In this week's debate, Jerry Brown said Meg Whitman should "just admit she made a mistake."

Here are the Facts:

• The Whitmans used an employment agency seeking a legal worker.
• Nicki Diaz had forged papers and has admitted to lying on multiple legal forms that proved she was legal.
• The Whitmans paid all her taxes and paid her $23 hour, not any hint of them trying to save money or avoid taxes like many politicians have been caught doing.
• The Social Security paper said there may be an issue and asked for more info and it specifically said that taking any legal action based on the inquiry could get the Whitmans in trouble.  They asked their long-time employee who provided all the legal documents to check into it.  She did not do that.
• When they found she was illegal, they followed what the law REQUIRED and terminated her employment. They did not opt to turn her into immigration.

So what is the mistake Jerry Brown sees?

A) Was it hiring a Hispanic and trusting her without doing a full background check?  If this is the mistake, then it would appear that Jerry Brown thinks it is common sense to racially profile Hispanics and do extra checks on them based on race. That means he thinks Whitman should have done MORE than the Arizona law calls for
.
B) Was it a mistake not to get her deported right away?  Given that Jerry Brown supporter Gloria Alred is doing all she can do to get Nick Diaz deported by putting her in the media, maybe Jerry Brown is a strong advocate of deporting illegals to deal with immigration issues. Again that would put him more inline with the Arizona approach than Meg Whitman who in a moment of compasion did not report her former employee.

Or maybe...
C) Jerry Brown is not in support of Arizona like policies, knows Whitman did nothing wrong and is willing to let his long time supporter Gloria Alred use Nick Diaz so he can get elected.

So my question for the voters of California is who will you be voting for:

• Jerry Brown the pro racial profiling and background checks on Hispanics candidate?
• Jerry Brown the it's a mistake not to deport illegals right away candidate?
• Jerry Brown I will say anything to get elected candidate?
• Meg Whitman the woman who trusted her employee, paid her very well and chose not to report her out of compassion?

Who best represents the heart of California?
 

UPDATE: See Gloria Alred Destroyed by superior legal mind Greta Van Susteren (Video Below)

Democrat Jerry Brown's attack dog, Gloria Alred, in an attempt to help her retread friend return to his glory days, has launched a campaign to make life harder for hard working Hispanics in California including the millions that are citizens and legal immigrants.  How do we know this? Would Democrats be running this smear attack if Meg Whitman's former housekeeper was Scandinavian?

Democrats Attack Whitman for Trusting a Hispanic
They are attacking Meg Whitman for hiring a Hispanic woman, paying her $23 an hour for nine years and accepting her employment papers as genuine.  She didn't pay her a low rate. She didn't forget to pay her taxes. She didn't pay her under the table.  Democrats are attacking Meg Whitman for treating her Hispanic house keeper like an American!


Democrats Explain How Employers Can Avoid Legal Action When Employing Hispanics
What is the real message employers are hearing from the Democrats in California?   Employers are hearing anytime you hire a Hispanic you should do a deep background check or you are placing yourself at risk of being sued.  Democrats are saying that it is wrong to trust a Hispanic when they say they are here legally and sign thier name legally to attest to that fact. Democrats are saying the first time you get any paper asking for information about a Hispanic worker, you should assume they are illegal and fire them right away.

Whitman Failed By Not Assuming Dias was Illegal
If Meg Whitman had racially profiled Nicki Diaz and made a deeper check of her identity she would not be under attack.  If they would have racially profiled and assumed clerical letters from Social Security which are "just paper work" for most Americans must be a red flag for Hispanics, they would not be under attack now.

If you are Hispanic in California, you had better have all your papers correct and make sure there are no mistakes on your computer records, because you can be sure employers, especially employers of domestic workers are getting the message Democrats are sending.  The message is being sent to money seeking attorneys statewide.  Every copycat low class attorney will be using Gloria Alred as template for new lawsuits against people who hire Hispanics.

The fear of copycat legal actions may lead many good people to require extra documentation from Hispanics just to get and keep a job.

Meg Whitman Treated Nicki Diaz Like An American
It was the Republican that paid Nick Diaz $23 an hour and paid all the proper taxes.  It was the Republican that allowed Nicki Diaz to bring her sick child to work. It was the Republican that did the minimum under the law when she learned Nicki Diaz was not here legally and did not report her long-time employee to immigration.


Democrats Treat Nick Diaz Like a Pawn
It is the Democrat that is saying employers who don't distrust the word and signature of Hispanics are now open to legal attacks. It is the Democrat that thinks it makes sense to do more background checks on Hispanics than one would expect for other American workers.  It is the Democrat that has now publicly identified Nick Diaz as here illegally. They have told the world that Nicki Diaz committed fraud to get her job.  It is the Democrats that may get her deported.


Jerry Brown is willing to teach Californians to distrust Hispanics, so he can win an election for a job he walked away from years ago to seek greater power.

New Video Added to Original Blog
Go Greta!!

Two Men Unprepared to Discuss Religion
This week Bill Maher knowing Bill O'Reilly would be terribly under educated and prepped to debate religion showed up with the boilerplate arguments Dawkins probably gave him over an imported beer. His counters to Bill were lazy and dripping with the confident ignorance only world class arrogance can bring.  His demeanor is that of someone who has grown so sociopathically sure of his superiority, that he can no longer connect with most of humanity enough to pretend civility. 

His goto tool for this interview was the straw man argument that has become a key tool of liberals recently.  I half expect to see Obama or Maher skipping down the yellow brick road looking for a tin man to dance with their troop of straw men.   (Ok that is pretty tortured imagery but if I keep it I promise to avoid any other OZ references, for now)

When you see the straw man you know the person is fully aware they would lose a debate over the real issues.  Or they assumed it is too much work to even learn the other side of the discussion, since they are always right. Rather than have a real discussion they carry around a ready made fake opposing positions they use in place of the real arguments and ideas they oppose. They can knock these down with cool skill that comes from practicing it in the mirror over and over.

