Sovereign Commentary

Divide and Rule

2007-12-06T00:35:00.000-05:00

There is something we need to be considering about the driving need of our "leaders" in Washington to open the floodgates to hoards of culturally diverse people to live among us. It is a historical fact that the European empire-builders in Africa deliberately drew territorial boundary lines in such a way as to place diverse cultural groups within the same borders. The rationale for this divide and rule strategy is to provoke racial strife. If the subjects spend all their time fighting amongst themselves, they will be less likely to organize against the rulers.

I believe this principle is at work in Washington today. It is an incontrovertible fact that the majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. In spite of this, Congress and the President have very tepid responses to the problem. Could this be because our political office-holders actually want illegal immigration to occur, that they want the native population to be displaced by culturally diverse invaders they are powerless to stop within the bounds of current law and anti-American civil rights court rulings? Homogeneous populations are less likely to fight amongst themselves and more likely to organize against an oppressor. Since immigration reform in the 1960s, leftists in our government have made it their stated goal to flood America with immigrants that are as different from traditional Americans as possible. They use pretty idealistic terms like "social justice" and "the brotherhood of mankind," but could the truth be that they want to destroy American homogeneity to enhance the power of the government? Like it or not, this is a tangible result of increasing diversity.

Just follow the money.

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration Multiculturalism Politics Culture Diversity Tyranny

We Now Have a War on Thanksgiving

2007-11-21T11:11:00.000-05:00

Nothing of traditional American culture is sacred anymore. The Anti-American Seattle School District has decided to teach children that Thanksgiving is a time of mourning for American Indians and a "reminder of 500 years of betrayal" by White people.

I've always wondered why, given that Indian tribes competed among each other for territory, Whites are considered to be particularly evil for doing the same thing? Were we not allowed to play because our toys were better?

Just asking.

______________________________

Eric Wilkinson, "Seattle schools warn staff about Thanksgiving 'mourning,'" King 5 News, 2007 November 14, http://www.king5.com/education/stories/NW_111407WAB_no_happy_thanksgiving_TP.3449914.html .

Technorati Tags: Culture Wars Thanksgiving

So-Called Immigrants Rights Groups Confused About Immigration Enforcement

2007-10-30T08:27:00.000-04:00

In California, uniformed Border Patrol agents have been temporarily reassigned for the relief effort. The ACLU and immigrants rights group claim that this is unfair to illegals because the sight of the Border Patrol uniforms is scaring them away from the evacuation sites. The immigrants rights groups are claiming that the presence of these uniformed agents unfairly discriminates against foreign migrants.

This really gets under my skin. First of all, why are immigrants rights groups always challenging the deportation of illegal aliens, suggesting that this violates the rights of immigrants? This is like saying that the arrest of purveyors of illegal narcotics serves as an abridgment of the rights of pharmaceutical venders generally. Second, if migrant workers who are here legally are afraid of being deported, then I would say that these so-called immigrant rights groups have failed in their civic obligation to let the migrants know that they need not fear deportation if they are here legally.

______________________________

Richard Marosi. "Illegal immigrants feared fire evacuations, Deportation was worry for some," Boston Globe, 2007 October 29, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/29/illegal_immigrants_feared_fire_evacuations/.

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration

The War on Terror is a Fraud and Should Be Ended

2007-09-16T12:29:00.000-04:00

In recent months, my opinion of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in general have changed. In the beginning, I was a strong supporter. However, after watching the shameful execution of the war, it became clear to me that President Bush simply does not have what it takes to give the sorts of orders that would be necessary for a decisive victory. Such a person has no business calling for the invasion of another land even if the motive is a just one.

In the last few days, however, it occurred to me that the underlying premise of the War on Terror, and particularly the Iraq campaign, is false. Even if, as the President says, "the success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States," our being there does not benefit us in the long run.(1) The premise Bush presents is that if we fight in Iraq, we will be made safer. If certain variables are not considered, this argument can make good military sense, and indeed, this is why so many otherwise sensible conservatives support the war.

Fighting in Iraq is akin to using valuable time to scout out a roofer to repair a rotted area that may soon start to leak. Ignoring certain other variables, this seems like a good strategy. Spending the day in town hunting down a good deal on a roofer would ordinarily indicate responsibility and foresight. However, if you consider that the house is currently flooding due to a burst water pipe, leaving to look for a roofer would seem insane. A similar situation is taking place in America.

We are told that the war on terror will save this country, but I can't think of a single influential policy-maker who ever mentions the destructive cultural and economic effect of unfettered illegal immigration by what, as far as I can tell, are unassimilable foreigners.(2) Unless we get a handle on illegal immigration, Spanish-speaking enclaves of foreigners will only continue to grow and transform our cities from American settlements where everyone speaks English and have a cultural bond of a common history into something that is foreign to us.

I ask what is the point of fighting terrorism overseas to "preserve our nation" when absolutely no effort is being made at home to curtail the displacement of our culture? The blind eye the government turns toward the never-ending stream of foreigners coming across our southern border makes a fraud out of the so-called War on Terror--it makes no sense to protect the country from one thing if another thing will eradicate its language and culture anyway. Conquest only requires a gun if those to be conquered are willing or able to fight.

______________________________

(1) Rick Rojas. "President says success in Iraq is necessary for national security, announces troop reduction," The Battalion Online, 2007 September 13, para. 3, http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/09/13/
News/President.Says.Success.In.Iraq.Is.Necessary.For.National.Security.
Announces.Troo-2968529.shtml.
(2) Whether by deliberate effort (or lack of it), or because of their temperament, immigrants from Latin America have a tendency to not assimilate -- evidenced by as many as 15.49 million Hispanics who not only speak Spanish as a first language, but also have very low proficiency with English. U.S. Census Bureau. "Hispanic Heritage Month 2005:
September 15-October 15," http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_
features_special_editions/005338.html

Technorati Tags:
War On Terror Immigration

Australian Foreign Minister Politely Asks Mugabe to Resign

2007-08-30T12:08:00.000-04:00

Australia's foreign minister apparently thinks that the black supremest tyrant of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), Robert Mugabe, will voluntarily give up power. Despite the fact that this fellow has been killing people and breaking things for at least 20 years, Australia's foreign minister thinks that to get him to give up power, all that is needed is for someone to ask politely--from one gentleman to another.

______________________________
Richard Bowden. "Foreign Minister Calls On Mugabe To Resign," AHN News, 2007 August 28, http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008332686.

US Should Concentrate on Being Strong, Not on Projecting Power

2007-07-31T19:43:00.000-04:00

I've been mulling over this matter for a few days and finally decided to write my thoughts down as they have not changed significantly.

It occurs to me that the government of these United States is spending a lot of money to project our power overseas. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan for the long haul. I don't think we should pull out anytime soon, either. When we invaded them, we took responsibility for their populations, and that's all there is to it.

Now we're talking about invading Iran as well -- another long-term financial obligation that we simply cannot afford. There is the looming specter of the Taiwan-China crisis as well.

We appear strong now, and we are. However, our constant projection of that power has taken a toll. Our resources are more tapped out than most people realize. Simply put, we lack staying power. As far as I can tell, we have to borrow money to finance our current military operations and our government in general.

Foreign countries own so much of our national debt that serious damage could be done to our economy almost over night should China, for example, divest itself of its dollar holdings.

We need to find a way to generate more real wealth in this country. We need to revive our manufacturing, and most definitely do something about our tax structure that acts punitively against businesses and individuals alike. And we definitely need to stop this constant protection of our power so it is not diluted when we need it the most.

Jury Ruling May Be a Step in the Right Direction for Tort Liability

2007-06-30T13:43:00.000-04:00

According to a recent article, "A Butte County jury has found a Gridley supermarket not liable to pay civil damages to an illegal alien who slipped and fell on a grape inside the store."(1)

The plaintiff was not named in the article. Her lawyer attempted to obscure her status as an illegal alien from the jury by asking her to stipulate that the reason she could not pay her medical expenses was because she could not work.(2) Whether or not the jury ruled against her due to her immigration status is not important. This was the correct ruling under common law principles that our courts have been increasingly hostile to. Liability is commonly attached not to -- well -- liability, but instead to money. If there is an injury and if someone with deep pockets can in any way be associated with the cause, that person will likely be sued.

For example, if a wealthy person leaves her car unlocked with the engine running and it is stolen [assume she was dropping off a video at Blockbuster], and the thief runs over a little girl resulting in $300,000 in medical expenses, her lawyers will try to sue the woman who's car was stolen, not the thief. The thief likely has no assets, but the woman he stole from does. The little girl's lawyers will allege that the woman was negligent in leaving her car unlocked. They will say that she should reasonably known that most incidents of random thefts are crimes of opportunity. As such, she should reasonably have expected a greater risk of her car being stolen if it were unlocked; further, she should have anticipated that harm could be done to innocent third parties. Her willful negligence in not securing her vehicle, a dangerous instrument, is the proximate cause of the little girl's injury. Had the defendant secured her vehicle, the intervening cause of the theft likely would not have occurred. Her failure to secure her car was a breach of her duty to keep the car from harming the little girl. Therefore, the defendant is liable for any resulting damage.

Now, I know what you're saying. The woman who's car was stolen is also an innocent party. The thief committed two crimes -- stealing the car and running over the little girl. That's how an ordinary rational thinker would react, because ordinary rational thinkers cannot blame someone for an act when the act was performed by a completely different person acting of their own volition. But in the fictional realms of legal speculation, lawyers and judges would consider the question of the rich woman's liability to have legal merit. When I asked a professor of tort law about this, emphasizing that it is not right to hold people liable for the actions of third parties, he answered in genuine earnest (and that was the truly chilling part) that it wasn't fair that an innocent third party should suffer and that it is the responsibility of the courts to to make sure the person most able to bear the cost does so. What he basically said was that the woman was liable because she was rich. If the car thief had been a trust fund kid on a joy ride, he would have been more likely to be held liable for the cost. Tort liability theories like this, entertained by judges, have made our court system into sort of an ad hoc welfare system.

I have never thought this even remotely resembles justice because it is wrong to make a person responsible for the voluntary actions of another. The ruling against the illegal alien who slipped on a grape might be a step in the right direction for tort liability. The article is sparse on the actual details, but if I were her lawyer, I would argue that the supermarket had a duty of care to maintain a safe premises. That the customer slipped shows that they did not do so; therefore they should be responsible (I would supplement this with affidavits, if I could get them, that the store was aware of litter on the floor, or that they did not take make an ordinary effort to watch for litter). If I were the supermarket's lawyer, I would basically say that the grape was dropped by another customer and even with the best effort, it is impossible to watch all the customers all the time. I would say that the supermarket exercised the ordinary standard of care and that negligence by a third party constituted an intervening cause. And for good measure, I would argue that the illegal alien was contributorily negligent in that she did not exercise due caution in her own movements and thus assumed the risk of injury. I of course, have no idea if this is what the defense argument was, but if any of it were, it is now legal precedent in that jurisdiction; and that would be very good news for innocent non-actors who are parties in tort liability cases.

______________________________

(1) Terry Vau Dell. "Jury nixes illegal alien's suit over fall in grocery store," Oroville Mercury Register, 2007 June 29, para. 1, http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_6256948.
(2) Ibid. paras. 4-5.

Technorati Tags:
News Law Personal Injury Tort Reform Illegal Aliens

Reading List

2007-05-06T12:41:00.000-04:00

I have been exceedingly busy lately, so here are some news stories that caught my eye.

A liberal case for gun rights helps sway federal judiciary by Adam Liptak. The article admits that the Second Amendment does exist and that it might actually guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms; it is actually an uplifting read when taken as a whole. One of the more startling statements in the article comes from Warren E. Burger, who said "The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . [the individual rights view is] one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." I'd like to know what this guy thought the framers were talking about. Did he think they meant swords? And as for his use of the word fraud, I'm going to have to discount it as nonsense unless he produces some evidence to support his hypothesis.

Liberal totalitarianism by Jeffrey T. Kuhner. This article exposes Democratic representative Maurice Hinchey of New York who seeks to abrogate the First Amendment with his Media Ownership Reform Act, which, while falling short of actually nationalizing the media, it would institute government control of privately owned companies. George Soros is fingered as the money behind the effort to stifle the first amendment on the airwaves. I wonder how long it will be before congressional Democrats start calling for a fairness doctrine on the internet?

'Sanctuary Cities' Embrace Illegal Immigrants by Amanda B. Carpenter. A Sanctuary City is a city that has an official policy of avoiding enforcement of federal immigration laws. More specifically, if illegal immigrants live there, such a city requires its police to avoid knowing about the immigration status of any person detained for any reason. Personally, I think these cities should have their federal funding revoked.

Some in Congress Still Recognize the Second Amendment

2007-04-15T16:07:00.000-04:00

In February, unnoticed by me and the news wires, Representative (and now Presidential candidate) Ron Paul has introduced a bill "to restore the second amendment rights of all Americans" (H.R. 1022). To be brief, this bill would repeal all laws that infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. As of this date, it has no cosponsors and has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it will likely die an ignoble death.(1)

It's sad that we need a law to guarantee us our natural rights as enshrined in the Constitution. The fact is, no law that infringes on the second amendment should be able to survive a court challenge. The Second Amendment says in no uncertain terms that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.(2) What part of this is hard to understand?
______________________________

(1) H.R. 1096 I.H.; S. 850 I.S. 110th Cong. (2007)
(2) U.S. Const. amend. II

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Congress Constitution Liberty Gun Control Second Amendment Paul Ron Paul

Horde of Bicycling Ruffians called Critical Mass Assaults Family of Seven

2007-04-04T19:19:00.000-04:00

I had never heard about this group before, but apparently, it takes place in more than one city. The short version of the story is that a horde of ruffians on bicycles, calling themselves "Critical Mass" surrounded and attacked a family of seven. The parents had taken their five children for an outing that, in America, should have been terror free. In San Francisco, thanks to some members of Critical Mass, it wasn't.

Susan Ferrando, her husband, their two children and three preteens had come to San Francisco . . . to celebrate the birthday of Ferrando's 11-year-old daughter. They went to Japantown, where they enjoyed shopping and taking in the blooming cherry blossoms.

[T]he family [left] Japantown . . . just as the party of about 3,000 bikers was winding down its monthly red-lights-be-damned ride through the city.

Suddenly, Ferrando said, her car was surrounded by hundreds of cyclists.

Not being from San Francisco, Ferrando thought she might have inadvertently crossed paths with a bicycle race and couldn't figure out why the police, who she had just passed, hadn't warned her.

Confusion, however, quickly turned to terror, she said, when the swarming cyclists began wildly circling around and then running into the sides of her Toyota van.

Filled with panic, Ferrando said, she started inching forward until coming to a stop at Post and Gough streets, where she was surrounded by bikers on all sides.

A biker in front blocked her as another biker began pounding on the windshield. Another was pounding on her window. Another pounded the other side.

"It seemed like they were using their bikes as weapons," Ferrando said. One of the bikers then threw his bike -- shattering the rear window and terrifying the young girls inside.(1)

There were cops on the scene and they declined to arrest Mrs. Ferrando despite the bike hooligans' demands that she be charged with a crime (they claim that she tapped one of the bikes with the her car; which could be considered at least a tort if these ruffians hadn't assumed the risk by surrounding the van and riding in very close quarters)(2)

Bicycle advocates . . . said . . . that Ferrando did more than tap the bicyclist, and that the incident occurred toward the end of the ride, when there were dozens -- not thousands -- of bicyclists in the area, as Ferrando claims. Bicycle Coalition executive director Leah Shahum said witnesses told her that Ferrando "recklessly accelerated" into a crowd and hit the bicyclist so hard the bike was lodged under her vehicle.(3)

I would be interested to hear how many bicycling belligerents the police counted. And when they're surrounding your car, dozens can look like scores, or even hundreds.

Personally, I am skeptical of any claim made by a group of Critical Mass' nature. They are known for blocking traffic, running red lights(4), and other lawless behavior, such as vandalism.(5) I think that New York has the right idea; they've begun arresting outlaw bicyclists who think that the rules of the road do not apply to them.(6)

San Fransisco Mayor Newsom has said, "[i]t does the bicycle-advocacy community no good to have people that are aggressive and dispirit the entire movement. I would encourage the bicycle coalition to say, 'Look, we don't put up with this, enough is enough.'"(7)

I think the mayor has some good advice. If Critical Mass isn't careful, they will see a new critical mass of people who are fed up with their lawless conduct and they will demand that their government do something about it. In states where people are actually allowed to defend themselves from attacks, these hooligans might find motorists retaliating, and when that happens, I predict they will scatter like cockroaches do when exposed to light.
______________________________

(1) Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross. "Minivan's rude introduction to Critical Smash," San Francisco Chronicle, 2007 April 04, paras. 4-11, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL.
(2) Ibid. paras. 16-18.
(3) Cecilia Vega and Marisa Lagos. "Mayor vows 'a good look' at Critical Mass
Redwood City family's van damaged after being caught up in ride," San Francisco Chronicle, 2007 April 04, para. 4, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL.
(4) Hannah Sutherland. "Cycling community celebrated Saturday," The Surrey Leader, 2007 March 23, para. 6, http://www.surreyleader.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=73&cat=23&id=859367&more=.
(5) Matier and Ross. para. 22.
(6) T.W. Farnam. "Critical Mass ride interrupted," Newsday, 2007 March 30, http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nybike-0331,0,449624.story?coll=ny-top-headlines.
(7) Alexandria Rocha. "Newsom to Critical Mass: Police yourself," The Examiner, 2007 April 05, para. 3, http://www.examiner.com/a-657770~Newsom_to_Critical_Mass__Police_yourself.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Bicycles Bicyclists Critical Mass Radicals Anarchists Assault Crime Terrorism

China Eyes Moon for Nuclear-Powered Rover Mission

2007-04-02T19:29:00.000-04:00

China is working to build up their space program. The latest example is a proposed mission to the moon which would involve an unmanned rover.(1)

Ignoring for the time being the fact that the Chinese Space program is actually controlled by their so-called "People's Liberation" Army, (which is actually noted by the Associated Press),(2) there is a bit of media bias to point out in this report.

The proposed exploration vehicle is to be nuclear powered.(3) And I have yet to see any reports of protests against China for putting a nuclear reactor in space. This is at odds with the coverage of the 1997 launch of the Nuclear powered Cassini probe. There was a highly reported protest against the United States and NASA (though, curiously not the ESA) based around the idea that nuclear reactors are dangerous and NASA could kill "thousands, and perhaps millions, of people" if this launch went wrong.(4) So I find myself asking a question I have asked before (though with different actors). Why is it that if the United States wants to launch a nuclear powered space vehicle, protesters come out and say that America is evil and wants to kill us all, but they don't utter a peep when China proposes to do the same thing? Or, if such protesters are in fact extant, why has the news media decided not to cover them?

In a further note of interest, the Chinese military hopes to put one of their people on the Moon sometime after 2017.(5) Should we be concerned? I think so. I don't think this new space race is something we can afford to lose, because loss would mean Chinese military superiority in space.

______________________________

(1) Christopher Bodeen. "China Developing Lunar Rover for Mission," The Disbatch, 2007 April 02, http://www.the-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070402/API/704021433&cachetime=5.
(2) Ibid., para. 9.
(3) Ibid., paras. 1 & 5.
(4) John Zarrella. "Much ado about Cassini's plutonium -- Critics say launch could result in deadly disaster," CNN, 1997 October 10, http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9710/10/cassini.advancer/.
(5) William Atkins. "Shanghai scientists in China hope lunar rover will go to Moon," iTWire, 2007 April 02, para. 5, http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11030/1066/.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Technology China Military Space Exploration Media Bias Nuclear Power Cassini Moon Space Race

China Increases Military Threat Profile

2007-04-01T13:47:00.000-04:00

The Chinese military has, according to Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright "undertaken what we would call a very disciplined and comprehensive continuum of capability against ... our space capabilities,"(1)

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is on the record saying "that China is expected to have enough ASAT [anti-satellite] weapons by 2010 to 'basically knock out most of our satellites in low-earth orbit.'"(2)

As if the new threat to our satellites isn't enough, Beijing is beginning to challenge the U.S. navy.

Dozens of hunter-killers [submarines], armed with missiles and intelligence-gathering equipment, are being built, fanning fears of potential conflict in a volatile corner of the world and threatening to alter the global balance of military power. . . China and India - the two emergent superpowers of the Asia-Pacific region - are now planning a new generation of nuclear-powered boats that, in China's case, could fire nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US mainland.(3)

Make no mistake, China is a military threat to the United States, and its history of aggressive acts toward other powers(4) make this even more obvious.

The potential for conflict became a reality last October. The USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, at 82,000 tons, is the embodiment of US naval superiority in the Pacific, which has gone unchallenged since the Battle of Midway in 1942.

Supported by an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters, it was conducting routine exercises around the island of Okinawa when its crew was startled - and embarrassed - by the sudden appearance of a Chinese Song-class submarine.

The boat, apparently practising anti-carrier warfare, had gone undetected until it surfaced five miles away - putting the American vessel within range of its Russian-made, wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.(5)

Since 1996, China's leaders have increased investment "in weapons to boost its naval power. President Hu Jintao told Communist Party delegates last year he wants a navy prepared "at any time" for military action [against the United States]."(6)

With our military tied up in numerous overseas operations we would be extremely vulnerable to an attack by China. And such an attack could easily come given the United States' promise to defend Taiwan from invasion and China's promise to conquer Taiwan through military invasion if necessary.(7)

______________________________

(1) Bill Gertz. "China has gained and tested array of space weapons," The Washington Times, 2007 March 30, para. 2, http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070329-114710-9929r.htm.
(2) Ibid., para. 6.
(3) Tim Shipman and Chad Bouchard. "China is accused of fuelling Pacific arms race," The Telegraph, 2007 January 04, paras. 2 & 4 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/warms01.xml.
(4) In 2004, China violated Japan's sovereignty when one of their nuclear submarines entered Japanese waters and remained there for two hours. J. Sean Curtin. "Submarine puts Japan-China ties into a dive," Asia Times Online, 2004 November 17, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FK17Dh01.html.
(5) Shipman and Bouchard, paras. 10-12.
(6)Ibid., para. 23
(7) "Chinese military to crush any attempt to split Taiwan from China: white paper," People's Daily Online, 2004 December 27, http://english.people.com.cn/200412/27/eng20041227_168785.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News China Military Taiwan

Ron Paul for President!

2007-03-19T19:38:00.000-04:00

Last week, Ron Paul of Texas announced his candidacy for President of the United States. I, for one, will be re-registering as a Republican so that I can vote for him in the Republican primary; and I suggest all Libertarians do the same. Here's an example of why I think he's an excellent choice:

"Ron Paul is a true American statesman," said Don Zimmerman, who ran for Texas representative in District 50 last year. "He has a long history of upholding American values, and I am happy to endorse his campaign." The presidential hopeful plans to re-establish the Constitution as the sole determinant of new legislation. "For Rep. Paul, each piece of legislation must be examined for its constitutionality. If the Constitution does not allow it, then it must be opposed," Zimmerman said.

Paul bases his campaign on a number of freedom principles, including the doctrines that the lives and actions of people are an individual's responsibility, not the government's, and that the government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges, Paul said on his Web site. Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas, said the congressman has a good share of support among conservatives and libertarians on campus.*

We need a president who actually has read the Constitution; and Ron Paul is the guy who's actually done it.

