Monday, July 25, 2005

Re-active vs. Pro-Active

The London Terrorist Bombings were a much-needed eye opener for Europe. It's nice to see that the people of the UK aren't as spineless as the Italians and are choosing to fight back rather than appease (or JOIN, in Italy's case) their enemies.

However...the reason this article caught my attention had more to do with the issue of immigration than terrorism. Maybe it's because they are so closely linked together. You see...it's much tougher to fight an ENEMY WITHIN, than an outside enemy. In the UK's case...it was too late. British open immigration policy has left them in an EXTREMELY precarious situation. The US would be well advised to take a lesson before it is too late!!

America is already becoming increasingly divided into TWO parts. And I'm not referring to Red vs. Blue States, or Conservatives vs. Liberals...I'm referring to "American Citizens" and "People who have become citizens but hold allegiance to OUTSIDE countries" (usually Mexico). With the new mayor of LA pledging allegiance to Mexico over America, and an increasing number of legal and illegal immigrants that refuse to learn English or embrace any of America's culture...we are already a long way's down the road to division in this country. Immigrants used to work hard to assimilate into an AMERICAN culture, today immigrants expect America to assimilate to THEIR culture.

Some may say that the American Culture is "ever-changing" and that is a good thing. I can subscribe to that belief, except when the American Culture is to change to that of one that does not hold affection, patriotism, loyalty, love, pride, duty, honor, allegiance, etc. to America. This leaves America divided and vulnerable.

It is better to act now in a Pro-Active manner than to wait until it is too late, and then attempt to Re-Act.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA21848461122279557A0?source=PA%20Feed


Deport all who 'spit hate' - Major
25 July 2005

People who "spit hate" at the British way of life should be deported, Tory former Prime Minister John Major said.

Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture.

"There seem to be many people who, for reasons that are irrational, dislike the Anglo-Saxon way of life," he said.

He called for heavier penalties for those who incited violence at this "particularly sensitive time".
"Always difficult to balance this against freedom of speech but I think, at the moment, it is justifiable to protect the public," he argued.

Mr Major added: "As far as those who literally spit hate at our country and there are some of them - they spit hate at our country and they incite - I personally would be prepared to deport those where it is clear that what they are doing is causing civil unrest and may cost other people, as a result of that, their lives."

He also called for more CCTV cameras to deter the threat and the use of intercept evidence in courts. Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Major urged the Government to consult widely over new anti-terror legislation.

"They are going to have to carry people with them at this moment," he warned.

He also defended the controversial shoot-to kill policy that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

"I rather prefer the expression shoot to protect rather than shoot to kill - I think that is a more accurate description of what happened."

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Battle Hymn of the Republic

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on."
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free,
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.

Julia Ward Howe (May 27, 1819October 17, 1910) was a prominent American abolitionist, social activist, poet and Free Soil Party advocate.

Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic was first published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1862 and quickly became one of the most popular songs for the Union during the American Civil War.
After the war she focused her activities on the causes of
Pacifism and women's suffrage. She was a member of the Unitarian church. In 1870 she was the first to proclaim Mother's Day, with her Mother's Day Proclamation. On January 28, 1908 Julia Ward Howe became the first woman elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

The Paul Revere Of Immigration

After the Federal Government has repeatedly failed on the issue of immigration...it's nice to see some leaders step up and do their job for them. They are the true American Patriots. First the Minuteman Project and now this. Maybe there is hope left for America afterall!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/national/13immigrants.html?ei=5065&en=70a9fca935dc7632&ex=1121918400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Town Uses Trespass Law to Fight Illegal Immigrants

July 13, 2005
By PAM BELLUCK

JAFFREY, N.H., July 12 - One day in April, Jorge Mora Ramírez stopped his car on the side of a road in the small southern New Hampshire town of New Ipswich and was making a cellphone call when a police officer approached him.

The officer questioned Mr. Ramírez, a 21-year-old Mexican who acknowledged that he was in the country illegally, and the New Ipswich police tried to get federal immigration authorities to arrest him. But when immigration officials demurred, not considering him a priority given scarce enforcement resources, the police acted on their own. They took the highly unusual step of charging Mr. Ramírez with criminal trespassing, and held him overnight.

"I wanted the federal government to understand that I was going to take some type of action," said the New Ipswich police chief, W. Garrett Chamberlain. "If I can discourage illegal aliens from coming to or passing through my community, then I think I've succeeded."

