For those who don't religiously check the news as I do:

  ACLU sues Dallas suburb for refusing to rent to illegal immigrants..

Here's why this is innapropriate. According to the ACLU, a group that claims to stand for US Civil Rights (for example, they defended the NAMBLA - North American Man Boy Love Association, after a man raped and murdered a 10 year old boy), the landlords must act as immigration officers. However, if you read the ordinance itself, it says that the landlord is not to rent to the illegal immigrant and is to turn them over to local authorities. This means that the landlord doesn't have to deport or carry out any of the duties of a immigration officer... so really I don't see the similarities.

We can only stop illegal immigration if we attack it on all fronts. Businesses should be raided until the businesses get better at checking to see if the immigrant is here legally or not. Landlords should have every resource available to them to report illegal applicants. And that wall needs to be built, so the very mention that the new Congress will deny funding for building a fence that has ALREADY BEEN ARGUED, DEBATED, AGREED UPON, AND SIGNED IS absolutely and undeniably wrong. Going and erasing something that has already been passed by Congress and the Executive Branch is effectively dismantling democracy and SHAME on the Democrats for denying us our Democratic rights.

2. Not a big fan of Russia and Putin, even if Bush can "see his soul," but because Russia is denying space technology to China I think perhaps they recognize, as I do, that China isn't on the friendliest of paths. They will undeniably be the next world superpower as the Americans are eaten alive by the secular-progressive movement's hatred and shame of our own country. (i.e. We have no right to spread Democracy, or as they say, IMPOSE Democracy. We have no right to be the policman of the world, when OBVIOUSLY the UN can do it., etc.) What this shows is that, while China is quickly developing its own technologies, Russia is choosing not to give it's technology to another nation without some reciprocation. Even coming from a slowly declining Democracy, it's a smart move. And one the United States can learn from if we aren't to be surpassed as well.

3. Our new Secretary of Defense is making some waves with the consideration of recruiting immigrants into the military. This type of measure would put immigrants who sign up for military service on the fast track to citizenship. What I like about it is that it fills the critical void we need to support our military and our current obligations, as well as providing that "path to citizenship" everyone keeps wanting for illegal immigrants who broke our laws to begin with. Seems to me a valid reason for me to forgive them: you want to be here, you broke our laws and lied to your employers, neighbors, and authorities to do so, but we won't kick you out if you serve in our military. Otherwise, we do with you what we wanted to and send your ass home until you can follow the path to citizenship that already exists and you SHOULD have taken. What I don't like is that it underscores the unwillingness of some of our own citizens to serve (even though we have so many valient and brave men and women who do who I can only say I have the utmost pride and admiration for) and that it seems it also could put our national security at risk without the proper precautions.... we'll see what they say will assuage my concerns.

Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

New Website!

Come visit!!!

Racial preferences are wrong. Period. And that is all that Joe Mroszczyk is trying to point out. I for one, can appreciate that.

We need an open and candid discussion of racial preferences and how they effect the American public. White people should not be afraid to point out if a person is black, latino, or any other race, but they are. We are afraid that by simply mentioning a racial difference we can be painted as bigots.

I admire the Boston College Republicans for making this an issue. I'm tired of seeing BET knowing full well that there can never be a WET. Looking at scholarships for hispanics, blacks, every other minority, but nothing specifically for the majority. I apologize for being in the race that happens to be the highest in this particular country, but wait... no I don't. There's no more wrong with being white than black, asian, hispanic, or other. And I refuse to apologize.

The argument is that, because we're in the majority, that we don't need extra help. Well, excuse me, but is poverty limited to one race? Or even just the minority races? I know for a fact there are plenty of white people who are poor. This is not to discount the inordinate number of poor people who are of minorities, as I am aware that it's skewed. But at what point do we stop blaming the white man? At what point to we say HERE are the ways out, TAKE them? When the majority of them discount the benefits of a college degree, or even a high school diploma, and this I know after having been relayed this information from quite a few in Detriot (hi Jamal). I want everyone who needs help to know how to get it, but not for it to be given to them. There are opportunities, and they must be taken advantage of. Yes, it's harder for the poor than the rich, but that should not justify not having to work hard. I come from a wealthy family, but I also worked my butt off in school, studied hard, and went to town meetings and applied for hundreds of internships and jobs to make it into the field. My parent's aren't in the industry I'm going into, and although they can provide me with what I need if I get into a bind, I don't want to rely on them if I don't have to. And I work HARD to ensure myself of that benefit.

