For the sake of argument, let’s assume that ALL of America’s troubles are the fault of the Bush administration. Afterall, President Obama has said on multiple occasions that he “inherited” this economy. Fine. But President Obama campaigned on “change we can believe in.” Those were his words. If Obama was the candidate for change, why is our economy circling the drain faster that his approval rating? Why are 15 million Americans unemployed, and 15 million illegal immigrants still walking our streets with no solution in site? Why are businesses so nervous about an unclear future that they’re scared to hire more workers?

Usually, when a president promises change and doesn’t accomplish it, he blames it on congress. Ooops, can’t do that this time. Obama occupies the most powerful office in the world, and has the benefit of a democratic congress. Where’s the change?

I have the utmost respect and appreciation for our men and women who have fought in Iraq since the war began. And even more so for the families of those brave souls who never returned. But this is not the time to cherry pick one campaign promise and say, “see, I told you so.”

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294883-6

If you don’t have an hour right now, you’ve got to hear this two and a half minute clip that I edited out that I think is so important for Americans to hear, especially during these times of socialism in America. In the clip Speaker Gingrich talks about the Declaration of Independence, and the true meaning of its first sentence, especially the “pursuit of happiness”:

Here’s a link to download the MP3 file if you want it:

Newt Gingrich on the Declaration of Independence

Carlos Martinelly Montano is a 23-year-old illegal immgrant who lives in Bristow (Prince William County), Virginia. In July 2007, he was charged with drunk driving and later convicted. In March 2008 he was convicted of being drunk in public. Seven months later he was back in court for drunk driving after he was pulled over for speeding (going 55 in a 35 MPH zone). In April 2009, a jury sentenced him to a year in jail for that offense, though he only served 3 weeks. His driver license was also revoked, he was fined $5,000 and was sentenced to three years probation. Last year he was convicted of driving without a license. And then in a different county he was again found driving without a license.

Montano was turned over to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials twice, who set him free as they prepared for his deportation.

Now fast forward to last Sunday, August 1. Sister Denise Mosier, a 66-year-old Benedictine nun, was a passenger in a Toyota Corolla traveling north on Bristow Rd with two other nuns, on their way to a 5-day retreat. Montano was traveling south on the same road. He swerved off the road, hit a guard rail, then went back across the lanes into oncoming traffic, hitting the Toyota head on, killing Sr. Mosier and injuring the other two.

This is now Montano’s third drunk driving arrest in 5 years. He’s in jail with an October 3, 2010 court appearance.

This case is a tragedy. And it’s causing quite an uproar over a broken immigration system. Prince William County police had done their job. They arrested this man twice on drunk driving, identified him as an illegal immigrant, turned him over to federal authorities, who then dropped the ball and let him go. And now a nun is dead.

Coincidentally, Virgina attorney general Ken Cuccinelli recently issued an opinion stating that Virginia law enforcement officers are allowed to inquire of the immigration status of everyone they stop or arrest. He’s not suggesting that they be required to do so (as some articles have incorrectly stated), only that they are allowed to. He wrote in part, “So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime.”

In an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight, Cuccinelli said that all law enforcement officers anywhere in the U.S. have always been able to arrest someone who is suspected of committing a federal crime. That’s what they do. And there is no reason to exclude immigration laws from that practice.

I could not agree more with Cuccinelli. His opinion cuts through all the crap and clarifies the situation perfectly. His opinion also makes it obvious that sanctuary cities are violating federal law. Simply put, they are taking one of the thousands of laws and saying, “if you violate this one law in our city, we won’t tell on you.” But of course all other federal laws are enforced.

Listen, we’ve got a broken immigration system. And now we’ve got a nun in Virginia who never made it to her retreat. Most Americans agree that we need to secure our borders; that’s priority number one. And there are certainly other aspects of this problem, but priority number two must be that we enforce our existing laws. It’s that simple.

First, right at the beginning of their home page, they say, “SB 1070, the anti-immigration bill that recently became law in Arizona has galvanized the faith community…” That statement is flat out wrong. SB 1070 is not an anti-immigration bill. It’s an anti-illegal immigration bill. There’s a big difference. But this is quite typical of people in the faith community. They just refuse to recognize the “illegal” part of illegal immigration.

On another page of their web site they say, “The Isaiah 58 Summer is a project of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, which represents diverse people of faith across the country who believe just, humane comprehensive immigration reform is the only solution to our broken immigration system.” Boy that sounds great doesn’t it. I actually have no problem with it, as long as they recognize that while they are hoping for reform, we still have to enforce existing laws.

Consider this analogy. If the speed limit on your local highway is 65, and you think it should be 75, that’s fine. Round up a bunch of people in your community, talk to your local lawmakers, and get it changed. But while you’re doing all that, you still have to obey the current 65 mph speed limit.

