is going to be priority #1 for me and brandon. We're going to take some classes at the community college... He's going to be taking vocational classes to get specific certifications he needs to do certain jobs...like operating the CNC machine... I'm not sure what kind of classes I'm going to be taking...I really want to learn how to play the piano...lol. I don't want to go back to Cal State fullerton any time soon, but taking some classes at Fullerton College will be a productive way to spend my time. I've thought about taking some construction classes and blue print classes to help me better understand some of the stuff I do here... But either way.. this is going to be our #1 priority (right next to brandon's crown for his root canal) which means that the wedding goes on the back burner. That's just hows it's got to be for right now. I was looking forward to having a wedding but planning for our future family is more important right now. I think if we wern't already married the wedding would be a higher priority but we're already married and ready to start planning our future. Pray for us that this all works out! I'm excited!
Love you guys!!!
Heather
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
A few quick stories to satisfy the hunger.
A few news stories have caught my attention today...
First off we have SB 105. This bill allows homosexual partners to file state taxes as domestic partners. Our senator's passed this bill yesterday with an overwhelming majority with all 24 democrats and 13 of the 15 republicans voting in favor for the bill. The only website reporting on this passage is SaveCalifornia.com. They are a Christian based organization and are adamantly opposed to this bill, or any bill that grants homosexual couples any kind of rights. I'm actually ok with the passage of this bill, it doesn't change the marriage laws, it only adds "domestic partners" to the list of who can file jointly.
For the full text of the bill read here
For the report from SaveCalifornia.com read here
The next piece of news that caught my attention is about the war-funding bill. Democrats are finally getting the point that the President will not pass a bill that requires a timetable. They are also realizing that they have a responsibility to fund the troops so they can properly fight this war. There is much speculation that the next bill, which should be voted on today, will not include a time table and will properly fund the troops. For more about the war funding bill read here.
The next piece of news is about the immigration bill. The debate on the bill has been postponed, most likely so the senators can have a chance to read the 1,000 page bill. At first this bill appeared to have the support of both the republicans and the democrats in Washington, now it appears the opposition is coming from both directions as well. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are overwhelmingly happy with this bill becuase it forces both sides to compromise. I think a bill that makes both sides a little uneasy is better than a bill that makes both sides happy. I don't want the democrats to have everything they want in this bill and likewise many people do not want the republicans to have everything they want. We'll see if this bill passes next month and unless they tighten boarder security, immigration reform will be a waste of money. For more information about this story read here.
Hope you are all having a great week!
P.s. Hero's was great last night and I'm really looking forward to the American Idol finale tonight!!! I like both Blake and Jordin so picking who's going to win is really hard for me! Either way they're both great!
Heather Barbee
First off we have SB 105. This bill allows homosexual partners to file state taxes as domestic partners. Our senator's passed this bill yesterday with an overwhelming majority with all 24 democrats and 13 of the 15 republicans voting in favor for the bill. The only website reporting on this passage is SaveCalifornia.com. They are a Christian based organization and are adamantly opposed to this bill, or any bill that grants homosexual couples any kind of rights. I'm actually ok with the passage of this bill, it doesn't change the marriage laws, it only adds "domestic partners" to the list of who can file jointly.
For the full text of the bill read here
For the report from SaveCalifornia.com read here
The next piece of news that caught my attention is about the war-funding bill. Democrats are finally getting the point that the President will not pass a bill that requires a timetable. They are also realizing that they have a responsibility to fund the troops so they can properly fight this war. There is much speculation that the next bill, which should be voted on today, will not include a time table and will properly fund the troops. For more about the war funding bill read here.
The next piece of news is about the immigration bill. The debate on the bill has been postponed, most likely so the senators can have a chance to read the 1,000 page bill. At first this bill appeared to have the support of both the republicans and the democrats in Washington, now it appears the opposition is coming from both directions as well. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are overwhelmingly happy with this bill becuase it forces both sides to compromise. I think a bill that makes both sides a little uneasy is better than a bill that makes both sides happy. I don't want the democrats to have everything they want in this bill and likewise many people do not want the republicans to have everything they want. We'll see if this bill passes next month and unless they tighten boarder security, immigration reform will be a waste of money. For more information about this story read here.
Hope you are all having a great week!
P.s. Hero's was great last night and I'm really looking forward to the American Idol finale tonight!!! I like both Blake and Jordin so picking who's going to win is really hard for me! Either way they're both great!
Heather Barbee
Friday, May 18, 2007
This is a nice change of pace for a friday! I wish I could have found this ship! :-)
Source
Deep-Sea Explorers Discover Possible Richest Shipwreck Treasure in History
Friday, May 18, 2007
AP
Odyssey co-founder Greg Stemm, left, examines coins recovered from the "Black Swan" shipwreck with an unidentified member of the conservation team.
TAMPA, Fla. — Deep-sea explorers said Friday they have mined what could be the richest shipwreck treasure in history, bringing home 17 tons of colonial-era silver and gold coins from an undisclosed site in the Atlantic Ocean. Estimated value: $500 million.
A jet chartered by Tampa-based Odyssey Marine Exploration landed in the United States recently with hundreds of plastic containers brimming with coins raised from the ocean floor, Odyssey co-chairman Greg Stemm said. The more than 500,000 pieces are expected to fetch an average of $1,000 each from collectors and investors.
"For this colonial era, I think (the find) is unprecedented," said rare coin expert Nick Bruyer, who examined a batch of coins from the wreck. "I don't know of anything equal or comparable to it."
Citing security concerns, the company declined to release any details about the ship or the wreck site Friday. Stemm said a formal announcement will come later, but court records indicate the coins might come from a 400-year-old ship found off England.
Because the shipwreck was found in a lane where many colonial-era vessels went down, there is still some uncertainty about its nationality, size and age, Stemm said, although evidence points to a specific known shipwreck. The site is beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country, he said.
"Rather than a shout of glee, it's more being able to exhale for the first time in a long time," Stemm said of the haul, by far the biggest in Odyssey's 13-year history.
He wouldn't say if the loot was taken from the same wreck site near the English Channel that Odyssey recently petitioned a federal court for permission to salvage.
In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge signed an order granting those rights last month.
In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed "Black Swan," Odyssey also isn't talking yet about the types, denominations and country of origin of the coins.
Bruyer said he observed a wide range of varieties and dates of likely uncirculated currency in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age.
The Black Swan coins — mostly silver pieces — likely will fetch several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said. Value is determined by rarity, condition and the story behind them.
Controlled release of the coins into the market along with their expected high value to collectors likely will keep prices at a premium, he said.
The richest ever shipwreck haul was yielded by the Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha, which sank in a hurricane off the Florida Keys in 1622. Treasure-hunting pioneer Mel Fisher found it in 1985, retrieving a reported $400 million in coins and other loot.
Odyssey likely will return to the same spot for more coins and artifacts.
"We have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed," Odyssey CEO John Morris said. "We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance."
The news is timely for Odyssey, the only publicly traded company of its kind.
The company salvaged more than 50,000 coins and other artifacts from the wreck of the SS Republic off Savannah, Ga., in 2003, making millions. But Odyssey posted losses in 2005 and 2006 while using its expensive, state-of-the-art ships and deep-water robotic equipment to hunt for the next mother lode.
"The outside world now understands that what we do is a real business and is repeatable and not just a lucky one shot deal," Stemm said. "I don't know of anybody else who has hit more than one economically significant shipwreck."
In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.
Historians believe the 157-foot warship was carrying nine tons of gold coins to buy the loyalty of the Duke of Savoy, a potential ally in southeastern France. Odyssey believes those coins could also fetch more than $500 million.
But under the terms of a historic agreement Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 percent of the first $45 million and about 50 percent of the proceeds thereafter.
Source
Deep-Sea Explorers Discover Possible Richest Shipwreck Treasure in History
Friday, May 18, 2007
AP
Odyssey co-founder Greg Stemm, left, examines coins recovered from the "Black Swan" shipwreck with an unidentified member of the conservation team.
TAMPA, Fla. — Deep-sea explorers said Friday they have mined what could be the richest shipwreck treasure in history, bringing home 17 tons of colonial-era silver and gold coins from an undisclosed site in the Atlantic Ocean. Estimated value: $500 million.
A jet chartered by Tampa-based Odyssey Marine Exploration landed in the United States recently with hundreds of plastic containers brimming with coins raised from the ocean floor, Odyssey co-chairman Greg Stemm said. The more than 500,000 pieces are expected to fetch an average of $1,000 each from collectors and investors.
"For this colonial era, I think (the find) is unprecedented," said rare coin expert Nick Bruyer, who examined a batch of coins from the wreck. "I don't know of anything equal or comparable to it."
Citing security concerns, the company declined to release any details about the ship or the wreck site Friday. Stemm said a formal announcement will come later, but court records indicate the coins might come from a 400-year-old ship found off England.
Because the shipwreck was found in a lane where many colonial-era vessels went down, there is still some uncertainty about its nationality, size and age, Stemm said, although evidence points to a specific known shipwreck. The site is beyond the territorial waters or legal jurisdiction of any country, he said.
"Rather than a shout of glee, it's more being able to exhale for the first time in a long time," Stemm said of the haul, by far the biggest in Odyssey's 13-year history.
He wouldn't say if the loot was taken from the same wreck site near the English Channel that Odyssey recently petitioned a federal court for permission to salvage.
In seeking exclusive rights to that site, an Odyssey attorney told a federal judge last fall that the company likely had found the remains of a 17th-century merchant vessel that sank with valuable cargo aboard, about 40 miles off the southwestern tip of England. A judge signed an order granting those rights last month.
In keeping with the secretive nature of the project dubbed "Black Swan," Odyssey also isn't talking yet about the types, denominations and country of origin of the coins.
Bruyer said he observed a wide range of varieties and dates of likely uncirculated currency in much better condition than artifacts yielded by most shipwrecks of a similar age.
The Black Swan coins — mostly silver pieces — likely will fetch several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars each, with some possibly commanding much more, he said. Value is determined by rarity, condition and the story behind them.
Controlled release of the coins into the market along with their expected high value to collectors likely will keep prices at a premium, he said.
The richest ever shipwreck haul was yielded by the Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha, which sank in a hurricane off the Florida Keys in 1622. Treasure-hunting pioneer Mel Fisher found it in 1985, retrieving a reported $400 million in coins and other loot.
Odyssey likely will return to the same spot for more coins and artifacts.
"We have treated this site with kid gloves and the archaeological work done by our team out there is unsurpassed," Odyssey CEO John Morris said. "We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site, which we believe will have immense historical significance."
