My Marines were doing the right thing

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) - An officer who saw the corpses of Iraqi women and children sprawled across a bed in a home said Wednesday in recorded testimony that he believed that "my Marines were doing the right thing" when they killed them.

Marine 1st Lt. Max Frank, whose deposition was recorded in March before his return to Iraq, was the first witness to be heard at a preliminary hearing for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the commander of the Marine battalion involved in the deadly sweep of the village of Haditha.

The sweep led to the deaths of 24 people on Nov. 19, 2005, after a roadside bomb killed a lance corporal driving a Humvee. In the aftermath, Marines went house to house looking for insurgents.

"From my perspective at the time, my assumption was my Marines were doing the right thing," Frank said. "I rationalized it to myself as they were taking fire. The Marines could have come in, yelled at them to come out, and when they didn't come out they cleared the room with a fragmentation grenade."

This isn't a war crime. It's war. Marines were attacked. They fought back.

(Image stolen from ARS)

Run Fred, Run

Is Fred really, finally going to take the leap?

"Law and Order" star Fred Thompson will make his flirtation with a White House bid official this week, forming a presidential committee and launching a fundraising effort that could culminate in a formal announcement over the July 4th weekend, advisers to the former senator said.

I like Fred. I think he holds a lot of the same values I do. I also think it's way too early for people to get caught up in the Presidential Race for 2008. But since this seems to be the way of things, I looked into Thompson's record and people should know where he stands on issues:

Abortion:
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Jobs, Economy and Free Trade:
* Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
* Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
* Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
* Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
* Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
* Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995)
* Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
* Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
* Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
* Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)

Foreign Policy:
* Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
* Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
* Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
* Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)

Gun Control:
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

National Security:
* Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
* Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
* Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
* Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
* Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
* Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
* Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)

The ONE area that I don't agree, totally, with Fred and yes, this could kill any votes from me, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:
* Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
* Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

Source

The Man With TB

One man can cause a lot of trouble for so many people.

ATLANTA (AP) - A man with a form of tuberculosis so dangerous he is under the first U.S. government-ordered quarantine since 1963 had health officials around the world scrambling Wednesday to find about 80 passengers who sat within five rows of him on two trans-Atlantic flights.

The man told a newspaper he took the first flight from Atlanta to Europe for his wedding, then the second flight home because he feared he might die without treatment in the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie Gerberding said Wednesday that the CDC is working closely with airlines to find passengers who may have been exposed to the rare, dangerous strain. Health officials in France said they have asked Air France-KLM (AKH) for passenger lists, and the Italian Health Ministry said it is tracing the man's movements.

He is claiming he didn't realize HOW serious a form of TB he had; his actions don't equate with the words of his doctors and other medical professionals familiar with this case. I think he knew, and I think he disregarded the advice. The CDC and medical community rely on the citizens to be honest partners when it comes to the spread of deadly infection. They may have to reconsider this blind trust now. The man is not being charged with any crime and I'm not sure why. This is turning out to be one expensive trip he took. A lot of people have been put at risk. Also, we need to learn HOW he was able to board flights after his name was put on the NO FLY list.

The Hooksett Four

When you gossip about the boss in a derogatory manner, you open yourself up to trouble. The Hooksett Four have become known nationwide, famous for getting fired for gossiping about their boss.

HOOKSETT – An initiative petition has been delivered to Town Hall asking the town council to reverse its decision to fire four longtime town employees.

The council now has 30 days in which to schedule a public hearing.

"By signing this petition, you are urging the Hooksett Town Council to reverse their decision in the firing of four longtime and dedicated employees, Sandra Piper, Joanne Drewniak, Jessica Skorupski and Michelle Bonsteel, (and allow them) to return back to work," reads the petition, signed by 419 registered voters, 5 percent of the town's voters.

Town Clerk Leslie Nepveu said the petition, authorized under Article 8.2 of the town charter, was delivered Friday.

The number of signatures is fewer than the 1,000 that petition organizer Michelle Gannon hoped for.

One wonders why so many, or few, signed this petition? Should the women be re-hired? What would it be like for them, to settle back into their jobs surrounded by people who potentially don't want them back?

Dry Runs

As John Edwards declares the War on Terrorism a bumper sticker phrase, we read articles like this:

The inspector general for Homeland Security late Friday released new details of what federal air marshals say was a terrorist dry run aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on June 29, 2004.

Several portions of the report remain redacted. The release stems from a Freedom of Information request by The Washington Times in April 2006. The Times first reported on July 22 that this and other probes and dry runs were occurring on commercial flights since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Look for the full report in Wednesday's edition of The Times.

Other probes and dry runs? But we're not at war with an enemy who happens to present itself as young Muslim men who are angry, according to so many Democrats.

Briefly, the following events occurred. Thirteen Middle Eastern men were traveling together as a musical group, 12 carrying Syrian passports and one, a lawful permanent resident of the United States of Lebanese descent, purchased one-way tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles. Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted. According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous. An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as "unusual," but made no further reports at the time.

If I saw a group of Muslim men together at an airport I would watch them like hawks. I wouldn't let them out of my sight and I would report, loudly, anything "odd" which just being together qualifies. Remember the 19 terrorists on September 11 2001??

During the flight, the men again acted suspiciously. Several of the men changed seats, congregated in the aisles, and arose when the fasten seat belt sign was turned on; one passenger moved quickly up the aisle toward the cockpit and, at the last moment, entered the first class lavatory. The passenger remained in the lavatory for about 20 minutes. Several of the men spent excessive time in the lavatories. Another man carried a large McDonald's restaurant bag into a lavatory and made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning to his seat.

These men should never have been allowed to access the flight. Since strange behavior was noted before boarding the plane, the men should have been removed from the airport and questioned at the very least. Imagine if this wasn't a dry run?

Flight attendants notified the air marshals on board of the suspicious activities.
In response, an air marshal directed a flight attendant to instruct the cockpit to radio ahead for law-enforcement officials to meet the flight upon arrival. After arriving, Flight 327 was met by federal and local law enforcement officials, who gathered all 13 suspicious passengers, interviewing two of them. An air marshal photocopied the passengers' passports and visas. The names of the suspicious passengers were run through FBI databases, indicating the musical group's promoter had been involved in a similar incident in January 2004. No other derogatory information was received, and all 13 of the men were released.

THIS flight had an air marshal...most do not.
The men who plan and plot terrorist attacks surely learned lessons on 9-11. Like how to avoid any trouble with law enforcement. How to leave a trail UN-littered with dots that might connect them. I will post more about this after the Washington Times prints the detailed article this coming Wednesday. This makes us all wonder how many plots are already into the final stages; how many dry runs have the terrorists accomplished so far? This also proves why we are at war with an enemy who loves people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton- they who will not even label the enemy for what it is.