It’s a shame that our faith community leaders feel a need to exploit their positions in order to promote their agenda. I’m a Christian man and I’m certainly in favor of showing compassion where needed. But if the person in need of compassion is a criminal, then we should be touching their lives through a prison ministry instead of helping them get away with criminal activity.

There were four candidates, four questioners and one moderator. The moderator explained that each questioner would ask a question of one candidate, who would then have 3 minutes to respond. Then the other three candidates would have the option of one one-minute rebuttal. His poor explanation led Reid Ribble to later ask for clarification about whether they get one rebuttal for the whole evening, or one per question. Other candidates were also confused about the rules.

The forum began with the moderator saying that the candidates will each get a 3 minute introduction. Then he introduced each of them. Then he turned it over to Terri McCormick, who was confused about what to do. The moderator told her that it’s time for the introductions, to which Terri responded, “but you just introduced us.” The problem was that the moderator didn’t know the difference between an introduction (which is his responsibility) and an opening statement (which is given by the candidates). He should have said that he’d introduce them, after which each candidate would make an opening statement.

Then, after the second question was complete, the moderator said, “sorry, I had a Democrat moment, I forgot to ask if there were any rebuttals to the first question.” After which he then asked for rebuttals to the second question.

Later, the moderator said he’d do one more round of questions, after which the audience could ask questions. He then allowed three more rounds before allowing the audience to ask their questions.

The panel of four questioners seemed confused and unorganized as well. Their questions did not focus on the critical issues of concern to Wisconsin residents. One asked a question about trade with China, a worthy issue, but certainly not any more important than health care, an issue that no one asked about. One questioner even asked again about China, 40 minutes after they had already talked about it.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that there was no power. Sorry, this was important. The forum was scheduled to begin at 7:00, however, at 6:55 the power went out. No lights. No microphones. Emergency generators at the school kicked in and we had emergency lighting along the aisles of the auditorium until 8:40pm. While the organizers were figuring out what to do, some guy got up on stage and led us in the “Star Spangled Banner”. Then he and some woman stalled a few more minutes, then led us in “God Bless America”, which would have been nice had they known the words.

The forum got going at 7:20pm, after they decided to move the candidate and questioner tables toward the edge of the stage so that we could see them better. When the lights finally came on, an hour and 20 minutes later, the candidates were now in front of the lights, so it was difficult to see their faces.

I certainly don’t mean to nitpick about minor issues that don’t matter; they don’t in the grand scheme of things. And I certainly appreciate the effort to get these candidates in front of voters so we can be informed. But each of these issues is magnified by the fact that there were so many (and there are more that I haven’t told you about). What’s worse is that the candidates needed to talk about important issues and engage the audience under such conditions.

I’ll be writing about the 8th congressional district candidates soon. But for this particular forum, the uncontrollable power problems notwithstanding, I give the event organizers a D-.

This is what happened last Wednesday. Michelle Obama was visiting New Hampshire Estates Elementary School in Silver Spring, MD, not far from Washington, DC. While talking to students there, a second grader told Mrs. Obama, “my Mom says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.”

Mrs. Obama replied, “yeah, well that’s something that we have to work on right? To make sure people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?”

To which the second-grader replied, “but my Mom doesn’t have papers.”

It was a sweet little conversation, and if you have any heart at all, you can’t help but feel bad for the little girl. But this is serious stuff.

Most press outlets have reported that U.S. Immigration officials have said that no action will be taken on the matter. This is just ridiculous. A child has just told the First Lady of the United States that her parent has committed a crime. And we’re not looking into it? I’m not saying that we go in with helicopters and scoop away the mom in some dramatic fashion. But like any crime, we should at least investigate. And if the Mom really is in the U.S. illegally, then she must be deported to her home country, where ever that is.

We’ve got a conflict here that needs fixing. Most Americans agree that we need to fix our immigration problems. And if we all can truly agree on this, then we must also agree that being in this country illegally is a crime. Come on, why can’t we at least agree on that? Why can’t we agree on the definition of the first word in “illegal immigration?”

This is the sticking point of all of our immigration problems. Illegal immigration is a crime. Period. And it must be treated as such. We can’t expect our government to fix our illegal immigration problem if we citizens can’t even agree that it’s a crime.

Some people are protesting Arizona’s new immigration law, saying that illegal immigration issues should be handled at the federal level. That’s fine, but can we first agree that it’s a crime? And that all such crimes should be investigated and prosecuted?

In the case of the second grader, some have said that if we deport the Mom, then we split up the family. That’s just not true. The mother is the one who is splitting up the family, not the authorities. If your dad robs a bank and goes to prison as a result, you can’t blame the country for splitting up your family. The simple fact is that many people commit crimes in this country. And many of those criminals are parents. And families are torn apart every day because of the actions of the parents. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.

