Saturday, May 26, 2007
Notice how you have not heard about this on CNN or FOX News or any other large news outlet. Doesn’t that clue you in to the agenda by our Mainstream Media?
Child porn hearing set for former ACLU exec finger
Facing possible prison time for acting on group's agenda
Posted: May 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A former youth league sports coach and executive of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has argued against any limits on Internet access in public libraries, is facing a hearing – and the possibility of prison – for having hard-core child pornography.
Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, as WND reported earlier, was arrested in February and was indicted earlier this month on allegations of having what a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen.
Rust-Tierney, who was president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU until 2005 and served on the group's board until the day he was arrested, now is scheduled to appear in a court hearing on June 1 at which local reports say he is expected to plead guilty to various charges.
Authorities have alleged he used his own credit card and his own e-mail address to access and purchase an estimated $1,000 in graphic and violent child pornography during 2005 and 2006, according to Virginia's North Country Gazette.
(Story continues below)
Magistrate Theresa Buchanan said the material included an extended video featuring the sexual torture of children, accompanied by a song by the band called Nine Inch Nails.
He's been indicted on a count of receiving child pornography and another count of possessing child pornography, and authorities say he could face a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years on each charge.
While serving the ACLU, he argued against any restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, claiming "individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library" so those facilities should provide "maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."
Court records indicate Rust-Tierney had subscribed to several websites featuring child pornography over a period of years, covering the same time he was serving as a youth sports league coach and arguing for an open Internet.
Twice during pretrial hearings judges had denied him bond, describing the material as some of the most sickening they'd ever seen. Authorities allege he used a computer located in his 10-year-old son's bedroom for the transactions.
Rust-Tierney was a coach in Arlington's Little League and had children who participated in Arlington's flag football league, according to Arlington County Parks & Recreation spokesperson Susan Kalish. She said all the group's coaches must go through annual background checks, and Rust-Tierney had passed all previous background checks.
Some of the children he coached had written letters of support. Several dozen people appeared at a hearing for him, urging the judge to release him from jail.
He and his lawyers have declined to respond to media requests for comment.
The federal indictment alleged he "knowingly received multiple computer files that contained photo and video depictions of minor teenage and prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
An anonymous chat room participant on the cannablog was distressed by the low profile in the national media over the case. When his arrested first was announced, authorities didn't even mention either his ACLU or youth league coaching connections.
"This man was the PRESIDENT of the Virginia ACLU and while he was president, he lobbied to keep the Internet available to child pornographers via any port available, and WHILE he was president he was engaged in purchasing and subscribing to child (infant and toddler torture) pornography for his personal and sexual gratification. The ACLU. Pouring money into a machine that victimizes children. For years. And that the media is keeping this out of sight is okay with you? Wow," he said.
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly called it a "horrifying" case. And he noted that the two "biggest left-wing outfits in the country – the New York Times and NBC News – ignored the story entirely." CBS News, CNN and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest, Fox said.
Several area broadcast stations and newspapers actually have begun to cover the case as it appears to be heading towards a conclusion.
"That Mr. Rust-Tierney, a leading proponent of unrestricted access to the Internet, has now been arrested for receiving and possessing graphic child pornography should serve as testimony to the injudicious and baleful outgrowth of the legal challenges launched by the ACLU questioning the constitutionality of important legislation that protects children from Internet exploitation and content harmful to minors," said a statement released by spokeswoman Cris Clapp of Enough is Enough, an organization dedicated to protecting children from the dangers on the Internet.
"When Mr. Rust-Tierney argued before the Loudoun County Library Board that unrestricted access to the resources of the Internet was essential for our children's ability to learn and communicate, and when groups like the ACLU contend that acceptable use policies alone are capable of protecting children online, they fail to acknowledge the tragic and devastating effects to children and families of both intentional and unintentional access to online pornography," the statement said.
The investigation that resulted in Rust-Tierney's arrest was conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as Arlington County police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
You think you pilgrims can come to our land, NORTHERN MEXICO, which you
invaded and stole from, and think you have a legitimate right to fight
for land that is not yours? lol
Wake up homie, I AM IN MY TRUE HOMELAND! YOU SHOULD RETURN TO YOUR
HOMELAND, GO BACK TO EUROPE, THAT’S YOUR HOMELAND PILGRIM!
You are calling us arrogant? lol! NOBODY LIKES AMERICANS ANYWHERE IN THE
WORLD BECAUSE OF THEIR ARROGANCE.
Dude, you got your ass kicked by Guerilla warfare in Vietnam, a country
you invaded. You are getting your ass kicked right now by Guerilla
warfare in Irak, a country you invaded.
You will get your ass kicked by Guerilla warfare in Anahuac also, a
country you invaded. We are NOT the minority, WE ARE THE MAJORITY, AND
WE ARE HERE TO STAY, as we have been doing for 5,000 years.
You couldnt kill us off in 1492, we are STILL HERE!
YOU WANT TO FIGHT? MESHICA WILL FIGHT FOR THE HOMELAND, ANAHUAC!
If you had a war with MEXICANS, not Mexico…you would get your ass
kicked WORSE than in Vietnam, worse than you are getting your ass kicked
in the desert of Irak. There are over 13 Million undocumented indigenous
people in this Colony, 13 million living in the shadows, 13 million
SHADOW WARRIORS. you on the other hand will be easy targets. I see you
right now, you are in our land, GET OUT.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Good news from DC on Amnesty bill
So there is one Yea on the list who is really on our side.
Call Senator Ensign and thank him and let him know you got the news and hope he sticks to his word
119 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2805
Phone: (202) 224-6244
Fax: (202) 228-2193
Main District Office:
333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Ste. 8203
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 388-6605
Fax: (702) 388-6501
Wisconsin cop killed by illegal alien!
Why the desperation for amnesty: we analyze...
As "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" considers how best to reward our criminal invaders, I think you know what you need to do! NumbersUSA!
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you'd like to join go to the Blogs For Borders Website and send us an email with "sign me up" in the subject line.
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, amnesty, ted kennedy, john mccain, blogs for borders, gang rape, murder, tuberculosis,
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Last year I railed on the Senate for their absolute hatred of the American people. This year seems to be no different as they are putting the wants of a group of foreign peoples, most from Mexico, ahead of the wants of the American citizen. They have once again done so with an immigration "compromise bill" - of which the text isn't even written yet - which has been said to be "a great victory" for solving our illegal immigration problem in America.
They are so convinced that this is the solution to the problem that they are going to write the text, deliver it to Senators and get them to vote on it as quick as possible - even though they won't have the chance to read it. Instead of reading it the ones who put this "solution" together will just tell you about it. No need to actually read the fine print.