Together, we will stop this bill

We Win. They Lose.
No Amnesty Petition.

Minimum Wage Increase About To Happen

WASHINGTON (AP) - After a decade-long wait, America's lowest-paid workers saw Congress poised Thursday to increase the federal minimum wage by $2.10.

For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.

That almost became the fate of this year's proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years. Democratic leaders attached the provision to the $120 billion Iraq war spending bill, which was vetoed by the GOP-controlled White House on May 1 because of Democrats insisting on a pullout date for American troops.

But with the House and Senate ready to pass a rewritten bill, and President Bush signaling his approval at a White House news conference, it seems likely that the end is near for the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

"We're very hopeful we're going to see finally that increase in the next couple of days," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and chair of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee.

This would be the first change since the minimum wage went from $4.75 to $5.15 on September 1, 1997 under former President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress.

The minimum wage provisions were one part of the Iraq war spending bill that did not change: the minimum wage goes up to $5.85 two months after Bush signs the bill, then to $6.55 one year later and to $7.25 the next year.

What does the MW have to do with Iraq is above me.

Murtha says "Sorry"

Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania sent a note of apology to Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan Wednesday, the day after a divided House denied Rogers a vote to officially reprimand the powerful senior Democrat.

Murtha apologized for his "outburst" in a handwritten note Rogers received Wednesday morning, the latter's office confirmed. This marks his first acknowledgement of an episode between the two lawmakers on the House floor.

A little too late considering how clean the Dems want their house.

I chose to be Independent now

Two interesting points today, about illegal immigration.

First it appears that a small group of Congressmen are working on this draft bill:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just off the Senate floor, a dozen Democratic and Republican senators huddle twice a day to decide whether proposed changes to a bipartisan immigration compromise are acceptable tweaks or fatal blows to their fragile agreement.

Survival of the deal that would allow 12 million unlawful immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally - regarded as the best chance to overhaul immigration this year - depends in large part on how effective this "Gang of 12" is in insulating the plan from major changes.

The team grows or shrinks according to what the issues are. At its core are the unlikely partners who cut the deal, led by liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Assistance comes from GOP centrist Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Our infamous RINOs are working hand in hand with Democrats to try to secure this draft into a passable piece of legislation. The title of this article is called "Group of 12..." Question: How many member of Congress should be involved with this?
Answer: ALL of them.

Then we read how the GOP RINOs are worried about losing their base, and we can't wonder why:

The bipartisan immigration bill being pushed by the White House and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, is fracturing rather than "saving" the Republican Party nationally, according to angry party leaders and new poll findings.

Arizona Republican Party officials have received "hundreds and hundreds of calls, e-mails and letters from Republicans angry about the bill," state party Chairman Randy Pullen told The Washington Times.

"They were saying, 'I am going to register independent and not give you any more money' -- and that's the base of our party saying that," Mr. Pullen said.

I don't live in a border state, and I'm damn upset about this. As well, I am no longer registering as a Republican. I chose to be Independent now...where I place my votes to those who put America and her citizens first, above and beyond illegal immigrants. The GOP stands to lose MUCH with this. Let's hope they are very clear with their understanding of it.

2008 GOP Primary Straw Poll - May 2007

The old stale medical model

Doctors are upset over the new walk in health care clinics located within Wal Mart, CVS and other drug stores. It seems to me this is the first step towards a national, consumer driven model of health care. And the first turf war has begun.

Can a retail store deliver healthcare? Wal-Mart, the largest US retailer, thinks so, together with CVS, Walgreens and Rite Aid, the leading US drug store chains. But as all four move ahead with plans to expand “walk-in clinics” in their stores, the doctors of Illinois are fighting back.

The state could be the first to impose stricter regulation on the new generation of walk-in clinics, where nurse-practitioners can examine patients, conduct basic procedures such as inoculation, and prescribe for minor illnesses, while charging less than a doctor’s practice.

Massachusetts is also considering whether and how to license the state’s first retail clinics, proposed by drugstore group CVS and its MinuteClinics unit. And the industry expects more challenges ahead.

The medical community has a right to be concerned. They want to know that the people working in these clinics are qualified to dx illnesses and prescribe treatment and medications. They want to make sure the clinics follow sound medical practices. Of course they will do so; and we can all rest assured the staff who work in the clinics are well qualified. Nurse Practitioners are well versed and educated to provide the services the clinics will be offering. I suspect many of these clinics will also have actual doctors on staff as well. Everyone needs to remember- these clinics are in it for the long haul. They want to make a profit. In order to do this, they must offer a service at a competitive rate, and the service must be equal to superior of other clinics (and doctors offices, health care groups and the like).
Why not spice up the old stale medical model of services with some good old fashioned American business model?

Walk-in clinics represent one of the most advanced and aggressive attempts by US business and entrepreneurs to drive reform of the healthcare system.

This year hundreds will be opened in some of the US’s largest drugstore and retail groups, and thousands of clinics could be running in the next decade.

Advocates say the clinics will improve access to healthcare and reduce costs; that they will reduce more expensive visits to hospital emergency rooms; and that they will catch some illnesses before they become serious and costly. As a result, physicians will have more time for complex cases.

I cannot think of anyone who would not benefit from these clinics. Really. Open 7 days a week, located at the local Wal Mart, one can bring their two year old son who is complaining of an earache to the clinic at 8pm on Saturday night...the NP will assess and DX an infection and recommend and write a prescript for an antibiotic. She will depend upon YOU to share pertinent information such as allergies and previous illness history. You can bring the prescript over to the pharmacy counter, and they will charge you a mere $4.00 for the drug. The visit will cost you around $35.00 (cash, check, debit, credit)...that is a bargain.

Dr Rodney Osborn, president of the Illinois State Medical Society, said: “This is a brand new animal. That’s why we believe legislation is important to guarantee patient safety ... They’re not putting these things in to provide healthcare; these people are businessmen.”

Oh the doctors are somewhat threatened by it all. It's really too bad a group or two of doctors don't get together and form a similar BUSINESS model and watch it bloom and grow, without all the overhead of a practice. Without all the insurance headaches.

On a national level, the American Medical Association, the doctors’ lobby group, has taken a cautious tone, issuing guidelines last year for clinics. They call for a well-defined scope of services; standardised medical protocols; and clear definitions of medical qualifications. They also call for closer doctor oversight, and emphasise the importance of referrals to doctors, which the leading clinics promise.