Ron Paul's 2008 campaign web site can be found at http://ronpaul2008.com/.

______________________________

*Tyler Sandson. "Texas rep starts White House bid," The Daily Texan, 2007 March 19, http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/03/19/
TopStories/Texas.Rep.Starts.White.House.Bid-2779790.shtml.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics President Presidential Election 2008 Candidates Republican Candidates Ron Paul

Around the Blogosphere:
Paul 4 Prez
Ron Paul is running for President!
A Dark Horse Shines
Ron Paul Announces For President In 2008
Ron Paul Announces His Candidacy
Texas congressman announces White House bid
Ron Paul For President

Congress Considers Empowering Local Police to Enforce Immigration Laws

2007-03-19T02:41:00.000-04:00

A bill has been introduced in the House and the Senate this month called the Scott Gardner Act. In short, it allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws. In addition, the Senate version specifically compels state agencies receiving federal money to actively share information with the federal government in the interests of enforcing immigration law. The title is "To improve sharing of immigration information among Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, to improve State and local enforcement of immigration laws, and for other purposes."(1)

Ordinarily, I am not in favor of enhancing federal power, but immigration is clearly within the enumerated powers on Congress, this is permissible.(2).

______________________________

(1) H.R. 1355 I.H.; S. 850 I.S. 110th Cong. (2007)
(2) U.S. Const. art. I sect. 8

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Congress Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement Local Police H.R. 1355 HR 1355 S. 850 S 850 Scott Gardner Act

Valid Skepticism of the "Human Cause" Theory of Global Warming

2007-03-05T18:45:00.000-05:00

I noticed a piece on Urshanabi's blog, Future Musings and Desultory Glances on global warming.

He points to evidence uncovered by Astronomers that Mars and Jupiter are getting warmer each year.(1) There are no humans on Mars and Jupiter. Why do you suppose those planets are getting warmer? And why should the reason the earth is getting warmer be any different from the reason these planets are getting warmer? Or am I not allowed to ask these questions?

National Geographic is not afraid to ask such questions. A recent article began with the following: "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory."(2) I think this theory deserves some looking at. Because if climate change is natural, we can do nothing about it except prepare for it. And that would be better than wasting our time trying to limit our own industry thinking that it will have an effect.

______________________________

(1) Urshanabi. "Warming and Climate Change is Not Limited to Earth," Future Musings and Desultory Glances, 2007 March 03, http://fmdg.blogspot.com/2007/03/warming-and-climate-change-is-not.html; citing: Robert Roy Britt. "Mars Ski Report: Snow is Hard, Dense and Disappearing," SPACE.com, 2001 December 06, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html; and Sara Goudarzi. "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change," SPACE.com, 2006 May 04, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html.
(2) Kate Ravilious. "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says," National Geographic News, 2007 February 28, para. 1, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Science Astronomy Mars Jupiter Global Warming Climate Change

Representative Carolyn McCarthy Seeks Abrogation of the Second Amendment by Congress

2007-03-04T11:13:00.000-05:00

David Schantz over at A Republic, if you can keep it has posted an article warning us about H.R. 1022.(1)

In a word, the bill is an unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment, which it's author, Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York is required to have taken an oath to uphold.(2)

This new ban would go farther than the Clinton gun ban, which in itself was an over broad restraint on the fundamental right of the People to keep and bear arms. "[F]ederal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed... [T]he nation's murder rate [is] 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns [are] still used in only a small percentage of crime."(3) It doesn't make any sense to re-institute the Clinton ban and even less sense to expand its scope to include guns that weren't considered dangerous enough to be included the first time.
Congress-critters like this Carolyn McCarthy need to be removed from office for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution. To introduce a bill that clearly infringes the right of the People to keep and bear arms is an unambiguous attack on the Constitution and therefore a violation of the oath taken to uphold it.

We really need to try to amend the Constitution to allow citizens to sue to remove congress-critters that try to pas laws contrary to the Constitution. That's the only way we will ever stop them from trying things like this. After all, it's not like they're policing themselves... H.R. 1022 is a prime example of this fact.

______________________________

(1) David Schantz. "H.R. 1022," A Republic, if you can keep it, 2007 February 25, http://arepublic.blogspot.com/2007/02/hr-1022.html.
(2) U.S. Const. art. VI
(3) Schantz.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Congress Constitution Tyranny Gun Control Second Amendment McCarthy Carolyn McCarthy

Bank of America Boycotted Over Support for Illegals

2007-02-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

I already withdrew my recommendations of Bank of America as a decent financial institution during the Matthew Shinnick incident last year. For those of you who are unaware, this involved Bank of America having a customer arrested because he had been given a fraudulent check pursuant to an internet sale.(1)

The fact that Bank of America would rather have an innocent person arrested rather than enlisting that person's help to track down the person attempting to write a fraudulent check should be enough to keep people from wanting to do business with them. In case it isn't, Bank of America has decided to extend credit to illegal immigrants.(2) That's right; Bank of America made the conscious and likely well-researched decision to aid and abet people who are in America in violation of our laws. Keep that in mind next time you consider whether or not Bank of America might be worthy of your business.

To their credit, the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition has selected Bank of America as the focus of their next major boycott. (3)

______________________________

(1) The Sovereign Editor. "Bank of America Has Bad Check Recipient Arrested; SFPD Complicit," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 October 04, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/10/bank-of-america-has-bad-check.html.
(2) "TN Rep. Calls For Bank Of America Investigation," NewsChannel5.com (WTTV, Nashville, Tenn.), 2007 February 16, http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6099822.
(3) "Illegal Immigration Coalition Boycotts Bank of America," News Blaze, 2007, http://newsblaze.com/story/20070216085419nnnn.np/newsblaze/NEWSWIRE/NewsBlaze-Wire.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Finance Banking Bank of America BofA BOA Shinnick Matthew Shinnick False Arrest Bad Check Fraudulent Check Consumer Advocacy Illegal Immigration Illegal Aliens

Something to think about...

2007-02-05T20:25:00.000-05:00

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering

Your Servant Congress Considers Involuntary Conscription for the Military

2007-02-02T10:19:00.000-05:00

Congress, or at least Charles Rangel (Democrat, New York), thinks that it is okay to draft you and me and our children to send them to fight and die in foreign lands. Or so I am led to believe by the introduction of H.R. 393* in the House of Representatives.

Oh, and women, you can thank the feminist movement for this, you are now equally as liable to be drafted as men if this bill is passed.

I have a question -- what happens if a mother and a father of a young child are drafted at the same time?

There are no co-sponsors to this little act of tyranny yet, but I will publish their names if they appear.

Congress needs to learn that INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IS NEVER OKAY!! If Congress were to pass this bill, that act would be perhaps the most obvious in a long chain of abuses and usurpations of our Liberty, which it is their sacred trust to uphold. In the face of such tyranny, much smarter and braver men than I concluded that it is the right, and even duty of the People to throw off the offending Government and appoint new guardians of their Liberty.

____________________________

*H.R. 393 I.H. 110th Cong. (2007)
* * *

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Draft Involuntary Servitude Tyranny Democrats Congress Rangel H.R. 393 HR 393 Conscription

Act of War on Mexican Border

2007-01-05T15:48:00.000-05:00

Gunmen, who retreated into Mexico, temporarily overran an United States National Guards stationed in Arizona. For some reason, the Guardsmen were forced to retreat.

I have a question. Why aren't our National Guard troops allowed to shoot at foreign invaders? I suspect they would have if government policy allowed them to. And if it is true that the policy is not to shoot at such invaders who are engaged in an open act of warfare against these United States, then the federal government is in breach of one of its fundamental duties to protect this country from invasion. I shall be contacting my Congress people about this matter.

____________________________

"Guardsmen overrun at the Border," 12 News, azcentral.com, 2007 January 04, http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/borderstory0104-CR.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Mexico Illegal Immigration Migrants Crime

Merry Christmas to All

2006-12-24T11:00:00.000-05:00

I would like everyone reading this to do something nice for someone you normally wouldn't be nice to today or tomorrow. It will make the world a better place. I promise. Merry Christmas.

* * *

Usually, I like to do stories about the war on Christmas... or as some more careful, or more skeptical people put it, the alleged war on Christmas (and this year they might actually be right). I just haven't noticed that much public censorship of Christmas this year. It could be that those who would see Christmas banished are laying low after sensing too much resistance to them in the last few years; or maybe it could be that we are actually winning; or maybe they're right and we are imagining it (or blowing things out of proportion).

The San Joaquin Valley school district in California voted to actually refer to the Christmas and Easter vacations as the Christmas and Easter vacations. In protest, a man lit himself on fire (that seems very spiteful; at least he didn't hurt anyone else)(1).

In other news, an AP-AOL poll found that "[m]ost people think it's OK to have Christmas decorations at public buildings, even though it occasionally draws protests and lawsuits."(2) So Christmas might not be in any real danger of being banished. But on the other hand, the article did acknowledge protests and lawsuits against public Christmas displays and that the term "Happy Holidays" is more politically correct than "Merry Christmas."(3)

If the news writers are aware that holiday-neutral greetings are politically correct and that Christmas decorations prompt lawsuits, then it should be safe to say that a political anti-Christmas movement exists, despite protestations to the contrary.

In all candor, though, (this year, at least) it looks like the concept of a full-fledged war on Christmas may arise from some commentators' tendencies to exaggerate the significance of some isolated events. So rest easy and enjoy the holiday with your friends and family; after all, that's what it's really about, isn't it? Don't let a few busybodies spoil the mood.

Again, merry Christmas to all!!

____________________________

(1) Associated Press. "Man sets self on fire to protest school move," Contra Costa Times, 2006 December 24, para. 1, http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/16311682.htm.
(2) Lester, Will. "Poll: Christmas tradition trumps trendy" (AP), USA Today, 2006 December 24, para. 1, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-24-christmas-holiday-habits_x.htm
(3) Ibid. para. 2.

* * *

Technorati Tags: Christmas War on Christmas Merry Christmas Happy Holidays

Loyalty is Good or Bad Depending on Who You Are

2006-12-10T14:27:00.000-05:00

Something has been bugging me lately. Loyalty. Not loyalty itself, but treatment of the concept of loyalty. You see, it seems there are two kinds of loyalty. The first kind is Republican loyalty which is apparently evil and will kill us all (I am exaggerating the general view I have picked up on to emphasize how often I have heard it commented upon). The second kind is Democrat loyalty, which, while raising a few eyebrows, is not something that a lot of people are worried about.

George W. Bush's propensity to give great weight to personal loyalty when making political appointments "can breed insularity, a prime catalyst for defective decision making."(1) In other words, prizing loyalty above other factors is not something that a responsible leader should do. "While this tendency [to value loyalty over competence in staffing decisions] in and of itself is not sufficient to undermine presidential leadership, it does have important implications with regard to a president's oversight functions."(2) This is some strong, and valid criticism of Bush given just after his first election that follows him to this day. Questions crop up from time to time "about whether Bush's loyalty undercuts his political judgment."(3) Most recently, I have been hearing and reading (mostly on the morning talk shows and blogs) about Robert Gates. Typical of what I have been hearing is Melvin Goodman's criticism. The former CIA analyst says of Mr. Gates, "He serves a master. He will be very loyal. But will that be good for the country?"(4)

The general trend seems to be questioning the wisdom of President Bush's emphasis on loyalty over other factors when selecting political appointments. The thesis is that such a tendency makes Mr. Bush a bad or even dangerous (in a negligent sense) leader. Maybe it does; there is a lot to be said for hiring people on merit alone and seeking to inspire loyalty in them; he can always fire them if things don't work out. President Bush's tendency to "delegate details" makes the distinction between hiring based on merit and hiring on the basis of loyalty even more important.(5)

Someone who's primary reason for holding a position is personal loyalty to the person who gave them the job might be more inclined to do only what they think their friend wants them to do. People hired to do a job because they are the best may be more inclined to do the best they can at it, even if it means disagreeing with the person who hired them -- after all, they were hired to do a job, and do it correctly (and this actually displays a more advanced sense of loyalty -- it's easy to side with someone, it's much more difficult to stand up to them for their own good). But I digress. You can read about the issue of President Bush's desire for loyalty above all else almost anywhere. And that's my point. There was another political figure who recently did something out of loyalty that compromised her alleged principles. Not much was said about it in the media as far as I know, and I did put some effort into looking.

You might be familiar with Nancy Pelosi, the current minority leader in Congress. Among other things, she is known to have promised to deliver us "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."(6) However, one of her first notable actions was to support John Murtha for the position of Democratic House leader.(7) Mr. Murtha is notable for opposing ethics changes proposed by Democrats and for appearing, during another Democrat controlled Congress, to be open to accepting bribes.(8) And actually, if you want to get down to it, Mr. Murtha seems to be opposed to any sort of ethics reforms.(9) (Please note that Mr. Murtha has actually given contradictory statements on this point(10)).

Ms. Pelosi's reason for supporting Mr. Murtha despite his opposition to the ethics reforms "because of her deep loyalty to Mr. Murtha."(11) When I heard that for the first time, I scratched my head a little bit, asking my self rhetorically whether or not that was something that people were always criticizing President Bush for. I really haven't heard many people speak negatively about Ms. Pelosi's overt placement of loyalty over other real concerns about her friend's qualifications. I seen it written that Mr. Murtha's loss in the Democrats' House elections could hurt Ms. Pelosi politically, but I just have not seen anyone suggesting that her strong sense of loyalty could impair her leadership skills. In fact, from Democrats, I've seen the exact opposite. They claim that Pelosi's loyalty to her friend shows the unity within the Democratic party and that it's a good thing.(12) Of course, that's what I'd expect Democrats to say, but I just don't see any rebuttals of that in the media, whereas I can find commentary on President Bush's emphasis on loyalty and how it's a bad thing.

I don't see how news editors can be so oblivious to an obvious bias in the media. The sauce for the goose rule is not that hard to apply. Likewise, violations of it are not that hard to notice. I do it every day. Like things should be treated in a like manner. If loyalty in and of itself is seen dangerous in one leader, it should be seen as dangerous in another leader, and for the same reasons (unless your reasons for not liking the first leader's loyalty is because you don't like who that leader is loyal to, in which case you should be taking issue with that and not the propensity for loyalty).

____________________________

(1) Immelman, Aubrey. "Relying on loyalty could hurt Bush," St. Cloud Times, 2000 December 29, para. 10, http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush122900.htm.
(2) Ibid. para. 15.
(3) Douglas, William. "Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment," (Knight Ridder), CommonDreams.org, 2005 August 05, para. 5, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0805-03.htm.
(4) Zacharia, Janine. "Bush's Choice of Gates Sets Stage for Shift on Iraq War Policy," Bloomberg.com, 2006 November 09, para. 22, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqsT9EIBeV1o&refer=home.
(5) Calmes, Jackie. "Questions of Leadership Style," Wall Street Journal, para. 1, http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%
2Farticle%2FSB108491628375114945.html%3Fmod%3Dpolitics%25255Fprimary%25255Fhs.
(6) Schouten, Fredreka. "Dems split on extent of ethics changes," USA Today, 2006 December 05, para. 9, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-05-dems-ethics_x.htm.
(7) Epstein, Edward. "Pelosi surprises by taking sides in majority leader race," San Francisco Chronicle, 2006 November 14, para. 1, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/14/PELOSI.TMP.
(8) Hulse, Carl. "In Race for Majority Leader, Pelosi Risks Early Setback," The New York Times, 2006 November 13, paras. 7 & 19, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/14congcnd.html?ex=1165899600&en=196957d20df04983&ei=5070.
(9) "Witnesses: Murtha calls ethics reform 'total crap' but pledges support" CNN (The CNN Wire) 2006 November 16, http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/15/wednesday/index.html.
(10) Hulse at para. 10
(11) Hulse at para. 17
(12) DeFrank, Thomas. "Pelosi's bruising: Wins top job but loses in nasty fight over No. 2," New York Daily News, 2006 November 17, para. 9, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/472181p-397307c.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Media Bias Media Bias Bush Pelosi Murtha Gates Loyalty

Happy Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T01:04:00.000-05:00

Shhhh.... don't tell the Democrats that Thanksgiving has a Christian religious component, or they'll try to take this holiday away from us as well.

Americans, on this day, traditionally gather and give thanks for the plenty that we have. Most know only the bounty of this land, and are blissfully unaware of the pernicious hand of government that tries to keep it from the People. I like to take this day to reflect on how special what we have here is; and how easily we could lose it through voting away our rights to decide how to dispose of our own property and labor.

Those who celebrated the first Thanksgiving knew all too well the value of liberty and private property and what could occur if those were denied.

The first English colonists tried a communistic system that, due to the small size of the community on which it acted, caused the economy to completely implode in a very short amount of time. Unable to hide from the truth of their chosen economic system, they were forced to abandon it as an act of self-preservation.

It is a little known fact that under the original charter of the Plymouth colony, all of the land, the buildings, and any end product of labor were communally owned. In other words, the Pilgrims began here in America as a communistic settlement.

At first glance, thinking statically, this might seem like a good system. In any society, some people have more due to greater ability or motivation, and some have less due to lesser ability or motivation (this is, of course, ignoring artificial societal constructs such as 'privilege'). The greatest societal good, therefore, (still thinking statically) would come from giving all members an equal share in what society produces. Real life, however, is not static -- rather it is dynamic.

The danger of thinking statically in regard to political and economic structures is that such thinking doesn't take changing human behavior into account -- human behavior is effectively treated as an unchanging constant. But people who make arguments using such a premise are either ignorant of the nature of human behavior, or worse, are intellectually dishonest. Human behavior is not static -- rather it is dynamic, changing in response to different stimuli. For example, if you plant a food crop each year and harvest it without incident, you are likely to continue in that behavior. If, however, each year, just before you harvest your crop, someone steals most of it, and you can't stop them, you might start planting less, or stop planting altogether, since there is no benefit to your action.

In the case of the Plymouth colony, William Bradford and the Pilgrims noticed that their communal-ownership (communist) system gave no incentive for those most industrious to produce any more than those least industrious. These people knew that they could not benefit from their extra effort any more than the others in the community who worked less -- so they did what any rational self-interested person would do under the circumstances: they didn't work any harder than the least productive among them. Collectivism effectively killed any personal motivation the people might have had to work.

In his journal, William Bradford wrote:

"[B]y taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth... this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for others men's wives and children without recompense ... that was thought injustice."

Indeed, to require that someone give up their labor for the benefit of others without compensation of equal or greater value is nothing more than robbery. People respond to the potential of robbery or theft by taking steps to prevent it. If they are unable to prevent it through defensive means, they will likely prevent it by not producing anything -- after all, if they have nothing, there is nothing to steal. Unfortunately for the community as a whole, since individuals had little incentive to produce, the communal production yields were low.

After several years of tiny crops, Bradford was forced to conclude that communism was not a viable socio-economic system. When applied in the real world where human behavior is a factor, communism utterly failed -- it had produced nothing but barely subsistence-level harvests and had encouraged nothing but a rational avoidance of extraneous labor. The colonists were distraught over the idea of facing another year of barely subsistence-level harvests and held a meeting to discuss possible solutions to the problem. Bradford states that "[a]t last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that they should set corn everyman for his own particular... That had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

So the solution to their woes was to replace their communist system with a free enterprise (or capitalist) system in which each family had a recognized property interest in the land that they worked and were actually allowed to own the product of their labor and thus dispose of it as they see fit. The result of the switch was a plentiful harvest in the fall of 1623. The lazier people still didn't produce as much, but those more inclined to industry produced a great surplus. In celebration of their newfound plenty, the Pilgrims held a great feast of Thanksgiving to God for guiding them to this economic system that had produced so much. If you examine the official documents of the time, you will find that the first Thanksgiving Day proclamation was issued in November of 1623.

Election 2006

2006-11-06T19:23:00.000-05:00

What am I supposed to say? Vote Republican because they're not quite as interested as the Democrats in stealing from you? I am so disgusted in my ballot choices, that I almost left it blank. No candidates stand for true freedom. Both parties seek to increase the police powers of the state -- democrats don't think of what they do as increasing the police power, and I think that's what makes them slightly more dangerous. Democratic voters do not think that it is stealing when they take money from me at gun point to fund the National Endowment of the Arts. I'd like to know what they would call it. They don't like Republicans because they want to lock people up for doing certain things. I don't like Democrats because they think people should be locked up for thinking certain things (leftists think that denying global warming should be like a war crime). I don't think I should have to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. I buy art that I like, and I don't like most of the crap that the NEA funds with my money, that I do not have a choice in giving them. To be fair, it is Republicans who have had to approve of this theft since 1994, but at least they oppose it in rhetoric (which makes them hypocrites).

The only guiding principal I have is the FairTax. I vote for those who support it. The only way we can begin to reign the government in is if we take away its power to buy votes by stealing from the harder workers to pay for benefits for the lazier among us (excuse me for calling a spade a spade).

And that's all I have to say. I need to get back to work now.

Federal Government Jails Border Patrolers for Doing their Job; Offers Drug Dealer/Illegal Alien Immunity

2006-10-23T19:20:00.000-04:00

How are we supposed to defend our border from encroachment by illegal Mexican immigrants and drug traffickers if our own federal government is working on the side of these people?

In a recent and bizarre turn of events, the federal government of the United States prosecuted and sentenced two border patrol agents to lengthy prison terms. Their crime was to shoot at a fleeing drug runner who ignored commands to stop. He escaped into Mexico. The United States government pressed charges against the agents who shot at him. The "victim" was Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was illegally in the United States with a van carrying 800 lbs. of marijuana.

The United States government paid Osbaldo's medical bills and offered him complete immunity if he would testify against the border patrol agents who shot him while he was committing a crime. This is really not right.

In addition, it turns out that border patrol agents aren't allowed to chase fleeing criminals. How are they supposed to do their job if they can't pursue?

They were convicted, in part, because the United States Supreme Court has reportedly decreed it to be a violation of someone's Fourth Amendment rights to shoot an unknown person in the back while they're running away if you're not sure they're armed.(1)

I guess that's why no charges against Deval V. Bullock, who shot and killed Sal Culosi. Mr. Bullock knew exactly who Dr. Culosi was and was reasonably sure that he was not armed. Also, it is likely that Mr. Bullock shot Dr. Culosi in the side, and not in the back.(2) But I digress.

How are we supposed to guard our border with our own government working against us?

____________________________

(1) "Border Patrol agents sentenced to prison," WorldNetDaily.com, 2006 October 20, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545.
(2) see: The Sovereign Editor. "More on the Unprovoked Killing of Dr. Culosi by Virginia Police" Sovereign Commentary, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-on-unprovoked-killing-of-dr.html; and ibid, "Paramilitary style police squad shoots unarmed optometrist," http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/03/paramilitary-style-police-squad-shoots.html.

* * *

Technorati Tags: News Crime Border Patrol Drug Runners Culosi Sal Culosi Salvatore Culosi Mexico Supreme Court Illegal Immigration Bullock Deval Bullock Deval V. Bullock Illegal Aliens War on Drugs

Be Careful What You Write. Libel Suits Are No Laughing Matter.

2006-10-12T03:33:00.000-04:00

You may have noticed that I make an effort to document every important fact I assert here. The reason for this is three-fold. First, I find that proper documentation makes it easier for third party readers to verify what I say; second, proper documentation makes it easier for me to use my old research in future writings; third, and perhaps most important, it provides a prima facie case that I base what I say about individuals and organizations on established fact -- and that is important in a world where defamation suits against bloggers are becoming more numerous.