Now if that doesn't raise red flags to anyone who has ever signed a contract for a loan, let alone a bill that could become the law of a country of more than 300 million people, I don't know what will.
The fact is that this bill (and I'm just guessing here, because the text isn't available) is just more of the same of what we have done in the past regarding immigration reform. It includes amnesty, yet claims to put in place enforcement laws. The reality is that just like 1986, which also included enforcement laws, they will not be enforced.Full article
How many more US citizens have to die at the hands of illegal aliens before this government will take action? And action is NOT "comprehensive immigration reform". American citizens DEMAND that our government SECURE the borders, deport illegal aliens and punish employers who hire them!
Deputy Murder Suspect has Long Criminal History
May 17, 2007
Watch local news video of the following story by clicking here.
KENOSHA - The man now charged with killing Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy Frank Fabiano is an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record.
Despite a criminal record going back six years, Ezeiquiel Lopez was never deported. Only after he was charged with killing Fabiano did anyone try to have him kicked out of the country.
Lopez, 44, is accused of murdering the 17-year sheriff’s department veteran while high on cocaine. Lopez’s history with the law dates back to 2001, when he was arrested in Utah for lewd and lascivious conduct.
In 2003, he was arrested in Texas on a gun charge.
In 2003, Lopez was picked-up in Missouri for OWI.
In 2004, Kenosha Police arrested him on charges of domestic battery, disorderly conduct, bail jumping.
Still, this is the first time immigration enforcement had heard of him. “We can find no record of having had contact with this individual before or having had him referred to us by another law enforcement agency,” said Tim Counts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In court on Friday, Lopez said nothing. But a fellow inmate at the jail says Lopez had plenty to say Thursday night. “He was saying I’ll kill another one of you guys, give me a chance and I’ll kill another one of you guys.” The inmate wanted to remain anonymous.
Lopez has a wife and three kids. A criminal complaint says he was angry with his wife, the night of the murder. He admits to drinking tequila, doing cocaine and driving his van. But says he doesn’t remember shooting anyone.
A judge set Lopez’s bond at $1 million Friday. A hearing to determine whether the case should go to trial is scheduled for May 29.
read more | digg story
Click the forum link on the main page to get to the discussions.. feels almost like the old IIP!
Friday, May 18, 2007
A look at the next steps for an immigration overhaul plan worked out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House:
The Senate plans to open debate Monday on the bill and consider amendments throughout next week. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has set a Memorial Day deadline for completing the measure, but it's unlikely the complex plan can be finished that quickly.
Democratic leaders are waiting for the Senate to pass a bill before they consider one in the more-polarized House. They plan to act on immigration in July, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told President Bush she won't bring up a bill unless he can promise at least 70 Republicans will support it.
If the House passes a version, House and Senate negotiators would have to blend the two bills into one. The House and Senate then would each have to pass that product. It would then go to Bush for his signature.
Bush has said he's eager to sign the measure into law by August, when Congress adjourns for four weeks, returning Sept. 4.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
(Notice the term “anti-immigrant” here)
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national prominence by targeting illegal immigrants living in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, cruised to the Republican nomination for a third term on Tuesday — and unexpectedly won the Democratic nomination, too.
Barletta trounced GOP challenger Dee Deakos with nearly 94 percent of the vote. And he beat former Mayor Michael Marsicano for the Democratic nomination by staging a last-minute write-in campaign, all but guaranteeing himself another term, unofficial returns showed.
“I think the message is clear,” Barletta said. “The people of Hazleton want me to keep fighting for them.”
The Republican mayor said Democrats kept telling him they wished they could vote for him in the primary. So, about a week ago, he mailed instructions to Democratic voters on how to write in his name.
Marsicano, a retired airline pilot who was Hazleton’s mayor from 1996 to 1999, had appeared alone on the Democratic ballot.
Barletta, a businessman who took office in 2000, proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act last year after four illegal immigrants were charged with shooting and killing a man.
The measure, on hold due to a legal challenge by Hispanic groups and individuals, was approved last summer and emulated by towns and cities around the nation. It would penalize landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them.
Barletta has been mentioned as a potential candidate for higher office, but for now he said his focus is on seeing the ordinance through.
He said he was gratified by the overwhelming hometown support, particularly given that Democrats hold a 2-1 registration edge over Republicans in the city of more than 30,000.
“I know I made history here as a write-in, especially in a city of this size. It’s not an easy thing to do,” he said. “I’m so humbled by the amount of support.”
Also Tuesday, two Hispanic candidates lost their primary bids for two open seats on Hazleton City Council. One of the candidates, Rudy Espinal, is a plaintiff in the illegal immigrant lawsuit. (HAHAHAHAHA!)
Stop the Amnesty Train Wreck! - Frosty Wooldridge
The Senators listed below are key to stopping Reid and Amnesty legislation. They voted in 2006 to bring the illegal alien amnesty bill to a floor vote so they could play "moderate" on the record with a "yes" vote for "inclusion". Then they covered themselves with the Republican base and tried to recover their "anti-amnesty" image by voting NO on passage of the bill, well aware that the legislation would fail and that their NO vote was just political tail-covering.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN), up for 2008 re-election
Thad Cochran (R-MS), up for 2008 re-election
John Cornyn (R-TX), up for 2008 re-election
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), was up for 2006 re-election
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was up for 2006 re-election
Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was up for 2006 re-election
Trent Lott (R-MS) was up for 2006 re-election
Ben Nelson (D-NE) was up for 2006 re-election
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), was up for 2006 re-election
Craig Thomas (R-WY), was up for 2006 re-election
Senator Lindsey Graham 202-224-5972 http://www.555us.com/555SC/555sc_zipcodes.htm
Senator Harry Reid 202-224-3542 http://www.555us.com/555ND/555nd_zipcodes.htm
Senator McConnell 202-224-2541 http://www.555us.com/555KY/555ky_zipcodes.htm
Senator Ted Kennedy 202-224-4543 http://www.555us.com/555MA/555ma_zipcodes.htm
Senator Arlen Specter 202-224-4254 http://www.555us.com/555PA/555pa_zipcodes.htm
Start making more phone calls into their offices as well as all Senators, expressing our disdain and ABSOLUTE
REJECTION of amnesty and special citizenship provisions for illegal aliens, and to emphasize the need
for greater border security. Call the US Capitol toll-free at 1-866-340-9281 Ask for your Senators' offices. It is
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! For further info: Frank Livingston: email@example.com
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
All job applicants will have to produce a passport or birth certificate from next year to prove that they are not illegal immigrants.
Even native-born Britons will have to comply with the new Home Office rules, to avoid claims of race discrimination if foreigners are singled out for checks.
Ministers claim the move will "flush out" hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants working in the black economy.