But let’s think about this for a second. In an immigration case, the offender does not go to prison, they’re sent home. So the family doesn’t have to be split up after all. When the Mom goes back to her home country, her family can go with her.

Things just aren’t right. We scream because the federal government is not fixing our immigration problem, but then we don’t want immigration officials to investigate a possible immigration crime. If we keep doing what we’re doing, we’re gonna keep getting what we’re getting.

As citizens of the United States, we must all agree that illegal immigration is a crime. And then we must enforce the law. This problem really is that simple.

I’m a life-long Republican. My extended family is generally Republican. I’m an advisor to college republicans. So, it probably won’t surprise you to know that in any political race, the Republican candidate is where I’m at. That said, I never vote straight ticket. I do my own homework and make an informed vote. That homework includes reading articles, blogs, web sites and any information I can get my hands on about the various candidates. This also means I read a lot of crap, especially negative crap. While the negative campaigning I wrote about a couple of years ago was on TV, I suppose it was inevitable that it would spill over into Twitter.

When Scott Walker bashes Tom Barrett on Twitter (yeah, I know, it’s not “bashing”, it’s exposing the truth, blah blah), all that does is tell me why I should not vote for Tom Barrett. It does not tell me why I should vote for Scott Walker. And it also leads me to believe that Scott Walker is arrogant enough to think that if I don’t vote for Tom Barrett, then of course I must vote for Scott Walker. Not buying it.

For the Governor’s race, there are two Republican candidates right now, Scott Walker and Mark Neumann. So we’ll need to select one in the primary who will then go on to run against the chosen Democratic candidate. Hence, I’m spending my time now-a-days trying to find out as much as I can about each. I’m reading web sites, watching RSS feeds, and following twitter users. Recently, Scott Walker started tweeting about Tom Barrett. The problem is that I didn’t follow him on Twitter to read about Barrett. So I figured I’d wait it out and see where he goes with it. But it didn’t get better. As I write this, 7 of Walker’s last 20 tweets are about Barrett. That’s just not why I followed him. Typical negative campaigning though.  So I unfollowed him. One strike against Scott Walker.

Unfortunately, as is the case in most political campaigns, it won’t be long before the other guy starts bashing, and we’ll all be even again. What a crappy way for voters to be informed and make smart choices.

Fragmented internet presence

And while I’m talking about Scott Walker, someone’s giving him bad advice. His internet presence is becoming more and more fragmented. I’m a professional web site developer, and the way Walker is going about it is all wrong. First of all, he’s got two twitter accounts (that I know of): @ScottKWalker and @ScottWalkerHQ. Unnecessary and confusing. Second, he has at least five campaign web sites:

1. www.250000jobs.org
2. www.barrettbypass.com
3. www.brownbagmovement.com
4. www.myscottspot.org
5. www.scottwalker.org

There is no need for all these web sites. I talk with friends and acquaintances about politics. I give out web site addresses so others can get info for themselves. When I was recently giving out Walker’s address, I didn’t know what to say. Really. There’s just no need for all this. Why have content on one site that does not exist on another? Why duplicate content among multiple sites? And why own a domain name with your opponent’s name in it? That’s about as basic as negative campaigning gets. I suspect someone thinks they’re getting some kind of cool search engine presence or something like that by having all these web sites. That’s not going to work. The confusion and fragmentation will trump any perceived benefit.

There should be one web site with a single, unified message. In the web site business, we have a three-word mantra that we live by: content is king. No trickery, no stunts. No fancy search engine finagling. Just one web site with content that is true. In Scott Walker’s case, the site should obviously address all the critical issues facing Wisconsin voters today; but we should all go be going to the same place to find out who he is.

Scott, please just cut the crap. Refocus your negative resources back to yourself. Show Wisconsinites that if we send you to Madison, we’re putting a positive thinker in office. There’s still time.

At only 40 seconds into the video, I noticed Sec. Clinton making goo goo eyes at someone sitting in the front row. Seriously? It’s YouTube, so I went back and looked again. Sure enough. While Sec. Gates stands at attention, showing respect for the fact that the President is speaking, Sec. Clinton is goofing around with people in the front row.

While it was only for a few seconds, it not only showed a lack of respect for the significance of the treaty, it showed her lack of respect for the Office of the President of the United States.

What a shame.

So local authorities are issuing their warnings to fishermen. Now, I’ve never been an ice fisherman, but I know people who are, and I know that you have to be real good at gauging ice and knowing whether or not it’s safe. Simply put, you have to be smart about it.

What gets me is the rules of thumb that you hear from authorities. They go way overboard with their suggestions, so much so that it causes people to just not pay attention.