In the first successful suit of this type, a blogger was ordered to pay $50,000 in damages to a person whom the court deemed he had slandered on his web site.(1) In a more recent suit, "[a] Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a 'crook,' a 'con artist' and a 'fraud.'"(2)

When you write something unfavorable about someone, the way to avoid being subject to a potential libel suit is to make sure that what you say is 1.) true, and 2.) provable. If something is true and you can prove it, go ahead and say it. Otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself unless you want to be on the losing end of a law suit. Remember, even if what you are saying is true, it does you no good if you can't prove it.

______________________________
(1) Laura Parker. "Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites," USA Today, 2006 October 02, para. 4, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-02-bloggers-courts_x.htm.
(2) Laura Parker. "Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts," USA Today, 2006 October 11, para. 1, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Law Legal Defamation Libel Blogs Blogging Bloggers Legal Issues

Congress Finally Takes Interest on Theft of National Property by Sandy Berger

2006-10-12T02:45:00.000-04:00

It seems that someone is finally noticing that Sandy Berger's theft of documents from the national archives is a crime. Maybe someone will try to get him sent to prison.

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger. . . [who] admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.(1)

I have said it before and I'll say it again; the fact that Sandy Berger is not in prison shows that the government officials involved in his case were derelict in their duty to uphold the laws of these United States. When ordinary citizens do this sort of thing, the federal prosecutors do their level best to send them to prison.(2) I will not begin to have faith in the institution of the Federal government until Berger is in prison where he belongs.

My only complaint about this is that it comes during campaign season... which makes me think that the Republicans, just like the Democrats, care more about politics than doing the right thing. Character is doing the right thing even if no one is looking. Both parties are short on this.
______________________________
(1) Erica Werner. "GOP Leaders Seek Probe of Berger Papers," The Associated Press, 2006 October 11, paras. 1-2, http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJE502.html
(2) Karlyn Barker. "Va. Man Admits to Stealing, Selling Documents From National Archives," The Washington Post, 2005 March 08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15566-2005Mar7.html

* * *
What I Have Said On This Topic:

Sandy Berger Pleads Guilty to Taking Classified Material from the National Archives

Virginia Man Steals Documents From National Archives, Faces Jail Time

Sandy Berger Participated in a National Security Panel Discussion at Purdue University

Known Criminal, Sandy Berger, to Speak at Purdue

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Berger Sandy Berger National Archives Congress

Bank of America Has Bad Check Recipient Arrested; SFPD Complicit

2006-10-04T11:58:00.000-04:00

Are you considering switching banks? If so, avoid Bank of America. I was considering switching to Bank of America because they pay slightly better interest than my bank. I will, however, no longer be considering Bank of America. Apparently, Bank of America thinks that the proper way to treat someone who has been paid with a fraudulent check is to have them arrested. And for some reason, the police just do this without even bothering to compare Bank of America's story to the story of the person to be arrested. If you think that I'm exaggerating, consider the following story.

San Francisco resident Matthew Shinnick tried to sell a pair of mountain bikes on Craigslist. . . [an apparent potential buyer] said he was going to cut a check on his company's Bank of America business account and arrange to have the bikes shipped north. Shinnick said he received a check for $2,000 shortly after Christmas and was informed that the extra cash was to cover shipping costs "and for my trouble."(1)

Mr. Shinnick was suspicious of the large check, and wanted to make sure it didn't bounce.(2) So he did what any responsible merchant would do -- he attempted to verify the check with Bank of America before cashing it.(3) His big mistake in all of this was trusting Bank of America to assist him in detecting a fraudulent check from one of their accounts. When he asked the Bank of America teller if the check would clear, she told him that "it was a valid account and that there were funds to cover it" (to be fair to Bank of America, they did not have knowledge at that time that anything was wrong with the check).(4)

Mr. Shinnick should have had no further reason to be suspicious in this case. The bank teller would have told him if a check turned out to be fraudulent, right? Not Bank of America. Instead, when the Bank discovered that the check was fraudulent, they called the police -- they did not inform Mr. Shinnick that he had been scammed. The business account was real, but the check was phony, and the branch manager called the police to have Mr. Shinnick arrested.(5)

This is where possible misconduct by the San Francisco Police Department comes into play. The arresting SFPD officers did not read Mr. Shinnick his rights.(6) They also may not have bothered to confirm the circumstances under which Mr, Shinnick came to endorse a phony check -- you know, the sort of thing they might do to make sure that they, in fact, had probable cause to make an arrest. It is only a crime to pass a bad check if you know it's a bad check (unless it's one of those crimes that don't require criminal intent -- like selling alcohol to a minor who has a really convincing fake ID). It should be noted that the police discussed the situation with Bank of America employees for about 45 minutes(7), so odds are, they were aware of all of the relevant facts.

What is even more troubling is the police report, which says Shinnick "was taken into custody 'for the safety of the bank employees as well as the bank customers.'"(8) Why did they think he posed a threat to the bank? From Mr. Shinnick's perspective, it is more like the bank assaulted him (by having him arrested instead of trying to help him get to the bottom of the check problem), not the other way around. Of course, it could be that the police had reason to believe that he might feel antipathy toward the bank in the face of the treatment he had received. But the trouble is, this is like a police officer arresting someone who has just been punched in the face out of fear that he might retaliate against the person who assaulted him. This whole thing stinks and there has been, as far as I can tell, no investigations by the media into the reasoning used by police officers to decide that they had probable cause for an arrest. This is just another example of a pro-police bias in the media.

To my knowledge, San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong has not disavowed the actions of these officers, so I must conclude that she supports them (under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the police officers are her agents and she is therefore responsible for their actions).

Matthew Shinnick was able to clear his name, but not before spending about 12 hours in jail and spending about $14,000 in legal fees.(9) He has asked Bank of America, as a good faith gesture, to cover his legal fees, since it was their malfeasance that caused those fees to be paid. Bank of America Vice President William Minnes (for whose actions Chairman, CEO, and President Kenneth D. Lewis should ultimately answer, if not legally, at least in a PR sense) has stated that the bank will not pay and cannot be compelled to. Minnes says that Bank of America "has no legal liability in the case because of the 2004 [California] Supreme Court ruling . . . [in] Hagberg vs. California Federal Bank."(10)

"The court wants to protect people when reporting criminal activity," said Paul Glusman, a Berkeley attorney who has written about the Hagberg case. "But this can be abused. At this point, there's nothing that will protect ordinary citizens from a false police report."

Jennifer Becker, a San Francisco attorney who specializes in malpractice cases, stressed that the intent of the court's decision is important. There shouldn't be repercussions for reporting a suspected crime, she said.(11)

I concur with the sentiment that we don't want to discourage people from reporting crimes, and therefore, I presume the ruling in Hagberg to be correct, and therefore unassailable through practical means. Perhaps if Mr. Shinnick were to show malice on the part of Bank of America he would have a shot. Frankly, though, I think he has a better shot at suing the San Francisco Police Department. If it was not for their arresting him, he would not be out $14,000 (I am assuming that the expenditure was unavoidable, it may actually not have been). If they knew all of the facts, they might have reached the same conclusion as the judge -- that no crime was committed here. I don't think they reasonably could have thought that they had probable cause to arrest him (unless the Bank of America branch manager filed charges against Mr. Shinnick, in which case he should try to have the manager arrested for filing a false police report).

There is one true thing that has come out of this mess. Bank of America's true nature is on display for all of us... and it's not pretty. So far, the closest they have come to an apology is to say that "clearly and without equivocation, Bank of America regrets what occurred."(12) William Minnes also said that "Bank of America can certainly understand that [Mr. Shinnick] is angry at the bank."(13) My concept of "being sorry" requires a personal compulsion to want to make things right if possible; I am not seeing that attitude from the bank. Bank of America believes that Hagberg sheilds them from liability in this case, and they're standing firm on that principle. Consumer advocate Clark Howard has launched a national challenge to Americans to withdraw their money from Bank of America, which I wholeheartedly support.(14) As of October 4th, 2006, it is reported that nearly $30,000, 000 has been withdrawn from Bank of America over this matter.(15) (Please note that due to the data input mechanism, the method for determining how much money Bank of America has lost may or may not be accurate).

Despite the bad publicity and the loss of business Bank of America is experiencing in this matter, Bank of America has still refused to compensate Mr. Shinnick for the trouble and expense they caused him. Now that's dedication to principle. Mr. Shinnick's damages are only $14,000; Bank of America stands to lose millions. Clark Howard even offered to pay $7,000 himself if Bank of America would pay the other half. Senior Vice President Alexandra Trower refused on Bank of America's behalf.(16) Nice organization that's willing to take a huge financial hit just to avoid apologizing to a man they wronged.

* * *
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
--Thomas Jefferson

______________________________

(1) David Lazarus. "Check from a scammer bounces victim into jail," San Francisco Chronicle, 2006 August 30, paras. 1 & 8, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/30/BUGTGKRHSF1.DTL.
(2) Ibid. para. 12.
(3) Ibid. para. 13.
(4) Ibid. paras. 14 & 18.
(5) Ibid. paras. 18-19.
(6) Ibid. paras. 19 & 21.
(7) Ibid. para. 21.
(8) Ibid. para. 20.
(9) Ibid. paras. 1 & 30.
(10) Ibid. paras. 32 & 34.
(11) Ibid. paras. 37-38.
(12) Ibid. para. 2.
(13) Ibid. para. 31.
(14) Clark Howard's Web Site, http://clarkhoward.com/; the audio clip of Clark Howard's Challenge is available at http://www.streamaudio.com/listen/cox.asp?station=clrk_ir&streamtype=
archiveaudio&optin=no&filename=boa_challenge.asf.
(15) Ibid; the Bank of America "Money Loss" Meter is available at http://clarkhoward.com/topics/boa_meter.html
(16) Ibid. http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2006/09/25/#next

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Finance Banking Bank of America BofA BOA Kenneth D. Lewis Shinnick Matthew Shinnick False Arrest False Accusation Bad Check Fraudulent Check Police State Tyranny San Francisco Police Department SFPD Fong Heather Fong Chief Fong Media Bias Consumer Advocacy William Minnes Clark Howard

Bank of America deceives Customer, Has Him... (the Customer was Not Deceived Regarding the Endorsement Process)

2006-10-04T00:07:00.000-04:00

Please note that as far as I can tell, Bank of America did not deceive Matthew Shinnick to get him to endorse the check. This much is clear from the chronology. Bank of America did not know the check was fraudulent until after the endorsement. For accurate information, please see my current post.

* * *

Bank of America Lies to Customer, Has Him... (the Customer was not Lied to)

2006-10-04T00:01:00.000-04:00

Please note that Bank of America did not lie to Matthew Shinnick. Nor did Bank of America trick him into endorsing the check. This much is clear from the chronology. For accurate information, please see my current post.

* * *

School Shootings: It's Time to Arm Our Teachers (or, more properly, allow teachers to carry)

2006-10-03T14:51:00.000-04:00

There have been three school shootings in the past week. One in Bailey, Colorado, one in Cazenovia, Wisconsin, and one in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Amish country).(1) And, in what seems to have become the normal response, there is a growing sentiment that there should be tougher gun control laws. Suggestions for such infringements on the Second Amendment are already creeping into the Pennsylvania legislature. Specifically, "[o]ne proposal expected to spark heated debate would limit handgun purchases to one a month for each individual."(2) In light of the national rash of shootings, it is only a matter of time before this sort of debate wells up again in the United States Congress.

What I want to know is why calls for gun control are the almost automatic response to any horrible crime that involves guns. Gun control laws are not going to make our schools safer. Guns are not allowed at schools. In fact, guns are not allowed to such a degree that the very idea of guns is almost prohibited.

For example, in Lee County, Florida, a student received a three-day suspension for carrying "a cap pistol onto his bus."(3) And this was in spite of the fact that the bus driver "could tell the cap gun wasn't real."(4) In a similar incident, in Kansas City, Missouri, a child was suspended for possessing "2-inch plastic squirt gun," which the people in charge of the school district over there decided, "is a simulated weapon and a class IV, which is the most serious school offense. . . an automatic 10-day suspension."(5)

But it is not just harmless toy weapons that fall under the zero-tolerance shroud, it is also imagined ones; expressions of the concept of a weapon. In New Jersey, a public school banned the popular (and traditional) game of 'cops and robbers' "out of a fear that even imaginary weapons pose a threat."(6) The school is so afraid of imaginary weapons that they threaten students with expulsion if they are caught playing the game.(7) The New Jersey school's zero-tolerance policy obviously extends not only to weapons, but to "anything that can be perceived as a weapon" (for example, a finger used to simulate a gun in a playground game).(7)

As you can see, guns are banned in schools and even the idea of guns is persecuted as if it were some sort of religious heresy and the school board were a theocracy. Yet school shootings happen. Obviously, school shootings are not deterred by rules. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

The kind of person who would aggressively harm another is not the kind of person who follows rules. Law-abiding people, by definition, do follow rules. When we make rule banning guns in all forms, even in the abstract, in school zones, all of the law-abiding people will attempt to conform to the rule. And since the gun bans apply to everyone except law enforcement officers, that means none of the teachers or administrative staff who have conceal/carry permits may bring their guns onto school property. The result of a zero-tolerance anti-gun rule is an environment in which a predatory rule-breaker with intent to harm will be the only person with a gun, should that predator decide to go on a shooting rampage. This is exactly the conclusion regarding gun-free school zones that was reached by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

All they have done [by mandating gun-free schools] is create target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally-armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.(9)

I think arming teachers and administrators is a good solution to the problem. Why do these types of shootings happen in schools instead of in residential neighborhoods? A plausible reason is because schools don't shoot back. In a neighborhood, there is no way to know who might be armed since there are no rules prohibiting the presence of guns (unless the neighborhood is in a high gun-control state like New York or California). Criminals don't like it when their intended victims can shoot back, so it stands to reason that they would prefer to attack a school campus where they know guns are prohibited. If we create an environment where the possibility exists for someone in the school to shoot back at a school-shooter, potential school-shooters might consider a school to be too risky a target.

Create fear in potential predators by allowing, and even encouraging citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. That seems like a sound plan. So why, every time there is s school shooting, do we have gun control advocates like the Brady Campaign(10), coming out of the woodwork demanding more laws restricting gun ownership? The only way they can believe that gun control laws will make us safer is if they believe that gun control laws deter criminals from acquiring guns. And that is simply not the case.

Gun control laws might make it harder for criminals to find guns, but they do not keep criminals from getting them. Cocaine and heroin are completely illegal -- no one in the country can legally sell the stuff in ordinary commerce; and yet people get it. But still, groups like the Brady Campaign continue to push for laws to make it illegal for everyone but government law enforcement officers to have guns. Off hand, the only states I can think of where only the government and criminals have guns are police states. And I think that is what we will get if gun control laws become too pervasive.

In my studies of history, I have noticed that once a government knows that its People can't shoot back at it, it tends to stop listening to them. Don't let that happen to us, and especially don't let the gun control fanatics use the deaths of children to so that to us. The interests of dead children will not be served by taking away their parents' ability to defend themselves.

Perhaps the strangest thing of all of this is that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Laws restricting it should be unconstitutional, yet we have them.

* * *

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
--Thomas Jefferson(11)

______________________________

(1) Susan Jones. "Gun Control Group Urges Americans to 'Ask More Questions,'" Cybercast News Service, 2006 October 03, paras. 2-4, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200610/CUL20061003a.html.
(2) Associated Press. "P.A. Gun Control Debate Heat Up After Shooting," CBS 3, Philadelphia, para. 5, http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_276120934.html.
(3) Dave Breitenstein. "2 bring BB, cap guns on school bus" The News Press, 2006 September 30, para. 4, http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060930/NEWS0104/609300498/1075
(4) Ibid. para. 8.
(5) "First-Grader Suspended Over Plastic Squirt Gun," KansasCityChannel.com News, KMBC-TV, 2006 September 19, paras. 3 & 5, http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/9887289/detail.html.
(6) Matt Pyeatt. "Cops and Robbers? Not On This Playground" Cybercast News Service, 2002 March 20, para. 1, http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200203/CUL20020320b.html.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid. para. 5.
(9) Jones. para. 10.
(10) Ibid. para. 1.
(11)Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Second Amendment 2nd Amendment School Shootings Congress Constitution Gun Free Schools Guns Gun Control Gun Control Laws Tyranny Police State Pennsylvania Colorado Wisconsin Amish Florida Lee County Missouri Kansas City New Jersey Cap Gun Cap Pistol Water Gun Water Pistol Simulated Weapon Cops and Robbers Brady Campaign Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Chinese Military Has Used Lasers to Attack US Spy Satellites

2006-10-01T10:32:00.000-04:00

Back in February, when the Islamic world was enraged over the Mohammed political cartoons, there was something else going on. You may not have noticed, but the Chinese were busy building a high frequency radar at the South Pole. There was some concern among analysts at the time that China could use that location as a base for anti-satellite lasers aimed at US satellites.(1)

Well, it turns out that it was a well-founded concern. Well founded because, not only has China "secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by 'blinding' their sensitive surveillance devices," but they have had this capability for awhile now.(2) "According to senior American officials: 'China not only has the capability, but has exercised it.' American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack 'several times' in recent years."(3)

I have said it before and I'll say it again -- China is not our friend. Our government knows this, and yet bends over backwards trying to keep this information from We the People. The Bush Administration made the decision to keep the attacks secret "for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran."(4)

I'm sorry, Mr. Bush, but ignoring a larger threat while expending our resources fighting smaller threats is not acceptable. And to all the naysayers out there, China is a threat. In addition to their military activities, they are also engaged in very aggressive spying against the United States. "China is engaged in a large-scale espionage effort against American high-tech firms working on projects such as the multibillion-[dollar] DD(X) destroyer programme."(5) Our eagerness to trade with them, especially high-technology, will hurt us in the long run. Unfortunately, the President Bush will likely continue to let China's misbehavior go unpunished, all in the name of profit:

Peter Morici, a former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission, said that President Bush is reluctant to hurt large companies such as General Electric, Caterpillar and General Motors, which are making large profits in China.(6)

I feel sorry for those companies, and for the workers, but doing business with the totalitarian, imperialist People's Republic of China has certain risks associated with it. If these companies were unaware of the risks, then they were negligent, perhaps criminally so. There are other countries like India that they can do business with. You know... countries that don't want to go around conquering people?

If the Bush Administration really cared about the U.S. economy, he would back the FairTax Bill.(7) If the FairTax passed, the United States would literally become the largest tax haven in the history of the world. We couldn't keep businesses away from our shores. In that kind of environment, we would not be economically beholden to China, which, in my opinion, is preferable to the current status quo.

______________________________

(1) The Sovereign Editor. "China Poised to Kill US Spy Satellites?" Sovereign Commentary, 2006 February 02, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/02/china-poised-to-kill-us-spy-satellites.html.
(2) Francis Harris. "Beijing secretly fires lasers to disable US satellites," Telegraph, 2006 September 26, para. 1, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/26/wchina226.xml.
(3) Ibid. para. 6.
(4) Ibid. para. 2.
(5) Ibid. para 13.
(6) James Rosen. "Senators may force vote on trade sanctions on China," The Herald (Rock Hill, SC), 2006 September 27, para. 13, http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/7190.html.
(7) See: H.R. 25; S. 25; and the Americans for Fair Taxation (the FairTax) Web Site, http://www.fairtax.org/.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics China Laser People's Republic of China PRC Chinese Agression Imperialism Espionage Chinese Espionage Bush The FairTax Fair Tax

Homeland Security Agents Obstruct School Bus Loading Zone, Attack Jacksonville, Fla. Teacher's Assistant

2006-09-15T20:23:00.000-04:00

It was a typical school day at Englewood Elementary in Jacksonville, Florida. The children were loading the buses, and everything seemed to be a normal. But it was not. This day, there was "a late model car obstructing the school bus loading zone."(1) Now I'm not exactly sure of the exact circumstances in this case, but the Florida Statutes state that other than in exceptional circumstances, "no person shall [s]tand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers [i]n front of a public or private driveway."(2) There may be also more specific laws governing school zones, but the general statute is enough for anyone to assume that the late model car in question was illegally parked.

Leander Pickett, a teacher's assistant, was directing bus traffic that afternoon.(3) When Mr. Pickett noticed the car parked in the bus loading zone, he correctly assumed that the car had no permission to be there and that it was part of his job to ask it to leave. And that's exactly what Mr. Pickett did:

"I walked up to him and said, 'Sir, you need to move.' That's when he said 'I'm a police officer. I'm with Homeland Security ... I'll move it when I want to.' That's when he started grabbing me on my arm," Pickett said.(4)

After Mr. Pickett asked the as yet unidentified agents -- employees of Michael Chertoff(5) -- to leave, they threw him "face-down onto the hood of the car, handcuffed [him], and held [him] for more than a half-hour."(6)

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the officers had pulled into the school driveway (obstructing it in violation of the Florida Statutes) "to look at a map."(7) And as for the unidentified officers' treatment of Mr. Pickett, DHS asserts that he "was antagonizing" them.(8)

That is an awfully bold statement for Michael Chertoff to authorize DHS to make. Especially given the fact that the eyewitnesses to the event can corroborate Mr. Pickett's version of events:

"Mr. Pickett asked the guy blocking the bus loading zone to move, and the guy told him he would move his car when he got ready to move it," said Englewood coach Alton Jackson.

"At that point I intervened and I went up to the gentleman and said, 'Mr. Pickett is an employee here,' and they said that didn't matter," said Englewood media specialist, Terri Dreisonstok.

"'We're with Homeland Security,' and on and on they went, and pretty soon, before you know it, he's handcuffed and slammed against a car," [Principal] Brinson said.(9)

By the time Englewood Principal Gail Brinson arrived on the scene, Mr. Pickett was already in handcuffs and being yelled at by the DHS agents.(10) When she asked what Mr. Pickett had done to deserve the treatment the DHS agents were giving him, one of them claimed that "he had been 'abusive, aggressive, and belligerent,' but wouldn't say what else he had done to deserve being handcuffed. They just insisted over and over that it was 'Homeland Security business.'"(11)

Principal Brinson then did what any responsible citizen should do when confronted by law enforcement officers. She asked for their "names and badge numbers, but the agents refused to provide them."(12) Not only did they refuse, but, according to the principal's statements, these DHS agents pronounced that they did not have to give her anything, and proclaimed that they were "bigger than the FBI."(13) After one half hour had elapsed, they finally released Mr. Pickett without charging him with anything.(14)

This whole situation does not seem right to me. Two DHS agents, who are employees of Michael Chertoff, and whose identities are ultimately being withheld by Michael Chertoff, parked their car illegally. When a proper authority asked them to move their car, they assaulted him, verbally abused him, and drove off after failing to comply with a lawful request that they identify themselves.

These men are clearly malefactors and need to be brought to trial under the laws of Florida on charges of assault and battery.

