Recently in tests of airport security some airports had a 70 percent failure rate. Napolitano dismisses this indicating that many of the tests were old and out of date and that there were other problems with them.
Think about this for a second.
In the tests either contraband items did or did not get past the security screening system. Whether it was done an “old” way or a “new” way is irrelevant. Not being able to identify the “problems” is a clear indication that the only problem is that the security screening system doesn’t work and not that there was anything wrong with the tests themselves.
Any tests that reveals a deficiency is a successful test of a faulty system. Tests that are restricted in ways to only show how good a system is are useless.
In this case there are indeed a lot of fundamental faults in the security system. Why? It’s because the security system is not designed to enhance security. It’s designed to do something else.
Recently the federal government went after an airline pilot who revealed gapping holes in airline security. There are a lot of people who have access to passenger aircraft every day who undergo no screening whatsoever. Why? The government says it is because they can’t screen everyone, and that’s true. So, if you can’t screen everyone what do you do?
Who were the 9/11 hijackers? Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon. They were all in their 20’s to early 30’s. They were all Muslim. They were all males.
Who was the “Shoe Bomber”? He was a male British citizen. He was in his late twenties at the time of the attempted bombing. He is a Muslim.
Who was the “Underwear Bomber”? He was a male from Nigeria. He was in his early twenties. He is a Muslim.
Who was the “Times Square Bomber”? He was a male 30 year old Pakistani immigrant who obtained U.S. citizenship through marriage. He is Muslim.
Who was the “Portland Bomber”? He is a 19 year old Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen. He is Muslim.
So why are people attacking the United States? It is because they consider non-Muslim governments to be the enemy of Islam and that they must be defeated, destroyed or converted to Islam.
So, if you had limited ability to screen people to actually try to improve safety or security what would you do? Would you be spending scarce resources screening 90 year old men in wheelchairs? Would you be preventing 5 year olds from boarding a plane because the name John Smith is on a no-fly list? Would you be requiring naked body scanning of 50 year old women? Would you be scanning airline pilots who actually don’t have to take control of the aircraft because they already have control of it?
What part of the population has the greatest likelihood of being a threat? From the above descriptions of known threats it is male Muslims between the ages of 19 and 39 who are foreign citizens or naturalized U.S. citizens of foreign birth.
Does this mean every U.S. Muslim naturalized of foreign male from 19 to 39 is a terrorist? No. This is only part of a profile. So, what else are you looking for? How about all the things that might make someone suspect (what a concept)? Things like buying tickets with cash, flying one way, having no baggage including carry on, and maybe trying to board an international flight without a passport. How about also considering the people who have intimate access to aircraft who can cause harm without endangering themselves like maintenance workers, food service and cleaning crews?
Consider this. Has TSA security screening ever detected and stopped a terrorist from boarding an aircraft? What? You’ve never heard of it happening? Do you realize that this would be front page news if it had ever happened?
OK, so if the TSA system is not designed to screen for actual terrorists, what is it designed to do? Well what is it doing?
The bottom line here is that completely innocent people who fit no criminal profile and with no identified “probable cause” have been manipulated into waiving their Fourth Amendment right, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is naked body scanning without probable cause unreasonable? Yes. Are intrusive body pat downs without probable cause unreasonable? Yes. Is probable cause just the act of buying a ticket and boarding a plane to see aunt Suzie? No.
So what has been accomplished by the present security system? The federal government has manipulated people into eliminating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution without a single vote.
So, now what do you think the airline security system was really designed to do? I think it is already doing what it was designed to do and I don’t mean enhancing our security.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
So Many Fronts
It’s not being paranoid if they really are out to git ya!
I don’t remember a time when if feels like our way of life is being attacked on so many fronts at the same time. One day you find that the economy is racing for disaster. The next day you find a school preventing a student from displaying the American flag. The day after that you discover the government is preparing to allow the United Nations to dictate our ability to “bear arms.” Then you find out how various government officials are supporting a Mosque near ground zero followed by news that a church that was damaged on 9/11 near ground zero is prevented from rebuilding.
In the same week you find out that the dollar is headed for the bargain basement and the government is eyeing the possibility of grabbing your 401K. Shortly thereafter you find that Social Security benefits are being reduced but they want to increase your Social Security taxes. In the mean time your house valuation is dropping like a rock while your property taxes are rising.
The government insists on searching citizens, including the elderly and babies, to make sure they are not terrorists, but attacks a State for trying to stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing its borders. We are supposed to be constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches, but are in danger of an $11,000 fine if we protest having a TSA agent inside our pants (the kind of behavior that would get any non-TSA agent jail time).
You see people trying to deal with the insanity in one area and before they make any progress something even crazier (is that a word?) crops up. It’s like playing “wake a mole.”
I don’t remember a time when if feels like our way of life is being attacked on so many fronts at the same time. One day you find that the economy is racing for disaster. The next day you find a school preventing a student from displaying the American flag. The day after that you discover the government is preparing to allow the United Nations to dictate our ability to “bear arms.” Then you find out how various government officials are supporting a Mosque near ground zero followed by news that a church that was damaged on 9/11 near ground zero is prevented from rebuilding.
In the same week you find out that the dollar is headed for the bargain basement and the government is eyeing the possibility of grabbing your 401K. Shortly thereafter you find that Social Security benefits are being reduced but they want to increase your Social Security taxes. In the mean time your house valuation is dropping like a rock while your property taxes are rising.
The government insists on searching citizens, including the elderly and babies, to make sure they are not terrorists, but attacks a State for trying to stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing its borders. We are supposed to be constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches, but are in danger of an $11,000 fine if we protest having a TSA agent inside our pants (the kind of behavior that would get any non-TSA agent jail time).
You see people trying to deal with the insanity in one area and before they make any progress something even crazier (is that a word?) crops up. It’s like playing “wake a mole.”
Terrorism and Manipulation
I'm not a conspiracy nut, at least I don't think I am, but it is getting harder and harder to ignore evidence.
My son and I have discussed this at length and there is a consistent theme for the last 40 years. In this case it is Wikileaks.
The thing that at first defies understanding, if true, is having an approximately 20 year old PFC with what should have been Top Secret clearance considering what he had access to. I am doubtful that a 20 year old PFC can acquire a Top Secret security clearance. Then allowing said PFC into and out of an area where he had access to this material carrying any kind of computer media. In this case it is said he had a CD RW disguised as a music CDROM (not much of a disguise). Then he had access all by himself without any oversight so that he could copy the material from a computer that did not have external media access disabled as it should have been (both CD write and USB stick access should have been disabled).