In any case, retail clinic companies are expanding nationally. In May, Walgreens bought Take Care, following CVS’s MinuteClinic acquisition last year. Both Wal-Mart and Target, the leading discounters, are opening clinics.

Their national footprint could eventually support the development of a much-discussed but elusive electronic records system for the US, as the clinics build patient databases, see more patients, and give patients printouts of their diagnoses and treatments.

These walk in health care clinics could have a huge impact upon how the nation delivers health care to everyone. Access is an issue for many people- especially those who work during standard MD office hours of operation. Someone almost always has to cut out of work early. Another issue many of us are familiar with is the After Hours "urgent care centers"= located in a nearby or not so nearby city that we HAVE to go to per our insurance rules...and, most of us have to pay a higher co pay when we or a loved one requires medical attention after standard MD office hours. We're punished when we get sick at 6pm on a Sunday night. These walk in clinics will help alleviate some of the hassle we face with our insurance. Heck, the rates are cheap enough I wouldn't even need to seek a reimbursement from my insurance.

With all the debate that is sure to come, this last sentence is well worth reading and thinking about:

More than anything, however, the retail clinics show that business is pushing for change on its own without waiting for government. And walk-in clinics could do for US healthcare what low-cost Southwest Airlines did for the airline industry, by making healthcare better, faster, and cheaper.

Remember: 19 Young Angry Muslim Men

As far as I'm concerned, even 1 Muslim is too many.

Politics And Demographics:
We've been told for years that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, and that the size of the Muslim population here has swelled to 6 million to 7 million. A new study pops that myth.

The Pew Research Center just concluded an exhaustive scientific study of the size of the U.S. Muslim population. It was able to identify only 2.35 million Muslims — less than half the figure commonly cited by Muslim activists.

Pew, a liberal group with certainly no interest in marginalizing Islam, described its study as "perhaps the most rigorous effort to date to scientifically estimate the size of the Muslim American population."

Yet it practically apologized for its more accurate reading, being that it came in "significantly below some commonly reported estimates frequently cited by Muslim groups."

Foremost among such groups is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which claims to represent Muslims in Washington. CAIR commissioned its own survey in 2001 and came up with 6 million to 7 million, an estimate it always touts in its press releases and on its Web site.

As a result, most media outlets — as well as Congress, the White House and the State Department — have parroted the figure to describe the size of the nation's Muslim population.

Politicians in Washington are intimidated by the figure, which CAIR uses as a cudgel to help advance its Islamist agenda. They believe it.

We all know CAIR manipulates numbers. They also manipulate the American people by defending those who seek to kill us.

The other point of this study today:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation � a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

Remember, it took 19 Muslim men to kill almost 3000 people one day back in September 2001.

Closing The Gaping Open Loopholes

Senator Norm Coleman has introduced legislation that would effectively "dis" incorporate "Sanctuary Cities" we have all over the country.

May 23rd, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

I believe this makes much sense. Although I am against the federal government intervening in many areas, when it comes to federal laws and rules AND national security, AND political correctness gone mad as the leaders of these cities obviously are- this is a common sense legislation.

However, the federal government MUST do it's job and enforce the laws already in place. They MUST connect the dots and not allow cites to hide potential terrorists and their supporters. Senator Coleman deserves a big KUDOS for this.


On another related note, Senator John Cornyn has introduced another piece of common sense legislation: To bar the immigration of known terrorists, sex offenders, gang members and alien smugglers.

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee, on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the immigration bill to close a gaping loophole in the bill that will ensure the following individuals are either permanently barred from the United States or prohibited from getting any immigration benefit: members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers.

“The question I put to my colleagues is this: Should Congress permanently bar from the U.S. and from receiving any immigration benefit: suspected terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, felony drunk drivers, and other individuals who are a danger to society?,” Sen. Cornyn said. “I hope that every Senator would answer this question with a positive response.

Sen. Cornyn’s amendment also closes the loophole in the pending bill that allows legalization of those illegal immigrants who have violated court ordered deportations, or absconders.

One has to wonder how many of these absconders we have lurking among us...in particular how many who have committed crimes against Americans. We cannot automatically grant these thugs citizenship, and we cannot offer them amnesty or whatever title is popular at any given moment.

X Posted @ ARS

The show (trial) must go on

The more we read about the trial of the Marines accused of war crimes in Haditha, the more we see the Marines are being screwed over. This is a very damning report.

Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani who commanded the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in Haditha when members of the unit were ambushed by insurgents was recommended for promotion to colonel by his Division commander, who filed a fitness report calling him one of the most effective combat commanders in Iraq.

Yet Chessani now faces criminal charges arising out of the so-called "Haditha massacre" of November 19, 2005 — even though he was not at the scene.

Actions like this will give a second thought to many who seek to become Marines.

According to Brian Rooney, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center which is voluntarily representing Lt. Col. Chessani, and himself a former Marine captain who served with the unit during the 2nd battle of Fallujah – one of the Corps' most hard-fought combat engagements - his client faces a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps, the loss of all his retirement benefits, and a possible 3 years in prison.

Thank God for the Thomas Moore Law Center.

Now for the breaking news here (emphasis mine):

Said Rooney, "The charges against Lieutenant Colonel Chessani were incited by an inflammatory Time magazine headline accusing Marine enlisted men of ‘massacring innocent civilians.' The story was planted by a known terrorist propaganda operative — since discredited. Anti-war Congressman John Murtha, with influence over military appropriations, in an unprecedented action, publicly accused Marine officers of a 'cover-up' even before the investigation of the incident was completed. The subsequent investigation specifically found no ‘cover-up' at any level of command."

What about this terrorist propaganda operative?

Time subsequently was forced to admit that the story, written by their Jerusalem correspondent Tim McGirk, contained a series of egregious errors.

In a March 19th, 2006 story McGirk wrote "In the original version of this story, TIME reported that ‘a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME.'" In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error."

And the lives of US Marines are truly on the line because of this error. Insurgents, AKA terrorists depending on your political persuasion, are believed before our Marines are.

On Friday May 26th, 2006, Time's Matthew Cooper wrote "In the original version of this story, TIME reported that 'one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time's Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot.' While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error."

It's worth noting that no such photographic evidence ever surfaced despite strenuous efforts by investigators to locate it.

Later it turned out that McGirk's so-called "journalism student" was in reality a 43-year old insurgent propagandist Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi who together with Abdul-Rahman al-Mashhadani, another known insurgent propagandist, constituted the entire membership of the Hammurabi Human Rights Group.

