resounded well with the rest of America.

McCain is the “new front runner” after Huckabee went from BOOM to BUST in 1 state.
I guess people really started looking at Hucakabee’s actual record instead of the fact that he goes to church every week. Go figure.

With McCain as the new front runner I am really concerned about the fact that conservatism in America as we know it may be dead. The days of Regan Conservatism is passing and is being replaced with this new liberal-conservatism. McCain along with the likes of Mel Martinez and Crist who both endorsed McCain in the final hours of the Primaries in Florida made me realize its dead. Floridas primaries this year seem to be the defining moment on when I realized that its all but dead folks.

The Primaries were open only to registered Republicans so I could not vote as I have no part affiliation. And McCain won! I was in total shock to be honest. How the hell did Floridians decide that McCain can now be called a Conservative is beyond me. There isn’t anything that he believes in that would even come close to being called Conservative, yet here they are choosing him as the nominee.

For Christs sake he backed McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy and you wonder WTF is so Conservative about that?

People talk about how McCain can reach across party lines and negotiate. But that is BULLSHIT. He doesn’t negotiate, he flat out gives liberals what they want. How the hell was the Immigration bill this last summer even remotely a negotiation. It was a damn Amnesty plan.

Romney is the other front runner. I have stated before “I do not trust this guy”. Romney makes John Kerry look consistent!

What is wrong with the conservative part of the Republican party?
Mits Romneywho switches opinions like he is changing underwear and John I concede everything to liberals McCain? Really?

At LEAST Romney understands economics. Even though he is a complete corporate welfare type of guy.

McCain on the other hand can’t even answer a question about economics without saying he will have “OTHERS” with him in his administration that will know about it. WTF IS THAT? Leadership is one thing, sure its a good thing to have, but what good is leadership if you don’t have a CLUE on WTF you are leading on. Its like a bring great leader and in a war on the front lines, but not having a clue about military operations.

He didn’t even answer the question!
Just that he’ll have OTHER GUYS making those decisions pretty much!

I digress.

I fear I will have no one that I can put my real support behind.

If McCain in fact if ANYONE of the front runners for the Republican Party win the nomination I will vote for Obama or Hillary. As I have stated countless times on forums. I will NOT vote for the Devil I know over the Devil I don’t any longer. I figure if we are going to go down the toilet, lets flush this shit down quickly. Obama and Clinton being so close together on actual issues are just the people to take us there quick!

Let liberals and Americans see what it is like when you have Congress and the White house under Democratic/Liberal rule.

You need a Carter to get a Reagan!
Bring it on then!

Read Full Post »

This is what kills me about these damn Global Warming freaks, they totally brush off these findings and continue down this path that somehow humans are so powerful that we effect global temperatures. When in reality just 1 volcano makes a century of our activity seem like a grain of sand on the beach.

So no Gore, the debate is not over:

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica’s glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

“This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet” in Antarctica, Vaughan said.

Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.

Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell during the next 2,300 years.

Still, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves over an elliptical area about 110 miles, or 176 kilometers, wide were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.

The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. “It’s probably within Alexander the Great’s lifetime, but not more precise than that,” Vaughan said.

Read Full Post »

Bundle up folks…..

What not Global Warming?
Get outa town! Really?

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.

The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

Read Full Post »

As usual with most things on the internet, the far left will get 1 sound byte and RUN WITH IT. Without even looking at anything else and completely ignoring the rest of the conversation that she was having with David Frost, the fringe left took the words “the man Sheik Omar who murdered Bin Laden” and took it to every corner of the internet to start their usual conspiracy theory riddled crap.

The fringe left or hell in some cases just the left:

believe that Osama Bin Laden was killed in the bombings along the Pakistan border after 9/11. Despite him releasing tapes afterwards.

Well of course, it takes some research to see that CLEARLY she was taken completely out of context and misspoke. In her conversation she was talking about the western journalists that were murdered by orders of Bin Laden to Sheik Omar, that journalist was Daniel Pearle who was killed in 2002.

Also to note is the fact that Omar Sheik was taken into captivity in July of 2002, Bin Laden released video after that date and audio. His right hand Ayman al-Zawahiri man has never once made any mention of OBL being dead or dying.

However for some this is not enough so to further squash this conspiracy theory right out of existence there are two interviews with Bhutto that should end this nonsense.

First this is part of the transcript of her interview on CNN 1 day after the Frost interview on November 3rd 2007 in which she says:

WHITFIELD: So, Ms. Bhutto, am I hearing you correctly in saying that you almost directly blame General Pervez Musharraf for helping to produce these safe havens in Pakistan, where there is terrorist activity, where, perhaps, in these safe havens someone like the Osama bin Laden, the most-wanted terrorist in the world, just might be taking refuge?

BHUTTO: I wouldn’t like to go so far as to blame General Musharraf directly, but I would certainly say that many people in his administration and his security apparatus responsible for internal security make me feel very uneasy. And I believe that tribal areas of Pakistan could not have become safe havens without collusion of some of the elements in the present administration. And this is why I believe that regime change is very important.

I had hoped —

WHITFIELD: Do you Musharraf — I’m sorry. Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?

BHUTTO: I don’t think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the ’80s. That military dictatorship formed the Iran Mujahideen.

If she did not misspeak LITERALLY the day before with Mr. Frost, then why would she not even MENTION that Omar Sheik murdered OBL so “knowing where he is”, is irrelevant?

But to solidify it some more. Since there are those on the left that believe that CNN is part of the conspiracy. I turn now to NPR, and Mrs Bhutto’s interview on NPR with Steve Insky, which can hardly be part of any conspiracy. This interview was on November 13th 2007. Its audio so you lefties reading this now don’t think that its been altered in anyway.

STEVE: What is your Freedom of movement like if any?

BHUTTO: I have freedom of movement within the house. I don’t have freedom of movement outside the house. We’ve got a heavy police force inside the house, and we’ve got a very heavy police force — 4,000 policemen around the four walls of my house, 1,000 on each. We’ve even entered the neighbor’s house and I was just telling one of the policemen, I said, should you be here after us? Shouldn’t you be looking for Osama bin Laden? And he said I’m sorry, ma’am, this is our job. We’re just doing what we’re told.

Again why would she tell NPR that she told a soldier to go look for Osama when she knows that OBL is dead? Probably folks because she misspoke in the Frost interview.

I am sure even this is not enough to convince the lefty morons/moonbats (as Michelle Malkin likes to call them) that still believe the the US government is covering up OBL’s supposed death. As though Bush would not announce it and SILENCE his critics and be part of the history books as the one that took out Osama.

So I’ll give it another shot with this, almost a full month later on October 1, 2007 where she then says the following: Bhutto says she might allow U.S. strike on bin Laden

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said on Monday that she might allow a U.S. military strike inside Pakistan to eliminate al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden if she were the country’s leader.

“I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans. But if I couldn’t do it, of course we are fighting this war together and (I) would seek their cooperation in eliminating him,” Bhutto said in an interview on BBC World News America.

Again if she believed he was dead, and did not misspeak why would she say this to Reuters?

So once again the left has failed, and in her death began to circulate things about her that she cannot refute, pretty convenient no? The Left doesn’t care what image it tarnishes, it just cares about its ridiculous conspiracy theories and its fascination with Bush and supposed cover ups.

Read Full Post »