Some thoughts on the presidential selection process -
To new graduates, it is the toughest answer they ever will have to give in applying for a job. “What is your experience in what we do here? None? Well what kind of training or other experience have you had to be able to go to work here tomorrow? ‘I can learn’ is not sufficient.”
“Sorry, our employees must be able to contribute to the organization right away. We cannot afford workers who cannot carry their part of the load; it would be unfair to the rest of the organization.”
And today there are applicants for the most important position in the world who immediately must tackle the most egregious problems facing America both at home and in the world.
Exercising our right to choose who that leader will be is more important than any vote we will make in a lifetime of voting.
The already fragile world economy is on the brink of collapse into a depression worse than the 1930s. While the present administration desperately is trying to prevent our present recession from falling into that black hole also, it will require someone with the greatest skills to take over the helm of this great nation in the midst of the storm.
The choices we have been given through our democratic processes may not suit everyone or even anyone. But we have to play the hand we have and choose the best of the lot.
Some considerations in this choice are:
How much experience must he have to be able to grasp the helm, the levers of government, at a most critical time in our history and to steer through this great storm but to also keep the ship from capsizing? Which one – Obama or McCain?
Is the wise experience in the ways of how the federal government operates helpful in critical times? Which one is more likely to benefit from that experience – McCain or Obama?
If experiencing and surviving the deep cauldron of hopeless despair is a measure of the character of a man, one with the resolve, the capability, the understanding of the enormity of the problems facing America right now, which of the two best fits that description? McCain or Obama?
Finally, which one has the experience to be the Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces and is closest to resembling former president Dwight D. Eisenhower who did not want war but was prepared to fight if necessary? Obama or McCain?
If you were deciding which applicant should get the job, who would you choose, McCain or Obama?
Well, the decision is yours when you cast your vote for the president of the United States of America. Weigh your choice carefully and may God Bless America!
Ernest Norsworthy
Visalia, California
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Illegal immigration
Visalia Times-Delta
Visalia, California
July 12, 2008
Subject: Illegal immigration in Visalia
The town of Fremont, Nebraska (pop. 25,000) just west of Omaha, has seen their “nice little town” being “invaded” by illegal aliens. They want to have studied a possible ordinance that would require every renter to get a renters’ license ($5) that declares they are American citizens.
There are other possible ordinance additions that would, in effect, enforce present federal laws against illegal aliens. The town has a mayor and eight council members. Apparently, the town’s largest employer, Hormel, depends on the use of cheap labor possibly consisting of some illegal workers.
This small town sees what illegals can do to a town and they are willing to try to do something about it. They say they believe in “the rule of law”.
The question here in Visalia then is the city council willing to undertake such a study to require all renters to be American citizens. I really do wonder if they have the collective guts to propose such an ordinance here in Visalia.
As posted on the Fremont Tribune Website:
“THOMAS CHRISTMAN
Jul 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Councilman Bob Warner is a true American! (You get it!!!) If illegals can't rent,work,collect welfare and food stamps or use hospitals as doctor's offices at our expense, THEY WILL GO HOME!!!Councilman Warner needs to contact Hazelton,PA they have recently done the samething he is trying to do”
Ernest Norsworthy
Visalia, California
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Visalia, California
July 12, 2008
Subject: Illegal immigration in Visalia
The town of Fremont, Nebraska (pop. 25,000) just west of Omaha, has seen their “nice little town” being “invaded” by illegal aliens. They want to have studied a possible ordinance that would require every renter to get a renters’ license ($5) that declares they are American citizens.
There are other possible ordinance additions that would, in effect, enforce present federal laws against illegal aliens. The town has a mayor and eight council members. Apparently, the town’s largest employer, Hormel, depends on the use of cheap labor possibly consisting of some illegal workers.
This small town sees what illegals can do to a town and they are willing to try to do something about it. They say they believe in “the rule of law”.
The question here in Visalia then is the city council willing to undertake such a study to require all renters to be American citizens. I really do wonder if they have the collective guts to propose such an ordinance here in Visalia.