The news is timely for Odyssey, the only publicly traded company of its kind.
The company salvaged more than 50,000 coins and other artifacts from the wreck of the SS Republic off Savannah, Ga., in 2003, making millions. But Odyssey posted losses in 2005 and 2006 while using its expensive, state-of-the-art ships and deep-water robotic equipment to hunt for the next mother lode.
"The outside world now understands that what we do is a real business and is repeatable and not just a lucky one shot deal," Stemm said. "I don't know of anybody else who has hit more than one economically significant shipwreck."
In January, Odyssey won permission from the Spanish government to resume a suspended search for the wreck of the HMS Sussex, which was leading a British fleet into the Mediterranean Sea for a war against France in 1694 when it sank in a storm off Gibraltar.
Historians believe the 157-foot warship was carrying nine tons of gold coins to buy the loyalty of the Duke of Savoy, a potential ally in southeastern France. Odyssey believes those coins could also fetch more than $500 million.
But under the terms of a historic agreement Odyssey will have to share any finds with the British government. The company will get 80 percent of the first $45 million and about 50 percent of the proceeds thereafter.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Senators, White House Reach Agreement on Immigration
Republicans in Washington have really let this country down now. They can call this an immigration reform bill all they want, what it really is is AMNESTY. Hey you broke our laws now were going to give you a free pass!
Senators, White House Reach Agreement on Immigration
Read what Michelle Malkin has to say .
Fox news reports
Thursday, May 17, 2007
May 17: Sen. Edward Kennedy, and from left, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Johnny Isakson announce immigration deal.
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Senate lawmakers and the White House struck an immigration reform deal Thursday that would grant legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States and increase border and interior enforcement initiatives.
The plan would establish a temporary worker program for new arrivals to the United States with a separate program for agricultural workers. The bill also would include provisions for new technology to ensure against immigration document fraud.
Supporters of the arrangement urged their congressional colleagues and the American public to support the bill as a whole even though strong objection may be felt toward its individual parts.
"All of you know that in the legislative process, no one gets 100 percent of what they want, if you're going to get something done," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. said, speaking to reporters shortly after the deal was announced.
"From my perspective, it's not perfect, but it represents the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem. And if we had not gotten together as Republicans and Democrats to develop this bipartisan consensus, we can be assured that there would not be a bill passed this year, and probably not next year," Kyl said.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who is credited with being the driving force behind the negotiations, said differences aside, "I believe we owe it to the American people to stop talking about immigration and start acting."
The dealmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 White House hopeful, stressed that their bill would offer strong border enforcement and interior enforcement and send a signal to U.S. employers "that the practice of hiring illegal workers will no longer be tolerated."
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officials to produce a highly complex measure that could carry heavy political consequences.
The White House was clearly on board with the plan.
"I congratulate members of the Senate, both political parties, who decided it was time to work together to come up with a comprehensive immigration bill that addresses a major problem facing our country," President Bush said Thursday afternoon from the South Lawn of the White House.
"Immigration is a tough issue for a lot of Americans. The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity," Bush said.
Bush said he hoped the Senate and House would both fall in line and agree on a bill reflecting the plan, adding, "I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can. Today we took a good step toward that direction."
And speaking earlier, alongside senator on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "This is a bill that is strong on the border, tough on enforcement of the interior, fair with respect to those to those who are here, and realistic. It is an honest solution to a problem that has bedeviled this country for decades."
But as the senators alluded to harsh criticism facing the bill, even before it was presented in its entirety, other lawmakers began expressed their dismay with the plan.
"This plan rewards the lawbreakers and punishes those who have patiently waited their turn to become an American citizen. I will work tirelessly to make sure that this proposal does not pass the House of Representatives," Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She said opponents should not let "the perfect be the enemy of the good."
The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week. The proposed agreement is several-hundred pages and contains a wide array of provisions to satisfy partisan concerns.
The plan would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
Heads of household could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., declared that the bill "is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
"When the objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned, what more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure that we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? And we are still open for suggestions. But the consequences of not moving to a solution on this issue is we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders," Specter said.
Workers would have to return home after job stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated turn, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward a "point system" that prioritizes preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Senators, White House Reach Agreement on Immigration
Read what Michelle Malkin has to say .
Fox news reports
Thursday, May 17, 2007
May 17: Sen. Edward Kennedy, and from left, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Johnny Isakson announce immigration deal.
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Senate lawmakers and the White House struck an immigration reform deal Thursday that would grant legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States and increase border and interior enforcement initiatives.
The plan would establish a temporary worker program for new arrivals to the United States with a separate program for agricultural workers. The bill also would include provisions for new technology to ensure against immigration document fraud.
Supporters of the arrangement urged their congressional colleagues and the American public to support the bill as a whole even though strong objection may be felt toward its individual parts.
"All of you know that in the legislative process, no one gets 100 percent of what they want, if you're going to get something done," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. said, speaking to reporters shortly after the deal was announced.
"From my perspective, it's not perfect, but it represents the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem. And if we had not gotten together as Republicans and Democrats to develop this bipartisan consensus, we can be assured that there would not be a bill passed this year, and probably not next year," Kyl said.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who is credited with being the driving force behind the negotiations, said differences aside, "I believe we owe it to the American people to stop talking about immigration and start acting."
The dealmakers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a 2008 White House hopeful, stressed that their bill would offer strong border enforcement and interior enforcement and send a signal to U.S. employers "that the practice of hiring illegal workers will no longer be tolerated."
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officials to produce a highly complex measure that could carry heavy political consequences.
The White House was clearly on board with the plan.
"I congratulate members of the Senate, both political parties, who decided it was time to work together to come up with a comprehensive immigration bill that addresses a major problem facing our country," President Bush said Thursday afternoon from the South Lawn of the White House.
"Immigration is a tough issue for a lot of Americans. The agreement reached today is one that will help enforce our borders, but equally importantly, it will treat people with respect. This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty, but without animosity," Bush said.
Bush said he hoped the Senate and House would both fall in line and agree on a bill reflecting the plan, adding, "I really am anxious to sign a comprehensive immigration bill as soon as I possibly can. Today we took a good step toward that direction."
And speaking earlier, alongside senator on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "This is a bill that is strong on the border, tough on enforcement of the interior, fair with respect to those to those who are here, and realistic. It is an honest solution to a problem that has bedeviled this country for decades."
But as the senators alluded to harsh criticism facing the bill, even before it was presented in its entirety, other lawmakers began expressed their dismay with the plan.
"This plan rewards the lawbreakers and punishes those who have patiently waited their turn to become an American citizen. I will work tirelessly to make sure that this proposal does not pass the House of Representatives," Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She said opponents should not let "the perfect be the enemy of the good."
The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week. The proposed agreement is several-hundred pages and contains a wide array of provisions to satisfy partisan concerns.
The plan would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
Heads of household could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., declared that the bill "is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
"When the objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned, what more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure that we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? And we are still open for suggestions. But the consequences of not moving to a solution on this issue is we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders," Specter said.
Workers would have to return home after job stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated turn, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward a "point system" that prioritizes preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
I choose Life not Death
I first became interested in politics at a young age, probably around 7th or 8th grade. I was very interested in American history, political policies and debating culture issues, a quality I inherited from my dad. My dad is very much a republican and I was raised very much a republican. Up until recently I always sided with the Republican Party on every issue. Now that my mind is not so influential I have the opportunity to look at what I really believe and make determinations myself about if I think something is right or wrong. I still side with most of the republican policies, but not all.
I used to be very much for the death penalty, always feeling that those bastards don't deserve to live for what they did. But in the case of the death penalty, my opinion has very much changed. There are several reasons why I am against the death penalty now but this and this and this and this are the biggest reasons why.
We can never know 100% for sure if someone is guilty of a crime or not. Even if a jury finds someone guilty there is ALWAYS a possibility that they didn't actually commit the crime. Evidence may surface years and years later that could finally prove their innocence. Imagine if your family member was found guilty of a murder you know he/she didn't commit but they was found guilty of it anyway and put to death only to have information surface after the death that shows their innocence.
Now I must tell you that there has been a time recently that I supported the death penalty 100% and that was the death of Suddam Hussein. Perhaps my supporting the death of him is a little hypocritical but it’s mostly an emotional feeling of relief knowing he's dead and can no longer kill thousands upon thousands of people.
I wish there were some way we could know with out any doubt and with 100% certainty when someone is guilty, but we can't and therefore I cannot support the death penalty.
Read the story below. The lawyer prosecuting this guy wanted him sentenced to the death penalty. The crowds following the trial were all upset when he did not receive it. Now, nearly 20 years later evidence surfaces that shows he's innocent. He never deserved to be in jail in the first place.
DNA Clears Man of Two Child Murders
By JEFFREY GOLD
AP
ELIZABETH, N.J. (May 16 2007) -- A man who served more than two decades in prison for the rape and murder of two children had his convictions thrown out Tuesday after an advanced DNA test showed that a neighbor may have been responsible for the crimes.
Superior Court Judge Stuart L. Peim vacated the verdict and granted a new trial because the new evidence "would probably change the verdict" against Byron Halsey.
Union County prosecutors and lawyers for Halsey together requested that the convictions be overturned. Peim scheduled a July 9 hearing for prosecutors to announce whether they would pursue a new trial or drop the charges.
A spokeswoman for the Union County prosecutor's office, Eileen Walsh, said the office would not comment before then on how it would proceed.
During a five-minute hearing, Peim set bail at $55,000 and required Halsey to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet when he is released. Attorneys for Halsey said he could leave jail within a few hours depending on how long it takes to process paperwork.
Wearing a white shirt, dark pants, and handcuffs as tears streamed down his face, Halsey did not speak during his court appearance.
Nearly four hours after the ruling, the paperwork for bail and electronic monitoring was completed, and Halsey stepped outside the Union County jail.
After a quick embrace with one of his lawyers, Halsey joined his mother and brother for long hug.
Minutes later, he was in front of television cameras at the steps of a nearby courthouse. "I wasn't going to let anybody take my life," Halsey said. "I wasn't going to give up."
Halsey , 46, was convicted in 1988 of murdering and sexually assaulting Tyrone and Tina Urquhart, the children of his girlfriend, with whom he lived at a Plainfield rooming house.
The bodies of Tyrone, 8, and Tina, 7, were found in the home's basement in November 1985.
"The DNA shows that a neighbor in the rooming house is the source of the semen," said Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the Innocence Project, which is representing Halsey.
That neighbor, Clifton Hall, 49, is now in prison for three sex crimes in early 1990s, Ferrero said. Hall testified against Halsey at trial.