Over and over again we find the same pattern which appears once again. Someone in a position of authority (not our PFC) wants something to happen for an unknown reason. Then it is just a matter of finding the guy who may already have some motive for doing the wrong thing. You enhance that motive by making sure he talks with the right (wrong) people. Then you give him the access he would need to do the job and make sure the obstacles stay out of the way.
Think Lee Harvey Oswald, 1963. He somewhat magically went to Russia and returned. The last obstacle was the Secret Service agent who was supposed to be riding on the back bumper that day (he would have been in the line of fire). Hopefully you have seen the video where this agent is inexplicably ordered not to assume his normal position at the last moment much to his dismay.
The Christmas underwear bomber who received assistance getting on a plane, paying for a one-way ticket in cash, with no passport on an international flight all AFTER his father warns officials that his son is a threat.
We've seen how authorities spot these people in advance. The most recent case in Portland. Once they have them spotted it is only a matter of letting the ones that are likely to do what you want them to do get away with it. In fact, there was the FBI memo noting the problem with potential terrorists getting flight training BEFORE 9/11.
As they say follow the money.
Kennedy may have been about to pull the plug on Vietnam. Kennedy dies and we stay mired in Vietnam 10 more years.
9/11 happens and we get wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The shoe bomber fails to light his shoe (I have serious doubts whether it COULD be detonated). What do we get? The average citizen agrees to searches that previously would have been considered unreasonable.
The underwear bomber fails (again doubtful it could be detonated) and we get body scanners and intrusive pat downs that would have not only been considered unreasonable but rape.
Wikileaks happens and the government is on the verge of killing free speach on the internet and putting the FCC in control of the last free media.
This could all be the old adage of not letting any catastrophe go to waste in furthering your agenda. Or it could be much worse and entail actually orchestrating the catastrophes themselves so that it's all a big scam.
As is often said, the nine most frightening words in the english language are, "I'm from the government and I'm
here to help." (Ronald Reagan)
My son and I have discussed this at length and there is a consistent theme for the last 40 years. In this case it is Wikileaks.
The thing that at first defies understanding, if true, is having an approximately 20 year old PFC with what should have been Top Secret clearance considering what he had access to. I am doubtful that a 20 year old PFC can acquire a Top Secret security clearance. Then allowing said PFC into and out of an area where he had access to this material carrying any kind of computer media. In this case it is said he had a CD RW disguised as a music CDROM (not much of a disguise). Then he had access all by himself without any oversight so that he could copy the material from a computer that did not have external media access disabled as it should have been (both CD write and USB stick access should have been disabled).
Over and over again we find the same pattern which appears once again. Someone in a position of authority (not our PFC) wants something to happen for an unknown reason. Then it is just a matter of finding the guy who may already have some motive for doing the wrong thing. You enhance that motive by making sure he talks with the right (wrong) people. Then you give him the access he would need to do the job and make sure the obstacles stay out of the way.
Think Lee Harvey Oswald, 1963. He somewhat magically went to Russia and returned. The last obstacle was the Secret Service agent who was supposed to be riding on the back bumper that day (he would have been in the line of fire). Hopefully you have seen the video where this agent is inexplicably ordered not to assume his normal position at the last moment much to his dismay.
The Christmas underwear bomber who received assistance getting on a plane, paying for a one-way ticket in cash, with no passport on an international flight all AFTER his father warns officials that his son is a threat.
We've seen how authorities spot these people in advance. The most recent case in Portland. Once they have them spotted it is only a matter of letting the ones that are likely to do what you want them to do get away with it. In fact, there was the FBI memo noting the problem with potential terrorists getting flight training BEFORE 9/11.
As they say follow the money.
Kennedy may have been about to pull the plug on Vietnam. Kennedy dies and we stay mired in Vietnam 10 more years.
9/11 happens and we get wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The shoe bomber fails to light his shoe (I have serious doubts whether it COULD be detonated). What do we get? The average citizen agrees to searches that previously would have been considered unreasonable.
The underwear bomber fails (again doubtful it could be detonated) and we get body scanners and intrusive pat downs that would have not only been considered unreasonable but rape.
Wikileaks happens and the government is on the verge of killing free speach on the internet and putting the FCC in control of the last free media.
This could all be the old adage of not letting any catastrophe go to waste in furthering your agenda. Or it could be much worse and entail actually orchestrating the catastrophes themselves so that it's all a big scam.
As is often said, the nine most frightening words in the english language are, "I'm from the government and I'm
here to help." (Ronald Reagan)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Watch your neighbor watch you
The following came from http://www.suite101.com/content/fear-and-secrecy-in-the-nazi-police-state-a260577
------------------
Jul 12, 2010 Michael Streich
Living in Hitler’s Germany characterized every aspect of what is often referred to as a “police state.” Everyday Germans were drafted into Nazi control and secrecy, often without realizing it. By employing fear techniques, few government agents, such as the Gestapo, were actually needed to control the masses. Such tactics involved normal citizens willing to spy on neighbors, teachers reporting on what their students may have said in class, and monitoring newspaper and radio usage.
-----------------
Then we have the following from your friendly United States government.
-----------------
Press Office
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Dec. 6, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country—launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.
“Homeland security starts with hometown security, and each of us plays a critical role in keeping our country and communities safe,” said Secretary Napolitano. “I applaud Walmart for joining the ‘If You See Something, Say Something’ campaign. This partnership will help millions of shoppers across the nation identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime and other threats to law enforcement authorities.”
-----------------
See the similarity. If you don't you might need a new pair of glasses. Having the populace fearful and suspicious of each other and ready to turn each other in for the security of "the fatherland" or "the homeland" is how a facist government controls the people. It keeps them too busy to realize the real enemy is those who pit them against one another. They pit the poor against the rich, race against race, religion against religion, political group against political group. Why? Because united we stand and divided we fall.
Maybe we should build a bunch of Walmarts along our southern border.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Setting the Record Straight
There is an intenet hoax email being circulated perporting to cite the words of Dr. Emanuel Tanay. The words are not his, but the contents of the email are real. They are the words of Paul E. Marek and were published in 2007. The article can be found here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996 and it is presented below.
For the record, Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.
Published: 03/18/07, 4:46 PM
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Adar 28, 5767 / 18 March 07
For the record, Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.
Published: 03/18/07, 4:46 PM
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Adar 28, 5767 / 18 March 07
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Obama as God
So where's the cover with Obama as Mohammed? Oh, that's right, if you annoy the Religion of Peace, or would that be the religion of blow you to pieces, they might declare that you should be killed.
Of course Obama isn't God or even "a god" with a small g. After all he can't even keep his stories straight without the assistance of a teleprompter. As such, he's not even a particularly adept empty suit.
Instead, Obama is just the latest "installed" figure head for those who pull the strings to advance their agenda for further control of the masses. He's just the front man.