As posted on the Fremont Tribune Website:
“THOMAS CHRISTMAN
Jul 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Councilman Bob Warner is a true American! (You get it!!!) If illegals can't rent,work,collect welfare and food stamps or use hospitals as doctor's offices at our expense, THEY WILL GO HOME!!!Councilman Warner needs to contact Hazelton,PA they have recently done the samething he is trying to do”
Ernest Norsworthy
Visalia, California
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Eminent domain - here comes the power line
Visalia Times-Delta
Visalia, California
July 8, 2008
Subject: Power line location – not whether but where
When the power company says, “Move over, I’m coming through”, and farmers cede their shovels and pitchforks to civil methods of resolving the conflict between their right of land ownership and the sovereignty of the state, they should be thankful.
They should be thankful this place is not dominated by the federal government, for example, such as an 80,000 square-mile federal territory overlaying parts of seven southern states. That huge territory is controlled by the Tennessee Valley Authority by an act of Congress in 1933.
The TVA has the right of eminent domain, specifically meaning that the government has the right under specific circumstances, to take your property. In TVA’s case, they have exercised that right many times, displacing thousands of families to build reservoirs for power plants. The TVA is an unwise federal agency, has made many, many mistakes, and presently is in debt for $25 billion. Some argue that debt also belongs to you and me.
In California, investor-owned utility companies through State legislative authorization also have been conferred the right of eminent domain for public uses.
The conflict here, fortunately, has a state agency, the Public Utilities Commission, to guard against the unwise use of eminent domain and requires a full airing of both sides of the issues through public hearings.
No such venue is available to the some 8 million people in TVA territory. TVA is the federal government and the federal government exercises the right of eminent domain. (V Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation]”). There are no public service commissions to protect the interests of citizens behind TVA’s 2,500 mile-long fence in seven Southeastern states.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Visalia, California
July 8, 2008
Subject: Power line location – not whether but where
When the power company says, “Move over, I’m coming through”, and farmers cede their shovels and pitchforks to civil methods of resolving the conflict between their right of land ownership and the sovereignty of the state, they should be thankful.
They should be thankful this place is not dominated by the federal government, for example, such as an 80,000 square-mile federal territory overlaying parts of seven southern states. That huge territory is controlled by the Tennessee Valley Authority by an act of Congress in 1933.
The TVA has the right of eminent domain, specifically meaning that the government has the right under specific circumstances, to take your property. In TVA’s case, they have exercised that right many times, displacing thousands of families to build reservoirs for power plants. The TVA is an unwise federal agency, has made many, many mistakes, and presently is in debt for $25 billion. Some argue that debt also belongs to you and me.
In California, investor-owned utility companies through State legislative authorization also have been conferred the right of eminent domain for public uses.
The conflict here, fortunately, has a state agency, the Public Utilities Commission, to guard against the unwise use of eminent domain and requires a full airing of both sides of the issues through public hearings.
No such venue is available to the some 8 million people in TVA territory. TVA is the federal government and the federal government exercises the right of eminent domain. (V Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation]”). There are no public service commissions to protect the interests of citizens behind TVA’s 2,500 mile-long fence in seven Southeastern states.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Saturday, February 2, 2008
If McCain Wins . . .
If John McCain goes on to capture the Republican nomination for president this year it will not be because of the conservative base of the Party it will be because of a severely weakened party that lost its way somewhere between Richard Nixon and George W. Bush with a brief shining through of principle with Ronald Reagan.
I’ve heard the “crossroads” analogy so many times it has become meaningless. But this time, no fooling, we really are at those crossroads, no, better, we are at the precipice, looking down.
It’s not just about party affiliation; it’s about the unity of a nation. A great number of voters want that longed for “free lunch” and are pushing the rest of us closer and closer to the edge and to a whimpering oblivion.
A victorious John McCain or either of the Democrats could be that last, definitive shove over the cliff.
Governor Schwarzenegger has spoken for a more “open” Republican primary election. He wants independents and presumably crossover voters to be able to vote in the now closed Republican primary.
The governor has it exactly wrong.