"Today, we can say with scientific certainty that Byron Halsey is innocent. Every piece of physical evidence connects Cliff Hall, not Byron Halsey , to these murders," said Vanessa Potkin, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. "It has taken more than two decades, but DNA has finally revealed the truth in this case."
Potkin said Halsey can apply for compensation of $25,000 for each year he was in custody.
Innocence Project got involved 2004 after Halsey wrote them.
"They tried DNA testing at the time of the trial on one piece of evidence, on the girl's underwear that was found stuffed in her mouth," Ferrero said. But it was inconclusive, since more sophisticated testing was several years away. So they tested the semen for blood type, which matched Halsey - but also matched Hall, Ferrero said.
The new DNA test matches Hall, whose DNA was on record since he is an offender, Ferrero said.
Margaret Urquhart, the mother of the victims, said in a statement issued through the Innocence Project that she always doubted that Halsey committed the crime.
"I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina," Urquhart said. "It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I'm thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case."
At trial, Halsey faced the death penalty, but the jury opted for life in prison, prompting jeering in the courtroom, Ferrero said. Halsey was sentenced to two life terms, plus 20 years. He is being held at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.
Hall is at a prison for sex offenders in Avenel.
Halsey had made a confession before trial, but Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck said the statement followed 30 hours of interrogation over a 40-hour period.
"It would be a stretch to say that Byron Halsey even confessed to this crime given the state of mind he was in, the length of the interrogation, the tactics police used, and the words he actually said," Scheck said.
Scheck said that Halsey, who has been in prison since 1985, would be getting therapy and job training.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-05-15 23:21:19
I used to be very much for the death penalty, always feeling that those bastards don't deserve to live for what they did. But in the case of the death penalty, my opinion has very much changed. There are several reasons why I am against the death penalty now but this and this and this and this are the biggest reasons why.
We can never know 100% for sure if someone is guilty of a crime or not. Even if a jury finds someone guilty there is ALWAYS a possibility that they didn't actually commit the crime. Evidence may surface years and years later that could finally prove their innocence. Imagine if your family member was found guilty of a murder you know he/she didn't commit but they was found guilty of it anyway and put to death only to have information surface after the death that shows their innocence.
Now I must tell you that there has been a time recently that I supported the death penalty 100% and that was the death of Suddam Hussein. Perhaps my supporting the death of him is a little hypocritical but it’s mostly an emotional feeling of relief knowing he's dead and can no longer kill thousands upon thousands of people.
I wish there were some way we could know with out any doubt and with 100% certainty when someone is guilty, but we can't and therefore I cannot support the death penalty.
Read the story below. The lawyer prosecuting this guy wanted him sentenced to the death penalty. The crowds following the trial were all upset when he did not receive it. Now, nearly 20 years later evidence surfaces that shows he's innocent. He never deserved to be in jail in the first place.
DNA Clears Man of Two Child Murders
By JEFFREY GOLD
AP
ELIZABETH, N.J. (May 16 2007) -- A man who served more than two decades in prison for the rape and murder of two children had his convictions thrown out Tuesday after an advanced DNA test showed that a neighbor may have been responsible for the crimes.
Superior Court Judge Stuart L. Peim vacated the verdict and granted a new trial because the new evidence "would probably change the verdict" against Byron Halsey.
Union County prosecutors and lawyers for Halsey together requested that the convictions be overturned. Peim scheduled a July 9 hearing for prosecutors to announce whether they would pursue a new trial or drop the charges.
A spokeswoman for the Union County prosecutor's office, Eileen Walsh, said the office would not comment before then on how it would proceed.
During a five-minute hearing, Peim set bail at $55,000 and required Halsey to wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet when he is released. Attorneys for Halsey said he could leave jail within a few hours depending on how long it takes to process paperwork.
Wearing a white shirt, dark pants, and handcuffs as tears streamed down his face, Halsey did not speak during his court appearance.
Nearly four hours after the ruling, the paperwork for bail and electronic monitoring was completed, and Halsey stepped outside the Union County jail.
After a quick embrace with one of his lawyers, Halsey joined his mother and brother for long hug.
Minutes later, he was in front of television cameras at the steps of a nearby courthouse. "I wasn't going to let anybody take my life," Halsey said. "I wasn't going to give up."
Halsey , 46, was convicted in 1988 of murdering and sexually assaulting Tyrone and Tina Urquhart, the children of his girlfriend, with whom he lived at a Plainfield rooming house.
The bodies of Tyrone, 8, and Tina, 7, were found in the home's basement in November 1985.
"The DNA shows that a neighbor in the rooming house is the source of the semen," said Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the Innocence Project, which is representing Halsey.
That neighbor, Clifton Hall, 49, is now in prison for three sex crimes in early 1990s, Ferrero said. Hall testified against Halsey at trial.
"Today, we can say with scientific certainty that Byron Halsey is innocent. Every piece of physical evidence connects Cliff Hall, not Byron Halsey , to these murders," said Vanessa Potkin, a lawyer with the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. "It has taken more than two decades, but DNA has finally revealed the truth in this case."
Potkin said Halsey can apply for compensation of $25,000 for each year he was in custody.
Innocence Project got involved 2004 after Halsey wrote them.
"They tried DNA testing at the time of the trial on one piece of evidence, on the girl's underwear that was found stuffed in her mouth," Ferrero said. But it was inconclusive, since more sophisticated testing was several years away. So they tested the semen for blood type, which matched Halsey - but also matched Hall, Ferrero said.
The new DNA test matches Hall, whose DNA was on record since he is an offender, Ferrero said.
Margaret Urquhart, the mother of the victims, said in a statement issued through the Innocence Project that she always doubted that Halsey committed the crime.
"I knew Byron loved Tyrone and Tina," Urquhart said. "It didn't make sense to me that he could have done this. I always had my doubts, but I didn't know what to do about them. I'm thankful that the DNA testing has identified who really did this to my children and that Byron is being released today. I want justice done in this case."
At trial, Halsey faced the death penalty, but the jury opted for life in prison, prompting jeering in the courtroom, Ferrero said. Halsey was sentenced to two life terms, plus 20 years. He is being held at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.
Hall is at a prison for sex offenders in Avenel.
Halsey had made a confession before trial, but Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck said the statement followed 30 hours of interrogation over a 40-hour period.
"It would be a stretch to say that Byron Halsey even confessed to this crime given the state of mind he was in, the length of the interrogation, the tactics police used, and the words he actually said," Scheck said.
Scheck said that Halsey, who has been in prison since 1985, would be getting therapy and job training.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-05-15 23:21:19
Immigration deal could become reality.
It's possible that an immigration reform law could pass the senate as early as today. So far the plan sounds ok, allow guest worker programs but ensure that the workers return home after their permit expires, allow a path to citizenship that requires illegals to return home first, and limit the number of green cards given each year to 10,000. If this bill gets passed it will still be unenforceable until we strengthen our boarders.
Bipartisan Deal On Immigration Is Near, Would Strictly Limit Future Arrivals
WASHINGTON, May 16, 2007 - Republicans and Democrats were nearing a deal Tuesday on a sweeping immigration overhaul that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status but strictly limit future arrivals from staying in the U.S.
Senators and White House officials negotiating through the afternoon and into the evening said an elusive compromise was in sight. With details changing rapidly, it was unclear whether the talks would result in a breakthrough or a meltdown.
"Eighty-twenty!" said an upbeat Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the key players in the talks, giving strong odds of a deal he said could be announced as early as Wednesday.
In a hopeful sign for a potential deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., postponed until Monday a vote that had been scheduled for Wednesday on bringing up an immigration measure that passed the Senate last year.
That bill had the support of most Democrats but was opposed by a majority of Republicans, who had promised to block it. The vote - designed to pressure negotiators into reaching a new deal - was shaping up as a highly partisan start to the already intense debate over immigration.
Delaying it gave the weeks-long set of closed-door bipartisan talks - slated to continue early Wednesday - more time.
Negotiators led by conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., were scrambling to piece together a compromise that could command broad support, melding the GOP's preference for get-tough enforcement measures and limits on future immigration with Democrats' desire for a more welcoming approach.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a probationary "Z visa" and - after paying fees and fines of up to $5,000 and returning to their home countries - ultimately try for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. The process couldn't begin until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated. And all but the highest-skilled temporary workers would have to return home after work stints of two or three years, with barely any opportunity to apply for permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens.
Only 10,000 green cards annually would be available for guest workers, and they would be awarded on a so-called "points system" that favors higher-skilled and better-educated immigrants.
"We're trying to make sure that people who are temporary workers don't melt into society and put down roots. Temporary means temporary," Graham said.
Negotiators were still weighing the particulars of the guest worker program, including the length of the visas and whether to allow workers to renew them multiple times.
In perhaps its most contentious change, the proposed plan would radically shift the entire immigration system from one heavily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for those with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card, although senators were still haggling over how heavily points for family ties would be weighed.
U.S. citizens would see their ability to bring foreign-born parents to the U.S. limited. Temporary workers could not bring family members at all unless they accepted a shorter-term visa and could show they would not become primarily dependent on government benefits.
Behind the scenes, some Democrats and liberal groups are deeply divided over whether the proposal is worth supporting. Leading Republicans, too, warned that they were wary of being pushed too far in the interests of a compromise.
"We need to have immigration reform, but not just any immigration reform," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the party whip. "We're not going to be forced into passing a bad bill."
Copyright © 2007 KABC-TV and The Associated Press (AP). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bipartisan Deal On Immigration Is Near, Would Strictly Limit Future Arrivals
WASHINGTON, May 16, 2007 - Republicans and Democrats were nearing a deal Tuesday on a sweeping immigration overhaul that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status but strictly limit future arrivals from staying in the U.S.
Senators and White House officials negotiating through the afternoon and into the evening said an elusive compromise was in sight. With details changing rapidly, it was unclear whether the talks would result in a breakthrough or a meltdown.
"Eighty-twenty!" said an upbeat Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the key players in the talks, giving strong odds of a deal he said could be announced as early as Wednesday.
In a hopeful sign for a potential deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., postponed until Monday a vote that had been scheduled for Wednesday on bringing up an immigration measure that passed the Senate last year.
That bill had the support of most Democrats but was opposed by a majority of Republicans, who had promised to block it. The vote - designed to pressure negotiators into reaching a new deal - was shaping up as a highly partisan start to the already intense debate over immigration.
Delaying it gave the weeks-long set of closed-door bipartisan talks - slated to continue early Wednesday - more time.