Manipulation is often achieved by offering people two choices, neither one of which is actually a real choice, while hiding the other possible choices.
For example, you can have my healthcare changes or none, you can have my immigration policies or none, you can have my economic policies or none, you can have naked body scanning by the TSA or sexual molestation frisking by the same TSA.
Those who are informed know there are other choices. Putting up with manipulation is not required.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
TSA Psychological Warfare
Listen to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig
I think it can be successfully argued that both body scanners and the agressive pat downs one can be subjected to if choosing to "opt out" is little more than psychological warfare being perpetrated on the general public. It does nothing to enhance security by virtue of the way it is being done. However, psycholgical warfare is a two way street.
Imagine asking a TSA agent if he is aware that the latest terrorist bomb designs are triggered by body scanners and asking him where he figures it might be a safe place for him to stand?
Imagine asking the "pat down" person if they are aware that the latest terrorist bombs are pressure triggered and asking them if they are getting paid enough to risk triggering one?
Of course you better have a recording of what you say to be able to prove you made no threats.
The truth is that if there were any credible bomb threat they wouldn't be radiating the bombs and having unprotected minimum wage untrained personnel risk setting them off in the middle of a crowd of people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig
I think it can be successfully argued that both body scanners and the agressive pat downs one can be subjected to if choosing to "opt out" is little more than psychological warfare being perpetrated on the general public. It does nothing to enhance security by virtue of the way it is being done. However, psycholgical warfare is a two way street.
Imagine asking a TSA agent if he is aware that the latest terrorist bomb designs are triggered by body scanners and asking him where he figures it might be a safe place for him to stand?
Imagine asking the "pat down" person if they are aware that the latest terrorist bombs are pressure triggered and asking them if they are getting paid enough to risk triggering one?
Of course you better have a recording of what you say to be able to prove you made no threats.
The truth is that if there were any credible bomb threat they wouldn't be radiating the bombs and having unprotected minimum wage untrained personnel risk setting them off in the middle of a crowd of people.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Liberals don't relize what they are saying
Colin Powell said that he sees illegals all the time and that they are working all around his house. However, it is actually a violation of federal law to knowingly hire an illegal alien, or once you know someone is illegal to keep employing them. Someone must have pointed this out to Mr. Powell.
So, now it is time for a clarification. Now his comment has been further "clarified" to point out that he doesn't actaully employ any of them. He just sees them working for other people. So what is the problem with that?
Well, one would assume he didn't walk up to any of these people who are working for someone else and ask them "for their papers." Heaven forbid. Only a Nazi would do that. Mr. Powell wouldn't be caught dead doing it. So, how does he know they are illegal? Obviously by just looking at them. What?
Mr. Powell is racial profiling? He is determining someones legal status by their appearance?
If so Mr. Powell is a racist and doesn't even realize he admitting to it. Way to go.
For those of you who are illegal, you might find it interesting what liberals really think. The bottom line is that they need a "poor" class that depends upon them to keep them in a position of power. However, for them to stay in power they need the "poor" class to never go away. Yes, that's right. You won't really get anywhere by depending on them, because they are depending on you to stay "oppressed."
So, now it is time for a clarification. Now his comment has been further "clarified" to point out that he doesn't actaully employ any of them. He just sees them working for other people. So what is the problem with that?
Well, one would assume he didn't walk up to any of these people who are working for someone else and ask them "for their papers." Heaven forbid. Only a Nazi would do that. Mr. Powell wouldn't be caught dead doing it. So, how does he know they are illegal? Obviously by just looking at them. What?
Mr. Powell is racial profiling? He is determining someones legal status by their appearance?
If so Mr. Powell is a racist and doesn't even realize he admitting to it. Way to go.
For those of you who are illegal, you might find it interesting what liberals really think. The bottom line is that they need a "poor" class that depends upon them to keep them in a position of power. However, for them to stay in power they need the "poor" class to never go away. Yes, that's right. You won't really get anywhere by depending on them, because they are depending on you to stay "oppressed."
Monday, July 5, 2010
Immigration legal precedents
I thought this was a rather good summary of the situation.
Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law
• May 1, 2010
Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.
We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.
You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.
I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.
Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.
Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.
Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.
The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”
If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.
Former Los Angeles candidate for mayor attorney Walter Moore says police can enforce federal immigration law
• May 1, 2010
Arizona Police Can Enforce Federal Immigration Law
The national media are inundating airwaves and bandwidth with legal opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law — from people who are not lawyers.
We heard from a wise Latina, but it was Shakira, not Sotomayor. We also heard Mayor Villaraigosa, but he is an “undocumented lawyer:” he never passed the bar despite four tries.
Yours truly is a real lawyer, with over 25 years’ experience protecting people’s rights in state and federal courts. Two years ago, I had occasion to look into the law concerning the very same issues implicated by Arizona’s new law.
You see, two years ago, an outstanding young man named Jamiel Shaw II, who was being recruited by colleges for their football teams, was murdered two doors down from his house by an illegal alien gang member — a criminal who should never have been in our country in the first place, and who had just been released from jail back into the community a day or two earlier rather than being deported. Jamiel’s mother got the news in Iraq, where she was serving our country as a sergeant in the U.S. Army.
I had to do something about the heartbreaking, preventable murder; had to try to stop it from happening again. So I researched and drafted a proposed ordinance, which I called “Jamiel’s Law,” to try to spare other young people the same tragic and preventable fate. Jamiel’s Law was as simple as simple gets: all it would have done was carve out an narrow exception to L.A.’s “sanctuary city” policy, aka “Special Order 40,” to let the police enforce federal immigration laws against known gang members.
Then, as now, people claimed that immigration is a federal issue, and that the police cannot enforce federal law, and blah blah blah. They didn’t really care about the law. They just wanted to stop anyone from doing anything about illegal immigration.
Anyway, as a real lawyer, with real experience in this field, let me de-bunk for you some of the baloney being peddled by the armies of “undocumented lawyers” on whom the media have chosen to focus. Unlike those faux attorneys, moreover, I will support what I say with actual legal authority — you know, the way real lawyers do.
Here’s what I want to get through your head: state and local police can enforce federal immigration law. Federal law does not prevent them from doing so.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are federal court opinions saying so:
In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — you read that right, the Ninth Circuit — concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.”
In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘ to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”
In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.
In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”
In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, that “[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”
in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.
In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Hips don’t lie, but hips don’t count as legal precedent.
The people whose legal opinion matters are the men and women who wear black robes, and they have ruled, again and again and again that federal law lets local police enforce federal immigration law. So the next time some wanna-be lawyer tells you that federal law prevents local police from enforcing immigration laws, I want you to remember this two-word legal term: “Prove it!”