This should be enough to throw this case right out. There was no war crime committed and those involved in this know it. But to appease the politically correct peoples of this world, the show (trial) must go on.

Please donate some money to the legal defenses of the Marines involved in this travesty of justice. If you have a blog, please consider posting about this and sharing the Legal Defense Site as well. It's the very least we can do.

X Posted @ ARS

Murtha Laughed in a Dark Corner

I was simply going to update the last post about Congressional pork spending and the bad side effects of it. But this news article deserves its own post:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.
[...]
In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules. "It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.

Oh alrighty then.

Let's see how Murtha reacted during this vote:

During the vote, Murtha sat in a darkened corner of the House floor, laughing with colleagues who surrounded him during the vote. As the clock wound down, other Democrats him to congratulate the senior member of the Appropriations Committee who oversees a massive defense spending bill every year.

The bully gets his way, and as a bonus, he gets his ego brushed up a little more.
Onward we go: Our elected officials are about as ethical as a car salesman. There is little difference between the two.

Pork Politics Waste More Money

Congressional pork should JUST BE OUTLAWED. For many reasons, including that American tax payers are always paying for projects that have no effect upon their lives, we also see endless reports about the ethical non-standards and bullying among members of Congress.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) submitted an earmark certification letter for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) May 1, more than five weeks after the Intelligence Committee’s deadline and the day before the panel marked up its authorization bill, according to copies of the letter and the notice of the deadline sent to the entire committee.

Murtha addressed the letter only to Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), not Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the panel’s ranking member. Hoekstra has said he was not given a copy—an apparent violation of House rules. All earmarks must be disclosed in writing to both the chairman and ranking member.

John Murtha has built his so called clout via bullying fellow members of Congress. This shouldn't be allowed to happen and when it does, the guilty party should be punished. Human nature being what it is, and the lack of honesty and openness on the part of most Democrats in Congress lead to the above linked foolishness. Now, we see house Republicans trying to pass a slap-his-wrist vote against Murtha...which is wasting even more of our money. Pork costs a lot more than the actual projects.

Left’s ten commandments

I found this article through Pro Life Blogs, and admit I didn't bother reading more than this list, all of which catches my eye as the truth about liberals.

I. "Thou shalll not speak against the liberal world view”

II. “Thou shall not think contrary to what the left deems acceptable”

III. “Thou shall have no other gods but political correctness”

IV. “Thou shall not raise thy children according to your Christian faith”

V. “Thou shall have no school choice for that would curtail indoctrination”

VI. “Thou shall remember to always speak evil of Christians”

VII. “Thou shall never admit the founding fathers had a Christian world view”

VIII. “Thou shall always have faith in government programs”

IX. ‘Thou shall never claim anything as absolutely true unless it is in keeping with the latest leftist propaganda”

X. “Thou shall always worship the mother who kills her unborn child”

The Age of Consent According to Democrats

Taking the first steps to make sure sex with minors is legal and safe. This is all about the nitty griity details regarding age of consent for young teenage girls, men and the legalizing of sex between them. Parents of course, have little say in it all.

IS A 13-year-old girl capable of consenting to sex with a 20-year-old man? Under New Hampshire law, she is not. A bill passed by the House in March and being considered in the Senate would alter that.

I have seen arguments over at ARS that claim ANY teenage girl who consents to a sexual relationship with ANY age man should be allowed. I have also heard arguments that young men, boys really shouldn't be forced to carry the label of sex offender just because they preyed upon a young girl.

House Bill 504, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Brown, D-Dover, would allow convicted sex offenders younger than 21 to have their names removed from the sex offender registry if their victims were between the ages of 13 and 16, "the offender did not use force or coercion in the commission of the act and a period of 10 years or more has elapsed since the conviction without any other misdemeanor or felony convictions."

It figures a Democrat would write this, and it doesn't shock me or anyone else that this legislation is written by a woman either. Morals mean nothing to people like Jennifer Brown.

But New Hampshire has an age of consent for good reason. Some men prey on impressionable girls, and for their safety the law holds that no matter how in love they feel they cannot legally consent to sex. The age difference itself, in other words, is proof of force or coercion.

Many argue the age should be changed simply because the LAW is too outdated.
The age of consent is an important factor. Young teenage girls are not emotionally ready to handle being USED. Let's be blunt about it. Yes, they fall "in love" with adult boys (those men who are around 21 years of age) and they view him as their savior- their Prince who will marry them someday and whom they will live happily ever after...and we all know what the adult boys want. Robbing young girls of their chance to learn how to deal with the emotional ups and downs of their teen years, with peers their same age is wrong.
Girls who become involved in one sided relationships like these tend to be depressed and grow up with self esteem problems. They also tend to become involved in abusive relationships later in their lives. But it's okay because it's just sex, right?
Adult boys who crave young naive and impressionable girls never learn to become decent men who hold decent morals and values. And what makes anyone think a 21 year old boy ages a decade and suddenly desires an more mature and emotionally stronger woman? It's too easy to take advantage of that 13 year old; we know men in their 30's, 40's and 50's do this.

Furthermore, the law already has an exception for young teen lovers. A teen no more than two years older than the victim is not necessarily guilty of felonious sexual assault on a person between the ages of 13 and 16. A 17-year-old high school senior caught on prom night with a 15-year-old sophomore would not be guilty of felonious sexual assault. If he were caught with a 14-year-old, he would.

Exactly. Why Ms. Brown seems determined to change a law that already protects close-age sexual relationships is unknown to me. Perhaps she is a feminist who wants to further liberate women?

It does not take a criminologist to see that adult men who seduce girls between the ages of 13 and 15 are sexual predators. This bill would let them slip off the sex offender registry so that parents would have no warning that these men are a threat to their children. If the bill passes, it will endanger children all across America, as sex offenders under age 21 could move to New Hampshire, petititon to have their names removed from the registry, then move wherever their predatory impulses took them.

Laws like this invite a state to become a haven for predators. It doesn't surprise me that one of the few tools a parent has in their arsenal is potentially going to be removed; in the eyes of the Democrats, parents should depend upon the state to keep their children, (young teenage girls) safe. The very things we want to protect our daughters from are being made legal now.

XPosted @ ARS

What Else Did You Mean?