At a minimum, Chief Chamberlain has succeeded in creating controversy, as well as interest in his idea. Not far away, the police chief in Hudson, N.H., has charged 10 illegal immigrants with criminal trespassing in recent weeks. Other police departments, in states that include California, Florida and Georgia, have called Chief Chamberlain, and immigration experts say that if the New Hampshire charges are upheld, some local law enforcement officials around the country will most likely copy the approach.

The case against Mr. Ramírez, who lives in Waltham, Mass., and was working as a construction worker here in Jaffrey when he was charged, is also being watched by civil liberties advocates and the Mexican government, which is paying for his lawyers. The matter went to court on Tuesday in Jaffrey/Peterborough District Court, where the defense asked Judge L. Phillips Runyon III to dismiss the case, arguing that immigration enforcement was the federal government's job and that the New Hampshire criminal trespassing statute was intended to apply to those intruding on private property, not to illegal immigrants.

"What the state is attempting to do here is to step into the federal government's shoes and determine whether a person is licensed or able to remain in the United States," said one defense lawyer, Randall Drew.

The prosecutor, Nicole Morse, argued that local police agencies had a right to cite illegal immigrants.

"Just as with a sex offender," Ms. Morse said, "the hope is that they will go and register with the state. And if they don't, then they are violating the law.

"Indeed, the state's interest in this case is security. Being able to identify people who are in our community is essential to the police being able to maintain and keep the peace."

Judge Runyon deferred his decision on whether to dismiss the case until he could hear similar motions in the cases from Hudson. But his questions to both sides underscored the combustible and sensitive nature of immigration enforcement in a post-9/11 world.

On the one hand, he said to defense lawyers, "in this day and age when everyone is so worried about having terrorists in our midst, if a local law enforcement person is dealing with somebody that can't show some basis for their lawfulness of being here," and "they can't get any kind of response that seems to answer their questions from Immigration, are they just hamstrung?"

On the other hand, he told the prosecutor, some immigrants might "have a driver's license from Germany or France but don't have any other papers" with them. "Are you suggesting that those people are going to be charged criminally," he said, "because the police can't figure out that they're supposed to be where they are?"

Noting that if Mr. Ramírez was found guilty, he would be sentenced to nothing more than a $1,000 fine, not jail time, the judge also asked the prosecutor, "How is national security or even local security enhanced by giving someone a citation?"

In a state that is 96 percent non-Hispanic white but that has been seeing a rise in its Hispanic population, Chief Chamberlain's idea was born a year ago when he encountered a van with nine illegal immigrants from Ecuador. The federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he says, was not interested in arresting them. He decided that in the future he would use the state's criminal trespassing law, which says that a person is guilty "if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."

Even some critics of the New Hampshire citations, like Susan J. Cohen, a Boston immigration lawyer, said the law's broad language made it seem applicable to immigration.

Ms. Cohen said most states' criminal trespassing laws referred specifically to private property and could not be easily applied to immigration. But Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who was counsel to John Ashcroft when Mr. Ashcroft was attorney general, said he believed that New Hampshire's wording was not unusual, and added that the charges were appropriate because the government "has always been careful to invite and encourage local assistance with immigration arrests."

Not every police department would take such a tack. In Nashua, N.H., which has a growing Hispanic population, the deputy police chief, Don Conley, said that "I don't think it's in the true spirit of New Hampshire's criminal trespass law."

Opponents like Arnie Alpert, New Hampshire coordinator of the American Friends Service Committee, say such citations will discourage immigrants, legal and illegal alike, from cooperating with police officers. And Porfirio Thierry Muñoz-Ledo, the Mexican consul general in Boston, who attended Tuesday's hearing, said, "The concern is that we are dealing in a state court with matters that belong to a federal level."

Judge Runyon seemed somewhat concerned about that as well.

"Am I going to determine whether someone is here legally or not?" he asked the prosecutor. "Isn't that what the federal immigration system is for? Is it for part-time district court judges like me who know nothing about immigration and arguably nothing much about anything else either?"

Katie Zezima contributed reporting from Boston for this article.

Monday, July 11, 2005

BBC...Impartial Or Just SugarCoated?!

What's worse...a one-sided news organization or a news organization that can't present the facts AS THEY ARE?!!! How about a news organization that fits BOTH categories. Check out this sweet article on the liberally biased and blindly optimistic news organization known as the BBC:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml

BBC edits out the word terrorist

By Tom Leonard

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.

A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."