If you want a great song, Shakira is your go-to gal. If you want to know what the law is, I’m you go-to guy. But bring your checkbook.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Reality versus Talk
President Obama produces a lot of talk that sounds like he is doing something, but the reality is very different.
Well after the promised timing of representatives from Washington being promised to arrive to “discuss” things with Governor Brewer, the anticipated meeting finally took place. It amounted to an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation. Despite requests they did not provide any hard copies to follow or keep for reference. For anyone with gray matter between their ears, providing a hard or soft copy of a power point presentation is easy. So this is clearly a matter of refusal as opposed to inability. That is, they didn’t want any record of what they presented to leak out.
Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border and here is why:
1. Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).
2. National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.
3. National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.
4. National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.
5. 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired (we’re talking about a 3 or 4 strand barbed wire fence that can be cut with wire cutters).
6. The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.
So, first of all, the 524 Guard troops will not be here all at the same time, but even if they were this would be ludicrous. This would amount to one solder for every 11 miles of border if they worked 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. But that’s OK because they are not going to be allowed to patrol the border anyway. They are going to be desk jockeys.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to look like the administration is doing something without doing anything at all. The big accomplishment is giving Mexico $310 million. For what? So they can upgrade the equipment the Cartels are using to cross the border and shoot at us?
Well after the promised timing of representatives from Washington being promised to arrive to “discuss” things with Governor Brewer, the anticipated meeting finally took place. It amounted to an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation. Despite requests they did not provide any hard copies to follow or keep for reference. For anyone with gray matter between their ears, providing a hard or soft copy of a power point presentation is easy. So this is clearly a matter of refusal as opposed to inability. That is, they didn’t want any record of what they presented to leak out.
Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border and here is why:
1. Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).
2. National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.
3. National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.
4. National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.
5. 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired (we’re talking about a 3 or 4 strand barbed wire fence that can be cut with wire cutters).
6. The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.
So, first of all, the 524 Guard troops will not be here all at the same time, but even if they were this would be ludicrous. This would amount to one solder for every 11 miles of border if they worked 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. But that’s OK because they are not going to be allowed to patrol the border anyway. They are going to be desk jockeys.
It’s all smoke and mirrors to look like the administration is doing something without doing anything at all. The big accomplishment is giving Mexico $310 million. For what? So they can upgrade the equipment the Cartels are using to cross the border and shoot at us?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Boycott Arizona?
In regard to boycotting Arizona…
I hope you understand that "illegal" is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a color. It is people who direspect the laws of our country. It is people who have murdered citizens of our state. It is people who have raped people in our state. It is people who have shot, wounded and killed police officers in our state. It is people who are running drugs into our state. It is people who are crushing the ability of our medical care facilities to take care of them. It is people who are taking jobs of our citizens while we sit here with a 10% unemployment rate. It is people who have stolen cars from us, wrecked our cars without having insurance, and running from the scene of major accidents.
Armed illegal aliens in this state are responsible for 3500 acres of our state being off limits to Arizona citizens. The National Guard you might think have been sent here by President Obama are still nowhere to be seen. Of course when they arrive they will be relegated to desk jobs, unarmed and prevented from actually patrolling the border. The people President Obama said would be here to discuss options with our Governor in two weeks are still not here a month later.
So, do you want the illegal aliens in your state? Should we send them to you? Do you want them on the streets driving cars with no respect for our laws while your family is on the road with them? When the first thing they do is disrespect the laws of the United States by entering it ILLEGALLY, why would you expect them to respect any other laws? Oh, and you realize the illegal aliens who are entering Arizona are not just from Mexico, right? They are also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Yemen, and a whole lot of places that support terrorism.
You probably also fail to realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants to the United States here in Arizona that are dismayed, frustrated and even more angry about these people who are breaking the laws of the country of which they worked so hard to become a legal citizen.
Do you realize that the 1070 law that everyone is so upset about has more restrictions against profiling than existing Federal law? Have you actually read the law? It is available right here so you don’t have to be ignorant of what it actually says: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf It’s a whole 16 pages so it won’t take long to read.
Ignorance can be remedied. I hope it is possible for you to learn from this before you become the next target of uninformed attack.
Remember, there are those who are always ready to manipulate the uninformed as pawns in the quest to achieve their hidden agendas.
I hope you understand that "illegal" is not a race. It is not a religion. It is not a color. It is people who direspect the laws of our country. It is people who have murdered citizens of our state. It is people who have raped people in our state. It is people who have shot, wounded and killed police officers in our state. It is people who are running drugs into our state. It is people who are crushing the ability of our medical care facilities to take care of them. It is people who are taking jobs of our citizens while we sit here with a 10% unemployment rate. It is people who have stolen cars from us, wrecked our cars without having insurance, and running from the scene of major accidents.
Armed illegal aliens in this state are responsible for 3500 acres of our state being off limits to Arizona citizens. The National Guard you might think have been sent here by President Obama are still nowhere to be seen. Of course when they arrive they will be relegated to desk jobs, unarmed and prevented from actually patrolling the border. The people President Obama said would be here to discuss options with our Governor in two weeks are still not here a month later.
So, do you want the illegal aliens in your state? Should we send them to you? Do you want them on the streets driving cars with no respect for our laws while your family is on the road with them? When the first thing they do is disrespect the laws of the United States by entering it ILLEGALLY, why would you expect them to respect any other laws? Oh, and you realize the illegal aliens who are entering Arizona are not just from Mexico, right? They are also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Yemen, and a whole lot of places that support terrorism.
You probably also fail to realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants to the United States here in Arizona that are dismayed, frustrated and even more angry about these people who are breaking the laws of the country of which they worked so hard to become a legal citizen.
Do you realize that the 1070 law that everyone is so upset about has more restrictions against profiling than existing Federal law? Have you actually read the law? It is available right here so you don’t have to be ignorant of what it actually says: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf It’s a whole 16 pages so it won’t take long to read.
Ignorance can be remedied. I hope it is possible for you to learn from this before you become the next target of uninformed attack.
Remember, there are those who are always ready to manipulate the uninformed as pawns in the quest to achieve their hidden agendas.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
He said, He said
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl reports that Obama said that he is not securing the border because if he does he won’t get any Republican support for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
Then an Obama spokesman calls Senator Kyl a liar while refraining from using the word “liar” specifically. When asked if the White House would release what exactly Obama did say to Kyl, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said at Monday’s White House briefing there would be no direct quotes given and, "The president's feelings on immigration are crystal clear."
The bottom line here is that someone is not telling the truth. Any parent has been faced with this one at one time or another.
How do you tell if someone is lying? One way is if their actions are not matching their words.