Firms will face penalties of up £10,000 for every illegal foreign worker they employ, even if they tip off the immigration authorities themselves.
Last night, business leaders accused ministers of penalising employers for the failure of Government immigration policy while adding to the mountain of red tape.
The new rules follow repeated and largely unsuccessful efforts by the Home Office to tackle the massive issue of illegal foreign workers.
Estimates of the number in the UK range from 570,000 to 870,000.
Employers are already obliged to check foreign workers' documents but the laws have proved difficult to enforce, with just 23 successful prosecutions in 2005.
The Home Office plans to boost the number of enforcement staff from 700 to 1,200 by next year, as well as launching a telephone documentchecking service to help employers determine whether passports and other papers are genuine.
Immigration minister Liam Byrne said: "What we are proposing here will, I think, flush illegal migrants out.
"We are trying to create a much more hostile environment if you are here illegally." [ Imagine that! ]
Matthew Knowles, of the Federation of Small Businesses, urged ministers to think again, saying: "It is surely unfair to ask businesses to act as immigration officials. [ ruh roh here we go again ]
"Not only will these recommendations to check passports place an extra burden on small firms, who have no specialist human resources department to help or advise them, but it will also financially penalise businesses for the failure of the Government's immigration policy." [ did we export some of our idiots to Britain? ]
POSTED: 7:29 p.m. EDT, May 15, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to delay a Bush administration plan to allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways.
The trucks would have to be declared safe first, the lawmakers said, and Mexico would have to give U.S. truckers the same access south of the border.
The House voted 411-3 to approve a three-year Department of Transportation pilot program that would restrict opening the border to 100 carriers based in Mexico. They would be allowed to use a maximum of 1,000 vehicles under the pilot program.
The Bush administration wanted to start a pilot program this year that would run for a year before fully opening the border to Mexican trucks.
The House bill, however, specifies criteria for the pilot program before it can start, including setting up an independent panel to evaluate the test program and getting certification from the inspector general that safety and inspection requirements have been met.
The Department of Transportation says it could be as late as 2008 before Congress' criteria are met, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Lawmakers said their major concern is whether Mexican trucks, often older than U.S. cargo vehicles, and Mexican drivers will be able to meet rigorous U.S. safety standards.
"We do not need 90,000-pound unguided missiles on our highways," said Rep. Robin Hayes, R-North Carolina.
American trucking companies have spent years getting their vehicles up to Transportation Department standards, lawmakers said. Letting Mexican trucks across the border without making them meet those standards is wrong, they said.
"We're going to have a major accident somewhere, and people are going to say, 'How did this happen?" said Rep. Bob Filner, D-California.
Added Rep. Candice Miller, R-Michigan: "We need to ensure that this program only takes places after the Mexican companies meet the same conditions that American companies do."
Economic arguments made too
Lawmakers also complained that allowing Mexican trucks greater access will cost American truckers their jobs.
"You can get a Mexican truck driver to work for a heck of a lot less than a Teamster in the United States, and you can get a Mexican dock worker to work for a heck of a lot less than a longshoreman in the United States, and that's what this is ultimately designed to do," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.
The Teamsters, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Environmental Law Foundation sued in federal court in April to block the pilot program, citing safety and environmental concerns.
"We don't know how safety laws such as hours of service and drug testing would be enforced," Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said. "This vote by the House repudiates those questionable attempts to open our borders without adequate safeguards."
The Bush administration had planned to run a yearlong pilot program that would allow Mexican trucks beyond the current 20-mile limit from the border but the launch was halted after complaints from Congress.
Since 1982, trucks have had to stop within the buffer zone and transfer their loads to U.S. truckers to take them into the country. The legislation would allow Mexican drivers to take their loads from Mexico to any point within the country.
Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. They include many in the trucking industry, the Bush administration and lawmakers who favor the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
Access to all U.S. highways was promised by 2000 under the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, as was access through Mexico for U.S. carriers. That aspect has been stalled by lawsuits and disagreements between the two countries, though Canadian and U.S. trucks travel freely across the northern border.
If former members are out there and want to contribute to this cause use the tip jar on my blog here and if specify it is for IIP and perhaps we can collect enough $$ to do it. The host keeps backups for 30 days but of course, there is no guarantee that the forum can be restored from backups - but there is a good chance.
Cities with MEANEST drivers also cities with highest illegal alien populations
America's Meanest Drivers1. Miami
2. New York
4. Los Angeles
5. Washington, D.C.
10. San Francisco
14. Minneapolis-St. Paul
Monday, May 14, 2007
Blogs for Borders Video Blogburst for May 15th 2007
Are criminals in a certain Southwestern state "Arizona white?"
Illegal aliens continue to kill and rape Americans.
Illegal aliens gassed by border patrol, but in what country?
All this and much, much more in this week's Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst.
Amnesty debates get into gear again this week. You know what to do!
A good resource on holding congresscritters accountable!
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you'd like to join go to the Blogs For Borders Website and send us an email with "sign me up" in the subject line.Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, amnesty, border security, harry reid, ted kennedy, lindsay graham, rape, murder, reconquista, invasion, 100% preventable!, mexico, arizona, white, drunk driving,
The Los Angeles Police Department's landmark Special Order 40, which prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects, has come under an aggressive assault by anti-illegal immigrant activists who argue that it ties the hands of police.
FOR THE RECORD:
Police and immigrants: An article in the April 11 California section about a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the department's landmark Special Order 40 "prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects." The 1979 order states that "officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person." Although officers have long interpreted the order as a prohibition, LAPD officials said they don't consider Special Order 40 a blanket ban on inquiring about immigration status. —
The nearly 30-year-old policy has long been controversial, but the current national debate about illegal immigration has prompted lawsuits that are aimed at overturning Special Order 40 and similar rules across the country.
Los Angeles was the first major city to enact the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on illegal immigration, though most other police agencies have followed suit. So the outcome of the legal challenges could have a widespread effect.
The latest challenge would come this week, with a lawsuit that would ask a judge to require that the LAPD inform federal immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges.
The suit, which is endorsed by the Federal Immigration Reform Enforcement Coalition and is scheduled to be filed as early as today, cites an obscure state code that appears to require local police to report to federal authorities the names of any illegal immigrant arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking or possession.
The city is already gearing up for a trial over a Special Order 40 challenge that has been filed by another anti-illegal immigration group, the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Watch. That group argues that the order is unconstitutional.
In both cases, plaintiffs said, they are supported by rank-and-file police officers who don't like the policy but are afraid to speak out publicly because Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William J. Bratton are vocal proponents of it.
Some officers are calling on the Los Angeles police union board of directors to consider, for the first time, taking a formal position on Special Order 40. The board plans to discuss the issue soon.
