Sun Chronicle endorses Barrows

Our own Jay Barrows has earned the endorsement of the Attleboro Sun Chronicle! Jay is running for State Representative for the First Bristol District, which includes precincts 1, 3 and 6 in Mansfield, precincts 3, 4 and 5 in Norton and all of Foxboro.

Here I go again...trying to enter the 21st Century and "blog away". I was almost amused by this week's Mansfield Fishwrapper and the "endorsements" that came in on the Barrows/Naughton battle. I'll direct my comments (and ask for yours) on two of them. First, I know that Mr. Clemmey has a grudge against McCue, McCarter, Amoruso etc. so I guess it extends to Jay Barrows. To insuate that Jay can't be trusted because he's a successful business man is the height of lunacy. If you follow Karl's logic I guess you have to be a retiree or an unemployable pinhead in order to serve up on Beacon Hill (come to think of it, that does describe a lot of them up there doesn't it?) Obviously, Jay hasn't kissed the ring of Mr. Clemmey and so out come the long knives. In this case, I am confident that Jay will garner more votes when people find out that Karl Clemmey doesn't like him. Enough said there...

Also, former Selectman Royle states that Jay is out to help out the big bad businesses that help the community so much. Shocking!!! Something gets done in a positive fashion and it isn't accomplished by robbing the taxpayers blind? That's not right!!! Jay can't be trusted because he's gotten so much done for the surrounding communities and he's done it without picking us up by the ankles and shaking us until the wallets fall out. He's done far more for this community than either Kafka or Timilty and Jay doesn't even have a vote on Beacon Hill yet!

That's why these people have to be stopped and great candidates like Barrows, Atwill and Wiener have to be elected!!!

Movie night

Thanks to 96.9 FM I was among the listeners who got to see "Border War: the Battle Over Illegal Immigration" at a special screening at the Kendall Square Theater Wednesday night, complete with a talk by the film maker, David Bossie. I thought it was quite even-handed, with one of the stars being the first dual national (Mexican - American), now an activist helping illegals come across. Particularly telling was his identification of Vicente Fox as his president. The film also follows the stories of a Border Patrol agent, a widow of a sheriff's deputy killed by an illegal, Congressman J.D. Hayworth and a Latina activist fighting to stem the tide of illegal immigration. The film is available now on DVD - perhaps fodder for a Conservative movie night at the MRTC.

What rights do you have?

The issues of treatment of terror suspects and illegal immigration have got me wondering what rights people have. I'm not talking about U.S. citizens on U.S. soil - the Founding Fathers made that pretty clear. I'm also not looking for a discussion on what rights should one have; there are plenty of places to do that already.

For instance, does the Fourth Amendment apply when an American soldier is searching a home in Baghdad? (Again, forget whether it should - I'm sure everyone has an opinion on that - I certainly do.) Does the analysis change if it's an MP searching a soldier's trunk for contraband at a base in Afghanistan?

Let's bring this a little bit closer to home. Let's say a sheriff's deputy in Arizona watches a car with Mexican plates sneak across the border. He suspects drug smugglers and stops the car. What does he need in order to search the vehicle? How about an F.B.I. investigation into a suspected terror cell: the Bureau wants to tap the phone of an Iranian student who overstayed his visa. What do they need in order to accomplish that?

Do the protections guaranteed by our Constitution extend outside the borders of the U.S.? Within our borders, do they extend to people who are not legally here?

Deval's new radio ad - bad marketing?

I heard a new Deval radio ad this morning put out by some teachers' union. In between poli-speak were soundbites of school-related things that we are left to assume would disappear if Kerry Healey wins. The FIRST of these, within the first few seconds of the ad, was a child saying "uno, dos, tres..." Now I'm not a political ad expert, but I would guess that you wouldn't necessarily want to lead with an issue that could alienate undecideds. It reminds people of Deval's support for driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegals. But, since I don't want to see Deval elected...alienate away!

Hey, I told you I was new at this! Sorry about the empty entry. I did want to comment on the letter to the editor in this week's Mansfield Fishwrapper. A member of the Mansfield DTC wrote in to say that everyone should vote for Timilty & Naughton so the Mansfield schools would get more $$. Are you kidding me? Does anyone honestly think that Jay Barrows and Mike Atwill won't fight harder for Mansfield's share of local aid? Our friends across the aisle always want to play fast & free with the numbers & "facts" and here's another example of it. It was the GOP that got the Lottery Funds uncapped to free up more $$ for the schools and local aid. Romney did what he had to do to close a $3 Billion deficit and tried to keep the spending from growing out of control again. The state sits on a multi-year billion dollar surplus and they say we can't have OUR MONEY BACK! When will we get it back? When every school system spends $20k on each kid every year?

I'll save my harsh comments for later.......

Mansfield GOP

T-minus 2:30...

...and counting down to the return of Jay Severin to p.m. drive on 96.9 FM talk! Starting today he's back to his M-F, 3-7 slot.

Thanks to Olivier for setting up the blog. Its my first time posting to a blog so I hope that I don't mess this up. My better half says keep it clean and no joking (except for my log-in name). That pretty much everything I can comment about!

I’m a little confused. Back on primary day, I read an article about how the U.S. Department of Justice was going to monitoring voting in Boston and Springfield. Why? So as to ensure that non-English speaking people can vote.

Why does this confuse me? Well, I was under the impression that you had to be a citizen to vote. Wait – you DO have to be a citizen to vote. I was also under the impression that before taking the oath to obtain your U.S. Citizenship, you had to meet certain criteria, including proficiency in English. Hmm, I was right on that, too.

Ok, so in order to vote, you need to be a citizen, and in order to be a citizen, you need to speak English. Why doesn’t it follow that in order to vote you need to speak English? That makes logical sense, right? What am I missing?

I did a little digging online and found the complaint that the U.S. Department of Justice filed against the City of Springfield. It turns out that they based their lawsuit on U.S. census data. The Department of Justice alleged that "The Director [of the Census] has determined that more than five percent of Springfield’s voting age citizens are members of a single language minority group (Spanish heritage or Hispanic) who do not speak or understand English well enough to participate in the English language election process and have an illiteracy rate that is higher than the national illiteracy rate. The determination by the Census Bureau...is final and non-reviewable."

Well, maybe a court isn’t supposed to review that determination, but let me try to. Does "more than five percent of...voting age citizens" mean big-C citizens, as in U.S. Citizens, or simply "citizens," as in people who happen to be living there and responded to the census questionnaire? If it’s the latter, then the D.O.J. acted based on raw population, and not U.S. Citizens. According to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Elections Division website, non-U.S. Citizens can’t vote anyway.

Let’s move on to "an illiteracy rate...higher than the national illiteracy rate." Ok, if you can’t read, whatever language you speak, I can see you needing help. But that’s not what is being done here. It’s help in other languages that’s being monitored. So I’m back to square one.

The conclusion? Well, I guess it has to be that the Director of the Census has determined, finally and non-reviewably, that logic doesn’t apply. Again, what am I missing?