Friday, May 27, 2005
Majority to Support Hillary Clinton for President? It this is True, We've Collectively Lost It!
Story dated 27 May 2005 "For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday." Apparently, I am going to be doing a series on Hillary Rodham Clinton, because if this poll can be trusted, the American people have taken leave of their senses. However, keep in mind that these polling organizations do not talk to every American -- not even remotely close to every American, so there is always a possibility of them being completely wrong. However, even if they are wrong, you still have a majority of people polled supporting the sociopathic Hillary Clinton for president. What is wrong with you people? Does anyone remember First Lady Hillary Clinton's health care proposal (drawn up in secret)? As part of that plan, you could go to federal prison for choosing your own doctor. This woman is an aspiring tyrant and she should not be allowed to hold any position of power in this country. "The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office." --Will Rogers
_____________________________________________
U.K. Doctors Call of Knife Control
Story dated 26 May 2005 Whenever I am making fun of the illogic of gun control, I like to apply the arguments of the gun control fanatics to kitchen knives -- especially since if criminals can't get guns, they'll just use knives, or some other weapon. But the thing is, I'm joking. And even funnier, the gun control nuts always insist that knives are a completely different situation and that their logic on guns don't apply to knives. Well, what was once only a joke made by me is becoming mainstream political thought -- brought to you by the same idiots that brought you gun control. And don't think this lunacy will stay in England. The socialists in the United States are always quick to pick up on anything the Europeans do that inhibits your ability to defend yourself form attack. I have one question for these socialist morons in the U.K. Do you think that maybe, just maybe the increase in knife violence could be in any way tied to gun control laws? Britain is a sick nation. Their laws are written in such a way that you can be jailed for assault with a deadly weapon if you, for example, use your walking stick to defend yourself from a robber. In my not-so-humble opinion, lawmakers who propose and pass laws like this should themselves be jailed for assaulting the Liberties and safety of the People. But that's just me.
_____________________________________________
Town of Hudson Supports Police Policy of Arresting Illegal Immigrants for Trespassing
Story dated 25 May 2005 "Last week, Hudson police charged Sergio Ruiz-Robles and Margarito Jaramillio Escobar with criminal trespassing after the men presented Mexican government identification documents during a traffic stop . . . The board of selectmen is standing firmly behind the chief and his enforcement of the law." Now this is excellent -- police officers who actually use their brains. They have identified a legal problem (illegal immigration that is not stopped by the Federal government), and have acted in an innovative way to solve the problem (arrest illegals for trespassing on public property). I think every municipality and county in the United States should adopt such a policy. That would cut down on illegal immigration. Opponents of this idea seem to think that local police should have no role in enforcing Federal immigration laws. Why not? They are law enforcement officers, and this is the law of the land. Let me explain something. The federal government cannot compel state and local law enforcement to enforce federal law. However, State and local governments can enforce whatever policies they wish so long as those policies do not directly conflict with federal law. Arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing does not conflict with federal law. If the law is inadequate to get someone on the crime you want to get them for, go after them for another if you can. The murderer Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion, not murder (of course, I think it is immoral to jail people for tax evasion, but in that case justice was done).
_____________________________________________
Republicans Cave on the Filibuster
Honestly, is anyone surprised? The Republicans have been a huge disappointment. The one thing they've had going for them over the past several years is this very simple, yet powerful, phrase: "well, at least they're not Democrats". But that's wearing a bit thin with me. I don't want people who "aren't Democrats"; I want people who will follow through when they have the Democrats behind the 8-ball -- you know, people who will do what you know the Democrats would do if they had the upper hand. What good is it to have Republicans in power if they're going to let the Democrats have their way? Seriously. On the bright side, as majority leader, Frist has the power to compel the Democrats to do a real filibuster whenever they threaten one. That would be a good strategy to physically wear them down (instead of letting them get away with this wimpy 'procedural filibuster' in which they don't actually have to talk the whole time). Of course, if he were likely to ever do that, he would have done it already. He lacks the conviction -- just like all the other Republicans. And on a related matter, I have a question -- if Bolton doesn't get confirmed as the UN ambassador, can he be the new Republican Senate Majority Leader? Speaking of John Bolton, Frist is surprised that the Democrats are engaging in obstruction on his vote when they promised not to. Now why would he be surprised that the Democrats are doing what they said they wouldn't? You'd think he had never seen a Democrat.