______________________________

(1) William Norman Grigg. "Abusing Homeland Authority (Excerpt)," The New American, 2006 May 15, para. 2, http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3789.shtml
(2) Florida Statutes 316.1945 (1)(b).
(3) News4Jax.com Staff Writers. "Local Teacher's Run-In With Homeland Security Creates Insecurities," News4Jax.com, 2006 April 05, paras. 2 & 6, http://www.news4jax.com/news/8490280/detail.html.
(4) News4Jax.com, para. 7.
(5) On February 15, 2005 Michael Chertoff was sworn in as the second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. (Web Site: Department of Homeland Security, DHS Organization, Leadership, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=11, last accessed on 2006 September 23.
(6) Grigg, para. 3.
(7) News4Jax.com, para. 9.
(8) Ibid. para. 10.
(9) Ibid. paras. 12-14.
(10) Grigg, paras. 6-7.
(11) Ibid. para. 7
(12) Ibid. para. 8.
(13) Ibid. para. 9.
(14) Ibid.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Corruption Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security DHS Chertoff Michael Chertoff Police State Tyranny Tyrants Abuse of Authority Englewood Elementary Jacksonville Florida Pickett Leander Pickett

Senate and President Bush Approve Controversial Cybercrimes Treaty

2006-09-03T14:12:00.000-04:00

This has me somewhat concerned... which seems to be a normal state of being for me of late. Last month, the Senate ratified the European Council's Convention on Cybercrime.(1) At first glance this is a good thing. Crime is bad, right? And we want to prevent it, right?

Disturbingly, there is no dual criminality requirement within the mutual assistance provisions of the treaty.(2) Obviously, this sort of treaty is nearly useless without a mutual assistance clause. However, this treaty obligates the federal government to investigate (or allow the investigation of) Unites States citizens whether or not what they are being investigated for constitutes a crime in these United States.

This is very, very bad. Governments have a tendency to criminalize behavior that causes no actual harm to persons or property. When our government does that, we have recourse in the courts, which can overturn an unconstitutional law (for example, one that places an unreasonable restraint on liberty). When such a law is forced upon us through an international treaty, it circumvents the Constitution. There is no recourse.

In my opinion, every Senator who approved this treaty should be voted out of office this fall (should they be up for re-election). Yes, cybercrime is a real issue of concern to Americans. But a blanket promise of mutual assistance strips us of the basic protections of the Constitution. All law in the United States must derive from the Constitution or it is invalid. More and more, our Supreme Court(3), our Congress, and our President seem eager to replace the Constitutional law-making process with International law. This needs to stop. Now.

______________________________
(1) Council of Europe, ETS No. 185, Convention on Cybercrime, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm.
(2) McCullagh, Declan; and Broache, Anne. "Senate ratifies controversial cybercrime treaty," CNET News.com, 2006 August 4, para. 8, http://news.com.com/Senate+ratifies+controversial+cybercrime+treaty/2100-7348_3-6102354.html.
(3) The Sovereign Editor. "United States Supreme Court Bases Opinion on International Law, Violates Tenth Amendment," Sovereign Commentary, 2005 March 04, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2005/03/united-states-supreme-court-bases.html.

Are You Ready for the Death of the Penny?

2006-08-20T13:08:00.000-04:00

If you have been paying attention to the news(1) (or even if you haven't, which I have not), you may have noticed references to a bill in Congress which, while not expressly terminating the penny, phases it out by implication.(2) The "Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation (or COIN) Act," among other things, requires that monetary transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents.(3) The most likely cause of this attempt to eliminate the penny is that the coin "now costs 1.4 cents to make, according to the United States Mint."(4)

I, for one, am uncomfortable with the idea that the penny should be eliminated. The reasons for the drive to kill the penny stem directly from the Bush Administration's Weak-Dollar Policy.(5) The dollar has lost so much purchasing power that 1/100 of one is not even worth the metal it's stamped on. The powers that be seem to think that the appropriate solution is to eliminate the cost-ineffective unit of currency. This solution is not a good one. Making the penny disappear isn't going to solve the underlying problem -- that Americans are losing purchasing power. Instead of eliminating the penny, the value of the dollar should be addressed.

Consider that in 1956, what you could buy for $1.00 would cost $7.44 in 2006.(6) That means that we have lost quite a bit of purchasing power over the last 50 years. If 1956 America existed today as a separate country, our dollar would compare to theirs only a little better than the Mexican peso compares to ours. This is not good. If you think that there is some benefit to a weaker dollar, consider that the dollar has devalued since even last year. Compared to last year, it now takes $1.04 to buy a good that would have cost $1.00.(7) When was the last time you had a raise? Was it enough to offset the $110.60 extra you now pay on assorted goods and services that would only have cost you $3000 last year?(8). Maybe it was. It wouldn't take more than 4 cents for every dollar you make to keep up. What about the money in your bank account? What kind of interest does your bank offer? Is it enough to keep up? Here's a hint: using our last example, your interest on a $3,000 savings account would have had to yield $110.60 in 2005 in order to keep up with the devaluation of the dollar. And that's only to break even in 2006.

The bottom line is that eliminating the penny does not solve the underlying problem of currency devaluation. In fact, the proposal distracts from the problem by leading people to believe that the only problem associated with a falling dollar is the now too-expensive-to-produce penny. Maybe we can "solve" the expensive penny problem like we solve all our other problems -- out source its production to another country where we can get slave-labor prices.

______________________________
(1) Reuters Staff Writers. "Nickel for your thoughts? Bill seeks penny's end," Reuters, 2006 August 21, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID=
2006-07-21T064539Z_01_N17321144_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-PENNY.xml.
(2) H.R. 5818, 109th Cong. § 3 (2006).
(3) Ibid.
(4) Reuters Staff Writers, para. 3.
(5) BBC Staff Writers. "Weak US dollar weighs on markets," BBC News, Business, 2006 May 15, para. 9, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4771495.stm.
(6) Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Consumer Price Index Calculator, http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Economy Congress Penny H.R. 5818 COIN Act

Happy Independence Day

2006-07-04T02:59:00.000-04:00

Last year, I published a selection of quotations from our founding fathers. I have listed some more for this year. For the Fourth of July, I want you to consider what we are celebrating. Is the government we currently have following the spirit that we celebrate on that day? Is society operating as a freedom-loving society should? Meditate on the following quotations. Ask yourself if today's America, and if today's major political parties measure up to the spirit of these great American Revolutionaries.

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, July 21, 1816

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."
--James Madison

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
--James Madison

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
--James Madison

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
--James Madison

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."
--James Madison

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
--James Madison

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."
--James Madison

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."
--James Madison

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
--Samuel Adams

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can"
--Samuel Adams

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks."
--Samuel Adams

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
--Samuel Adams

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."
--George Washington

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
--George Washington

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
--George Washington

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
--George Washington

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."
--George Washington

"The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."
--George Washington

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington

"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
--George Washington

"When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen."
--George Washington

There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.
--Benjamin Franklin

There never was a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous.
--Benjamin Franklin

Mexico's New Deal a Bad Idea, Presidential Candidate López Obrador Shuns Comparison With Chavez

2006-06-24T14:04:00.000-04:00

Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador's "economics team has developed a blueprint for what they call the 'Mexican New Deal.' Their modern version of Depression-era populism is an ambitious program to create millions of jobs and stem migration by undertaking huge public works projects, including a railroad network, vast housing developments, ports and timber replanting."(1) His main opponent, Felipe Calderón "and other critics say [López] Obrador's promised social programs would push Mexico into an economic crisis, and in a series of attack ads, compared him to Venezuelan President Hugo [Chávez], an authoritarian socialist. But [López] Obrador says the comparison is ridiculous." [emphasis added](2)

I tend to agree with Calderón. Governments do not create anything. They are parasitic by nature. The more government programs there are, the higher the taxes need to be to fund such programs. Higher taxes hurt the People. A better plan would be to enact laws to make corrupt practices by government officials a felony punishable by significant prison time, and laws protecting the right of the People to be free from exploitive working conditions. Also, they should end all business subsidies, and raise tariffs on foreign imports to compensate (subsidies and import duties have the same operative effect, but the latter does not put the burden on a country's People).

I am in favor of a strong Mexico. One that can compete economically with the United States. This would actually reverse the illegal immigration trend, I think. It would also benefit the United States in that we would be encouraged to work harder and be more innovative in order to compete. However, socialism is not the way to accomplish a Mexican economic rise.

Take note of López Obrador's reaction to being compared to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. It will be interesting to note if he actually becomes a close ally of Venezuela after he is elected. If he does, it would be proof of his disingenuousness. By his own statement, he is so different from Hugo Chavez that any comparison would be laughable. Presumably, he would not make such a statement if he approved of Hugo Chávez (or if he thought the Mexican voters approved). I wonder if we can assume from this statement that he will not, as Chávez did, stage a military coup, nationalize private industry, support leftist rebels in other countries, claim territories in other countries, or cozy up to Fidel Castro?(3) I would think that, making such a statement, we could reasonably assume that he does not approve of such things and would not do them himself. However, it is a statement made during a political campaign. I just want to draw people's attention to this statement, in case he should significantly contradict it in the future.

______________________________
(1) Roig-Franzia, Manuel. "Using FDR as Model, Presidential Hopeful Out to Build New Deal for Mexico," The Washington Post 2006 June 23, Page A18, para. 2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201550.html
(2) Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico hopeful takes hard line vs. NAFTA" (AP), Business Week, 2006 June 17, para. 13, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8IAAL3G1.htm?sub=apn_news_down&chan=db.
(3) BBC Staff Writers. "Profile: Hugo Chavez," BBC News, World, Americas, 2002 December 05, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm.

* * *
Special thanks to the Gun Toting Liberal for drawing my attention to the Washington Post story.

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Mexico Hugo Chavez Lopez Obrador Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador

Does President Bush Believe in Private Property Rights? Maybe

2006-06-24T03:55:00.000-04:00

In a stroke of stunningly good, and surprising news, President Bush has signed an Executive Order aimed at strengthening the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property. Maybe Bush got the memo that Conservatives did not like the Kelo eminent domain ruling in the least. And given our displeasure at his very non-conservative policies regarding illegal immigration in an election year, he decided he'd better actually do something conservative for a change so as not to further alienate the Republican base (which is mostly Conservative).

Bush tried earlier this year to gain Conservative support with the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That was never going to pass, and even if it was, it is a non-issue when you have illegal immigration and forcible property seizures to worry about. It was a waste of political energy and should never have been tried. I have no idea if it affected Bush's poll numbers.

This eminent domain EO may actually boost his numbers, but it too may be just window dressing. The order does allow (in Section 3(c)) the conveying of the property to a "nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right." [emphasis mine] Now that might mean nothing, but it does give non-governmental entities a foot through the door as potential beneficaries of eminent domain. At least Bush understands that we want our government to protect our property, not steal it and that we get extremely upset whan it doesn't.

I have included the text of the Executive Order:

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.

* * *
Technorati Tags:
News Politics Law Property Rights Eminent Domain Kelo

Does NAFTA Contribute to Illegal Immigration?

2006-06-24T03:35:00.000-04:00

The North American Free Trade Agreement just might be a contributing factor to increased illegal immigration from Mexico. This is because the agreement seems to favor the United States, to Mexico's detriment. By the terms of the agreement, both Mexico and the United States have to remove tariff's on each other's agricultural exports by 2008.(1) Apparently, the agreement doen not consider subsidies, which is odd, considering that subsidies have the same aggregate effect as tariffs. "Mexican farmers say hefty agricultural subsidies in the United States give American white corn and beans an unfair advantage over the Mexican market, which depends in large part on small-scale and mostly subsistence farmers. As Mexico's staple crops, corn and beans also carry immense symbolic importance."(2) For this reason, the "[l]eftist presidential candidate [Andrés Manuel López Obrador]. . . opposed eliminating tariffs on U.S. white corn and beans, showing no allegiance to a deal he sees as harmful to Mexican farmers."(3)

Well, I oppose leftists in principle, but I don't exactly have warm feelings toward NAFTA. Treaties like that tend to delegate the Commerce powers of the United States Congress to the Executive branch and, more disturbingly, to international bodies. It states clearly in the Constitution that "Congress shall have Power. . .To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."(4) I am extremely uncomfortable with such delegation of power, especially where it transfers our authority to regulate public policy to a body that is not subject to the United States Constitution.

______________________________
(1) Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico hopeful takes hard line vs. NAFTA" (AP), Business Week, 2006 June 17, para. 2, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8IAAL3G1.htm?sub=apn_news_down&chan=db.
(2) Ibid. para. 5.
(3) Ibid. paras. 1 & 2.
(4) U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

* * *
Technorati Tags: News Politics Law United States Constitution Mexico NAFTA Illegal Immigration Lopez Obrador Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador

Man on Death Row For Defending Home, Infant Daughter Against Home Invaders

2006-06-22T13:11:00.000-04:00

In the middle of the night, one Cory Maye was the victim of a home invasion. He is now on death row for defending himself and his infant daughter.

[He] awoke to a furious pounding on his front door. According to his court testimony, he became frightened for his safety, and for the safety of his daughter. He ran back to the bedroom, where his daughter was asleep on the bed. He retrieved the gun he had for home protection, loaded it, chambered a round, and lay down on the floor next to her, hoping the noises and/or intruders outside would subside.

They didn't. Soon enough, Maye says, the door to Maye's bedroom flew open, and a figure entered from the outside. Scared, Maye fired his gun three times.

The figure was police officer Ron Jones, and one of Maye's bullets struck Jones in the abdomen, killing him. Worse for Maye, Jones also happened to be the son of the town's police chief.(1)

The police claimed "they repeatedly announced they were police, and asked Maye to open up."(2) They also say that "Cory Maye knew that Ron Jones was a police officer when he shot him."(3)

I remember reading that Maye surrendered after they announced they were police. I cannot find an authoritative source for this. Obviously, Maye did surrender since he is alive (until the state kills him, that is). Why would he surrender if he didn't know they were police? Armed men violently invading his apartment are not the sort he'd want to surrender to. If Maye knew they were police, why would he wait until after he had killed one of them to surrender? It doesn't make sense.

______________________________
(1) Balko, Radley. "Railroaded Onto Death Row?" Fox News, 2006 February 15, paragraphs 4-6, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html
(2) Ibid. at paragraph 7.
(3) Ibid.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Police Cory Maye Maye Jones Ron Jones Storm Troopers Police State Tyranny Tyrants

Closer to a Police State: Supreme Court Says Police Can Burst Into Your Home Without Warning

2006-06-16T05:41:00.000-04:00

In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that police need not "properly announce their arrival" so long as they have a warrant.(1) This ruling is extremely dangerous because it puts homeowners at a disadvantage. When someone violently bursts into your home without warning, if your first impulse isn't to shoot them, then you probably shouldn't have children. In the past, this wasn't a problem because the good guys aren't allowed to just burst into your home, are they? It seems that they are now.

Now, when someone invades your home, you legally should hold your fire, because it might be the police. This comes at a time when "MS-13 [a notorious Central American criminal organization] -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known. . for home invasion robberies. . . [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(2)

Personally, I think we should start passing state laws requiring police to announce their presence when entering a private residence.

______________________________
(1) Holland, Gina. "Supreme Court upholds unannounced police entry" (AP), The Boston Globe, News, Nation, Washington, 2006 June 16, paragraph 2, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/16/supreme_court_upholds_unannounced_police_entry/ (last accessed on 2006 June 16)
(2) Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm (last accessed on 2006 March 27)

Subject matter: Constitution Law Police State Supreme Court

Technorati Tags: News Politics Law Supreme Court Crime Constitution Police Search and Seizure Police State Police Home Invasion MS-13 Mara Salvatrucha

United States Senate Bill Funds Defense of Mexico's Southern Border

2006-06-16T04:09:00.000-04:00

The Mexican government may be receiving help from the United States with the defense of their southern border. Senate Bill S. 2611, which I have also seen referred to as the "Hagel-Martinez" bill, provides for "improving the security of Mexico's southern border".

I find this odd considering that the Federal Government can't seem to find the time of the money to defend the U.S./Mexico border. Upon closer inspection, the bill, if agreed to by the House and the President, will actually be providing direct funding to Guatemala and Belize in order to strengthen the borders between Mexico and Guatemala and between Mexico and Belize. This provision can be found in S. 2611, Title I, Subtitle B, Section 114. I have included the text below:

SEC. 114. IMPROVING THE SECURITY OF MEXICO'S SOUTHERN BORDER.

(a) Technical Assistance- The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary, shall work to cooperate with the head of Foreign Affairs Canada and the appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico to establish a program--

(1) to assess the specific needs of Guatemala and Belize in maintaining the security of the international borders of such countries;

(2) to use the assessment made under paragraph (1) to determine the financial and technical support needed by Guatemala and Belize from Canada, Mexico, and the United States to meet such needs;

(3) to provide technical assistance to Guatemala and Belize to promote issuance of secure passports and travel documents by such countries; and

(4) to encourage Guatemala and Belize--

(A) to control alien smuggling and trafficking;

(B) to prevent the use and manufacture of fraudulent travel documents; and

(C) to share relevant information with Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

(b) Border Security for Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall work to cooperate--

(1) with the appropriate officials of the Government of Guatemala and the Government of Belize to provide law enforcement assistance to Guatemala and Belize that specifically addresses immigration issues to increase the ability of the Government of Guatemala to dismantle human smuggling organizations and gain additional control over the international border between Guatemala and Belize; and

(2) with the appropriate officials of the Government of Belize, the Government of Guatemala, the Government of Mexico, and the governments of neighboring contiguous countries to establish a program to provide needed equipment, technical assistance, and vehicles to manage, regulate, and patrol the international borders between Mexico and Guatemala and between Mexico and Belize.

(c) Tracking Central American Gangs- The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall work to cooperate with the appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico, the Government of Guatemala, the Government of Belize, and the governments of other Central American countries--

(1) to assess the direct and indirect impact on the United States and Central America of deporting violent criminal aliens;

(2) to establish a program and database to track individuals involved in Central American gang activities;

(3) to develop a mechanism that is acceptable to the governments of Belize, Guatemala, Mexico, the United States, and other appropriate countries to notify such a government if an individual suspected of gang activity will be deported to that country prior to the deportation and to provide support for the reintegration of such deportees into that country; and

(4) to develop an agreement to share all relevant information related to individuals connected with Central American gangs.

(d) Limitations on Assistance- Any funds made available to carry out this section shall be subject to the limitations contained in section 551 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-102; 119 Stat. 2218).(1) [emphasis added]

The vote occured on May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM. Here are how the senators voted (I suggest that we ask those voting "yea" why they thought providing border security aid to Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize was a good idea):

YEAs ---62	NAYs ---36	Not Voting - 2
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brownback (R-KS) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)	Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Nelson (D-NE) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)	Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO)

Vote Result: Bill Passed.(2)

______________________________
(1) S. 2611, 109th Cong. § 114 (2006).
(2) U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Cong. -- 2nd Sess. On Passage of the Bill (S. 2611 As Amended), May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157.

* * *
Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Mexico Illegal Immigration Congress Senate Immigration Bill Hagel-Martinez Bill Hagel Martinez Senate Bill S. 2611 S. 2611

Americans Have Had Enough -- Concerned Citizens Drain Desert Water Tanks Intended For Illegal Immigrants

2006-06-15T15:05:00.000-04:00

Judging by their own actions, a group of people called "Humane Borders" sees fit to leave clearly marked water tanks for the express purpose of making it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the desert.(1) They make the claim that "border crossers are innocent, crossing in search of a better life."(2) Humane Borders' claim is unsupported and, in any case, is not true. Some border-crossers may be only crossing to work, but they still know that they are breaking the law. Let that sink in: they know they are breaking the law. What does that make them? Lawbreakers. In his own words, illegal immigrant Laureano Miranda "We've heard that there are soldiers and armed 'migrant hunters,' but we have to try," he said. "If we don't make it [across the U.S. border] in three tries, then we'll go back home."(3)

In addition to these allegedly peaceful lawbreakers, it is known that violent criminals also cross the border illegally. An immigration activist "says Humane Borders is helping illegal immigrants, some he calls criminals, cross the border safely. These are robbers, rapists, murders. [Setting up water stations] is simply aiding and abetting criminal activity"(4) This immigration activist's statement is correct. You may recall some of my earlier research:

One thing that annoys me is that the sheer scale of the crime associated with illegal immigration is simply ignored in most of the major coverage. "While the news reporters talked about illegal workers who perform jobs Americans refuse to perform, they continue to avoid mentioning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who prey on men, women and children -- US citizens. It is these innocent Americans who are murdered, raped and robbed because of an insane immigration policy. Criminal aliens are entering the US in the tens of thousands and remaining here as they join violent gangs such as MS-13, or they choose to commit their mayhem solo."

And for those of you who say that it is unfair to associate the violent beasts comprising MS-13 with "honest" hard-working illegal immigrants, consider the following: "The violent MS-13 -- or Mara Salvatrucha -- street gang is following the migratory routes of illegal aliens across the country, FBI officials say, calling the Salvadoran gang the new American mafia." For those of you who are unaware of this group of two-legged beasts, "MS-13 -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. . . [and even] could be far more dangerous than thought [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(5)

The fact is that the American People don't want illegal immigrants here. We have laws to keep them out. We get annoyed when the laws aren't enforced. We have reached the end of our rope. We are sick of our government doing nothing. People go out and put water stations up to help illegal aliens cross. This has to stop. The people from Humane Borders say that each week, they find "at least one or more of their 70 water tanks vandalized, an act these volunteers say can kill. If they're planning on getting their water at that location and they get there and there's no water, then the next time they could get water could be not before they die,"(6)

I would like to turn this insane idea on its head. If illegal immigrants are counting on those water stations, it is because the people who wish to aid and abet their unlawful behavior put them there. There are always illegal immigrants who will cross the border. The only ones who will die specifically because the water stations are removed are those who decided to cross or decided not to carry enough water specifically because they knew of the water stations. So, it could be said that Humane Borders is causing the deaths of illegal immigrants who were relying on their water stations because, if not for them, they would not have chosen to cross in the way that they did.
______________________________

(1) Lyon, Amber. "Vandals drain desert water tanks intended for illegal immigrants," KVOA News 4, Tuscon, Arizona, 2006 June 14, http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5030576. (last accessed 2006 June 14)
(2) Ibid. At paragraph 15.
(3) Rodriguez, Olga R. "Troops Reducing Illegal Border Crossings" (AP), The Houston Chronocle, World News, 2006 June 12, paragraph 24, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3963542.html.
(4) Lyon at paragraphs 13-14.
(5) The Sovereign Editor, "The Mexican/Latino Invasion Finally Reaches the Front Pages," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 March 28, paragraphs 6-7, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/03/mexicanlatino-invasion-finally-reaches.html, citing: Kouri, Jim. "The Illegal Immigration Reform Scam," Men's News Daily, 2006 March 27, http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/03/27/the-illegal-immigration-reform-scam/; Ward, Jon. "Gang follows illegal aliens," The Washington Times, Metropolitan, 2005 May 05, http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050504-115113-3615r.htm; and Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm
(6) Lyon at paragraphs 9-10.

Technorati Tags: News Politics News and Politics Mexico Illegal Immigration Migrants Crime MS-13 Mara Salvatrucha Humane Borders

Illegals Not Doing Only "Jobs Americans Aren't" -- Ultimate Goal Seems to be Dissolution of U.S. Borders

2006-06-11T06:19:00.000-04:00

President Bush is still perpetuating the myth that illegal immigrants are only working "on the jobs Americans aren't doing."(1) It might be partially true, but anyone who says that Americans are not being economically hurt by this tidal wave of illegal immigrants are selling you a bill of goods.