Let’s see. Obama said he is going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.
Crickets chirping.
Nope, no National Guard has been sent to the border.
Obama met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and promised that he would be sending people out to talk with her in detail in two weeks.
More than two weeks later… more crickets chirping.
Nope, no one has arrived. Just a statement by way of Ecuadorian television letting Arizona know a law suit is coming.
Obama and his people have said they have been involved with the oil spill from “day one” (boy I hate that phrase). What have they actually done?
Turned down offers for assistance. Stopped barges that were sucking up the oil. Prevented the building of berms that could have kept the oil from reaching shore, but otherwise … crickets chirping.
No actions actually aimed at stopping the leak or collecting the sludge. I guess being there from “day one” means reading the newspapers while on the golf course.
There is definitely someone here whose actions indicate a propensity for lying.
Then an Obama spokesman calls Senator Kyl a liar while refraining from using the word “liar” specifically. When asked if the White House would release what exactly Obama did say to Kyl, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said at Monday’s White House briefing there would be no direct quotes given and, "The president's feelings on immigration are crystal clear."
The bottom line here is that someone is not telling the truth. Any parent has been faced with this one at one time or another.
How do you tell if someone is lying? One way is if their actions are not matching their words.
Let’s see. Obama said he is going to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.
Crickets chirping.
Nope, no National Guard has been sent to the border.
Obama met with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and promised that he would be sending people out to talk with her in detail in two weeks.
More than two weeks later… more crickets chirping.
Nope, no one has arrived. Just a statement by way of Ecuadorian television letting Arizona know a law suit is coming.
Obama and his people have said they have been involved with the oil spill from “day one” (boy I hate that phrase). What have they actually done?
Turned down offers for assistance. Stopped barges that were sucking up the oil. Prevented the building of berms that could have kept the oil from reaching shore, but otherwise … crickets chirping.
No actions actually aimed at stopping the leak or collecting the sludge. I guess being there from “day one” means reading the newspapers while on the golf course.
There is definitely someone here whose actions indicate a propensity for lying.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Tale of yet another City
From Fox News - June 1, 2010 - 11:32 AM by: Dan Springer: "One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law. "
Boy it's a good thing those Seattle council men and women are keeping their focus on what's really important. You people in Seattle have so much to be thankful for in regard to the way they are protecting you from people who are trying to put a stop to those rapes and murders down in Arizona.
Un-fricking-believable.
Sleep tight Seattle.
Boy it's a good thing those Seattle council men and women are keeping their focus on what's really important. You people in Seattle have so much to be thankful for in regard to the way they are protecting you from people who are trying to put a stop to those rapes and murders down in Arizona.
Un-fricking-believable.
Sleep tight Seattle.
Monday, May 31, 2010
A Tale of Two Cities
This is not really a tale of two cities, but it is a tale of two groups of people in the same city; Phoenix, Arizona.
This weekend there were two groups of people coming to Phoenix for two very different reasons and with two very different behaviors. One group came to the Phoenix Comicon, and the other group came to protest bill 1070 which was signed into law recently by the Governor of Arizona.
Attendees at the Phoenix Comicon included a lot of people who are in the entertainment industry, many of whom are quite liberal in their beliefs. Celebrities included Wil Wheaton, LeVar Burton, Johnathan Frakes, John Schneider, James Marsters, Aaron Douglas, Gary Lockwood, Kier Dullea, Stan Lee, Chas Masterson, and many more. The underlying theme in what many of these people talked about inevitably involved their thankfulness to the fans who allow them to do what they love to do, and a deep seated respect for their fans. They respected the people who came to see them, and the people who came to see them gave their respect in return.
Then there are the people who came to Phoenix to protest bill 1070. These are people whose whole outlook seems to revolve around disrespect. They disrespect both Federal and State laws regarding illegal immigration. Some of them have disrespected the international border of the United States. They disrespect the Constitution of the United States by demanding “rights” that are not rights at all, but a privilege. They disrespect the populace in general by demanding the people of Arizona be punished by a boycott that will predominantly harm the very people they claim to be supporting.
You get what you give. Respect is never earned through disrespect.
This weekend there were two groups of people coming to Phoenix for two very different reasons and with two very different behaviors. One group came to the Phoenix Comicon, and the other group came to protest bill 1070 which was signed into law recently by the Governor of Arizona.
Attendees at the Phoenix Comicon included a lot of people who are in the entertainment industry, many of whom are quite liberal in their beliefs. Celebrities included Wil Wheaton, LeVar Burton, Johnathan Frakes, John Schneider, James Marsters, Aaron Douglas, Gary Lockwood, Kier Dullea, Stan Lee, Chas Masterson, and many more. The underlying theme in what many of these people talked about inevitably involved their thankfulness to the fans who allow them to do what they love to do, and a deep seated respect for their fans. They respected the people who came to see them, and the people who came to see them gave their respect in return.
Then there are the people who came to Phoenix to protest bill 1070. These are people whose whole outlook seems to revolve around disrespect. They disrespect both Federal and State laws regarding illegal immigration. Some of them have disrespected the international border of the United States. They disrespect the Constitution of the United States by demanding “rights” that are not rights at all, but a privilege. They disrespect the populace in general by demanding the people of Arizona be punished by a boycott that will predominantly harm the very people they claim to be supporting.
You get what you give. Respect is never earned through disrespect.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Idiocracy
"Idiocracy" is a 2006 comedic film, directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph.
The film tells the story of two people who are taken into a top-secret hibernation experiment that goes haywire, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated to the point where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and what is left of humanity is a uniformly stupid society.
Until the last few weeks I would have categorized such a movie as interesting entertainment, but highly implausible. Then evidence to the contrary kept mounting.
Attorney General Eric Holder criticizes the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration bill, then admits he hasn't even read it. Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, criticizes the bill then admits she hasn't read it. State Department representative P J Crowley, among others in the State Department, criticizes the Arizona bill then admits he hasn't read it. The Mayor of Los Angeles begins a boycott of Arizona and doesn't realize his own state has a law equivalent to the Arizona bill.
What's going on here? Idiocracy! We don't even have to wait 500 years for it.
The film tells the story of two people who are taken into a top-secret hibernation experiment that goes haywire, and awaken 500 years in the future. They discover that the world has degenerated to the point where advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and what is left of humanity is a uniformly stupid society.
Until the last few weeks I would have categorized such a movie as interesting entertainment, but highly implausible. Then evidence to the contrary kept mounting.
Attorney General Eric Holder criticizes the Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration bill, then admits he hasn't even read it. Head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, criticizes the bill then admits she hasn't read it. State Department representative P J Crowley, among others in the State Department, criticizes the Arizona bill then admits he hasn't read it. The Mayor of Los Angeles begins a boycott of Arizona and doesn't realize his own state has a law equivalent to the Arizona bill.
