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.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