"We have heard there is concern among the members," said Bob Baker, president of the Police Protective League, on Tuesday.
Some legal experts said Tuesday that they were intrigued by the anti-illegal immigrant forces' use of a section of the state's Health and Safety Code to attack Special Order 40.
The section, which was written in 1972, states that in drug possession and trafficking cases involving a noncitizen, "the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation."
"This is going to be an interesting issue," said Gerald F. Uelman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.
Uelman said that although the challenge was novel, Los Angeles officials could argue that questioning the immigration status only of drug offenders violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
"What is the rational basis for choosing drug offenses over violent crimes?" Uelmen said.
Politically, Special Order 40 remains very popular at L.A. City Hall — with supporters saying that it ensures that the members of the city's many immigrant communities will cooperate with police without fear of deportation.
Villaraigosa repeated his strong support for the policy Tuesday.
"I agree with Chief Bratton and every police chief before him that requiring our police officers to double as immigration agents will result in fewer arrests, prosecutions and convictions," he said.
But the policy — and similar ones elsewhere in the United States — have become the focus of debates in the blogosphere and on cable news shows and talk radio.
Last week, television and radio commentator Bill O'Reilly criticized Bratton for refusing to enforce the law against illegal immigrants.
The debate comes as cities debate how to deal with illegal immigrants. Some cities, such as Maywood, which is southeast of downtown Los Angeles, have dubbed themselves "sanctuary cities" that attempt to treat illegal immigrants like citizens.
But elsewhere — including in Orange County — some law enforcement officials have forged stronger ties with federal immigration officials. Orange County sheriff's deputies and Costa Mesa police officers receive training from immigration officials.
In Arizona, voters decided to deny bail to illegal immigrants who had been arrested on charges involving serious felonies. And Maricopa County deputies, some Phoenix police officers and state public safety police have been trained to enforce immigration laws.
Southern California immigrant-rights activists bristle at the thought that many Special Order 40 opponents, though living outside Los Angeles, seek to dictate how the city treats its immigrants. They are concerned that other cities are moving away from similar protective orders.
"It's a very slippery slope," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles. "We have always known with the LAPD there is disagreement on the issue. The leadership supports Special Order  but a minority of officers, a very vocal minority, want to enforce immigration laws and they want to expand their ability to do that."
Some LAPD officers privately support the latest lawsuit, said Dave Klehm, the Santa Ana attorney who drafted the litigation pro bono on behalf of a group of Los Angeles residents.
"One of the reasons I'm doing this is to help out police officers so they don't have to put their lives on the line repeatedly re-arresting drug offenders who should have been deported the first time," Klehm said Tuesday.
One veteran LAPD officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear of punishment, said Tuesday that he had talked to Klehm and other backers of the lawsuit and thought that the suit was a good idea.
"We are having a revolving door out there in terms of people we arrest for drug offenses who are in this country illegally," the officer said.
A second LAPD officer, who is part of the command staff, also voiced support for the litigation, saying that the department for decades has not reported the thousands of illegal immigrants arrested on drug charges to federal authorities.
The command officer said that many officers who don't like the current policy would support a change. Under the rules, the immigration status of most arrestees is checked by federal agents and county jail workers only after they have been convicted of a crime and are in jail.
The lawsuit cites a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2005. The GAO study, which involved 55,322 illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities during 2003, found that they had been arrested an average of eight times each, and that 49% previously had been convicted of a felony, while 20% had been arrested for a drug offense. Many also had been convicted of violent crimes.
As a result, the lawsuit argues that if the LAPD complied with state law, "petitioners would have a much lower chance of being victims of a violent crime committed by an illegal alien who was previously arrested for any one of the 14 listed drug offenses."
One of the plaintiffs, 50-year-old machinist Rudy Moreno of El Sereno, said the repeal of Special Order 40 would help his neighborhood and the officers who work in it. "The police seem to have to keep re-arresting the same criminals over and over again," he said.
A survey of the Los Angeles County jail system earlier this year estimated that about 20% of the inmates were illegal immigrants.
The potential lawsuit comes less than a year after Judicial Watch sued the LAPD.
That suit alleges that Special Order 40 violates state and federal law by prohibiting the maximum amount of cooperation between the Police Department and immigration authorities in enforcing immigration laws.
"It handcuffs police officers' ability to ensure law and order in the city," said Sterling "Ernie" Norris, an attorney for Judicial Watch. "It is a model for sanctuary cities. It is the original. Los Angeles is where it all began."
Norris said the problem was illustrated by last week's auto accident in which an illegal immigrant, who had been arrested before, was allegedly driving drunk when his truck struck a car, killing film director Bob Clark and Clark's son Ariel.
"If he wasn't here, he couldn't have committed the crime," Norris said. "If law enforcement had been able to do their duty, it would have saved those lives."
But ACLU staff attorney Belinda Helzer said Special Order 40 allows people in the United States illegally to feel comfortable in approaching the police to report crimes.
Repealing it, she said, "would exacerbate the fear of victims" of crime "who are undocumented and are already living in the shadows."
Here's what I say - let's get these people "out of the shadows" and back to their home countries where they belong! Problem solved!
Let's settle this here and now - it's not JUST the job of the Federal government to enforce immigration laws!
Read this article written by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch:
By Tom Fitton - While illegal aliens continue to flood across the border, bringing with them all manner of social problems, including violent crime, some local law enforcement agencies have chosen to aggravate the situation by instituting so-called “sanctuary policies.” These unlawful policies prevent local police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status or even cooperating with federal immigration officials.
Proponents of sanctuary policies claim illegal immigration is a federal problem, and that local law enforcement agencies do not have the authority or resources to enforce immigration laws. However, as Judicial Watch recently learned from newly released government documents, both of these claims are patently false.
According to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political sub-division of a state.” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), local law enforcement officers can receive immigration enforcement training – called 287(g) cross designation training. The cost for the five-week program is a very reasonable $520 per officer.
Now for the important question: Does the program work?
As of June 2006, 136 officers received 287(g) training from four states, including, Alabama, Arizona, California and Florida. (If your state isn’t one of these four, you may want to ask your local elected and police officials about it.) These officers have accounted for 820 immigration-related arrests since the program began in 2002. And while many of the arrests relate to fraudulent documents, others involve rape, drug possession, firearm possession, driving under the influence, and burglary.
There is no question the federal government has a responsibility to secure our nation’s borders. And there is no question the federal government must do a better job of it. But when the system breaks down, local law enforcement cannot abandon their sworn duty to “protect and serve” the American people. As these documents show, local communities that sincerely want to enforce immigration laws can do so legally and cost effectively.