Negotiators led by conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., were scrambling to piece together a compromise that could command broad support, melding the GOP's preference for get-tough enforcement measures and limits on future immigration with Democrats' desire for a more welcoming approach.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a probationary "Z visa" and - after paying fees and fines of up to $5,000 and returning to their home countries - ultimately try for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. The process couldn't begin until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated. And all but the highest-skilled temporary workers would have to return home after work stints of two or three years, with barely any opportunity to apply for permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens.
Only 10,000 green cards annually would be available for guest workers, and they would be awarded on a so-called "points system" that favors higher-skilled and better-educated immigrants.
"We're trying to make sure that people who are temporary workers don't melt into society and put down roots. Temporary means temporary," Graham said.
Negotiators were still weighing the particulars of the guest worker program, including the length of the visas and whether to allow workers to renew them multiple times.
In perhaps its most contentious change, the proposed plan would radically shift the entire immigration system from one heavily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for those with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card, although senators were still haggling over how heavily points for family ties would be weighed.
U.S. citizens would see their ability to bring foreign-born parents to the U.S. limited. Temporary workers could not bring family members at all unless they accepted a shorter-term visa and could show they would not become primarily dependent on government benefits.
Behind the scenes, some Democrats and liberal groups are deeply divided over whether the proposal is worth supporting. Leading Republicans, too, warned that they were wary of being pushed too far in the interests of a compromise.
"We need to have immigration reform, but not just any immigration reform," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the party whip. "We're not going to be forced into passing a bad bill."
Copyright © 2007 KABC-TV and The Associated Press (AP). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Enough with the "boycott," Try a real solution.
For all those people who continue to post about the one day gas boycott, that clearly won't work, here are two other ways you can REALLY lower gas prices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18615572/
The problem with the proposed gas ‘boycott’ is that since it won’t cut consumption, it will just shift sales from one day to the next.
That’s also what’s wrong with an alternative proposal offered by many readers: singling out one brand of gasoline to “concentrate” the impact. Unfortunately, when you concentrate zero impact, you still end up with zero impact.
Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron make very little of their money from retail gasoline sales. Most gasoline is sold at convenience stores, and even those with Big Oil company logos are mostly independently owned by people who make just a few cents on every gallon. Many of these store owners have invested their life savings to set up shop. Those are the people you’ll hurt if you target a single brand; refiners will simply sell the gasoline to other outlets.
But you can do something about gasoline prices: You can use less gas. As we’ll see, a relatively small reduction in demand can have a big impact on prices. So if you’re serious about doing something to lower the price at the pump, try these Two Simple Steps that won’t cost you a dime:
Simple Step No. 1: Stop driving like a jerk
You know who you are: You punch the accelerator the minute the light changes and cruise at top speed until the last possible moment before hitting the brakes hard at the stop sign. Just because you can go from 0 to 60 mph in seven seconds doesn’t mean you have to (unless you’re trying to merge onto a busy highway). Aside from annoying other drivers on the road, you’re wasting a lot of gasoline.
How much is a lot? According to fueleconomy.gov, you can save from 5 percent to 33 percent —depending on just how manic you are behind the wheel. The folks at Edmunds.com, a car buying Web site, tested the idea, running a 50-mile course with four different driving styles from “aggressive” to “moderate.” Average fuel savings: 31 percent.
Simple Step No. 2: Slow down
Look, we’re not talking about crawling along in the right lane backing up traffic. We’re talking about staying within the posted speed limit — or even a little over it. There’s no magic number for optimal mileage; it varies from one car to the next. But if your car has a tachometer, try keeping it as low as possible in the highest gear. That’s where you get the best mileage.
According to fueleconomy.gov, your gas mileage drops off sharply once you blow past 60 mph. By cutting your speed you can save 7 percent to 23 percent, depending on how heavy-footed your usually driving style.
Worried that you won’t get everything done in your busy life if you ease off on the gas? Take a look at how much time it will cost you: On a 30-mile trip, slowing down from 70 to 55 mph will get you there about 7 minutes later. Spend that extra time daydreaming about how you’re going to spend all the money you're saving on gasoline.
Changing your air filter can also make a difference — if it’s clogged up. So can keeping your tires properly inflated and your car tuned up. Taking all that junk out of your trunk wouldn’t hurt either. But the two biggest gas-mileage improvements won’t cost a dime — or even change how many miles you drive.
Not everyone drives like a jerk and whizzes by at 90 mph in the left lane. It turns out that we wouldn’t have to cut consumption by 40 percent or 30 percent or even 20 percent to send pump prices lower. Try 7 percent.
That’s how much demand fell off last winter. After peaking at 9.7 million barrels in the week of Aug. 4, 2006, U.S. gasoline demand hit a low of 9.0 million barrels during the week of Jan. 19, 2007 — a difference of 7 percent. During the same period, the average U.S. price peaked at $3.083 in August and fell to $2.213 by the end of January — a drop of 28 percent.
Even a 1 percent drop would make a difference, according to Tom Kloza, president of Oil Price Information Service.
One big reason gasoline prices run up is that buyers and sellers bid up prices when supplies get close to demand. Right now, though there's enough gasoline still flowing through the system to meet demand, refineries are running at near capacity and stockpiles are far below normal for this time of year. The market is very “tight.”
When that happens, it doesn’t take much of a supply cushion to have a big impact on prices. Kloza likens this to the difference between a pot of water that’s about to boil and one that boils over — all it takes is that one degree of heat to make the difference.
“Right now, demand is running about 1 percent above last year,” he wrote recently in his blog. “Most professional traders would concur that if the market delivers 1 percent of ‘demand destruction’ in early summer, much of the froth in prices will decompose.”
A 1 percent drop in demand is tiny: Kloza figures if 100 million drivers used one less gallon a month, or 4.3 ounces a day, that would have an impact. Based on average 20 miles per gallon, he figures that would mean shortening your daily driving routine by 3,522 feet a day.
Or you could stop driving like a jerk and slow down. Either way, if you really want to do something about the price of gasoline, it’s in your hands.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18615572/
The problem with the proposed gas ‘boycott’ is that since it won’t cut consumption, it will just shift sales from one day to the next.
That’s also what’s wrong with an alternative proposal offered by many readers: singling out one brand of gasoline to “concentrate” the impact. Unfortunately, when you concentrate zero impact, you still end up with zero impact.
Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron make very little of their money from retail gasoline sales. Most gasoline is sold at convenience stores, and even those with Big Oil company logos are mostly independently owned by people who make just a few cents on every gallon. Many of these store owners have invested their life savings to set up shop. Those are the people you’ll hurt if you target a single brand; refiners will simply sell the gasoline to other outlets.
But you can do something about gasoline prices: You can use less gas. As we’ll see, a relatively small reduction in demand can have a big impact on prices. So if you’re serious about doing something to lower the price at the pump, try these Two Simple Steps that won’t cost you a dime:
Simple Step No. 1: Stop driving like a jerk
You know who you are: You punch the accelerator the minute the light changes and cruise at top speed until the last possible moment before hitting the brakes hard at the stop sign. Just because you can go from 0 to 60 mph in seven seconds doesn’t mean you have to (unless you’re trying to merge onto a busy highway). Aside from annoying other drivers on the road, you’re wasting a lot of gasoline.
How much is a lot? According to fueleconomy.gov, you can save from 5 percent to 33 percent —depending on just how manic you are behind the wheel. The folks at Edmunds.com, a car buying Web site, tested the idea, running a 50-mile course with four different driving styles from “aggressive” to “moderate.” Average fuel savings: 31 percent.
Simple Step No. 2: Slow down
Look, we’re not talking about crawling along in the right lane backing up traffic. We’re talking about staying within the posted speed limit — or even a little over it. There’s no magic number for optimal mileage; it varies from one car to the next. But if your car has a tachometer, try keeping it as low as possible in the highest gear. That’s where you get the best mileage.
According to fueleconomy.gov, your gas mileage drops off sharply once you blow past 60 mph. By cutting your speed you can save 7 percent to 23 percent, depending on how heavy-footed your usually driving style.
Worried that you won’t get everything done in your busy life if you ease off on the gas? Take a look at how much time it will cost you: On a 30-mile trip, slowing down from 70 to 55 mph will get you there about 7 minutes later. Spend that extra time daydreaming about how you’re going to spend all the money you're saving on gasoline.
Changing your air filter can also make a difference — if it’s clogged up. So can keeping your tires properly inflated and your car tuned up. Taking all that junk out of your trunk wouldn’t hurt either. But the two biggest gas-mileage improvements won’t cost a dime — or even change how many miles you drive.
Not everyone drives like a jerk and whizzes by at 90 mph in the left lane. It turns out that we wouldn’t have to cut consumption by 40 percent or 30 percent or even 20 percent to send pump prices lower. Try 7 percent.
That’s how much demand fell off last winter. After peaking at 9.7 million barrels in the week of Aug. 4, 2006, U.S. gasoline demand hit a low of 9.0 million barrels during the week of Jan. 19, 2007 — a difference of 7 percent. During the same period, the average U.S. price peaked at $3.083 in August and fell to $2.213 by the end of January — a drop of 28 percent.
Even a 1 percent drop would make a difference, according to Tom Kloza, president of Oil Price Information Service.
One big reason gasoline prices run up is that buyers and sellers bid up prices when supplies get close to demand. Right now, though there's enough gasoline still flowing through the system to meet demand, refineries are running at near capacity and stockpiles are far below normal for this time of year. The market is very “tight.”
When that happens, it doesn’t take much of a supply cushion to have a big impact on prices. Kloza likens this to the difference between a pot of water that’s about to boil and one that boils over — all it takes is that one degree of heat to make the difference.
“Right now, demand is running about 1 percent above last year,” he wrote recently in his blog. “Most professional traders would concur that if the market delivers 1 percent of ‘demand destruction’ in early summer, much of the froth in prices will decompose.”
A 1 percent drop in demand is tiny: Kloza figures if 100 million drivers used one less gallon a month, or 4.3 ounces a day, that would have an impact. Based on average 20 miles per gallon, he figures that would mean shortening your daily driving routine by 3,522 feet a day.
Or you could stop driving like a jerk and slow down. Either way, if you really want to do something about the price of gasoline, it’s in your hands.
Terror Suspect Claims Torture by Americans, Not Enough Entertainment at Guantanamo Bay
So another terror suspect is claiming that he was tortured (surprise surprise) in G.B but according to this guy, Majid Khan, my parents should be accused of torturing me when I was in trouble… Part of what he calls torture is the fact that he was not allowed to watch DVD’s. Are you kidding me! Since when is not being able to watch movies considered torture. When I was in high school I was forced to read books I thought were full of “crap,” so should those teachers be charged for torturing minors?! What a tool. Read this ridiculous report…..