What's going on here? Idiocracy! We don't even have to wait 500 years for it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Ignorance revisited
I pointed out earlier that so many people who potificated endlessly about Arizona's illegal alien law have invariably not even read it. Then guess what?
United States Attorney General Eric Holder who went on at great length last week about the failings of the Arizona law was finally asked If he had actually read the law. His answer? No, he had not "had the time" to read 10 pages. So how did he form his opinions about it? He glanced at it and read "media reports".
Great. He is deciding things by listening to politically controlled media rather than reading things for himself and actually putting two brain cells together and attempting to think. I'm sorry, but that is just moronic.
Oh, and how about those in California (or would that be Kallefornia) that are so opinionated about the Arizona law? Would it surprise them to know that they have a state illegal alien law of their own which says:
Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
"(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
"(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."
Oh, and this is not an option. That's what a "shall" statement means. EVERY law enforcement agency in the state is absolutely required to abide by this. Furthermore this law says:
"(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited."
This means it is against the law to not abide by this law.
Maybe we should boycott Kallefornia? After all, their law doesn't expressly prohibit "profiling".
United States Attorney General Eric Holder who went on at great length last week about the failings of the Arizona law was finally asked If he had actually read the law. His answer? No, he had not "had the time" to read 10 pages. So how did he form his opinions about it? He glanced at it and read "media reports".
Great. He is deciding things by listening to politically controlled media rather than reading things for himself and actually putting two brain cells together and attempting to think. I'm sorry, but that is just moronic.
Oh, and how about those in California (or would that be Kallefornia) that are so opinionated about the Arizona law? Would it surprise them to know that they have a state illegal alien law of their own which says:
Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
"(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
"(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."
Oh, and this is not an option. That's what a "shall" statement means. EVERY law enforcement agency in the state is absolutely required to abide by this. Furthermore this law says:
"(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited."
This means it is against the law to not abide by this law.
Maybe we should boycott Kallefornia? After all, their law doesn't expressly prohibit "profiling".
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
There are no UN experts on human rights
Now Arizona is even making the international scene over our law to allow police to arrest illegal aliens. Supposed “experts” in human rights for the United Nations have spoken.
“GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.
"The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:
"Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
"Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
"James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
"Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.
"Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.
"Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.”
Maybe “expert” means people who used to be “pert” because there is certainly no indication that anyone at the United Nations has any idea on human rights issues. Let’s look at recent history.
March 2010
Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality. Of course this was the same country that hung a woman last week and in April Iranian women were rebuked for causing earthquakes with their immodest dress.
Now, women in Iran are being admonished, and threatened with arrest and imprisonment, for having tan skin. Tehran's police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has declared: "In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins. We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
Sounds like the “experts" at the UN are right on top of the situation alright. But of course there are other times that their “expertise” has failed them, like in 1994.
In the Spring and early Summer of 1994 something over 1,000,000 people were killed as an act of genocide in Rwanda. Now in the UN’s defense their mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.
Oh, but that’s right, genocide WAS being committed. Of course that didn’t prevent the UN from stepping right up and doing, uh, absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that on April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day, 1,000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.
Still the UN did exactly nothing.
Of course Arizona has also been called misguided by our current president. Of course at the time of the Rwanda genocide then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview that he also did exactly nothing in response to the Rwanda genocide. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.
Pardon me if I puke over all the “experts” who have not even read the Arizona law and have no idea that people here are being killed by illegal aliens. The last three law officers killed in the state were murdered by illegal aliens, and a sheriff deputy was shot just about a week ago because he ran across over 15 illegal aliens being smuggled into Arizona. Of course there was also the farmer who was killed by an illegal just last month. He was providing the illegal alien with water.
Now the United Nations “experts” claim that Arizona is bound by an agreement made by the United States. There are two equally viable solutions to that problem. Can you think of what they might be?
“GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.
"The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.
The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:
"Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
"Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
"James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.
"Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.
"Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.
"Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.”
Maybe “expert” means people who used to be “pert” because there is certainly no indication that anyone at the United Nations has any idea on human rights issues. Let’s look at recent history.
March 2010
Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality. Of course this was the same country that hung a woman last week and in April Iranian women were rebuked for causing earthquakes with their immodest dress.
Now, women in Iran are being admonished, and threatened with arrest and imprisonment, for having tan skin. Tehran's police chief, Brig Hossien Sajedinia, has declared: "In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins. We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."
Sounds like the “experts" at the UN are right on top of the situation alright. But of course there are other times that their “expertise” has failed them, like in 1994.
In the Spring and early Summer of 1994 something over 1,000,000 people were killed as an act of genocide in Rwanda. Now in the UN’s defense their mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.
Oh, but that’s right, genocide WAS being committed. Of course that didn’t prevent the UN from stepping right up and doing, uh, absolutely nothing in spite of the fact that on April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day, 1,000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.
Still the UN did exactly nothing.
Of course Arizona has also been called misguided by our current president. Of course at the time of the Rwanda genocide then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview that he also did exactly nothing in response to the Rwanda genocide. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved.
Pardon me if I puke over all the “experts” who have not even read the Arizona law and have no idea that people here are being killed by illegal aliens. The last three law officers killed in the state were murdered by illegal aliens, and a sheriff deputy was shot just about a week ago because he ran across over 15 illegal aliens being smuggled into Arizona. Of course there was also the farmer who was killed by an illegal just last month. He was providing the illegal alien with water.
Now the United Nations “experts” claim that Arizona is bound by an agreement made by the United States. There are two equally viable solutions to that problem. Can you think of what they might be?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
You don't get it both ways
It can be successfully argued that the federal government has defaulted on its responsibility to protect the states against foreign invasion. As a result at least one state, Arizona with more to come, have decided that self protection in the form of state laws pertaining to how to handle illegal aliens is required. Then comes the next step.
The federal government is considering a lawsuit to prevent the states from protecting themselves against the very thing the federal government has failed to do.
You don't get it both ways.
The federal government cannot fail to do its job and at the same time prevent the states from protecting themselves from federal government failure. The right to self protection cannot be usurped by the federal government. This is particularly true since the the only authority the constitution gives to the federal government is to set a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization of aliens who are "legally" in the United States (Aticle 1, Section 8).
Since all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt are reserved to the states, or the people, the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from protecting itself from illegal foreign invasion.
Eric Holder, go pound sand.
The federal government is considering a lawsuit to prevent the states from protecting themselves against the very thing the federal government has failed to do.
You don't get it both ways.