Judicial Watch Opposes the LAPD’s Special Order 40 in New Court Filing
Speaking of sanctuary policies, Judicial Watch continues to fight its legal battle on behalf of taxpayers against the LAPD’s version, “Special Order 40.” On July 14, Judicial Watch filed a legal memorandum with the California Superior Court. A court hearing is scheduled for July 27.
JW’s memorandum was filed in response to the defendants’ “demurrer,” which would effectively dismiss the lawsuit. It makes three key arguments against the LAPD’s sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants:
1. Special Order 40 Violates Federal Law: In 1996, Congress enacted legislation which states, “…a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement) information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
The LAPD has adopted what is in effect a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy with respect to immigration status. Special Order 40 restricts the free flow of information between police officers and immigration officials and is, therefore, a violation of federal immigration law.
2. Special Order 40 is Preempted by Federal Law: The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that “the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” According to the Court, “…the states can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization, and residence of aliens in the United States…” In other words, in cases where federal law and state law conflict, federal law takes precedence.
3. Special Order 40 Violates California Law: California law mandates that Los Angeles police officers enforce immigration laws and work with federal immigration officials. "Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Immigration and Customs Enforcement) regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws." Obviously, Special Order 40 expressly prohibits police officers from fully cooperating with immigration officials and is therefore in violation of state law.
Next week I hope to be able to give you an update from the hearing. Stay tuned…
Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
It's nice to see religious leaders ready, willing and able to speak out AGAINST the illegal alien harboring "sanctuary movement". Just another case of a group of traitors trying to put a nice name on harboring fugitives from justice - sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
May 15, 2007
For the past several days, news reports have been circulating throughout the mainstream media regarding the decision by several churches to provide "sanctuary" to illegal aliens. For example, a Fox News report dated May 9, 2007 said, "Two churches intend to give sanctuary to illegal immigrants to protect them from deportation and pressure lawmakers to provide a chance at U.S. citizenship.
"Beginning Wednesday afternoon, a Catholic church in downtown Los Angeles and a Lutheran church in North Hollywood each intend to shelter one person as part of the 'New Sanctuary Movement.'
"A handful of churches in other U.S. cities plan similar efforts in the months ahead to spotlight the plight of illegal immigrants."
The report continued by saying, "In New York, religious leaders gathered at the Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul the Apostle and said their promise of sanctuary could include financial assistance, legal help and physical protection, if necessary.
"'For us, sanctuary is an act of radical hospitality, the welcoming of the stranger who is like ourselves, the stranger in our midst, our neighbors, our friends,' said Rabbi Michael Feinberg of the Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition."
However, as a veteran pastor with more than thirty years of experience who oversees a vibrant and growing congregation of faithful and dedicated believers, I can state unequivocally that our church will definitely not be participating in the "New Sanctuary Movement."
Furthermore, it is more than troubling to learn that some of my Christian brethren seem to be so undiscerning as to be willing to facilitate lawlessness and even potential terrorism by assisting those who have no respect for our nation's laws or national borders.
Make no mistake about it: illegal aliens are no more our "neighbors" and "friends" than are other criminals. They knowingly and deliberately violate our nation's immigration laws and then have the audacity to demand that we accept and even protect them? I don't think so.
And lest someone accuse me of being uncompassionate, think again. You should know that my church congregation is composed of several immigrants from many nationalities and ethnicities. And they all have one thing in common: they were willing to immigrate to America lawfully. They played by the rules. They stood in line. And they have found nothing but love and friendship from those of us privileged to be born in this great country.
Critics should also know that my Chief of Staff, my right-hand man, is an immigrant from Zimbabwe, Africa. So, I don't want to hear how uncaring and bigoted I am because I believe that people should play by the rules and be honest with their fellow man.
Besides, our Lord has already settled the question of how to define illegal aliens. In John 10:1, Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."
Yes, I realize that Jesus was referring to the fact that He alone is the door to heaven; however, the analogy is well taken. There is a right way and a wrong way to enter into anything, whether it is a sheepfold, a house, or a country. And anyone who attempts to circumvent the door and break through another way is a crook, plain and simple.
Should Christians share the Gospel with everyone they can, including illegal aliens? Of course, we should. However, we should also insist that people obey the law and do what is right. Remember, God is not only a God of love, He is also a God of law. And, historically, the United States of America has always been first and foremost a nation of laws, not men.
Furthermore, since when is accommodating and facilitating acts of criminality a mark of compassion? It's not.
During more than three decades of ministry, I have had occasion to counsel those who have broken the law and then experienced repentance and forgiveness in Christ. Does my compassion mean that I would not encourage them to do the honest thing and surrender to authorities and face their crimes? Of course not. That is exactly what I encouraged, and sometimes even helped, them to do.
Beyond that, I've always found that a person who is truly repentant and honest is more than willing to make things right with the law and to take his punishment like a man. Honest people don't demand or expect shortcuts and exemptions.
Of course, not only is our national character and culture at risk, so is our security and survival. The current invasion of illegal aliens threatens not only our way of life, but also our very safety.
As has already been reported, illegal aliens murder an average of twelve Americans every day. This translates to more Americans being killed by illegal aliens each year than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to date.
Yet, the threat of terrorism is even more problematic than individual acts of violence. With millions of illegal aliens pouring over our borders from scores of nations that are hostile to the United States, we risk the threat of major acts of terrorism.
I'm afraid that the policies of President George W. Bush and Senators Ted Kennedy, John McCain, et al., and now those of misguided churchmen, only serve to fuel the evil machinations of those who seek our harm.
Instead of encouraging criminal activity (illegal immigration), Christians and churches should be promoting truth and adherence to law.
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.
Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.
WASHINGTON — Internet cartoons show him with horns and the word "TRAITOR" branded on his forehead. Conservative talk radio derides him as "Johnny Satan." At least two Republican congressmen, normally staunch defenders of the Bush administration, have castigated him on the House floor.
If the White House and Justice Department had added Johnny Sutton to the list of federal prosecutors to be fired, his ouster probably would not have raised an eyebrow among Democrats, and it would have pleased much of the president's conservative base.
Sutton is the U.S. attorney in west Texas. Based in San Antonio, his border district reaches to El Paso. For five years he has been the top federal lawman in one of the nation's busiest regions, a job he long dreamed of having. It also is one he secured with deep ties to President Bush and Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, going back to their time in state government in Austin.
The uproar is over his prosecution of two U.S. Border Patrol agents for the February 2005 shooting of a fleeing Mexican drug smuggler near El Paso, a shooting the agents tried to cover up. Last year, Sutton's office won convictions against Agents Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
Each was a line officer in what many people consider a hopeless chore: trying to hold back a deluge of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Each is a father of three. And each was sentenced to more than a decade in prison: Ramos to 11 years, Compean to 12.