I was a young teenager when Jimmy Carter was President. I wasn't aware of the damage he brought to this country during the Iranian Hostage saga. It wasn't until many years later that I realized, with shame and embarrassment- just how bad a President Mr. Carter really was. I wouldn't use the term "Irreverent" to describe him. He was more "impotent". Choosing to take no action because he could not make a decision, Carter opened the first doors to radical Islam's emboldened mindset to destroy America. Like it not, he is trying to alter history and alter his legacy.

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted" when he said the Bush administration has been the "worst in history" for its impact around the world.

Speaking on NBC's "Today," Carter appeared to retreat from a statement he made to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for a Saturday story in which he said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Carter said Monday that when he made the comment, he was responding to a question comparing the Bush administration's foreign policy to that of Richard Nixon.

"And I think Richard Nixon had a very good and productive foreign policy and my remarks were maybe careless or misinterpreted. But I wasn't comparing the overall administration and I was certainly not talking personally about any president," Carter said.

Oh I see. Thank you Mr. Carter for clarifying this. I wasn't really sure what you meant.

I think someone finally punched Carter in the face and told him he has gone too far now.

Speaking of John Edwards

When I read this I didn't think it was really worthy of making news. After all, many retired politicians/Presidents/Generals and others charge fees to deliver speeches. Some of these people make a living doing so.

John Edwards has an example to teach University of California at Davis students how to avoid poverty — charge $55,000 for a speech.

That's how much the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate negotiated for his fee to speak to 1,787 people at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006, according to financial disclosures.

According to Joe Martin, the public relations officer for UC Davis' Mondavi Center, the fee for a speech entitled, "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America," was worth it to school officials.

Martin told The San Francisco Chronicle that the center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."

John Edwards isn't retired. He's an active candidate for President of the USA. Edwards is capitalizing on the perceived poverty (which I question) in America and he's making good money doing so. He is a hypocrite, as are all the paid speakers of all political parties who use the plight of "poor" or "disadvantaged" as topic for their talks. I can't think of too many people who don't align themselves with the Party of the People, Democrats, who DO poor-people pep talks though. And I can't think of too many graduating college age kids who can see the hypocrisy in all this.

Fisking the Draft Immigration Bill

Hugh Hewitt has an excellent fisking of the recent immigration bill draft. It's important to understand exactly what this legislation is all about.

As Hugh says:

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum.

Hugh shares with his readers how to have a say in this process. Go check it out.

Is the world ready for a politically conservative Europe?

Is the world ready for a politically conservative Europe? Yes.
But are Europeans ready? I don't know.

PARIS -- Europe is undergoing its most dramatic changing of the guard in more than a decade. New leaders in the European Union's three preeminent countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- not only may transform their nations individually but also have the collective clout to blast Europe out of its lethargy and revitalize it as a global and diplomatic powerhouse.

"They could get the European heart beating again," said François Heisbourg, a foreign policy analyst at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.

Europe has been semi dead for years. Socialism style economies and a lack of motivation on the part of Europeans has led to it's own demise in regard to being a serious global competitor. High taxes and unfriendly business regulations make Europe an hostile locale for start ups and small to mid size businesses. Political games and infighting among EU members has also bogged down any creativity and innovation.

All three new European leaders are replacing predecessors who had become national and international liabilities. Nicolas Sarkozy, 52, took over the presidency of France on Wednesday from septuagenarian Jacques Chirac, who served 12 years. Gordon Brown, 56, will become prime minister of Britain on June 27 when Tony Blair leaves after 10 years. And Angela Merkel, 53, was named chancellor of Germany in 2005, after Gerhard Schroeder's seven years in power.

Many are saying these leaders can rescue their countries from themselves. But how much change will the average European allow? Will the citizens of France actually work 40 plus hours a week? Will Great Britain be willing to change some of her "free" health care coverage for all? In Germany we have seen little change since Merkel took over.

I would recommend that Europe drop it's socialist economies and begin to embrace capitalism on a smaller scale. Get rid of the unions and disallow strikes. I would educate the people about the economic realities and need to become globally competitive. I would also advise these leaders to take a hard look at thier respective countries' national identity being stolen by radical Islamic clerics and others hell bent to destroy them. I would tell them to get rid of the European Union altogether- it's just another layer of foolishness they don't need. Europe is full of rich history and many landmarks. But it's also very backwards in it's current political and economical policy. I doubt we will see any compelling changes in our lifetime over there, because too many people there will resist the needed changes.

Tempers Flare and McCain is There

Everyone loses their temper now and again.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.

According to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Post, Cornyn apparently got the former POW’s attention when he raised the issue about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive.

In a meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain opined that Cornyn was purposely raising petty objections to a compromise plan then being hammered out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House.

"This is chickens--- stuff," McCain fired at Cornyn, according to the news reports. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."

Not to be outdone, Cornyn accused McCain of being too occupied campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations.

"Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

"F--- you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly rejoined.

Not everyone is running for President of the United States though. John McCain has a history of going off the deep end; of having swear outs and temper tantrums. Is this the man who can lead our country? I don't think so. John McCain is also the man who gives the Democrats what they want, even when this isn't best for America. Politics over national security is how this man remains so popular among liberals. He does have good and sound ideas but he would trade these in a minute to win the label of being bipartisan. No thank you. America first, Mr. McCain.

The Inclusive Democrats?

It never ceases to amaze me how the Democrats can claim to be the all inclusive party of the people. They speak for the poor, disadvantaged and under-dogged peoples of the country.

Here is am example of just how inclusive Democrats really are:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats will host a national meeting on children next week, saying they want to make sure federal policies reflect the most recent scientific findings on early childhood development.

"Every parent sees endless possibilities and great hope in the eyes of a child," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in her party's weekly radio address. "As a nation, when we look at today's children, we see tomorrow's leaders: scientists and teachers, engineers, doctors and diplomats," she said.

Excerpts from Saturday's address were released Friday.

The daylong summit Tuesday on Capitol Hill will bring together members of Congress, academics, advocates and national experts on early childhood learning, health care and child care.

DeLauro said investing in children yields important dividends for families and the nation.

"From quality early education and access to health care, to proper housing and support for military families, the right priorities can make a big difference from day one," DeLauro said. "We have an obligation to take a hard look at our policies, and make sure they reflect both the latest science and our priorities as a nation."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of members of Congress are expected to attend, DeLauro said.

At first glance this summit appears to include all parties who have a vested interest in the children of the United States. Read it again. Look at who will be attending this summit: members of Congress, educators, "advocates", health care professionals and others...no mention of a panel of PARENTS themselves. The Democrats truly believe government knows best, and is the ideal body to decide policy and law that directly effect children and families.