If you don't believe me, talk to Mr. Vaughn of Los Angeles, who's sons "have been turned down [in favor of Spanish-speaking immigrants] so many times for jobs - as framers, roofers, cement layers - that they no longer apply."(2) In other words, there are Americans who want jobs that are going to aliens (illegal or otherwise). I don't necessarily want to sound clannish (though there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself) but Americans shouldn't have to compete with foreigners of similar qualification for jobs in their own country. Otherwise, what on earth is the point of even having national borders?

Maybe this sort of passive effect on Americans can be successfully discredited by the political class. They can say that if Americans were better suited to the work, it would be they who were hired, and not illegal (or legal) aliens. And who's to say that the politicians would be wrong if they did make such an argument?

However, the presence of Spanish-speaking workers in this country is hurting Americans and Americans are seeing jobs being taken directly from them and given to Mexican workers:

An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less. . . [W]orkers . . . described as U.S. citizens . . . had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up. (3)

We have Americans being sent home because Mexican workers arrived at a job site and a President who continues to assert that illegal aliens are "coming here to do work Americans aren't doing."(4) Something is not right here. Of course, the thing that is not right, is that the current president, despite anything he might say, is reported to be actively working toward the dissolution of our borders. In 2005, something called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP was agreed to by "President Bush, President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during their March 2005 summit meeting in Waco, Texas."(5) This agreement is intended to "create a North American Union along the model of the European Union, put in place by administrative regulations and departmental working groups under the SPP umbrella."(6)

In my humble opinion, any such agreement is in complete violation of the Constutition of these United States. And the existence of the agreement serves to support the hypothesis I've entertained that this government ignores illegal immigration because they seek to destroy our sovereignty. We the People need to become educated on this issue and inform our so-called representatives that we will not stand for the subjugation of our Constitution to Byzantine international agreements.

Our great-grandparents would not recognize this as America. It is true that we have a great tradition of immigration, but we also have a tradition of regulating such immigration in the interests of the American People. Our current so-called "representative" government is totally out of control and does not seem to act in the interests of We the People. This was not so in the past:

[T]he Anglo-Japanese Alliance was . . . renewed in 1911 . . . with the addition of a clause relieving England from the necessity of going to war with the United States even if Japan and the United States became involved in hostilities. This provision was made on account of the uneasiness arising in both Japan and in the United States over the excessive immigration into California of Japanese laborers, who worked for such low wages as to endanger the livelihood of American laborers. These troubles were smoothed by the gentlemen's agreement, in which Japan agreed to regulate the number of emigrants to California. [emphasis added](7)

As you can see, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States government was responsive to the needs of Americans as opposed to the needs of foreigners; else Japan would not have feared a war. Contrast that with the present day. Mexico does not fear war with the United States. They have absolutely no incentive to stop sending us their poorest citizens because our government seems incapable of holding them responsible. In fact, our government seems unwilling to hold anyone responsible -- even those who are actually breaking our immigration laws. This has to stop. We the People have to stand up and tell our Representatives that we will not stand for them selling out our country. We have a right to our borders and to our language. We have a right to our constitution. We did not empower them to change our homeland into part of a larger multi cultural economic zone. We empowered them to govern us as a Constitutional Republic. Those in our government who refuse to protect the Republic and the People deserve at the very least to be removed from office.
______________________________
(1) Stout, David. "Bush Takes Immigration Law Campaign to New Mexico," New York Times, U.S., 2006 June 06, paragraph 10, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/us/06cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1149652800&en=3ce3013416ea46f6&ei=5094&partner=homepage.
(2) Wood, Daniel. "Rising black-Latino clash on jobs," The Christian Science Monitor, USA, Society & Culture, 2006 may 25, paragraph 3, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/p01s03-ussc.html.
(3) Seper, Jerry. "Arrival of aliens ousts U.S. workers," The Washington Times, Nation/Politics, 2006 April 10, paragraphs 1 & 2, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060410-123506-1297r.htm.
(4) Stout at paragraph 16.
(5) Corsi, Jerome. "Southern border blurs for global trade," World Net Daily, 2006 June 01, paragraph 12, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50451.
(6) Ibid.
(7) McDannald, A.H., ed. Hayward's Key to Knowledge, Volume I: "The Story of the Nations." Chicago: Americana Corporation, 1931, page 293.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics Mexico Illegal Immigration President George W. Bush George W. Bush President Bush Bush Migrants Japan Japanese Immigration Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America SPP Jobs Americans Aren't Doing History

Vicente Fox Wants Orderly System to Move Mexicans into U.S.

2006-05-24T19:30:00.000-04:00

I have no idea why this man thinks his statements can have any weight in persuading us to enact an immigration reform law that conforms to the desires of the Mexican political elite. In a recent speech, Mexican President Vicente Fox said the following:

Building a wall on the border is not the answer to illegal immigration into the United States. . . "Since the beginning of my administration, the government of Mexico has promoted the establishment of a new system that regulates the movement of people across our border in a manner which is legal, safe and orderly."(1)

As I pointed out in an earlier article, The Mexican government has no business telling us how to treat immigrants. They do horrible things to their own illegal immigrants and their legal ones don't fare too much better, in my opinion.(2) Vicente Fox needs to get his own house in order before he starts coming over and telling us how to run ours. Oh, and by the way, exporting Mexico's problems to the U.S. is not an acceptable way to get your house in order, Mr. Fox, and I'll kindly thank you to stop this instant.

If one wants to know Mr. Fox's true motive behind his stance on immigration, consider that "[m]oney sent back by Mexican workers in the US is one of the principal sources of revenue for the Mexican economy."(3)

______________________________

(1) Vergakis, Brock. "Fox Says Immigration Challenges Friendship" (AP), The Washington Post, Politics, Special Reports, The Immigration Debate, 2006 May 24, paragraphs 1 & 2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052400388.html (last accessed 2006 24 May).
(2) See: Realm of Sovereigns. "The Mexican State is Hypocritical -- Ignore Them," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 May 22, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/05/mexican-state-is-hypocritical-ignore.html (last accessed 2006 24 May).
(3) BBC Staff Writers. "Mexico president in US for talks," BBC News, Americas, 2006 May 24, paragraph 21, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5010824.stm (last accessed 2006 24 May).

Don't Forget About the Rising Dragon of China

2006-05-23T18:55:00.000-04:00

I actually have the sources to write a more informative article on this topic, but I am short of time, so I'll just draw your attention to the BBC article:

China's is rapidly extending its military reach and could pose a threat across Asia, a Pentagon report warns.

It says Beijing has retained its focus on Taiwan -- but increased spending on aircraft, ships and missiles means it could project power further afield.(1)

Keep in mind that the so-called "People's Republic" of China has never for once respected the self-evident rights to life, liberty, and the opportunity to acquire and retain property. We ought not be trading with them. It is our buying of Chinese goods that is allowing them to build up their military might, which they have promised to use in the conquest of Taiwan, a sovereign and free state.

______________________________

(1) BBC Staff Writers. "US warns against Chinese build-up," BBC News, Asia/Pacific, 2006 May 23, paragraphs 1 & 2, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5010632.stm (last accessed 2006 May 23)

The Mexican State is Hypocritical -- Ignore Them

2006-05-22T11:01:00.000-04:00

The people running the Mexican government are hypocrites They insist that illegal immigrants from Mexico be accorded the same treatment as United States nationals, and even threaten to sue if American civilians "break the law" while attempting to discourage Mexicans from coming across the border without permission.(1) Mexican President Vicente Fox has even stated that it is his intention to use international law and United States law to ensure that American civilian organizations dedicated to stopping illegal immigration "will not have any opportunity to progress."(2) Additionally, the Mexican government actually published a 36 page, comic-book-style "Guide for the Mexican Migrant."(3) "Using color drawings and simple text, the booklets warn migrants of the dangers of crossing in desert and mountain areas. They include basic dos and don'ts, such as adding salt to water to avoid dehydration and never to resist arrest or carry drugs."(4)

From all of this, the a neutral observer might get the impression that the Mexican government is trying to encourage illegal immigration to the United States. And that being the case, why should we let anything the Mexican government says have an impact on our policy decisions where immigration is concerned? Mexicans wax philosophical about human rights where illegal Mexican immigrants are concerned, but don't think for a minute that anything they say on this issue reflects what they really think about human rights and illegal immigration. They just take that position in relation to the United States to solve some political , economic, or social problem in their own country (if they gained from keeping people from leaving their country illegally, the principle of rational self interest dictates that they would do so).

At this point, I think I should reiterate something about how Americans feel about immigration. No one should confuse our desire that that illegal immigration be stopped, and that immigrants speak English and learn our customs with xenophobia, racism, or anti-immigration feelings in general. Contrary to popular belief (at least a belief held by pro-illegal immigration factions in the press, academia, the government, and the international community), we actually like immigrants. Immigrants can achieve great things in these United States -- even become the governor of a state. We do, however, have certain rules that immigrants must follow to enter this country and become citizens. And We the People get very annoyed when these rules aren't followed. Honestly, how would you feel if some foreigners moved into your house, told you that they had a right to be there, and also expected you to learn their language in order to make their life easier. That is exactly how we feel when millions of Spanish-speakers come to the United States, form Spanish-speaking communities, generally refuse to assimilate, and then demand that our government provide services in their language.(5) Don't confuse our natural repugnance at this extremely rude behavior with some sort of xenophobia, because it is nothing of the kind. If an Irishman was squatting on your lawn and wouldn't leave, and the government wouldn't do anything about it (except denounce you as a vigilante if you tried to do anything), your natural anger at the Irishman for his behavior and at the government for aiding and abetting that behavior does not mean you hate, or fear the Irish.

If you want to see what xenophobia and hatred of immigrants looks like, turn your attention to Mexico. The Associated Press has run a story about exactly how the Mexican government treats immigrants to that country -- and it isn't pretty, even if one is a legal immigrant:

In Mexico, nonnatives are banned from thousands of jobs.

They can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for natives.

Since at least 2003, the Mexican government has encouraged cities to ban nonnatives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.(6)

And that's how the legal ones are treated. An illegal immigrant to Mexico can forget about being treated as a human being:

Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain of "double dangers" of extortion by Mexican authorities and robbery and killings by organized gangs.

The State Department's Human Rights Practices report, released only last month, cites abuses at all levels of the Mexican government, and charges that Mexican police and immigration officials not only violate the rights of illegal immigrants, but traffic in illegal aliens.(7)

I think that Mexico should be silent on our treatment of illegal aliens. The People of these United States want them detained and then deported to their country of origin. Mexico treats them as feral livestock. Anyone who gives credence to Mexico's demands regarding our immigration policy isn't paying attention. Any United States Senator or Representative who listens to Mexico should promptly be booted from office. We need to take special note of which Congress-critters are Mexican lackeys and remind everyone of it next time they come up for re-election.

______________________________

(1) Seper, Jerry. "Mexico accused of abusing its illegals," The Washington Times, 2005 March 24, paragraphs 4 & 6, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050324-121935-8473r.htm (last accessed 2006 May 22).
(2) Ibid at paragraph 8.
(3) see: Iliff, Laurence "Mexico offers tips for crossing border in comic book" (The Dallas Morning News), The Seattle Times, Nation & World, 2005 January 07, paragraph 1http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002143941_comic07.html (last accessed 2006 May 22).
(4) Ibid. at paragraph 7.
(5) see Business Week Staff Writers. "Hispanic Nation," Business Week, Cover Story, 2004 March 15, paragraphs 10, 15, 20-22, & 28, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_11/b3874001_mz001.htm (last accessed 2006 May 22).
(6) Stevenson, Mark. "Mexico is Tight on Nonnatives: Many political offices, jobs restricted," Detroit Free Press, Nation/World, 2006 May 22, paragraphs 5-6, http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060522/NEWS07/605220340/1009 (last accessed 2006 May 22).
(7) Seper at paragraphs 2-3.

Congress Finally Listens to the People -- English to Become Official Language

2006-05-19T02:22:00.000-04:00

I honestly didn't believe that the Senate had it in them. Typically, our Congress-critters are of a spineless variety that shy away from taking any sort of definitive action on any proposal aimed at protecting the borders, language, and culture of these United States. That's why I was thrilled to hear that "the Senate Thursday voted to make English the national language of the United States."(1) Additionally, "[a]lthough the immigration bill passed by the House last year doesn't have a similar provision, there is a separate "official English" bill in the House with strong support."(2) So it looks like that English, after many, many years of a multicultural onslaught, will be the official language of these United States.

If both Houses of Congress are successful in making this into a law, it will have the effect of finally killing the anti-American Executive Order 13166, issued in 2000 by one William Jefferson Clinton. In a nutshell, that executive order was issued to ensure that We the People pay to accommodate people who come here to live (and use government services) in their native language.(3)

I am absolutely fed up with this idea that American language and culture has no value. The people who live in the United States happen to speak English. Newcomers ought, according to the conventions governing such situations, learn that language. It is impolite not to. I, for example, would not dream of living in Japan without learning Japanese. In the case of the Spanish-speaking immigrants, what is their incentive to learn English if they come here in such great numbers that they can establish numerous non-English speaking communities across the nation, can get Spanish radio broadcasts, television programming, and even government services in Spanish? None. And the truth is, I don't care about Spanish radio and television. I don't pay for that. I do pay for the government to provide services in their language; and that must stop, now.

And it looks like it will stop. Because I am not the only one who is sick and tired of our government allowing such institutional assaults on American language and culture. Apparently, so many of us are so fed up with Spanish-speakers colonizing our country and not assimilating that Senators universally recognize that "it would be 'political suicide' to appear to not support English-language dominance in the United States."(4) It is exceedingly good that enough of us are outraged enough to scare Congress into passing a law like this. If we allow solely Spanish-speaking communities to persist, we will become a bi-lingual society.(5) A bi-lingual society (with a few rare exceptions like Switzerland) is naturally balkanized, and a balkanized society is easier for an entrenched political class to control because the People can be turned against themselves more easily. A People that speak one language can organize and unite against government oppression -- and this is a political tradition I hope we can preserve in this country.

As a final note, I would like to address something before it gets out of hand. There is the perception "that attacking immigrants for speaking Spanish is veiled racism. "(6) It is nothing of the kind. Racism is literally the belief that one race is superior to, and should rule another. Wanting someone to speak your language so that they may be integrated into your society is not racism. Anyone who says otherwise should have their motives examined. My motive in supporting English-only is very straightforward. I would like the United States remain one nation.

At what point did nationalism become something to be condemned? Or, to put it another way, why are illegal immigrants who refuse to assimilate into American culture allowed to display their own nationalism without criticism? And why is it perceived as somehow wrong for Americans to react to that by displaying their own nationalism? Maybe this backwards way the media has of looking at things will change soon. The People have been heard by Congress. Maybe the mainstream media will finally wake up and realize that Americans are sick and tired of being treated as quaint or insular when they express any nationalist sentiments. If the mainstream media doesn't stop treating the academic view that Americans need to embrace every culture but their own (and, in fact, that it is somehow wrong to want to embrace American culture) as a centrist view, and the desire to defend American cultural heritage from attempts to radically change it as fringe, they will become irrelevant to We the People. We are sick and tired of being told that it is wrong to want a strong, English-speaking, self-sufficient America. To those of you who actively work toward a weak, multi-lingual, internationally dependent America, your day is over. We the People are waking up, and woe unto you if you continue to stand in our way.

______________________________
(1) James, Frank. "Senate votes to make English the national language of the U.S." (Chicago Tribune) The Mercury News, Politics & Government, 2006 May 18, paragraph 1, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14614255.htm.
(2) Ibid. at paragraph 9.
(3) United States Department of Justice. "Overview of Executive Order 13166," Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm
(4) James at paragraph 28.
(5) see: Bernstein, Robert. "Hispanic Population Passes 40 Million, Census Bureau Reports," U.S. Census Bureau News, 2005 June 9, paragraphs 1 & 2, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/005164.html"The nation's Hispanic population reached 41.3 million as of July 1, 2004, according to national estimates by race, Hispanic origin and age released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanics, who may be of any race, accounted for about one-half of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2004. The Hispanic growth rate of 3.6 percent over the 12-month period was more than three times that of the total population (1.0 percent)." And these are the legal settlers. For your information, as of May 2006, the Census Bureau puts the total population at 298,773,587 (U.S. Census Bureau. "U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks," http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html).
(6) Hoffman, Nathaniel. "English angst aggravates immigration debate," Costa Contra Times, paragraph 9, http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/14613612.htm.

More on the Unprovoked Killing of Dr. Culosi by Virginia Police

2006-05-16T18:04:00.000-04:00

It has been some several weeks since I first talked about the shooting death of Dr. Salvatore Culosi by Deval V. Bullock.(1) In that time, my outrage has not diminished. At least once a week, I mention the incident to someone new, and in all cases it is the first time they have heard of it. I would really like to know why a clear act of aggression by the State against a citizen isn't the topic of constant national debate. Isn't that why the first amendment exists? So we can publish our grievances (actual or potential) against the State? In any event, I have come across some new information about this case. It turns out that the investigating officer, Fairfax police detective David J. Baucom, age 35, is also culpable in the shooting death of Dr. Culosi.

I don't know what the impetus was for Mr. Baucom to begin investigating Dr. Culosi, but the fact is that the amount of money wagered among the optometrist and his friends was far below the minimum amount under which someone could be charged under Virginia law with "conducting an illegal gambling operation."(2) Mr. Baucom had to infiltrate Dr. Culosi's group of friends and work on the optometrist for at least three months before he finally agreed to a wager involving $2000, which the smallest amount the state could charge him for.(3) And so it happened that "[o]n January 24 of this year, Detective Baucom assembled the Fairfax County SWAT team, and marched off to Culosi's home to arrest him."(4) What happened next is telling.

According to press accounts, police affidavits, and the resulting investigation by the Fairfax prosecutor's office, Baucom called Culosi that evening, and told him he'd be by to collect his winnings. With the SWAT team at the ready just behind him, Baucom waited outside Culosi's home in an SUV. . .Culosi emerged from the doorway, clad only in a t-shirt and jeans.(6)

Keep in mind that Mr. Baucom had "befriended" Dr. Culosi (and by "befriend", I really mean "lied to him about his actual purpose for approaching him so he could get the optometrist to do something that the detective could arrest him for). He had befriended him, and had gotten to know him over a period of several months. In other words, Mr. Baucom was in a position to know exactly what sort of person Dr. Culosi was. Yet, when it was time to make the arrest, he felt so threatened by Dr. Culosi that he "gave the sign for two SWAT officers to move in."(6) Mr. Baucom apparently thought that the t-shirt clad, unarmed man was such a grave threat that the SWAT team should be deployed. In any case, what happened next is already a matter of public record. SWAT officer Deval V. Bullock drew his .45-caliber H&K handgun, pointed it at Dr. Culosi, shouted "police" and then proceeded to shoot and kill him.(7) Typically, the language used to describe what happened is intended to divorce Mr. Bullock from the actual shooting.

For example, Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. likes to say that "[i]n the course of bringing his weapon up, it discharged. [Mr. Bullock] has no real explanation how."(8) Mr. Horan, and anyone who has any idea how guns work, should know exactly how the handgun discharged. Guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects cannot perform actions. A discharge is an action. Guns, therefore cannot discharge. The actor who discharged the handgun was Deval V. Bullock. The handgun was in his charge. He was responsible for keeping it, maintaining it, and using it. According to Mr. Horan, Mr. Bullock's "gun was tested and was not at fault."(9) This means that the handgun was, in a mechanical sense, working exactly as it was supposed to. Mr. Bullock actually had to point the weapon at Dr. Culosi and pull the trigger in order to shoot and kill him. This is exactly what happened. That he is not being charged is monstrous.

But this vile situation doesn't end with the shooting death of Dr. Culosi. Mr. Baucom has continued an aggressive -- and perhaps malicious -- investigation into the optometrist's gambling practices, "to the point of calling friends and acquaintances he'd gathered from the dead man's cell phone."(10) The detective even called Dr. Culosi's brother-in-law, Steve Gulley, and asked, using deliberately accusatory phrasing, "How much are you into Sal for?"(11) Mr. Gulley got the impression that "police were 'trying to intimidate people' who may assist Culosi's family in a civil suit against the county."(12) This is also the impression held by Ben DiMuro, the Culosi family's attorney.(13)

The most recent news to come out of all of this is good, though:

FBI investigators have opened a preliminary investigation into the case. So far, they have collected the case's file from the county police department and have spoken with key officials.
A full FBI investigation may be forthcoming, though it hinges on advice from Justice Department legal counsel.(14)

Now, I do not necessarily agree with the idea that the FBI should have jurisdiction over an action that took place within a state and with no interstate elements, but in this case, there is a clear instance of a man being killed by state authorities, and no redress being granted by that state. Here, FBI intervention could serve a beneficial end. And it would be nice to see them going after someone for an actual harm they committed against another.

Something needs to be done about this. The police need to learn that they cannot go around shooting people. A possible way that ordinary Americans can show their outrage is through police benevolence associations. When receiving a call asking for money, concerned Americans can ask whether any of the money they donate could ever go to the families of David J. Baucom or Deval V. Bullock of Fairfax County, Virginia. If the answer is yes, a refusal to donate accompanied with an explanation detailing the egregious actions of these two officers and the fact that the police in general seem to support them ought to shine some light on the situation. If the actions of a few cops start to really hurt all of them, they may start to police themselves. But as long as We the People keep letting the police act with impunity, they will continue to do just that.

______________________________
(1) see: The Sovereign Editor. "Paramilitary style police squad shoots unarmed optometrist," Sovereign Commentary, 2006 March 24, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2006/03/paramilitary-style-police-squad-shoots.html.
(2) Balko, Radley. "In Virginia, the Death Penalty for Gambling", CATO Institute, Publications, 2006 May 02, paragraphs 4 & 7,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6374.
(3) Ibid. at paragraphs 6 & 7.
(4) Ibid. at paragraph 7.
(5) Ibid. at paragraph 8.
(6) Jackman, Tom. "No Charges in Shooting of Unarmed Man", The Washington Post, Metro, Crime, Page B05, 2006 March 24, paragraph 10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301820.html.
(7) Ibid. at paragraphs 4, 11, & 12.
(8) Ibid. at paragraph 11.
(9) Ibid. at paragraph 14.
(10) Balko at paragraph 12.
(11) Jackman, Tom. "No Charges in Shooting of Unarmed Man", The Washington Post, Metro, Crime, Page B01, 2006 April 14, paragraph 13, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041302046.html.
(12) Ibid. at paragraph 15.
(13) McNeill, Brian. "FBI Might Investigate Culosi Shooting", The Connection Newspapers, 2006 April 20, paragraph 8, http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=64615&paper=0&cat=109.
(14) Ibid. at paragraph 3.

* * *
Subject Matter: Police State Tyranny

Technorati Tags: News Crime Police Police State Culosi Sal Culosi Salvatore Culosi Horan Robert Horan Robert F. Horan Bullock Deval Bullock Deval V. Bullock Baucom David Baucom David J. Baucom Fairfax County Virginia Fairfax County Police Department FCPD Paramilitary Police Raids Paramilitary Police Raids Paramilitary Tactics Paramilitary Police Tactics Storm Troopers

Immigration Reform Proposal

2006-04-30T19:13:00.000-04:00

Due to overwhelming factors in my life (mainly stemming from not having had a day off of work all month), I have not been blogging as much or reading as much news as I ought. That being said, I want to address the immigration reform bills being considered in Congress. The House passed a bill that would make the act of being in this country without authorization a felony. The Senate wants to drop the criminal sanctions component and grant some sort of amnesty, and provide a mechanism where immigrants can register with the federal government.