Why a partisan primary election at all? It greatly would cut down on the number of elections, in fact, only one election in the fall with runoffs would be necessary. This means that in non-partisan elections the numbers of candidates vying for each office could be considerable (from “Green to Mean”). Presently, a party’s primary function is to winnow down the choices through partisan elections and to support those primary winners in the general election.
If all elections were nonpartisan, there would be no need for parties. Agenda driven groups, conservative or liberal, then would determine who wins and if you think that voting for president is a “crap shoot” today (which it is not), it would be practically impossible to figure out candidate qualifications without some partisan help and would, therefore, be just a guess. Voter participation while low today would be even less evident because of the belief that it is “the powers that be” that makes the selections, sliding further into a socialist/fascist state.
While we still have partisan elections, we should protect the parties from dilution or dirty tricks by another party. In California’s case, the February 5 closed Republican primary should be clear enough evidence of the electorate’s choice for president. Many electoral votes are at stake.
But nothing is beneath the zeal of political operatives to take advantage of say, “decline to state” voters to skew a party’s true choice. (Note: only registered Republican voters can vote in the 2008 presidential primary February 5). If Gov. Schwarzenegger had his way this time, the results most certainly would have been skewed as they were in the Florida primary.
Here’s a major example of where messing with another party’s primary changed Georgia history. In the 1960s, Georgia was by far a Democratic state but the parties held separate party primaries on the same day. Out of nowhere came a very attractive Republican, Howard “Bo” Callaway, who became the first Republican congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction. The Republicans were ecstatic and pushed him into running for governor after only one term in the House.
The 1966 election was rife with excitement and Callaway seemed a shoo-in for Georgia’s first Republican governor in nearly a hundred years. But then, something happened on the way to the gold-domed capital. No one else could compete with the Callaway persona in the primary election so the Republicans held a convention in a phone booth and came up with this strategy:
Republicans were told through the grape vine to “cross-over” and vote in the Democratic primary for the perceived weakest Democratic candidate to assure further a victory for Callaway in November. And that was Lester Maddox, who, sure enough, won over a large slate of Democrats including Jimmy Carter.
That upset former Georgia governor Ellis Arnall and a campaign began for a write-in to elect Arnall. The result was a plurality vote for Callaway, next Maddox, and Arnall got enough votes to keep Callaway from receiving a majority vote.
Georgia law provided that if a candidate did not receive a majority of votes, the legislature would decide between the top two vote getters.
It took two generations for the Republicans eventually to win majorities in both houses and the governorship, which it holds today.
The setback is generally attributed to the botched “cross-over” voting. After all, it is a party’s right to choose their own competitive candidate and not have the process skewed by another one.
Yes, mischief happens.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
If John McCain goes on to capture the Republican nomination for president this year it will not be because of the conservative base of the Party it will be because of a severely weakened party that lost its way somewhere between Richard Nixon and George W. Bush with a brief shining through of principle with Ronald Reagan.
I’ve heard the “crossroads” analogy so many times it has become meaningless. But this time, no fooling, we really are at those crossroads, no, better, we are at the precipice, looking down.
It’s not just about party affiliation; it’s about the unity of a nation. A great number of voters want that longed for “free lunch” and are pushing the rest of us closer and closer to the edge and to a whimpering oblivion.
A victorious John McCain or either of the Democrats could be that last, definitive shove over the cliff.
Governor Schwarzenegger has spoken for a more “open” Republican primary election. He wants independents and presumably crossover voters to be able to vote in the now closed Republican primary.
The governor has it exactly wrong.
Why a partisan primary election at all? It greatly would cut down on the number of elections, in fact, only one election in the fall with runoffs would be necessary. This means that in non-partisan elections the numbers of candidates vying for each office could be considerable (from “Green to Mean”). Presently, a party’s primary function is to winnow down the choices through partisan elections and to support those primary winners in the general election.
If all elections were nonpartisan, there would be no need for parties. Agenda driven groups, conservative or liberal, then would determine who wins and if you think that voting for president is a “crap shoot” today (which it is not), it would be practically impossible to figure out candidate qualifications without some partisan help and would, therefore, be just a guess. Voter participation while low today would be even less evident because of the belief that it is “the powers that be” that makes the selections, sliding further into a socialist/fascist state.