_____________________________________________
Chinese President Hu Jintao Warned of Consequences if Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Continues to Visit Yasukuni Shrine
Story dated 23 May 2005 "Chinese President Hu Jintao on Sunday renewed his call on Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to stop visiting Yasukuni Shrine, warning that bilateral ties can be damaged "in an instant," according to a senior Diet member . . . Yasukuni Shrine . . . honors convicted Class-A war criminals along with Japan's war dead. Koizumi's visits to the Shinto shrine have remained a major thorn in Japan's regional relations. South Korea, China and other Asian nations that suffered from Japan's wartime aggression have repeatedly criticized Koizumi for continuing to visit the shrine. Koizumi indicated just last week that he would visit Yasukuni again this year, prompting a warning from China that future visits would set back China's trust in Japan. But Hu did not make a specific reference Sunday to Koizumi's comments" Hu also complained that Japan's school history texts did not go into enough detail about the brutality of Japan's militaristic past, and about their current show of support for the state of Taiwan. Imagine that, a tyrant upset at someone who wants to protect a nation he wants to conquer. Again, this is an example of the tyrants of Beijing being big, overgrown, despotic babies. What really bugs me is that the rest of the world sees fit to let the People's Republic of China say anything they want without challenging them on their abysmal human rights record. Those tyrants are still holding political prisoners from the Tiananmen Square protest. That was a long time ago. If this government were really progressive, those prisoners would have been released -- remember that. And how about the Panchen Lama? "In 1995, China's Communist authorities spirited away a [6-year-old] boy endorsed by the Dalai Lama as the re-incarnation of Tibet's second highest spiritual leader, the Panchen Lama. The boy, and his family, haven't been seen in public since, while the Chinese backed Panchen Lama appointed in his place is increasing his public profile. . . . He's been called the youngest political prisoner in the world." Nice, huh? This is the country that is criticizing the Japanese not for things that they have done, but for things their grandparents may have done. --------- China's Human Rights Linked to Lifting of EU Embargo--------- Panchen Lama remembered
_____________________________________________
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Air Force Seeks White House Approval to Field Offensive and Defensive Space Weapons
"The US Air Force is seeking President Bush's approval of a national security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing White House and Air Force officials. An official said a new presidential directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasised a less aggressive use of space, involving spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts, the report said." Okay, weapons in space. Good or Bad? That is the question that is most often debated. The focus is incorrect, though. Weapons are not good or bad. The people who use them are good or bad. If a person uses a weapon used to keep a bad person from doing bad things, that is good. People are good or bad. Bad people wantr to hurt other people. Bad people will seek weapons to make this easier. Bad people will not listen to rules that ban weapons form certain areas. Think about this for a moment: China seeks military supremacy in space. Now, is this bad? Is it bad for someone to seek military supremacy over an area? Again, it depends on the person. The People's Republic of China treats its subjects like slaves. Don't believe me? Ask Zhao Ziyang. . . oh, wait . . . you can't . . . he's dead. He died after more than a decade of house arrest. His crime? He thought that the PRC shouldn't use the so-called "People's Liberation Army" to crush the peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square. For those of you who like to say that China has changed since the, Mr. Zhao died just this year . . . he was still under arrest. Keeping in mind the nature of the Chinese government, and keeping in mind that our government still at lease claims to know what human rights are, who would you rather have controlling space. Someone is going to put weapons up there, treaty or no treaty, and the first person to do it wins. Game over, the prior rules don't matter. Personally, I would rather it be the US at this time. I would urge the White House to heed the Air Force's request. --------- Air Force seeks Bush nod for space weapons--------- Bush likely to back weapons in space--------- China and the Battlefield in Space--------- Pentagon Report: China's Space Warfare Tactics Aimed at U.S. Supremacy--------- China's Space Capabilities and the Strategic Logic of Anti-Satellite Weapons
_____________________________________________
Apparently, Robert "the Terrible" Mugabe isn't giving back the land he stole after all. . .
Story dated 15 May 2005 In a fresh act of tyranny, "Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF party is set to amend the constitution to nationalise all land, automatically nullifying court petitions by thousands of white farmers hoping to reclaim their confiscated property." This would seem to contradict recent reports that the regime of Robert the Terrible might be coming to its senses and actually returning some of the land they stole.