Critics of the Senate plan have pointed out that there is nothing to encourage illegal immigrants to do anything different under their plan. Might I suggest a compromise: All immigrants who are in this country illegally must report themselves to the appropriate government agency -- failure to do so will constitute a felony. At that point, all people with jobs will be allowed to stay for at least two more years, or even indefinitely if they are fluent and literate in English. Those who do not have jobs will be deported. This bill should also require a border fence. That might just pass the Senate. I think I will write my Senators tomorrow.

Happy Easter

2006-04-16T09:38:00.000-04:00

Sorry I haven't been posting on this site lately. It's been a really busy month... and I had no idea it'd gone by so fast. I promise you that I have some really good material coming up... I just need to find time to organize it.

Does anyone else find it wrong that taxes should be collected around Easter? Of course, Jesus himself said that we should pay our taxes:

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.(1)

On the other hand, God only ever required a tithe (or 1/10) to be given by the People.(2) Which begs the question, does the Federal Government think it is more worthy than God? We pay a lot more than 1/10.

I, of course, think that this should be even more of an encouragement for we the People to push the FairTax.(3) Of course, at 23%, this tax is still more than God would ask. But it's a start.

______________________________
(1) The Bible, Matt. 22:17-21.
(2) see The Bible, Lev. 27:30
(3) see the Web Site of Americans for Fair Taxation, http://fairtax.org.

China Has History of Ignoring Treaties -- Beijing Agents Blackmail Japanese Diplomat

2006-04-01T10:05:00.000-05:00

In addition to not respecting basic human rights(1), the People's Republic of China (PRC) also seems to have a problem with following the treaties they enter into.(2) According to the facts, as uncovered by Japanese authorities, the PRC has violated the Vienna Convention governing the treatment of diplomats.(2) Specifically, "[o]ne of the convention's clauses says: 'The receiving state shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.'"(3) Chinese intelligence officers were actively blackmailing a Japanese diplomat, and that eventually led to his suicide in 2004.(4)

And this is only one of such treaty violations. "During [violent protests in April of 2005], the Chinese police did not take measures to prevent the demonstrators carrying out such acts, in an abandonment of the country's duty to protect diplomatic establishments, as stipulated in the Vienna Convention."(5) The government of the PRC does not stop at just omission or covert blackmail when it comes to violating the convention; they are not shy about brazenly entering a consulate with armed forces in broad daylight. "In May 2002, Chinese armed police officers entered the Japanese Consulate General in Shenygang, China, to seize North Korean asylum seekers, in violation of diplomatic immunity at foreign establishment. The Chinese government has never apologized for the incident, and no settlement has been made between the two governments over the matter." (6) And why shouldn't they do this? The United States government keeps giving them what they want. What is their incentive to change their behavior?
______________________________
(1) See: Ho, Stephanie. "Zhao Ziyang Described as Reluctant Reformist Warrior," Voice of America, 2005 January 19, paragraphs 11 & 12, http://128.11.143.114/english/archive/2005-01/
2005-01-19-voa4.cfm?CFID=6610905&CFTOKEN=95051560 (last accessed 2006 April 01) [The PRC maintains that the military crackdown on the "counter-revolutionary rebellion" at Tiananmen Square was the correct policy]; Sky Staff Reporters. "Six Die In Rural Protest," Sky News, 2005 June 17, http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13371337,00.html (last accessed 2006 April 01) [The PRC used armed enforcers to forcibly remove unarmed peasant farmers from their own land, 6 were murdered and 50 were injured in this fashion]; and Taylor, John. "Panchen Lama remembered," ABC Radio National: Correspondents Report (Australia), 2005 May 22, http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1373897.htm (last accessed 2006 April 01) [In 1995, PRC authorities kidnapped a six-year-old "boy endorsed by the Dalai Lama as the re-incarnation of Tibet's second highest spiritual leader, the Panchen Lama." Neither he, nor his family have been seen since; "[h]e's been called the youngest political prisoner in the world]."
(2) Yomiuri Staff Writers, "China threatened diplomat / Envoy's notes suggest Chinese agents pushed him to suicide," Yomiuri Shimbun, 2006 April 01, http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20060401TDY03003.htm (last accessed 2006 April 01).
(3) Ibid. at paragraph 5.
(4) Ibid. at paragraphs 6-8, & 12.
(5) Ibid. at paragraphs 16-18.
(6) Ibid. at paragraph 21.

More on the Immigration Situation: A Little About the Protest Supporters

2006-03-28T13:19:00.000-05:00

Gateway Pundit reports that "[t]he Mexican Government is running full page ads on US immigration policy in at least three major US newspapers this week."(1) In short, the government of Mexico is demanding a voice in how the government of the People of these United States decides immigration policy.

Gateway Pundit, in another article, also shed some light on Enrique Morones, organizer of the massive immigrant protests this past week across the country . . . [who] is a member of the radical Buenas Noches Border control group."(2) This group encourages violence against American citizens who volunteer to watch the border for illegal crossings. Among their goals is the dissolution of the Southern border altogether.

My own research also turned up some information that might interest you. "Faced with immigration legislation that could criminalize undocumented workers and those who help them -- including union organizers -- and deny workers permanent residence in the U.S., the nation's two labor federations and their allies have launched mass protests and lobbying for positive immigration reform. Demonstrations began March 10 with a 400,000-person march in Chicago's Loop. And the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, La Raza Unida, LULAC, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and others will build up to a mass march in D.C. during a "National Day of Action" on April 10, leaders told a D.C. press conference on March 22." [emphasis added](3) Please note the involvement of La Raza Unida. This is a reputedly radical political movement founded by Jose Angel Gutierrez(4), who is a professor at the University of Texas in Arlington, who is noteworthy for making the statement, "We have an aging white America. . . . They are dying. . . . They are [in] fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, WE HAVE GOT TO KILL HIM."(5)

Make of that what you will. I'm sure it doesn't reflect the views of all Latinos, but La Raza Unida's involvement, given this statement by its founder, should put these protests under new scrutiny.

______________________________
(1) Gateway Pundit. "Mexico's Controversial Immigration Ads Hit US Newspapers," Gateway Pundit, 2006 March 27, http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/mexicos-controversial-immigration-ads.html (last accessed 2006 March 28).
(2) Ibid. "Immigrant Protest Organizer Morones Gets Wacky on O'Reilly," http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/immigrant-protest-organizer-morones.html (last accessed 2006 March 28).
(3) Gruenberg, Mark, "United Federations, Allies Launch Mass Protests on Immigration" (PAI)International Labor Communications Association, http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=
article&sid=2868&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 (last accessed 2006 March 27).
(4) "A Brief History of La Raza Unida," Partido Nacional de la Raza Unida Website, http://members.tripod.com/~larazaunida/hist.htm (last accessed 2006 March 28).
(5) Blackhorse. "JOSE ANGEL GUTIERREZ - LEADER OF AZTLAN/COLLEGE PROF," LibertyPost.org, 2005 March 21, Immigration/US Borders, http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=88928 (citing: Gutierrez, Jose Angel. "AZTLAN members speechesUniv.Calif.- Rive," Calif. Coalition for Immigration Reform (Prop.187 co-author), 2005 March 20, http://www.ccir.net) (last accessed 2006 March 28) [Does anyone have a full, published, transcript of these speeches? --RoS]

The Mexican/Latino Invasion Finally Reaches the Front Pages

2006-03-28T05:15:00.000-05:00

You've seen it all over the news over the last weekend -- literal armies of people in the streets, protesting. What are they protesting? They are protesting the enforcement of certain laws of these United States. "More than 500,000 people rallied in Los Angeles on Saturday, demanding that Congress abandon the House-passed measures that would make being an undocumented immigrant a felony and would erect a 700-mile fence along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border."(1) If you do not believe that such measures might be necessary, you might consider that "[t]he Pew Hispanic Centre estimates that there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants, and that nearly four fifths are from Mexico or other Latin American countries."(2) Illegal is the key word here. For some reason, our government absolutely refuses to adequately enforce our immigration laws where illegal Latin American immigrants are concerned. In response to major unrest among native Americans over illegal immigration, the House finally passed a bill that, in addition to what was mentioned above, "would . . . impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants [and] demand that churches check the legal status of those they help."(3) And why shouldn't penalties and other requirements apply to people who help lawbreakers? Isn't it normal to hold accomplices accountable for the crimes of people they knowingly help?

In response to the passage of this bill by the House (which is finally listening to the People), illegal immigrant supporters took to the street and "waved the national flags of Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala. Some held up signs that said "HR 4437" with a red slash through the center."(4) If I may be so bold, this is not the behavior of people who want to be a part of the People of these United States. Nor do they seem to want to be part of the People. Instead of protesting in the language of the realm, they chant, "'Si se puede' in Spanish, which means, 'Yes we can.'"(5) Yes you can, what? Break our laws? Invade our land? Refuse to speak our language? You protesters obviously don't think that the law should apply to you.

There are some realistic arguments against a law forcing the government to deport all the illegals currently here. For example, "the immigration reform bill would make the 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants felons. Sending them back to their native lands could be a huge blow to the economy."(6) The Bush Administration possibly has seen this potential problem and this may be the reason for the president's persistence in pushing for a guest worker program.(7) On that note, I might be persuaded that a guest worker program is a good idea if it is set up to reward migrants who actually bother to learn English. And when it comes down to it, I only have two requirements for immigrants. First, I ask that they learn English. It's simply rude not to. I wouldn't go and live in their country and demand that they accommodate me in my own language; I would learn theirs. Second, I ask that they respect other's rights to life, liberty, and property. If those two requirements are met, come on in. I don't care. And I think the laws should be changed to make it easy for people fluent in English to become permanent residents (but not citizens -- that honor should be reserved for those who come here legally). Why not? If they can come here and find jobs, why shouldn't they? If they're coming and collecting welfare or receiving any other social services, send them back from whence they came -- such people demonstrate by their actions that they do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others. Please note that "[t]he proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households."(8)

As I write this, the "Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship, a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants. With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally. It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry."(9)

Alright, Senate... so you lack the backbone to actually enforce our existing immigration laws. I'm really only concerned about two things, as I said. English is a must. People who do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others should be immediately deported. I would urge the Senate to approve a measure that would allow local police to assess whether someone arrested is an illegal immigrant or not. And if they are, to have a mechanism by which they may be handed over to federal authorities for deportation. They also have to make sure that such malefactors are, in fact, deported. "In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings]."(10)

One thing that annoys me is that the sheer scale of the crime associated with illegal immigration is simply ignored in most of the major coverage. "While the news reporters talked about illegal workers who perform jobs Americans refuse to perform, they continue to avoid mentioning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who prey on men, women and children -- US citizens. It is these innocent Americans who are murdered, raped and robbed because of an insane immigration policy. Criminal aliens are entering the US in the tens of thousands and remaining here as they join violent gangs such as MS-13, or they choose to commit their mayhem solo."(11)

And for those of you who say that it is unfair to associate the violent beasts comprising MS-13 with "honest" hard-working illegal immigrants, consider the following: "The violent MS-13 -- or Mara Salvatrucha -- street gang is following the migratory routes of illegal aliens across the country, FBI officials say, calling the Salvadoran gang the new American mafia."(12) For those of you who are unaware of this group of two-legged beasts, "MS-13 -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. . . [and even] could be far more dangerous than thought [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(13)

The Senate needs to support the border fence. Whatever happens, that border needs to be sealed. Too much crime comes across it. "The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003 . . . the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: 'Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.' . . . [and one] in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."(14) Additionally, "heavily-armed Mexican trafficking gangs to smuggle people and drugs into America."(15)

If you think that what I just described is bad, it gets worse. There is a good case to be made that there is a full-scale Mexican invasion going on, and has been for years. The scale of these protests shows just how successful the invasion has been. One of the aims of these protests is to keep the U.S. government from attempting to stem the tide of the invasion. A lot of Americans sense this, and that is why the House felt such pressure to pass the bill they did. The Mexican government actively encourages illegal immigrations. You could say that illegal immigrants are their number one export. If you challenged a Mexican government official on this, they would deny it. Fortunately, actions speak louder than words. "[T]he Mexican government has published what could only be described as a how-to book on breaking into the United States.

The 'Guide for the Mexican Migrant' was created by Mexico's Foreign Ministry in a pocket sized comic book style and millions of copies were distributed. It describes ways for illegals to cross the border without being detected by Border Control and gives detailed information on their 'rights' should they be discovered by those charged with protecting America's borders."(16) In addition, the Mexican government has threatened to sue if U.S. citizens volunteer to monitor the border and assist the border patrol in identifying illegal border-crossers.(17) The Mexican president, Vicente Fox, was even prepared to deploy the Mexican army to defend illegal border crossers against any violent actions by American volunteers watching the Southern border.(18) If this isn't evidence of a Mexican-government sponsored invasion of the United States, I don't know what is.

Further evidence of hostile acts by Mexicans against the United States include actual military incursions into our territory. "According to [an] unnamed [Border Patrol] agent, the Tohono O'odham Police Department encountered the Mexican army unit . . . along the Santa Cruz trail inside the Papago Farms border patrol area, just south of Forest Road 21. The area is between five and 10 miles inside Arizona. . . [this was one] of a series of similar incidents along the U.S.-Mexican border -- from California to Texas. [U.S. Representative] Tancredo cites 23 such incursions [in 2001] alone. Several . . . occurred in [Spring of 2002].

The U.S. Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Tancredo during a phone conversation that one of his colleagues noticed a military helicopter flying overhead about five miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The chopper was heading south toward Mexico.

Shortly after, he came upon a Humvee, which not only began to approach him, but to fire upon his vehicle. According to the agent's testimony, the vehicle's rear window and back driver's-side windows were destroyed. Fortunately, the agent was able to flee the incursion unharmed. He concluded the conversation with Tancredo saying, 'As far as I am concerned, that [incursion] should be an act of war.'"(19)

As you can see, there are a lot of issues associated with illegal immigration that are not largely reported in the debate over the current legislation. In light of the Mexican government's behavior over the last few years, the waiving of Mexican flags by protestors becomes more ominous. The fact is that there is too much crime coming across the Southern border not to close it up. If the Senate refuses to do this at least, then they will have failed in their basic duty to act in the best interests of Americans. Let's give the illegals who have made an effort to assimilate permanent status if we must, but something about the violent crime coming across the border has to be done. I urge you to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel on this issue. Illegal immigrants should not determine our national policy. They don't vote. Nor should they.

______________________________
(1) Gamboa, Suzanne. "Senate Cuts Part of House Immigration Bill" (AP) Houston Chronicle, Political news, 2006 March 27, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3751057.html (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(2) Maddox, Bronwen. "US immigration is new mass movement," The Times, Americas, 2006 March 28, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2106321,00.html (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(3) Ibid.
(4) Warikoo, Niraj. "Latinos protest immigration bill in Detroit" The Detroit Free Press, 2006 March 27, http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060327/NEWS11/60327004 (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(5) Ibid.
(6) "Small Town on the Front Line of Immigration Wars," ABC News, 2006 March 27, http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1771523&page=1 (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(7) See: Yuhas, Steve. "Bush Failing the Southern Border," The Washington Dispatch, 2005 January 10, http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10648.shtml (last accessed 2006 March 27) "President Bush has declared his guest worker program a top goal of his administration in his second term"
(8) Limbacher, Carl; and the NewsMax.com Staff Writers. "Justice Dept. Figures on Incarcerated Illegals," NewsMax.com, 2006 March 27, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(9) Espo, David. "Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill" Associated Press, 2006 March 27, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IMMIGRATION?SITE=7219&SECTION=
HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-27-20-11-48 (last accessed 2006 March 28)
(10) Limbacher, 2006.
(11) Kouri, Jim. "The Illegal Immigration Reform Scam," Men's News Daily, 2006 March 27, http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/03/27/the-illegal-immigration-reform-scam/ (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(12) Ward, Jon. "Gang follows illegal aliens," The Washington Times, Metropolitan, 2005 May 05, http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050504-115113-3615r.htm (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(13) Johnson, Kevin. "MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says," USA Today, 2006 January 05, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(14) Limbacher, 2006.
(15) Sherwell, Philip. "Cowboys take up AK47s to combat drug runners on Mexican frontier," The Telegraph, 2005 November 20, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/wmex20.xml (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(16) Yuhas.
(17) Seper, Jerry. "Mexico accused of abusing its illegals," The Washington Times, 2005 March 24, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050324-121935-8473r.htm (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(18) Limbacher, Carl; and the NewsMax.com Staff Writers. "Mexican Military on Standby in Response to Minutemen," NewsMax.com, 2005 March 31, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/31/134212.shtml (last accessed 2006 March 27)
(19) "U.S. demands probe
of border 'act of war,'" WorldNetDaily.com, 2002 May 24, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27734 (last accessed 2006 March 27)

Repeat after me, American Education Establishment: READING, WRITING, ARITHMETIC. . .

2006-03-26T18:29:00.000-05:00

. . . Reading, writing, arithmetic; reading, writing, arithmetic...

Any school that sacrifices reading, writing, and arithmetic for social engineering-style education focused on self-esteem and diversity should have all of its tax funding immediately revoked.

Sure this is an extreme measure, but the problem has reached an advanced stage. According to a Seattle Times editorial, "[t]he U.S. now imports more high-tech products than it exports. The number of American 18- to 24-year-olds with science degrees has fallen to 17th in the world, plummeting from third three decades ago. Only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2003."(1)

Contrast this with China where there are "many new, well-equipped laboratories, often staffed by brilliant Chinese nationals who were trained in the U.S. or Europe and then recruited back to China. One highly touted research park near Beijing boasts 22 colleges and universities next door to Chinese branches of Fortune 500 companies."(2)

The writer states that where China's government can command its subjects to become scientifically literate, the United States must rely on the resolve of its citizens -- and that Americans are not sufficiently motivated at this time.(3) The writer further points out that "[t]he U.S. science push in the Sputnik era was driven by fear of military superiority by an enemy. Now, we're faced with a different but no-less-compelling threat: the possibility of economic decline for our children and grandchildren."(4)

I would like to respectfully disagree as to that last point. China is not perceived as a military threat because our government and out news media bend over backwards to keep China from being perceived as such, despite that nation's continuing policy of belligerence.(5)

The point is that our education system has degraded to such an extent that, had this been done to us by a foreign power, it would be tantamount to an act of war. The fact is that China is a bigger military threat than our politicians are willing to admit, and to continue to emphasize diversity and sensitivity training over reading, writing, and arithmetic education is a betrayal of their duty to act for the good of the People. I think that if the People, in general, were aware of the actual threat posed by China, we would see a drive to put America back on top; similar to the fervor spawned by Sputnik. The most maddening thing is that it's not hard to discern the hostile nature of the Chinese government. It's on public record. They tell us through their words and actions.(6)

______________________________
(1) Peters, Len. "Science literacy: The Chinese get it," The Seattle Times, 2006 March 26, Editorials/Opinion. Available online at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002887594_sundaypnnl26.html.
(2) ibid.
(3) ibid.
(4) ibid.
(5) see: Realm of Sovereigns. "Imperialist China Brazenly and Publicly Threatens to Employ its Military to Crush Taiwan," Sovereign Commentary, 2005 February 26, http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2005/02/imperialist-china-brazenly-and.html.
(6) see: Ibid.; and ibid. "Death of Purged Leader Prompts Fresh Calls for imperialist China to Democratize," http://sovrealm.blogspot.com/2005/02/death-of-purged-leader-prompts-fresh.html.

The Bush Administration is Blind to Security Threats Posed by China and Chinese Companies

2006-03-24T04:01:00.000-05:00

There was a waiver published in the Federal Register noting "that China will not be held responsible for its continued proliferation of weapons. These weapons include sales of advanced Chinese cruise missile and ballistic missile technology to the mullahs of Iran. The move by the Bush administration removes the required punishment against Beijing."

In other news, there are some "3,000 Chinese army companies operating inside the U.S. . . These Chinese army-owned firms engage in a wide range of criminal activities including espionage, theft, illegal exports, extortion, tax evasion, computer hacking and even violence. Many of the firms participate in illegal arms sales, and several have been caught trying to sell weapons to terrorists. . . according to federal law, the Bush administration should be publishing a list of the known [People's Liberation Army]-owned firms each year. Instead, just as the Clinton administration did before George Bush, the current White House ignores the law and refuses to release the list of known offenders."

"In addition, China has engaged in a financial war against America with its freely operating banking system that allowed North Korea to launder hundreds of millions of dollars in counterfeit currency. The effort to siphon fake $100 bills into America was led by the Bank of China (BOC), a financial entity controlled by the communist government. . . The Bush administration has pulled its punches on the Chinese banks and money laundering. The Bush administration applied tough sanctions against North Korea for printing fake $100 bills. However, no such sanctions have been applied to any Chinese financial institution or entity for fear of angering the boys in Beijing."

Finally, "the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate [Hutchison Whampoa] to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere. . . Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator . . . its billionaire chairman, Li Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years."

A bit of advice to our government in general and the Bush administration in particular: Chinese companies that have strong ties to the Chinese government are a security threat. Often, they are controlled by the Chinese military, which has the potential (as stated by the Chinese government) to be force hostile to Taiwan, Japan, and, by extension, the United States. Do not deal with China. How they treat their own people is an indicator of how they would treat us if they could. They think nothing of conquering Taiwan, an independent nation.

Our entire government has underestimated the credible threat posed by China for at least the last ten years. It is time we rectified this situation. I would like to suggest that the Bush administration officials who have been aiding and abetting the tyrants of Beijing be removed from office -- immediately.

Thanks to Charles R. Smith for drawing my attention to this.

An article on this topic can be found online at: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/22/202023.shtml

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5707111,00.html

I have written a lot about China. Here are a few stories from last year and the year before that should give you an idea of how bad China really is and why we shouldn't be dealing with them:

---------Japan takes over lighthouse on island claimed by the People's Republic of China: Revisionist History In Action?
---------Japan wary of emerging China
---------Tyrants of Beijing and their Apologists Continue to Blame Japan for Sino-Japanese Tensions: PRC has unhealthy fixation on Yasukuni Shrine
---------People's Republic of China has accelerated the deployment of missiles against Taiwan to 120 a year
---------China offended by Japan's plans to defend Japanese territory
---------International Press Attempts to Portray China's Stance on Taiwan as 'Softening'
---------Taiwan Urges U.S. to Speak Against China Law
---------TAIWAN URGES JAPAN TO PLAY LEADING ROLE TO ENSURE REGIONAL PEACE
---------China-Japan frictions moving to military field
---------China, Taiwan Bicker Over Invitation to Bush Inauguration
---------Death of Purged Leader Prompts Fresh Calls for imperialist China to Democratize
---------China, declares that Taiwan independence advocates pose "a realistic threat"
---------Japan, Taiwan, China: Beijing threatens retaliation over visit
---------Stopping Taiwan independence is the sacred duty of the Chinese military forces
---------Imperialist China Brazenly and Publicly Threatens to Employ its Military to Crush Taiwan
---------Taiwan Uneasy About China's Plans for 'Anti-Secession' Law

Paramilitary style police squad shoots and kills unarmed optometrist

2006-03-24T03:39:00.000-05:00

"Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force."