Racial preferences are wrong. Affirmative Action is based off of race, and it SHOULD be based off of income. Why can't we at least admit that since the justification to maintain the racial base is of their economic position?

It's time to grow up, America. We can't live in the past forever. It's time to adapt.

(I also say this to my own party - focus on fiscal conservatism. Small government. I know we want to protect the traditional family structure, but quite frankly if gays can marry is not high on my personal priority list. I'd rather balance the budget and cut overspending and pork barreling. GROW UP.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuwBw9q3Sw

Saw this and it made me laugh. Maybe I can be persuaded to support him. We'll see.

Already the new Congress is planning to take aim at the nation's economy. They are capitalizing on anger towards oil companies due to the high cost at the pump in the past few years in an attempt to cripple American businessmen and women.

Speaker Pelosi says she wants to repeal tax breaks oil companies received in the past year or two. What does she want to change?

• Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration
• A measure passed two years ago to promote domestic manufacturing that gives a tax credit to companies willing to drill in the United States instead of elsewhere... you know... not supporting outsourcing?

Firstly, why she and her Democratic comrades would want to lambast companies for promoting American jobs and using American resources and strength, I just don't quite understand.

Secondly, why she would target the essential promotion of business building and American oil infrastructure support with these particual tax credits instead of the ones that give tax breaks for simply doing inventory a different way... well it just seems so obvious she doesn't know what she's doing.

Oil companies are not evil, Madame Speaker. And I pray that the American people see how unfit this measure is, how you are trying to play the "Evil Big Oil" card on businesses who employ thousands of hard working Americans. You act as though earning money, profits, especially big profits, is evil and sinister. Well, let me tell you, where would you be without this industry? They provide a valuable service to the American people, and quite frankly, they deserve more respect from your side of the aisle.

Oil companies have to deal with multiple nations on a regular basis simply to obtain products to be able to refine gasoline because their own country has so regulated the industry that they rarely are able to build a new refinery, old ones have closed, and the exisiting ones are so filled to capacity that as Canada ups its ante, our system will be grossely overburdoned. There are companies here in the US who have to bypass oil and drill further down to extract natural gas because there is so little excess capacity to refine oil in this country. We have some of the most skilled workers in the entire industry right here in this country and they are being called evil by the Democratic party.

New technologies have allowed for lower emissions and smaller environmental impacts, we have so few of those in existence because oil companies have been demonized. They're painted as these evil corporations who want nothing more than to jack up the price of gas and stick it to the American people. To have so much malice in your heart that you assume anyone who works in that industry is malicious and evil... well I just can't comprehend it.

If the Democratic party really wants to put punishment where it is due, then go after the inventory tax breaks. Don't punish domestic oil companies for drilling HERE, providing jobs HERE, and bringing new innovation HERE.

I'm sorry what did you say? I was too busy watching the Democrats kill the American worker.

Karen Carter who has received various newspapers endorsements and who appears to be in a good position for a runoff position against William “Bill” Jefferson, is now under attack for her poll positioning. 

Republican candidate, Joe Lavigne launched a broadside against Carter on Monday, by stating, “Karen Carter has used her position as an elected official

to profit from government contracts for bond commission work, and she

has violated a State Ethics Board requirement to disclose those profits.

She has also received these contracts despite not being qualified for

the work (the Louisiana State Attorney General’s Office requires an “av”

rating by Martindale-Hubbel for state legal contract bond work, and her

rating is “bv”).

“All that the political machines of the past have given us are broken

levees, broken schools, and a reputation for corruption. Karen Carter is

just another one of these political machine candidates,” said Lavigne.