_____________________________________________
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
U.S. Department of Justice: Second Amendment protects an individual right
"The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel of the United States was charged by the attorney general with addressing 'the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally.' The answer was definitive: 'The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.'" Well, that's good. Can we start locking up little tin fascists like "the San Francisco Board of Supervisors . . . [who] are trying to curb the rights of all city residents to keep handguns in their homes."? Or how about "Pizza Hut and AOL [who] forbid employees to bring even legally owned and transported guns onto company property or to carry them on the job. Pizza Hut recently fired an employee for carrying a gun while delivering pizzas; the company learned of the violation when the employee used the gun on the job to defend himself during a robbery attempt." Actually, while I disagree with AOL and Pizza Hut's policy, here -- and I might actually stop eating at Pizza Hut over this one -- it is their right to have these requirements. I mean, no one would think it was a violation of your first amendment rights if the company forbade discussion of politics or religion on the job. I would think the 2nd Amendment works the same way. --------- Second Amendment Solidified--------- Straight Shooting on Gun Control
_____________________________________________
Federal system could be win-win for China and Taiwan
Story dated 11 May 2005 This is actually a really interesting idea . . . but I would only support it if the tyrants of Beijing could get it through their thick skulls what exactly a human right is. Indeed, the writer of this article suggest that this will only happen if there is sustained political progress on the mainland -- which I truly hope for. It would be nice if the Chinese government would just let their people be free. Can you imagine what a free China could do economically? Look at what they are doing right now even though they are not free? Real competition from the Chinese people might be just the incentive the U.S. and Japan need to get their acts together and start really competing again. I recommend you read the whole article, but I pasted some of the more cogent points below. Keep in mind that when this writer says 'federation', what he actually means is something closer to a confederation. "A federal system would mean more autonomy for Taiwan than Hong Kong and Macau enjoy; for Beijing it would mean the revolutionary concept of a unified China with multiple power centers. Under a federal system, the island would keep its own government, military, judicial and other systems. Its political leadership would not bow to Beijing. In short, it would be a political partnership between equals. Both political entities would be subject only to a "federation" law. And anything is open for discussion under the "one China" principle." "In the long run, the most crucial factor determining the ultimate outcome of the unity issue is sustained progress in the mainland, both economically and politically. A progressive and prosperous mainland China will change all the dynamics in the cross-strait relations. Happily, by now, mainland China is entering a new era of deepening institutional and political reforms, besides possibly new rounds of economic advancement. This will fundamentally enhance a peaceful resolution of the unity issue. At the same time, the choices to bring about unity are also vast. They include the choice of a new federation for China, for example. As a matter of fact, it is the best choice on the table." In a related article, another writer makes an excellent point in his analysis of the peace process between the PRC and Taiwan. He says that, "Taiwan's success story in a democratic society can be a perfect example to China that the best way to limit government corruption and inefficiency is to eliminate a rigid authoritarian political system." If this happens, I believe that federation between Taiwan and China will be almost completely assured.
_____________________________________________
Japan Seeks Support in Bid for UN Security Council Seat
Story dated 10 May 2005 Let me just say that I support the idea of giving Japan a permanent seat on the Security Council. Japan is a liberal republic, they have a dedication to promoting basic human rights, and they have the second most technologically advanced economy in the world after the United States. They are a much better pick for a Security Council seat than, say, the tyrants in charge People's Republic of China, who wouldn't know a human right if one came up and bit them on their collective behind. Prime Minister of Koizumi of Japan sought the support of many nations, including Russia while in that country this week. He did not meet with representatives from the PRC. And I don't blame him, China has been becoming very belligerent toward Japan of late, and they openly oppose the idea of giving Japan a seat on the Security Council.
_____________________________________________
If illegal immigration wasn't a national problem before, it certainly is now!