The federal government cannot fail to do its job and at the same time prevent the states from protecting themselves from federal government failure. The right to self protection cannot be usurped by the federal government. This is particularly true since the the only authority the constitution gives to the federal government is to set a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization of aliens who are "legally" in the United States (Aticle 1, Section 8).
Since all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt are reserved to the states, or the people, the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from protecting itself from illegal foreign invasion.
Eric Holder, go pound sand.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
I have a dream
Every morning on “Conservative Talk Radio” in Phoenix I hear Dr. Martin Luther King saying, “I have a dream today. One day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Last night I had a dream. It didn’t make any sense at all, but it made me think of something this morning. Why is it that when something makes no sense in a dream do we not realize it makes no sense? Why don’t we realize we are dreaming as opposed to thinking rationally? That in turn prompted me to wonder about something else. When people who are awake do something completely illogical, are they just not thinking or are they dreaming?
Here in Arizona we recently passed a bill which can be used to allow local police to arrest people who are in this country illegally. Arresting a lawbreaker, what a concept. The result has been that a significant segment of the liberal population across the country has taken up the idea of boycotting Arizona businesses and in particular conventions and resorts. They claim they are doing this because arresting illegal aliens would be targeting Hispanic people, yet they don’t realize it is they who are targeting Hispanic people.
Right or wrong, a large segment of hospitality industry employees are Hispanic. I won’t even debate whether they are here legally or illegally. Regardless of their status, a boycott of resorts and conventions have a direct bearing on their employment. No conventions, no vacationers, no need for hospitality employees.
So let’s get this straight. Because an illegal alien law might possibly be mis-used, although we can’t identify exactly how, we will boycott the industry that employs the people we are claiming to help so that they all lose their jobs?
Does the illogic of this escape everyone? Is this a dream or perhaps a nightmare?
Last night I had a dream. It didn’t make any sense at all, but it made me think of something this morning. Why is it that when something makes no sense in a dream do we not realize it makes no sense? Why don’t we realize we are dreaming as opposed to thinking rationally? That in turn prompted me to wonder about something else. When people who are awake do something completely illogical, are they just not thinking or are they dreaming?
Here in Arizona we recently passed a bill which can be used to allow local police to arrest people who are in this country illegally. Arresting a lawbreaker, what a concept. The result has been that a significant segment of the liberal population across the country has taken up the idea of boycotting Arizona businesses and in particular conventions and resorts. They claim they are doing this because arresting illegal aliens would be targeting Hispanic people, yet they don’t realize it is they who are targeting Hispanic people.
Right or wrong, a large segment of hospitality industry employees are Hispanic. I won’t even debate whether they are here legally or illegally. Regardless of their status, a boycott of resorts and conventions have a direct bearing on their employment. No conventions, no vacationers, no need for hospitality employees.
So let’s get this straight. Because an illegal alien law might possibly be mis-used, although we can’t identify exactly how, we will boycott the industry that employs the people we are claiming to help so that they all lose their jobs?
Does the illogic of this escape everyone? Is this a dream or perhaps a nightmare?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Immigration Law and Ignorance
Arizona recently passed a state law regarding illegal immigrants. Then there was an uproar. Those opposing the law made all kind of claims about what was in the law. The problem is that what they claim is in the law just isn't there.
What I have noticed repeatedly is that people opposing the law have a lot to say about it, but there seems to be no sign that any of them have actually read it. If they did they would be very surprised that it is only a re-statement of existing federal law. So what's the difference and why the uproar? It appears that the opponents aren't afraid of what the law says. They are afraid that they are about to find themselves dealing with state law agencies that will "enforce" the law as opposed to federal law agencies which have "failed to enforce" the law.
It also has not escaped my notice that those making erroneous claims about the law are never asked if they have actually read it. So this leads to an obvious question.
Are these people just ignorant?
Ignorance can be corrected. One really ought to do some research to find out what is really going on before they stick their foot in their mouth. If one finds out what things actually say and how they work it can be an amazing eye opener.
I'm afraid with the "dumbing down of America" we are dealing these days with a lot of people who have become dependent upon people telling them what to think because they have been systematically trained to not think for themselves.
What I have noticed repeatedly is that people opposing the law have a lot to say about it, but there seems to be no sign that any of them have actually read it. If they did they would be very surprised that it is only a re-statement of existing federal law. So what's the difference and why the uproar? It appears that the opponents aren't afraid of what the law says. They are afraid that they are about to find themselves dealing with state law agencies that will "enforce" the law as opposed to federal law agencies which have "failed to enforce" the law.
It also has not escaped my notice that those making erroneous claims about the law are never asked if they have actually read it. So this leads to an obvious question.
Are these people just ignorant?
Ignorance can be corrected. One really ought to do some research to find out what is really going on before they stick their foot in their mouth. If one finds out what things actually say and how they work it can be an amazing eye opener.
I'm afraid with the "dumbing down of America" we are dealing these days with a lot of people who have become dependent upon people telling them what to think because they have been systematically trained to not think for themselves.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Spirit of 1776
These days there is a growing undercurrent of those who are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the present actions of our government. Many find a resonance with the statement of President Ronald Reagan who said, "In this present crisis government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem."
Is it genetic memory, reincarnation of our revolutionary ancestors, or a spiritual connection with our forefathers? Whatever it may be, there are many who are beginning to relate to the the motto of, "No taxation without representation."
Whether it be health care legislation, cap and trade, or some other form of socialized government imposition, many are recognizing that our government is increasing its control and demands over our lives and decreasingly paying any attention to the will of its constituency. This is a replay of the theme that culminated in the American Revolution and many are beginning to feel a deep kinship and gut level identification with our ancestors.
In the American Revolution it was not everyone who opposed the the mindless taxation and arrogance of King George, but those who did refused to knuckle under. "Give me liberty, or give me death," was not just a bunch of words spoken by Patrick Henry. It was the attitude of a people who refused to let things continue on an unjust path.
Those who are spiritual decendants of our Revolutionary War forefathers can only be pushed so far and no farther.
Is it genetic memory, reincarnation of our revolutionary ancestors, or a spiritual connection with our forefathers? Whatever it may be, there are many who are beginning to relate to the the motto of, "No taxation without representation."
Whether it be health care legislation, cap and trade, or some other form of socialized government imposition, many are recognizing that our government is increasing its control and demands over our lives and decreasingly paying any attention to the will of its constituency. This is a replay of the theme that culminated in the American Revolution and many are beginning to feel a deep kinship and gut level identification with our ancestors.
In the American Revolution it was not everyone who opposed the the mindless taxation and arrogance of King George, but those who did refused to knuckle under. "Give me liberty, or give me death," was not just a bunch of words spoken by Patrick Henry. It was the attitude of a people who refused to let things continue on an unjust path.