The Times Picayune noted in a February 11, 2005 story that the Carter’s

profits on the deals “qualify as transactions with the government” and

as such require “a sworn notification about the work with the Ethics Board.”

Karen Carter has filed one such notification on May 23, 2005, disclosing

a fee of $30,000 she received as underwriter’s counsel on a bond issue

for the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority.

And in a story in the Times Picayune on Friday, October 20, 2006, Carter

“said she earned almost $30,000 in recent years from the [bond] deals.”

However, she has actually received:

• $64,000 from an April 21, 2005 bond deal through the Jefferson Parish

Council, Application No. L05-169,

• $13,000 from a July 22, 2005 bond deal through the New Orleans

Aviation Board, Application No. L05-28, and

• $5,000 from a February 6, 2006 bond deal through the City of Monroe,

Application No. L05-3225.

That’s a total of $82,000 in payments she has intentionally not

disclosed as required by the State Ethics Board. Together with the

disclosed $30,000 deal she’s received over $100,000 in no-bid government

contracts while serving in the Legislature.

The $13,000 July 22, 2005 deal with the New Orleans Aviation Board was

received while Doug Evans was vice-chairman of the Aviation Board. Doug

Evans is also a leading member of the B.O.L.D. organization, like Ms.

Carter.

Ms. Carter has also failed to file her Income Disclosure Form for

calendar year 2005 with the Louisiana Legislature declaring whether or

not she has not received more than $250 in income from the state of

Louisiana or any local government entity or political subdivision

thereof, despite earning over $100,000 from these transactions with the

government for that year. (Emphasis by Bayoubuzz)

However, Carter did pick up the TP endorsement early this week.  Bayoubuzz did attempt to get a statement from Karen Carter campaign to address the Lavigne allegations.

Karen Carter is not fit to be a Congresswoman from Louisiana.... unless you want someone JUST AS CORRUPT as Dollar Bill Jefferson.

The first televised forum of the race for Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District seat covered a broad range of issues, but at nearly every turn, Thursday night's debate kept coming back to the campaign's central theme: the federal bribery investigation of incumbent William Jefferson.

Flanked by his four most potent challengers, Jefferson deflected the criticism, touting his connections to the Washington power structure and rattling off statistics, from the size of the national deficit to the appropriations he has funneled to southeast Louisiana during his 16 years in Congress, particularly since Hurricane Katrina.

Responding to the debate's first question, Jefferson calmly addressed what WDSU anchor Norman Robinson labeled "the elephant in the room": the discovery last summer by FBI agents of $90,000 in marked bills in a freezer in Jefferson's Capitol Hill home.

"I have not responded to any of the allegations . . . because I have to protect myself in this environment," Jefferson said. "There will be a time when I will make an explanation of this. It will be an honorable explanation. I have not been charged with a crime. I am not guilty of anything."

Acknowledging that the investigation is not complete, state Rep. Karen Carter, D-New Orleans, struck the familiar theme that Jefferson, who was removed from the powerful House Ways and Means Committee by his Democratic peers, has lost much of his stroke in the probe's wake.

"There is a cloud of suspicion that causes him to be distracted from the recovery," she said.

Trying to stand out

Throughout the rapid-fire, 90-minute program, each of the other three candidates -- former New Orleans City Councilman Troy Carter, New Orleans lawyer Joe Lavigne and state Sen. Derrick Shepherd -- took his own shots at Jefferson's legal problems as they vied to distinguish themselves in the field of 12 challengers on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Troy Carter, who made a failed bid for mayor of New Orleans in 2002, said he has a unique perspective after spending four years as a private citizen following two years as a state representative and eight years on the City Council. Carter also said he is the best option for voters who want to sidestep the city's entrenched black political organizations.

"We have a notion to reject the belief that this seat belongs to either BOLD or Progressive Democrats," he said. Karen Carter is a longtime BOLD member, and Jefferson founded the Progressive Democrats.