While we still have partisan elections, we should protect the parties from dilution or dirty tricks by another party. In California’s case, the February 5 closed Republican primary should be clear enough evidence of the electorate’s choice for president. Many electoral votes are at stake.
But nothing is beneath the zeal of political operatives to take advantage of say, “decline to state” voters to skew a party’s true choice. (Note: only registered Republican voters can vote in the 2008 presidential primary February 5). If Gov. Schwarzenegger had his way this time, the results most certainly would have been skewed as they were in the Florida primary.
Here’s a major example of where messing with another party’s primary changed Georgia history. In the 1960s, Georgia was by far a Democratic state but the parties held separate party primaries on the same day. Out of nowhere came a very attractive Republican, Howard “Bo” Callaway, who became the first Republican congressman from Georgia since Reconstruction. The Republicans were ecstatic and pushed him into running for governor after only one term in the House.
The 1966 election was rife with excitement and Callaway seemed a shoo-in for Georgia’s first Republican governor in nearly a hundred years. But then, something happened on the way to the gold-domed capital. No one else could compete with the Callaway persona in the primary election so the Republicans held a convention in a phone booth and came up with this strategy:
Republicans were told through the grape vine to “cross-over” and vote in the Democratic primary for the perceived weakest Democratic candidate to assure further a victory for Callaway in November. And that was Lester Maddox, who, sure enough, won over a large slate of Democrats including Jimmy Carter.
That upset former Georgia governor Ellis Arnall and a campaign began for a write-in to elect Arnall. The result was a plurality vote for Callaway, next Maddox, and Arnall got enough votes to keep Callaway from receiving a majority vote.
Georgia law provided that if a candidate did not receive a majority of votes, the legislature would decide between the top two vote getters.
It took two generations for the Republicans eventually to win majorities in both houses and the governorship, which it holds today.
The setback is generally attributed to the botched “cross-over” voting. After all, it is a party’s right to choose their own competitive candidate and not have the process skewed by another one.
Yes, mischief happens.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Thursday, January 31, 2008
John McCain as Commander-in-Chief would be risky
Watching the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, I could not help suddenly to realize who the caricature John McCain really is – the paranoid Capt. Queeg of the destroyer Caine. It is an intriguing fictional story of a battle weary sea captain who never quite made it; his last assignment was to a “bucket of bolts”, the Caine, a worn out and disheveled old WWII destroyer minesweeper.
Queeg overreacted or under reacted to nearly everything and when someone stole a quart of strawberries from the kitchen, he went berserk, growing angrier and angrier, ordering a complete search of the ship for the strawberries.
Quirky and mentally fatigued, Queeg began to make some bad decisions and failed to act in the proper manner under stress. For example, he refused to head the ship head on into a typhoon almost capsizing the vessel. There were other instances, one where he failed to order a change in direction, crossed over, cut the towline to a towed target, and passed over a yellow marker to his vociferous denial, hence his nickname of “Old Yellow Stain”.
When some officers tried to take over the ship, a mutiny, it resulted in a trial. The name of the book is the 1951 novel “The Caine Mutiny” by Herman Wouk.
From what I’ve read and heard about John McCain is that he is quirky, certainly a maverick, with a hot temper.
McCain talks almost in a whisper and repeats and repeats why he should be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces and cites his experience to be able to direct the U.S. economy, which is no more than being a squadron commander and sitting on legislative committees in the Senate.
McCain has not ever run an organization, operated a business, or ever had to make hard decisions affecting millions of people.
Now here’s the tough part. Personally, I do not count John McCain a war hero but a survivor. He admitted he broke silence and told the enemy many things. His body today is maimed from beatings undoubtedly of unbearable pain. And yet, many of his co-POW’s died in prison. Was it because they refused to talk? Was it because they abided by the soldier’s Code of Conduct if captured? I don’t know and I am glad I never was put to the test. (I served during the Korean War but never saw combat action).