"This was a serious, serious crime," Sutton said Thursday on a conservative radio program in Houston, trying again to calm the anger on the political right. "It is a serious crime when law enforcement officers shoot at somebody, shoot him in the back as he's running away, and then cover up the crime."
The agents were sentenced in October, just as the White House and Justice Department were preparing plans to fire eight other federal prosecutors, and the parallel events have left normally strong Bush supporters disappointed that Sutton was not terminated too.
"Johnny Sutton has lied to the American people," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntingon Beach) proclaimed in a House floor speech in March. "Sutton prosecuted the good guys and gave immunity to the bad guys."
T.J. Bonner, head of the union that represents most of the Border Patrol agents, was more forceful in a recent interview. "Johnny Sutton acts like he's America's best friend," Bonner said. "He should be America's Most Wanted."
Sutton, who did not return phone calls for this article, runs a huge district of 93,000 square miles, including 660 miles of the border with Mexico. His staff of 260 employees, including 118 assistant prosecutors, handles federal cases in 68 Texas counties and three of the state's largest cities, San Antonio, El Paso and Austin.
Sutton heads the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, which helps set policies and goals devised by Washington and the 93 U.S. attorneys' offices nationwide, and he often was notified by Washington about the planned firings.
For instance, D. Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales, worried that the dismissed prosecutors might appeal to Sutton for help in keeping their jobs. So in November, Sampson sent Sutton a list of specific responses he should give them on why they had to go. If they called and asked, "Why me?," he was to tell them it was to "give someone else the chance to serve in your district." (It is unclear whether any did appeal to him.)
Two days before the Dec. 7 firings, Sampson advised that Sutton should be immediately notified so he was "not caught unawares." Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul McNulty agreed to "talk to Johnny."
A week after the firings, Sampson sent e-mails to top Justice officials, including Sutton, advising that some fired prosecutors were complaining. McNulty responded that Sutton and others should try to ease the bruised feelings. "Some hand-holding may calm things down," McNulty told Sutton.
Sutton is used to adversity. Friends recalled that despite his small stature, he played left field for the University of Texas baseball squad, though he always feared he would get cut. "He's just very, very tenacious, and every year he would win the position again," said Houston defense lawyer Rusty Hardin, a former state prosecutor in Houston who gave Sutton his first shot at government service.
After Sutton earned a law degree in 1987, he went to work for Hardin. Sutton likes to recall, as he did during the Houston radio interview, that he tried 17 murder cases "and I put three people on death row."
His career took a turn in 1995, when then-Gov. George W. Bush appointed him his law enforcement policy advisor, moving him to Austin and putting him close to both Bush and Gonzales, then the governor's general counsel. For five years Sutton coordinated various state police agencies, and he oversaw an attempt to change the juvenile justice code, though the program failed to pass in the Legislature.
All three men — Bush, Gonzales and Sutton — seemed a nice fit, recalled former Bush advisor Cathy Cochran, now a judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "They thought a lot alike," she said. "There was a great mutual trust and admiration for each other."
After the 2000 presidential election, Sutton moved to Washington and worked on Bush's transition team as a Justice Department policy coordinator. For Bush's first year in the White House, Sutton served as an associate deputy attorney general, and then in late 2001, with Bush's blessing, he took the reins as U.S. attorney in west Texas.
There he was regarded as reliable and tough on crime, helping police one of the most difficult sections of the southwest border corridor.
Then came the Ramos-Compean shooting in February 2005.
The agents stopped a van they suspected was involved in smuggling Mexicans just east of El Paso. It turned out the van was carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. The driver, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, fled on foot — because, he says, one of them tried to beat him — and they shot at him about 15 times, hitting him once, in his buttocks.
The agents would later say they feared Aldrete-Davila was armed. He says he was not.
The agents were found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, violating AldreteDavila's civil rights and defacing a crime scene. They tossed their shotgun casings into the Rio Grande to hide the evidence, prosecutors said.
Aldrete-Davila has sued the federal government for $5 million over his injuries.
The idea of federal police going to jail while an alleged criminal sues for a large sum has enraged the right against Sutton.
"Our federal government needs to get on the right side of the border conflict, and that is the American side," Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) said in a House floor speech in March.
Poe, Rohrabacher and several dozen other Congress members have written Bush urging him to commute the sentences, calling them "a travesty of justice."
Border watchdog groups said they had faxed tens of thousands of citizen signatures to Washington urging a pardon. Sutton, they said, should be behind bars.
"He ought to be impeached and thrown into the same jail cells as Ramos and Compean," said Andy Ramirez, head of the California-based Friends of the Border Patrol.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked in March whether Bush would jettison Sutton; he declined to respond because of "ongoing legal deliberations in the case."
McNulty was asked during a congressional hearing whether Sutton was ever considered for termination with the others. McNulty answered with an emphatic "no."
Sutton himself has not sat idly by.
A month before the two sentences were handed down, he issued a rare, three-page written response to public "inaccuracies" regarding the prosecution of the two agents.
"It is a violation of any person's constitutional right to shoot at them after they have attempted to surrender, knowing they are unarmed and pose no danger to the officers or anyone else," he said.
His defenders, such as Hardin and Cochran, find it ironic that the same conservative base that supported the Bush administration would turn on Sutton. "I get so offended by that," Hardin said, angered that his friend was being compared to the devil.
On the Houston radio show, Sutton challenged the host: "You see me now, and I'm not Satan," he said. "I've got no horns. But you've been calling me Johnny Satan."
Well, said host Edd Hendee on KSEV radio, "the jury's out on that."
Sutton fired back, "Are you kidding? Calling me Satan is not personal?"
Sunday, May 13, 2007
FARMERS BRANCH, Texas — Voters in this Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.
The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent in final, unofficial returns.
The balloting marked the first public vote on a local government measure to crack down on illegal immigration.
"It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. That if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will," said Tim O'Hare, a City Council member who was the ordinance's lead proponent.
The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or
legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.
Council members approved the ordinance in November, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.
Farmers Branch has become the site of protests and angry confrontations, and opponents
of the regulation gathered enough signatures to force the city to put the measure on the municipal election ballot.
With Saturday's approval of the ban, opponents plan to fight it in court, and will seek a restraining order to stop the city from enforcing it.
The city was already facing four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses who contend the ordinance discriminates and that it places landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. One lawsuit also alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.
O'Hare contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out.
Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.
Local proposals aimed at regulating illegal immigration often fail to pass constitutional
muster, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute office at New York University School of Law.
"There is significant frustration, so that's what's driving it," Chishti said. "But the simple fact is they cannot do too much other than impress uponthe Congress the need for immigration reform."