Story dated 10 May 2005 "By law, hospitals cannot turn away patients." Well, that's good, right? If we need medical care, we can get it no matter what -- it provides a safety net. Those of us who can pay simply have a little extra tacked on our bills to cover the cost. I mean, I'm not too happy about this, but it is a much better system than socialized medicine. This safety net benefits our society as a whole, so I am not going to argue that it is wrong. But what happens in border states, like Arizona, when hordes of Spanish-speaking, poverty stricken, illegal immigrants simply walk across the unenforced border and require medical attention? Well, there are so many of them that the safety net stretches beyond capacity and breaks. The hospitals have to treat so many illegal aliens that they are always loosing money. If you aren't making money, you fold. Even non-profits have overhead expenses. Supplies cost money. Nothing is free. In response to this problem, your federal government has decided that, instead of actually enforcing our border, they are going to reach into your pocket to subsidize the healthcare of illegal immigrants -- people who break the law to come here. The good thing about this is that it makes illegal immigration a real problem for all of us now. Maybe finally the natives will get so restless that Congress will have to listen to them. And lest you mistake me for some sort of ethnic purist because of my frequent use of the term 'native', by 'native' I mean someone who was born here and speaks English. And, no, I am not anti-immigration. I am anti- illegal immigration. We are a nation of laws. If you want to come here, follow the law. Oh, and thay are not undocumented immigrants. They are illegal aliens and they are criminals because they are here in violation of the laws of these United States. If the feds aren't going to enforce the immigration laws, we need to get them to not enforce other laws as well; like drug laws and tax laws -- you know, laws that result in the jailing of thousands Americans who have harmed no one? --------- Immigration heating up as key 2006 issue
_____________________________________________
The Man Who Will Be King: Schwarzenegger praises Minutemen, Criticizes Jorge Bush's Weak Immigration Policy
09 May 2005 Why did Schwarzenegger become the governor of California? Because he listens to his audience; he likes his audience. This is what made him a popular actor, and it is the same thing that has made him a popular politician. As long as he can figure our what most of his audience wants, and gives it to them, he will continue to be a popular politician. In this case, unlike Jorge Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger has noticed that we, the People, do not appreciate the hordes of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders. He has also noticed that this is a huge hot-button issue for Conservative voters (the largest segment of the Republican base). He has noticed that the natives are restless, and he is positioning himself to take advantage of that. Does he really believe in the cause of the Minutemen? Or is he doing it for the political capital? I actually think we're seeing the real Arnold Schwarzenegger, here. His entire life has been about working hard so he can succeed on his own merit. The Minutemen are a group of citizens who are fed up with government inaction and are therefore picking up the slack themselves. This follows Schwarzenegger's life philosophy, which can be summed up as "if you want something done, figure out how to get it done, and then do it." Also, there's just the little fact that Schwarzenegger had the decency to learn English when he came to live here. Most illegals don't. Which wouldn't bother me that much, except our government requires us to accommodate them in their own language. He's probably just as offended by the whole situation as we are, since he came here because he wanted to be an American. --------- Governor Schwarzenegger Criticizes Bush Administration Immigration Policy--------- Schwarzenegger Praises Minutemen Again
_____________________________________________
Judge Rules that Federal Bureaucrats are permitted to negligently assault the People if it's related to an enforcement action
Story dated 06 May 2005 U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore "ruled against awarding damages to 13 people who were tear-gassed by immigration agents during the raid to seize 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez five years ago." Well, that's great. But wait, it gets better. "Justice Department attorneys argued at trial that the tear-gassing of bystanders was "an unavoidable consequence" during the April 22, 2000 raid, which led to the boy's eventual return to Cuba with his father." Michael K. Moore accepted that argument. What's wrong with that? Well, for one thing, this so-called "impartial" judge barred all evidence of anti-Cuban bias on the part of the storm troopers that seized Elian Gonzales. While such evidence isn't admissible to prove that the bureaucrats assaulted bystanders (Cubans), it does go to motive. Nice to see that our judges are willing to suppress the truth so they can hand down rulings that favor assaults against the People by government agents. In my opinion, this ruling is just another example of institutional corruption on the part of our government. So long as we continue to allow the state to engage in actions that would be torts, or even crimes, if the People did it individually, we will never bring the state back under our control. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: If I were a demolition company, and if the city had hired me to demolish a decaying building, I would be liable for any injuries I caused. If, for example, I laid some of the dynamite wrong and debris from the building hit a bystander in the head, there is no way a judge would by my explanation that the injury was "an unavoidable consequence" of blasting. In the case that Michael K. Moore presided over, though, this wasn't an accident. The armed federal bureaucrats deliberately fired upon the People. And this is excused as being an unavoidable consequence of kidnapping a kid to hand him back over to a murderer? Lest you think that Michael K. Moore was within his discretion to rule against the People, "[A]ttorney Michael Hurley, representing 12 bystanders . . . argued that agents went beyond the raid plan, which called for the use of gas only after an order to repel "a mass breach" of demonstrators at a barricade was given. He said no order was given, and there was no major breach." --------- What are some of the most frightening words a free American can hear? "We're from the government . . . We're here to help."