Bill O'Reilly did Ok with the standard strawmen.  But he had problems with the typical misquotes and biblical references. We should all be ready to deal with them before walking into a discussion with Bill Maher style atheists.

Bill Maher's angry Atheist Straw Man Number One:
"All Jews and Christians have to believe all that is in their Holy Book and if they don't, my work is done and you are all hypocrites."  At this point the ignorant atheist before you has defined themselves unprepared for a serious discussion of religion.  You might land a glancing blow and offer a way out at this point.

Your response at this point is simple:  
"If that were true, there would not be the diverse denominations that create the rich tapestry of the Judeo–Christian community worldwide.  We can discuss what I believe or compromise on a discussion of how much faith it takes to remain a Seattle Mariners Fan."    [Make sure to use the word "diverse" it subtly points out their straw man is a bigoted stereotype. Those of you in Chicago should make the appropriate team substitution]

The key here is that there is no denomination that has not accepted that free will allows them to apply the Bible to the current century.  Bill Maher should thank God for this, because if even a few of his straw men Christians existed, they would have stoned him years ago.


Bill Maher's Angry Atheist Straw Man Number Two:
"The Bible IS written by YOUR God and no real god would have written such things. So I win"  If you get both of these you know your "worthy" opponent got his understanding of religion from Michael Moore, who learned what he knows about religion off a cereal box.  (I do claim bonus conservative points for gratuitous use of Micheal Moore at this point.)


Your response to this would be:
"The Bible was written by men gifted with the same free we all have, who added the flawed nature of man and the context of the time to any inspiration God gave them for the book. Like a tapestry if you look too close you can find those flaws and become obsessed with them and miss the artistry of the message and story that is meant to be seen in its entirety from the fall of Adam and Eve to atonement for all sin purchased for us by Christ's acceptance of the Crucifixion." 
I have no idea how your atheist will react here.  Concepts like self-sacrifice without tax-deductability and eternity tend to create a sputtering noise followed by a retort that will revive memories of elementary school.


Bill Maher's Angry Atheist Silly Argument #1
"You can't believe all that is in the Bible, its just so much fantasy and is just silly, Faith is about abandoning logical thought.  I believe in science and logic"   The basic idea here is that if you understand how the V-8 engine and five-speed transmission works, that is proof there is no Ford Motors.   Keep in mind if you suggest that it might make sense to look for a maker's mark on the engine, you are a heretic in their tiny world.

Your response would be: 
Odds are your Bill Maher type has no clue about Quantum Mechanics, Black Holes (except at feeding time) and M-theory if they did they would realize science is fluid and full of contradictions . "The science you believe it has postulated in the last few years that time can be stopped, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing happens all the time and that is possible for something to exist in more than one place at the exact same point of time.  Which until about 50 years ago would have been the stuff of fantasy.  Science can not disprove a creator it can only improve our understanding of creation.  Atheism is a faith based religion, with people like your-self doing missionary work."


It is impossible to prove there is no God, so Atheism is the adoption of the belief with no proof.  An atheist without faith is called an agnostic"  Agnostics see no proof either way so they don't know.  It takes faith to come to any conclusion about God.

Alternate Current-Affairs Response for Silly argument #1 is:
"You support the Obama health-care bill right?  Have you read it? The blind faith needed to accept the miracle of creating savings from covering 30 million more people with  the same sized medical community and no rationing dwarfs the faith it takes to believe a man walked on water. I only pray I can someday bring that level of faith to my love of God." 

I took the time to cover some of the basic carbon copy straw man atheist arguments.  The moment someone declares them-self an Atheist, you have found common ground, faith.  No matter how well you understand the the universe understanding can not disprove the existence of a consciousness that existed outside of it and created it.  Science can never disprove God, it can only expand the on the elegance and mastery God would need to create what we have come to understand.

Atheist are people of strong faith and even if you come prepared with logic and facts about religion  and your faith they will ignore it because their doctrine requires them to simply religion to something they can criticize rather than deal with it as an key part of history and culture that is as diverse the cultures of the Earth.

Stealing Jefferson
Here it is FINALLY Definitive Proof Bill Maher is Ignorant. Not only is he unable to make his points without repeatedly making incorrect biblical references.  He like many atheist evangelicals loves to misquote Thomas Jefferson.   Watch here if you dare:  Unedited Interview

In the interview segment Bill O'Reilly aired on 9/30/2010.  Maher suggested he had a quote that proved Jefferson would "ridicule" the idea of a God.

The full quote is as follows:

Atheists love to take Jefferson out of context.  It is clear that Jefferson was comfortable questioning and even adjusting his faith in God. There is no indication that his version of being a Christian included a belief in the divinity of Jesus and yes he had disdain for doctrines like the immaculate conception and centuries of church created dogma.  (I would tend to agree with Jefferson on much of what has come since the Bible)  This makes for some juicy quotes that used out of context can be used in opposition of his actual beliefs.

Jefferson had a clear faith in God the "God of Jesus", one he shared with Adams. He believed in a God that actively created the world and one that he hoped would approve of his life's work.  He was not talking about a Gia like "Nature's god" as some atheist claim.  In many ways Jefferson is the modern doubting Thomas.  For him God was real, but he had no proof of Jesus divine nature so he questioned it. 


Any Atheist who quotes Jefferson to support an atheist faith, is proclaiming a deep ignorance of Jefferson and American history.  Congrats to Bill Maher for confirming what we have all known for a long time, he is just a grumpy dunderhead!  A man who lost relevance years ago.