But as I understood the soldier’s Code of Conduct in the Korean War era, the only way a soldier could be made to talk would be through brainwashing and extreme torture. If a soldier could be broken once, what might happen if leadership circumstances arose to another “breaking point”?
The confirmation of the untruthfulness of John McCain came just days before the Florida primary when he accused Mitt Romney of being for setting a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
It wasn’t just a matter of McCain taking Romney’s words out of context; McCain flat lied about what Romney said. And the record shows it.
As for being a Republican, McCain is a RINO, Republican in name only.
His blocking positions in the Senate, while some admire and think cute, have led to some disastrous results. His McCain/Feingold campaign financing law was a serious breach of our freedom of speech and that faulty law still stands.
John McCain is, no matter how he weasel words it, is for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in our country and which clearly is in opposition to the vast majority of Americans. When asked in the debate if he would vote today for his McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill he would not answer the question after repeated attempts from a questioner. He would only say, “It won’t come up”.
So, in this closed Republican primary in California on February 5, the question voters have to ask themselves is who best represents the conservative values of the Republican Party.
In my opinion, the strongest and best candidate for the nomination of president is Mitt Romney. Experienced, a fighter for conservative principles and an American leader for the entire world to see, Mitt Romney is the epitome of the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Queeg overreacted or under reacted to nearly everything and when someone stole a quart of strawberries from the kitchen, he went berserk, growing angrier and angrier, ordering a complete search of the ship for the strawberries.
Quirky and mentally fatigued, Queeg began to make some bad decisions and failed to act in the proper manner under stress. For example, he refused to head the ship head on into a typhoon almost capsizing the vessel. There were other instances, one where he failed to order a change in direction, crossed over, cut the towline to a towed target, and passed over a yellow marker to his vociferous denial, hence his nickname of “Old Yellow Stain”.
When some officers tried to take over the ship, a mutiny, it resulted in a trial. The name of the book is the 1951 novel “The Caine Mutiny” by Herman Wouk.
From what I’ve read and heard about John McCain is that he is quirky, certainly a maverick, with a hot temper.
McCain talks almost in a whisper and repeats and repeats why he should be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces and cites his experience to be able to direct the U.S. economy, which is no more than being a squadron commander and sitting on legislative committees in the Senate.
McCain has not ever run an organization, operated a business, or ever had to make hard decisions affecting millions of people.
Now here’s the tough part. Personally, I do not count John McCain a war hero but a survivor. He admitted he broke silence and told the enemy many things. His body today is maimed from beatings undoubtedly of unbearable pain. And yet, many of his co-POW’s died in prison. Was it because they refused to talk? Was it because they abided by the soldier’s Code of Conduct if captured? I don’t know and I am glad I never was put to the test. (I served during the Korean War but never saw combat action).
But as I understood the soldier’s Code of Conduct in the Korean War era, the only way a soldier could be made to talk would be through brainwashing and extreme torture. If a soldier could be broken once, what might happen if leadership circumstances arose to another “breaking point”?
The confirmation of the untruthfulness of John McCain came just days before the Florida primary when he accused Mitt Romney of being for setting a timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
It wasn’t just a matter of McCain taking Romney’s words out of context; McCain flat lied about what Romney said. And the record shows it.
As for being a Republican, McCain is a RINO, Republican in name only.
His blocking positions in the Senate, while some admire and think cute, have led to some disastrous results. His McCain/Feingold campaign financing law was a serious breach of our freedom of speech and that faulty law still stands.
John McCain is, no matter how he weasel words it, is for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in our country and which clearly is in opposition to the vast majority of Americans. When asked in the debate if he would vote today for his McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill he would not answer the question after repeated attempts from a questioner. He would only say, “It won’t come up”.
So, in this closed Republican primary in California on February 5, the question voters have to ask themselves is who best represents the conservative values of the Republican Party.
In my opinion, the strongest and best candidate for the nomination of president is Mitt Romney. Experienced, a fighter for conservative principles and an American leader for the entire world to see, Mitt Romney is the epitome of the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.
Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)