_____________________________________________
Eminent Domain, Kelo v. New London: Keeping it Fresh in Our minds
Column dated 05 May 2005 No, the verdict isn't in yet. I don't think that the publication of this editorial is timely, personally, since there have been no new developments in the case. However, what this editorial does do is to keep Kelo v. New London fresh in our minds. In case you were under a rock between December and February, this case is currently being deliberated upon by the Supreme Court and involves the taking of private land by a city. The reason this case is being litigated is because the city of New London, Connecticut thinks that the definition of public use (for eminent domain) includes giving private land to other private developers. The case before the Supreme Court is going to decide whether this sort of activity should be permitted . . . hopefully (though I suspect the Supremes will get out of protecting private property rights by handing down a ruling that is so narrowly tailored as to fit only circumstances identical to this case). I'm not going to repeat myself on this case (I have included all of my prior posts on this topic below), but I will restate my position that theft is wrong. It doesn't matter that the state is doing it, and it doesn't matter if the wronged parties are being compensated. If I steal your car, I would be charged with grand theft -- even if I paid you for the car -- because I took it without your consent. The author of this article is a retired superior court judge. He is calling for, at the very least, a reasonableness test before eminent domain can be used. I don't think this goes far enough, but it is better than the current standard, which seems to be that if a taking can be connected to a public purpose, no matter how remote, then eminent domain shall be allowed. "Reasonableness," says the judge, "is a test we use in other areas of the law. It would be appropriate to use it here." --------- Kelo v. New London: Eminent domain before high court, Transferring private land to other private hands at issue--------- Kelo v. New London: Eminent domain abuses before Supreme Court; New guidelines suggested--------- Kelo v. New London, Eminent Domain: Do You Think It's Okay for the City To Give Your Land to a Developer for 'Increased Tax Revenue'?--------- Related Case: More Eminent Domain Abuse in Norwood, Ohio; Mayor Tom Williams Compares Property Owners to Criminals--------- Related Case: Eminent domain takes aim at life's work: Man's business to be taken to make way for a 'Media Box'
_____________________________________________
Monday, May 09, 2005
Tyrants of a Feather: Zimbabwe & China
Story dated 08 May 2005 Apparently, the People's Republic of China has a tyrant outreach program. The aim of the program is to provide aid and support to tyrannies that are less well off. In this case, the tyrants of Beijing are using their information suppression/information gathering expertise to make the regime of Zimbabwe's Robert "the Terrible" Mugabe more efficient at repressing the people of that land. "Sophisticated Chinese bugging equipment is being installed clandestinely in homes, offices, restaurants and even lavatories. Chinese technicians handed it over to the Central Intelligence Organisation earlier this year in an effort to block the circulation of what Mugabe calls "hostile propaganda"." Such "hostile propaganda," if in the form of a radio broadcast originating from outside the country, is subject to jamming. But don't worry. You're in America. What China does doesn't concern you, right? I mean, what could a nation with around 2 billion people, a huge army, and newly acquired advanced nuclear delivery systems do to us, anyway? You go back to reading your news stories about what celebrity is dating what other celebrity. Don't worry about a thing. . .
_____________________________________________
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Thomas Sowell Explains to us that so-called "Ebonics" comes from White Redneck Culture
Column dated 05 May 2005 This is a very thought-provoking column. Teachers are always told that they should not correct black students when they use improper English and bad grammar. They are told that, if they do so, they are being insensitive to Black culture. Well, guess what? It turns out that the bad English that has been named "Ebonics" is actually rooted in White redneck culture -- a culture that "did not emphasize education, for example, or intellectual interests in general", and in which violence, and illegitimacy were far more prevalent. And this begs the question -- if it is okay to criticize this sort of culture when it is associated with white people, why is it not okay to criticize it when it is associated with black people? Remember the sauce for the goose rule.