Source
WASHINGTON — An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there by having to read a newsletter full of 'crap,' being forced to use unscented deodorant and shampoo and having to play sports with a ball that would not bounce.
Majid Khan of Pakistan denied any connection to Al Qaeda and said he was tortured and his family hounded by U.S. authorities, according to a redacted transcript released Tuesday by the Pentagon.
Khan told an April 15 hearing called to determine whether he was rightly classified as an “enemy combatant” that he also had his baby pictures taken from him, that cleaners left marks on his cell walls and that detainees have no DVD players or other entertainment.
At one point, Kan said he wrote on his walls, "stop torturing me, I need my mails, newspaper and my lawyer."
Khan was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The military says he has provided support to Al Qaeda and has expressed a desire to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff. The April 15 hearing is the first step in possible war crimes charges against him.
In a lengthy written statement, Khan said the CIA and the Defense Department tortured him after his capture in Pakistan as well as when he was transferred to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
"I swear to God this place in some sense worst than CIA jails. I am being mentally torture here," said Khan in a statement read by his personal representative about his time in Guantanamo. "There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions."
Khan, who grew up in Maryland and is the only U.S. resident among 15 detainees the government considers most dangerous, also described suicide attempts where he "chewed my artery which goes through my elbow."
The CIA and Pentagon have said their interrogations practices are legal and that they do not use torture.
Khan's father, however, provided the most graphic descriptions of his son's treatment at the hands of U.S. authorities, in a written statement that also was included in the hearing record.
Ali Shoukat Khan said his son was kidnapped in Pakistan and that there, Americans tortured his son "for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands, feet and mind went numb. ... He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep."
The elder Khan, a retired gas station owner, said his son is not a terrorist and demanded that the government present its evidence, "charge him with a crime and give him a fair trial in a real court." He also said he and his family were pressured by the FBI to speculate about his son's activities.
The FBI, he said, "followed us everywhere we went for a long time, requiring us to tell them in advance where we were going and what we were going to do there."
FOX News' Jennifer Griffin and Nick Simeone and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Can you say Ridiculous! For one, of course he claims he’s not a terrorist, why would be say “ well yes I planned on killing as many American’s as I could and then kill myself too.” No, he’s going to claim he’s just a victim so he can be released. Now of course I don’t know this guy, I don’t know if he’s really a terrorist or not, but his claims of torchure are just ridiculous. And if he is a terrorist I really don’t care if he feels he’s being treated unfairly.
Source
WASHINGTON — An accused enemy combatant held at Guantanamo Bay told a military hearing he was physically as well as mentally tortured there by having to read a newsletter full of 'crap,' being forced to use unscented deodorant and shampoo and having to play sports with a ball that would not bounce.
Majid Khan of Pakistan denied any connection to Al Qaeda and said he was tortured and his family hounded by U.S. authorities, according to a redacted transcript released Tuesday by the Pentagon.
Khan told an April 15 hearing called to determine whether he was rightly classified as an “enemy combatant” that he also had his baby pictures taken from him, that cleaners left marks on his cell walls and that detainees have no DVD players or other entertainment.
At one point, Kan said he wrote on his walls, "stop torturing me, I need my mails, newspaper and my lawyer."
Khan was captured in Pakistan in 2003. The military says he has provided support to Al Qaeda and has expressed a desire to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff. The April 15 hearing is the first step in possible war crimes charges against him.
In a lengthy written statement, Khan said the CIA and the Defense Department tortured him after his capture in Pakistan as well as when he was transferred to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
"I swear to God this place in some sense worst than CIA jails. I am being mentally torture here," said Khan in a statement read by his personal representative about his time in Guantanamo. "There is extensive torture even for the smallest of infractions."
Khan, who grew up in Maryland and is the only U.S. resident among 15 detainees the government considers most dangerous, also described suicide attempts where he "chewed my artery which goes through my elbow."
The CIA and Pentagon have said their interrogations practices are legal and that they do not use torture.
Khan's father, however, provided the most graphic descriptions of his son's treatment at the hands of U.S. authorities, in a written statement that also was included in the hearing record.
Ali Shoukat Khan said his son was kidnapped in Pakistan and that there, Americans tortured his son "for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands, feet and mind went numb. ... He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep."
The elder Khan, a retired gas station owner, said his son is not a terrorist and demanded that the government present its evidence, "charge him with a crime and give him a fair trial in a real court." He also said he and his family were pressured by the FBI to speculate about his son's activities.
The FBI, he said, "followed us everywhere we went for a long time, requiring us to tell them in advance where we were going and what we were going to do there."
FOX News' Jennifer Griffin and Nick Simeone and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Can you say Ridiculous! For one, of course he claims he’s not a terrorist, why would be say “ well yes I planned on killing as many American’s as I could and then kill myself too.” No, he’s going to claim he’s just a victim so he can be released. Now of course I don’t know this guy, I don’t know if he’s really a terrorist or not, but his claims of torchure are just ridiculous. And if he is a terrorist I really don’t care if he feels he’s being treated unfairly.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Our Troops say Bye Bye to Myspace.
This totally sucks, this is going to make it even harder to stay in touch with our freinds and family in the military, especially those over seas.
Defense Department Blocks YouTube, MySpace From Military Computers
Monday, May 14, 2007
DENVER — Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said.
The armed services have long barred members of the military from sharing information that could jeopardize their missions or safety, whether electronically or by other means.
Reports: News Corp. in Talks to Buy Photobucket Military Bloggers Eye Army Crackdown on Web Reporting The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends.
Members of the military can still access the sites on their own computers and networks, but Defense Department computers and networks are the only ones available to many soldiers and sailors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqi insurgents or their supporters have been posting videos on YouTube at least since last fall. The Army recently began posting videos on YouTube showing soldiers defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqis.
But the new rules mean many military personnel won't be able to watch those achievements — at least not on military computers.
If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.
"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said. "And they are muzzling their best voices."
The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, and FileCabi, the social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5, music sites Pandora, MTV, and 1.fm, and live365, and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.
Several companies have instituted similar bans, saying recreational sites drain productivity.
Defense Department Blocks YouTube, MySpace From Military Computers
Monday, May 14, 2007
DENVER — Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department's networks, according to Bell.
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge," the memo said.
The armed services have long barred members of the military from sharing information that could jeopardize their missions or safety, whether electronically or by other means.
Reports: News Corp. in Talks to Buy Photobucket Military Bloggers Eye Army Crackdown on Web Reporting The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends.
Members of the military can still access the sites on their own computers and networks, but Defense Department computers and networks are the only ones available to many soldiers and sailors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqi insurgents or their supporters have been posting videos on YouTube at least since last fall. The Army recently began posting videos on YouTube showing soldiers defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqis.
But the new rules mean many military personnel won't be able to watch those achievements — at least not on military computers.
If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.
"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said. "And they are muzzling their best voices."
The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, and FileCabi, the social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5, music sites Pandora, MTV, and 1.fm, and live365, and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.
Several companies have instituted similar bans, saying recreational sites drain productivity.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Happy Mother's Day
Hope everyone has a great Mother's Day. :-)
History of Mother's Day
Loving God,
as a mother gives life and nourishment to her children,
so you watch over your Church.
Bless these women,
that they may be strengthened as Christian mothers.
Let the example of their faith and love shine forth.
Grant that we, their sons and daughters,
may honor them always
with a spirit of profound respect.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.
History of Mother's Day
Loving God,
as a mother gives life and nourishment to her children,
so you watch over your Church.
Bless these women,
that they may be strengthened as Christian mothers.
Let the example of their faith and love shine forth.
Grant that we, their sons and daughters,
may honor them always
with a spirit of profound respect.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Catholic Church is Making Me Mad...Again.
Today, 5/9/07, many churches, including the Catholic Church, have decided to defy the law and declared they will provide sanctuary to any illegal immigrant facing deportation. They are doing this because they feel is is the morally right thing to do yet it is in defiance of what the bible teaches. The bible teaches to obey the laws of the land, to not covet what is not yours and to not steal. Illegal immigrants break our laws to get into this country, then they steal jobs and tax dollars from legal American citizens through government programs and services, and the church is telling them that this is ok. Since when did it become ok to steal from a country and purposely break the law of the land for your own personal gain?
Here’s the story from pro-amnesty NyTimes
And heres an opposing biblical view.
I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration situation but amnesty for all is not the answer. We need to find a way to create a path to citizenship for those willing to take the time to do it, and those who won’t take the time to become citizens should be deported. That’s just my opinion. Something also needs to be done about the churches that are harboring illegal immigrants who have been ordered out of this country. If a church is found to be breaking the law then their tax exemption should be revoked and they should have to face penalty from the law.
Here’s the story from pro-amnesty NyTimes
And heres an opposing biblical view.
I agree that something needs to be done about the immigration situation but amnesty for all is not the answer. We need to find a way to create a path to citizenship for those willing to take the time to do it, and those who won’t take the time to become citizens should be deported. That’s just my opinion. Something also needs to be done about the churches that are harboring illegal immigrants who have been ordered out of this country. If a church is found to be breaking the law then their tax exemption should be revoked and they should have to face penalty from the law.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
So why the switch?
I moved many of my blogs from my Myspace blog today because myspace does not archive blogs so the stuff I wrote last year is gone! So I created this blog so I can archive my older blogs. I also created this blog to try and reach more people. I'm always trying to reach more people. So if your new to my blog I'd love to hear from you, let me know how you feel about everything thats going on in this country. I am a conservative but I appriciate feedback from Liberals as well, just keep it clean and informed please. If your a reader from myspace thanks for being loyal, I really appriciate it! So check back often for future blogs and tell your friends to read as well! Thanks everyone.
:-)
p.s. American Idol is on tonight and I can't wait! Only 4 contestants left! I miss Phil already, oh well, Go Blake! :-). I'll be watching tonight as soon as I get back from Kick Boxing!
:-)
p.s. American Idol is on tonight and I can't wait! Only 4 contestants left! I miss Phil already, oh well, Go Blake! :-). I'll be watching tonight as soon as I get back from Kick Boxing!
Protect and Serve By Bill O'Reilly
Check out Bill O'Reilly's new article for this week. Gotta Love it!
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Well, Virginia Beach folded. In the face of growing anger from its citizenry, the city announced it will stop its "sanctuary" policy of failing to inform federal authorities about criminal illegal aliens.