Powered by ScribeFire.Technorati Tags: Farmer's Branch illegal immigration ordinance voters landlords prohibit aliens
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Let's sue the Federal Government if they pass any kind of amnesty
Calling all lawyers. Calling the ACRU. Let's get ready to fight it if any kind of amnesty passes.
Save Our State VS Barbarian Illegal Aliens at Machado Lake Day Labor Site
Reid Plans to Push Through Immigration Bill, but Cedes 1 Day in Talks
Friday, May 11, 2007
WASHINGTON — Agreeing to give a fitful set of bipartisan talks more time to yield an immigration deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday he would delay a vote on the issue until next Wednesday.
The move postponed — at least for a day — what was shaping up as a partisan clash over immigration after weeks of negotiations between the White House and senators in both parties designed to strike a broad compromise.
With that agreement still elusive, Reid is planning to force debate next week on an immigration measure that passed the Senate last year with wide Democratic backing but opposition by a majority of Republicans. GOP senators have promised to block that move, saying they will only accept a new bipartisan compromise.
"Some of the senators feel that there's a breakthrough that could take place" in talks over the weekend and early next week, said Reid, D-Nev., adding that he would "reluctantly" postpone the test-vote, which he had set for Tuesday. He has now set the vote for next Wednesday.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the move would "give us the maximum opportunity to piece back together the bipartisan agreement that we thought we almost had a week or so ago."
Talks are continuing on the possible deal, which would first secure the U.S.-Mexico border and implement an elaborate high-tech identification system for immigrant workers, and only then give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status — after waits as long as 13 more years.
Many Democrats and Republicans are wary of such an agreement, which also would limit immigrants' ability to bring their families to the U.S. Democrats fear it will be rejected as too punitive by their liberal base, while Republicans are concerned about alienating conservatives by appearing to treat illegal immigrants too leniently.
President Bush plans to use his Saturday weekly radio address to urge Congress to reshape immigration laws.
Friday, May 11, 2007
CALL your Republican representatives today anyway and URGE them to hold out on this pushing through any kind of amnesty just to get it "out of the way" of the 2008 elections. To rush something through would be disastrous for this country.
1-866-340-9281 Capitol Hill switchboard
These are key senators to call: Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Ben Nelson, Debbie Stabenow and Craig Thomas
Senate Urged to Rethink Immigration Bill After NJ Arrests
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
May 09, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - The arrest of six foreign-born Muslims accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix, N.J., should stop the Senate from producing an immigration bill that includes a "pathway to citizenship" or any other let-them-stay-here program, said a group that strongly opposes "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
Three of the Islamic radicals arrested in New Jersey were illegal aliens; two had green cards; and one was a U.S. citizen. Four of the suspects were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. The suspects apparently had no connection to al Qaeda.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform called the arrests "strong proof that lax enforcement of our immigration laws does pose a severe threat to the security of the nation, and that the government's screening process for granting green cards and other immigration benefits is perilously flawed."
News of the arrests came as a bipartisan group of Senators is trying to write an immigration reform bill acceptable to both sides -- a task that's proving difficult to accomplish.
Many conservatives insist that such a bill must concentrate on enforcement of current immigration law as well as border security. -- keeping foreigners out of the country unless they go through proper immigration channels.
Others, including President Bush and Senate Democrats, want the bill to include a guest worker program and a "pathway to citizenship" for the millions of people who have sneaked into the country illegally -- and can't easily be shipped out, they say.
"Given [Tuesday's] events, the American public has a right to demand, not ask, that Congress and the Bush administration drop all talk of amnesty and guest worker programs and get to work on the single most important priority: controlling our borders and fixing an immigration system that allows terrorists and just about anyone else to enter and hide out in this country," said FAIR President Dan Stein.
"Luck was on our side this time, but luck is not a substitute for due diligence and an immigration enforcement policy that protects the nation and its people," he said.
FAIR said the arrests in New Jersey prove that terrorists can and will take advantage of "unenforced immigration policies that have flooded this country with illegal immigrants."
The arrests also show that terrorists understand the nation's vulnerabilities, FAIR said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says the Senate will begin floor debate on an immigration bill on May 14, and if the new bill is not ready, he'll substitute the bill passed by the Senate last year. Reid insists his fellow senators have had plenty of time to produce a bill.
Slow down, Republicans say. Press reports on Wednesday quoted Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) as saying that the bipartisan working group is "close" to agreement.
"We've been close for several days," wire reports quoted him as saying. "There is not full bipartisan agreement on all of the major issues. Until we have that agreement we should not move forward."
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The skewed view from the other side of May Day
LA Police Attack on Hispanics Provides Civics Lesson From the Margins
Miguel De La Torre
Imagine you are part of a group of concerned citizens frustrated with Congress placing timetables on the military spending bill. [ except, umm, you're not citizens, you're mostly illegal aliens ] Your group of mainly white, middle- and upper-class residents decides to hold a rally, partly to protest Congress' recent actions but also to support the president's handling of the war.
You contact the police and local government officials to make the necessary arrangements, even working out agreed-upon procedures in the unlikely event of a disturbance. [ except they planned to be based in a park dominated by MS-13 so really now - how unlikely was a disturbance?]
You decide to bring your two small children to provide them with a visual lesson on how democracy works. You may disagree with the actions taken by your government, but you have a constitutional right to protest those actions. [ but you do NOT have the right to throw objects at the police! and illegal aliens do NOT have the right to protest in our streets! ]
Grandpa and Grandma join you, turning this civic lesson into a family outing and celebrating the family values of your culture.
To your surprise, the police show up in riot gear, swinging their batons and firing their weapons into the crowd. You scoop up a child under each arm and run for safety.
Grandma can't run fast enough and is struck by one of the baton-wielding police officers. When Grandpa turns around to help her, he is struck by a rubber bullet. [ show me the video ]
As you run, praying for the safety of the children you are carrying, you notice that white female news reporters capturing the mayhem are being beaten by the police, while crying out that these actions are illegal. [ the press were ignoring orders to clear the park - no they are not special]
In your haste to protect your children, you become separated from your wife. Hours go by after the melee, and you still cannot find her. You jump into the SUV and start looking at the local hospitals and even the morgue. Eventually you find her at a hospital with a concussion. [ nice fabricated BS ]
Outrage is too mild a term for what you feel. You live in America, where such atrocities against human rights and dignity cannot happen. That is unless you happen to be a Latino or Latina. [ illegal alien rock throwing anarchist ]
For this is exactly what occurred in Los Angeles on May 1, when the Hispanic [illegal alien ] community held a rally to protest the Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. [ and you helped our cause in fighting amnesty greatly! mucho gracias! ]
Hispanics gathered for a peaceful [except for the rock throwers ] gathering in MacArthur Park, west of downtown. Then, unexpectedly, the police, in full riot gear, showed up, attacking the Latino/a families, including women and children. [ wrong - they were not attacking - they were doing their job of clearing the park which was announced clearly ]
When the press covering the story protested about the abuse, Christina Gonzalez from a Fox News affiliate, her camerawoman Patti Ballaz, and NPR reporter Patricia Nazario were among the hurt civilians.