This man, who was non-violent, had been under investigation for illegal gambling. Is it appropriate to use such overwhelming force against a man engaged in behavior that is only really wrong because the government says so?

Do you have an office betting pool for the Superbowl? Did you know that it amounts to illegal gambling in many, if not most states?

Does the use of paramilitary police squads to apprehend people engaged in activity that hurts no one strike you as good or bad? Do you feel safer? Or in more danger?

Did you know that the number of federal laws carrying criminal penalties cannot be counted?

The gun-wielding thug who shot this doctor needs to be arrested, indicted by a grand jury, and tried -- at the very least -- for negligent homocide.

An article on this topic can be found online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4803570.stm

* * *

Update

The malefeasor who pointed his gun at, shot, and killed Dr. Culosi has been named.

The paramilitary enforcer is one Deval V. Bullock, who is 40 this year. According to the established facts, Mr. Bullock's .45-caliber H&K handgun was in proper working order and did not malfunction (meaning that the wielder of sidearm had to pull the trigger). Mr. Bullock drew his weapon, deliberately pointed it at Dr. Culosi, and fired.

The police are calling this matter a horrible accident. Okay, fine. A man is still dead. There was no perception that Dr. Culosi was armed or that any of the police officers were in clear and present danger of being harmed by the doctor. The fact is, Mr. Bullock pointed his gun at Dr. Culosi absent any reasonable suspicion of threat. Anyone familiar with the proper handling of firearms knows that you don't point one at another person unless you intend to shoot that person. If you or I had done the exact same thing, we would be criminally charged -- either with second-degree murder or manslaughter. I expect no less for the people who are lawfully permitted to use deadly force against us. The sauce for the goose rule should apply.

Yet, according to the county's chief prosecutor, Mr. Bullock will not be charged with a crime. "From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J. Culosi, 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, 'they do not commit a crime.'" Additionally, "Horan said he thought the use of SWAT teams by Fairfax police was appropriate."

So the county attorney, who is supposed to bring cases on behalf of the People, supports the using of paramilitary troops against the People. That could be an interesting little tidbit for when he's up for reelection.

The fact is, when you point a loaded gun at someone, you are, or ought to be aware, that you could kill them. This should go double for police officers. It's almost better to have criminals running around with guns -- at least you can shoot them in self defense. What can you do about cops? If you fight back, you are committing a crime, even if you are innocent. Mr. Horan, in what is possibly a rhetorical defense of the decision not to charge Mr. Bullock, states that "[t]his is a good police officer. Fine record, almost 17 years. He's as shattered by this as any good police officer should be."

In Mr. Bullock's position, I would feel the same way. But if I, in my civilian capacity, had done the exact same thing, Mr. Bullock would arrest me and charge me with a crime with no regard to how badly I might feel. Mr. Bullock needs to be charged as an ordinary citizen would. He needs to pay civil damages to the family (the people in the department authorizing this use of SWAT forces being helf jointly and severably liable). He also needs to be charged criminally and sent to prison if found guilty. We the People are not allowed to make mistakes like this and get away with it, neither should the Government or its agents. But this is just one man's opinion.

As an afterthought, I would advise all travellers to avoid Fairfax County, Virginia. Apparently, their police can shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

To the citizens of Fairfax County, you need to put pressure on your government to either fix this problem, or be tossed out of office.

The family of Dr. Culosi has set up a web site related to this matter:
http://www.justiceforsal.com

An article on this topic can be found online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301820.html

* * *

Subject Matter: Police State Tyranny

Technorati Tags: News Crime Police Police State Culosi Sal Culosi Salvatore Culosi Horan Robert Horan Robert F. Horan Bullock Deval Bullock Deval V. Bullock Fairfax County Virginia Fairfax County Police Department FCPD Paramilitary Police Raids Paramilitary Police Raids Paramilitary Tactics Paramilitary Police Tactics Storm Troopers

Slobodan Milosevic found lifeless in cell at United Nations detention unit

2006-03-11T08:37:00.000-05:00

"Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has died in the detention centre at The Hague tribunal.

The tribunal said he had been found dead in his cell on Saturday morning. The cause of death is not yet clear."

My stance on this will probably be very unpopular. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations against Mr. Milosevic, I disapprove in the absolute strongest terms of the proceedings against him because it sets a dangerous precedent. He should be tried by the People of former Yugoslavia or not at all.

This is an extremely complicated issue, and I am extremely busy with work this weekend. Expect a longer, in depth article within four days time. I need to do some research before I can clarify my position.

In the meantime, here is the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4796470.stm

* * *

Update

Well, I was going to do a sort of an in depth legal analysis, but working two jobs and running a (very) small business has left me with little time even to sleep. And there is so much more of import that you need to know about, I really can't devote any more than a philosophical analysis of the obvious features of the whole Serbia/Milosevic situation.

First of all, the NATO action against Milosevic (are US troops still stationed in former Yugoslavia due to our "humanitarian" intervention?). Was it justified? Is humanitarian intervention okay? Well, yes. If you witness an action that you know to be wrong, it is always okay to intervene if your aim is to improve the situation. An act by you in this way is a form of charity. Charity is always moral. The trouble is that the government is not you. I'm sorry, but the armed forces of these United States exist to protect Americans. Absent a real security threat to Americans (who pay for the armed forces), any use of the United States military amounts to a misappropriation (theft) of money from the People of the United States. Charitable actions cannot, by definition, be taken by a government. Governments compel people by, ultimately, the threat of death to give up money to the agents of said governments. The definition of charity is to give freely of one's own money or time; you cannot be charitable if you are giving freely of someone else's money. Since a government's money comes from the People, charity by government is impossible. What the government is doing is taking money form one group of people and using it to benefit an entirely unrelated group of people. This is not charity, it is theft. Humanitarian intervention amounts to theft if it is done by a government.

[Note: The Iraq war, under this view, is immoral if it is fought under humanitarian reasons. However, since the American People looked the other way while their government aided Saddam Hussein, it can be argued that the People are morally obligated to fix the problem.]

Second, the whole Milosevic trial. Is it a good idea? Ignore the fact that he was a socialist with tyrannical tendencies. Were his actions different from that of other world leaders in similar situations? UN troops are accused of sexually abusing locals in areas in which they are stationed. Are the UN leaders accused of ordering such behavior? While it would be nice to have a world body in which to try evil people (Castro, for example), is such an institution really a good idea? The very notion violates the sovereignty of nations. Remember, if we can arrest and try bad people, we can do it to good people too. Bad and good are, for some incomprehensible reason, subjective. Are we, as Americans, prepared to have our citizens tried by foreign powers for actions which, taken in context, would be justified and perfectly in line with their responsibilities? This is a very bad idea. In my opinion, Milosevic's trial is a violation of Serbia's sovereignty. There is no evidence that Serbia could be considered a pirate state. Milosevic's actions could be seen as a normal response by a leader to a perceived security threat. My point is that I am just plain uncomfortable with the precedent that the whole Kosovo/Serbia/Milosevic situation sets in the areas of humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty.

That's all I have to say on this subject for now, but I will be happy to answer any specific questions that people have.

New Attack on First Amendment -- New Jersey Law Makers Opposed to Internet Privacy

2006-03-08T23:25:00.000-05:00

Have you ever heard of Peter J. Biondi? I hadn't until just the other day. Apparently, this man, in an act that has earned him an article on Wikipedia, has decided that anonymous commenting on the internet is a bad thing. He has sponsored a bill in the New Jersey legislature that would "require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website."

I have no idea what the effect of this law would be outside of New Jersey, but I cannot imagine this being binding on any ISP or internet user outside the state. I am concerned that some Big Brother type in the U.S. Congress might think that this is a good idea.

I am opposed to any limitation on the freedom of speech. And yes, this is a limitation. Sure, making one identify one's self does not directly limit what one is officially allowed to say, but it does have a chilling effect. If someone very powerful were doing something wrong, do you think you would be more or less willing to be critical of them if they could easily find out who you were? You would probably be less willing. I think that the strength of discourse on the internet comes from anonymity. All of us are free to deal with each other as personalities, not as legal, real-world identities. As such, on the internet, we are much freer to advocate for unpopular positions than we might be in the real world where our relationships with our families, churches, and employers could be adversely affected by such advocacy. Anonymity on the internet provides, I think, the purest, truest, intellectual discourse. This law seeks to destroy that. The people of New Jersey should oppose this bill and kick Mr. Biondi out of office for daring to infringe upon their liberty.

An article on this topic can be found online at: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/2006030616160937

The text of this bill can be found online at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM

R.I.P. Harry Browne

2006-03-03T01:20:00.000-05:00

FRANKLIN, Tenn., March 2 (UPI) -- Harry Browne, a two-time Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. president, has died at the age of 72.

In rememberence of Mr. Browne, here are some of his more thought-provoking quotes.

"Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free."

"The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice."

"You are where you are today because you have chosen to be there."

"When you know that you're capable of dealing with whatever comes, you have the only security the world has to offer."

"Everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his act are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it."

"You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad -- in fact, to do anything it wants."

"When the government tries to stop someone from ruining his life with drugs, it converts a personal tragedy into a national disaster."

Who is Giving Money to Our Presidents?

2006-03-02T13:00:00.000-05:00

"A sheik from the United Arab Emirates [which owns Dubai Port Co.] contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station. . .

The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father. . .

The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans -- such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay -- and big Republican donors.

Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library."

This information does not indicate any corruption on its face, but it does raise the question of influence. How much influence do such donations give the donors over members of the Bush family? Maybe none. . . but are you going to risk not looking into it? I wouldn't.

Story online at: http://www.freenewmexican.com/story_print.php?storyid=40017

Murder for Hire

2006-02-19T10:56:00.000-05:00

Last week, Maulana Yousef Qureshi went on public record stating that he was offering a large sum of money to anyone who would murder the cartoonists who portrayed Mohammed in a satirical manner. This is a crime. It's called murder for hire. Arrest warrants should immediately be sworn out against him in Denmark and any other country that has a reciprocal law-enforcement arrangement with Denmark (not that this thug strikes me as the type who would leave his country, but it's a start).

If a religion is trying to portray itself as a religion of peace, its leaders should be speaking out against violence, not funding it. In my opinion, criticism of institutional Islam has not been at nearly the level it needs to be in the wake of this incident. If you disagree, just imagine how the world media would react if the Pope offered a large sum of money to have Terrence McNally killed (his play, Corpus Christi, depicts Jesus as being a homosexual). Interestingly, an "Islamic group based in the UK has issued a death fatwa against [Terrence McNally]. . . Muslims regard Jesus as a messenger of God . . . [and] the fatwa is to express the Islamic point of view that [to insult] the messengers of God . . . is a crime."

Muslim cleric offered $1M bounty on Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of Mohammad... during Friday prayers

2006-02-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

Modern Tribalist reports that A Pakistani Muslim cleric and his followers offered rewards amounting to over $1 million (575,000 pounds) for anyone who [murdered] Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that have enraged Muslims worldwide.

The cleric offered the bounty during Friday prayers as Muslim anger against the cartoons flared anew in parts of Asia.

That's nice. Way to show that you're the religion of peace.

To American Muslims:

I don't know how you want me to take this -- because I haven't heard much from you. I would like to think that you're more like me than like the radicals. You probably have a couple of kids whom you hope do well in school, whom you might take to soccer practice so they can beat the kids on the other team, and whom you might wish would attend religious services more regularly. April is coming up and you are probably thinking very unfriendly thoughts toward the IRS -- which is natural because they are doing something to you. You are probably hoping that you will be able to stay on schedule with your payments into your IRA so you will have plenty of money when you retire so you can spoil your grandkids. You probably only think of the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is, and Hindus you know as just being other people (unless they're mean) and don't much care how they worship as long as they don't try to force you to convert.

That is how I would like to think of American Muslims. It is very difficult, however, when all I see in the media are violent hordes of foreign Muslims calling for the murder of all non-Muslims.

Now, you might ask, how can a Christian criticize a Muslim for calling for the murder of a cartoonist when our very own Pat Robertson recently called for the killing of the socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Well the difference is, Pat Robertson apologized.

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement," Robertson said. "I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."

It is easy to get a Christian minister to retract such statements because Jesus Christ never, ever called for violence against another, no matter what their religion or nationality was, and no matter what they were doing to you. Where is the similar aspect of the teachings of Mohammed, who is known to have taken up the sword to expand Islamic influence?

Violent Muslims Hurl Petrol Bombs at British Embassy

2006-02-14T21:20:00.000-05:00

Scores of Iranian demonstrators hurled petrol bombs at the British embassy on Tuesday in renewed protests over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad and Western opposition to Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The protesters, mostly religious seminary students, chanted "Death to Tony Blair", "Death to Britain" and Death to America" while throwing hundreds of stones at the embassy buildings, smashing many windows.

This is interesting behavior from the so-called "religion of peace" considering that the U.K. and the U.S. have spoken out against publication of those cartoons.

Historians should not be surprised by this rabid, animalistic violence that these cartoons have elicited. It is nothing new. According to historical documents, Mohammad, himself, ordered the murders of people who disagreed with him or made fun of him.

From a contemporary Muslim scholar -- Ali Dashti's "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", [5], page 100:

"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."

Tyrants of Beijing Claim Internet Controls Do Not Lead to Arrests. Really?

2006-02-14T20:37:00.000-05:00

"Chinese people can freely access the Internet and the government has never arrested anyone for expressing an opinion on the Web, an official state newspaper said on Wednesday."

Oh really? That's an interesting point of view... that is, if you consider a falsehood to be a point of view.

"International human rights organizations and freedom of speech advocates have launched a campaign against US Internet giants Google and Yahoo for providing tools to Chinese censors and secret police. In September 2005, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the role of Yahoo in the arrest of journalist Shi Tao in Hunan Province. Shi was convicted for emailing comments to a democracy group in the United States after his Internet IP address was given to Chinese officials by Yahoo officials in Hong Kong."

United Arab Emirates allowed to buy six American ports

2006-02-14T19:50:00.000-05:00

I don't know what to say. A federal commission (Committee on Foreign Investment) has approved the sale of control of six United States Ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. And the only person in Congress speaking out about this is the socialist Charles Schumer. Why? Why isn't the Bush Administration speaking out? Why aren't the allegedly pro-national security Republicans? You should write your Congress-critters and let them know that this is unacceptable. The United Arab Emirates will control major ports in New York and New Jersey. Does no one see a problem with this?

---------Schumer Calls for Probe of Arab Port Deal
---------Chuck's port-deal terror: Urges Prez to nix 'risky' sale to Arab biz
---------ARAB PORT DEAL 'TERROR THREAT'
---------Administration OK With UAE Running Six Major U.S. Ports
---------Washington questions Dubai deal for US ports: US senator has strong reservations takeover bid, saying bunch of 9/11 hijackers came from UAE.

On Civilization

2006-02-14T19:25:00.000-05:00

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars."

--Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Epilogue, p. 665 (1944)

Something to think about...

China cornering market for obscure group of minerals vital to high-tech industry

2006-02-11T19:04:00.000-05:00

China now supplies about 95 percent of the world's consumption of "rare earths," according to international mineral industry experts. Rare earths are a class of minerals with properties that make them essential for applications including miniaturized electronics, computer disk drives, display screens, missile guidance, pollution control catalysts and advanced materials. In 1994, China's share of the market was 46 percent, according to industry statistics. . . controlling the supply of these minerals gives China a strategic advantage as it seeks to build powerful high-technology industries and modernize its armed forces.

We really need to keep an eye on China. This is not India or Japan, this is a country ruled by a despotic regime. Economic growth gives the Tyrants of Beijing more resources with which to work -- one day, they may not be content with merely repressing their own people. They have expressed their willingness to conquer and enslave the people of Taiwan and they would likely not balk at invading Japan f they thought they could get away with it.

Murderous Islamo-fascists Blame America for Danish Cartoons

2006-02-09T14:17:00.000-05:00

Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet [Mohammed] marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America.

The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

"They are all the enemy of Islam..."

It seems that, even though the United States had nothing to do with the printing cartoons making fun of Mohammed, we are being held responsible anyway. When are the leftists in this country going to learn that we don't get anywhere by being nice to Islamo-fascists?

Meanwhile, Back at the Mexican Border . . .

2006-02-09T01:26:00.000-05:00

With all this uproar in the Islamic world, we haven't been covering Mexico in the news like we should. Apparently, Mexican military or paramilitary units have been crossing the border. If this is an action of the Mexican military, it is an act of war, and should be responded to in kind. If this is an action by paramilitary groups not affiliated with the Mexican military, they need to be arrested and jailed without further delay.

"An American law enforcement officer and news crew in Texas have witnessed another armed incursion into the United States by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in just two weeks. . . several men dressed in Mexican military garb appeared to violate the international boundary, in Hudspeth County, Texas, some 50 miles east of El Paso."

The news affiliate (KFOX) has posted photos of the incursion on their website.

Bush administration remains divided on the military threat posed by China's rise

2006-02-07T22:21:00.000-05:00

The Quadrennial Defense Review report made public last week bluntly states that China is the greatest potential challenge to the U.S. military and is rapidly building up its military.

John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, by contrast, stated in an annual intelligence threat briefing for Congress that China's rise is similar to that of democratic India. He left out any reference to the threat to Asia or the United States posed by the military buildup. . .

How to deal with China, a communist dictatorship that has reformed economically but not politically, is the subject of a vigorous policy debate inside government.

Some officials -- who dominate the State Department and the intelligence agencies -- consider China a nonthreatening state that will evolve into a benign power through trade and other global economic interaction.

Other officials, however, view China as a growing potential danger, engaged in strategic deception to mask hidden goals and objectives.

I for one hope that China will develop into a benign state. However, I am absolutely opposed to letting our guard down. This is a regime that does not treat its own people with proper respect -- and the only reason, I fear, that tyrants of Beijing don't treat other countries the same way they treat their own citizens is because they lack the power to do so. This article even points out that "Beijing is investing heavily in military force, 'particularly in its strategic arsenal and capabilities designed to improve its ability to project power beyond its borders.'"

Chinese Newspaper Editor Killed in Beating

2006-02-07T22:03:00.000-05:00

No, this man, Wu Xianghu, was not killed by Islamic Militants for printing political cartoons of their prophet. He was killed by Chinese police. A lynch-mob of around 50 police officers, to be precise. What did he do to deserve this fate? He "accused them of charging illegal bicycle fees." Nice, huh? This is the character of the Chinese government as it is run by the Tyrants of Beijing.

"China's media have reported a string of torture and coercion cases by police. . . Local media reported widely on the beating, but have been silent on Wu's death, possibly reflecting its sensitivity. Senior traffic police officer Li Xiaoguo was sacked for his role in the incident, Xinhua state news agency reported at the time."

Militant Islam: Does Not Play Well With Others

2006-02-06T15:55:00.000-05:00

Honestly, is Islam the most violent culture in this world? It seems like nearly half the world is inflamed because of a political cartoon. If this is how they react to a political cartoon, how would they react to something more serious? Like, for example, a U.S. court ruling that a restruant chain that requires all employees (including Muslims) to handle pig meat? (Note, I don't think this has happened yet, but I think a lawsuit along these lines is not out of the question sometime in the near future.)

For those people saying that Christianity doesn't have to put up with this kind of blasphemous treatment of their faith, think again. The difference is that when someone speaks ill of the church, or of Christ, Christians do not form violent mobs and take to the streets calling for the death of all non-Christians. We don't even do that (though many of us probably want to) when Muslims undertake unprovoked attacks on civilian populations. The trouble with Muslims is that they think people hate them because they are Muslims. This is not the case at all. And it's not really a matter of hate. Most people distrust Muslims because of the predominance of unprovoked violence in the culture. And I don't care what another non-Muslim has done to you, attacking any random non-Muslim in retaliation is an inhuman act. Here's some advice, if you want to be treated like civilized, moral beings, try acting like it for a change.

Apologies to all Muslims to whom this doesn't apply, but you guys need to be more vocal in condemning this kind of violence, because it hurts you too. In fact, this sort of behavior, in my opinion, does more to harm civilized, moral Muslims than to any other group.

Anyway, here are some of the stories relating to this matter:

---------Update 19: Protests Grow Over Mohammed Drawings
---------Rioters clash with police over prophet cartoons
---------Jerusalem Post publishes Mohammed cartoons
---------Iranians hurl petrol bombs at Austrian embassy
---------Killings at cartoon protests
---------New protests erupt in cartoon row
---------Cartoon protests rage around the world
---------No.10 backs action against cartoon protests
---------Muslim cartoon fury claims lives

And from around the blogosphere:
---------Islamic Society of Denmark Used Fake Cartoons to Create Story!
---------Bloggers On The Cartoons
--------- Four people have died as demonstrations against cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed intensify
---------[Freedom] Wake up call for Europe?
---------Islam's bad image
---------The Cartoon War and The War
---------Muslim Rioters Prove Danish Cartoonist Right: Mohammed Did Not Teach Peace!

China Poised to Kill US Spy Satellites?

2006-02-02T22:45:00.000-05:00

This is troubling:

Beijing announced plans last week to build a high-frequency radar on the South Pole. Analysts say the radar could be used to disrupt U.S. intelligence satellites. . . National security analysts say the South Pole site, because of its remoteness, could be used by China to develop anti-satellite lasers capable of blinding or disrupting U.S. reconnaissance satellites, most of which pass over the pole. . . China's space program, unlike the U.S. space program, is directly related to Chinese military operations.(1)

My question is why are we still giving China preferential trade status? The more we do business with them, the more money they will have to build better offensive weaponry. Considering China's actions in Tibet(2), and their very public and brazen promises that "the Chinese people and armed forces will resolutely and thoroughly crush [Taiwanese independence] at any cost,"(3) we should be viewing China as a real military threat... not trading with them.

If China's imperialist history is not enough of a reason to view them as a threat, consider that "China is stepping up its overt and covert efforts to gather intelligence and technology in the United States."(4)

Come on. How much more do you need? The People's Republic of China has conquered one sovereign nation; they have promised to conquer another one; and they are spying on us. What are the odds that the base on the South Pole has a purpose that is hostile to other countries (like the United States, for example)?

______________________________

(1) "China radar at South Pole could sabotage U.S. spy satellites" World Tribune.com, 2006, February 02, paras 1, 3, & 6, http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453769.0986111113.html.
(2) World Mediawatch, and BBC Monitoring. "China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet," BBC News, Monitoring, 1999 January 12, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/253345.stm.
(3) Hu Xiao. "White Paper: Strong army ensures China unity," China Daily, 2004 December 27, para. 10, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/27/content_403719.htm.
(4) Gertz, Bill. "Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry," The Washington Times, 2005 June 27, para. 1, http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050627-124855-6747r.htm.

* * *

Technorati Tags:
News Politics News and Politics China Laser People's Republic of China PRC Chinese Agression Imperialism Espionage Chinese Espionage

European Satires of Mohammed Draw Ire of Muslims

2006-02-02T13:45:00.000-05:00

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet [Mohammed] to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage. . . The caricatures include drawings of [Mohammed] wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.

I like it. Does anyone remember how Mohammed behaved? He was a conqueror. He spread Islam by the sword. It's not that far a stretch to portray the founder of the so-called religion of peace as a militant jihadist.

After Mohammed's death, Islam continued to be spread by the sword into Christian lands. The Muslims tried to overrun Europe and were only stopped by the heroic actions of Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.