Those who are spiritual decendants of our Revolutionary War forefathers can only be pushed so far and no farther.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Is Jopseph Stack a hero?
On February 18th, 53-year-old Joseph Stack, killed both himself and a 67-year-old IRS employee, Vernon Hunter, by flying a small private plane into a building.
Was Joseph a hero? In a word, no. He didn't become a hero by flying a plane into a building and killing a random person any more than the people flying planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentegon did on September, 11th.
So, was he just a nut? I don't think so. I think he's a little more like a canary in a mine.
Long ago, canaries were used in mines to protect the miners from poisonous gas build up in the mines. Canaries, it seems, were more susceptible to such gasses and would die from breathing them long before they had reached levels that would be dangerous to the miners. So, when a canary died, you knew that something bad was beginning to happen.
Joseph Stack was a canary.
This is a man who, for all appearances, was rather marginally stable. He could withstand just so much before he went over the edge and did something a more rational person would not have done under the same circumstances. Notice I said "more rational" rather than just rational. There are matters of degree to rationality just as there are to mental illness. You see if Joseph Stack could be pushed over the edge, there is a slightly less susceptible canary who is just one step short of the same kind of action. Then there is yet another right behind him.
The higher the level of stress being placed upon people the higher up the "rationality chain" such behavior may progress. The issue is not whether Joseph Stack had a problem, but whether we are all being subjected to something that is very bad for all of us?
Perhaps we should pay attention to what the dead canary is telling us.
Was Joseph a hero? In a word, no. He didn't become a hero by flying a plane into a building and killing a random person any more than the people flying planes into the World Trade Center or the Pentegon did on September, 11th.
So, was he just a nut? I don't think so. I think he's a little more like a canary in a mine.
Long ago, canaries were used in mines to protect the miners from poisonous gas build up in the mines. Canaries, it seems, were more susceptible to such gasses and would die from breathing them long before they had reached levels that would be dangerous to the miners. So, when a canary died, you knew that something bad was beginning to happen.
Joseph Stack was a canary.
This is a man who, for all appearances, was rather marginally stable. He could withstand just so much before he went over the edge and did something a more rational person would not have done under the same circumstances. Notice I said "more rational" rather than just rational. There are matters of degree to rationality just as there are to mental illness. You see if Joseph Stack could be pushed over the edge, there is a slightly less susceptible canary who is just one step short of the same kind of action. Then there is yet another right behind him.
The higher the level of stress being placed upon people the higher up the "rationality chain" such behavior may progress. The issue is not whether Joseph Stack had a problem, but whether we are all being subjected to something that is very bad for all of us?
Perhaps we should pay attention to what the dead canary is telling us.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Discouragement has its limits
There is no doubt that people are discouraged. Some are losing jobs. Others have been struggling to find jobs with little if any success. All are suffering the loss of buying power for whatever money they have as the dollar takes a beating. City and State governments are on the verge of bankruptcy and are trying to find ways to grab whatever money these people have left. They are even beginning to tax food, an absolute necessity.
People have been discouraged and downtrodden before. They withstood an oppressive system for a very long time. They found ways to "make do" and work around the system. They worked around an oppressive tax system. They found ways around a government that no longer represented them.
Then there was a Revolution.
People have been discouraged and downtrodden before. They withstood an oppressive system for a very long time. They found ways to "make do" and work around the system. They worked around an oppressive tax system. They found ways around a government that no longer represented them.
Then there was a Revolution.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Ellie not so Light
So, it seems Ellie isn't a woman, and isn't light either. Instead he's just a large liberal who is firmly entrenched in the idea that the end justifies the means. Is this really any surprise?
Lying is exactly what Cass Sunstein was suggesting.
Lying is exactly what Cass Sunstein was suggesting.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Who is Ellie Light?
Ellie Light has managed to get "letters to the editor" published in about a dozen different newspapers including USA Today. These letters are all in support of the Obama administration, and strangely they list different local addresses all over the country.
Obviously Ellie Light is not as she portrays herself, a local concerned citizen. Also, it is likely that Ellie Light is a pseudonym.
Now I've found that pseudonyms sometimes can be connected with the real name of the person if you know what to look for. For example, Light... maybe Sunlight? Sunlight... maybe Sunstein? Ellie... maybe Spanish Ella indicating a woman? Woman Sunstein? Mrs. Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein would be Samantha Powers who is the woman removed from the Obama campaign after she called Hillary a monster. Hmmm
Interestingly Cass Sunstein advocates that there should be Government stealth infiltration of various sources of information which could be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also has proposed that the Government could make secret payments to called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging. This is based on the idea that those who don't believe government will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government. His recommended program would be aimed at those the administration considered guilty of advocating false "conspiracy theories," which he defines as: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
Powerful people... Mrs. Sunstein... Ellie Light? Would that be a conspiracy theory?
Obviously Ellie Light is not as she portrays herself, a local concerned citizen. Also, it is likely that Ellie Light is a pseudonym.
Now I've found that pseudonyms sometimes can be connected with the real name of the person if you know what to look for. For example, Light... maybe Sunlight? Sunlight... maybe Sunstein? Ellie... maybe Spanish Ella indicating a woman? Woman Sunstein? Mrs. Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein? Mrs. Cass Sunstein would be Samantha Powers who is the woman removed from the Obama campaign after she called Hillary a monster. Hmmm
Interestingly Cass Sunstein advocates that there should be Government stealth infiltration of various sources of information which could be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also has proposed that the Government could make secret payments to called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging. This is based on the idea that those who don't believe government will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government. His recommended program would be aimed at those the administration considered guilty of advocating false "conspiracy theories," which he defines as: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
Powerful people... Mrs. Sunstein... Ellie Light? Would that be a conspiracy theory?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
People who desire power and authority
We all know people who desire power and authority. They are the ones who want to control everything and everyone. They want you to live your life their way. They want you to look the way they want you to look, behave the way they want you to behave, think the way they want you to think, avoid the things they want you to avoid, talk the way they want you to talk, and like every bit of it for your own good of course.
They are liberals.
These are the people who are drawn to positions of power and authority the way a moth is drawn to the light. They are compelled from within to be part of Home Owner Associations, School Boards, City Councils, and any of a number of elected positions.
Unfortunately the people who seek these positions are often the very people that should not be in them because they are there for the wrong reason. Their reason is "to control" rather than "to serve."
They are liberals.
These are the people who are drawn to positions of power and authority the way a moth is drawn to the light. They are compelled from within to be part of Home Owner Associations, School Boards, City Councils, and any of a number of elected positions.
Unfortunately the people who seek these positions are often the very people that should not be in them because they are there for the wrong reason. Their reason is "to control" rather than "to serve."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