_____________________________________________
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Zimbabwe to recall expelled white farmers, revive country's collapsed agricultural sector
Quotes of the day: "The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind." --Thomas Paine "Rulers do not reduce taxes to be kind. Expediency and greed create high taxation, and normally it takes an impending catastrophe to bring it down." --Charles Adams [this also holds true for all other types of government seizures] This brings us to Zimbabwe. Apparently, Robert the Terrible got the memo that maybe, just maybe it wasn't such a good idea to steal all of the land from white farmers. 1/3 of his subjects facing starvation, Bob Mugabe is now reported to be attempting to lure white farmers back to his little despotic realm. "The farmers will be compensated for property and equipment destroyed during the government's chaotic and often violent land reform exercise and not for loss of revenue. But the farmers will receive immense support and preferential treatment from the state to reestablish themselves on the land, according to the sources. As well as luring white farmers back to the land the government shall also select another group of farmers whom it will compensate at market value both for loss of land and equipment during the farm seizures." Well, that's nice and I wish ole Bob were doing it out of the kindness of that piece of flint that passes for his heart, but this is not the case. As Scrappleface cleverly puts it: "Under Mr. Mugabe's leadership . . . Zimbabwe has become a recognized world leader in unemployment (70%), inflation (~620%) and HIV adult prevalence rate (33.7%). Thanks to this popular, legally-reelected, leader, the average lifespan of a Zimbabwean has gone from 61 years to 34 years in just the past 15 years, making his nation one of the most rapidly-youthful in the world." A major cause of Zimbabwe's current crisis is the fact that under Bob's so-called "land reform", Zimbabwe has gone from being a food exporter to not having any food at all. Unless you consider Elephants to be food, that is. In any case, Bob is in trouble and now he needs the white farmers he wronged to bail him out. And he'll do what it takes to get that help -- including act like someone who actually cares about property rights and the rule of law. It looks like a really good deal that he's offering the white farmers if they come back, too. I'll tell you what, though, if I'm those farmers, I'm not coming back unless I get an extra couple of million so I can hire Swiss soldiers to shoot anyone (even the government) who comes onto my property and threatens my life.
_____________________________________________
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
More Negligent Reporting in the Media: Incomplete and Speculative Report on the Minutemen
This is an article I found written in response to the new prominence of The Minuteman Project. "The idea of private citizens patrolling public spaces made news on a national level earlier this year when hundreds of volunteers -- some armed with guns and other weapons -- patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico.[ emphasis added]" Simple question: Have you ever seen news stories discussing Neighborhood Watch groups that mention that some of those people are armed? I haven't. But I can guarantee you that many people involved in Neighborhood Watch groups do have conceal-carry permits. But it isn't an issue because those citizens groups are there to watch, not apprehend. Why is it an issue with the Minutemen, who do exactly the same thing, but on a grander scale? "[T]here have been some problems giving the "Average Joe" [referring to the 'non-professional' makeup of the Minutemen] this type of authority." Really? I haven't heard that many complaints against Neighborhood Watch groups, except from people who were caught trying to commit a crime. Could it be that the Mainstream Media (or MSM) endorses crime? Now that's an interesting thought. It is illegal to cross the border in violation of our laws. A violation of our laws is a crime. I'm not sure the MSM is in officially in favor of illegal immigration, but they certainly don't oppose it. So I guess you could say that the MSM doesn't oppose crime. One who didn't oppose crime might more inclined to be suspicious of Neighborhood Watch groups. It's an interesting thought, anyway . . . The article further complains: "There are at least two cases where action and motives of volunteers have been called into question. One Army reservist, not affiliated with the Minuteman Project, was arrested in the past month on charges of holding seven Mexicans at gunpoint at a southern Arizona rest stop. Another man, who was a Minuteman volunteer, also has been accused of holding one immigrant against his will.[ emphasis added]" Excuse me? Now, I might be willing to say that this article is talking about all volunteer citizens watch groups and not the Minutemen specifically, except for one little point: anyone who reads this can see that this part of the article is specifically talking about the Minutemen. And lest you think I am delusional, the only bad thing associated with their commentary on the Angels, a similar citizens watch group, is their mention that "another group like the Angels working to catch crime might be a nuisance." So, that being said, what is the point of talking about the guy holding the illegal aliens prisoner at gunpoint? He is not associated with the Minutemen. Why talk about him at all? That would be like using the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to criticize the actions of U.S. law enforcement. And what about the Minuteman volunteer accused of holding an illegal alien (notice he is just referred to as an 'immigrant') against his will. First off, he is only accused. Second off, they don't mention whether he used any kind of force to hold this alien. He could have just told him that he couldn't leave until the police arrived, and the alien believed him. There is also no mention of whether or not the Minuteman Project would allow this fellow to continue working with them if these allegations are true. These are things that should be considered by a competent reporter who is trying to get a balanced picture of the situation. However, if the reporter is trying to write a piece meant to encourage (and guide the course of) speculation on this matter, then less information is better. The moral of this story? When reading a story put out by the MSM, caveat lector (reader beware).
_____________________________________________
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