From Nancy Pelosi's Madame of The House site:

The National Summit on America’s Children will take place on Tuesday, May 22nd on Capitol Hill. The day-long session, which will convene national experts and academics on recent scientific findings and how they relate to early childhood development, is a first step in making certain that federal policies on children reflect the latest scientific developments.

The summit will be chaired by Chairman George Miller of California of the House Committee on Education and Labor and co-chair of the House Steering and Policy Committee; Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, co-chair of the House Steering and Policy Committee; and Congressman Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, a longtime advocate for children. The legislators will convene experts in a wide array of areas, including early childhood learning, health care, and child care. Practitioners of innovative public and private initiatives will attend to offer research-based testimony to assist the lawmakers in the development of federal policy. James Heckman, an economics professor and director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, will deliver the keynote address.

A group of these esteemed professionals will, in effect, have more control over the laws and policies and regulations related to raising children than all parents combined. Removing the power of the people they represent, Democrats once again show us the Village mentality is superior than the family unit.

XPosted @ ARS

A paid break from work

Edward Kennedy wants to require employers to hand out 7 days of paid sick leave every year. Is this a good proposal or a bad one?

Spectator sports can be hazardous to your health. At least, they can be when the government requires paid sick leave.

Short-term sick leave use among Swedish men rose 55 percent during the 2002 World Cup soccer finals. In Sweden the government provides generous sick-leave benefits. So generous that at any given moment, one in 10 Swedish workers collects them. Most of these “sick” workers tell pollsters they’re perfectly healthy — they just wanted a paid break from work.

Now Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., wants the government to require American companies to provide paid sick leave. More than four out of every five employers voluntarily provide paid sick leave or other forms of paid time off, but Sen. Kennedy wants to make this widespread practice mandatory. He has introduced legislation requiring all firms employing 15 or more workers to allow seven days of paid sick leave a year and preventing them from disciplining workers for taking those days off work.

Larger employers already offer paid sick time as part of a benefits package. The small town Ma and Pa pizza parlors that employ 17 people will suffer because of this stupid proposal.

Companies would respond to the additional paid sick-leave costs the same way they have responded every other time the government required them to provide a specific benefit — by cutting wages or reducing other benefits. Sen. Kennedy’s bill would force workers to take a pay cut to fund more paid vacation days, rather than letting workers choose how to trade off income and time off work themselves.

Allowing employees to determine how they manage their money, work hours and shifts is something the government Edward Kennedy dreams of, would take away. After all, the Nanny state knows best.

Human nature being what it is, Sen. Kennedy’s bill would invite abuse. It would not allow companies to challenge medical certifications, or to discipline employees for feigning illness. Experience with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires unpaid sick leave, suggests that many employees would use the law to justify skipping work with little or no notice.

Yes. This is exactly what will happen. Work gets in the way of fun, on a nice sunny hot day when we would rather be at the lake. The costs of mandates such as this are too high.

The losers would be co-workers and customers. Most companies cannot find replacement workers on short notice, so they must reassign absent employees' work to co-workers. This penalizes workers who show up for work each day.

Work a shift or two in nursing when others decide not to come to work. It sucks. And it places our customers, patients, at risk. Sure, the local donut shop and McDonalds probably can get by but not without increasing the cost of it's products. In the end, workers and customers lose out on this.

Liberals never think through some of their ideas.

XPosted @ ARS

Sweden: A Model Not to Follow

Some lessons for nations considering single payer or national health care systems.

Sweden is a country of about 9.1 million people on the Scandinavian Peninsula of Northern Europe. Geographically, it is slightly larger than California. It is by any measure a first world country, with a labor force working primarily in industry or the service area, a GDP per capita of about $31,600 and an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent.1

For much of the 20th century, Sweden had a single-payer system of health care in which the government paid almost all health care costs. Like other nations with a single-payer system, Sweden has had to deal with the problem of ever-growing health care expenses causing a strain on government budgets. It has dealt with this problem by rationing health care - instituting waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery.

Sweden stands not merely as a warning about single-payer systems, but also as an example of what happens when market-based reform of such systems do not go far enough.

CIS Report on H-1B Visa Abuses

A disturbing report from the Center For Immigration Studies.

This report details how American businesses abuse the H-1B Visas designed for foreign/guest workers to come to the US for employment of higher skilled jobs, when businesses cannot find Americans to do the work...this report shows us that businesses are using legal and illegal immigrants to do "classified" work with very low pay; how businesses are lying to the Dept. of Labor on the level of skill and wages for these workers.

Grab a cup of coffee before you read this report. It's long but well worth the time.

Some key findings:

Very few H-1B workers are "highly-skilled." Employers who used the Department of Labor’s skill-based prevailing wage system classified most workers (56 percent) as being at the lowest skill level (Level I) as did most State Employment Security Agency (SESA) wage determinations (57 percent). This suggests that most H-1B computer workers are low-skilled workers who make no special contribution to the American economy, or that employers are deliberately understating workers’ skills in order to justify paying them lower salaries.

According to the applications filed in 2005, it appears that employers may be significantly understating what U.S. computer workers are earning in order to justify paying low wages to H-1B guestworkers in those occupations. In FY 2005, H-1B employer prevailing wage claims averaged $16,000 below the median wage for U.S. computer workers in the same location and occupation.

90 percent of H-1B employer prevailing wage claims for programming occupations were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation and location, with 62 percent of the wage claims in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

While higher than the prevailing wage claims, the actual wages reported for H-1B workers were significantly less than those of their American counterparts. Wages for H-1B workers averaged $12,000 below the median wage for U.S. workers in the same occupation and location.

The reported wages for 84 percent of H-1B workers were below the median U.S. wage; 51 percent were in the bottom 25th percentile of U.S. wages.

Many employers make prevailing wage claims using wage sources that are not valid under the law. The Department of Labor routinely approves prevailing wage claims based on these invalid sources.

If that's not enough to get your blood boiling, further reading is required:

Observations
The preparation of this report involved many weeks of examining LCA data. While outside the scope of this report, a number of questionable patterns were found. Some of those patterns involving computer occupations are listed here in the hope that other researchers might investigate them.

Many employer addresses listed on LCAs are not bona fide business addresses. These include residences and mail drops.

The number of LCAs filed for certain states suggests that the number of H-1B workers exceeds the number of jobs. For example, the number of LCAs filed for New Jersey suggests that the number of H-1B programmers that are supposed to be working in the state greatly exceeds the number of programming jobs created in the state.

Some groups of LCAs contain identical data except for the employer contact information. One such group had five employers, three of which listed a residence as the business address.