The back story here is brutal. On March 30, 17-year-old Alison Kunhardt and 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant were killed when illegal alien Alfredo Ramos slammed into their car. Ramos was drunk and had four previous beefs with the law, including a DUI conviction.
Yet, Virginia Beach Chief of Police Jake Jacocks told the press he had ordered his officers not to call Homeland Security Agents (ICE) about any "low-level" offenders because he, Jacocks, didn't believe it was his job to help the feds.
What?
It seems to me that every law enforcement officer should want as few criminals in town as possible. Since Ramos was here in the USA illegally, and was a consistent lawbreaker in Virginia Beach, the feds could have easily removed him from the area and sent him back to Mexico. Apparently, Jacocks had a problem with that.
But not any longer, at least in public. After my reporting battered the government of Virginia Beach, it has changed its dangerous and irresponsible policy. But Jacocks got in a last shot calling me, your humble correspondent, "pathetic."
But that was an improvement over what Denver Post columnist Joanne Ostrow called me after she saw my coverage of the Virginia Beach story. Ms. Ostrow called me "racist."
So why all the anger? Doesn't it make sense that any person who is in the country illegally in the first place be deported when convicted of committing a crime on American soil? I can't read minds, but there is something very strange going on inside the "pro-immigration" movement.
When President Ronald Reagan delivered citizenship to almost three million illegal aliens in 1986 through his "amnesty" program, the entire problem of people coming to America without proper credentials was supposed to have been solved. At the time, the Atlanta Journal editorialized that "it will help stem the tide of future illegal entrants."
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post all rhapsodized that Reagan's vision would be great for America.
So now we have four times as many illegal aliens waiting for another amnesty, with more coming every hour of the day.
With emotions running high, the federal government, never a tower of courage, does not seem able to fix the chaos. Most Americans understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply want a better life and will work hard to get it. So I ask you, who wants to deny anyone a better life?
But by failing to institute standards of behavior in the immigration arena, the U.S. government puts us all at risk. There's no way on this earth that a four-time loser, in this country illegally, should have been driving around drunk. Didn't Allison and Tessa deserve to live? We have millions of Americans who drive around smashed--do we need to add to that number with insane "sanctuary" policies that protect criminal illegal aliens?
The power brokers in Virginia Beach were forced to do the right thing, but still don't believe they were ever wrong. How did things get so out of whack in America?
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Well, Virginia Beach folded. In the face of growing anger from its citizenry, the city announced it will stop its "sanctuary" policy of failing to inform federal authorities about criminal illegal aliens.
The back story here is brutal. On March 30, 17-year-old Alison Kunhardt and 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant were killed when illegal alien Alfredo Ramos slammed into their car. Ramos was drunk and had four previous beefs with the law, including a DUI conviction.
Yet, Virginia Beach Chief of Police Jake Jacocks told the press he had ordered his officers not to call Homeland Security Agents (ICE) about any "low-level" offenders because he, Jacocks, didn't believe it was his job to help the feds.
What?
It seems to me that every law enforcement officer should want as few criminals in town as possible. Since Ramos was here in the USA illegally, and was a consistent lawbreaker in Virginia Beach, the feds could have easily removed him from the area and sent him back to Mexico. Apparently, Jacocks had a problem with that.
But not any longer, at least in public. After my reporting battered the government of Virginia Beach, it has changed its dangerous and irresponsible policy. But Jacocks got in a last shot calling me, your humble correspondent, "pathetic."
But that was an improvement over what Denver Post columnist Joanne Ostrow called me after she saw my coverage of the Virginia Beach story. Ms. Ostrow called me "racist."
So why all the anger? Doesn't it make sense that any person who is in the country illegally in the first place be deported when convicted of committing a crime on American soil? I can't read minds, but there is something very strange going on inside the "pro-immigration" movement.
When President Ronald Reagan delivered citizenship to almost three million illegal aliens in 1986 through his "amnesty" program, the entire problem of people coming to America without proper credentials was supposed to have been solved. At the time, the Atlanta Journal editorialized that "it will help stem the tide of future illegal entrants."
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post all rhapsodized that Reagan's vision would be great for America.
So now we have four times as many illegal aliens waiting for another amnesty, with more coming every hour of the day.
With emotions running high, the federal government, never a tower of courage, does not seem able to fix the chaos. Most Americans understand that the vast majority of illegal immigrants simply want a better life and will work hard to get it. So I ask you, who wants to deny anyone a better life?
But by failing to institute standards of behavior in the immigration arena, the U.S. government puts us all at risk. There's no way on this earth that a four-time loser, in this country illegally, should have been driving around drunk. Didn't Allison and Tessa deserve to live? We have millions of Americans who drive around smashed--do we need to add to that number with insane "sanctuary" policies that protect criminal illegal aliens?
The power brokers in Virginia Beach were forced to do the right thing, but still don't believe they were ever wrong. How did things get so out of whack in America?
They're Trying So Hard to Ruin Our State.
Written 5/3/07
Our State seems to be under constant attack by the Democrats controlling our legislature. They tried last year to sexually indoctrinate children as young as 6 years old and legalize gay marriage. They tried and they failed. Arnold vetoed the bills when they were presented to him, so why, less then a year later, are they rewriting the same bills, and tying to get them passed again.
Our legislatures are tying to undermine traditional parental influence and create little liberal, homosexual loving, un-disciplined children. There are 3 bills SB 777, AB 394, and AB 675, all of which are identical to last years, that want to rewrite text books to include historical figure's sexual orientation, alter school functions to make them more "gay" friendly and teach children that there is no such thing as a "natural" family consisting of a mother and father. Why are they doing this? I really don't understand why they insist on continuing to attack our children with these disgusting ideas. There is no reason for children of any age to know the sexual orientation of historical figures. Sexual beliefs are largly a religious thing for many families and by creating these bills our legislatures are tying teach kids that thier parents are wrong.
Not only do our legislatures want to sexually indoctrinate our children, they want to teach them that parents are not allowed to discipline them. Another bill aimed at ruining the traditional family is AB 755, which would turn parents who spank their children into criminals. Can you believe it! Our Legislatures want to tell us how to raise our children now! Kids need to be disciplined, they need to learn at a young age to respect authority. The author of this bill (who doesn't even have kids) is pushing it as a child abuse protection law, um, hello… we have some of the most extensive child protection laws in the country. This is not to protect children, this bill is designed to undermine parent's authority over their children.
Then there's AB 43 and SB 11. The gay marriage bills. Didn't we vote on this 7 years ago! Doesn't our constitution say that the legislature cannot override the people's vote? I'm all for gay civil unions, sure why not… but it is not the government's job to redefine the definition of marriage. I thought that when the state clearly said that gay marriage is not to be recognized in this state that it would be the end of it… but nope. Our legislatures, who are supposed to represent us, are trying to over turn our vote! WTF!
Want to tell your legislature how you feel about them…. Check out www.SaveCalifornia.com. there's more about these bills there and ways to contact your legislatures.
Thanks guys!
Heather Barbee
Our State seems to be under constant attack by the Democrats controlling our legislature. They tried last year to sexually indoctrinate children as young as 6 years old and legalize gay marriage. They tried and they failed. Arnold vetoed the bills when they were presented to him, so why, less then a year later, are they rewriting the same bills, and tying to get them passed again.
Our legislatures are tying to undermine traditional parental influence and create little liberal, homosexual loving, un-disciplined children. There are 3 bills SB 777, AB 394, and AB 675, all of which are identical to last years, that want to rewrite text books to include historical figure's sexual orientation, alter school functions to make them more "gay" friendly and teach children that there is no such thing as a "natural" family consisting of a mother and father. Why are they doing this? I really don't understand why they insist on continuing to attack our children with these disgusting ideas. There is no reason for children of any age to know the sexual orientation of historical figures. Sexual beliefs are largly a religious thing for many families and by creating these bills our legislatures are tying teach kids that thier parents are wrong.
Not only do our legislatures want to sexually indoctrinate our children, they want to teach them that parents are not allowed to discipline them. Another bill aimed at ruining the traditional family is AB 755, which would turn parents who spank their children into criminals. Can you believe it! Our Legislatures want to tell us how to raise our children now! Kids need to be disciplined, they need to learn at a young age to respect authority. The author of this bill (who doesn't even have kids) is pushing it as a child abuse protection law, um, hello… we have some of the most extensive child protection laws in the country. This is not to protect children, this bill is designed to undermine parent's authority over their children.
Then there's AB 43 and SB 11. The gay marriage bills. Didn't we vote on this 7 years ago! Doesn't our constitution say that the legislature cannot override the people's vote? I'm all for gay civil unions, sure why not… but it is not the government's job to redefine the definition of marriage. I thought that when the state clearly said that gay marriage is not to be recognized in this state that it would be the end of it… but nope. Our legislatures, who are supposed to represent us, are trying to over turn our vote! WTF!
Want to tell your legislature how you feel about them…. Check out www.SaveCalifornia.com. there's more about these bills there and ways to contact your legislatures.
Thanks guys!
Heather Barbee
Corruption 101; Diane Feinstien
Written 5/2/07
Suprise suprise.... Dianne Feinstien is a dirty politician. Turns out she directed more than $1 billion to her husband's companies through some of the commities she serves on in Washinton. Didn't she learn anything from the Randy Cunningham scandel.....Have fun in the slammer Mrs. Feinstien.
So why hasn't anyone heard about this. Had she been a republican politician this story would have been all over the news. I'm sure Fox news is all over it, but lets see how long its takes for this story to really go mainstream.. its not like this is something that can just be ignored...
So heres the full story from Hill.com
Feinstein's Cardinal shenanigans
By David Keene
Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she's also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or "Milcon") sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.
If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.
The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband's pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband's companies.
In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state's senior senator.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while"there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."
And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that "the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable."
It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn't know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband's and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.
This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein's chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein's husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That's a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.
Suprise suprise.... Dianne Feinstien is a dirty politician. Turns out she directed more than $1 billion to her husband's companies through some of the commities she serves on in Washinton. Didn't she learn anything from the Randy Cunningham scandel.....Have fun in the slammer Mrs. Feinstien.
So why hasn't anyone heard about this. Had she been a republican politician this story would have been all over the news. I'm sure Fox news is all over it, but lets see how long its takes for this story to really go mainstream.. its not like this is something that can just be ignored...
So heres the full story from Hill.com
Feinstein's Cardinal shenanigans
By David Keene
Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she's also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or "Milcon") sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.
If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.
The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband's pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband's companies.
In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state's senior senator.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while"there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."
And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that "the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable."
It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn't know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband's and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.
This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein's chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein's husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That's a lot of money even here in Washington.
Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.
Another so called "Day without an immigrant"
Written 4/30/07
One year ago tomorrow, Immigrants from the southland gathered in downtown LA to protest the immigration laws. They were calling for legislatures to reform the current immigration laws to allot illegal immigrants more rights. Tomorrow illegal immigrants will once again be taking to the streets to show their opposition to our immigration laws only this time they are not calling for reform, they are calling for amnesty. They want to be able to stay here in America, no questions asked.
Does anyone else find it strange that a group of criminals, which is exactly what they are, are going to gather in the streets of LA demanding that they be completely forgiven of their crimes. They don't want to pay the price for breaking our laws; they just want to reap all the benefits of living in America.
Right now illegal immigrants are one of the worst tax burdens in the United States. Taxpayers are paying billions for illegals to be able to send their children to school, millions so they can over crowd our emergency rooms without having to pay a dime, and millions to keep the worst of them in federal prisons. LA County spends over $2 billion a year providing education to children of illegal immigrants. Hospitals are losing and average of $170 million a year for uncompensated health care to illegal immigrants. 19 percent of all inmates in our Federal prisons are not citizens. In Los Angeles County alone there are over 10 million illegal immigrants costing legal residents billions of dollars a year. Pro-immigration activists often argue that illegal immigrants contribute to society but the truth is they take billions more than they give.
MayDay2007.org is calling May 1st "A national day of multi-ethnic unity with youth, labor, peace and justice communities in solidarity with immigrant workers and building new immigrant rights & civil rights movement." They want millions of illegal immigrants to take to the streets tomorrow to support the following "10 points of Unity;"
1) No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.
2) No to militarization of the border.
3) No to the immigrant detention and deportation.
4) No to the guest worker program.
5) No to employer sanction and "no match" letters.
6) Yes to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
7) Yes to speedy family reunification.
8) Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.
9) Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.
10) Yes to the education and LGBT immigrant legislation.
It's crazy what these people think they are entitled to. They seem to think that just because they are here they deserve to become citizens, take our jobs, go to our schools, flood our hospitals and not pay for any of it. If they want to become citizens they can start by following our laws and doing it the right way. Then they wouldn't have to worry about border patrol, deportation, labor rights, wages, or anything else on their 10 step list. Follow our laws and we will welcome you into our country, break our laws to get here and you better expect to be treated like a criminal.
One year ago tomorrow, Immigrants from the southland gathered in downtown LA to protest the immigration laws. They were calling for legislatures to reform the current immigration laws to allot illegal immigrants more rights. Tomorrow illegal immigrants will once again be taking to the streets to show their opposition to our immigration laws only this time they are not calling for reform, they are calling for amnesty. They want to be able to stay here in America, no questions asked.
Does anyone else find it strange that a group of criminals, which is exactly what they are, are going to gather in the streets of LA demanding that they be completely forgiven of their crimes. They don't want to pay the price for breaking our laws; they just want to reap all the benefits of living in America.
Right now illegal immigrants are one of the worst tax burdens in the United States. Taxpayers are paying billions for illegals to be able to send their children to school, millions so they can over crowd our emergency rooms without having to pay a dime, and millions to keep the worst of them in federal prisons. LA County spends over $2 billion a year providing education to children of illegal immigrants. Hospitals are losing and average of $170 million a year for uncompensated health care to illegal immigrants. 19 percent of all inmates in our Federal prisons are not citizens. In Los Angeles County alone there are over 10 million illegal immigrants costing legal residents billions of dollars a year. Pro-immigration activists often argue that illegal immigrants contribute to society but the truth is they take billions more than they give.
MayDay2007.org is calling May 1st "A national day of multi-ethnic unity with youth, labor, peace and justice communities in solidarity with immigrant workers and building new immigrant rights & civil rights movement." They want millions of illegal immigrants to take to the streets tomorrow to support the following "10 points of Unity;"
1) No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.
2) No to militarization of the border.
3) No to the immigrant detention and deportation.
4) No to the guest worker program.
5) No to employer sanction and "no match" letters.
6) Yes to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
7) Yes to speedy family reunification.
8) Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.
9) Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.
10) Yes to the education and LGBT immigrant legislation.
It's crazy what these people think they are entitled to. They seem to think that just because they are here they deserve to become citizens, take our jobs, go to our schools, flood our hospitals and not pay for any of it. If they want to become citizens they can start by following our laws and doing it the right way. Then they wouldn't have to worry about border patrol, deportation, labor rights, wages, or anything else on their 10 step list. Follow our laws and we will welcome you into our country, break our laws to get here and you better expect to be treated like a criminal.
AB 755 Ciminalizes loving parents who discipline thier children.
Originally posted on 4/23/07.
CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
For Immediate Release
April 17, 2007
Bill Targeting Parents Who Spank With A Switch Passes Committee
AB 755 biases authorities against good parents who use traditional discipline methods
Thomasson: "AB 755 biases police officers, social workers, district attorneys, and juries to regard traditional methods of child discipline as hateful, harmful abuse. This irresponsible committee has passed a very irresponsible bill."
Sacramento, California – The controversial California spanking bill passed its first legislative hurdle Tuesday on a party-line vote, Democrats for, Republicans against. Despite a flood of opposition phone calls and emails from California parents, AB 755 continues to assume that good mothers and good fathers who discipline their own children with "a stick, a rod, a switch" are committing criminal child abuse.
Testifying against AB 755 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday was respected constitutional attorney David Llewellyn of Sacramento and Campaign for Children and Families President Randy Thomasson, among others. The ACLU and the California Public Defenders Association also expressed their concerns in their testimony.
Speaking against and voting "no" on AB 755 were Republicans Greg Aghazarian of Stockton and Joel Anderson of El Cajon. Voting "yes" on AB 755 were Democrats Jose Solorio of Santa Ana, Hector De La Torre of Southgate, Fiona Ma of San Francisco and Mark Leno of San Francisco. Democrat Anthony Portantino of La Canada-Flintridge was not present at the time of the vote.
"AB 755 biases police officers, social workers, district attorneys and juries to regard traditional methods of child discipline as hateful, harmful abuse," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family organization. "This irresponsible committee has passed a very irresponsible bill. Since juries already have broad authority to convict and sentence child abusers, AB 755 is unnecessary. The real purpose of the bill is to transform good parents who use traditional methods of discipline into suspected child abusers in the eyes of the law."
As amended in committee, AB 755 targets parents who spank with a switch, a paddle, a stick, or a bedroom slipper in three ways:
1. Specific inclusion of examples of legitimate spanking methods mixed with clear examples of child abuse will bias authorities against loving parents. Because AB 755 would make specific changes to the Penal Code, all mandatory reporters, including police officers, social workers, counselors and clergy will be trained to regard parents who spank with an implement as potential child abusers.
2. The inclusion of a "nonviolent parental education class" reveals that AB 755 continues to target loving parents who spank with a switch, a paddle, a stick, or other traditional child-rearing methods. Existing law already allows judges to order convicted child abusers into "a child abuser's treatment counseling program." There is no reason for a "nonviolent parental education class" if AB 755 doesn't expand the definition of child abuse to include certain types of spanking. Obviously, the "nonviolent parental education class" was created for nonviolent parents who use an implement to spank, but cannot legally be ordered into existing counseling for child abusers, which is indeed violent.
3. If the original purpose of AB 755 was to define spanking with a paddle, stick or switch as "unjustifiable," what is the purpose of the amended bill? If AB 755 no longer absolutely requires authorities to regard spanking with an implement as "unjustifiable," what is its purpose but to redundantly tells juries what they can already do: convict bad parents who cause a child great bodily harm, suffering, or unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering by any means. Obviously, AB 755 is doing something new, and that's making good parents who use an implement to correct their children's behavior suspect in the eyes of the law.
"Parents and grandparents are calling upon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto AB 755 if it reaches his desk," Thomasson said. "Because this bill biases authorities against parents who spank, AB 755 continues to view good parents who lovingly correct their children as suspected child abusers."
-- end --
As Californian's we need to protect a parent's right to discipline thier own children without having to fear the government. We already have extensive laws to protect children from child abuse, all this bill does is criminalize good loving parents for teaching thier children discipline and respect. It is not the government's job to patrol the way parent's raise thier children. Please help make sure this disgusting bill does not become law, email Arnold and your local Senators and Assemblymembers and let them know that this bill, which turns local law enforcement against loving parents, needs to be voted agianst and vetoed if passed.
Here is the website where you can get the info you need to find out who your Senators and Assemblymembers are and email them.
http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/elected_california.php
Thanks guys for taking the time to read this,
Heather Barbee
CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
For Immediate Release
April 17, 2007
Bill Targeting Parents Who Spank With A Switch Passes Committee
AB 755 biases authorities against good parents who use traditional discipline methods
Thomasson: "AB 755 biases police officers, social workers, district attorneys, and juries to regard traditional methods of child discipline as hateful, harmful abuse. This irresponsible committee has passed a very irresponsible bill."
Sacramento, California – The controversial California spanking bill passed its first legislative hurdle Tuesday on a party-line vote, Democrats for, Republicans against. Despite a flood of opposition phone calls and emails from California parents, AB 755 continues to assume that good mothers and good fathers who discipline their own children with "a stick, a rod, a switch" are committing criminal child abuse.
Testifying against AB 755 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday was respected constitutional attorney David Llewellyn of Sacramento and Campaign for Children and Families President Randy Thomasson, among others. The ACLU and the California Public Defenders Association also expressed their concerns in their testimony.
Speaking against and voting "no" on AB 755 were Republicans Greg Aghazarian of Stockton and Joel Anderson of El Cajon. Voting "yes" on AB 755 were Democrats Jose Solorio of Santa Ana, Hector De La Torre of Southgate, Fiona Ma of San Francisco and Mark Leno of San Francisco. Democrat Anthony Portantino of La Canada-Flintridge was not present at the time of the vote.
"AB 755 biases police officers, social workers, district attorneys and juries to regard traditional methods of child discipline as hateful, harmful abuse," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family organization. "This irresponsible committee has passed a very irresponsible bill. Since juries already have broad authority to convict and sentence child abusers, AB 755 is unnecessary. The real purpose of the bill is to transform good parents who use traditional methods of discipline into suspected child abusers in the eyes of the law."
As amended in committee, AB 755 targets parents who spank with a switch, a paddle, a stick, or a bedroom slipper in three ways:
1. Specific inclusion of examples of legitimate spanking methods mixed with clear examples of child abuse will bias authorities against loving parents. Because AB 755 would make specific changes to the Penal Code, all mandatory reporters, including police officers, social workers, counselors and clergy will be trained to regard parents who spank with an implement as potential child abusers.