I am getting sick and tired of people saying that all of this Islamic aggression is just a response to the Crusades, and that Christians are responsible for all the problems. The Battle of Tours was in 732. The Crusades didn't start until 1095, when Pope Urban II authorized the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont.

The Crusades were a response to the overrunning of formerly Christian lands by Muslims. It looks like the Europeans are beginning to notice that the same thing is happening again. Muslims are immigrating to Europe in ever increasing numbers. They speak out against European lifestyles, and criticize Europeans, yet cry foul whenever someone speaks ill of Islam. Now the Europeans are beginning to strike back -- with political cartoons. And we see the hypocritical Muslims crying foul again. I love it when practitioners of the religion of peace resort to death threats. It shows us who they really are.

Or maybe they really aren't like that. Maybe most Muslims are good people who want only to peacefully coexist. But if that's the case, we need to start hearing from them in a big way, because if the violent Muslims are only a minority, they are a very vocal minority.

Culture of Death on the Retreat?

2006-01-24T00:15:00.000-05:00

I thought this was an interesting article. In leftist California, there were more people opposed to the killing of unborn babies out protesting than those in favor of killing unborn babies. Notice how leftists behave themselves. They want to be seen as the good guys, but instead they come off as bloodthirsty maniacs who use slogans in place of thought and repetitive chanting in place of logical debate.

I ask all of you to consider the following. Those of us who want to protect life are not anti-choice, we are anti-murder. We all know where babies come from, how they are created. There is a choice whether or not to engage in that activity.

The point is, we do not know for sure when the fetus becomes a distinct person with a soul. I am not here to tell you that human life begins at conception. I'm here to point out that we have no way to know that it doesn't. In such ignorance, we must, if we are moral, err on the side of caution. If you were going to demolish a building, you would not bush the button on the detonator until you had confirmed that there was no one inside. Being pretty sure that no one is inside simply won't cut it. The same reasoning should apply to unborn babies. If you don't know whether you are ending human life, but the possibility exists that you could be, the moral course would be to stay your hand.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Abortion foes from all over the West converged on San Francisco for the second Walk for Life, an event designed to show that opposition to abortion exists even in the liberal Bay Area.

"We want people to know that there is another kind of voice in San Francisco," said Eva Muntean, a San Franciscan and co-chairwoman of the Walk for Life.

That voice was, by design, mostly silent. Marchers were urged to leave photos of aborted fetuses and signs equating abortion to murder at home. And at a rally before the march, they were urged to ignore those who might try to goad them into an argument.

"We ask you to hold your tongues today," Muntean said. "This isn't a day for interaction."

[T]he anti-abortion movement is gaining ground in California, with forces narrowly failing last fall to get a ballot measure passed requiring parental consent before minors could get an abortion. They are preparing to gather signatures next month that could lead to another vote in November.

Abortion rights advocates, concerned that the Bay Area movement has become too complacent, showed up en masse to protest the march. And they took a different approach. Although they were easily outnumbered by the marchers, the pro-choice supporters were loud and confrontational.

Many jeered and taunted the marchers, while others stood along the street, waved wire hangers and chanted slogans.

Are Republicans for Smaller Government?

2006-01-23T13:12:00.000-05:00

Remember the Contract with America and the Republican Revolution of 1994? I had such high hopes then. It seems, however, that Republicans can be just as bad as Democrats when it comes to government spending.

Consider this article. It examines how the so-called Republican control of Congress is turning into a triumph of the political left... the Democrats are only upset that it isn't they who are accomplishing it.

New Years Resolution 2006: Post more on my blog.

2006-01-13T01:24:00.000-05:00

Sorry about the lack of posts. It's not that I haven't been reading and forming opinions, it's just that I have very little free time.

Recent news that I've found interesting:

U.S. Border Patrol agents have come under fire twice along the Rio Grande in Texas. . .agents patrolling the area in a launch on Friday came under a volley of gunfire from Mexico. What will it take for us to start holding the Mexican government accountable for what goes on on its side of the border?

Gang of youths terrorizes train in France. It's like pulling teeth to get the media to admit that these were African immigrants, and Muslims to boot.

Budget Surplus Helps Offset Record Government Spending. We really need to cut back on government spending. The US government should cut all the social engineering programs. They are unconstitutional

China has no plan to sell dollar assets, buy oil with foreign exchange reserves. This is good news. The story no one was reporting last week (that should have been front headlines) was that China was going to dump its dollar assets -- which wouldn't be such a big deal for us if we had the national debt under control... which we don't. We really need a FairTax to encourage economic growth in the U.S. and to take away Congress' power to buy votes. Then we can put pressure on them to cut spending.

Edward Kennedy Accuses Alito of Being a Bigot. And in so doing, Kennedy demonstrated that he is incapable of forming a logical argument. He commits the division fallacy -- claiming that because a group has a characteristic, all of its constituents also have that characteristic (without taking the intermediate step of proving that it is impossible to be a part of that thing without the said characteristic). Is it unreasonable for me to expect a United States Senator to think logically?

United States Government Searches Muslim-owned Property for Nuclear Material Sans Warrant; Legal?

2005-12-26T10:47:00.000-05:00

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. . . Officials . . . reject any notion that the program specifically has targeted Muslims. "We categorically do not target places of worship or entities solely based on ethnicity or religious affiliation," says one. "Our investigations are intelligence driven and based on a criminal predicate."

I am torn. On the one hand, I am opposed to government searches without a warrant. But my opposition comes mainly from the fact that the government has a nasty habit of making behaviors that do not harm others into crimes. In this case, the government is searching for an inherently hazardous material. Locating and controlling inherently hazardous materials or conditions is a fundamental function of government and the process of doing such is a legitimate exercise of the state's police power. That's what the government was doing here... looking for radioactive materials that could pose a danger to the public. I don't see a legal problem. Now, if the government were to use evidence discovered in such searches to arrest people for unrelated activity, then I would have a problem with it... especially if they were arrested for behavior that was not inherently hazardous. So long as the government only uses warrantless searches of this sort to locate materials or conditions that are on their face inherently hazardous, I do not think there is a problem. The Bill of Rights exists to protect us, not to facilitate other people in their efforts to harm us or to destroy the country, and the Constitution itself. That's just common sense (but if it was really common, you'd think more people would have it). That being said, this is a slippery slope and this sort of activity should be subject to strict scrutiny and should, again, only be allowed where the government is searching for a material or condition that is inherently hazardous on its face.

Is the Japanese Depression Finally Ending?

2005-12-25T01:00:00.000-05:00

Japan is the world's second largest advanced economy. This is still the case even though Japan has been in a depression for the last 15 years or so. But imagine what Japan could do for the world if that giant economy were growing instead of beign depressed? Rising waters lift all ships. Japan is a liberal republic and a capitalist nation. If Japan experienced an economic boom, the United States would benefit as well. As far as security concerns go, a healthy Japanese economy will make them more able to resist Chinese imperialism.

In short, I hope that the economic forecast made by Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano is correct.

Japan's economy is entering a period of self-sustained recovery and is close to escaping deflation thanks to increasing consumer demand, the country's top economics official said Thursday.

The comments by Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano come as Japan emerges from some 15 years of stagnant growth held back by deflation -- or continually falling prices -- weak consumption and declining corporate profits.

"The end of the long tunnel of deflation is coming into sight with the Japanese economy entering a self-sustained recovery based on private demand," Yosano said in a speech at the Keidanren, Japan's biggest business lobby.

As company earnings recover and prices start to stabilize, investors have lifted Tokyo stocks to five-year highs.

And with that bit of positive news, I bid you all a very merry Christmas.

Cheers.

The War on Christmas

2005-12-23T20:09:00.000-05:00

I am sick and tired of people telling me that telling someone 'Merry Christmas' somehow is an act of me imposing my religion on them. I am sick and tired of the ACLU telling me that public displays associated with Christmas somehow violate the rights of non-Christians. I am sick and tired of retailers, like Target, who depend on the Christmas dollar, bending over backwards not to make reference to Christmas, instead substituting the term 'holiday'. I do not shop at Target during the Christmas season. I do not give Target gift cards.

I think that judges who hand down rulings banning the spread of Christmas cheer should have to work on Christmas like the humbugs they are. The same goes for politicians who speak out against Christmas.

Unfortunately, beyond that little rant, I don't have that much time to say anything at all on this topic, so here is what some others have said:

---------The War on Christmas, the Prequel: When the holiday was banned.
---------The warrior-author on the assault on Christmas: Taking offense at references reveals hostility to Christians
---------Lines drawn in battle over Christmas
---------Falwell fighting for holy holiday
He'll sue, boycott groups he sees as muzzling Christmas
---------Fighting the War on Christmas
---------University Administrator Declares Christmas 'Forbidden'

Bloggers Cause Headaches for the Tyrants of Beijing

2005-12-23T19:55:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing that a tyrant cannot have, it is the free flow of information. All successful tyrannies need to control information flow. Nazi Germany was expert at this. Of course, they didn't have the internet to deal with.

China, after decades of near total control over communication is suddenly finding itself overwhelmed by the massive quantities of information exchange afforded by the internet. And this is a good thing.

Some years after their American counterpart Matt Drudge shook up the US media in the Monica Lewinsky affair, Chinese bloggers are starting to have an impact on their country's conventional print and broadcast media, all tightly controlled by the Communist Party's propaganda department.

Although the party and police this year tightened their licensing regime and keyword filtering mechanisms on internet services, particularly news websites and search engines, the free spirits of the largely amateur, non-commercial blogosphere are slipping around the so-called Great Firewall of China and setting the news agenda.

A harsher crackdown may be in the offing, but for now authorities seem caught between two policies: clamping down on political dissent, and hothousing the development of internet businesses and electronic commerce.

I for one hope that bloggers will continue to get true public-interest stories out and that the People will, in turn, cast off the chains of servitude so carefully forged all these years by the tyrants of Beijing.

What if Christ had been born in 2005?

2005-12-23T19:23:00.000-05:00

Infant Discovered in Barn, Child Protective Service Launch Probe

Of course, with God's protection, the attemts of Child Protective Services to kidnap the young saviour would fail.

Special thanks to David Schantz for drawing our attention to this little creation. It's healthy to look at our problems through humor from time to time.

U.S. House Votes in Favor of Fencing Off the Mexican Border

2005-12-16T19:22:00.000-05:00

The 260-159 voice vote on an amendment to a bill on illegal immigration "mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border.

Notice the numbers. 101 more representatives are in favor than are opposed. This is very good news... it shows that on some level, Congress still pays attention to the People (unlike the President, the ACLU, and various other entities who think Mexico should write our immigration policy).

And of course, the Mexicans, the ACLU, La Raza, and other Latino-supremacist groups are going to complain. Our government, though, needs to remain strong and speak for we the People. This is our country, and WE are going to decide how people can cross our borders.

We, the natives, are restless -- it's time our government started listening to us. I just hope the Senate is as reasonable.

No Clemency for Tookie

2005-12-11T16:55:00.000-05:00

Tookie Williams, now 51, was sentenced to death in 1981 after he was found guilty of murdering four people during two separate robberies two years earlier.

Williams was convicted for the murders of Albert Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang, and Yee Chen Lin, which took place in 1979 during two separate robberies. During the robberies Williams shot Owens twice in the back of the head, execution style, and shot the Yang family up close with a shotgun, at point-blank range.

So I have a question. Why is there a question as to whether or not this man should die? There are those who say he has reformed, and I am happy for him if that is the case, but it hardly excuses those bestial actions taken by him all those years ago. It would be different if there was some provocation, or a question of self defense. Those elements were not present. Tookie made a choice -- he aggressively took the lives of four people. When you make a choice, you have to face the consequences. I am extremely disappointed in Arnold Schwarzenegger. He should not even give the appearance of considering clemency. If I were the Governator, when the predators' advocates groups started calling for clemency, I would have immediately started work to expedite the execution. But that's just me. I don't think you should be able to aggressively take the life of another and get away with it.

Aeons Old War Heats Up: Bacteria threat on the rise

2005-12-04T11:51:00.000-05:00

A lethal bacteria which surfaces in people being treated with antibiotics is spreading in North America and has grown resistant to drugs, according to two studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More than anything, I view this blog as a public service. I try to bring you information that is useful to you -- share with you things you need to know. This is pretty important. Ever since there have been humans, there have been bacteria that try to kill us. In this since, we are at war. Constantly. Against an enemy that we cannot see. Since we cannot see them and they do not communicate with us, we assume that this war does not exist. But it is being waged all the time. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Harmful bacteria are always trying to do us in. And they have the advantage. They can mutate and adapt to new environmental conditions at great speeds. Three years of natural selection among them can be like tens of thousands of years (or more) for humans. We are slow. Even our most advanced medicine is failing. Chemical warfare only works if your opponent cannot adapt to the new conditions created by the chemical. Bacteria can so adapt, and have.

So what can we do? Well, we do have allies in this war. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to kill off our allies with friendly fire. There are all sorts of beneficial bacteria that live on and in the human body. These fight with our immune system against the hostile bacteria -- think of your immune system as the Roman army and your symbiotic bacteria as auxiliaries (barbarian military units fighting with the legions against the hostile barbarians), and the malignant bacteria as the barbarian hordes. In this analogy, the legions and the auxiliaries are best suited to fight the battle, but we (the distant government) know better. We like to deploy chemical weapons that kill the enemy, the auxiliaries, and even soldiers of the legions. The trouble is, the enemy is always on the march and can reinfect a host before the auxiliaries and the legions have the opportunity to replenish their numbers after a chemical weapon (antibiotic) is deployed.

What is going on here is the more we rely on our technology, the more resistant hostile bacteria becomes to it. This is the epitome of natural selection. So not only are we depleted of friendly bacteria after using anti-bacterial products, but the new armies of hostile bacteria are more resistant to our chemical weapons. The body is left with no effective defense. That is why so many people are getting so sick.

The solution? Cut down on the anti-bacterial products you use. You are always touching new bacteria with your hands. Your symbiotic bacteria will fight and weaken a newly introduced hostile bacteria before your immune system ever has to deal with it. If you use anti-bacterial soap, the good bacteria is also killed. So what happens when a new hostile bacteria is introduced to your hand? It meets no resistance and your immune system has to fight it off at full strength.

My advice: Our chemical weapons (in the war against bacteria) are losing their effectiveness. So stop killing our allies. Avoid anti-bacterial handsoap. Let the friendly bacteria on your hands help you. Just wash your hands well; it's the bad bacteria that needs extra filth to propagate -- the friendly bacteria lives naturally off of your body. Clean, but not anti-bacterial hands give your bacteria the advantage. Also, consider increasing your garlic intake. Keeping garlic in your bloodstream will create a harmful environment for malignant bacteria.

This is all the advice I can offer. Please take it. Don't be part of the super-bug problem; be part of the solution.

Our Border with Mexico is a Warzone. Thank Goodness for Cowboys with AK-47s

2005-11-22T10:48:00.000-05:00

"Notoriously porous, the border has reached new levels of lawlessness this year as smugglers, known as "coyotes", have become increasingly brazen, willing to fire on anyone -- from border patrols to [private property owners] -- who gets in their way."

This situation has caused property owners along the border to start arming themselves... with Kalashnikovs. Many properties on the border lie in the middle of "network[s] of trails used by heavily-armed Mexican trafficking gangs to smuggle people and drugs into America." Some of the ranchers are fed up and have started shooting back. Property owners like Roger McCaslin, one of a new breed of cowboys "using AK47s and four-wheel drives instead of Winchester rifles and horses." I love seeing We the People striking back at those who mean us harm. The President and the Federal Government aren't doing anything about this problem. I have disliked this about Bush since early in his first term. He simply refuses to enforce our border... which is bizarre considering the people responsible for putting him in office -- the Conservative base -- want to see the border shut down.

Looks like the President has finally noticed that we disapprove.

"President George W. Bush plans to announce a border security initiative in coming weeks as part of his effort to win back support for his presidency from doubting conservatives.

"The political row about America's "soft southern underbelly" -- bolstered by fears that terrorists may slip in through it -- has led to growing support among Republicans for a radical plan to build a 2,000-mile steel and wire fence along the entire border. The Homeland Security Department says that such a fence would be a waste of money, however."

I still want my border fence. It is not a waste of money. Every little bit helps.

Memo to the Republicans from your base: Take decisive action on the border NOW! This will come back to bite you in the next election if you continue to ignore the problem. If you want to win points, start making speeches lauding the Minute Men, and private owner guarding their own property as heros rather than condemning them as vigilantes (assuming that a vigilante is a bad thing, which I don't -- Batman is a vigilante).

Bush Speaks Against Chinese Tyranny -- Beijing Spying on US

2005-11-18T03:21:00.000-05:00

Finally, the Mainstream Media (MSM) has noticed that 1.) the People's Republic of China (PRC) does not respect the rights of the people, and 2.) the same PRC is spying on the United States.

There are many things that Bush does that makes me think he does not understand certain things -- or doesn't care. Then, he does something like he did during his visit to Japan. "In his Kyoto speech, Bush praised Japan as a model of a free Asian country, a gesture that may rankle in China, where anti-Japanese feeling runs high. Bush also said the mainland should learn from Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as its own. But Liu said China need not take Taiwan as its model." I love it. I absolutely love it. At this point, I don't care whether Bush follows his words with action (I may care later, mind you), I am just thrilled that the man in charge of the U.S. government has officially stated, on the record, that China is not a free country. The world needs to understand that this is the case -- and the more that it is said, the more people will believe it. Unlike a lie, Bush's statements cannot be countered with fact because they are the truth. All we have to do is keep saying it. The truth is persistent, we just have to recognize it. Once we recognize it, we the People can start treating Beijing as what it is -- a gang of tyrants. Then, maybe they will grow up once they realize they can't fool us anymore. And once that happens, we can welcome China as a free and equal industrial partner and competitor.

In other news, the MSM has finally noticed that Beijing is spying on us. Of course, to those of us who have been paying attention, it has long been apparent that the Chinese are spying on us. This case, however, was so blatant that even the MSM, which is studiously oblivious to China's transgressions had to take notice. And now that the cat is out of the bag, maybe we the People will awaken and rise up to put the tyrants of Beijing back in their place. We need to take back our industrial capacity -- or move it to India, or to Latin America.

"Mr. Mak; his wife, Rebecca Laiwah Chiu; and Mr. Mak's brother, Tai Mak, were indicted by a federal grand jury on Tuesday in Los Angeles. Mr. Mak and his wife are naturalized Americans from China, and Tai Mak, an engineer with the Hong Kong-based Phoenix television, is a Chinese national. The trio was charged with failing to register as agents of the Chinese government. If convicted, they could each face up to 10 years in prison. The fact that Mr. Mak, his wife and his brother were not charged with espionage is an indication that the case involves sensitive technology transfers, but so far appears to be less than espionage, which is a more difficult charge to prove in court . . . A Chinese intelligence-gathering ring in Los Angeles provided Beijing's military with details of a new small U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle, along with some of the U.S. military's most advanced high-technology weapons data, according to Bush administration officials close to the case . . . A preliminary review of the compromises indicates that the Chinese have learned extremely valuable details about U.S. weapons systems, from submarines to aircraft carriers, that could give China's military a strategic advantage in a conflict, the officials said."

For your information, Henry Kissinger loves the Chinese government and does a lot of business in China. So does Alan Greenspan. Do not trust these men in what they say about China.

I want my border fence

2005-11-18T03:20:00.000-05:00

"A once-radical idea to build a 2,000-mile steel-and-wire fence on the U.S.-Mexican border is gaining momentum amid warnings that terrorists can easily sneak into the country."

We have laws regarding who can come into our country. Unfortunately, laws are for honest people. The dishonest need encouragement before they will comply with a law. I like the idea of a border fence because it will be an aid to the actual enforcement of US immigration law. Such a fence will make it harder for illegal Mexicans to cross the border -- an activity that is actually sanctioned by the Mexican government, if you'll remember.

Just Shoot Them

2005-11-09T01:52:00.000-05:00

Why is there rioting in France? Because the French authorities lack the courage to do what is needed to protect the People. If French riot police were to shoot the most pernicious of the rioters, the rest of them would probably disperse. I give this advice freely to the French government, and ask, for the sake of the decent people who actually live in France, that they take it.

And why is the media loath to identify these people as Muslims? Because they are not just 'youths'; they are Muslim youths.

The rioters claim that they are rioting because of discrimination. Even if this is true, they are criminals and should be dealt with as such. You do not destroy the property of private citizens if your gripe is with the government. If I were in charge, I would give my police officers orders to shoot to kill.

Interesting that this happened at a time when Prince Charles of England is saying that we need to ignore the violence coming out of the Muslim community and think of them as no different than, say, a Japanese community.

In other news, Muslim raiders attempted to take over a luxury cruise liner off the coast of Africa. These murderous criminals are seldom identified as Muslims.

Reading List for October 21st

2005-10-21T10:32:00.000-04:00

---------I Enjoy Filling Out Surveys (Big Brother State)
---------Speaking of neoprohibitionism...(Totalitarian Police State)
---------Damn Right It's Neoprohibition! (Totalitarian Police State)
---------Finally some justice and sanity (Congress Protects Gun Manufacturers from Verminous Trial Lawyers)

Sorry, dear readers. No luck finding a better job yet. Posts will likely remain few and far between until I find one.

TSA Staffed by Crooks

2005-10-21T10:18:00.000-04:00

A security employee [Frank Ulerio, Jr] at John F. Kennedy International Airport was charged Thursday with stealing $80,000 in cash from a checked suitcase headed for Pakistan, the Queens district attorney's office said. . . Ulerio, a Queens resident, faces charges of grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison . . . The owner of the money did not declare the cash but . . . said he was never asked if he had anything to declare and likely will not be charged with a crime.

Those of you who read my blog know my opinion of the TSA, so I will not beat that dead horse. I think their agent's actions speak for themselves. What disturbs me is the fact that the writer of the story felt a need to mention that the owner of the money will not be charged with a crime. Does this bother anyone? Why is the act of traveling with large amounts of your own money something that should be suspect as criminal activity? Why do We the People continue to tolerate the tyrants who pass laws that make ordinary Americans into criminals?

Rumsfeld Trivia

2005-10-07T00:14:00.000-04:00

This is completely random, given that there are topics of more substance for me to comment upon, but I found out something interesting. President Gerald Ford had a secretary of defense named Donald Rumsfeld. Am I the only one who didn't know this?

He is the 21st Secretary of Defense, and he is the oldest person to have held that position. He served under President Gerald Ford as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977, making him also the youngest person to have held the job.

Google Throws Support Behind Imperialist China, Against Taiwan

2005-10-04T10:18:00.000-04:00

Story

Google now has an official position of disseminating false information. Google maps apparently now lists Taiwan as a province of China. Taiwan is not now, nor has it ever been, a subdivision or the totalitarian, imperialist, communist regime euphemistically named the People's Republic of China.

That Google would list Taiwan as a Province of China shows that they either never cracked a history book (or did and didn't understand what was written therein), or they are actively working with the tyrants of Beijing to subjugate the free people of Taiwan. Either way, that doesn't look good for Google. So what is it guys? Are you stupid, or evil? Your customers and shareholders really want to know.

I have talked about the legal status of Taiwan before and am too tired to do it again, so here's what I've said about the situation in the past:
---------People's Republic of China has accelerated the deployment of missiles against Taiwan to 120 a year
---------China v. Taiwan: History mocks territorial claims
---------More on China's Plans to Conquer Taiwan