Shepherd, meanwhile, touted his experience as a state senator representing a sizable chuck of the 2nd District, which covers most of New Orleans, except for parts of Lakeview and Uptown, as well as south Kenner and most of Jefferson Parish's West Bank.

Throughout the forum, Shepherd peppered his answers with references to specific neighborhoods, and he vowed to open congressional offices on the West Bank, in Kenner and downtown. "We need hands-on leadership," he said. "That's what's missing now."

Lavigne, a political novice and the only Republican on stage Thursday, repeatedly derided his opponents as members of the old political guard who are parading the same failed policies with "a different face and a different name."

In one of the debate's lighter moments, he pointed to the accomplishments of a splashy newcomer to the city to portend his own abilities. "There's another rookie here: New Orleans Saints wide receiver Marques Colston, and he's doing a heck of a job," Lavigne said.

Focus on schools

Though the questioning ranged from immigration to the Iraq war to the Gulf Coast recovery, perhaps the most in-depth discussion focused on a thoroughly local issue: New Orleans' historically dismal public education system.

Asked about the recent state takeover of city schools, the candidates alternately took pot shots at Karen Carter, who authored the bill in the state Legislature that wrested authority over the school system from its locally elected board. But problems have not abated, Robinson noted, as students continue to attend schools that lack teachers and books.

"I think it's too simplistic a solution," Jefferson said. "There's no quick fix like a state takeover. The state was unprepared for this. They didn't have the bureaucracy to handle this. . . . It's a horrible result."

"It was a complete failure," Shepherd said. "I voted against the state takeover. It wasn't studied. It wasn't thought about. Everybody -- the teachers, the school bus drivers -- are due an apology."

After calmly taking the criticism, Karen Carter bit back. She admitted that especially since Katrina, the state takeover plan requires improvement. But she slapped at her opponents for sitting by idly during their years in public office and failing to offer alternatives.

"It's easy for people to talk about what was wrong and what's wrong now when they didn't offer a solution," she said. "Some of the folks out here have been in office for years, and we have had a problem with this system for years: bankruptcy, a federal investigation. Did they author legislation to do anything?"

Think fast

Twice during the debate, Robinson and co-anchor Kriss Fairbairn peppered the candidates with a "speed round" series of questions.

Asked if President Bush and his advisers had "intentionally misled the American people before our attack on Iraq," Troy Carter and Jefferson said yes; Karen Carter and Lavigne said no; and Shepherd said, "I hope not."

Asked to predict if Gov. Kathleen Blanco would be re-elected next year, Karen Carter and Jefferson said yes; Troy Carter and Lavigne said no; and Shepherd declined to speculate.

Lavigne was the lone dissenter when the candidates were asked if New Orleans will get Category 5 levee protection within five years, and he was the only one to support the use of school vouchers.

Asked if Mayor Ray Nagin is doing a good job of rebuilding the city, Karen Carter said "he's trying very hard"; Troy Carter declined to offer an opinion, saying only that "clearly, there have been some failures."

Jefferson, who is running with Nagin's support, said "Yes, it's a tough job." And though Lavigne agreed with Jefferson's assessment, he said Nagin is "not doing a very good" job.

Shepherd, meanwhile, said no.

The most bizarre moment in the debate came during a segment that allowed candidates to pose questions to one another. Trying to lob what she admittedly intended as a feel-good softball, Karen Carter asked Lavigne how his family is faring 14 months after Katrina.

A perplexed Lavigne replied that he was back in his home and that his mother had died while the family was evacuated.

"I don't know why you asked that question," he said, tears welling up in his eyes. "But I'm back in my home, I buried my mother."

After Robinson asked Carter why she chose that question, she blurted out that she didn't know about Lavigne's family tragedy.

"I was asking it out of sincerity," she said. Turning to Lavigne, she said, "Joe, there was absolutely no mal-intent there. We spend so much time with negative ads and fighting that we don't spend enough time on the issues and there needs to be a level of compassion and empathy offered in this campaign."

Now my opinion....

Carter is either acting or off her meds.