In a recent interview, Lt. Nick Craig with the Green Bay Fire Department suggested, “There’s no such thing as safe ice.”  In another interview, Chris Kratcha, Wisconsin DNR conservation warden, suggested, “assume that there is no safe ice.”

Why do these authorities feel a need to make such ridiculous statements? Can’t they just provide some appropriate tips to help fishermen determine how safe the ice is? What do they expect? That no one will go out on the ice at all?

As a hunter, we have a rule of thumb that says, “treat every gun as if it were loaded.” This is great advice. To be clear, we don’t treat every gun as if it’s not safe, we treat it as if it’s loaded. This rule then leads to some practical tips like where you place your trigger finger, what direction you point the muzzle, etc. This is useful stuff.

So, let’s just be realistic. If these experts want people to listen, they need to provide realistic tips that make practical sense. Making statements like they have does not help keep ice fishermen safe.

Green Bay, our neighbor to the north, has such an ordinance. And the Green Bay City Council has changed it and refined it and modified it so much, that there are now very small portions of the city remaining where registered sex offenders can live. So communities all around De Pere have such ordinances, which presents an interesting situation for us. There is concern, raised mostly by Alderperson Carl Castelic, that when the state is trying to find homes for sex offenders, they’ll just look to De Pere first, since we don’t have an ordinance and therefore it’s easier. And in doing so, De Pere becomes somewhat of a dumping ground for registered sex offenders.

Castelic’s concern is justified. But while we expend all this energy and discuss possible rules at length, we’re overlooking one major issue. And that is the simple question, “why?”

Why do we need a sex offender residence ordinance in the first place? What is the purpose? What exactly are we trying to accomplish?

The concern of most residents is simple, we don’t want our children in danger, and we don’t want these criminals to repeat their offenses in our community. So, how should we best handle this concern? Certainly not by asking the Green Bay City Council what to do. Why not ask someone who knows what they’re talking about?

The local expert, who appears at many city council meetings in this area, is Tom Smith, the Sex Offender Registry Specialist with the Wisconsin Dept of Corrections. I’ve been to a community notification meeting where he spoke and explained how the registry works. It’s very interesting to hear his perspective on how things work, who these offenders are, and what we can do to protect our communities.

Smith also spoke at tonight’s meeting, saying point blank that residency ordinances don’t work. The main thing we can do to help these offenders and prevent them from repeating, is to keep track of them, know where they are, and make sure they get the help they need. And not only does a residency ordinance not work, it makes the problem worse, it has the opposite effect. Since it makes it more difficult for offenders to find a home, it causes them to lie about where they are. This results in us losing touch with them and they don’t get the help they need.

Did you get that? A sex offender residency ordinance increases the chances of recidivism. So, why then? Why did Green Bay and other communities enact an ordinance? I don’t know. I do know that historically, the Green Bay City Council deems themselves experts on many issues; they do things without supporting research and facts.

Smith told us that he recently examined his records and found that there were 42 registered sex offenders in De Pere. Further review of each case revealed that 5 of those actually did not live here. They live somewhere else and simply provided a De Pere address to satisfy the registry requirements. This is the perfect example of 5 individuals who have gone “underground” so to speak. So we actually have 37 living here.

Tom Smith also spoke at the Green Bay Sex Offender Residence Board meeting on April 1, 2009. Here is an excerpt of the minutes of that meeting:

“…for those offenders under supervision, the recidivism rate is 1%.  The Department of Corrections study found that with regard to the recidivism rate for a sex offender convicted of an initial sexual assault and then convicted again of a sexual assault is:  for those offenders who have been off supervision for 3 years the rate is 3.8%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 5 years the rate is 8.4%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 11 years the rate is 11%. Tom Smith indicated that is actually very low compared to other states.  Tom also indicated a Department of Justice study indicated that in 93% of cases, the victim knew the sex offender.  Out of that 93%, in 34.8% of the cases, the perpetrator was a family member, the other 58% are acquaintances, i.e. friends, people they knew, people they trusted, coaches, clergy, etc.  To prevent that, education of the public is the key.”

“Tom reiterated that the studies have been done and the fact is that these types of ordinances do not work.  If there is data in existence that proves these types of ordinances work, Tom would strongly support them, but there is no such data.”

So, all I ask is why. To date, we don’t have such an ordinance in De Pere. I hope the residents of Green Bay are asking their expert city council members how effective their ordinance has been. Is it accomplishing what they set out to accomplish?

And here in De Pere, if an alderperson wants such an ordinance, all I ask is why. Like Alderperson Dan Robinson, I’ll be against it, but if you want it, just explain exactly what you expect to accomplish. You owe us at least that. Explain in detail the research and data that you’re using to form your opinion. Provide some measurable statistics. Then in a year or two we can look back and see if it worked.