Wages for computer programming managers were also significantly below the median for U.S. workers in those occupations.

WE have a problem here: It's called overly GREEDY American businesses. In a nutshell this report proves that some businesses will go to great lengths to deceive the government on what employment practices are commonly being abused. Using H-1B Visas to bring in low skilled immigrants robs our honest businesses of valuable help; this practice also robs the American people of an honest debate on the issue of illegal immigration.

One has to question how much of this report has been read by members of Congress, those who are in the process of seeing to it that even more jobs will be given away to immigrants...who apparently have more rights than we the American people have. Yet, the illegals are also being screwed over. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here. The business lobby is fueling these reform package deals for their own greedy benefit. No one wins here, folks. No one.

X Posted @ ARS

No timetables. Period.

President Bush is sticking to his guns on one issue. No timetable. Period.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered the first concessions in a fight with President Bush over a spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.

The Democrats, in a meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, said they would strip from a war spending bill billions of dollars in domestic spending that the White House had opposed. They also pledged to give Bush authority to waive compliance with a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq.

But no agreement emerged.

"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who rejected the deal, said any timetable on the war would undermine the nation's efforts in Iraq.

"We consider that to be not a significant distinction," he said. "Whether waivable or not, timelines send the wrong signal."

I hate the idea of cutting and running to begin with, and to add conditions and expectations to the dollar symbol on any legislation is bad for the troops, bad for America. The Democrats want to keep America's image of being weak alive and well.

Immigration "deal" Dead already?

Is the immigration deal already dead? Sounds that way.

WASHINGTON — A breakthrough in immigration reform faces a tough road ahead with division emerging among congressional leaders over how to handle millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

The agreement announced Thursday by some lawmakers and the White House that would grant legal status to those illegal immigrants and increase border and interior enforcement initiatives enters its first round of debate on Monday in the Senate.

"I don't know if the immigration legislation is going to bear fruit and we're going to be able to pass it," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said he had "serious concerns" about the bill.

The bill also faces challenges in the House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said there are divisions among Democrats and she won't bring it to the House floor unless President Bush can guarantee he has 70 Republican supporters.

I doubt President Bush will find his 70 supporters for this. There has been much backlash today on this, and people are hearing about it.

Have they heard your voice yet? Contact your elected representatives and let them know how you feel. Be a part of the civic process.

What We Got with Immigration Deal Today

The AP has provided a round up of provisions in today's illegal immigration legislation deal. I wouldn't be shocked to hear much more in the following days, though. The AP is known to slant the news just a little.

CURRENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

_They could come forward immediately and receive probationary legal status.

_Bill creates a new four-year, renewable "Z" nonimmigrant visa for those present within the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007.

_Nonimmigrants may adjust status to lawful permanent residence once they pay $5,000 in fees and fines and their head of household returns to their home country.

_People under age 30 who were brought to the U.S. as minors could receive their green cards after three years, rather than eight.

_Nonimmigrant farmworkers who can demonstrate they have worked 150 hours or three years in agriculture can apply for green cards.

_No green cards for nonimmigrants can be processed until "triggers" for border security and workplace enforcement have been met, estimated to take 18 months. Processing of green cards for nonimmigrants will begin after clearing the visa backlog, which takes eight years.

At least the AP calls the ILLEGAL here. That's a start.

BORDER SECURITY

_Hire 18,000 new border patrol agents.

_Erect 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

_Erect 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border.

_Deploy four unmanned aerial vehicles and supporting systems.

_End the program in which illegal immigrants are released upon apprehension.

_Provide for detaining up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis.

_Use secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized work.

Only 200 miles? Last year the House and Senate passed a bill that required over 700 miles. Why the change?

WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT

_Require employers to electronically verify new employees to prove identity and work eligibility.

_Increase penalties for unlawful hiring, employment and record keeping violations.

Does it not bother anyone that the one piece to the mass puzzle we call illegal immigration rests squarely on the shoulders of business, and yet they have the least responsibility here? It bothers me a lot.

GUEST WORKERS (requires border security measures to be in place first)

_Create a new temporary guest worker program with two-year "Y visas," initially capped at 400,000 per year with annual adjustments based on market fluctuations

_Workers could renew the Y visa up to three times, but would be required to return home for a year in between each time. Those bringing dependents could obtain only one, nonrenewable two-year visa.

_Families could accompany guest workers only if they could show proof of medical insurance and demonstrate that their wages were 150 percent above the poverty level.

Requires border security first? This is never going to get solved. As I asked in my previous post about this: Who is going to oversee this entire program (joke)?


And finally:

FUTURE IMMIGRANTS

_Spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents would be eligible for green cards based purely on their family connections, but other relatives such as adult children and siblings would not.

_380,000 visas a year would be awarded based on a point system, with about 50 percent based on employment criteria, 25 percent based on education, 15 percent on English proficiency and 10 percent on family connections.

_Apply new limits to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

Visas for parents of U.S. citizens would be capped annually at 40,000 and those for spouses and children at 87,000.

I'm not up to doing the math right now, but someone else will. How many people will be able to enter America, formerly known as illegals, soon to legal here? Point system? I think we have a problem already.

This is a shame. Americans have been stomped on yet again by our own elected leaders. Jobs are at stake and this legislation only makes the vast numbers of American citizens about to become unemployed, totally legal. I can't believe Congress is serious with this.

UPDATE: Rick Moran is on top of this. To put it all mildly:

For in truth, this “comprehensive reform” is hardly comprehensive and reforms nothing. Instead, it validates lawbreaking, rewards separateness, spits in the face of those who have followed the rules and come here legally, and endangers the cohesiveness and unity of the country. It also opens wide the borders and invites another two or three generations of immigration scofflaws to enjoy our hospitality, awaiting their turn on the amnesty-go-round willingly supplied by politicians who refuse to do the right thing in favor of being able to preen, primp, and posture in front of the voters, touting their credentials as compassionate lawmakers concerned about the “plight” of illegal aliens.

And Rick has links to blogs with numbers we should all be aware of.

Race Based Harassment

Hostile work environment. When we hear these words, some of us might think of women being harassed by men. We think of sexual innuendo and other demeaning thoughts.

Do we think of race based harassment?

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- In a new twist in American race relations, a federal court has ruled that a white teacher in a predominantly African-American school was subjected to a racially hostile workplace.

The case concerned Elizabeth Kandrac, who was routinely verbally abused by black students at Brentwood Middle School in North Charleston. Their slurs make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon.