If this peace march were conducted by whites in suburbia, none of this would have occurred. And do you think the police would have been wearing riot gear? [ it would not have occurred because WE don't throw crap at the police!!!! ]
But wait, didn't the demonstrators start the riot by allegedly throwing rocks and bottles at the police? The police are reporting that a band of youth, NOT affiliated with the peace march, taunted them over a block away from the park. [ LIAR]
If the park was full of whites instead of Latinos, the police would have first jumped to erect a barrier between the troublemakers and attendees before taking action to subdue and arrest the hoodlums. [ BS alert - you don't know crap about police procedures bozo ]
But because we are talking about Hispanics, the police herded these troublemakers into the park where Hispanic families gathered, so that they could indiscriminately swing and shoot at them. [ like the LAPD is going to do something blatant like that in this litigous society?? I don't THINK SO]
Fortunately the "liberal" media were present to demand inquires and post pictures of the ethnic abuse on their front pages.
Oh, I forgot. These were Latinos. The New York Times buried the story deep in the paper and has said nothing else about the incidents since the May Day rally. [ your story is not being told because even the leftist media realizes it is propaganda! ]
Police Chief William J. Bratton admitted that this was the "worst incident of this type [he has] ever encountered in 37 years." Considering the Los Angeles Police Department's history of protecting the rights of people of color, Bratton's statement is quite an indictment. [ I can't wait to hear the truth from the actual law enforcement officers who were there - oh that's right we already HEARD the police radio which proves they followed proper procedure ]
According to Victor Narro, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild, one videotape he saw showed the police fire a rubber round at what appeared to be a 10-year-old boy, and then "toss him aside like a piece of meat." [ prove it - I saw nothing like that of all the video ]
Still, the LAPD accomplished its purpose--teaching Latino/as--citizens or otherwise--that they, unlike their white counterparts, do not have a right to protest. For if they do, what they can expect is violence. [illegal aliens do not have the right to protest - yes that is correctimundo ]
Miguel A. De La Torre is director of the Justice & Peace [what irony! ]Institute and associate professor of social ethics at Iliff School of Theology in Denver.
Military Bloggers Eye Army Crackdown on Web Reporting
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The military blogging community is abuzz over the perceived crackdown on bloggers, who Army officials readily admit are providing firsthand accounts that the media generally miss in daily reporting from the war zone.
"I've been threatened on numerous occasions — two threats in the last two months alone — to be booted out of Iraq," said Michael Yon, a former Green Beret now in Iraq who frequently reports for FOXNews.com. "Bloggers who express independent views are seen as a threat, while (pro-military bloggers) seem to be viewed as tools. The military is simply trying to keep the tools and mitigate the threats but in doing so caused quite a stir."
"No, the Army didn’t try to ban blogs. No, the Army didn’t backtrack. No, the Army wasn’t going to be some Communist-like organization where only approved information is uttered. And all the histrionic commentary to the contrary ... looks rather silly and borderline insulting," he wrote.
“Not every blog entry needs to be cleared for content. But to establish a blog, the soldier needs approval,” Ceralde told FOX News. “We want to protect First Amendment rights but we also want to protect operational security,” he said.
Added White House spokesman Tony Snow: “Some of the stories about muzzling the milblogs were overblown.”
Milblogs typically consist of three types of blogs: active-duty troops “in theater,” former military citizens and spouses or family members back home. Burden said the purpose of the blogs is to "stay in touch with family and friends, document the history of their deployment, or provide a place to vent. ... Others are just really great writers that want to express themselves."
He added that bloggers perform a service that the military is getting in short supply — positive news from the war front.
"I worry that we're losing the information war and am trying to find ways to make some victories for our military, which does amazing things every day," Burden said. "When was the last time you read a story about the combat effectiveness of a unit in Afghanistan or Iraq? They are kicking ass against terrorists, working with the Iraqi public and training their soldiers and police, and no one is reporting it."
Efforts to block bloggers have gained some attention on Capitol Hill. Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sent a letter last week to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in support of military bloggers.
“We are concerned the regulations may also inadvertently weaken what has proven a significant asset in our media age: the firsthand accounts of American military men and women on the ground,” the letter reads.
That concern is especially significant to bloggers who say that the Pentagon has been its own worst enemy both in fighting the propaganda war and in protecting operational security.
"The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon. I get more advance notice from a Pentagon Press Brief of U.S. movements from Kuwait into Iraq than I get from all other sources combined. The Pentagon acts as if it is not at war, and the leaks emanating from Arlington are enormous," blogger D.J. Elliot, a retired Navy intelligence analyst, wrote on The Fourth Rail.
Badger 6, who identifies himself as an Army officer in Iraq commanding an engineering company, writes on his Web log that operational security is tantamount to success in the war in Iraq, although even he has wondered if the decision to update the regulations may have had a political component to it.
"Some of my comments and the comments at other Milblogs have indicated they think that this is driven by politicians who are skeptical about the mission and call for our return home. On the anti-war side of the blogosphere, I see comments indicating this is a plan by the Bush Administration to keep criticism by Soldiers in the field from leaking out and proving Iraq is a catastrophe. Both strike me as wrong headed," he wrote.
"The Army has a legitimate and important interest in maintaining Operational Security. It is a large Government organization that still does not know how to deal with this technology and capability. I see nothing political in this, it is a bureaucratic issue," Badger 6 continued.
The mere fact that the 2007 Milblog Conference opened up with a videotaped salutation from President Bush demonstrated to many in attendance that bloggers are getting noticed and their role is growing in importance. Burden said that as they become more influential, he would like “to see the military give bloggers the same rules as embed reporters” and see deployments adopt “unit blogging” — one soldier responsible for telling the history and activities of the unit.
"The future of milblogging is heavily dependent on toughminded milbloggers hanging in there," Yon said. "Keep in mind that most of the so-called milblogs ... are mostly written from home in the states. To my knowledge, I am the last remaining full-time blogger in the war who is not on active duty. Yes, the influence seems to be growing, but when my time is up here, probably nobody will be left to cover our troops full time."
Burden also offered words to the wise if soldiers want to stay out of trouble. Paraphrasing blogger “Lt. Smash,” the supposed granddaddy of military blogging, Burden said, “When you publish a post, write it like, one, your mother will read it, two, Usama Bin Laden will read it and three, your commander will read it.”
Griff Jenkins is a contibutor to FOX News Talk.
Labels: millblogs crackdown bloggers