2. The inclusion of a "nonviolent parental education class" reveals that AB 755 continues to target loving parents who spank with a switch, a paddle, a stick, or other traditional child-rearing methods. Existing law already allows judges to order convicted child abusers into "a child abuser's treatment counseling program." There is no reason for a "nonviolent parental education class" if AB 755 doesn't expand the definition of child abuse to include certain types of spanking. Obviously, the "nonviolent parental education class" was created for nonviolent parents who use an implement to spank, but cannot legally be ordered into existing counseling for child abusers, which is indeed violent.
3. If the original purpose of AB 755 was to define spanking with a paddle, stick or switch as "unjustifiable," what is the purpose of the amended bill? If AB 755 no longer absolutely requires authorities to regard spanking with an implement as "unjustifiable," what is its purpose but to redundantly tells juries what they can already do: convict bad parents who cause a child great bodily harm, suffering, or unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering by any means. Obviously, AB 755 is doing something new, and that's making good parents who use an implement to correct their children's behavior suspect in the eyes of the law.
"Parents and grandparents are calling upon Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto AB 755 if it reaches his desk," Thomasson said. "Because this bill biases authorities against parents who spank, AB 755 continues to view good parents who lovingly correct their children as suspected child abusers."
-- end --
As Californian's we need to protect a parent's right to discipline thier own children without having to fear the government. We already have extensive laws to protect children from child abuse, all this bill does is criminalize good loving parents for teaching thier children discipline and respect. It is not the government's job to patrol the way parent's raise thier children. Please help make sure this disgusting bill does not become law, email Arnold and your local Senators and Assemblymembers and let them know that this bill, which turns local law enforcement against loving parents, needs to be voted agianst and vetoed if passed.
Here is the website where you can get the info you need to find out who your Senators and Assemblymembers are and email them.
http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/elected_california.php
Thanks guys for taking the time to read this,
Heather Barbee
Why I listen to Country Music.
Jeff Foxworthy summed it up.
this is a quote from Jeff foxworthy Monday night (4/16/07) on the CMT country music awards.
This is why i listen to country music......and why I love the CMT awards!
"Country muisic is about things in life that really matter. It aint about braggin about how much money you make, or about how you are gonna mess somebody up or how somebody aint respecting ya. Its about love , family , friends and a few beers , a cheap women and a 2 timin man thrown in for spice.
It doesnt take on political sides even on things as ugly as war. Instead it celabrates the brave men and women who go to fight em and the price the pay to do it and the longing we have for them to return home to the ones they love.
Its about kids and how there aint nothin like them, I get tired of hearing about how bad kids are today, because there are alot of great kids out there. That just need someone to love them and to believe in them.
Country folks LOVE their kids and they will JACK YOU UP if you mess with their kids.
People in Country Music dont forget about the people that allow them to do what they do for a living. They sign autographs and take pictures with their fans because they know with out them alot of entertainers would be getting a lot dirtier during the course of thier work day. We are thankful that people want to hear our songs and jokes that we write.
Country Music doesnt have to be politicaly correct. We sing about God because we believe in him, we are not trying to offend anybody , but the evidence we have seen of him in our small little lives trumps your opionon on whether or not he exists.
We love country music because it touches us where we live. Its about momma's and when they were hot and when they are unappreciated and when they were dying. Its about Daddys and the difficulties they have telling the people they work so hard to protect and provide for how they feel about them.
Country music is about new love and its about old love, its about getting drunk and its about getting sober. Its about leaving and its about coming home. Its real music sung by real people for real people, the people that make up the back bone of this country. You can call us REDNECKS if you want we are not offended, because we know what we are all about. We get up and we go to work , we get up and go to church and we get up and go to war when necessary .
All we ask is a few songs to carry us along the way , and thats why I love this show. Because it isnt some self important silly Hollywood hype with the winners determend by someone else.
On this show you decide who goes home with the trophy and you get to dance and sing along with the people that bring you the songs of your life"
this is a quote from Jeff foxworthy Monday night (4/16/07) on the CMT country music awards.
This is why i listen to country music......and why I love the CMT awards!
"Country muisic is about things in life that really matter. It aint about braggin about how much money you make, or about how you are gonna mess somebody up or how somebody aint respecting ya. Its about love , family , friends and a few beers , a cheap women and a 2 timin man thrown in for spice.
It doesnt take on political sides even on things as ugly as war. Instead it celabrates the brave men and women who go to fight em and the price the pay to do it and the longing we have for them to return home to the ones they love.
Its about kids and how there aint nothin like them, I get tired of hearing about how bad kids are today, because there are alot of great kids out there. That just need someone to love them and to believe in them.
Country folks LOVE their kids and they will JACK YOU UP if you mess with their kids.
People in Country Music dont forget about the people that allow them to do what they do for a living. They sign autographs and take pictures with their fans because they know with out them alot of entertainers would be getting a lot dirtier during the course of thier work day. We are thankful that people want to hear our songs and jokes that we write.
Country Music doesnt have to be politicaly correct. We sing about God because we believe in him, we are not trying to offend anybody , but the evidence we have seen of him in our small little lives trumps your opionon on whether or not he exists.
We love country music because it touches us where we live. Its about momma's and when they were hot and when they are unappreciated and when they were dying. Its about Daddys and the difficulties they have telling the people they work so hard to protect and provide for how they feel about them.
Country music is about new love and its about old love, its about getting drunk and its about getting sober. Its about leaving and its about coming home. Its real music sung by real people for real people, the people that make up the back bone of this country. You can call us REDNECKS if you want we are not offended, because we know what we are all about. We get up and we go to work , we get up and go to church and we get up and go to war when necessary .
All we ask is a few songs to carry us along the way , and thats why I love this show. Because it isnt some self important silly Hollywood hype with the winners determend by someone else.
On this show you decide who goes home with the trophy and you get to dance and sing along with the people that bring you the songs of your life"
Student immigration rallies.
I wrote this on 3/30/07.
It makes me mad every time I see a rally of Mexicans waving Mexican flags and demanding we give them things (citizenship, amnesty, driver licenses, national holidays ect..). This is America. The only flag that should be waved is the American Flag. If people love Mexico so much and want to wave the Mexican flag then they are not Americans and need to go back to the country they love so much.
If someone asks me where I'm from I don't say Ireland or Germany, I say America. Sure, my ancestors are from Ireland and Germany but I am 100% American. My loyalty lies only with America. I respect this country, as should everyone who lives here. If you want to live in America become American. If the country you lived in before was so bad that you had to leave and come to America, why would you continue to be loyal to such a terrible country.
I respect those people who come to America to make a better life for themselves and their family as long as they do so in a legal way. I cannot respect people who break out laws to get here and show complete disrespect to our country, our laws and our way of life.
Most of the kids participating in the march today do not understand the concept of being loyal to your country because their parents have taught them that Mexico is home, even though many of them have never even been there. They do not respect this country and that is a shame. They need to be taught that America is home, not Mexico and if you want Mexico to be "home" then move there, as easy as that.
The Mexican people who have moved here LEGALLY understand the concept of loyalty to your country. They are happy to be citizens because it was something they had to work for; therefore it is something they have pride in. They are true Americans because they work for what they want.
Mexicans that are coming over here ILLEGALLY do not want to work for anything; they want it handed to them. They want citizenship handed to them just because they are here. They want welfare benefits, free health care, free education, free everything. They are free loaders who do not deserve to be in this country. If it is so important that they live here then it should be worth the effort to become a citizen. By coming here Illegally they are declaring that becoming a citizen is not worth the effort. That is a flat out spit in the face to the American people, especially those who were not born here and had to work for their citizenship, you better believe they feel it is worth the effort and it'll be the American flag they're waving.
I don't mind you celebrating your heritage. Heritage is a very important part of a person and should be treated with respect but you can be loyal to America and still celebrate your heritage. That is not to say you can celebrate Mexico because if its Mexico you want to celebrate then you should move there so you can celebrate that great country all day long. Take the Mexican flags to Mexico where they belong. This is America.
Yes this country was founded by immigrants but they came here legally and became law abiding working citizens. They did not come here and wave the flag of England, Germany, Ireland, and or any other country...NO they waved the flag of America and they became loyal to THIS country and THIS country only.
It makes me mad every time I see a rally of Mexicans waving Mexican flags and demanding we give them things (citizenship, amnesty, driver licenses, national holidays ect..). This is America. The only flag that should be waved is the American Flag. If people love Mexico so much and want to wave the Mexican flag then they are not Americans and need to go back to the country they love so much.
If someone asks me where I'm from I don't say Ireland or Germany, I say America. Sure, my ancestors are from Ireland and Germany but I am 100% American. My loyalty lies only with America. I respect this country, as should everyone who lives here. If you want to live in America become American. If the country you lived in before was so bad that you had to leave and come to America, why would you continue to be loyal to such a terrible country.
I respect those people who come to America to make a better life for themselves and their family as long as they do so in a legal way. I cannot respect people who break out laws to get here and show complete disrespect to our country, our laws and our way of life.
Most of the kids participating in the march today do not understand the concept of being loyal to your country because their parents have taught them that Mexico is home, even though many of them have never even been there. They do not respect this country and that is a shame. They need to be taught that America is home, not Mexico and if you want Mexico to be "home" then move there, as easy as that.
The Mexican people who have moved here LEGALLY understand the concept of loyalty to your country. They are happy to be citizens because it was something they had to work for; therefore it is something they have pride in. They are true Americans because they work for what they want.
Mexicans that are coming over here ILLEGALLY do not want to work for anything; they want it handed to them. They want citizenship handed to them just because they are here. They want welfare benefits, free health care, free education, free everything. They are free loaders who do not deserve to be in this country. If it is so important that they live here then it should be worth the effort to become a citizen. By coming here Illegally they are declaring that becoming a citizen is not worth the effort. That is a flat out spit in the face to the American people, especially those who were not born here and had to work for their citizenship, you better believe they feel it is worth the effort and it'll be the American flag they're waving.
I don't mind you celebrating your heritage. Heritage is a very important part of a person and should be treated with respect but you can be loyal to America and still celebrate your heritage. That is not to say you can celebrate Mexico because if its Mexico you want to celebrate then you should move there so you can celebrate that great country all day long. Take the Mexican flags to Mexico where they belong. This is America.
Yes this country was founded by immigrants but they came here legally and became law abiding working citizens. They did not come here and wave the flag of England, Germany, Ireland, and or any other country...NO they waved the flag of America and they became loyal to THIS country and THIS country only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