Nevertheless, despite frequent complaints, school officials did nothing to intervene on Kandrac's behalf, arguing that the racially charged profanity was simply part of the students' culture. If Kandrac couldn't handle cursing, school officials told her, she was in the wrong school.

So what happened here?

Kandrac finally filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently brought a lawsuit against the Charleston County School District, the school's principal and an associate superintendent. Last fall, jurors found that the school was a racially hostile environment to teach in and that the school district retaliated against Kandrac for complaining about it.

Good.

The ramifications of this are profound:

While the dollars-and-cents issue may have been of paramount importance to school and district officials -- and would have lent heft to the verdict -- the more compelling issue for students, parents and society is the idea that a particular group of people can be allowed to behave in a grossly uncivil and threatening way by virtue of their racial "culture."

The key legal question was whether a school could be held responsible for students' behavior. In this case, the black children of Brentwood had been given a pass for their behavior because vulgar language was considered normal for their culture.

Turn this around. Imagine the teacher was black in a predominantly white school...where the students used their culture as an excuse. It wouldn't fly. The school and it's administration would be held liable for every form of damage possible. One's culture is not an excuse for behavior that is wrong. Black people have used every card possible for their supposed plights against their human rights and now, we see them on the other side of the fence. Once again, using another card to explain and defend their behaviors and racism- which they bring onto themselves.

He didn't mean to...

But he didn't intend to kill anyone...

CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) - Of the six men charged last week with plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, Agron Abdullahu had the smallest role - and did not intend to kill anyone, prosecutors say.

But, the U.S. Attorney's Office argues, he should still be held in a detention center until his case is decided.

A judge on Thursday was to decide whether he should be freed on bail.

Abdullahu, 24, is charged with helping illegal immigrants obtain weapons, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

The other five men - Ibrahim Shnewer, 22; Serdar Tatar, 23; Dritan "Anthony" or "Tony" Duka, 28; Shain Duka, 26; and Eljvir "Elvis" Duka, 23 - are charged with conspiring to kill military personnel. They face life in prison if convicted.

A judge ruled last week that they should be held without bail.

The six men were arrested on May 7 as prosecutors said they were trying to buy automatic weapons to use in an attack.

Authorities said Abdullahu kept weapons for the others, taught them how to hold guns and told them about how to make bombs.

Move along now...nothing to see here. Just an average guy who teaches people how to use guns and make bombs- you know, your friendly neighbor.

LOCK HIM UP. Keep us safe.

Educated and Skilled Illegal Immigrants?

The Senate is wheeling and dealing provisions in an attempt to "overhaul" immigration legislation. The Democrats and Republicans are coming together for once, and talking points have been put out. It all comes down to one thing: AMNESTY for illegals. And worse.

Under the tentative deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

In the following days if not hours, we will hear about the undisclosed portions of this deal. Illegal immigrants have no intention of returning home, for any reason. We are stupid and naive if we think otherwise. Indefinite visa? Sweet- a permit to remain legally illegal.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

And who is going to monitor all this? DO we have the resources and manpower to hold oversight to all these immigrants coming and going? Can we expect a group of law breaking people to come forward and suddenly obey our laws? Will the Mexican government support these measures? Of course not.

To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.

There has been much talk about this fence and the lack of progress being made on it. From what I can see, it's gone nowhere. Border control agents? Now there's a job no one wants, after all the US government is doing it's best to protect the rights of illegal aliens vs. agents. Why don't we just hire immigrants to guard the borders?

Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.

Knowing our Democrat leaders, the other "credentials" will be provided for, paid for by the American tax payer. Any skill will qualify for special privilege. Suddenly we'll see things such as toilet scrubbing become a learned "skill" acquired through some fashion of formal education.

To Republicans, the new system would make the nation more economically competitive while opening access to a wider array of migrants. "I think you'll find the point system to be pretty well balanced," said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).

We must not upset the business factor here. After all they stand to lose the most when it comes to economic benefits of illegal immigrants. Problem is, these new rules will create a class of immigrant workers. Some with higher education and skills, and therefore demand for higher wages and better benefits. The uneducated lower class immigrants will be crying foul. Who is anyone trying to fool here? The "educated" immigrants will be offered all those other jobs American middle class folk now hold.

Do our leaders see this coming? Do they care? I'm not sure. But I am sure of this: THIS legislation will effect more Americans negatively, by far, than it will effect any one illegal immigrant. We're selling the very soul of America here. The value of hard work means nothing when Americans aren't allowed to do it- when Americans lose jobs and their livelihood. Our government has tried to sneak in new laws and legislation -designed to accommodate the business community, and surely a means to replace American workers and save money. We need to call our elected leaders and demand an end to this. We don't need illegal immigrants. There are no jobs an American won't do, and this talking point needs to stop.

Disclaimer

Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

Comments:
I have little tolerance for hateful comments and rhetoric. This is my site, and my writings and posts are my opinions. If you don't like them, tough. Go away. If you care to comment, feel free to do so. I will answer comments I deem worthy of an answer; I will ignore others as I see fit. And I will delete comments that offend me, my readers and other commentors. If I am threatened by a commenter I will share the IP info with the appropriate authorities. This site demands respect, from readers and commenter's alike.

And finally, the opinions written here are just that. Opinions. Some of my posts will be based upon personal experiences and the like. Others will be written with typical blogging sources- media outlets, other blogger postings...so don't get all worked up over the things you might read here. If you find yourself feeling really angry: GET A LIFE and LEAVE my site.

About me and this site

Welcome to my little corner of the world and thank you for coming by. This is a Pro America, Conservative blog with little tolerance for liberal Utopian dreams; little respect for those who call themselves Democrats; and no respect for anyone who thinks America is the source of the world's problems. Raven is my best friend and I have been posting at her site for almost two years now; it's time I got my own blog.

About me:
I am proud to be an American (woman) and I refuse to blame her for the terrorist attacks that have come to our shores. I hate people and groups who seek appeasement, peaceful resolution and cookies-and-milk foreign policy.

I value my privacy and will not share my email address or other personal information here. I am happily married (24 years now) to a hard working, honest man and together we have 4 sons.

I am:

• *Pro Life/Anti Abortion
• *Pro Second Amendment
• *Pro Israel
• *Pro Fair Tax
• *Anti GIG GOVERNMENT
• *Anti Union
• *Anti Illegal Immigration
• Global Warming Skeptic
• Anti Socialism
• Anti Hillary
• Anti Feminism
  

There will be more to learn about me as time moves along. Memes, quizzes and LISTS will reveal more about my likes and dislikes.